Talk:MojoPac

NPOV

This article is, currently, not encyclopedic and basically advertising the advantages of the product. I doubt a usage tutorial is appropriate in Wikipedia. Also, from the article, I don't actually understand what MojoPac does technically, whether it is a virtual machine, or a virtual registry, or an OS, or whatever. -Dvrvm (talk) 04:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

2009 update

Having just discovered MojoPac through search engine hyperlinks, I've found it is no longer supported or being developed, and for all intents and purposes is locked into Windows XP only, and adjusted the introductory para accordingly. The rival product Ceedo, while at a low cost (but not free), continues to be supported and developed for new Windows OSes. Ceedo is mentioned specifically because it appears to be the only functionally similar product available in the market still under development. Ths edit also helps address the non-NPOV problem. The new 'software info box' feature could be added to this article for completeness, stating supported OSes, whether in current development or not, etc, but I don't feel like doing it, especially for an unsupported product which is not currently being developed. --Sean01 (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Alternative products, product comparisons, limitations

Could links to similar products be included OR comparison to other products be included (better)? Moka 5, Ceedo, Pstart, Aargo, etc.

Could the limitation for the product be included: USB must have a serial number, must be logged on as administrator, etc.?

Episode 63

Episode 63 (Netcast with Leo Laporte) talks in great detail about the mojopac, if anybody wants to listen to it and write a better article. http://www.twit.tv/SN

Encryption issue

From a review of their forums, it seems that mojopac has a serious issue in that more recent releases have removed the ability to run from encrypted storage space. Only some files can be encrypted while many (including browser and cookies) must run from an unencrypted area of storage. This is raising concerns as to mojopac's suitability for use in any environment where such data would need to be kept from discovery in the event of loss or theft of the storage device (i.e. use in business).

wikify article?

There is a heavy use of bold text and the article reads like an advert. In need of tweaking?

As of the date/time of my sig, this looks like it's been addressed --68.109.231.80 18:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Mojopac is not an OS

Essentially, it turns any storage device into a bootable PC that can store all of your important applications and data on it. To access them,user needs to plug the device into any PC or Mac. MojoPac will boot itself to life and the PC you're working from can look just like your own PC.

"A bootable PC" - cool! so I don't need access to a computer?

"user needs to plug the device into any PC or Mac" - oh so I do need a computer but it can be either huh?

"MojoPac will boot itself to life" - whether it is on a Mac or a Windows PC or a bsd/Linux/whatever box?

"and the PC you're working from can look just like your own PC" - what if I use a Mac?

Competitor comparison inaccurate

Though it is correct to state that U3 requires software adaptations, Ceedo, in most cases, does not. Ceedo creates a very comprehensive virtualization environment for applications and can run a very large number of software products on portable devices, without requiring administrative rights. Microsoft Office apps, like Word and Excel for example, run very well on Ceedo.

MS Office doesn't run on Ceedo. If it is installed on the host, Ceedo will blend your profile from the USB device into MS Office, but you can not install MS Office on the USB device itself.

This was done deliberately to allow some applications, that are expected to reside on many host PCs, to be carried as a profile alone, and not as an entirely installed applications. This allows a Ceedo drive to be more efficient in its space usage, as MS Office apps are quite costly in footprint.

This was not deliberate since Ceedo cannot virtualize any application that requires a custom service to be installed such as MS Office, Photoshop, etc. This is because it only does user-mode virtualization while MojoPac does full kernel-mode virtualization. This is also why you can run Ceedo without Administrator privilages but need Admin privilages for MojoPac. This is also why you cannot run games that require loading kernel-mode drivers for cheat protection. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.142.75.109 (talk) 07:21, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

I just edited the comparison greatly based on personal experiences and the latest version of Ceedo. It needed updating. Some versions of Office (2000, 2003, and XP) and Photoshop 7 can be run on Ceedo now. I personally run Office 2003 from my USB device within Ceedo. SJ2571 (talk) 02:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Alternative mobility solutions

I've removed the comment:

"U3 and Ceedo both require modifications to the target applications to get them to run from the external device"

from the "Alternative mobility solutions" section; clearly this isn't true - any portable application like those on List of portable software can be used. I think I know what this is trying to get at, but could anyone rephrase it better and reinsert? Raftermast 18:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

How's it work?

Anyone care to make section detailing how it accomplishes what it does? (e.g technical details) -- 18:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

At a guess (since I haven't reverse-engineered it): it appears to use a separate desktop (trivial to do), copy the basic XP default settings to it, and redirects any file access API calls to the USB device, while locking access to the host drives. So anything the user does in MojoPac occurs on this second desktop, without affecting the host PC. For example: when an app tries to save a file to "My Documents", MojoPac redirects the save file API call to the "My Documents" folder on the USB device instead. It's quite a clever concept, actually. This is all speculation, but as a coder that's how I'd approach it. :) SJ2571 (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Just confirmed my theory: Steve Gibson at http://www.twit.tv/sn63 mentions that MojoPac does indeed hook the kernal of the PC to redirect the file ops. He likens it to how a firewall works, by hooking the network ops. SJ2571 (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

What license?

I can't find any licence on it's site —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.113.137.79 (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Comparison section reads like an advertisement

I've added the appropriate banner. The language is overly promotional and not encyclopedic in nature. For example, it's littered with the word "your", and is obviously intended to serve as a favourable summary of Mojopac's advantages over other systems - in some sentences it's even written as a rebuttal to potential criticisms. A summary like that belongs on Mojopac's website, not on Wikipedia. This needs to be cleaned up. I may work on it later if I have time. --Undobutton (talk) 06:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)