One thing that becomes clear reading thro' the above is that most of you have avery good technical grasp of your computers & associated hardware etc.
My objection TO HDSPro is that the process of setting the configuration for your own application is a very significant task & I became weary of all the tech stuff I had to consider just to do a half pie job of configuring.
For example you can arrange an eamail warning to yourself - not a bad idea - but how many of us can quickly do that - not me, it would take me some time to find the relevent info.
I could go on but in truth I have no degree of certainty that what I have done will be effective or at least as effctive as possible - this is not good.
I think a set of default configuration options should be inbuilt to cater for lesser mortals.
Also the above identifies a bug - what's the response from the authors?

What a disappointment.
I am begining to expect this from Donation Coder, & DCUpdater is another in a substantial list of hard to use programs with very limited appeal to the novice or intermediate level PC user.
I believe this program is misrepresented - it should clearly state what eventually Mouser does say:
"So probably you want to go find yourself an update checking solution that is self-contained and you probably don't want to use DcUpdater".
Sorry Mouser I know you put the effort in & make your apps freely available but why not do it better, or do something not done by an alternative app.
Tough comment I know, but I have a life, & its May 2012, I want it simple easy, intuitive & robust, without the need to enroll in a help forum. And I don't care much if it's substantial in size. I have a quad core CPU & fast PC to manage such stuff.
.

"Names & numbers"- OK.
Remember that I have already concluded that SC is clearly not suitable for the use to which I intended to apply it.
But if it will help program development, or de-bugging, or simply anyone else having trouble, then I am happy to help.

1.   Go here to see the datasheet (.pdf file) displayed in FF V11.0:
http://www.vishay.com/docs/57065/533534.pdf
As may be seen, this is a 4 page document, the first half page of which can be viewed on screen, the balance of the doc by scrolling.
2.   To copy & save this in FF, I simply move my cursor towards the bottom of the screen where a print or save option is available. Select save, decide where to save, & save; all done (all 4 pages).
3.   In Chrome V17.0.963.79 m, the same datasheet displays (.pdf file) in nearly the same manner as FF.
4.   To copy & save in Chrome, I move my cursor to the screen bottom right until an options menu appears which includes print & save. Select save, decide where to save, save & all 4 pages are captured.
5.   In both cases the saved file is a .pdf which is what I want.
6.   I explored other save methods in both browsers:
a)   In FF using Fireshot plug-in; which allowed me to save only the visible portion of the doc.
b)   In Chrome using the tool “Save page as” & “Screen Capture option, neither saved anything useful.
c)   In Chrome I used the zoom tool to shrink so that all the first page (plus part of page 2) was visible, then selecting the “Save page as” option successfully saved all 4 pages as a .pfd file.
Note that a similar approach in FF failed because I was unable to use the zoom tool on this display (reasons unknown to me).
d)  In neither browser was I able to directly select a portion of the .pdf file & copy only that portion, so copying say a table from within the doc appears nigh impossible which I guess is why the file was posted in .pdf format.

I recognise that the save methods used for browsers may not be directly relevant to the utility of SC. But as I have said this simple vertical scroll capture should nevertheless be dead simple in SC or there is little purpose in learning how to use it; MHO of course.

On a positive note I was able to use SC to capture a selected portion of the pdf file first page. When saved as a .bmp I expected I would be able to subsequently magnify using a graphics editor, which proved to be the case, but the detail suffered, & was significantly inferior to the image available using the powerful “zoom in” feature of Chrome.