avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • January 23, 2018, 08:01 PM
  • Proudly celebrating 10 years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - DBC [ switch to compact view ]

Pages: [1]

Thank you for your advice on this, especially on Firewall control. I'll probably take another look at the free version - perhaps on a computer that doesn't contain any of my sensitive pdf files. Can't be too careful these days.


Thank you very much for the excellent mini-review of Qiqqa, which is a very exciting product. However, I'd like to raise an issue that has made me wary - perhaps unduly so - of using Qiqqa. This relates to one of the terms and conditions to which Quantisle wants to bind its users. When I began installing Qiqqa this afternoon I noticed the following clause in their License Agreement:

"By adding Content to Qiqqa and/or syncing your Content with a Web Library, you grant
Quantisle Ltd. a world-wide license to use this Content for the provision of PERSONALISED
services to you (not limited to parsing, indexing, transmission and storage) and for the
provision of anonymized AGGREGATED services to other users of Qiqqa (not limited to
aggregated crowd-sourced metadata and group recommendations).  The rights to the
ownership of the Content remain entirely yours."

After cancelling the installation I looked to see whether this clause had raised concerns from others. The only one I found was one posted on the Qiqqa forum about four months ago, at: https://getsatisfact...nditions_and_content

The drafting of the clause itself seems to me to make its meaning ambiguous: does it apply to merely adding content to Qiqqa, or only to syncing the added content to a web library? I also found the answers by Qiqqa, to be unsatisfactory: in essence, "Trust me I'm a well-intentioned software designer."

First, the answer fails to address the potential user's question directly: can he or she use the software in the way desired?

Second, it does not explain why indexing locally held pdf documents should trigger the possibility of legal action against Quantisle.  After all, there are a great many other software programs - for example indexed search programs - that seem untroubled by these apparent risks. Is the notional risk because Qiqqa seeks to gain access via the internet to users' computers in order to index their pdf files?

Third, those who employ the pdf file format - e.g., for their own use; to circulate within a closed group, such as a research team or as part of the pre-publication editorial process; or for any number of other professional reasons - are unlikely to be persuaded to use Qiqqa if there is any chance of such documents being circulated or becoming accessible to outside persons. These are not only privacy issues but also security ones since potential users could include lawyers, law enforcement agencies, criminologists, medical researchers, etc. The rights to such intellectual property may "remain entirely yours", as Quantisle says, but is this assurance enough?

My apologies in advance if this sounds somewhat paranoid, nit-picking, scare-mongering, misleading, and so on...



Thank you for satisfying my curiosity. It was a very interesting thread. As you comment, InfoQube does seem versatile enough to resolve many of the problems. My current setup has been Grandview (DOS) for outlining, Zoot 5 for information management and further organisation of data, and then Notetab and finally Word for drafting. This has worked fairly well for articles and a couple of edited books. I was hoping that Zoot 6 beta would be a gigantic leap forward, but so far the main thrust of the beta has been on communications (email, RSS, Twitter, cloud, etc) rather than writing. While waiting to see what else is in store (Zoot now has rtf, for example), I've been looking for other possible solutions. Both ConnectedText and IQ are on my list, and both (like Zoot) don't seem to give up their secrets easily...


General Software Discussion / Re: Timeline Software
« on: August 20, 2009, 10:12 PM »
You might like to try LivingTime. Here are some screenshots:

The software was - I think - originally designed for the Mac, but there is a Windows version as well that I use. It uses Filemaker. To be honest, I haven't come upon anything nearly as well-designed as it is for the tasks you have in mind. That said there are some hokey aspects to it, and on a PC it shows its Mac origins a bit too obtrusively in the somewhat clunky and cutesy interface. Don't let these put you off trying it out...

My only reservation (apart from the above) is that its development seems to have been languishing for some time. I think this is because it is such a specialized piece of software. OTOH, I would have thought that genealogists would have seen its potential for recording their own lives in detail and the lives of their immediate relatives for their descendants.


Found Deals and Discounts / Re: GemX Crazy Summer Specials
« on: January 14, 2009, 02:46 PM »
Odd - I'm currently getting a "403 Forbidden..." when I try to access GemX this afternoon:


I just found this today (at least it wasn't the day after it ended...):

Basically, both Whizfolders versions are being discounted - but only for a few more days, apparently. You have to click on the respective "BUY" boxes further down the page. This takes you to the site's Store where the discount is applied automatically.

To get some idea of recent developments, take a look at the developer's blog:


have not had problems with Outlook 2003 not exiting but with Xobni neither task (Outlook or Xobni Service) exit when I close Outlook - ever!

Sorry to come in so late on this thread but have you tried using Knockout, Carol? http://sunflowerhead...m/software/knockout/
It will close down Word and Outlook if necessary. To quote the developer (Jensen Harris) "From a notification area icon, KnockOut can show you if Microsoft Outlook and Microsoft Word are running on your computer (even if no windows are showing on your taskbar). If one of these applications is in a hung state, you can terminate them right from the KnockOut menu. This will help clear up rare mystery situations, in which you think Outlook is not running because you see no windows on your taskbar, but when you launch Outlook again nothing happens because it is actually running in the background."

I originally started using it when Outlook 2003 began failing to close properly when hooked up with the outliner, PocketThinker. Recently I have had problems getting Outlook to close down gracefully when used alongside Zoot32. Knockout seems to do the trick, although I'm not clear (I just don't know) if it does it any more safely than would be achieved by using "end task" from the Task Manager.


I would like to tell you a lot about this new program I've downloaded today, but my English vocabulary is very tiny, especially when it comes to describing such a 'new' kind of program. Noah is a PIM and an email client and a email client's manager and a Internet browser and a bookmark manager and a RSS reader and a organizer and.. - so I don't really know what to call it - I mean, Noah is almost fantastic, but what is it?

This sounds on the face of it rather like another program, Omea Pro, that eventually became freeware back in december 2006:

"Omea Pro 2.2 replaces tools like your Email Organizer, Desktop Search Utility, RSS Reader, Personal Information Manager, Newsgroup Reader, Task Manager, Contact Manager, Bookmark Manager, and Instant Message History Manager. It can also read your Files in Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, Adobe Acrobat, and view your Pictures, in one Integrated Information Environment."


General Software Discussion / Re: SyncBackSE vs. SuperFlexible
« on: December 06, 2007, 08:02 PM »

Do you know if there's a trial for the Pro version, Jim? It seems that only the free version can be downloaded. (I'll probably still try it anyway, still need to find a real-time-backup-on-change-with-versioning solution).

I use Caddais and Filehamster pretty much interchangeably. My only reason for getting Caddais in the first place was for working with Word files. Nowadays, though, I do a lot of my drafting in NoteTab Pro which has a neat versioning backup system built into the program - one of a select few to do so.

N.B. It was your mention of Backup4All earlier in the thread that encouraged me to look at it again. Thanks for that :-)


General Software Discussion / Re: SyncBackSE vs. SuperFlexible
« on: December 06, 2007, 07:44 PM »
Not a bad choice at all, DBC.  I use BackUp4All also, along with SFFS and FileHamster.  I love FileHamster for its ease and the fact that it just works so well - I will most likely purchase a Pro license shortly.

Of the remaining two, I would make the same choice that you did.  BackUp4All is excellent.  I'll leave it at that...


Thanks, Jim. I think this combo will get me to backup more regularly, which is what I really need to do. I was OK on imaging and crucial versioning. It was the vital daily b/us that I was neglecting, and I think Backup4All 's simplicity will encourage me to do this.


General Software Discussion / Re: SyncBackSE vs. SuperFlexible
« on: December 06, 2007, 02:26 PM »
Thanks everybody for a very helpful thread. In the end, and after a lot of comparing, I chose Backup4All rather than either SBSE or SFFS, although both of the latter are rather more powerful and flexible. My reasons were as follows:

1. The DonationCoder discount! (SFFS has one as well, of course...)
2. Very clear and simple method of selecting folders and files to back up across my four partitions.
3. Clear documentation.
4. My simple requirements: don't need ftp for the moment, or synchronization.
5. Only using Backup4All for once-a-day or less versioning (using Caddais or FileHamster for minute-by-minute versioning on crucial files when drafting).

What the thread helped me to do was sort out what I didn't need, what software I was likely to keep using, and what I needed to aim for in terms of proper strategy - in my case, Ghost for imaging; Backup4All for important folder and file backups with versioning to reflect daily changes; and near-continuous versioning using FH or Caddais for drafting.

Thanks again everybody.


General Software Discussion / Re: SyncBackSE vs. SuperFlexible
« on: November 19, 2007, 08:16 AM »
by the way, SFFS has an option to recover all those individual zip files (even if you have incremental versions!) automatically. It mangles the names, but it understands them so no problem.

I'm using SFFS for incremental backups and it works better than any of the specialized solutions I have tried (backup4all, Genie, etc). Just tested it 4 days ago.

That's good to know. Lack of automatic recovery of incremental b/u files was the problem you had with SyncBackSE, wasn't it?


General Software Discussion / Re: SyncBackSE vs. SuperFlexible
« on: November 11, 2007, 07:53 PM »
Marek -

Have you looked at Caddais BackupOnDemand? http://www.caddais.c...BackupOnDemand.shtml

It's a bit OT, but does concern the versioning issue. I've been using it for some years to back up important files as I write (particularly MS-Word ones). I bought it originally for this real-time backup feature, in which a driver monitors selected files for any changes while you are working on them and backs them up as a series of versions. This process is pretty unobtrusive and does not need, apparently, triggering by an explicit "save".

It also does periodic backups, scheduled ones and ftp. Of these latter features, I have only used the periodic backup, which is not very sophisticated. 

Unfortunately, there seems to be little further program development going on AFAIK, but I have found the real-time mode very useful. I may be wrong about this, but I think Caddais BOD may operate somewhat differently from programs like FileHamster that seem to require a file to be actually saved before a version is made. OTOH, neither program makes it completely clear what they mean by "real time" backing up...


General Software Discussion / Re: SyncBackSE vs. SuperFlexible
« on: November 02, 2007, 11:53 AM »
NOTE: I haven't used SyncBackSE in a year, some of the things I found lacking may have been resolved, as the devs are very active!

urlwolf - Thanks. Along with Armando's posts, it was your comments about some of the conventional backup programs that got me thinking about looking at sync'ing software.

SBSE has versioning now. I don't know whether restoring from incremental backups has been improved. I recall your finding it cumbersome. Is SFFS better at this?


General Software Discussion / Re: SyncBackSE vs. SuperFlexible
« on: November 02, 2007, 11:36 AM »

SBSE does everything I need and much much more.

DBC -- you should really try both and see which one you prefer. Try to set profiles in SBSE to do exactly what you want. Try the same in SFFS.

Yes, this is my intention if I can get an extension to my trial. I think in principle that both will do what I need. At present I don't use ftp so that's not an issue.

LATER - Good news - just got the word from 2brightsparks that I can d\l SBSE for a further 30 days. Should be long enough  :)



General Software Discussion / Re: SyncBackSE vs. SuperFlexible
« on: November 02, 2007, 11:31 AM »
I presume you've looked at the other SFFS threads

how about dirsync ?

Thanks. Yes, I did, and they were very helpful.

I'll take a look at dirsync. I assume it does differential backup and versioning?


General Software Discussion / Re: SyncBackSE vs. SuperFlexible
« on: November 02, 2007, 10:57 AM »

same here. synbackse works well for me.  It has plenty of features.

I should've kept notes about why I decided to keep syncbackse instead of sffs but... I didn't. One thing I remember though: I was interested in the delta updating of files but it didn't seem to make a big difference in speed in the end.

People seem to find syncbackse unreliable... but it's always been pretty reliable to me. :)

Armando -

I think it was your original message following mouser's review of other backup programs that alerted me to SBSE. Glad to know it is still your choice. As to the reliability issue, this may be the downside of having a public forum. On cursory inspection these often give a misleading impression of software unreliability, when in fact they are mainly about getting users to read the manual.

With SFFS - which I am sure is as reliable as SBSE, incidentally - it would be difficult to asess its relative reliability as against SBSE as there is no data other than individual users' reports on private communications with the develper. This is why I like user forums.


General Software Discussion / Re: SyncBackSE vs. SuperFlexible
« on: November 02, 2007, 10:41 AM »

Yes, I still use SyncBackSE. I have looked at SF about 4 times. I have tried earnestly to see what everyone's enthusiasm is with SF and I just don't. So, there is at least 1 left. :)


Thanks for letting me know, Ken.


General Software Discussion / Re: SyncBackSE vs. SuperFlexible
« on: November 02, 2007, 10:34 AM »
Any donationcoder members still using SyncBackSE?

Yes - I haven't tried SFFS because I'm happy with SyncBackSE.  From a brief look at feature lists, it seems that SFFS might have some more powerful features, but I don't need them and SyncBackSE has plenty of options and features, too.  I think that Zaine's advice to try them both is what you need to do.  Sometimes, a lot of what makes a program good (or bad) boils down to personal preference.  If your SyncBackSE trial has expired, try shooting them an email for an extension, some outfits will do that.

Thanks for answering my plaintive cry. Yes, I've contacted SB for an extension. As you say, sometimes it's possible to get one, sometimes not. I think it depends on the way the trial software is set up.


General Software Discussion / Re: SyncBackSE vs. SuperFlexible
« on: November 01, 2007, 07:54 PM »
DBC, test them all and find what you like...

Therefore, I think you misunderstand the nature of delta synchronization, which is a process method, not an algorithm. You can create a variety of algorithms to run a delta synchronization of your files.

So much so, that I didn't even realise that that was what I was talking about  :-[ As far as I can see, though, both SFFS and SyncBackSE would do what I want (differential backups with versioning). I'm just interested in why people are apparently migrating from the latter to the former - if this is what is happening. Any donationcoder members still using SyncBackSE?


General Software Discussion / Re: SyncBackSE vs. SuperFlexible
« on: November 01, 2007, 07:35 PM »
It's not a backup software per se, but it does the same... have you tried SyncToy? Free tool from MS. I have a portable HD. It compares the two and copies just what's relevant. Many options. I use contribute so the backup includes stuff I've deleted.

Thanks. It looks as though it does basic synchronizing well, but I need something that does differential backups and so on. I use TotalCommander for any basic sync'ing I do.   


General Software Discussion / Re: SyncBackSE vs. SuperFlexible
« on: November 01, 2007, 07:16 PM »
a forum is nice to have though too  :-\

Yes. All things being more-or-less equal, I tend to prefer software that has a forum or mailing-list - providing members use it, of course. 


General Software Discussion / SyncBackSE vs. SuperFlexible
« on: November 01, 2007, 02:15 PM »
I've been looking for backup software to do versioned differential backups. I tend to prefer hands-on packages and was trying out SyncBackSE when I noticed zridling's mini-review of Super Flexible File Synchronizer.

Back in May some people expressed the intention of switching to SFFS from SyncBackSE. Now that the dust has settled, are people happy about the move - if they made it? Or, on closer inspection, did they find features of SyncBackSE that they preferred to those of SFFS after all?

Both look to me as if they would do what I want, but I didn't see much in the way of detailed comparison that would have enabled me to make a choice between the two. Unfortunately, my trial of SyncBackSe has run out so I can't compare them in action.

In favour of SyncBackSE, it has a very lively forum, lots of documentation, and is about $10 cheaper than SFFS - even with the latter's discount. I also tend to like companies that offer decent free versions of their software as well as paid ones (e.g. like SyncBack and NoteTab). In favour of SFFS, it has a rather neater interface, and some enthusiastic users here.


Folks might be interested in taking a look at that site, It's a discussion forum for people "interested in outlining, PIM, and knowledge management software."

I'm sure folks over there would be very happy to see you all!

"" was originally "," a forum set up by Dave Winer in the 90s to exchange views about outliners (mainly single-pane ones). Nowadays, as well as outlining, it touches on other aspects of researching and writing as well - web clipping, pims, note-taking, editing, word-processing, etc. It has a big searchable archive going back many years. The move to a new server somewhat disrupted the little community, but it is recovering well.


Pages: [1]