Home | Blog | Software | Reviews and Features | Forum | Help | Donate | About us
topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

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

Login with username, password and session length
  • December 11, 2016, 02:04:13 AM
  • 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

Last post Author Topic: SyncBackSE vs. SuperFlexible  (Read 50213 times)

superboyac

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,070
  • Is your software in my list?
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: SyncBackSE vs. SuperFlexible
« Reply #75 on: January 12, 2011, 03:33:05 PM »
I know this is an old thread, but I wanted to address just a few of of tranglos' SFFS comments.

The program has improved over the past 3 years.  The scheduler is much more stable now, and not as confusing as it once was with the promts for ExtremeSync and what not.  Now, the scheduling dialog is pretty straight forward and works better.  I, too, was confused intially by all the startup/stopping background scheduler, extremesynce, etc. issues.  I haven't experienced anything like that in the past year anymore.

The interface is slightly improved, but overall still the same.  It's not good.  I hate to say that because it's such a good program and Tobias is pretty helpful.  But the interface is a little bit wacky.  SFFS would definitely be the hands-down favorite if the interface was fixed.  For example, when you want to just sync certain folders, you are presented with the following radio buttons:
screenshot_20110112132854.png
So you would ask, "How do I select the folders?" Well, when you click the radio button for select folders and files, then the explorer tree hierarchy dialog pops up.  But that REALLY strange because radio buttons shouldn't behave that way.  Radio buttons should only move the dot around to the selected item, not activate additional dialogs or windows.  What it SHOULD be is like that "Browse" button above it.  When a user sees that button, he expects a dialog to pop up.

That's just one example.  The whole interface needs to be revamped.  I was hoping it was going to happen for v5, but it didn't.  All those horizontal tabs, and the tabs within the tabs within the list of tabs needs to just be reorganized and cleaned up.  It's way too much.  But that's the only complaint I have about the software.

J-Mac

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 2,913
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: SyncBackSE vs. SuperFlexible
« Reply #76 on: January 13, 2011, 01:11:43 AM »
I couldn't agree more! The way I try to get around all the tab setting for each new profile is that I have existing profiles that were set up painstakingly, and I right-click and click the "Duplicate" item there. Then the new profile will have the exact same settings and I just have to change the source and destination locations.

Thanks!

Jim

Curt

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 7,092
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: SyncBackSE vs. SuperFlexible
« Reply #77 on: January 13, 2011, 07:24:04 AM »
-thanks, for explaining to me why I never use Super Flexible... ;-)

One minor misfeature is that the program (like many other programs) will put an entry into Start (ExtremeSyncService) even if there are no profiles created and therefore no reason to start.


tslim

  • Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 211
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: SyncBackSE vs. SuperFlexible
« Reply #78 on: March 05, 2011, 04:20:08 PM »
For example, when you want to just sync certain folders, you are presented with the following radio buttons:
(see attachment in previous post)So you would ask, "How do I select the folders?" Well, when you click the radio button for select folders and files, then the explorer tree hierarchy dialog pops up.  But that REALLY strange because radio buttons shouldn't behave that way.  Radio buttons should only move the dot around to the selected item, not activate additional dialogs or windows.  What it SHOULD be is like that "Browse" button above it.  When a user sees that button, he expects a dialog to pop up.

That is not a good example.
The main reason one would use a radio buttons is to provide choices to user with the below considerations:
1. User must and can only choose one item among few provided. i.e. Options are mutually exclusive!
2. The choices must not be too many, otherwise one should instead use a picklist.

Once user made a choice, radio button can cause implicit or explicit effect... it has to have either of them, otherwise there is no point in implementing it.

Just look at one standard Windows dialog "Printing preference" which can be brought up by clicking the [Preference] button on a print page:

Implicit effect (Paper/Quality section of the dialog):
If your printer supports color printing, the Printing Preference->Paper Quality section has radio buttons: () Black & White  (o) Color
if user click one of the two buttons, nothing happen, the effect is implicit (you will see it only when you really print something)

Explicit effect (Layout section of the dialog)
(o) Portratit   () Lanscape   () Rotated Landscape
Choosing any of the button causes the Preview image of a document to change on the fly and of course you will see even bigger effect when you print your document. But the fact that choosing a radio button causes preview image to change immediately means it is OK to have something taken place after user click a radio button.

For the example you have stated, the author of SFFS is using radio button to make sure one (and only one) of the 3 possible choices will be selected. In that case I don't think there is any other better mechanism than radio button. Of course, he could provide a button [Select folders] or [Browse] to bring up the folder selection dialog and only had it enabled after the third radio button (Selected Folders and Files) is clicked, but that is inefficient because it takes 2 clicks rather than 1 to bring up the folder selection dialog.

Btw, I am currently evaluating SFFS and SBSE, I think SFFS's interface is not that bad as few of you have suggested. In fact, I do like SFFS design such that the top portion of a profile always stay there when I switch among its advance setting sections at the bottom portion. It is like when I adds items to an invoice, if the item list is lengthy, it might scroll vertically, but I would want the invoice header to stay visible.

However, I do agree with some (bad) comments on SFFS interface:
1. The bottom portion of the SFFS's Profile setup dialog is rather congested. That makes things looked untidy and uncomfortable at a glance. I wonder why the author doesn't want to make that dialog bigger?

2. Due to the big number of options, there always exist options which are mutually exclusive. If I make a choice somewhere, SFFS does not disable other conflicting or irrelevant options automatically. That sometimes make me wonder how/will things work together...

I think for any feature that existing in both programs, SBSE almost always offer more options than SFFS. E.g. its "profile grouping" and "zipping" feature are far superior than SFFS.
However, SFFS does offer features that are not available in SBSE: SFFS has its own scheduler (in fact it is better in every aspect of scheduling compare to SBSE), and best of all it can be run as an NT services which does not required user login. I just wonder whether it works well as a service in MS Server 2008?