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 03, 2016, 09:40:44 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: Synergy Virtual KVM  (Read 10850 times)

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
Synergy Virtual KVM
« on: November 02, 2012, 08:55:51 AM »
Has anyone ever gotten the Synergy virtual KVM to work?

http://synergy-foss.org/

I tried a while back, no luck. And tried again, and still no luck.

Do I need to sacrifice a chicken or something? Is there some kind of black art that I need to learn?

I've got the client (Mac) and server (Windows) working (apparently...), but I just cannot get between them.

I'm banging my mouse against the top of the screen, and banging my head against the wall.

Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

wraith808

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 8,405
  • "In my dreams, I always do it right."
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Synergy Virtual KVM
« Reply #1 on: November 02, 2012, 09:14:48 AM »
I've gotten it to work, but it's definitely sketchy.  When it works, it's great!  But it's likely to stop, even after you spend the time to get it to work.

I'd suggest looking elsewhere (ShareMouse, Multiplicity, etc)

nudone

  • Cody's Creator
  • Columnist
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,117
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Synergy Virtual KVM
« Reply #2 on: November 02, 2012, 09:19:48 AM »
I have it working with Mac and Windows; gave up the first few attempts then must have found a tutorial or something that made it clear what to do. I'll see if I can find it...

edit:

found the link, but it's on lifehacker and they appear to have completely destroyed their website?????? so the article isn't in their archives.

I saved the original article as an .mht file (I must have foreseen that lifehacker were going to kill it), along with a couple of screengrabs for each connection setup.

I'll send them in a zip via personal message, Renegade.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2012, 09:27:30 AM by nudone »

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
Re: Synergy Virtual KVM
« Reply #3 on: November 02, 2012, 09:30:00 AM »
God... Some days I just loathe computers...

Ok... Here's the skinny...

Macs suck. Badly.

Here's the answer...

You can't run the Mac client as a service... I must run in "Desktop" mode.

It then works.

I'll give it a spin, but I may end up looking into your suggestions (@wraith808).

Thing was, if offered the opportunity to run something like that as a desktop application, or a service/daemon, OF COURSE you're going to choose service/daemon.

So far the mouse isn't very smooth on the Mac, but at least I don't need to deal with my crummy chiclet keyboard there. My Mac mouse is ok, but the keyboard is a major barrier to using my Mac sanely. I'm sure it's great for 10-year old girls with tiny fingers, but not for my chubby hands. :P
Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

nudone

  • Cody's Creator
  • Columnist
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,117
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Synergy Virtual KVM
« Reply #4 on: November 02, 2012, 09:32:36 AM »
(Right, I'll not send the zip - couldn't send it via personal message anyway.)

wraith808

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 8,405
  • "In my dreams, I always do it right."
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Synergy Virtual KVM
« Reply #5 on: November 02, 2012, 09:38:47 AM »
http://www.mattcutts...ynergy-in-six-steps/

This tutorial is the one that I used.  I gave up on it after I spent the time to get it set up- it worked for a week, then I took my laptop home from work and when I came back, it didn't work.  I went through this a few times, and finally found Multiplicity and ditched Synergy.

Note: I did remember why I used Synergy for as long as I did - Multiplicity isn't cross platform, but ShareMouse is.  But the problem with ShareMouse is the pricing - you pay per computer that you use. :down:  You might want to give Synergy more of a try.  :-[
« Last Edit: November 02, 2012, 09:44:04 AM by wraith808 »

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
Re: Synergy Virtual KVM
« Reply #6 on: November 02, 2012, 09:57:08 AM »
So far the laggy mouse it tolerable, but barely. I don't use my Mac all that much, so we'll see. If it costs me more than $50 in sanity, I'll get one of the others.

But thanks for the suggestions. I only need it on my desktop, so my laptop isn't a concern for now.
Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

clean

  • Participant
  • Joined in 2012
  • *
  • default avatar
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Synergy Virtual KVM
« Reply #7 on: November 02, 2012, 11:01:09 AM »
ShareMouse not good. It's from Bartels, so please see any thread world-wide where some of Bartels' products is treated, Bartels himself quickly intervenes, and in a way you won't believe your eyes. Btw, I tried ShareMouse, got a problem with it, kindly requested their opinion about it, and never got a reply. Furthermore, it's about 30 dollars plus VAT PER COMPUTER, well, for "power users", but then, almost anybody is a power user, right? I, for example, have a 10-years-old (and never updated) software by Adobe on my pc, which makes me a "power user", which means, I can "try" ShareMouse for 10 minutes (!).

So I use MouseWithoutBorders from Microsoft, which is free, even for "power users". Bartels even set up a special page within his site where he lists the "advantages" of his product over MWB, but you can resume that by "SM allows for multiple files to be copied together, and anywhere, between your two pc's, whilst MWB only allows for one such file at a time, and to be copied into a pre-determined folder". Here, you must know that both programs only work if your pc's are connected within / as a network, which means any file manager will do for as many copies and moves as you like, i.e. you don't need MWB or SM for such operations anyway. (He also claims that SM works with multiple pc's, but then, be aware that every pc for SM (and MWB) must have its own screen, and I suppose that's not what you want when you really want to command 10 pc's with one mouse and one kb.)

I would like to add that both progs, in spite of their names, are virtual "KVM" 's for your mouse (of course), AND for your keyboard, but not for any other, additional input devices you might have. For those, you need a traditional KVM, and indeed, I tried one of the more expensive ones, and nethertheless had lotsa problems with it, and on top of that, it contained a physical switch relais in its housing, clic, clic, clic for every switch, whilst from the description, I had thought that it was fully electronic. So I also mused about the possible life span of such a system, and returned it to the vendor.

So, if you don't need to connect a Mac, MouseWithoutBorders works as expected, just disable "Switch to All PC Mode" in the options - that option which is on by default can act as a bug making you lose data (that option on, you could find yourself in a situation where no mouse, no keyboard works anymore on any of your comps, so you'll have to restart them, losing all unsaved data then, but again, it's all about that option - people not aware of this could think this prog is total crap, which it is not al all, so beware of changing the option first)), but after disabling it, I did not encounter any more problems. So no need to enrich the incredible Mr. Bartels. (The same goes for his text expander - why not use AutoHotkey instead, which is free instead of costing 160 bucks.)

I had bought the thing for SOME real 2-comps uses only, but for frequent 2-comps-for-2-screens use since my notebooks don't allow for two EXTERNAL screens. So I ended up with using MWB in these cases, where I really need the second comp, but bought one of those USB-to-DVI adapters (with additional adapter to VGA), but one of the more expensive ones, with an internal and additional 128 M of memory (about 80 bucks), in order to be able to run TWO screens with ONE notebook, at last, and I am VERY PLEASED with this arrangement. It's only the mouse in mouse-heavy applications (IE8), on the second screen (and with an old notebook) that is not really fluent, so I use my primary screen for such applications, but for most applications I use, I do NOT see any difference between first (native VGA) and secondary (VGA by DVI by USB) screen, and this arrangement is SO GOOD that I now always have both screens on with my primary notebook, and, in case, a third screen, with MWB, with a second notebook whenever needed.

So please consider such an arrangement whenever possible, it's much more smooth working than with two different comps. And with modern notebooks, remember to check if they are able to serve two EXTERNAL screens at the same time, since just ONE such external screen, plus the usual notebook screen itself, means that the notebook itself, together with its keyboard, will get into your way - that's the most horrible work arrangement in my opinion.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2012, 09:59:45 AM by clean »

40hz

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 11,768
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Synergy Virtual KVM
« Reply #8 on: November 02, 2012, 03:53:24 PM »
Life is too short for some things. I finally gave up and sprung for TeamViewer a while ago. I could never get Synergy KVM to work reliably or acceptably. There were always bad surprises on the rare occasions I could get it to work at all.

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
Re: Synergy Virtual KVM
« Reply #9 on: November 02, 2012, 10:18:15 PM »
ShareMouse not good. It's from Bartels, so please see any thread world-wide where some of Bartels' products is treated, Bartels himself quickly intervenes, and in a way you won't believe your eyes.

I've read a few threads like that with him jumping in. I've also seen ugliness on both sides. But yeah - they tend to get really nasty really quickly.

There was a thread in the ASP newsgroups with someone complaining about him. That didn't go well. I pointed to a thread outside the ASP, and promptly had the SAA (Sergeant at arms) jump on me for it -- I didn't renew my membership after that.

Life is too short for some things. I finally gave up and sprung for TeamViewer a while ago. I could never get Synergy KVM to work reliably or acceptably. There were always bad surprises on the rare occasions I could get it to work at all.

It seems to be going ok for me. Laggy mouse, but so far, so good.

Does TeamViewer let you do that? I thought it was for remote control.
Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

wraith808

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 8,405
  • "In my dreams, I always do it right."
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Synergy Virtual KVM
« Reply #10 on: November 02, 2012, 10:52:59 PM »
Does TeamViewer let you do that? I thought it was for remote control.

Good question... my question too :)

barney

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,282
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Synergy Virtual KVM
« Reply #11 on: November 02, 2012, 11:12:16 PM »
Been using Input Director (ID) for several years, across three (3) or four (4) systems.  It works.  I've seen a lot of negative commentary, but ... it works  :Thmbsup:.  Got Synergy to work across two (2) machines, inconsistently  :huh:, but never more than two (2).  Downside to ID, of course, is lack of cross-platform capability, so can't hook into the Linux boxes - although I've had a degree of success using Wine, albeit limited.  That was my attraction to Synergy(+), but never got it to work  :(.

cmpm

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • default avatar
  • Posts: 2,025
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Synergy Virtual KVM
« Reply #12 on: November 03, 2012, 01:05:27 AM »
When I did use synergy, I think it was 1.3.1.
Even after the newer versions came out, because it worked, I stayed with 1.3.1.
But now I don't need it, so, have not tried in a long time.
Anyway here is the older versions,
http://synergy-foss.org/download/?alt
I expect they still work if the same versions are on all computers.
I had 3 connected together with no trouble.


40hz

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 11,768
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Synergy Virtual KVM
« Reply #13 on: November 03, 2012, 10:22:01 AM »
Does TeamViewer let you do that?

Sorry Ren/Wraith... I'm confused. Does TeamViewer let you do what? I think I somehow missed part of your question. :)

wraith808

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 8,405
  • "In my dreams, I always do it right."
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Synergy Virtual KVM
« Reply #14 on: November 03, 2012, 10:41:09 AM »
Does TeamViewer let you do that?

Sorry Ren/Wraith... I'm confused. Does TeamViewer let you do what? I think I somehow missed part of your question. :)

Does TeamViewer let you control two computers with one Mouse and keyboard, i.e. act as a virtual KVM?

40hz

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 11,768
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Synergy Virtual KVM
« Reply #15 on: November 03, 2012, 12:24:02 PM »
Does TeamViewer let you do that?

Sorry Ren/Wraith... I'm confused. Does TeamViewer let you do what? I think I somehow missed part of your question. :)

Does TeamViewer let you control two computers with one Mouse and keyboard, i.e. act as a virtual KVM?

As in toggle back and forth rapidly and repeatedly? No. Not really. You do have to remote into the box(es) you want to control. But it's a very fast connection to establish. TeamViewer can be setup to allow unattended inbound connections. And it's also reachable from anywhere to say nothing of being very light on its feet. Even over a suboptimal connection. So I find it works well for what I need to do since I'm not constantly toggling back and forth. I just connect - do my thing - and then I'm gone. This is how I handle routine administration on many of my client's servers on a daily basis. I'll remote in and out as needed. Start something on one server, then shift over to another and do something else while it's running. Then hop back when I get a minute to check up on the first. Once in a while I'll run some program and work with it as if I were actually there or using a real KVM. But I see your point. It's not really the same thing as what you're looking for.

For situations where I actually do need a more classic KVM (i.e. in a server or hub room) I'll just install something like a Raritan KVM box and call it a day. They have versions that work over an IP connection as well as the traditional cable cluster. Not cheap (they start around $200+ and rapidly move up into nosebleed country), but they're worth it IMO since they're uberreliable, and I'm not doing any of this as a hobby. If I were, I'd probably exhaust all possible free alternatives before I bit the bullet and parted with that kind of cash.

Not to say Synergy KVM or the other alternatives don't work. I just personally couldn't justify the time, or work up the interest, to take on another "science fair project." I'm saving that for the Raspberry Pi I ordered. ;D

------------------
Addendum: if you're not doing high-end graphics or gaming - and you have a lot of machines you regularly need to locally KVM into, one very clever alternative is something called the Raritan TMCAT17216 Rackmount LCD with KVM Switch.

raritan.jpg

It looks like a 1U rack mounted laptop. But it's actually a 16-port KVM switch with its own 1280x1024 LCD monitor, 106 key fullsized keyboard, and touchpad. Goes for about $1100 street - which seems like a lot until you price a plain vanilla 16-port KVM and realize this puppy isn't that much more expensive.

« Last Edit: November 03, 2012, 12:54:05 PM by 40hz »

wraith808

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 8,405
  • "In my dreams, I always do it right."
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Synergy Virtual KVM
« Reply #16 on: November 03, 2012, 01:11:31 PM »
Actually, I even misspoke in terms of KVM.  What we're doing is using one Keyboard and Mouse with multiple computers at the same time.  You don't have to switch between them - there's a seamless transition between the edge of the monitor on one screen and the edge of the monitor on the other, so you just move your mouse between screens and then your KB input goes to the connected computer.  I have three computers on my desk at work, and use one mouse and keyboard, but a screen for each.  I find it a bit more convenient than an actual KVM as I can see what's going on, and reference the screens while working on a different computer.

40hz

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 11,768
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Synergy Virtual KVM
« Reply #17 on: November 03, 2012, 03:54:30 PM »
there's a seamless transition between the edge of the monitor on one screen and the edge of the monitor on the other, so you just move your mouse between screens and then your KB input goes to the connected computer.

Very cool that feature! I really like how the focus follows what you're doing without your having to directly invoke it to switch.

This is Synergy right? I never really got it to work with any degree of reliability. If I was lucky it switched maybe two or three times between two boxes before it just stopped working.  Most times I had it running however, it didn't seem to work at all. And that was despite the sysmon showing it was loaded and not hung. Experienced this with two Nix boxes and two totally different Windows desktops, so it doesn't seem to be an obvious OS issue. My test network is a vanilla IPv4 100/1000BT running on CAT-6 with no security on the LAN side beyond what little address translation provides. I even swapped out the net switches and temporarily disabled all security on the boxes just in case something was causing problems there. No joy I'm afraid.

Is there some trick to getting it to work? Or is  there some tweak or gotcha that you need to be aware of - and probably everybody else knows about but me?  :huh:

I do keep hearing good things about it. But these users apparently don't exist in the same time/space continuum I live in. :-[
« Last Edit: November 03, 2012, 04:03:59 PM by 40hz »

barney

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,282
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Synergy Virtual KVM
« Reply #18 on: November 03, 2012, 04:03:24 PM »
I do keep hearing good things about it. But these users apparently don't exist in the same time/space continuum I live in. :-[

Yeah.  Think that's the Synergy+ Continuum ... but haven't found a portal to it as yet  :mad:.

wraith808

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 8,405
  • "In my dreams, I always do it right."
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Synergy Virtual KVM
« Reply #19 on: November 03, 2012, 04:34:47 PM »
Is there some trick to getting it to work? Or is  there some tweak or gotcha that you need to be aware of - and probably everybody else knows about but me?  :huh:

I do keep hearing good things about it. But these users apparently don't exist in the same time/space continuum I live in. :-[

That's the question of the day that Renegade started out with. :)  If you're only using Windows boxes, then Multiplicity works wonders.  There's also Input Director and ShareMouse, though I despise the pricing and licensing structure of the latter.  Synergy seems like the best solution price wise and platform wise.  But I've had similar problems getting it to work consistently.

Shades

  • Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 2,096
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Synergy Virtual KVM
« Reply #20 on: November 03, 2012, 04:57:01 PM »
For years I had Synergy running between 3 windows boxes (a server, my personal system and my laptop)...without any issue. It was the 1.3.1 version and installation was easy, the configuration admittedly a little weird but that was it. Now my single multi-monitorred PC has more computational power (and more cores for that matter) so I'm not using it anymore.

I did try alternatives, but somehow always returned back to Synergy. Never tried to connect with my Synergy setup with a linux box though. Apple I don't do on principals alone. I can happily say that I have never touched any (model of) iPhone, iPod or iPad. I never even saw any model of iPad out of its carton box. And yes, I consider myself to be a better person, just because of that.

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
Re: Synergy Virtual KVM
« Reply #21 on: November 03, 2012, 07:16:22 PM »
I have 2 physical KVMs - 1 two-port and 1 4-port, but it's not like Macs actually have inputs that you can use. So, no go there. Also, I don't need MOAR cables laying around.

Still, so far it seems ok. Which I find is the biggest problem with most tech - getting it to work initially is 90% of the problem.
Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

cmpm

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • default avatar
  • Posts: 2,025
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Synergy Virtual KVM
« Reply #22 on: November 03, 2012, 09:21:30 PM »
Quote
Is there some trick to getting it to work? Or is  there some tweak or gotcha that you need to be aware of - and probably everybody else knows about but me?  huh

Today at 04:03:59 PM by 40hz


I think you have to turn on file and printer sharing on all computers,
if I remember correctly.

bmms

  • Participant
  • Joined in 2008
  • *
  • default avatar
  • Posts: 137
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Synergy Virtual KVM
« Reply #23 on: November 09, 2012, 04:58:00 PM »
It's from Bartels, so please see any thread world-wide where some of Bartels' products is treated, Bartels himself quickly intervenes, and in a way you won't believe your eyes.

Thank you, that you recognized our responsiveness and dedication to our software and users.



I tried ShareMouse, got a problem with it, kindly requested their opinion about it, and never got a reply.

We are running a public support forum and I couldn't find any unanswered inquiry.

Could you please provide a link to your posting? I will make sure asap, that your inquiry will be answered.


Quote
Furthermore, it's about 30 dollars plus VAT PER COMPUTER

ShareMouse cost USD 24.95 per computer and I am happy to annouce, that GAOTD BdJ will run a $10 promotion very soon. Enjoy!
Michael
« Last Edit: November 12, 2012, 02:53:29 PM by BartelsMedia, Reason: BdJ instead GAOTD. Thank you, Clean »

clean

  • Participant
  • Joined in 2012
  • *
  • default avatar
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Synergy Virtual KVM
« Reply #24 on: November 10, 2012, 05:48:51 AM »
So here we are.

Ok, cost is 30 bucks INCL. VAT, not 30 bucks plus VAT, my mistake. It's by comp, so it's 60 bucks for 2 comps, but if your 10-year-old Adobe thing is only on one of them, you'll pay 30 bucks for that comp and zero bucks for the other one, which would be a good deal if the MS thing wasn't there for free. Bartels goes so far as to mention the being first on the market for his product (by about 3 months or so) as one of the "advantages" of his offering over the competing MS offering; it's like the whining of the 6-year-old nerd, "ok, teacher, Sam did it right, as I did, but my finger was in the air first" (by a tenth of a sec or so). Of course, it's a pity for Bartels that MS came with a free prog as his paid one, just about 3 months after him, but then, most traditional KVM offerings have lost much of their value, i.e. they're only needed anymore but in rather restricted set-ups, and I didn't see any sign that Bartels had problems to settle with his conscience re his biting into the hardware manufacturers' market with his product, so why expect third parties to mourn his loss of business by the prompt arrivel of the free MS alternative?

Years ago, in his text expansion forum, I had been advised that I was expected to buy his product first, THEN ask questions within the forum - which is outrageous in itself, but it's Bartels style. So I sent a kindly worded request by mail, with my problem, and with mentioning that I was seriously considering buying the product in its high-priced version if the problem was resolved - only to get the answer then that I first had to buy, then ask questions.

So, here, years later, some months ago, with my problem with their screen tool, I sent a kindly worded mail again, not bothering with their respective forum presumably reserved for paying users AFTER buying, and this time, I didn't get any answer to begin with (so his style didn't improve but worsened), and here we are, Bartels pretending no unanswered question within the forum - highly manipulative as ever, I hadn't even mentioned the forum.

As for promotions, there have been aborted discussions on bits in the past, between Bartels and third parties, and with heavy censorship by that site, which is understandable since the owners are there to make sales, which in fact is a heavy 50 p.c. of the promotional prices realized there, so if Bartels tells he didn't receive a request when sombody complains his request wasn't answered, Bartels' response stays there, without clarification - I'm happy it's not the same thing here and in other discussion fori, and I'm happy that for every Bartels product, there are alternatives - when contacting Bartels Media some months ago, I hadn't discovered MWB yet, but only Synergy, so I seriously considered this Bartels product which after having knowledge of MWB, is not necessary anymore.

As for text expansion, nobody needs any Bartels stuff either since there's always AHK, where you can switch from one vocabulary to another (which was also possible with Bartels' product, but cumbersome there), or even add up special vocabularies with basic ones (didn't try with Bartels stuff, might be possible, but probably isn't): programming in several languages at the same time; plain English, legal French, medical Dutch, whatever you like - I'm very happy with AHK which does everything I ever wanted, and no need for the superimposed "macro language" on Bartels' text expander since that would be another proprietary scripting language, and a very expensive one at that. For "just text expansion", there are cheap and good alternatives that have been mentioned many times in this forum (just pay attention that they allow for individual ending chars - there are also worthless alternatives that trigger the expansion anyplace); for power users, i.e. for anybody participating in this forum, AHK is NOT more complicated to script than it is to script in Bartels' macro language, and to use AHK for alternative or combined text expansion vocabularies, anybody can do this from start on, no need for either his or any of the alternative offerings.

So these tools developers make their living from potential macro users' fear of not being able to "program" in a script language as AHK, whilst in fact, any functionality except for the most basic routines need much more complicated "scripting" within these proprietary languages / construction kits to click together, than to do the same stuff within AHK, AI or a commercial offering as WinTask, so these hybrid offerings ("dont program, just click together", or here, "have a text expander which even does macros") are kind of at least partly deceptive, and most of your effort in going from such a macro tool to AHK for instance, lies in the incredible amount of work necessary to transfer, one by one, manually, thousands of single "commands" within your macros there to the respective AHK commands, since they mostly don't allow for any exporting - once you try to do real work in such a tool, you'll never get out of it, or then, it'll take you a week or more of hard labour.

The irony in Bartels' stance lies in the fact that he lost me years ago for his about 160 bucks product, by treating me as a schoolboy, and that he lost me anew, as a potential 90 bucks customer (= 3 screens are always considered "power user" for any one of the three comps, so you pay thrice, even without any Adobe product anywhere in your network), by doing the same - since I wouldn't have searched further, and by this would not have discovered the free MS alternative before buying his stuff. So, to sum it up, it's not Bartels' product that put potential users off, it's his conversation style if I dare say.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2012, 05:57:37 AM by clean »