Messages

1

Mini-Reviews by Members / Re: Weather Watcher 5.6 - now better than ever!

« on: March 19, 2006, 05:22 AM »

I gave up on WP when it started to freeze during update. It wasn't a lock up but it froze all processes for a period on boot up and when updating. Maybe my machine but I couldn't live with it and went back to WW.

-Carol Haynes (March 18, 2006, 10:52 AM)

   
That sounds about like my experience -- a bit erratic and quirky.   Reply No. 26 says something related for an earlier version.   Cheers.
   

2

Mini-Reviews by Members / Re: Weather Watcher 5.6 - now better than ever!

« on: March 18, 2006, 08:58 AM »

There is also Weather Pulse as an alternative.   When I compared Weather Pulse (WP) against the previous version of Weather Watcher (WW),  the two seemed very similar to me.   I chose WP because I preferred some small detail of its presentation.

-redmaledeer (November 13, 2005, 03:15 PM)

     
After I wrote this (Reply No. 19) I found out that Weather Pulse (WP) hung up pretty easily,  both during bootup and normal running,  the latter especially when updating the weather.   I don't know if this is due to WP or to some quirk of my machine.   Does this happen to anyone else?   I still mostly use WP,  but carefully.   Weather Watcher doesn't give me this problem.
   
(Windows XP home,  SP1,  fully updated.)
   

3

Finished Programs / Re: DONE: perform random URL queries (Random Submitter)

« on: February 05, 2006, 11:37 PM »

   
Thinking again about my Reply #38,  isn't the Scroogle Scraper program just a special-purpose anonymizer (for Google only),  and couldn't one get the same privacy effect by using one of the many general-purpose anonymizers?
     
I mean there are a number of programs out there which are basically proxies.   You pass them the URL you want to see and they retrieve that web page for you.   The web page you are interested in sees only the proxy,  not you,  and any data passed to the web page is data pertaining to the proxy,  not to you.
   
Of course,  using a general-purpose proxy might be more cumbersome than needed if you only wanted to shield yourself from Google.   On the other hand,  many of them have been around for a while,  and you could pick one which you trust.
     
Two major ones that are done as public services are JAP (http://anon.inf.tu-dresden.de) and Tor (http://tor.eff.org).   I have heard a story that the German government has required JAP to put a trap door into its program,  so that identities can really be revealed.
   
On the commercial side there is Anonymizer (http://www.anonymizer.com),  an early entry in the field.   Many of the commercial ones,  including Anonymizer,  allow limited free use.
     
I hope this isn't too far off topic,  but such programs seemingly could be aimed toward the same goal as the Random Submitter.
   
   

   
                                                   

4

Finished Programs / Re: DONE: perform random URL queries (Random Submitter)

« on: January 31, 2006, 12:57 PM »

     

I still don't see why I should trust them over anyone else.  Who is to say if or how long they really store searches, or if they'll be subpoenaed with everyone else?

-Scott (January 31, 2006, 12:31 PM)

Well,  they rant and rave like true enemies of the establishment,  which in fact Brandt has been for a long time.
   
   

5

Finished Programs / Re: DONE: perform random URL queries (Random Submitter)

« on: January 31, 2006, 11:47 AM »

   
Has anyone noticed the following alternate way of getting around Google's data collection?:
   
http://www.scroogle.org/
   
http://www.scroogle..../cgi-bin/scraper.htm
   
   

6

Mini-Reviews by Members / Re: Weather Watcher 5.6 - now better than ever!

« on: November 13, 2005, 03:15 PM »

           
There is also Weather Pulse as an alternative.   When I compared Weather Pulse (WP) against the previous version of Weather Watcher (WW),  the two seemed very similar to me.   I chose WP because I preferred some small detail of its presentation.   When I chose WP I don't think I was aware of malware issues with WW.   Does anyone know of malware issues with WP?
       
Pricelessware,  which I think highly of,  lists Weather Watcher but not Weather Pulse (http://www.pricelessware.org/).
     
     

7

Mini-Reviews by Members / Re: Startup Delayer

« on: November 13, 2005, 02:31 PM »

Out of curiosity, and not to appear too lazy , how does PCMag's StartupCop Pro 2
     
(http://www.pcmag.com...,1895,1830362,00.asp) compare to this? I've just downloaded and installed Startup Delayer and in the course of setting it up, it occurred to me that this is functionality that SCCPro shares.  Just wondered if anyone has experience with both apps?

Cheers,

Mike

-Darwin (November 02, 2005, 09:59 AM)

I have the same question about DelayExec,  which is free.   Any experience?:
   
http://www.rjlsoftwa...e/utility/delayexec/
     
     
     

8

ProcessTamer / Re: ideas for process tamer

« on: March 27, 2005, 04:41 AM »

Thanks Mouser and Tenseiken for the information about prioritizing bandwidth.   I will check it out more,  but on a quick look I agree with Mouser that Netlimiter is elaborate.   All seem more geared to managing networks,  tho Netlimiter and Homeqos seem to mention controlling individual applications,  which is what I would be interested in,  in my non=network use.
     
Tenseiken's actual experience with Netlimiter is very useful.

9

ProcessTamer / Re: ideas for process tamer

« on: March 26, 2005, 11:54 PM »

     
This is way outside the scope of Process Tamer.   But I thought it couldn't hurt to say that I would find useful a program like Process Tamer,  but which controlled download bandwidth instead of CPU usage.   I have more problems with programs hogging download capabilities than with their hogging CPU time.   Being able to prioritize which programs get to do the most (or least) downloading would be useful.
     
Or does such a thing already exist and I just don't know about it?