avatar image

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

Login with username, password and session length
  • February 23, 2020, 02:49 AM
  • Proudly celebrating 14 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 - srdiamond [ switch to compact view ]

Pages: [1]
First of all I'm sorry for venting, but...

I used to pay for DisKeeper (until version 8 or so), my main frustration with that one was that I have to have 15% of harddisk space free before defragmentation could took place.

Given the harddisk sizes of today that is a sizable chunk of space (for example: 30GByte on a 200 GByte disk/partition!!!!). The stupidity of that rule baffles me to no end. I have been around PC's long enough to know why that rule was put into place, but today that rule is insane.

With today's 1Tbyte drives i am not allowed to use 150GByte, because my defragger won't allow for it?!?
Denying me a 'snappy' system just because I use the total capacity of my hard disk?!??!
Do you have (an) contiguous file(s) of 150GByte in size on your disk? The biggest single file I have seen was 35Gbyte (Oracle database file).

Because the file size of the biggest (fragmented) file on a harddisk and equivalent free space on a harddisk should be the only reason why defrag software isn't able to start. And even that should actually not be a reason to start defragmenting the files that do fit in the available free space.

In that sense most defragmenting software has a lot of growing up to do.

Not the software from DiskTrix though. The harddisk in my system is an IDE WD Caviar with a capacity of 160GByte capacity (unformatted, 149GByte formatted). Directory Opus reports that this disk has 2,3Gbyte of free space or 1.5% free.
DiskTrix starts without any problem.

If Perfect Disk would commence to defragment my disk all the power to it, but my guess is that it either will not commence or will be painfully slow because of all the (literally) grinding work. DiskTrix commences without problems and it will take quite some time because of the amount of files, but it goes on without complaining.

Furthermore, how often is defragmenting required? DisKeeper was setup to run every night when I was asleep and still the results were not that great. Defragging every night puts (quite) some wear and tear on the disk. Nowadays I have scheduled the defrag software to run once a month.[/rant]

How often to defrag? Seems to me, one reasonable standard would be to reduce overall disk usage. At what point does defragging stop decreasing overall disk usage and start increasing it? Depends obviously on individual variables, but some salient estimates would help, and maybe some feature-laden defragger should calculate this for the use in its stealth or set-and-forget modes. Or would this information prove embarrassing to the developer? What if defragging hurts your hard drive more than it helps if you defrag more than annually?

It is just the stupid archaic rules required by this kind of software and the lack of results that drives me insane  >:(...and which make me a (very) happy Disktrix user.  :)

The EditPad Pro review was wrong when written. I purchased in February of 2005; it had the feature then, and there was no mention that version 5 (then current) had upgraded it. Most likely version 4 had it too, but definitely the current version did at the time.

I fear I created unnecessary confusion by amalgamating my complaint with some others. Perhaps those others amounted to complaints about a failure to update. My position was potentially confusing, because you have NO duty to keep your reviews current. You do have, on the other hand, a duty to avoid actual error. Why cut any slack for actual error, unless it reflected obscurity in the feature's implementation? Nothing keeps a reviewer using ordinary care from getting this right, particularly when you deem the feature critically important.

This review is indeed in depth, but I think it a bit cavalier about inaccuracies. Other readers have pointed to some of these, but I think inaccuracies may be particularly prevalent with regard to the ability to use the undo function past the save point. Edit Pad Pro has this capability, and it is not obscure or otherwise inaccessible.

The review advocates discarding text editors that fail to implement 'undo' in thorough fashion. I think this is good advice. But when a reviewer gives this factor such weight, it behooves that reviewer to demonstrate 100% accuracy with respect to classifying the supposedly inferior product.

(I am a very satisfied user of EditPad Pro, but I am in no way associated with the company.)

Loss of clipboard connection is a problem most of the clipboard managers have not addressed, but is completely avoided by a few. Clipmate and the new ClipCache automatically detect disconnection and re-establish it. I have never had a disconnection problem with them. AceText and AccelClip, otherwise my favorites, have not completely resolved the disconnection issue, although AceText has recently included technology that avoids disconnection caused by hibernation. To me, disconnection is a particularly annoying problem, and I'm not sure why more clipboard managers haven't included the technology available in ClipMate and ClipCache to eliminate the problem. Does this technology perhaps consume a lot of resources? Finally, does Clipboard Help and Spell include technology to avoid disconnection?

Quick Paste Menu, Quick Paste Menu, Quick Paste Menu . . . just that feature would make a killer standalone app.  Having a clipboard manager wrapped around it helps.  As clipboard applications tend to sometimes lose their connection to the clipboard, having two apps comes in handy -- I've yet to have both lose touch at the same time.

I am puzzled by the consensus that favors MyBase and Surfulator, yet complains of the difficulties managing large trees. Considering the problems users experience with trees, you would think that the leading programs would provide solutions. There are two solutions available, netheir well represented among the reviewed products. Since users want a usable tree, programs that make trees more accessible deserve a close look. One of the requirements for managing a large tree is the ability to move multiple headings simultaneously. Multiple selection in the tree is one basic property of modern outlining programs, and almost none of the trees have this capacity. Ultra Recall provides this modern outlining feature in its tree, in its most advanced incarnation, which it calls logical linking. This means topics can be subordinated to multiple headings (cloned).

Another program that allows creating a tree with multiple selection--this one, unlike UltraRecall, definitely definable as a "notetaking program"--is ndx Cards.

On the other hand, perhaps the tree isn't the best way to go about organizing notes. Then programs that use keywords exclusively and in a slick fashion might be the ticket. Here PersonalKnowbase, which has good notetaking features, thought not as good as ndx Cards, should be considered.

As to the process of creating a single note, Microsoft OneNote can't be beat. It has outlining within notes (that no other program currently in development has) and adapts to inputting notes in a variety of ways.

Have you tried the various automatic scrolling settings on some Logitech mice using Logitech SetPoint software? In this regard perhaps the MX 1000 mouse does it best.

Pages: [1]