Messages

101

General Software Discussion / Re: One-hit wonders

« on: April 05, 2006, 06:09 PM »

Oh, I forgot: The only well-known bug in Ecco Pro is that it doesn't accept recurring events after 12/31/1999 easily (there is some workaround I can't describe exactly, as I don't know the program by heart; I'm yet another corporate Outlook victim).

102

General Software Discussion / Re: One-hit wonders

« on: April 05, 2006, 06:00 PM »

Hi,

I doubt that the term "one-hit wonders" is a good choice, regarding that most formerly successful but now almost-forgotten programs went through several iterations to become exactly that, successful (not MS-scale, but somehow), and then abandoned.

Regarding Ecco Pro, it was at v. 4 when it was cancelled (in 1997), and you can get it as a free download from NetManage, who own it (http://supportweb.netmanage.com/ts_viewnow/downloads/patchesUnsupported/ecco.asp). The support page http://supportweb.netmanage.com/ecco/ is still online. There is still a very active user group at Yahoo (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eccopro/), many members run it on Windows 2000 and XP, and some are looking into using it on Vista. There are several other sites dedicated to Ecco Pro. Seemingly it is possible to sync it (basic PIM data) to Palms, but that may break any time. Pocket PCs are another matter, entirely. Ecco Pro had been a big subject on another great site, outliners.com, that just folded recently.

There were some efforts to open-source it , but none were successful (maybe the reason was the database behind it).

I have to say that I took several attempts to really understand that app. I have two thick ring binders full of materials that you can still get online. Great concept. Wish it were still alive.

Having not a lot of experience with the great apps before the all-Microsoft-age, I can only do some kind of software archaeology, but I might throw some other names into the discussion: VisiCalc, Lotus Agenda, Lotus Improv, Lotus Magellan, Lotus 1-2-3, Word Perfect, dbase. X-Tree. Norton Commander. A lot of other things symantec-ed, perhaps (Grandview?).

103

Site/Forum Features / Re: Jan/Feb Poll - What Area Should DonationCoder.com Focus on Most in 2006?

« on: March 21, 2006, 06:16 PM »

I'm not so sure it would be of any advantage to do more of a standard "comparative" review instead of focussing on the winner. This format is what makes these reviews kind of special.

Yes, this is prone to be controversial, and fans of some programs (actually, I'm partially biased towards Squeez as an archiver, which was reason behind some of my remarks) might take it personally. But maybe both the range of programs reviewed and the relevant featureset for a review should be discussed more thoroughly among members before making a review public.

Having said that, maybe it's not adequate for me as a perfect newbie to this round to give advice about what discussion was and will be among members before these and future reviews. :-)

104

Site/Forum Features / Re: Jan/Feb Poll - What Area Should DonationCoder.com Focus on Most in 2006?

« on: March 20, 2006, 05:51 PM »

Hi everybody, my first post here
(and a late entry to the poll)

I'd like to see more reviews (although that was a tough choice), especially file managers (there are *so* many, tough to try them all thoroughly).
I like the concept to have an in-depth representation of one program (the one "pick" or "winner") while giving an additional overview of the pros and cons of the competitors. I can't remember having seen that combination elsewhere.
But I have some gripes with the reviews, which I wanted to express for some time:
You should be very cautious regarding the quality of the review. The two reviews here that I was most interested in over the last time was e-mail clients and archivers, and both reviews were very interesting to read. But both of the reviews had major flaws: First, both added major entries afterwards, which should have been there in the first place. And they had other major shortcomings: The mail clients review lacked a closer look at IMAP, which I find very important, and it's hard to find a good client for (esp. now that Mulberry's gone). And the archivers review was heavily biased towards RAR creation, a format that (in its newer variant) is strictly proprietary and by definition cannot be created by another archiver. This could only give one winner, WinRAR.
So reviews should give a better overview of all the competition from the start and the major funtionality to be expected from the competitors.
Otherwise, I appreciate the work of the reviewers very much and still think they did a great job (oh, and don't forget to add the name of the reviewer).

Alex