Messages - tslim [ switch to compact view ]

Pages: prev1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 ... 43next
Hello tslim,

btw. - have you ever had a look to ??
the advantage ist among others, that you can convert macros to exe files with it's own compiler.
you can access dll files and and and - do nearly everything.
It's worth a try!

Kind greetings

I just flip through QM on-line help, its schedule function seems to be limited.
I want to upgrade to Macro Express Pro, partly because of its improved scheduling function.

I am. It's rock solid for what I do.
Of what problems do the forums speak?
-cranioscopical (May 18, 2011, 02:42 PM)

I have read these:

and they are quite recent, that scares me.

General Software Discussion / Macro Express Pro user, anyone?
« on: May 18, 2011, 02:08 PM »

I plan to upgrade my Macro Express 3 to Pro version but few posts in Macro Express forum scare me... (those posts are from WinVista and Win7 users who run Macro Express)

Is there anyone using Macro Express Pro here? Do you find it OK with WinXP?

General Software Discussion / Re: SyncBackSE vs. SuperFlexible
« on: March 05, 2011, 04:20 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?

I use MP3gain (NOT pro - different author!!) which does normalise tracks, but not within a track - but worth noting what the author says when comparing the two apps:

    * "Mp3Gain PRO" does volume normalization inside the mp3, not just between separate mp3s. So if you feel a song is too quiet at the beginning (or middle, or end), then it can boost the volume just for that part. Pretty cool, if that's what you need.
    * The changes "Mp3Gain PRO" makes are not undo-able. In order to make its fine-tuned adjustments, it must re-encode the mp3 file.

I have had the experience (with mp3gain) that although tracks are normalised, one track will still sound louder or quieter - I presume this is related to the "sound" of the track, but I dont know.

My understanding is MP3 Gain writes the value of db adjustment (against a targeted db) in MP3 tag which means:

1. Other song format without a tag like mp3 won't be supported.
2. A player that plays the mp3 must be aware of that tag and is able to adjust volume level accordingly.

I prefer adjustment that is player independent.

Pages: prev1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 ... 43next
Go to full version