topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

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

Login with username, password and session length
  • Monday May 16, 2022, 9:10 pm
  • Proudly celebrating 15+ 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 - clean [ switch to compact view ]

Pages: prev1 [2]
26
General Software Discussion / Re: Two classes of membership here?
« on: November 17, 2012, 01:07 PM »
That's what the lapdogs are for: nice senior cop, bad sub-cops: the work is done, and that's what counts.

No irony, 40hz is one of the posters here who make this forum a lot less dull than it would be without him, I've seen this all the year long I've followed this forum.

Sorry for repeating myself in the second paragraph or so, above, the field for entering your post has been a nightmare one year ago, it's a nightmare today. (And it reverts to the upper part of your text so you don't see what you're writing. So whenever you don't write elsewhere, then do the pasting here...)

Steve Jobs said, "I'm an a...", in full letters, and he was proud of it. So, I think I owe my being kicked out here to some words with asterisks, in spite of my explanations, when a simple deletion of the incriminated paragraph in one of my posts would have be largely sufficient. (And at the time, I made a note I was kicked out by a certain mouser, but perhaps I just presumed so.)

Both of my problems, btw, are resolved, the first one by extensive use of AHK, the second one by the two-screen setup I detailed in the other thread. As these posts from November 2011 confirm, yes, I consider sw, and I consider treatment of users. Have a look at the forum policy (you must accept before entering the forum) at the Directory "Opus" forum. Isn't it illogical to pretend your sw is the best of its kind, and then not allow any mentioning of competition sw's, when it should be of much interest rather often to discuss the respective realization of a feature in similar sw? (x2, XY and SC all permit this kind of discussion, and I own a paid license for any of those - not for DO, and that's not a coincidence: If you allow sw developers to treat you like s*** - delete the paragraph here -, they will never cease to do so, hence the interest of buying 3 competing products instead of just 1. And then, DO ist not THAT splendid, e.g. compare processing of metadata in x2 and DO.)

Citations are 1:1, with typos and all:

https://www.donation....php?topic=28852.new

Better Mouse Drivers? Mouse Driver Tweaks? Shift-Click, Control-Click, Scope...
« on: Today at 05:35:11 AM »

Hello everybody,

I

For more than 20 years now, I've been using mice, from Logitech, and I'm profoundly unhappy with them, because of driver limitations. Once, I bought a Microsoft mouse, just for having a change to try the driver, since no information whatsoever was given, neither by Microsoft nor within the web in general, as to the possibilities of its driver, except if you installed the driver, AND a physical MS mouse; the MS mouse had been advertized as "programmable" which was a big lie at least at that time; perhaps they amended the driver in the meantime, but then, I would have to buy another MS mouse to find out...

"Programmable" with Logitech means, at this time - please correct me if I'm wrong, I own an old Logitech mouse, and an old Logitech driver consequently - that you can 1) assign many Windows commands to the mouse buttons (one button, one such command, that is), and 2) assign "any" key combination to these buttons (one key combination to any of these buttons, e.g. 3 key combinations to 3 different buttons, but no sequences of such commands on any such button).

"Programmable" with Microsoft meant, at the time, only alternative 1) above, without alternative 2), meaning that you didn't have the slightest chance to assign a macro, within an external macro program, to a key combination, and then trigger that combination with a MS mouse mouseclick, as has indeed been possible with Logitech mice.

Thus, "programmable" with Logitech means "can trigger macros at least", whilst "programmable" (that was indeed their advertizing at the time) with Microsoft meant "can't even trigger a simple key of your choice, let alone trigger external macros, we're simply lying to you". (Has this changed, in the meantime?)

II

What I've been searching for, for more than 20 years now, without ever finding it, is, as the title indicates, the possibility to assign a shift-click, and / or a control-click, to a mouse button, on any mouse out there.

Shift-Click / Control-Click: I'm not one-handed, but there are one-handed people needing this feature; I would need it for selecting several graphics elements in programs like Freehand, etc., while my other hand lies on a print-out of what I see on my screen, progressively reaching out for the elements there, in order to indicate "done" for my decision if those elements are to be included in the selection or not, and depending on my hand-written notes on that print-out; since I need my second hand for pressing the shift key manually, I lose focus on my print-out again and again, having to do a lot of visual switching back and forth between print-out and screen, just for checking if things to be done have been done already or not yet: It's a continual pain in the youknowwhere - younger people with better short-term memory could perhaps do without that feature, with less incredible fuss than the lack of it causes me.

Control-Click: Even for the general public, this feature would come extremely handy, since we all know that in the MS Internet Explorer (at least, and I suppose, other browsers do the same or likewise?) a click upon a link replaces the currently displayed web page (or whatever), whilst a control-click opens that page within an additional tab: We all know how extremely handy such a function is, and to not have to use your two hands for such a simple command you need 100 times each day would be extremely handy for everyone. (BTW, it would be far more logical since it's a mouse command, and why then, your principal hand working with the mouse, your secondary hand must touch the keyboard then? It's when both of your hands are on the keyboard that such needs of keyboard use are logical, not when you're "away from the keyboard" for a moment or more.)

Shift-Control-Click: Even better would then be the possibility to COMBINE such additional keys, since, in IE8, etc., that click would open the clicked-on link within a new tab, but without your current tab leaving focus: Perfect for doing several links in a row in a given web page, without succombing to the "lost in hyperspace" phenomenon or having to switch back and forth after each link clicking.

III

Many a macro prog allows for scope-based, individual execution of a macro, which means that you can assign a key combination to a (Logitech - what about MS now ?) mouse, let's say control-F12, whilst in the macro prog, you assign one macro to control-F12 if the caption of the focus window contains the name of application a, whilst the same control-F12 (triggered both times by the same key pressing and / or by the same mouse button pressing), within application b, would trigger another macro - this works like a charm if you've got the right macro program and a mouse allowing for assigning key combinations to a mouse button.

But then, this does NOT work for assigning such a key combination (or a Windows command) to a mouse button, with scope any (other) applications, whilst in ONE application only, the scope of that mouse button would be to send a shift-click (or some other "special" click), because for such a behavior, you'd need to have this different, scope-wise behavior within the mouse driver yet, not within your macro prog only.

The importance of such scope-driven alternatives within the mouse driver would be, assign a special mouse-click to a given mouse button, but for within a special program only, whilst that mouse button, by this special assignment, will not to be "sacrified" for every other prog - most "good" mice (handling-wise) just don't have more than 5 buttons (or more than 5 easily reachable buttons if ever), so there's a need to have all these buttons available for important commands in all of your progs.

Hence:

Please comment on the different aspects enumerated here, please, and especially on the problem to obtain shift-/control-clicks with ONE mouse click, by native implementation into a mouse driver of any mouse, or by an existing tweak of such a mouse driver - or if there's the possibility to do such a tweak, by programming a little add-on, for some driver (whilst some native drivers could allow for such tweaking, while with others, that might be impossible or far too complicated to realize; when I've just mentioned Logitech and MS here, that's because I know these mice and their (in the case of MS, old) drivers; I'm in no way bound to these if there are possibilities for mice of other brands.)

https://www.donation...x.php?topic=18160.25

Hello everyone,

We're November 2011 now, and I've just tried this product, and I'm not pleased with it.

My observations (please comment):

- Normally, windows got 3 buttons, AWM adds FOUR others, making it 7, which is unnecessary and ugly also on big windows, not speaking of tiny dialog / message windows that also get the additional 4 - this is UNACCEPTABLE. Since somebody here said, "the group button is enough for me", is that to say that when trying, I missed a function to preset that not 4, but only 1 additional button is added to every window? (If you want additional functionality, shortkeys are fine, no need whatsoever for 4 additional buttons forced upon you.)

- Somebody here said that "on opening", windows can trigger many pre-defined actions. Well, we need to specify and clarify here: They distinguish between first opening, and then, disappearing / reappearing. For first opening, there's a whole catalog of possible actions to trigger indeed, very fine, but for any disappearance / reappearance, possible actions are extremely limited to the point of making all this virtually useless. When you start your programs, you can do a lot of actions yourself, manually, no big need to have AWM do these actions for you, but it's afterwards, when programs run, for hours, days, that on opening and minimizing windows again and again, actions triggered by this would be more than handy.

- I dared asking them, kindly, about this distinction between very first opening of windows where a lot of triggering is possible, and further opening / closing of windows (= minimizing, resizing of windows) where almost nothing is possible, and they DID NOT ANSWER me. I call this the "a**ho** factor - not to designate people but their behavior -, developers being responsive or not to INDIVIDUAL communications - quite evident that they are "responsive" in a public forum like this one -, and this "a**ho** factor with Actual products seem to be 100 p.c., as I see it for now; it goes without saying that for any profeessional use, a prog with such a high a**ho** factor is useless even if it's better than this product is at this very moment.

- What about the memory leak discussed above? This product has got a "mirror" function, and such, and I had thought for a moment that would make it suitable to be used in a security cameras environment (where dedicated progs cost a fortune), but with that memory leak (and WITHOUT the above-mentioned functions: trigger actions when windows pop up, after their initial very first opening), that idea is not to be brought into practice, unfortunately.

- To my knowledge, this product does NOT offer any VARIANTS of opening for a given window? Let me explain: Most of my windows, I'd like them to open just normal, full size (which is not "maximized" but simply full-screen, with borders); but for SOME, I really need a window manager, hence my search for one. And what I want for this group of windows, I want to have a CHOICE: Normal behavior = normal, full size, AND alternatively, some other size so that a specific additional prog can take the remaining desktop real estate, and I want to have shortkeys to display those windows in their normal state, or in reduzed-size state... or better explained, I need shortkeys not for their display, but for their current state setting:

- One of my own macros (= external to AWM) would trigger the display of a given window in normal state (by sending the shortkey for setting the window's display setting to normal, then by sending the shortkey for displaying the window).

- Another one of my own macros would then send the shortkey for setting the window's ALTERNATIVE display state (= let's say to "leftbound, 2/3 of the screen's width"), send a similar shortkey to set the setting of a second window to alternative display state (= in this example, to "rightbound, 1/3 of screen's width"), and finally "open" BOTH applications (= display those alternative displays of both windows by activating both applications both running in the background = in minimized state). As you can see here, I don't want to do AWM all this, I just want it to store alternative display states for given windows, that then could be accessed by external macros / scripts; as far as I know, all this is NOT possible at this moment. (And the "always on top" option for given windows, available in almost every such window manager, is far too primitive to be of any use as such, since most of the time, this "on top" you don't want it to be "always", but in combination with specific other windows only. Which is all to say that such programs, especially when the cost 50 dollars, should NOT only give presets once-and-for-all, but should make available FLEXIBLE settings that can be accessed upon request whenever you need them.)

- So I de-installed the software, and got one of these "bye, would you leave your comment please" web redirection screens that become more and more common nowadays, but with that difference mentioned by somebody else here: They offer a discount then, which is to say that they say: "We acknowlege that our prog is too expensive, so would you take it for something less, then?" - had it not been for the 4 additional (mandatory???) buttons it adds to every and even the tiniest window (people complained about that in 2008, now 2011 is quite over - anything new on this, then that I might have missed?), I might even had said ok to that offer:

- So if you want this product for less, install the trial, de-install it... and get... not 50 p.c. off like some years ago, but 30 p.c. off, which makes it something like 33 dollars instead of 50 (I must say that I did not encounter such offer, on de-installing software, yet, and marketing-wise, it's very clever imo: I know some other progs that simply don't offer the value for their price, but at a lesser one, they'd become interesting again!)

27
General Software Discussion / Re: Two classes of membership here?
« on: November 17, 2012, 11:17 AM »
Quote from: Renegade on November 15, 2012, 07:45:23 PM
"So far, I'm quite happy with Synergy."
Already considered to donate for their work?

Spot on, Bartels, so no wonder they immediately closed the thread.

And there's so much dumbness here, it's a real pity that any time something deliberately illogical but oh so funny comes about (from Bartels here, not Gunnar but Michael, goo school, no irony, I appreciate a lot!), they invariably come with their menaces of throwing out. But I think there's a deeper reason: 90 p.c. (ok, let's make it 85, and I've always savoured many of 40hz' posts I must say, among some others') of what you can read here is a little bit dumb, so there might be a bit of envy playing a role.

Anyway, this total mix-up of "donations" for the functioning of a forum - outrageous: some even ask you to "donate" for your posts / account being deleted! -, "donations" for some obscure sw that obviously doesn't find its way into a real market - not worth even let's say 8 bucks apiece? -, and then, even asking for "donations" for unwanted sw, in order to twice "donate" for the right of express yourself in a forum, is not only chaotic and de-focused, but profoundly unhealthy as a business scheme. What do they call it, "voodoo marketing". "Original" but not in a pleasant way.

Oh my, mankind without lotsa denial, that seems to be unimaginable, even among people proud of their logic. (Religious belief is a similar flaw in many otherwise intelligent people, then - oops, no politics here!)

So they don't but have to close down this thread, too.

28
General Software Discussion / Two classes of membership here?
« on: November 13, 2012, 11:22 AM »
40hz, I kindly ask you if you could you comment on this site's policy / background or refer me to a page detailing these? As one of those posters who's done thousands of posts here, you might be best apt to inform me, and I'm sure many not-yet posters here ask themselves some of my questions, too, so clarification would certainly be welcomed by some people.

- Some people with many posts here often express very strong opinions and get away with it, they ain't banned and not even reprimanded - so it seems they have the "right" to do so

- I jumped in here, some days ago, not because of virtual kvm's, all the less so because of a given offering, but bec of another thread which treated censorship on bits, and MANY people here had been very astonished by this - this was TOO MUCH for me to not speak out, so I related my censorship history with bits, tongue-in-cheek, but the real reason was my having been TOTALLY CENSORED HERE: Some time ago, under another avatar, I had dared to make some posts where I had related bad experiences with software, and instead of triggering other posts on these subjects - perhaps with better experiences than mine -, I got deleted my posts within minutes, AND got my "account" deleted, i.e. no further posting possible, without getting the slightest explanation, which would have perfectly been possible since I had given my real mail account (which is certainly not the case with this current account that will probably be deleted within minutes from my clicking on the "Post" button.

- At the time, I had been totally surprised by that move, since I had thought to write about subjects of not too remote interest, and since I had not in any way been agressive, cynical or something in this order; on the other hand, this current "censorship at bits" thread here had made me laugh out loud, since people who do heavy censorship themselves shouldn't complain about them being censored elsewhere, right?

- You speak about "mouser" - who is "mouser", did he ever gave his name, or is anonymity important to him? I suppose he's the creator of this forum, right? Allow for another question: Why is he considered "God" or similar, here? Has he done exceptional things? Get me right, please, I'm not suggesting he didn't, I'm just in total absence of knowledge, so I'm asking.

- Then, is he funding this forum? It seems that for the financing of the servers, this forum relies upon public funding, by donations, so there might not be any (more) funding by "mouser", or is there? So here again, I haven't been successful in getting why "mouser" is considered "above it all", instead of this forum being sort of a democratic one.

- When I see the kind of speak of the "very frequent posters" here, addressing newcomers or "infrequent posters", I see sort of condescension and patronizing and which does NOT seem to be related to the respective content of the respective postings of either side, but simply to a "rule" or something that the former would have the "better rights" as the latter ones - of course, I don't discover this phenomenon in any thread and any exchange of posts, but it appears rather often and much more frequently than being coincidental or unintentionally.

- So what's going on here? What is the reason behind "unworthy" contributors here being treated like schoolboys were fifty years ago in civilised countries, especially in view of the fact that, as said, "regular" posters, the "masters" here, are allowed LOTS of "strong opinioning", so there does NOT seem to be a general rule of utmost complacency and attenuation, etc. that'd apply to everyone, far from that?

- What is the general idea behind this allowing to freely discuss things for a minority here when for everybody else, it's permanent self-censorship in order to avoid reprimands or even kick-out?

- This being a discussion forum with lots of participation, it seems to me that the questions I ask here are of some relevance, since for many a potential poster to such a forum, it's a question of adhering to such rules that need some explanation, or to shut up to begin with. There are many countries in this world where people ain't equal, and much worse, but for a forum where you'd instinctively presume equality among the participants, this blatant non-equality in the treatment different classes of participants are granting each other, mutually, seems astonishing and worthwile a little more info about the underlying reasons for all this than you can get by simple observation, hence my request to get some background to all this.

- Is there a chance go get this, or will the censor act first?

29
General Software Discussion / Re: Synergy Virtual KVM
« on: November 12, 2012, 07:27 AM »
As said, I tried both MWB and SM, on external screens connected to old and slow notebooks, and I certainly had a critical eye on response times. They were similar and both absolutely acceptable, and I couldn't recognize a difference; your experience with special set-ups, and especially such including Macs, might differ.

(As short as possible: I never said "the product was bad", I said "product not good", i.e. not acceptable for me for factors (background, price) beyond quality, and I later explained this bottom line with wich I had begun. And of course, there must be a "right to answer" in a discussion forum, which makes all the difference to sites like bits where there is no such right. And, as interested parties will certainly have found out by themselves, the 12 bucks-offer (incl. VAT) will soon be on bits, not on GAOTD as B. erroneously announced.)

30
General Software Discussion / Re: Synergy Virtual KVM
« on: November 10, 2012, 05:48 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.

31
General Software Discussion / Re: Synergy Virtual KVM
« on: November 02, 2012, 11:01 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.

32
First, I'm astonished that people are astonished about bitsdujour censorship. In fact, I've been censored there even 3 years ago, and have been censored there regularly since. You're entitled to ask why I continue to post there, well, sometimes I really want to know a detail about a product offered there, so I dare to ask for it there - instead of going into getting an avatar for the respective forum of the software in question - IF there is a forum -, and instead of sending a mail, fearing that it will not be answered in time. 80 p.c. of my questions there - having become rare, as well as my buys there -, are censored.

Yesterday and today, they have censored another one of my questions, and it intrigues me really - not bits, but the possible answer to my question, so I post it here again, kindly asking you to give your ideas on that matter.

Besides, after posting there, I've had the afterthought - since, remember, they just charge a software fee, not a monthly or annual fee, so they simply cannot have servers to do anything with your data on a continual basis - that their software simply and probably sends your data into such a mixup thing like TOR or something, which is free anyway, but their software would HIDE this fact from you, i.e. their software is a GUI hiding your TOR (or something similar) participation. Of course, there might be other possibilities.

My original question was, with respect to Hide IP Pro (on offer today):

Without giving away your trade secrets, could you comment a little bit about the way your product works? One of your competitors has very bad reviews since it's called extremely slow. So I wonder...

Your IP address is needed for the other site in order to answer you, which means, to send data back to you. So any IP address "hiding" must find other means.

First, we have proxy servers. They work this way: You send your data to the proxy server, which knows your IP address (in order to charge you resp. to count back your monthly data volume, AND in order to answer you); the proxy sends your request to the target site, with an IP from the proxy. The target site sends data back, to the proxy, which means, to that particular IP of the proxy; the proxy then sends you this data it has received from your target site.

Which means, no criminal offences because your "anonymity" is all relative: If you commit crimes et al., the proxy will give your real IP and identity not to the target site, but to the authorities.

Since all your traffic must  run thru the proxy, two times, in each direction (and some processing within the proxy, for replacing your IP, etc.), those proxies charge a monthly or annual fee and mostly have some monthly max. bandwith. I also suppose that the more such a proxy charges, the faster you'll get your data (since sufficient proxy servers for the data stream); if you get if for just a few bucks, they simply can't have enought bandwith.

If you want that for free, there's the alternative of mixing up many pc's, including yours, as a common "server", and mixing up all data for thousands of people, so that the target site doesn't know to whom the data sent. This is very slow and very unreliable, but for criminals, it has the "advantage" that there is no one commercial proxy to give away your identity, whatever you do.

Now for YOUR concept. You charge a one-time fee and say it's NOT a proxy. So what is it, how does it work, since, again, the target site or some technical thing in-between, call it a proxy or whatever, must "know" your IP in order to send data back to you. Curiously, googling for such systems only brings sites of your and of competing products, without any information what way these products work.

Some people in the web say you'rs best, within this range of products, but I don't dare rely upon such a thing without having the slightest idea how it guarantees my anonymity - if it simply HID my IP address, I wouldn't even see the target pages, so there must be more about it.



Pages: prev1 [2]