Messages - peter.s [ switch to compact view ]

Pages: prev1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 24next
Thanks for your points of view.


My point was not that MR is any bad, my point was, it's generally considered somewhat "superior", and I don't really know why it should be considered "superior", in comparison with its contenders. Also, my point was, marketing-wise, they do lots of things-good-for-them, but that doesn't translate into any advantage for the user.


As for speed, I'm positive, Macrium is NOT faster for creating full backups (since I did this consecutively and paid attention to that), and it even was (only) slightly slower; can't say for recreation of the backup since, as said, was not able to reinstall it.

As for the "as advertized" aspect, well, had I known the backup (from external hdd = second device anyway: I learned from bad experience) needed a special boot device (possibly even the backup itself, or then with lots of fuss getting to the backup, on a third device, incl. the comp itself), I would not have installed Macrium to begin with, and I didn't learn this very important detail neither from their site (could be "hidden" somewhere over there, probably, though), neither from quite numerous recommandations of Macrium where Macrium gets high (but quite unspecific) praise in web articles like "what is the best free backup-and-restore sw". Worse, Macrium did NOT tell me my backup would then, afterwards, been useless: It wrote the backup, but in the whole process of WRITING the backup, I did not get ANY info I also would have to create a boot device - they just told me so when I then wanted to use the backup, and this is unacceptable - thank god I wasn't in real need of that backup since it was a trial of mine only, also, as said, from bad experience beforehand.


GParted mentioned by 40hz is freeware; may consider to replace my EaseUS with it since EaseUS works faultless (did some real work with it), but is a little bit on the bloatware side - in fact, for Backup and Restore, I went back from EaseUS to Paragon (as said, both free versions) for that reason.

Also, Paragon leaves you alone with nagging for buying paid versions, which I think is really kind of them; whilst both EaseUS and Macrium DID nag me; on the other hand, it's clear as day they are entitled to some nagging after all since they make available really USEFUL sw for free.


Re both speed and possible ease of use once it's all "running". Fact is, I only know the free versions where Macrium is inferior, not superior, by my standards (explained above, and without any new info why I perhaps could be wrong about that, so far). The irony in this is, would I KNOW the paid versions (again, Macrium is more expensive, also compare prices for more than one pc), I would very probably be willing to pay (perhaps even for Macrium), since it's in incremental / differential backup where possibly big differences between these contenders would appear, and which could perhaps even justify a price difference, but at the very least could ease up your choice between them. But it seems there is no valid comparison between those paid versions yet.

And even if Macrium-paid is superior, which is far from being established, saying Macrium-free is superior (and all the more so against the above evidence), would be called successful image transfer (Mercedes Benz S vs. A for a better known example), but smart people as we are should not fall for that.

Thank you, xtabber, for your very informative post!

So 010 seems to be somewhat superior indeed for people who know exactly what they do (which is difficult when it comes to binary files since e.g. if you search the web for something like "how to edit binary text files in a hex editor without breaking them", you will not get any relevant hits. (From my experience, when you try to replace n characters with n plus x or n minus x chars, it's already broken, even if x is quite small.) The header thing seems interesting, and the running processes thing, too. As for the easy right-click opening-as-binary of (not-running) files, emEditor can do that, too, but it's true, emEditor's "life" licence has become somewhat "expensive", the double quotes being there bec/of 150 bucks being regular price for some other editors just for their current version (which in some cases is not even developed further anymore), so this puts that price into a more favorable perspective, whilst on the other side, most current editors are not priced in that range anymore though.

On a personal note, I own some quite expensive, "programmable"/scriptable editors and did quite some stuff on texts within them, incl. multiple buffers (i.e. files just in memory, not on screen, too), and it was LOTS OF scripting then, bec/I stupidly avoided regex then. Since I've become quite "fluent" with AHK scripting, I finally delved into regex, and I very quickly discovered that for elaborate text processing, 1) regex is the tool of your choice (in AHK: regexreplace is as important as is regexmatch, and this remark applies to any other regex implementation, too), 2) it's available directly both in many editors and programming languages, too, and 3) by the latter, there is no need to shift text bodies from your scripts into an editor to run scripts of the editor's own, then re-export the results, but you can do it all within your scripting or programming language, within both clipboard and multiple variables (instead of the above-mentioned editor-created buffers), onto which you run (mostly) regex commands... and finally 4) that scripting making use of regex will ease and shorten up your necessary scripting to an incredible degree. Oh, and yes, there is a 5) : Special tools, applying regex internally, and presenting some text manipulation gui to the user (TextPipe et al., and then PowerGrep, as the premier representatives of this kind of sw), seem to add nothing to what your own scripting could do in a much more easy way: on the contrary, just as your try (= mine, some time ago) to include some text editor processing into your automated workflow, they just add unnecessary complications (and ain't that cheap, but that's no consideration here). To complete this OT: There is one good idea though that can be retrieved both from TextPipe and PowerGrep: Don't try to complicate your regexes beyond all measure, in order to prove to yourself how smart you are, but be humble and just do 3 or 4 regexes in a row for what you know some expert could have done in just 1 of them: The result is as good as with the 1-regex alternative, with both writing and debugging time minized.

Ok, enough said OT for the rather limited utility of text editors for text processing (= not: text / code creation), it seems 010 (over at bits or full price) is the buy of choice for people needing to work upon binary files (and knowing about them more than I do). ( Well, my original idea was, if you hamper with running processed, you'll very probably get a blue screen - well, let's say you should probably not try to work upon running core Win processes. ;-) )

...are not that superior either?

This is a spin-off from discussing MR update from 5 to 6.

"I'm a big fan of macrium reflect.  Very fast, very stable, no bloat."

MR seems to be the premier backup-and-recovery sw on the market as far as the paid version is concerned (which is discussed above).

As for their free version, though, I only can encourage possible users to refrain from it, not because it was really bad (in fact, I never knew and don't know), but because it does not seem to offer any functionality going beyond what less-renowned competitors offer, in their respective free versions, or more precisely, it does offer even less than they do.

In fact, I went back to Paragon Backup and Recovery Free, where I can start to reinstall of my backup from within running Windows (which for that is than ended, then Linux will loaded for the rewrite of c: (or whatever), and then Windows is loaded again) - why should I fiddle around with doing lots of things manually, with MR (Free) if I can have this repeated os swapping, both by Paragon or EaseUS (and perhaps by others), done automatically?

MR (Free), on the other hand, did the backup (onto my hdd), and when I tried to reinstall that backup (after some bad experiences, I do such tries immediately after the original backup now, not weeks or months afterwards and hoping for the best in-between), it told me I didn't have an external reinstall device (or whatever they call it) from which to run the backup.

After this quite negative experience with MR (Free), I'm musing, of course, why MR (paid) is touted the way it is, since from the moment on you're willing to pay, you'll get incremental/differential backup/restore, from their competitors, too (Paragon, EaseUS and also Acronis: this latter I never touched, having read about very bad experiences from other users, allegedly having lost data with Acronic, and with several versions that is).

Also, MR did not seem anything "fast" to me, not faster than Paragon or EaseUS anyway, and at least for Paragon, I can say it's perfectly stable (I once lost data with their partition tool, but that was my fault, triggered by quite awful, quite ambiguous visuals in the respective Paragon program: So today I use Paragon for backup and EaseUS for partitioning).

And as an aside, MR even has got its own wikipedia entry, of which the wikipedia staff is far from being happy (and they say so), and which contains some direct links to the MR site where you would have expected links to less seller-specific info.

And to say it all, MR, on their homepage, currently advises you to update from 4 to 5, whilst above, it's said that 6 is imminent (?), and that updating from 5 to 6 is NOT free for v. 5 owners.

All this makes me think that perhaps MR do some very good pr and are able to create some hype, whilst at the end of the day, it's just a very regular, decent product which succeeded in realizing higher prices than their competitors are able to realize, by that hype.

If MR (paid) really has some usp(s), please name them; their free version at least is a lesser thing than their contenders' free products.

"While not my working text editor (I still use Kedit and EditPad Pro for that, depending on what I am doing), this remains my everyday go-to tool for quickly examining and/or editing ANY kind of file from an explorer right click."

I don't understand the idea behind it; could you please comment about it?

- I have got (several, I think, but at least one editor doing hex (and regex, too) emEditor, which does the same (?) upon hex files than does 010, the premier prob being that you can NOT edit text in hex files and then assume the file isn't broken, or more clearly, if you try with 010, you'll break your files, as you would do with any other regular text editor doing hex additionally.
- So what's the special interest in using 010 for hex files (let alone for text files)? In other words, if there is some trick 010 DOES do, I'd be very willing to buy it for that, but currently, I don't see this usp of a special-hex editor in general and/or of 010 in particular.

"a really great feature for [sic, not: of] rightnote or any similar tree hierarchy is [not: would be] the option to display in masonry-style, all the subnotes"

That was correctly worded, albeit I immediately feared the misunderstanding that didn't take long to appear indeed.

In fact, I cannot mention any sw that does it exactly in that visual rendering, but it's clear as day that's a functionality that is blatantly absent almost everywhere, whilst being of tremendous practical use. Hence:

- Many outliners offer a similar functionality by export / print; of course that's not the same thing at all; it should be done within the program, and those bits should be editable (i.e. your edits therein should be replicated within the original sub-items)

- I know 2-3 outliners or similar which do something LIKE that, but none (?) of them does offer the above-mentioned functionality of your editings-done-within-that-spread-out-view being replicated into the original items:

-- Citavi (of course it's debatable if you could use that program for general IM, and the answer is probably no)

-- Treeline ( , free and very interesting, but from an "experimental" pov; it's not really useful for heavy use)

-- UltraRecall has a feature similar to Citavi, but, incredibly, UR then does clip=hide all the intermediate sub-titles, i.e. the titles of the items spread-out. This is completely nuts, since in 99.9 p.c. of possible use cases, you will be in deep need of those titles (and be it only for knowing where the previous original item began, and where the next starts; for the 0.1 p.c. of use cases where these item titles are unwanted, you could have implemented an option that is), and I mentioned this it's-not-a-bug-but-an-incredible-dumb-feature to the developer YEARS AGO, without the slightes reaction; here again, no replication of your possible edits (if they are possible that is, I don't remember, and the same remark applies to the other applics mentioned here) back to the original items

- To SOME (i.e. very poor) degree, 3-pane instead of 2-pane could "help"

- As mentioned, as soon as you think "print/export", your current possibilities widen considerably up, so in some use cases, with a macro, perhaps, there could be some (very limited) means.

As you all know, development of desktop outliners is more or less stalled, for the time being, and this absence of real hope for getting such functionality in an acceptable way may be sufficient reason to mention the lesser, semi-solutions above.

P.S. This problem is similar to the flattening out of the file system's directories... where some file managers help out a lot.

Pages: prev1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 24next
Go to full version