topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

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

Login with username, password and session length
  • Friday May 16, 2025, 1:43 am
  • 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

Recent Posts

Pages: prev1 ... 39 40 41 42 43 [44] 45 46 47 48 49 ... 114next
1076
Living Room / Re: Ergonomic mouse and keyboard
« Last post by J-Mac on May 03, 2010, 01:33 AM »
I bought me an Evoluent Vertical mouse after reading the last thread about ergonomic mice. Never did get used to it; it seemed to be difficult for me to get it to feel good at all. It is sitting in a box in a spare room here with the rest of my unloved equipment.

Jim
1077
Living Room / Re: The conflict of interest that is Google
« Last post by J-Mac on May 03, 2010, 12:17 AM »
Ok, so is Bing demonstrably and consistently better? If not, what is? Is this a systemic problem in the search market, or unique to Google?

- Oshyan

I'd say a little of both. But since Google is the gorilla at the table it has a bigger impact than any others.

Jim
1078
Living Room / Re: The conflict of interest that is Google
« Last post by J-Mac on May 02, 2010, 02:16 AM »
When Google takes the top spot for themselves, in most cases it seems that all they are doing is knocking Wikipedia down to second.  ;D

Seriously though, I completely agree about most top results being - as superboyac called it - "vomit-worthy" content. I realize that there is more and more data for search engines to sift through but the drek that makes the first page or two of results for just about any topic you search is getting to be tough to take.

Jim
1079
Found Deals and Discounts / Re: Bulk Image Downloader 33% off until April 30
« Last post by J-Mac on April 30, 2010, 02:50 PM »
Already got it a few days ago.   :)

Thank you.

Jim
1080
Mini-Reviews by Members / Re: Mini Review of SugarSync and DropBox
« Last post by J-Mac on April 28, 2010, 12:07 PM »
I hadn't noticed that it was for private folders too. That is weird. I think I may ask them about it. I've had the premium subscription for two years now and didn't realize that. I don’t remember that being in the TOS when I studied it back at the start; I wonder if that was an amendment added later?

Thank you.

Jim
1081
Mini-Reviews by Members / Re: Mini Review of SugarSync and DropBox
« Last post by J-Mac on April 28, 2010, 12:51 AM »
I can't say for sure but I believe that the disclaimers in both the Dropbox and SugarSync TOS's regarding copyright violations and IP issues is a standard thing that you will find on any hosting-type service that offers a "Public" folder option where other people will be able to freely access all files in it. They are trying to separate themselves from the liability issues of having copyrighted materials in "public" accessed folders.

You knew the lawyers would have their say, didn't you?!  :P

Jim
1082
Mini-Reviews by Members / Re: Super Flexible File Synchronizer Mini-Review
« Last post by J-Mac on April 28, 2010, 12:16 AM »

I dont think SFFS allows you to browse files on S3 (I'm sure that would have been written big in the new features!)
Are there currently any other ways of showing S3 locally?

Yes - check the Amazon Web Services forum. There is a free client that seems to be all the rage there. They sell a more advanced version but maintain a free version also.

( Fairly Off topic:- have you reasons you dont want to use Rackspace storage ? )
-tomos

Yes. Rackspace hasn’t been as reliable as S3 - there have been several outages since the takeover; with S3 I have a network drive defined on my machine and I can browse, upload/download directly from there instead of going through the JD client - can't browse your files online at all with Rackspace. And there is the fact that Jungle Disk converted my S3 "Legacy" backup to a Rackspace online disk with the update to V3 - that is a no-no here! Don’t f**k with my data without asking! Plus my Amazon S3 account is in my name, not Jungle Disk's like a lot of folks. So if JD goes away overnight my data is still there and accessible. Plus JD pushes the fact that Rackspace is cheaper but in reality the costs are virtually the same for me. I don’t download/move my stuff around that much.

Thanks!

Jim
1083
Found Deals and Discounts / Re: Bulk Image Downloader 33% off until April 30
« Last post by J-Mac on April 27, 2010, 11:13 PM »
Can you give a few examples of where/how you are using this program?

I can tell you where I would have loved to use it: a cousin posted a gallery of some very old photos of his parents - a favorite aunt and uncle of mine - and as I am the anointed family historian I collect photos of close and extended family members and add it to my voluminous family tree. I believe that it took all of his tech skills just to scan them and get them up on Facebook; I had wanted him to post all somewhere I could download them and this was all he could do. However I had to click on a total of upwards of 350 thumbnails to download them. I tried Snagit but it can only grab the thumbnails - not the full size images they link to.

One example, anyway.   :)

Thanks!

Jim
1084
Found Deals and Discounts / Re: Bulk Image Downloader 33% off until April 30
« Last post by J-Mac on April 26, 2010, 09:22 PM »
Cool! I never knew about this! I knew of BID but I didn't know it could do that or I would have had it long before this.

Thanks!

Jim
1085
Found Deals and Discounts / Re: Bulk Image Downloader 33% off until April 30
« Last post by J-Mac on April 26, 2010, 03:29 PM »
Hi guys!

Does Bulk Image Downloader get the full-size images from galleries where only thumbnails are shown and you have to click on each to see the full image?

I ask because Snagit also has the ability to grab all images on a page but if the page shows only thumbnails that is all it gets. You hav3e to click on each to open it before Snagit can grab the full images.

Thanks!

Jim
1086
Living Room / Re: For when your PC next plays up...
« Last post by J-Mac on April 26, 2010, 12:33 PM »
Excellent! Must be a true poet, as you are able to so well express what many of us have certainly felt many times.  :D

Thanks!

Jim
1087
This is completely inexcusable. How can a supposedly major computer security software company, one that probably has more of its products pre-installed on systems world-wide than any other developer, possibly allow such a bug to be released to an unsuspecting public?

How can a virus definitions update that removes svchost.exe - a well-known vital Windows core system file - not realize it? Surely some testing would have been done by even the most careless developer!?!

This reinforces my resolve to never touch a McAfee product with someone else's hand, let alone mine!

This is why I have NOD32 configured to NEVER clean any suspected infection. I have all settings so that they quarantine and notify me. Never "clean", which simply means DELETE. These flaming idiots can't recognize a false positive? I'd like to say that I am not surprised, but this one surprises me. Damn!

Jim
1088
General Software Discussion / Re: Google Chrome: Time for a Second Chance?
« Last post by J-Mac on April 21, 2010, 10:13 PM »
For the first time, i have started using Chrome semi-regularly.  I will agree with many here:  it is fast.  I mean, really.  It's a lot faster and more responsive than firefox.

Firefox is still my main browser because I have it set up just the way i like.  But I'll tell you what, if i can get Chrome set up the way my FF is setup, i'll switch for good.  I love speed.

I always run into errors and crashes with Firefox since I think 3.5 and I do keep Chrome ready to go at all times. Whenever Firefox gets a bug up you-know-where I just fire up Chrome, change it to the default browser - because it's a bitch using Chrome but forgetting and clicking links and having them open Firefox. I'd consider Chrome more seriously as my primary browser IF they would support extensions more vigorously, trim down the massive memory usage, and allow me to move the darned tabs from the very top of the screen. I'm using the developers version so I do have extensions installed but they work very intermittently. Chrome is lightning fast though; amazingly fast actually. I am always surprised when Firefox acts up and crashes and I fire up Chrome instead. I get ready to go pour a cup of coffee so all open tabs will be fully loaded by the time I get back but I can't even hardly get out of my chair and Chrome is ready to go. I know that a few of my extensions cause some slowness in Firefox but Chrome beats the pants off it speed-wise even if I start Firefox in Safe Mode.

Jim
1089
It does look like a true error. I asked about which type of installation because I suspected - as most probably did - that the portable installation was designed NOT to install or even offer the toolbar/search engine change etc. while the full installation IS intended to offer that stuff. Still appears that way, and it does sound like the developer pretty much said that. He sounds like an OK guy and will probably work with anyone to straighten the mixup out.

Thank you.

Jim
1090
I too recently upgraded my copy of HyperSnap to version 6.80.01, and I was DEFINITELY asked whether I wanted to have the toolbar installed.  There were also links to the additional EULA and privacy policy that would be in effect for the toolbar.  I almost NEVER want an extra toolbar, and I get upset if the software makes a toolbar necessary.  Fortunately, in this case, it seemed clear that the toolbar was by no means necessary, and I chose not to install it.  I am 100% sure that I was told about the possibility of the toolbar and given the option not to include it.



I'm curious - was yours a portable version? Or a Windows-installed version? I have to agree with rjbull that given an option or not, such an add-on should never be part of a portable app as it would leave behind remnants of its installation on public or friends' computers.

Thank you.

Jim
1091
Developer's Corner / Re: Documentary on the Absurdity of Software Patents
« Last post by J-Mac on April 20, 2010, 09:41 PM »
28 minutes long, ends with classical music.

Aha - I'll try it again; thought something was seriously missing!

Thanks!

Jim
1092
Developer's Corner / Re: Documentary on the Absurdity of Software Patents
« Last post by J-Mac on April 20, 2010, 05:26 PM »
I downloaded and played the "movie". It was just under 20 minutes long and it seemed to end very abruptly. Is this only a trailer? Or did I get a shortened download?

Thanks!

Jim
1093
Mini-Reviews by Members / Re: Super Flexible File Synchronizer Mini-Review
« Last post by J-Mac on April 19, 2010, 10:57 PM »
I'm a SFFS fan. Since I'm on linux now, I had to find an alternative.
The best backup tool I found by far is storebackup. And yes, it beats SFFS for me.

No gui, though.

But it is for Linux, not Windows, correct? I guess I'll get to try it if/when I try Linux.  (Actually more of a "when" methinks!)

Thanks!

Jim
1094
Well if that is the case then I will either use the program (Database Oasis) as is - most is still at least readable - or worst case it gets dumped. I'm not even going to try changing the text size to test it. Last time I did when I changed it back a lot of text items were changed and I had a heck of a time getting them all back to what I need. Very similar to when I used XP Pro; I tried changing my resolution to 800 x 600 to accommodate one lousy program which would not render decently at all and the developer insisted that the majority of his users were still using 800 x 600 resolution and that I could just change it for his program and change it back afterward. Of course when I tried that my desktop was a complete mess - icon sizes did not change back automatically - as well as other areas throughout the system. I committed myself to two personal rules then: One, I would not change my resolution willy-nilly to accommodate one app out of the many I use, and two, that I do not need to use the products of any developer who through laziness or lack of programming talent did not update his/her program's UI to keep up with current screen resolutions, monitor sizes, etc. So I will contact the Database Oasis developer to report what I am experiencing here and see just what kind they are - the kind I'll keep or not.

BTW, I recently had a similar experience with another "one program" developer - actually not a developer at all but a person who wanted to develop a specialized database program. He contracted with a software "engineer" to create this program that he had conceived. The initial pricing was outrageously high but later dropped quite a bit - wonder why?!?   :mad:  After installing the program it initially opened its main window. Tiny. After trying and failing to resize the window I measured it: 740 x 570 px. Works out to less than 20% of my total screen size. The text all looked decent - for a little window like that. Proportional is a better way to put it, I guess. I wrote to him but he told me the window size could not be changed and that I should just change my resolution to 800 x 600 and it would look much better. Turns out that wasn’t the only thing I didn't like about his program. Can't scroll with the mouse wheel, can't tab from/to text input boxes, can't use any of the Microsoft shortcuts for text formatting like Ctrl+B, Ctrl+U, etc., or for copy/paste, like Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V. This app looks like it was designed to use in DOS Shell on a 10" - 12" monitor. I only got it because it would have done a needed job for me if it had worked, and the price had dropped to the teens so I didn't lose much $. There was no trial for it - I believe because the guy had no idea how to make it work only for a time and then stop. His "software engineer" just signed him up with an online activation outfit; activate once and done.

Oh well, I'll learn one of these days.

Thank you.

Jim
1095
Mini-Reviews by Members / Re: Super Flexible File Synchronizer Mini-Review
« Last post by J-Mac on April 19, 2010, 01:34 AM »
Free? Wow - that's amazingly generous! So V.5 is working good for you? Stable?

Thanks!

Jim
1096
Mini-Reviews by Members / Re: Super Flexible File Synchronizer Mini-Review
« Last post by J-Mac on April 19, 2010, 12:43 AM »
Hey Tom, Mike:

I'm still using Version 4. I never hear anything about updates or new versions - I have to continually check the web site to see when updates are available. Is V.5 out yet?

One more question: are either of you using SFFS with Amazon S3 online data storage? I use Jungle Disk for that now but since they were purchased by Rackspace they very much want users to switch to using Rackspace's Online Disks instead of the Amazon S3 Buckets. Twice now with updates they changed mine over to Rackspace and I went through a lot of crap to get it all back to S3. So I'd love to dump Jungle Disk and use SFFS. Apparently SFFS can be used with Amazon S3 but I don’t think it has a UI to browse your files and folders there directly. Or at least it doesn’t in V.4 - maybe V.5 has changed this.

Anyway if wither of you are using SFFS with S3 I would appreciate some comments on that.

Thanks!

Jim
1097
That is considered 'large' fonts.  If a developer sets their labels as not autosized, but sized based on their layout and you uniformly switch the font size, this will happen.  In older versions of windows, it was large fonts vs regular fonts- I guess windows 7 lets you change that with greater granularity.  As I said, I'm not saying this isn't their fault- but I bet that if you tried to switch to 100% and tested their application, you wouldn't see this problem.  A bit of information you can pass onto the developer...

I don’t believe that is considered "Large"; just larger than the default, and not by much. First, there is the Text Size Setting dialog that says 150% = Large, 125% = Medium, and 100% = Smaller, as attached below. By those size labels 115% is between Medium and Small, but certainly not "Large". Unless the Win7 UI designers really don’t say what they mean - which is not so far-fetched.  :D

115% made my fonts readable at 1920 x 1200 on my 24" monitor in Windows 7, but not even quite as large as the Windows XP Pro default text size on the same 24" monitor.

Here's the Text Size Setting dialog:

[attachthumb=#1][/attachthumb]

Thank you.

Jim

PS - Above I said "First..." and then never got to "second"   :-[  Second, if this was considered a "Large" font then why wouldn’t any other of the 200+ programs installed have the same problem?
1098
First, the UI doesn’t seem to work to well on my computer here. The text is overly large and therefore a lot of it is cut off at the end of each line. Also, in most cases the bottom ~10% of all text is cut off. See the screen caps below.

Do you use large fonts?  That seems to be the problem from the screenshots that you post.  Many apps aren't developed for large fonts, so when viewed in them, are quite ugly.  It's an easy thing to get around, and I know .NET apps don't seem to have that problem anymore, but in many languages, the developer still has to do it.

No - or not really. Depends on "Large" I guess. When I installed Windows 7 I set the text size attribute to 115% of the default; that's a custom setting as the default was microscopic and the next level up was too large. I have a 24" wide screen monitor with a resolution of 1920 x 1200 px. Default size for Win7 looks equivalent to a font size of 5 or 6, which IMO is way too tiny. The current custom setting of 115% doesn’t negatively affect the text in any other app on this machine - and I do have a lot of apps installed; >200.

Jim
1099
Don’t think so - you haven't seen Mr. Darwin's software collection! Or mine!  :D   ;D

Thanks!

Jim
1100
Living Room / Re: Which prize would you choose?
« Last post by J-Mac on April 17, 2010, 02:57 PM »
I'm truly fascinated by the amount of people who would actually choose neither.

Really? I approached this as if it were a real contest. I don’t enter contests as a rule; I have found that in virtually ALL cases the contest runners are looking to get something from me rather than give something away just because.  :)  With the usually poor odds of winning it just is not worth it to me.

Thanks!

Jim
Pages: prev1 ... 39 40 41 42 43 [44] 45 46 47 48 49 ... 114next