topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

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

Login with username, password and session length
  • Tuesday April 7, 2026, 5:37 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 ... 514 515 516 517 518 [519] 520 521 522 523 524 ... 1515next
12952
Screenshot Captor / Re: Some coding help please? (scold me if you want)
« Last post by mouser on August 26, 2011, 04:14 PM »
Ok most of what you want is already default what Screenshot Captor does.

Start Screenshot captor, and then here's what you would customize:

1. In options tab "General Settings", check the box marked "Start Minimized":
Screenshot - 8_26_2011 , 4_04_54 PM.png

2. In options tab "Interface Options 1", select the "After Capture Show: Stay Minimized"
Screenshot - 8_26_2011 , 4_05_36 PM.png

3. In options tab "Screenshot Folder and Tools", click the button to set your Screenshot Folder as "c:\snaps\"
Screenshot - 8_26_2011 , 4_06_22 PM.png

4. In options tab "File Naming Template", in the top Default New File Name, put: %customdate%
and at bottom Custom Date Format put: %Y-%m-%d %H_%M_%S
(note you cant use : as you requested since that character should not be used in filenames so i used _)
2011-08-26 16_10_48.png



Capture sound should be played by default (check Post-Capture Options tab), so nothing to do here.
Hotkey should already be set as you want:
Screenshot - 8_26_2011 , 4_13_15 PM.png



Let me know if it works for you.
12953
General Software Discussion / Re: Cnet's Download.com and the installer scam
« Last post by mouser on August 26, 2011, 03:01 PM »
Hi Seth,

First, thank you so much for posting, and for taking the time to talk with me/us about the issues.

You can tell that many of us are pretty upset over this issue.

I'm going to email the cnet-installer address and i will report how it goes trying to have the installer removed.

As I've expressed before, i think that 99.99% of this entire problem will be solved very easily if cnet simply makes it possible for authors to say they don't want their software wrapped with the cnet adware installer, without paying a fee.

CNet visitors may still rightfully be unhappy with getting this installer when they download certain software -- but that's a much more trivial issue that your visitors will have to make a decision about.  But as long as authors can freely exclude their software from it, that would satisfy me.

[there is still the issue of cnet download.com not showing links to program web pages that i think should be addressed, but that's a separate issue]
12954
Screenshot Captor / Re: Bug? Arrow Endpoint Text very slow
« Last post by mouser on August 26, 2011, 02:01 AM »
Can you try this version:
https://www.donation...nshotCaptorSetup.exe

Hopefully it will not only fix the slowdown bug but also speed up editing of the text from what it was before and improve the look of anti-aliased text (especially in memo boxes) when you use the default settings to anti-alias when not editing.

Let me know!
12955
You want Screenshot Captor, it will do everything you are requesting easily.

MiniCap is when you don't want it to stay resident and don't want to trigger capture via hotkey.
12956
General Software Discussion / Re: Cnet's Download.com and the installer scam
« Last post by mouser on August 25, 2011, 09:43 AM »
Acceptable or unacceptable isn't what I was talking about -- I merely wanted to point out that I don't think that it is likely that they WOULD do it. I wasn't trying to comment on whether they SHOULD do it.  It simply makes for a much better page to have links to the original source. So, yeah - I'm agreeing with you about the "should" part.

Ah ok I misunderstood you then -- my apologies.



I don't think these big sites have much incentive to listen when people like us complain, but I do see a possible long term solution, in the creation of an advocacy organization whose only purpose was to establish guidelines to benefit consumers, and which worked to get SEARCH ENGINES to penalize sites that don't score well on the recommendations.

The search engines are the key because they have an insane amount of power over ranking results and therefore an instantaneous dramatic effect on income for big sites.  A search engine could destroy any company on the web in a matter of minutes, and even a tiny change in rankings is likely to result in a very painful loss of income for a company.

So I'm basically suggesting that the most efficient and likely-to-succeed strategy for handling things like this is to set up an organization that establishes fair guidelines and for software sites, and reports on good and bad sites with respect to these guidelines, and then try to get the search engine companies (google, etc.) to treat the adherence to such guidelines as a factor in search engine rankings.

This would also help solve the problem I always rant about, which is companies which build up a reputation and then once they have earned respect and high search engine placement, they start to go rogue and do bad things, and by then their web traffic momentum is enough to keep them from paying a price.  Getting search engines to rapidly adjust rankings when a company starts behaving wrongly is the key to stopping these bad behaviors.

This is similar to the idea we discussed regarding anti-virus program awards.

Anyone at DC feel particularly motivated and qualified to start a new site to establish guidelines for such things and evaluate sites for good behavior? DC could provide the web space.
12957
Screenshot Captor / Re: Bug? Arrow Endpoint Text very slow
« Last post by mouser on August 25, 2011, 09:39 AM »
John,

I just managed to reproduce this.  It's definitely a bug, and it's definitely related to SC trying to anti-alias the text while you are editing it -- even when you tell it not to.  Seems that for some random reason sometimes high-quality anti-aliasing is being enabled during editing.

Working on a fix now.
12958
Find And Run Robot / Re: Cannot open item!
« Last post by mouser on August 25, 2011, 09:37 AM »
Try this option -- if it works i will try to make FARR smarter about launching unusual shortcuts directly:
Screenshot - 8_25_2011 , 9_35_53 AM.png
12959
Site/Forum Features / Re: Posting from Mobile View
« Last post by mouser on August 25, 2011, 09:23 AM »
phitsc, see also this thread about it: https://www.donation...ex.php?topic=19208.0

Something I noticed, and wanted to make sure I was reading this right:  I posted from the mobile view for the first time today, and there was a little phone beside the post topic where the rectangle normally is.  Does this happen whenever you post from the mobile view?

I think you might be right.
12960
General Software Discussion / Re: Cnet's Download.com and the installer scam
« Last post by mouser on August 25, 2011, 09:20 AM »
I have to disagree with you there Renegade.

Not having a having a prominent link to the program homepage is unacceptable for a download site.
12961
General Software Discussion / Re: Cnet's Download.com and the installer scam
« Last post by mouser on August 25, 2011, 08:16 AM »
After talking to a CNet editor, I'm a little more optimistic about CNet coming to their senses and realizing that they need to give author's a way to opt-out of this process for no charge.. Keep the pressure on folks.

In my opinion, if a software site offers a program for download, a link to the developer/author should be displayed prominently as one of the first links you see.

This really needs to be mandatory -- and not a link to some generic developer home page -- but a link to the PROGRAM home page.  This is something that should not be optional.  Any site not doing this is purposefully and unreasonably trying to make it hard for you to go get the latest original download and information about the program (probably in an ill-advised effort to avoid you "leaving" their site).
12962
General Software Discussion / Re: Cnet's Download.com and the installer scam
« Last post by mouser on August 25, 2011, 07:47 AM »
vlastimil -- Awesome page :up:

y0himba -- That's very interesting.  The one thing that would make Cnet reverse course faster than anything would be if this move started causing them to drop in rank on search results.  Here's a case where a policy of ethical search engine strategy could be used for good and not evil.. The problem is that the search engine companies are such behemoths that it's impossible to contact anyone at the companies who has the power to do something..

mahesh2k -- Actually I've only recently noticed that CNet software listing pages seem to not show links to the authors web pages, which is a separate battle we need to fight with them, since that's pretty outrageous on it's own.  Because of that, I'm not sure that CNet creates much traffic to DC from their normal software listing pages.  However, CNet seems to be sufficiently popular download site and users and editors review and rate our software on those pages.  And DC software tends to be quite highly regarded on those pages.  And the review ratings are shown as graphical stars and are ranked very high in (google) search engine results.  I think the ner effect of all this is that CNet pages are likely to have a positive effect in terms of people discovering our software.  That's more intuition than anything.  On the other hand, your point and vlastimil's very interesting early post where he suggested that the CNet pages could actually be competing for traffic *against* us are intriguing.
12963
Find And Run Robot / Re: Cannot open item!
« Last post by mouser on August 25, 2011, 07:46 AM »
See if there might be a space at the start or end of the filename.
12964
General Software Discussion / Re: Cnet's Download.com and the installer scam
« Last post by mouser on August 25, 2011, 12:24 AM »
I think at this point I would advise people *not* to remove their software from cnet *yet*.. But instead try to keep up the pressure on cnet to allow authors to disable this feature for their software, and make a final decision about what to do after we see how cnet responds to this criticism.  DC will push as for changes and try to highlight why the current situation is so unacceptable.
12965
Clipboard Help+Spell / Re: Feature request: Web clipping, permanent note keeping
« Last post by mouser on August 24, 2011, 11:24 PM »
As an aside: What I've said before is that I am always open to creating a *new* notetaking/pim tool, if someone could convince me that there is a real need for one that is highly specialized and focused on solving a narrow particular need/approach/workflow/personality.  There are some really good general purpose note tools out there that I have no interest in trying to compete with.  But if someone could come up with a streamlined focused idea for a lightweight notetaker with a specific point of view i'd bite.
12966
General Software Discussion / Re: Cnet's Download.com and the installer scam
« Last post by mouser on August 24, 2011, 08:20 PM »
That's a fantastic blog post Oshyan  :up: :up: :up:

Really it would be trivial for CNet to solve this problem simply by letting authors choose to not have this adware installer bundle injected into their software download, without trying to extort $99/month from the author for the privilege.

That would essentially resolve the issue completely.

And then if they were smart they would what you suggest, which is to offer this as an option and offer to share some of the revenue with the authors.
12967
General Software Discussion / Re: Cnet's Download.com and the installer scam
« Last post by mouser on August 24, 2011, 06:49 PM »
Everyone should try to let CNet know how much they are opposed to this policy and will boycott CNet until they fix this.  Write emails, post on websites --we need to let them know this is not ok.
12968
General Software Discussion / Re: Cnet's Download.com and the installer scam
« Last post by mouser on August 24, 2011, 05:27 PM »
We could probably easily write code for standard installers (inno, msi, nis) that detected when an install was launched through cnet installer and aborted the install and warned users to avoid/boycott cnet and told them why, and directed them to the original download site.

That's not a bad idea.
12969
That sounds quite interesting!
12970
Find And Run Robot / Re: Search in Ceneo.pl
« Last post by mouser on August 24, 2011, 03:18 PM »
congrats :)

you are now an elite FARR user  :up:
12971
Living Room / Re: Movies I Love to Listen To: Dialects and Accents
« Last post by mouser on August 24, 2011, 11:24 AM »
12972
General Software Discussion / Re: Cnet's Download.com and the installer scam
« Last post by mouser on August 24, 2011, 05:59 AM »
Over and over and over and over again we see this same basic model for websites to make their money:

  • First, the bait: the website is free for everyone and does provides tons of free information and writing, open to all equally and everyone is treated the same.
  • Often a major part of the content is generated by users contributing their own time.
  • Then after a reputation is built, and high placement on search engines is achieved.. time to pull the switch and make the money! Policies are changed to make money off of companies whose products are featured on the site, by offering to favor them over their free alternatives.
12973
General Software Discussion / Re: Cnet's Download.com and the installer scam
« Last post by mouser on August 24, 2011, 03:54 AM »
A quick note: for those who are reading this and considering emailing cnet to have their software removed -- you might want to think about it for a while and consider the pracitcal ramifications before you do so out of anger.   Cnet/Download.com is a very popular download site, and if you had good reviews on the site, the reviews show high up in google results with google showing the # of stars in the review, etc.  In other words, there may be a high price to be paid for removing your software from cnet/download.com, and for a site like DC where we depend on non-paid sites to let people know about our software. I'm embarrassed to say I'm already feeling pretty upset about the high price of having our software removed and wondering if i did the right thing.  :(
12974
General Software Discussion / Re: Cnet's Download.com and the installer scam
« Last post by mouser on August 24, 2011, 02:53 AM »
I wonder if this technique that cnet is pioneering is going to catch on.. It seems like just another example of free software increasingly being looked at as a great way for 3rd parties to make a profit off the work of others.
12975
General Software Discussion / Re: Cnet's Download.com and the installer scam
« Last post by mouser on August 24, 2011, 02:33 AM »
Here's the email address where the reply to my request came from:
CNET Upload <[email protected]>

Hopefully if enough authors complain cnet will reverse their policy OR it will become common knowledge that cnet is a bad place to go to look for software.
Pages: prev1 ... 514 515 516 517 518 [519] 520 521 522 523 524 ... 1515next