topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

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

Login with username, password and session length
  • Wednesday November 19, 2025, 11:37 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 ... 115 116 117 118 119 [120] 121 122 123 124 125 ... 131next
2976
Living Room / Re: Internet Explorer 7 Beta 3 - nothing but problems
« Last post by Josh on July 30, 2006, 06:53 PM »
Do those of you suffering from "CTFMON" Anxiety have office installed as well?
2977
Mini-Reviews by Members / Re: Template for users wishing to write a mini-review
« Last post by Josh on July 30, 2006, 02:18 PM »
Added those to the template. Moved "What does it cost" section to the basic info section.
2978
Mini-Reviews by Members / Re: Template for users wishing to write a mini-review
« Last post by Josh on July 30, 2006, 12:41 PM »
Added to the template. Any other suggestions?
2979
Yeah, thats one thing I look for in any software I use. If its not under current development or had a release in a while, I tend to stay clear as I like software that has the potential of being improved or fixed in the case of a bug.

Looks good none-the-less, trying it out now. Perhaps someone from dc should take over development ;-)
2980
General Software Discussion / Re: WINRAR free this sunday 30th July 2006
« Last post by Josh on July 30, 2006, 11:48 AM »
Just got my link! Cool!
2981
Is this still in development? The latest release was in 02 :-/
2982
General Software Discussion / Re: WINRAR free this sunday 30th July 2006
« Last post by Josh on July 30, 2006, 11:36 AM »
How can I add support for 7z archives to my application?

One way is to use the 7za.dll (available from sf.net for download). The 7za.dll works via COM interfaces. It, however, doesn't use standard COM interfaces for creating objects. You can find a small example in the source code. A full example is 7-Zip itself, since 7-Zip works via this dll also. There are other applications that use 7za.dll such as WinRAR, PowerArchiver and others.

The other way is to call the command line version: 7za.exe.
-7zip.org

Also, according to this page you can use 7zip without royalty, however, if you modify the 7zip dll source, you have to make the source available to the public. Many applications are using 7za.dll (provided freely by 7zip) and arent paying a royalty. Winrar can add 7zip creation if they wanted without royalty.
2983
General Software Discussion / Re: WINRAR free this sunday 30th July 2006
« Last post by Josh on July 30, 2006, 10:38 AM »
Yes, its posted all over the internet. Its not a DC exclusive thing
2984
Mini-Reviews by Members / Re: Template for users wishing to write a mini-review
« Last post by Josh on July 30, 2006, 09:37 AM »
I think that goes beyond a mini-review, but what do you all think? A mini-review, to my understanding, covers the specific product and its features. In a review, you cover other products. I have no problem adding it thou if the masses agree :)
2985
Mini-Reviews by Members / Re: Template for users wishing to write a mini-review
« Last post by Josh on July 30, 2006, 08:52 AM »
Updated template. Ram usage is one I think should be left off simply because it varies from system to system.

The license type is already covered under the "What does it cost" section. Any other thoughts?
2986
Good job!
2987
General Software Discussion / Re: WINRAR free this sunday 30th July 2006
« Last post by Josh on July 29, 2006, 08:52 PM »
The only problem with rar is that winrar is the only one that can compress it. rarlabs uncooly charges people to utilize its format. You can decompress it all you want, but try and compress to it, and you will get charged royalties. So, I tend to find it unfair when people compare winrar to other archivers when the makers of winrar make it so that only winrar can compress rar.
2988
Mini-Reviews by Members / Template for users wishing to write a mini-review
« Last post by Josh on July 29, 2006, 04:42 PM »
After discussing with our fearless leader, I have come up with the idea of generating a template for the users here at dc to utilize when posting a mini-review.

I wanted to get feedback for my idea and see how you all would modify it. Once a layout is agreed upon, we will make it available for download for users of this site.

Now, here is my intended layout

Basic Info

App NameName of app reviewed
App URLLink to the app's homepage
App Version ReviewedVersion being reviewed
Test System SpecsSpecs of the test system here done in a quote block
Supported OSesOSes the product supports
Support MethodsList methods of obtaining product support here (i.e., forum, email, phone, etc)
Upgrade PolicyPolicy for upgrades. If pay per upgrade, put price here for upgrades
Trial Version Available?List if a trial version of the app is available. If so, list its limitations
Pricing SchemeList the price of any different versions of the applications (Pro, Enterprise, Standard, etc)
Author Donation LinkIf a DC member, include their link to donate to them. If a third party site which supports donations, include the link here. If not applicable, leave out
If this is a dc member, post the donation link in the format similar to this Donate to App103, the Author
Screencast Video URLIf there is a demo or screencast of the app somewhere, post the url here. If there is a DC Screencast, post the link here.


SCREENSHOT OF APP INTERFACE HERE

Intro:

Introduction to the app, what does it do, history, etc


Who is this app designed for:

List here who the app would be intended to be used by including what it can help you do better or do easier, etc.


The Good


Insert your praises of the app here including the features you find useful.


The needs improvement section


What is wrong with the app in its current state (the version being reviewed). Include bugs that might deter would-be users, any annoyances, etc.


Why I think you should use this product


Exactly that, explain why you think the product is useful and why the average user should use it. Remember, this is subjective to the reviewer and other opinions will be displayed regarding your opinion after the test is complete.


How does it compare to similar apps

Self-explanatory. How does it compare to other apps in this category.


Conclusions

A brief summary of the app being reviewed. Any sort of rating you wish to give the app and a general view of the app.


Links to other reviews of this application

Just that, list links to other reviews of this app found on other websites.

This is my idea, what do you think?
2989
General Software Discussion / Re: The Best Browser? With Roboform?
« Last post by Josh on July 29, 2006, 04:20 PM »
Honestly, opera would be perfect if it allowed roboform, but it does not. However, for the best browser with roboform, I have to say maxthon. Firefox is nice and works with roboform, but half of the dialog based authentication methods do not work. Also, some sites are not filled properly due to bugs in the gecko engine. So, as I said, maxthon is the best browser or browser shell to use with roboform, if you ask me :)
2990
Living Room / Re: filedestructor - a purposeful file corruption tool..
« Last post by Josh on July 29, 2006, 11:22 AM »
Couldnt one just open the file in notepad, insert a few garbage characters at random spots and then save the file?
2991
Living Room / Re: Demotivational Posters
« Last post by Josh on July 28, 2006, 06:50 PM »
Those are awesome, I am buying some now for my unit!
2992
Official Announcements / Re: The countdown.
« Last post by Josh on July 27, 2006, 07:25 PM »
nope, wasnt talking about that, was talking about our being online 500 days
2993
Living Room / Re: What are your best working hours?
« Last post by Josh on July 27, 2006, 04:01 PM »
6AM-6PM.
2994
Still, you're slipping into nagware, even with a survey. The survey is a good idea for everyone, especially if it is short and offers at least one open-ended response. But I'd only employ surveys after major versions are released. You'll just have to filter for the expected sarcastic response of why you did not donate: "Because I don't like being told to do something."

I think your goal is a noble one — defining what constitutes and separates donationware from everything else. The software industry needs a working definition. But in the end it must be kept simple; something that can be written in one line, such as:
          — Shareware — Software that you can try before you buy.
          — Freeware - Software on the web that is freely available (but retains a copyright).
          — Open Source - A program in which the source code is available to the general public for use and/or modification from its original design free of charge.

          — Donationware - Distributed as freeware, donationware encourages (but does not require) the user to donate in order to register and support the software.

Yes, donation's should not be forced or it loses all meaning. A forced donation is basically shareware with a new name tagged on to it. I agree with zaine on the surveys with one exception. The survey should be a ONE TIME thing to obtain a license key that does not have to be renewed. If you require the user to complete the survey after each major version, you are still getting into nagware, despite the scale that it is being used on.
2995
I would be completely supportive of that for a definition of donationware and a use to get a license key. Because, as I stated above, requiring an email address to be entered so that the user can get a reply with more pressure for them to donate or giving more reasons why, it more of a nag than it would be helpful in getting them to donate as, at a guess, a bit over 50% of users wouldnt have any intention of donating anyways.
2996
Well, I would ONLY be in support of email being allowed IF, and ONLY IF, it is not used as a way to try and pressure the user into donating. A simple reply email with a license key would be the only response I would expect/want. Otherwise, I will have to stick with my original argument.
2997
users must either:
1) make a donation (of any amount)
2) submit some email or private form saying why they can't or won't, as an exception to this rule.

If option 2 is selected, I do think it should be an ANONYMOUS form where the user isnt required to submit contact info. Requiring an email is only, in my understanding, giving the author a way to respond with more reasons as to why they should donate. This could lean towards being annoying as the user might not have any intent on donating, and providing an email address for the author to reply to would constitute as an annoyance (Nag). So in essence, the form should be anonymous, and linked to a page that generates a license key so that contact info is not required.

I do agree with a survey feature thou, to get a key. As long as it doesnt REQUIRE contact info to obtain a key (allowing the author to attempt to get a donation out of the user again).
2998
i go for a donating is mandatory - it's in the title after all - but there is no limit to how small (or large) a donation can be. it is the act of donating that is important, even if it's as low as 1 cent/pence/yourcurrencyhere.

Making donations MANDATORY sorta defeats the purpose doesnt it? I mean, why not just make it shareware where the user pays what they feel? Donations have always been, and should be, a voluntary thing, in my opinion.

if someone really cannot make a donation they can show their appreciation by composing an email stating why they can't - this would take longer than making an actual donation and would require a greater involvement from the person making the request so that seems like a fair trade off to me.

Why should anyone have to explain why? I mean, forcing users to tell why they can't donate is requiring them to get into their personal lives. What if someone really is poor, I dont think that forcing them to say "I am poor" is a good thing to do.

let the software (or whatever it is) be obtainable for free, but only for a limited time period. let the software prompt them towards the end of the 'free' period that they will be required to make a donation within a few days/weeks for the software to continue working and then no one can complain about being conned.

Again, this makes it sound like shareware. Shareware is only available for a certain amount of time, after which you have to pay. Even if the user decides the amount, I think this defeats the purpose of Donating.
2999
In an attempt to be more specific about this term, the following activities would be considered overly annoying and prohibitive:
1) showing a nag which is removed only on donating.
2) requiring a donation to unlock certain features.
3) showing ads inside the software which are removed only on donating.

With the three things listed here, I agree completely, those are NO-NO's in the donationware industry.

However, such software may reasonably do the following:
1) Require the person to sign up to receive the full version, or a license key or download (no email collected may be used for spamming purposes!)
2) Require the person to declare that they have considered donating and decided not to.
3) Require the person to return to download a new version or license key occasionally (no more frequently than once every 6 months)
-mouser

Option 1 is fine, as long as you dont get into the point of nagging like "Are you sure you dont wish to donate", etc.

Option 2, I dont like this idea. Requiring a user state "I do not want to donate" is like forcing them to say "I am too cheap to donate". While this may not be the case in all instances, alot of users never have any intent on donating and requiring them to post to this effect can alienate them because they might not want to post and appear "cheap". Like I said, this isnt always the case, but you do get your users who never have an intent on donating.

Option 3, I believe that once a license is obtained it should be permanent. Requiring the user to acquire a new license, in my opinion, is like using a nag screen "Since you didnt donate, come here and get another license key". Granted, you may only do it once, it can still be considered a nag.

Other issues worth considering:

Should donationware2.0 specify that an author should make all of their software available as a bundle when a user donates?
Should it say that the author can charge for commercial/non-personal/home use? (i would favor this i think)
Should it be able to say that a donation is mandatory, but user can choose the amount, or else indicate that they cannot donate for some real reason?
-mouser

If the software is all offered through one site or portal, then yes, one license key should be used for all products on that site. Otherwise, it gets tedious and can detract from the user deciding to obtain further keys. On note 2, the author should have every right to charge for a more "Feature filled" or a commercial version of the application. Home use/personal use should remain free after all, isnt this the point of donationware? to be free for personal use yet ask for a small donation if you like the work? Donations should NOT be mandatory, that is still requiring the user to pay for the software. Yes, the user can choose the amount, but if its required, some users will likely go elsewhere to find the software they need.

Anyways, thats my thoughts.
3000
Living Room / Re: GOLDEN Mermaid Found DEAD on Lonely Florida Beach
« Last post by Josh on July 26, 2006, 05:45 PM »
I dont know, but from the pictures, I'd say fake.
Pages: prev1 ... 115 116 117 118 119 [120] 121 122 123 124 125 ... 131next