Recent Posts

5551

General Software Discussion / Re: Media Player Linux Distro Available?

« Last post by 4wd on June 10, 2008, 08:51 PM »

Limp OS

5552

General Software Discussion / Re: Comparison of Windows file copy replacement software

« Last post by 4wd on June 10, 2008, 07:37 PM »

There's also ExQueues Shell Queue which can be integrated into Windows Explorer and DOpus.

Also, for those interested in integrating TeraCopy with DOpus here's some info.

EDIT: Actually, ExQueues isn't quite the same as it allows queuing of almost any operation - oh well, almost got it right 

5553

General Software Discussion / Re: Wanted: Compare contents of two RAR archives as if they were directories

« Last post by 4wd on June 10, 2008, 07:18 PM »

Rather old, shareware and probably unable to handle newer RAR format: ArcDiff - which has a very lenient attitude towards trial period.

Or there's UltraCompare.

Mind you, if DOpus had an ARexx port I could whip you up something in about an hour   (Actually if Windows had any decent inter-process communications language, this would be a breeze.)

5554

General Software Discussion / Re: Standalone (no internet) baby program

« Last post by 4wd on June 10, 2008, 07:12 PM »

When you say "does some connection to the internet", this is rather vague.

Maybe it was the installer checking for an update, maybe the program itself checking for an update?

Did you try blocking it with your firewall, maybe it doesn't need an internet connection at all?

Email the author, ask them what it's doing - it can't be anything too dangerous since they've released the source code.

If you feel so inclined, the code is available at Codeplex, you could see what it's doing or compile your own standalone version.

5555

General Software Discussion / Re: What is the currently best Desktop Search software?

« Last post by 4wd on June 08, 2008, 10:32 PM »

My main problem with WDS is that it does not support thunderbird at all.

-kartal (June 07, 2008, 10:04 PM)

Thunderbird uses plain text to store emails, (mbox format), any decent search software that can do a text search within files will work.

5556

General Software Discussion / Re: What is the currently best Desktop Search software?

« Last post by 4wd on June 07, 2008, 08:19 AM »

That's because I use the original english spelling not the butchered, "americanized" version of the english language 

-4wd (June 06, 2008, 07:39 PM)

nice reply 4WD, but really, there's no need to get snobby about english/english spelling

-tomos (June 07, 2008, 02:34 AM)

Snobby?! Me?! Never?!

We Australians don't care about such things to become snobby 

5557

General Software Discussion / Re: What is the currently best Desktop Search software?

« Last post by 4wd on June 06, 2008, 07:39 PM »

EDIT: Please note I run an optimised version of XP -

-4wd (June 05, 2008, 10:12 PM)

- you don't seem to have the same conception of the word "optimized" as I have.

-Curt (June 06, 2008, 06:28 AM)

That's because I use the original english spelling not the butchered, "americanized" version of the english language 

From the Free Dictionary:

Verb   1.   optimise - make optimal; get the most out of; use best; "optimise your resources"

Note: I changed the spelling in the above to correct it

I'm getting the "most" and "best" out of my system by removing those parts of it which are not required for my normal day-to-day use of it.  eg. IE is not "required", OE is not "required", the "Indexing Service" is not required, ad-infinitum.

Hence the reason for the post-edit on my message.

Programs that run perfectly well on other machines will not run on yours, is not quite telling it is 'optimized'.

Programs are always highly dependent on the environment in which they are installed.  A program that works on one persons system could fail on anothers simply because there's another program installed which interacts in a conflicting manner.

Over the time I've run various "optimised" versions of XP, (over two years), I think I've come across only two programs which didn't work as they normally would - ScanFS is the second.  And there are always alternatives.

We do not all have the same meaning on this or that, but in general I would say that people who are buying a limousine are not expected to see how much they can remove from the car, are they. If they want the vehicle to move faster they don't usually rip off and throw out the seats, but are more tending to tune up the engine...

Car analogies are notoriously inaccurate but since you mention the one above I would classify my removing the useless, (to me), parts of XP as "tending to tune up the engine..."

My system works perfectly fine with all I've removed, indeed it works better than a stock install AFAIAC.  It is by no means optimised as far as I could take it, as I still have things like "IE core" installed for those programs that seem to think they need it.

The meaning of "optimise" is the same in every language, it is only the degree of optimisation which differs from person to person.

And, quite frankly, I would be hard pressed to think of anyone who could honestly say that Microsoft's products could not do with some really good optimisation.

EDIT: While I think of it, since you're the one who brought up these car analogies  :

but in general I would say that people who are buying a limousine are not expected to see how much they can remove from the car, are they.

You obviously don't watch Top Gear.  They bought a XJ-S Jaguar and removed everything unnecessary to it's primary operation, (which is basically getting the passengers from one point to another), to see how much faster it would go.  Guess what?  It went faster.

Guess what?  My "optimised" XP is more responsive and smoother in operation than in it's original "non-optimised" form.

5558

General Software Discussion / Re: MakeUsOf Blog Entry: Cool Tips to Put your Mouse Scroll Button to Work

« Last post by 4wd on June 05, 2008, 11:49 PM »

Let me just say that I wouldn't be alive today without that scroll wheel button....

Honestly, it's so much easier/faster to go prone in Joint Ops rather than having to find a key on the keyboard 

5559

General Software Discussion / Re: What is the currently best Desktop Search software?

« Last post by 4wd on June 05, 2008, 10:12 PM »

Would you guys mind give a try and compare it to others?

-kartal (June 05, 2008, 09:34 PM)

Just quickly:

1) Forces creation of a Desktop icon.
2) Doesn't allow you to choose where in the Start menu you want it.
3) Launch application at end of install generated "Corrupt dll" or "Missing dll" error.  Ran OK from icon.
4) Initial run generated another error - can't recall what it was, missing file or some such.
5) Was forced to use Taskmanager to kill it since closing the initial run of the program did nothing but cause Access Violations.

Successive executions didn't produce any start/close errors/faults, this is provided I didn't try to use the program.

5) Upon entering a search for *.jpg on D:\ it responded with "Unknown search Date mode" and then I had to use Taskmanager to kill it.

At this point I gave up and uninstalled it, deleted it, then formatted the drive to make damn sure it was gone.

6) The uninstaller has an option to delete the program settings but it was ghosted.
7) It also left directory C:\Program Files\Saleen Software with two files sitting in it.

EDIT: Please note I run an optimised version of XP - there are services and programs, (eg. IE), that do not exist on it.  As such, if this program relies on some esoteric service/program that is in a normal XP installation then it may well work - however it won't be seeing the light of day again on my system.

Another edit: Damn, just as I was writing the edit above you guys replied.

5560

General Software Discussion / Re: What is the currently best Desktop Search software?

« Last post by 4wd on June 05, 2008, 07:40 PM »

Hi Curt, I uninstalled FindOnClick just to see what you were on about:

5) During un-install I was asked this question I really hate to get:
>Remove shared file?<   
 (see attachment in previous post)

-Curt (June 05, 2008, 03:26 AM)

Please remember, this is a result of Windows' retarded method of program (un)installation tracking.  But, the SNU.dll is used by all the OnClick utilities - personally I'd rather be told that the file may no longer be in use rather than having it just left or deleted.

In a perfect world all software would be portable and you could just delete the directory it resides in.  The OS would pick up the changes and take action as appropriate, (remove shortcuts, context menus, etc), instead of relying on the abortion used by Microsoft, (ie. the registry).

EvenMoreEdited:

Also, the shortcut in Quick Launch was left behind. 

All shortcuts were removed on my machine, QuickLaunch and (non-default) Startup menu location.

Edit:
BTW, I thought I'd give SearchGT a go since everyone seems to like it, (Default install):

1) Doesn't integrate to DOpus - I don't use Explorer at all.
2) Context menu in DOpus takes you to results, (of which there are none), not to search dialog, (which is anti-intuitive IMO).

Result of the two above is that it takes more effort to use, ie. Start Menu->SearchGT->Search GT

3) Results of searching D: for *.jpg including sub-dirs, hidden and system folders (Default search options):

SearchGT       0.7s    424 files
FindOnClick     5.52s  29627 files   (FYI, Default Install - launched by context menu on the drive in a DOpus lister, type in *.jpg and hit search.)

Based on the results, I think I'll be sticking with FindOnClick - I have more chance of finding the file I want with the least effort.

If I wanted to be even lazier with FindOnClick, I could of gone to Expert search and just click 'Pictures and Photos' - 37081 files in 9.61s

4) I don't know if you've ever uninstalled SearchGT BUT the thing I really hate to see is:
    Please Restart your computer to complete uninstallation.

My results may be biased since I have got a license for OnClick Utilities, (that was essentially free), but I did state that up front.

Also BTW, thanks to rjbull for mentioning BareGrep - has now been added to my flashdrive 

5561

General Software Discussion / Re: What is the currently best Desktop Search software?

« Last post by 4wd on June 04, 2008, 08:12 PM »

I had a quick search of the topic but couldn't find it:

FindOnClick from 2BrightSparks, (the guys that brought you SyncBack).

After registering SyncBack using a recent DC discount, I happened to win a license for OnClick Utilities by filling in the survey - EXCELLENT!!  Two utils for the discounted price of one - best discount I ever got!

I used to use Locate32 and Index Your Files, the problem with both of these is they require you to index the drives - a pointless exercise AFAIAC.  If I'm searching for something, I want the result now not in a few minutes time.

Anyway, they're gone now, replaced by FindOnClick which seems ridiculously fast to me.

eg.

To search S: for *.jpg, (result 1362):
DOpus        17s
FindOnClick  0.81s

To search D: for *.jpg, (result 29627):
DOpus        78s
FindOnClick   7s

For the rare occasions I need to search for that elusive file I'll be using FindOnClick.

PS. Thank you DC for the discount 

5562

General Software Discussion / Re: webcam as mouse?

« Last post by 4wd on June 04, 2008, 07:07 PM »

And fresh in from left field, racing into center stage:

HeadMouse2

Remember boys and girls, when using Google it pays to think laterally

5563

General Software Discussion / Re: Software for use with scanner?

« Last post by 4wd on June 03, 2008, 06:35 PM »

FreeKapture - Save or Print, can't get much simpler.
FreeOCR - If you want to do a little OCR, requires .NET 2.0 - it can do other languages besides english.

If you want output to PDF just use one of the many free PDF printer drivers, eg.
BullZip
Go2PDF

Most software that accesses the scanner via the TWAIN drivers will require you to do a preview, however, once that preview is done you can usually just change documents and keep hitting the scan button, eg.
XNView - Scan a load, close the scanner window, then just save/print all the resultant images in XNView.

5564

General Software Discussion / Re: Dilemma - Free AVG8 - Buggy; Updates for Free AVG 7.5 ending May 08

« Last post by 4wd on May 17, 2008, 08:37 AM »

I like Avast.
It's better then AVG imo.

-cmpm (May 16, 2008, 09:49 AM)

I'm with you, I went to Avast from AVG.  AVG started giving too many false positives for my liking.

I tried the free AntiVir - should be classified as NagWare.  Opens an advert every time it does an update.

Tried the free Comodo AntiVirus also, not very up-to-date with definitions.  Same with ClamAV - good for my BartPE though.

No longer use Anti-Spyware, anti-rootkit, HIPS or anything similar - just ended up bogging the system down with a lot of programs that did nothing 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%, (round it up if that number's too long ) of the time.

A simple firewall tells me if something's trying to send when it shouldn't and I keep a fairly good track of what's running on the system.

Plus, using an nlite'ned XP install leaves a lot less things for virii/spyware to target, (eg. no IE/OE installed on my system and Firefox/Thunderbird are both portable versions).

5565

General Software Discussion / Re: Batch image resizing, dimensions fixed, quality dependant on eventual file size?

« Last post by 4wd on May 04, 2008, 07:03 PM »

Funny - my "target file size" isn't greyed out, but when I set it at 1000KB the results ranged from 440KB to 970KB  - maximum size perhaps?  I do have Quicktime as it happens (btw, I couldn't find the info about Quicktime and there seems to be no helpfile).

-suleika (May 04, 2008, 08:50 AM)

I also tried setting it at 1MB and had sizes ranging from 400-800kB.  So I ran one pic through at size constraint of 1024kB which resulted in a file ~630kB and then I ran the same pic through saving at 100% quality which resulted in a 1.40MB file, (both times set at a resize of 'short side=1000').

I then compared the two using BeyondCompare's picture comparison and found there was actually minimal differences between them.

I tried the above on different photo subjects and every time it resulted in only minimal differences between the two output files.

You don't get told about Quicktime unless you don't have it installed, (which I normally don't), then it opens an info window.  Doesn't say it needs it for the 'final size' output option though.

The help file is a PDF download from the author's WWW site PictureScaler User Guide.

I had another better google session and found some other resources - I've just tried JpegResizer - created a batch between 820KB and 1040 - that's pretty good.  I shall probably go for it. 

Link five in the Google search in my original post 

I'm sure there's probably a freeware alternative to these programs - just requires a little digging.

EDIT: Sourceforge is your second friend 

kf-jpeg-fitsize - Fit jpeg to a maximum filesize. Reduce jpeg quality to fit that file size.

Requires two more free programs to work, (it's actually a batch file which uses them), but the price is right - the images need to be resized first before running the batch file over them.

Another EDIT: DOH!  I just realised I already have a program on my computer that does this only it doesn't copy the EXIF info, (to expand: Analyzer copies EXIF data, however the Batch plugin loses it - I've just sent an email asking if he can implement it).
Image Analyzer with the Batch Plugin.  Image Analyzer is free, the unrestricted Batch Plugin is Donationware - donate what you like and you'll get the version that doesn't add a small watermark to your pics, (I donated ages ago to have the ability to DeSkew a lot of pics - still use it occasionally because it can handle maths expressions in the batch files).

eg. To scale and save as you were after, the batch file is, (could probably do a lot of tweaking for max image quality, etc):

SkipNextIf(Width>Height)
  goto(@ShortWidth)

SkipNextIf(Height<1001)
  Resize(round(1000*(Width/Height)),1000,Pixel)
goto(@SaveIt)

@ShortWidth
SkipNextIf(Width<1001)
  Resize(1000,round(1000*(Height/Width)),Pixel)

@SaveIt
SetJPEGQuality(100)
SetJPEGSizeLimit(1024000)

5566

General Software Discussion / Re: Batch image resizing, dimensions fixed, quality dependant on eventual file size?

« Last post by 4wd on May 03, 2008, 07:14 PM »

It's looking good - I shall give it a trial.  Thank you. 

Had a play with it, the resizing works however rotating is disabled in the trial and specifying a size for the final JPEG is ghosted - so I can only assume it's disabled in the trial version.

BTW, only just noticed the author only lives 20k or so from me.

EDIT: It requires Quicktime to be installed to do it's 'final size' thing, (I used QT Alt 1.77 that I had), and it seems to work quite well, all pics had a short side of 1000 and came in about 10k under the 200kB I specified as final size.

It imprints a www site link along the bottom of the longest side, (trial version) - reasonably unobtrusive depending on final pic size.

5567

General Software Discussion / Re: Batch image resizing, dimensions fixed, quality dependant on eventual file size?

« Last post by 4wd on May 03, 2008, 07:23 AM »

PictureScaler seems to have all the features you asked for.

Among them:

* Specify the new width or height of the images (even according to longest/shortest edge which is handy when you are scaling portrait and landscape images at the same time)
* Set the target file size when saving JPEGs

This seems to be their new WWW site.  Q-Technologies

Google is your friend 

5568

General Software Discussion / Re: batch create image contact sheet from videofiles?

« Last post by 4wd on April 19, 2008, 05:55 AM »

Does MPC Home Cinema have more controls?

-Nod5 (April 19, 2008, 04:08 AM)

The web interface displayed is the same as for MPC but as to whether the 'Save Thumbnails' is implemented within the interface you would need to look at the source code.

As you can see from this page MPC PHP Control, a code is sent to MPC to perform a specific action.

I've yet to find the definitive list of all codes that can be sent, guess I'll have to grab the source.

Personally, I'd prefer to have to enable the web interface for a program such as yours to work, rather than have to not touch the mouse or keyboard while it's working - that just seems counter-productive to me.

eg. I could give your program a batch of files to do and then go back to something serious like online gaming 

5569

General Software Discussion / Re: batch create image contact sheet from videofiles?

« Last post by 4wd on April 18, 2008, 08:37 PM »

Perhaps I should have said Web Interface MPC Web Interface

This is all referring to MPC Home Cinema but I don't believe it's web interface is any different to MPC.

Open up MPC, go to View->Options->Player/Web Interface.

Enable: Listen on port: 13579   (Default I think)
           Enable compression
           Allow access from localhost only

The rest should be pretty much default.

Then click the link that says "Launch in web browser..."

Once the page opens in the browser, click the link "The media player interface made by chobits".

That will show you exactly what you can control via the web interface - pretty much everything.

5570

General Software Discussion / Re: Download Demons...

« Last post by 4wd on April 18, 2008, 01:57 AM »

I use Download Mage

-wraith808 (April 02, 2008, 09:54 PM)

I also registered this ages ago, (and of course after that development seemed to stop), I liked its "Sticky Notes" for an easy way to see what was happening.

Nowadays, I just use Firefox's builtin downloader, (via Download StatusBar), or if there's something I need to download overnight and I want it to just work, I use WellGet, (also seems to be abandoned).

Has a few good features (bandwidth control, drop icon, builtin player to play streaming file, etc) and doesn't require installation (just extract to a directory - keep it on your Flash drive).

You can get the last available version at SoftPedia: WellGet 1.25 build 0118

5571

General Software Discussion / Re: batch create image contact sheet from videofiles?

« Last post by 4wd on April 18, 2008, 12:48 AM »

Media Player Classic
http://sourceforge.n...projects/guliverkli/

-Nod5 (February 27, 2007, 05:16 AM)

You might like to check out this version of MPC: MPC Home Cinema

V1.1.0.0 adds the following:

New features :
    * Custom presenter now support DXVA2, and display hardware acceleration mode in Jitter test information.
    * Internal video decoder based on ffmpeg for Flash video (FLV4, VP5, VP6), AMV, Mpeg4, SVQ3(1), Theora, VC-1, XVID, and DivX
    * Internal video decoder H.264 with DXVA 1 acceleration (using VMR9 or overlay on XP) and DXVA2 (using EVR on Vista).

It also has a few more options and bugfixes over the normal MPC.

@nod5: Just as a matter of interest, why do you use mouse/keypresses to interact with MPC in your program?
MPC has rather extensive HTML control, wouldn't it be more efficient and user-friendly, (the user would be able to do other things while it's working), to use that?

EDIT: Changed MPC HC link to Sourceforge page.

5572

General Software Discussion / Re: mount an image from context menu

« Last post by 4wd on April 02, 2008, 10:49 PM »

If you're only interested in mounting ISOs, I use Pismo File Mount Audit Package pretty much all the time, (instead of my registered DaemonTools).

It's faster, doesn't require setting up virtual drives and also integrates into Explorer.

5573

General Software Discussion / Re: Firefox Portable vs Regular Firefox

« Last post by 4wd on March 24, 2008, 12:23 AM »

I only use Portable Firefox, it's the only browser on my system (IE has been removed via nlite).

It's located on my data partition, so I don't have to reinstall it after a Windows reinstall.

I can just copy the whole directory to a flash/external and then use/copy it on/to another computer.

The only things that work different are:

1) any programs that expect to find a browser to set bookmarks will probably fail, (if it's the only browser - a good thing AFAIAC).
2) anything that hooks into Firefox normally, (eg. download managers ala Orbit), won't - you'll need to monitor the Clipboard or copy the relevant dll to the proper directory.
3) that's about it I think.

Personally, I try to use programs that keep all their settings in their local directory, (hangover from the old Amiga days).

Currently I'm using v3 beta 3.

5574

General Software Discussion / Re: Searching encrypted archives

« Last post by 4wd on February 28, 2008, 04:22 AM »

And then I realized that many indexer don't even index the file names in encryted archives, even if the file name itself is not encrypted. ie : Archivarius wouldn't index the unencrypted filenames of encrypted archives. I didn't examine too many options before finally trying winRAR's "find" feature. Beautiful. Worked like charm and found my file in a sept. 2006 archive. Took maybe 15s.

Which other solution do/would you use/recommend for such a task?

-Armando (February 27, 2008, 09:30 PM)

DiscLib can list filenames inside encrypted archives, (at least it seems to for ZIP and RAR), best of all - it's free.

I use it for cataloging backup CD/DVDs, have a look at it here: http://www.lyrasoftw...m//content/view/3/8/

5575

General Software Discussion / Re: Are Windows Dynamic Disks Reliable?

« Last post by 4wd on February 27, 2008, 12:14 AM »

Anyway, the RAID MIRROR is crucial for my fileserver, since that's where I store the backups (yeah, I do have manual backups of a lot of stuff, I still need an automated scheme though ).

-f0dder (February 26, 2008, 05:28 AM)

How about SyncBackSE, (since DC have a discount in place at the moment) persuaded me to upgrade from the free version