topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

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

Login with username, password and session length
  • Tuesday November 11, 2025, 7:29 pm
  • 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 ... 224 225 226 227 228 [229] 230 231 232 233 234 ... 252next
5701
General Software Discussion / Re: Desktop Search for network files?
« Last post by superboyac on April 12, 2007, 06:07 PM »
Thanks, I'll try Google Desktop.  You know, I've never really liked the big name desktop search programs.  The best one I've tried recently is the one called Archivarius, which has a mini-review here at DC.

As far as adding notes to files, it won't happen here.  The secretaries are the ones writing the memos and the file-naming system was established a long time ago (really lame system).  I doubt too many people are even aware of file-indexing programs, but I needed one because I lost one of my memos.  I try to not let people here notice how much I've customized my computer work, or else they'd think I was extremely OCD and anal.
5702
General Software Discussion / Desktop Search for network files?
« Last post by superboyac on April 12, 2007, 12:31 PM »
I'm looking for something like an x1 desktop search, but that will allow me to index network files also.  I downloaded the now free version of x1, but it won't allow network files to be indexed.  I seem to remember someone here suggesting a program that started with "A" that was an interesting desktop search software, but it had not been developed for a while.

Anyway, please let me know.  Here's the application:  on our network at work, there is a drive that has a bunch of memo's (Word files) and the filenames are just numbers, so I need to be able to search the content of the documents if I am to find anything.  Thanks.
5703
General Software Discussion / Re: Directory Opus 9
« Last post by superboyac on April 12, 2007, 12:04 PM »
I'm at work, and I can't view that preview because the address has nude in it.  The filter here blocks it as containing pornographic content.

 >:(

Well, depending on how much you like DOpus, it's almost as exciting as porn, so maybe you should wait until you go home to read it!
5704
General Software Discussion / Re: Directory Opus 9
« Last post by superboyac on April 12, 2007, 11:31 AM »
Wow!  Did you guys check out nudel's preview of the new v9?  It's freakin amazing.  Expensive or not, this program is crazy!
http://nudel.dopus.com/opus9/

Dopus is the shiznit!
5705
General Software Discussion / Re: Directory Opus 9
« Last post by superboyac on April 12, 2007, 11:16 AM »
Yeah, DOpus' one "negative" has always been their pricing.  But, damn, if it isn't one of the finest pieces of software ass around.  Darwin's right, even though they are giving us a somewhat nice 40% discount for the upgrade, the original price is so expensive in the first place, that the upgrade fee alone is still more than the regular price of other software.  Oh well, as long as the quality of the software remains excellent, then it's ok I guess.
5706
well, right now I'm in foobar heaven. It took me 2-3 days of struggling, but I'm impressed. bye MM, xmplay for now...
Oh yeah!  I switched to foobar last year also.  What a pain in the ass program it is to customize the way you want it.  But once you figure it out, it's great.  I hate their forum with a passion.  Not the content, but finding anything in there is a nightmare.  Foobar's forum made me appreciate how beautifully done this DC forum is.
5707
Yes, it would be nice to hear from the software authors.  Of course, the collectorz authors have a pretty active forum of their own.

Even though this thread has changed from it's original intent, I think we are still keeping it relevant to the title question, "Why is it so hard to find a decent image organizer?".  The reason why it's so hard, is because there are so many programs out there and a lot of them are very good at one thing or another, and it's very difficult to find the specific combination of features you are looking for.  What I'm finding out now, after doing a few reviews here, is how difficult it is to review almost any kind of software.  There are a lot of half-ass reviews around, but it is extremely difficult to do a nice comprehensive review of anything.  You almost can't say anything is the best; everything needs to be qualified to some extent.
5708
This is becoming an interesting thread.

So, which software seems to be better as a cataloger?  To me, it seems like several people here have gravitated towards ExifPro and Photo Collector, and the primary reason for this seems to be the speed of the two applications.  I know that the OP, MrCrispy, had started this thread with other very specific features in mind, but it seems like speed is really the key factor here.

I haven't tested either program in detail yet, but from a first glance it seems like ExifPro has more options and customizeability than Photo Collector.  On the other hand, I think PC might have more powerful organizational tools, just based on my familiarity with collectorz software.  As a viewer, I think ExifPro is the better program, I don't think PC is meant to be used as a viewer.

Right now, I use ACDSee as my viewer, as I'm sure a lot of people do.  I don't use anything for an image organizer or cataloger, however.  I can see myself replacing ACDSee with ExifPro as my primary viewer, but I don't know about cataloging.  I guess that is the ultimate question in this thread; which is the better cataloging software?
5709
Wow, exifPro IS fast!  That's pretty cool.  I don't know how much it will slow down once it has thousands of pictures, but it's definitely faster than any other application I've tried.  It seems to have a lot of nifty features also, at first glance.  Perhaps this will pry me away from ACDSee, as far as my main viewer (as tomos suggested).  MrCrispy is still probably going to want several specific features, but this is a nice surprise so far.

I really liked Lightroom when I tried it, but boy, was it slow!
5710
Living Room / Re: Recommendations for good external hard drive solutions?
« Last post by superboyac on April 02, 2007, 12:55 PM »
I wonder about Seagate's Barracuda drives - they are very nice drives (quick and quiet) but I can't help wondering about the temperatures they reach. It is great having quiet drives but they seem to acheive this by insulating them so that the sound can't get out - unfortunately this means the heat can't either.

So, I just bought two Seagate 500GB drives from fry's this weekend ($120 each!).  Carol is right, the drives get hot!  Not just warm, but like "ouch" hot.  I did a little reading online, and apparently the hot temperatures are well within the operating temperature of the drive, so that's good.  Besides, I do have that 5 year warranty.  Of course, there's the issue of data recovery, which I'm taking care of by backing stuff up (which will be the topic of my next blog).

On a related note, I was at Vegas last week for business, and at one of the expos, there was a Seagate booth, and I had a nice talk with one of their guys.  They have a line of drives (7200.2, 7200.3) which was strange because the newest consumer line is 7200.10.  I didn't really get a good answer on why they named it such, but it sounded like some internal marketing disputes.  Anyway, the .2 and .3 lines aren't advertised or sold in retail stores like the 7200.10 lines, but they are the same drives with modifications done to reduce noise, heat, and be more efficient.  They are for applications like data storage (video, audio) where speed isn't such a big issue, so they are designed to be quieter and cooler.  Anyway, I would've bought them if the 7200.10 weren't so cheap at Fry's.

PS I saw a server rack that had 42 hard drives in it (all in the space of about 3 or 4 RU's).  It had a fan blowing over it like a freakin jet engine!
5711
Living Room / SuperboyAC's DC blog #3 (My Unique Data Backup Solution)
« Last post by superboyac on March 30, 2007, 06:32 PM »
Backing Up My Data
A "Unique" Solution

smoking_computer.gif


We all know that it's vital to back up our important data, but how many of us actually do it diligently?  It's easy when the amount of data you have can fit on a disk, cd, dvd, etc., but once you get into much larger sizes, backing up becomes much more complicated, much more of a nuisance, and the average person just will not have the proper motivation to do it--especially if it's only personal data and not work related or something.

As hardcore as I am with computers, I fell into this lackadaisical mindset.  Unfortunately, I had all of my data on the dreaded IBM 80 GB Deskstar (aka "DeathStar") drive.  The drive died mechanically and I lost all my data.  I couldn't afford the expensive data recovery services (who can?), so that was it.  I vowed to take backing up seriously from that point on.  It took 2 years, but I finally came up with a solution that I feel is great for my situation, and hopefully it will help others here.

The reason why I call this a "unique" solution is because that's what a random guy told me at Fry's when I was talking to him about it.  This is not the traditional backup solution that gets talked about a lot (images, raid arrays, external drives, etc.).  There are many reasons why I chose this solution:


  • I have a relatively old computer (early 2002).  It's not RAID ready, and the motherboard doesn't have a SATA connection.  I built the computer myself, and it's nowhere near its last legs, and can still do everything I need.  So, I'm not really ready to buy a new computer or build a new one.  Besides, getting a new computer is a big ordeal for me (personal computer, not for work) and I don't even want to deal with that right now.

  • Cost.  I want to keep the cost of all of this pretty low, like around $400.  Even if I wanted to buy a new computer, it would cost a lot more than that.  Of course, I don't want to sacrifice quality either, so I won't be spending money on gimmicks.

  • I don't want an external hard drive or enclosure.  I just plain don't like them.  I can't even say that I have a good reason for not liking them, because I know they work perfectly fine.  First, I don't want another thing hanging off my computer.  Second, I feel much more secure having a hard drive plugged directly into the motherboard, there's something satisfying about all that.  I barely ever have the need to take my hard drive anywhere, so I don't need the portability.  Third, I've never liked USB and I don't have Firewire (nor do I want to buy an adapter), and I don't really like firewire either.  Having said all this, for a while, I was considering getting one of those enclosures that has all the connections on it, like, usb, firewire, and esata.  But, I decided against it.

  • I didn't want an image of my data or anything like RAID mirroring.  I simply wanted the files backed up on a separate drive.  That way, I can take that drive out of the computer and take it anywhere else, and those files will still be accessible without having to do anything else.  I struggled with this one for a while going back and forth between just backing up files, to imaging, to doing incremental backups with software, etc.  In the end, I just kept it simple.


Anyway, since I was very picky and indecisive, it took me forever to make up my mind.  I even started several threads here at DC asking about various things related to this, check them out:


OK, enough suspense, I will get on with the show!




Description
I have about 300 GB of data I want to have backed up.  They are currently stored on two separate hard drives (Western Digital 120 GB, and a 300 GB Seagate, both PATA, if you must know).  The 300 GB Seagate is the drive that replaced the 80 GB DeathStar I had previously (this is interesting for a reason which you'll find out later).  I keep all my storage files (music, documents, etc.) on the Seagate drive.  On the WD drive is my OS and some storage files on a separate partition, some of which eventually get moved to the Seagate (my methods are complicated).

I decided I needed a 500 GB drive to back everything up and still leave some room for future space.  However, I wasn't going to get just one drive, but rather, TWO new ones.  This is not for RAID or anything.  One drive I would leave in my computer that would back up my data regulary (weekly) and the other drive I would keep in a separate location (my parent's house) and that would get backed up monthly.  This system should be more or less foolproof.  The chances of all 3 locations being destroyed simultaneously is very slim (I hope I didn't just jinx myself!).  I say three locations because of:
  • The original data on the two old PATA drives.
  • Each new 500 GB will backup (mirror, in a sense) the above drives.  So, they are essentially the same.  Except one is in a physically different location.
  • That's 3 locations of identical data.  That's pretty good.

So, that's essentially the whole solution right there.  It's not terribly groundbreaking or anything, but few people do it this way.  Most people are either very commercial about it (RAID drives, tape backup, backup/imaging software) or very simplistic (external hard drive).  I find this to be a happy medium between the two.

>>Rambling Anectode Alert<<
Back to that guy at Fry's who called this "unique".  He was obviously a knowledgeable computer guy and he was trying to give me advice (not knowing that I had thought this through for months).  I was wondering out loud whether it was time for a new computer when I needed to get a SATA adapter for my motherboard, and I wanted SATA II, but those only came in PCI-Xpress cards, whereas my motherboard only had regular PCI slots.  The guy told me, "It's time, just do it".  Then he listened to what I was doing and he said to just get an external drive.  Then we went back and forth in what I would describe as a polite argument with some mild tension.  Eventually, he said, "Well, it seems like you've come up with a unique solution."  I mean, we talked about everything: my somewhat irrational dislike of USB/Firewire; how to transport/handle a drive between different physical locations; warranties of external drives vs. internal drives.  He was just trying to help, but I think it was a frustrating experience for him, and if he's reading this, I apologize.


What I Needed To Buy (in detail)
Hard Drives:
The most important item here is the hard drive to get.  But which one?  Oh, I struggled with this for a while.  As I asked around, everyone had vastly different opinions on which drives were better.  Bottom line is that it's ultimately a crap shoot; there is no right answer.  I decided that the most important consideration here by far was the drive's warranty.  How come?  Well, since my data is being backed up in 3 locations, I'm not really in danger of losing the data, so that takes reliability of of the equation.  You see, I'm not relying on the hard drive's quality, but instead I am relying on physical redundancy.  With reliability out of the way, that only leaves issues like warranty, temperature, noise level, speed, etc.  I only care about warranty, because I'm not doing anything too intense with the drive and I don't care about anything except my files.  With Seagate offering 5-year warranties on all their drives, that pretty much made up my mind.  Western Digital also has 5-year warranties on some of theirs, but Seagate is more available and offers it on ALL of their drives.  So, I waited for months for Seagate's 7200.10 500 GB drives to go on sale (tracking it using Website-Watcher).  They finally did at both Fry's (not really; see end of this article) and Newegg (with a $10 Ben's Bargains coupon), and I got them.
PICT0031_resize.JPG

SATA Adapter:
The other thing I needed was a PCI SATA adapter for my motherboard, since it wasn't SATA ready.  I got one at Fry's for about $30 (SIIG brand).  By the way, I found out that for PCI, only SATA I (1.5 GB/s) is available and not SATA II (3 GB/s).  No big deal.  Why didn't I get PATA?  Well, for one thing, if I'm going to get something new, I might as well get the most modern incarnation possible for future use.  Secondly, I heard you can hot-swap a SATA drive (actually, I'm too paranoid to remove/insert a hard drive while the computer is still on, but just in case I get over that, I hear it's possible).  Thirdly, I already have two PATA drives in my computer, along with two DVD drives and you can only have a maximum of 4 IDE devices.  I don't need both DVD drives (a burner and an older reader) so I will take one of them out anyway to free up a 5-1/4" slot.  Most of all, I hate that big-ass PATA cable.  nv_tasmy.jpg

Removable Hard Drive Bay:
The next thing I got was the icing on the cake; the i-Rack QuickSwap SATA drive mount, from CoolDrives (made by CoolGear).  This thing is so cool.  You can basically slip your bare drive in and out as if it were a floppy disk!  I love that so much.  No more tray's or whatever other mobile racks use.  Check it out:
mobilerack.gif

Synchronization Software:
The last thing I needed was a program to synchronize my files (remember, NOT backup or image, just synchronize).  The best tool for this is DirSync.  I discovered DirSync right here at DC; zridling is pretty big on it as a synchronization tool.  It's highly configurable and according to zridling, very accurate.
dirsync_main_800.gif

So that's it.  The whole thing cost me under $400.  It's not cheap, but my data is worth much, much more than that to me.  Also, any other solution as robust as this would cost significantly more (tape backup, RAID array).  And always remember, "RAID is not an alternative to backing up!"  I still don't understand why people say that.  If anyone can explain it, I'd appreciate it.

Here's a summary:
Two Seagate SATA 500 GB hard drives$290 ($145 x 2)
PCI SATA I adapter$30
i-Rack QuickSwap$40 ($30 + $10 shipping)
DirSync software$25
TOTAL
$385



Installation and Subsequent Issues
So, now that I have all the hardware I need, installation should be a breeze, right?  Normally, this would be the case, but what an ordeal this turned out to be.

First thing I had to do was remove my old DVD reader to free up a 5-1/4" slot, since I now have a DVD burner.  That was easy enough, and it was also very easy to install the i-Rack Quickswap Bay into the slot.  Then I used up the very last PCI slot remaining in my computer (another sign that I may need a new computer soon!) for the SATA adapter.  I connected the SATA bay to the adapter, and I was ready to go.  Next, I opened one of the Seagate drives from it's retail kit package and slid it into the new bay.  I was now ready to start backing up my data.

PICT0029_resize.JPG PICT0030_resize.JPG PICT0032_resize.JPG
PICT0038_resize.JPG PICT0037_resize.JPG PICT0039_resize.JPG

I started Windows and everything was fine (it takes a little longer to boot while the SATA adpater does something).  I formatted the drive with NTFS using Windows default administration tools.  I set up DirSync to transfer the information over and after double-checking several times, I started the process.  It took a while (a few hours?) but when it was done, it was all very good.  I checked to see if the data was properly backed up and everything.  I was happy, and took a couple of hours off for good behavior.  I came back to the computer to do some other stuff, was browsing the internet, and, BAM, everything freezes on the screen.  I couldn't do anything, I couldn't even reboot or type, move the mouse...nothing.  I thought, "No big deal, the computer just crashed."  When I restarted, the BIOS would not recognize my old Seagate 300 GB storage drive.  It was gone.  That was a disaster.  I was so freaked out and devastated that I had to go on my bed and just lie down for a minute.  You see, I had forgotten that I had just backed up all the data only hours before!  It took me a few minutes to remember that fact, but when I did, I was relieved a little.  However, now, I was on pins and needles because my data was still only in one location on the new Seagate.  Just to be safe, I pulled the drive out and was not intending to use it again until I receive the replacement drive from Seagate.  THAT'S WHY YOU WANT THE 5-YEAR WARRANTY; THAT OLD DRIVE WAS COVERED UNTIL 2010!

But, it got a little worse.  When I pulled out the new Seagate I had bought, I noticed on the label that it was of the 7200.9 line.  Well, now I was really pissed because I wanted the newest 7200.10 line with the perpendicular recording.  Not only that, but I remember hearing about problems with the 7200.9 line.  I wanted to return both drives, but I couldn't because one of them had the only copy of my life's data!  So, I returned one of them and kept the other one.  Then, I bought the 7200.10 from Newegg, and it arrived in 2 days!

I sent the dead drive to Seagate (it cost me about $10).  About 3 weeks later, I received the replacement drive from Seagate.  3 weeks is a long time to wait (especially when you're anxious), but it's not so bad, so I commend Seagate on that.  I don't know if the hard drive I got back was refurbished, but I checked the warranty and it's still until 2010 (like the original drive) so I'm happy.  The old hard drive that I sent to them was the 7200.8 line and the new one I got back is a 7200.10.
PICT0040_resize.JPG     PICT0041r.jpg


Now that I had a complete set of healthy drives, I got back to synchronizing the drives.  I used DirSync to not only synchronize the two new hard drives, but I also used it to reverse synchronize the replaced hard drive with the original data.  So, I've only had this "solution" in place for a couple of weeks, and I've already had to do a complete backup/restore process.  I would say that it's paid off already!  I count myself extremely fortunate that the data got backed up in time.  It was really very foolish of me to wait for so long without having some kind of backup solution in place.



So, there's my story.  I hope it helps all of you reading this.  For anyone that has any kind of irreplaceable, personal data on their computer, you absolutely MUST be backing it up.  Remember, it's all fine and easy when you only have a few megabytes or gigabytes of data, and it fits on a CD/DVD.  The effort level is much higher when you're talking about backing up entire hard drives, and that's where most people will lose the motivation to backup.  Think about how much it's worth to you.    For me, it's worth way more than the $400 I put into it.  I'm still devastated by the IBM drive that died on me in 2005, what I call the "Crash of '04".  In the words of Juvenile, "Back that Azz Up".



LAter,
SuperboyAC
dc-avatar2.png


Random Ranting
  • One thing I learned about Seagate's new 7200.10 drives (the ones that have perpendicular recording technology) is that you can't buy any of them in a retail box at the store, except for the 750 GB model.  That's why the one I got from Fry's was a 7200.9 model.  The worst part of all this is that nowhere on the box can you tell which line of drives you have.  Seagate should really write that clearly somewhere on the box.  Of course, for the astute observer, if you recognize the long model number on the Fry's sticker, that might help.

  • I kept one of the 7200.9 drives, so I have one of each.  Man, that 7200.9 drive has a pretty loud seek noise.  I think I will use that one as my monthly backup, so I won't have to listen to it.  I really don't care that much about the noise, but I know some people do, and I wanted to point out that the 7200.10 model was quieter.

    While I'm talking about Seagate's line of drives, let me mention a recent experience of mine.  A few weeks ago, I was in las Vegas for a convention (business) and one of the booths there was Seagate.  Since all this stuff was fresh on my mind at the time, I had a nice, long chat with the rep there.  I told him that I had heard that people were complaining about the 7200.10 and 7200.9 line running hot and being loud.  I also asked him for recommendations for drives that just store data files (like music, video, documents, etc.) and don't necessarily need to be super speedy or anything.  He said that Seagate has a line of drives tagged 7200.2 and 7200.3 that are the equivalents of the 7200.9 and 7200.10, respectively.  They are designed for exactly what I was saying; to run cooler, quieter, and not necessarily as fast.  He said they are primarily for DVR applications, which would also include audio files.  They have an 8 MB cache instead of 16 MB (I don't completely understand what the cache is for, but I know it has to do with speed...mostly the kind of speed that probably doesn't concern my use).  You won't find these drives in any of your stores, nor is it even talked about around the internet much at all.  Seagate doesn't even explicitly market them.  They are used a lot in stuff like Tivo boxes from what I understand.  You can buy it from a couple of vendors online, but none of the major ones.  I asked him what was the deal with the numbering system of the drive line (you would assume 7200.2 is much older than 7200.10, but it's not the case).  He agreed and told me that there were some internal issues regarding that among the different Seagate divisions, and his people don't use those numbers when referring to those drives, and simply call them the "DB35" models because that is the model name.  I thought this was all very interesting, but then again, I'm a geek!  The reason why I'm explaining all of this is because most of this information is not anywhere else on the internet, so I wanted to at least have it on record for anyone who might be wondering.  You have to admit, it's pretty confusing if you don't know the whole story.

  • When I pulled out the dead Seagate after it died on me, it was pretty dang hot.  I try to do what I can do keep my drives cool, but I know I can do better.  Just FYI, the operating temperature on these drives is listed up to 70 degrees Celsius, which is pretty freakin hot, so it's nothing out of the ordinary.  Also, transferring 300 GB and sustaining that heat for that long may not be that good of an idea.  But, again, it's not like I was doing something the drive wasn't designed for.

  • When I was still considering an external enclosure solution, I wanted one that had every possible connection on it; firewire, usb, eSata, etc.  There weren't that many, but here's a pretty cool one I found:
    USB, Firewire 400, Firewire 800, eSATA...$110 (eek!)

  • Like I said before, everyone has had vastly different experiences with hard drives, as far as them dying.  I'm absolutely convinced that no one is better than the other, it's just that some people have randomly had better luck with some companies than others.  Of all the drives I've owned, here are my experiences:
    I've had 2 Western Digital drives, both of them have never died, and lasted for years.  My current OS drive is an old 120 GB WD drive.  I had a Maxtor that died on me within 6 months in 1999 when I was in college (you can see a picture of that computer in the picture at the end of this article).  I have since had a bad taste in my mouth for Maxtor and haven't bought one since (although they are now part of Seagate, ironically).  And there's that IBM Desk Star which I've already mentioned.  Even though they have since been acquired by Hitachi and the quality is supposedly much better, I still can't get over it.  Of course, now, all I care about is the 5-year warranty, so if Hitachi can match or beat that, I would think again.

  • I love that i-Rack QuickSwap bay, but I have a couple of minor complaints with it.  Like most of these mobile drive bays, there's a lock on the door to lock the door.  On this thing, when the hard drive is inside, it's such a tight fit that you have to push the door in with one hand to turn the lock to the locked position.  Otherwise, the lock won't turn.  It shouldn't be that way.  Also, the outside casing of the rack is made of plastic, and, naturally, I'd prefer a cool metal like aluminum.  Other that that, there's no real complaints with the thing.

  • I recommend to everyone to keep the boxes that your hard drives come in, in case you have to return it.  Seagate is VERY picky about how you send them your hard drive for an RMA.  They have a long pdf document telling you how to package it.  Fortunately, I had the old retail box, so I just sent it back in that.  Otherwise, I would have had to go to the store and buy a clamshell box, or some foam and stuff, which would increase the overall cost and hassle.  Just a little helpful advice to you hard drive owners in case you're the type to throw out boxes packages come in.

  • <Shameless Plug!>
    For over two years, my good friend and I have been wanting to start a jazz organ trio.  Well, we finally found a guitar player and put something together.  Some of you may remember my cheesy organ tunes on the DC podcasts, so here is the real thing.  Please check it out!




Am I the only one...
...who recorded gas in college?  C'mon, I know some of you did this also.  Don't leave me hangin'!



DCP_0147r.jpg

Greatest Hits (volume I and II) available upon request.  For very special DC members, I might even open the vault and offer an unreleased version of a remix of Carly Simon's "Nobody Does it Better".  This may sound like a big joke, but, sadly, I'm serious.

5712
Whoops!  I didn't realize this was an "Idea" thread.  Sorry, I answered it as if you were trying to find an existing software. :-[

Good luck finding the perfect software, vevola.  I would seriously doubt that there is one software that does the functions you're looking exactly to your liking.  My suggestion would be to find separate software for each function, and hopefully you can manage the information that way.  The only problem with that is if you have to have the content interact with each other.  Surfulater is a good notetaking program if you're going to use references.  But, be careful, I don't think Surfulater's way of referencing is conducive for exporting into a research paper, where the references have to be annotated in a standard way.  That's why for that you would use something like Endnote, but on the flip side, Endnote is not a notetaker.

Whenever I have to do something like you're doing, I usually end up using several applications.  you're not going to find one that does it all satisfactorily in most cases.
5713
JeffK, nice work there.  It seems like no software category is easy to review anymore, at least not thoroughly.  It's becoming very difficult to not only say which is the best (there's never a clear-cut best), but even to break down why certain feature sets are better than others.

So, what about the hype on Lightroom?  If you listen to everything you hear, it's supposed to revolutionize this category of software.  I tried it and it was a bit much for my old computer as far as speed, so it's inconvenient for me to try it out.  I'm using ACDSee for now, but I can see it's limitations as far as what you guys are talking about here.
5714
MrCrispy, I'd like to know your thoughts on Photo Collector.  I don't deal with my pictures as in-depth as you, but I'd like to compare the better organizers and archivers, and you sound like you'd be much more of an expert.  I tried Lightroom, and you're right, it is bulky but still really nice.
5715
I have searched the forum and found no reference to my "main man" note taker tool!  All this good info and no mention of my favorite tool.  Wild!
JohnFredC, welcome to the discussion.  Yes, I missed quite a few programs in my review; some more prominent than others.  What's wild is that after all this discussion, more and more programs keep coming up that I had no idea about.  It's just insane how many of these there are out there.

Of course, I was aware of this before even starting the whole discussion, which is why I planned on doing multiple reviews for notetakers.  I think the time has come for another one, but it's a lot of work, and I'm trying to figure out how I should present the information in the second.

I'll try to be more and more complete in the future reviews.
5716
Sorry for the longwindedness... I'm still avoiding posting to the famous Notetakers thread, because I've been thinking about this for the last five years or so and I could write volumes, but it would mostly be about what would be great to have versus what I think is realistically possible
Tranglos, your thoughts are always welcome, and the longer the better!  First off, it's an honor to have you post here since you're one of the pioneers of modern notetaking software.

I've never used MyBase, but I now have 240 MB of data in TheBat mailboxes. I don't think any search algorithm, no matter how good, will run through that much text as fast as you can type. So I think it's not the case of some programmers being lazier than others, or falling behind the curve. It's often the nature of the database that dictates what's feasible. In TB, if you didn't have to press Enter to initiate searching, you'd be experiencing a brief "freeze" after typing each character - and that would produce a much worse usability experience, the program would feel clunky.
You bring up some really good points about the speed of live searching vs. the size of the database.  Now that I think about it, I don't think it was fair of me to include the Bat's filter box in this little review, because it's not really meant to be a live search.  It's more of a filtering box.  But, yes, I can definitely see how these little programs have an advantage over the ones that have large databases.  I never thought about that, so it's a good perspective to have when I compare the features.

Evernote seems to be an exception to this rule, perhaps because, as you observe, it must have been built pretty much around the live search feature. Perhaps also it uses a particularly efficient indexing system. But it would be interesting to know the size of the data each of the applications you tested had to deal with.
Yes, that is interesting!  I'm also curious as to how Evernote can do it.  I wonder if the EN database gets really big if the searching slows down at all.  My database is only a few MB, but I wonder if there's anyone who has 2 GB or more and if it slows down the search at all.  It's true that while EN had the live search from the beginning, Mybase added it in after several versions, so maybe it's harder to make an existing program adjust to it than to design it in from the beginning.  However, my complaint for Mybase's live search had less to do with its speed and more to do with the klunky implementation of it.

This is indeed what I'm aiming to do at the moment, but it requires a different storage mechanism, and of course it  bloats the file size.
So, am I to understand that you are currently working on another notetaking program?!  If that's true, that would be great news for a lot of people  :up: !  Last I heard, you had shelved the Keynote project.

I'm still avoiding posting to the famous Notetakers thread, because I've been thinking about this for the last five years or so and I could write volumes, but it would mostly be about what would be great to have versus what I think is realistically possible
Whenever you're ready, we'd love to hear from you over there!
5717
Wow, I had no idea this feature was being implemented so much.  That's awesome.  Thanks for all the suggestions!
5718
I didn't see anyone mention Photo Collector.  I haven't tried it but it seems to have a somewhat different approach to managing photos than the norm, so it might be worth a look.  I don't know if it does tags or not, I'm assuming it does, or has something similar.
5719
Mouser's Zone / Re: IDEA - Webpage archiving
« Last post by superboyac on February 27, 2007, 11:54 PM »
Hi everyone, I recently got interested in these webpage archiving programs.  The two programs I liked the best are Cyberarticle and Local Website Archive.  I like the interface of Local Website Archive and like it's sister program, Website-Watcher, it is really handy and easy to use.  However, Cyberarticle seems to have many more features.  On the other hand, Cyberarticle is a little difficult to figure out (like JeffK mentioned).  They are both similar in price, so I don't know which one to get.  I like the feel of LWA, but I like the power of Cyberarticle.  If anyone has a little more insight, please do tell.

I didn't like NetSnippets much at all, looked like the most bloated of the bunch.  Of course, I'm not doing anything too fancy with the program besides just saving webpages, so maybe Carol is more interested in some features that I didn't pay attention to.  I actually hate it when programs attach interfaces or modules to other programs, like your internet browsing program.  I like real standalone programs.  I'll accept a toolbar addition into firefox sometimes, if really necessary.

I'd like to see a Cyberarticle vs. Local Website Archive comparison if anyone has knowledge of both.  Or maybe I'll just have to go and do it later.  There doesn't seem to be much information out there on either.
5720
General Software Discussion / Recommendations for good copy/move software?
« Last post by superboyac on February 26, 2007, 10:52 PM »
Is there good copy/move software available out there that gets integrated into the right-click context menu or can be called from a keyboard shortcut?  I'm not looking for something that is part of a software package like a file manager or explorer replacement.  Just it's own thing that simply does copy and move.  The best one I've tried over the years came with Powerdesk Pro, and here is a screenshot:
Screenshot - 2_26_2007 , 8_44_19 PM.png
What's good about it is that:
  • It lists the files being moved/copied on the left
  • It allows you to choose the folder to move/copy the files to, or you can type an address to create a folder or just manually enter it.
  • It can be called from the right-click context menu
  • You can choose to move or copy within the dialog (if you change your mind)
  • Has a drop down of recently used directories

As you can see, it's pretty cool.  I've never encountered another one like it that's a standalone product.  Any suggestions are appreciated, thanks!
5721
General Software Discussion / Re: 12 Windows Explorer Alternatives Compared
« Last post by superboyac on February 26, 2007, 10:42 PM »
Is Total Commander any faster copying files, displaying folders, etc?
Has anyone done a comparison with benchmarks?
Thanks
I'm familiar with quite a few file managers, and although this is somewhat subjective and unofficial, my experience is that Total Commander is generally going to be faster than most of the file managers you run into.  This goes for copying, moving, displaying, etc.  How much faster, I don't know, but I'd bet money that in most things it's faster.  Maybe other file managers may be faster in a couple of specific areas, but TC will be faster on the whole.  Total Commander was designed with speed being the primary or one of the primary goals.
5722
What about google desktop search?  No mention?
Well, I don't use google desktop, so  I wouldn't be in a position to analyze it.  Feel free to contribute if you're familiar with it!
5723
This article is a nice idea, well thought out, well written, and informational.
A lot of care must have gone into this... it shows!
Thanks.
-cranioscopical (February 16, 2007, 10:04 PM)
Thanks cranio.  I love that feature, I had to get it out of my system!

Roboform (one of my must-have apps) has quick seach as well.
You know, I totally forgot about that!  I use Roboform, and it does have a very nice live search box for going through the passwords/bookmarks.

Winamp's media library has this feature too....and it has to be the one thing that made the upgrade from v2 to v5 worth it.
Ah, I don't remember that (I used to use Winamp).  I've since changed to foobar (I could probably do a blog on that alone).

Darwin, thanks for the DOpus screenshot.
5724
Yes, I too think it's a 10, and you can now guess who helped them with continued feedback to bring it to this level. cheesy cheesy

Thanks to another guy with good ideas it now even has filter-as-you-type in the config too! I didn't saw that in any other program, and while I personally rarely need it, IMHO it's great!
Good work, brotherS!  The live search in the options is awesome also!  That's a brilliant idea, I didn't even think about that.  I do seem to remember seeing that in some other software, but I don't remember which one.  For a second, I though it was Zoom Player, but it's not (although it could definitely use it, with all those options it has!). 
5725
Self-promotion warning: A major motivation for my writing my clipboard tool (Clipboard Help+Spell) was wanting to add a live search feature :)
Oh!  I didn't even realize CHS had the live search in there.  That's awesome.  I only use CHS for quickpasting clips, I barely ever open up the console window.  That's great, now I can search through my clips in style!

Nice post! Azureus (http://azureus.sourceforge.net/) features find-as-you-type too, very helpful indeed.
I did not know that, and I used to use Azureus a long time ago.  I'll check it out, maybe it's a new feature.  Oh, I see, it just pops up as you start typing.  That's really good actually.  I would say that it gets a 10, just off of an initial glance.  It's done very well.

WOW! Great post :Thmbsup: :Thmbsup:  :Thmbsup: :Thmbsup:

I've never heard of MP3RAT before but it looks like its exactly the tool I was looking for.

Maybe this report is a good reason to ask for a Donationcoder Discount.  ;) ;) ;)

Many thanks!!!
peteg
MP3rat is a good program.  It hasn't been updated for a long time, however.  The only part of it I don't like is that sometimes it crashes when I want to import a large amount of files into the database, and it takes a few tries before it works without crashing.  Also, sometimes it adds weird characters and symbols into my tags, I don't understand why, maybe I don't tag properly (but I use Tag&Rename!) so I don't really know.  I just blame this stuff on the fact that the program hasn't been actively developed for a long time.

the live search feature isn“t included in my Directory Opus 6.1
What version is this?
No, it was introduced in the v8 line, and only after several updates.  Probably sometime around v8.1 or so.
Pages: prev1 ... 224 225 226 227 228 [229] 230 231 232 233 234 ... 252next