Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

SyncBackSE vs. SuperFlexible

<< < (11/16) > >>

J-Mac:
Just happened again!  Sync scheduled for this afternoon and nothing happened. This time I had started the scheduler, placed SFFS into my Startup folder and made sure it is running all the time, and yet still it did not fire up. I just opened it and the stupid scheduler was not running again.

What is it with this program? What the hell does it take to get it to fire on schedule? I have had many different scheduled tasks in various programs, some scheduled via the Windows task scheduler and some via the application's own scheduler. But I have never had this much difficulty getting a program to perform its single solitary purpose when scheduled!

Now I am really sorry that I purchased this dog. And I apologize if I have offended any dogs of the canine variety. Should have used a more properly descriptive term, but you can't say that here.

Jim

Armando:
Actually, I've had similar problems with other applications, like Archivarius. (For example, the problem with Archivarius arises when you set up the indexer  to NOT run when the computer is unplugged (and battery powered). What happens is that the scheduler won't “reset” itself when the computer is eventually “replugged”. The only way to reset the scheduler is to close Archivarius and restart it.)

Darwin:
Yes - I've had that problem with Archivarius as well.

J-Mac:
Grrr....

After restarting the scheduler, I kept checking every now and then just to see if it is still running. All is fine until I reboot.  Then -- even though I have SFFS starting with Windows -- the scheduler is no longer running.  It has to be manually restarted with every reboot.  This is totally unacceptable!  What is the purpose of a "scheduler" if it does not run?  Since one must remember to "start" the scheduler each time Windows runs then there is no point at all in scheduling backups to run, as they do not run at all automatically.

I really do miss the point of having such a "non-feature".  Or, more aptly - the developer has apparently missed the point.  Or simply does not understand the meaning of the word "schedule".

A software user should never have to do watch a scheduled task and continually restart the so-called "scheduler".  Not with any application in this day and age.  Granted I do perform checks every now and then just to make sure that any and all of my scheduled tasks are occurring as planned, but I never feel the need to keep checking on a program to see if it is still scheduled at all!  If all scheduled tasks for all programs behaved in this manner, I can't imagine DonationCoder users just standing by, allowing and tolerating such non-performance, and yet still recommending that program highly, as is the case with SFFS.  I wonder why that is?  I have seen other software applications -- ones that I consider extremely useful -- lambasted here for inconveniences that are far less critical than the way the SFFS scheduler behaves.  Weird!

If I had to constantly monitor scheduled tasks for all software applications on my PC, I would be requesting the excellent coders here to please develop a small utility to keep an eye on all scheduled tasks and alert me when I need to restart the scheduler!  Maybe something that could initiate an email or SMS notification that reads something like:  "Alert!!  Time to stop whatever you are doing and go home and restart your SFFS scheduler or no sync jobs will run!!"

OK, OK -- I know.  Enough whining and crying about this.  Time to go find a sync application that works.  SFFS is definitely fast, but when it doesn't sync as scheduled because the scheduler has a faulty design, I lose a lot more time than its speed could ever gain.  (I spent less time and had more reliability using the free Microsoft Power Toy SyncToy - plus, the scheduled syncs actually work so I can relax elsewhere while it takes its good old time!)

Thanks for putting up with my whiny little rant, folks!  I know it is probably annoying, but I feel better!

Jim

tranglos:
Thanks for putting up with my whiny little rant, folks!  I know it is probably annoying, but I feel better!
Jim
-J-Mac (November 24, 2007, 12:29 PM)
--- End quote ---

Not annoying. I welcome your rant :) I have often refrained from posting about similar annoyances - some very severe, others less so - and only gave in to the temptation when SFFS disappointed me greatly, earlier in this thread. I don't know what level of criticism mouser wants to see here, and I always feel uneasy about dressing down a piece of software whose author just offered DC a generous discount, posts here and is an awfully cool guy (or gal). But then, a warning to potential users is just as useful as a recommendation.

I tried SFFS twice, because after I uninstalled it the first time I was convinced it would never get such high recommendations here if it were as bad as I thought it was, but there it is.

I wonder if we could have a section specifically for complaining :) Especially in the case of software that is very good overall, but can have one or two bugs or bad design decisions that just make you tear at your hair - as in, Aargh, how can such an excellent application do something so stupid! I've recently had to ditch a number of apps I would have loved to buy and use due to various little annoyances that made those apps unusable.

I submit that an "Annoyances" section might be useful, since it could become a repository of things to watch out for and avoid when you code. I could list a dozen examples right away, but there's that negativity thing, so I'll shut up now :)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page