Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Two classes of membership here?

<< < (11/15) > >>

Josh:
^Agree w/wraith on that one. Wouldn't be surprised to see the lock removed before long.
-40hz (November 17, 2012, 12:46 PM)
--- End quote ---

Removed

cmpm:
lol, good one Josh!

cmpm:
I know you meant the 'lock', but I took it 2 ways.

clean:
That's what the lapdogs are for: nice senior cop, bad sub-cops: the work is done, and that's what counts.

No irony, 40hz is one of the posters here who make this forum a lot less dull than it would be without him, I've seen this all the year long I've followed this forum.

Sorry for repeating myself in the second paragraph or so, above, the field for entering your post has been a nightmare one year ago, it's a nightmare today. (And it reverts to the upper part of your text so you don't see what you're writing. So whenever you don't write elsewhere, then do the pasting here...)

Steve Jobs said, "I'm an a...", in full letters, and he was proud of it. So, I think I owe my being kicked out here to some words with asterisks, in spite of my explanations, when a simple deletion of the incriminated paragraph in one of my posts would have be largely sufficient. (And at the time, I made a note I was kicked out by a certain mouser, but perhaps I just presumed so.)

Both of my problems, btw, are resolved, the first one by extensive use of AHK, the second one by the two-screen setup I detailed in the other thread. As these posts from November 2011 confirm, yes, I consider sw, and I consider treatment of users. Have a look at the forum policy (you must accept before entering the forum) at the Directory "Opus" forum. Isn't it illogical to pretend your sw is the best of its kind, and then not allow any mentioning of competition sw's, when it should be of much interest rather often to discuss the respective realization of a feature in similar sw? (x2, XY and SC all permit this kind of discussion, and I own a paid license for any of those - not for DO, and that's not a coincidence: If you allow sw developers to treat you like s*** - delete the paragraph here -, they will never cease to do so, hence the interest of buying 3 competing products instead of just 1. And then, DO ist not THAT splendid, e.g. compare processing of metadata in x2 and DO.)

Citations are 1:1, with typos and all:

https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=28852.new

Better Mouse Drivers? Mouse Driver Tweaks? Shift-Click, Control-Click, Scope...
« on: Today at 05:35:11 AM »

Hello everybody,

I

For more than 20 years now, I've been using mice, from Logitech, and I'm profoundly unhappy with them, because of driver limitations. Once, I bought a Microsoft mouse, just for having a change to try the driver, since no information whatsoever was given, neither by Microsoft nor within the web in general, as to the possibilities of its driver, except if you installed the driver, AND a physical MS mouse; the MS mouse had been advertized as "programmable" which was a big lie at least at that time; perhaps they amended the driver in the meantime, but then, I would have to buy another MS mouse to find out...

"Programmable" with Logitech means, at this time - please correct me if I'm wrong, I own an old Logitech mouse, and an old Logitech driver consequently - that you can 1) assign many Windows commands to the mouse buttons (one button, one such command, that is), and 2) assign "any" key combination to these buttons (one key combination to any of these buttons, e.g. 3 key combinations to 3 different buttons, but no sequences of such commands on any such button).

"Programmable" with Microsoft meant, at the time, only alternative 1) above, without alternative 2), meaning that you didn't have the slightest chance to assign a macro, within an external macro program, to a key combination, and then trigger that combination with a MS mouse mouseclick, as has indeed been possible with Logitech mice.

Thus, "programmable" with Logitech means "can trigger macros at least", whilst "programmable" (that was indeed their advertizing at the time) with Microsoft meant "can't even trigger a simple key of your choice, let alone trigger external macros, we're simply lying to you". (Has this changed, in the meantime?)

II

What I've been searching for, for more than 20 years now, without ever finding it, is, as the title indicates, the possibility to assign a shift-click, and / or a control-click, to a mouse button, on any mouse out there.

Shift-Click / Control-Click: I'm not one-handed, but there are one-handed people needing this feature; I would need it for selecting several graphics elements in programs like Freehand, etc., while my other hand lies on a print-out of what I see on my screen, progressively reaching out for the elements there, in order to indicate "done" for my decision if those elements are to be included in the selection or not, and depending on my hand-written notes on that print-out; since I need my second hand for pressing the shift key manually, I lose focus on my print-out again and again, having to do a lot of visual switching back and forth between print-out and screen, just for checking if things to be done have been done already or not yet: It's a continual pain in the youknowwhere - younger people with better short-term memory could perhaps do without that feature, with less incredible fuss than the lack of it causes me.

Control-Click: Even for the general public, this feature would come extremely handy, since we all know that in the MS Internet Explorer (at least, and I suppose, other browsers do the same or likewise?) a click upon a link replaces the currently displayed web page (or whatever), whilst a control-click opens that page within an additional tab: We all know how extremely handy such a function is, and to not have to use your two hands for such a simple command you need 100 times each day would be extremely handy for everyone. (BTW, it would be far more logical since it's a mouse command, and why then, your principal hand working with the mouse, your secondary hand must touch the keyboard then? It's when both of your hands are on the keyboard that such needs of keyboard use are logical, not when you're "away from the keyboard" for a moment or more.)

Shift-Control-Click: Even better would then be the possibility to COMBINE such additional keys, since, in IE8, etc., that click would open the clicked-on link within a new tab, but without your current tab leaving focus: Perfect for doing several links in a row in a given web page, without succombing to the "lost in hyperspace" phenomenon or having to switch back and forth after each link clicking.

III

Many a macro prog allows for scope-based, individual execution of a macro, which means that you can assign a key combination to a (Logitech - what about MS now ?) mouse, let's say control-F12, whilst in the macro prog, you assign one macro to control-F12 if the caption of the focus window contains the name of application a, whilst the same control-F12 (triggered both times by the same key pressing and / or by the same mouse button pressing), within application b, would trigger another macro - this works like a charm if you've got the right macro program and a mouse allowing for assigning key combinations to a mouse button.

But then, this does NOT work for assigning such a key combination (or a Windows command) to a mouse button, with scope any (other) applications, whilst in ONE application only, the scope of that mouse button would be to send a shift-click (or some other "special" click), because for such a behavior, you'd need to have this different, scope-wise behavior within the mouse driver yet, not within your macro prog only.

The importance of such scope-driven alternatives within the mouse driver would be, assign a special mouse-click to a given mouse button, but for within a special program only, whilst that mouse button, by this special assignment, will not to be "sacrified" for every other prog - most "good" mice (handling-wise) just don't have more than 5 buttons (or more than 5 easily reachable buttons if ever), so there's a need to have all these buttons available for important commands in all of your progs.

Hence:

Please comment on the different aspects enumerated here, please, and especially on the problem to obtain shift-/control-clicks with ONE mouse click, by native implementation into a mouse driver of any mouse, or by an existing tweak of such a mouse driver - or if there's the possibility to do such a tweak, by programming a little add-on, for some driver (whilst some native drivers could allow for such tweaking, while with others, that might be impossible or far too complicated to realize; when I've just mentioned Logitech and MS here, that's because I know these mice and their (in the case of MS, old) drivers; I'm in no way bound to these if there are possibilities for mice of other brands.)

https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=18160.25

Hello everyone,

We're November 2011 now, and I've just tried this product, and I'm not pleased with it.

My observations (please comment):

- Normally, windows got 3 buttons, AWM adds FOUR others, making it 7, which is unnecessary and ugly also on big windows, not speaking of tiny dialog / message windows that also get the additional 4 - this is UNACCEPTABLE. Since somebody here said, "the group button is enough for me", is that to say that when trying, I missed a function to preset that not 4, but only 1 additional button is added to every window? (If you want additional functionality, shortkeys are fine, no need whatsoever for 4 additional buttons forced upon you.)

- Somebody here said that "on opening", windows can trigger many pre-defined actions. Well, we need to specify and clarify here: They distinguish between first opening, and then, disappearing / reappearing. For first opening, there's a whole catalog of possible actions to trigger indeed, very fine, but for any disappearance / reappearance, possible actions are extremely limited to the point of making all this virtually useless. When you start your programs, you can do a lot of actions yourself, manually, no big need to have AWM do these actions for you, but it's afterwards, when programs run, for hours, days, that on opening and minimizing windows again and again, actions triggered by this would be more than handy.

- I dared asking them, kindly, about this distinction between very first opening of windows where a lot of triggering is possible, and further opening / closing of windows (= minimizing, resizing of windows) where almost nothing is possible, and they DID NOT ANSWER me. I call this the "a**ho** factor - not to designate people but their behavior -, developers being responsive or not to INDIVIDUAL communications - quite evident that they are "responsive" in a public forum like this one -, and this "a**ho** factor with Actual products seem to be 100 p.c., as I see it for now; it goes without saying that for any profeessional use, a prog with such a high a**ho** factor is useless even if it's better than this product is at this very moment.

- What about the memory leak discussed above? This product has got a "mirror" function, and such, and I had thought for a moment that would make it suitable to be used in a security cameras environment (where dedicated progs cost a fortune), but with that memory leak (and WITHOUT the above-mentioned functions: trigger actions when windows pop up, after their initial very first opening), that idea is not to be brought into practice, unfortunately.

- To my knowledge, this product does NOT offer any VARIANTS of opening for a given window? Let me explain: Most of my windows, I'd like them to open just normal, full size (which is not "maximized" but simply full-screen, with borders); but for SOME, I really need a window manager, hence my search for one. And what I want for this group of windows, I want to have a CHOICE: Normal behavior = normal, full size, AND alternatively, some other size so that a specific additional prog can take the remaining desktop real estate, and I want to have shortkeys to display those windows in their normal state, or in reduzed-size state... or better explained, I need shortkeys not for their display, but for their current state setting:

- One of my own macros (= external to AWM) would trigger the display of a given window in normal state (by sending the shortkey for setting the window's display setting to normal, then by sending the shortkey for displaying the window).

- Another one of my own macros would then send the shortkey for setting the window's ALTERNATIVE display state (= let's say to "leftbound, 2/3 of the screen's width"), send a similar shortkey to set the setting of a second window to alternative display state (= in this example, to "rightbound, 1/3 of screen's width"), and finally "open" BOTH applications (= display those alternative displays of both windows by activating both applications both running in the background = in minimized state). As you can see here, I don't want to do AWM all this, I just want it to store alternative display states for given windows, that then could be accessed by external macros / scripts; as far as I know, all this is NOT possible at this moment. (And the "always on top" option for given windows, available in almost every such window manager, is far too primitive to be of any use as such, since most of the time, this "on top" you don't want it to be "always", but in combination with specific other windows only. Which is all to say that such programs, especially when the cost 50 dollars, should NOT only give presets once-and-for-all, but should make available FLEXIBLE settings that can be accessed upon request whenever you need them.)

- So I de-installed the software, and got one of these "bye, would you leave your comment please" web redirection screens that become more and more common nowadays, but with that difference mentioned by somebody else here: They offer a discount then, which is to say that they say: "We acknowlege that our prog is too expensive, so would you take it for something less, then?" - had it not been for the 4 additional (mandatory???) buttons it adds to every and even the tiniest window (people complained about that in 2008, now 2011 is quite over - anything new on this, then that I might have missed?), I might even had said ok to that offer:

- So if you want this product for less, install the trial, de-install it... and get... not 50 p.c. off like some years ago, but 30 p.c. off, which makes it something like 33 dollars instead of 50 (I must say that I did not encounter such offer, on de-installing software, yet, and marketing-wise, it's very clever imo: I know some other progs that simply don't offer the value for their price, but at a lesser one, they'd become interesting again!)

mouser:
Couple of points:

I'm finding it hard to follow much of what you are saying and I can't say I get the warmest feeling from the posts you have made recently,

BUT:

As I understand it, you have now posted the content of 2 messages of yours that were deleted.

And I do see that the account you used to post those two messages above was in fact banned by a moderator in November 2011 because they concluded your account was spamming, when looking at your posts it seems to me that they were not spam.

I can kind of see why the moderator may have thought you were spamming -- you signed up and then made 2 giant posts within 2 hours of each other.  Your account was not banned because of the content of your posts, it was banned because we were over eager in thinking you were a spammer.

From looking at the posts it seems clear you were not spamming and your account should not have been banned.

I apologize for that. It should not have happened.

I wish we had been made aware of the problem at the time as we would have removed the ban right away.

I can understand why having that account banned with no explanation would have given you a bad feeling about our site, and a feeling that we were trying to censor your posts.  Especially if you took a long time writing those long posts (ironically the length of those two posts was no doubt part of what made the moderator suspect it was spam).

Please do feel free to re-post those 2 posts that were deleted.

Again let me encourage you and anyone else who feels they were incorrectly labeled a spammer to contact me about it.  Realize that we deleted dozens of spammers a day whose only purpose is to post advertising on this forum.  Often such spammers are obvious, but sometimes they employ tricks that we have adapted to and implemented special alerts to catch.  But we're not infallible, and there's always the possibility that we have jumped the gun.  Perhaps one thing we can put in place now is a message to those whose accounts have been banned with clearer info on who to contact if they feel they were wrongly banned.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page