I'm so fed up with (software or hardware) KM / KVM switches working so badly

[ital2]

So KM is keyboard-and-mouse sharing, while KVM is also sharing a monitor ("video"/"VGA" at the time).


Physical switches

My first try (some time ago). Had tried 2 devices, one in the 30€-, the other in the 100€-range. Both made bum-bum-bum. In the casings, there is a relay (or several such relays) which physically move(s) and realize(s) the connection(s), was only for kb, mouse and VGA then. Did work, but with lots of fuss, shifting to the other computer wasn't smooth but had to be made by press of a button each time (or was that only the cheap one, while the less cheap one's function was triggered by a key combination on the kb?), and then you heard the relais do their click-click-click, and while waiting for the shift to be made (2 seconds or so), you wondered how long the relais would work, and how long your computers and sole monitor would bear all this physical forth-and-back (electricity on-off-on-off...); I sent back both devices within the 14-day redemption period: When it's too loud, it cannot do any good for the material when the latter isn't made for all that (so this excludes construction machines, Ferrari motors and the like). It should be said that there also are some physical switches which then work by the network (starting (!) at 200€ or so), ie which do NOT then physically attach and de-attach electricity to your devices, and those are probably the way to go; let's call them "physical network switches".

The following software tools all expect your computers being connected to a network (LAN in my case, but they probably also work over a WLan?).


Microsoft "Garage" "Mouse without Borders" (free)

My next try, then, and again now. It's only KM (no monitor sharing), and it's free. No thrills, but it works, but on the 2 (or more?) computers, you are constantly invited to enter long, cryptic "security" codes of the other computer(s), and that quickly drove me nuts. There's an "explanation" somewhere how to avoid this constant nagging, but unfortunately I'm too dumb to get those hints working for me, so I preferred to dumb that unbearable tool instead.


ShareMouse (Bartels Media, now 30 / 50$ but incl. (!) VAT)

I had bought this tool at bits, for 20$ plus VAT, so Mr. Bartels got 10$ of mine for nothing, but I have to admit it was all my fault since he clearly invites customers to first trial his tool, then buy in case, and to not do the other way round, which I carelessly did, but that's the trick with sites like bitsdujour, many a times, software's just there for a day, without preadvice or without your having checked in time (both possibilities being common), and then you see it, you think it might be helpful, you buy it for cheap, and you store it for later use.

Of course, there's a hitch in Mr. Bartels' urging you to trial first, then buy - other developers rarely insist that much on your doing so, and for a reason. In fact, when you buy some tool which is declared compatible for Windows "n", and you intend to use it for that Windows version, you can reasonably expect it to run on your system. Not so with ShareMouse.

In fact, there should be lots of macro tools out there (or even almost all of them?) which use so-called kb hooks (whatever those may be), and it seems that ShareMouse uses such kb hooks, too, but whatever the real reason behind it may be, fact is, with my - quite current, especially for "professionals" - macro tool, ShareMouse does not work at all, or more precisely, whenever I trigger some macro on computer 1 or computer 2, I can never be sure upon WHICH of the two the macro (or parts of it) will work, so ShareMouse is worthless for me since it mixes up the 2 computers as far as macro input/execution goes (simple abc... input works well, though, doesn't mix up its current target computer).

It goes without saying that there is a high probability Mr. Bartels KNOWS about this incompatibility, so it would have be highly preferably, had he said instead, "ShareMouse possibly may have compatibility issues with some macro tool you have in use, so please trial first", but then, prospects would have been warned that even when ShareMouse worked well, currently, the day the also will install some macro program, they could run into deep trouble, and from a marketing point of view, it's understandable that a developer tries to avoid a situation where a prospect could get anxious about future problems when at least currently, all works well, so Mr. Bartels did not communicate this probable reason for his warning; the hitch in all this being though that such a KM is most notably used/needed/useful in "professional" environments/setups, and it's precisely there that users will also need/deploy a macro tool, too, if not today, then probably at a later point in time, so perhaps there will be in then for an unpleasant surprise even if their trial today goes smooth.

Also, this "kb hook" (or whatever it is) problem I only encountered with ShareMouse, not with any other KM/KVM tool, so it seems that "kb hooks" (or whatever ShareMouse's programming specificity is) are NOT needed to write such a tool; traditionally, programmers were put into 3 groups, mainframe developers, system developers, and application developers, and it's evident such a KM/KVM tool is system development, so possible interaction with other foreseeable system events (here: possible, concurrent use of a very common-with-professionals-ie-in-the-same-use-case-as-ShareMouse-itself macro tool) should be / should have been part of the development decisions, a "first trial!" urge (without the "necessary" explications) later on seeming a little bit lame as an alternative instead.

This being said, I only can speak for the previous version of ShareMouse here since the current version does not work for me: a mix-up of the current version on the Win10 comp, with the previous version running on the XP-comp just as little working as current version on both comps, it's just the previous version installed on both comps that'll work (and then and obviously very badly interacts with the macro tool, while it's futile to discuss if then the macro tool or ShareMouse is the culprit for that interaction, just let's say that IF it's kb hooks, that would be quite normal behavior for a macro tool while for a KM tool, it's obviously not - since the other KM tools don't come with that same problem).

Btw, incompatibilities in an XP-Win-7-and-further setup should not arise for a KM/KVM tool, in particular, since it's precisely in professional/corporate settings that the need for accessing (some) XP-driven and (many) computers driven by a more recent OS arises frequently, the bigger the corporation, the higher the probability for the existence of some XP computers needed for running some important, more or less made-to-measure software for special means.

ShareMouse is just a KM, not a KVM, but then, it seems to be unique (?) in working with mixed systems, incorporating Macs, so it's far from being all bad here - not owning a Mac, I cannot speak of its reliability here -, and ShareMouse has got a VERY pleasant feature I didn't encounter in any of its competitors: It allows for automatic "greying out" the currently-inactive screen(s?), and to a degree of your convenience; this way, you always see at a glance which one's the currently active monitor/pc (which is identical here since, as said, ShareMouse isn't a KVM), while on the other hand, the inactive monitors remains perfectly readable, so Mr. Bartels does it exactly the way his competitors SHOULD have done it, when in fact they all (?) realize this important function very badly... This being said, I'm waiting for this functionality being expanded to the indication of the currently-active monitor (ie the one where the mouse cursor is) even when several such monitors belong to the same computer (perhaps ShareMouse even does this, cannot say since I didn't try before de-installing): In fact, this latter functionality should be included in Windows itself.

And finally, ShareMouse - which I "trialled" extensively since I had paid for it - differentiates between the computers' own clipboard and clipboard sharing, ie whenever you try to insert the clipboard content of the/some other computer, you can't do it by control-v, but you must trigger a special key combination (default is shift-control-v here) which I, in my one-person set-up, found quite inconventient. This being said, perhaps ShareMouse also allows to simply (re-) set this key combination to control-v, so that ^v then works for both cases (I hadn't tried out this before de-installing the tool), and I have to say that behind this "quirk", there's another VERY good idea of Mr. Bartels: that in a 2-or-more-person set-up, this differentiation is really, really useful, just imagine what unwanted inserts would occur in the case of the usual ^v-for-all-inserts, irrespective of their repective origins.


Input Director (free)

While all of the software tools here allow for smooth clipboard sharing, Input Director is the only one of the bunch which does NOT also allow for smooth file copying made available by the KM/KVM, except of course for files, as in any network, being located in, and then copied to, dedicated shared-network-folders. The developer even tries to "sell" this lack as an advantage (security!) of his tool, but that's utter rubbish: In practice, every some minutes, you deeply miss this functionality which, as said, is present in all of the competition (? I don't remember Mouse without Borders so well, but I think the functionality is there, too) - ok, Input Director is free, but you'll quickly recognize it's a functionality that's simply "needed", highly expected, in such a tool.

But there's a point in what he mentions, and beyond what he says: Security considerations ARE worthwile, and in corporate environments, there should be some tracking device, for anything, anyway, and that would include anything such a KM/KVM tool would do, copies, moves, renames, and last but not least, changes of all kinds, incl. within (!) any files, not only changes made to their location.

The lack of file copying wasn't the only reason I quickly de-installed Input Director, though: in fact, it made my (shared) kb buggy. While my macros seemed to function normally, and regular kb input worked well, too, it wasn't but my PgUp/PgDn keys that run amok: Sometimes, they worked as expected, and then again, but again and again, pressing the PgDn key triggered the PgUp key instead, and vice versa, so that I finally only was able to use my mouse wheel to browse larger web pages (in several browsers) or longer text (in several editors, etc.). Of course, I tried with another kb, to no avail, and the same, "faulty" keyboards worked as expected again as soon as I deactivated Input Director, then finally de-installed it.

You know, sometimes developers get aware of some faults in their software which they cannot overcome, THEN decide to make it available for free, instead of selling it, which had been their initial intention though... if this applies to Input Director, too, I cannot say of course... Also, the visual indication of the currently-active screen/pc wasn't good (but I currently don't remember how it was done here).


Multiplicity (KM 20, KVM 40, 100$)

Multiplicity is from Stardocks (or from their branch-off Edge..., Ever.... Whatever), which obviously is the contrary of a one-man software software house, but which sells, besides lots of games, a lot of crap, their "Fences" being some quite prominent but particularly useless (and ugly) little tool for example. For non-big-corporations, Multiplicity comes in 3 flavors: 20$ for a KM for just 2 comps, and then 40$ / 100$ (always plus VAT) for up to 9 comps, but as a KVM, the 40$ versions handling the monitors of 2 of them though.

So while ShareMouse brings the unique (?) feature of Mac integration, Multiplicity comes with the unique (?) feature of screen sharing which undeniably is a world apart from simple KMs and which, if it works, obviously is incredibly useful, just imagine a very basic set-up, pc 1 with 2 screens, and one of these could be switched to/as the screen of pc 2 - in fact, I don't know if Multiplicity (in its 40-and-100$ versions) is able to do that since, while working with a mix-up of XP and later OSs, of all things monitor sharing is exluded here, while my remark from above applies here as well: It's especially in "professional" environments that users will probably have older and more recent OSs together in the same network, so excluding its USP, the monitor sharing, the "V" part, from its KVM capability then, should be a very bad decision of Multiplicity's - provided that technically, it should be possible to deviate some XP system's monitor-output to some screen of a pc driven by a more recent OS even if there's some hard work involved in order to do so.

So Stardocks obviously have got the manpower to do so, but as obviously, they have chosen to let their customers down with that, judging that their, Stardocks', effort would not be worthwile... for them, Stardocks again.

For my current set-up then, Multiplicity's theoretical full KVM functionality is worthless, but this deception notwithstanding, I considered buying their 40$-plus-VAT version anyway, for its smooth (but not very well-executed) KM functionality, shelving the (untrialled) "V" part in the tool for possible later use (their 30-days trial comprises the full 100$-functionality), but instead, I finally de-installed this tool, too, and here's why: First two minor "reasons", ie I was really unhappy about those points, but I would have bought anyway; then the reason that tipped the balance for me.

The indication of the currently-active screen is realized very badly, just compare with the fine way ShareMouse does it. You have 3 alternatives with Multiplicity: A quite / even not so tiny but ugly indicator quadrangle (with lots of unnecessary text, overlaying the text of your screen's content) for NON-active screen(s?): Depending on your screen's content, it's not so obvious the quadrangle is there, and/or your screen's content becomes unreadable there, and on your active screen, you're searching for the possible presence of that quadrangle before being able to decide, "this screen is the active one indeed!" - just awful! Then, you can get a colored frame around your active screen instead, and they even let you choose the frame's color, but it's so thin  that even with a bright color, you never really know if it's your active screen or not (web pages, other pages using some color!), except for otherwise totally black-and-white screens (which are rare nowadays since even text editors use some colors now, e.g. for underlining, let alone for programming) - you never really know, I say, except, of course, for deliberately visually checking one of the four sides of that ugly and not even functional frame. Third alternative, greying out the inactive screen(s?), but without any setting for the degree (as Mr. Bartels does it so well in ShareMouse), but the inactive screen(s?) is/are? almost blackened, ie it's utterly difficult to "read", to discern anything over there if needed, and besides, it's ugly as hell - at the and of the day, with Multiplicity, you'll probably vote for the color frame around the active window and hope for the best, just checking your screens' edges again and again over the day - awful, I said.

Second consideration for not buying Multiplicity, but which I almost had decided to discard anyway: Their current version 3 is more than 3 years old (it's from April, 2014 if I'm not mistaken), and the (non-openly-communicated) update fees are (according to what some of their customers say) 80 p.c. of the full price: awful, again, but I wanted a functioning K(V)M, so...

What has been finally inacceptable for me, though, was the fact that I have reason to suspect Multiplicity to heavily interfere with my main system (the one where the paid - here: the trial-declared-as-"master" - version is installed): While it's understood that the K(V)M functionality of any such software tool isn't present anymore for any "slave" system while the "master" system wents to sleep, it's totally unacceptable that when you then try to wake up again your "master" system, it tells you that some "error" occurred, and that it will do the necessary things for you in order for shutting your system down and restart it... any data in open applications being lost, of course.

I don't have means to accuse Multiplicity to be responsible for this, I just can say I didn't see those error messages before installing Multiplicity, and they didn't occur after de-installing this tool; your system's mileage may vary of course. On top of this - and then I really was "done" with that tool, from one day to the next morning, I didn't have internet access from my main computer, whereas at the same time, web access from my (now) secondary computer (and from my internet telephone) was fine. I juggled around with the cables, to no avail of course - ditto for several browsers -, just as I had juggled around with the keyboards with regards to Input Director, days ago, and I juggled around, also without no effect whatsoever, with my firewall settings - does it really surprise you when I tell you that after de-installing Multiplicity (which implied a restart of the computer, too), I had web access without any problems, just like before? Oh, what another happenstance, right? (Oh, I forgot: in their "Object Desktop" (50$), their non-KVM, basic, 20$ version is included. And also, Multiplicity's screen dialogs appear as very "professional", so all its bad points then came quite as a surprise.)


Synergy (19$, with encryption 29$, last free version probably available somewhere)

As the others here, except for Multiplicity, it's just a KM, and I have to admit I didn't trial it anymore. After discovering Multiplicity, I had decided that when there are available both KMs and KVMs - well, in fact, just one single KVM, it seems -, a KVM would be so much more convenient (I didn't know yet that Multiplicity's "V" doesn't work with XP) - and it certainly will be if it works correctly -, I would want a KVM no, not a KM anymore.

Now, with Multiplicity having me disappointed so thoroughly, as a KM AND a KVM, it normally would be time to trial that other alternative, Synergy, but in fact, I don't really need a KM (or KVM) that much anymore, almost all of my "things" having been finally arrived at my new "main" computer, and at this point in time, I don't see that much need anymore for concurrently using my now "spare pc" with my main one; it's evident it'll come into play again whenever the main one lets me down, but it will not be concurrent use then, by design.

In other words, concurrent use of 2 comps - but with proper file "sharing", not like in Input Director" for one person is highly recommended in the transition phase of replacing one pc by a new one, and, of course, in corporate settings, for example where some person (who does not do this but on the side, here and again) also accesses the "server", for some technical-management means, but for one person really needing two computers running concurrently, I don't see any real-life use cases at this moment... and in fact, I only needed this when (re-) installing some system from ground up, both in the past and during these last weeks.

Which reminds me - of course - of my other thread, about trial conception, and over there, I would then have said, considering my current experience with KMs: "Don't do (otherwise uncrippled) 30-day trials for KM software, since most prospects will need your software for less than 30 consecutive days on the same system anyway, so by such a trial, you'd provide it to them for free."

And now have a look at Mr. Bartel's trial and compare it to the others' ones, and yes, they all can learn from his. Or in other words: Shelve current trials (well, except Bartels' one) - if you can live with the quirks those programs unfortunately seem to present, probably not just within my set-up (- and probably Synergy isn't without fault either?) -, in case you'll ever need them for some time, and the respective developers will have changed crucial trial characteristics in the meantime. EDIT: Perhaps ShareMouse's free version is a real free version now, not a trial anymore? I've known it stopping working after some minutes every time, then closing the tool and invoking it anew was necessary if I remember well. In any case, continuous use was impossible.

And let's remember Mouse without Borders (which is free, not a trial): Perhaps you'll overcome my problem with its endlessly asking for inscrutable codes, and it'll make an acceptable KM for you, whilst coming without any thrills indeed.

[MilesAhead]

I had a Belkin KVMA switch older than this model:

http://www.dell.com/...393437454#polaris-pd

Mine relied on hitting the up or down arrow keys twice, sort of like a double click, to switch from one machine to the other.  It drew all power from the PS/2 keyboard and mouse connections.  The one shown that is similar to mine is only for 2 machines side by side with PS/2 connectors for keyboard and mouse and the standard VGA connector for the video.  Edit:  It did not switch the power to the machines, only the signals.  When it switched to the other machine it always reset the video mode to make sure everything was in sync.  The switch was pretty quick with just a momentary video glitch as the mode was reset to the mode it was already in.  There was some explanation in the docs why it was necessary.  But I got used to it pretty quickly.  End Edit


Even the one I had would only get "stuck" on one machine when the keyboard got locked up or the system was in a semi-hung state.  I guess they got rid of that problem by using the external switch.  In any case it worked better than any of the free network-based software switches I tried.  As well as sharing keyboard mouse and video it could also share a set of speakers and a microphone.  That switch must have lasted me at least 10 years.  I started out with a 486/Pentium III pair of machines.  As I discarded the old machine and replaced it with a new PC, usually an HP Pemtium 4 or AMD tower, I just slid the tower out and plugged into all the connections with the new tower.  Once I did the Windows initialization stuff and cleaned off the crapware I was in business.  I got my $66 worth many times over from that switch.

I believe they also had a 4 machine model but that required external A/C power.

[wraith808]

Multiplicity is from Stardocks (or from their branch-off Edge..., Ever.... Whatever), which obviously is the contrary of a one-man software software house, but which sells, besides lots of games, a lot of crap, their "Fences" being some quite prominent but particularly useless (and ugly) little tool for example. For non-big-corporations, Multiplicity comes in 3 flavors: 20$ for a KM for just 2 comps, and then 40$ / 100$ (always plus VAT) for up to 9 comps, but as a KVM, the 40$ versions handling the monitors of 2 of them though.

-ital2 (July 14, 2017, 06:56 AM)

I'd disagree quite heavily with you here.  First of all, Stardock is not a one man shop.  It's been around a while, and has been very prolific, especially in the customization community, with well done software.
 The games came after, not before, and Edgerunner was their attempt to put the business software under a different name.

I extensively use Multiplicity, and have found none of what you said to be true.  My primary computer has no load while I'm on my secondary computer, and I did check this while trying to run something down that was totally unrelated.  It's been a lifesaver at home and work, and very much easier for me to set up than Synergy or Sharemouse.  It just works.  Your other complaint about it- the lack of indication and how it's done- I can't really speak to, as I know when I'm on a different monitor, so it's never been an issue.  As you have to move the mouse, it seems that it's not something that you'd need an indication of, and I haven't found the need in practice. 

Fences contrary to what you said for me, is a very useful software, and I don't think that I'm the only one that thinks so.  It was already discussed here, and was favorably looked upon.  I use it to keep my desktop clear and categorize when I install a new application.  I used to use it for launching, but moved to TrueLaunchBar because of being able to put it on my taskbar, rather than anything wrong with fences.

[mouser]

I've recently had some good luck with a high-end kvm purchased cheap on ebay. It was this model, which supports usb switched wireless keyboard/mouse:
https://www.iogear.com/product/GCS1794/

[wraith808]

I've recently had some good luck with a high-end kvm purchased cheap on ebay. It was this model, which supports usb switched wireless keyboard/mouse:
https://www.iogear.com/product/GCS1794/

-mouser (July 14, 2017, 09:35 AM)

I used iogear products before I started using multiplicity, and was very satisfied with their products.  I just moved to software based ones because of the fact that hardware based ones can interfere with your signal while routing them, changing the capabilities from what your cards actually provide, and to get to a usable one, you have to spend a lot of money.

[Shades]

Relais are made to take a "beating", so noise is to be expected, but that isn't worrisome. If you have a mechanical switch that uses PS/2, any problem you experience can be blamed on that standard. It is designed to be under continuous power and therefore reacts very badly when power is interrupted. For work I used to have one with 4 channels and it came with its own power supply and circuitry to keep everything under power whether their channel was selected or not. For years I used it to operate 3 PC's with NT4 and Windows 98 on them. That KVM switch worked flawlessly, but with the caveat that you didn't exceed the maximum supported screen resolution.

In current day prices, that thing would have costed 600 Euro easily. Any other type of (electro-)mechanical switch? Hardly worth the hassle. USB based KVM switches are supposed to handle power interruptions much better than PS/2. Still, get a model without separate power supply and circuitry to keep unselected ports under power and it remains misery. These are also not cheap, but I hardly bothered with them as I went to another employer, where I discovered the Synergy KM software.

Back then it was free and worked very well, once you got your head around the strange way to configure it. Used that for years, but then went to an employer that would afford multiple monitors on decent enough hardware. About 6 months ago, I had a need for KM software again, but found out out that Synergy wasn't free anymore...and I couldn't find the installer in the software repository that follows me around since way back when.

First I tried InputDirector, but that wouldn't work. Then I tried Sharemouse, which, after setting it up only once, keeps on working flawlessly. Your comments about Sharemouse continuously needing to be configured sound therefore a bit strange to me.

There is still another device you could try, which uses the ethernet port on your computer to transfer the KVM signals. While those are expensive, they hardly have limitations. You could even get WAN access to such a device if you really want to. Google for 'IP-Based KVM' if you are interested.

[ital2]

@MilesAhead
I should have been more specific. I didn't intent to say the power is necessarily switched also, when I spoke of "electricity". I meant the signals' current. In other words, when you have a software KM/KVM, there are transmission lines with or without signals, but the lines "stand"; when the switch is done by relays, the lines are cut, re-established, cut again... and so on, so it's not only absence and re-establishment of signals, but of electric current (on-off), and I suppose that's not good for the electronics in the devices.

@mouser
Your link gives a regular price of 300$, so in Europe, it would come into the vicinity of 400€. I'm certain that physical/network/"IP" switches in that price range are constructed in a much smarter way than the "brute-force" ones, for around 100$, so it's perfectly possible that those expensive ones are the way to go; many in that price range work by net, not by physically cutting/re-establishing the lines, ie work in this respect at least like the software switches do, so the long-range problems I fear with the cheap ones will certainly not be realized. I am uncertain of the difference of software switches vs switch boxes switching by network; I suppose the main difference is that they incorporate their own processor for all the "intelligence", for the "master" software, so that ANY pc (or Mac?) connected, by net, to those boxes, are treated like "slaves", which very probably eliminates all the "master-slave" problems, the ones I have encountered, and others.

@Shades
You are right, my mechanical switches were PS/2 and VGA.
You speak of "600€ today" - that's what I mean, there are very certainly quite brilliant executions of a good idea, but they're not worthwile for me, while in a corporate environment, 600€ (for example) are "nothing" if the device serves well.
So about Input Director, we "agree".
You obviously mix up (some of) my comments about ShareMouse (Bartels) and Mouse without Borders (MS); I've had the macro-tool-incompatibility problem with (the otherwise brilliantly-devised, except for its lack of the monitor/"video" part) ShareMouse, whilst it was Mouse without Borders that gnaggned me constantly for re-entering cryptic codes.
Those "IP-Based KVM" were the thing I'd speaking about when I mentioned "net-based" devices; they are very certainly the way to go for "heavy use", ie when you need a KVM switch constantly, and when the price is thus justified.

@wraith
You cite me with, "which obviously is the contrary of a one-man software software house", and which was to mean, "they have plenty of manpower - oops, it's called personpower nowadays -, so they can apply plenty of hours to the elimination of bugs", and indeed, I've not been happy with a "wakened-up" computer having to be re-started (see above).
.
So your, "First of all, Stardock is not a one man shop." comes from your misunderstanding what I wrote.
Re Fences. We've had a discussion here, some weeks ago, about application launchers, and I think we agree that an application (incl. file/folder) launcher should NOT come into your way but facilitate the access to the max, so I have 1-key triggers for my main information management program, for my application/etc. launcher, each for several file managers; 2-key triggers (ie the F-key for the application launcher, then just another char key) for the applications I use very often (but not as often as the 1-key programs - aside*), and finally 3-key triggers for EVERY other program/tool/whatever:
. (here the paragraph had been too long indeed)
1. I sacrify regular keys; 2. I open a 1-key menu, then press a 1-key (char key) entry in that menu, 3. I press a 1-key (char key) in the menu in order to open a sub-menu; in reality, I've long memorized the (mnemonic) 1/2/3 keys to press in order to get to some dozens of applications/etc. (and I retain all key combinations for other things) - Fences: 1. Go to the desktop (I never see my desktop except when starting the computer, and it's a nuisance even then), 2. Move the mouse to the symbol of the application (or even to the symbol for a sub-Fence, hehe?), 3. click - and pray that your screen is big enough (and move your mouse over many, many cm or ") - or memorize, or look up weird key combinations (few of which will be mnemonic) - do the remain available for other things when the desktop isn't active, so... risk they to interfere with native / macro commands in applications? Fences shortkeys just ON the desktop? good? So why do you want to have the desktop flash up again and again in your work? Is it as pretty as that? With all the icons in the Fences?
. (here again)
My menu just takes the space it needs, I've got shorter and longer sub-menus, and in particular, I've got many of them, so that my lists remain quite short and my char keys to select/trigger remain mnemonic, and that's very important for QUICK access to over 200 (!) applications, tools and so on - how do YOU manage with such a quantity to tame, in Fences? I do NOT say my home-made menu system is better than really good application managers are (but then, do they have forks in order for the same manager to be run on several OS, English and other languages, as my system has?); my point just is, Fences is one of the most ugly, cumbersome, slow and, in a word, WORST application managers there is - I'm speaking from memory (trialled it years ago), so IF it has really matured in the meantime, please tell us why NOW it would have become so much better than what I know of Fences.
. (and here again)
(I don't have left ANY icon on my desktop - whenever an application installs an icon there, I immediately sort the former into my menus and delete the latter, but why should anyone having a good application manager at their disposal, sort icons up in fences instead of disposing of them? Icons are welcome in the taskbar, though.)
.
I did not say the Multiplicity "master" has got unwanted "load", I said while I had installed Multiplicity, when the "master" went to sleep, then was waken up, I had to restart the computer instead. BUT:
As said above, I had to install ShareMouse 2 (!) on both computers since the XP one didn't accept version 3; with Multiplicity, there may exist a similar problem: I installed the current version (3) on both computers, but from their website, it should not run on XP. So this "the master pc doesn't wake correctly up anymore" problem may indeed be caused by version problems. But as said above, I seriously think that KV/KVM switches are MEANT to function correctly in heterogenic nets, so they SHOULD function correctly, also with XP computers connected to the net.
.
As for the "active screen indicator", again, if you use ShareMouse with "inactive screen around 15 per cent", you can see what brilliant GUI design can do for you; Multiplicity is very lame in this respect. And for the mouse, well, I'm constantly in search for my mouse cursor, in editors and all the more so on different screens, so instead of the mouse cursor helping me to identify the active screen, I'd need an efficient screen indicator in order to identify on which screen to search for the cursor. ;-)
.
Stardocks is, above all, a game developer - you developing games, for Stardocks, too? It's correct, I've been very disappointed by Multiplicity, but that's precisely because it seemed to be the only KV(!)M alternative in my price range (see above), whilst I can't even use it as a KM, for the problems described above. I'd be more than happy to buy it whenever they put it into shape since then it'd be the ideal solution for my needs - and we agree they've got the manpower to do the necessary further development.
.
EDIT July 16, 2017: I inserted demi-blanklines for better readability where I had just breaks or even no breaks at all; wraith808 has been perfectly right upon the utterly-bad readability here.

typos
I've seen my "I've dumbed" instead of "I've dumped" in my very first line above, but I didn't want to touch onto my text beyond the very first 15 minutes since I had said ShareMouse was 40$, then corrected myself it's 30 and 50$ now, and probably the free version is a true free version (for 2 pc's) now, while in the time, it definitely wasn't, the developer designed it to stop working after some - if I remember well, 10 - minutes; since now I "trialled" the paid version ("Professional", so it must have cost me 25$ plus VAT at bits, not 20), I cannot say, but in case, I've shelved several "old" free/trial versions of the tool. Since they have weird laws in Germany, the home of ShareMouse - you can assassinate people there without any consequences if you're politically/socially-protected, but for false allegations, you can easily go to jail, and for a long time -, I consider it important the timestamp proves I "corrected" myself - IF their free version is a real free version today, NOT stopping working every 10 minutes that is - within the very first 15 minutes, when there were only 4 "page views", of which 2 were mine. So any other typo in there I must leave as it is, for the sake of the timestamp.

*: The aside: I also own a 128-key Preh "Commander", but I ended up with shelving it since going with my finger(s) to the right key (all color-coded in groups, for easier jumping-over-there), takes MORE time than 1-to-3 consecutive keys I know by heart; so I just use a Cherry 4700 (21 keys, quite tiny, which is important), as additional, context-sensitive "smart-keys"; and another hint here: If you want to get rid of the unbearable "key-pressed" notification, just open your registry, go to Cherry/KeyMan/ShowUserHint and set it from 1 to 0, then Cherry 4700 is the best-value little additional kb you can buy. (It's a shame you cannot find any kb with a second range of additional F-keys (F13-F24) anymore, since that would have been the ideal place for additional keys, with F1-F12 as near the char keys as possible.)

And again an off-topic: Yes, users are fond of "Fences", and yes, they are fond of "Registrar Registry Manager", and they are obviously NOT annoyed by the fact that "RRM" (the "Home" version, but then, it's probably the same problem in the paid one? or then, leave they bugs in the free version in order to incite to buy? certainly not!) does not seem to come with a reliable search engine: At least in my case, I had searched for some term beginning with abc..., and RRM also displayed (hundreds of) abd..., abe... ... "hits". So much for RRM which always and everywhere doesn't get but raves, while another  registry tool only displayed the wanted abc... I know that "millions" rave of "Fences", but that's no reason for saying it's useful except for people unable to really sort their things.

[wraith808]

I apologize.  I didn't read your entire response above (that paragraph that started with Re Fences), as it seemed like a rant against what I wrote, and the meat of it was one long paragraph that would have take more energy to parse than I was willing to put into this. 

But as I said, I use Fences to organize things that are installed automatically, and to categorize a few pieces of software that are tools, and used it as a launcher before I started using True Launch Bar, using c.gingerich's launcher in a fence that related to different categories.  That's my use case, and I find it useful.  If you don't, then that's cool too.  Apparently Fences doesn't work for you as an interface.  That's your preference.  But to say something is useless just because you don't see the utility struck me as wrongheaded, and denigrating others experience with the software seems a bit self-centered.

I did parse your sentence wrong above, and for that I apologize too- I find that when many words are thrown at something, it becomes easy to wrongly parse such statements.  I however didn't parse your sentence about the problems with your primary computer, but apparently you misunderstood what I meant by load.  All I was saying was that this wasn't a general issue, and that I'd looked extensively into it when I was troubleshooting, and it wasn't interfering with the main computer.  I apologize that my word choice caused you such consternation.

If the way that sharemouse does their UI is good for you, then good for you.  I just stated that I didn't see the particular need, which I'm allowed I think.

Stardocks is, above all, a game developer - you developing games, for Stardocks, too?

-ital2 (July 15, 2017, 03:19 PM)

That's what I took exception to.  They are not above all a game developer.  Their start was with Object Desktop many years ago. This included Wincustomize (the site), WindowBlinds, WindowFX, IconPackager, and many more (even a shell, which I enjoyed using, but it took too much effort to use the full power, which is the reason that I think they dropped it.  The game portion came next, with the Drengin Network Games Subscription. They have re-branded themselves a few times (rolling Drengin back into Stardock, having their own Game/Software platform before selling it to Gamestop, spinning off ThinkDesk for productivity, rolling it back into Stardock, then spinning it off into Edgerunner, and rolling it back into Stardock).  I'm not sure how to parse that last bit- it was a question, but though it may be my failing, I couldn't parse it.  If you could rephrase it or unpack it, I can answer it if it was a question.

Otherwise, I hope you find what you're looking for in a KM/KVM solution.

[ital2]

@wraith808
"took exception" - past tense? My question arose from the fact that you seemed to be personally-implied somewhat in one specific one of the tools I compared, relating my experiences with every one of them - such a real-life comparison cannot be found elsewhere up to this point; I had thought to be - and that others would have got - well informed by https://www.slant.co...virtual-kvm-software but as my post above shows, this was and is not so, so there has clearly been a need for such a personal (almost-) overall-review, and there's always the need for complementing it with new finds, and also for correcting any possible errors in it (see below).

No need to discuss textual misunderstandings, no need to run for shelter behind an alleged inscrutability of my texts when my sentence in question had been clear as day and had found a prominent place in your citation; I've got moments of inattentions all the time, so I'm happy to stand corrected a moment later, no need to feel get worked up over it, it's not a 1 instead of 0 in some moonraker. Ditto for your "load" vs my "didn't get woken up anymore", you were clearly referring to that problem of mine with your pet program; I never alleged your deflection - and deflection it was - had been intentional.

As for Fences, if I understand you correctly, you switched from it, to some much real application manager which does things much more in the line of what I advocate in the text you didn't read (and where I've detailed (!) WHY I disapprove of Fences), so let me thank you very kindly for YOUR ultimate argument for MY stance, and furthermore, I'm eager to return the favor. In fact, a possible argument pro Fences could be that when you sort LOTS of applications and such into some functional (!) application manager at the same time, it quickly becomes a little bit unwieldily, so a graphical PRE-sort, integrated within that functional application manager, could come handy (drag-n-drop while everything remains visible in its (provisional) target location, assuming quite tiny icons, like they are displayed in the W10-taskline); if you want to use Fences for such a pre-sort, the question arises, of course, how well then the shift to a real application manager will proceed. Anyway, for some non-insider: Quite just incredible fervor, insight, commitment: Kudos to that company for having such deeply loving (EDIT: no, this would have been:) amorous customers!

Re Multiplicity
Probably, my internet connection provisionally not working anymore had NOT been Multiplicity's fault, since I've got this once now again after its de-install, and I now suspect another tool to be the culprit in this case; this doesn't not yet affect my observation with regards to the wake-up problem, while the latter may have been caused by another tool also, but I will not start to suspect other programs but when this problem will show up again, too.

This being said, I confirm my stance that network tools should allow for mixing up both several generations of the same OS (for the reasons given above) and different OS (as (only? the non-video-too-sharing) ShareMouse does), while Multiplicity bluntly says, on the screen of the "slave" XP comp, something in the line of, "This OS doesn't support video sharing." - No, that does NOT seem to be true, since IF (?) expensive, dedicated "IP"/network boxes can (?) do it, any really good software-only KVM, installed in a powerful "master" computer, could do it (enough manpower invested in its development, that is, and for which Stardocks or whatever they call your spin-offs HAS the man-woman-and-undefined-power available in theory, and that had been my point all along wraith808 was and is so unhappy with, among other things) - just like it's possible to do in-processor-graphics instead of installing a dedicated graphics card: Just replicate what's in the box, by the master-pc's processor power - remember the IP boxes then work by the LAN, not by direct cabling anymore, so IF they can do (if not, my argument falls flat of course), if they can retrieve the XP's screen output, your master-pc-driven software tool should be able to do it, too; the same would apply to programs like TeamViewer and other eternal-access tools: They had been around in the general-XP area, no? Thus, we see just another "good-enough" decision, while probably "games" yield (much) more money per development-hour, not technical impossibility.


Meta
Oh, it's so sweet and easy, that cheap "I didn't hear you" instead of bringing arguments on my part. But there's always the solution Ath once asked for. Hihi. Oh, and are you sure they don't make their money out of games, mostly? And/OR that they don't dedicate most development hours to games? That was what I'd alleged (see your citation, here again).

[wraith808]

"took exception" - past tense? My question arose from the fact that you seemed to be personally-implied somewhat in one specific one of the tools I compared, relating my experiences with every one of them - such a real-life comparison cannot be found elsewhere up to this point; I had thought to be - and that others would have got - well informed by https://www.slant.co...virtual-kvm-software but as my post above shows, this was and is not so, so there has clearly been a need for such a personal (almost-) overall-review, and there's always the need for complementing it with new finds, and also for correcting any possible errors in it (see below).

-ital2 (July 16, 2017, 07:25 AM)

Personally implied?  I don't get that.  Which was again, the reason that I thought that misunderstanding comes from a difference in use of the language.  I was trying to be understanding of differences.

No need to discuss textual misunderstandings, no need to run for shelter behind an alleged inscrutability of my texts when my sentence in question had been clear as day and had found a prominent place in your citation; I've got moments of inattentions all the time, so I'm happy to stand corrected a moment later, no need to feel get worked up over it, it's not a 1 instead of 0 in some moonraker. Ditto for your "load" vs my "didn't get woken up anymore", you were clearly referring to that problem of mine with your pet program; I never alleged your deflection - and deflection it was - had been intentional.

-ital2 (July 16, 2017, 07:25 AM)

Which from the above, doesn't seem to have been taken well.

I was just laying out my personal experiences and objections.  I did bring my arguments, but you choose not to hear them nor take them for the fact that someone else can have a differing opinions or experiences.  Especially as currently, I'm using Multiplicity on differing OSes.  It's not my 'pet' program, nor do I have any particular investment in the company.  I've used all of the above in my quest for the same, and thought that I could provide an anecdotal experience of the one that I stuck with and have experience with.  My experience is purely as a consumer, and through that on their forums as that's what I stuck with.  Which also dovetails into your jab at my reading of Fences.  I tried to read it.  But the general format of that paragraph made it much more work than I cared to put into understanding to formulate a reply.  So I let you know that I might have missed something because of that- because I thought it was polite.  Apparently not.

As others have said, if you want someone to read your posts, you might try to formulate your posts in a more readable fashion.  They just aren't.  Or not.  But if you don't want to change or even try, don't attack others when they don't want to spend the mental energy to try to parse it.

To put it into perspective again, I continue to try to find the best approach for what I'm doing.  And sometimes, an approach is just as good as another. Or sometimes, though your approach is perfectly workable, someone comes out with a different implementation that you wish to try or you find that you like better, even though there is nothing wrong with the other software.  I really did like the implementation that I had, and it worked well for my Surface (which I still use it on, but it's not my primary computer).  In fact, it works better on my Surface for touch manipulation than TLB does.  They're all just tools, and you use whichever is best for your workflow.

At this point, let's just agree to disagree.  I don't like to 'discuss' when it becomes personal, which your coda above seems to imply this is descending into- not the only part, but that's where it's getting more pointed.

[ital2]

@wraith808
You're oh so right about the non-readability of my paragraphs addressing you above, in my editing field it didn't show up as horrible as then on the page, but still... So you've had any reason to NOT read that text bulge; I've enhanced the wrap accordingly now, which doesn't imply I'd exacted your comments on my arguments, but you will probably want to make corrections where they apply. This being said, in case you're still interested in that Fences matter, you'd now be able to see that I brought arguments to back up my opinion-from-experience, whilst I, for the heck of me, cannot remember a single argument of yours in favor for Fences, you've just made (very) clear your very high opinion of it, which isn't the same thing.
.
It's interesting that you say, you use Multiplicity with "differing OSes"; you refer possibly to Linux here? Or to different Windows version? 10 AND 7? Well, they say, "System Requirements - Windows 10, 8 and 7 32-bit and 64-bit", so that would be within the rules anyway. While ShareMouse makes available for download also the previous version, so that I could install that "XP"-compatible version on both machines, Stardocks doesn't do similarly, so I had to install the current version onto my XP machine, too, and it worked well so far, except for the facts I observed and described.
.
But then, what's "facts", eh? "I did bring my arguments [your absence of problems with Multiplicity has very well heard, noted and accepted], but you choose not to hear them nor take them for the fact that someone else can have a differing opinions or experiences [I didn't dump your opionion/experience, I stated your absence of backing them up as far as Fences was concerned]." - note that when I bring the term "fact" together with my impressions (which can always be wrong), I also use the term "seem" (see above), while you're definitely wrong in what you tried to observe here.
.
As for efficient visual indicators, the stance "I don't need them" is NOT to be respected ("heard/taken") when it comes to software, any more than any other "I don't need that functionality" when other users have a real, comprehensible need for that individually-unwanted functionality, my processor continuously running at about 3 p.c., my memory constantly being under 30 p.c., and most people's computers nowadays being alike, and btw when I was on XP with 2 GB, I NEVER complained about too much functionality of any program, albeit less functionality could probably have put less strain on my continuously in full-load running system. People who "don't need" functionality craved for by others, are highly-co-responsible for developers' laziness and even so-called "crippling updates" (we should create a thread for those indeed).
.
You know, nobody wants to impose things upon you, everything's to be strictly optional, but others want to impose absence of things for those who need them, so you see there's no symmetry here: Some people need something which wouldn't bother others, not taking away anything from them, while others simply don't want others getting either something they need, for the simple reason that for the no-crowd taking away / not allowing is more satisfactory than just giving a sh**. Oh, those votable road-maps, yeah: There, I'd understand such behavior at least, but its recurring behavior also and predominantly in the respective software product forums where you cannot utter any wish without immediately at least some nay-sayer jumping in and rassuring the developer(s) that no, oh no, such functionality is totally expandable, and don't waste another second on the sheer thought of it!
.
And with that, I'm even tremendously more fed up than with malfunctioning KM/KVM switches. Again, affirmation and negation are not two sides of a coin, but negation is rotting and destroying the coin itself. I've been politically very active for around 2 years, but now, any political saying against the mainstream has been criminalized in the countries concerned, so like in any fascist state of your choice, there's no more political activity possible except for followers: It's way OFF "neutral" to say yes to free speech, or to say no to it, and the masses who have AGREED TO NO SINCE THEY PERSONALLY DON'T NEED IT have doomed Europe (and will continue to do so and to accelerate nemesis with every poll to come).
.
Of course, I'm totally speaking off-topic here, but I think the parallels leap to the eye: I know lots of now-crippled software which had been so much more functional before; I know the state of democracy in some European countries from some 30 years ago; the "I don't need it" pack's responsible for the seizures on both fields and will ultimately be for the ruin of the whole system(s). (You know, when I read thread titles like "Still using Chrome? Enjoy being watched." here, I just laugh instead of trying to participate; we all know it's just the slightest, brightest facet of a beginning of whole nother things to come upon you.) - And now back to joyous applied-informatics arguing while we can.

Nib
I had missed another aspect (important for me) with ALL software KMs. Nib, a little tool I use for automatically triggering mouseclicks; it's around 50€ but has saved my right arm), does NOT work on the "slave" computer(s) (and on which it's installed and running too, of course), with ANY of the above tools I've trialled. I once tried to replicate its functionality myself in my macro program, with a timer, but the original has simply been working much better than my replica, so I always use Nib, and understandably, it's very unintuitive to have Nib doing the clicks on the screens of my main computer, while I wait in vain for the click on any "slave" pc. I don't expect those developers to bother with Nib, which is for (nearly-) handicapped but I would have (had) to bother again with a better implementation of its functionality in my macroing; as said, except for ShareMouse, all of the trialled contenders (with the possible partially exception of Input Director, see above) didn't break the correct functioning of my macros, be it on the "master" or on the "slave(s)", so click generating on the "slaves" seems to be perfectly possible after all, just not with "Nib".

[wraith808]

I'm sorry if you took it that my expressing my anecdotal experiences and opinions were in any way denigrating your own- I was just giving a contrary view, not trying to discount or discard your own.  I've found that I have taken a look at things in a different light when given opinions that run counter to my own, which is what I really enjoy about the conversations here.  People can have alternate views of things without taking them personally, and we can talk and disagree and still have conversations.  Apparently I failed in that with you, which I sincerely apologize for my part.

Your post above is definitely a lot easier to parse- I thank you for taking that into account, even though I know that you didn't have to do so.  The tone is a lot better also to me, and I thank you for that consideration.

I do disagree with the "I don't need them" not being a serious and respectable reply.  It speaks to your experience with it and reduces bloat in the software.  When I said I didn't need the visual indicators, I wasn't denigrating your apparent need for it.  I was saying that I've never looked into that particular thing.  I've seen how sharemouse does it.  And I don't like it.  I also don't use it in multiplicity.  It's a feature that I don't personally need, and so have no real opinion on.  It's gaudy in both cases in my opinion, it gets in the way for my particular workflow.  None of these work in some security instances, so I have a mouse connected to my separate computers, and indeed keyboards.  For example, on my laptop, it's encrypted.  I can't use a separate keyboard.  Also when accessing the security software that my company put on there, remote commands don't work.  So having the screen dimmed out at all is an inconvenience to me.  Therefore I don't need them and need to have a way not to have them is just as big of a feature need as your need to have them.  Which is the reason that having options in the software, and options in different software is a consideration in my estimation, and should not be discounted, in my humble opinion.

As far as Fences, what I liked about it was the fact that I was able to make zones where things when installed under certain conditions go.  I still use that functionality.  I also liked the fact that I could arrange my desktop into zones, and able to right click, draw a zone, and have that persist.  And able to integrate my desktop into the positioning of it, and integrate that into customization of my windows shell and view, which was the reason that I started using Stardock software in the first place.  There is a whole community around customization from a personal level and changing the look and feel of windows. That appealed to me at one time.  NextStart, Rainlendar, and other software appealed to me during that time also.  But over time, the effort involved in doing so, especially when the OS changed, and my own sensibilities changed.  That's when I moved away from those particular types of software.  At this point, I don't care about the look and feel as much, so go with something minimal- like my recent efforts to make use of the more powerful features of FARR and TLB. That particular pendulum may go back the other way at some point.  But it has no bearing on the functionality of said programs.  It seems to me that your particular issues with it, and your particular disposal of such as 'useful' software is also based on conflating your personal opinions on the software with the functionality, and declaring it useless for everyone, other than, but that's no reason for saying it's useful except for people unable to really sort their things.  I don't like it is always valid.  No one should like it is not.  And we're sharing personal experiences to broaden horizons, IMO.

And as a final note, I'm not trying to denigrate your posts.  I'm trying to understand them. And the use of the English language is very important in that understanding.  So when I state something about that use, it's to facilitate understanding of something that makes no sense to me.  It's in no way a personal attack on you or your opinions, nor personal in any manner.

[ital2]

@wraith808
"For example, on my laptop, it's encrypted.  I can't use a separate keyboard." - I wonder if the KM tools which offer encryption can help; with really good security on the "slaves" probably not, indeed. - I discovered that whenever there are different kb, different mice on my desk, I invariably "try" to actionate the devices nearest to me even when I "know" they don't work for pc's farther away...

You know, texting doesn't transport smiling, and thruout post which, from your textual "tone" which I might have misunderstood though, seemed to have put you in quite real anger, I had a good time - foil fencing, while you seem to have misinterpreted my tone as overly-, not just good-sport-, aggressive: it's playfulness obviously didn't transperce.

I'm sorry for my carelessness with regards to the compacted-text; it's my fault I didn't get aware of it, but it hadn't been intential; I understand it must have put you in totally-justified mood.

It's funny you mention Rainlendar, that's another piece of sh** - oops, I shouldn't say that, I see. But then, it's allegedly free, while it cost me more than 40€, more than 60 bucks at the time - howzat? In fact, I had just started to use it some weeks ago (coming from paper agendas), and I also entered my various lending periods in it (different university libraries, different periods for the same lib, so no chance to memorize core dates or to do it with leaves in the books), and one fine day, I suddenly was charged nearly 50€ for overdue charges, just like that.

I then discovered that I had entered the common due date for multiple books on the correct day, but one month too late, and that's oh so easy with Rainlendar, much too easy in fact! I'm a fervent advocate of key control, but it should not as easy to change the month, inadvertantly, as it is in that calendar/agenda tool, neither should it be accepted or that the month doesn't immediately revert to the current one after some input into the next - so there are at least two traps wide open for missing appointments with Rainlendar which in this markedness don't exist with acceptable agenda tools - for my 60 bucks, I would have got some really good stuff, for example what was it called again? Remember the milk? no, that's online now. Remember my life? Neither. Oh, it's My Life Organized - oh yes, you CAN fold your sales by nutty naming...

So after that, I bought ListPro, even in intimate knowledge of its numerous faults, but since, I didn't pay another dime for overdues, while with Rainlendar continued, I probably could have easily spent the worth of the annual fee for Swift To-Do List (100 bucks plus VAT) per year.

I even considered an iPad - I mused about it here - for ListPro then... up to the point when I discovered that ListPro does NOT give alarm on the iThings, which makes it useless for me then. (Entering dates isn't as easy but seems more or less foolproof to me, so that's a pity.)


Fences: We more or less agree: One outgrows of fences - you did - since its order-capabilities are too limited, it's just that I discovered this within an hour or so, years ago, whilst you discovered hidden qualities, when I dispended with it immediately: "the fact that I was able to make zones where things when installed under certain conditions go" - ephemeral use indeed, just like I playfully but being serious at the same time mentioned ago. I admit I'm severe with Fences, but then, application launchers are about FAST access, and switching to the desktop and then stirring around with the mouse isn't that fast, is it.


I didn't want to equate not needing software features with not wanting democracy anymore; I just jumped in - faultily disrepecting your right to not wanting unneeded features for some good moment, I must admit that - because I've heard the "not needed here, move on" reaction from fellow users, not even waiting for the developer's own reaction, in various software user forums a bit too often, and then it occurred to me that this generalized hyperconservatism

(yes, I know what's bloatware, and you're right about it, but if they had realize their bloat in some optimized way, we both would happily welcome it: it's the badly-done bloat aspect in bloatware that puts us off, almost any well-designed (!) additional feature'd become highly useful in the end, for most of us)

in politics is ruining Europe: people waive what they should battle for. I'm certainly not out now to bother fellow compsters with politics, just let me mention here some news I got late this evening only and which is suitable here for two aspects:

From some German blog (see the screenshot over there: "somebody's [Twitter] account has been withheld in: Germany" [while you'd expect for example Egypt here]): http://www.danisch.d...held-in-deutschland/ I followed this link: https://support.twit...m/articles/20169222# - "Country withheld content" (over there, everything's in English):

They obviously censor whole Twitter accounts for READING in specific countries now, and in countries you would have sworn a short while ago still they were perfect democracies (well, I know better, but I entirely acknowledge this forum isn't the place to discuss those things).

Twitter's a subject here, and, as said, just mentioning, not opening a thread or such, not bothering anybody with it except for just drawing attention.

And the second aspect: I don't use Twitter, I don't need it, I even don't know it but for its name and some screenshot here and there. So I could say now, I don't need it. May they hide'n'kill there what pleases them. I don't. See above. ;-)

Peace.

[wraith808]

I'm glad we could end on a better note 

I can see my own part in this... one of my pet peeves (I suppose from my Libertarian and/or Centrist leanings (not sure what the difference is)) is people categorically saying things about my (or indeed others') needs.  But that's not really what you meant- it's my own failing at not being able to let such things go.

As far as Fences goes, I think I have an image of my desktop at the time around- I might try to find it.  As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words, and I think it might do me well as my words fail.

Thanks for the conversation!

[wraith808]

Two posts where I showed my use of Fences if you're interested:

https://www.donation....msg386893#msg386893

https://www.donation....msg387094#msg387094

It wasn't so much a maturing past the use of it.  It's just that my workflow changed, as did my focus on computing.  I still think it's a great piece of software, and go back to it occasionally.

[ital2]

@wraith
Convinced. I'ts neither devoid of interest, nor is it ugly. I had trialed Fences some years ago, and it had been unbearable, probably also partly from my own fault, and certainly some quite early version it was, too. As I see, you also love to see a neat desktop, albeit not one as purged as totally as mine is. And I see that Fences isn't necessarily used to demarcate the whole field. I'm quite a free spirit, you know, so I appreciate this, and it's visually very beautiful what you did with it; I really must have trialed a very early version! ;-)


EDIT July 23, 2017
See my THIRD post (and the last part of my second post there) in my screens thread https://www.donation...ndex.php?topic=44104 on various desktop subjects.

[BGM]

I've used this one for my server rack and liked it so much I got another one for another server rack.  They don't cost very much, and can hook up FOUR machines to a single monitor and keyboard.  It works VERY well.  I'd buy another one without thinking about it and without ever searching for alternatives.  For $40, I was WELL-PLEASED.

I just wire it to the rack behind all the equipment, and then use double-stick-padded-tape to stick the switcher to the front of the rack.  Push the button to switch, and voila!  Joy!  I love it!