Author Topic: Latest FARR v2.00.140 ALPHA PREVIEW Release - Aug 15, 2007 (Read 634517 times)

Deozaan · « **Reply #75 on:** January 03, 2007, 02:20 PM »

I just installed FARR. I know the interface is the last thing you want to think about, but on my system some of the text is clipped.
I attached a bit of a screeen capture.
dk
-DocSavage (January 02, 2007, 07:33 PM)

Do you have your font size set larger than the default? Seems really big to me.

mouser · « **Reply #76 on:** January 03, 2007, 02:27 PM »

yes it is.. i thought that would be a nice thing.

Deozaan · « **Reply #77 on:** January 03, 2007, 02:30 PM »

yes it is.. i thought that would be a nice thing.
-mouser (January 03, 2007, 02:27 PM)

I was actually asking that to DocSavage. Maybe it's a malformed Skin.

jgpaiva · « **Reply #78 on:** January 03, 2007, 02:51 PM »

Deozaan & DocSavage: That problem is already known. The settings dialogs in mouser's programs don't scale when using windows set with larger than normal fonts. I believe it's related with the borland compiler that mouser uses. right?

mouser · « **Reply #79 on:** January 03, 2007, 02:58 PM »

yes, and it is my eternal nemesis!

DocSavage · « **Reply #80 on:** January 03, 2007, 03:36 PM »

Yes, I use "large, 120 dpi" font size.
It is not a deal-breaker, I can figure out the text.
dk

mouser · « **Reply #81 on:** January 04, 2007, 02:09 PM »

new minor update with bug fixes.. (2.00.08)
expect new version soon with a couple more major features before v2 goes live.

same downlod for new version.
Skin Pack has not changed so you don't need to redownload that.

TucknDar · « **Reply #82 on:** January 04, 2007, 05:49 PM »

Think I found a bug, and I'll explain:

If I open FARR (Ctrl+Space) then click on the Options icon, the options screen is displayed. So far so good. Then I close FARR, and the Options screen is closed with it. Guess that's fine, although maybe not what I had in mind, so I right click on the FARR icon in the system tray and pick Options. Nothing happens. Weird. I open FARR again (Ctrl+Space) and the Options screen is right there with it. Yay.
But, and here's where I think there's a bug, when I want to close the option screen, I can't! I keep clicking that little X over and over again, but it won't go away!

I don't know if that behaviour is intentional, but if it is, it seems strange to me

Can anyone confirm?

mouser · « **Reply #83 on:** January 04, 2007, 05:52 PM »

confirmed - nice bug find. will be fixed next release.

jcmn · « **Reply #84 on:** January 05, 2007, 04:59 AM »

Hello

I would like to try the this new version 2. The new features are exactly what I need. Please provide me the link.

jcmn · « **Reply #85 on:** January 05, 2007, 11:53 AM »

I just began test this version 2 and I'm quite impressed by the power and simplicity. I have only one tiny suggestion: to be possible to sort results by modification date and not only by scoring.

jdmarch · « **Reply #86 on:** January 06, 2007, 03:56 PM »

Mouser, I *mostly* like the new ranking method. But what I don't like is that a blank search no longer shows launch history in Most-recently-used order.

When I first press the FARR hot key, I want the most recently accessed program at the top, and so on down the list, the way it used to be (because I'll tend to run things in clumps.)

But when I start to type, then I'm looking for something that did not run very recently (or I would have just picked it from the afore-mentioned MRU list.) So then I want scoring to come into play.

Make any sense?

Thanks!

mouser · « **Reply #87 on:** January 06, 2007, 06:11 PM »

jdmarch, what you are saying makes some sense - i'll add an option for it (in for a penny, in for a pound).
or do we think that having it always operate that way is preferable and no option to order it by score is even needed?

jgpaiva · « **Reply #88 on:** January 06, 2007, 07:06 PM »

I'd go for that being the default behaviour and not adding another option. I can't think of any situation where that would be handy. If one wants to keep a listof most frequently ran programs on the blank search, that person should use a default alias.

[edit] jdmarch: do you have the latest build? i think i reported this to mouser not much time ago and he fixed it... [/edit]

jdmarch · « **Reply #89 on:** January 06, 2007, 07:12 PM »

jgpaiva: I'm running FARR 2.00.08.

mouser: No strong opinion. Hard to say, but I don't think I'd turn this option off. But let's see, suppose I wanted to run a program, which I knew I use pretty often, but I was simply blanking on its name (happens more than I would like!) Then this option might be useful. But one does want to avoid a confusing surfeit of options.

TucknDar · « **Reply #90 on:** January 07, 2007, 02:04 AM »

how about first half of the result list shows recently launched apps in the "old" order, and second half of the list sorts by scores?

But I like the scoring feature, although it takes a little getting used to when I'm so used to the old behaviour

jdmarch · « **Reply #91 on:** January 07, 2007, 01:25 PM »

Or how about a "sticky" (between invocations) checkbox/hotkey right on the main input window which would toggle the display between "Launch History selection/order" and "scored selection/order"?

This could be useful not only when the input line is blank, but even after the user starts to type.

mouser · « **Reply #92 on:** January 07, 2007, 01:37 PM »

Or how about a "sticky" (between invocations) checkbox/hotkey right on the main input window which would toggle the display between "Launch History selection/order" and "scored selection/order"?

i would oppose that - for such a minor issue i wouldnt want to affect the main form which we try to keep very clean.
i also have a hard time thinking this is something people will want to be switching between often (or at all).

kfitting · « **Reply #93 on:** January 07, 2007, 03:40 PM »

Don't think this has come up, but is this behavior intended?

- bring up FARR and enter a search
- open the options dialog and go to the "Display" tab
- choose different options for the "Result Label Path." Choosing none gives full path. Further, if I choose the other options, files show the level of path that I would expect while folders continue to show full path

This isn't not a huge deal, just something I saw while playing around.

Kevin

mouser · « **Reply #94 on:** January 07, 2007, 09:02 PM »

V2.02.01 is now released with 2 major new (long requested) features:
Keyword modifiers and non-contiguous search words.

See first post for more details. Same download as before for alpha testers.
I'm hoping this will be ready to go public by Jan 12.

jdmarch · « **Reply #95 on:** January 07, 2007, 10:04 PM »

Mouser, I think it would be helpful (at least in the help file if not here) to say something about how non-contiguous search words (multiword search) are implemented.

What it looks like to me, from initial testing, is that when multiple words are typed, the first word is required text, as before, but that if subsequent words are not present then there is a big scoring penalty. It's not clear to me how path matching works; some paths that include the second word seem to get a boost, but others not.

FWIW (which may not be much!) what I would have expected intuitively is that all the specified words be equivalent in importance... via either boolean AND or OR. If they are not treated the same, then it's harder to figure out what's happening.

mouser · « **Reply #96 on:** January 07, 2007, 10:58 PM »

its a good point jdmarch, and your comments are right on the money.

the intent is that ALL words must be present.

but in fact only the first word is really required.

i could make the other words required as well, but thought that simply penalizing them hugely would have the same basic effect while showing the user a little bit more if there are no good exact matches. but i can fix that.

(having the first word be strictly required is important for efficiency).

jdmarch · « **Reply #97 on:** January 07, 2007, 11:36 PM »

~~Here's a screen shot clip~~ showing the apparent inconsistent treatment of the second word in the path.
Edit: never mind, the difference was due to other applicable scoring rules, not to differing treatment of the path. My bad.

nitrix-ud · « **Reply #98 on:** January 08, 2007, 12:46 PM »

Hi mouser,

i can't wait january 12 for the public release, can you provide me with the download link

Thanks a lot !

Cheers, Nitrix

Josh · « **Reply #99 on:** January 08, 2007, 01:55 PM »

Can you resend me the links mousey? Also, did you add a separate options tab for KEYWORD launchers which are separated from group aliases?