Thanks so much for your response - maybe had I read more of the Forum, I could have saved both of us some time!  Thanks again for sWeather.

You're very welcome and no worries.  I'm glad you find sWeather useful.

Hey guy,
    I found that the latest version 1.8.2 could not show selected city's name when I hovered my mouse on any of the tray icons. I am very sure that
previous version (for example version 1.7.x)  can show different information when hovering on tray icon including selected city's name. Please bring it back!

I took the liberty to modify the script a little in regard to tray icon display and a (fake) tray tooltip.
It is an older build based on v1.7.9.1 and is only a proof of concept. It does feature a few code fixes aimed at x64 compatibility but there's still a lot of work to be done to achieve that goal. There are also a few bugs related to the fake tooltip positioning and timing, at startup and while changing options.

Yeah, I know: no good deed remains unpunished. I removed the attachment. Nobody dowloaded it anyway.

I think the place to start from -- the first thing that needs to be said -- is that drugwash was trying to help and improve the program.  And that furthermore, he was making the non-trivial effort share his improvements in a respectful way with the author (our wonderful skwire) and the rest of us.

So in my humble opinion, the first thing that needs to be said to drugwash is "thank you".

After that, it's skwire's right to ask that drugwash not share/post modified versions of his software.  I can understand why that would be disappointing to drugwash, who was just trying to contribute some improvements to a program he obviously likes.

Most of the people on this site are fans of open source software -- coding and using it.  Many of the coders here release some, if not all, of their source code as open source and participate in open source software.  People who are sharing their programming skills here on this site are doing so largely because of the enjoyment we get in having others use our software.  But many of us here also have some software which we have, for various reasons, decided not to open source. For whatever reason, it is ultimately the coder's prerogative. 

Anyway, this is just my long way of saying to drugwash that I (we) appreciate the good deed you were trying to do, and don't want you to walk away with bad feelings about this -- rather I hope you will stick around and continue to participate, offer improvements of other sorts, and feel welcome here.  We are nothing if not a home for unusual people with unusual skills

Jotti shows only a single false-positive for v1.8.2:

https://virusscan.jotti.org/en-US/filescanjob/2ouelcotx0

I just downloaded it and checked its SHA-256 hash against my local copy.  If you're downloading it from my DonationCoder site, it has not been tampered with.

SHA-256 hash: 33A19E4117DE230A0E9CBCF692BEEB4FEDC4075C8CA3001E91BB8C1AF1334779

Thank you for taking the time to write.  These are false positives that come and are due to the language my applications are written in (AutoHotkey/AHK).

Thanks for the awesome response and verification.  Your response and hash check serve as a record for future concerns, at least with this release.  My hash indeed matches the one you've provided.  It might be useful to list this hash in the download area on your official website, but this can convey false verification if a website is hacked (hackers may change the displayed hash to match their infected package). 

I've also written AHK scripts and am aware that A/V tends to be scared of it, but was concerned for the following reasons:

1.  8+ engines still triggering more than 6 months after the release, including Microsoft's (though local Defender does NOT trigger).
2.  No other posts asking about false positives with this release (there are usually lots).

I've been involved with a few projects and authors generally find that detectors "calm down" after seeing the same executable for weeks or months with no related impact (via whatever metrics are used).  We also tend to have tons of questions about false positives, which inevitably surge with each new release, even for signed code (which rather undermines much of what I'm about to say ).

Years ago, when the AV companies were a lot fewer, I used to contact them about stuff like this.  Things would get fixed but, due to the AV updates, false positives would, inevitably, occur again. I got tired of dealing with it, so now I just shrug and trust that my body of work speaks for itself.  I know it sounds terribly apathetic, but fighting it just isn't worth the cycles anymore.  Cheers.

That's entirely understandable .  There are so many AV brands and engines that correcting false positives is an impossible task.  Almost no one bothers with this anymore unless they're Mozilla or someone like that and in that case they're hopefully squashing those issues before mainstream release.  However, I posted due to the combination of both a relatively mature release and no other false positive posts associated it.  Thanks for clearing this up.

There are limits to what you are willing and able to do as an independent developer, but signing your code with your own certificate would be a possibility.  If you keep the same signing cert over many years, it builds up a reputation to match your own.  In other words, if you've signed it with a cert that has been established to be yours, then interested users can extend your reputation to your cert.

I've seen other projects that create a new signing cert for every major code release and that's just a waste of time and effort.  With code signing, we want as long a certificate lifetime as possible to build its reputation.  Sure, we can sign our new certs with our old one to create a chain of trust, but there's no reason that a modern signing certificate shouldn't be trustworthy for at least 5 years.  Just MHO.

I'm not suggesting that you must sign your code as it's an extra hassle and 99% of users will never bother to check it anyway.  Still, I'm a terribly unskilled programmer that mostly just creates bad scripts that nobody else needs, yet I sign anything I release.  Even if only 1 user actually verifies it, that's a chance for someone to find out that my website/repository has been hacked, etc.  After initial setup, each signature takes seconds to do.

I sound like a salesman here, but I'm not trying to convince you to do this.  I'm just rambling about it for anyone who might be interested.  OpenPGP is not a perfect system and I understand if developers don't believe that it's worth the effort.  For example, most of the time I must download the signing cert from the very same website that I downloaded both the package and the signature from, which basically brings us back to the vulnerability of simply listing the hash; that's why long-term signing certs are so valuable.

Thank you so much for your time and attention and for creating and maintaining such useful software.

On a side note, I find it interesting that I can report my own post as SPAM  .                                vvvvvv

I've noticed recently that the temperature reported via the Yahoo API is running up to two hours behind, which renders the app a bit pointless. E.g. it is presently 12:26 BST and the last provider update was 11:00 BST. Sweather is reporting 15C and other apps are reporting 17C. Refreshing doesn't help. Any ideas anyone?

Hello, is it possible to get wind speed in tray notification together with other characteristics?

Seems to be working fine here.

Working on Win 10 but Win 7 though.
From time to time I use a Win 7 PC with the minimal programs (and updates) installed just to avoid distractions.
sWeather is not working on that Win 7 PC.
I wonder if there's any working previous version to test with...
Well, let me know.

Good to know then!
I'll try to make it work.
Thanks for the feedback.

Feature request: option to also show humidity in the tray icon (or have it replace the condition icon).