User Profile for Evanitude

Jungle Disk 2.60a (Mac OS X)

Addendum to "Offsite storage is best."  

A well-worn business principal is to avoid fixed assets when possible, i.e., don't buy equipment. It gets old fast, has to be maintained, it breaks, and loses value. So the message might be don't invest in a big hard drive. Or, use efax instead of buying a fax machine or all-in-one. Of course, you have to do a cost-benefit and weight the pro's and con's. Personally, I love having an office devoid of equipment. When I've had the equipment around, I was always looking around and craving something newer and better. Evan MItchell Stark PhD me at evanmitchellstark dot me [alert admin]

Post a comment | More Info  |  0 of 2 users found this helpful

Saturday, March 14 2009 @ 01:26 AM PDT

Jungle Disk 2.60a (Mac OS X)

Professional offsite storage is best.  

If you don't have terrabytes of data, and you have good upload bandwidth, then at .15 per gig for multiple, safe-room offsite storage, then Jungle Disk is certainly up there as one of the top solutions. I've been using it for over a year. The software is easy if inelegant, Amazon's customer service is very good, and I've had not one technical problem. Having two tbyte drives in different places seems like a decent alternative. That said, it's not infallible compared to multiple redundancies in multiple safe storage sites. Why? I've been using Mac's since the first one rolled out and mass storage was a 20 megabyte scsi drive the size and heft of the American Heritage Dictionary. Since owning generations of different drives made by different manufacturers, I've found that they fail more often than the average rate of 15% within three years. Even worse, at least twice in my life, flood and fire have destroyed my equipment. If it weren't for offsite storage of my most precious photos and files, I'd be offsite in some safe room--in a straight jacket. So to the good soul who asked why not use Apple free solutions, I do use them. And I use Jungle disk for the above reasons. Cheers. Evan Mitchell Stark Phd [alert admin]

Post a comment | More Info

Saturday, March 14 2009 @ 01:18 AM PDT

Schreiben 4.4 (Mac OS X)

A five-star product in a class by itself  

I've tested a few versions of Schreiben. This version is out only a day, so an extensive review of it will follow. Disclosure: I am not a paid or unpaid shill for the developer, but I have gotten to know him a bit through email exchanges. In fact, we've had a couple of friendly arguments. I echo msidoric's remarks almost completely. But Schreiben is no replacement for that bloated, poor-performing, but feature-laden thing known as Word. Word has more functionality—features that make it a lousy page-layout program (placement of images, etc.)—than Schreiben, but this is so BY DESIGN. Schreiben is supposed to be fast, possessed of a clean interface, and easy as hell to use. This is not to say that if it lacks a feature you need, then you're out of luck. The developer updates the program frequently, and features and improvements are almost always driver by user feedback, which the developer is highly sensitive to. In this sense, Schreiben is among my default writing tools. All my other default writing tools come from the same developer: Briefe, Schreiberling, and perhaps, MyWord. I can't decide, because in some cases these programs have mutually exclusive features, by design. But they are constantly evolving, and, I suspect, our comments will shape what they become. What they will never lose are their fast performance, gorgeous interfaces, ease--of-use AND, yes, their amazing price points. $7 for well-built, incredibly useful app? The best value out there. And know this: when you buy this product, or any of MOAP's products, you're truly buying an experience that includes a relationship with the people behind it. Support is swift and complete. By "support" I mean responsiveness to feedback, in that so far, I've found no issues with the program, meaning bugs or how-to. I have no doubt that the issues posted here are true. But with my PowerPC G4 and Leopard 10.5.6, I've had no problems whatsoever. I'd like to see some features that are most likely ones that suit only my idiosyncratic needs, but I don't consider this to be a flaw in the application. The design philosophy on the MOAP's sister website myAPP is something like "doing.more.with.less. That pretty much sums it up. Leverage productivity with a smaller, "better" app. This jibes with Leo Babuta's book "The Power of Less" (Disclosure: I have nothing to do with Mr. Babuta other than being a fan), which is what we're all going to have to do as the economy implodes and transmogrifies into something better. (We hope.) We lose nothing by shifting to simplicity and elegance. We require Word only once in a while. And unlike Word, built by committee and a thing that forces you into working within the developerS poor understanding of user experience, Schreiben, and all the MOAP apps, show a keen sensitivity to how users actually use applications. It's now about UX (user experience) and this developer has been ahead of the curve in this regard. Everyone is different and what we like is axomatic, not to be argued with. I love Schreiben and almost everything MOAP. So much so that I urge everyone to download the demo and to give it a spin. I've never done something like this before. I've worked in Mac IT support for many years and collect apps for a hobby, and whether or not you'll like this app as much as I do, you should note that my enthusiasm is somewhat informed. Check out Schreiben. I would welcome hearing about your experience. Strong, good, well-intentioned arguments are welcome, because I spend time writing software reviews and care a lot about what's out there. I've learned that most often, if you offer objective feedback, and your comments are well put, you can effect changes in a product—changes that everyone benefits from. It's more difficult to do this than to carp unconstructively (I charge no one here with doing so), but it's a service to the community and you just might end up getting an app custom-tailored to your specific needs and likes. Evan Mitchell Stark PhD me at evanmitchellstark dot me [alert admin]

Read Comments (5) | More Info  |  1 of 3 users found this helpful

Monday, February 02 2009 @ 07:13 AM PST

Together 2.1.7 (Mac OS X)

Together is "nice"--but yesterday's news. Look skyward for the answers.  

@iliketrash: Let me get you out of the way. I agree with your post 100%, in which you're wary of storing data in an app's filesystem and/or, as I would put it, at the very least, mucked with by an application's management of the native file system. So what follows may interest you. First, I've owned Together since it was KIT, mostly because I like the idea of keeping neatly in one place different, related, files and file types from different physical locations on my drives. Together also has a pleasant interface and the developer is very responsive and conscientious. I believe the Together people care for and believe in their product. That's why I feel a little queasy about what I have to say next. Without belaboring the points, Together could get it get it together by improving start-up speed, overall performance speed, and the way in which it allows for combining many files into one, integrated document. The latter point is a lot to ask of an application that most certainly leans more to database category than to boffo media editor. Thats why if this was a straight-out review, Together deserves four stars. Considering Journler and other apps marketed as one thing but have functionality similar to Together, Together is special, but not uniquely so. It's a handy tool backed up by a solid team. Four stars. Except it's an endangered species. Anyone who has seen a MacBook Air and has noted the reasonable prices for mobile broadband cards and monthly fees (at least if your priorities are as strange as mine) has seen the future. Call it "the Cloud," SaaS, or whatever. The point is that the application, and, thank God, the precious data that the application manages resides not on your laptop/desktop but on a great server somewhere in the sky. Or two servers. Or ten. Or ten buried under salt flats. This way, the data will survive the apocalypse (no need to worry about backups and backup media). This way, the only CPU you use is your browser's, mostly, and take a look at Chrome and see not only more evidence the trend is toward the Clouds, but that browsers will evolve to become efficient application front ends and not simply website viewers. So several benefits obtain: speedy apps, light, notebook-sized devices (or smaller, such as iPhone, Android-phone, etc.), syncing across platforms, and no-lose data, just to name a few. If you're asking yourself "what does this have to do with Together?" then my exposition is muddier than usual. @iliketrash: This may not fit your bill, but have you seen the Cloud-based Evernote? It's not 100% cloud because it has a companion desktop app (that syncs with the Cloud) for each platform it runs on, although the desktop app is unnecessary. The cloud-based, web-based Evernote application is terrific on its own. Elegantly designed, quick, and so intuitive that you simply use it to get your work done without paying attention to how you're using it. It's probably not a lie to say that Evernote describes itself as a note application with web-clipping features (this is to water down substantially its power), and like Together, it offers folder categorization, tagging, intelligent searching, and it easily gobbles up all types of content, though, it cannot online display all file types. However, it's a young product and its developers enhance it regularly. Performance-wise, it's way faster than Together or anything like it, assuming one is at broadband speed. Its key limitation for now is that lacks a way to combine multiple media elements into one multimedia document. But then again, is this what we're looking for either in Together or in EverNote? It would seem that each, at least for now, is about data storage, organization, and access rather than about editing complex documents as one would do in, say, PowerPoint or InDesign or whatever different strata of users are using out there. I've no doubt given EverNote short shrift and have probably undersold Together as well. I also have no doubt that if Together doesn't look skyward, it's rapid extinction is imminent. The future is in a Cloud-based application like EverNote—fast, platform-independent, secure, user-friendly, inexpensive (there's even a limited-storage free account available), and on one's hardware, taking up no space and little CPU. Desktop software is going bye-bye soon. So iliketrash, look skyward for your solution and the remedy for your filesystem discontents. The future is cloudy, but bright. PS: I have no affiliation with or tie of any kind to EverNote. I simply love the product and it's essential to my productivity. Many other cloud-based apps that serve similar and different functions from EverNote exist, and everyone falls in love based on different variables. (EverNote would seem to attract many, however.) So look around. I've heard of OneNote, which may have similar functionality to EverNote. Other cloud-based apps I can't do without are Jott and I love Sandy; to a much lesser extent, I like and use some, yikes!, Google applications and remain loyal to MobileMe. Whatever the case, it seems a waste of time to look for answers in technology that's headed to obsolescence. Evan Mitchell Stark, aka, Dr. Evan Stark PhD, Evanitude, President, Message Science Inc. [alert admin]

Read Comments (3) | More Info  |  1 of 5 users found this helpful

Saturday, October 04 2008 @ 07:21 PM PDT

Google Desktop 1.5.0.1243 (Mac OS X)

Dissing Mac Users with toxic waste.  

We've always been Google's stepchildren, us Mac folk. Operating, it would seem, solely as a function of market share, Mac versions of Google software emerge last, as do updates to existing Mac-Google software. Never mind that Mac users are early tech adopters and thought leaders. In the case of software releases, it seems that to Google it's simply a matter of dollars and cents. But let me get to the point. The paragraph above is to illustrate that we don't get no respect from Google. The one that follows, following this post's title, is to illustrate that we get toxic code instead. Here's the deal. Eager to have a better Spotlight—maybe even a search engine that would rip through 100 Gig in .0001238448 seconds to find my transcript from HardKnocks U.—with saliva flowing down my cheek, I downloaded Google Desktop for Macintosh several times, several versions, and each time I had to ditch it after a tantalizing couple of weeks that showed me how quick and easy searching could be—if only the software worked. Disclosure: I haven't downloaded this version. After my experience with prior versions of GD, I'm afraid to. Because not only did prior versions at intervals grind work to a halt, hog memory, and cause kernel panics, but they seemed designed to wreak havoc on a system if ever one tried to remove them. True, I'm a PhD and as a former IT person, I'm most likely lame. But each time I gave up with disgust on Google Desktop, the program just didn't want to die with dignity. First, older versions of GD required Google Updater, a program that seems an inch away from violating privacy, to cleanse your Mac of its Google disease. Second, no matter how well I removed everything Google from my Mac, periodically I'd get dialogs that asked me if I wanted to update software (scary, for me, at least), and, even worse, whenever my machine began to slow down, if I checked with Activity Monitor, invariably it was some Google daemon or process hogging CPU and gobbling up some unreasonable amount of memory. I said to myself, "never again. Even if Google's search function is the sweetest, never again." And so far, my will has remained firm. Disclosure: I read the first, recent post. Maybe this new version eliminates all the problems I (and others) experienced. Maybe the program and it's children are not poking around your system looking to map your experience; maybe the hogging of space and time and gone. Somehow, even though I love to take risks, my prior experience with GD was so bad that I'm gong to pass on this one. If you happen to read this post and nonetheless use the new GD, please be so kind as to post a quick report. Many of us would love to use a good version of a Google product, and, bedsides, I have no wish to slam Google. Especially when they have meta data on all hard and soft aspects of my life. Cheers, Evan Mitchell Stark, Dr. Evan Stark, PhD Message Science Inc. [alert admin]

Post a comment | More Info  |  3 of 3 users found this helpful

Saturday, October 04 2008 @ 05:39 PM PDT

Less is more  

@HH and others: Agreed. VueScan scans well, but the UI is ridiculously overcomplicated and ill thought out. Although not the same class of software--it's more a document processor than front-end scanning software--check out Receipt Wallet. It scans receipts and does OCR to put info into a database for, say, expense reports, and it also scans text and images into PDF and JPG, where it can be stored in a neat, cover-page library.…

Original feedback item : Read More(1 words)

Saturday, March 14 2009 @ 01:48 AM PDT

A five-star product in a class by itself  

No shill for the developer. He's a prickly but responsive guy with whom I've had many online disagreements. If you believe that I'm on the payroll, which I am most certainly not and can prove it to you if you're THAT interested, you're just detecting my enthusiasm for the product and for most of this developers products. His designs remind me of, say, comparing the Flip Mino HD camcorder--one or two buttons,…

Original feedback item : Read More(1 words)

Saturday, March 14 2009 @ 01:37 AM PDT

A five-star product in a class by itself  

You're right: I am verbose. That said, you ought to put constructive energy out there. Your comment was useless and uncalled for. Evan

Original feedback item : Read More

Saturday, March 14 2009 @ 01:20 AM PDT

Together is "nice"--but yesterday's news. Look skyward for the answers.  

@jtice, @sjk I take your points. Mostly, I agree. I, too, have multiple copies of my irreplaceable data on multiple drives behind a firewall. This is to mean that I have data in the cloud, which is to say, each storage company HAS multiple, safe-room sites, AND that I use multiple, sometimes free, storage sites AND I have multiple storage media on-site. I can't help but remember the recent California wildfires. People…

Original feedback item : Read More(1 words)

Saturday, February 07 2009 @ 11:25 AM PST

Leopard's built in Time Machine does the same thing  

This is an attempt to address you abject befuddlement and disbelief someone would use Jungledisk to store data versus an onsite hard disk such as Time Capsule. Using JungleDisk is a wise move that is attributable to subjective factors, such someone's personality and financial resources; the value of the person's data to them; and, objective data, i.e., facts. Some people are obsessive and compulsive and need the feeling of security that an offsite backup service offers. …

Original feedback item : Read More(1 words)

Monday, November 24 2008 @ 12:53 PM PST

Leopard's built in Time Machine does the same thing  

This is an attempt to address you abject befuddlement and disbelief someone would use Jungledisk to store data versus an onsite hard disk such as Time Capsule. Using JungleDisk is a wise move that is attributable to subjective factors, such someone's personality and financial resources; the value of the person's data to them; and, objective data, i.e., facts. Some people are obsessive and compulsive and need the feeling of security that an offsite backup service offers. …

Original feedback item : Read More(1 words)

Monday, November 24 2008 @ 12:53 PM PST

Version 1.1 Speed issue.  

Thank you for your response to the feedback. Now some additional comments. This plug-in seems to slow Mail appreciably. Other users made the same observation. You don't acknowlege these remarks, validate them, or comment about something such as a fix. Can you address this issue? Sincerely, Dr. Evan Stark, Ph.D.

Original feedback item : Read More

Saturday, September 09 2006 @ 06:06 PM PDT