Existing users, 
User Name Kirianya
Member Since 2002-06-03
Total number of Feedback Posts: 52
Total number of comments: 11
Last 10 Feedback Posts by Kirianya [ Search for All ]
Zooom 2.2.8 (Mac OS X)
Finally, It Works With MS Office!!! 
It has been extremely frustrating, but now I'm happy. Like Path Finder, Default Folder, Launchbar etc., Zooom had become one of those essential applications for me. Now having to find that little tiny corner or a border that allows resizing or movement seems like a no-brainer. Or course it violates Apples, "can't do it if it requires two hands and remembering a key sequence regardless of how practical it is," policy. Well my problem has been that I live in MS Office. Probably about 40-50% of what I do on a computer is in Office. And Zooom, despite all the promises did not work in Office! Until now. No promises in the release. It just works. Powerpoint and Excel are smooth. There's hesitation and hitches in Word, but it will work. And, it's cheap. I'm happy!! [alert admin]
Monday, November 02 2009 @ 02:34 PM PST
Desktop Transporter 2.5 (Mac OS X)
My goal in testing this product was to get home-related work and data off of my work computers. I work from several locations and, unfortunately, the best affordable financial software is offered for Windows only (that is another discussion). Since, my only PC was in my Office, I installed some of these applications there. I could access these programs at any time and from anywhere using the Mac version of Microsoft Remote Desktop (RDC). RDC, not to be confused with Apple Remote Desktop, is a fabulous program. Even run under Rosetta, the connection is quick, and smooth. Although I wouldn't recommend gaming on it, or running heavy graphics programs, it was much faster than Virtual PC and on par with Parallels. Nonetheless,I was uncomfortable having this personal information on this machine. With the maturing of Parallels, I thought that I'd move all PC personal information to my home system. My options were to try to use 1) RDC to solely access the Parallels Virtual Machine, or 2)Timbuktu, Desktop Transporter, or SpyMe, to access the OSX on my home system (2.66 Mac Pro). I did not consider Apple Remote Desktop due to price and reviews that suggest that it doesn't work well over the Internet. Well, first it is a hassle to get things to work on a computer connected wirelessly to a home network using an Apple Extreme Router! Fortunately (at least so far) my IP is static, so that was a major headache that I did not have to deal with. Nonetheless, I got everything working. Here is what I found: Timbuktu was pretty damn slow! At least significantly slower than RDC. It was functional, but for the price, it needs to fly like RDC. There are ways to cut down the overhead, but I only realized marginal improvements doing this. I got RDC running. You need to open up port 3389 on your Router, and set up an Windows home network, but it works. I was shocked that it was essentially as fast running on my home computer through Parallels as running on a dedicated PC through a very high-speed network connection. I don't like to complement MIcrosoft, but RDC is one hell of a product. There is nothing comparable to it in terms of performance on the Mac side (please correct me if I'm mistaken). The major downfall is that you're stuck in Windows. You need something else if you want to access OS X on your Mac. I next tried Desktop Transporter. This is a wonderful little program. It is slick and probably the easiest program to configure (actually, I don't recall. Spyme may be comparable). Once I got it working, it works like a charm. It is at least as fast as Timbuktu. It has a very intuitive interface. It has a graphical representation (thumbnails) of the the host computer. This allows you to easily switch screens if the Host has multiple monitors. It also has tricks to reduce the overhead. You need them. It is as slow as Timbuktu, but definitely useable. Other commentators have mentioned that it doesn't do anything that you can't do with VNC. Well, one of the reasons I'm a Mac user is that I recognize polish is worth paying for. Distant computer control is hard. If this product makes it easier to do, then it's worth buying. The final product I tested was Spyme. Spyme is faster than TB2 and DT but still significantly slower than RDC. It uses a lot of tricks to speed up screen rewrites. Even using full color, it is noticeably faster than DT. Its UI is not as slick as DT, but it has other notable unique features (look it up to see). It seems pretty polished. However, when I leave it running, it seems to crash quite a bit. It has never crashed while accessing a distant host, but I fear that it might crash sometime leaving me unable to access a distant host. So, I think Spyme is the best Mac distant control software that I tested. At $12 a license, it is also the cheapest. DT has the slickest interface and is rock solid and is much cheaper than TB2. I've purchased two DT licenses. TB2 makes sense to me only if you need to control a Mac from a PC or other system or you need the support of a huge Corporation. I don't see any other major reasons to go that route. RDC is an absolutely fabulous program. If you need to control a PC or a Parallels (Fusion) VM, this is clearly the route. I just hope that one day the Mac-control programs reach that level of performance. [alert admin]
Post a comment | More Info | 2 of 2 users found this helpful
Friday, August 03 2007 @ 04:40 PM PDT
Desktop Transporter 2.5 (Mac OS X)
Teleporter isn't in the Same Category!
Both products allow you to control multiple macs. However, only DT allows you to see what you're doing on a remote mac. Therefore, teleporter is limited to macs that are in the same room as the control mac. DT can control Macs in different rooms or across the Internet. DT is an entirely different category. [alert admin]
Post a comment | More Info | 1 of 2 users found this helpful
Thursday, July 26 2007 @ 11:35 AM PDT
Parallels Desktop 3.0 build 4560.0 (Mac OS X)
Despite all the warnings, I went ahead and upgraded to 3.0. I was hoping that I could get a USB device to work with it. No luck, but the device, a Polar IRDA monitor, doesn't work with VM-Ware either. Before updating, I uninstalled Parallels Tools and turned off Shared Applications. I shut done each of my virtual machines and went for it. I had some hiccups (lost control of the mouse and keyboard for Mac OS X), until I reinstalled the tools. It now seems to work flawlessly. Now, admittedly, I am not a power user of virtual OS's, so YMMV. However, in comparison with VM Ware, Parallels somes to be slightly faster. I have not had any crashes, and Windows move smoothly. Frankly, I think that it is still a horse race. VM Ware with greater resources and experience will likely come out ahead, but I'm pulling for Parallels to stay in the ball game long enough to insure that this technology is rock solid for all users. [alert admin]
Sunday, July 22 2007 @ 09:32 AM PDT
Path Finder 4.7 (Mac OS X)
As I mentioned before, Path Finder can be overwhelming. It's most glaring fault is the inadequate documentation. After playing with PF a little more (who has time to play anymore?), I realize that my biggest problem with PF is learning how to use it. There are some niggles, of course. It's a bit irritating for the browser not to open in tab mode. My problem is that there may be a way to do this, but the "help" is so cursory that it's hard to find out how to do complex actions. So, how about beefing up the documentation? [alert admin]
Monday, June 25 2007 @ 05:38 PM PDT
Path Finder 4.7 (Mac OS X)
I absolutely love this application, but I'm giving it just 4 stars because I think there can be improvements in the UI. I've used Path Finder since before the developers changed its name. It has always been the most powerful and useful Finder replacement. After seeing the Leopard preview yesterday, I have little doubt that this status will continue. The program became really slow. It reached the point where I consciously thought about whether to use PF or the regular Finder before doing file maintenance. Not good! Starting, I think, with Version 3 the developers addressed this problem. Version 4 was a huge upgrade introducing Tabs (very nice), shelves, easy terminal access etc., However, the new interface rearranged many functions. The default typeface is really small and sometimes hard to read and navigate. The benefit of the small typefaces is that the multiple visible window segments do not appear overly complex. But there is much complexity none the less. The 4.7 "improvements" don't do a thing for me. They may for you if you need them. I already have multiple application launchers, and the PF launcher, while pretty, is inferior to Launchbar, Butler, MaxMenus, Dragthing etc. (I rely on Launchbar). With so many capabilities, it is too easy for a feature that is important to you to be overlooked or lost.At one point, hi-lighting a MS Word document revealed it in the preview Window. PF removed this feature for some technical reason. By default you now have to hi-light then click on a preview button. The extra step is a killer if you are trying to quickly review multiple documents. While I just discovered that the automatic preview has been restored as a preference option. Has this choice always been in Version 4 or was it added during one of the updates? My major peeve is the search functions. Ver. 4 did a major revamp of what was PF's weakest link. The revamp took some steps forward, but still could be improved. There are two ways to search. The quick Window search reminds. In previous versions, the default was to search the visible folder and all subfolders. Now, the current default is to search just the visible folder. This is frustrating because I like the ability to include subfolders. It took a long time to discover that you can refine this search by clicking on the included pull-down menu and choosing "selection" to include subfolders. Not intuitive. Why not include a Search choice in the Preferences so that the user can choose the desired default? The more powerful Search Window allows complex searches but adding refinements. The default searches by Name, which can be refined to "begins with", "ends with" or "is." You can further limited your search by adding additional fields such as date, extension, size, kind etc. I thing this tool could be improved by including negatives (e.g., does not contain). Also, allow users to tab between fields. When I add a field, I sometimes type the search term before I change the search type. Currently, changing the search type destroys the search term. Why not provide an option for the user to change search types without destroying the term? However, it is really difficult to get a handle on the power and all the capabilities of this application. I think that the best approach is to focus on what is important to you. Word is an overwhelming monstrosity. I probably use more features than most, and I probably use less than 30 percent of its features. However, if I want or need to occasionally use one of its esoteric features I'm glad it's there. The same thing applies to PF. [alert admin]
Read Comments (1) | More Info | 5 of 5 users found this helpful
Tuesday, June 12 2007 @ 06:36 AM PDT
()
I downloaded the dictionary and have briefly examined it. It employs the wonderful Ultralingua technology with some features missing such as reverse translation. You have to decide for yourself how important these features are. One nice fact is that Collins is a separate program. Therefore, if you, like me, have multiple version 5 Ultralingua dictionaries, you can continue to use them alongside Collins without upgrading to version 6 of Ultralingua. The version of Collins appears to be substantially the same as, if not identical to, the Palm version of Collins, which I have used for years. Perhaps the delay was due to negotiations? Anyway, this is not the most comprehensive electronic version of Collins. Nonetheless, the entries are far superior to the corresponding Ultralingua entries but not as good as offerings for the PC. Ultralingua claims 80,000 entries. The WinTel version claims multiple hundreds of thousands. The counting may be suspect, but the WinTel version is clearly bigger. I typically use the verb "mettre" to test the quality of a Fr-Eng dictionary. In the hardback edition of Collins, the entry for this verb is measured in pages. In Ultralingua, the entry is 4 lines long. In Collins it is close to 50 lines and the Wintel version even longer. We can only hope that Ultralingua continues to negotiate for the more comprehensive version. Many of us would pay a higher price (in my case, probably up to $80) to get the better dictionary. So, I will probably purchase this version because it is much better than Ultralingua's offerings, and it is reasonably priced. I am not rating Collins because it is still inferior to the best electronic Fr.-Eng dictionary in this price range, so I could not give it a 5. However, this may not be Ultralingua's fault, so I do want to encourage them to continue their efforts to provide the best language dicitionary options for the Mac. [alert admin]
Post a comment | More Info | 1 of 1 users found this helpful
Monday, February 19 2007 @ 08:41 AM PST
SizzlingKeys 3.0.8 (Mac OS X)
Okay, I'm not referring to the free version. I've used the free version for over a week. I'm trying to slim down my system, so I decided to get rid of Butler, but I wanted to retain the hot-key controls for iTunes. SK does that extremely well. It is totally customizable and very inobtrusive. When software works this well, I feel that I have to support it. Yellow Mug, with a $5 price and $6.95 for the family pack, makes it easy to follow through. Thanks guys! [alert admin]
Thursday, February 01 2007 @ 02:19 PM PST
Ultralingua French-English Translation Dictionary 6.0 (Mac OS X)
Apparently, Lexibase has issued a Mac version of its Robert Collins dictionary. If true, then we don't have settle for Ultralingua's offerings. [alert admin]
Sunday, December 24 2006 @ 11:02 AM PST
Ultralingua French-English Translation Dictionary 6.0 (Mac OS X)
Where is all the Old Feedback? 
I, and many others, have left feedback on older versions. Alas, it has disappeared? Versiontracker, where is it? Version 6 appears to be a minor upgrade. Alas, the dictionaries have not improved significantly. UL seems to emphasize compactness. In an era of 500GB harddrives, this emphasis makes no sense! The gold standard, Robert Collins is so superior that a comparison is useless. Currently, I am considering investing in Parallels for the sole purpose of having access to the RC dictionary on Windows. In addition to UL's unwillingness to include a truly comprehensive dictionary, they employ a nasty practice on upgrades. Previewing version 6 is a one-way street. It completely wipes out your version 5 install with no way to recover. They do not warn you of this practice. I was fortunate enough not to have any customized libraries. However, if I did, this would be a disaster. [alert admin]
Sunday, December 24 2006 @ 04:38 AM PST
Last 10 Comments by Kirianya [ Search for All ]
They are both very fine products. Try both before making your decision, then go with the one that suits your needs. I went with Parallels because I had purchased a license last year. It works fine for me. I can RDC to my home machine, and it works great. My experience with Fusion was similar. I suspect that the products are extremely close. Parallels felt marginally faster but not substantially faster. I suspect that…
Original feedback item : Read More(1 words)
Sunday, September 16 2007 @ 05:16 PM PDT
The solution to this problem is "Little Snitch." Just deny ultralingua the ability to access the internet.
Original feedback item : Read More
Saturday, January 20 2007 @ 07:12 AM PST
The solution to this problem is "Little Snitch." Just deny ultralingua the ability to access the internet.
Original feedback item : Read More
Saturday, January 20 2007 @ 07:11 AM PST
Insufficient and often inaccurate contents
Too bad. I was hoping that they would invest in a better dictionary. I became suspicious when I saw that the new dictionary is smaller in size than the old!
Original feedback item : Read More
Wednesday, September 27 2006 @ 08:05 PM PDT
Maybe he has a point. If I wasn't on a computer, I wouldn't have posted three inane comments.
Original feedback item : Read More
Thursday, July 20 2006 @ 05:06 PM PDT
Agreed. This comment was truly hilarious! Now, back to my quill and ink fountain.
Original feedback item : Read More
Thursday, July 20 2006 @ 05:06 PM PDT
Agreed. This comment was truly hilarious! Now, back to my quill and ink fountain.
Original feedback item : Read More
Thursday, July 20 2006 @ 05:01 PM PDT
Agreed. This comment was truly hilarious. Now, back to my quill and ink fountain.
Original feedback item : Read More
Thursday, July 20 2006 @ 05:01 PM PDT
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe Liteswitch is compatible with Core Duo macs. I for one am not going to try a program that integrates into the OS before I get word from more adventuresome souls that it works. If it indeed lacks compatibility, I hope the developers update it for Intel Macs.
Original feedback item : Read More
Friday, June 16 2006 @ 01:33 PM PDT
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe Liteswitch is compatible with Core Duo macs. I for one am not going to try a program that integrates into the OS before I get word from more adventuresome souls that it works. If it indeed lacks compatibility, I hope the developers update it for Intel Macs.
Original feedback item : Read More
Friday, June 16 2006 @ 01:28 PM PDT
