Existing users, 
User Name jwiede
Member Since 2001-05-10
Total number of Feedback Posts: 39
Total number of comments: 2
Last 10 Feedback Posts by jwiede [ Search for All ]
Screenflick 1.6 (Mac OS X)
Compared many, this program was best I found. 
I found myself in need of catching a beta program's misbehavior on opening dialogs, where they would flash onscreen for an instant and then disappear. After trying ScreenFlow, iShowU, Snapper, Sequence and a couple others, I was most impressed with Screenflick. I found it best for trying different resolutions and compressions post-recording, and it was the only one that reliably was able to capture the short-duration flicker of the beta program's dialogs. I'd highly recommend this for anyone needing screen capture to Quicktime movies. That it was a bargain compared to some of the alternatives (which performed less reliably) was an added bonus. In particular, that the most expensive ones seemed crashy and unstable while Screenflicks was rock-solid was what finally led me to focusing on Screenflicks. [alert admin]
Post a comment | More Info | 1 of 1 users found this helpful
Saturday, June 28 2008 @ 04:13 AM PDT
MailSteward 8.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancelling of free upgrades handled VERY POORLY.
The simple reality is that the developer chose to advertise the product to date offering "free updates", not "free updates until I feel otherwise". I believe the developer means well, and had good intentions, but the way this situation is being handled is very poor compared to how other developers have handled similar transitions. Existing customers are not being treated in a professional manner. There are ways the developer could have handled the change that would have been far more professional, fair and reasonable. For example, informing existing customers well in advance the policy would be moving to paid version upgrades, and changing the product advertising to state the new policy, with the "paid version upgrade" policy only enacting on the next version (or some reasonable period, say 6-12 months after notification). Had this approach been taken, and the first paid version upgrade offer compelling reasons (for and upgrade costing a very substantial fraction of the initial cost), not all customers would be happy, but I believe most would understand and be accepting of the transition. Instead, the developer created a situation where with virtually no notice, the stated free upgrade policy was recanted. To make matters worse, despite charging 30% of the initial cost, the upgrade in question consists primarily of bug fixes, not long after releasing a particularly nasty bug to the public. While recouping maintenance costs is reasonable, a 30% upgrade cost for bug fixes just isn't reasonable, particularly in context of the way the whole situation is being handled. The approach taken ensures most customers feel misled (because we WERE misled). The developer's failure to even attempt to recognize the inequity of the situation just makes things worse. The approach also raises serious questions about the developer's ongoing commitment to existing customers, given the disrespectful way the transition has been handled. Legal repercussions? Possible, but unlikely. That said, shareware relies heavily on word of mouth and online reviews, they both play an important role in sales. The kind of reputation and credibility damage from this kind of conduct tends to be long-lasting, and very harmful to small shareware developers. I suspect the developer is about to learn a rather nasty lesson in the role of developer reputation to shareware sales. I guess what I'm saying is that while I was happy to purchase MailSteward, and would have gone along with a well-handled transition to paid version upgrades, the current approach really leaves me feeling misled and cheated. However diligent the developer's efforts and intentions, false advertising is inexcusable, and the developer's failure to make ANY attempt to mitigate the situation just comes off as further disregard and disrespect for us customers. [alert admin]
Post a comment | More Info | 11 of 12 users found this helpful
Tuesday, April 29 2008 @ 06:30 PM PDT
MailSteward 8.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancelling of free upgrades handled VERY POORLY.
The simple reality is that the developer chose to advertise the product to date offering "free updates", not "free updates until I feel otherwise". I believe the developer means well, and had good intentions, but the way this situation is being handled is very poor compared to how other developers have handled similar transitions. Existing customers are not being treated in a professional manner. There are ways the developer could have handled the change that would have been far more professional, fair and reasonable. For example, informing existing customers well in advance the policy would be moving to paid version upgrades, and changing the product advertising to state the new policy, with the "paid version upgrade" policy only enacting on the next version (or some reasonable period, say 6-12 months after notification). Had this approach been taken, and the first paid version upgrade offer compelling reasons (for and upgrade costing a very substantial fraction of the initial cost), not all customers would be happy, but I believe most would understand and be accepting of the transition. Instead, the developer created a situation where with virtually no notice, the stated free upgrade policy was recanted. To make matters worse, despite charging 30% of the initial cost, the upgrade in question consists primarily of bug fixes, not long after releasing a particularly nasty bug to the public. While recouping maintenance costs is reasonable, a 30% upgrade cost for bug fixes just isn't reasonable, particularly in context of the way the whole situation is being handled. The approach taken ensures most customers feel misled (because we WERE misled). The developer's failure to even attempt to recognize the inequity of the situation just makes things worse. The approach also raises serious questions about the developer's ongoing commitment to existing customers, given the disrespectful way the transition has been handled. Legal repercussions? Possible, but unlikely. That said, shareware relies heavily on word of mouth and online reviews, they both play an important role in sales. The kind of reputation and credibility damage from this kind of conduct tends to be long-lasting, and very harmful to small shareware developers. I suspect the developer is about to learn a rather nasty lesson in the role of developer reputation to shareware sales. I guess what I'm saying is that while I was happy to purchase MailSteward, and would have gone along with a well-handled transition to paid version upgrades, the current approach really leaves me feeling misled and cheated. However diligent the developer's efforts and intentions, false advertising is inexcusable, and the developer's failure to make ANY attempt to mitigate the situation just comes off as further disregard and disrespect for us customers. [alert admin]
Read Comments (1) | More Info | 10 of 11 users found this helpful
Tuesday, April 29 2008 @ 06:29 PM PDT
StuffIt Deluxe 12.0 (Mac OS X)
Greedy company ruined well-known product. 
Simply put, your money is much better spent elsewhere. Smith-Micro doesn't deserve a cent further for what they've done to StuffIt. They've increased upgrade costs, yet removed key features (express scripts, and no, automator is NOT a replacement), have been Windows-ifying the UI since V11 much to the product and Mac users' detriment, generally ruined stability to add a bunch of semi-functional features that most won't need or use, and stripped away anything resembling useful support (at least for Mac users). Mac owners have seen this MO before: Suck the users dry on frequent upgrades that add ever less, strip the useful Mac-isms, while providing virtually NO useful support, and doing only the least amount of actual engineering possible (and at the lowest possible quality). Vote with your wallets. Companies should not profit from treating customers and platforms this way. [alert admin]
Read Comments (1) | More Info | 4 of 5 users found this helpful
Sunday, October 28 2007 @ 09:47 AM PDT
Serene Saver 2 HD 2.0.2 (Mac OS X)
Closer, but still not product advertised.
So first off, I wanted to mention that the problems I'd had downloading scenes appear to have been resolved. Given nothing changed locally, I'm guessing there was a problem on the server side and was resolved. Likewise, the problem with being barraged with "Would you like to take a serenity break?" dialogs appears to have been resolved in the latest revision (2.0.2), though I can't be certain because the uninstall issue (see below) still prevents me from a "totally clean" uninstall-reboot-install cycle without a lot of manual cleaning (and/or AppZapper'ing). Unfortunately, now that I have a "working" install, I'm still left with enough issues (that couldn't have been detected in the demo, either due to lack of scenes or other) that I still prefer not to use the saver/desktop. I'm giving them a chance to fix them, but at the moment still can't recommend the product (and still regret purchasing it). Remaining "big" problems I'm having (in priority order): 1. The biggest annoyance I have is that the product only appears to support putting that initial beach-at-sunset scene on the desktop. This currently prevents me from using the product on the desktop, at least 50% of the motive I had for purchase. Disabling that scene in prefs for the saver, and then turning on put-on-desktop feature still just yields the beach-at-sunset scene on my desktop. If I'd known it only supported putting JUST that scene on the desktop, I would NEVER have purchased the product. There was nothing to indicate that limitation in the demo, and frankly, no reason I can tell why that limitation even exists in the code. At the least, it should use the same scenes enabled for the saver as desktop scenes. Ideally, it should provide both desktop and saver select boxes in the scene list, to support separate selection lists for each. 2. As noted by another person already, the actual images being used are pretty far from "HD quality". On my 22" widescr monitor at 1600x1050 they display a level of blurriness and blockiness which cannot be accounted for simply due to a 4:3 -> 16:9 scale. I'd rate the content as sub-720p in resolution (and overcompressed at that), let alone that of most "HD" content (1080i/p). The default scene is kind of optimized for use though still blurry/blocky, but many of the others display far more artifacts/pixellation. I suspect this problem would lead me to stop using even the saver aspect after a short period, or at least use it much less. 3. The lack of a clean uninstall still makes me concerned that my install might have mismatched revisions of parts. I did find that a combo of AppZapper and manual cleaning can produce a "clean" state, so it is pretty clear their uninstaller just isn't deleting everything it could & should. The lack of a clean uninstall may seem minor, but it makes me question what else isn't being properly handled in, say, revision upgrades. 4. Still absolutely no response to my support request via their website, days later. I see others talking about the speed of developer response, but I'm just not seeing it. If suspect I'd seen reasonable support, I might not be bringing the issues to this forum for resolution. As noted above, #1 alone as a problem would be a purchase-breaker for me had their been any way to detect the limitation from the demo. #2 would probably turn into a long-term reason I didn't use the product as often, but I still consider that less of a priority to fix. #3 is definitely a long-term maintenance issue, and concerns me during upgrades, but I'd put it pretty low on the priority list. I'll see if #4 continues, if it does it'll move much higher on the list. Looking forward to rapid resolution of these issues. I still can't recommend purchase yet, but at least the product is getting closer to what was promised by the ads & demo -- not there yet, but closer. That said, I'm disappointed that the demo hides so many of the problems & limitations, and the lack of support I'm seeing makes me particularly unhappy about giving the company any of my money. Folks considering purchase should be wary of the problems being discussed here by myself and others. [alert admin]
Read Comments (3) | More Info | 4 of 4 users found this helpful
Saturday, June 02 2007 @ 11:43 AM PDT
()
Amorphium, but strongly dislike the way ElectricImage is handling buyers of the non-Pro version (basically, they're out their money, despite many paying the "Pro" price of $199). Amorphium Pro is just Amorphium's code base with augmentations. I'm tired of companies buying titles from other companies, then disrespecting the original product buyers who got the title to where it was attractive to begin with (had we not purchased Amorpium, there would be NO Amorphium Pro for EI to purchase and sell). Leaving Amorphium users in the dirt, without even an upgrade path (other than "buy Pro"), is just shoddy and overly-greedy. The day may come when EI wishes they'd not mistreated those customers. At least EI finally removed their 5-star reviews of their own product. If I had an upgrade path to the latest version other than a complete repurchase, I'd use it, but as it is, EI won't get a cent from me. And yes, us initial buyers spending our money made Amorphium popular and worth continuing, and EI's riding that wave, so they DID get something from us even if we bought before they owned Amorphium. Time for them to recognize that. [alert admin]
Read Comments (1) | More Info | 0 of 1 users found this helpful
Monday, January 20 2003 @ 02:28 PM PST
Lotto Sorcerer X 3.0.2 (Mac OS X)
agree with Kee Hinckley on this, programs like this are _bad_ things. Both because of the lie they present (that lotteries can be "predicted"), and because they encourage a misunderstanding of how probability works (namely, they encourage the notion that probability works in a cumulative manner). The author should find something actually _useful_ to work on, instead of trying to scam folks out of $16.95. Whether this was a "fun" program for the author to write or not, it's still being charged for, and thus shows pretty reprehensible ethics. [alert admin]
Post a comment | More Info | 1 of 1 users found this helpful
Monday, January 20 2003 @ 02:12 PM PST
iCab X 2.9 (Mac OS X)
but I agree with many of the voices here. iCab had a time when it showed tons of promise, and could compete well, but that time is past. The fact that it's still beta after this long shows some serious development management problems, as well. I can see no reason to use iCab over Safari, let alone Chimera or Mozilla or even OmniWeb (while it has features OW lacks, OW is a far better overall experience). I think the OSX browser market is likely to shakeout to Safari, IE, Mozilla and Chimera (and perhaps OW due to it's fanbase). It's probably time for the iCab folks to find a new project which stands a chance of recovering development costs, because iCab stands virtually no chance of becoming a commercial success at this point. Even the few OS9 diehards are unlikely to pay for iCab when they'd have to have IE or Mozilla anyway for the (many) sites iCab cannot handle. Too long to market, and (eventually?) arriving with too few compelling reasons to pay for it. Plus one star for it's golden days. [alert admin]
Monday, January 13 2003 @ 11:01 PM PST
PiXELS 3D 4.5 (Mac OS X)
company, but upgrading seems costly over time. A $199 upgrade price from 4.0/4.1 for a $399 app seems a bit steep at 50% of product cost. "Rebuying" a product every two upgrades is very excessive in my book, and overly pricey upgrades are a problem with far too many Mac vendors of late. I'm disturbed to see Pixels3D joining that unfortunate trend. [alert admin]
Post a comment | More Info | 0 of 1 users found this helpful
Friday, January 03 2003 @ 01:07 AM PST
Macromedia Flash Player X 6.0 r67 (Mac OS X)
this is ridiculous. Flash has been sloooow for far too long for Macromedia's given excuses. The Win Flash runs vastly quicker, and given Macromedia's attempt to cull pretty serious amounts of money out of Mac users for their apps, it's time they spent a wee bit of effort bringing Flash on Mac remotely near the perf. under Win (on equiv. machines, the Mac Flash player is FAR slower). Time's up, Macromedia! [alert admin]
Saturday, December 21 2002 @ 11:31 AM PST
Last 10 Comments by jwiede [ Search for All ]
Suffers from serious lack of attention
As a paid, registered user, I tend to agree with the earlier post regarding the lack of attention. The comment above about "working on the next version" was posted in February 2007, and the last developer blog was mid-May 2007. Since then, nothing, nada, zip. It is getting pretty difficult to believe there's any ongoing commitment or development of this product. Leopard being delayed only justifies why T2's _release_ is delayed,…
Original feedback item : Read More(1 words)
Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 05:37 AM PDT
Had to stoop to name-calling, eh? Run out of valid arguments? Including frameworks DOES have a memory impact. Just what do you believe happens when a bunch of RB apps are running with different versions of the various included frameworks? That's a rather common situation, by the way, precisely BECAUSE each RB app carries its frameworks along with it. Also (and unlike proper dynamic library/framework solutions), the RB support frameworks being included in the…
Original feedback item : Read More(1 words)
Monday, September 10 2007 @ 12:56 AM PDT
