[PL] 2004 VOTE DISCUSSION: FILE UTILITIES

O

omega

»Q« said:
Nice how they've made a hash of the nag trigger date in the ini file so
that one can't disable the nagging easily.

I copied Jason's .ini to my PDEsk folder, launched pdexplo.exe a few times,
and then set the .ini file to read-only. I got no protest when running the
program - and the .ini has not been updated since that time. It is appearing
I am now nag-free. Even that closing-screen advertisement has stayed gone.

Since this is a data file, not shipped with the program, but generated
upon one's use, I consider this action as within my rights. (It'd be a
whole different matter to speak of something like using Resource Hacker
to slice out their advertisements.)

So looks that method worked to eliminate the nags.

Although of course, the primary issue is otherwise. The intent of the
developer with regard to frequency of the nags, and whether PowerDesk
is pure freeware.
 
J

jason

omega said:
I copied Jason's .ini to my PDEsk folder, launched pdexplo.exe a few
times, and then set the .ini file to read-only. I got no protest when
running the program - and the .ini has not been updated since that
time. It is appearing I am now nag-free. Even that closing-screen
advertisement has stayed gone.

Interesting. Like I've said before, I never even get the nag screen, but
I will make the ini read-only so I don't get the closing delay screen.
Although of course, the primary issue is otherwise. The intent of the
developer with regard to frequency of the nags, and whether PowerDesk
is pure freeware.

I suspect the fact that the nagscreen is relatively infrequent, or in my
case, don't occur at all, is why the nagsware aspect hasn't come up
before. Sounds like it would be a candidate for one of those
Acceptable/Not Acceptable votes...either this year or next. If Susan
doesn't want the hassle of an extra vote this year, she can include the
fact of the infrequent nags in the description.
 
O

omega

jason said:
Interesting. Like I've said before, I never even get the nag screen, but
I will make the ini read-only so I don't get the closing delay screen.


I suspect the fact that the nagscreen is relatively infrequent, or in my
case, don't occur at all, is why the nagsware aspect hasn't come up
before. Sounds like it would be a candidate for one of those
Acceptable/Not Acceptable votes...either this year or next. If Susan
doesn't want the hassle of an extra vote this year, she can include the
fact of the infrequent nags in the description.

To get the information about how frequent, it strikes me the best way would
be if someone were willing to email the comapany, and ask them. I can't see
any way for them justify a refusal to give a straightforward answer.

(I'll just hope that the company doesn't read read this thread and change the
..ini method of the nags, at their next release.)
 
D

dszady

Susan's original post had 442 lines (about 20 or so of text
comment, before the list). Number of lines of the heaviest six
posts -

414
343
342
317
181
178 <---

I demand a recount. 167 lines - not counting sig and intro.
And I have tried all those programs and their obvious runners-up. :)
Plus double-spaced for easier reading.
<[email protected]>
 
J

jason

omega said:
To get the information about how frequent, it strikes me the best way
would be if someone were willing to email the comapany, and ask them.
I can't see any way for them justify a refusal to give a
straightforward answer.

Okay, I found out where there technical information page is and composed
a letter, but they want you to sign up for an account. I'm not sure I
want to do that, even though I could just supply fake information. What
I will do is provide the URL and the message I composed. Maybe someone
is willing to go from there.

http://v-com.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/v_com.cfg/php/enduser/ask.php?
p_prod_lvl1=13

Hi,
Power Desk v5 has just been voted a top file manager in
alt.comp.freeware's annual Pricelessware List contest. The Pricelessware
List is the "best of the best" freeware as determined by members of acf.
An issue has come up since the vote concerning it's nag screen.
Pricelessware normally doesn't include "nagware", but it appears the
PowerDesk nag screen is relatively infrequent. We would like to know
just how frequent/infrequent the nag screen is so the voters can decide
whether to keep it on the Pricelessware List. Any help in this matter
would be greatly appreciated.

If you would like more information concerning Pricelessware, please visit
the website:

http://www.pricelessware.org/

Thank-you,
xxxxx
 
D

DC

Susan Bugher wrote in said:
DC wrote:
I'll add QuickPar.

Cool. Better QuickPar than FSRaid, if you'll only entertain one of
them, since Par2 is newer (and much better). FSRaid -- Par(1) -- is
still very widely used, however.

But, I'll take it. }:O)
 
O

omega

(Just a lazy glance, number of lines as displayed in news reader.
Not actual vote count as given for top five in Susan's followup
I demand a recount. 167 lines - not counting sig and intro.
And I have tried all those programs and their obvious runners-up. :)
Plus double-spaced for easier reading.
<[email protected]>

Heh! Well, even if you double-spaced, as in had a bunch of styrofoam between
all the goods, between all the freeware you'd loaded up into your 18-wheeler
(ref: Spacey Spade)... You /still/ are guilty of being an extreme freeware
packrat. Don't deny it... <g>
 
O

omega

ms said:
Karen, after reading your description, I d/l PowerDesk. I was just
interested in the standalone utilities in it. Unfortunately, it is IIRC
the newer installer, and files can't be extracted without install.
BTW, thanks much for the detailed help on WinPack, plan to start using
it next week.

When the dust settles, is it possible to post those individual files to
alt.binaries.freeware as zip files in UUE format?

It's lucky you posted. It made me go take a relook, which otherwise I would
not have done. Turns out that /the great bulk/ of what I posted, about all
the utilities included, it's invalid and wrong. :( :( :(

How it happened. Back in Dec 99, I'd picked up from a Staples bargain bin,
the Mijenix CD that had Fix-It, plus PowerDesk suite. I kept the latter.
Then when the freeware PowerDesk 4 came around, I installed it. And converged
its files with the payware PowerDesk 3. When PowerDesk 5 came in, I again
just put everything in the same directory. Converging the directories was
so long back, my memory had got faded. And when I made the post, all I did
was look at *.exe names, failing to look at dates. Now that I've relooked,
I can see that some of the utilities I described have dates 1999. Egad.

What comes with PowerDesk 5 free version.

What does not (and turned out to be my old v3 leftovers):

I started thinking maybe these latter three might be argued as abandonware,
since Mijenix is about five companies ago, on the continuous transfer of
the PowerDesk product. But when I looked up what's included in the active
Powerdesk pay product...I found that they have continued developing these
utilities, so I think my chances for arguing abandonware are shot.

1. Are you interested in the Open/Save As dialog enhancer?

2. I do recommend the Find tool...

Interesting item. The Find tool been discussed here as a standalone download.
And I took a look. It's the payware v3 that is being distributed. Instead of
the v4 or v5, which comes as part of the freeware PowerDesk distributions.

I wasn't able to spot any features difference between the payware v3 that
many have downloaded, vs the freeware v4. Where I was able spot feature
differences, it was between v4 and v5.

Where this tool is especially nice is that, with the right registry
entries, it will reside in the same location as the Windows Find.

1. Startmenu > Find > File Finder
2. Explorer menu > Tools > File Finder
3. (+ could be some other spot in Windows GUI that I don't notice)

Testing on a virgin partition that never had PowerDesk installed, I
was able to use the registry entries that I expected, to get the v4
of the Find utility into the right Windows GUI locations.

With v5, not so simple. It wanted more registry entries than I'd hoped.
I didn't finish testing to the point of refining precisely which ones
it did and did not need.

If you're interested in this, getting their freeware Find tool onto
those menu locations, let me know, and I'll put together a .reg file
for you to merge. As well as set up a download of either v4 or v5.

.. . .


Again, it's good you posted, Mike. My major mistake / misinformation
about the other utilities would otherwise have lingered in a wholly
unchecked state.
 
D

dszady

Heh! Well, even if you double-spaced, as in had a bunch of
styrofoam between all the goods, between all the freeware you'd
loaded up into your 18-wheeler (ref: Spacey Spade)... You /still/
are guilty of being an extreme freeware packrat. Don't deny it...
<g>

Ya, according to the CDs I have and will have after the dust settles.
:)
 
O

omega

1. I worry about the slippery slope.
2. I worry that the periodic nag trend might increase.

For PL2005, I like the idea of becoming stringent, in order to do make
a statement that would, ideally, deter some authors from jumping onto
the trend of nagging, in their freeware product.

Brief line of additional argument, along these lines: How can something
be pure freeware, pricelessare, if it costs you the reading of ads (any
ads) and the hassle of nags (any nags).

It's strictly PL that I mean here. Recommendations and discussions in
ACF, different matter. I have noticed that a great many folks are not
so absolutely intolerant of nags (all nags) as I am.
I think it was because all the nagware we were familiar with at the
time nagged at startup.

That might be true. The periodic nag, I only remember that from the old
shareware days. TextPad, for example, it gave a reminder ever X hours of
continuous use. A gentle reminder, very infrequent. It feels strange to
me to be seeing current "freeware" a lot more nagging than most of the
old shareware.

I did not even take notice of the Trillian issue until a few days ago.
I'd not read the threads, since it was an app I don't use. And then for
the acceptable\unacceptable votes, I felt disinclined to vote for anything
that I hadn't had direct experience with. (The late exception I made was
only for Kazaa Lite, after the issue was presented, simple and clear, about
its being a cracked, stolen product.)
I'd propose simply removing the phrase "at program startup" from the
definition.

I'd vote that way. We ought to consider a new meta-thread at some point
in time, to revisit the definition of nagware...
 
M

ms

omega said:
It's lucky you posted. It made me go take a relook, which otherwise I would
not have done. Turns out that /the great bulk/ of what I posted, about all
the utilities included, it's invalid and wrong. :( :( :(

How it happened. Back in Dec 99, I'd picked up from a Staples bargain bin,
the Mijenix CD that had Fix-It, plus PowerDesk suite. I kept the latter.
Then when the freeware PowerDesk 4 came around, I installed it. And converged
its files with the payware PowerDesk 3. When PowerDesk 5 came in, I again
just put everything in the same directory. Converging the directories was
so long back, my memory had got faded. And when I made the post, all I did
was look at *.exe names, failing to look at dates. Now that I've relooked,
I can see that some of the utilities I described have dates 1999. Egad.

What comes with PowerDesk 5 free version.


What does not (and turned out to be my old v3 leftovers):


I started thinking maybe these latter three might be argued as abandonware,
since Mijenix is about five companies ago, on the continuous transfer of
the PowerDesk product. But when I looked up what's included in the active
Powerdesk pay product...I found that they have continued developing these
utilities, so I think my chances for arguing abandonware are shot.

1. Are you interested in the Open/Save As dialog enhancer?

2. I do recommend the Find tool...

Interesting item. The Find tool been discussed here as a standalone download.
And I took a look. It's the payware v3 that is being distributed. Instead of
the v4 or v5, which comes as part of the freeware PowerDesk distributions.

I wasn't able to spot any features difference between the payware v3 that
many have downloaded, vs the freeware v4. Where I was able spot feature
differences, it was between v4 and v5.

Where this tool is especially nice is that, with the right registry
entries, it will reside in the same location as the Windows Find.

1. Startmenu > Find > File Finder
2. Explorer menu > Tools > File Finder
3. (+ could be some other spot in Windows GUI that I don't notice)

Testing on a virgin partition that never had PowerDesk installed, I
was able to use the registry entries that I expected, to get the v4
of the Find utility into the right Windows GUI locations.

With v5, not so simple. It wanted more registry entries than I'd hoped.
I didn't finish testing to the point of refining precisely which ones
it did and did not need.

If you're interested in this, getting their freeware Find tool onto
those menu locations, let me know, and I'll put together a .reg file
for you to merge. As well as set up a download of either v4 or v5.

. . .

Again, it's good you posted, Mike. My major mistake / misinformation
about the other utilities would otherwise have lingered in a wholly
unchecked state.
Thanks, Karen.
I'm asking as I assume you are familiar with both items below:

I would be comparing the Find to the find function in W98SE, which is
pretty good. The thing I really like to do is specify time of day to
filter, now I can only do "within the last day".

What features do you feel it has better than W98 find?

Thanks,

Mike Sa
 
S

Susan Bugher

omega said:
1. I worry about the slippery slope.
2. I worry that the periodic nag trend might increase.

For PL2005, I like the idea of becoming stringent, in order to do make
a statement that would, ideally, deter some authors from jumping onto
the trend of nagging, in their freeware product.
agree

It's strictly PL that I mean here.

agree - I advocate a double standard . . . ;)

I'd like PW to be squeaky clean - programs that every ACF participant is
happy to recommend . . . or at least the vast majority . . .
We ought to consider a new meta-thread at some point
in time, to revisit the definition of nagware...

The glossary was created last May - IMO reviewing it annually is a good
idea - I agree it could use a few tweaks . . .

Susan
--
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org
PL2003: http://www.pricelessware.org/2003/about2003PL.htm
PL2004 Review: http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/2004nominationsPL.php
alt.comp.freeware FAQ (short) - maintained by John F.
http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html
 
J

jason

omega said:
1. I worry about the slippery slope.
2. I worry that the periodic nag trend might increase.

For PL2005, I like the idea of becoming stringent, in order to do make
a statement that would, ideally, deter some authors from jumping onto
the trend of nagging, in their freeware product.

I don't have a problem with that idea.
Brief line of additional argument, along these lines: How can
something be pure freeware, pricelessare, if it costs you the reading
of ads (any ads) and the hassle of nags (any nags).

Well...the group decided what is acceptable in their previous
discussions. I wasn't a participant, so I can't say what went down. But
it doesn't hurt to revisit this kind of stuff...I'd just wait till after
the vote.
It's strictly PL that I mean here. Recommendations and discussions in
ACF, different matter. I have noticed that a great many folks are not
so absolutely intolerant of nags (all nags) as I am.

I am *extremely* intolerant of nags! But I never get one with PowerDesk!
That's why I was so confused during this discussion. When I used your
ini, I finally saw what you were talking about, but my own ini keeps me
nag-free. I honestly don't recall *ever* seeing that nag, except maybe
after the very first time using the program.
 
J

jason

Susan said:
I'd like PW to be squeaky clean

I like squeaky clean...but when faced with a decision to keep a unique
program like ePrompter on the list, I voted yay (after much consideration).
I like purity...but when there's no evidence of being spied upon, except
for an outdated EULA, I opted for a unique capability I can't get anywhere
else.

I also like PW being comprehensive...even though I know PW is supposed to
be somewhat exclusive.

In either case, I've come to realize that the more inclusive we make PW,
the less it gives us to talk about on acf. And judging by proclivity of
this group to engage in flame wars, I think it's a good idea to encourage
discussion in the group, rather than to always just refer people to
Pricelessware.
 
O

omega

[Snipping the part about "preview" option, since now I suspect that part,
as well, was part of my confusing the old v3 payware into the mix with the
current free PowerDesk utilities)
Thanks, Karen.
I'm asking as I assume you are familiar with both items below:

I would be comparing the Find to the find function in W98SE, which is
pretty good.

What features do you feel it has better than W98 find?

Let me start the answer in reverse. The part about the W98 Find that is
better has to do with selection of which partitions.

I have seven local partitions; one CD; and then a large removable drive
(archive partition); plus sometimes more letters, when I hook up an
additional removable drive. This situation makes quick selection to do
with partitions important to me.

With the W98 Find, for the Look In field, I can select, with one click,
all local drives at once. Or I can select all drives at once, to include
my removable drives. It is also a single click to select one particular
partition.

With PDFind, you have a whole bunch of little checkboxes for individually
selecting, one by one, which of the partitions you want the search to hit.
When I want to select all partitions at once, or else all local partitions
at once, that is far too tedious for me, to use all its little checkboxes.

You also don't have the option to paste anything into there, for drives, as
you can with Windows Find, eg "c:\; d:\." In short, the constant checking
and unchecking of the boxes, it's too much carpal for me. OTOH, for someone
working with only a couple of drive letters, this whole issue won't matter.

That is the only big aspect of the PDFind utility, that comes to mind, as
being inferior to the W98 Find.


[Search Date, Time, Recent] ================================================
The thing I really like to do is specify time of day to
filter, now I can only do "within the last day".

The PD Find utility is very good for this. You have one field for Date,
and another for Time.

Date: Ignore | On | Before | After | Between | Not Between
Time: All the above, plus... +/- 1 Hour of | +/- 6 Hours of

If you select...

Date: On
Time: +/- 1 Hour of

It auto-inserts current date and time. Therein you have very quick access
to a search for all modified during the past hour.


[File Attributes tab: R H S] ===============================================

Another useful feature of PDFind. One of its extra tabs is for Attributes.

Read-only Hidden System

I've had use for this a number of times. For instance, it's a fast way to
mass change attributes of files which are spread out in various locations.

Tip. Maybe everyone already knew this instinctively, but for me it didn't
dawn until relatively late. The grey checkmarks in the selection boxes mean
indifferent, and that's the default. Click to make them black checkmarks -
to specify files with specifically those attributes. Or click to clear
the checkmarks - in order to exclude from the search files with specific
attributes.

Quick mentions about some specific hidden Windows files.

1. PDFind will show all of your index.dat files, while the Windows Find
hides most of them.

2. Neither of these will show your desktop.ini files. For that situation,
I use winfile.exe.

(I also often use winfile when I need to clear the system attribute.
Meander... For example, when I need to deal with the Fonts folder
directly, I clear the system attribute, and temporarily move its
desktop.ini)


[File Attributes tab: search for folders: y/n] =============================

+/- folders

This overcomes the common annoyance with the Windows Find. Often you want
it to list only files, not include folder names. One rough workaround I
use is to enter "Size is: At Least 0 KB" as part of its search criteria.
The drawback of course is that then I won't see any 0-byte files in my
results list.

The advantage with PDfind, with the +/- folders in a search, is that you
have the options of precisely excluding its listing of folders; or the
reverse, have it only list folders.


[Results List, Saving] =====================================================

In addition to "Save Search," like the Windows Find has, handy to archive
a results list, plus to relaunch the same search...PDFind has also other
options. Print List. Copy List to Clipboard.

The Copy List to Clipboard operation gives all the displayed information:
size, date, time, attributes, path.


[Results List, More Operations...] =========================================

Move To, Copy To, Mail, Recycle, Delete.

Ok I can't say that these are a big deal. Your explorer context menu can
have the operations that are important to you. I should mention: In version
4, it is missing an "Open Containing Folder" menu item. That was a big PITA
for me. And the only explorer context menu extension I found to make up
for this, it was not satisfactory (opened in single "my computer" view,
ignoring system settings for hierarchical + detailed view).


[Results List. Select Files...] ============================================

The selection dialog lets you choose filename type refinement (straight
name, or wildcard), and attributes refinement, the r/h/s stuff, as well as
+/- folders.


[Refine...] [Append...] ====================================================

Successive, aggregate, rounds of searching. Pretty cool, this feature. And
good for those of us who like to be too lazy to keep on top of regexp stuff
that other search utilities use.


[Speed] ====================================================================

Identical. It always felt very close, and just now I tested. Had them both
look for all files named readme.txt on a path, and they came up with the
588 files result at exactly the same instant.


[xyz?] =====================================================================

Despite how long this listing has become, it is not exhaustive. But I did
try to cover the main distinctions, those that stand out to me.


.. . . .

PDFind vs Other Find utils

What I like about PDFind is how it so closely resembles the Windows Find,
plus sits in the same locations, so you don't have to try to develop new
habits, or shift amongst foreign interfaces. For filename + filetype +
filedate, etc, type searches, I prefer it over other third-party utilities.

(The other search utilities, where I do need those, it's for doing a
better job on the "containing text" aspect of things. Where you start
wanting features such as showing a contextual excerpt of the text matches;
or fancy operators (Near OR AND etc) for finding the text; or replace
abilities; etc etc.)


.. . . .

PDFind 4 vs PDFind 5


Search refinements added:

1. File attributes tab has an option to include searching in an archive.
2. An extra tab, to limit which file types extension for the search.

File menu operations added:

1. Save|Open Search settings
2. Open Containing Folder

Maybe a few smaller things too, that don't much stand out for me. Definitely
the version 5 has more features than the version 4.

But I don't want to over-emphasize that, and want to say the version 4 is
still very much worth using.

Self-interest, why I say the above. Version 4, I've already found which
minimum registry entries it needs (as a standalone from the PowerDesk
installation) - to integrate it into the Windows interface. For version 5,
I had not yet finished trying to get that solved.

Mike, I have presumed that you would want to have this in those Windows
menu locations? Startmenu > Find, for example. Is the presumption correct?
Or would it be that you would in fact want it otherwise, to use this only
as a standard executable, to launch separately and not from special
locations?

(Btw, version 5, it wants registry entries no matter how you place it,
even as a standalone executable.)
 
M

ms

omega wrote:
Thanks for good data. To quote someone I know:
Thank you for the detailed post. I'll save it for offline study.

snip
[Search Date, Time, Recent] ================================================
The thing I really like to do is specify time of day to
filter, now I can only do "within the last day".

The PD Find utility is very good for this. You have one field for Date,
and another for Time.

Date: Ignore | On | Before | After | Between | Not Between
Time: All the above, plus... +/- 1 Hour of | +/- 6 Hours of

If you select...

Date: On
Time: +/- 1 Hour of

It auto-inserts current date and time. Therein you have very quick access
to a search for all modified during the past hour.

That is exactly what I was looking for.
[Results List, Saving] =====================================================

In addition to "Save Search," like the Windows Find has, handy to archive
a results list, plus to relaunch the same search...PDFind has also other
options. Print List. Copy List to Clipboard.

The Copy List to Clipboard operation gives all the displayed information:
size, date, time, attributes, path.

Very useful.
snip
[xyz?] =====================================================================

Despite how long this listing has become, it is not exhaustive. But I did
try to cover the main distinctions, those that stand out to me.

Many good features, indeed.
PDFind vs Other Find utils

What I like about PDFind is how it so closely resembles the Windows Find,
plus sits in the same locations, so you don't have to try to develop new
habits, or shift amongst foreign interfaces. For filename + filetype +
filedate, etc, type searches, I prefer it over other third-party utilities.
snip

PDFind 4 vs PDFind 5

Search refinements added:

1. File attributes tab has an option to include searching in an archive.
2. An extra tab, to limit which file types extension for the search.

File menu operations added:

1. Save|Open Search settings
2. Open Containing Folder

Maybe a few smaller things too, that don't much stand out for me. Definitely
the version 5 has more features than the version 4.

But I don't want to over-emphasize that, and want to say the version 4 is
still very much worth using.

Self-interest, why I say the above. Version 4, I've already found which
minimum registry entries it needs (as a standalone from the PowerDesk
installation) - to integrate it into the Windows interface. For version 5,
I had not yet finished trying to get that solved.

Mike, I have presumed that you would want to have this in those Windows
menu locations? Startmenu > Find, for example. Is the presumption correct?
Or would it be that you would in fact want it otherwise, to use this only
as a standard executable, to launch separately and not from special
locations?
As a standard executable. It would be for me useful for the certain
times I need the added functions.
(Btw, version 5, it wants registry entries no matter how you place it,
even as a standalone executable.)

If you could, please post both versions (UUE), as I later will monitor
registry entries and can maybe use the added Ver. 5 features, as
learning goes on. These utilities give flexibility in features, a very
good thing. If you post in this thread when you get a chance to upload
to the binaries ng, it is a good reminder for me.

Thanks again,

Mike Sa
 
O

omega

ms said:
If you could, please post both versions (UUE), as I later will monitor
registry entries and can maybe use the added Ver. 5 features, as
learning goes on. These utilities give flexibility in features, a very
good thing. If you post in this thread when you get a chance to upload
to the binaries ng, it is a good reminder for me.

Mike, please forgive my taking so long to get back to this. I wanted to finish
ascertaining the regentry needs of version 5. As well as work out
what to do on the uploading question. Then I got lazy and put things off
for some days.

Regarding posting to ABF, I don't have access. So I opened a free webspace
account with port5.com [*] and uploaded there.

http://omega5.port5.com/files/2003/temp/pdfind4.zip
http://omega5.port5.com/files/2003/temp/pdfind5.zip

The pdfind4 version had fewer features, but runs standalone.

The pdfind5, it needs to be fed a minimum of one registry entry, pointing
to a DLL that it seeks out, whenever it is launched. (It doesn't use the
DLL, not unless using PDESK zip extensions, but it nevertheless bitches
if it doesn't find it.)

I like the PDFind shell integration. Particularly, having "PDFind..." on
Startmenu > Find.

Unfortunately, their shell extension DLL, it's an unusual case of one that
is not able to self-register. So I put .reg files in <pdfind5.zip>. When
merged, the pdfind menus will get integrated into your system interface.

If you tackle merging the reg files, and find that the readme and whatever
options, etc, are not clear, please let me know, so that I can try to clarify.

.. . .

[*] the port5.com (no ads) webspace tip = thanks to donutbandit


--
Karen S.

PS. Small note: the exe and dlls, they don't have their own dates. So I
reset their dates, based on copyright year and version number (less
confusing to me than 2003 install dates).
 
M

ms

omega said:
ms said:
If you could, please post both versions (UUE), as I later will monitor
registry entries and can maybe use the added Ver. 5 features, as
learning goes on. These utilities give flexibility in features, a very
good thing. If you post in this thread when you get a chance to upload
to the binaries ng, it is a good reminder for me.

Mike, please forgive my taking so long to get back to this. I wanted to finish
ascertaining the regentry needs of version 5. As well as work out
what to do on the uploading question. Then I got lazy and put things off
for some days.

Regarding posting to ABF, I don't have access. So I opened a free webspace
account with port5.com [*] and uploaded there.

http://omega5.port5.com/files/2003/temp/pdfind4.zip
http://omega5.port5.com/files/2003/temp/pdfind5.zip

The pdfind4 version had fewer features, but runs standalone.

The pdfind5, it needs to be fed a minimum of one registry entry, pointing
to a DLL that it seeks out, whenever it is launched. (It doesn't use the
DLL, not unless using PDESK zip extensions, but it nevertheless bitches
if it doesn't find it.)

I like the PDFind shell integration. Particularly, having "PDFind..." on
Startmenu > Find.

Unfortunately, their shell extension DLL, it's an unusual case of one that
is not able to self-register. So I put .reg files in <pdfind5.zip>. When
merged, the pdfind menus will get integrated into your system interface.

If you tackle merging the reg files, and find that the readme and whatever
options, etc, are not clear, please let me know, so that I can try to clarify.

. . .

[*] the port5.com (no ads) webspace tip = thanks to donutbandit

--
Karen S.

PS. Small note: the exe and dlls, they don't have their own dates. So I
reset their dates, based on copyright year and version number (less
confusing to me than 2003 install dates).

Many thanks, Karen.

After I work with them, I'll report back, probably in a new thread, as
my emphasis now is "last gasp of W98 before the door closes" activity.
I have lots of patches, installed practically nothing as my W98SE works
well, my IE 5.01SP2 works OK when I use it. But IMO the W98 tip sites
will gradually fade away.

I appreciate all the work you did on these files, and will get into use
of them a little later due to the above priority. Life is never dull in
computing!

Mike Sa
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top