Its not often...

[Sysyphus' Sister]

Its not often that I talk about Microsoft as a possible solution for
software.

This is one time I will change that rule...

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/digitalphotography/prophoto/syn
ctoy.mspx

or

http://tinyurl.com/7dlru

Microsoft Synctoy for Win XP

I have used this extensively for syncing Outlook between my laptop and
desktop and have had no problems.

 

[BobS]

Thanks - that's a keeper so far. Just testing it out between my laptop and
NAS drive and the "Combine" function is exactly what I wanted to do. Nice
feature is that you can do a quick Preview of what will happen before you
commit to the action. Another nice feature according to the write-up is
that it does not delete anything - merely places it in the Recycle bin so if
you do mess up - nothing is lost.

It's a PowerToy so no support but the Help File is about all one should
need. If I can get thru it......;-)

Thanks for pointing that program out,

Bob S.

 

[Peter in New Zealand]

Me too. Been using Allway Sync for some time now (purchased), but this one
is so well done that I am considering switching. Thanks for the heads up.
--
Peter in New Zealand. (Pull the plug out to reply.)
Collector of old cameras, tropical fish fancier, good coffee nutter, and
compulsive computer fiddler.

Thanks - that's a keeper so far. Just testing it out between my laptop and
NAS drive and the "Combine" function is exactly what I wanted to do. Nice
feature is that you can do a quick Preview of what will happen before you
commit to the action. Another nice feature according to the write-up is
that it does not delete anything - merely places it in the Recycle bin so if
you do mess up - nothing is lost.

It's a PowerToy so no support but the Help File is about all one should
need. If I can get thru it......;-)

Thanks for pointing that program out,

Bob S.

 

[Anti_Freak_Machine]

Me too. Been using Allway Sync for some time now (purchased), but this one
is so well done that I am considering switching. Thanks for the heads up.

Thats what I was using until I got a message saying I use it too much
and I would need to buy it. I tried this tonight and its exactly the
replacement I've been looking for.

 

[JP Loken]

På Sat, 13 Aug 2005 00:41:27 +0200, skrev Sysyphus' Sister
<[email protected]>:

Microsoft Synctoy for Win XP

System Requirements:
Supported Operating Systems: Windows XP
Microsoft Windows XP SP2
Microsoft .NET Frameworks V1.1
1GHz Intel P3 processor or equivalent
256MB RAM, 512MB RAM recommended
20MB free disk space
Screen resolution set to 1024x768 or higher

That leaves out many users.

Syncback is an excellent choice.
http://www.2brightsparks.com/downloads.html

 

[Peter in New Zealand]

Yeah, some restrictive issues in system requirements there I agree. In spite
of that list though it works OK on Win 2000 for me. One of my two machines
is a 450 MHz with 256 RAM and it seems quite happy on that. The slower CPU
doesn't seem to bother it at all, althouth the machine is a few years old.
My other is a laptop, also Win 2000, with a 1.6 GHz CPU and 512 RAM. I
seriously can see very little difference in how it runs between the two
machines.

That said, I agree Syncback is good. It's great that there's more choice out
here in this now.

--
Peter in New Zealand. (Pull the plug out to reply.)
Collector of old cameras, tropical fish fancier, good coffee nutter, and
compulsive computer fiddler.

På Sat, 13 Aug 2005 00:41:27 +0200, skrev Sysyphus' Sister
<[email protected]>:


System Requirements:
Supported Operating Systems: Windows XP
Microsoft Windows XP SP2
Microsoft .NET Frameworks V1.1
1GHz Intel P3 processor or equivalent
256MB RAM, 512MB RAM recommended
20MB free disk space
Screen resolution set to 1024x768 or higher

That leaves out many users.

Syncback is an excellent choice.
http://www.2brightsparks.com/downloads.html

http://www.opera.com/mail/

 

[JP Loken]

På Sat, 13 Aug 2005 21:10:47 +0200, skrev Peter in New Zealand

Yeah, some restrictive issues in system requirements there I agree. In
spite
of that list though it works OK on Win 2000 for me. One of my two
machines
is a 450 MHz with 256 RAM and it seems quite happy on that. The slower
CPU
doesn't seem to bother it at all, althouth the machine is a few years
old.

<snip>

Thanks for the tip.
I should have been more adventurous and tried it myself before posting my
restraining comment.
I'm going to give it a try, too, now.