Need ME beta tester

[Dos-Man]

Does anyone in here use Windows ME? My screen capture/magnifier
program
doesn't work at all in XP (and presumably not in 2000 either). I
would
like to know if it works in ME. I'm not expecting you to know how it
works; I just
want to know if any fatal errors occur while the program is loading.
I hadn't intended to make this available here, but these compatibility
issues have messed everything up

http://www.bee.net/prime-time/pscm.zip

Unlike some in here, I do not qualify as an MS hater or an MS basher.
At least
not yet. But I do have a problem with recent M$ operating systems.
XP specifically
really gets on my nerves. I don't like using it, and I am not too
jolly about developing
software for it. This screen capture program works just fine on
Window 98 - A REAL OPERATING SYSTEM. In fact, I'm yet to download a
better screen capture
program than this one. Most of them can capture or magnify but not
both. And many
of them use too much resources by following the mouse around the
screen. I'm sure
there are better screen capture and magnifiers out there, but my point
is that this
program should be working as it always has.

dos-man
__________________________________________________________________

Author of PSassano's Legacy Pad text editor

 

[null]

Does anyone in here use Windows ME? My screen capture/magnifier
program
doesn't work at all in XP (and presumably not in 2000 either). I
would
like to know if it works in ME. I'm not expecting you to know how it
works; I just
want to know if any fatal errors occur while the program is loading.
I hadn't intended to make this available here, but these compatibility
issues have messed everything up

http://www.bee.net/prime-time/pscm.zip

Work without errors on my Win ME PC. It only captures the upper left
quarter of the screen though. How does a user control the view window?


Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[H-Man]

Window 98 - A REAL OPERATING SYSTEM.

This is a joke, right?
HK

 

[Steven Burn]

This is a joke, right?
HK

IMHO, 98SE is the most stable version of Windows ever released. (with the
exception of Windows v1.x, 2.x, 3.x).

Win 95 = Unstable, sluggish POS
Win 98FE = Getting there, but still too unstable
Win ME = Unstable POS
Win 2000 = Stable(ish) but too bloated
Win XP = Unstable, bloated "eye-candy" POS
Win Server 2003 = POS

Only reason I have XP is so I can test my software (and for IIS) (still
trying to get hold of 2000 and 2000 Server Edition though)

--
Regards

Steven Burn
Ur I.T. Mate Group
www.it-mate.co.uk

Keeping it FREE!

Disclaimer:
I know I'm probably wrong, I just like taking part ;o)

 

[H-Man]

IMHO, 98SE is the most stable version of Windows ever released. (with the
exception of Windows v1.x, 2.x, 3.x).

Win 95 = Unstable, sluggish POS
Win 98FE = Getting there, but still too unstable
Win ME = Unstable POS
Win 2000 = Stable(ish) but too bloated
Win XP = Unstable, bloated "eye-candy" POS
Win Server 2003 = POS

Only reason I have XP is so I can test my software (and for IIS) (still
trying to get hold of 2000 and 2000 Server Edition though)

I must be living right or something then. XP has never crashed on me
yet. I've had programs go down, but never the OS. Win2K has been a rock.
NT4, has been a solid file server, but of course all it has to do is
provide access to files and printers. The entire 9x product line caused
me more difficulty than any of the NT versions. W2K Server is, although
admittedly large, very complete and stable as a server OS. As XP is
built on W2K I've found it every bit as bloated as it's parent OS and
then some, but it certainly has been stable, at least for me and the
many systems I've built and sold, and those I administer. For me, OS
related problems are going away, not getting worse. Never used 2003
Server, but I will say that with the early Windows versions, Windows
3.0, 3.1, 3.11WFW, I found it amazing how an OS could generate so many
fatal exception errors. It was forever requiring a reboot. These were
IMO the most unstable shells ever created by MS, although 3.11WFW was
getting there for a 16 bit shell.

I guess YMMV with this sort of thing.
HK

 

[Anti_Freak_Machine]

Does anyone in here use Windows ME? My screen capture/magnifier
program
doesn't work at all in XP (and presumably not in 2000 either). I
would
like to know if it works in ME. I'm not expecting you to know how it
works; I just
want to know if any fatal errors occur while the program is loading.
I hadn't intended to make this available here, but these compatibility
issues have messed everything up

http://www.bee.net/prime-time/pscm.zip

Unlike some in here, I do not qualify as an MS hater or an MS basher.
At least
not yet. But I do have a problem with recent M$ operating systems.
XP specifically
really gets on my nerves. I don't like using it, and I am not too
jolly about developing
software for it. This screen capture program works just fine on
Window 98 - A REAL OPERATING SYSTEM. In fact, I'm yet to download a
better screen capture
program than this one. Most of them can capture or magnify but not
both. And many
of them use too much resources by following the mouse around the
screen. I'm sure
there are better screen capture and magnifiers out there, but my point
is that this
program should be working as it always has.

dos-man
__________________________________________________________________

Author of PSassano's Legacy Pad text editor

Runs on ME (except that I cant figure out how to magnify anything), but
I got this error on XP:

Run-time error '6':
Overflow

 

[A.A. Fussy]

Does anyone in here use Windows ME? My screen capture/magnifier
program
doesn't work at all in XP (and presumably not in 2000 either). I
would
like to know if it works in ME. I'm not expecting you to know how it
works; I just
want to know if any fatal errors occur while the program is loading.
I hadn't intended to make this available here, but these compatibility
issues have messed everything up

http://www.bee.net/prime-time/pscm.zip

Unlike some in here, I do not qualify as an MS hater or an MS basher.
At least
not yet. But I do have a problem with recent M$ operating systems.
XP specifically
really gets on my nerves. I don't like using it, and I am not too
jolly about developing
software for it. This screen capture program works just fine on
Window 98 - A REAL OPERATING SYSTEM. In fact, I'm yet to download a
better screen capture
program than this one. Most of them can capture or magnify but not
both. And many
of them use too much resources by following the mouse around the
screen. I'm sure
there are better screen capture and magnifiers out there, but my point
is that this
program should be working as it always has.

dos-man
__________________________________________________________________

Author of PSassano's Legacy Pad text editor

I have XP-and yes, I tried running it but it does not work on XP.

 

[Burp]

I have XP-and yes, I tried running it but it does not work on XP.

Hexk... buy it and make it work right Flossy!!!!!!!

 

[REM]

(e-mail address removed) (Dos-Man) wrote:

Does anyone in here use Windows ME? My screen capture/magnifier
program
doesn't work at all in XP (and presumably not in 2000 either). I
would
like to know if it works in ME. I'm not expecting you to know how it
works; I just
want to know if any fatal errors occur while the program is loading.
I hadn't intended to make this available here, but these compatibility
issues have messed everything up

Unlike some in here, I do not qualify as an MS hater or an MS basher.
At least
not yet. But I do have a problem with recent M$ operating systems.
XP specifically
really gets on my nerves. I don't like using it, and I am not too
jolly about developing
software for it. This screen capture program works just fine on
Window 98 - A REAL OPERATING SYSTEM. In fact, I'm yet to download a
better screen capture
program than this one. Most of them can capture or magnify but not
both. And many
of them use too much resources by following the mouse around the
screen. I'm sure
there are better screen capture and magnifiers out there, but my point
is that this
program should be working as it always has.

Didn't you state that your programs are now shareware?


------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
For a quality usenet news server, try DNEWS, easy to install,
fast, efficient and reliable. For home servers or carrier class
installations with millions of users it will allow you to grow!
---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_dnews.htm ----

 

[Dos-Man]

Didn't you state that your programs are now shareware?


------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
For a quality usenet news server, try DNEWS, easy to install,
fast, efficient and reliable. For home servers or carrier class
installations with millions of users it will allow you to grow!
---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_dnews.htm ----

Well, this was originally supposed to be a shareware program.
And it may still become one once I can fix all these problems.
I initially intended this to be the first "real" program I ever
sold. But that didn't work out, and my text editor ended up being
the first. This program is in limbo. I can't justify charging
anything for a non-functional program.

Anyway, when it was posted here, it officially became freeware (at
least temporarily) since anyone can download it without paying for as
long as the link stands.

dos-man

 

[Dos-Man]

On 19 Mar 2004 08:42:02 -0800, (e-mail address removed) (Dos-Man) wrote:


Work without errors on my Win ME PC. It only captures the upper left
quarter of the screen though. How does a user control the view window?


Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg

I'm not sure why that would be.

All the windows are controlled by right-click menu, and
by resizing them. When you click the main window a portion
of its contents will be sent to the viewport. The size of the
image that is sent is dependant upon the size of the image
control in the viewport window.

To change the size of the image that the viewport is holding,
resize the viewport to match the image to be captured, right-click
the viewport and then choose erase. Then click the main window again
to send new images to the viewport. The images that are sent should be
the same size as the viewport.

dos-man

 

[Dos-Man]

Win XP = Unstable, bloated "eye-candy" POS

--
Regards

Steven Burn
Ur I.T. Mate Group
www.it-mate.co.uk

Keeping it FREE!

Disclaimer:
I know I'm probably wrong, I just like taking part ;o)

Thank you for this post Steven.
Your description of XP is dead-on accurate.

dos-man

 

[Dos-Man]

news:[email protected]...

Win 2000 = Stable(ish) but too bloated
Win XP = Unstable, bloated "eye-candy" POS

And let me also say that MS has gone completely
over the top with all these ridiculous version
names for their products. We've gone from
Pro, Lite, and Std. to "Home Edition."

I'm not sure why, but that really irritates the crap
out of me. The day I use an operating system calling itself
a "Home Edition" will be a cold day down below.

dos-man

 

[H-Man]

"Steven Burn" <[email protected]> wrote in message



And let me also say that MS has gone completely
over the top with all these ridiculous version
names for their products. We've gone from
Pro, Lite, and Std. to "Home Edition."

I'm not sure why, but that really irritates the crap
out of me. The day I use an operating system calling itself
a "Home Edition" will be a cold day down below.

On this point I completely agree with you. MS really needs to settle
down with this. And $259.95 CAD for XP Pro (OEM), rediculous, like they
are in some danger of losing money here. Maybe if they dumped X-Box,
they could afford to sell their OS's at some reasonable price. Like
that'll happen!
HK

 

[MightyKitten]

Gives me an "Run-time error '6': Overflow" when launching the app.
Using Windows XP Home(less), MS-updated until today.

Well, XP home ed. was the only negative part of this otherwise great laptop.
I sometimes consider 'upgrading' it to Windows 2000, but since it is a
company machine, I don't like to mess with the licences.

MightyKitten