V
Vrodok the Troll
Whereto, if I might inquire?
Whereto, if I might inquire?
S
Steven Burn
</snip>
www.it-mate.co.uk/support/acfnotes.asp
--
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)
R
REM
Certainly. Feel free to consider it an open project. I hope to update
the existing editors and add a few more. There have been new version
releases for several of them.
V
Vrodok the Troll
Thank you.
O
omega
(e-mail address removed) (REM):
My investigation after Mike's query turned out approx eighteen editors who
write nothing to the registry, who exist self-contained, writing a local
file in their own directory for user settings. The "green/ environmentally
clean" award.
Reading the data an the Text Editor Review page, I notice it has several
listed as having registry entries - which are the same editors who have
zero registry entries on my machine.
The difference would be due to an installer's entries. I immediately purge
the debris inserted by installers, and don't keep long-term records of their
behaviors.
Well, it might most likely be the majority opinion that a program does not
merit "green" status based only on its run behavior, but additionally
on whether the author has made available a distribution that is free from
an installer.
There are a decent number of regulars here who share the interest in
knowing which programs are "green" / self-contained. In theory, I could
re-download each of the ~eighteen editors. For purpose of recording the
nature of their distributed forms. Namely, whether the end-user is forced
into using an installer before getting access to the program.
That activity, re-downloading a bunch of things I already have, well, to
tell the truth, it sounds time-consuming and boring. Thus, while I like the
idea of the editors page having a good set of entries for "green" editors,
the best I offer for now towards that end, it's to scribble it on one of
abstract todo lists in the clouds...
My investigation after Mike's query turned out approx eighteen editors who
write nothing to the registry, who exist self-contained, writing a local
file in their own directory for user settings. The "green/ environmentally
clean" award.
Reading the data an the Text Editor Review page, I notice it has several
listed as having registry entries - which are the same editors who have
zero registry entries on my machine.
The difference would be due to an installer's entries. I immediately purge
the debris inserted by installers, and don't keep long-term records of their
behaviors.
Well, it might most likely be the majority opinion that a program does not
merit "green" status based only on its run behavior, but additionally
on whether the author has made available a distribution that is free from
an installer.
There are a decent number of regulars here who share the interest in
knowing which programs are "green" / self-contained. In theory, I could
re-download each of the ~eighteen editors. For purpose of recording the
nature of their distributed forms. Namely, whether the end-user is forced
into using an installer before getting access to the program.
That activity, re-downloading a bunch of things I already have, well, to
tell the truth, it sounds time-consuming and boring. Thus, while I like the
idea of the editors page having a good set of entries for "green" editors,
the best I offer for now towards that end, it's to scribble it on one of
abstract todo lists in the clouds...
O
omega
(e-mail address removed) (REM):
REM, I most enthusiastically recommend this notepad:
Kankowski Edit
http://www.kankowski.nm.ru/
It's a fine little hardbody - fast and quick and strong. The executable
weighs in at only 80k (uncompressed/actual size).
Its special (unique?) feature is that you can execute the entries from your
Explorer context menu on the loaded file. That feature gives all kinds of
fun conveniences, especially if you have configured a useful context menu
on your system.
I'd post a screenshot to describe what I mean, but the program is so small,
it makes more sense to me to recommend that folks just go straight ahead
and check it out firsthand.
REM, I most enthusiastically recommend this notepad:
Kankowski Edit
http://www.kankowski.nm.ru/
It's a fine little hardbody - fast and quick and strong. The executable
weighs in at only 80k (uncompressed/actual size).
Its special (unique?) feature is that you can execute the entries from your
Explorer context menu on the loaded file. That feature gives all kinds of
fun conveniences, especially if you have configured a useful context menu
on your system.
I'd post a screenshot to describe what I mean, but the program is so small,
it makes more sense to me to recommend that folks just go straight ahead
and check it out firsthand.
S
Susan Bugher
omega said:
Hi Karen,
The above is the *kind* of info I'd like to see added to the Text Editor
Review page - a paragraph or two that *supplements* REMbranded's test
data: special capabilities - how the editor handles on the road - etc. etc.
I'll add Kankowski Edit and your comments on it to the editor list
that's below the table. Any comments on the other editors?
Does anyone else have comments to add?
Susan
R
Roger Johansson
Susan Bugher said:
Proportional fonts, background color, all user settable, very good.
Download link for the zip file broken, leads me to a page in russian.
Informs me that in Moscow is it -5 degrees, cloudy, snowing, 3 m/s wind.
The other two download links are working.
B
Bjorn Simonsen
Susan Bugher wrote in said:
A wish perhaps, about feature comparison table
on <http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/TextEditorReview.php>
under "Key to the table entries:" we find among other features:
"15. W (word wrap at a user defined column) U (Unwrap)"
I wish it would list SW for soft-wrap (only wrap on screen, does not
modify file) and hard-wrap (modifes file) and SHW (both). AFAIK
Windows Notepad (and most clones) belongs to the first category, PFE
to the second (others?).
Speaking of PFE - just noticed that PFE
<http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/PL2004PROGRAMMING.htm#B205>
is listed twice on
<http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/CumulativePL.htm>
First entry: PFE - > 2001
Second entry: Programmer's File Editor (PFE) -> 2004
Assuming both entries refer to the same program (?)
Also, you might want to add PFE below the table on
the <TextEditorReview.php> page, to the handy(!)
list of available freeware alternatives.
To that list you might also want to add CNOTEPAD:
<http://www.cetussoft.com/cnotepad.htm>
Don't know anything about it, just passing the URL.
(to many editors - to little time
Btw: Re editors and reviews of -
some might find the following informativ
<http://www.softpanorama.org/Editors/edit_win32.shtml>
(above page from the "Folding/Orthodox Editors" site
<http://www.softpanorama.org/Editors/index.shtml>
a sibling to the "Orthodox File Managers" site
<http://www.softpanorama.org/OFM/index.shtml> )
All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen
R
REM
Thanks. I am saving the message and will give it a whirl soon. It
sounds interesting.
S
Susan Bugher
Roger said:
Thanks Roger
Susan
S
Susan Bugher
Bjorn said:A wish perhaps, about feature comparison table
on <http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/TextEditorReview.php>
under "Key to the table entries:" we find among other features:
"15. W (word wrap at a user defined column) U (Unwrap)"
I wish it would list SW for soft-wrap (only wrap on screen, does not
modify file) and hard-wrap (modifes file) and SHW (both). AFAIK
Windows Notepad (and most clones) belongs to the first category, PFE
to the second (others?).
Speaking of PFE - just noticed that PFE
<http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/PL2004PROGRAMMING.htm#B205>
is listed twice on
<http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/CumulativePL.htm>
First entry: PFE - > 2001
Second entry: Programmer's File Editor (PFE) -> 2004
Assuming both entries refer to the same program (?)
Also, you might want to add PFE below the table on
the <TextEditorReview.php> page, to the handy(!)
list of available freeware alternatives.
To that list you might also want to add CNOTEPAD:
<http://www.cetussoft.com/cnotepad.htm>
Don't know anything about it, just passing the URL.
(to many editors - to little time
Btw: Re editors and reviews of -
some might find the following informativ
<http://www.softpanorama.org/Editors/edit_win32.shtml>
(above page from the "Folding/Orthodox Editors" site
<http://www.softpanorama.org/Editors/index.shtml>
a sibling to the "Orthodox File Managers" site
<http://www.softpanorama.org/OFM/index.shtml> )
Hi Bjorn,
Interesting site - over my head
but interesting nevertheless.Thanks for the add'l info for the Text Editor Review page. I'll look at
the wrap/unwrap info - I may have oversimplified REMbranded's data . . .
Thanks also for catching the duplicate entry in the Cumulative PL. I
caught one yesterday too (Ghostscript and Aladdin Ghostscript)(I was
working on the Programs pages) - but deleted the PFE duplication without
remembering it was PW2004 - I'm grateful you pointed it out.
Susan
B
B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson
Hallo Susan,
FYI:
For a couple of years there have always been 2 branches of Ghostscript:
Aladdin and GNU. They have different licenses and should therefore not
be mingled. While Aladdin is free only for personal use, you can use
GNU GS in all circumstances (open source GPL). Both packages differ
in functionality, too. (Aladdin is always a bit ahead.) At the moment
AFPL GS (= Aladdin) is v8.13 while GNU GS just released v8.01. (Only
source. If I'm right, there are no binaries available yet.)
In my opinion you should leave both entries in the PL list separate.
If you rename Aladdin GS to "Ghostscript (Aladdin)" they will be appear
directly one after another if you sort by <Program>. This should avoid
irritations.
Hope this clarifies things a bit. I deeply appreciate your enormous
efforts in keeping Pricelessware up and sane!
BeAr
S
Susan Bugher
B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson said:
It does indeed clarify things - thanks for the help. I'll leave those as
separate programs on the Cumulative PL and use Ghostscript (Aladdin) as
you suggested.
Wocar and Simple OCR are a similar case - Simple OCR is based on Wocar .
.. . the last time I looked there were web pages for both . . .
Susan
O
omega
I'm constantly amazed out your =WarpSpeed= programming!
I like this tool. It fits my uses. I keep as little as possible over in that
regkey. I do my uninstall directly from each program's directory, which is
where I store the relevant information that I need. Keeping that regkey down
pruned, and exporting any non-obvious commands from it (eg those which don't
simply point to a file named uninstall.exe), it's a regular need, and PUI
looks like it will aid me.
An example of one of the entries PUI is showing me that I'd earlier
forgotten to take care of, it exports that for me as convenient text:
SpyBotSnD SpyBot - Search & Destroy 1.1 1.1 True
"D:\SYSUTILS\APPS\AV\MALWARE\SPYBOT\SPYBOTSD.EXE" /uninstall
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall\SpyBotSnD
Since that's a command I wouldn't be able to remember on my own (sybotsd.exe
/uninstall), I can copy the text note to Spybot's directory (to use as a Run
command), or make an .lnk. And the path PUI gives of the reg subkey that I
want to clean off... if there are a number of entries I want to do at once,
then I can just copy the addresses to a batch for use by reg.exe (reg delete
HKEY...), or else as a .reg script file [-HKEY...].
By design, you did not have this program deleting entries from the registry;
since sometimes, like with the Spybotsd, those entries will contain commands
that I want to have first exported, that's fine. And in the end I get both
with PUI, the info, and a good way to do recorded reg deletes.
Thanks!
O
omega
Steven Burn said:
I wanted to add a couple quick notes. The column sorting and resizing is
very nice. I also like the full-list report output file. It's a lot faster
to parse that an exported .reg of that key. I like the way it's formatted.
S
Steven Burn
</snip>I'm constantly amazed out your =WarpSpeed= programming!
I like this tool. It fits my uses. I keep as little as possible over in that
regkey. I do my uninstall directly from each program's directory, which is
where I store the relevant information that I need. Keeping that regkey down
pruned, and exporting any non-obvious commands from it (eg those which don't
simply point to a file named uninstall.exe), it's a regular need, and PUI
looks like it will aid me.
An example of one of the entries PUI is showing me that I'd earlier
forgotten to take care of, it exports that for me as convenient text:
SpyBotSnD SpyBot - Search & Destroy 1.1 1.1 True
"D:\SYSUTILS\APPS\AV\MALWARE\SPYBOT\SPYBOTSD.EXE" /uninstall
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall\SpyBo
tSnD
Since that's a command I wouldn't be able to remember on my own (sybotsd.exe
/uninstall), I can copy the text note to Spybot's directory (to use as a Run
command), or make an .lnk. And the path PUI gives of the reg subkey that I
want to clean off... if there are a number of entries I want to do at once,
then I can just copy the addresses to a batch for use by reg.exe (reg delete
HKEY...), or else as a .reg script file [-HKEY...].
By design, you did not have this program deleting entries from the registry;
since sometimes, like with the Spybotsd, those entries will contain commands
that I want to have first exported, that's fine. And in the end I get both
with PUI, the info, and a good way to do recorded reg deletes.
Thanks!
hehe, just glad to hear it helps ;o)
Regarding the deletion, I could quite easily have included that feature
(delete/rename/edit a key) but, to be honest, with all of the programs
available, and all of the paranoia surrounding the registry, I decided it
would be best to leave it out and give the user the information he/she needs
to delete it manually.
--
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)
S
Steven Burn
</snip>omega said:
Thankyou ;o)
--
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)
C
Charles D. Bohne
Hi Steven,
who the heck is Helen Benoist?
http://www.helenbenoist.co.uk/
and who advised her to use these pretty ugly pictures
(from the professional photographer's view) on her
site?
N.B. Some links like:
javascript:OpenMe('images/myphotoalbum/cnv00008.html')
/cnv00012.html
/cnv00022.html
do not work.
HTH.
C.
S
Steven Burn
</snip>Charles D. Bohne said:
Besides being a good friend of mine, she's a very well known North East
actress/model (details etc, is on her site)
</snip>
As for the pictures, nobody advised her, everything on the site is there
because she wanted it there.
Cheers for the info about the links though, they've now been fixed ;o)
--
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)