SnapFiles.com total failure, wrt .Net framework dependency

O

omega

What I've recently realized:

For those of who don't have the .Net framework installed, SnapFiles
will utterly waste a lot of your time and attention.

SnapFiles fails to list the .Net requirement /anywhere/ in their
descriptions.

This crucial item should put tagged within the main listing pages
they have for each category, so one can scan the list for what is
installable. If not there, then they should at least note the req
in the dedicated page they have for each program. They do none of
this.

When I am interested in a download, I retrieve the SnapFiles info,
including saving the screenshot, and also working on getting the
download URL. Usually I do go to the author's site, too, and look
for further product info there, which I also save to disk. It all
adds up for me to an average of about 20+ minutes of web activity,
for each download I pursue.

Somewhere in a later stage of this, loading pages from the author's
site, I might catch a note where he discloses the .Net dependency.
Sometimes not, and I don't find out until very much later, offline,
when readying to start an install.

In SnapFiles's policy to not mention the .Net req, they have sent me
down the wrong path many times, where I am saving useless info, and
wasting a lot of my time and attention, for what ends up being a
dead-end.

This pattern is increasing. SnapFiles is listing more and more .Net-
dependent software. Their listing such software, I certainly have no
complaint on that. I might even install .Net eventually.

As now, however, I am part of a significantly large population of software
users who has not taken this action. It's certainly not as if the .Net
thing has not reached the saturation level of eg VB runtimes; and it's
furthermore a far heavier matter.

A decently useful download site would include a tag on .Net dependency
in its listings.

SnapFiles (WebAttack) was once one of my very favorite freeware sites.
But as now, it's removed off my list.
 
O

omega

[edit]
As now, however, I am part of a significantly large population of software
users who has not taken this action. It's certainly not as if the .Net
thing has not reached the saturation level of eg VB runtimes;

Typo thing, too many "nots" got in there, that should have been --

"It's certainly not as if the .Net thing has reached the saturation level ..."
 
B

BarryTone

omega said:
SnapFiles fails to list the .Net requirement /anywhere/ in their
descriptions.

CallZap
License: Shareware
Price: $14.95 (Free Trial)
Windows: windows 98/ME/NT/2000/XP
Requires: .NET .NET Framework
File size: 1088 kb
Author: Cerasys, Inc.
Version: 2.2
Added: Nov 18, 2004

It would not surprise me if they missed a lot of them though.
 
B

BarryTone

BarryTone said:
CallZap
License: Shareware
Price: $14.95 (Free Trial)
Windows: windows 98/ME/NT/2000/XP
Requires: .NET .NET Framework
File size: 1088 kb
Author: Cerasys, Inc.
Version: 2.2
Added: Nov 18, 2004

It would not surprise me if they missed a lot of them though.

Sorry. Here's a Freeware example (hehe):

NET Clipboard - share clipboards on the LAN
License: Freeware
Price: Free
Windows: windows 98/ME/2000/XP
Requires: .NET .NET Framework
File size: 703 kb
Author: Kc S Toolbox
More: 1 other programs from this author
Version: 1.0.1678
Last update: Nov 19, 2004 version history
 
O

omega

BarryTone said:
CallZap
License: Shareware
Price: $14.95 (Free Trial)
Windows: windows 98/ME/NT/2000/XP
Requires: .NET .NET Framework

It would not surprise me if they missed a lot of them though.

I posted after having now had so many times when I only got the info from the
author's site, or upon failed attempt to install.... I wasn't keeping track of
which software. Yet, one where I had this trouble just yesterday, it was still
in my memory. The one at the top of the list....

http://www.snapfiles.com/freeware/webpublish/fwmiscwp.html

Oops!! I click the "Full Page" link there, and what do I see? That does indeed
show the Requires field. Maybe it has been missing at times. Or not. The important
item that you prove:

SnapFiles does in fact have a policy to include info on reqs such as
.Net framework.

What can I say now? I think I have to retract my entire rant. Except one smaller
subpart. They should put the .Net flag right on the main listing page, to make
is scannable for what is installable.

Any case, thanks for the fast info, BarryTone. You have now sent SnapFiles back
to my main favorites list.
 
R

Rose Weir

Re: SnapFiles does in fact have a policy to include info on reqs such as
..Net framework.

Yes, I found the reference to '.Net required' on a software I investigated
there the other day BUT there are versions of .NET. Is it necessary to have
Net 1.1 installed or is the original updated 1.03 .net sufficient?
Net 1.1 is approximately a 25Mb download so the software source needs to
indicate if it this that is needed. I couldn't find clear information on
that and I wasn't interested in the Net 1.1 download in order to check out
that software.

Rose
 
S

spoon2001

Just out of curiosity, what other software download websites typically
indicate whether a program requires .NET, a VB runtime, etc? Maybe I just
haven't noticed it before.
 
B

BarryTone

Rose,

Version 1.1 addresses this exploit: Microsoft GDI+ JPEG buffer overflow
vulnerability.
"Multiple Microsoft products contain a vulnerability that can allow an
attacker to execute arbitrary code. The vulnerability is due to improper
bounds checking when processing malformed JPEG images. Attackers can
exploit the vulnerability by creating a carefully crafted JPEG image and
enticing a victim into viewing it.".

I agree, 25MB's is too much to be asking people to download everytime
there is some new problem found or some new update is needed for such
and such.

Can you get by with 1.03? Yes, if you want to take that chance. BUT, I
had noticed a program two or that insisted that 1.1 be installed, or it
would not install.
 
R

Rose Weir

Spoon2001 asked: what other software download websites typically indicate
whether a program requires .NET, a VB runtime, etc? Maybe I just haven't
noticed it before.
.....
Well Karen's power toys software has a notice at the bottom of the page that
a version of VB is necessary....for one example.
http://www.karenware.com/powertools/powertools.asp

I interpreted from various sources that software developers are going to be
encouraged to use the .Net facility and there was a description regarding
compatiblity. I cannot recall if the code used Net 1.1 whether it was
backward compatible...perhaps it was, but stuff written using .Net 1 might
not be compatible forward or upward. Net 1.1 is just a huge download if its
not really needed at this time plus there have been some 'issues' posted
that logging on gets changed ( likely in Xp) Net 1.1 is an 'update' that is
in the secondary position...your choice type of update download so IMO an
author should not presume everyone has downloaded therefore detail as to
version could be listed with the software.
Rose
 
O

omega

spoon2001 said:
Just out of curiosity, what other software download websites typically
indicate whether a program requires .NET, a VB runtime, etc? Maybe I just
haven't noticed it before.

I'd have to fire up my little modem and go on a serious web browsing
project to provide a half-decent list of those sites that are good with
providing a tag on the .Net apps.

In meantime, I can note, from the top, that the two listing sites which
I use most often (besides WebAttack), they do provide an up-front tag note
on any .Net req in their listings.

http://www.webgrid.co.uk/
http://www.nonags.com/nonags/

[Example]

http://www.webgrid.co.uk/system.html
CleanMOCache
N.B. Requires Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1 Download

http://www.nonags.com/nonags/fileman.html
TrIDNet
Requires the Microsoft .NET Framework


As to your inquiry on sites that might provide more detailed dependency
info, to even include VB runtimes, or other items, I can't say. I haven't
noticed any really doing that these days, for the VB situation. The VB
runtimes have reached a wide saturation point; and are far less the heavy
situation that .Net is.

Yet, an "ideal" site, for me, it would include good detail about a range
of specific dependencies. Especially good would be if it had a category
to indicate the programming language (the way Sourceforge does)...
 
R

Rose Weir

Barry wrote: Version 1.1 addresses this exploit: Microsoft GDI+ JPEG buffer
overflow vulnerability....Can you get by with 1.03? Yes, if you want to take
that chance. BUT, I
had noticed a program two or that insisted that 1.1 be installed, or it
would not install.

OH!...I didn't fully realize that 1.1 dealt with the overflow
vulnerability...hmm...I wonder why that download isn't in the 'DO IT'
section of the updates. I'll have to check this out because at the moment I
have most everything turned off in IE and I'm attempting to switch over to
Firefox. I'm trying Maxthon at the moment. Breaking out of 'familiarity' is
the hardest part < LOL> Its not a hardship to download the v1.1 because I
went to Satelite connection (rural resident & painful dial up) so today a
35Mb software update download was 12 minutes. Its that I'm not so quick to
jump at the Microsoft downloads especially automatically if they are not in
the 'necessary security' section. The Sp2 download was perfect and installed
perfectly but the Net update was an 'experience' . Services were turned off
that needed to be on and I only found that out by visiting the blviper.com
site.
No, I don't want to take the chance so off to deal with download and
install.....just ...lovely.
Rose
 
S

sethra

What I've recently realized:

For those of who don't have the .Net framework installed, SnapFiles
will utterly waste a lot of your time and attention.

SnapFiles fails to list the .Net requirement /anywhere/ in their
descriptions.

There is an open source solution for .Net:

http://getdotgnu.com/pnet

Haven't needed or used it yet, so I can't comment on the implementation,
other than it's available.

Just thought I'd toss that into the mix.
 
J

John Fitzsimons

In meantime, I can note, from the top, that the two listing sites which
I use most often (besides WebAttack), they do provide an up-front tag note
on any .Net req in their listings.

http://www.webgrid.co.uk/
http://www.nonags.com/nonags/

< snip >

That first one looked worth a visit. Not so sure I will do that again
however. I went there and a supposedly "free" program cost something
like $350.00 !

Added to that even though they said "advise us" of anything no longer
non freeware they don't appear to supply an email link. The only
feedback I saw was a long feedback form. A rather tiresome way to
say "This link is dead/incorrect".

I did however fill it in. Instead of a "Thank you for letting us know
about the change in the program's status and your suggestion" I got
a rather unpleasant email from the guy who runs the site saying that
with people like me he wonders why he bothers maintaining the site
at all.

One guy with plenty of "attitude". If people go there then don't make
any effort to be of help. It won't be appreciated. Save yourself the
aggravation.

Regards, John.
 
O

omega

John Fitzsimons said:
That first one looked worth a visit. Not so sure I will do that again
however. I went there and a supposedly "free" program cost something
like $350.00 !

I've used the site a lot, and found it to have a good track record, overall.
Yet no doubt it has some ratio of errors, within its ~3500 listings. It
appears to be a one-man band. Contrast that to a site like SnapFiles,
which seems to have a whole team, and revenue from their shareware side,
to fortify being able to keep on top of accurate listings.
Added to that even though they said "advise us" of anything no longer
non freeware they don't appear to supply an email link. The only
feedback I saw was a long feedback form. A rather tiresome way to
say "This link is dead/incorrect".

After reading your post, I looked about. That sidebar note on the main page,
requesting info if a listed program has changed to shareware, it links to
a page, contact.html, which had been removed. The contact.html page used
to have a set of email addresses. That the site maintainer had already
taken the step to sever those routes of direct email contact, perhaps that
hints at a background story. Perhaps (sheer idle speculation here) something
along the lines of what Steven Burns recently burnt out on: too many abusive
emails.
I did however fill it in. Instead of a "Thank you for letting us know
about the change in the program's status and your suggestion" I got
a rather unpleasant email from the guy who runs the site saying that
with people like me he wonders why he bothers maintaining the site
at all.

One guy with plenty of "attitude". If people go there then don't make
any effort to be of help. It won't be appreciated. Save yourself the
aggravation.

Taken under advisement. Happily so, actually, since I tend to be too
lazy to do much emailing to webmasters regarding bad links.

As to your visiting the site... If you found the email exchange so
unpleasant as to taint your experience in using the site, well, that's
how the ball rolls, or whatever. But if not, if you separate things,
then I do recommend that you give the site a longer eval.

.. . . .
One thing I really like about WebGrid is that you can watch specific
categories of freeware, bookmark those pages, and very regularly then
get informed of new and updated programs within those particular categories.

If you look at the page for category text editors, for example,
<http://www.webgrid.co.uk/textedit.html>, note how the listings are
all sorted by date. (Note - the specific date is evidently when the
program entry was changed on site, not program's date. Yet for sorting
purposes, it functionally corresponds well enough there.)

[ Title | Version | OS | Size | Date ]

For those of us who like to collect freeware, this is very convenient.
To be able to spot which programs have been recently released or updated,
within those certain categories where we've focussed attention.

.. . . .
Oh, and I want to mention one other primary item I appreciate in WebGrid.
Immediately on the listing pages, it's all direct links. Direct links for
the author's product page, and for the download URL. No jumping through
five hoops to get that info. And no javascript weirdness.

.. . . .
Incidentally, one note on user experience of the site. I have no idea what
effect there is for users who have Flash krap enabled. I'm aware that there
is something that would wish to load there, but don't know what it is. I
just know that I don't want to experience it first-hand (being Macromedia
free since 2002).
 
O

omega

Rose Weir said:
BarryTone said:
I agree, 25MB's is too much to be asking people to download everytime
there is some new problem found or some new update is needed for such
and such.

Can you get by with 1.03? Yes, if you want to take that chance. BUT, I
had noticed a program two or that insisted that 1.1 be installed, or it
would not install.
[...]
35Mb software update download was 12 minutes. Its that I'm not so quick to
jump at the Microsoft downloads especially automatically if they are not in
the 'necessary security' section. The Sp2 download was perfect and installed
perfectly but the Net update was an 'experience' . Services were turned off
that needed to be on and I only found that out by visiting the blviper.com
site.

That's how I feel with MSFT updates, given historical experience. I never do
them casually. Only when prepared to really roll up the sleaves, full weekend
to spare, to sort out which of MSFT's domineering changes might have been
undesirable, and call for dismantling (in the battle to wrench back some say
in the matter of my system configuration).
No, I don't want to take the chance so off to deal with download and
install.....just ...lovely.

I've recently noticed that there ALREADY LOOMS the followup burden of a
change to .NET v2.0.

Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 Beta 1 Redistributable
http://fileforum.betanews.com/detail/1016688677/


The massive .NET framework download and install hassle, it will be continual?
(Never-ending? No-escape? Redmond's update-treadmill torture machine? <g>)
 

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