PC Mag utilities - any place left to download w/o the fee?
passin'thru
YK
Answer: Read previous posts.
passin'thru
Or did you mean there aren't any that work ?
any help appreciated.
JB 2
news:smi4dvskbpdav5h88...@4ax.com:
> well, i thought I did- the various links I tried all failed..
> Or did you mean there aren't any that work ?
>
> any help appreciated.
>
What are you looking for?
--
JB
Eugene Esterly III
Actually, you can download some of the PC Mag Utilities from various
sites on the Internet but it requires a good amount of searching &
checking websites. I have found 2 PC Mag Utilites which you can
download from 2 different sites & here they are:
The PC Mag utility called Dupeless can be download from the site at:
http://f2.org/software/win32/free/file.html
The PC Mag utility called Unfrag can be downloaded from the site at:
http://www.cntg.org/anti-virus-free-stuff/av-fs.html
passin'thru
a recent move and had hoped to capture as many as I could.....
many thanks!
On 26 May 2003 14:04:13 -0700, ge...@fast.net (Eugene Esterly III)
wrote:
Dan
anyone know where I can get this as freeware? thanks, dan
Eugene Esterly III
called End It All 2 for this website which is lcoated at
http://colormar.no-ip.com/freew/Utils/ . The file name is
EndItAll2.zip
passin'thru
On 27 May 2003 02:40:27 -0700, ge...@fast.net (Eugene Esterly III)
wrote:
>To anyone who wants to know, you can download the PC Mag Utility
Lee
in advance.
"Eugene Esterly III" <ge...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:df677789.03052...@posting.google.com...
Zo
Lee wrote:
> I am desperate for IE Zoomer. Anybody have any idea where to find it. Thanks
> in advance.
This one worked for me just a few minutes ago:
http://www.3sympatico.ca/one.human/programs/iezoomer.zip
:-)
Zo
Zo
Zo wrote:
It appears that they closed this one right after I downloaded it. Here is the site
I got it from:
http://www.geocities.com/one_human/programs.html. Sorry :-(
Zo :-(
Lee
links of IE Zoomer:
http://tinyurl.com/cskl
"Zo" <z...@homenet.net> wrote in message news:3ED3C053...@homenet.net...
tls...@concentric.net
strange color crayon and scribbled:
>It appears that they closed this one right after I downloaded it. Here is the site
>I got it from:
>
>http://www.geocities.com/one_human/programs.html. Sorry :-(
>
>Zo :-(
>
I think it's fair to say that someone at PC Mag is monitoring this
group. It would probably be best to send the links to an agreed upon
"holder" who would then e-mail them to whoever asks, bypassing such
snooping.
Volunteers?
--
Therese Shellabarger / The Roving Reporter - Civis Mundi
tls...@concentric.net / http://www.concentric.net/~tlshell
Blinky the Shark
> On Tue, 27 May 2003 15:50:36 -0400, Zo <z...@homenet.net> took a very
> strange color crayon and scribbled:
>>It appears that they closed this one right after I downloaded it. Here is the site
>>I got it from:
>>http://www.geocities.com/one_human/programs.html. Sorry :-(
>>Zo :-(
> I think it's fair to say that someone at PC Mag is monitoring this
> group. It would probably be best to send the links to an agreed upon
Hell, they've *posted* here.
--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
esr on SCO Suit: http://snurl.com/esr_sco
About Spam And "Remove Me" http://snurl.com/removeme
Blinky the Shark
> tls...@concentric.net wrote:
>> I think it's fair to say that someone at PC Mag is monitoring this
>> group. It would probably be best to send the links to an agreed upon
>> "holder" who would then e-mail them to whoever asks, bypassing such
>> snooping.
> Better IMO to let people search on their own. That way we're not
> overtly encouraging activity that might be illegal (I say *might*
> because some of the license agreements are ambiguious). But I'm not
> against people posting a list of the original zip file names. People
> can then search for themselves on those names.
That's a good idea. I usually ask.
> Also, for all we know, the people requesting PC Mag links are from PC
> Mag itself. Not a good idea in that case to e-mail them directly, if
> ya get my drift.
And if we tried to set up some kind of backchannel clearing-house for
info, they'd certainly be narking about, there. We can't know everyone.
Barnie
> tls...@concentric.net wrote:
>
> > I think it's fair to say that someone at PC Mag is monitoring this
> > group. It would probably be best to send the links to an agreed upon
> > "holder" who would then e-mail them to whoever asks, bypassing such
> > snooping.
>
> Better IMO to let people search on their own. That way we're not overtly
> encouraging activity that might be illegal (I say *might* because some of
> the license agreements are ambiguious). But I'm not against people posting
> a list of the original zip file names. People can then search for
> themselves on those names.
>
> Also, for all we know, the people requesting PC Mag links are from PC Mag
> itself. Not a good idea in that case to e-mail them directly, if ya get my
> drift.
>
Wouldn't it be best to try to find alternate programs to
use. Somewhere there must be programs as good or maybe even better than
the PC Mag ones. I tried several, only kept one and seldom use that.
(FavOrg) That way no one gets in trouble over possible infringements
etc.
my 1/4Lb of madcow infected beef
GoodTime Barnie Googles
Christopher Map
>> This one worked for me just a few minutes ago:
>>
>> http://www.3sympatico.ca/one.human/programs/iezoomer.zip
>>
>
> It appears that they closed this one right after I downloaded it. Here
> is the site I got it from:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/one_human/programs.html
Nope -- site still up and IEZoomer is still available there, as at the time
of this post.
Blinky the Shark
> Barnie wrote:
>> Wouldn't it be best to try to find alternate programs to
>> use. Somewhere there must be programs as good or maybe even better
>> than the PC Mag ones. I tried several, only kept one and seldom use
>> that. (FavOrg) That way no one gets in trouble over possible
>> infringements etc.
> Awhile ago there was a proposal to start a list of alternative programs.
> Maybe we should consider doing that. Sort of like:
> PC Mag Utility Alternate
> InCtrl Total Uninstall
> Hotkey Detective -
> FavOrg -
StarupCop =
Mike Lin's Startup Control Panel - http://www.mlin.net/StartupCPL.shtml
I think that's the best idea yet. I think it resolves all issues involved.
We've not been pimping for the magazine anyway (recommending that anyone
pay for what was freeware isn't very alt.comp.freeware), but this would
be the best way to handle things. ZD is not the be-all/end-all of
software.
The one I've added doesn't save multiple start states like StartupCop
did, but it's a start. It's solid and small and fast, and it comes as
both an exe and as a CP applet. Mike writes good, tight stuff, and some
of you will have heard of some of his other utils.
REMbr...@inu.net
>Better IMO to let people search on their own. That way we're not overtly
>encouraging activity that might be illegal (I say *might* because some of
>the license agreements are ambiguious). But I'm not against people posting
>a list of the original zip file names. People can then search for
>themselves on those names.
Here is a good site to search for explicit filenames:
http://www.filesearching.com/cgi-bin/s?q=ga20tu.exe
Blinky the Shark
>> bob <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> http://www.filesearching.com/cgi-bin/s?q=ga20tu.exe
Problem is that most of the time, it's not known, even if the program
name is. I've asked, and usually get no response from OP. Sometimes
I'll dig it out myself; sometimes I don't bother.
Global Warming
news:bdv7dvo59l618mhea...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 27 May 2003 15:50:36 -0400, Zo <z...@homenet.net> took a very
> strange color crayon and scribbled:
>>It appears that they closed this one right after I downloaded it. Here
>>is the site I got it from:
>>
>>http://www.geocities.com/one_human/programs.html. Sorry :-(
>>
>>Zo :-(
>>
>
> I think it's fair to say that someone at PC Mag is monitoring this
> group. It would probably be best to send the links to an agreed upon
> "holder" who would then e-mail them to whoever asks, bypassing such
> snooping.
>
> Volunteers?
>
>
You can probably bet that alot of the programmers for the pcmag utils, are
bound and sweating under the heavy hand of the pcmag lords..
They would probably send you the program, just to deflate the greedy
bastards at pcmag...
Susan Bugher
>
> bob wrote:
>
> > Barnie wrote:
>
> >> Wouldn't it be best to try to find alternate programs to
> >> use. Somewhere there must be programs as good or maybe even better
> >> than the PC Mag ones. I tried several, only kept one and seldom use
> >> that. (FavOrg) That way no one gets in trouble over possible
> >> infringements etc.
>
> > Awhile ago there was a proposal to start a list of alternative programs.
> > Maybe we should consider doing that. Sort of like:
>
> > PC Mag Utility Alternate
>
> > InCtrl Total Uninstall
> > Hotkey Detective -
> > FavOrg -
>
> StarupCop =
> Mike Lin's Startup Control Panel - http://www.mlin.net/StartupCPL.shtml
>
> I think that's the best idea yet. I think it resolves all issues involved.
> We've not been pimping for the magazine anyway (recommending that anyone
> pay for what was freeware isn't very alt.comp.freeware), but this would
> be the best way to handle things. ZD is not the be-all/end-all of
> software.
OTOH there *have* been quite a few threads about PC Mag utilities -
which are now shareware. The [OT} label and minimal discussion seem
indicated to me.
For those who are curious about the file names - I added a list below.
Susan
PC Mag Utilities - file names:
ansi.zip audible.zip autoact.zip autowhat.zip
bhocop.zip browsefr.zip btnboog.zip
capsize.zip cdance.zip clckrack.zip cliptile.zip cliptrak.zip
cnxtedit.zip coa2.zip CookieCop2.2.zip CookieCop2.zip copyset.zip
crackup.zip cubeshow.zip
daysease.zip defolder.zip diskact.zip diskpie2.zip displset.zip
dupeless.zip
EndItAll.zip EndItAll2.zip expnotes.zip
favelock.zip favetogo.zip favorg.zip filealb.zip filegr.zip filetip.zip
findorph.zip folderpt.zip folders.zip foldrmon.zip formwhiz.zip
freedom.zip fsnoop.zip ftouch2.zip fviewer.zip
gaddress.zip
hdown.zip hdvalet.zip hotkeyd.zip
iconlock.zip iedit32.zip iezoomer.zip ijack32.zip inctrl4.zip
inctrl5.zip inoutb.zip
jumptoit.zip
keytick.zip
listzap.zip logmeout.zip logoma.zip
mailcall.zip menuzap.zip midiclrs.zip multiren.zip mutebar.zip
myprinter.zip
netpsec.zip newowner.zip notewhen.zip
page1.zip passprom.zip pcbook2.zip printnow.zip
rapidres.zip rcntcmds.zip regdet.zip regeditp.zip regrobot.zip
reloader.zip robotype.zip rouser.zip runplus.zip
scraper.zip scrnphas.zip seethru.zip shlcrypt.zip shred.zip sitesnag.zip
slice32.zip smclean.zip sseize.zip startcop.zip syncurls.zip
sysvalet.zip
tapecalc.zip themecr.zip thngvent.zip toback.zip traymagc.zip
traymgr.zip traymin.zip trdkeys.zip treeprt.zip tskwheel.zip
unclean.zip
viewfix.zip volset.zip
webhigh.zip winpntr.zip winsize.zip wintidy.zip wisdom.zip wmatch.zip
xpandesk.zip
zdkeym.zip ziphunt.zip
REMbr...@inu.net
> Susan Bugher <whoise...@kvi.net> wrote:
>OTOH there *have* been quite a few threads about PC Mag utilities -
>which are now shareware. The [OT} label and minimal discussion seem
>indicated to me.
Has the license changed to shareware? Or has the owning site
simply decided to charge for the bandwidth?
Great job to date! PW sizzles!
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Susan Bugher
>
> > Susan Bugher <whoise...@kvi.net> wrote:
>
> >OTOH there *have* been quite a few threads about PC Mag utilities -
> >which are now shareware. The [OT} label and minimal discussion seem
> >indicated to me.
>
> Has the license changed to shareware? Or has the owning site
> simply decided to charge for the bandwidth?
Hi REMbranded,
not illegal to mention a file name if someone asks . . .
dunno if it's legal to distribute the programs . . .
*personal* opinion is it's iffy at best . . .
but my NUMBER ONE objection to discussing the programs is:
Every time we discuss the PC Mag utilities it's *free advertising*. I
don't think PC Mag deserves that.
PC Mag says it's shareware - fine - then I say it's shareware and I say
the hell with it.
Blinky said we're not pimping for them because we don't suggest people
pay for the utilities. I suggest we stop talking about them too.
:)
Glad you asked - should have made that clear in my first post.
> Great job to date! PW sizzles!
Thanks. :)
Susan
REMbr...@inu.net
> bob <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>REMbr...@inu.net wrote :
>>> Susan Bugher wrote:
>>>OTOH there *have* been quite a few threads about PC Mag utilities -
>>>which are now shareware. The [OT} label and minimal discussion seem
>>>indicated to me.
>> Has the license changed to shareware? Or has the owning site
>> simply decided to charge for the bandwidth?
>My understanding (without having examined their newest utilities), is
>that they are charging for the bandwidth only. That makes them
>SubscriptionWare, not Shareware.
PayYe'rOwnWayWare eh? Just kidding Susan! I might have a bit of a
mean streak... from both sides of the family. Go figure.
It seems clear that regardless of how many wares we can identify there
is always one that won't fit. Susan, et.al., have defined many and many
really should be enough. Others might be dubbed "PCMagWare" or
whatever catchy phrase lands initially that describes the ware.
I don't feel PCMag utilities are on topic here. They are good utilities
however. I don't mind at all if they are discussed here, as well as the
alternatives that might exist. This is a grey area for sure.
>But it's more complicated than that. Part of the confusion is they've
>put up a statement on their site (which I will disect), which leaves it
>open that some of their utilities are freeware, and can be distributed:
>"PC Magazine programs are copyrighted and cannot be distributed, whether
>modified or unmodified."
I read this is a no-redistribution clause. "We own it and you pay the costs to get
it, un huh, un huh?"
>That language seems clear enough, BUT though it is included on their
>site, it is not similarly included in the "license agreement" of all PC
>Mag utilities - only in the more recent ones (sorry, don't know the exact
>time frame). Which brings us to the next clause:
>"Use is subject to the terms and conditions of the license agreement
>distributed with the programs.
>That leaves it open that the programs that DON'T have the above language
>can be distributed. That's probably not their intent, but it can be
>interpreted that way.
The ones I've looked at all deny redistribution. However, if the costs of receiving
the files were key (and ya can find them elsewhere) why is the charge valid?
Other than this site exerts copyright?
>Since PC Mag has made such a mess of this situation, the issue won't die
>altogether. But I think posting the list of file names is the *most* we
>should do. Hopefully we can steer people to alternatives and PC Mag will
>fade into the past.
This may border on warez. If so, I'll refrain. Otherwise, giving file names for
individuals to search for is again, in the grey area, and open to interpretation,
since the programs are freewares.
REMbr...@inu.net
> Susan Bugher <whoise...@kvi.net> wrote:
>Every time we discuss the PC Mag utilities it's *free advertising*. I
>don't think PC Mag deserves that.
>PC Mag says it's shareware - fine - then I say it's shareware and I say
>the hell with it.
>Blinky said we're not pimping for them because we don't suggest people
>pay for the utilities. I suggest we stop talking about them too.
This makes sense.
It's a shame to lose valuable utilities. Other utilities will most likely serve
everyone best as they become available and are identified in the long
run.
They may copyright the code, but they cannot copyright the idea of
a useful utility.
Susan Bugher
> >that they are charging for the bandwidth only. That makes them
> >SubscriptionWare, not Shareware.
>
> PayYe'rOwnWayWare eh? Just kidding Susan! I might have a bit of a
> mean streak... from both sides of the family. Go figure.
You *better* be kidding. ;)
Besides, it clearly should be called brandedware, not the names you two
jokers came up with.
Susan
Susan Bugher
>
> The best thing would be for PCMag to clarify their language. Have them
> say something like: "REGARDLESS of what the license agreement says, you
> cannot redistribute these programs." THEN, it will case-closed, and
> there'd be no further rationale for discussing PC Mag utilities.
Hi bob,
I say piffle to the above. Lots of room for further argument about the
legality of redistribution. :)
If a license agreement allows redistribution, PC Mag can't unring the
bell.
Attorneys-General can issue opinions - AFAIK in most states those
opinions have the force of law absent a court ruling. The rest of use
just have plain old ordinary opinions that really don't mean a damn
thing legally.
PC Mag can *say* whatever they like - that's just *their* opinion.
That is not to say they can't make life hell for someone who is
distributing PC Mag utilities.
All the above is of course JMNSHO. :)
Susan
Blinky the Shark
> REMbr...@inu.net wrote:
>> > Susan Bugher <whoise...@kvi.net> wrote:
>> >OTOH there *have* been quite a few threads about PC Mag utilities -
>> >which are now shareware. The [OT} label and minimal discussion seem
>> >indicated to me.
>> Has the license changed to shareware? Or has the owning site
>> simply decided to charge for the bandwidth?
> Hi REMbranded,
> not illegal to mention a file name if someone asks . . .
> dunno if it's legal to distribute the programs . . .
> *personal* opinion is it's iffy at best . . .
> but my NUMBER ONE objection to discussing the programs is:
> Every time we discuss the PC Mag utilities it's *free advertising*. I
> don't think PC Mag deserves that.
> PC Mag says it's shareware - fine - then I say it's shareware and I say
> the hell with it.
> Blinky said we're not pimping for them because we don't suggest people
> pay for the utilities. I suggest we stop talking about them too.
I don't think we're pimping for them if we simply provide OP with a real
filename, which he can do with as he chooses, at non ZD sources he might
come up with on his own.
Blinky the Shark
> The best thing would be for PCMag to clarify their language. Have
> them say something like: "REGARDLESS of what the license agreement
> says, you cannot redistribute these programs." THEN, it will
> case-closed, and there'd be no further rationale for discussing PC Mag
> utilities.
I'm not convinced that they can retroactively redefine that older
freeware license, in such a fashion. If the original EULA made it
freeware, then it should still be freeware.
You cut a deal with me. Can you, years later, unilaterally change that
deal?
Susan Bugher
>
> Susan Bugher wrote:
> > REMbr...@inu.net wrote:
>
> >> > Susan Bugher <whoise...@kvi.net> wrote:
>
> >> >OTOH there *have* been quite a few threads about PC Mag utilities -
> >> >which are now shareware. The [OT} label and minimal discussion seem
> >> >indicated to me.
>
> >> Has the license changed to shareware? Or has the owning site
> >> simply decided to charge for the bandwidth?
>
> > Hi REMbranded,
>
> > not illegal to mention a file name if someone asks . . .
>
> > dunno if it's legal to distribute the programs . . .
>
> > *personal* opinion is it's iffy at best . . .
>
> > but my NUMBER ONE objection to discussing the programs is:
>
> > Every time we discuss the PC Mag utilities it's *free advertising*. I
> > don't think PC Mag deserves that.
>
> > PC Mag says it's shareware - fine - then I say it's shareware and I say
> > the hell with it.
>
> > Blinky said we're not pimping for them because we don't suggest people
> > pay for the utilities. I suggest we stop talking about them too.
>
> I don't think we're pimping for them if we simply provide OP with a real
> filename, which he can do with as he chooses, at non ZD sources he might
> come up with on his own.
Hi Blinky,
I started out by saying:
> > not illegal to mention a file name if someone asks . . .
Must I spell *everything* out for you? :)
A certain shark (who shall remain nameless) had quite a bit to say
recently about ACF posts that mention shareware.
naturally I took his comments to heart . . .
I thought they applied here . . .
I say label a response [OT} and keep it short and sweet.
agree/disagree?
Susan
Blinky the Shark
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>> >> > Susan Bugher <whoise...@kvi.net> wrote:
>> > Hi REMbranded,
> Hi Blinky,
No.
> A certain shark (who shall remain nameless) had quite a bit to say
> recently about ACF posts that mention shareware.
Those copies on site x aren't shareware, any more than earlier freeware
copies of other shareware products are.
> naturally I took his comments to heart . . .
So did I.
> I thought they applied here . . .
They do. To shareware.
> I say label a response [OT} and keep it short and sweet.
> agree/disagree?
Unsure, because in your brevity I'm not sure what thread you're talking
about.
Susan Bugher
>
> Susan Bugher wrote:
>
> > Blinky the Shark wrote:
>
> >> Susan Bugher wrote:
> >> > REMbr...@inu.net wrote:
>
> >> >> > Susan Bugher <whoise...@kvi.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> >OTOH there *have* been quite a few threads about PC Mag utilities -
> >> >> >which are now shareware. The [OT} label and minimal discussion seem
> >> >> >indicated to me.
>
> >> >> Has the license changed to shareware? Or has the owning site
> >> >> simply decided to charge for the bandwidth?
>
> >> > Hi REMbranded,
>
> >> > not illegal to mention a file name if someone asks . . .
>
> >> > dunno if it's legal to distribute the programs . . .
of course I meant legal for *anyone other than PC Mag* to distribute the
programs
> >> > *personal* opinion is it's iffy at best . . .
>
> >> > but my NUMBER ONE objection to discussing the programs is:
>
> >> > Every time we discuss the PC Mag utilities it's *free advertising*. I
> >> > don't think PC Mag deserves that.
>
> >> > PC Mag says it's shareware - fine - then I say it's shareware and I say
> >> > the hell with it.
>
> >> > Blinky said we're not pimping for them because we don't suggest people
> >> > pay for the utilities. I suggest we stop talking about them too.
>
> >> I don't think we're pimping for them if we simply provide OP with a real
> >> filename, which he can do with as he chooses, at non ZD sources he might
> >> come up with on his own.
>
> > Hi Blinky,
>
> > I started out by saying:
>
> >> > not illegal to mention a file name if someone asks . . .
>
> > Must I spell *everything* out for you? :)
>
> No.
>
> > A certain shark (who shall remain nameless) had quite a bit to say
> > recently about ACF posts that mention shareware.
>
> Those copies on site x aren't shareware, any more than earlier freeware
> copies of other shareware products are.
The copies at PC Mag *are* shareware. Usually ACF discussions and
recommendations are about a freeware version of a shareware program.
Here the programs are *identical*. It's a wee bit difficult to recommend
one without endorsing the other.
I *agree* with you when you say ACF is not pimping for PC Mag now - I'm
just suggesting we go one step further.
If PC Mag has it's way all other download links for the utilities will
disappear. What happens if a someone can't find a free download for that
PC Mag utility someone in ACF said was so great. Any chance they might
head on over to PC Mag?
Anything nice we say about a PC Mag utility *might* benefit PC Mag - I
say the fewer nice things we say about PC Mag utilities the better.
Let's not recommend them directly or indirectly. Let's not use them as a
basis for comparison - no list of *alternates to PC Mag utilities* as
was suggested earlier in this thread - and let's label the programs
[OT].
Furnish a file name if you're comfortable doing that. That won't benefit
PC Mag.
> > naturally I took his comments to heart . . .
>
> So did I.
>
> > I thought they applied here . . .
>
> They do. To shareware.
>
> > I say label a response [OT} and keep it short and sweet.
>
> > agree/disagree?
>
> Unsure, because in your brevity I'm not sure what thread you're talking
> about.
Sorry about that. I meant this thread:
<quote>
From: Blinky the Shark (no....@box.invalid)
Subject: Re: Use of Openoffice
Newsgroups: alt.comp.freeware
Date: 2003-05-19 03:50:36 PST
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
> Clearly, though, mentioning one's preference for a pay-ware product --
> we obviously differ on what constitutes a recommendation as opposed to
> stating one's use of products -- can be relevant and entirely on-topic
> in a discussion of freeware. It's not by definition thread drift.
I use Opera because it has built-in popup control that other browsers
HUGE SNIP
I'm not recommending Opera, you understand. I'm must "stating [my]
use[s] of [the] product".
--
Blinky
</quote>
If I got your drift a similar argument can be applied here. No
discussion is good discussion.
Susan
Semolina Pilchard
<whoise...@kvi.net> wrote:
PC Mag?
>
>Anything nice we say about a PC Mag utility *might* benefit PC Mag - I
>say the fewer nice things we say about PC Mag utilities the better.
>Let's not recommend them directly or indirectly. Let's not use them as a
>basis for comparison - no list of *alternates to PC Mag utilities* as
>was suggested earlier in this thread - and let's label the programs
>[OT].
That sounds eminently sensible to me. These programs are gone - we
shouldn't use them as a bench-mark.
--
Semolina Pilchard
Sheryl Canter
I'm the only one with any association to PC Magazine that I've
seen post here, and I am not a spy. Oh, I've seen Patrick
Philippot post here (author of the PC Magazine utility
FavOrg), and he is not a spy, either. I'm the former editor of
PC Magazine's Utilities column. All those utilities that you've
been discussing were created by my team. Just FYI... we are
no longer creating utilities for PC Magazine at all. They are
using other people now. When PC Magazine shifted to a subscription
model (note that it's subscription, not shareware--you must
pay first, then you can download the programs), we left
to start our own software business. Our stuff is all shareware,
not freeware. We are trying to make a living. But it is
try-before-you-buy and you can expect the same commitment to
quality that you saw when we were writing utilities for PC
Magazine.
Just a comment about PC Magazine charging... I think they
handled this badly--they sure pissed off a lot of people,
judging from the posts in pcmag.com--and I think they should have
made the Utilities Library part of what you get with a subscription
to the print magazine, but beyond that... Well, they are trying
to stay afloat in a tough market. I'm like anyone else and always
happy to find good stuff for free, but I don't think it's a mortal
sin to charge for highly skilled professional work. If all the
software in the world were free, then how would programmers make
a living? Is it fair to say this one line of work should always be
pro bono and no one should have to pay people for their efforts?
Just my two cents...
Sheryl Canter
former Editor, PC Magazine Utilities column
Editor and owner, Permutations Software (www.permutations.com)
--------------
In article <Xns9389BDE0288A8ri...@130.133.1.4>,
river...@myrealbox.com says...
Blinky the Shark
>> Susan Bugher wrote:
>> > Blinky the Shark wrote:
>> >> >> > Susan Bugher <whoise...@kvi.net> wrote:
>> >> > Hi REMbranded,
>> > Hi Blinky,
>> No.
And we're talking about information on the copies that aren't at PCMag.
That's why I said "site x" and not "at PCMag".
> recommendations are about a freeware version of a shareware program.
> Here the programs are *identical*. It's a wee bit difficult to
> recommend one without endorsing the other.
> I *agree* with you when you say ACF is not pimping for PC Mag now -
> I'm just suggesting we go one step further.
> If PC Mag has it's way all other download links for the utilities will
> disappear. What happens if a someone can't find a free download for
> that PC Mag utility someone in ACF said was so great. Any chance they
> might head on over to PC Mag?
I haven't been on this whole thread, but it seems like we're now into
"Membershipware". The software's free, but you have to pay to join the
club.
That seems different than Registerware, where you generally register to
download an author's program. With PCMag, you have to pay for a pass to
get any/all of their stuff. Seems inherantly different.
> Furnish a file name if you're comfortable doing that. That won't
> benefit PC Mag.
I think that's what I recommended.
> From: Blinky the Shark (no....@box.invalid) Subject: Re: Use of
> Openoffice Newsgroups: alt.comp.freeware Date: 2003-05-19 03:50:36 PST
> Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
>> Clearly, though, mentioning one's preference for a pay-ware product
>> -- we obviously differ on what constitutes a recommendation as
>> opposed to stating one's use of products -- can be relevant and
>> entirely on-topic in a discussion of freeware. It's not by
>> definition thread drift.
> I use Opera because it has built-in popup control that other browsers
> HUGE SNIP
> I'm not recommending Opera, you understand. I'm must "stating [my]
> use[s] of [the] product".
I was being 100% sarcastic, in trying to prove a point -- that was my
whole intention, for that thread. It was about the other poster's idea
that a good answer to "Where can I get X (freeware)?" is "I prefer X
(payware) because [list reasons]" and that that's not a recommendation
for the payware.
REMbr...@inu.net
>Hey, REM, I don't care what they are called! :-) The point is that some
>of the programs are in a grey area since the license agreement doesn't
>expressly prevent their redistribution. As long as that loophole exists,
>we're in shades-of-grey territory.
SubscriptionWare is a good name.
Which programs are you referring to that do not expressly forbid redistribution?
I only checked a few before I threw the towel in. It looked like each began
with a standard copyright/distribution clause.
>So posting the list of filenames is okay in my book, as long as we don't
>aid/abet in the downloading of "specific" programs that expressly ARE
>prohibited from redistribution.
Agreed.
Susan Bugher
>
> Just a comment about PC Magazine charging... I think they
> handled this badly--they sure pissed off a lot of people,
> judging from the posts in pcmag.com--and I think they should have
> made the Utilities Library part of what you get with a subscription
> to the print magazine, but beyond that... Well, they are trying
> to stay afloat in a tough market. I'm like anyone else and always
> happy to find good stuff for free, but I don't think it's a mortal
> sin to charge for highly skilled professional work. If all the
> software in the world were free, then how would programmers make
> a living? Is it fair to say this one line of work should always be
> pro bono and no one should have to pay people for their efforts?
> Just my two cents...
Hi Sheryl,
I doubt there was any *good* way to handle this . . .
If a steady girlfriend decides to start charging for her *services* most
guys are going to be pissed off . . .
That's the best analogy I can think of.
It's not an objection to commercial software (off-topic in this group).
It's an objection to the change in status.
Susan
Susan Bugher
I've set forth the points I wanted to make as clearly as I can. Anything
further from me would just be a rehash.
I believe we are in *substantial* agreement. I'm not so sure about some
of the finer points . . .
:)
Susan
kqs_v1
> tls...@concentric.net wrote:
>
> Better IMO to let people search on their own. That way we're not overtly
> encouraging activity that might be illegal (I say *might* because some of
> the license agreements are ambiguious). But I'm not against people posting
> a list of the original zip file names. People can then search for
> themselves on those names.
You can tell people to search their local drives and storage media.
My ratio of downloaded to installed is about 15:1, and I don't consider
that atypical at all.
If they already have the program, it is freeware.
_____
PS. Could consider ref'ing the larger body of them as "zdnet" programs
(the readmes for a long period said zdnet), just to wrankle the pcmag
entity a tad....zdnet and pcmag are divorced, ex-spouses.
--
/kqs
kqs_v1
> That is not to say they can't make life hell for someone who is
> distributing PC Mag utilities.
Nastygrams from the corporate landsharks...doesn't make anyone's day.
Remember how already last December they behaved so obnoxiously to Garbo.
http://garbo.uwasa.fi/pub/pc/pcmagvol/pcmagvol.txt
--
/kqs
Sheryl Canter
In article <3ED8C1C8...@kvi.net>, whoise...@kvi.net says...
> Hi Sheryl,
> I doubt there was any *good* way to handle this . . .
> If a steady girlfriend decides to start charging for her *services* most
> guys are going to be pissed off . . .
> That's the best analogy I can think of.
> It's not an objection to commercial software (off-topic in this group).
> It's an objection to the change in status.
> Susan
------------
I don't think that's a good analogy, and I do think they could have
handled it in a way that was much more respectful of the Utilities
column fans and their print customers. One significant source of rage
was that many people who regularly used the utilities used pcmag.com
as sort of an extension of their own hard disks. They might want
a particular utility, but not download it right away. The cut-off
came without even five seconds of warning, so these people felt
cheated. I also think it was a very poor idea to charge subscribers
to the print magazine separately for utilities. This didn't just
anger long-term subscribers. New subscribers are surprised, confused,
and upset by this as well (judging from posts on pcmag.com). PC Mag's
third big mistake was to not go through all the text in the print
magazine and on their Web site and immediately expunge the word
"free". This caused another large group of people to be disappointed.
Basically, PC Magazine did a poor job of managing expectations. If
people expect something to be free, and find out BY REACHING FOR IT
that it's not free, they are going to be pissed off. It feels like
getting your hand slapped. By making the change with no warning,
charging print subscribers, and not expunging "free" from their
promotional text, they created this situation in spades.
Imagine this... What if PC Magazine posted a notice on their Web site
and in the magazine, in each issue starting ON JANUARY 1 (which is
when the old column ceased) saying something like this:
----
To All PC Magazine Utilities Fans:
Due to budgetary constraints, we are forced to make some changes to
our very popular Utilities feature. First, we will be publishing the
utilities once a month rather than in every issue. Our first new utility
will be released in May. Second, the article that accompanies the
utility will no longer contain a "How It Works" section and we will no
longer publish source code. This is to allow programmers more freedom
in using third party tools; the Utilities column will no longer be a
teaching column. Third, the Utilities page will no longer appear in the
print magazine. This is because all Utilities column readers must come
online to get the utility anyway, and our print pages are limited.
And last but not least, the Utilities will no longer be free. We will
be offering them as part of a subscription service. We regret the
necessity of doing this, but the world has changed and we need the
additional revenue stream.
If you are already a print subscriber, you will be able to download
the utilities are part of your subscription price. People who do not
subscribe to the print magazine may subscribe to just the Utilites Library
for $25/year (x% discount over the regular subscription price). The
subscription service will be implemented on May 1, 2003. Until that time
you may continue to download utilities as before.
-----
(Note that I wrote "May 1", not the actual date of March 13. I don't
think it was right of them to start a subscription service months before
delivering a new utility.)
Now, if you had read this notice before the subscription service was
implemented, wouldn't that have made you much less angry than what they
actually did? It warns you of what's coming, it explains what you can
expect and gives the reasons why, and it rewards print subscribers
appropriately. Allowing print subscribers to download the utilities at no
additional change wouldn't have had much of a financial impact on them,
in my opinion, because most of the Utilities Library subscribers seem
to be people who are new to the utilities (judging from the posts in
pcmag.com). The old-timers are enraged and have all left--many cancelling
their print subscriptions as well. Also, $25/year is more than they are
currently charging for utilities, but less than the print magazine
subscription, so it would make up for lower numbers of subscriptions
(if print subscribers are really signing up).
[[self-serving comment alert:]]
Of course, this would only be a good deal if they'd kept on the original
team (myself as editor, and my team of authors and beta testers). Since
they drove us away with drastic budget cuts, the new utilities are not of
the same caliber as the old (IMHO, of course).
--
Global Warming
news:MPG.1941e95c9...@news.sover.net:
Hi Sheryl,
It is an honor to hear from such a good talent,
My apolgies if I came on too hard,
But in these times of all these corporate shuffelings for money, you might
understand my wording.
I can honestly say, that many of the programs that I have d/l from your
group have been excellent programs, and truly worth some form of payment.
I hope that your new endeavour will work, and I shall visit your site..
http://www.permutations.com/
Good Luck and Best Wishes
GW
Sheryl Canter
says...
> We had an extensive
> discussion of that license agreement in this group awhile back since it was
> so ambiguous. It allows for distribution over a "network". People weighed
> in on what that meant, but the point was that it was ambiguous. The
> average person on the street reading the agreement would no doubt think it
> was okay to distribute. Later license agreements were written VERY
> differently. Not only do they expressly forbid distribution of the
> software in any way, shape or form, but they forbid distribution over the
> Internet.
Hi again... Thought I'd mention that I'm actually the author of that second
license agreement. I pushed for a new license agreement for years, and worked
very closely with the legal department at Ziff Davis to write it.
PC Magazine's Utilities column started off as a column to teach programming,
and the utilities were small demonstrations of different programming techniques.
Some were useful, some were just novelties. That's why PC Magazine didn't
originally have a license agreement for them. When I took over the Utilities
column in February 1993, I deliberately moved it in the direction of useful
programs--that was a very conscious decision, and it was successful. It made
the Utilities column unique and it became extremely popular. Because of this
change, we really did need a license agreement.
The Utilities column was expensive to produce (they paid me, the authors, and
a technical editor), but the only payment that PC Magazine got for these free
utilities was hits to their Web site, allowing them to increase ad prices.
Another reason we wanted everyone to come to PC Magazine to get the utilities
was because that way they'd always get the latest and greatest. Third issue...
We didn't want people modifying the code, introducing horrendous bugs, and
then distributing it with our name on it (that used to happen). The result of
these concerns was the second license agreement you mention, which states in
the clearest possible terms that only PC Magazine can distribute the utilities.
--
Vic Dura
place left to download w/o the fee? Sheryl Canter
<she...@permutations.comNOSPAM> wrote:
> I do think they could have
>handled it in a way that was much more respectful of the Utilities
>column fans and their print customers.
Thanks for the cogent analysis. I thing you are entirely correct.
R.L
news:MPG.1941e95c9...@news.sover.net:
> Hi,
>
> I'm the only one with any association to PC Magazine that
> I've seen post here, and I am not a spy. Oh, I've seen
> Patrick Philippot post here (author of the PC Magazine
> utility FavOrg), and he is not a spy, either. I'm the
> former editor of PC Magazine's Utilities column. All those
> utilities that you've been discussing were created by my
> team. Just FYI... we are no longer creating utilities for
> PC Magazine at all. They are using other people now. When
> PC Magazine shifted to a subscription model (note that it's
> subscription, not shareware--you must pay first, then you
> can download the programs),
Hi, it's always really nice to see the authors of the programs
that I use post here.
> we left to start our own
> software business. Our stuff is all shareware, not
> freeware. We are trying to make a living.
I went to your site, nice design. If you don't mind, I have
just a humble suggestion, based on my lurking around here.
I see that you have an extremely good team with you. My
suggestion is that, as a long term goal, one might not want to
go for small individual programs for private users (it can be
good as a starting out, though).
There are simply too many competitions out there in the
private sector; and the "willing to pay" elasticity-scale is
simply not really catching up in that market - and, I can be
wrong, but my prediction is that it could go worst (with the
saturated increase of new pc-users, the "evolving" old pc-
users who would eventually know to search for free
alternatives, and the new pc-developers offering freeware as
their hobby around the world).
If you have lurked around in this group long enough, you might
have already seen that almost every type of programs have some
kind of freeware solutions; also, really high quality
programs, open sourced ones, are not really lacking (of
course, they might be lacking in some categories, but most
don't - e.g., the Pricelessware). Also, besides freeware, the
big brother M$oft, in their every release of OS, is "crowding
out" other small software developers, by including stuff in
their bundle for the private users. This is, not to mention
the piracy problem that every develper would face.
I think you must see what I am getting at here (and you must
have thought of this, too)...that is, if resources are
available, a more successful approach might be to focus on
commercially use programs, because (1) there are always
special needs for different industries and thus more room for
creativity exists. For example, one might find some programs,
which could be real easy to make with you guys' expertise, but
have not been thought of due to their special purposes. (2)
commercial users are more willingly to pay for the programs
because they do want high quality supports for their programs
with average users of employee in the company - and they want
efficiency and speed (comparatively, private users can have
more time to learn how to use a piece of software and figure
things out, but time is less for the commercial users). (3)
Companies who have a legitimate business do not really want
priacy - one less thing for the developer to worry about.
As an aside, some developers would also offer software, which
is freeware for personal use but to pay for commercial use
with more features and supports - I think it is an excellent
idea to promote their software (some users use it at home,
like it, and would recommend it to their bosses, or buy it for
their own business - if they think it is a good investment for
their business).
Sheryl, I am no software author myself, so, all these may be
just amateur opinions (offered in good faith, though) - and I
am sure you must have thought of many of these yourself :-)
Anyway, hope you have a successful company!
Sheryl Canter
<ringomeinew(removehere)@hotmail(remove).com> says...
> If you have lurked around in this group long enough, you might
> have already seen that almost every type of programs have some
> ...a more successful approach might be to focus on
> commercially use programs...
I don't really want to do special purpose software for
companies. That wouldn't be fun for me, and having fun
counts.
We are very aware of what else exists in the marketplace when
we work out the spec for a program. We look at everything out
there. Our goal is to produce "best of breed" software--to
offer features that can't be gotten anywhere else. You might
be able to find another tool that performs the function, but
it won't do it as well and the design won't be as clean.
For example, PassCrypt (Web password manager) can also handle
credit cards and software registrations, lets you organize
data into folders and subfolders, uses a grid design so you
can see all the items in a folder at once and sort on any
column, and offers military strength encryption. The columns
associated with each folder can be customized. You can choose
which columns to display, and customize their names. And of
course it has a very powerful password generator. The
reporting feature is also very powerful. For example, you can
print out a list of passwords about to expire. And there's a
handy dandy tray component that will automatically paste
passwords into your browser as needed. It's also attractive.
The author (Mark Sweeney) made an optional skin with some
fancy buttons. I don't know of any other password manager
that offers more features in such an attractive and easy to
use package. Also, we're updating it all the time. We added a
bunch of new features in response to customer requests for
Version 1.1 (you can see the messages in our forum), and 1.2
is about to be released with even more cool features.
Our software is also solid as a rock. I review software for
PC Magazine and I'm often shocked at what gets released, even
by large and successful companies. Don't they have beta
testers? With freeware, this is even more of a problem. I'm
using a certain freeware package on my Web site (I'll avoid
mentioning names), and whenever someone makes a complaint
about a bug, the author says: "What do you expect? Did you
pay for this??" I don't mind paying for quality if it's
reasonably priced, and I hope others feel the same way.
We are keeping our prices fairly low. PassCrypt is just
$14.95. Two other programs currently in development will also
be priced at $14.95. There's a third one that's quite
complex, and we may go to $19.95 for that one. We also have
two Pocket PC programs in development. I'm not sure about the
pricing of those--I have to check what's out there. All the
programs have a 21-day free trial. After 21-days, some of the
functions are disabled but the program is still usable. This
is just a courtesy--after 21 days, if a person wants to
continue using the program our agreement says they must pay
for it.
--
Susan Bugher
>
> > If a steady girlfriend decides to start charging for her *services* most
> > guys are going to be pissed off . . .
>
> > That's the best analogy I can think of.
>
> > It's not an objection to commercial software (off-topic in this group).
>
> > It's an objection to the change in status.
> I don't think that's a good analogy, and I do think they could have
> handled it in a way that was much more respectful of the Utilities
> column fans and their print customers.
Hi Sheryl,
I was responding to these remarks in the paragraph I quoted from your
earlier post.
<requoting>
I don't think it's a mortal sin to charge for highly skilled
professional work. If all the software in the world were free, then how
would programmers make a living? Is it fair to say this one line of work
should always be
pro bono and no one should have to pay people for their efforts?
</requote>
rephrasing my comments: agree, don't know, no
my analogy rephrased:
An adverse reaction to a change in program status is not a condemnation
of professional programmers - it is a criticism of the tactics some of
them use.
Software authors who make it clear *from the start* that a program will
become payware are seldom criticized here for that decision.
A change in status after the first release of a program is likely to
draw adverse responses in ACF. It's regarded as lying by implication. A
program that is released as freeware is expected to remain freeware.
Changing the status is considered betrayal.
I said "I doubt there was any *good* way to handle this"
A change for the worse *is* a change for the worse.
Sugar-coating the pill may make it a bit more palatable - many people
will still find it hard to swallow.
Susan
kqs_v1
[re Permutations software]
> programs have a 21-day free trial.
Trialware!!
And 21 days at that. :< Chances are that within the 21 day period I'll
have run it once, twice at most, before it disables itself.
Why did you not go for the number-of-uses count in your trialware,
instead of installation date? With your collective programming abilities,
it seems you'd have been able to manage usage-count in a way that you
consider satisfactory for accomplishing your purpose?
/kqs
PS. I see that Neil Rubenking is not part of your crew? Is he going to
stay with PC Mag or go elsewhere? I'd follow Rubenking anywhere, and
probably should even put him in my will. I've used COA and Inctrl
since their first inception, and they have continued to be my most
valuable utilities.
R.L
> In article <Xns938D67572...@127.0.0.1>, "R.L"
> <ringomeinew(removehere)@hotmail(remove).com> says...
>> If you have lurked around in this group long enough, you
>> might have already seen that almost every type of programs
>> have some kind of freeware solutions...
>> ...a more successful approach might be to focus on
>> commercially use programs...
> I don't really want to do special purpose software for
> companies. That wouldn't be fun for me, and having fun
> counts.
That's true. Although, I have to say, I have seen some small
appls that are really similar to the utilities in my own PC,
just that they are for special purposes, can't imagine how
different those are in terms of their production (e.g., I have
seen programs for wine catelogs, clothes designs, diet
training, small resturant managements - they are not really
big appls, but are designed for small business)
> and whenever someone
> makes a complaint about a bug, the author says: "What do
> you expect? Did you pay for this??"
I'm sorry that you have this experience. Some authors are
like this. But personally, I've also meet some freeware
authors who are very helpful e.g., the authors of Keynote,
Qwave, and Pimmy, and I am sure there are others.
Anyway, all the best with your company.
--
RL
Susan Bugher
>
SNIP
Hi Sheryl,
Just a friendly reminder that this group is for the discussion of
freeware.
recommended reading:
http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html#11
http://www.ccountry.net/~jcorliss/F.A.Q./Page3.html
Susan
Blinky the Shark
> Sheryl Canter <she...@permutations.comNOSPAM> says in
> news:MPG.1941e95c9...@news.sover.net:
>> Hi,
>> I'm the only one with any association to PC Magazine that
>> I've seen post here, and I am not a spy. Oh, I've seen
>> Patrick Philippot post here (author of the PC Magazine
>> utility FavOrg), and he is not a spy, either. I'm the
>> former editor of PC Magazine's Utilities column. All those
>> utilities that you've been discussing were created by my
>> team. Just FYI... we are no longer creating utilities for
>> PC Magazine at all. They are using other people now. When
>> PC Magazine shifted to a subscription model (note that it's
>> subscription, not shareware--you must pay first, then you
>> can download the programs),
> Hi, it's always really nice to see the authors of the programs
> that I use post here.
Yep. But note she was an editor, and had "my team". She may not have
done any coding herself. Dunno.
Sheryl Canter
says...
> A change in status after the first release of a program is likely to
> draw adverse responses in ACF. It's regarded as lying by implication. A
> program that is released as freeware is expected to remain freeware.
> Changing the status is considered betrayal.
I see what you're saying. Still, it depends on how it was
done and why it was done. Sometimes a change from freeware to
payware may be bait-and-switch. That's dishonest and
unethical. But other times it becomes impossible to continue
offering something for free, and that's what happened with PC
Magazine. The Utilities column was expensive, and they simply
couldn't afford it anymore. They had two choices: charge for
it, or discontinue it. You've probably read about their
financial problems in the press. They were on the brink of
bankruptcy multiple times in the last year or two because
SoftBank saddled them with so much debt. The change to
SubscriptionWare would not have been welcomed in any case,
but they could have made the transition seem less outrageous
and unfair if they gave fair warning, fair pricing (free to
print subscribers) and a clear explanation as to what they
were doing and why.
Sheryl Canter
@privacy.net says...
> Trialware!!
>
> And 21 days at that. :< Chances are that within the 21 day period I'll
> have run it once, twice at most, before it disables itself.
>
> Why did you not go for the number-of-uses count in your trialware,
> instead of installation date? With your collective programming abilities,
> it seems you'd have been able to manage usage-count in a way that you
> consider satisfactory for accomplishing your purpose?
Choosing number-of-days versus number-of-uses was a judgement
call. We could have done it either way. More importantly, the
software doesn't become completely disabled after 21 days. It
becomes limited. Our goal was to keep the program useful
enough that people wouldn't immediately remove it from their
computers after expiration, but limited enough that people
would be motivated to pay for it. You also start to see
frequent nag screens after 21 days. We minimize that during
the trial period.
> PS. I see that Neil Rubenking is not part of your crew? Is he going to
> stay with PC Mag or go elsewhere? I'd follow Rubenking anywhere, and
> probably should even put him in my will. I've used COA and Inctrl
> since their first inception, and they have continued to be my most
> valuable utilities.
LOL. Well, it was like this... Neil was an integral part of
the Utilities team, and when the budget cuts came, he and I
both lost virtually all our income. Originally, Neil was
going to partner with me in the new business. But then PC
Magazine offered him a full-time job. He's got a family to
support, so he went with that. We were sorry to lose Neil,
but I understood why he had to make that choice. A new
business is risky, and PC Magazine made him a very good
offer.
PC Magazine has been good to me, too. They didn't have a
full-time job to offer me (I didn't really want one, anyway),
but I write frequently for the Solutions column and other
areas of the magazine (how to track down spammers, how to
keep people from stealing graphics from your Web site, etc.).
Sheryl Canter
no....@box.invalid says...
> > Hi, it's always really nice to see the authors of the programs
> > that I use post here.
>
> Yep. But note she was an editor, and had "my team". She may not have
> done any coding herself. Dunno.
I'm a programmer (I programmed our Web site and I wrote
software years ago), but I never wrote a PC Magazine utility.
I always wanted to, but never had time. I was the chief
architect of PC Magazine's utilities, and I play the same
role at Permutations Software. Most of the ideas and specs
come from me, and I'm very involved in the UI design. I act
as referee during the beta tests when one group wants
something done one way and another group (or perhaps the
author) wants it another way. Our software is, and always has
been, very much a collaboration between the author, myself,
and the most incredible group of beta testers the software
world has every seen. No kidding. They are SO GOOD. Our
authors are some of the best in the world, too--I'd say in
the top 5% at least. The beta testers ask for the sun, moon,
and stars, and the authors give it to them. These guys are
magicians.
In any case, one of the actual coders did post here. I saw a
message from Patrick Philippot.
--
Lee Babcock
Sheryl..... I've been following this thread and would like to put in my
two cents worth.
I agree that PC Mag felt that they had to put on fees on this service
because of their financial problems, but as is typically the case in
ivory tower decisions, they don't consider the whole story.
I have taught computer subjects, programming, hardware, networking at
college for many years. I constantly used PC Mag's utilities in my
classes. Because of this, on average, about 400 post secondary students
were exposed to PC Mag each year by me. Extrapolate this figure based
on scores of other teachers and look at the advertising potential that
was handed over to PC Mag. While it may have been expensive to provide
the service, the benefits probably more than covered the expense.
However, when desperate for cash, common sense and the powers of
considered actions seem to be forgotten.
Regards
Lee in Toronto
Joel Wasinger
Hi Sheryl,
To start, full transparency, I grew tired of arguments others were engaged in, so while I did read most of your posts, I skipped many from others and might have missed some of what you said.
Thanks for all of your and your colleagues' work. I subscribed to the print edition of PC Magazine for several years and subscribed to the utilities for a few. I'm happy to pay for software that I use as often as I have some of the old PC Magazine utilities. I didn't even mind the pay structure, so much as I'm deeply frustrated that now I can either no longer find what I previously paid for or have to rely on sketchy shareware and freeware redistributors to end up with godsknowwhat.
The utilities I've most used (and would potentially pay again for, if the price is reasonable I could be fairly sure it's getting to the original coder or legit inheritor of their work) include:
- wmatch (through several versions; I think my favorite ended up being 3 or 4, of which I'm pretty sure I have both installs (more on that later)
- dupeless
- multiren
- directory print or some such that had a drag and drop interface with configurable standardized output
- PCM put out a three-pack of file utilities that maybe included a version of multiren and the directory printer and at least one other thing
- seems like there was a functional post-it style tool (or more than one even)
I'm sure there are others that have fallen out of memory.
I also had the old DOS Power Tools. Not sure where that CD (floppy?!) is anymore. And I learned some batchfile tricks that I use to this day, and that often send me back to the command line even though most of my work is GUI AF.
I actually just tracked down the installs for my core set. My difficulty is that my PCs are in a controlled environment, so I'm having to work with IT to get things loaded and I don't want to raise red flags. Not being able to point to a developer would be a red flag for me. lol. And I'd love to follow and support development of the sort I used to rely on from Ziff-Davis.
I'm grateful just to hear more of the story of what happened to what used to be my favorite tech magazine, let alone the other useful information you've shared. I don't want to ask more of you, but I'd welcome any info to the end of, as I said, following and supporting the sort of utility development I've relied on.
To someone else's "insight", no, even when I had freer reign over my computing environment, I honestly couldn't find solid replacements for all of my PCM tools.
Thanks again (for what you've already shared and what you might yet).
Joel Wasinger