Dead Simple Downloader by Blaiz Enterprises
Susan Bugher
mentioned (I haven't tried it).
Dead Simple Downloader v2.00.4545
<q>
Easy paste and go downloader - reliable and robust - lightweight
architecture / low resource usage - 2%. Audio alert, multi-user support,
cloning, proxy, auto paste, timer delay, 12/24 time, definable
user-agent, automatic filename formatting, custom throttle, realtime
graphical bandwidth chart, history with stats, user name / passwords,
100K+ url download list. Multilingual interface - see our Select
Language. Integrated Help. New generation code base with User Management
/ Schemes v3.00.* - customise interface (cursors, scrollbars, font...),
settings. Schemes - customise colors - comes packed with 21 color schemes.
</q>
Freeware
http://www.blaiz.net/DSD.ZIP
(497 KB)
Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)
Sietse Fliege
There is an issue with the Blaiz freeware:
the programs (not the shortcuts) are installed within the Start Menu.
This behaviour has led a number of us to not use/recommend them.
--
Cheers,
Sietse Fliege
Susan Bugher
That appears to have changed (?) - a quote from the web site:
# No Installation
- All our software programs are no installation, completely
self-contained, requiring no setup or install. No updating or alteration
of any existing computer files, libraries or Windows' registry.
Sietse Fliege
> Sietse Fliege wrote:
>> Susan Bugher wrote:
>
>>> http://www.blaiz.net/
>>
>> There is an issue with the Blaiz freeware:
>> the programs (not the shortcuts) are installed within the Start Menu.
>> This behaviour has led a number of us to not use/recommend them.
>
> That appears to have changed (?) - a quote from the web site:
>
> # No Installation
> - All our software programs are no installation, completely
> self-contained, requiring no setup or install. No updating or
> alteration of any existing computer files, libraries or Windows'
> registry.
That may be, Susan, but I doubt it. I still see:
"Dead Simple Downloader places itself on your Start button"
In the past exactly this formulation turned out to mean that the
programs themselves ended up in the Start Menu hierarchy.
I remember to have moved one of their standalone executables to
somewhere else, then run it, only to find that it copied itself to the
Start Menu, ran from there and removed itself from the original
location. The same happened when I tried two years later.
I would like to see that that now has changed, but need confirmation.
--
Cheers,
Sietse Fliege
Demetris
> That may be, Susan, but I doubt it. I still see:
>
> "Dead Simple Downloader places itself on your Start button"
>
> In the past exactly this formulation turned out to mean that the
> programs themselves ended up in the Start Menu hierarchy.
> I remember to have moved one of their standalone executables to
> somewhere else, then run it, only to find that it copied itself to the
> Start Menu, ran from there and removed itself from the original
> location. The same happened when I tried two years later.
> I would like to see that that now has changed, but need confirmation.
>
It's exactly as Sietse said. This behaviour is at least abnormal.
Also, the UI is a trial to your eyes.
Greetings,
Demetris
Susan Bugher
Thank you both. :) :) :)
It's all coming back to me - finally (I knew and forgot about this
weirdness). . . now comes the question of what to do re the ACF pages.
. .
Several Blaiz Enterprises programs are listed on the ACF pages (and
Chimer was recently recommended in another thread). IMO the *misleading*
"no installation" claim on the Blaiz Enterprises' web pages warrants
adding "NR" warnings to the apps that are listed on the ACF pages. FYI
each of the program info pages has this note about the "NR" tag: "NR =
NOT RECOMMENDED (search Google's archive of ACF posts for more
information)" If anyone thinks this should be handled differently please
speak up.
Susan Bugher
posting it here for review and comments by newgroup participants.
Susan
-----------------------
Subject: Removal of Blaiz Enterprises' Freeware
From: Blaiz Enterprises <snip>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 02:18:38 +1030
To: links <snip> pricelessware.org
Attention: "alt.comp.freeware" Webmaster/s,
For many years we have coded Windows software programs which are
lightweight, fast, small, no installation, with integrated "help" and
multilingual support, whilst having very few "bugs"/"fixes", provided
full feature details and in depth left panel "portal" explanations,
hints and tips, for absolutely free.
As most of these details have been overlooked, misunderstood and
misrepresented constantly via your news groups and website listings, we
now request that all references to our portal domains namely
http://www.blaiz.net
and
http://www.blaizfree.net
and ALL our freeware links please be removed from your website listings
- e.g. http://www.pricelesswarehome.org, http://www.pricelessware.org
Thanking you,
Technical Section
Blaiz Enterprises
Portal:................. http://www.blaiz.net
Internet Search Engine:. http://www.rawgrunt.com
Contact:................ http://www.blaiz.net/contact.html
John Fitzsimons
wrote:
>The email copied below appears to be a response to this thread. I'm
>posting it here for review and comments by newgroup participants.
>Susan
>-----------------------
>Subject: Removal of Blaiz Enterprises' Freeware
>From: Blaiz Enterprises <snip>
>Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 02:18:38 +1030
>To: links <snip> pricelessware.org
>Attention: "alt.comp.freeware" Webmaster/s,
>For many years we have coded Windows software programs which are
>lightweight, fast, small, no installation, with integrated "help" and
>multilingual support, whilst having very few "bugs"/"fixes", provided
>full feature details and in depth left panel "portal" explanations,
>hints and tips, for absolutely free.
>As most of these details have been overlooked, misunderstood and
>misrepresented constantly via your news groups and website listings, we
>now request that
< snip >
>our freeware links please be removed from your website listings
< snip >
(1) Removing references from the web sites will not stop people
mentioning their products here.
(2) If something is misrepresented then they should "set the record
straight".
(3) If they want their links removed then they should be.
(4) When people mention their products in future they should mention
this email and note their unwillingness to address the criticisms
made.
(5) Not mentioning their site, and links, will probably mean fewer
people purchase their payware products. If that is what they want
then they should be helped to make fewer sales.
Regards, John.
sno
I agree...if a person requests that their web site not be linked,
then it would be common courtesy to honor that request....maybe a
mention of the program with no link....and an explanation why there
is none....that the web site owner has requested that no link be
posted....and a note that the program can be googled to locate the
site....
thank you for listening to my thoughts...sno
> Regards, John.
--
Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it
This tag line is generated by:
SLTG (Silly Little Tag Generator)
Sietse Fliege
<snip>
> As most of these details have been *_overlooked_*, *_misunderstood_*
> and *_misrepresented_* constantly via your news groups and website
> listings, we now request that ...
<snip>
Their executables, when run, move themselves to the Start Menu Folder.
They (veign to) *_misunderstand_* how the Start Menu should be used.
This absurd behaviour puts their software in a class of their own.
On their website this behaviour really is *_misrepresented_* with:
"Program X places itself on your Start button".
They have *_overlooked_* that this might result in "Not recommended" .
As Google shows here: http://tinyurl.com/neh4u :
In May 2001 the issue was discussed (for the first time?) in a.c.f.
'Boomer' found three e-mail addresses and Blaiz Enterprises were
emailed. Reportedly no answer was received.
Perhaps they simply could not provide an acceptable explanation?
--
Cheers,
Sietse Fliege
meow...@care2.com
> Demetris wrote:
> > Sietse Fliege wrote:
> >> That may be, Susan, but I doubt it. I still see:
>
> >> "Dead Simple Downloader places itself on your Start button"
> >>
> >> In the past exactly this formulation turned out to mean that the
> >> programs themselves ended up in the Start Menu hierarchy.
> >> I remember to have moved one of their standalone executables to
> >> somewhere else, then run it, only to find that it copied itself to the
> >> Start Menu, ran from there and removed itself from the original
> >> location. The same happened when I tried two years later.
> >> I would like to see that that now has changed, but need confirmation.
>
> > Stay away!
> >
> > It's exactly as Sietse said. This behaviour is at least abnormal.
Its odd, sure, but I don't see how its a problem. Just means one less
shortcut.
And AFAICS its consistent with the claims made, with only one
exception: it cant be described as non-installing when run from a
CD/USB stick.
> Thank you both. :) :) :)
>
> It's all coming back to me - finally (I knew and forgot about this
> weirdness). . . now comes the question of what to do re the ACF pages.
> . .
>
> Several Blaiz Enterprises programs are listed on the ACF pages (and
> Chimer was recently recommended in another thread). IMO the *misleading*
> "no installation" claim on the Blaiz Enterprises' web pages warrants
> adding "NR" warnings to the apps that are listed on the ACF pages. FYI
> each of the program info pages has this note about the "NR" tag: "NR =
> NOT RECOMMENDED (search Google's archive of ACF posts for more
> information)" If anyone thinks this should be handled differently please
> speak up.
>
> Susan
I cant consider myself in any way expecting to influence ACF or PW. But
fwiw my take on it is that of all the problems I've encountered with
freeware, this must rate as one of the more minor. If it were upto me
I'd not consider this a reason to not recommend it, though I would add
a note for the benefit of anyone concerned about this behaviour.
I can understand the authors POV, though I dont agree with it.
NT
Craig
Who knows why Blaiz hasn't bothered to correct or explain the behavior
of their proggies? Bottom line is they've had ample opportunity and
have passed it up.
Give them what they want - to an extent. That is, it can't hurt to omit
any url relating to Blaiz. It can only help to have an explanation as
to why.
-Craig
Susan Bugher
> I agree...if a person requests that their web site not be linked,
> then it would be common courtesy to honor that request....maybe a
> mention of the program with no link....and an explanation why there
> is none....that the web site owner has requested that no link be
> posted....and a note that the program can be googled to locate the
> site....
That's pretty much what we're doing now. Descriptions but no links. . .
Scroll down this page till you get to Blaiz Enterprizes:
http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/acf/P_ProgramIndex.php?sortby=Author
then check any of the apps descriptions:
http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/acf/P_ORGANIZERS.php#1055
etc. etc.
*Information* is the name of the game. IMO the *misleading* "no
installation" claim on the Blaiz Enterprises' web pages warrants "NR"
warnings on the ACF program *information* pages. IMO valid information
should NOT be excluded from the ACF pages becuse the authors don't want
the information publicized.
Susan Bugher
> Susan Bugher wrote:
>>Several Blaiz Enterprises programs are listed on the ACF pages (and
>>Chimer was recently recommended in another thread). IMO the *misleading*
>>"no installation" claim on the Blaiz Enterprises' web pages warrants
>>adding "NR" warnings to the apps that are listed on the ACF pages. FYI
>>each of the program info pages has this note about the "NR" tag: "NR =
>>NOT RECOMMENDED (search Google's archive of ACF posts for more
>>information)" If anyone thinks this should be handled differently please
>>speak up.
> I cant consider myself in any way expecting to influence ACF or PW. But
> fwiw my take on it is that of all the problems I've encountered with
> freeware, this must rate as one of the more minor. If it were upto me
> I'd not consider this a reason to not recommend it, though I would add
> a note for the benefit of anyone concerned about this behaviour.
The "NR" tag is a heads-up for the benefit of people who don't *know*
about strange behavior in an app (you have to be knowledgeable to decide
if you should be concerned).
Authors seldom mention Spyware, Adware, Nagware, registration keys that
expire etc. etc. etc. The ACF program information pages attempt to fill
in some of the information gaps.
Al Klein
>Its odd, sure, but I don't see how its a problem. Just means one less
>shortcut.
It's not a problem if you can relocate it. That it relocates itself
back to the start menu *is* a problem. I don't expect to find
anything but shortcuts in the <drive>:\Documents and
Settings\<name>\Start Menu tree. (Delete anything you like in there
and you aren't deleting any programs or data - that's just one example
of how it's a problem.)
meow...@care2.com
I guess we have different ideas of 'problem.' The .exe ending would
make it clear its not a shortcut, should you ever forget. AFAICS it
would function just as well from the start menu as program files or
anywhere else - just is not CD/USB no-install-ware.
Would it relocate itself if made read-only?
NT
Sietse Fliege
My description of the behaviour of the programs was not quite accurate
(the memory is going). But in essence I was accurate enough.
I now checked out their Text Effects, so here more accurately:
The downloaded Te.exe, when executed, creates a folder within the
StartMenu/Programs folder, called 'Blaiz Enterprises', with subfolders
and files. The actual program executable Text Effect.exe therein is in
fact a (renamed) exact copy of the downloaded Te.exe. So, when I move
the complete 'Blaiz Enterprises' folder to another location and run Text
Effect.exe it acts not as the program executable, but as the
installation file and recreates the folders and files within the
StartMenu folder.
Blaiz Enterprizes claims:
"All our software programs are no installation, completely
self-contained, requiring no setup or install. No updating or alteration
of any existing computer files, libraries or Windows' registry."
Now, if a program depends on a certain folders/files structure, that in
itself does not classify it as requiring install.
If however it depends on a specific location for that structure, say in
C:\Program Files, i.e. it can not be moved, then it no longer is a 'no
installation' program. Which of course in itself is not a reason to
classify as 'Not recommended'.
However, Blaiz Enterprizes claim of 'no install' is disinformation.
Still not quite enough reason to qualify as 'Not recommended', IMO.
However, the Blaiz programs absurdly depend on the Start Menu folder as
the location for their program folders.
That violation of the integrity of the system, combined with the
disinformation is reason enough for 'Not recommended', IMO.
--
Cheers,
Sietse Fliege
Susan Bugher
Thanks Sietse. Comments to date from newsgroup participants favor a
continuation of the listings on ACF's program information pages. Your
explanation of the behavior of these programs should be very helpful to
people who search the ACF archives for further information.
meow...@care2.com
> meow...@care2.com wrote:
> > Al Klein wrote:
> >> On 15 Mar 2006 19:24:13 -0800, meow...@care2.com wrote:
> >>> Its odd, sure, but I don't see how its a problem. Just means one
> >>> less shortcut.
> > Would it relocate itself if made read-only?
Thanks for the description. I plan to try it and see, but all this talk
sounds like a non problem to me, just need to be aware it will copy
itself to that location, and let it stay there rather than try to move
it. Theres plenty of software I do object to, but not something as
unproblematic as that.
I'll try setting it to read only, probably wont work but it might..
NT
Craig
> John Fitzsimons <DELETEu...@sneakemail.com> wrote in
> news:fa6h12tp1j4gmkljd...@4ax.com:
>
>
>>(2) If something is misrepresented then they should "set the record
>>straight".
>
>
> I agree. Until that happens, things should stay the way they are IMHO.
Agreed.
A big thanks, btw, to Sieste for outlining Blaiz install behavior.
-Craig
Al Klein
>I guess we have different ideas of 'problem.' The .exe ending would
>make it clear its not a shortcut, should you ever forget. AFAICS it
>would function just as well from the start menu as program files or
>anywhere else - just is not CD/USB no-install-ware.
If you keep programs on your Windows drive - some people don't.
>Would it relocate itself if made read-only?
Depends on what they're doing, but quite possibly. The registry entry
isn't read-only, nor is the start menu, so you'd be left with a dead
exe file wherever you put it, plus the one that runs, located in the
start menu.
Not nice and not following any known protocol. It's just lazy
programming.
David
typed furiously:
And it would NOT last on my computer. I won't tolerate programs that
will not stay where I put them or those that demand to install on the
C: drive and won't install anywhere else for whatever reason.
--
David
At the bottom of the application where it says
"sign here". I put "Sagittarius"
meow...@care2.com
Tried it for the first time today. Can confirm the odd behaviour, it
replaces itself if moved. Other than that it looks like a nice piece of
software, but have yet to use it fully.
NT
ms
startup, and several of them freeze on my P166.
I will never use any of them again.
Mike Sa