








(5)
Your rating: Now say why...





(9)


| Downloads:35,445 |
| Version Downloads:1,402 |
| Type:Utilities : File Management |
| License:Shareware |
| Date:31 Mar 2012 |
| Platform:Intel |
| Price: $19.95 |
Overall (Version 2.x):![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Features:![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Ease of Use:![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Value:![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Stability:![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
+1
+1
TreeFrogCreative reviewed on 29 Dec 2011
Yotofuji reviewed on 13 Dec 2011
+2
+2
AndrewK714 reviewed on 21 Sep 2011
DupeGuru PE is a little slow, but I expected it to take awhile, because I have so many photos.
I tried some other duplicate finding apps, and I like DupeGuru PE more than the others. The main reason I like more than the others is you can not delete the original photo. The other apps I tried you could delete the original photo if you were not paying attention.
+14
Zeitkind reviewed on 13 Sep 2011
+1
+2
Erichlutz reviewed on 27 Jan 2011
After waiting very long, scanning 28k+ of 30k photos the process was aborted: reason: checked progress, hovered mouse over pic in finder, forgot to click, pressed space bar to do a quick view... ABORTED
DGPE aborts the process, because it treats space bar as an enter key to CANCEL the process. No warning, nothing, nada...
Hours of waiting gone down the drain...
Please developer...
(can't complete without rating, therefor middle of the road)
+3
I'll remove the focus on the cancel button for the next release.
That being said, a big part of the scanning time is taken by picture analysis, which is cached in a database, so if you start a scan again, it won't take as long.
+1
+2
And for the hopeful last comment. Will try it tonight.
+1
+33
Hal0thane reviewed on 29 Oct 2009
As Arras mentioned, though, it does take time. This is not unique to dupeGuru PE, though, as all duplicate image scanners will be time-bound. (For the mathematically inclined, it's O(n^2) -- each picture you add must be compared against all the others.)
-9
But the results are convincing to me: duplicates of different pixel size or compression level, which cannot be found by exact duplicate checkers, are retrieved very reliably, and - up to some 100,000 items - within a quite reasonable amount of time.
+3
Application Identifier: com.hardcoded_software.dupeguru_pe
Application Version: 1.7.6
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "hsutil/cocoa.pyc", line 47, in _async_run
File "dupeguru_pe/app_cocoa.pyc", line 179, in _do_load
File "dupeguru_pe/app_cocoa.pyc", line 118, in update
File "plistlib.pyc", line 102, in readPlistFromString
File "plistlib.pyc", line 77, in readPlist
File "plistlib.pyc", line 402, in parse
ExpatError: not well-formed (invalid token): line 591089, column 41
Relevant Console logs:
+1
Can you please contact support@hardcoded.net so we can fix this?
+3
+3
Arras reviewed on 11 Sep 2008
I've used a half-dozen other dupe-finding tools over the years, some running on Windows, some on Linux, some on MacOS, all on the same growing set of 15,000 images, and while each tool managed to find a few that the previous ones missed, dupeGuru PE identified 104 dupes that all the others had missed. Very impressive.
The one downside that comes with this level of thoroughness, though, is the time it can take to analyze large collections with any significant degree of fuzziness. The 15,000 images I threw at it took it about 45 minutes on an 8-core Mac Pro at 95% filter hardness and matching dimensions. That grew to 75 minutes when I told it to look for mismatched dimensions as well.
To use this tool effectively, you just need to know how to use the filter hardness slider, which determines how exact the matches need to be. If you just want a quick search for exact copies (i.e. what the simpler tools do), slide it up to 99% or 100% and you'll be done quickly. The default setting of 95% gets better results, but obviously takes longer. The further you reduce that setting, the more variation you allow in the matches, so you can find more extensively modified variations of an image that way, at the cost of more time.
In short, the effectiveness of this tool is fantastic, and if it were faster it would rate 5/5. Even as is, though, it rates a solid 4/5 once you learn how to use the filter hardness setting properly.
+22
akrobat reviewed on 10 Oct 2006
I tried it again on 2 directories containing 14 and 24 photos respectively and after 20 minutes it was not quite halfway.
No idea why the Music Edition is so good and this so bad.
GregH60 rated on 04 Oct 2011