BigJohnson

  • Smile Score: +171
  • Posts: 35
  • Downloads: 43
Your MacUpdate.com profile avatar
About Me
Member Type I am a Free member
Visit Stats
Last Visit 15 days ago Member Since Apr 2, 2011

BigJohnson's Recent Posts

BigJohnson
+0

It may be abandoned but it ain't dead! I installed 10.9.4 today and it still works. It's very simple - select some text, chose Print Selection from the Services menu and voila! The text appears quickly in a new text document. It keeps the formatting, including colors.

Reply0 replies
Version 2.0
BigJohnson
+0

IMPORTANT! Immediately after installing you should click the toolbar icon, click the gear icon in the top right corner of the DNTM window and deselect "send anonymous data." You may want to uncheck other items such as "show medals" and "show weekly report." If you choose not to do it now you'll likely do it later as the medals are extremely annoying!

Reply0 replies
Version 3.1.1064
BigJohnson
+0

Did work on Lion but does NOT work on Mavericks. Bummer, this was a great 'saver!

Reply1 reply
Version 1.0
BigJohnson
+0

Nevermind - I was referring to MovingPhotos3D, and there's a new version out for Mavericks.

FirefoxFirefoxComment
BigJohnson
+1

Still no tabs below address bar = NO THANKS!

Reply0 replies
Version 30.0
StockSpyStockSpyComment
BigJohnson
+0

Suddenly StockSpy is wiggin' out! When I open it, my homepage is displayed correctly, but when I select any of the stock symbols in the left column, ALL the chart data is upside down, as if it's mirrored! All the month names, graphics, everything! And if I select any of my personal stock symbols, the app crashes after 15 seconds. Doesn't crash if I select the Dow or Nasdaq symbols, only my personal stocks. Must be related to my recent Mavericks upgrade I'm guessing, although that's a strange bug. I deleted the app then replaced it and it's still happening. I can't contact the dev. because they use social media which I don't use. BEWARE that this app tries to connect to doubleclick.net and adserv.stocksite.com. So even though you've paid for this app, they still want to send you ads! MAKE SURE YOU BLOCK THEM WITH LITTLE SNITCH OR HANDS OFF!

Reply1 reply
Version 2.6
BigJohnson
+0

Just noticed I'm using an old version, so that may be the problem. Not going to upgrade though since I don't recall giving permission to receive ads when I bought it! VERY UNSCRUPULOUS!

iSonicsiSonicsComment
BigJohnson
+2

The FLAC standard only has 8 approved compression levels. iSonics offers 12 levels. When I asked the developer why, they were rather blunt and told to me to ask the developer of the libavcodec that they use. I received this reply: "Levels 0 to 8 use essentially the same compression settings as the official libFLAC encoder. Put simply, levels 9 to 12 use additional or alternative settings to achieve better compression." Since libavcodec uses compression levels other than the 8 approved levels, they should not be called FLAC, they should be called FLAC Plus, or some other name that differentiates them from FLAC because they aren't technically FLAC. If libavcodec wants to call its 12 levels FLAC then the developers should attempt to have the FLAC standard amended. Therefore it seems iSonics uses a codec that does not adhere to FLAC standards. Who knows what algorithms they use to compress at additional levels? It also seems to be an inferior codec to the libFLAC codec that XLD uses. I found this unfavorable remark about the codec used by iSonics: "Contrary to libavcodec's video codecs, its audio codecs do not make a wise usage of the bits they are given as they lack some minimal psychoacoustic model (if at all) which most other codec implementations feature." I ripped a CD and these are the numbers for the first 5 tracks using different encoding. iSonics FLAC level 8 1. 19.4 MB 2. 17.9 MB 3. 18.9 MB 4. 18.2 MB 5. 19.3 MB iSonics FLAC level 12 1. 19.1 MB 2. 17.6 MB 3. 18.6 MB 4. 18.0 MB 5. 19.2 MB XLD FLAC level 8 1. 19.3 MB 2. 17.8 MB 3. 18.8 MB 4. 18.1 MB 5. 19.3 MB As you can see, iSonics at level 8 creates files 1/10th of a MB or less larger than XLD at level 8, so they are comparable at the same level (XLD is always smaller). But at level 12 iSonics files are only 1/10th to 2/10ths of a MB smaller than XLD. Since the savings created by using libavcodec at level 12 amount to about 1/5 of a MB per file, I'd say the extra levels are irrelevant and you may as well stick with the approved levels. I have over 20,000 FLAC files. 20,000 times .02 MB savings each amounts to 400 MB, which is about one album. While ripping that CD tonight I found another problem with iSonics: It uses the CDDB database to gather track metadata. My disc was not found so I would have had to manually rename all 48 tracks. I opened the disc in XLD and all track names were located in the FreeDB and MusicBrainz databases. It saved me a lot of time and aggravation by ripping with XLD. MY CONCLUSION IS THAT YOU STICK WITH XLD FOR IT'S SUPERIOR CODEC THAT FOLLOWS FLAC GUIDELINES, AS WELL AS ITS SUPERIOR ACCESS TO CD DATABASES.

Reply4 replies
Version 1.6.3
BigJohnson
+0

AND XLD IS FREE!

BigJohnson
+0

Obviously the article I referred to was talking about lossless formats when they mentioned psychoacoustic properties. I didn't test it, I'm just quoting what the developers of MPlayer said. But since the same codec also handles FLAC, why use it at all if it's lossy algorithm is worse than other available algorithms?

BigJohnson
+0

And since they were talking about libavcodec when they mentioned psychoacoustic models, then obviously they were referring to one or more of the lossy codecs in the "collection." Your FLAC codec may be the same as XLD's, but evidently the lossy codecs in the libavcodec you use are lesser quality than "most other codec implementations." Again, I'm not the one who said it - take it up with the person who wrote the article if you disagree, I'm only quoting them.

BigJohnson
+0

It's very simple: I've tried both, XLD is better and it's free. I doubt anyone really needs the extra compression levels to save 1/5 of a MB per track.

BigJohnson
+0

This version has a bug that causes errors to appear in the Error Console for every page. Don't know if it's causing Safari to slow down or any other problems. Developer is aware of the problem - I received this reply two weeks ago: "that error message is not normal. We have an issue in our bug tracker for this problem, and we're looking into what's causing it. Hopefully we'll have a fix for this really soon."

Reply1 reply
Version 3.0.3
BigJohnson
+0

I was wrong - it DOES cause Safari to be unusable, at least on my system. I thought it was caused solely by AdBlock's experimental feature but it turns out that this also causes massively high CPU usage. I had disabled it a couple weeks ago when I discovered the Error Console bug, then after writing the comment above I enabled it again. With it enabled Safari uses 85-99% of my CPU and most actions (opening a link, switching tabs, switching apps etc.) throws a beach ball for When I disable it Safari drops to 0.1-2% within 5 seconds!

BigJohnson
+4

In Jan. 2014, more than 20 Mac anti-virus apps were tested and Avast came in second place. http://www.thesafemac.com/mac-anti-virus-testing-2014/

Reply4 replies
Version 8.0
BigJohnson
+0

Found out why the Internet scanner was active even though I had Web Shield disabled. Avast! installs an extension in Safari which I didn't know about until support contacted me. But it has a MAJOR bug - it's impossible to get rid of! I uninstall the extension and every time I reboot it's back again! I've made absolutely sure it was removed from the Safari extensions folder, but on reboot it comes right back. Waiting for another reply from support. STARTING TO REALLY HATE THIS APP!

BigJohnson
+0

MY BAD - there's no bug, but the browser extensions must be uninstalled from within the Avast! app, not from the browser extension window like other extensions.

BigJohnson
+1

I have 1Password and Little Snitch, and I've found no conflict whatsoever with avast!. However, I have Web Shield disabled in avast! yet it's still active - there's a button in my Safari toolbar, and it displays a green icon briefly over every page I load in Safari. It doesn't do that in Firefox. I have a bug report filed and am waiting for a reply. I had uninstalled avast! shortly after the first installation, then reinstalled yesterday to work with support on the inordinate number of connection attempts that avast makes to google (blocked with Little Snitch). When the installer opens it immediately tries to connect to google-analytics.I.google.com. When the install is done a window opens asking to install Chrome as the default browser. While that's open com.avast.proxy tries to connect to google-analytics.I.google.com. Then avast! tries to connect to google-analytics.I.google.com. When I started scanning my drive, com.avast.ciqstatsend tried to connect to mciq.avast.com. Looks like it's trying to send info about my usage. I think there were two more attempts that I didn't take screenshots of. I'm guessing avast! is compensated by Google for allowing it to spy on users' systems, and for each user who installs Chrome. Why else the close bond between avast! and Google? Guess that's the price for this "free" app, but is easily thwarted with LS. I have requested a way to limit the amount of CPU usage required when scanning. I took a screenshot of avast! using 132% CPU, and it was over 100% quite often during it's 4 hour+ scan of my 500 GB drive. That caused my system to be very sluggish, virtually unusable at times. Other than all that it seems to functioning okay and I get a small popup in the corner of my screen to let me know when virus definitions have been updated. I just opened avast! and got another connection attempt. This one from avast! to program.avast.com using port 443. That could be avast! trying to connect to my account, but if so why didn't it try during the first scan? That one will try to connect every time avast! is opened, so it needs to be permanently blocked or allowed with Snitch. I blocked it, I'll see if this affect performance and change if necessary.

BigJohnson
+3

Based on that comparison I uninstalled ClamxAV and installed avast! There's a whole lotta BS to go through to get this for free! After installation a window opens and asks to "Install Google Chrome as my default browser." The box is already checked! So I unchecked the box and moved on. To use this app you must register on their website. When I clicked the Register button, a window popped up saying "Your avast! antivirus expires in 30 days." This angered me and I would have immediately uninstalled avast! if I hadn't previously read a review below that says avast! is free for a year. There's no explanation given in the window but evidently I must manually update or do something every 30 days to keep it activated. I registered an account I don't want and the app now shows 365 days remaining. Well if I have 365 days left, why did the window say it expires in 30 days? WTF?! This should be fully explained BEFORE installation! It SHOULD be noted above in the description. This is an underhanded and unscrupulous practice. Avast! Free is not completely free - it takes up your time initially when you register, then every month throughout the year. And evidently it wants your soul too, by attempting to force you to install Google Chrome.

CocktailCocktailComment
BigJohnson
+2

Support is nonexistent - twice I've sent the contact form on their website about a bug and they've never replied.

Reply0 replies
Version 7.5
BigJohnson
+0

Beware of the experimental feature in the options! Enable it and I get the "wait" cursor for a couple minutes, CPU jumps to over 100% and Safari becomes unusable. Disable it and CPU drops waaay down and Safari acts normal (back to being slow but not completely unusable).

Reply0 replies
Version 2.6.4