User "Laraine" Profile
|
About Laraine
|
Real Name:Laraine Barker
Posts:49
|
Last Login:8 Mar 2008 23:21
|
|
User Reviews
 |
Type: Comments
Date: 30 May 2008 14:33
|
|
Thanks for this information. Much appreciated. We still have the Quicksilver but are now using G5s. Will try installing Tiger on the Quicksilver when I get some spare time (chance would be a fine thing *G*). |
 |
Type: Troubleshooting
Date: 24 Apr 2008 22:45
|
|
Got a 404 error message. |
 |
Type: Review
Date: 30 Mar 2008 20:50
|
|
I've been playing around with this for quite a while. I wanted to give it a fair spin before making a judgement. It seems very good. It's certainly not difficult to learn. Unfortunately, I think it needs something more powerful than my G5 1.8 because it doesn't work at all smoothly for me. Everything happens in jerks, a bit like iDVD 4 on my previous machine, a G3 upgraded to G4 1GHz. The resulting movie, once exported to iDVD 6 and played there, doesn't jerk, but the jerkiness makes it difficult for me to judge what the resulting slide show will look like. It also means it takes longer to do each photo in my slide show than it should. I must add that I use higher resolution photos than Apple seem to recommend, and maybe this is what causes the jerkiness. But I don't see how lower resolution pictures could look good played back on an 8-foot-wide screen. I'll take another look at this program when (or should that be if?) I manage to buy a faster Mac. |
 |
Type: Comments
Date: 30 Mar 2008 16:32
|
|
I'm surprised that someone who claims to have used a Mac since 1984 finds Pages difficult and unintuitive while so many others find it easy to use. And isn't it supposed to be a word processing application, not a page layout one? My complaint is that Apple won't let me try it out before buying. |
| |
Type: Comments
Date: 30 Mar 2008 16:27
|
|
InDesign and Quark are page layout programs. Pages is a word processing program. If I want to lay out a magazine, let's say, why would I want to even TRY a word processing program? The ones that attempt to replace proper layout programs do so very badly and are great bloated monstrosities. |
 |
Type: Comments
Date: 30 Mar 2008 16:09
|
|
Does Word really work smoothly in Windows? The last decent version for Mac was Word 5.1. MS used to make very good software for Macintosh but after Word 5.1 they completely lost the plot. Word 6 still has to count as the worst software that was ever dumped on an unsuspecting and undeserving public. I've tried several versions of Word for Mac since but hated all of them. Great bloated things. |
| |
Type: Comments
Date: 28 Mar 2008 14:45
|
|
MultiTrackOps, CarbonCopyCloner doesn't make me get off my G5 1.8 (single processor). It often starts its schedule back-up while I am still working and I've noticed no problems. |
| |
Type: Comments
Date: 28 Mar 2008 14:42
|
|
Do try Carbon Copy Cloner. I would be surprised if it disappoints you. |
| |
Type: Comments
Date: 26 Mar 2008 17:30
|
|
Sorry, but I couldn't get past that unbelievably ugly interface. As someone else said, it's a monstrosity. Another reviewer said it's very Linux like. That means Linux must be hideous beyond belief. The developer is asking quite a lot for this software (though there ARE more expensive alternatives out there) and I think the least we can expect from him is a quiet, elegant interface to match the Mac environment. |
 |
Type: Comments
Date: 26 Mar 2008 16:05
|
|
That's bad, I have to admit. But then *I* would probably have trouble working out which was which if my drives were named similarly! :-) |
| |
Type: Comments
Date: 26 Mar 2008 15:30
|
|
I've had similar problems to this before and always solved them the same way you did. |
| |
Type: Review
Date: 23 Mar 2008 17:05
|
| Features: |  |
| Ease of Use: | |
| Value: | |
| Stability: | |
|
I tried this software for a whole month, all the while desperately looking for a solution to my problem that would allow me to do without it. Nothing worked. I think the software is well worth what it costs, especially with the addition of FontDoctor, which I think at least doubles the usefulness of Suitcase Fusion, but I still resent not being able to use my favourite Postscript fonts without something like Suitcase Fusion simply because the fonts aren't in suitcases. The fonts come from the days of the MacPlus and a family of four (regular, italic, bold and bold italic) cost $1,000 (NZ dollars). I can't think of any negative things about Suitcase Fusion, so I've given it 5 stares in all four categories. Thank you, Extensis, for such lovely software, and keep up the good work. :-) |
 |
Type: Comments
Date: 8 Mar 2008 23:23
|
|
It really isn't possible to assess a demonstration of a piece of software that won't allow you to actually DO anything! Why can't the developer allow the repair of a limited number of fonts, even if it's only two or three? |
 |
Type: Comments
Date: 24 Feb 2008 14:21
|
|
iKey doesn't appear to be what I'm looking for. I bought Keyboard Maestro because at least it allowed me to open applications using the keyboard commands I used to use in OS 9 with Action Utilities, and I didn't need a manual to work out how to do it. But I still long for something Action Utilities did, and did so well (allowing me to choose an item from the menu and type my own shortcut for it, even if it didn't originally have a shortcut). Photoshop (version 7 anyway) really bugs me in that so many things have to be done using the mouse. For instance, to choose the plug-in for my scanner I have to go to the file men, choose import and then choose CanoScan 8400F. Grr! |
 |
Type: Comments
Date: 16 Feb 2008 22:52
|
|
I was going to try this software. But if it does only partial conversions in demo mode how can anyone try it properly? It's far too expensive to buy outright. Extensis Suitcase or FontAgent will solve my problems (not being able to use my favourite old, expensive Type 1 Postscript fonts in Tiger because they aren't in suitcases) and do it a lot cheaper. However, I still think a hundred dollars (the cost of either of these programs) is way too expensive for software I shouldn't need. |
 |
Type: Comments
Date: 11 Feb 2008 21:19
|
|
Thanks, ZangieF. That sounds interesting. |
 |
Type: Comments
Date: 9 Oct 2007 22:36
|
|
I have to agree with you. To put it bluntly, IE 5.2.3 is a heap of cow dung. The only time I use it is when the web site I'm trying to get into is also a heap of cow dung. And that's only when I desperately need to read the page. If I don't I just hit command-w, muttering unprintable imprecations on the web master. :-) |
 |
Type: Comments
Date: 28 Sep 2007 15:54
|
|
The screenshot is terrible. It looks nothing like the game. In reality, the background is a non-intrusive grey, shading from dark on the left to light on the right. |
 |
Type: Comments
Date: 21 Jul 2007 01:22
|
|
Thanks for the advice, MacMelo. Disk Utility reported minor errors that it said it had fixed and everything seems fine. But I have a new drive on the way anyway. 80 GB is far too small. |
| |
Type: Review
Date: 16 Jul 2007 18:02
|
| Features: | |
| Ease of Use: | |
| Value: | |
| Stability: | |
|
This is awesome software. Someone whom I judged to have more knowledge than I have recommended Cocktail and I downloaded that. I think the trial worked for a week (not exactly generous) and I don't remember anything about it that persuaded me it was better than Onyx so I returned to Onyx (version 1.7.1 I think it was). I don't think Cocktail could possibly rate against this new version of Oxyx, even if it is only Beta. The developer thinks of new features that I need before I realise I need them myself. For instance, Onyx's SMART feature told me my HD needed repair. Alarmed, I dutifully booted from the Tiger install DVD and ran Disk Utility. Sure enough, minor repairs were needed (and done). Thanks, Joel! I'm using 10.4.10 on a 1.8 G5, BTW. The Panther version also worked brilliantly on my B&W G3 with a Sonnet 1GHz processor. |
| |
Type: Comments
Date: 16 Jul 2007 17:52
|
|
You have a decidedly slow machine. (Trust me; I've just come from a 1GHz G4 to a 1.8 G5!) Naturally Onyx will be slow on it (though I must admit I was using the Panther version on my G4 and I simply walked away while it did "its magic").) Why not try again? :-) |
 |
Type: Comments
Date: 7 Jul 2007 23:34
|
|
Not exactly ugly (see DiskLister and DiskCatalog if you REALLY want ugly) but far too cluttered. Maybe it's just that the developer has created something that does more than I want: a utility that will catalogue all the files on my CDs/DVDs and that, once I have inserted the appropriate disc, I can open the file I've been looking for just by clicking it, or I can drag it to the desktop--or anywhere else I might want it. I like the simplicity of CDFinder (well, up to version 4.7 anyway; I can't try version 5.0 because I'm still using Panther). I just don't like that price tag of US$39! |
| |
Type: Comments
Date: 7 Jul 2007 23:25
|
|
I do agree with "going crazy" that this type of software is often too expensive. CDFinder is the worst in this respect. |
| |
Type: Comments
Date: 7 Jul 2007 22:35
|
|
Try DiskCatalog and DiskLister. They will put you off "eye candy" for the rest of your life. I took one look at them and fled without even finding out what they could do. |
 |
Type: Comments
Date: 7 Jul 2007 22:16
|
|
What? You mean like DiskLister or DiskCatalog? I took one look at them and ran away screaming. Didn't even want to give them a fair trial! DiskTracker's interface is plain rather than ugly. I can live with plain. But I still haven't made up my mind which app to go for. I'm used to CDFinder. But CDFinder is definitely too expensive at US$39. |
 |
Type: Comments
Date: 6 Jul 2007 00:40
|
|
CDFinder is indeed very nice. But it's way too expensive! |
 |
Type: Review
Date: 5 Jul 2007 20:38
|
|
I'd already decided to go with DiskCatalogMaker but figured since I had downloaded DiskCatalog I might as well try it. Sorry, but, as with DiskLister, I couldn't get past the interface. Too ugly! |
 |
Type: Review
Date: 5 Jul 2007 20:33
|
|
I'd already decided to go with DiskCatalogMaker but figured since I'd downloaded DiskLister I might as well try it. Sorry, but I got no further than opening it Yuk! Unbelievably ugly! |
 |
Type: Comments
Date: 3 Jul 2007 23:30
|
|
Yes, all I need is an application to upload pages to my web site. I don't need other features. In the days of OS 9 I used Fetch (free at that time). But they now charge for Fetch so I've been looking for something else. The more I look the more confused I get, but so far of the shareware ones (including Fetch) I like Yummy best. Nevertheless, I think I'll give Cyberduck another crack before deciding. They seem to have updated it sinch I last tried it. |
| |
Type: Comments
Date: 3 Jul 2007 23:16
|
|
Interarchy ought to be the best. It's atrociously expensive! |
| |
Type: Comments
Date: 1 May 2007 14:27
|
|
Thank you, HolyPoly. That's very kind of you. I'll have a look at it. Laraine http://lbarker.orcon.net.nz |
| |
Type: Comments
Date: 28 Apr 2007 16:28
|
|
I too have stopped using MacLink Plus since upgrading to OS X. I expect people to send Word files to me in RTF. If they don't have the brains to do this in the first place, I ask them to. As for Exel files, if anyone sends me one of these then it's too bad for them that I can't read them. I don't particularly care. |
| |
Type: Comments
Date: 19 Nov 2006 19:29
|
|
That's great. As someone who has no choice but to use second-hand Macs (my B&W G3 is seven years old and I've had it over five years) I know how you must feel. I hope you enjoy your new Mac for many many years. :-) |
| |
Type: Comments
Date: 17 Nov 2006 13:15
|
|
How about trying Mariner Write? |
 |
Type: Comments
Date: 30 Aug 2006 15:17
|
|
Thanks, neutralzone. I didn't even know these things were around. But they are way too expensive. By the time I've paid for VueScan and one of these I'd have spent enough to buy a new scanner. I'm going for a new scanner. I think VueScan is a very nice program. I was particularly impressed by its colour accuracy. I'll try it on my new scanner when I get it, if only out of curioisity. I found the Canon CS8400F seems to have mostly very good reviews. it appears to be their second most expensive scanner at the moment. The most expensive one is way above my budget. My nephew reckons Canon is the best and can get $200 off Canon NZ's recommended price, so I think I'll go for this. Thanks again for your help. It's much appreciated. |
| |
Type: Comments
Date: 28 Aug 2006 19:11
|
|
fire_dragon, why did you choose SilverFast in preference to VueScan, please? |
| |
Type: Comments
Date: 28 Aug 2006 16:22
|
|
Thanks, Chris, for your trouble in replying. Since I posted my comment I found out (simply through trial and error) that only by having the scanner on at bootup was I able to get both VueScan and SilverFast to work. I guess it's no big deal to switch off the scanner after bootup until I want to use it. So that's one problem fixed. But try as I might I still can't get VueScan to scan as well as ScanMaker 3.0.7, or even SilverFast, which I'm also trialling. But SilverFast is more expensive than VueScan and doesn't include OCR. You can't win no matter which way you turn. *G* |
| |
Type: Review
Date: 23 Aug 2006 21:57
|
|
I'm afraid I won't be buying VueScan. In my first trial I had no trouble getting it to recognise my scanner (a SCSI ScanMaker E3) but no matter how much I fiddled with different ways to scan the photograph I had previously scanned with ScanWizard 3.0.7, which came with the scanner, I couldn't get a result as good as ScanWizard gave me--and with very little fiddling around too. I was amazed to read nothing but poor reviews for ScanWizard 7 for OS X. Not that it matters to me; ScanWizard 7 doesn't support SCSI scanners. Anyway, this morning I thought I would give VueScan another try. This time it wouldn't even recognise my scanner, despite my switching it off, quitting VueScan, switching the scanner back on and relaunching VueScan as suggested by VueScan itself. I think others have mentioned this problem in their reviews. I'm very disappointed because VueScan seemed like a really good product and the answer to my annoyance at having to reboot in OS 9 every time I want to do a scan. There was also that refresh time problem that others mentioned. On my machine (which sports an Encore G4 processor running at 1 GHz) it seemed to take forever. |
| |
Type: Comments
Date: 22 Aug 2006 23:00
|
|
"Microtek is not offering support when connecting a Microtek SCSI scanner to Panther." That's disgusting. I was also extremely surprised to find so many reviews of "poor" for Scanwizard 7. ScanWizard 3.0.7 (which came with my ScanMaker E3 and which I am still using) was so good. I have been evaluating VueScan and so far finding it disappointing in comparison to ScanWizard 3.0.7. |
| |
Type: Comments
Date: 22 Aug 2006 20:57
|
|
Shucks! You can't buy a decent scanner for $50. Well, you certainly can't in NZ. I wouldn't still be using a 24-bit SCSI ScanMaker E3 if you could! |
| |
Type: Comments
Date: 22 Aug 2006 20:45
|
|
I use a Microtek ScanMaker E3. Version 8.3.60 supports it. It's a SCSI scanner and came with excellent software--ScanWizard--but I have to reboot in OS 9 to use it. That's a pain, so I am in the process of evaluating VueScan. US$50 is a lot of money in NZ dollars but if I decide to buy VueScan it will also replace OmniPage Limited Edition 4.1.0. |
 |
Type: Comments
Date: 3 Jul 2006 17:03
|
|
I have seen two viruses in 20 years of using a Mac. In both cases they were on disks given to me by friends. |
| |
Type: Comments
Date: 3 Jul 2006 16:46
|
|
If repairing permissions doesn't work, you might like to try Onyx (which you can find here on macupdate.com) before you do anything as drastic as wiping your HD and starting again. That's a lot of hard work. :-) OS X needs to be kept "tuned" just like OS 9 (or any other operating system for that matter). At first I used Macjanitor combined with Apple's Disk Utility. Now I stick with Onyx. |
| |
Type: Comments
Date: 3 Jul 2006 16:35
|
|
Maybe you forgot to update your ClamXav virus definitions? |
The opinions expressed in the reviews are not necessarily those of MacUpdate.
MacUpdate waives any legal binding related to the comments and opinions expressed in the reviews.
Please contact MacUpdate politely if you wish for a comment to be reviewed by MacUpdate for removal.
Main
