EFF  Aw crap, the above was in reply to FRANKHOGG's second comment. An edit/delete button for one's own comments would go a long way here ...  
(Version 9/24/09)

EFF  Simply because you've never encountered one, doesn't mean they didn't exist. I caught one back in days of my trusty ole' SE30 while installing a game from a floppy I had purchased at a local book store. Luckily, it was a variant of Code 252 which just displayed a creepy message and then deleted itself.

And if you don't believe the page I linked to above, take it from the horse's mouth:

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=50569

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=30345 (under "MBDF virus and Mac OS 8")

So yes, you are correct in that there are currently no viruses for any version of OS X, and with very few exceptions OS X users don't need to be concerned about the issue (I don't have AV software installed on any of Macs, btw), aside from exercising common sense when surfing/downloading files.

But that does not mean that a) there never were any viruses on the Mac platform in the past, and b) there may not be poo-ware attacking OS X in the future.

All that being said, I think we can agree on two points: Norton AV, in its current state, is a POS, and the AV developer's money-grabbing schemes are ridiculous.  
(Version 9/24/09)

EFF  Normally, I wouldn't have replied to a comment like this but since you're boasting about your historical knowledge of the Mac (since 1984, no less!!) ... yes, THERE HAVE BEEN viruses specifically targeting Mac OS (Classic) *prior* to OS X. It wasn't even a fraction of the poo-ware targeting Windows back then but it existed nonetheless.

Kindly point your browser to: "http://bit.ly/macviruses", scroll to "7.0 What viruses can affect Mac users?", read, and in the future please refrain from spreading false statements disguised as historical knowledge.

Now, there's nothing wrong with not knowing everything (noone does, except for Stephen Fry), but there's everything wrong WITH SHOUTING falsehoods disguised as facts.  
(Version 9/24/09)

EFF  Like some of the other commenters, I too participated in the beta test for this promising app. As a designer I love the idea of a central repository for my screenshots. The ability to share them online is sort of cute, but doesn't really integrate with my workflow since I usually work for clients who don't want their designs available "freely" during the development process (I use a password protected site, aka "extranet", for that sort of thing).

There are a few UI quirks left, i.e. I'd prefer to be able to view my screenshots in list format in addition to the other view options (by icon, single image), so I can get a quick, sortable (by name, date, etc.) overview of the stuff in my library.

All that being said, and for me personally, LittleSnapper is not worth the asking price of $39 - compared to taking and sorting screenshots manually, its current feature set isn't compelling enough. At $20-$25 it would be a no-brainer, but not for $40.  
(Version 1.0)

EFF  I don't use Coda, heck - I don't even like it (too much of a toy for me personally), but what you're saying up there is complete nonsense.  
(Version 1.6.2)

EFF  That a "company" like HXMusicSoft would have the audacity to shamelessly rip off the site design of another Mac software developer (*) is quite rude and possibly illegal to begin with, but that they then ask $35 for a piece of "software" that replicates the functionality of a bunch of AppleScripts is plain preposterous.

* - Compare the following two pages for yourself ...

Original: http://www.yazsoft.com/sd/content/contact.html

Borrowed: http://www.hxmusicsoft.com/download.html  
(Version 4.1.7)

EFF  Nonsense.

1. The app supports the original Apple remote as well as the Keyspan RF remote.

2. The requirements clearly stated on the developer's download page.  
(Version 2.6)

EFF  Just like the first one, your second apology/explanation is irrelevant.

If you do have a contract with MacHeist that explicitly excludes the bundled licenses from any sort of "free upgrade policy", you are in the green and don't owe MacHeist's customers anything.

However, if you do **not** have this in writing, you're going to stick to the terms of the MacHeist receipt, which clearly states:

"... This version is the same as the currently released

build of Speed Download in every way besides activation, ..."

Since all the MH bundle customers bought a "same as currently released" piece of software within the qualifying time frame, they are also covered by the same license and thus eligible for a free upgrade to v.5.

No amount of apologizing or explaining will change those simple facts.

Someone lied here - either Yazsoft or MacHeist. Changing the terms of a legally binding contract *after* the fact is shady at best, and a violation of legal statutes at worst.  
(Version 5.0)

EFF  tekl wrote: "I also bought Speed Download with MacHeist. I've seen that it is as special version before buying and I also thought that they are near to a new release as Yazsoft is not the first company doning so.

I think it's not fair to blame Yazsoft if someone bought the MacHeist bundle without reading."

No, it is NOT a special version as far as upgradeability (= the software license) is concerned!!!

Here's the quote from the MacHeist receipt: "... THIS VERSION IS THE SAME as the currently released build of Speed Download IN EVERY WAY besides activation, which is required to track promo customers. ..."

Nowhere - not on the MacHeist site, Yazsoft's site or in the receipts (online + email) - was there any mention that the purchasers would receive a restricted license. Yazsoft made up this arbitrary rule (*) after they acquired 40,000+ new customers.

They lied and, most likely, acted illegally as well.

If you feel the need to defend Yazsoft in this, that's fine by me. But please do stick to the truth in the process.

(* - "arbitrary rule" = even though all MacHeist customers purchased their copy within the time frame that qualifies for a free upgrade to v.5, Yazsoft invented the rule that MH customers weren't eligible for this free upgrade **after** they released v.5)  
(Version 5.0)

EFF  In lights of this weeks' MacHeist fiasco, I too suggest that potential customers think about whether or not they want to do business with a company like Yazsoft.

The upgrade rules posted on the Yazsoft website were changed hours **after** complaints from MacHeist purchasers began to trickle in - every single MacHeist customer:

- Purchased their copy of SD within the "free-upgrade" time frame.

- Was assured that their license was one that is 100% identical to the regular SD license.

It is entirely irrelevant whether or not MH customers got a great deal on SD, assurances were made by Yazsoft, which they chose to break/ignore. later on.

I for one will not be doing business with a company that engages in such questionable - possibly even illegal - practices.  
(Version 5.0)

EFF  As much as I love UNO (and a big fat thank you for keeping it free!!), it's a bit of a shame that BBEdit windows (BBEdit 8.5 w/UNO 1.3.1, prior versions show the same problem though) are quite the visual mess when the "show line numbers" preference is turned on (Preferences dialod itself is a bit messy, too).

I somehow suspect that BBEdit itself is (at least partially) the culprit here but it'd make UNO perfect if there was a workaround for this.  
(Version 1.3.1)