ROBBNASHVILLE  I have both RipIt and Mac DVDRipperPro. I like them both fine. I do admit that I use RipIt more; but I think it's because I had it first and got used to it. It may be faster, as you say; I can't say I've really noticed since I wait until I'm busy doing something else to use either one. I will say though that I've had a couple of DVDs that RipIt could not process that Mac DVDRipper Pro handled flawlessly. The big news in all this for me is Elgato Turbo.264 HD. I don't burn DVDs; I use the software to rip them and make AppleTV files with the Elgato encoder and included software. Talk about fast! A 2-hour movie would take, well 2 hours, in most programs; using the Elgato method, it takes about 40 minutes or even less.  
(Version 1.4.5)

ROBBNASHVILLE  Bud,

I totally agree with most of what you said. I am assuming you know that this time a $20 instant rebate for all users of v1 & v2 is being offered, as well as a free upgrade for those who made their initial purchase of v2 recently.

Your choice about whether to upgrade or not is totally understandable. It's always an individual choice. I think the new features in the upgrade are worth $29 it to me; but to be fair, they aren't all that compelling either unless you've been waiting for network features (small, up to 5 users).

My little rant was not directed to people like you. What I get tired of is people constantly writing extremely negative comments about developers who charge money, often a very modest amount, for their work when a similar program is being offered free. To me it boils down to a choice; and there's no need to bash a program who's developer wants a little money for his work. The proper response in those cases would be to choose the free one if desired. However, I firmly believe from past experience that a program that is being sold is usually updated more often than one that isn't and usually does have a few extra features to justify a small fee. This is not always the case, of course.

Regarding FileMaker, I agree that in the past they have been a little greedy about upgrades. Hopefully this recent rebate for Bento signals a new beginning. :-)  
(Version 3.0.1)

ROBBNASHVILLE  This is a fine update to Bento. The integration with iPhoto is very nice and some of the minor tweaks, such as icons that represent different libraries and the ability to sort libraries into folders is a welcome addition. For users who wish to share libraries on a small network, that ability has been added. There's more; but you can learn those from the official site. Those who have previously purchased Bento receive a $20 discount, making this upgrade very affordable.

I just want to say that for those who criticize Bento, I'm not sure why that is. It is a low priced database for the rest of us. Even the $49 full price for version 2 was not that high; and the new discounted price for version 3 certainly can't be argued with. As for features, if you need FileMaker, by all means purchase it. For the rest of us who do not have those needs, Bento is a blessing and has been from Day One.

I love MacUpdate; but it continually surprises me how cheap some folks on here are. I suppose I can understand that if you are a small developer and have been accustomed to spending lots of time on a project and then sharing your hard work for free, you probably admire those who do. However, most people work to make money. There's no need to bash a developer or company who work hard on their software and then expect to be shown the money! No offense ... just my take on what I perceive as a lot of extreme complaints that have no bearing on a program's usefulness. If you don't want to spend money, that is fine. Some of us don't mind paying for what we use.  
(Version 3.0.1)

ROBBNASHVILLE  I have supported this developer for years. For several years when this was a subscription item, I paid the $25 per year ... not because the software ever improved but because it would expire if I didn't. In August 2009, I was promised a CD version of the software that would not expire for an upgrade fee. I sent the PayPal payment and have never received the software. I wrote to the developer after several weeks and was told that it was an international shipment and to wait a few more days. I waited another ten days or so and wrote back. I have not received a reply to my last email ... more than a week ago. I have today filed a PayPal dispute.

My conclusions are that I should have paid more attention to some of the other comments about this software & it's developer. I did not give these comments their deserved attention because I assumed they were written by those who tend to poke fun at the tarot and those who use it. However, I must say that this developer does not provide excellent customer service; and I will no longer support this software.

As a side note for those who do enjoy using the tarot, I have recently learned that there is a free widget that has a lot more layouts than this software, which has not changed substantially since the first version that I paid for. It's true that MacTarot has a somewhat prettier interface; but the tarot widget also allows you to save it's layouts to html which carry over card interpretations that you can see if you roll over each card.   
(Version 3.0)

ROBBNASHVILLE  I have grown to depend on ShoveBox to keep myself organized. I own both the desktop version and the iPhone version. It does everything it should do and more.I am totally happy with both versions of the program. Because I am a well-organized individual, I need something I can depend on. Before discovering ShoveBox, I used EverNote and even paid for the pro version. I bought ShoveBox because I had issues with EverNote being "down" too much for my tastes and because I had to refresh EverNote for the iPhone each time I wanted to see the latest version of my note. This does not happen with ShoveBox because syncs are performed between the desktop & iPhone versions directly instead of going through a cloud, so to speak. EVEN BETTER, I upgraded to Mac OS X 10.5.7 last night which produced a syncing conflict. I wrote to the developer about 7 PM CDT. He replied almost immediately telling me he was working on a fix. When I got up this morning, he had already developed a fix. That was quick! This developer obviously takes pride in his work. I recommend this program to anyone.  
(Version 1.7.2)

ROBBNASHVILLE  I think I posted the above comment on the wrong thread. Please excuse.

Robb  
(Version 1.6)

ROBBNASHVILLE  YOU WROTE: "but if you equate contexts to the "areas" in Things you indeed didn't get it. Your comments on Things was therefore incorrect."

Huh? Are you really serious?

Contexts in OmniFocus consist of such things as "Home", "Office", "Mac", "Online", "Shopping", etc. Exactly what is your interpretation of "Areas" in Things? Of course, contexts & areas can be user definable in whatever way makes the most sense to the individual; but they are pretty much the same thing. The reason I said that OmniFocus handles them a little differently and takes the concept to the next level is that you can have multiple sub-contexts within a context if you want a great degree of organization (which I do). Then, of course, you can use the context view in OmniFocus and combine them at any particular time and sort them in a number of ways to help you see everything on one screen so much more clearly that Things allows.

I'm really not saying that Things is not useful if you are a person who does not like a lot of organization. What I did not like about Things mainly was the inability to sort as deeply as I need AND the multiple cubbyholes such as NEXT, SOMEDAY, etc. I find the OmniFocus context called "waiting" superior for actions that you either cannot complete at the moment or simply don't want to complete at this time. You can even have individual actions within a project with this context while other actions within the project have a different context if you like. If you have an entire project that you feel this way about, you can change it's status, yet if you want to see all remaining projects, you can sort that way and not have to search among various views to find it. Then there are the "tags" in Things. I know that some people find them fascinating and useful. I find them exactly the opposite.

I do thank you for this conversation; and I don't mind if you disagree with me. However, you are wrong when you say that areas and contexts are very different. They are not.  
(Version 1.6)

ROBBNASHVILLE  You wrote: "but if you equate contexts to the "areas" in Things you indeed didn't get it."

Huh? Are you serious?

OK ... in OmniFocus, a context is something like: "Home", "Mac", "Online", "Shopping", etc. What is an "Area" in Things in your understanding of the program? (Well, of course, an area AND/OR a context can be as simple or as complex as you want it to be and is somewhat user definable ... even to the extent of departing from the generally accepted use of the term. You can have just a few areas/contexts or many. (OmniFocus allows you to even have sub-contexts if you really want organization; and I do.) However, contexts and areas DO serve the basic need. OmniFocus has a context called WAITING, which takes the place of the dreaded SOMEDAY cubbyhole in THINGS so that you don't have to guess whether you should be looking in Next, Someday, etc. when you are trying to view what you want or need to do today. AND you can have an individual action with that context (Waiting) and still have it a current project. If you really want to have the project in an area like "Someday", you can change the status in OmniFocus.

Thank you for this discussion. It's been fun; and I certainly have no problem with you disagreeing with me. I'm a big boy; and I can take it. However. you really should have thought about that statement that areas and contexts are differnt. :-)   
(Version 1.6)

ROBBNASHVILLE  I don't think that I misunderstood THINGS; I used it for over six months. As I mentioned in my review, I'm sure a lot of people like that approach. I prefer more organization and precise control over what I see. THINGS just does not deliver that as well as OmniFocus. I know this because I was forever searching around in THINGS, having to remember tags and whether I had placed something in NEXT, SOMEDAY, etc. whereas in OMNIFOCUS, I can get to it easily. I get things done with OMNIFOCUS much more easily and quickly. Obviously, you work differently; and that's fine ... but there's no need to imply that a user doesn't understand a program just because he doesn't like it. Regarding the interface, I think most people would say that THINGS is prettier; I agree. However, I don't find OMNIFOCUS "windows-like" at all ... just not as glamorous ... but OMNIFOCUS is definitely better organized.  
(Version 1.6)

ROBBNASHVILLE  I began testing both THINGS and OMNIFOCUS last summer and didn't make my final choice until after the near-final version of Things was released a few days ago to those using the beta version.

Things is a beautiful program & it is very easy to use. However, my final decision is to go with OmniFocus because of it's superb power. IMO the purpose of a program like this is the ability to organize and view data easily in a number of ways to facilitate planning and actually accomplishing goals.

While Things provides a great deal of what I need, the bottom line is that I found it's approach a little too scattered. It was often difficult for me to see all my actions & projects in one view for a given period of time. Because I am an organizer, I would file some tasks in "Someday", others in "Scheduled" and the rest in "Next". When I would try to see where I had an opening for another task or project, I often could not get a clear sense of my planning with Things. It's heavy use of tags is just not to my liking. I prefer the use of contexts, which are like categories. OmniFocus follows the use of contexts. (Things has something similar called "Areas"; but they are just not the same thing in practice.)

Things does not allow the use of start dates as well as due dates. Even though it is true that projects should be constructed of single actions that can be accomplished at a given time, the ability of OmniFocus to assign start dates allows tasks to be unavailable until their start date. This approach gets them out of the way until I am ready to review them or focus on them.

Also, Things just doesn't use dates well. OmniFocus not only allows easy entry of dates, it also presents the due date more clearly for each task and, because it has an inspector panel, it's easy to see more about repeating items, when items are due for review, etc.l.

The final straw that broke the camel's back for me was the difference between the iPhone clients. If iCal had been able to handle to do items better (especially repeating tasks) and present them on the iPhone, I might never have started this journey. Both Things and OmniFocus have iPhone clients; but there's no real comparison. Things, like it's desktop counterpart, is very scattered on the iPhone, while OmniFocus is just as organized on the iPhone as it is on the desktop. Things only allows syncing while on the same wireless network. OmniFocus allows syncing via a number of methods; and since I am a MobileMe subscriber, I use that method, which allows me to sync from anywhere.

I'm sure Things will meet the needs of many people; and for those who place a big emphasis on price, it will probably win. For me, time is money; and OmniFocus helps me get the most done.  
(Version 1.5)

ROBBNASHVILLE  I began testing both THINGS and OMNIFOCUS last summer and didn't make my final choice until after the near-final version of Things was released a few days ago to those using the beta version.

Things is a beautiful program & it is very easy to use. However, my final decision is to go with OmniFocus because of it's superb power. IMO the purpose of a program like this is the ability to organize and view data easily in a number of ways to facilitate planning and actually accomplishing goals.

While Things provides a great deal of what I need, the bottom line is that I found it's approach a little too scattered. It was often difficult for me to see all my actions & projects in one view for a given period of time. Because I am an organizer, I would file some tasks in "Someday", others in "Scheduled" and the rest in "Next". When I would try to see where I had an opening for another task or project, I often could not get a clear sense of my planning with Things. It's heavy use of tags is just not to my liking. I prefer the use of contexts, which are like categories. OmniFocus follows the use of contexts. (Things has something similar called "Areas"; but they are just not the same thing in practice.)

Things does not allow the use of start dates as well as due dates. Even though it is true that projects should be constructed of single actions that can be accomplished at a given time, the ability of OmniFocus to assign start dates allows tasks to be unavailable until their start date. This approach gets them out of the way until I am ready to review them or focus on them.

Also, Things just doesn't use dates well. OmniFocus not only allows easy entry of dates, it also presents the due date more clearly for each task and, because it has an inspector panel, it's easy to see more about repeating items, when items are due for review, etc.l.

The final straw that broke the camel's back for me was the difference between the iPhone clients. If iCal had been able to handle to do items better (especially repeating tasks) and present them on the iPhone, I might never have started this journey. Both Things and OmniFocus have iPhone clients; but there's no real comparison. Things, like it's desktop counterpart, is very scattered on the iPhone, while OmniFocus is just as organized on the iPhone as it is on the desktop. Things only allows syncing while on the same wireless network. OmniFocus allows syncing via a number of methods; and since I am a MobileMe subscriber, I use that method, which allows me to sync from anywhere.

I'm sure Things will meet the needs of many people; and for those who place a big emphasis on price, it will probably win. For me, time is money; and OmniFocus helps me get the most done.  
(Version 1.0rc3)

ROBBNASHVILLE  I thought I would update my previous review. I continue to have excellent results with this application. Since my previous review, I did encounter one DVD that presented problems. For that DVD I finally ripped the content to a folder and burned the DVD with Popcorn; and it worked fine. Keep in mind that this was ONE DVD out of many ... so I would say that this software works almost flawlessly overall.

One comment suggested that Fast DVD Copy burned a DVD with an inferior format (ISO9660), so I wrote to customer support about this. Basically, the comment is not true. This is the response I received from customer service. Again, I was very impressed with their professional response ... such a wonderful difference from the responses received from MTR (that is if you ever receive a response at all). This is the response from Velan:

"Dear customer,

That is not true, Fast DVD Copy burns the copies in UDF format which is the standard format for DVDs.

In any case note that Fast DVD Copy uses the burning engine of the OS. Burning with Toast (or PopCorn) can sometimes produce better results, particularly when you are using an external drive that do not have a proper burning profile installed in the OS. This is because Toast includes its own burning engine that has many many years of development and supports virtually every DVD burner available in the market.

Let us know if you need further help.

Regards,

Velan Technical Support"

This is the company that deserves our support.  
(Version 4.1)

ROBBNASHVILLE  Honestly, I'm not sure why people have left negative feedback for this product. It amazes me really. Personally, I don't have much use for a product like this since I am single, don't have children to damage my DVDs and certainly want to purchase honestly what I use. However, I have a very good friend who has EIGHT children and was sometimes replacing damaged DVDs at an alarming rate. Since he is not computer savvy, I tried to help him come up with a solution.

I read reviews here and decided to go with a different option, which proved to be quite difficult. First it took two programs to accomplish the task. The first involved sending Swiss francs to some cantankerous individual named GetterButz (I think) for a program called MacTheRipper. Even after receiving my friend's money, GeeterButz made him jump through hoops, addressing email a certain way before responding, etc. to get his serial number. I could go on and on about how difficult it is to deal with GeeterButz; but what's the point. Suffice it to say, all was finally resolved and the program worked OK but not nearly as intuitively or conveniently as Fast DVD Copy. However, there was never any notification of updates. Again it was a hassle to get any upgrades from Mr. Butz.

Secondly, a second program is required to actually burn a copy of a DVD made with MacThe Ripper. Therefore, my friend had to purchase Popcorn, which is fine since it is from Roxio. Altogether though the investment was more than this program and produced no better results. Needless to say we finally gave up on dealing with the mysterious Mr Butz and bought this program.

Fast DVD Copy works as advertised. It both copies the DVD and burns the archive copy from a single program. After having burned 25-30 archives of my friend's legally purchased DVDs, we have yet to make a single failed copy. (Of course, we used high quality Verbatim discs.)

The only reason I can think of that people would give this program a negative rating is that they are cheap. Yes, it's $100; but as I said, it's really no more expensive in the long run than the other solution and so much more convenient. Spend the $100 if you need this; and use quality DVDs for your archives. You won't have a problem.  
(Version 4.1)

ROBBNASHVILLE  I think some people have trouble distinguishing between a spreadsheet and database because their needs are simple. In truth, most people use spreadsheets simply to keep a list of related things; and if that's all one needs, it's a fine database. However, some of us need a stronger database so that we can work with data in ways that spreadsheets do not allow. One simple example of the difference is that a spreadsheet will perform a find function but ususally won't allow one to perform find functions with a number of variables. Of course, databases allow so much more when it comes to working with data; and that is why we need Bento. It's a wonderful example of power and simplicity combined.  
(Version 1.0v2r1)

ROBBNASHVILLE  I certainly have no problem with options. Perhaps the developer could do that. In fact, I'm in favor of it. I would probably turn it off; and you would turn it on. That seems reasonable.  
(Version 7.9.2)

ROBBNASHVILLE  It's interesting how one person's hell is another person's heaven. Personally, I would rather that MailSteward never popped up the HTML version of a page. I like the way the HTML version is treated as an attachment. If I want to see it, I can; but if all I want is information about that particular email, I don't have to take the time to view it, close it, etc. I have tried several email archive programs; and I find that MailSteward is the best of the bunch that I've tried.  
(Version 7.9.2)

ROBBNASHVILLE  I recently wrote to Marcel regarding SnapWeb & Leopard. He has shown incredible responsiveness and has made SnapWeb totally compatible with Leopard. SnapWeb can snap pages the others can't. Developers like this deserve the respect and the support of the Mac community.  
(Version 4.0.1r1)

ROBBNASHVILLE  This is a truly excellent plug-in; but the developers do have one of the worst customer service people I have ever experienced. They invite you to email them and then never respond. This plug-in has apparently been discontinued, probably because Leopard is not going to allow these plug-ins, from what I hear.   
(Version 1.0)

ROBBNASHVILLE  This is a truly excellent plug-in; but the developers do have one of the worst customer service people I have ever experienced. They invite you to email them and then never respond. This plug-in has apparently been discontinued, probably because Leopard is not going to allow these plug-ins, from what I hear. To the previous poster, I'm not sure what you mean by them disabling this plug-in remotely. Mine still works fine. When I purchased it, I was sent a download link for a registered version; and as long as I use Tiger, I see no reason why it wouldn't work. I just used it, in fact. Perhaps when Safari 3 is released in the next update to Tiger, it will be different.  
(Version 1.4)