Lightroom, Movies & Organization?

Hi Folks,

I realize that lightroom is not made so much for the average consumer, but rather the professional photographer. Having said that, I'm looking into using lightroom because i'm a little tired of the foibles in photoshop elements (I'm not a pro, but do dabble and like to work with my photos). But, Lightroom can't organize and index movies. Furthermore, it's organizational capabilities seem a little klunky compared to PSE (I like PSE's timeline, keyword layout, etc).

And now to my questions:

Is it possible to write a plug-in for lightroom that would allow it to index movie files? Anyone know if Adobe has plans to build this in? (I doubt it...)

How have Lightroom users here found the best way to use Lightroom 2 for organization? Are there better skins out there, for example, or plug-ins that help out?

Thanks for your thoughts all.

Allie

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 19:31:33 -0500, Allie in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop wrote:

Hi Folks,

I realize that lightroom is not made so much for the average consumer, but rather the professional photographer. Having said that, I'm looking into using lightroom because i'm a little tired of the foibles in photoshop elements (I'm not a pro, but do dabble and like to work with my photos). But, Lightroom can't organize and index movies. Furthermore, it's organizational capabilities seem a little klunky compared to PSE (I like PSE's timeline, keyword layout, etc).
And now to my questions:

Is it possible to write a plug-in for lightroom that would allow it to index movie files? Anyone know if Adobe has plans to build this in? (I doubt it...)

How have Lightroom users here found the best way to use Lightroom 2 for organization? Are there better skins out there, for example, or plug-ins that help out?

Thanks for your thoughts all.

While not a direct answer to your question; I'd try Picassa. It offers a lot of what Lightroom does for free, and since you're not a professional you may like it a lot better, than PSE. The $ is easier in these times when everyone is "pinching a penny".

S.D.Allen wrote:

While not a direct answer to your question; I'd try Picassa. It offers a lot of what Lightroom does for free, and since you're not a professional you may like it a lot better, than PSE. The $ is easier in these times when everyone is "pinching a penny".

Thanks for the suggestion. I tried picasa a few years ago, and while some of its functions were better than PSE (notably scrolling through the library of thumbnails quickly), I remember being disappointed by it's organizational abilities. I really find the
keywording/categorization in PSE to be unmatched in anything else I've come across so far. Which is strange, because it's *sooo simple*. Perhaps this is one of those cases where making something appear simple and user-friendly is actually somewhat difficult. Hard for me to believe, but then why else wouldn't anyone else develop it?

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:43:42 -0500, Allie in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop wrote:

S.D.Allen wrote:

While not a direct answer to your question; I'd try Picassa. It offers a lot of what Lightroom does for free, and since you're not a professional you may like it a lot better, than PSE. The $ is easier in these times when everyone is "pinching a penny".

Thanks for the suggestion. I tried picasa a few years ago, and while some of its functions were better than PSE (notably scrolling through the library of thumbnails quickly), I remember being disappointed by it's organizational abilities. I really find the
keywording/categorization in PSE to be unmatched in anything else I've come across so far. Which is strange, because it's *sooo simple*. Perhaps this is one of those cases where making something appear simple and user-friendly is actually somewhat difficult. Hard for me to believe, but then why else wouldn't anyone else develop it?

2 years is a long time when one is talking about Software development. The recent version of Picassa is quite sophisticated and also includes tech like facial recognition (direct result of Google buying the best of breed software when they purchased the leading software manufacturer of such software).

I think you'll be impressed with the improvements from 2 years ago. 8-D

Cheers,

Steve

S.D.Allen wrote:

2 years is a long time when one is talking about Software development. The recent version of Picassa is quite sophisticated and also includes tech like facial recognition (direct result of Google buying the best of breed software when they purchased the leading software manufacturer of such software).
I think you'll be impressed with the improvements from 2 years ago. 8-D

Thanks Steve. As I'm a bit hesitant to install more apps unless I know I want them... Does Picasa now have hierarchical labels? I've found that's the biggest missing feature in most photo apps. I think Picasa also used to have a problem with writing/syncing those tags to the EXIF info. PSE does a better job of that, I think, or at least used to.

This is all difficult info to find. Google has very sparse info on their products online.

allie

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:57:53 -0500, Allie in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop wrote:

S.D.Allen wrote:

2 years is a long time when one is talking about Software development. The recent version of Picassa is quite sophisticated and also includes tech like facial recognition (direct result of Google buying the best of breed software when they purchased the leading software manufacturer of such software).
I think you'll be impressed with the improvements from 2 years ago. 8-D

Thanks Steve. As I'm a bit hesitant to install more apps unless I know I want them... Does Picasa now have hierarchical labels? I've found that's the biggest missing feature in most photo apps. I think Picasa also used to have a problem with writing/syncing those tags to the EXIF info. PSE does a better job of that, I think, or at least used to.
This is all difficult info to find. Google has very sparse info on their products online.

You've got to be kidding. LOL

http://picasa.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=93773

There's also a terrific extension for Firefox; _Fireuploader_ that one can use to bulk upload to a Picassa Online Album site and a few other sites like YouTube. <https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4724>

Google is constantly upgrading it's core products, and several years is a long time in a fast changing technical world. ;-D

S.D.Allen wrote:

You've got to be kidding. LOL

http://picasa.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=93773

I found that page, thanks, and all the other pages talking about labels and albums, but it doesn't address the question I'm asking. I spent perhaps 1/2 hour searching, but could find no answer to the question: does picasa 3 support *hierarchical*
tags/labels/albums/keywords/whatever-you-want-to-call-them? And will it sync them to the EXIF info in the photos?

There's also a terrific extension for Firefox; _Fireuploader_ that one can use to bulk upload to a Picassa Online Album site and a few other sites like YouTube.
<https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4724>

I just open picasa in IE and upload via activex. Re: downloading from picasa, i recommend this method:
http://fredericiana.com/2008/09/21/downloading-a-complete-pi casa-web-album-without-installing-picasa

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 09:32:37 -0500, Allie in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop wrote:

S.D.Allen wrote:

You've got to be kidding. LOL

http://picasa.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=93773

I found that page, thanks, and all the other pages talking about labels and albums, but it doesn't address the question I'm asking. I spent perhaps 1/2 hour searching, but could find no answer to the question: does picasa 3 support *hierarchical*
tags/labels/albums/keywords/whatever-you-want-to-call-them? And will it sync them to the EXIF info in the photos?

Why don't you try it ? By the time you wait for a response you could have found out yourself. It does everything you want and much more.

There's also a terrific extension for Firefox; _Fireuploader_ that one can use to bulk upload to a Picassa Online Album site and a few other sites like YouTube.
<https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4724>

One can also upload by using Picassa (the desktop application) itself.

S.D.Allen wrote:

Why don't you try it ?

As I mentioned in a previous post, I try not to install apps I'm not relatively sure I'll keep and use - they have a way of leaving trash after uninstalling which compels one to reinstall the OS every so often. Hence, my question to the group.

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:37:40 -0500, Allie in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop wrote:

S.D.Allen wrote:

Why don't you try it ?

As I mentioned in a previous post, I try not to install apps I'm not relatively sure I'll keep and use - they have a way of leaving trash after uninstalling which compels one to reinstall the OS every so often. Hence, my question to the group.

It takes ONLY a few minutes to install and then uninstall an application like this. A lot of the information you're asking about, one can find out by getting acquainted with a search engine, or just biting the bullet and using the application for a few weeks.

S.D.Allen wrote:

It takes ONLY a few minutes to install and then uninstall an application like this.

It takes just a few minutes to install and uninstall. It takes just a few days or more to reinstall your entire system after too many "quick installs just to find out" operations.

A lot of the information you're asking about, one can find out by getting acquainted with a search engine, or just biting the bullet and using the application for a few weeks.

If you can show me where you can find information on a search engine about whether picasa supports hierarchical tags, and whether they can be written into EXIF headers, in less than 10 or 15 minutes of searching, then you're a better web navigator than i am.

I don't think the question, "Hey, does picasa support hierarchical tags and writing them to EXIF" is an unreasonable question if the answers can't be found with a little searching online. In fact, just the opposite: what I do find curious is the reluctance to actually answer the question.

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:06:31 -0500, Allie wrote:

what I do find curious is the reluctance to actually answer the question.

I think the problem with getting an answer is that very few Photoshop owners use Picasa. So you are getting the predicted group bonding chest pounding instead.

For an actual answer to your question, you'd be better off searching, and/or asking in the Picasa help forum:
http://groups.google.com/group/Picasa/about
--
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com

Mike Russell wrote:

For an actual answer to your question, you'd be better off searching, and/or asking in the Picasa help forum:
http://groups.google.com/group/Picasa/about

Thanks Mike, will do. The thread started out with a Lightroom/PSE question, and evolved to Picasa. Anyway, I'll check it out there.

allie

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:06:31 -0500, Allie in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop wrote:

S.D.Allen wrote:

It takes ONLY a few minutes to install and then uninstall an application like this.

It takes just a few minutes to install and uninstall. It takes just a few days or more to reinstall your entire system after too many "quick installs just to find out" operations.

A lot of the information you're asking about, one can find out by getting acquainted with a search engine, or just biting the bullet and using the application for a few weeks.

If you can show me where you can find information on a search engine about whether picasa supports hierarchical tags, and whether they can be written into EXIF headers, in less than 10 or 15 minutes of searching, then you're a better web navigator than i am.

Well we already know that you're not good at search engine queries. You need more practise. All Google products even have their own HELP forums -- Imagine that ! You're not looking hard enough or even reading comprehensively <ie> I already answered your question.

I don't think the question, "Hey, does picasa support hierarchical tags and writing them to EXIF" is an unreasonable question if the answers can't be found with a little searching online. In fact, just the opposite: what I do find curious is the reluctance to actually answer the question.

I guess I don't understand your reluctance to do any work on your own. I can spoon feed you, but when I hear someone basing their opinions on software they used over 2 years ago without taking it for a spin recently, I think that's just laziness on their part. Teach a person to fish, they'll eat for the rest of their life, give them a fish they will only eat for a meal or a day.

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 20:53:21 -0700, Mike Russell in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop wrote:

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:06:31 -0500, Allie wrote:

what I do find curious is the reluctance to actually answer the question.

I think the problem with getting an answer is that very few Photoshop owners use Picasa. So you are getting the predicted group bonding chest pounding instead.

Well this Photoshop user does; Just not the local application called Picassa, but I use the Online Album website. I like it better than FLICKr.

Nope not chest pounding Curvmeister, just giving a "grasshopper" something to think about.

For an actual answer to your question, you'd be better off searching, and/or asking in the Picasa help forum:
http://groups.google.com/group/Picasa/about

And there is no reason if she was looking, that she couldn't have found that on her own with even a little effort put forth.

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 10:55:25 -0400, S.D.Allen wrote:

Nope not chest pounding Curvmeister,

Oh. My mistake.

... just giving a "grasshopper".

Watch a Kung-fu episode sometime, and note the tone of the master when he is instructing. He is always matter of fact and affirming, pointing out a new direction for discovery, and never belittling or demeaning. It's also significant that the grasshopper has adopted the role of student voluntarily, granting the master the right to instruct.

None of this is this applies in this case. Asking a straight up question about a program feature does not make you their instructor. It is not an invitation to criticize a person's right to ask a question, instruct them on how to use a search engine to look for an obscure feature, or tell them to do things differently in any way. It's a request for information, nothing more.

If it is your moment, and the fluttering leaf of enlightment is your gift to give, then help. Otherwise remain silent as the limpid pools of Angkor, for it is not your moment.

Now back to our regular program, maybe.
--
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:06:31 -0500, Allie
wrote:

S.D.Allen wrote:

It takes ONLY a few minutes to install and then uninstall an application like this.

It takes just a few minutes to install and uninstall. It takes just a few days or more to reinstall your entire system after too many "quick installs just to find out" operations.

It should take 15 minutes. Not days but minutes. In fact, I renewed my entire system twice since yesterday, and that is the time it took. Lay out the time, money and effort NEVER to run your system without a backup system.
My favorite is Norton Ghost and it is always installed on my PC. What I am telling you here will chance your complete PC life for the better, don't ignore it.

Then, before (re)installing an image, you (can) test all the aps under question:-)

Dave

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 09:47:28 +0200, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:06:31 -0500, Allie
wrote:

S.D.Allen wrote:

It takes ONLY a few minutes to install and then uninstall an application like this.

It takes just a few minutes to install and uninstall. It takes just a few days or more to reinstall your entire system after too many "quick installs just to find out" operations.

It should take 15 minutes. Not days but minutes. In fact, I renewed my entire system twice since yesterday, and that is the time it took. Lay out the time, money and effort NEVER to run your system without a backup system.
My favorite is Norton Ghost and it is always installed on my PC. What I am telling you here will chance your complete PC life for the better, don't ignore it.

Then, before (re)installing an image, you (can) test all the aps under question:-)

Dave

'chance'... should have been 'change'. I assume that is obvious:-)

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.graphics.apps.photoshop.]
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 16:14:14 -0700, Mike Russell in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop wrote:

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 10:55:25 -0400, S.D.Allen wrote:

Nope not chest pounding Curvmeister,

Oh. My mistake.

And most likely not your first eh ?

... just giving a "grasshopper".

Watch a Kung-fu episode sometime, and note the tone of the master when he is instructing. He is always matter of fact and affirming, pointing out a new direction for discovery, and never belittling or demeaning. It's also significant that the grasshopper has adopted the role of student voluntarily, granting the master the right to instruct.

Never watched the program -- I do the real thing. 8-D

None of this is this applies in this case. Asking a straight up question about a program feature does not make you their instructor. It is not an invitation to criticize a person's right to ask a question, instruct them on how to use a search engine to look for an obscure feature, or tell them to do things differently in any way. It's a request for information, nothing more.

This is Usenet, get over it. If she wants information, she should show that she's put some work into obtaining it herself. She was lazy, nothing more, nothing less. And BTW I DID answer her question.

<Tripe snippage>

Now back to our regular program, maybe.

Maybe you should stop believing that you're the guru of Usenet and stick to your playing with your curves.

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 11:02:53 -0400, "S.D.Allen"

Maybe you should stop believing that you're the guru of Usenet and stick to your playing with your curves.

Allan, I could accept everything you said in this thread right up to here where you proved yourself and made a real fool of your self. Most of the people reading this thread would have been neutral up to where you fckd your whole story up. Suddenly you prove to be the pig in the story (direct translation - do not know what the English version of this is)

S.D.Allen wrote:

A lot of the information you're asking about, one can find out by getting acquainted with a search engine, or just biting the bullet and using the application for a few weeks.

If you can show me where you can find information on a search engine about whether picasa supports hierarchical tags, and whether they can be written into EXIF headers, in less than 10 or 15 minutes of searching, then you're a better web navigator than i am.

Well we already know that you're not good at search engine queries. You need more practise. All Google products even have their own HELP forums -- Imagine that ! You're not looking hard enough or even reading comprehensively <ie> I already answered your question.

Ok - so show me a URL that explains whether Picasa does or does not support hierarchical tags, and if it writes those tags to EXIF.

And, since *you* raised Picasa and touted it's virtues as if you worked there, and seeing as this thread started out with the subject of photo organization, silly me, i thought, "gee, perhaps HE could answer this question, quickly and easily, about hierarchical tags!"

I don't think the question, "Hey, does picasa support hierarchical tags and writing them to EXIF" is an unreasonable question if the answers can't be found with a little searching online. In fact, just the opposite: what I do find curious is the reluctance to actually answer the question.

I guess I don't understand your reluctance to do any work on your own. I can spoon feed you, but when I hear someone basing their opinions on software they used over 2 years ago without taking it for a spin recently, I think that's just laziness on their part. Teach a person to fish, they'll eat for the rest of their life, give them a fish they will only eat for a meal or a day.

I'll politely ignore this, but please don't think you're teaching anyone anything here apart from the fact that you have a rather bitter attitude.

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 11:02:53 -0400, S.D.Allen wrote:

This is Usenet, get over it. If she wants information, she should show that she's put some work into obtaining it herself. She was lazy, nothing more, nothing less.

I'll be a little more blunt. There is a constant supply of new people here. This being Usenet, I reserve the right to sometimes respond when people like you jam their faces in the sand.
--
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 17:08:20 -0700, Mike Russell in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop wrote:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 11:02:53 -0400, S.D.Allen wrote:

This is Usenet, get over it. If she wants information, she should show that she's put some work into obtaining it herself. She was lazy, nothing more, nothing less.

I'll be a little more blunt. There is a constant supply of new people here. This being Usenet, I reserve the right to sometimes respond when people like you jam their faces in the sand.

That's what you call blunt ?!

Actually on Usenet there isn't much of a flow of new people, thankfully. Let the unwashed masses use the web AND Adobe forums.

So, I'll be a little more blunt Mike Russell; If you don't like what I say, KILLFILE me !

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 17:22:41 -0500, Allie in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop wrote:

I'll politely ignore this, but please don't think you're teaching anyone anything here apart from the fact that you have a rather bitter attitude.

Before you come on to Usenet and complain about so and so's attitude, perhaps you should get a little more familiar with Usenet. Usenet is the bastion of the most knowledgeable folks on the World Wide Web generally speaking. You will find more knowledge here than on the majority of web forums. It's also the wild west of the Internet (well maybe not as much anarchy as IRC) where pretty much anything goes, so if you hang around any more groups other than the "creative" ones you had better get a thicker skin.

If you want to get help here, it's best not to insult those that in the future probably will/can help you if you have any technical questions.

BTW Allie why did you post to adobe.forums ? No one on the Adobe Forums will see your posts because that group isn't bidirectional to Usenet. In other words our posts from Usenet don't make it back to the Adobe Forums.

I can see you're not wanting to learn, so I will not answer you anymore now or in the future.

I am going to try to add...

I am an avid Lightroom user. In your original question, you mentioned organizing movies. I would be VERY surprised if Adobe ever added that to Lightroom. Lightroom is focused solely on (still) photography and so far, I feel they have not strayed an iota from that vision. That is what distinguishes LR so much from Bridge and Photoshop (hmmm, there is an idea...does Bridge handle video??)

Now, regarding hierarchical tags, Lightroom handles THAT wonderfully, IMO. I take alot of 'critter' photos and am fairly particular about tagging to species level if possible. I have discovered the joys of synonyms, and instead of saying Nymphalidae (under Lepidoptera) I have Brushfoot with a synonym of Nymphalidae. I have Lepidoptera as a synonym for Butterfly. When I export from Lighroom to Flickr, my tags AND synonyms go with the image. In the spirit of Halloween, here is a recent <a href="http://flickr.com/photos/ecarey/2968907170/">spider shot</a>, with tags. All I did was drag the photo to the node for 'Rabid Wolf Spider' and all the tags (and synonyms) on up the hierarchy went with it. (also drug the photo to my "Home" node, under Indiana and Brown County) I can't speak with certainty about exactly what gets written in the exif.

-Beth

ps. I installed the Google pack a year or so ago and decided I didn't like it. It took MONTHS before I was finally rid of all the other stuff that it installed (auto update etc) I vowed not to install anything from google again...I was quite surprised and disappointed.

I would be VERY surprised if Adobe ever added that
to Lightroom. Lightroom is focused solely on (still) photography and so far, I feel they have not strayed an iota from that vision.

Thanks for your reply Beth, and nice shot of the spider too! Yeah, I believe you about lightroom and movies - I won't put too much hope in movies being handled anytime soon, or ever.

Now, regarding hierarchical tags, Lightroom handles THAT wonderfully, IMO. I take alot of 'critter' photos and am fairly particular about tagging to species level if possible. I have discovered the joys of synonyms, and instead of saying Nymphalidae (under Lepidoptera) I have Brushfoot with a synonym of Nymphalidae. I have Lepidoptera as a synonym for Butterfly. When I export from Lighroom to Flickr, my tags AND synonyms go with the image. In the spirit of Halloween, here is a recent <a href="http://flickr.com/photos/ecarey/2968907170/">spider shot</a>, with tags. All I did was drag the photo to the node for 'Rabid Wolf Spider' and all the tags (and synonyms) on up the hierarchy went with it. (also drug the photo to my "Home" node, under Indiana and Brown County) I can't speak with certainty about exactly what gets written in the exif.

Nice to hear that you like the tagging in lightroom. In PSE it works similarly, though it doesn't pull along the higher-level tags along with it. That is, if you tag a photo with Butterflies > Glasswings, I believe you'll only get "Glasswings" attached to the photo. And as far as I know, there are no synonym abilities (in PSE 6 anyway - I haven't tried
7). Regardless, I find PSE's UI keyword layout to be just a little
easier on the eyes. That's probably something one could get used to in lightroom, though.

PSE catalogs used to be in an access format if i remember correctly. That was awesome, and was a huge plus to PSE. You could export all your info if you really needed to. Now, however, I don't think PSE has that advantage anymore.

(hmmm, there is an idea...does Bridge handle video??)

Bridge does seem to index movies, and all sorts of files. Which is nice. I just wonder if it's really optimized to act as a cataloger/organizer though. It seems more suited to being a file browser, albeit a very flexible one with keywords, etc. It doesn't seem to write out a catalog file for quick access, etc - rather, it seems to re-read the files in the folder + subfolders each time you enter that location. Thus, on first glance anyway, it seems a little slow for indexing one's entire catalog. In fact, it just about brought my computer to it's knees by opening "My Pictures + Subfolders" - over 330 MB memory usage, with over 700 MB VM.

As with most technological solutions, there seems to be no perfect answer for everyone. Thanks for your thoughts, Beth.

S.D.Allen wrote:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 17:22:41 -0500, Allie in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop wrote:

I'll politely ignore this, but please don't think you're teaching anyone anything here apart from the fact that you have a rather bitter attitude.

Before you come on to Usenet and complain about so and so's attitude, perhaps you should get a little more familiar with Usenet. Usenet is the bastion of the most knowledgeable folks on the World Wide Web generally speaking. You will find more knowledge here than on the majority of web forums. It's also the wild west of the Internet (well maybe not as much anarchy as IRC) where pretty much anything goes, so if you hang around any more groups other than the "creative" ones you had better get a thicker skin.

If you want to get help here, it's best not to insult those that in the future probably will/can help you if you have any technical questions.

I don't think I've insulted anyone here - commenting on your attitude was merely that, and I believe it was quite accurate. You might, however, take a look in the mirror.

BTW Allie why did you post to adobe.forums ? No one on the Adobe Forums will see your posts because that group isn't bidirectional to Usenet. In other words our posts from Usenet don't make it back to the Adobe Forums.
I can see you're not wanting to learn, so I will not answer you anymore now or in the future.

I assume you tried to find a URL which spoke about hierarchical tags and EXIF in Picasa 3, and I also assume you were, like me, unable to find one. You see, I actually spent some time looking online for the answer before I asked you about it, and some more time after you refused to answer directly. And, you might actually be surprised, I'm perhaps not such a bad web navigator. In this case anyway, I would hardly characterize our interaction as anything resembling what you have tried to term it.

Just because I don't address every point in your posts doesn't mean I haven't read them. I know you "answered" my question by writing, cryptically, "it does everything you want and more". Indeed, as I suspected it might be, your "answer" is in fact wrong. From an answer I recently got in the Picasa forum:

Does it currently have...? No. Currently, there are no hierarchial tags or hierarchial/nested albums...

....

Will it have? We don't know anything about the futures of Picasa. We're just users... They don't generally tell us what they're up to.

Best of luck to you, Steve.

Allie

Dave wrote:

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:06:31 -0500, Allie
wrote:

S.D.Allen wrote:

It takes ONLY a few minutes to install and then uninstall an application like this.

It takes just a few minutes to install and uninstall. It takes just a few days or more to reinstall your entire system after too many "quick installs just to find out" operations.

It should take 15 minutes. Not days but minutes. In fact, I renewed my entire system twice since yesterday, and that is the time it took. Lay out the time, money and effort NEVER to run your system without a backup system.
My favorite is Norton Ghost and it is always installed on my PC. What I am telling you here will chance your complete PC life for the better, don't ignore it.

Then, before (re)installing an image, you (can) test all the aps under question:-)

That's a nice idea, Dave. I've been looking around for "sandboxes" where I can cleanly install and uninstall apps, even if they have viruses or malicious code, but perhaps taking an image first is the way to go. Still, somehow, the idea of completely rolling my system back on a regular basis seems scary. Have you ever run into any problems?

allie

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 08:37:51 -0500, Allie
wrote:

Dave wrote:

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:06:31 -0500, Allie
wrote:

S.D.Allen wrote:

It takes ONLY a few minutes to install and then uninstall an application like this.

It takes just a few minutes to install and uninstall. It takes just a few days or more to reinstall your entire system after too many "quick installs just to find out" operations.

It should take 15 minutes. Not days but minutes. In fact, I renewed my entire system twice since yesterday, and that is the time it took. Lay out the time, money and effort NEVER to run your system without a backup system.
My favorite is Norton Ghost and it is always installed on my PC. What I am telling you here will chance your complete PC life for the better, don't ignore it.

Then, before (re)installing an image, you (can) test all the aps under question:-)

That's a nice idea, Dave. I've been looking around for "sandboxes" where I can cleanly install and uninstall apps, even if they have viruses or malicious code, but perhaps taking an image first is the way to go. Still, somehow, the idea of completely rolling my system back on a regular basis seems scary. Have you ever run into any problems?
allie

Never Allie, never picked up any problems. Fact is, I do use NOD32, but never really worries about viruses either. Single days ago I visited real dark alleys and was attacked by numerous Trojans. I smiled, reinstalled an image, and a quarter of an hour later my smile broadened when reading you saying:

It takes just a few days or more to reinstall your entire system after too many "quick installs just to find out" operations.

Dave wrote:

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 08:37:51 -0500, Allie
wrote:

Dave wrote:

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:06:31 -0500, Allie
wrote:

S.D.Allen wrote:

It takes ONLY a few minutes to install and then uninstall an application like this.

It takes just a few minutes to install and uninstall. It takes just a few days or more to reinstall your entire system after too many "quick installs just to find out" operations.

It should take 15 minutes. Not days but minutes. In fact, I renewed my entire system twice since yesterday, and that is the time it took. Lay out the time, money and effort NEVER to run your system without a backup system.
My favorite is Norton Ghost and it is always installed on my PC. What I am telling you here will chance your complete PC life for the better, don't ignore it.

Then, before (re)installing an image, you (can) test all the aps under question:-)

That's a nice idea, Dave. I've been looking around for "sandboxes" where I can cleanly install and uninstall apps, even if they have viruses or malicious code, but perhaps taking an image first is the way to go. Still, somehow, the idea of completely rolling my system back on a regular basis seems scary. Have you ever run into any problems?

Never Allie, never picked up any problems. Fact is, I do use NOD32, but never really worries about viruses either. Single days ago I visited real dark alleys and was attacked by numerous Trojans. I smiled, reinstalled an image, and a quarter of an hour later my smile broadened when reading you saying:

It takes just a few days or more to reinstall your entire system after too many "quick installs just to find out" operations.

Hopefully you never pick up one of the more diabolical rootkit virii. Your smile may fade...

--
dvus