Kinook Software Forums

Go Back   Kinook Software Forums > Ultra Recall > [UR] General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 4 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
  #16  
Old 06-20-2007, 12:14 PM
cnewtonne cnewtonne is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: 07-27-2006
Posts: 432
I really do not understand why there is an undo when emptying trash bin. We already have a chance to change our minds when deleting items to the trash bin. One chance is good enough (besides your backup). If I have to choose between this trivial second chance or having UR perform well upon emptying trash bin, I will certainly choose later. After all every app I know works this way, windows, outlook, thunderbird, ...etc.

I say, remove all undo work when emptying trash bin.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-20-2007, 12:25 PM
Jon Polish Jon Polish is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: 07-21-2006
Posts: 372
Agreed. But that only addresses performance when emptying the recycle bin. It does nothing to address the other issues I spoke of.

In another thread you asked if anyone wanted to know about alternative programs you use. I replied with my email address, but I got no response from you. Please?

Jon
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-20-2007, 12:54 PM
cnewtonne cnewtonne is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: 07-27-2006
Posts: 432
sorry.
Please email me to cnewtonne[at]gmail[dot]com
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-25-2007, 07:15 AM
Jon Polish Jon Polish is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: 07-21-2006
Posts: 372
Quote:
Originally posted by cnewtonne
I really do not understand why there is an undo when emptying trash bin. We already have a chance to change our minds when deleting items to the trash bin.
I am not sure and, because of the performance issues I have discussed perviously I do not have the time/patience to try this, but would it help to empty the recycle bin using the following method?

1. Highlight all items in the recycle bin.
2. Use SHIFT+DELETE to permanently remove the items.

I suggest this work around because this does not allow for any reversal (undo). I suspect this reduces any overhead caused by the undo feature. I have no idea how much it would improve the performance on my end. Kinook can confirm.

I should explain that many of my databases have to be "distrbuted" to other colleagues who rely on UR's viewer. Kind of like a very structured pdf file. This is why I need to copy (and sometimes export) large numbers of items into new databases. The time and effort it takes to accomplish this is a killer.

Jon
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-26-2007, 06:45 AM
zargron's Avatar
zargron zargron is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: 05-16-2007
Location: Grassy Knoll
Posts: 149
Peformance !!!

I'd like to express my interest in the UR performance issue.

I humbly state that I always assume software vendors and developers exaggerate the performance capabilities of their software. I don't have an empirical measure as to the factor by which I divide the claimed performance. I simply add to my existing IT experience with facts about the software infrastructure, functionality the software is claiming to offer and a feeling about the vendors quality of workmanship. I took all this into account before choosing UR.

I already have separate UR databases for different major topics and an archive strategy that keeps the size of my live data files at a reasonable level. I'm too fresh to UR to contribute real life quantification of UR performance. I would love to see half-a-dozen or so experienced UR users with large databases use this forum to offer their real life accounts regarding how far you can push UR version 3.xx.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 06-26-2007, 11:30 AM
wordmuse wordmuse is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: 10-11-2006
Posts: 482
how large is a large database for you? One of my smaller ones is 7MB. I have another close to 30MB.

Performance is NOT like greased lightning with either one. But the wait time isn't enough to irritate me.

I find it difficult to tease out what is URP3 from what is Windows and other overhead functions (virus protection, firewall, etc.).

Again - seems reasonably fast - at least for my needs.

Regards,
Bal
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-26-2007, 12:07 PM
zargron's Avatar
zargron zargron is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: 05-16-2007
Location: Grassy Knoll
Posts: 149
Quote:
Originally posted by wordmuse
how large is a large database for you? One of my smaller ones is 7MB. I have another close to 30MB.
Sorry Bal, you're right, i should have been more specific. I'd be interested in hearing from users with databases of 100MB+, with and without stored documents, running WinXP, and using a reasonably modern system (1GB RAM, 2Ghz+ CPU)

Thanks for your feedback BTW.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:37 AM.


Copyright 1999-2019 Kinook Software, Inc.