I can't recall seeing a discussion about this issue.

Am I alone in finding it takes Ultra Recall a long time to copy web pages to store within the program? My experience is that it takes longer with UR than any other program I've used.

Is there any way that the process can be made faster.

I use Surfulater because it is so fast, but there are times it is helpful to have web pages in the same place as text documents.

Thanks.

Daly

if there is a page that takes tooooo long to save, please report it.

it is generally longer than other apps because it does indexing + update of other attributes. It was never issue for me because what I value is the retrieval time - time that I can find what I'm looknig for. So I don't mind that it takes 5 sec to save a page if later on, I can find relevant info in say 1 minute rather than 10 minutes or not at all.

I agree indexing takes extra time. But my I can find information just as fast in Surfulater - I don't know if it indexes or not - but the bottom line is how quickly it finds information.

It should not take a program such as UR more than 20 seconds (often more) to store and index a small site.

Daly



quant wrote:

if there is a page that takes tooooo long to save, please report it.

it is generally
longer than other apps because it does indexing + update of other attributes. It was
never issue for me because what I value is the retrieval time - time that I can find what
I'm looknig for. So I don't mind that it takes 5 sec to save a page if later on, I can find
relevant info in say 1 minute rather than 10 minutes or not at all.

Daly de Gagne wrote:

It should not take a program such as UR more than 20 seconds (often more) to store and index a small site.

Do you have a web address as an example ? How long does IE take to completely open the page ? Make sure you press Ctrl-F5 to force a real refresh.

The situation which lead to my post today is I had a BBC News page, which had opened in UltraRecall.

I copied web page to UR (rather than merely link it).

All within UR, it took about 25 seconds.

As for IE, I do not use it. And with the way Firefox behaves these days, I use it very seldom. In other words, it's almost all Chrome. I think, as an aside, it'll increasingly be necessary for programs such as UR, InfoQube and others to take Chrome into account.

Daly

it took 6 seconds on my pc to copy (store) www.bbc.co.uk

sorry, you mentioned news page, 7 seconds http://news.bbc.co.uk/

I'm not sure what you're doing differently from me.

It looks like you stored the actual home site for BBC - mine was a news page, but either way that shouldn't explain the difference in times.

Having said that, I have always found UR stores slowly, having used three different computers over the last few years.

Is there something I could do to make the process faster?

Thanks.

Daly

quant wrote:

it took 6 seconds on my pc to copy (store) www.bbc.co.uk

On my computer, Chrome and IE7 took about 8 seconds to load the page, FF3 was a little longer, around 10 seconds. IQ grabbed the page in 8 seconds.

I agree that Info Management apps must start taking Chrome seriously. I've started looking at an IQ extension for Chrome.

HTH

Pierre, thanks.

Glad to hear you're looking at Chrome in terms of IQ.

I just loaded the BBC high graphic news home page, and it took about 16 seconds.

Thanks.

Daly

try to contact kinook and send them your registry settings, I don't know why it takes so much longer on your pc

Here's where I feel a little foolish!

How do I find out my registry settings?

Last time I contacted Kinook, I got a fast response, but I had to ask them to do a plain language version of my request. Nonetheless, I will take your suggestion, and hope it helps.

Thanks.

Daly

quant wrote:

try to contact kinook and send them your registry settings, I don't know why it takes so
much longer on your pc

see step 2 of their post:
http://www.kinook.com/Forum/showthread.php?threadid=3038

Quant, thanks.

I appreciate your help.

However, when I look at that direction my mind goes numb. For non-geeks like me it is a miracle we are even using computers.

And it's instructions like that one which has kept me and I suspect many others from using Ultra Recall as much as it probably desevres to be used, given its abilities.

I will look at it again, and try to chunk it down, and see what I can do.

The funny thing about last time when I asked Kinook for help, and had to ask again for plain language, they could tell me in about seven, eight words. And it was good.

But had Kinook thought to have note in the installation dialogues saying "If you think you will ever use tables, be sure to choose the install rich text edit option" I would have had no problems at all. I would have installed it.

To Kinook's credit, they told me they're changing the way that's handled.

Again, thanks for the info - I'll let you know how it goes.

Daly

That server does seem to be slow. With an empty browser cache, loading http://news.bbc.co.uk/ in Internet Explorer took 8 to 12 seconds in our tests, and refreshing took 5 seconds.

After checking 'Tools | Options | Import (More) | Always use IE cached version of files if available' in UR, storing the page (imported from UR's internal browser) took 5 seconds. Selecting and drag/dropping the main article on the page took about 1 second.

It appears that most of the delay is in waiting for the server to return the page text and images.

And it is a very large and complex page (460KB)

Sorry I'm late on this thread, but I have stopped using UR Pro altogether for capturing web pages; it just does not work well here at all.

I visited the BBC link in Firefox 9 and it loaded very quickly. I then used the UR extension to "Copy page to Ultra Recall". Took 14 seconds to get the confirmation tone. I restored UR and clicked on the item for the BBC page and the browser pane was blank. So I clicked inside the pane and got a "wait" spinning circle. Page appeared after 9 seconds. However I cannot touch the page without freezing UR. Clicking anywhere on the page in UR causes "Non-responsive" in title bar and the wait spinner. Same if I click on the scroll bar in the UR browser pane. If I leave it alone it always goes into the Wait spin when I click on it; so instead I clicked on the scroll bar 11 times in a row, each time causing the wait spinner to appear for anywhere from 6 seconds to 22 seconds. Finally after the last time the page is now viewable. I can click on it and scroll it all I want.

But if I click on any other item and then return to that item, it goes into the same routine all over again, except it took even longer to get past the first wait spinner - 44 seconds. And when I clicked the page it did it again for 14 seconds. Then the page was usable again. But any time I come back to that item it behaves the same way with the exceedingly long wait times and being "non-responsive".

I have tried capturing the pages from within UR at the suggestion of Kyle from UR, and it does allow UR to capture pages that it otherwise cannot do via any of the browsers, but trying to view those pages later within UR causes similar non-responsive problems.

My computer is a new one, built in January of this year. It has an Intel i7 960 6-core processor with 16 GB of Patriot Viper Xtreme DDR3 RAM and a GeForce GTX 570 Graphics card, running Windows 7 Professional x64-bit. So it shouldn?t be an "outdated computer" issue! Besides, I had very similar issues on my older computer too.

UR has rarely been able to capture web pages well for me. Occasionally after an update it does better but it seems to fall back into the same problems after a short time and a few Windows Updates. I've submitted support tickets in the past and UR does try to work with you on this, but if it is not solved after a few "stock" fixes then I stop hearing from them.

As it stands now I can capture web pages fairly accurately and consistently with other programs: RightNote is not fast but does it nicely; Martin Aignesberger's Local Website Storage is fantastic - fast and accurate! Surfulater wasn?t working well with Firefox and the dev told me he wasn?t sure he could fix it and to use Chrome, so I haven't tried captures with Surfulater in a while now. But I have pretty much given up on captures with Ultra Recall.

Thanks!

Jim

I've tested UR a couple of times for saving Web pages. Way too slow. I just tried copying the current http://www.bbc.co.uk using myBase/WebCollect. It took about 1 second.

-cassius