Forum Posts Feed
Web Research -->> WOW!
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by Derek Cornish
Jul 5, 2007 at 02:47 PM
Quant,
>>Personally I think WR stands or falls on its merits as a web capture program.
I’m not quite sure why you take exception to this rather innocuous statement. I was just suggesting - as I thought you did - that comparing WR with UR is not necessarily the most appropriate way of assessing merits of either. Best to compare WR with others in its own software segment.
Derek
Posted by Derek Cornish
Jul 5, 2007 at 03:19 PM
>Fair point.
Hmmm…my post was intended to head off what was developing into an acrimonious apples and pears comparison. Back to the drawing-board!
>>Anyone interested in WR can d/l a trial. Macropool is a European (German, specifically) software company, so it has limited visibility over here - here, for me, being Kansas :-).
>But Derek, I have to ask: why does being in Kansas limit the visibility of European products to you? :-)
Not me personally (being European), and (maybe) not specifically Kansas which just happens to be my location in the U.S. But now I come to think of it, Kansas does have its own unique take on matters European. I think you may have identified a Freudian slip of my pen :-)
Derek
Derek
Posted by Graham Rhind
Jul 5, 2007 at 03:22 PM
quant wrote:
>>Also, WR is far faster
>at capturing pages than UR. I
>>have tested them side by side.
>
>well, probably
>because of all the metadata that has to be updated in the SQL database of UR! Also
>depends whether you use cached versions to store it in UR.
This doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t know how UR works internally, but adding a record containing (for example) a web page shouldn’t require any other records, whether they contain metadata or not, to be updated. In my database program of choice (Visual Foxpro) it is as quick to add a record to a database containing 2 million records as to one containing 10 records. I would think that the speed of storing a webpage would be down to the speed of the underlying database system.
I could be wrong, of course….
Graham
Posted by quant
Jul 5, 2007 at 03:40 PM
>This doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t know how UR works internally,
>but adding a record containing (for example) a web page shouldn’t require any other
>records, whether they contain metadata or not, to be updated. In my database program
>of choice (Visual Foxpro) it is as quick to add a record to a database containing 2
>million records as to one containing 10 records.
I’m not a database specialist, does the speed of insert operation depend on whether the database is kept indexed or not?
Posted by JJ
Jul 5, 2007 at 03:54 PM
Derek Cornish wrote:
>Quant,
>
>>>Personally I think WR stands or falls on its merits as a web capture
>program.
>
>I’m not quite sure why you take exception to this rather innocuous
>statement. I was just suggesting - as I thought you did - that comparing WR with UR is not
>necessarily the most appropriate way of assessing merits of either. Best to compare
>WR with others in its own software segment.
>
>Derek
>
>
>
Maybe I should have provided a little background….
I was “sold” on UR… but the web capture ability of UR is too slow & cumbersome for me (I capture a lot of web clippings). I hate having to make sure I have the correct UR file opened to have it saved in the correct file… plus you then have to then go to UR, assign the correct categories and then drag the clipping into the appropriate fold. WR is much better in this regard! For example:
*WR allows you to dump the clipping into “New Docs” like UR. BUT you also have the “Save as” option. This allows you selct the folder, categories, add notes, set importance, title… before you save the clipping…. very nice & fast.
*PLUS, WR will allow you to take a screen dump (or area)... something UR does not do.
SO, I switched to a new approach… I used UR for everything except for web clipping. I used “Content Saver” (the old name for WR) for web clipping.
I never liked the 2 product solution. So recently I downloaded the network add-in to WR which indexes all docs you add to WR. The add-in is not a resource pig (although I thought it would be…)
Now I’m trying to get back to a 1 product solution and I’m liking WR with the index functionality.
I agree that WR does have a web clipping focus…. but with the network add-in, I’m hoping that the added functionality will allow me to use just 1 product. (Plus, like UR, WR does have an Outlook add-in)
-jj