UltraRecall vs Web Research... my findings
Started by JJ
on 7/11/2007
JJ
7/11/2007 6:46 pm
INTRODUCTION
I have used many software products including:
Used Extensively:
OmeaPro, UltraRecall, Web Research, Net Snippets, Onfolio, Commence
Used but not extensively:
OneNote, ADM, MyInfo, Zoot16, MyBase, Surfulator
Currently I’m using both UltraRecall and Web Research. After using the other products, I find these are closest at meeting my needs (listed below) and are still being developed.
REQUIREMENTS
I’m looking for a single product solution to collect, index and recall information.
Information sources include:
Web pages (40%)
Documents (word, excel, powerpoint & pdf) (30%)
Text Notes (Note I type in… “Yellow Sticky Notes” (15%)
Email (From Outlook) (15%)
TEST RESULTS
I have conducted a few informal, yet “real world” tests with both UR & WR.
Saving a document:
Time to Save into product:
1 MB Word doc UR~6 secs WR~3 secs
15MB PowerPoint UR~12 secs WR~45 secs
35 MB AVI file UR~20 secs WR~240 secs
Comments:
It seems WR is slightly faster on saving small docs.
UR is much faster at saving larger doc/files.
WR is unacceptable for larger files.
NOTE-WR suggests not stored files/docs larger than 15MB
Time to save & quality of capture web pages using FireFox:
Orbitz.com (a schedule of flights & times NY-LA) UR~60 secs (Quality – Unacceptable: did not capture tables with flight info) WR~35 secs (Quality – Excellent: captured the entire page correctly)
Drudgereport.com (front page) UR~40 secs (Quality – Excellent: captured the entire page correctly) WR~6 secs (Quality – Excellent: captured the entire page correctly)
Taunton.com (front page) UR~32 secs (Quality – Excellent: captured the entire page correctly) WR~5 secs (Quality – Excellent: captured the entire page correctly)
GPSlodge.com (product review) UR~40 secs (Quality – Poor: missed several pictures and formatting was off) WR~15 secs (Quality – Good: missed one banner ad)
Hertz.com (front page) UR~40 secs (Quality – Unacceptable: did not capture page. It only captured a JavaScript Warning) WR~8 secs (Quality – Excellent: captured the entire page correctly)
Comments:
UR was consistently much slower at capturing web pages. More importantly, too often, UR did not capture the web page information correctly. WR was much faster & did capture all the pages.
MY IMPRESSIONS/OPINIONS:
Referring back to information sources:
Web Page Captures:
WR is clearly the winner here. Much faster & more reliable. (No surprise here since the product was designed to capture web pages.)
What is surprising is the performance of UR. When I use UR to capture a page, I must always go back into UR to confirm the capture… I just don’t have confidence in the capture with UR. Plus it is sooo slow & I like to capture lots of pages.
On the UI side, WR is much better. It allows you to “save as” before capturing a web page. UR only allows you to save into the “imported items” folder in the active database.
Storing documents:
UR is clearly the winner here. Much faster & can handle large files.
WR is fine if your files are less than 15MB, but many of my excel, pdf and powerpoint files are larger. WR is unacceptable for larger files.
NOTE: You need the Network Add-in in WR to index the docs.
“Sticky Notes”
There a few minor differences…
One thing I like about WR is when you add a new note, you can add a horizontal line in the text. I know this is small, but I like it to separate different thoughts in the same note with a line. BUT… if you edit an existing note, the button to add a line is not available… go figure???
UR is easier to edit an existing note… just click in the note and start typing. With WR you need to select the note & click on the edit button to enter the edit mode.
Emails
UR & WR both do a good job.
One difference is WR will save any attachments that are attached to the email into WR, UR does not.
OTHER FEATURES
Clearly UR has more power & flexibility with their use of meta data. For me this is nice, but I use it only occasionally.
One nice feature of WR is the ability to assign multiple categories to the same item. (Plus the categories are arranged in a tree format) In UR you can only assign 1 category to an item. You can use linking to “assign” multiple categories, but WR has a far cleaner approach.
WR also has a simple scanner interface that allows you to scan docs directly into WR. One limitation is that it only allows you to save the scan as a .jpg file not pdf. Nice feature, but not too important to me.
CONCLUSIONS
I wish there was a clear winner, so I could use just one product. For web clipping WR is better… for saving docs/files UR is better…
In my particular case, since more of my info is coming from the web, I think I will go with WR for now and deal with the limitations of adding smaller files to my database... (at least until UR is updated OR a new product comes along…Zoot 32???)
In a perfect world... I wish UR was better at web captures....
Hope you found this helpful…
-jj
I have used many software products including:
Used Extensively:
OmeaPro, UltraRecall, Web Research, Net Snippets, Onfolio, Commence
Used but not extensively:
OneNote, ADM, MyInfo, Zoot16, MyBase, Surfulator
Currently I’m using both UltraRecall and Web Research. After using the other products, I find these are closest at meeting my needs (listed below) and are still being developed.
REQUIREMENTS
I’m looking for a single product solution to collect, index and recall information.
Information sources include:
Web pages (40%)
Documents (word, excel, powerpoint & pdf) (30%)
Text Notes (Note I type in… “Yellow Sticky Notes” (15%)
Email (From Outlook) (15%)
TEST RESULTS
I have conducted a few informal, yet “real world” tests with both UR & WR.
Saving a document:
Time to Save into product:
1 MB Word doc UR~6 secs WR~3 secs
15MB PowerPoint UR~12 secs WR~45 secs
35 MB AVI file UR~20 secs WR~240 secs
Comments:
It seems WR is slightly faster on saving small docs.
UR is much faster at saving larger doc/files.
WR is unacceptable for larger files.
NOTE-WR suggests not stored files/docs larger than 15MB
Time to save & quality of capture web pages using FireFox:
Orbitz.com (a schedule of flights & times NY-LA) UR~60 secs (Quality – Unacceptable: did not capture tables with flight info) WR~35 secs (Quality – Excellent: captured the entire page correctly)
Drudgereport.com (front page) UR~40 secs (Quality – Excellent: captured the entire page correctly) WR~6 secs (Quality – Excellent: captured the entire page correctly)
Taunton.com (front page) UR~32 secs (Quality – Excellent: captured the entire page correctly) WR~5 secs (Quality – Excellent: captured the entire page correctly)
GPSlodge.com (product review) UR~40 secs (Quality – Poor: missed several pictures and formatting was off) WR~15 secs (Quality – Good: missed one banner ad)
Hertz.com (front page) UR~40 secs (Quality – Unacceptable: did not capture page. It only captured a JavaScript Warning) WR~8 secs (Quality – Excellent: captured the entire page correctly)
Comments:
UR was consistently much slower at capturing web pages. More importantly, too often, UR did not capture the web page information correctly. WR was much faster & did capture all the pages.
MY IMPRESSIONS/OPINIONS:
Referring back to information sources:
Web Page Captures:
WR is clearly the winner here. Much faster & more reliable. (No surprise here since the product was designed to capture web pages.)
What is surprising is the performance of UR. When I use UR to capture a page, I must always go back into UR to confirm the capture… I just don’t have confidence in the capture with UR. Plus it is sooo slow & I like to capture lots of pages.
On the UI side, WR is much better. It allows you to “save as” before capturing a web page. UR only allows you to save into the “imported items” folder in the active database.
Storing documents:
UR is clearly the winner here. Much faster & can handle large files.
WR is fine if your files are less than 15MB, but many of my excel, pdf and powerpoint files are larger. WR is unacceptable for larger files.
NOTE: You need the Network Add-in in WR to index the docs.
“Sticky Notes”
There a few minor differences…
One thing I like about WR is when you add a new note, you can add a horizontal line in the text. I know this is small, but I like it to separate different thoughts in the same note with a line. BUT… if you edit an existing note, the button to add a line is not available… go figure???
UR is easier to edit an existing note… just click in the note and start typing. With WR you need to select the note & click on the edit button to enter the edit mode.
Emails
UR & WR both do a good job.
One difference is WR will save any attachments that are attached to the email into WR, UR does not.
OTHER FEATURES
Clearly UR has more power & flexibility with their use of meta data. For me this is nice, but I use it only occasionally.
One nice feature of WR is the ability to assign multiple categories to the same item. (Plus the categories are arranged in a tree format) In UR you can only assign 1 category to an item. You can use linking to “assign” multiple categories, but WR has a far cleaner approach.
WR also has a simple scanner interface that allows you to scan docs directly into WR. One limitation is that it only allows you to save the scan as a .jpg file not pdf. Nice feature, but not too important to me.
CONCLUSIONS
I wish there was a clear winner, so I could use just one product. For web clipping WR is better… for saving docs/files UR is better…
In my particular case, since more of my info is coming from the web, I think I will go with WR for now and deal with the limitations of adding smaller files to my database... (at least until UR is updated OR a new product comes along…Zoot 32???)
In a perfect world... I wish UR was better at web captures....
Hope you found this helpful…
-jj
quant
7/11/2007 10:03 pm
much better review :)
Thanks for sharing your experiences ...
Thanks for sharing your experiences ...
Jan Rifkinson
7/12/2007 12:32 am
I found this 'review' apples to apples, etc. so it was helpful to those unfamiliar w both products.
I tried to install WB but was informed on startup that I had used the product for 963 days so I needed to register. To the best of my knowledge (altho certainly faulty @ Xs) I've never used the product before. I reported this to support but haven't heard back from them.
Meantime, I'm wondering if there is not an easy way to link your WB pages to a UR item. User shouldn't have to go to a lot of trouble to do this. Since SB stores page & provides a local URL, it's a simple matter to link the two but I don't know about WB. And by doing so, I've got the best of both worlds in one place.
I tried to install WB but was informed on startup that I had used the product for 963 days so I needed to register. To the best of my knowledge (altho certainly faulty @ Xs) I've never used the product before. I reported this to support but haven't heard back from them.
Meantime, I'm wondering if there is not an easy way to link your WB pages to a UR item. User shouldn't have to go to a lot of trouble to do this. Since SB stores page & provides a local URL, it's a simple matter to link the two but I don't know about WB. And by doing so, I've got the best of both worlds in one place.
Daly de Gagne
7/12/2007 12:36 am
JJ, I really appreciate your work. Thank you.
I have never trusted UR completely for web captures.
I use Surfulater.
If I knew I would always, forever, use Firefox I would use Scrapbook because it seems to be the most accurate handsdown, although it can't do some of the tricks the others can.
But I wonder if we haven't been taken for a bit of a con.
Windows allows us to save anything.
Why not just save the web page, and then link to it from a program like Infohandler or Idea or even MyInfo or UR.
It is that we seem to be trying to save a few seconds, or maximize the supposed potential, and so we end up foregoing what is most simple and straight forward.
A lot of my best satisfaction in web clipping, apart from Surfulater which I do like, is having IH topics and linking to the saved web page. An extra step but it always works, and I always get the web page right.
It may be a different matter if all you want is a small clip, but often I want the page or most of it.
Daly
JJ wrote:
I have never trusted UR completely for web captures.
I use Surfulater.
If I knew I would always, forever, use Firefox I would use Scrapbook because it seems to be the most accurate handsdown, although it can't do some of the tricks the others can.
But I wonder if we haven't been taken for a bit of a con.
Windows allows us to save anything.
Why not just save the web page, and then link to it from a program like Infohandler or Idea or even MyInfo or UR.
It is that we seem to be trying to save a few seconds, or maximize the supposed potential, and so we end up foregoing what is most simple and straight forward.
A lot of my best satisfaction in web clipping, apart from Surfulater which I do like, is having IH topics and linking to the saved web page. An extra step but it always works, and I always get the web page right.
It may be a different matter if all you want is a small clip, but often I want the page or most of it.
Daly
JJ wrote:
INTRODUCTION
I have used many software products including:
Used
Extensively:
OmeaPro, UltraRecall, Web Research, Net Snippets, Onfolio,
Commence
Used but not extensively:
OneNote, ADM, MyInfo, Zoot16, MyBase,
Surfulator
Currently I’m using both UltraRecall and Web Research. After using the
other products, I find these are closest at meeting my needs (listed below) and are
still being developed.
REQUIREMENTS
I’m looking for a single product solution to
collect, index and recall information.
Information sources include:
Web pages
(40%)
Documents (word, excel, powerpoint & pdf) (30%)
Text Notes (Note I type in…
“Yellow Sticky Notes” (15%)
Email (From Outlook) (15%)
TEST RESULTS
I have
conducted a few informal, yet “real world” tests with both UR & WR.
Saving a
document:
Time to Save into product:
1 MB Word doc UR~6 secs WR~3 secs
15MB
PowerPoint UR~12 secs WR~45 secs
35 MB AVI file UR~20 secs WR~240 secs
Comments:
It seems WR is slightly faster on saving small docs.
UR is much faster at saving
larger doc/files.
WR is unacceptable for larger files.
NOTE-WR suggests not
stored files/docs larger than 15MB
Time to save & quality of capture web pages using
FireFox:
Orbitz.com (a schedule of flights & times NY-LA) UR~60 secs (Quality –
Unacceptable: did not capture tables with flight info) WR~35 secs (Quality –
Excellent: captured the entire page correctly)
Drudgereport.com (front page)
UR~40 secs (Quality – Excellent: captured the entire page correctly) WR~6 secs
(Quality – Excellent: captured the entire page correctly)
Taunton.com (front
page) UR~32 secs (Quality – Excellent: captured the entire page correctly) WR~5 secs
(Quality – Excellent: captured the entire page correctly)
GPSlodge.com (product
review) UR~40 secs (Quality – Poor: missed several pictures and formatting was off)
WR~15 secs (Quality – Good: missed one banner ad)
Hertz.com (front page) UR~40 secs
(Quality – Unacceptable: did not capture page. It only captured a JavaScript
Warning) WR~8 secs (Quality – Excellent: captured the entire page correctly)
Comments:
UR was consistently much slower at capturing web pages. More
importantly, too often, UR did not capture the web page information correctly. WR was
much faster & did capture all the pages.
MY IMPRESSIONS/OPINIONS:
Referring
back to information sources:
Web Page Captures:
WR is clearly the winner here.
Much faster & more reliable. (No surprise here since the product was designed to
capture web pages.)
What is surprising is the performance of UR. When I use UR to
capture a page, I must always go back into UR to confirm the capture… I just don’t have
confidence in the capture with UR. Plus it is sooo slow & I like to capture lots of
pages.
On the UI side, WR is much better. It allows you to “save as” before capturing a
web page. UR only allows you to save into the “imported items” folder in the active
database.
Storing documents:
UR is clearly the winner here. Much faster & can
handle large files.
WR is fine if your files are less than 15MB, but many of my excel,
pdf and powerpoint files are larger. WR is unacceptable for larger files.
NOTE: You
need the Network Add-in in WR to index the docs.
“Sticky Notes”
There a few minor
differences…
One thing I like about WR is when you add a new note, you can add a
horizontal line in the text. I know this is small, but I like it to separate different
thoughts in the same note with a line. BUT… if you edit an existing note, the button to
add a line is not available… go figure???
UR is easier to edit an existing note… just
click in the note and start typing. With WR you need to select the note & click on the edit
button to enter the edit mode.
Emails
UR & WR both do a good job.
One difference is
WR will save any attachments that are attached to the email into WR, UR does
not.
OTHER FEATURES
Clearly UR has more power & flexibility with their use of meta
data. For me this is nice, but I use it only occasionally.
One nice feature of WR is the
ability to assign multiple categories to the same item. (Plus the categories are
arranged in a tree format) In UR you can only assign 1 category to an item. You can use
linking to “assign” multiple categories, but WR has a far cleaner approach.
WR also
has a simple scanner interface that allows you to scan docs directly into WR. One
limitation is that it only allows you to save the scan as a .jpg file not pdf. Nice
feature, but not too important to me.
CONCLUSIONS
I wish there was a clear winner,
so I could use just one product. For web clipping WR is better… for saving docs/files UR
is better…
In my particular case, since more of my info is coming from the web, I think
I will go with WR for now and deal with the limitations of adding smaller files to my
database... (at least until UR is updated OR a new product comes along…Zoot
32???)
In a perfect world... I wish UR was better at web captures....
Hope you
found this helpful…
-jj
Ken Ashworth
7/12/2007 4:45 am
Yes, another example of why I like this message board.
Thank you for your efforts.
A minor quibble:
JJ wrote:
Email attachments do carry through as attachments to the email when Storing in UR.
What UR does not do is represent email attachments as child-items in the Tree View, you need to set focus on the email item in the tree to render the email in the detail pane (broswer), then you can see that the email has attachments. Also saw in the help file that it indexes attachments (of a certian type).
Working from Outlook, I use the UR Outlook menu bar botton to Copy/Store selected email(s) into UR, then delete the original email in Outlook. I use UR as the permenent repository for certian types of communication (customer/client), and take the time to build email threads when sending to UR.
When sending something to UR (Copy/Store or Link) one of two methods are used to determine the location of the sent item. The default location is the Imported Items folder, if this is de-selected under Options|Import, then the user must pre-select the location of sent items.
If you send to the Imported Items folder (default), you can then sort via the Alt-L Copy/Move/Link popup (works with multiple selections). It would be nice if this "shooter window" were available as part of the send function.
If you send via a right-click drag-drop, then Copy/Store, Move, or Link becomes available.
Daly de Gagne wrote:
Yes, saving as .mht (web archive) does a darn good job.
This also overcomes the short comings of controling where sent stuff resides in UR: by utilizing the File Managment functions of Windows, you can "pre-build" your storage folder structure (for a web capture/download session), then Store/Move or Link the material (*.mht, *.*) to UR - or your program of choice.
Thank you for your efforts.
A minor quibble:
JJ wrote:
Emails
UR & WR both do a good job.
One difference is WR will save any attachments that are attached
to the email into WR, UR does not.
Email attachments do carry through as attachments to the email when Storing in UR.
What UR does not do is represent email attachments as child-items in the Tree View, you need to set focus on the email item in the tree to render the email in the detail pane (broswer), then you can see that the email has attachments. Also saw in the help file that it indexes attachments (of a certian type).
Working from Outlook, I use the UR Outlook menu bar botton to Copy/Store selected email(s) into UR, then delete the original email in Outlook. I use UR as the permenent repository for certian types of communication (customer/client), and take the time to build email threads when sending to UR.
When sending something to UR (Copy/Store or Link) one of two methods are used to determine the location of the sent item. The default location is the Imported Items folder, if this is de-selected under Options|Import, then the user must pre-select the location of sent items.
If you send to the Imported Items folder (default), you can then sort via the Alt-L Copy/Move/Link popup (works with multiple selections). It would be nice if this "shooter window" were available as part of the send function.
If you send via a right-click drag-drop, then Copy/Store, Move, or Link becomes available.
Daly de Gagne wrote:
Windows allows us to save anything.
Why not just save the web page, and then link to it
from a program like Infohandler or Idea or even MyInfo or UR.
It is that we seem to be trying to save a few seconds,
or maximize the supposed potential, and so we end up foregoing
what is most simple and straight forward.
Yes, saving as .mht (web archive) does a darn good job.
This also overcomes the short comings of controling where sent stuff resides in UR: by utilizing the File Managment functions of Windows, you can "pre-build" your storage folder structure (for a web capture/download session), then Store/Move or Link the material (*.mht, *.*) to UR - or your program of choice.
Derek Cornish
7/12/2007 1:55 pm
Jan - (I am assuming WB refers to Web Research)
In my experience, WR staff usually answer emails within 24 hours. I expect the time-difference in office hours slows things up a little.
Yes; see my comment elsewhere [http://www.outlinersoftware.com/topics/viewt/397/20] on ..."the ability of WR to provide hyperlinks to its content that can be pasted into external programs - something the Admiral kindly ensured that Zoot could handle. Currently in WR the hyperlink is only to the saved file, not to its contents (paragraphs, sentences, words, etc). But this is still extremely useful if one wants to use WR as a well-organised repository for webpages, images, and so on, when used in conjunction with Zoot or other similar programs. (Incidentally, I am at something of a loss to understand why this feature is so rarely commented on when discussing WR, especially as it has been praised here in relation to Whizfolders: see http://www.outlinersoftware.com/messages/viewm/1833.)"
You can find the command on the Edit>Copy>Web Research Address of Document menu.
Derek
I reported this to support but haven’t heard back from them.
In my experience, WR staff usually answer emails within 24 hours. I expect the time-difference in office hours slows things up a little.
Meantime, I’m wondering if there is not an easy way to link your WB pages to a UR item.
Yes; see my comment elsewhere [http://www.outlinersoftware.com/topics/viewt/397/20] on ..."the ability of WR to provide hyperlinks to its content that can be pasted into external programs - something the Admiral kindly ensured that Zoot could handle. Currently in WR the hyperlink is only to the saved file, not to its contents (paragraphs, sentences, words, etc). But this is still extremely useful if one wants to use WR as a well-organised repository for webpages, images, and so on, when used in conjunction with Zoot or other similar programs. (Incidentally, I am at something of a loss to understand why this feature is so rarely commented on when discussing WR, especially as it has been praised here in relation to Whizfolders: see http://www.outlinersoftware.com/messages/viewm/1833.)"
You can find the command on the Edit>Copy>Web Research Address of Document menu.
Derek
Derek Cornish
7/12/2007 7:49 pm
JJ-
Like you, I'm a fan of WR, but - leaving the UR comparison aside for the moment - one thing that lets it down in comparison with Scrapbook on NetSnippets is the length of time it takes to get ready for saving, especially the first time it is used on opening my browser (I use Firefox, so can't comment on its performance with IE, which may be faster).
Similarly, opening the program itself outside the browser seems to take an age. I'm running on a 2gig thinkpad with 780RAM, so I think things should be faster. I found this to be an issue with ContentSaver, its predecessor.
Do you find the same thing with WR?
Mind you, now that many programs use Net (although I don't think WR does), this slowing down of response seems to be becoming more common...
Derek
Like you, I'm a fan of WR, but - leaving the UR comparison aside for the moment - one thing that lets it down in comparison with Scrapbook on NetSnippets is the length of time it takes to get ready for saving, especially the first time it is used on opening my browser (I use Firefox, so can't comment on its performance with IE, which may be faster).
Similarly, opening the program itself outside the browser seems to take an age. I'm running on a 2gig thinkpad with 780RAM, so I think things should be faster. I found this to be an issue with ContentSaver, its predecessor.
Do you find the same thing with WR?
Mind you, now that many programs use Net (although I don't think WR does), this slowing down of response seems to be becoming more common...
Derek
JJ
7/13/2007 2:50 pm
Derek Cornish wrote:
JJ-
Like you, I'm a fan of WR, but - leaving the UR comparison aside for the moment - one
thing that lets it down in comparison with Scrapbook on NetSnippets is the length of
time it takes to get ready for saving, especially the first time it is used on opening my
browser (I use Firefox, so can't comment on its performance with IE, which may be
faster).
Similarly, opening the program itself outside the browser seems to take
an age. I'm running on a 2gig thinkpad with 780RAM, so I think things should be faster. I
found this to be an issue with ContentSaver, its predecessor.
Do you find the same
thing with WR?
Mind you, now that many programs use Net (although I don't think WR
does), this slowing down of response seems to be becoming more common...
Derek
Derek,
I run WR on a older Dell laptop (celeron w/1GB of memory)...
When I start WR I open 3 collections (85MB + 90MB + 25MB) and it takes about 5 seconds to load.
I also run WR on my home PC (Athalon 3800 x2 w/1 gb mem) and it loads even quicker.
I use FireFox and find that some pages do take longer to save than others.... BUT in every case I find WR is much faster than UR when capturing a page. PLUS, I know WR will capture the page... with UR I also have to check.
I think I read that WR was developed with Visual Studio and does not use the .net framework.
I have one question.... Maybe I'm wrong, but when I was using NetSnippets long ago, it did not index the web pages captured.... Is this true????
-jj
Derek Cornish
7/13/2007 11:24 pm
JJ -
Interesting. It must be some sort of resource issue for me, I guess. It took about 34 secs for WR to load for the first time on my notebook just now. I had three other programs open at the time and around 55 services running. Running from a standing start - no other software loaded apart from services of one sort or another - it takes around 30 secs. This is loading four collections of 32mb, 16mb, 81mb, 121mb - only 50mb more than you, but 6x longer to load! Must be something wrong somewhere, although I recall long loading times with ContentSaver on my previous Thinkpad.
I looked at the Taskmanager CPU and Pagefile usage and saw nothing out of the way in terms of poor performance while it was loading. I have always assumed that it was just one of those programs that take a long time to load. I'll have to drop Macropool a line about it.
After WR has loaded, capturing web-pages in FF is quite quick, and my figures are similar to yours. The main difference is I don't use WR in quite the same way you do. For obvious reasons I tend not to load WR routinely; it takes so long. This means that when I first go to use WR in Firefox it first has to load part (most!) of itself temporarily in memory in order to manage the saving process. This adds to the time taken to actually save the web-page, etc. One way or another, then until all or part of WR is in memory - at start of the day or at the point of first saving a document - I am kept waiting for quite a spell.
Absolutely correct. NetSnippets has no indexed search, but because it does so little - just captures web content - there is very little waiting around. It's similar in this respect to Scrapbook and both simply use the windows folder system as their "archive". And although it doesn't index its archive, any desktop indexed search engine will do so. This is very helpful if you want to search through both NS saved docs and other ones on your HDD at the same time. So sometimes less can be more.
Derek
Interesting. It must be some sort of resource issue for me, I guess. It took about 34 secs for WR to load for the first time on my notebook just now. I had three other programs open at the time and around 55 services running. Running from a standing start - no other software loaded apart from services of one sort or another - it takes around 30 secs. This is loading four collections of 32mb, 16mb, 81mb, 121mb - only 50mb more than you, but 6x longer to load! Must be something wrong somewhere, although I recall long loading times with ContentSaver on my previous Thinkpad.
I looked at the Taskmanager CPU and Pagefile usage and saw nothing out of the way in terms of poor performance while it was loading. I have always assumed that it was just one of those programs that take a long time to load. I'll have to drop Macropool a line about it.
After WR has loaded, capturing web-pages in FF is quite quick, and my figures are similar to yours. The main difference is I don't use WR in quite the same way you do. For obvious reasons I tend not to load WR routinely; it takes so long. This means that when I first go to use WR in Firefox it first has to load part (most!) of itself temporarily in memory in order to manage the saving process. This adds to the time taken to actually save the web-page, etc. One way or another, then until all or part of WR is in memory - at start of the day or at the point of first saving a document - I am kept waiting for quite a spell.
I have one question.... Maybe I’m wrong, but when I was using NetSnippets long ago, it did not index the web pages captured.... Is this true????
Absolutely correct. NetSnippets has no indexed search, but because it does so little - just captures web content - there is very little waiting around. It's similar in this respect to Scrapbook and both simply use the windows folder system as their "archive". And although it doesn't index its archive, any desktop indexed search engine will do so. This is very helpful if you want to search through both NS saved docs and other ones on your HDD at the same time. So sometimes less can be more.
Derek