Eraser 6 requires dotnet 3.5 or higher.
in [Freeware]
|
Prev: Hail Ceaser
Next: anthology of anthems
From: bob on 20 Dec 2009 01:06 In article <V8-dnTL61Y78lrXWnZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d(a)posted.ccountrynet>, q34wsk20(a)yahoo.com says... > > The latest version of Eraser: > > http://eraser.heidi.ie > > requires dotnet 3.5 to be installed. This fact is *not* listed anywhere > on the site AFAICT and I just wasted 20 minutes of my life dealing with > a failed installation and removing all traces of the changes it imparted > to my system. > > I reluctantly went with dotnet 2 when I installed my new Canon camera's > software, but I'll be damned if I'll ever install the horribly bloated > dotnet 3.5 runtime on my system. Your mileage may vary, but for me > Eraser is effectively no longer being developed. Guess I'll install > version 5.84 back on my system, or try the update to it (ver. 5.8.8) > unless it requires dotnet 3.5 too. > > It would have been nice if the developers had mentioned somewhere on > their website that Eraser now requires dotnet 3.5 to be installed. It > would have saved me a lot of time. Let me get this straight: You'll load the 63MB .Net 2.0 runtime but not the 28MB .Net 3.5 runtime because it's "horribly bloated??
From: John Corliss on 20 Dec 2009 05:05 bob wrote: > John Corliss wrote: >> The latest version of Eraser: >> >> http://eraser.heidi.ie >> >> requires dotnet 3.5 to be installed. This fact is *not* listed anywhere >> on the site AFAICT and I just wasted 20 minutes of my life dealing with >> a failed installation and removing all traces of the changes it imparted >> to my system. >> >> I reluctantly went with dotnet 2 when I installed my new Canon camera's >> software, but I'll be damned if I'll ever install the horribly bloated >> dotnet 3.5 runtime on my system. Your mileage may vary, but for me >> Eraser is effectively no longer being developed. Guess I'll install >> version 5.84 back on my system, or try the update to it (ver. 5.8.8) >> unless it requires dotnet 3.5 too. >> >> It would have been nice if the developers had mentioned somewhere on >> their website that Eraser now requires dotnet 3.5 to be installed. It >> would have saved me a lot of time. > > Let me get this straight: You'll load the 63MB .Net 2.0 runtime but not > the 28MB .Net 3.5 runtime because it's "horribly bloated?? It's what they do after they're installed that really counts. On my system, 3.5 slows things down perceptibly. And yes, I actually have had it installed in the past. I'd rather rather do without dotnet altogether though. It's all just bloat from my perspective. -- John Corliss BS206. Using News Proxy, I block all Google Groups posts due to Googlespam, and as many posts from anonymous remailers (like x-privat.org for eg.) as possible due to forgeries posted through them. No ad, cd, commercial, cripple, demo, nag, share, spy, time-limited, trial or web wares OR warez for me, please.
From: Richard Steinfeld on 21 Dec 2009 02:09 Yrrah wrote: > "a" <b(a)invalid.com>: > >> Why? The old Eraser still works, doesn't it? > > So do Dos 3.2, PC File and PC Write, I presume. > > Yrrah > Yes. Although PC-Write v3 still suffers from one thing: its ability to deal with nested directories is limited to the length of the command line...ouch! I've discovered a newer version that I hadn't known about. Perhaps that will do (one day soon, I'll check it out). PC-Write was an excellent writer's tool that ran really swiftly under limited resources because it was written in down-and-dirty machine code. PC-File was friendly and simple, but limited. Richard
From: a on 21 Dec 2009 04:50 "Yrrah" <Yrrah-acf(a)acf.invalid> wrote >> Why? The old Eraser still works, doesn't it? > > So do Dos 3.2, PC File and PC Write, I presume. Yes, but Eraser only does one thing, and that thing doesn't have a need to evolve like Dos, PC File and PC Write. Secure file deletion is a done and dusted thing, and secure deletion with the previous version would be just as secure as the latest version.
From: Richard Steinfeld on 21 Dec 2009 20:28
Yrrah wrote: > (OT) > > Richard Steinfeld <rgsteinBUTREMOVETHIS(a)sonicANDTHISTOO.net>: > >> PC-File was friendly and simple, but limited. > > The DOS one with the GUI (can't remember the version no., was it v. > 5.01?) wasn't bad at all. Yes. There was something happy about the thing. I don't remember the GUI because I was just using the original text-only IBM video. I don't remember the limitations. Probably field length, inability to change something or other after the database was set up. I moved to RapidFile, which I'm still using and still has its own buzz group. It's one of those advanced bits of outside-the-box coding like ECCO. Folks, these are both abandonware and can be had in the spirit of this newsgroup. I recommend ECCO highly, but RapidFile's interface is dated (DOS). Looking back, it's obvious that I like excellent innovative software. Hmmmmm. Richard |