<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>smart computer use? &#187; Software</title>
	<atom:link href="http://smartcomputeruse.com/category/software/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://smartcomputeruse.com</link>
	<description>Smart computer use? Maybe, maybe not.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:23:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Google Chrome 2.0 is Fast, Lacking Features</title>
		<link>http://smartcomputeruse.com/2009/03/18/google-chrome-20-is-fast-lacking-features/</link>
		<comments>http://smartcomputeruse.com/2009/03/18/google-chrome-20-is-fast-lacking-features/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2009 20:57:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>lukemeister</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Beta]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Browser]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chrome]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Javascript]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://smartcomputeruse.com/?p=350</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[

I had the opportunity to read through a review of the Google Chrome 2.0 Beta over at TG Daily.
Personally, I like using Google Chrome because it is so simple. I tend to run it side-by-side with FireFox and have a certain lineup of sites that I like to view through Chrome just cause it seems [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<!-- ALL ADSENSE ADS DISABLED -->
<p>I had the opportunity to read through a <a href="http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/41772/140/" target="_blank">review of the Google Chrome 2.0 Beta over at TG Daily</a>.</p>
<p>Personally, I like using Google Chrome because it is so simple. I tend to run it side-by-side with FireFox and have a certain lineup of sites that I like to view through Chrome just cause it seems so snappy!</p>
<p>From <a href="http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/41772/140/" target="_blank">TG Daily</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>Historically, moving from a 1.x to 2.0 version suggests a host of new improvements. Sadly in Google&#8217;s case, their Chrome 1.0 moving to 2.0 is just a marketing trick like the one we saw three months ago when Google removed the BETA label and proclaimed Chrome to be a finished product. On the bright side, however, 2.0 beta does feature a faster Javascript engine that could be reason enough to upgrade. They&#8217;ve also updated the WebKit rendering platform which enables full-page zoom and three other features that will find its audience. The question is: Will this &#8220;major&#8221; new version, once it comes out of beta, fall on deaf ears?</p></blockquote>
<p>Certain feelings of disdain are felt through the article, mostly in regards to lack of features and to the strange handling of the Beta label by Google.</p>
<p><a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10030888-92.html" target="_blank">Speed is still one of the biggest draws for Google Chrome</a>, and they are stepping this up by introducing a new Javascript engine dubbed <a href="http://dobbscodetalk.com/index.php?option=com_myblog&amp;show=The-Google-V8-JavaScript-Engine.html&amp;Itemid=29" target="_blank">&#8220;V8&#8243;</a>.</p>
<blockquote><p>Google claims that the first thing you might notice about this new beta is its speed improvement. How true! I&#8217;d started out by running beta on a low-end netbook and immediately noticed snappier performance. <span style="font-size: 100%;">Google says the new beta performs 25 percent faster on Google&#8217;s <em>V8 benchmark</em> (known to be skewed towards Chrome&#8217;s V8 engine), and a whopping 35 percent faster on the common <em>Sunspider Javascript benchmark</em> &#8212; compared to its current stable version. In addition, the company claims that the browser is nearly twice as fast as the original beta version.</span></p></blockquote>
<p>Another new feature that is covered in the review that I really like is the tab dragging and side-by-side capabilities. A quick demonstration:</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><object width="425" height="350" data="http://www.youtube.com/v/wn97WbalJwM" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"><param name="src" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wn97WbalJwM" /></object></p>
<p style="text-align: left;">Slick! I like the looks of that!</p>
<p style="text-align: left;">The other new features include:</p>
<ul>
<li>Full page zoom</li>
<li>Auto-scrolling</li>
<li>Auto-forms completion (TG claims it&#8217;s half-baked, haha)</li>
</ul>
<p>One thing that I kinda chuckled about was their comments about the new features not necessarily justifying a new version:</p>
<blockquote><p>If you&#8217;re like me, you&#8217;ll be wondering if four new features and a speedier Javascript engine justify the full 2.0 versioning. One would expect the beta version 2.0.169.1 of a browser to pack far more improvements over the current version 1.0.154.48, and if not then to be a 1.1 beta version.</p>
<p>This 2.0 beta simply updates the browser&#8217;s V8 Javascript engine, resulting in overall speed gains, and throws in the latest WebKit rendering platform that results in full-page zoom and auto scrolling. On top of that, the company coded two more feature, 1) forms auto-fill and 2) side-by-side view by tab dragging &#8212; of which 1) seems half-baked.</p></blockquote>
<p>Overall, I&#8217;m going to be grabbing this 2.0 as soon as I can. I certainly like the speed of Chrome and see the new features as quite nice, even if they might not justify a full 2.0 release. Either way, it&#8217;s another browser to play with!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://smartcomputeruse.com/2009/03/18/google-chrome-20-is-fast-lacking-features/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Good, Free Backup Sync Software: Karen&#8217;s Replicator</title>
		<link>http://smartcomputeruse.com/2009/03/18/good-free-backup-sync-software-karens-replicator/</link>
		<comments>http://smartcomputeruse.com/2009/03/18/good-free-backup-sync-software-karens-replicator/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2009 19:59:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>lukemeister</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Backup]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Karen's]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[replicator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sync]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vista]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://smartcomputeruse.com/?p=340</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[

Long story short, this software works really well for me.
I had been looking for a free piece of software to basically sync certain files from one computer hard drive to another, allowing me to back up and sync files automatically on a schedule.
I&#8217;ve used other software in the past to achieve this, but had never [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<!-- ALL ADSENSE ADS DISABLED -->
<p>Long story short, this software works really well for me.</p>
<p>I had been looking for a free piece of software to basically sync certain files from one computer hard drive to another, allowing me to back up and sync files automatically on a schedule.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve used other software in the past to achieve this, but had never found one that I liked particularely well. Or, should I say, I had never found one that seemed to work particularly well.</p>
<p>Recently I found <a href="http://www.karenware.com/powertools/ptreplicator.asp" target="_blank">Karen&#8217;s Replicator</a>.</p>
<p>The Replicator is currently on version 3.6.5 as a write this. It has been updated as recently as Nov 2008 so that&#8217;s always a good thing in the world of software! You never know when a favorite piece of software might no longer work or be supported any more!</p>
<p>From the <a href="http://www.karenware.com/powertools/ptreplicator.asp" target="_blank">Replicator web site</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>Automatically backup files, directories, even entire drives! Karen&#8217;s Replicator copies selected  files from one drive/folder to another. Source and Destination folders can  reside anywhere on your network.</p>
<p>Options include repeated copies at intervals as short as a few minutes,  or as long as several months, copy only files that have changed, and  the replication of folder and file deletions.</p>
<p>New features allow you to specify which files <em>should not</em> be copied,  and also which days a file should be skipped!</p></blockquote>
<p>Sounds pretty much like what anybody would expect from Backup/Sync software.</p>
<p>Now, to my experience with the software.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve been using it for about 1 month. It&#8217;s run great (I&#8217;m using Vista) and has not caused me any problems whatsoever. It has been working exactly as advertised. It syncs up my files with a backup on a nightly schedule. When the machine that my files are getting backed up to is not available, the Replicator remembers that and attempts to sync again automatically when able. I like it!</p>
<p>Now I don&#8217;t have to worry so much about backing anything up. Really, when you think about it, automating backups is the only way to go. That way you don&#8217;t have to think too hard about it and it just happens.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://smartcomputeruse.com/2009/03/18/good-free-backup-sync-software-karens-replicator/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
