Installation wasn't so simple on my Windows XP system. While the driver was about to be installed, my system crashed hard with a BSOD. I had no good way to uninstall the partially-installed Virtual CloneDrive after that.

I have tried many different S.M.A.R.T.-monitoring utilities. None of them have features or an interface to compare with DriveSitter.

However, DriveSitter is extremely disappointing to me in one respect: It is USER BASED, and not MACHINE BASED, as it truly should be. This means that if no user is logged onto the machine, DriveSitter will not be running, and the disks will not be monitored!

So, consider: If you boot your machine, and do not use automatic logon (which is very insecure), DriveSitter will not run until you log in. Or, if DriveSitter is running, and you log off the computer, DriveSitter will exit! This is a horrible architecture for a S.M.A.R.T.-monitoring utility.

This is why I give DriveSitter a poor "Ease of use" rating. It is not "easy to use" if you have to constantly remember to log in, and never to leave the computer alone with no users logged in!

Any S.M.A.R.T.-monitoring utility should run as a system service. I cannot understand why such a utility would not! Does it perform a crucial function? Of course--otherwise, why use it? And so, you want to ensure that it is ALWAYS running, correct? That's what Windows provides system service functionality for.

And yes, it is supposed to be able to work with non-Administrator accounts. However, this does not work for me: DriveSitter works on the Administrator account, but gives nothing but errors with my User accounts.

As I mentioned, the user-based architecture of DriveSitter truly disappoints me. The application itself is wonderful--everything about it is great. I feel as if I've found a master musician who cannot stop drinking long enough to play a gig!

"There are however some computer users that use Windows Explorer, but that is for beginners"

How arrogant! I'm FAR from a beginner, but I simply cannot stand TC's interface. But I've noticed it's common for TC fans to deride people who do not like it. Something psychological going on there.

Forget everything else--Activity Monitor does not store its logs in encrypted format. What the hell is this? How can ANY maker of this type of software overlook this? Yes, sometimes you monitor workstations and let those being monitored know about it. Other times, you let them know, in general, that their computer use is monitored, without getting specific. But sometimes, whether at work or home, you don't notify at all outside of the basic legal requirements. So, if logs are stored unencrypted, it's an open invitation to people finding out exactly what's going on, and that to me is a DEAL BREAKER!

OK, I installed it, ran it...but where is it? There is no tray icon, nothing. There is no readme in the download, no information provided during setup (as is true of some competing programs), and the author's site has no information on this. What gives? How the hell do you use this thing?

This is NOT "freeware", nor is it (as the author calls it) "donationware". It is feature-limited shareware. I'm sick of seeing it listed as freeware when it is not.

When you run this utility, you may find, as I did, many entries hidden from view, with a message stating that you must purchase the "full version" to access that feature. And if you export the results to a REG file, you'll see the message:

"You need the FULL version of TrashReg if you want to see content for this kind of keys and also if you plan to delete them from Registry. Please, contact author for unlocking details."

You will be led to this web page, which (as I write this) shows the minimum donation to "unlock" this utility is 5 GBP, which is around $10 USD at the moment:

http://www.databack4u.com/snc/donation.html

Does that sound like freeware to you?

More like "deceitware" than anything else.

It's pretty good, certainly handy, but the billion-or-so tabs it has really hurts its usability (a tree would be much, much easier to use).

The "custom" conversion feature is really cumbersome. But at least it's there, I guess.

Doesn't handle date functions at all.

Let's get two things clear: First of all, I am a die-hard fan of mst Defrag. Secondly, I am a very honest critic. I have no patience for fools who don't have the intelligence or integrity to speak plainly about a product.

mst Defrag is my primary defragmenter. I've tried the others--name it, and I've tried it. I got sick of them all. Sick of lousy interfaces, sick of scheduling hassles, sick of crashes, sick of gimmicks aimed at idiots who don't realize that "Super Faaaaaaaast!" is a pure lie.

For me, the appeal of mst Defrag is that I can pretty much install it and then forget the hell about it. I don't need to set up seven different schedules--"One for Monday, and OK, that'll be the 'thorough defrag' schedule, one for Tuesday... Does that have to be scheduled a minute ahead of the Monday schedule, so they don't both kick off? Dunno."

The editor complains that mst Defrag doesn't have a scheduler? Huh? The whole point of mst Defrag is that it operates in the background, freeing you from the idiotic, needless hassles of schedules!

How many times have you returned to your computer, to find the disk grinding away? How many times have you had to manually stop a defrag schedule, just so your system would perform acceptably?

How many times have you had to manually analyze and/or defragment a partition? mst Defrag strives to render all this hassle a thing of the past.

I rate the GUI and "Ease of use" as only "Good" because mst Defrag forces you to manually edit the registry in order to configure it. To me, this is totally unacceptable. Creating an interface for a handful of options is not a big deal--why mst Software hasn't done it is a mystery to me. Please, folks, get off your hind quarters and do this, OK?

I rate mst Defrag's Features as only "Very Good" because mst Defrag cannot perform offline defrags. Now, offline defrags are not as important as the other liars of the industry want you to believe they are. Windows XP made significant improvements in what NTFS files (including the MFT and metadata) can be defragmented online. Those few file system objects that can't be defragmented online do not matter very much at all--the benefit is mainly psychological ("Oh look; all the drive's colors are together in pretty rows!"). However, it's still nice--if not crucial--to be able to defrag those few regular files that are locked and cannot be moved online. Hopefully, future versions of mst Defrag will add this ability (though I won't hold my breath).

All in all, I'll take mst Defrag's "Install it and get on with life" approach over the other "Change the GUI's colors every 8 months and pump out a new, meaningless gimmick" pack of lies. Any day.

Now freeware.

RandySavage is right: Like so many other popular freeware software titles, VirtualDub has a cult following. Let's dissect the definition there, shall we? A cult is "An interest followed with exaggerated zeal". Yes, it certainly is "exaggerated", as in "greater than is true or reasonable".

I'm not a video expert. I find VirtualDub's interface and menu options very confusing and annoying. It's something I use only once in awhile, so the interface really is lacking for my needs.

If you know what all the functions and options mean, well good for you. But if you're a novice like me, have fun wasting time trying to figure it all out, since there is essentially no documentation. (And please, spare me from telling me I can scour ten billion different message boards for solutions and tutorials that don't really apply to my situation.)

RandySavage is incorrect. DriveGLEAM always allowed you to hide its window, WITHOUT leaving a task bar button present. However, the DriveGLEAM author, in response to the confusion, added a "Hide" button to the main window, to make it more obvious.

I rate the GUI as only "Good" because some things about it are still confusing, or non-ideal: The way the "Cancel" button doesn't just dismiss the window, but actually exits the entire application; and the fact that the window isn't resizable (yes I am nitpicking).

Still, DriveGLEAM is shaping up to be a much better solution than the alternatives, which are overpriced and tend to devour CPU cycles.