+ Reply to Thread
Results 31 to 60 of 114
I just installed the latest version of Imgburn on a friend's computer, and was dismayed to see them installing another seedy hack toolbar with no option to refuse. "Entrusted Toolbar" is garbage as it is, but it also changed my home page to its own with no warning. Yes, it was easily removed in Firefox after, but this cannot end well. Eventually Imgburn will resort to more seedy software that will pay more money. Too bad, it really makes me feel bad. I was dumb enough to actually trust them, unlike all other software companies.
Even on CNET, that's the consensus now:
Works as well as it ever did. Powerful, very fine piece of kit.
There is now an extra toolbar connected to the default "Express Install". If you allow this it will add a toolbar to your browser and take over some of your default settings (search, homepage etc). I loathe and detest software that pulls stunts like this.
It's very easy to mistakenly just go and click 'Next' for the "Express Install (recommended)" radio button, but this adds the adware.
BE VERY SURE TO INSTEAD SELECT THE RADIO BUTTON *BELOW* THAT ONE WHEN INSTALLING. It says "Custom Install (Advanced users)". Select this one and then UN-CHECK the boxes that install the unwanted toolbar and its settings. You don't really need to be advanced, they are just trying to trick/scare you into trusting their default Express Install. It's a con.
Imgburn, you should be ashamed of yourselves!
Used to love this software, have used it for years. It still works very well. But now if I see something else similar I'll be trying them out instead, just on principle.
If you're worried about what the installer might be doing, why not use an archiver shell like PeaZip, 7-Zip, etc., to open the EXE (as you would an archive), extract the Imgburn program and components, and manually update your Imgburn install with them?If cameras add ten pounds, why would people want to eat them?
1) We have a lot of members who simply do not have the knowledge to do this. Period. If got friends who if they were threatened with death unless they did this, they would surely die from being completely unable to even get started trying to do it.
2) There's nothing to stop Lightning UK! from deliberately writing the install program so that it won't work if any components are stripped out.
3) Really, we shouldn't HAVE to do this in the first place to get around the area of concern.
My suggestion is that maybe Lightning UK! can offer a "completely crapware free" version of ImgBurn that people can pay for. I strongly suggest that such a version be entitled to free upgrades as I know everybody who pays for it is not going to be happy to have to keep paying to get newer versions without crapware. I get that he goes to a lot of effort and probably doesn't get fair compensation for it as his program requires no donations to use, but this really doesn't seem like the best option. Do note that on the official forums one of his most sycophantic (look it up if you don't know this word - it's a great word - thank you John Lennon for teaching it to me) followers is going to crazy extremes to defend Lightning UK! and bash those who dare to complain. That's why I only feel like making my suggestion here.
Note that the opencandy adware options may look different each time you install. You might have to deselect some options or use the cancel-button or click I disagree.
jman98 is correct about not making assumptions regarding what many users know or don't know. Sometimes I'm surprised to find users who don't know how to unzip a Zip archive. I've been doing that since the DOS days, but you will find plenty of people who seem baffled by it, relatively simple as it is.
There is no shortage of serious wrong turns in software development, as in many other things. (That's a nicer way of putting it . . . . ) I went to open a stored, existing HTML doc the other day, using Google Chrome. Guess what ? This most basic function of just about every browser in the universe ain't there ! Some quick searches brought up forum posts by the Chrome folks -- going back to 2008 !! -- with nothing but lame excuses and mentions that they were "looking into it." Really ? And five years later . . . ? This alone takes them out of contention from becoming my 'Go To' choice in a browser. I hope this very poor choice for ImgBurn does not wind up doing the same in its category.
I wasn't offering that as a general-user suggestion, really - and yeah, it's frustrating that anyone would have to resort to it. Mostly just an alternative to those posting in this thread.
Someone could always write an alternate installer stub, I suppose. Or maybe even an installer that can take the official Imgburn installer EXEs, extract the program components from them, and install the components to the proper place for you.
I think I've seen 'portable' versions of Imgburn distributed by a third party before, but can't remember if they're kept up-to-date or if they're even safe.If cameras add ten pounds, why would people want to eat them?
I guess extracting the 2 core files from the setup.exe is way easier for an average PC user, than changing the host file.
But you´re right. Normal users just download the setup file, as they always did.
And L-UK is abusing the confidence and trust people put in them. Feels bad, and sad. As the actual version works well, i stop updating.
cash rules the world, since ever... no surprise.
Extracting core .exe files works in some, won't work in others.
Yes, but it does work in this case; I tried it myself.If cameras add ten pounds, why would people want to eat them?
Alternately, if you're a somewhat more advanced user, a lot of apps can be turned into portable versions. I think one of the leading toolkits for this is from Thinstallsoft, and is widely available. From my extensive, favored use of portable apps, I find the .PAF type to be the best, as it does nothing to your system, can truly be run from a thumbdrive, leaves no debris behind after it has run (can't say that about some of the others), and all of the portable program's files are there for you to see -- in a consistent, immediately recognizable structure -- rather than being "shoved behind a curtain" in one .Exe that you never really know what it is doing.
With the files extracted, do I need to toss any of them (such as .DLLs ?), to be sure that the results are now OpenCandy free ? Or has that already been accomplished, now that the IB installer is out of the picture ? Or can we just drop in the later Imgburn.Exe and ImgburnPreview files, as replacements ?
seeker47 - adblock and trueblock are the same. the old one check in an adblock setting difference is gone, they block the same ads now. trueblock was never anything better as it was the same program with a different name.
here's a direct link to the adblocking hosts file. save it, unzip it, copy the HOSTS file, paste it in windows/system32/drivers/etc and overwrite the old one. it's not hard.
"a lot of people are better dead" - prisoner KSC2-303
P.S.: For the always-pesky MSI files, there is a not-so-new option, lessmsi
Last edited by El Heggunte; 30th Jun 2013 at 16:48. Reason: add P.S.
If so, I'd like to see the public discussion of their change of heart.
"a lot of people are better dead" - prisoner KSC2-303
That MSI thing will be useful. As far as UniExtract goes, I had found this one
which was of the type I prefer in portables. It seems to be considerably later than the v. 1.6.1 that can be found all over the place, and has the following components. Some of them are older, but the two you mentioned appear fairly recent. (Or at least are so dated.) I'll compare them to those binaries from sourceforge, as well as others I had on hand. (This archive was cleared by Avast 8.)
Directory of C:\Portable SW\UniExtractPortable\App\UniExtract\bin
06/30/2013 01:00 PM <DIR> .
06/30/2013 01:00 PM <DIR> ..
10/26/2012 06:03 AM 950,272 7z.dll
10/26/2012 05:50 AM 201,728 7z.exe
04/10/2005 12:43 AM 84,480 arc.exe
06/23/2005 04:39 AM 270,443 arj.exe
12/04/2006 12:09 AM 13,312 AspackDie.exe
04/15/2009 08:18 AM 13,312 AspackDie22.exe
06/07/2002 03:15 PM 16,384 cdirip.exe
07/03/2004 11:34 PM 98,304 clit.exe
04/23/2013 01:03 PM 5,632 cmdTotal.exe
09/18/2009 09:01 AM 33,792 daa2iso.exe
05/29/2003 02:14 AM 97,792 dbxplug.wcx
05/08/2001 08:00 AM 413,696 Expander.exe
06/30/2002 02:10 PM 1,583 E_WISE.INI
06/30/2002 02:10 PM 38,400 E_WISE_W.EXE
03/25/2001 04:36 AM 12,800 ForceLibrary.dll
09/17/2011 02:10 PM 171,520 hlp.wcx
01/15/1996 11:05 AM 119,808 i3comp.exe
08/24/1999 12:16 PM 61,440 i5comp.exe
01/11/2002 01:01 AM 61,440 i6comp.exe
02/01/2013 08:47 AM 539,648 innounp.exe
04/22/2004 12:50 PM 41,984 InstExpl.dll
07/19/2006 12:06 AM 49,152 InstExpl.wcx
10/30/2011 10:49 PM 52,224 iso.wcx
04/06/2004 11:33 AM 58,368 IsXunpack.exe
11/29/2010 11:18 AM 49,152 jcabxmsi.exe
10/31/2006 10:44 PM 872,448 kgb_arch_decompress.exe
11/01/2010 04:40 AM 131,072 lzop.exe
03/15/2013 12:02 AM 118,784 MhtUnPack.wcx
03/24/2010 12:57 PM 97,792 msi.wcx
04/01/2013 02:18 AM 48,177 MSIUnPack.vbs
04/06/2006 06:59 AM 139,264 MsiX.exe
11/29/2008 05:22 PM 77,824 NBHextract.exe
03/22/2005 11:18 AM 65,536 PDunSIS.wcx
06/17/2013 09:30 AM 2,539,520 pea.exe
11/03/2008 02:49 AM 219,136 PEiD.exe
05/10/2007 12:53 AM 89,600 RAIU.EXE
05/28/2013 10:37 PM 58,112 SfxSplit.exe
07/31/2012 01:45 PM 14,336 sim_unpacker.exe
03/28/2012 12:52 PM 47,616 stix_w32.exe
05/08/2001 08:00 AM 983,040 stuffit5.engine-5.1.dll
11/10/1999 01:00 PM 16,896 tee.exe
02/14/2011 02:26 AM 60,928 trid.exe
06/21/2013 07:57 AM 2,162,528 TrIDDefs.TRD
12/20/1997 01:20 PM 99,444 Uharc02.exe
12/27/2001 12:00 PM 100,864 UHARC04.EXE
05/11/2009 03:12 AM 92,160 uif2iso.exe
08/24/2005 03:59 PM 87,552 UNACE32.EXE
12/12/2012 12:40 PM 321,024 unarc.exe
08/02/2000 08:11 AM 45,191 unlzx.exe
06/30/2013 01:00 PM <DIR> Unp
06/21/2013 04:32 AM 304,728 UnRAR.exe
12/04/2006 12:09 AM 211,456 UNUHARC06.EXE
04/19/2009 07:51 PM 204,800 unzip.exe
05/23/2013 10:53 AM 32,256 unzoo.exe
02/18/2013 06:09 AM 1,561,088 upx.exe
02/10/2011 11:45 AM 499,709 UserDB.TXT
03/01/2004 08:57 AM 134,111 uudeview.exe
07/29/2003 11:29 PM 49,152 WUN.exe
01/12/1998 05:58 AM 45,056 ZD50149.DLL
03/22/1998 05:46 AM 53,760 ZD51145.DLL
09/03/2001 02:06 AM 53,248 ZD55131.DLL
08/19/2012 12:18 AM 363,008 zpaq.exe
61 File(s) 15,457,882 bytes
3 Dir(s) 106,978,054,144 bytes free
I sometimes install software on a VM then copy the installed folder to my NAS where all computers on our network can access it. Then I delete the VM disk (having made a backup just before installation). Of course, this doesn't work with all programs because they may install system files and registry entries.
Everybody's excellent skills have already been projected.
How many of us thanked or credited the author(s) in past for providing robust program for more than a decade? - very few. But, when it came to blame, everybody raised their hand. Time changes faster than we think, personal needs become priorities and too important to be solved. Any author can decide to generate revenue in whichever manner he/she likes. Nothing is wrong. We still have clear multi-choices for what to do.
You know guys what I would do? Here is my choice.
I will definitely help good authors to generate nice revenue over by time by running combined download and delete script with a timer loop in sample example below:
int i = 0;
for (i; i < 1000000000; i++)
download = downloads (some url like http://www.somesite.com/downloads/setup.exe)
Another Timer Loop (min, hours or even a day)
count << i << endl;
Here, helping someone I am not loosing anything.
I would rather give all good authors a very warm hug for their contributions.
I wish, I could have used their program(s) even in past.
Stop Nagging, Learn to say Thanks!
Last edited by enim; 1st Jul 2013 at 11:58.
Another twist I encountered today, some may already be aware of, is that simply deselecting checkboxes already selected by default used to be enough, but that is no longer always the case. In the ongoing escalation of trying to sneak-install crapware, installers have upped the ante and for example in the thing I was trying to install today, not only do you have to deselect the Ask Toolbar checkboxes, but on that page you also have to click Cancel, not Next (the opposite of what you had to do on the previous EULA page, without which the whole installation process cancels out). If you just click Next here, even though you deselected the checkboxes, the freakin' toolbar gets installed anyway, but if you click Cancel here, the installation proceeds normally and does not install the crap.
The interwebs is becoming more and more of a cesspool of sneaky sellouts.
The true long-term heroes are folks like Baldrick who keep sites like this from falling prey to greedy slimeware.
As I ride a different horse, I am not facing any problem like yours. But, I do have different types of intruders, sneakers and stealers. I know how to deal. If they are happy, I am happy too!
The interwebs is becoming more and more of a cesspool of sneaky sellouts.
Do they (software authors) really get well-paid (big amount) by including tool-bars and ad-wares in installers? Or they just harm their software users without proper sanity and without knowing what they are doing, Whom do they really benefit by ruing their own reputation?
It take years to create a masterpiece, but, it can be broken in a moment.
There is an update. Would you guys like to come-back and check?
Last edited by enim; 4th Jul 2013 at 06:04.
I know you can get some old versions of software from VideoHelp, but I like Oldversion.com because the size and release date is clearly stated (see screenshot). They have thousands of old software.
Last edited by jimdagys; 4th Jul 2013 at 07:58.
The fact that your Tools section lets us know up front what's what and what it may be doing is a rare feature and a great benefit. That is quite sufficient. Then, individual reviews will often further explicate whether something like this is nasty, intrusive, inconsequential, easily circumvented, or whatever. If a given reviewer is mistaken in their statements, it tends to get corrected by others. If further discussion is warranted, we have the regular discussion threads. Good system, works for me.