🚀 go-pugleaf

Susan Sharm wrote:
> Does anyone know how to install CutePDF into a properly designated
> directory?
> 
> I like the freeware CutePDF Writer which creates PDF files on Windows
> from any file. And, I don't mean to look any freeware horse in the
> mouth ... but ... It really irks me when an installer is so dumb as to
> not allow you to install a program properly where it belongs, in a
> task-based directory tree (I'm sure Adobe Acrobat PDFWriter installs
> wherever you what it to go).
> 
> I mean, nobody I know uses "Program Files" to install into on Windows
> XP anymore.
> That horribly unorganized "Program Files" flat directory structure is
> such a Microsoft mess that nobody can organize it properly, IMHO.
> 
> On the contrary, for many years I have kept a very well organized
> "C:\My Programs" set of basic directories where the directory tree is
> organized by task (not brand names).
> 
> The problem is the freeware CutePDF installers located at
> http://www.cutepdf.com/Products/CutePDF/writer.asp does not respect the
> need by most of us to install where we want.
> 
> Since CutePDF is freeware, I can't complain. But, before I use
> something drastic such as COA32 to change the address from the silly
> marketing BS directory "C:\Program Files\Acro Software\CutePDF Writer"
> to a much more logical and well organized directory tree under "C:\My
> Programs\Conversion Tools\CutePDF", I figured it was worth asking the
> experts how they resolved the issue themselves (many of you must have
> run into this problem before).
> 
> How do you install the freeware CutePDF Writer where it belongs on your
> system?
> 

I haven't used Cute PDF in a long time. I wonder if this behaviour is 
related to the necessity to install GhostScript separately.

I now use PrimoPDF http://primopdf.com/ , which has recently been 
greatly improved in version 2. No third party programs need to be 
installed separately.


-- 
Insert witty comment here.

The Six Million Dollar Man wrote:
> I wonder if this behaviour is related to the necessity to install
> GhostScript separately.
> I use PrimoPDF http://primopdf.com
> No third party programs need to be installed separately.

This is great! I was wondering WHY GhostScript had to be installed
first before CutePDF Writer could work. On the CutePDF web page
(http://www.cutepdf.com/Products/CutePDF/writer.asp) was a link for a
similarly broken installer for what they call GPL GhostScript version
8.15 (http://www.cutepdf.com/download/converter.exe ) which, like the
CutePDF Writer installation program, also blindly installs into the
horridly unorganized flat C:\Program Files directory, filled with
haphazard and impossible to organize directories.

Neither program gave the user a chance to put these programs where they
belong (in a task-based directory tree). Perhaps, (being freeware), the
developers figured it was best (for them) if we didn't have a choice.
It makes sense from their perspective.

However, if PrimoPDF allows me to install where it belongs, e.g., into
"C:\My Programs\Conversion Tools\PrimoPDF", then I'll undelete CutePDF
Writer in favor of the PrimoPDF writer at once.

This seems a better alternative than trying to move CutePDF &
GhostScript to where they belong.

Thank you for your astute advice,
Susan

 The Six Million Dollar Man wrote:
>  I use PrimoPDF http://primopdf.com

Oh my!

The freeware PrimoPDF (http://primopdf.com) installed easier and
quicker on Windows XP than CutePDF Writer
(http://www.cutepdf.com/Products/CutePDF/writer.asp) did and without
the need for a secondary program such as GhostScript
(http://www.ghostscript.com/) to also be co-installed!

Like the CutePDF Writer, PrimoPDF created a selectable printer in
Start, Settings, Printers and Faxes named "PrimoPDF". However, unlike
the CutePDF Writer, PrimoPDF seems to have more user configurable
options such as automatic launching the Adobe Acrobat Reader on the
printed-to-PDF results, security options, document properties, etc.

Neither CutePDF nor PrimoPDF seems to allow you to select whether or
not to embed all fonts (I am not sure if they embed anything or
everything at this point).

But, best of all, the CutePDF installer allows you to install the
program where it belongs!

Thank you for you astute advice - I've deleted CutePDF Writer from my
system as it seems to have nothing whatsoever over PrimoPDF (or did I
miss something important that CutePDF has over PrimoPDF)?

I love you guys,
Susan

"Susan Sharm" <susanshaarm@yahoo.com> wrote:

> (I'm sure Adobe Acrobat PDFWriter installs
>wherever you what it to go).

1. PDFWriter is obsolete, not included with any current version of
Acrobat.

2. PDFWriter is a print driver, it has to be installed into system
folders.

3. Acrobat does install other files to Program Files (which can be
redirected), and to the system folders and to Common Files (which
cannot be redirected in the installer).
>
>I mean, nobody I know uses "Program Files" to install into on Windows
>XP anymore.

Odd, everyone I know does. Your milage varies.

>That horribly unorganized "Program Files" flat directory structure is
>such a Microsoft mess that nobody can organize it properly, IMHO.

I don't know, I find the Program Files\Manufacturer name\Product name
structure works pretty well when I want to find stuff.

I agree it's impolite to write an installer that doesn't offer a
choice, but it seems fairly moot, as so many things now go off to the
system, to Common Files, and especially to the Windows Installer
directories, that the actual program location is becoming almost an
afterthought.
----------------------------------------
Aandi Inston  quite@dial.pipex.com http://www.quite.com
Please support usenet! Post replies and follow-ups, don't e-mail them.

Susan Sharm wrote:
> Does anyone know how to install CutePDF into a properly designated
> directory?

No, I use the Mac, which by default can create PDF files from any
program that can print, with no third-party software installed or
anything.  I suppose I could switch to Windows if I wanted to endure
hassles like this, but it doesn't seem like a very compelling value
proposition.

Why are you posting this to misc.consumers-frugal-living, anyway?

   - Logan

Susan Sharm wrote:
>  The Six Million Dollar Man wrote:
> 
>> I use PrimoPDF http://primopdf.com

> Thank you for you astute advice - I've deleted CutePDF Writer from my
> system as it seems to have nothing whatsoever over PrimoPDF (or did I
> miss something important that CutePDF has over PrimoPDF)?

Nope, PrimoPDF has everything that CutePDF has and more.  PrimoPDF
even has on extra special feature:  a Usenet shill named Susan.

Or at least so it would appear...

   - Logan

Logan Shaw wrote:
> I use the Mac, which by default can create PDF files from any
> program that can print
>
> Why are you posting this to misc.consumers-frugal-living, anyway?

The Mac is a wonderful system. It always was. That's why Apple enjoyed
50% margins on HARDWARE in the olden days (which is an absolutely huge
& amazing accomplishment)!

I never understood why the DOS (and then Windows) PC beat the Mac
soundly. The Mac had everthing except cost (for hardware & software)
over the PC. Sigh. The PC won (at least in my household) on cost alone
many years after my last "PowerMac" but you are correct. PostScript has
always been a forte of the Apple Macintosh systems.

Back to your question. Isn't misc.consumers.frugal-living for people
who widely employ freeware software (among other things frugal)?

I'll remove misc.consumers.frugal-living in all the remaining posts (I
only added it back here to respond to your query).

Susan

Aandi Inston wrote:
> PDFWriter has to be installed into system folders.
> Acrobat does install to Common Files (which cannot be redirected in the installer).
>  I find the Program Files\Manufacturer name\Product name structure works

Hi Aandi,

Thank you for your response. I'm ok with PDF conversion programs
installing into the Windows system folders as they are not "normally"
something the user is supposed to organize. However, the "program
files" folder starts off in such a disorganized mess that I don't know
anyone who understands it fully and completely.

The common files location really belongs in the Windows folder. Unless
I missed the point totally of "common files", how does what goes in
there any different than the miriad of common files which also go into
the Windows system folders?

In stark contrast, my thoughtful C:\My Programs is organized such that
it matches FIVE other hierarchies perfectly!

1. The hierarchical structure in "My Programs" is the same in my Start
Menu (I gave up trying to organize the main start menu so I created a
"My Programs" shortcut hierarchy above it that I control.

2. The hierarchical structure in "My Programs" is the same in "My
Application Data". Instead of the jumbled mess that Microsoft supplies,
the "My Application Data" simply uses the same hierarchy as "My
Programs".

3. Likewise with "My Installers". I save every installer in a hierarchy
that exactly matches the hierarchy they will be installed into.

4. Same with the "Send To" menu (although for some programs, you'd
never want to send data to it via this method). Still, it's refreshing
that on PC after PC, I enjoy the same well organized hierarchically
thoughtful locations, time after time.

5. All of the above hierarchies all exactly match that of "My
Programs".

Anyway, I DO appreciate the response and the thoughtful information and
I will try to be courteous and thoughtful in all my replies too!

Susan

In article <1131551103.513255.241930@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
 "Susan Sharm" <susanshaarm@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Logan Shaw wrote:
> > I use the Mac, which by default can create PDF files from any
> > program that can print
> >
> > Why are you posting this to misc.consumers-frugal-living, anyway?
> 
> The Mac is a wonderful system. It always was. That's why Apple enjoyed
> 50% margins on HARDWARE in the olden days (which is an absolutely huge
> & amazing accomplishment)!
> 
> I never understood why the DOS (and then Windows) PC beat the Mac
> soundly. The Mac had everthing except cost (for hardware & software)
> over the PC. Sigh. The PC won (at least in my household) on cost alone
> many years after my last "PowerMac" but you are correct. PostScript has
> always been a forte of the Apple Macintosh systems.
> 
> Back to your question. Isn't misc.consumers.frugal-living for people
> who widely employ freeware software (among other things frugal)?
> 
> I'll remove misc.consumers.frugal-living in all the remaining posts (I
> only added it back here to respond to your query).

No. There are plenty of newsgroups where computer questions are 
appropriate. Just look in the "comp" newsgroup hierarchy.

Susan Sharm <susanshaarm@yahoo.com> wrote
> Logan Shaw wrote

>> I use the Mac, which by default can create
>> PDF files from any program that can print

>> Why are you posting this to misc.consumers-frugal-living, anyway?

> The Mac is a wonderful system. It always was. That's why
> Apple enjoyed 50% margins on HARDWARE in the olden
> days (which is an absolutely huge & amazing accomplishment)!

> I never understood why the DOS (and then Windows)
> PC beat the Mac soundly. The Mac had everthing except
> cost (for hardware & software) over the PC. Sigh.

Wrong, it had its own downsides. Still does, the support for
more obscure hardware like say digital TV capture is pathetic.

> The PC won (at least in my household) on cost alone many
> years after my last "PowerMac" but you are correct. PostScript
> has always been a forte of the Apple Macintosh systems.

> Back to your question. Isn't misc.consumers.frugal-living for people
> who widely employ freeware software (among other things frugal)?

Not necessarily, most obviously with those
who choose to use MS products for free.

And quite a few get MS products for free
as part of free or dirt cheap hardware too.

Frugal aint just about what is free, its more about
what has the capability you want at the best price.

> I'll remove misc.consumers.frugal-living in all the remaining
> posts (I only added it back here to respond to your query).

"Susan Sharm" <susanshaarm@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>The common files location really belongs in the Windows folder. Unless
>I missed the point totally of "common files", how does what goes in
>there any different than the miriad of common files which also go into
>the Windows system folders?

I disagree (and so do Microsoft). Common files are application level
files shared by more than one application, but not part of the system.

In fact, the tendency to dump everything into the system has led to
the "DLL hell" from which we are only now starting to escape.

Common files is one of over a dozen special purpose folders, and its
default location is c:\program files\Common files (in English
systems).  It has data and programs shared between different suites,
typically by the same vendor.   My Common Files\Adobe folder contains
42 folder and 677 files.  My Common Files\Microsoft Shared  folder
contains a similar number. Overall there is over 500 MB in over 2000
files.
>
>2. The hierarchical structure in "My Programs" is the same in "My
>Application Data". Instead of the jumbled mess that Microsoft supplies,
>the "My Application Data" simply uses the same hierarchy as "My
>Programs".

Although you can move the Documents and settings\USERNAME\Application
Data folder, I don't see that you can change the internal arrangement
at all, since these names are usually built into programs. 
----------------------------------------
Aandi Inston  quite@dial.pipex.com http://www.quite.com
Please support usenet! Post replies and follow-ups, don't e-mail them.

>>> I use PrimoPDF http://primopdf.com
>>> The Six Million Dollar Man
>
>>I've deleted CutePDF Writer from my system
>>as it seems to have nothing whatsoever over PrimoPDF
>> > Susan Sharm
>
>PrimoPDF even has on extra special feature:
>a Usenet shill named Susan.
> Logan Shaw

Well, let's review.

The Six Million Dollar Man advocated an all-in-one solution
that gave the file structure the OP requested.

The OP said that was exacty what she was seeking.

Ergo, we have 2 contented customers
who reject a solution that was inferior for their purposes.
.
.
I will concede that for someone who already has GhostScript installed,
that may not be the case:
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:9tth6GJT4gwJ:leoville.tv/radio/pmwiki.php/ShowNotes/Show170+Previous-coverage-*-this+PrimoPDF+Go2PDF+Download-size+pdfcreator+CutePDF+%22PDF+Creator%22+Paperless-Printer

A word of warning:  If you value your teeth,
you should avoid labeling "contented customers" as "shills" in
Meatspace.

On 9 Nov 2005 10:47:33 -0800, "JeffM" <jeffm_@email.com> wrote:

>>>> I use PrimoPDF http://primopdf.com
>>>> The Six Million Dollar Man
>>
>>>I've deleted CutePDF Writer from my system
>>>as it seems to have nothing whatsoever over PrimoPDF
>>> > Susan Sharm
>>
>>PrimoPDF even has on extra special feature:
>>a Usenet shill named Susan.
>> Logan Shaw
>
>Well, let's review.
>
>The Six Million Dollar Man advocated an all-in-one solution
>that gave the file structure the OP requested.
>
>The OP said that was exacty what she was seeking.
>
>Ergo, we have 2 contented customers
>who reject a solution that was inferior for their purposes.
>.
>.
>I will concede that for someone who already has GhostScript installed,
>that may not be the case:
>http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:9tth6GJT4gwJ:leoville.tv/radio/pmwiki.php/ShowNotes/Show170+Previous-coverage-*-this+PrimoPDF+Go2PDF+Download-size+pdfcreator+CutePDF+%22PDF+Creator%22+Paperless-Printer
>
>A word of warning:  If you value your teeth,
>you should avoid labeling "contented customers" as "shills" in
>Meatspace.

Or we have a pair of sockpuppets.

And my teeth are fine, thankyouverymuch.

It's a lot easierto make such threats from behind your keyboard, isn't
it?

On 8 Nov 2005 22:06:25 -0800, "Susan Sharm" <susanshaarm@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>I mean, nobody I know uses "Program Files" to install into on Windows
>XP anymore.
>That horribly unorganized "Program Files" flat directory structure is
>such a Microsoft mess that nobody can organize it properly, IMHO.

There is one thing called "guidance for programming for windows", and
it specifies where should shared files go, and program installations,
if you want 100% microsoft compatible software.

Noone is forcing you to install into program files, but be aware that
you are minority then. Even though it seems to you that it isn't true.
I still install all my games into C:\GAMES\, it's leftover from DOS.
But it is not standard. Everything is designed do reside in program
files.

Program Files are well organised - if you know your system at least a
bit. And I don't see the difference with installing into C:\Program
files\ or C:\My programs\ :) except for some strange way of showing
Microsoft that you are different :)

Ivan.

-- 

"Ego autem quia veritatem dico non creditis mihi."
  visit me/posjetite me @ http://hlloyge.cjb.net/
        -=delete _system_ to mail me=-

Foobar is not active ;-)

>>Ergo, we have 2 contented customers
>> JeffM
>
>Or we have a pair of sockpuppets.
> Bob Ward
>
Perhaps.
.
.
>>A word of warning:  If you value your teeth,
>>you should avoid labeling "contented customers" as "shills"
>>in Meatspace.
>
>And my teeth are fine, thankyouverymuch.
>It's a lot easierto make such threats from behind your keyboard,
>isn't it?
>
Not a threat  from me. I don't have a horse in that race..
Unless your name is Logan Shaw,
you have no stake in this either.

It was clearly labeled as a warning.
I was noting that calling people names in Cyberspace
has no health consequences,
but that that does not necessarily extrapolate.

Aandi Inston wrote:

> I agree it's impolite to write an installer that doesn't offer a
> choice, but it seems fairly moot, as so many things now go off to the
> system, to Common Files, and especially to the Windows Installer
> directories, that the actual program location is becoming almost an
> afterthought.

I figure it's safer to install a program where it wants to go.  When I used 
win95 exclusively I was pickier, and installed everything into its own 
subdirectory right off c:\, with the associated data files, pictures, docs, 
also right off c:\.  Now I only use it for a few things and just don't care as 
long as I can put the data files where I want them -- with SHORT pathnames.

-- 
Cheers,
Bev
=====================================================
It's 95% of the lawyers making the other 5% look bad.

JeffM wrote:
>>>>I use PrimoPDF http://primopdf.com
>>>>The Six Million Dollar Man
>>
>>>I've deleted CutePDF Writer from my system
>>>as it seems to have nothing whatsoever over PrimoPDF
>>>
>>>>Susan Sharm
>>
>>PrimoPDF even has on extra special feature:
>>a Usenet shill named Susan.

I wrote that.

>>Logan Shaw

I did not write that text.  If you would kindly refrain using
a quoting style that makes it appear that I wrote things which
I did not write (in this case making it appear that I signed
my name in a way that I did not), I would appreciate it.

> Well, let's review.
> 
> The Six Million Dollar Man advocated an all-in-one solution
> that gave the file structure the OP requested.
> 
> The OP said that was exacty what she was seeking.
> 
> Ergo, we have 2 contented customers
> who reject a solution that was inferior for their purposes.

After looking at it again, I agree it's possible she's not a
shill.  Going against the shill idea, we have the fact that
she described a competing product in much more detail than a
shill would want to.  But supporting the shill idea is the
fact that this was crossposted to numerous newsgroups, one
of which is irrelevant, and she posted not one but TWO posts
that were full of multiple paragraphs of excitement about
the product.  Back on the other hand, going against the shill
idea is the fact that PrimoPDF seems to be freeware, a fact
I was not aware of since I don't keep up with Windows software.

So, I remain undecided on the shill issue.  Which is of course
what the "so it would appear" that I wrote was meant to convey.

   - Logan

Ivan Tisljar wrote:
> Program Files are well organised
> I don't see the difference with installing into C:\Prografiles or C:\My programs

Hi Ivan,

I appreciate your perspective. I will courteously share mine (which
differs slightly from yours). There's no difference between C:\Program
Files & C:\My Programs IF we don't mind two major flaws of C:\Program
Files
- FLATNESS
- ORGANIZATION

FLATNESS: The C:\Program Files flatness is utterly ridiculous. The
long-standing computer rule of thumb (from the UNIX world) is to plan
on having, on average, roughly, about 10 directories at any one level
of a hierarchy. Anything much less is overkill; anything much more
generally begs for another level of hierarchy. In my case, I have
nothing in the top level of C:\My Programs other than ten tasks (my
plan being to install grouped tasks together, e.g., to group media
editors under "My Editors", and to group finance programs under "My
Money", and to group the kid's games under "Tims Games", etc.

ORGANIZATION: Besides the untenable flatness of the C:\Program Files
directory, nobody in their right mind would willingly organize programs
by their brand names. That mixes programs at any one level of hierarchy
that have absolutely nothing to do with each other than they share a
common letter in the alphabet. Even then, some manufacturers respect at
least a single hierarchy (e.g., C:\Program Files\Adobe), while others
create additional flat hierarchies (e.g., C:\Program Files\Microsoft
Office, C:\Program Files\Microsoft Games, C:\Program Files\Windows
Update, etc.). You see, it's not even organized by brand name.

Put it this way. Say the movers are unpacking your house. Instead of
you telling them to put the garden supplies in the shed, the car in the
garage, the dresses in the bedroom, the shoes in the closet, the linen
in the linen closet, the toothbrush in the bathroom, the dishes in the
kitchen, etc, you allow them to leave EVERYTHING in the living room, in
a bijumbled mess, based loosly on the brand name. Anyone who says this
makes sense is going to have to have a PhD in logic if they plan on
convincing me of the logic in this plan of operation.

To those who would argue that we could organize C:\Program Files
hierarchically, I state that I tried that for years. Basically
Microsoft madness will defeat you. If you change your "programfilesdir"
variable in the system registry you will, all of a sudden, get tons of
total crap in your C:\My Programs directory. The minute you use any
Microsoft Office tool, it does this (try it - you'll despair as I have
already done). Worse yet, the PC comes to you already filled with
unorganized crap in the C:\Program Files directory. Just like the Start
Menu is filled with items organized by a four-year old on LSD.

Basically, anyone wishing to run an organized PC learns the hard way to
leave the Start Menu and C:\Program Files mess as it was when you
bought the machine, wholly unorganized. They then create menus that ARE
organized, and they create a C:\My Programs hierarchy that uses the
SAME task-based organization.

By the way, don't even get me started on the fact that Microsoft thinks
it's perfectly sane to leave an insane set of FILES in the root level
of the C drive! It's obvious they never even thought about where files
belong. But, just because they caved in to chaos doesn't mean we have
to succumb to the Microsoft Madness ourselves!

Respectfully yours,
Susan

Susan Sharm <susanshaarm@yahoo.com> wrote
> Ivan Tisljar wrote

>> Program Files are well organised
>> I don't see the difference with installing
>> into C:\Prografiles or C:\My programs

> I appreciate your perspective. I will courteously share mine
> (which differs slightly from yours). There's no difference
> between C:\Program Files & C:\My Programs IF we don't
> mind two major flaws of C:\Program Files
> - FLATNESS
> - ORGANIZATION

> FLATNESS: The C:\Program Files flatness is utterly ridiculous.

That is just plain wrong. It isnt a flat organisation,
they're organised by manufacturer and then application.

> The long-standing computer rule of thumb (from the UNIX world)

That doesnt make it a long-standing computer rule of thumb.

> is to plan on having, on average, roughly, about
> 10 directories at any one level of a hierarchy.

That is just plain wrong too.

> Anything much less is overkill; anything much
> more generally begs for another level of hierarchy.

Mindlessly superficial. What matters is how logical the hierarchy is.

> In my case, I have nothing in the top level of C:\My Programs other
> than ten tasks (my plan being to install grouped tasks together, e.g.,
> to group media editors under "My Editors", and to group finance programs
> under "My Money", and to group the kid's games under "Tims Games", etc.

No reason why it should be organised by function, its actually
better to organise it by manufacturer at the top level, because
its easier to work out what the manufacturer is than what
category is. In spades with the automated install, that can
never be done reliably by category, trivial by manufacturer.

> ORGANIZATION: Besides the untenable
> flatness of the C:\Program Files directory,

Just your pig ignorant fantasy.

> nobody in their right mind would willingly
> organize programs by their brand names.

Wrong again, most obviously because that is trivial to automate
and anything else requires manual intervention at install time.

> That mixes programs at any one level of hierarchy
> that have absolutely nothing to do with each other
> than they share a common letter in the alphabet.

Irrelevant. What matters is how easy the right one is to fine.

That will always be more reliable by manufacture than by category.

> Even then, some manufacturers respect at least a single hierarchy
> (e.g., C:\Program Files\Adobe), while others create additional flat
> hierarchies (e.g., C:\Program Files\Microsoft Office, C:\Program
> Files\Microsoft Games, C:\Program Files\Windows Update, etc.).
> You see, it's not even organized by brand name.

Yes, its organised by manufacturer and then brand name.

> Put it this way. Say the movers are unpacking your house. Instead
> of you telling them to put the garden supplies in the shed, the car in
> the garage, the dresses in the bedroom, the shoes in the closet, the
> linen in the linen closet, the toothbrush in the bathroom, the dishes
> in the kitchen, etc, you allow them to leave EVERYTHING in the
> living room, in a bijumbled mess, based loosly on the brand name.

Completely useless analogy.

> Anyone who says this makes sense is going to have to have a PhD in
> logic if they plan on convincing me of the logic in this plan of operation.

Likely you actually are that stupid.

The obvious reason for doing it by manufacturer is that that is always
going to work reliably without manual intervention at install time.

Even you should have noticed that the apps arent
manually executed from the Program Files tree on PCs.

> To those who would argue that we could organize C:\Program
> Files hierarchically, I state that I tried that for years. Basically
> Microsoft madness will defeat you. If you change your
> "programfilesdir" variable in the system registry you will, all of a
> sudden, get tons of total crap in your C:\My Programs directory.
> The minute you use any Microsoft Office tool, it does this (try it -
> you'll despair as I have already done). Worse yet, the PC comes
> to you already filled with unorganized crap in the C:\Program Files
> directory.

Your pathetic anal hangup are your problem.

> Just like the Start Menu is filled with items
> organized by a four-year old on LSD.

In spades. You're always welcome to reorganise that any way you like.

> Basically, anyone wishing to run an organized PC learns the
> hard way to leave the Start Menu and C:\Program Files mess
> as it was when you bought the machine, wholly unorganized.

You're pig ignorantly lying there. It isnt anything like wholly unorganised.

> They then create menus that ARE organized,
> and they create a C:\My Programs hierarchy
> that uses the SAME task-based organization.

> By the way, don't even get me started on the fact that
> Microsoft thinks it's perfectly sane to leave an insane
> set of FILES in the root level of the C drive! It's obvious
> they never even thought about where files belong.

More mindlessly silly pig ignorant ranting.

> But, just because they caved in to chaos

Lying, again.

> doesn't mean we have to succumb to the Microsoft Madness ourselves!

Doesnt mean we have to take any notice of pig ignorant fools like you either.

Logan Shaw wrote:
> So, I remain undecided on the shill issue.  Which is of course
> what the "so it would appear" that I wrote was meant to convey.

Hi Logan,

I didn't even know what a "shill" was until I looked it up just now.
Typically I just ignore non-helpful comments in Internet posts (such as
those from a certain set of posters in this thread) as those childish
posters simple feed off of the controversy they cause by their lazy
commentary (lazy because they bring nothing to the table and offer
nothing in return).

The reason I generally cross post is that I really and truly believe in
both learning from and in edifying as many intelligent people as
possible. I do sincerely try to limit the posting to relevant groups,
e.g., for a freeware PDF program, to comp.text.pdf,
adobe.acrobat.windows alt.comp.freeware, and (I thought it was
relevant) misc.consumers.frugal-living (being intelligent use of
freeware).

This conversation has morphed from how to install one program, to the
use of another which was suggested by someone else, and then to the
proper installation of program and data files, hence necessitating a
revision of the relevant newsgroup list. For example, windows XP basics
and deployment are now more relevant than are the pdf-related
newsgroups.

I can not (and will not) prove to you that I am not a "shill" (for whom
I might wonder), but, I do thank you for allowing me to learn yet
another word in our wondrous language!

Respectfully yours,
Susan

My oh my you sure do love to hear yourself type. More longwinded that my
college philosophy teacher.

"Susan Sharm" <susanshaarm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131520875.807022.96550@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> The Six Million Dollar Man wrote:
> >  I use PrimoPDF http://primopdf.com
>
> Oh my!
>
> The freeware PrimoPDF (http://primopdf.com) installed easier and
> quicker on Windows XP than CutePDF Writer
> (http://www.cutepdf.com/Products/CutePDF/writer.asp) did and without
> the need for a secondary program such as GhostScript
> (http://www.ghostscript.com/) to also be co-installed!
>
> Like the CutePDF Writer, PrimoPDF created a selectable printer in
> Start, Settings, Printers and Faxes named "PrimoPDF". However, unlike
> the CutePDF Writer, PrimoPDF seems to have more user configurable

Rod Speed wrote:
> Irrelevant. What matters is how easy the right one is to fine.
> 
> That will always be more reliable by manufacture than by category.

Right. So now I have to move the MacroMedia stuff into the Adobe folder?

 > In spades. You're always welcome to reorganise that any way you like.

Given this remark, it is utterly beyond me, how you rant against someone 
who WANTS to organise stuff her way. You say you are not ranting?

Rod Speed wrote:
 > Just your pig ignorant fantasy.
[SNIP]
> Completely useless analogy.
[SNIP]
> Likely you actually are that stupid.
[SNIP]
> Even you should have noticed that the apps arent
> manually executed from the Program Files tree on PCs.
[SNIP]
> Your pathetic anal hangup are your problem.
[SNIP]
 > You're pig ignorantly lying there. It isnt anything like wholly 
unorganised.
[SNIP]
 > More mindlessly silly pig ignorant ranting.
[SNIP]
 > Lying, again.
[SNIP]
 > Doesnt mean we have to take any notice of pig ignorant fools like you 
either.

Then don't, and let us have a polite discussion.

Marco

Marco Kesseler <find.me@access.for.all> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>>> ORGANIZATION: Besides the untenable
>>> flatness of the C:\Program Files directory,

>> Just your pig ignorant fantasy.

>>> nobody in their right mind would willingly
>>> organize programs by their brand names.

>> Wrong again, most obviously because that is trivial to automate
>> and anything else requires manual intervention at install time.

>>> That mixes programs at any one level of hierarchy
>>> that have absolutely nothing to do with each other
>>> than they share a common letter in the alphabet.

>> Irrelevant. What matters is how easy the right one is to find.

>> That will always be more reliable by manufacture than by category.

> Right. So now I have to move the MacroMedia stuff into the Adobe folder?

Dont know, dont, care. If it offered something
at install time, you likely can specify that there.

>>> Just like the Start Menu is filled with items
>>> organized by a four-year old on LSD.

>> In spades. You're always welcome to reorganise that any way you like.

> Given this remark, it is utterly beyond me, how you rant against someone who 
> WANTS to organise stuff her way.

Your problem. I wasnt commenting on her wanting to organise
things any particular way, just pointing out that her assertion
that Program Files has a flat structure is just plain wrong and
rubbing her nose in the reason its organised by manufacturer,
because that requires no manual intervention at install time
and that is obviously very desirable.

What matters is how easy a particular directory is to find
in Program Files if you need to find it, and you usually dont.

<reams of your puerile shit flushed where it belongs?

> Then don't, and let us have a polite discussion.

Just how many of you are there between those ears ?

She was nothing like polite with her rant about how its done by default. 

http://www.sensationbot.com/chat-rodspeed.html

Bye, Rod

Marco Kesseler <find.me@access.for.all> wrote

> Bye, Rod

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that
you couldnt bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag
even if your pathetic excuse for a 'life' depended on it. 

Rod Speed wrote:
> Marco Kesseler <find.me@access.for.all> wrote
> 
> 
>>Bye, Rod
> 
> 
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that
> you couldnt bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag
> even if your pathetic excuse for a 'life' depended on it. 

Oh Rod, how you hurt me! It is like you can see right through me.

You, in contrast, _can_ bullshit your way into anything because your 
'life' depends on it.

Rest asured you all, I am going to stop now. I am getting
pretty bored with Rod, and I guess that holds for you too.

Marco Kesseler <find.me@access.for.all> wrote

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that
you couldnt bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag
even if your pathetic excuse for a 'life' depended on it.

Susan--
There's a very simple workaround I've used for years. You install
where you're forced to, then use a Registry Search & Replace utility
to move all your program's Registry additions to your desired
directory; i.e., move form C:\My Programs to C:\My Freebie Programs,
or whatever. And of course, remember to create the desired folder in
the first place!  Finally, cut and paste all the program's files into
the new folder.

You may be surprised to find that some of these little apps only have
a couple of Registry entries in the first place, and often you don't
even need to reboot for Windows to read the new Registry info. My
little program also shows you exactly what's being replaced.

This searcher is only a single 280K file; if you like this idea let me
know and I'll attach a copy to an email for you to try. 
Lou

Replies:  lou@cbcintl.com

**************************************************

As to the searcher app, 

"Susan Sharm" <susanshaarm@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Does anyone know how to install CutePDF into a properly designated
>directory?
>
>I like the freeware CutePDF Writer which creates PDF files on Windows
>from any file. And, I don't mean to look any freeware horse in the
>mouth ... but ... It really irks me when an installer is so dumb as to
>not allow you to install a program properly where it belongs, in a
>task-based directory tree (I'm sure Adobe Acrobat PDFWriter installs
>wherever you what it to go).
>
>I mean, nobody I know uses "Program Files" to install into on Windows
>XP anymore.
>That horribly unorganized "Program Files" flat directory structure is
>such a Microsoft mess that nobody can organize it properly, IMHO.
>
>On the contrary, for many years I have kept a very well organized
>"C:\My Programs" set of basic directories where the directory tree is
>organized by task (not brand names).
>
>The problem is the freeware CutePDF installers located at
>http://www.cutepdf.com/Products/CutePDF/writer.asp does not respect the
>need by most of us to install where we want.
>
>Since CutePDF is freeware, I can't complain. But, before I use
>something drastic such as COA32 to change the address from the silly
>marketing BS directory "C:\Program Files\Acro Software\CutePDF Writer"
>to a much more logical and well organized directory tree under "C:\My
>Programs\Conversion Tools\CutePDF", I figured it was worth asking the
>experts how they resolved the issue themselves (many of you must have
>run into this problem before).
>
>How do you install the freeware CutePDF Writer where it belongs on your
>system?