File Details |
|
| File Size | 0.3 MB |
|---|---|
| License | Shareware |
| Operating System | Windows 2000/9x/Server 2003/XP |
| Date Added | June 20, 2002 |
| Total Downloads | 1,388 |
| Publisher | ZZEE |
| Homepage | Forgotten FTP Password |
Publisher's Description
Forgotten FTP Password lets you easily recover forgotten FTP passwords stored in any FTP client program. Many FTP programs save site profiles [called also accounts or bookmarks] that you can use to log into the site without having to re-enter login and password values. If you saved such profile and can successfully log into the site, but forgot the password and need it, then it can be retrieved by Forgotten FTP Password.
Latest Reviews
zzee reviewed v1.0 Beta on Jul 1, 2002
I am Paul, the author of the program. Please try the program yourself, don't believe that it shows incorrect first letter. It shows just correct, and it was tested on many OS and with *all* popular FTP programs [see the list in the help file]. Many users have tested it and there are no problems discovered. If this guy who posted that comment really took care about it, he also would contact us with relevant information, such as FTP client he used, but he didn't.
mayakovski reviewed v1.0 Beta on Jun 30, 2002
Tried the demo version.
Does not work, showed the wrong first character of the password. What a waste.
Hamp12345 reviewed v1.0 Beta on Jun 30, 2002
Some of this debate is like someone saying that the built in disk defragmenting in Windows XP (which sucks) is better than something like Diskkeeper.
If Microsoft had made it so that the built in disk defragger could only defragment the C drive and some little company made a patch that let it do any drive, does that suddenly make it a better program than Diskkeeper? Duh. The built in defragger uses just as much ram and resources as disk keeper. Why do people think that because it comes with the OS that it's somehow better? My car came with a crapola radio. But it must be better than anything because it came with the car???
WindowBlinds is better because it extends XP's engine to do a lot mroe and has hardware accel to boot. So you can pay $20 for Style XP and repay for what's in XP or you can get WindowBlinds which does a heck of a lot more for the same cost. If you just want to use styles then get the uxtheme patch.
scratch311 reviewed v1.0 Beta on Jun 30, 2002
If it supposedly uses zero footprint, then how come I get a big SVCHOST process from it? WB is faster anyway, especially with hyperpaint, and the skins are much better.
nhavar reviewed v1.0 Beta on Jun 29, 2002
Nerf,
people say it's slower than windowblinds because of the enhancements that windowblinds has made. Stardock put some effort into creating hooks that allowed it to tap the resources of the computer and give skinning some acceleration. This speeds up certain effects and (in some rare cases) slows others down. As with any product that uses video acceleration to perform it's tasks, it's heavily dependent on the video card manufacturer puting together stable clean drivers and keeping them up to date. It's often hard to explain to people though that when a product crashes it's not always because of the product or that the product is inferior but that it might be caused by an old video card driver or the incorrect AGP mainboard driver or an out of date bios or incorrect setting or another program that just needs to be excluded from the list.
Yes both programs really serve in their own niche. Windowblinds gives you full customization ability and integration with other components, productivity enhancements, more control over the look and feel of the system. Style XP has more limited range in that it simply changes the look of the windows that support the MS style calls. Style XP just adds the ability to hook into the MS style system and change things while Windowblinds builds directly on top of the style system to extend things.
EXiL3 reviewed v1.0 Beta on Jun 21, 2002
I really do hate slagging off the work of other developers, especially when they put a lot of work into a program.. but making this as shareware is a really bad idea. it would be pointless investing it, I can't see that somebody is going to part with their money just on the off chance that they will loose their ftp data one day.
Its a good idea, but I don't think you'll find demand for it.
zzee reviewed v1.0 Beta on Jul 1, 2002
I am Paul, the author of the program. Please try the program yourself, don't believe that it shows incorrect first letter. It shows just correct, and it was tested on many OS and with *all* popular FTP programs [see the list in the help file]. Many users have tested it and there are no problems discovered. If this guy who posted that comment really took care about it, he also would contact us with relevant information, such as FTP client he used, but he didn't.
mayakovski reviewed v1.0 Beta on Jun 30, 2002
Tried the demo version.
Does not work, showed the wrong first character of the password. What a waste.
Hamp12345 reviewed v1.0 Beta on Jun 30, 2002
Some of this debate is like someone saying that the built in disk defragmenting in Windows XP (which sucks) is better than something like Diskkeeper.
If Microsoft had made it so that the built in disk defragger could only defragment the C drive and some little company made a patch that let it do any drive, does that suddenly make it a better program than Diskkeeper? Duh. The built in defragger uses just as much ram and resources as disk keeper. Why do people think that because it comes with the OS that it's somehow better? My car came with a crapola radio. But it must be better than anything because it came with the car???
WindowBlinds is better because it extends XP's engine to do a lot mroe and has hardware accel to boot. So you can pay $20 for Style XP and repay for what's in XP or you can get WindowBlinds which does a heck of a lot more for the same cost. If you just want to use styles then get the uxtheme patch.
scratch311 reviewed v1.0 Beta on Jun 30, 2002
If it supposedly uses zero footprint, then how come I get a big SVCHOST process from it? WB is faster anyway, especially with hyperpaint, and the skins are much better.
nhavar reviewed v1.0 Beta on Jun 29, 2002
Nerf,
people say it's slower than windowblinds because of the enhancements that windowblinds has made. Stardock put some effort into creating hooks that allowed it to tap the resources of the computer and give skinning some acceleration. This speeds up certain effects and (in some rare cases) slows others down. As with any product that uses video acceleration to perform it's tasks, it's heavily dependent on the video card manufacturer puting together stable clean drivers and keeping them up to date. It's often hard to explain to people though that when a product crashes it's not always because of the product or that the product is inferior but that it might be caused by an old video card driver or the incorrect AGP mainboard driver or an out of date bios or incorrect setting or another program that just needs to be excluded from the list.
Yes both programs really serve in their own niche. Windowblinds gives you full customization ability and integration with other components, productivity enhancements, more control over the look and feel of the system. Style XP has more limited range in that it simply changes the look of the windows that support the MS style calls. Style XP just adds the ability to hook into the MS style system and change things while Windowblinds builds directly on top of the style system to extend things.
EXiL3 reviewed v1.0 Beta on Jun 21, 2002
I really do hate slagging off the work of other developers, especially when they put a lot of work into a program.. but making this as shareware is a really bad idea. it would be pointless investing it, I can't see that somebody is going to part with their money just on the off chance that they will loose their ftp data one day.
Its a good idea, but I don't think you'll find demand for it.