Is there any point in keeping Portable Utility & Security Suite (PUSS) V1.02 on the database when the project has ended and the product replaced by Toucan?
Project Dead
Submitted by rmccue on Sat, 2007-09-22 07:46.General Project News
Just in case anybody is still reading these pages, I'd like to inform you of the following:
PUSS is dead; Long live Toucan - PUSS has become Toucan and is now an official PortableApps.com Project
Support will no longer be offered here - Use the PortableApps.com Forums instead
This site will remain up until the 22nd of May, 2008 when the domain expires. We will not be renewing the registration
We've all had a fun time here, but it's time to move on. Adios, Amigos.
( http://www.liberta-project.org/taxonomy/term/19 )
http://portableapps.com/apps/utilities/toucan
Puss and Toucan
-
Ameri-CAIN
- Posts: 121
- Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:11 am
- Location: Orange County, California
I don't know about PUSS, but as for Toucan, it is very processor intensive, on encryption. It works Ok on an individual file level, but on a folder with 183mb of a good mixture of file extensions (.txt, .doc, .exe, .cab, .zip, .msi, .wmv, etc.), it sucked up 98% average processor time for about 5 minutes before it froze up. I was using it on a Dell XPS with a 2ghz Intel Centrino. It does a lot, but does it do it efficiently? I mean its only using rijendael, or blowfish to encrypt. Good algorithms, but known for speed. I wouldn't trust this on folder encryption but maybe individual file encryption it would be ok for. For now, I will probably stick to ozSync for Sync/ Backup/ Encrypted Backup, TrueCrypt for Folder level Encryption, and Challenger and Omziff for file level encryption. Nice idea to combine all in one app, but Toucan is not there yet.