|
Re: Opinions on HTTrack Web Copier 3.0??
de Ned Goudy 04/16/2006 09:13
On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 18:13:29 +0100, "Frank Bohan"
<franbo@sparkingwire.com> wrote:
>I have used HTTrack v.3.05 for some time without problems (and downloaded
>MP3 files without problems), but I recently tried v.3.40-2 and found it
>impossible to use. The main problem was that it downloaded lots of
>extraneous pages (see my post in the "[Update] HTTrack Version 3.40-2
>(04/09/2006)" thread), despite importing my options from the earlier
>version.
>Based on my experience, I would recommend using the earlier version; also,
>when you have got the options to suit yourself, save them as an .opt file,
>or save several .opt files to suit different requirements.
Thanks for the tip. But once again,
does anyone know if it is AGAINST
the LAW to download websites for
any purpose???
Ned
| Opinions on HTTrack Web Copier 3.0?? | Ned Goudy | |
| Re: Opinions on HTTrack Web Copier 3.0?? | Frank Bohan | |
| Re: Opinions on HTTrack Web Copier 3.0?? | Achim Nolcken Lohse | |
| Re: Opinions on HTTrack Web Copier 3.0?? | Ned Goudy | |
| | Re: Opinions on HTTrack Web Copier 3.0?? | Ned Goudy | |
| Re: Opinions on HTTrack Web Copier 3.0?? | Learner | |
| Re: Opinions on HTTrack Web Copier 3.0?? | Ned Goudy | |
| Re: Opinions on HTTrack Web Copier 3.0?? | Bill Day |