I love your software! It’s fast, easy to use and really makes my job easier.
— Kraig Schultz
I’ve had the free CBT product for quite some time and was already aware of your products and web site. I’m a mainframe COBOL type (yeah, there’s still some of us left) and currently working on retrofitting some code. The Superc on mainframe SPF just doesn’t cut it. This is much better. It’s worth the extra time to download source to the PC to do the compares.
— Al Grossman
I use your DLSuperCBF program to verify burned CDs. I know burning software like Roxio has this feature built in, but I prefer to get the detailed info of exactly what file might not have made it through the burning correctly. I also mount image files like .iso or bin/cue files onto a virtual drive and use your program to compare them to the CDs burned from them. I am not aware of any burning software that will verify the discs it makes from image files ( . . . at least on a PC . . . I think a Mac will handle this internally.)
Your program is indispensable, and I’ve even come to appreciate the interface!
How many times have you copied data from one area to another or ran an application that copied data from one area to another or you’re testing an application that copies data from one area to another and questioned if the operation was successful. Just because the application completed the process and did not report an error does not necessarily mean that the operation was a success. Or what if the application reported an error, is it a valid error? I’ve successfully used DLSupCBF to ensure that the operation was or was not a success. Without the function that DLSupCBF provides it would be near impossible to verify the operation, example copy 10 GB of data from one area to another and confirm that the source and target are the same. For anyone involved in testing or must ensure that an operation involving copying data was a success, DLSupCBF is a MUST HAVE utility. It is not a utility that you will use on a daily basis but it is a utility that you will use and with the first usage you will be assured that adding it to your tool kit was the correct decision.
— John Terdik
I found DLSuperCBF software on tucows.com. I was specifically looking for software that would compare files in directories and sub-directories. We are copying many files and we want to ensure that they arrived at their destination without error. So we copy, then we compare.
— Peter Lunde
Thanks for making a wonderful DLSuperCX product. While many editors now come with a built in diff comparison, your product has worked well for me. I finally have the means by which to show my appreciation for your efforts by registering the program.
I’m using DLSupCX, mainly for comparing text files. (programming code). Your other program, DLSuperCTW, has an very interesting way of showing modifications vs the panel approach, though I normally need the directory at a time capability of CX to compare staging vs. live web site source code folders. That way I can move my changes out for the customer without forgetting anything.
— Jonathan Freeman
Your have two great complementary products – DLSuperC and DLSuperCTW.
— Samuel Edge
Question – Can I use your DLSuperC to compare two XLS files and see the changes?
Answer – An XLS file is a binary encoded output file with a non-published format by Microsoft. The best results can be obtained by importing your xls file back into EXCEL and saving the files as a tab delimited *.txt files.
You can the use DLSuperCTW with the Chng listing option. Also use the Wcln process preference option to better see the end results. The changed lines should appear as series of blank (lines with no changes) IDs. Other lines are flagged as MI (matched inserted words/tokens), and MD matched deleted words/tokens) ID lines. This shows which lines have changes. DLSuperC would show only the whole lines as changed. DLSuperCTW annotates the changes to the word level.
It isn’t pretty but that’s one way to see the changes. If there is too much change activity, its very hard to interpret the end results.
You can do the same with .doc files. However, you won’t see changes to Microsoft tags that don’t translate into text data.
— Patrick A. Forester
I intend to use DLSuperCBT to compare game save files to determine locations of specific game related data.
— John Chalinder
I understand you have been corresponding with Norma Blount at AAA Cooper Transportation concerning transferring copies of DLSUPERC products from our old PC’s to our new PC’s. When Norma contacted me to see if we still needed to have access to the DLSuperC product, I told her ‘YES – MOST DEFINITELY’ . At AAA Cooper Transportation we are currently undertaking a major conversion project that requires quite a bit of parallel testing. Your DLSUPERCTW compare utility has been a necessary tool when comparing text and data files. It is such an easy product to use and runs so quickly that we have saved hours of time researching differences between our old and new environments. We would be weeks behind if we didn’t have the DLSUPERC products available. The reports produced are very easy to read and information presented is exactly what we need!
I would highly recommend the DLSUPERC utilities to anyone looking for a source compare utility!!!
— Terri Lee
I’m a DBA for a large finance company. I’ve been looking for a compare tool (for quite some time) that will do a logical compare of my code instead of a line by line compare.
I have large scripts to create Oracle procedures. Some are formatted one way and some are formatted differently. (several commands on one line vs. one command per line). Your DLSuperCTW is the first nice tool I’ve come across that will quickly tell me if the two files are logically equivalent and/or show me the changes — not just tell me that the lines are different.
Editor’s Note: Due to the apparent usefullness of DLSuperCTW on SQL script, a “Dp” comment filtering option for SQL script seems reasonable to be added as a candidate to the program’s repertoire.
— Steven K Lyon
I finally got to use your DLSuperC compare tool since DLSuperC has the capability to determine matches, deletes and inserts between two files. It even filters out unwanted lines from a file that one would normally need to write a specialized parsing program or use an intelligent editor with specialized macros.
TASK: Given two huge address list files. Needed two address list results:
Addresses common to both Adr List 1 and Adr List 2 as end product List 1.
Addresses of Users unique between Adr List 1 as end product List 2.
Compared Adr List 1 against Adr List 2 using long list. Used “Xdpl” to filter out line ending strings starting with >. Saved results 1. All lines were marked as Matched, Inserted, or Deleted lines.
Compared results 1 against itself using DpLine for excluding all “D” lines in the line position which indicated “deleted line” – columns 7:9. Used Xdpl option to filter out excluded compared lines from appearing in the report. Resulting compare included combined common and inserted lines.
Compared results 1 against itself using DPline excluding all “I” and matching lines with a ” ” – in columns 7:9. Use Xdpl to filter out inserted and common lines from the report. Resulting compare displayed only deleted lines.
Use Kedit editor to exclude Headers and Summary Results sections. Excluded columns that had DLSuperC information not needed in the two final address list results file since Kedit had a selective vertical column delete capability.
Also used Noss and Clnc process options to minimize DLSuperC comparison information.
— Michael Nunno
Now that I was able to compare ccore.txt to perlcore.txt, I gotta tell you how useful DLSuperCTW is! I’m not one to rave about software very often, but this tool makes doing basic things a breeze. In this case, let me explain what was going on. I’m developing test cases for some code that runs in embedded hardware. Since determining expected results for all outputs is a tedious task in most instances, even when inputs to drive the code through alternative paths is in hand, I converted the base C code to PERL in order to be able to trace intermediate results and otherwise instrument the code in a “kind” environment outside of the test bench. Well, first tests of such results produced for a certain module indicated some basic mismatch which later proved to be because the code in the hardware had been updated without letting the testers know. Once the new code was in hand, the question was how to readily determine what parts of the PERL had to be changed to make it consistent with the new C. I didn’t want to rewrite the C again. That’s where DLSuperCTW came in, running it on ccore.txt, the new C code, and the existing PERL code in perlcore.txt. The .rtf output I sent you demonstrates how handy DLSuperCTW is for the purpose, with its Changes Listing, and especially its highlighting of differences. Thanks for a great program,
Editor’s Note: It was demonstrated that DLSuperC was also able to determine changes made to the revised code. However, DLSuperCTW was a better tool since the revised code had not only changes to the syntax of the statements but many changes to the statement columns and alignment for the new source.
— Jan Theodore Galkowski
I finished re-designing/developing a component and I was required to ensure that the test suite for this component ran with all tests passing successfully. Some of these tests produce fairly large results files and its quite a task to manually have two notepad documents next to each other trying to spot differences. Just over a year ago, I decided that it was far too time consuming to do this manually, as I could spend a good few days manually checking at these files and I’d much rather just be programming
I found your site and was very impressed with your DLSuperCTW program and have been using it ever since. I think I would be lost without it. I can compare files and view the reports of the UNICODE produced results at the click of a button. All I have to do now is fix the bugs in my program that caused the results files to be different.
Editor Note: Although DLSuperCTW was designed to process ASCII text, Ms. Middlebrook found that the binary data included in her UNICODE did not deter the comparison and the generation of readable reports. DLSuperCTW overlooked most binary data even binary zero as it parsed the input source. Most Windows programs have difficulty with binary zero terminating text fields and output reports that contain other disrupting binary (e.g. tab) characters.
— Emma Middlebrook