I just started using the trial verson of the software and so far things have went well...Based on the graphics of the program I would defnitely buy the full version. However, I have had to do a couple soft resets while using the program. I have been using eWallet for quite sometime, maybe this new eye catching spb software might become my defualt wallet app. It all depends on the stability of the program throughout the trial period!

I agree that it would be much better to have the special characters available, but not that the lack should make such a difference to the overall score- none of the competing programs can offer that facility- thay have numeric keypads, or use the default SIP.

I say mark them all down then!! Fair point Neil.....

Nice review as usual Steph. Love the LOTR reference in the intro, very apt.

I tend to agree with Des on the scoring, seems a bit harsh. If there was no way to enter the special characters at all then I would agree but not so sure.

Also not sure about breaking the scoring system to make the score seem right. I thought about doing this on one of my reviews but it's probably counter-productive as the new categories are pointless in this instance.

That's kind of my point - I still prefer the mark one brain to all of them. OTOH if an app like this enables someone to stop using the same password for lots of things then it undoubtedly would improve that person's security.

I've scored this for my needs. Functionality is low because I'm not happy with the password entry, and because I'm not prepared to use the PC part then value for money is poor. Other people have other views and so other scores. It's good that readers can see the different marks based on different opinions, to make up their own minds on suitability for them.

This is what is really great about a forum based review- a reader can gain insights into typical real-world use from a number of viewpoints.

Jim and Steph's points are very valid- we have been having arguments for years, in education, as to whether we should be assessing using 'Norm Based' or 'Criterion Based' marking systems. Norm based marks a cohort against itself, so if a subject is better than class average it will score higher; Criterion Based marks against a fixed expectation, so even the best subject in a group may still score a low mark, if all fail to come up to expectations.

This method has become the accepted standard in higher education, so perhaps I'm wrong to start applying Norm based principles to Wallet Reviews

Sorry but RC4 is a weak algorithm which is not strong and very hackable at present. Blowfish/Twofish and AES are the only acceptable strong algorithms in circulation at present IMHO. 256-bit RC4 is maybe equivalent to 128-bit AES, if not worse. RC4 is quick and well understood, which is why it gets used by lesser apps (eWallet isn't bad, but the crypto isn't strong enough - but better than nothing).