Talk:WhatPulse

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Linux[edit]

Can anyone let me know about WhatPulse for Linux? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.37.181.117 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 31 August 2005

None yet, check the site for news... also, please sign comments on talk pages with four tildes. Jmax- 00:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The Windows client seems works for some versions (Don't ask me if it's the Windows client or the Windows nolag) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatpulse (talk • contribs) 07:22, 5 December 2005
  - Only when you type in the Geek Dialog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheZeroorez (talk • contribs) 08:33, 27 January 2006
Speaking as someone heavily involved in the WhatPulse community, the Linux client is basically taking the back seat while the Windows version 1.5 finishes beta testing. The Mac client will come after that, and then the Linux client. Unfortunately, there's no development time line available yet. X-Kal 04:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

notable?[edit]

Is this software really notable? Who really cares about how much they type, unless they're worried about carpal tunnel? Rpresser 04:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable, although I uses the program. Definitely not a speedy and it should not be proposed deleted. SYSS Mouse 03:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the sizeable user base of at least 100,000 makes it notable enough – then again I am saying this 7 years on, when that number has undoubtedly grown. Microphonics ^talk 10:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are many reasons to monitor computer usage and activity.-71.174.176.65 (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Version history[edit]

The bulk of this article is made up of a detailed version history. Is this really worthy of inclusion? — 146.179.8.134 (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly prefer more details in articles. But this detailed version history is too extreme even for me -- it needs to be consolidated, should be less than half as detailed -- but I do like having all of the version numbers and dates.-71.174.176.65 (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]