Another reason I'm sticking with Leopard.
Nashton
this is one of the coolest features in the MacOS. What's up with this?
Fa-groon
(in article <hee1li$3c3$1...@aioe.org>):
> http://tinyurl.com/y8qnadr
>
> this is one of the coolest features in the MacOS. What's up with this?
If this is true, it's one of the DUMBEST moves Apple has ever made. Macs have
had this feature forever. I recall that in Windows (which has never HAD a
resource fork), the old FrameMaker application used .DOC as a creator
designator. If one also had MS Word installed, Windows couldn't tell the
difference between Word files and that version of FrameMaker's files. Frame
(or Adobe) eventually changed it, but what a mess! Macs totally avoided such
problems with the type and creator resources. To give them up is, IMHO, a
supreme folly!
Snit
11/23/09 9:45 AM:
You can still assign individual files to specific apps - so the
functionality is not that much different. What is different, I believe, is
programs do not set, by default, that there files should be opened with the
program that saved them. I have heard / read good and bad regarding this,
but the idea to simplify things by not having multiple methods to do the
same thing makes sense to me.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Alan Baker
> http://tinyurl.com/y8qnadr
>
> this is one of the coolest features in the MacOS. What's up with this?
Yeah...
I think Apple has really taken a step backwards here, and the really
annoying part is that it is unnecessary.
--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone
"It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)
ZnU
Fa-groon <fa-g...@mad.com> wrote:
Having used Snow Leopard for a couple of months now, I have to say the
practical real-world impact is not nearly as large as some people seem
to be imagining.
--
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
Snit
11/23/09 1:04 PM:
> In article <0001HW.C72FFC3C...@news.giganews.com>,
> Fa-groon <fa-g...@mad.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:11:50 -0800, Nashton wrote
>> (in article <hee1li$3c3$1...@aioe.org>):
>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/y8qnadr
>>>
>>> this is one of the coolest features in the MacOS. What's up with this?
>>
>> If this is true, it's one of the DUMBEST moves Apple has ever made. Macs have
>> had this feature forever. I recall that in Windows (which has never HAD a
>> resource fork), the old FrameMaker application used .DOC as a creator
>> designator. If one also had MS Word installed, Windows couldn't tell the
>> difference between Word files and that version of FrameMaker's files. Frame
>> (or Adobe) eventually changed it, but what a mess! Macs totally avoided such
>> problems with the type and creator resources. To give them up is, IMHO, a
>> supreme folly!
>
> Having used Snow Leopard for a couple of months now, I have to say the
> practical real-world impact is not nearly as large as some people seem
> to be imagining.
If OS X dropped the ability to link specific files with specific apps that
would be bad - it is a very useful feature. But that is not what has
happened.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Fa-groon
(in article <znu-730D32.1...@Port80.Individual.NET>):
> In article <0001HW.C72FFC3C...@news.giganews.com>,
> Fa-groon <fa-g...@mad.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:11:50 -0800, Nashton wrote
>> (in article <hee1li$3c3$1...@aioe.org>):
>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/y8qnadr
>>>
>>> this is one of the coolest features in the MacOS. What's up with this?
>>
>> If this is true, it's one of the DUMBEST moves Apple has ever made. Macs
>> have
>> had this feature forever. I recall that in Windows (which has never HAD a
>> resource fork), the old FrameMaker application used .DOC as a creator
>> designator. If one also had MS Word installed, Windows couldn't tell the
>> difference between Word files and that version of FrameMaker's files. Frame
>> (or Adobe) eventually changed it, but what a mess! Macs totally avoided
>> such
>> problems with the type and creator resources. To give them up is, IMHO, a
>> supreme folly!
>
> Having used Snow Leopard for a couple of months now, I have to say the
> practical real-world impact is not nearly as large as some people seem
> to be imagining.
>
>
I suspect that without the PPC legacy code, Snow Leopard might be a smaller
install and might run a tad faster. Other than that, I can't see much impetus
for anyone to upgrade other than just to have the "latest and greatest".
Nashton
Especially when most apps, even many of the pro apps, cannot take
advantage of multi-core architectures. I am holding off from buying a
new Mac as I would love the new Mac Pro and at this point, IMV, the only
reason to upgrade from my iMac is when apps like aperture or guitar rig
4 get too slow. Aperture is getting there, but I might tough it out for
another year.
As a side note, a company called Excludus is developing software to help
applications take advantage of multi core computers. I was reading an
article in one of our local papers, but to get it online, one needs a
subscription.
Craig Koller
ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> In article <0001HW.C72FFC3C...@news.giganews.com>,
> Fa-groon <fa-g...@mad.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:11:50 -0800, Nashton wrote
> > (in article <hee1li$3c3$1...@aioe.org>):
> >
> > > http://tinyurl.com/y8qnadr
> > >
> > > this is one of the coolest features in the MacOS. What's up with this?
> >
> > If this is true, it's one of the DUMBEST moves Apple has ever made. Macs
> > have
> > had this feature forever. I recall that in Windows (which has never HAD a
> > resource fork), the old FrameMaker application used .DOC as a creator
> > designator. If one also had MS Word installed, Windows couldn't tell the
> > difference between Word files and that version of FrameMaker's files. Frame
> > (or Adobe) eventually changed it, but what a mess! Macs totally avoided
> > such
> > problems with the type and creator resources. To give them up is, IMHO, a
> > supreme folly!
>
> Having used Snow Leopard for a couple of months now, I have to say the
> practical real-world impact is not nearly as large as some people seem
> to be imagining.
And it's still possible to assign the "open with" application in the
Info window. What I WOULD like is a "Get Info" feature that didn't open
numerous individual windows but instead worked like iTunes, allowing the
user to assign one value to multiple files in one window.
Nashton
Well then it's a moot point. If one can still do it via the get info
window, what's the big deal?
Some reporters/journalists will write anything to get a story, any
story, out.
Alan Baker
Craig Koller <cwkol...@netscape.net> wrote:
Command-option-I.
-hh
>
> Well then it's a moot point. If one can still do it via the get info
> window, what's the big deal?
And more to the point ... how easy/difficult was it previously to
change the Creator Codes?
FWIW, I can recall that back in the old days, the "simple" way to do
this was to crank up ResEdit.
-hh
Fa-groon
(in article
<cd62ffad-fdd3-4657...@e31g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>):
I seem to recall that there were several cheap, if not free utilities that
allowed the user to do this. I don't know about under OSX as I've not had to
do it.
-hh
> -hh wrote:
> > Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>
> >> Well then it's a moot point. If one can still do it via the get info
> >> window, what's the big deal?
>
> > And more to the point ... how easy/difficult was it previously to
> > change the Creator Codes?
>
> > FWIW, I can recall that back in the old days, the "simple" way to do
> > this was to crank up ResEdit.
>
> allowed the user to do this.
Agreed, with one example being ResEdit.
> I don't know about under OSX as I've not had to do it.
Same here, although I believe that it was the same approach: one used
a utility application. Yet based on the statement that one merely
has to use the "Get Info" command in the Finder, this capability is
now built into the OS ... and yet people are for some reason
complaining?
FWIW, my general opinion of the Creator Codes is that they were a
quite elegant solution to the general 'App Ownership' problem ...
although I do recall having some challenges in initially trying to
figure out if we needed to try to go to Apple to register for a unique
CC for in-house compiled software applications or just DIY pick one
and hopefully avoid accidentally repeating an existing one...all in
all, it was more fun using ResEdit to create our own unique App/File
icons :-) Nevertheless, the key question is if it is something
whose time has come & gone due to years of refinement of OS
architecture/philosophy, along with the question of how to approach
making something that is more of a platform-independent "Open"
standard. The point is not that it isn't important to have the
associations, but merely that if there's a better technical approach
with which to accomplish that.
-hh
Fa-groon
(in article
<7244a718-05cf-4dc7...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>):
> Fa-groon <fa-gr...@mad.com> wrote:
>> -hh wrote:
>>> Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>> Well then it's a moot point. If one can still do it via the get info
>>>> window, what's the big deal?
>>
>>> And more to the point ... how easy/difficult was it previously to
>>> change the Creator Codes?
>>
>>> FWIW, I can recall that back in the old days, the "simple" way to do
>>> this was to crank up ResEdit.
>>
>> I seem to recall that there were several cheap, if not free utilities that
>> allowed the user to do this.
>
> Agreed, with one example being ResEdit.
Yes, but IIRC, ResEdit was the hard way. I had a program that actually
allowed you to see the files in a list with all the info as part as a table.
All you had to do was go into the correct column and change the creator or
file-type info. I don't remember what the program was called but is was
considered a "finder replacement".
ZnU
Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
Also command-control-I. (The former opens an inspector-type panel that
changes what items it shows info for as you select different items,
while the latter opens a regular Get Info window, but just one for all
the items you have selected when you invoke it.)
You can also assign a group of files to always open with a certain app
without going into Get Info at all. Select the files and right-click (or
go to the File menu). Hold down the option key, and "Open With" changes
to "Always Open With".
ZnU
My understanding is there's no public API for setting whatever it is
that Get Info sets when you do that. So apps can effectively no longer
choose which app will open a file when creating it (assuming more than
one app claims that file type).
This is at least arguably as much of a feature as a bug, as anyone who
has ever had Photoshop launch because they innocently double-clicked a
JPEG file (that they were probably trying to view in Preview or some
other lightweight image viewer) can attest.
ZnU
Fa-groon <fa-g...@mad.com> wrote:
There are some rather nice new refinements. For instance, we work with
rather large projects, some of which get a set of three or four drives
to themselves. These have to be on storage that can be easily handed off
to clients and often aren't in our possession for very long, so it makes
sense to use external drives rather than copying everything to one of
our arrays. As a result, I end up working with a *lot* of external
drives. I think the most I've ever had connected at once is 16, and six
or eight is about normal (this is in addition to internal drives and
external fixed storage).
In Leopard, drives would often be reported as "in use" (and therefore
un-ejectable) even with no apps open, I think because background
processes like Spotlight were using them and weren't clever enough to
give them up when you tried to eject. This is completely fixed in Snow
Leopard. When some other sort of process is using a drive, Snow Leopard
actually tells you what process so you can go deal with it; Leopard
didn't do that either.
This all probably saves me about 10 minutes a day.
(Interestingly, pre-X versions of Mac OS would also report what
processes were using a drive when you tried to eject it. It's a little
silly that it took seven major versions to get that feature back. And
Snow Leopard still doesn't tell you, from the Empty Trash confirmation
dialog, how big the items in the Trash are, the way pre-X versions of
the system did.)
GreyCloud
> http://tinyurl.com/y8qnadr
>
> this is one of the coolest features in the MacOS. What's up with this?
For now, I'm doing the same. But still, when you do a file on any of
the system files you get i386, which means you don't get to take
advantage of the rest of the x64 part of the cpu chip. All we've really
got now is a dual core x86 system. Later, I'll upgrade in about a year
after Apple works out the kinks.