The return of 10.8

[Howard S Shubs]

...on my system, anyway. I was on 10.6.8 for the last several months
because I really didn't care for the 10.8 front-end. However, as
expected, software started to complain about the version, so now I'm
back at 10.8.

What I'm seeing is that VMware is better in 10.8 than in 10.6. Running
Windows 7 under VMware, my memory would fill up and the machine would
slow quite a bit. Now that I'm under 10.8, memory management seems
better. Okay, I admit it. I do.

I just wish we could have the 10.6 interface. No, I'm not going to
reopen that discussion. It's my opinion, you're welcome to disagree.
I've no interest in iOS, so consistency between Mac OS X and iOS is
irrelevant to me.

[nospam]

In article <timstreater-1E36...@news.individual.net>, Tim
Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:

> And it's irritating to be unable to empty the Trash because Preview is
> actually still active and somehow still has the file open.

that bug has been there for years and unlikely to ever be fixed. it's
not just preview either. quicktime player and quicklook can keep a file
open.

[Andy]

And TextEdit.

--
Andy Hewitt
<http://andy-hewitt.me.uk>

[Andy]

Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:

> In article <howard-FDAD42....@news.individual.net>,

> Howard S Shubs <how...@shubs.net> wrote:
>
> > I just wish we could have the 10.6 interface. No, I'm not going to
> > reopen that discussion. It's my opinion, you're welcome to disagree.
>

> I do disagree, by and large. Except for the changes to the editing
> paradigm - that changes are now live, there's no Save-As, and if you
> just want to fiddle about with something, you have to duplicate it to
> avoid damaging your original.

Save-As has been reintroduced a couple of updates ago, and you can now
choose whether to automatically save versions as you close or not.

> Oddly, I find that works for documents, since when I open say a Pages
> doc, if I change it I'm generally doing it on purpose. Where it's a
> danger is just having a quick look at an image and wondering whether it
> would look better cropped this way instead of that. Then you find the
> next day that you have indeed cropped it when you intended just to be
> fiddling about.

You can just go back to different versions. With the old way, it would
be lost forever, unless you managed to save different versions between
Time Machine backups, or you manually saved different versions.

Once you get used to it working a bit differently, IMHO the new system
is pretty good.

[Andy]

Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:

> In article <1l1zlod.znf556gbpzv4N%thewil...@me.com>,

> thewil...@me.com (Andy) wrote:
>
> > Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <howard-FDAD42....@news.individual.net>,
> > > Howard S Shubs <how...@shubs.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I just wish we could have the 10.6 interface. No, I'm not going to
> > > > reopen that discussion. It's my opinion, you're welcome to disagree.
> > >
> > > I do disagree, by and large. Except for the changes to the editing
> > > paradigm - that changes are now live, there's no Save-As, and if you
> > > just want to fiddle about with something, you have to duplicate it to
> > > avoid damaging your original.
> >
> > Save-As has been reintroduced a couple of updates ago,
>

> Ah yes, you're right. I'd forgotten they'd done that.

You need to hold down 'Alt', although I'm not sure if that is the same
in all apps (it is in Pages).

> > and you can now choose whether to automatically save versions
> > as you close or not.
>

> I couldn't find that - is it on a per-app basis?

General Preferences 'Ask to keep changes when closing documents'.

I think it reverts to automatically saving if you turn that option off.
If you turn it on, you get a dialogue asking if you want to save the
version, or revert to the previous saved version.

[nospam]

In article <1l1zlo4.1k02f2kted4hsN%thewil...@me.com>, Andy

<thewil...@me.com> wrote:

> > > And it's irritating to be unable to empty the Trash because Preview is
> > > actually still active and somehow still has the file open.
> >
> > that bug has been there for years and unlikely to ever be fixed. it's
> > not just preview either. quicktime player and quicklook can keep a file
> > open.
>
> And TextEdit.

notice a pattern? all apple apps. i can't think of a third party app
where this happens.

[Király]

Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
> > and you can now choose whether to automatically save versions
> > as you close or not.
>

> I couldn't find that - is it on a per-app basis?

defaults write -g ApplePersistence -bool no

disables Auto Save, Versions, and Resume completely for all apps. It has
a negative effect on TextEdit, but that can be remedied with:

defaults write -app textedit AutosavingDelay -int 0

Another good self explanatory one is:

defaults write -g NSDisableAutomaticTermination -bool yes

All of the above I consider essential for satisfactory use of 10.8.

--
K.

Lang may your lum reek.

[Kevin McMurtrie]

In article <howard-FDAD42....@news.individual.net>,
Howard S Shubs <how...@shubs.net> wrote:

VM was changed in 10.7 so that one process can't page out other
processes. This is the first case I've heard of it helping. Usually it
causes one heavyweight process to thrash VM so much that no disk I/O is
available to other apps, and it thrashes the disk 100 times longer
because it can't get the RAM it needs to finish efficiently.
--
I will not see posts from Google because I must filter them as spam

[Howard S Shubs]

In article <klgql3$dk0$1...@dont-email.me>, m...@home.spamsucks.ca (Kir�ly)
wrote:

There's got to be an application to manage these settings in a GUI.

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.04.27 16:22 , Michael Vilain wrote:

> Memory management is 100% better on 10.8, from what I can see. My
> system would bog down as page files collected and become to slow to use
> at about 4GB. I've been running with 5GB of page files for a couple
> days now and notice no performance degradation. I guess Apple finally
> found someone who understood modern memory management and paging.
>
> Now I think I'll only reboot when I do an update that requires it.

My reboot intervals have gotten quite a bit longer since 10.8 and are
really only forced by the occasional app update that needs a reboot.

Prior time I checked I hadn't rebooted in over a month. Current is 9
days. (Had to R-B after an app re-install).

I also use the "purge" command every few days (usually after long
sessions in Photoshop, Google Earth and other 'big' apps) which results
in a nice clean looking memory pie in Activity Monitor. Whether it
really does help is hard to say.

Next Mac will have so much memory that I'll be leaving the big apps
loaded most of the time. (Photoshop/Bridge, Word, Excel, Google Earth
and so on as well as the usual apps (mail, browser, etc.)).

--
"A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe."
-Pierre Berton

[Howard S Shubs]

In article <ENSdnYd3KeBO2uHM...@giganews.com>,

Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> Next Mac will have so much memory that I'll be leaving the big apps
> loaded most of the time. (Photoshop/Bridge, Word, Excel, Google Earth
> and so on as well as the usual apps (mail, browser, etc.)).

That's okay, they'll grow to compensate.

[Wes Groleau]

On 04-27-2013 11:25, Király wrote:
> defaults write -app textedit AutosavingDelay -int 0

Not that it matters much, but what the $%^& is the rationale for this
command also launching TextEdit?

> Another good self explanatory one is:
>
> defaults write -g NSDisableAutomaticTermination -bool yes

Well, no it isn't self-explanatory. There is some feature that
automatically terminates something? Why would I want that?

Unless it's on "logout when too long idle" and overrides that asinine
"<app> has canceled logout"


--
Wes Groleau

A pessimist says the glass is half empty.
An optimist says the glass is half full.
An engineer says somebody made the glass
twice as big as it needed to be.

[Wes Groleau]

On 04-27-2013 12:03, Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
> VM was changed in 10.7 so that one process can't page out other
> processes. This is the first case I've heard of it helping. Usually it
> causes one heavyweight process to thrash VM so much that no disk I/O is
> available to other apps, and it thrashes the disk 100 times longer
> because it can't get the RAM it needs to finish efficiently.

This is the umpteenth time I've heard tht hear, and the
umpteenth time that I respond that it is not true of
my 10.8 and it was not true of my 10.7

[Király]

Wes Groleau <Grolea...@freeshell.org> wrote:
> > defaults write -app textedit AutosavingDelay -int 0
>
> Not that it matters much, but what the $%^& is the rationale for this
> command also launching TextEdit?

Huh?

The original command I gave, the one you snipped, disables auto save,
versions, and resume for all apps. It also breaks the ability of
TextEdit to save properly. The second command I gave fixes TextEdit.

> > defaults write -g NSDisableAutomaticTermination -bool yes
>
> Well, no it isn't self-explanatory. There is some feature that
> automatically terminates something? Why would I want that?

Exactly. 10.7 and 10.8 have this extremely irritating "feature" that, in
certain cases, automatically quits* an app after all of its windows are
closed and the user switches to a different app. Annoying as hell. The
command I gave disables that auto-quitting nonsense.

*the app doesn't really quit. Activity Monitor reports that the app
continues to run and consume the same resources as before. But its Dock
indicator light goes out and you can't switch back to it by
command-tabbing. Which makes this bizarre "feature" all the more
irritating and stupefying.

[Wes Groleau]

On 04-27-2013 23:22, Király wrote:
> The original command I gave, the one you snipped, disables auto save,
> versions, and resume for all apps. It also breaks the ability of
> TextEdit to save properly. The second command I gave fixes TextEdit.

I don't doubt your word on that, but it also _launched_ TextEdit.

Maybe TextEdit has to process the command instead of the O.S. ?

I wouldn't think so, but like I said, what in the world is the rationale?

[Wes Groleau]

On 04-27-2013 22:31, Wes Groleau wrote:
> On 04-27-2013 12:03, Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
> > VM was changed in 10.7 so that one process can't page out other
>> processes. This is the first case I've heard of it helping. Usually it
>> causes one heavyweight process to thrash VM so much that no disk I/O is
>> available to other apps, and it thrashes the disk 100 times longer
>> because it can't get the RAM it needs to finish efficiently.
>
> This is the umpteenth time I've heard tht hear, and the
> umpteenth time that I respond that it is not true of
> my 10.8 and it was not true of my 10.7

And the umpteenth time I've demonstrated that my fingers and my keyboard
are becoming incompatible.

[Paul Sture]

In article <kli1fi$ao3$2...@dont-email.me>,

Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> On 04-27-2013 12:03, Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
> > VM was changed in 10.7 so that one process can't page out other
> > processes. This is the first case I've heard of it helping. Usually it
> > causes one heavyweight process to thrash VM so much that no disk I/O is
> > available to other apps, and it thrashes the disk 100 times longer
> > because it can't get the RAM it needs to finish efficiently.
>
> This is the umpteenth time I've heard tht hear, and the
> umpteenth time that I respond that it is not true of
> my 10.8 and it was not true of my 10.7

I did have problems in this area with 10.8 Server back in December, but
I haven't seen any recently.

--
Paul Sture

[Király]

Wes Groleau <Grolea...@freeshell.org> wrote:
> I don't doubt your word on that, but it also _launched_ TextEdit.

Not for me.

> Maybe TextEdit has to process the command instead of the O.S. ?

Not sure what you mean.

> I wouldn't think so, but like I said, what in the world is the rationale?

Command 1 globally disables auto save, versions, and resume, but breaks
TextEdit. Command 2 fixes what command 1 breaks. I thought I explained
that pretty well the first two times. If you still don't understand
command 2's rationale then I give up.

[Wes Groleau]

Communications problem here.

I said I understood of "fixes TextEdit."

I said I don not understand the rationale for having to launch TextEdit
to do it.

If it _didn't_ do that for you, I am even more puzzled.

I pasted the first command into Terminal and instantly got a prompt back.

I pasted the second command, and got no prompt for a couple of seconds.

Then TextEdit started bouncing in the Dock, and as soon as it's
what-to-do? window appeared, the shell prompt appeared.

[Király]

Wes Groleau <Grolea...@freeshell.org> wrote:
> I pasted the second command, and got no prompt for a couple of seconds.
>
> Then TextEdit started bouncing in the Dock, and as soon as it's
> what-to-do? window appeared, the shell prompt appeared.

<shrug> That never happened for me. TextEdit stayed closed.

[Bread]

On 2013-04-27 08:53:15 +0000, Howard S Shubs said:
>
> What I'm seeing is that VMware is better in 10.8 than in 10.6. Running
> Windows 7 under VMware, my memory would fill up and the machine would
> slow quite a bit. Now that I'm under 10.8, memory management seems
> better. Okay, I admit it. I do.

I've been on 10.8 since just after it came out.

FWIW, I was using VMWare 4 and it was *horrible* - painfully slow both
within Windows (XP) and caused everything else to slow to a crawl.

On a whim (and a great deal from a bundle) I switched to Parallels 8
and I'm shocked at how much faster and more responsive it is. It's
entirely painless - having it up and running and having a windows app
or two mixed in with the rest of my mac universe was amazingly slick.
I'd used Parallels way back (like version 1 or 2) and switched to
VMWare, but switching back was a huge improvement.

>
> I just wish we could have the 10.6 interface. No, I'm not going to
> reopen that discussion. It's my opinion, you're welcome to disagree.
> I've no interest in iOS, so consistency between Mac OS X and iOS is
> irrelevant to me.

Sigh.

I do wish that 10.8 would bring back the auto-lock ath 10.7 had. I go
and lock things by hand now to make sure that auto-save doesn't mess me
up. I like auto-save, but if I'm opening a document that I haven't
touched in a week, it's 99% certain that either I only want to read it,
or if I do want to modify it, I want to save a copy first. Auto-lock
made that the case. Why Apple doesn't make these things *optional* I
don't know. They've made other things optional. Oh well.

[Bread]

On 2013-04-27 09:24:34 +0000, Tim Streater said:
>
> Oddly, I find that works for documents, since when I open say a Pages
> doc, if I change it I'm generally doing it on purpose. Where it's a
> danger is just having a quick look at an image and wondering whether it
> would look better cropped this way instead of that. Then you find the
> next day that you have indeed cropped it when you intended just to be
> fiddling about.

Even if all you're doing is looking at a document, if you scroll (or,
say, in Numbers, switch which thing you're looking at), the system
thinks you've changed the document and indicates so in the title bar
("Edited!"). That's annoying.

I've gotten in the habit of locking a file unless I'm specifically
intending to edit it.

And, of course, the whole "versions" thing still doensn't play well
with any syncronization software like Dropbox.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a great *idea* but the implementation is
still a work in progress.

And it should be optional for every app, and on an app-by-app basis.
Maybe default ought to be having auto-save/versions on, and some
third-party apps do offer a setting making it optional, but Apple
hasn't and that's unfortunate, especially since I really do like Pages
and Numbers a whole lot and use them every single day.

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.05.02 13:27 , Bread wrote:
> On 2013-04-27 08:53:15 +0000, Howard S Shubs said:
>>
>> What I'm seeing is that VMware is better in 10.8 than in 10.6. Running
>> Windows 7 under VMware, my memory would fill up and the machine would
>> slow quite a bit. Now that I'm under 10.8, memory management seems
>> better. Okay, I admit it. I do.
>
>
> I've been on 10.8 since just after it came out.
>
> FWIW, I was using VMWare 4 and it was *horrible* - painfully slow both
> within Windows (XP) and caused everything else to slow to a crawl.
>
> On a whim (and a great deal from a bundle) I switched to Parallels 8 and
> I'm shocked at how much faster and more responsive it is. It's entirely
> painless - having it up and running and having a windows app or two
> mixed in with the rest of my mac universe was amazingly slick. I'd used
> Parallels way back (like version 1 or 2) and switched to VMWare, but
> switching back was a huge improvement.

Per the Fusion site, you would have had to update Fusion 4 to the
latest, latest version _before_ installing 10.8. (Whether that _before_
is really a requirement or not is hard to say...)

I upgraded to Fusion 5 (from 3) and WinXP runs fine under it. I'm not
against getting Parallels but for the little amount I need WinXP it's
really not worth the change. I can run Windows Apps in my OS X
environment as well (unity).

Parallels has become the fastest way to run Windows virtually, but it
doesn't support Linux or other OS' where Fusion supports many OS's -
indeed you can load several OS' at the same time (WinXP + Linux over OS
X for example).

(That's not that important to me - but it is a reason why Fusion still
has its place).

> I do wish that 10.8 would bring back the auto-lock ath 10.7 had. I go
> and lock things by hand now to make sure that auto-save doesn't mess me
> up. I like auto-save, but if I'm opening a document that I haven't
> touched in a week, it's 99% certain that either I only want to read it,
> or if I do want to modify it, I want to save a copy first. Auto-lock
> made that the case. Why Apple doesn't make these things *optional* I
> don't know. They've made other things optional. Oh well.

Apple is that company that keeps everything straight and simple to
reduce complexity - except when it doesn't.

[Howard S Shubs]

In article <klu7lr$5eq$1...@reader1.panix.com>,

Bread <BreadW...@Fractious.net> wrote:

> On 2013-04-27 08:53:15 +0000, Howard S Shubs said:
> >
> > What I'm seeing is that VMware is better in 10.8 than in 10.6. Running
> > Windows 7 under VMware, my memory would fill up and the machine would
> > slow quite a bit. Now that I'm under 10.8, memory management seems
> > better. Okay, I admit it. I do.
>
>
> I've been on 10.8 since just after it came out.
>
> FWIW, I was using VMWare 4 and it was *horrible* - painfully slow both
> within Windows (XP) and caused everything else to slow to a crawl.

Seems fine to me with both W7 and CentOS. This is running 10.8.3 on a
mid-2009 MBP with 8GB RAM and both VMs on an external drive. Running
one at a time, note.

[Bread]

On 2013-05-02 18:08:54 +0000, Alan Browne said:

> On 2013.05.02 13:27 , Bread wrote:
>>
>> On a whim (and a great deal from a bundle) I switched to Parallels 8 and
>> I'm shocked at how much faster and more responsive it is. It's entirely

> Per the Fusion site, you would have had to update Fusion 4 to the
> latest, latest version _before_ installing 10.8. (Whether that
> _before_ is really a requirement or not is hard to say...)

I'd actually gotten Fusion 4 before I switched to 10.7 -- specifically
because, for a short time, Fusion 4 was also able to run 10.6
(non-server) within 10.7. I'd wanted to keep access to 10.6 without
having to dual-boot. Fusion updated 4 and killed off the ability to
install 10.6 (non-server). I never moved to Fusion 5, though. And
10.6 under 4 was just as painful, or worse, than XP was under it. I
ended up making a 10.6 partition for those times when I needed it (the
main thing was Quicken 07). Eventually, Intuit fixed Quicken and I
found I had no need for 10.6, but kept Fusion 4 for Win XP.

>
> I upgraded to Fusion 5 (from 3) and WinXP runs fine under it. I'm not
> against getting Parallels but for the little amount I need WinXP it's
> really not worth the change. I can run Windows Apps in my OS X
> environment as well (unity).

I just rode out 4 until I saw the super deal on Parallels 8.

Thankfully, the one thing that I was using almost daily which required
Windows got fixed recently and no longer requires it (it's a web-based
app which required IE -- 95% of it was fine on any browser, but one
piece only worked in IE -- they finally fixed that) and now I almost
never use WinXP. But the Parallels update really made an amazing
difference.

[Bread]

On 2013-05-03 02:35:18 +0000, Lewis said:

> In message <klu7v3$fhv$1...@reader1.panix.com>

> Bread <BreadW...@Fractious.net> wrote:
>> On 2013-04-27 09:24:34 +0000, Tim Streater said:
>>>
>>> Oddly, I find that works for documents, since when I open say a Pages
>>> doc, if I change it I'm generally doing it on purpose. Where it's a
>>> danger is just having a quick look at an image and wondering whether it
>>> would look better cropped this way instead of that. Then you find the
>>> next day that you have indeed cropped it when you intended just to be
>>> fiddling about.
>
>> Even if all you're doing is looking at a document, if you scroll (or,
>> say, in Numbers, switch which thing you're looking at), the system
>> thinks you've changed the document and indicates so in the title bar
>> ("Edited!"). That's annoying.
>

> You've changed the state of the file. The system will restore your app
> and the file you are editing EXACTLY as it was when you quit, including
> selected text and user position and viewport position.

Yes, all well and good, but that's different from changing *content*.

You can hardly just look at a document without changing scroll
position. But you still get the "edited" flag -- exactly the same as
if you'd actually changed things.

That annoys the crap out of me. Under the old save/save-as system, it
was easy to simply not save changes (especially if I'd just looked at a
document - IIRC, it didn't ask about saving if it was simply positional
changes).

Nowadays, as I said, I go out of my way to lock files all the time.
Maybe this is better, but I sure would like not to have to remember to
lock them. The old auto-lock under 10.7 took care of this. Removing
auto-lock increases the chances that unfortunate actual changes will
get saved, especially the longer and more complex a document is, should
it not be obvious that a change is something more than just moving the
scroll position.

As I said, auto-save/versions is a great idea. One day they'll get it
right, but it's certainly not there yet. 10.7 to 10.8 improved some
aspects, but worsened others (like the loss of auto-lock, even as an
option).

[Andreas Rutishauser]

In article <1qmdnTh3dcYrNh_M...@giganews.com>,

Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> Parallels has become the fastest way to run Windows virtually, but it
> doesn't support Linux or other OS' where Fusion supports many OS's -
> indeed you can load several OS' at the same time (WinXP + Linux over OS
> X for example).

<http://www.parallels.com/products/desktop/>

check the "System Requirements" -> Supported Guest Operating Systems

--
MacAndreas Rutishauser, <http://www.MacAndreas.ch>
EDV-Dienstleistungen, Hard- und Software, Internet und Netzwerk
Beratung, Unterstuetzung und Schulung
<mailto:and...@MacAndreas.ch>, Fon: 044 / 721 36 47

[Király]

Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> You've changed the state of the file. The system will restore your app
> and the file you are editing EXACTLY as it was when you quit, including
> selected text and user position and viewport position.

That's what I never understood about the whole Resume thing. If I had
wanted my file automatically reopened, including selected text and user
position and viewport position, I never would have quit the app in the
first place. I would have just hidden it.

Why copy the behavior of Hide to Quit, so that they do essentially the
same thing? I don't get it.

[JF Mezei]

On 13-05-05 01:52, Király wrote:

> Why copy the behavior of Hide to Quit, so that they do essentially the
> same thing? I don't get it.

Look at IOS applications that never have a "QUIT" function inside the
application and the end user never meant to know whether the application
actually exited or not. It just sits there in the task bar whether it is
actially running or not, and if not running, it will just resume if to
click on it as if it had always been running.

Looks to me like they tried to emulate this on OS-X.

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.05.03 02:05 , Andreas Rutishauser wrote:
> In article <1qmdnTh3dcYrNh_M...@giganews.com>,
> Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> Parallels has become the fastest way to run Windows virtually, but it
>> doesn't support Linux or other OS' where Fusion supports many OS's -
>> indeed you can load several OS' at the same time (WinXP + Linux over OS
>> X for example).
>
> <http://www.parallels.com/products/desktop/>
>
> check the "System Requirements" -> Supported Guest Operating Systems

Then colour me wrong - but they sure emphasize Windows in their
marketing materials.

Can you run more that one guest OS at a time?

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.05.05 09:47 , Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <km4s2l$6qs$1...@dont-email.me>, m...@home.spamsucks.ca (Király)

> wrote:
>
>> That's what I never understood about the whole Resume thing. If I had
>> wanted my file automatically reopened, including selected text and user
>> position and viewport position, I never would have quit the app in the
>> first place. I would have just hidden it.
>

> What if the computer crashes and you had not saved before hiding it?

In (e.g.) Word one sets a save interval for AutoRecover. If the
computer crashes you only lose what you did in the interval. 10 minutes
is default as an interval but you can set it to whatever suits you.

(I haven't used pages ('08 is what I have) in so long I don't recall
what its equivalent feature is called).

Crash? With WinXP I had very few crashes; with OS X I've had none that
lost me any work though a few times the system became very "bogged down"
and didn't seem to recover so I rebooted. (Also had problems a few
years ago when the system HD was dying).

> What if you were running out of RAM, and didn't want the slowdown of paging
> to and from VM?

Save the file, exit the app, close other apps, re-start the app.

With larger and larger memory spaces in newer machines this will become
a more rare thing.

> What if you wanted to shut the computer down for the night or for a weekend?

Save the file then shutdown. That includes saving to a temporary
version file if needed.

[Tom Stiller]

In article <35udnXHWSIJh6RvM...@giganews.com>,

Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> On 2013.05.03 02:05 , Andreas Rutishauser wrote:
> > In article <1qmdnTh3dcYrNh_M...@giganews.com>,
> > Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> Parallels has become the fastest way to run Windows virtually, but it
> >> doesn't support Linux or other OS' where Fusion supports many OS's -
> >> indeed you can load several OS' at the same time (WinXP + Linux over OS
> >> X for example).
> >
> > <http://www.parallels.com/products/desktop/>
> >
> > check the "System Requirements" -> Supported Guest Operating Systems
>
> Then colour me wrong - but they sure emphasize Windows in their
> marketing materials.
>
> Can you run more that one guest OS at a time?

Yes, but I only have two cores so performance isn't the greatest.

--
PRAY, v. To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf
of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy. -- Ambrose Bierce

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.05.05 12:19 , Tom Stiller wrote:
> In article <35udnXHWSIJh6RvM...@giganews.com>,
> Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 2013.05.03 02:05 , Andreas Rutishauser wrote:
>>> In article <1qmdnTh3dcYrNh_M...@giganews.com>,
>>> Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Parallels has become the fastest way to run Windows virtually, but it
>>>> doesn't support Linux or other OS' where Fusion supports many OS's -
>>>> indeed you can load several OS' at the same time (WinXP + Linux over OS
>>>> X for example).
>>>
>>> <http://www.parallels.com/products/desktop/>
>>>
>>> check the "System Requirements" -> Supported Guest Operating Systems
>>
>> Then colour me wrong - but they sure emphasize Windows in their
>> marketing materials.
>>
>> Can you run more that one guest OS at a time?
>
> Yes, but I only have two cores so performance isn't the greatest.

I have 2 cores also (iMac mid 2007) 2.8 GHz (667MHz) and with 4 GB of
RAM I could run WinXP and Linux with no issues. (Although it took about
5 minutes of each OS to "settle down"). Of course I wasn't running
intense apps in each OS. But browsers in all 3; PS in OS X, PS in WinXP
and GIMP in Linux all held up. Not a good "real time" compare to be sure.

I have 6 GB in my iMac now - that would surely make it smoother. When I
replace this with an i7 and 24 GB of RAM it should become somewhat
effortless. Not that I really want to bother with Linux.

[Király]

Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
> I use TextWrangler for software development - editing source code. So I
> have over 100 files open in TW. It was always a bloody nuisance to have
> to quit TW for any reason, such as restarting. I then had to open 100
> files again. Much better once they added a restart feature. Now I can
> quit it any time I like with little lost time when I start it again.
>
> Same with Safari - I usually have one window open with 8 or so tabs in
> it. Much better let the Giant Brain reopen everything for me.
>
> Random restarts or app crashes, which by the dictates of Sod's Law
> always happen at the most inconvenient moment, are no longer such a
> nuisance.
>
> Being able to hide an app over a restart of the OS is a clever trick.
> Care to explain how you do it?

Why do you restart so often as for this to be a concern? Are you
using Boot Camp?

I restart once every few months. I have no reason to do so any more
often than that, so the need to have apps resume their open files just
isn't there for me. I *do* wish to have apps *not* restore their open
files when I quit and relaunch the app (that's why I quit the app in the
first place) and so I'm glad that Apple included this as on option. In
the early days of Lion it wasn't an option.

[Király]

Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> What if the computer crashes and you had not saved before hiding it?

Then I'd learn a hard lesson. Save your work. Fortunately for me, I
learned that lesson long ago.

> What if you were running out of RAM, and didn't want the slowdown of paging
> to and from VM?

Huh? I don't even know what this means. It's certainly not a concern for
me. OS X has always done a decent enough job of managing RAM that I've
never had to intervene.

> What if you wanted to shut the computer down for the night or for a
> weekend?

I don't. Sleep works. Wake it up and everything is just how I left it.
It's the original and ultimate Resume.

Shutting down is something I do if I won't be using my iMac for three
days or more, or if I need to unplug it. IOW, maybe two or three times a
year. Shutting down daily? Silly.

[JF Mezei]

>> What if you were running out of RAM, and didn't want the slowdown of paging
>> to and from VM?

Which is exactly why one want to have an explicit "Quit" command and not
have some fake "quit" that may or may not terminate the process and free
all the memory allocated and never released due to memory leaks.

Trying to hide the basic operating concepts of applicatiosn may be neat
to attract 90 year olds to computing, but is not something professionals
want. It is in fact a very negative aspect for professionals.

[JF Mezei]

On 13-05-05 13:40, Király wrote:

> I don't. Sleep works. Wake it up and everything is just how I left it.
> It's the original and ultimate Resume.

Because I have networked connections and use X11, sleep does not work
because applications running on other machines and displating on my
workstation lose connection with the workstation and terminate.

[nospam]

In article <slrnkoddg1....@mbp55.local>, Lewis

<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> > That's what I never understood about the whole Resume thing. If I had
> > wanted my file automatically reopened, including selected text and user
> > position and viewport position, I never would have quit the app in the
> > first place. I would have just hidden it.
>

> That's you.
>
> For example, I have a Numbers file that I use to keep track of Amazon gift
> cards and iTunes balances. I open the file once every month or two. When
> I open numbers, that file comes up, and my cursor is where I want it to
> be (on the next line of the spreadsheet so I can enter a new purchase).
> Then I quit Numbers. Next time I launch it, I'm right back where I was.

or you could just double-click the document itself, the same way its
been done for the past 25 years.

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.05.05 15:46 , Lewis wrote:
> In message <35udnXHWSIJh6RvM...@giganews.com>

> Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2013.05.03 02:05 , Andreas Rutishauser wrote:
>>> In article <1qmdnTh3dcYrNh_M...@giganews.com>,
>>> Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Parallels has become the fastest way to run Windows virtually, but it
>>>> doesn't support Linux or other OS' where Fusion supports many OS's -
>>>> indeed you can load several OS' at the same time (WinXP + Linux over OS
>>>> X for example).
>>>
>>> <http://www.parallels.com/products/desktop/>
>>>
>>> check the "System Requirements" -> Supported Guest Operating Systems
>
>> Then colour me wrong - but they sure emphasize Windows in their
>> marketing materials.
>

> That's because probably 90% of their users use it for Windows.

I'd bet closer to 100 than 90.

>
>> Can you run more that one guest OS at a time?
>

> Pretty sure you can.

When I got Fusion it was at 2.0 and was (at the time) deemed better than
Parallels in all ways by Those-Who-Judge-Such-Things.

About 2 years ago one of the magazines tested both (windows only, IIRC)
and Windows under Parallels had become faster than Fusion.

If there is a "great price" offering at some point I may jump to
parallels - esp. if it will run my current container w/o having to
re-install WinXP (My XP is pre-service pack 1 - so an install entails a
very long series of Windows updates... In fact it's so old I can't
install WinXP unless I also have my Windows 98 disk to prove the upgrade!).

[TaliesinSoft]

On 2013-05-05 19:38:22 +0000, Lewis said:

> For example, I have a Numbers file that I use to keep track of Amazon gift
> cards and iTunes balances. I open the file once every month or two. When
> I open numbers, that file comes up, and my cursor is where I want it to
> be (on the next line of the spreadsheet so I can enter a new purchase).
> Then I quit Numbers. Next time I launch it, I'm right back where I was.
>

> When I reboot for a system update, my computer comes back up exactly as
> it was before I rebooted.

I'm running Numbers '09 Version 2.3 (354) under OS X 10.8.3 and when I
launch Numbers I have to select the last spreadsheet I worked on to
open it. My understanding is that under OS X 10.8.3 that Numbers, when
launched, will automatically open the most recently opened spreadsheet.
Is there perhaps a setting that I have missed?

--
James Leo Ryan - Austin, Texas

[Király]

Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
> You quit the app for the purpose of not having it restore your open
> files? Care to explain what that's about? Why not just close the open
> files and *not* quit the app?

If I have two dozen docs open, command-Q closes them all with a single
keystroke. Closing them all without quitting the app takes two dozen
keystrokes or mouse clicks.

> And you appear to have overlooked that I have a very good reason for
> *wanting* this feature.

More power to you. Cheers to Apple for providing us with choices.

[Király]

Alan Browne <alan....@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> > That's because probably 90% of their users use it for Windows.
>
> I'd bet closer to 100 than 90.

I'm using Parallels to run Leopard. I boot it up when I have to run the
ocassional app that requires Rosetta (mainly the TWAIN driver for my
Epson scanner.) I have a Snow Leopard VM too but I mainly use the
Leopard one. No Windows VMs for me.

[nospam]

In article <michelle-E02175...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

> > > For example, I have a Numbers file that I use to keep track of Amazon
> > > gift cards and iTunes balances. I open the file once every month or
> > > two. When I open numbers, that file comes up, and my cursor is where I
> > > want it to be (on the next line of the spreadsheet so I can enter a
> > > new purchase). Then I quit Numbers. Next time I launch it, I'm right
> > > back where I was.
> >
> > or you could just double-click the document itself, the same way its
> > been done for the past 25 years.
>

> His way saves at least one step,

no it doesn't.

it's a double-click in either case (or single click from the dock).

it's exactly the same.

> and doesn't require that the document's
> icon be easily reachable.

it requires the app to be easily reachable.

if someone is going to repeatedly open the same document, they are
going to put it in an easily accessible place.

anyway, separating the two functions offers a choice. the user can
launch without any documents (click the app), launch with the previous
document open (click the previous document) or launch with a different
document entirely (click a different document). they do not have that
choice with resume, which opens the previous document.

[Howard S Shubs]

In article <slrnkoddg1....@mbp55.local>,
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> They do not do the same thing. Quit quits the application. Resume works
> minutes, hours, days, or months later, through reboots.

So does Quit. :->

[Howard S Shubs]

In article <5186adf5$0$63369$c3e8da3$3a1a...@news.astraweb.com>,

JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> Trying to hide the basic operating concepts of applicatiosn may be neat
> to attract 90 year olds to computing, but is not something professionals
> want. It is in fact a very negative aspect for professionals.

There's not nearly as many professionals as novices. Or we'd all be out
of work.

[Howard S Shubs]

In article <slrnkoddom....@mbp55.local>,
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <5186adf5$0$63369$c3e8da3$3a1a...@news.astraweb.com>

> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> > Which is exactly why one want to have an explicit "Quit" command and not
> > have some fake "quit" that may or may not terminate the process and free
> > all the memory allocated and never released due to memory leaks.
>

> What the hell are you talking about?

Don't worry about it, Lewis.

[Király]

Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> > If I have two dozen docs open, command-Q closes them all with a single
> > keystroke. Closing them all without quitting the app takes two dozen
> > keystrokes or mouse clicks.
>

> Option clicking the red dot closes all of them.

I stand corrected. Is there a corresponding keyboard shortcut for that?

[David Empson]

Command-Option-W works in many applications, but probably not all of
them.

--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz

[Howard S Shubs]

In article <km6h1m$3rn$1...@dont-email.me>, m...@home.spamsucks.ca (Király)
wrote:

> Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
> > You quit the app for the purpose of not having it restore your open
> > files? Care to explain what that's about? Why not just close the open
> > files and *not* quit the app?
>
> If I have two dozen docs open, command-Q closes them all with a single
> keystroke. Closing them all without quitting the app takes two dozen
> keystrokes or mouse clicks.

Usually, closing them all is option-command-W.

[JF Mezei]

On 13-05-05 17:05, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> His way saves at least one step, and doesn't require that the document's
> icon be easily reachable.

Put the frequently used .numbers file on the dock. This way, when you
want to add a line to a spreadsheet, you click on that icon and you get
into that numbers file. But it also lets you start Numbers without
opening that file.

[TaliesinSoft]

On 2013-05-05 21:04:09 +0000, Michelle Steiner said:

> In article <aunubg...@mid.individual.net>,

> TaliesinSoft <talies...@me.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm running Numbers '09 Version 2.3 (354) under OS X 10.8.3 and when I
>> launch Numbers I have to select the last spreadsheet I worked on to open
>> it. My understanding is that under OS X 10.8.3 that Numbers, when
>> launched, will automatically open the most recently opened spreadsheet.
>> Is there perhaps a setting that I have missed?
>

> That is true only if you don't explicitly close the document before
> quitting the application. Also, in system preferences/general, make sure
> that "Close windows when quitting an application" is not checked.

Changing the system preferences as suggested does the job.

Many thanks!

[Jolly Roger]

In article <km6o9f$cl6$1...@dont-email.me>, m...@home.spamsucks.ca (Kir�ly)
wrote:

IIRC, it's typically Command-Option-W.

Mac OS applications often use the Option modifier key to change commands
that act on single objects to commands that effect multiple objects. For
instance, if you hold down Option while clicking the disclosure triangle
next to a folder in a Finder list view, the Finder will toggle the
triangle (open it or close it) for the item you clicked as well as any
subordinate folders contained within.

--
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

[nospam]

In article <michelle-540E8E...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

> > > > > For example, I have a Numbers file that I use to keep track of
> > > > > Amazon gift cards and iTunes balances. I open the file once every
> > > > > month or two. When I open numbers, that file comes up, and my
> > > > > cursor is where I want it to be (on the next line of the
> > > > > spreadsheet so I can enter a new purchase). Then I quit Numbers.
> > > > > Next time I launch it, I'm right back where I was.
> > > >
> > > > or you could just double-click the document itself, the same way its
> > > > been done for the past 25 years.
> > >
> > > His way saves at least one step,
> >
> > no it doesn't.
>

> Unless the document is on the desktop, in the Dock, or in an open window,
> it does.

obviously, if you intentionally bury the document, then it's more
steps. a fair and objective test doesn't do that.

you're also assuming the app is on the desktop, dock or in an open
window. if it's not, then the app has more steps.

if they are in different locations, then the difference in number of
steps is due to being in different locations, not because one is a
document and the other is an app.

anyone who is going to open a document repeatedly is going to put it in
a place where it can easily be accessed, which is likely to be the
desktop or dock.

> > anyway, separating the two functions offers a choice. the user can
> > launch without any documents (click the app), launch with the previous
> > document open (click the previous document) or launch with a different
> > document entirely (click a different document). they do not have that
> > choice with resume, which opens the previous document.
>

> Actually, resume reopens all documents that were open when you quit the
> app. Try opening multiple documents at the same time without resume. If
> they're in the same window, you have to command-click on each one or drag
> select them if they're positioned so you can do that, and then open. If
> they're in separate windows, good luck.

he only described opening one document.

however, if that's something you do frequently, group the files
together (using aliases if needed). if it's once in a while then the
number of steps doesn't really matter.

there will always edge cases that don't fit normal usage patterns.

[Jamie Kahn Genet]

Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <km4s2l$6qs$1...@dont-email.me>, m...@home.spamsucks.ca (Kir�ly)

> wrote:
>
> > That's what I never understood about the whole Resume thing. If I had
> > wanted my file automatically reopened, including selected text and user
> > position and viewport position, I never would have quit the app in the
> > first place. I would have just hidden it.
>

> What if the computer crashes and you had not saved before hiding it?

Can't have been very important work not to have saved before hiding the
app with it's open documents.

> What if you were running out of RAM, and didn't want the slowdown of paging
> to and from VM?

Then I just quit some apps manually - takes all of three seconds to quit
a bunch not in use.

> What if you wanted to shut the computer down for the night or for a weekend?

Then in 10.6.8 and earlier I'm prompted to save before shutdown quits
the app, so I don't lose anything.
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

[Warren Oates]

In article <howard-B86FDF....@news.individual.net>,

I'm a professional novice.
--
Where's the Vangelis music?
Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her.
They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing room scene.
-- notes for Blade Runner

[Jamie Kahn Genet]

Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <1l2g0t9.hgpdxp1s2exc7N%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz>,

> jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
>
> > > What if you wanted to shut the computer down for the night or for a
> > > weekend?
> >
> > Then in 10.6.8 and earlier I'm prompted to save before shutdown quits
> > the app, so I don't lose anything.
>

> And if you have a handful of apps with a dozen open documents in each?

Then I save as necessary, or not if I don't want to. What else would I
do?

I suppose keeping saving under my control (which I strongly prefer)
could in this instance become mildly annoying, but a) I rarely have
unsaved documents open I made changes to, without having saved before
moving onto something else (that just invites trouble), and b) I don't
shutdown or restart often. But even when I am because I'm into some
Windows game (that requires booting natively into Windows for decent
performance, otherwise I use virtualisation), it's still no bother
because of point 'a'.

I don't mind some kind of versioning and/or auto-save system, so long as
it runs in parallel to my saves, and stays out of my way unless I access
it. For me - not being a professional writer - my current backup system
serves well enough in this regard. Plus a few apps I have already have a
backup system for past saves.

[Jamie Kahn Genet]

Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <518700f1$0$43791$c3e8da3$9dec...@news.astraweb.com>

> Great. Now do I do that with all the documents for all the apps I use?
> How many hundreds of items do I put on the dock?

Use common sense.

Place commonly accessed files (or aliases to them) into an easily
accessible folder in your Dock/Finder/Desktop/[insert file
manager/launcher here]. The 'Stationery Pad' setting in the document's
get info window is handy in many such cases, so you open a copy rather
than changing the original. Some apps such as Pages have their own
template system (Digression: anyone else hate that Pages actually
disables the 'Stationery Pad' setting in get info windows? What IS your
problem Apple? You really can't let me use both stationery and Page's
own template system??? Uggg... I dislike Apple more and more as the
years pass).

Save less frequently accessed documents to sensibly located and named
folders. Access as needed.

Use the 'Recent items' menus - both globally in the Apple menu, and on a
per App-basis for those that have it.

[nospam]

In article <slrnkoellc....@mbp55.local>, Lewis

> Great. Now do I do that with all the documents for all the apps I use?
> How many hundreds of items do I put on the dock?

you were talking about *one* document in *one* app.

not hundreds.

> Besides that, I don't use the dock. In fact, I have the delay on the
> dock pop-up set to 2 seconds so I never see the dock on accident (and
> very rarely on purpose).

that doesn't matter. put it wherever you want.

[Jamie Kahn Genet]

Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <1l2hd9y.7nj6svtyv6l9N%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz> Jamie

> Kahn Genet <jam...@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> > Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
> >> In message <518700f1$0$43791$c3e8da3$9dec...@news.astraweb.com>
> >> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> >> > On 13-05-05 17:05, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> >>
> >> >> His way saves at least one step, and doesn't require that the document's
> >> >> icon be easily reachable.
> >>
> >> > Put the frequently used .numbers file on the dock. This way, when you
> >> > want to add a line to a spreadsheet, you click on that icon and you get
> >> > into that numbers file. But it also lets you start Numbers without
> >> > opening that file.
> >>
> >> Great. Now do I do that with all the documents for all the apps I use?
> >> How many hundreds of items do I put on the dock?
>
> > Use common sense.
>
> > Place commonly accessed files (or aliases to them) into an easily
> > accessible folder in your Dock/Finder/Desktop/[insert file
> > manager/launcher here].
>

> Why should I expend effort to duplicate, albeit poorly, functionality
> that is already in the OS and works better, every time? What about a
> file that I am using for a few weeks? Do I add it to the commonly
> accessible files list or not? How much time do I spend managing this
> duplication?

I use recent items menus, save documents to sensible locations and with
descriptive names, and just generally exercise common sense. It doesn't
take me more than a few seconds to save documents sensibly, and I need
only spend time naming and navigating to a location to save, once. Not
sure why you're worried about time, unless you're failing to exercise
common sense when saving documents. And what do you mean by duplication?
I don't get duplicate files unless I intentionally duplicate one to
create a new document based on the original, or use
stationery/templates. Why are you thinking you'll get duplicates?

> It's very simple. I open an app, and the app is in the state it was
> the last time I launched it, no matter how long ago I last used it. I
> don't have to "manage" anything, it just works. If I don't want a
> document open, I close it. Big Whoop.

Recent items menus work for me to re-open documents from the last
session, and I avoid the whole issue of auto-saving.

> Here's another example, I have an untitled document in textedit that I
> use as a scratch pad. I copy and paste little bits of text to it, and
> occasionally pull some bits of text off it.
>
> <launch textedit>
>
> Ah, I see the last time I used textedit I was working on a Wow macro,
> stuck in a list of the Culture books, and a long background:url() from
> a CSS document.
>
> I don't save that file, because I don't need to. But the information
> in that file stays (and the WoW macro has been in there since Wow 5.0
> came out) until I remove it and replace it with something else.
>
> I have a second untitled document that opened which was a list of the
> keyboard shortcuts for Plex. I closed that document unsaved because I
> didn't need to keep it, I just left it there after I printed it out. I
> don't have to do find the document and delete it, it's just gone,
> exactly as I wanted.
>
> A third file that is open is a paragraph that I've been reworking, off
> and on. That's a real document. I can click on the title bar and pull
> up any previous version of that document, making comparing various
> changes side-by-side, and restoring any previous version of the file
> that I want to.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. Perhaps you think I'm
against you having a resume feature? I don't want it because I want to
control saving, but I've only an issue if it's no longer an option in
the future.

As for version control - I'm not a writer or coder with professional
needs, and if I'm making edits I'm unsure I want, or don't want to
incorporate into the original, I use 'save as'. That, my backup and
various apps on auto-saving (separate from my own saves as I like it)
works fine for me if I ever need to revert to a previous version.

Again so long as I can keep Lion and ML features such as this optional,
or simply continue using Snow Leopard, I'm happy. So I'm not sure what
your point is, unless it's some inability to deal with people preferring
different ways than yours.

[Jamie Kahn Genet]

Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <slrnkofkmr....@ananke.local>,

> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
> > Why should I expend effort to duplicate, albeit poorly, functionality
> > that is already in the OS and works better, every time?
>

> It seems that they are offering workarounds for the lack of that
> functionality.

That's a rather arrogant view, but about what I've come to expect from
the crowd that prefer one way and confuse personal preference with
superiority. You seem to think Lion and ML's UI changes are somehow
superior for all users. They are not for me. I far prefer to control
saving myself, which means resuming and auto-saving are bad for me,
given they save changes without my input.

I'm glad we both have options to work they way we prefer. I'm less glad
at the overt attempts to marginalise the ways I and many other prefer to
work.

[Howard S Shubs]

In article <slrnkoelff....@mbp55.local>,
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <howard-3D1A4A....@news.individual.net>

> Howard S Shubs <how...@shubs.net> wrote:

> > In article <slrnkoddg1....@mbp55.local>,
> > Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
> >> They do not do the same thing. Quit quits the application. Resume works
> >> minutes, hours, days, or months later, through reboots.
>
> > So does Quit. :->
>
> No, quit quits the application *AND CLOSE ALL DOCUMENTS*

No more than Resume does, in .8, as is being discussed. When you open
the app again, your windows and/or documents are still there.

[Jamie Kahn Genet]

Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <michelle-01AD26...@news.eternal-september.org>

> Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> > In article <slrnkofkmr....@ananke.local>,
> > Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
> >> Why should I expend effort to duplicate, albeit poorly, functionality
> >> that is already in the OS and works better, every time?
>
> > It seems that they are offering workarounds for the lack of that
> > functionality.
>

> No, they are offering workarounds as evidence that Resume is
> unnecessary, or a terrible evil horrible thing Apple has cursed them
> with.

Or back in reasonable land, that for those who prefer to keep saving
under their control, it's a simple matter to load manage documents
without auto-save and resume. We've been doing so for decades (at least
those of us who bothered to learn how to save and otherwise manage
files). We didn't suddenly forget when Lion arrived and people like
myself wanted to continue keeping saving under our control instead.

[Warren Oates]

In article <slrnkogi3h....@mbp55.local>,
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> Wrong is "He run fasterly."

Well, he used to could.

[JF Mezei]

On 13-05-07 04:04, Tim Streater wrote:

> I'd like the resume stuff also on a per-app basis - I'd turn it off for
> Textedit and Preview, f'rinstance, but definitely have it *on* for
> Safari and TextWrangler.

I much prefer the OS to stay out of it and let each app add a "restore
previous session" menu if it is relevant to it.