Re: Ping, and more

[JF Mezei]

Michelle Steiner wrote:

> You can read the entire transcript at
> <http://allthingsd.com/20120529/live-apple-ceo-tim-cooks-first-time-in-the-hot-seat-at-d/>


Thanks for the link. What I find intereting is Cook's answer on why OS-X
and IOS should be kept separate versus Windows 8 being same for desktop
and phones.

I wonder if this signals that Apple has realised that Job's "back to
mac" was not correct and they'll ease up on trying to make OS-X like IOS.

[Davoud]

JF Mezei:

> Thanks for the link. What I find intereting is Cook's answer on why OS-X
> and IOS should be kept separate versus Windows 8 being same for desktop
> and phones.

> I wonder if this signals that Apple has realised that Job's "back to
> mac" was not correct and they'll ease up on trying to make OS-X like IOS.

There is nothing to "ease up" on. The idea that iOS was going to take
over the Mac never came from Apple. It was born in the minds of persons
with overly active and perhaps slightly paranoid imaginations. "Yes,
but look at Launchpad. Straight from iOS. Doesn't that prove that Apple
is abandoning OS X and switching the Mac to iOS?"

No. That's a huge and illogical leap and it's no different from saying
that iOS is the same as the Mac OS because iOS employs icons in its
user interface. My microwave oven, my home thermostat, and my cars'
GPS's all employ icons in their user interfaces, but they do not signal
anything about Apple's plans for iOS or OS X.

Finally, note that Apple and Microsoft have copied interface elements
from each other for years. As a user of both systems, I would argue
that practically everyone benefitted. But OS X and Windows most
certainly maintain their separate identities today.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

[JF Mezei]

Davoud wrote:

> There is nothing to "ease up" on. The idea that iOS was going to take
> over the Mac never came from Apple. It was born in the minds of persons
> with overly active and perhaps slightly paranoid imaginations.

This wasn't about replacing OS-X with IOS. If you remember the "Back to
Mac" event, it is about incorporating IOS GUI style into OS-X.

Now, Cook has sent the signal (twice if I remember correctly) that Apple
knows that Macs and IOS devices are very different markets and Mac users
have different needs.

The easy interpretation is that Apple won't convert Macs to IOS. But
the underlying question is whether Apple has recenived anough complaints
about "Back to Mac" features that it did realise that Mac users don't
want an IOS environment on their laptop/desktop.

[LGi...@gmail.com]

IMHO OS-X and IOS should be separate, having Windows 8 be for phones
and the desktop means it wll bo both badly.

[Alan Browne]

On 2012-05-30 02:08 , JF Mezei wrote:

> I wonder if this signals that Apple has realised that Job's "back to
> mac" was not correct and they'll ease up on trying to make OS-X like IOS.

Because it never was as discussed in the past. Again, they've taken
some "look and feel" from iOS over to OS X. That's all.

While you raised this banner and charged hard for the last year or so
you forgot to look back to see that nobody was following you.

--
"Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities."
-Samuel Clemens.

[Alan Browne]

There was never a signal to receive. This whole iOS taking over Mac has
always been a figment of your imagination as many have tried to tell you
many times.

The "Back to Mac" event was about Apple turning their attention back to
the Mac after a lot of attention on the iPhone/iPad, not about making OS
X into an iOS platform.

[Alan Browne]

Don't worry about Mezei's nightmare. It was never to be except in his
nitrogen rich imagination.

[Davoud]

JF Mezei:

> > The easy interpretation is that Apple won't convert Macs to IOS. But
> > the underlying question is whether Apple has recenived anough complaints
> > about "Back to Mac" features that it did realise that Mac users don't
> > want an IOS environment on their laptop/desktop.

Alan Browne:

> There was never a signal to receive. This whole iOS taking over Mac has
> always been a figment of your imagination as many have tried to tell you
> many times.
>
> The "Back to Mac" event was about Apple turning their attention back to
> the Mac after a lot of attention on the iPhone/iPad, not about making OS
> X into an iOS platform.

Well put, but you run into the rule that you can't reason people out of
beliefs that they haven't been reasoned into.

[Alan Browne]

On 2012-05-30 18:30 , Davoud wrote:
> JF Mezei:
>>> The easy interpretation is that Apple won't convert Macs to IOS. But
>>> the underlying question is whether Apple has recenived anough complaints
>>> about "Back to Mac" features that it did realise that Mac users don't
>>> want an IOS environment on their laptop/desktop.
>
> Alan Browne:
>> There was never a signal to receive. This whole iOS taking over Mac has
>> always been a figment of your imagination as many have tried to tell you
>> many times.
>>
>> The "Back to Mac" event was about Apple turning their attention back to
>> the Mac after a lot of attention on the iPhone/iPad, not about making OS
>> X into an iOS platform.
>
> Well put, but you run into the rule that you can't reason people out of
> beliefs that they haven't been reasoned into.

I shouldn't waste my time on it, but it's useful to leave rebuttal for
those innocents who might believe his crap.

[JF Mezei]

Alan Browne wrote:

> I shouldn't waste my time on it, but it's useful to leave rebuttal for
> those innocents who might believe his crap.

Ok, do you deny that Apple's "Back to Mac" was about incorporating IOS
developped features into OS-X ?

I am just trying to fugure if you're just out to insult me or whether
you really believe that Apple was just saying that they would put a bit
more effort into OS-X.

[Davoud]

Alan Browne wrote:
> > I shouldn't waste my time on it, but it's useful to leave rebuttal for
> > those innocents who might believe his crap.

JF Mezei:

> Ok, do you deny that Apple's "Back to Mac" was about incorporating IOS
> developped features into OS-X ?

> I am just trying to fugure if you're just out to insult me or whether
> you really believe that Apple was just saying that they would put a bit
> more effort into OS-X.

Nobody wants to insult anyone. I don't speak for Mr. Browne, but what I
have seen here are nonsensical assertions that iOS would supplant Mac
OS on Macintosh computers--all because one popular feature from iOS
found its way to the Mac OS where it is called Launchpad. That was the
foot in the door, we were told. Next thing you know there would be no
user-accessible directories or direct file access, the shell would
disappear, no more Photoshop or other pro apps, blah, blah. These
assertions are cut from whole cloth.

And yes, it was clear to me that Apple was saying the opposite of what
the doomsayers are proclaiming--the success of iOS does not mean that
Apple is going to slack off on improving the Mac OS. Look at the growth
in Macintosh sales (especially Mac portables) compared to the industry
as a whole. Apple knows that the Mac OS is not going to displace
Windows, but it's certainly taking a bigger chunk of the market.

Not only is Launchpad optional (removable from the Dock never to be
seen again if a user so desires), but it swallows all of 319k of disk
space. If Launchpad is not everybody's cup of tea, it does appeal to
many users. About the worst thing a person could honestly say about
Launchpad is that it is harmless and the best is that it is a neat,
clean, and and easy way to launch applications--for those whose cup of
tea it is. One thing is for sure--you have to try it to like it.

[Todd Allcock]

Or, that Apple is distancing itself from Microsoft's "Windows Everywhere"
initiative that plans to put variants of the same Windows 8 OS on PCs,
tablets, and phones.

If the MS idea bombs, Apple gets a leg up against Windows as MS is forced
to regroup and redesign Windows 9 essentially from scratch while Apple
continues to improve Mac OS, and if MS is successful, Apple can just
continue quietly "iOS-ifying" Mac OS.

[Doug Anderson]

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

> Alan Browne wrote:
>
> > I shouldn't waste my time on it, but it's useful to leave rebuttal for
> > those innocents who might believe his crap.
>
>
> Ok, do you deny that Apple's "Back to Mac" was about incorporating IOS
> developped features into OS-X ?

It was _not_ about changing OS X to iOS.

Your post suggested that it _was_ about that, incorrectly.

You wrote:

> The easy interpretation is that Apple won't convert Macs to IOS.

But of course that was never a possibility.

You also wrote:

> But
> the underlying question is whether Apple has recenived anough complaints
> about "Back to Mac" features that it did realise that Mac users don't
> want an IOS environment on their laptop/desktop.

But there is simply no reason to think Apple _ever_ though Mac users
wanted iOS on their desktops, so your version of the "underlying
question" assumes something on the part of Apple that simply seems to
be false.

[JF Mezei]

Doug Anderson wrote:
>
> But there is simply no reason to think Apple _ever_ though Mac users
> wanted iOS on their desktops, so your version of the "underlying
> question" assumes something on the part of Apple that simply seems to
> be false.

Do you deny that Apple announced that it would incorporate features of
IOS into OS-X ?

If not, then you must agree that Apple has begun to make OS-X look and
feel more like IOS.

My argument/hope is that Apple has realised that this is not desirable
for computer users and will stop trying to implement the "dumbed down
for general population" features such as autosave or automatically
opening a document you don't want opened etc.

The iPad will cannabalise some Mac sales by moving "general population"
from computers to IOS. These are the people who don't understand
concepts like "having to save a document you have edited" etc etc. For
them IOS is best because it takes care of all that for you.

But for those who still need to use computers, they require control over
their documents and to them, stuff like autosave or re-opening a
document you don't want touched when you start an application are
unwanted features. They want "save as", not some silly "duplicate".


It has often been argued that touchscreen doesn't work for desktops. And
there is general agreement on that. But the differences between desktop
and mobile are far greater at the software level not only because of
ergonomics but more importantly because the type of work that will be
done on a real computer will be very different than what will be done on
mobile iDevices.

[JF Mezei]

Michelle Steiner wrote:

> Selected features where it makes sense to do so.
>

It is the "where it makes sense" where I have a disagreement and where I
hope Cook's recent answers send a message that Apple has gotten the hint.

When you look at the "bouncing ball" effect when you move to the end of
a document, this is purely marketing driven and is not desirable when
you do serious work. Great for the keynote to impress the press, but for
real computer users, it is an annoyance, just like that extremely stupid
transparency in panels/menus which makes it harder to work and harder on
the eyes.

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

Doug Anderson wrote:
>
> But there is simply no reason to think Apple _ever_ though Mac users
> wanted iOS on their desktops, so your version of the "underlying
> question" assumes something on the part of Apple that simply seems to
> be false.

The dilema is that while that's correct, how many iOS users will want iOS
on THEIR desktop?

Apple has avoided the whole issue with bluetooth keyboards for the iPad,
which depending upon the product also avoids the question of an iOS laptop.
For example, my wife has a nice fake leather case with as silicone keyboard
for her iPad. When she wants to lots of typing on it, she uses the keyboard.

Most of the time she does not, since things like email, etc are done on a
Windows computer. Scheduling using Outlook, documents with Word.

She does use Firefox and iTunes and VLC, which are very much the same on
both.

She never liked the Mac and refuses to use mine. So as a Mac purchaser,
she's a nonstarter.

As an iOS desktop purchaser, she would be resistant now, but in a few years,
if she does not switch to a Windows tablet, she might be.

When the number of "might be" customers becomes high enough, Apple will have
to address them.

What is a matter of speculation is what will happen now that Steve is gone.

While his team made his vision possible, what we don't know is how much of
that vision was his and how much of it was his team. My guess is that a
lot less of it was him since he got sick than we think.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM/KBUH7245/KBUW5379
To put it in terms everyone understands, the US debt is over 150 Facebooks.

[Jolly Roger]

In article <michelle-CBF24B...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <4fc72492$0$32185$c3e8da3$40d4...@news.astraweb.com>,

> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
> > When you look at the "bouncing ball" effect when you move to the end of
> > a document, this is purely marketing driven and is not desirable when
> > you do serious work.
>

> *laugh*

I got a laugh out of that too. Apparently JF hasn't ever used a
touch-based device.

--
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 <jollyroger-E96D9...@news.individual.net>,

Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:

> > > When you look at the "bouncing ball" effect when you move to the end of
> > > a document, this is purely marketing driven and is not desirable when
> > > you do serious work.
> >
> > *laugh*
>
> I got a laugh out of that too. Apparently JF hasn't ever used a
> touch-based device.

he's not talking about bounce on touch based devices, where such a
feature makes sense.

he's talking about the bounce on macs, which is entirely gratuitous.

[Doug Anderson]

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

> Doug Anderson wrote:
> >
> > But there is simply no reason to think Apple _ever_ though Mac users
> > wanted iOS on their desktops, so your version of the "underlying
> > question" assumes something on the part of Apple that simply seems to
> > be false.
>
>
> Do you deny that Apple announced that it would incorporate features of
> IOS into OS-X ?

Of course not. Apple was clear that it was going to take features
that work well on iOS and add them to OS X. And they did. Whether
they work well in OS X is open to debate, but since users can elect
not to use them, this doesn't constitute a fundamental change to OS
X.

> If not, then you must agree that Apple has begun to make OS-X look and
> feel more like IOS.

No, I don't agree with that at all. It doesn't feel more like iOS to
me, though it has a couple additional features that I don't use much
(Launchpad, for example).

> My argument/hope is that Apple has realised that this is not desirable
> for computer users and will stop trying to implement the "dumbed down
> for general population" features such as autosave or automatically
> opening a document you don't want opened etc.

Now you are talking about something completely different. One can
argue about the desirability of the particular features you mention
(for me, autosave is great, automatically opening recent documents is
annoying), but since Apple allows the user to _decide_ whether to use
these features, it probably isn't worth arguing about whether they are
good or bad.

In any case, those features aren't related to iOS, and thus not to
the misguided point you are trying to make.

> The iPad will cannabalise some Mac sales by moving "general population"
> from computers to IOS. These are the people who don't understand
> concepts like "having to save a document you have edited" etc etc. For
> them IOS is best because it takes care of all that for you.
>
> But for those who still need to use computers, they require control over
> their documents and to them, stuff like autosave or re-opening a
> document you don't want touched when you start an application are
> unwanted features.

Those who want them can turn them on. Those who don't can turn them
off. Why make a federal case out of it.

> They want "save as", not some silly "duplicate".

I prefer the language I was used to ("Save As") but honestly it is
hard to get bent out of shape since the functionality is the same.

[Doug Anderson]

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <g...@mendelson.com> writes:

> Doug Anderson wrote:
> >
> > But there is simply no reason to think Apple _ever_ though Mac users
> > wanted iOS on their desktops, so your version of the "underlying
> > question" assumes something on the part of Apple that simply seems to
> > be false.
>
> The dilema is that while that's correct, how many iOS users will want iOS
> on THEIR desktop?

None? I don't know the answer, nor am I sure why this question is a
compelling dilemma (or why it is a dilemma at all).

Probably not none, but likely "few."

I suppose if Apple market research comes up with a different answer to
this question than me, they could make the product. But really, the
iPad is a great iOS device. Why would you want to take the same
functionality and put it on a larger and heavier machine?

If it is just for the keyboard, then your wife's solution seems
dandy. If it is for more things than that, then I suspect you want an
OS that is consumption oriented than iOS.

[nospam]

In article <osaa0ob...@ethel.the.log>, Doug Anderson

<ethelthelo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > The iPad will cannabalise some Mac sales by moving "general population"
> > from computers to IOS. These are the people who don't understand
> > concepts like "having to save a document you have edited" etc etc. For
> > them IOS is best because it takes care of all that for you.
> >
> > But for those who still need to use computers, they require control over
> > their documents and to them, stuff like autosave or re-opening a
> > document you don't want touched when you start an application are
> > unwanted features.
>
> Those who want them can turn them on. Those who don't can turn them
> off. Why make a federal case out of it.

because some of them can't be turned off and others require a cryptic
command line to disable which not all users will be comfortable doing
or even know where to look to find out how. also, because disabling it
is undocumented, that ability may go away at some point.

> > They want "save as", not some silly "duplicate".
>
> I prefer the language I was used to ("Save As") but honestly it is
> hard to get bent out of shape since the functionality is the same.

it's not the same at all. duplicate requires more steps than save as
does (making it a step *backwards* in usability) and it is also much
easier to unintentionally alter a file.

[Paul Sture]

On Wed, 30 May 2012 23:52:24 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> In article <4fc66b7e$0$26448$c3e8da3$14a0...@news.astraweb.com>,

> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
>> > There is nothing to "ease up" on. The idea that iOS was going to take
>> > over the Mac never came from Apple. It was born in the minds of
>> > persons with overly active and perhaps slightly paranoid
>> > imaginations.
>>
>>
>> This wasn't about replacing OS-X with IOS. If you remember the "Back to
>> Mac" event, it is about incorporating IOS GUI style into OS-X.
>

> Selected elements of it, where it makes sense to do so.

>
>> The easy interpretation is that Apple won't convert Macs to IOS.
>

> Considering that Apple never intended to do that, it's no big
> revelation.

Also take note of the user revolt going on about Microsoft's new Metro
interface for Windows 8.

Here's an amusing video where some lad tries it out with his father.
Don't miss the punch line :-)

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4boTbv9_nU>

"Click on the fish?"

and the sequel. The same guy comparing Windows 8 and OS X:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbjnbhWVN8c&feature=relmfu>


--
Paul Sture

[Doug Anderson]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> writes:

> In article <osaa0ob...@ethel.the.log>, Doug Anderson
> <ethelthelo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The iPad will cannabalise some Mac sales by moving "general population"
> > > from computers to IOS. These are the people who don't understand
> > > concepts like "having to save a document you have edited" etc etc. For
> > > them IOS is best because it takes care of all that for you.
> > >
> > > But for those who still need to use computers, they require control over
> > > their documents and to them, stuff like autosave or re-opening a
> > > document you don't want touched when you start an application are
> > > unwanted features.
> >
> > Those who want them can turn them on. Those who don't can turn them
> > off. Why make a federal case out of it.
>
> because some of them can't be turned off

Apparently not the applications I use. Which ones can't be turned
off?

> and others require a cryptic
> command line to disable which not all users will be comfortable doing
> or even know where to look to find out how.

Again, not the applications I use. Which ones require cryptic command
lines to turn off opening documents automatically?

> also, because disabling it
> is undocumented, that ability may go away at some point.

If we are going to generically complain that things may change, then
we're in real trouble. If OS 10.7 was the acme of perfection, we
would have to face the complaint that this perfection could go away at

some point.

> > > They want "save as", not some silly "duplicate".
> >
> > I prefer the language I was used to ("Save As") but honestly it is
> > hard to get bent out of shape since the functionality is the same.
>
> it's not the same at all. duplicate requires more steps than save as
> does (making it a step *backwards* in usability) and it is also much
> easier to unintentionally alter a file.

I don't seem to use any applications where there are now extra steps
required to save a new (or new version) of a document. Could you give
me an example, so I can see what you mean?

I know that Preview, for example, no longer has "Save As," but it does
allow me to "Export" as PDF, which seems like the same number of
steps.

[nospam]

In article <0f396gw...@ethel.the.log>, Doug Anderson

<ethelthelo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Those who want them can turn them on. Those who don't can turn them
> > > off. Why make a federal case out of it.
> >
> > because some of them can't be turned off
>
> Apparently not the applications I use. Which ones can't be turned
> off?

autosave & versioning.

> > and others require a cryptic
> > command line to disable which not all users will be comfortable doing
> > or even know where to look to find out how.
>
> Again, not the applications I use. Which ones require cryptic command
> lines to turn off opening documents automatically?

i wasn't talking about that particular feature.

there are quite a few 'features' that have hidden preferences and can
only be enabled/disabled via the terminal. for example, here's a few:

<http://www.macworld.com/article/1161330/four_lion_terminal_hacks.html>

techie users might know where to look for this type of stuff but the
average user certainly won't.

this isn't anything new to lion. unfortunately, os x is so rife with
hidden preferences that there gui utilities *just* to be able to
configure them all, such as tinker tool.

> > also, because disabling it
> > is undocumented, that ability may go away at some point.
>
> If we are going to generically complain that things may change, then
> we're in real trouble. If OS 10.7 was the acme of perfection, we
> would have to face the complaint that this perfection could go away at
> some point.

the issue is that the command line hacks are undocumented and for that
reason, they could go away at any time. if apple decides to remove a
hidden preference, you are then stuck with the new 'feature,' whether
you want it or not.

> > > > They want "save as", not some silly "duplicate".
> > >
> > > I prefer the language I was used to ("Save As") but honestly it is
> > > hard to get bent out of shape since the functionality is the same.
> >
> > it's not the same at all. duplicate requires more steps than save as
> > does (making it a step *backwards* in usability) and it is also much
> > easier to unintentionally alter a file.
>
> I don't seem to use any applications where there are now extra steps
> required to save a new (or new version) of a document. Could you give
> me an example, so I can see what you mean?
>
> I know that Preview, for example, no longer has "Save As," but it does
> allow me to "Export" as PDF, which seems like the same number of
> steps.

the problem is you have to decide ahead of time you will be wanting two
versions of the file, so you need to duplicate first and then edit it.

if you open a file and make a change, autosave saves it, and many times
that's *not* what you want. if the file is on dropbox, it can really
screw things up. sure, files can be locked but that's yet another step.

save as has worked fine for 30 years. nobody was complaining about it.
there was no need to change it and confuse people.

[nospam]

In article <michelle-F4B72C...@news.eternal-september.org>,

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

> > there are quite a few 'features' that have hidden preferences and can
> > only be enabled/disabled via the terminal. for example, here's a few:
> >
> > <http://www.macworld.com/article/1161330/four_lion_terminal_hacks.html>
>

> There are third-party GUI solutions for them. And they are so minor as to
> not to worry about.

maybe it's minor to you, but not everyone thinks so.

if they're that minor, why is there not just one, but *several* gui
solutions, along with many articles such as the one above and countless
threads on how to deal with or work around lion's changes and even how
to revert back to snow leopard?

perhaps it's not as minor as you might think.

> > techie users might know where to look for this type of stuff but the
> > average user certainly won't.
>

> The average user won't care.

some do and some don't. what's the advantage of hiding the preferences?

> > this isn't anything new to lion. unfortunately, os x is so rife with
> > hidden preferences that there gui utilities *just* to be able to
> > configure them all, such as tinker tool.
>

> Yup, so "only...via the terminal" is incorrect.

all the gui utility does under the hood is issue the terminal command.

[nospam]

In article <michelle-44C66B...@news.eternal-september.org>,

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

> > > > > When you look at the "bouncing ball" effect when you move to the
> > > > > end of a document, this is purely marketing driven and is not
> > > > > desirable when you do serious work.
> > > >
> > > > *laugh*
> > >
> > > I got a laugh out of that too. Apparently JF hasn't ever used a
> > > touch-based device.
> >
> > he's not talking about bounce on touch based devices, where such a
> > feature makes sense.
> >
> > he's talking about the bounce on macs, which is entirely gratuitous.
>

> My Mac is a touch based device. Not screen touch, but Magic Trackpad touch.

that's a stretch. you touch the keyboard too, or a mouse for that
matter.

touch based means tablet, smartphone or other device where you directly
manipulate something, as opposed to a computer where there is a
disconnect between what you are touching and what you are manipulating.
the ios apis are even called cocoa touch, versus standard mac apis.

[Doug Anderson]

The new paradigm works fine too, but it is different. I understand
not liking change, most computer users don't.

But this change, in spite of your assertion, doesn't involve a
reduction of control, it just involve getting used to a different
decision tree.

Frankly to me it seems alien to start editing a file
before you know whether you are intending to create a different
file or edit the existing one. But even if that is what you like,
isn't there now a "revert document" option?

So again, no change in functionality, but I agree that if you are
used to making the decision about whether you are intending to
create a different file or edit an existing one, there is a
difference in the steps you take.

As far as command line hacks, I have yet to use a version of OS X
where there wasn't _something_ I wanted to do a command line hack
for.


As far as your main point, I really don't see how to interpet the
innovations (whether you like them or not) in 10.7 as a decrease in
control over your documents.

[Jolly Roger]

In article <michelle-44C66B...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <310520120838499024%nos...@nospam.invalid>,

> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > > > When you look at the "bouncing ball" effect when you move to the
> > > > > end of a document, this is purely marketing driven and is not
> > > > > desirable when you do serious work.
> > > >
> > > > *laugh*
> > >
> > > I got a laugh out of that too. Apparently JF hasn't ever used a
> > > touch-based device.
> >
> > he's not talking about bounce on touch based devices, where such a
> > feature makes sense.
> >
> > he's talking about the bounce on macs, which is entirely gratuitous.
>

> My Mac is a touch based device. Not screen touch, but Magic Trackpad touch.

nospam, as usual, is full of shit. The purpose of the bounce back
feature is to signal the user that he/she has reached the end of the
document, which can be useful feedback when other visual cues like
scroll bars are visually degraded, which is the case in recent versions
of Mac OS X. nospam, in his typical "I am right and everyone else is
wrong" attitude, assumes that if he sees no need for a feature, it must
be entirely gratuitous. He's a pompous prick, and a complete jackass.
And as you know, he will never, ever admit he is wrong about anything.
So don't waste your breath arguing with him. He lives for pointless
argument.

[nospam]

In article <u0y5o82...@ethel.the.log>, Doug Anderson

<ethelthelo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > save as has worked fine for 30 years. nobody was complaining about it.
> > there was no need to change it and confuse people.
>
> The new paradigm works fine too, but it is different. I understand
> not liking change, most computer users don't.
>
> But this change, in spite of your assertion, doesn't involve a
> reduction of control, it just involve getting used to a different
> decision tree.

yes it is is a different decision tree, and one with *more* steps to
accomplish the same thing. computers are supposed to reduce work, not
create more. it was nothing more than a change for the sake of change.
the previous way wasn't broken and has worked just fine for 30 years.

> Frankly to me it seems alien to start editing a file
> before you know whether you are intending to create a different
> file or edit the existing one. But even if that is what you like,
> isn't there now a "revert document" option?

sometimes. on a non-hfs volume (e.g., flash card), the autosave is
destructive and there is no revert.

> As far as command line hacks, I have yet to use a version of OS X
> where there wasn't _something_ I wanted to do a command line hack
> for.

which means there is a fundamental design problem. you should not need
to drop to the command line just to configure the computer the way you
want.

> As far as your main point, I really don't see how to interpet the
> innovations (whether you like them or not) in 10.7 as a decrease in
> control over your documents.

quite a few people do. just look at the numerous threads on how to turn
them off or even go back to snow leopard.

[Alan Browne]

On 2012-05-30 21:43 , JF Mezei wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> I shouldn't waste my time on it, but it's useful to leave rebuttal for
>> those innocents who might believe his crap.
>
>
> Ok, do you deny that Apple's "Back to Mac" was about incorporating IOS
> developped features into OS-X ?

Not a few iOS gestures no. But your insistence in the past that OS X
was being wholesale replaced by iOS was false then as it is now. Your
backfilling doesn't erase the past.

> I am just trying to fugure if you're just out to insult me or whether
> you really believe that Apple was just saying that they would put a bit
> more effort into OS-X.

From the beginning of "Back to Mac" and the adoption of a few iOS
gestures into the OS X UI you've been whining about OS X becoming "iOS"
like. No matter how many people have told you "it ain't so" you persisted.

Now that it's obvious that you were wrong, you paint it as "Apple got
the message". There was no "message" to get. They were never going
where you suggested.

BTW: I don't need to insult you. You malign yourself.

--
"Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities."
-Samuel Clemens.

[Alan Browne]

On 2012-05-31 03:53 , JF Mezei wrote:
> Doug Anderson wrote:
>>
>> But there is simply no reason to think Apple _ever_ though Mac users
>> wanted iOS on their desktops, so your version of the "underlying
>> question" assumes something on the part of Apple that simply seems to
>> be false.
>
>
> Do you deny that Apple announced that it would incorporate features of
> IOS into OS-X ?
>
> If not, then you must agree that Apple has begun to make OS-X look and
> feel more like IOS.
>
> My argument/hope is that Apple has realised that this is not desirable

There was nothing to realize. They were never going there. The
adoption a few gestures and such is not a wholesale conversion to iOS
UI, look-and-feel or OS.

[Doug Anderson]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> writes:

> In article <u0y5o82...@ethel.the.log>, Doug Anderson
> <ethelthelo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > save as has worked fine for 30 years. nobody was complaining about it.
> > > there was no need to change it and confuse people.
> >
> > The new paradigm works fine too, but it is different. I understand
> > not liking change, most computer users don't.
> >
> > But this change, in spite of your assertion, doesn't involve a
> > reduction of control, it just involve getting used to a different
> > decision tree.
>
> yes it is is a different decision tree, and one with *more* steps to
> accomplish the same thing.

I don't see the "more steps" you are talking about.

But yes, perhaps there are some things that require more steps and
some things that require fewer steps.

> computers are supposed to reduce work,

Certainly not having people accidentally lose hours of changes they've
made to a document reduces work.

> not
> create more. it was nothing more than a change for the sake of change.
> the previous way wasn't broken and has worked just fine for 30
> years.
>
> > Frankly to me it seems alien to start editing a file
> > before you know whether you are intending to create a different
> > file or edit the existing one. But even if that is what you like,
> > isn't there now a "revert document" option?
>
> sometimes. on a non-hfs volume (e.g., flash card), the autosave is
> destructive and there is no revert.
>
> > As far as command line hacks, I have yet to use a version of OS X
> > where there wasn't _something_ I wanted to do a command line hack
> > for.
>
> which means there is a fundamental design problem. you should not need
> to drop to the command line just to configure the computer the way you
> want.

You think? So the assertion is that if there is _any_ configuration
issue that _any_ person wants to do that requires using the command
line, this means there is a fundamental design problem?

I have to disagree.

> > As far as your main point, I really don't see how to interpet the
> > innovations (whether you like them or not) in 10.7 as a decrease in
> > control over your documents.
>
> quite a few people do. just look at the numerous threads on how to turn
> them off or even go back to snow leopard.

Those threads don't tell you this is a decrease in control, they just
tell you that some people don't like this change. That's true for
_any_ change.

[Király]

In comp.sys.mac.system Doug Anderson <ethelthelo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Of course not. Apple was clear that it was going to take features
> that work well on iOS and add them to OS X. And they did. Whether
> they work well in OS X is open to debate, but since users can elect
> not to use them, this doesn't constitute a fundamental change to OS
> X.

There are many changes that are not revertable. Address Book, for
example. Functionality (the 3-pane view) was removed in Lion (one pane
is always hidden now) for no purpose other than to make it look the same
as in iOS.

iCal too. It used to have a handy sidebar. It too was removed, for the
sole purpose of making it look the same as in iOS.

There is no way to bring those features back in Lion. But if the
screenshots of 10.8 that are up on various sites are to be believed,
both the iCal sidebar and 3-pane Address Book view have been returned to
those apps in 10.8.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/7xptjhl

So it seems that Apple is realizing that removing functionality from
apps for the sole purpose of making them more iOS-like might not have
been such a good idea.

--
K.

Lang may your lum reek.

[JF Mezei]

Alan Browne wrote:

> Not a few iOS gestures no. But your insistence in the past that OS X
> was being wholesale replaced by iOS was false then as it is now. Your
> backfilling doesn't erase the past.

I am not responsible for people putting words in my mouth to make me
look silly.

I have never seriously believed that Apple would put IOS on its Macs.
But I believed that Apple would make the MAc GUI more and mroe like IOS.
Also, the Mac App store with the application signing is a step which
would allow Apple to start a walled garden like its IOS devices with
only approved apps using features of OS-X.

The question I have now is whether Apple has realised that the people
who still need computers are not the types who want to see OS-X dumbed
down to IOS type of usage with features like autosave etc.

[Wes Groleau]

On 05-31-2012 13:24, nospam wrote:
> techie users might know where to look for this type of stuff but the
> average user certainly won't.

I'm having a little trouble reconciling this complaint with the
complaint that they are dumbing it down for the NON-techie.

--
Wes Groleau

Trying to be happy is like trying to build a machine for which
the only specification is that it should run noiselessly.
— unknown

[Wes Groleau]

On 05-31-2012 19:21, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> > which means there is a fundamental design problem. you should not need
>> > to drop to the command line just to configure the computer the way you
>> > want.
> You think? So the assertion is that if there is_any_ configuration

> issue that_any_ person wants to do that requires using the command

> line, this means there is a fundamental design problem?

The more things you put in the GUI, the greater the chance of someone
changing something they don't understand in a way they won't like.

Result is either blaming Apple, or begging for help here.

--
Wes Groleau

He that complies against his will is of the same opinion still.
— Samuel Butler, 1612-1680

[Wes Groleau]

On 05-31-2012 03:58, JF Mezei wrote:
> When you look at the "bouncing ball" effect when you move to the end of
> a document, this is purely marketing driven and is not desirable when
> you do serious work. Great for the keynote to impress the press, but for

Since several people here have already made it clear multiple times that
they LIKE that feature, maybe you should not waste time re-hashing
this complaint.

--
Wes Groleau

Alive and Well
http://freepages.religions.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau/

[JF Mezei]

Wes Groleau wrote:

> Since several people here have already made it clear multiple times that
> they LIKE that feature, maybe you should not waste time re-hashing
> this complaint.

It is only fair to point out to those who constantly claim they love
those IOS features on OS-X that they do not represent everyone and that
there are people who dislike those features.

[Wes Groleau]

On 05-31-2012 11:49, Paul Sture wrote:
> Here's an amusing video where some lad tries it out with his father.
> Don't miss the punch line:-)
>
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4boTbv9_nU>
>
> "Click on the fish?"
>
> and the sequel. The same guy comparing Windows 8 and OS X:
>
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbjnbhWVN8c&feature=relmfu>

Actually, that's part three.

Part two is <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeeOkHjV7nM>

--
Wes Groleau

“If it wasn't for that blasted back-hoe,
a hundred of us could be working with shovels”
“Yeah, and if it weren't for our shovels,
a thousand of us could be working with spoons."

[Wes Groleau]

Pointing out that you do not represent everyone is exactly what I was
doing, after you claimed for the umpteenth time that

"... look at the "bouncing ball" effect when you move to the end of

a document, this is purely marketing driven and is not desirable when
you do serious work. Great for the keynote to impress the press, but for

real computer users, it is an annoyance"


--
Wes Groleau

¡Qué quiero realmente hacer es comer un perrito caliente!
私が実際にしたいと思う何をホットドッグを食べることである!
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=463

[Wes Groleau]

On 05-31-2012 11:49, Paul Sture wrote:

> and the sequel. The same guy comparing Windows 8 and OS X:
>
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbjnbhWVN8c&feature=relmfu>

Short version: Someone who has used Windows 8 on a tablet
and IOS on an iPad said the his first time on Windows 8 desktop pretty
much sucked, while his first time on Lion was good.

YMMV

--
Wes Groleau

Is it an on-line compliment to call someone a Net Wit ?

[Paul Sture]

On Thu, 31 May 2012 23:04:24 -0400, Wes Groleau wrote:

> On 05-31-2012 11:49, Paul Sture wrote:
>> Here's an amusing video where some lad tries it out with his father.
>> Don't miss the punch line:-)
>>
>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4boTbv9_nU>
>>
>> "Click on the fish?"
>>
>> and the sequel. The same guy comparing Windows 8 and OS X:
>>
>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbjnbhWVN8c&feature=relmfu>
>
> Actually, that's part three.
>
> Part two is <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeeOkHjV7nM>

Yes but at half an hour long I got bored with it.

There's also one of the same guy trying Ubuntu (25 minutes):

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltE_ekc8kE8&feature=fvwrel>



--
Paul Sture

[Jolly Roger]

In article <4fc82b3e$0$1572$c3e8da3$aae7...@news.astraweb.com>,

Nice try, hypocrite. In fact, it is YOU who is claiming that this
feature is an annoyance for "real computer users" with no indication
that some real computer users may actually like these features:

In article <4fc72492$0$32185$c3e8da3$40d4...@news.astraweb.com>,

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

> When you look at the "bouncing ball" effect when you move to the end of
> a document, this is purely marketing driven and is not desirable when
> you do serious work. Great for the keynote to impress the press, but for

> real computer users, it is an annoyance, just like that extremely stupid
> transparency in panels/menus which makes it harder to work and harder on
> the eyes.

Let's see, now. I have developed software for Mac OS and other operating
systems since I was about 10 years old, 32 years ago. I have worked in
the semiconductor industry professionally for over a decade, and before
that in the software industry. I know computers inside and out better
than a great many people who consider themselves computer users - even
some who consider themselves experts in various computer technologies. I
am a "real computer user". And I happen to like some of the iOS features
in recent versions of Mac OS X. In particular, I like the bounce back
effect when you reach the end of a document. So you are clearly wrong
that "for real computer users, it is an annoyance" regarding all of the
iOS features seen in recent versions of Mac OS X. You should stop making
that claim. It is untrue.

[Warren Oates]

In article <michelle-24B6B1...@news.eternal-september.org>,

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

> In article <4fc82b3e$0$1572$c3e8da3$aae7...@news.astraweb.com>,

> It is only fair to point out to those who constantly claim they hate those

> IOS features on OS-X that they do not represent everyone and that there are

> people who like those features.

It's only fair to point out to those who claim to love or to those who
claim to hate those features that they do not represent everyone and
that there are those who truly don't give a shit and just turn off those
features because they're not useful.
--

... do not cover a warm kettle or your stock may sour. -- Julia Child

[DreadKnot]

On Wed, 30 May 2012 10:57:07 -0400, Davoud <st...@sky.net> wrote:

>
>There is nothing to "ease up" on. The idea that iOS was going to take
>over the Mac never came from Apple. It was born in the minds of persons
>with overly active and perhaps slightly paranoid imaginations. "Yes,
>but look at Launchpad. Straight from iOS. Doesn't that prove that Apple
>is abandoning OS X and switching the Mac to iOS?"

I bought an iPad. Could not resist.

Odd side effect, however, is that I constantly find myself reaching for
my display to attempt to press on an icon on my PC!

So, the secret product I see coming will be in the DISPLAY realm. The
display of tomorrow will be closer to the user, and touch.

It works for everything. Point-of-Sale, etc. etc. etc.

So, the entire computer will be what looks like a giant iPad.

And there will be folks making battery belts so they can walk around
with the bigger ones.

If I had that huge company, that is what I would do.

One could even make displays with discreetly separated areas on the
screen. Making actual multiple screens on a single plan display. A
"single plate" as it were. One could even call the OS "Dinner Plate"
or such.

Just like the early LCD days where at first they were all driven screen
elements, then moved the where certain art was always on and others were
whole words instead of segmented characters.

I think we are headed for high end, hi res DESKTOP displays right in our
faces AND hands.

They then need to improve keyboard input and come up with an "air"
keyboard that can track your key selections done by your fingers in air
striking nothing.

Or make a brain/computer link.

[DreadKnot]

On 31 May 2012 16:21:44 -0700, Doug Anderson

This is what we started with...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NAMA_Machine_d%27Anticyth%C3%A8re_1.jpg


Where we are going WILL BE touch screen enriched technology.

Face it.

[DreadKnot]

On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 10:30:28 +0200, Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com>
wrote:

HEAR HEAR!

There there!

I agree. It took me exactly two events to get this. The first time,
the little cloud over my head was a question mark. Upon the second
occurrence, it changed to a light bulb and an "Oh, OK... that's cool!"

SO, IF I am too dumb to already know how long the doc is or what page
of it I am on, I have this one additional VISUAL CUE.

This guy who can't handle this seems to have some other limitations as
well.

No biggie, dude. It is a cool feature.

Like it? Keep it.

Don't like it. Simply ignore it. It certainly will you.

[Calum]

On 01/06/2012 14:32, DreadKnot wrote:

> Where we are going WILL BE touch screen enriched technology.
>
> Face it.

Anything that involves waving your arm around unsupported for more than
a few minutes at a time is a non-starter. Steve Jobs knew this; it
remains to be seen whether Tim Cook agrees.

--
Xbox: GallusNumpty Steam: scottishwildcat

[Howard]

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

> In article <4fc5b940$0$14900$c3e8da3$f017...@news.astraweb.com>,
> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
> > I wonder if this signals that Apple has realised that Job's "back to
> > mac" was not correct and they'll ease up on trying to make OS-X like
> > IOS.
>
> If you had understood what he had meant, and what Apple is actually doing,
> you wouldn't have to ask that question, which is based on false premises.

Indeed so .......

H

[Jolly Roger]

In article <michelle-DE021E...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <jollyroger-739D4...@news.individual.net>,

> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > You should stop making that claim. It is untrue.
>

> You think that will stop him?

Doubt it.

[Alan Browne]

On 2012-05-31 11:49 , Paul Sture wrote:

> Here's an amusing video where some lad tries it out with his father.
> Don't miss the punch line :-)
>
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4boTbv9_nU>
>
> "Click on the fish?"

I liked the punch line - could pretty much see it coming.

> and the sequel. The same guy comparing Windows 8 and OS X:
>
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbjnbhWVN8c&feature=relmfu>

That was too long to bother with. I really have no patience for these
things.

[Todd Allcock]

At 01 Jun 2012 15:50:55 +0100 Calum wrote:
> On 01/06/2012 14:32, DreadKnot wrote:
>
> > Where we are going WILL BE touch screen enriched technology.
> >
> > Face it.
>
> Anything that involves waving your arm around unsupported for more than
> a few minutes at a time is a non-starter. Steve Jobs knew this; it
> remains to be seen whether Tim Cook agrees.

You're assuming the hardware doesn't evolve. Why will we still be using
monitors at arms' length if better input methods evolve? We don't clip
reading material to a stand to hold it vertically two feet from us to
read- desktop monitor positioning was created as a response to the CRT
technology of the day - and it just hung around as we moved to LCD.
Already many people have eschewed desktops for laptops even in stationary
settings, and we sit much closer to the laptop screen than we did desktop
monitors.

Eventually, the desktop might eventually become a desktop literally, much
like the Microsoft Surface computer tables used by retailers (including
Microsoft's retail stores), or the sci-fi consoles of Star Trek.
Touch/gesture input would be convenient and natural in that case.

[DreadKnot]

On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 15:50:55 +0100, Calum
<com....@nospam.scottishwildcat> wrote:

>On 01/06/2012 14:32, DreadKnot wrote:
>
>> Where we are going WILL BE touch screen enriched technology.
>>
>> Face it.
>
>Anything that involves waving your arm around unsupported for more than
>a few minutes at a time is a non-starter. Steve Jobs knew this; it
>remains to be seen whether Tim Cook agrees.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d6KuiuteIA&feature=g-sci

[DreadKnot]

On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 05:59:16 -0700, DreadKnot
<Drea...@GodandHisWrath.org> wrote:

>
> They then need to improve keyboard input and come up with an "air"
>keyboard that can track your key selections done by your fingers in air
>striking nothing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d6KuiuteIA&feature=g-sci

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 05/30/2012 01:39 AM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> Tim Cook was asked about Ping at the All Things D conference this evening;
> here's what went down:
>
> 8:01 pm: What happened to Ping?
>
> Cook: I was carefully avoiding that. We tried Ping and I think the
> customer voted and said this isn’t something that I want to put a lot
> of energy into.
> Will we kill it? I don’t know. We’ll look at that.

That's a shame. ping has had a long illustrious career as a network
administration tool.

http://ftp.arl.mil/~mike/ping.html

[quote] Excellent, heart-warming tale of exploration and discovery.
Using deft allegory, the authors have provided an insightful and
intuitive explanation of one of Unix's most venerable networking
utilities. Even more stunning is that they were clearly working with a
very early beta of the program, as their book first appeared in 1933,
years (decades!) before the operating system and network infrastructure
were finalized.

The book describes networking in terms even a child could understand,
choosing to anthropomorphize the underlying packet structure. The ping
packet is described as a duck, who, with other packets (more ducks),
spends a certain period of time on the host machine (the wise-eyed
boat). At the same time each day (I suspect this is scheduled under
cron), the little packets (ducks) exit the host (boat) by way of a
bridge (a bridge). From the bridge, the packets travel onto the internet
(here embodied by the Yangtze River).

The title character -- er, packet, is called Ping. Ping meanders around
the river before being received by another host (another boat). He
spends a brief time on the other boat, but eventually returns to his
original host machine (the wise-eyed boat) somewhat the worse for wear.

The book avoids many of the cliches one might expect. For example, with
a story set on a river, the authors might have sunk to using that tired
old plot device: the flood ping. The authors deftly avoid this.

Who Should Buy This Book

If you need a good, high-level overview of the ping utility, this is the
book. I can't recommend it for most managers, as the technical aspects
may be too overwhelming and the basic concepts too daunting.

Problems With This Book

As good as it is, The Story About Ping is not without its faults. There
is no index, and though the ping(8) man pages cover the command line
options well enough, some review of them seems to be in order. Likewise,
in a book solely about Ping, I would have expected a more detailed
overview of the ICMP packet structure.

But even with these problems, The Story About Ping has earned a place on
my bookshelf, right between Stevens' Advanced Programming in the Unix
Environment, and my dog-eared copy of Dante's seminal work on MS
Windows, Inferno. Who can read that passage on the Windows API
("Obscure, profound it was, and nebulous, So that by fixing on its
depths my sight -- Nothing whatever I discerned therein."), without
shaking their head with deep understanding. But I digress. [/quote]

[Thomas R. Kettler]

In article <wdidnRIxK8xIJlTS...@giganews.com>,

*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 05/30/2012 01:39 AM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> > Tim Cook was asked about Ping at the All Things D conference this evening;
> > here's what went down:
> >
> > 8:01 pm: What happened to Ping?
> >
> > Cook: I was carefully avoiding that. We tried Ping and I think the
> > customer voted and said this isn’t something that I want to put a lot
> > of energy into.
> > Will we kill it? I don’t know. We’ll look at that.
>
> That's a shame. ping has had a long illustrious career as a network
> administration tool.
>
> http://ftp.arl.mil/~mike/ping.html
>
> [quote] Excellent, heart-warming tale of exploration and discovery.
> Using deft allegory, the authors have provided an insightful and
> intuitive explanation of one of Unix's most venerable networking
> utilities. Even more stunning is that they were clearly working with a
> very early beta of the program, as their book first appeared in 1933,
> years (decades!) before the operating system and network infrastructure
> were finalized.

1933? These people were true visionaries! They had ideas of computer
networks over a decade before the ENIAC.
--
Remove blown from email address to reply.

[TheQuickBrownFox]

On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 03:08:04 -0400, *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>That's a shame. ping has had a long illustrious career as a network
>administration tool.
>
>http://ftp.arl.mil/~mike/ping.html

Thx for that. Cool stuff.

[Alan Browne]

On 2012-06-02 03:08 , *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> On 05/30/2012 01:39 AM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>> Tim Cook was asked about Ping at the All Things D conference this
>> evening;
>> here's what went down:
>>
>> 8:01 pm: What happened to Ping?
>>
>> Cook: I was carefully avoiding that. We tried Ping and I think the
>> customer voted and said this isn’t something that I want to put
>> a lot
>> of energy into.
>> Will we kill it? I don’t know. We’ll look at that.
>
> That's a shame. ping has had a long illustrious career as a network

You do know that "Ping" in this case is the iTunes feature?

[Jeffrey Goldberg]

On 12-06-02 10:40 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2012-06-02 03:08 , *Hemidactylus* wrote:

>> That's a shame. ping has had a long illustrious career as a network
>
> You do know that "Ping" in this case is the iTunes feature?

I thought we were talking about the duck.

http://youtu.be/cFIGlz4TGLA

Cheers,

-j

--
Jeffrey Goldberg http://goldmark.org/jeff/
I rarely read HTML or poorly quoting posts
Reply-To address is valid

[Wes Groleau]

On 06-02-2012 02:33, DreadKnot wrote:
>> They then need to improve keyboard input and come up with an "air"
>> keyboard that can track your key selections done by your fingers in air
>> striking nothing.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d6KuiuteIA&feature=g-sci

While this is a rather impressive device, I can't imagine it replacing a
keyboard. The only feedback would be the appearance of letters on the
screen. That would be insufficient to maintain horizontal position.

--
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.

[Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers]

On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 10:51:52 -0500, Jeffrey Goldberg
<nob...@goldmark.org> wrote:

>On 12-06-02 10:40 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2012-06-02 03:08 , *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>
>>> That's a shame. ping has had a long illustrious career as a network
>>
>> You do know that "Ping" in this case is the iTunes feature?
>
>I thought we were talking about the duck.
>
>http://youtu.be/cFIGlz4TGLA
>
>Cheers,
>
>-j

If it don't bounce back, you go hungry!

[dorayme]

In article <jqeb3h$o9$1...@dont-email.me>,

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

> On 06-02-2012 02:33, DreadKnot wrote:
> >> They then need to improve keyboard input and come up with an "air"
> >> keyboard that can track your key selections done by your fingers in air
> >> striking nothing.
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d6KuiuteIA&feature=g-sci
>
> While this is a rather impressive device, I can't imagine it replacing a
> keyboard.

I notice it plays music too! Non-stop, never-ending, repetitive,
mindless, totally irrelevant music. Who would want that? O wait!
Modern people.

--
dorayme

[Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers]

On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 20:28:31 -0400, Wes Groleau
<Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:

>On 06-02-2012 02:33, DreadKnot wrote:
>>> They then need to improve keyboard input and come up with an "air"
>>> keyboard that can track your key selections done by your fingers in air
>>> striking nothing.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d6KuiuteIA&feature=g-sci
>
>While this is a rather impressive device, I can't imagine it replacing a
>keyboard. The only feedback would be the appearance of letters on the
>screen. That would be insufficient to maintain horizontal position.

Advances in voice rec are and will continue to beat that non-problem
into the ground

[Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers]

On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 11:17:37 +1000, dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

Sure is a favorite on the iPad.

Oh, and your descriptions do not define the final term you used.
Music is structures. Mindless, funky sounding babble is still just
babble.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 06/02/2012 11:40 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2012-06-02 03:08 , *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> On 05/30/2012 01:39 AM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>> Tim Cook was asked about Ping at the All Things D conference this
>>> evening;
>>> here's what went down:
>>>
>>> 8:01 pm: What happened to Ping?
>>>
>>> Cook: I was carefully avoiding that. We tried Ping and I think the
>>> customer voted and said this isn’t something that I want to put
>>> a lot
>>> of energy into.
>>> Will we kill it? I don’t know. We’ll look at that.
>>
>> That's a shame. ping has had a long illustrious career as a network
>
> You do know that "Ping" in this case is the iTunes feature?

I'm not familiar with it, but I thought it would be fun to entertain the
notion of Apple jettisoning the ping command based on customer feedback
and the anachronistic time warp of Unix networking back to an old
children's book about a duck.

Here's stuff about the underappreciated OSI Layer 8, where the most
difficult troubleshooting is at the chair/keyboard interface:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2321

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layer_8

The first network admin that figures out the chair/keyboard interface
should get a Nobel prize.

[Jolly Roger]

In article <ruels79jbsnq76o4v...@4ax.com>,
Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers

Pretty ironic considering most of her posts are exactly that: mindless
babble...

[Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers]

On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 08:31:41 +0200, Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com>
wrote:

>In article <ruels79jbsnq76o4v...@4ax.com>,
> Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
> <thesli...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 11:17:37 +1000, dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <jqeb3h$o9$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> > Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 06-02-2012 02:33, DreadKnot wrote:
>> >> >> They then need to improve keyboard input and come up with an "air"
>> >> >> keyboard that can track your key selections done by your fingers in air
>> >> >> striking nothing.
>> >> >
>> >> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d6KuiuteIA&feature=g-sci
>> >>
>> >> While this is a rather impressive device, I can't imagine it replacing a
>> >> keyboard.
>> >
>> >I notice it plays music too! Non-stop, never-ending, repetitive,
>> >mindless, totally irrelevant music. Who would want that? O wait!
>> >Modern people.
>>
>> Sure is a favorite on the iPad.
>>
>> Oh, and your descriptions do not define the final term you used.
>> Music is structures. Mindless, funky sounding babble is still just
>> babble.
>
>Pretty ironic considering most of her posts are exactly that: mindless
>babble...

I own several iPad music apps. Not for songs, but for making music
(mindless funky sounds) They are, in fact, one of the highest cost
subdivisions of my apps library. I even have a Moog synth in my hand!
How cool!

I like the Audibon reference stuff too. I bought the Hallmarks app in
case I see some Silver piece somewhere.

I am VERY pissed that ALL the fractal apps are totally LAME at actually
creating or zooming to a high res iteration, when the processing power
and GPU as well is quite capable of doing it.

Idiots want quick and dirty fast fractals. If I pay for it, I want the
damned thing to be hi resolution, not handcuffed quick run crap. ALL of
that should be free.

I like the bar code and UID scanning apps too. I like to make use of
this as a tool if possible.

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article <36hms798p92s16d7l...@4ax.com>, Chieftain of
the Carpet Crawlers <thesli...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
writes:

> I own several iPad music apps. Not for songs, but for making music
> (mindless funky sounds) They are, in fact, one of the highest cost
> subdivisions of my apps library. I even have a Moog synth in my hand!
> How cool!

I read that much (all?) of Björk's BIOPHILIA was composed on the iPad.

> Idiots want quick and dirty fast fractals. If I pay for it, I want the
> damned thing to be hi resolution, not handcuffed quick run crap. ALL of
> that should be free.

Why should anything be free?

[Alan Browne]

On 2012-06-03 10:20 , Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <jqfpfv$16r$2...@online.de>,
> hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---undress to reply)

> wrote:
>
>> Why should anything be free?
>

> Personally, I think that free radicals should be contained and confined.
> But all doms should be free; we need more free doms.

They've got to make a living too.

[Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers]

On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 13:40:15 +0000 (UTC), hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de

(Phillip Helbig---undress to reply) wrote:

>In article <36hms798p92s16d7l...@4ax.com>, Chieftain of
>the Carpet Crawlers <thesli...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
>writes:
>
>> I own several iPad music apps. Not for songs, but for making music
>> (mindless funky sounds) They are, in fact, one of the highest cost
>> subdivisions of my apps library. I even have a Moog synth in my hand!
>> How cool!
>
>I read that much (all?) of Björk's BIOPHILIA was composed on the iPad.

I'll check it out.

>
>> Idiots want quick and dirty fast fractals. If I pay for it, I want the
>> damned thing to be hi resolution, not handcuffed quick run crap. ALL of
>> that should be free.
>
>Why should anything be free?

There are free fractal apps. They are weaker still. Any that I pay for
should be robust. If not, I should be able to REJECT it and get my
goddamned MONEY, since you mention it, BACK.

This ONE WAY business model is gonna get APPLE into a bigger class
action suit than the one that *should have* taken down AOL.

Mark my words. With no facility to reject poor offerings in their
libraries, they are open to warranty violation suits to say the very
least.

This shit barely qualifies to even be a fractal generator at all, much
less the quality app it was touted as.

[Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers]

On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 11:55:46 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>On 2012-06-03 10:20 , Michelle Steiner wrote:
>> In article <jqfpfv$16r$2...@online.de>,
>> hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---undress to reply)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Why should anything be free?
>>
>> Personally, I think that free radicals should be contained and confined.
>> But all doms should be free; we need more free doms.
>
>They've got to make a living too.

Jeez, even your techno-humor is piss poor.

I hope you are not representative of the mindset of all AppleTards...
err users.

[Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers]

On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 15:39:30 -0700, Michelle Steiner
<mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

>In article <rhens79g22vv3f12v...@4ax.com>,

> Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers

> <thesli...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
>
>> I hope you are not representative of the mindset of all AppleTards...
>

>But you are representative of Apple-haters: rude, crude, belligerent, and
>full of shit.

You got the rude part right. I am rude to characterless nitwits like
you and your ilk. But the crude, belligerent, full of shit hater is you,
ditz.

I'll stick to working with intelligent Apple device users, and pointing
out the retarded versions, like you, thanks.

[Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers]

On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 17:03:40 -0700, Michelle Steiner
<mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

>In article <a4uns71nim1ckfs92...@4ax.com>,

> Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
> <thesli...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 15:39:30 -0700, Michelle Steiner
>> <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <rhens79g22vv3f12v...@4ax.com>,
>> > Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
>> > <thesli...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I hope you are not representative of the mindset of all AppleTards...
>> >
>> >But you are representative of Apple-haters: rude, crude, belligerent, and
>> >full of shit.
>>
>> You got the rude part right. I am rude to characterless nitwits like
>> you and your ilk. But the crude, belligerent, full of shit hater is you,
>> ditz.
>>
>> I'll stick to working with intelligent Apple device users, and pointing
>> out the retarded versions, like you, thanks.
>

>Oh, you wound me to no end. Well, not really, actually, because you're a
>nonentity in the overall scheme of things. Besides which, you're already
>demonstrated that you're incapable of recognizing intelligence.

You're a legend... in your own mind.

If *you* represent "grand human intellectual achievement", we have
several millennia of growth to go.

Nonentity? That would be you. I did more last week to make the world
a better, safer place than you will in your entire pathetic, self
possessed retarded bitch ass life.

[Jamie Kahn Genet]

Davoud <st...@sky.net> wrote:

> JF Mezei:
>
> > Thanks for the link. What I find intereting is Cook's answer on why OS-X
> > and IOS should be kept separate versus Windows 8 being same for desktop
> > and phones.
>
> > I wonder if this signals that Apple has realised that Job's "back to
> > mac" was not correct and they'll ease up on trying to make OS-X like IOS.
>
> There is nothing to "ease up" on. The idea that iOS was going to take
> over the Mac never came from Apple. It was born in the minds of persons
> with overly active and perhaps slightly paranoid imaginations.

Rubbish - it came from several iOS style features being implemented in
OSX, and "taking over" is over the top - it was more like iOS corrupting
OSX.
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

[Jamie Kahn Genet]

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

> On 2012-05-30 14:48 , JF Mezei wrote:

> > Davoud wrote:
> >
> >> There is nothing to "ease up" on. The idea that iOS was going to take
> >> over the Mac never came from Apple. It was born in the minds of persons
> >> with overly active and perhaps slightly paranoid imaginations.
> >
> >

> > This wasn't about replacing OS-X with IOS. If you remember the "Back to
> > Mac" event, it is about incorporating IOS GUI style into OS-X.
> >
> > Now, Cook has sent the signal (twice if I remember correctly) that Apple
> > knows that Macs and IOS devices are very different markets and Mac users
> > have different needs.
> >
> > The easy interpretation is that Apple won't convert Macs to IOS. But
> > the underlying question is whether Apple has recenived anough complaints
> > about "Back to Mac" features that it did realise that Mac users don't
> > want an IOS environment on their laptop/desktop.
>
> There was never a signal to receive. This whole iOS taking over Mac has
> always been a figment of your imagination as many have tried to tell you
> many times.
>
> The "Back to Mac" event was about Apple turning their attention back to
> the Mac after a lot of attention on the iPhone/iPad, not about making OS
> X into an iOS platform.

Are you lying or really that ignorant of events and still trying to
speak authoritatively about them? 'Back to the Mac' wasn't as I'd hoped
about returning focus for a while to OSX, it was explicitly (I suggest
you watch the 'Back to the Mac' keynote) about integrating iOS style
features into OSX. Features I never wanted.

[Jamie Kahn Genet]

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

> On 05-31-2012 13:24, nospam wrote:
> > techie users might know where to look for this type of stuff but the
> > average user certainly won't.
>
> I'm having a little trouble reconciling this complaint with the
> complaint that they are dumbing it down for the NON-techie.

Funny that my non-techie users were all confused by stuff like
scrollbars disappearing and the mouse control reversed (yes, yes *yawn*
those can be turned off/reverted, but it's a DEFAULT setting, and
non-techie users almost always stick with defaults either out of
ignorance of options or fear of 'messing around'), auto-saving, etc,
etc.

[Jamie Kahn Genet]

Király <m...@home.spamsucks.ca> wrote:

> In comp.sys.mac.system Doug Anderson <ethelthelo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Of course not. Apple was clear that it was going to take features
> > that work well on iOS and add them to OS X. And they did. Whether
> > they work well in OS X is open to debate, but since users can elect
> > not to use them, this doesn't constitute a fundamental change to OS
> > X.
>
> There are many changes that are not revertable. Address Book, for
> example. Functionality (the 3-pane view) was removed in Lion (one pane
> is always hidden now) for no purpose other than to make it look the same
> as in iOS.
>
> iCal too. It used to have a handy sidebar. It too was removed, for the
> sole purpose of making it look the same as in iOS.
>
> There is no way to bring those features back in Lion. But if the
> screenshots of 10.8 that are up on various sites are to be believed,
> both the iCal sidebar and 3-pane Address Book view have been returned to
> those apps in 10.8.
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/7xptjhl
>
> So it seems that Apple is realizing that removing functionality from
> apps for the sole purpose of making them more iOS-like might not have
> been such a good idea.

Every time I encounter the 10.7 Address Book I'm thankful I'm able to
continue using 10.6 instead. It's a shinning example of form over
function - and for what? To look more like iOS on a desktop OS?

[George Kerby]

On 6/4/12 1:29 AM, in article
1kl6g4u.16ypprnigp71jN%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz, "Jamie Kahn Genet"

You can fix that, ya know?

Mail Prefs > Viewing > Use Classic <check>

But, it is 'growing' on me, sorta...

[Király]

In comp.sys.mac.system George Kerby <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Every time I encounter the 10.7 Address Book I'm thankful I'm able to
> > continue using 10.6 instead. It's a shinning example of form over
> > function - and for what? To look more like iOS on a desktop OS?
>
> You can fix that, ya know?
>
> Mail Prefs > Viewing > Use Classic <check>

That's for Mail. It doesn't do anything to Address Book.

--
K.

Lang may your lum reek.

[Bread]

Has anyone found any improved third-party Address Book replacement?

I use BusyCal instead of Apple's iCal, and would love a similarly
improved AddressBook.

There's the very very slick Cobook <http://www.cobookapp.com/> but it's
not really what I mean - I'm looking for something closer to a CRM
(with better management of groups, maybe a few more fields and
customization).

I suppose I could do something myself via Bento, but I was hoping not
to have to do so. And it still wouldn't fix group management, would
it? (Seriously - how hard would it have been to give us the option to
show all the groups to which a card belongs when one looks at that
address book card? Can Bento do that?)

But yeah, Lion Address Book is pretty horrible - worse than SL Address
Book which was probably the weakest of Apple's built-in apps to begin
with.

[Alan Browne]

Cripes! A late comer to the thread. Like I need a headache.

Recap:

1) "Back to Mac" was about Apple's returning focus on the Mac OS after a
long, strong focus on the iPhone and iPad.

2) It was about many things including some UI features from iOS going
into OS X' UI.

3) It was NOT about OS X being taken over by iOS as Mezei keeps
suggesting time and time again - most recently by suggesting that Apple
have wised up - but Apple were never going where Mezei alludes.

4) Most of the "iSO style features" can be turned off, so stop whining.
Those that can't are just changes. Stop whining over those too.

[Bread]

On 2012-06-04 17:25:11 +0000, Bread said:
> Has anyone found any improved third-party Address Book replacement?
>

> There's the very very slick Cobook <http://www.cobookapp.com/> but it's
> not really what I mean - I'm looking for something closer to a CRM
> (with better management of groups, maybe a few more fields and
> customization).

Actually, Cobook is now in full release, free, through the app store.
And I played with it a little more today and was more impressed than
before.

It handles groups beautifully - as tags - and when looking at an
individual's card, you can see all groups to which that individual
belongs - and make adjustments.

And you can add information without even picking and choosing at fields
- there's a box and you can just type and it guesses which field the
info goes into - very nice and surprisingly smart.

Beats the heck out of the address book in Lion.

Oh, btw, in the app store, there are several Lion-compatible address
book replacements, including one which pretty much just looks like
SL's. But none seem to have gotten any kind of decent ratings.