McSkype - other person typing thing?
T i m
On the Windows version of Skype you get a little writing hand
indicating the other party is writing. I just went into OSX (to test
the browser sites for eastender's friend) and noticed the Mac Skype
didn't seem to have this.
I have looked through the options but can't see where to turn it on.
Is it just not available on the Mac version?
Cheers, T i m
Tim Streater
Yes, 'cos I've seen it. But, I haven't seen it for some weeks, so I'm
not sure if I turned it off somehow or it's a per-chat setting somewhere ...
If I see it I'll let ya know.
--
Tim
"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"
Bill of Rights 1689
T i m
<timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
>On 29/11/2009 18:03, T i m wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> On the Windows version of Skype you get a little writing hand
>> indicating the other party is writing. I just went into OSX (to test
>> the browser sites for eastender's friend) and noticed the Mac Skype
>> didn't seem to have this.
>>
>> I have looked through the options but can't see where to turn it on.
>>
>> Is it just not available on the Mac version?
>
>Yes, 'cos I've seen it.
I wasn't sure if I had on the Mac version.
> But, I haven't seen it for some weeks,
I wonder if it went on an update?
> so I'm
>not sure if I turned it off somehow or it's a per-chat setting somewhere ...
>
I certainly haven't knowingly turned it off and was in a chat when
looking to see if I could turn it back on (a slow typer so it would
have been handy).
>If I see it I'll let ya know.
Ta. ;-)
T i m
Dorian Gray
Tim Streater <timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
> On 29/11/2009 18:03, T i m wrote:
>
> > On the Windows version of Skype you get a little writing hand
> > indicating the other party is writing. I just went into OSX
> >
> > I have looked through the options but can't see where to turn it on.
> >
> > Is it just not available on the Mac version?
>
> Yes, 'cos I've seen it. But, I haven't seen it for some weeks, so I'm
> not sure if I turned it off somehow or it's a per-chat setting somewhere ...
>
> If I see it I'll let ya know.
It is there. There is no setting to turn on. In a chat window, if you
have the drawer open so can see the status icon of the other party,
their status icon changes to a writing hand when they are typing into
your window.
Gavin
Or install Growl and that will notify you when a user is typing.
--
Gavin.  ACSP 10.5
http://www.stoof.co.uk
http://www.twitter.com/gavin_wilby
T i m
<D.G...@picture.invalid> wrote:
>In article <frOdnf8dLYwdIY_W...@brightview.co.uk>,
> Tim Streater <timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
>
>> On 29/11/2009 18:03, T i m wrote:
>>
>> > On the Windows version of Skype you get a little writing hand
>> > indicating the other party is writing. I just went into OSX
>> >
>> > I have looked through the options but can't see where to turn it on.
>> >
>> > Is it just not available on the Mac version?
>>
>> Yes, 'cos I've seen it. But, I haven't seen it for some weeks, so I'm
>> not sure if I turned it off somehow or it's a per-chat setting somewhere ...
>>
>> If I see it I'll let ya know.
>
>It is there. There is no setting to turn on.
Ok <reboots into OSX to look. Back in the room>
> In a chat window, if you
>have the drawer open so can see the status icon of the other party,
That's the extra window bit that sticks out to the left?
>their status icon changes to a writing hand when they are typing into
>your window.
Ahh (thanks), I didn't spot it because I wasn't looking somewhere else
on the screen to see if someone was typing ... I was looking where I
expect their typing to turn up (silly me). Oh, and it doesn't seem as
animated as on the Windows version (in fact it hardly moves at all)
... not only that didn't it seem to indicate when the other party
was rubbing out either (it flips the pencil over and uses the rubber
on the other end)?
Thanks.
T i m
T i m
wrote:
Not used that before: <Reboots into OSX, installs Growl, can't see how
to tell it to handle Skype or not, get frustrated and ... back in the
room>.
Erm, bizarre. So, I'm in Growl but the menu bar doesn't give you the
Growl menu bar? Of is this a different Growl? (It has an applications
box that has Growl in it but doesn't seem to let you add anything
else), less Skype is already included? How do I test to see if it
works?
T i m
Pd
> Ahh (thanks), I didn't spot it because I wasn't looking somewhere else
> on the screen to see if someone was typing ... I was looking where I
> expect their typing to turn up (silly me). Oh, and it doesn't seem as
> animated as on the Windows version (in fact it hardly moves at all)
> ... not only that didn't it seem to indicate when the other party
> was rubbing out either (it flips the pencil over and uses the rubber
> on the other end)?
Maybe those Skype programmers are just all about lots of little
doohickies and widgadgets on the Windows side, and simplicity on the Mac
side. Mac people get all confused with too much diddly fiddly going on
you know.
--
Pd
T i m
wrote:
>Maybe those Skype programmers are just all about lots of little
>doohickies and widgadgets on the Windows side, and simplicity on the Mac
>side.
Erm no. The doohicky is actually there on the Mac version but in the
wrong place and doesn't seem to work properly.
In the same way that Skype starts minimised on Windows but won't under
OSX (or is there something extra I can install to make that happen)?
Hang on, let me check the credit on this Voda mobile BB dongle, oh I
can't, I'll have to reboot into Windows to get that option. [1]
> Mac people get all confused with too much diddly fiddly going on
>you know.
No, Mac people then install something else to overcome the
shortcomings of their version, like Growl (apparently). ;-)
Cheers, T i m
[1] Yes I know, 'Mac people wouldn't care how much it cost'.
zoara
> Growl menu bar?
It's a preference pane. You open System Preferences to configure it. The
menu bar will be System Preferences' menu bar.
> Of is this a different Growl? (It has an applications
> box that has Growl in it but doesn't seem to let you add anything
> else),
It could be a different Growl, but as I have absolutely no clue what
that sentence means, I couldn't say for sure.
Growl is at http://growl.info
> How do I test to see if it works?
You click the Preview button on the Display Options tab. There *are*
bits of Growl which are a bit weird; if you don't get it, have you tried
reading the documentation? It's at http://growl.info/documentation.php
-zoara-
--
email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm
Martin S Taylor
>> Of is this a different Growl? (It has an applications
>> box that has Growl in it but doesn't seem to let you add anything
>> else),
>
> It could be a different Growl, but as I have absolutely no clue what
> that sentence means, I couldn't say for sure.
No, it's the same Growl, and I understand what T i m is saying. T i m, you
can't add applications yourself to Growl's applications pane, but if an
application is compatible with Growl it will add itself automatically the
next time it (and Growl) are both running.
>> So, I'm in Growl but the menu bar doesn't give you the
>> Growl menu bar?
This was the sentence I didn't understand!
MST
T i m
<m...@hRyEpMnOoVtEiTsHm.cIo.uSk> wrote:
>zoara wrote
>>> Of is this a different Growl? (It has an applications
>>> box that has Growl in it but doesn't seem to let you add anything
>>> else),
>>
>> It could be a different Growl, but as I have absolutely no clue what
>> that sentence means, I couldn't say for sure.
>
>No, it's the same Growl, and I understand what T i m is saying. T i m, you
>can't add applications yourself to Growl's applications pane, but if an
>application is compatible with Growl it will add itself automatically the
>next time it (and Growl) are both running.
Ah, right, I'll review the apps screen when I go back to it (thanks).
>
>>> So, I'm in Growl but the menu bar doesn't give you the
>>> Growl menu bar?
>
>This was the sentence I didn't understand!
With most OSX Apps, when you have an app active (not sure the right
words) the toolbar is / becomes for that app. So, I can't find what
I'm looking for within Growl itself so I go to the toolbar, expecting
it to be Growls toolbar. Except it said 'Preferences', not what I
though I should be seeing so gave up frustrated and concluding I'd
missed the point again with all this Mac stuff.
It's obviously far too easy for me. ;-(
Cheers, T i m
ray
Obviously. Growl is a system preference not an application. It told you
that when you installed it. Open System Preferences and click Growl. All
the settings are there.
--
http://www.dream-weaver.com/email.php
Web development promotion and seo
http://www.spaldingcomputers.co.uk
http://www.overseasmovingsolutions.com/
zoara
> >> Of is this a different Growl? (It has an applications
> >> box that has Growl in it but doesn't seem to let you add anything
> >> else),
> >
> > It could be a different Growl, but as I have absolutely no clue what
> > that sentence means, I couldn't say for sure.
>
> No, it's the same Growl, and I understand what T i m is saying. T i m,
> you
> can't add applications yourself to Growl's applications pane, but if
> an
> application is compatible with Growl it will add itself automatically
> the
> next time it (and Growl) are both running.
If it was the application pane, it wouldn't have Growl itself in it...
But I think you must be right.
> >> So, I'm in Growl but the menu bar doesn't give you the
> >> Growl menu bar?
>
> This was the sentence I didn't understand!
I think he was in System Preferences.
T i m
>>
>> It's obviously far too easy for me. ;-(
>>
>Obviously.
;-)
> Growl is a system preference not an application.
It is?
>It told you
>that when you installed it.
It did? I'm not disagreeing with you on either point, just that I find
the first fact a bit surprising (well, not now I don't), and the
second, I rarely read anything as I install it, especially something
as potentially simple as it looks Growl should have been ('is', when
you know).
> Open System Preferences and click Growl. All
>the settings are there.
Yeah, I know that *now*. My point, I install a doohickey to try to
overcome a deficiency (as I see it) in a Mac version of something I'm
used to (and I'm blaming Skype there for this btw) and it doesn't
install like many similar 'apps' I've installed on the Mac previously
<shrug>.
Just out of interest, I'd rate 'Little Snitch' on a similar level to
this Growl, do you manage that in the same way, via preferences (save
me having to go back into OSX and installing it (again) etc).
Cheers, T i m
Peter Ceresole
> My point, I install a doohickey to try to
> overcome a deficiency (as I see it) in a Mac version of something I'm
> used to (and I'm blaming Skype there for this btw) and it doesn't
> install like many similar 'apps' I've installed on the Mac previously
> <shrug>.
You just have to read *a bit* of what it tells you when you install.
Nobody's saying you should read and carefully note the terms of the
agreement (although of course I'm sure that you do this every time
before you click on 'Agree') but if you're dealing with an OS in which
you still seem to feel that you're in Indian territory, then you need to
read what's on the screen.
That's what I feel when I'm using Windows, and I am fairly careful when
I do stuff. Mind you, from the moment M$ produced the Win98 GUI as a
clunkier Chinese Copy of the Mac GUI, it got easier. But my use was
fairly light and straightforward, the screaming agonies of the registry
and its corruptions were never things I had to deal with.
Mind you, having to use Outlook on its own was hideous enough...
--
Peter
SteveH
> [1] Yes I know, 'Mac people wouldn't care how much it cost'.
Alternatively, Mac people aren't stupid enough to have bought a Vodafone
dongle.
--
SteveH
Jaimie Vandenbergh
wrote:
Shrug - mine has always worked fine. My company pays the bills,
though.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"You know how dumb the average person is? Well, by definition,
half of 'em are dumber than THAT." - J.R. "Bob" Dobbs
SteveH
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 18:36:24 +0000, itali...@gmail.com (SteveH)
> wrote:
>
> >T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> [1] Yes I know, 'Mac people wouldn't care how much it cost'.
> >
> >Alternatively, Mac people aren't stupid enough to have bought a Vodafone
> >dongle.
>
> Shrug - mine has always worked fine. My company pays the bills,
> though.
I have a Vodafone card in my company laptop.
I doesn't work at home, even though Vodafone say it should.
Apparently, I live in an area with 'excellent' reception, which must
explain why my phone tells me I can only make emergency calls.
--
SteveH
Peter Ceresole
> Apparently, I live in an area with 'excellent' reception, which must
> explain why my phone tells me I can only make emergency calls.
Cell phone black holes can be very sharply defined. For a very long time
(until two years ago) I lived in Mortlake; the train from there into
Waterloo goes through Barnes. My T-Mobile phone would get a strong
signal everywhere around that district, except that as the train entered
the Barnes junction the signal would drop to zero. It would recover to
full strength within a few metres, about 600 metres after leaving the
station, towards Waterloo. There was a T-Mobile Event Horizon. Nothing
in or out.
It's the magic of propagation.
--
Peter
Jaimie Vandenbergh
wrote:
Ah, that's a bit different. My phone gets no signal when lying in
front of my downstairs computer, but does if it's in my jeans pocket
sat in front... which means I can get a call, pull it out to answer,
and get a blank line. Nice.
Almost everywhere else in the house is at least 2 bars. Round my
(connected) neighbours there's no Voda signal at all.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
For every rational explanation there are uncountably many irrational ones
-- Staples' Observation
SteveH
> >I have a Vodafone card in my company laptop.
> >
> >I doesn't work at home, even though Vodafone say it should.
> >
> >Apparently, I live in an area with 'excellent' reception, which must
> >explain why my phone tells me I can only make emergency calls.
>
> Ah, that's a bit different. My phone gets no signal when lying in
> front of my downstairs computer, but does if it's in my jeans pocket
> sat in front... which means I can get a call, pull it out to answer,
> and get a blank line. Nice.
>
> Almost everywhere else in the house is at least 2 bars. Round my
> (connected) neighbours there's no Voda signal at all.
It's rubbish.
The data card gets a very shaky GPRS signal, which is useless and the
phone signal jumps up and down like a whore's knickers.
Orange, T-Mobile, O2 and even Three all work well on 3G.
IME, despite the advertising, Vodafone are one of the worst networks for
coverage.
--
SteveH
T i m
<jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 18:36:24 +0000, itali...@gmail.com (SteveH)
>wrote:
>
>>T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> [1] Yes I know, 'Mac people wouldn't care how much it cost'.
>>
>>Alternatively, Mac people aren't stupid enough to have bought a Vodafone
>>dongle.
>
>Shrug - mine has always worked fine.
As they have for most the other Mac people on here (and even Voda
themselves nearly say so (scroll to the bottom)). ;-)
http://preview.tinyurl.com/dn3f7a
Cheers, T i m
'You've never been confused till you've driven a Hybrid"
SteveH
> 'You've never been confused till you've driven a Hybrid"
Given how confusing you find OSX, I can only recommend you nevery try a
hybrid, as it'll screw your mind up permanently.
--
SteveH
Jaimie Vandenbergh
wrote:
Yup. Though I do almost always get 'Net connection through the dongle,
it's rarely anything beyond GPRS. I've seen EDGE once, and 3G in parts
of London. At home it's GPRS, but that's why I've got 802.11n!
I think Voda are somewhat strung up by having a lot of old kit in
place, and not really much incentive to update it to 3G since that
costs money. Things should improve from the proposed
everyone-share-all-the-masts deals that are pending between the
operators.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
wrote:
And both for the same reason - they're simpler, with fewer gotchas,
but *unfamiliar*.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
haiku are easy
all you do is stop at the
seventeenth syllab
Ben Shimmin
[...]
> It's rubbish.
>
> The data card gets a very shaky GPRS signal, which is useless and the
> phone signal jumps up and down like a whore's knickers.
>
> Orange, T-Mobile, O2 and even Three all work well on 3G.
>
> IME, despite the advertising, Vodafone are one of the worst networks for
> coverage.
You'd think they would have solved this problem by now. Given the
amazing things you can do with mobile 'phones today (in comparison with
the lowly Motorola unit I had in, oh, 1999), they really ought to have
sorted out such an obvious stumbling block.
(I offer no suggestions for *how*.)
b.
--
<b...@bas.me.uk> <URL:http://bas.me.uk/>
`Property, marriage, the law; as the bed to the river, so rule
and convention to the instinct; and woe to him who tampers with
the banks while the flood is flowing.' -- Samuel Butler, _Erewhon_
zoara
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 19:27:18 +0000, itali...@gmail.com (SteveH)
> wrote:
>
> >T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> 'You've never been confused till you've driven a Hybrid"
> >
> >Given how confusing you find OSX, I can only recommend you nevery try
> > a
> >hybrid, as it'll screw your mind up permanently.
>
> And both for the same reason - they're simpler, with fewer gotchas,
> but *unfamiliar*.
Nailed it. Absolutely nailed it.
zoara
> Things should improve from the proposed
> everyone-share-all-the-masts deals that are pending between the
> operators.
Oh, now *that* sounds interesting. Got a good place I can read up on
this?
-z-
Jaimie Vandenbergh
>Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>
>> Things should improve from the proposed
>> everyone-share-all-the-masts deals that are pending between the
>> operators.
>
>Oh, now *that* sounds interesting. Got a good place I can read up on
>this?
Not quite as good as I recalled - Orange and Vodafone are intending to
share, and O2 and TMobile will share theirs. It's only a small step
from there, though...
http://www.ictregulationtoolkit.org/en/PracticeNote.aspx?id=3258
or google "mobile companies sharing networks"
Cheers - Jaimie
--
Networking is well understood and well standardized,
unfortunately not by the same people.
T i m
wrote:
>T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
I bow to your experience Steve. ;-)
Cheers, T i m
T i m
<jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 19:27:18 +0000, itali...@gmail.com (SteveH)
>wrote:
>
>>T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> 'You've never been confused till you've driven a Hybrid"
>>
>>Given how confusing you find OSX, I can only recommend you nevery try a
>>hybrid, as it'll screw your mind up permanently.
>
>And both for the same reason - they're simpler, with fewer gotchas,
>but *unfamiliar*.
Well, joking aside, having driven and raced more EVs and pedal-elecs
than yer average Joe over the years I'm not sure the Hybrid would be
that unusual for me.
OSX however, yep, loads of *gotchas* (there not being an equivalent
for Agent being a big one).
And why can't Skype start minimized under OSX (serious question and
assuming it still doesn't or can't be made to easily). Why haven't
they been inundated with requests for it to do so? I mean, for those
Mac users who use it, is it just another window left open on their
desktops all the time or maybe they don't mind closing every time they
start their computers. Or maybe that's it, they don't turn their stuff
off like I do? However I do, and I want Skype on the Mac to work like
Skype on XP.
For me, not being able to have it sit quietly in the system tray IS
another big gotcha.
Cheers, T i m
Dorian Gray
>
> > My point, I install a doohickey to try to
> > overcome a deficiency (as I see it) in a Mac version of something I'm
> > used to (and I'm blaming Skype there for this btw)
I don't see why you continue to say that Skype is "deficient" in this
way. I already told you where the writing hand thingo is in Skype on
the Mac (that is, right in front of your eyes, in the chat window
drawer) and you said you understood my post. You don't need Growl at
all.
T i m
Erm, ok, maybe my Skype is setup differently or I'm not using it the
same way as you are?
On *my* Windows version, when I establish a chat with someone I have a
single window with a text entry box at the bottom and our combined
text scrolling above. The 'they are writing' doohickey is immediately
above and to the left of the text entry box, just where you would be
looking when reading their or entering your text.
On *my* Mac version, you have the similar text entry window but what I
think you call 'a draw' that pulls out vertically down the left side
of the main window, the icon representing the person you are talking
to in the top of that draw and the doohickey appearing next to that
(on my screen some 3" away).
Now if that is all correct and just how it is then I don't consider
them the same and I don't like the Mac version (demonstrated by the
fact I had to ask where the doohickey was).
Now I appreciate that may not be very clear and you may not have a PC
to try it on so I can send you a screen shot of the Windows one if it
would help?
Cheers, T i m
Peter Ceresole
> Now if that is all correct and just how it is then I don't consider
> them the same and I don't like the Mac version (demonstrated by the
> fact I had to ask where the doohickey was).
Nope. The essential difference is that on the Mac you have a *choice* to
see it, or not.
A choice between a Windows straightjacket, or a Mac silk shirt.
--
Peter
zoara
I'm sure I've mentioned this here very recently, but there's a very
sharply defined black hole in our work car park. It's only about thirty
feet across; I can be walking from my car to the entrance and watch the
signal drop to nothing then come back as I walk through it; I can even
skirt around it because I know fairly well where it is.
I first noticed it when I triggered a download on my phone as I got out
of the car, and it had failed by the time I'd made the thirty-second
walk to the entrance to the office.
-zoara-
Tim Streater
> And why can't Skype start minimized under OSX (serious question and
> assuming it still doesn't or can't be made to easily). Why haven't
> they been inundated with requests for it to do so? I mean, for those
> Mac users who use it, is it just another window left open on their
> desktops all the time or maybe they don't mind closing every time they
> start their computers. Or maybe that's it, they don't turn their stuff
> off like I do? However I do, and I want Skype on the Mac to work like
> Skype on XP.
>
> For me, not being able to have it sit quietly in the system tray IS
> another big gotcha.
I've got it sitting in a Space all by itself. Then when the Duck icon
bounces I just click on it (or not, if I'm busy).
--
Tim
"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"
Bill of Rights 1689
T i m
Nice try as a get out. ;-)
Nope, I want to see it and I want to see it properly (as it provides
useful feedback).
The Windows version is the right scale, in the right place with the
right amount of instant and responsive animation to give you a good
idea if someone is able to give you their time and attention etc.
eg. If I'm talking to our daughter in Scotland over Skype (or MSN),
her replies are normally fast and instant (one is typing speed the
other response time). So, if I sent her an IM and I see no sign of a
reply then I know to be doing other things till she does.
However this is exaggerated when talking to slow typists or non IM
savvy folk (there is a sort of etiquette with brb etc) as you never
know if they are still typing or not. A reply before they have replied
or whilst they are typing often gets lost or confuses them.
So, far from wanting to hide this particular doohickey, I want it to
be prominent and responsive, just like it is with the Windows version
of Skype. The same version that I can choose whether to start
minimized or not. ;-)
Cheers, T i m
Tim Streater
> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 02:36:50 +0000, Dorian Gray
> <D.G...@picture.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> T i m<ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> My point, I install a doohickey to try to
>>>> overcome a deficiency (as I see it) in a Mac version of something I'm
>>>> used to (and I'm blaming Skype there for this btw)
>>
>> I don't see why you continue to say that Skype is "deficient" in this
>> way. I already told you where the writing hand thingo is in Skype on
>> the Mac (that is, right in front of your eyes, in the chat window
>> drawer) and you said you understood my post. You don't need Growl at
>> all.
>
> Erm, ok, maybe my Skype is setup differently or I'm not using it the
> same way as you are?
>
> On *my* Windows version, when I establish a chat with someone I have a
> single window with a text entry box at the bottom and our combined
> text scrolling above. The 'they are writing' doohickey is immediately
> above and to the left of the text entry box, just where you would be
> looking when reading their or entering your text.
>
> On *my* Mac version, you have the similar text entry window but what I
> think you call 'a draw' that pulls out vertically down the left side
> of the main window, the icon representing the person you are talking
> to in the top of that draw and the doohickey appearing next to that
> (on my screen some 3" away).
It's a "drawer". As in "chest of drawers". In my drawer I have a list of
people I've got chats going with. Where is that in your Windows version?
When I want to chat to X I click on them in the drawer and the main
window switches to their chat.
So I'd want the doohickey to be in the drawer next to the person who's
writing - since if several are writing at once how else you gonna do it?
Not that I'm that bothered about that particular feature anyway.
Peter Ceresole
> Nope, I want to see it and I want to see it properly (as it provides
> useful feedback).
In that case, leave the drawer open.
As I said; you have the choice.
As for minimising; here (in 10.4.11) Skype minimises perfectly to the
Dock. And it lets you know, by bouncing, if you have an incoming call.
All it takes is a Cmd-M.
So again, you have a choice.
--
Peter
Jaimie Vandenbergh
<timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
>On 02/12/2009 00:54, T i m wrote:
>
>> And why can't Skype start minimized under OSX (serious question and
>> assuming it still doesn't or can't be made to easily). Why haven't
>> they been inundated with requests for it to do so? I mean, for those
>> Mac users who use it, is it just another window left open on their
>> desktops all the time or maybe they don't mind closing every time they
>> start their computers. Or maybe that's it, they don't turn their stuff
>> off like I do? However I do, and I want Skype on the Mac to work like
>> Skype on XP.
Just use Skype on XP, then.
>> For me, not being able to have it sit quietly in the system tray IS
>> another big gotcha.
>
>I've got it sitting in a Space all by itself. Then when the Duck icon
>bounces I just click on it (or not, if I'm busy).
I have it running without any windows open. It pops up a call-answer
or chat window when needed. Seems pretty similar to having it in the
system tray.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"We all recall that the difference between a computer salesman and a car
salesman is that the car salesman *knows* he's lying to you"
"... and probably knows how to drive"
- F O'Donnell and M Smith, in afs
T i m
<timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
>On 02/12/2009 00:54, T i m wrote:
>
>> And why can't Skype start minimized under OSX (serious question and
>> assuming it still doesn't or can't be made to easily). Why haven't
>> they been inundated with requests for it to do so? I mean, for those
>> Mac users who use it, is it just another window left open on their
>> desktops all the time or maybe they don't mind closing every time they
>> start their computers. Or maybe that's it, they don't turn their stuff
>> off like I do? However I do, and I want Skype on the Mac to work like
>> Skype on XP.
>>
>> For me, not being able to have it sit quietly in the system tray IS
>> another big gotcha.
>
>I've got it sitting in a Space all by itself. Then when the Duck icon
>bounces I just click on it (or not, if I'm busy).
No, from start Tim. Does it auto minimise to the dock on startup?
If it does for you (or does now or you know how to make it do so) I
would be interested to hear.
Cheers, T i m
T i m
<sigh>
1) I don't want a choice, I want it to work as nicely as I feel it is
under Windows.
2) I know it minimises, I want it to AUTO MINIMISE on startup. ie. I
don't want to have to close it to the dock every time I start OSX.
3) I have no issue seeing an incoming call or I would have mentioned
such and I wouldn't use keyboard shortcuts because I would never
remember them.
Cheers, T i m
T i m
<timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
>> On *my* Mac version, you have the similar text entry window but what I
>> think you call 'a draw' that pulls out vertically down the left side
>> of the main window, the icon representing the person you are talking
>> to in the top of that draw and the doohickey appearing next to that
>> (on my screen some 3" away).
>
>It's a "drawer". As in "chest of drawers".
Well I though that's what Dorian meant but wasn't what I was seeing on
my version (I though it might be a Mac term).
> In my drawer I have a list of
>people I've got chats going with. Where is that in your Windows version?
Dunno, don't generally chat with more than a couple of people at a
time.
>When I want to chat to X I click on them in the drawer and the main
>window switches to their chat.
Ok.
>
>So I'd want the doohickey to be in the drawer next to the person who's
>writing - since if several are writing at once how else you gonna do it?
I dunno, I'll look the next time I talk to more than person on Skype.
>
>Not that I'm that bothered about that particular feature anyway.
Nor was I till I couldn't see it on the Mac version (didn't realise
how much I used it).
Cheers, T i m
Tim Streater
It isn't minimised. It's in a Space. I configure it to start in Space
number 3. Since it's a running app it has an icon in the Dock, which
gets a little red count of waiting messages when they come in. That,
together with the bounce, tells me to switch to that space (by clicking
on the dock icon).
T i m
<jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:29:02 +0000, Tim Streater
><timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
>
>>On 02/12/2009 00:54, T i m wrote:
>>
>>> And why can't Skype start minimized under OSX (serious question and
>>> assuming it still doesn't or can't be made to easily). Why haven't
>>> they been inundated with requests for it to do so? I mean, for those
>>> Mac users who use it, is it just another window left open on their
>>> desktops all the time or maybe they don't mind closing every time they
>>> start their computers. Or maybe that's it, they don't turn their stuff
>>> off like I do? However I do, and I want Skype on the Mac to work like
>>> Skype on XP.
>
>Just use Skype on XP, then.
I generally do? My question though was for those times when I'm in OSX
and a Skype contact popped up for a chat (as happened the other
evening and hence my question), how do I get the typing doohickey.
Well that bit has now been answered (sort of).
>
>>> For me, not being able to have it sit quietly in the system tray IS
>>> another big gotcha.
>>
>>I've got it sitting in a Space all by itself. Then when the Duck icon
>>bounces I just click on it (or not, if I'm busy).
>
>I have it running without any windows open.
Snap.
> It pops up a call-answer
>or chat window when needed.
Snap.
> Seems pretty similar to having it in the
>system tray.
Indeed it does?
<tap tap, is this Mic working?>
Ok, last time.
CAN YOU SET SKYPE TO_AUTOMATICALLY_START _(S T A R T) _MINIMISED (to
the dock / wherever) OR NOT PLEASE????
Because whenever I've tried (and we went though this a while ago) I
don't think it could.
Cheers, T i m
T i m
<timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
>On 02/12/2009 10:39, T i m wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:29:02 +0000, Tim Streater
>> <timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
>
>>>> For me, not being able to have it sit quietly in the system tray IS
>>>> another big gotcha.
>>>
>>> I've got it sitting in a Space all by itself. Then when the Duck icon
>>> bounces I just click on it (or not, if I'm busy).
>>
>> No, from start Tim. Does it auto minimise to the dock on startup?
>>
>> If it does for you (or does now or you know how to make it do so) I
>> would be interested to hear.
>
>It isn't minimised. It's in a Space. I configure it to start in Space
>number 3. Since it's a running app it has an icon in the Dock, which
>gets a little red count of waiting messages when they come in. That,
>together with the bounce, tells me to switch to that space (by clicking
>on the dock icon).
Oh, whatever you call it when it's not a window on the desktop. Are
you saying you can (have / now / whatever), get Skype to start in that
not_a_window_on_the_desktop_but_running mode?
If so, how please?
The last time I tried I couldn't (and believe I asked here and was
told it wasn't possible, then)?
Cheers, T i m
Tim Streater
> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:53:14 +0000, Tim Streater
> <timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
>
>> On 02/12/2009 10:39, T i m wrote:
>>> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:29:02 +0000, Tim Streater
>>> <timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> For me, not being able to have it sit quietly in the system tray IS
>>>>> another big gotcha.
>>>>
>>>> I've got it sitting in a Space all by itself. Then when the Duck icon
>>>> bounces I just click on it (or not, if I'm busy).
>>>
>>> No, from start Tim. Does it auto minimise to the dock on startup?
>>>
>>> If it does for you (or does now or you know how to make it do so) I
>>> would be interested to hear.
>>
>> It isn't minimised. It's in a Space. I configure it to start in Space
>> number 3. Since it's a running app it has an icon in the Dock, which
>> gets a little red count of waiting messages when they come in. That,
>> together with the bounce, tells me to switch to that space (by clicking
>> on the dock icon).
>
> Oh, whatever you call it when it's not a window on the desktop. Are
> you saying you can (have / now / whatever), get Skype to start in that
> not_a_window_on_the_desktop_but_running mode?
T i m , you're not listening. It's in a *Space* of its own. In that
Space, it has a window. I don't normally see that, because I have two
other *Spaces* set up that I work in. When I click on the Dock icon for
Skype, it switches to that Space.
Look up Spaces in the Mac Help.
Dorian Gray
Tim Streater <timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
> On 02/12/2009 09:44, T i m wrote:
> > On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 02:36:50 +0000, Dorian Gray
> > <D.G...@picture.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>> T i m<ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> My point, I install a doohickey to try to
> >>>> overcome a deficiency (as I see it) in a Mac version of something I'm
> >>>> used to (and I'm blaming Skype there for this btw)
> >>
> >> I don't see why you continue to say that Skype is "deficient" in this
> >> way. I already told you where the writing hand thingo is in Skype on
> >> the Mac (that is, right in front of your eyes, in the chat window
> >> drawer) and you said you understood my post. You don't need Growl at
> >> all.
> >
> > Erm, ok, maybe my Skype is setup differently or I'm not using it the
> > same way as you are?
No, your setup is the same as mine and you're using it the same way.
But I think you know that, so I'm afraid this is my last post on this
topic, for the benefit of others.
> > On *my* Mac version, you have the similar text entry window but what I
> > think you call 'a draw'
a drawer, as is written on the icon menu bar at the top of the chat
window
> > that pulls out vertically down the left side
> > of the main window,
You make it sound like it is hidden by default and you have to pull it
out. Actually the opposite is true - it is shown by default and you
have to hide it if you don't want to see it. That is, it is right in
front of your eyes.
> > the icon representing the person you are talking
> > to in the top of that draw and the doohickey appearing next to that
> > (on my screen some 3" away).
No, the status icon of the other person (with whom you are chatting) is
in only one place in the chat window, in the drawer - there is no
confusion. It makes no sense to put it in the text entry window - that
is where YOU are typing, not them! Their text is displayed in a
different place. And if their status icon was going to be next to their
name in the text display (not entry) window, it would be next to every
entry of theirs, which means many duplicate icons changing all the time
- how stupid would that be? The only sensible place for their status
icon is in the drawer, and as Tim Streater said, that shows the names
and status icons for all your active chats, so you can click between
them.
Also, according to this, the XP version in chat mode operates just like
the Mac version - there is a drawer of sorts and the status icon of the
other person is in the equivalent place on the screen:
<http://share.skype.com/sites/en/chat_typingindicator_smaller.gif>
EOF
T i m
<D.G...@picture.invalid> wrote:
>> > Erm, ok, maybe my Skype is setup differently or I'm not using it the
>> > same way as you are?
>
>No, your setup is the same as mine and you're using it the same way.
Ok?
>But I think you know that, so I'm afraid this is my last post on this
>topic, for the benefit of others.
Eh? You think something so that's it (even though you have got the
wrong end of the stick)? I don't 'know that' else I wouldn't have been
asking.
>
>> > On *my* Mac version, you have the similar text entry window but what I
>> > think you call 'a draw'
>
>a drawer, as is written on the icon menu bar at the top of the chat
>window
Sorry, never see any such thing written or on the screen, but then
I've never looked for one. The first time I've seen any mention of the
term was from you (take / believe that as you will).
>
>> > that pulls out vertically down the left side
>> > of the main window,
>
>You make it sound like it is hidden by default and you have to pull it
>out. Actually the opposite is true - it is shown by default and you
>have to hide it if you don't want to see it.
Ok, well I won't argue with you on that because I've not used Skype
sufficiently under OSX to know what's default or not.
> That is, it is right in
>front of your eyes.
Or right in front of your eyes. All I have seen, outside of the main
'contact' window on Mac Skype is the thing that sticks out on the lhs
(on mine) with the avatar (and doohickey) in of that one person (with
room for more underneath).
>
>> > the icon representing the person you are talking
>> > to in the top of that draw and the doohickey appearing next to that
>> > (on my screen some 3" away).
>
>No, the status icon of the other person (with whom you are chatting) is
>in only one place in the chat window, in the drawer - there is no
>confusion.
As long as we are using the same terms etc.
> It makes no sense to put it in the text entry window - that
>is where YOU are typing, not them!
What? I didn't say it was IN the text entry window, I said it was
above and to the left of the text entry window, where the joint texts
from both parties are displayed (but exactly where you would be
looking to see their reply and what you sent).
> Their text is displayed in a
>different place.
On mine, both sent and received texts scroll vertically in the larger
top half of the window.
> And if their status icon was going to be next to their
>name in the text display (not entry) window, it would be next to every
>entry of theirs, which means many duplicate icons changing all the time
>- how stupid would that be?
Not sure I quite understand the format and I'm sure it's not the case
for either version.
> The only sensible place for their status
>icon is in the drawer, and as Tim Streater said, that shows the names
>and status icons for all your active chats, so you can click between
>them.
So do you have to select the person you want to talk to (one at a
time) and that *becomes* the content of the main 'chat' screen? I ask
because I've never had more than one person on the Mac version of
Skype so not see it in action. I'll try it tonight. With the Windows
version (or as I have it set up anyway) I get a complete new window
for each person I'm chatting to, complete with typing doohickey in the
same place on each.
>
>Also, according to this, the XP version in chat mode operates just like
>the Mac version - there is a drawer of sorts and the status icon of the
>other person is in the equivalent place on the screen:
>
><http://share.skype.com/sites/en/chat_typingindicator_smaller.gif>
Ah, well I don't know what version that is (I'm on V4 here) or how the
windows became laid out like that but that's not how I see mine or
would want it (and exactly why I offered to send you a screenshot of
mine in the hope it would make it clearer).
All I was originally asking was is 'where is the doohickey'. You
kindly told me. To me, someone who rarely chats to more than one
person at a time on Skype (and even less chance under the Mac version)
the way I have it (one window / person) is far friendlier, easier to
view and more like MSN (that I generally use more).
I'm happy you prefer your version.
Cheers, T i m
Peter Ceresole
> how do I get the typing doohickey.
> Well that bit has now been answered (sort of).
Not sort of at all. It's been comprehensively answered.
Tap the mic?
--
Peter
T i m
<timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
>> Oh, whatever you call it when it's not a window on the desktop. Are
>> you saying you can (have / now / whatever), get Skype to start in that
>> not_a_window_on_the_desktop_but_running mode?
>
>T i m , you're not listening. It's in a *Space* of its own. In that
>Space, it has a window. I don't normally see that, because I have two
>other *Spaces* set up that I work in. When I click on the Dock icon for
>Skype, it switches to that Space.
>
Tim, I don't need to listen, I just need a yes/no answer to my
question (please).
OK, let's try it another way.
I start OSX. It comes up and stuff fires up and appears in the toolbar
thing at the top (status monitors etc). Icons bounce up and down in
the dock and generally stop bouncing once they have started. However
aMSN and Skype, bounce, sign in etc then are left on the screen and I
have to click on each manually to get them off the screen.
They are still running in/on the dock and I can then use them pretty
much as I use them under XP (no probs with that).
It's just I don't want to have to click on both of them, each and
every time I start OSX.
Now, without asking me to read up on anything, can you confirm that I
can get Skype to start minimised in the dock (or whatever the Mac term
for it all is) please, yes / no.
If yes, how please?
Cheers, T i m
Tim Streater
> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 11:20:43 +0000, Tim Streater
> <timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> Oh, whatever you call it when it's not a window on the desktop. Are
>>> you saying you can (have / now / whatever), get Skype to start in that
>>> not_a_window_on_the_desktop_but_running mode?
>>
>> T i m , you're not listening. It's in a *Space* of its own. In that
>> Space, it has a window. I don't normally see that, because I have two
>> other *Spaces* set up that I work in. When I click on the Dock icon for
>> Skype, it switches to that Space.
>>
> Tim, I don't need to listen,
Yes you do, because not listening is the source of all your problems.
I just need a yes/no answer to my
> question (please).
>
> OK, let's try it another way.
>
> I start OSX. It comes up and stuff fires up and appears in the toolbar
> thing at the top (status monitors etc). Icons bounce up and down in
> the dock and generally stop bouncing once they have started. However
> aMSN and Skype, bounce, sign in etc then are left on the screen and I
> have to click on each manually to get them off the screen.
>
> They are still running in/on the dock and I can then use them pretty
> much as I use them under XP (no probs with that).
>
> It's just I don't want to have to click on both of them, each and
> every time I start OSX.
So get them to auto-start as login items (System Prefs -> Accounts ->
Login items.
> Now, without asking me to read up on anything, can you confirm that I
> can get Skype to start minimised in the dock (or whatever the Mac term
> for it all is) please, yes / no.
Not that I am aware of, which is why we've all been explaining how to do
it differently. In my case, Skype starts in Space#3, so I don't see its
window until I want to.
T i m
Ceresole) wrote:
>T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> how do I get the typing doohickey.
>> Well that bit has now been answered (sort of).
>
>Not sort of at all. It's been comprehensively answered.
Well, if the only solution is actually the one offered then frankly
it's shite and I don't like it.
Point. When I first used the Mac version of Skype I couldn't see the
doohickey at all (suggesting it wasn't where I expected it to be and /
or obvious enough to spot. Invisible enough if you like for me to ask
if there was any way to turn it on (not realising it was already on).
Like a car warning lamp you can only see in the dark.
Now I know where it is, and assuming that is the only choice then it's
shite, for me. It may become more logical with more than one
conversation in play but that's unlikely to happen with and using
Skype ,(I generally use MSN for such things) so not a good outcome.
If you like it that way (and assuming we are seeing the same things,
you have my real email address here so I would be happy if you could
send me a screenshot of your setup so I can compare) then that's fine.
Cheers, T i m
T i m
<timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
>> Tim, I don't need to listen,
>
>Yes you do, because not listening is the source of all your problems.
Ahem. I asked the question, I wanted an answer. Have the balls to say
no if there wasn't one. It wasn't a trick, it was a signoff question
to my one about the doohickey (and as usual started by Pd who then
runs away). ;-)
>
>I just need a yes/no answer to my
>> question (please).
>>
>> OK, let's try it another way.
>>
>> I start OSX. It comes up and stuff fires up and appears in the toolbar
>> thing at the top (status monitors etc). Icons bounce up and down in
>> the dock and generally stop bouncing once they have started. However
>> aMSN and Skype, bounce, sign in etc then are left on the screen and I
>> have to click on each manually to get them off the screen.
>>
>> They are still running in/on the dock and I can then use them pretty
>> much as I use them under XP (no probs with that).
>>
>> It's just I don't want to have to click on both of them, each and
>> every time I start OSX.
>
>So get them to auto-start as login items (System Prefs -> Accounts ->
>Login items.
Right, thanks. However I thought I tried that and it didn't work (for
anyone).
>
>> Now, without asking me to read up on anything, can you confirm that I
>> can get Skype to start minimised in the dock (or whatever the Mac term
>> for it all is) please, yes / no.
>
>Not that I am aware of, which is why we've all been explaining how to do
>it differently. In my case, Skype starts in Space#3, so I don't see its
>window until I want to.
But Tim, I don't want to play with something else (that was like the
Growl aside (that could still be of use and good to know about etc)),
I just want a yes / no answer to my question. [1]
Ok, and assuming the login thing doesn't work.
Yes / No. Can you set something in Skype or OSX that *just* makes
Skype start minimised in the dock. No is a perfectly acceptable answer
(it just means I haven't missed anything since the last time I tried
to do it). ;-)
Cheers, T i m
Dorian Gray
Tim Streater <timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
> On 02/12/2009 12:11, T i m wrote:
>
> > It's just I don't want to have to click on both of them, each and
> > every time I start OSX.
>
> So get them to auto-start as login items (System Prefs -> Accounts ->
> Login items.
>
> > Now, without asking me to read up on anything, can you confirm that I
> > can get Skype to start minimised in the dock (or whatever the Mac term
> > for it all is) please, yes / no.
Okay, last post from me on this (really this time)...
To Tim Streater, I think T i m is saying that he has Skype auto-start as
a Login Item, but doesn't want to dismiss the window every time he logs
in.
To T i m, I think a solution to your problem is to click the "Hide"
checkbox that appears next to the applications in System Prefs ->
Accounts -> Login Items (the place that Tim Streater directed you to
above). As it says (in Tiger) below the list: "To hide an application
when you log in, click its Hide checkbox." Very simple and easy to
understand. Actually, the word "Hide" and a checkbox could already be
said to be self-explanatory.
T i m
<D.G...@picture.invalid> wrote:
>In article <YuOdnXEWR4k1xovW...@brightview.co.uk>,
> Tim Streater <timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
>
>> On 02/12/2009 12:11, T i m wrote:
>>
>> > It's just I don't want to have to click on both of them, each and
>> > every time I start OSX.
>>
>> So get them to auto-start as login items (System Prefs -> Accounts ->
>> Login items.
>>
>> > Now, without asking me to read up on anything, can you confirm that I
>> > can get Skype to start minimised in the dock (or whatever the Mac term
>> > for it all is) please, yes / no.
>
>Okay, last post from me on this (really this time)...
>
>To Tim Streater, I think T i m is saying that he has Skype auto-start as
>a Login Item, but doesn't want to dismiss the window every time he logs
>in.
*ding*
>
>To T i m, I think a solution to your problem is to click the "Hide"
>checkbox that appears next to the applications in System Prefs ->
>Accounts -> Login Items (the place that Tim Streater directed you to
>above). As it says (in Tiger) below the list: "To hide an application
>when you log in, click its Hide checkbox." Very simple and easy to
>understand.
Agreed.
> Actually, the word "Hide" and a checkbox could already be
>said to be self-explanatory.
Have you tried it. (ready for some humble pie if it doesn't though)?
Don't get me wrong, I haven't recently but I have before and it didn't
work.
T i m
Dorian Gray
pe...@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) wrote:
> T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
>
> > how do I get the typing doohickey.
> > Well that bit has now been answered (sort of).
>
> Not sort of at all. It's been comprehensively answered.
Actually T i m, regarding the position of the typing thingo, it seems
that you were insisting that you wanted Skype on Mac to do something you
claimed Skype on XP did, whereas what you described for Skype on XP
wasn't sensible, and when I looked into it, found that Skype on XP
wasn't like you described at all, and was just like Skype on Mac.
Surely you knew that.
I find that a big waste of my (and everyone's) time and just adds to the
noise on this newsgroup.
T i m
<D.G...@picture.invalid> wrote:
>In article <1ja3iil.11p33zfgjo9tN%pe...@cara.demon.co.uk>,
> pe...@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) wrote:
>
>> T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > how do I get the typing doohickey.
>> > Well that bit has now been answered (sort of).
>>
>> Not sort of at all. It's been comprehensively answered.
>
>Actually T i m, regarding the position of the typing thingo, it seems
>that you were insisting that you wanted Skype on Mac to do something you
>claimed Skype on XP did, whereas what you described for Skype on XP
>wasn't sensible, and when I looked into it, found that Skype on XP
>wasn't like you described at all, and was just like Skype on Mac.
Well that's not the case here.
>
>Surely you knew that.
Surely you can say no such thing.
>
>I find that a big waste of my (and everyone's) time and just adds to the
>noise on this newsgroup.
Exactly what are your goals when replying to me here? Are you trying
to prove some sort of point, or start a fight between us, or maybe
I've got it wrong and your style is being miss interpreted (by me at
least) that way? Why do your replies have to include 'my last post
her' like you are trying to apologise to anyone?
I asked a question. If you don't like any subsequent replies or
further questions then I'm sorry. No one forced you to reply. What I
said at the beginning about my observations re Skype under the two
platforms are true, and *exactly* as I see them both on this same
Mini.
If you want to enter into a bit of friendly banter re why *we* prefer
one format over another that's fine but not what I was after.
Ironically it appears only you (of those involved so far) have
actually 'got it' re my question if Sykpe can now be started to run
minimised (so thanks for that). Obviously I now realise it isn't a Mac
term (or requirement?) as I can't think of any other genuine reason
why so many people would be so thrown by such use of the terms.
Anyway, whatever you decide to do next, thanks for your help.
Cheers, T i m
Tim Streater
> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:56:54 +0000, Dorian Gray
> Ironically it appears only you (of those involved so far) have
> actually 'got it' re my question if Sykpe can now be started to run
> minimised (so thanks for that).
You can't start it minimised, but you can start it hidden. These are not
the same thing, but for practical purposes in your case you get the same
effect.
Hiding hides all windows of the app, and the windows are not in the Dock.
Sending to the Dock (what you'd call minimising) puts that window only
off the screen and into the Dock (and you can see it there). So you can
have some windows in the Dock (of an app) and some not.
If you only have one window, as with Skype by and large, then there's
not much difference.
James Jolley
Hi,
Thinking about this, perhaps the Growl solution is good enough? I know
from using VO with Skype, it's easier to set up a notification to speak
the incoming messages. The draw is accessible of course, but it's a
pain to keep moving away from the text entry window, interacting with
the draw and such. Growl may work for you if you're able to set it up
correctly.
Best
-James-
T i m
<timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
>On 02/12/2009 13:18, T i m wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:56:54 +0000, Dorian Gray
>
>> Ironically it appears only you (of those involved so far) have
>> actually 'got it' re my question if Sykpe can now be started to run
>> minimised (so thanks for that).
>
>You can't start it minimised, but you can start it hidden. These are not
>the same thing, but for practical purposes in your case you get the same
>effect.
Right, I've just been back into OSX and it looks like the 'hide at
login' thing does work now (so brownie points to all who offered that
as a solution).
I say now as I'm pretty sure that didn't work under Tiger (I'm now
running 10.5) and / or with the version of Skype at the time (hence
why I asked if it could be done).
>
>Hiding hides all windows of the app, and the windows are not in the Dock.
Ok <shrug> (no, don't) ;-)
>
>Sending to the Dock (what you'd call minimising) puts that window only
>off the screen and into the Dock (and you can see it there). So you can
>have some windows in the Dock (of an app) and some not.
Bizarre.
>
>If you only have one window, as with Skype by and large, then there's
>not much difference.
So it seems.
And this also (now) seems to apply to aMSN. ;-)
I've also seen the 'drawer' button that Dorian mentioned and on mine
that makes a sub window pop out on the left (not my understanding of
'a drawer' but anyhow).
Sfunny. I use MSN and Skype in the same way ... ie, having discrete
windows open for each contact I'm chatting to at the time (so I can
see all the conversations simultaneously). I thought that was in
conflict with how I generally use 'Windows" (one window for each
complete function) but it isn't. On Skype, each window is a self
contained world, containing the chat from both parties and a doohickey
etc.
In the same way that this Agent window contains all I need to send a
message. Once sent it shows the messages in this n/g.
Anyway, that's those questions answered, thanks.
Cheers, T i m
zoara
> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 02:36:50 +0000, Dorian Gray
> <D.G...@picture.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> > overcome a deficiency (as I see it) in a Mac version of something
> > > > I'm
> >> > used to (and I'm blaming Skype there for this btw)
> >
> >I don't see why you continue to say that Skype is "deficient" in this
> >
> >way. I already told you where the writing hand thingo is in Skype on
> >
> >the Mac (that is, right in front of your eyes, in the chat window
> >drawer) and you said you understood my post. You don't need Growl at
> >
> >all.
>
> same way as you are?
>
> single window with a text entry box at the bottom and our combined
> text scrolling above. The 'they are writing' doohickey is immediately
> above and to the left of the text entry box, just where you would be
> looking when reading their or entering your text.
>
> of the main window, the icon representing the person you are talking
> to in the top of that draw and the doohickey appearing next to that
> (on my screen some 3" away).
>
> them the same and I don't like the Mac version (demonstrated by the
> fact I had to ask where the doohickey was).
So what makes you think Growl is going to "overcome" your "deficiency"?
The notification would be even further away from the place you want it
to be. Even a glance at the website would tell you this.
And "different" doesn't mean "defective".
-zoara-
--
email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm
T i m
wrote:
>Hi,
>
Hi James,
>Thinking about this, perhaps the Growl solution is good enough?
I've just got the Mrs to send me some stuff in Skype and I've seen the
Growl notifications coming up. Whilst it's nice to know what something
is that you see folk talking about I don't see what it would give me
that's not already there (in the case of Skype and the 'writing'
doohickey). For me, the way my Skype is setup isn't as 'nice' as the
way my Windows Skype is setup and I thinks that's just how it is.
> I know
>from using VO with Skype, it's easier to set up a notification to speak
>the incoming messages.
Ok. With the short exposure to growl I've had so far it only seems to
duplicate the prompts I already get from the app itself. I dare say
there are other things it could do that might be more suited.
>The draw is accessible of course, but it's a
>pain to keep moving away from the text entry window, interacting with
>the draw and such. Growl may work for you if you're able to set it up
>correctly.
The bit I had missed was that it adds the apps itself. I though I saw
an 'Add' button on the App pane of Growl and that it even took me to
the file system as if to choose one manually but that may have been
for something else.
Anyway, I think it's resolved now. Unless I can get the Mac Skype to
look / work like the Windows Skype the writing doohickey will remain
deficient for my use. So much for consistency across platforms. ;-)
Cheers, T i m
p.s. I'm going to try Skype under Ubuntu now. ;-)
T i m
>p.s. I'm going to try Skype under Ubuntu now. ;-)
Hmm,
The 'other party writing' doohickey is at least in the right place
under the Linux Skype (in the chat box and where the other party's
text will appear ... where you would be looking to see if they were
typing etc) but unlike the Windows version it fills the text box from
the top down, meaning doohickey starts off at the top then works it's
way down to the bottom before it autoscrolls and is then in the same
position as the Windows one.
Better but not right. ;-)
Cheers, T i m
zoara
> be prominent and responsive, just like it is with the Windows version
> of Skype. The same version that I can choose whether to start
> minimized or not. ;-)
You can contact Skype here and provide them with your feedback:
http://about.skype.com/contactus.html
Pd
> and as usual started by Pd who then runs away
Wot? Are you suggesting I troll you?
--
Pd
T i m
wrote:
>T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> and as usual started by Pd who then runs away
>
>Wot? Are you suggesting I troll you?
How would that make you feel if I did?
T i m
Pd
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 18:32:12 +0000, peter...@gmail.invalid (Pd)
> wrote:
>
> >T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> and as usual started by Pd who then runs away
> >
> >Wot? Are you suggesting I troll you?
>
> How would that make you feel if I did?
Are there other situations where you think this happens to you?
--
Pd
T i m
wrote:
>T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 18:32:12 +0000, peter...@gmail.invalid (Pd)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >> and as usual started by Pd who then runs away
>> >
>> >Wot? Are you suggesting I troll you?
>>
>> How would that make you feel if I did?
>
>Are there other situations where you think this happens to you?
How would you feel if I said there was?
T i m
Peter Ceresole
> >> >Wot? Are you suggesting I troll you?
> >>
> >> How would that make you feel if I did?
> >
> >Are there other situations where you think this happens to you?
>
> How would you feel if I said there was?
Well hello there, Elisa.
--
Peter
T i m
How are you today.. What would you like to discuss?
Ben Shimmin
I think we've introduced ourselves already.
Perhaps you could talk about your life.
b.
--
(You can have all the Elisa fun you like on your Mac simply by typing
`emacs -f doctor' in Terminal, in case anyone's in need of therapy...)
Pd
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 21:05:06 +0000, peter...@gmail.invalid (Pd)
> wrote:
>
> >T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 18:32:12 +0000, peter...@gmail.invalid (Pd)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> and as usual started by Pd who then runs away
> >> >
> >> >Wot? Are you suggesting I troll you?
> >>
> >> How would that make you feel if I did?
> >
> >Are there other situations where you think this happens to you?
>
> How would you feel if I said there was?
Cherished.
--
Pd
Peter Ceresole
> > Well hello there, Elisa.
>
> I think we've introduced ourselves already.
> Perhaps you could talk about your life.
Tell me what you feel about your life.
--
Peter
Ben Shimmin
Why do you say tell you what I feel about my life?
b.
--
<b...@bas.me.uk> <URL:http://bas.me.uk/>
`Property, marriage, the law; as the bed to the river, so rule
and convention to the instinct; and woe to him who tampers with
the banks while the flood is flowing.' -- Samuel Butler, _Erewhon_
Peter Ceresole
> >> > Well hello there, Elisa.
> >>
> >> I think we've introduced ourselves already.
> >> Perhaps you could talk about your life.
> >
> > Tell me what you feel about your life.
>
> Why do you say tell you what I feel about my life?
What was interesting about Elisa was the way people (in the popular
press for instance) were seeing it as having something to day about
machine intelligence, when in reality what it was about was the
simplicity of human interactions.
--
Peter
T i m
wrote:
>T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 21:05:06 +0000, peter...@gmail.invalid (Pd)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 18:32:12 +0000, peter...@gmail.invalid (Pd)
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> and as usual started by Pd who then runs away
>> >> >
>> >> >Wot? Are you suggesting I troll you?
>> >>
>> >> How would that make you feel if I did?
>> >
>> >Are there other situations where you think this happens to you?
>>
>> How would you feel if I said there was?
>
>Cherished.
Like
URA NOB
?
Pd
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 12:31:18 +0000, peter...@gmail.invalid (Pd)
> wrote:
>
> >T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
[...]
> >> How would you feel if I said there was?
> >
> >Cherished.
>
> Like
> URA NOB
> ?
No, nothing like that.
--
Pd
T i m
wrote:
>T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 12:31:18 +0000, peter...@gmail.invalid (Pd)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
>[...]
>> >> How would you feel if I said there was?
>> >
>> >Cherished.
>>
>> Like
>> URA NOB
>> ?
>
>No, nothing like that.
O?
Tim Streater
> I generally do?
Well, it's no good asking us, is it?
> My question though was for those times when I'm in OSX
> and a Skype contact popped up for a chat (as happened the other
> evening and hence my question), how do I get the typing doohickey.
> Well that bit has now been answered (sort of).
I did observe the doohickey tonight while skyping to my pal in the US of
A, and a niece in Stony Stratford. But it does seem a bit intermittent.
By the way, you can have each chat in a separate window if you really want.
T i m
<timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
>On 02/12/2009 10:55, T i m wrote:
>
>> I generally do?
>
>Well, it's no good asking us, is it?
Spose not (what was the question). ;-)
>
>> My question though was for those times when I'm in OSX
>> and a Skype contact popped up for a chat (as happened the other
>> evening and hence my question), how do I get the typing doohickey.
>> Well that bit has now been answered (sort of).
>
>I did observe the doohickey tonight while skyping to my pal in the US of
>A, and a niece in Stony Stratford.
Ok.
>But it does seem a bit intermittent.
Yes, on (my?) McSkype it's shite. It jumps and judders, doesn't seem
fully animated (no rubout animation, fwiw) and is in completely the
wrong place. It's better on the Linux beta version (at least it's
nearly in the right place ... actually next to where the other persons
text will arrive, but scrolling down with the text to the bottom of
the box) and it's just as I'd want it on the Windows version (which is
lucky).
On aMSN it's under where you type so again, quite away away from where
their text is going to appear. It's also tabbed with a common text box
so you can't be reading text from several people at once (if they are
typing a lot that doesn't need replies etc).
Part of what makes the McSkype format feel so wrong is that it's not
only different to the Windows version of Skype it's different to MSN
and that's what I'm more used to (doohickey where text will appear so
much more 'interactive').
>
>By the way, you can have each chat in a separate window if you really want.
And where is/are the doohickey / doohickeys in that scenario?
Cheers, T i m
Tim Streater
> On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 23:12:53 +0000, Tim Streater
> <timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
>
>> On 02/12/2009 10:55, T i m wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>> Well, it's no good asking us, is it?
>
> Spose not (what was the question). ;-)
It appears to be "I generally do?" - see above.
>> By the way, you can have each chat in a separate window if you really want.
>
> And where is/are the doohickey / doohickeys in that scenario?
Same place. Each window has a drawer. To put a chat in its own window,
right-mouse on the chat in the drawer and choose "Open in separate
window". So you can have n chats in m windows, scattered as you like. To
move a chat from one window to another, just pick it up with the mouse
in the drawer and drop it in the drawer of the target window.
T i m
<timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
>>> By the way, you can have each chat in a separate window if you really want.
>>
>> And where is/are the doohickey / doohickeys in that scenario?
>
>Same place. Each window has a drawer. To put a chat in its own window,
>right-mouse on the chat in the drawer and choose "Open in separate
>window". So you can have n chats in m windows, scattered as you like. To
>move a chat from one window to another, just pick it up with the mouse
>in the drawer and drop it in the drawer of the target window.
So (jooi) dos each window still have a draw containing the Avitar n
doohickey of just that one person or do all chatees appear in all
draws across all chat windows?
I mean, I can sorta get the idea of one window, several Avitars in the
draw, talk to one at a time type thing (even though the doohickey is
miles away from where their text will appear) but it would make even
less sense if what I asked above was true (multiple doohickeys for the
same person).
Cheers, T i m
Tim Streater
> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 11:51:11 +0000, Tim Streater
> <timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>> By the way, you can have each chat in a separate window if you really want.
>>>
>>> And where is/are the doohickey / doohickeys in that scenario?
>>
>> Same place. Each window has a drawer. To put a chat in its own window,
>> right-mouse on the chat in the drawer and choose "Open in separate
>> window". So you can have n chats in m windows, scattered as you like. To
>> move a chat from one window to another, just pick it up with the mouse
>> in the drawer and drop it in the drawer of the target window.
>
> So (jooi) dos each window still have a draw containing the Avitar n
> doohickey of just that one person or do all chatees appear in all
> draws across all chat windows?
Well no, and obviously not, otherwise how would you know which chat
partners were in each window? The drawerererererer of a window has as
many chattees as relate to that window.
T i m
<timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
>> So (jooi) dos each window still have a draw containing the Avitar n
>> doohickey of just that one person or do all chatees appear in all
>> draws across all chat windows?
>
>Well no, and obviously not, otherwise how would you know which chat
>partners were in each window? The drawerererererer of a window has as
>many chattees as relate to that window.
So, typically one / draw / window (assuming a one_2_one x several
rather than a group chat etc).
The funny thing is (and why many here wouldn't see an issue with many
Mac things) is the whole working of McSkype is Sooo different (devil
in the detail) that even I notice and > get confused by it.
Like I actually asked if McSkype had a doohickey that was there all
the time ... because (possibly) 1) I'd closed the draw if it defaulted
open (I don't like clutter / multiple windows for one task) or 2) if
it was open I didn't spoilt this tiny icon (sometimes) moving in the
corner. I was looking for it where it is on the WinSkype which is
where I've always been used to it and where I think it should be (even
if I hadn't been used to it). In a similar way I have to have a double
take to see where it was on aMSN (*underneath* where you type)?
Of course I would be less bothered if a function was better, worse or
missing entirely if I didn't use it but I obviously use this one.
Cheers, T i m
Graham J
"T i m" <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote in message
news:pm6ih51ihdsek52nv...@4ax.com...
Years ago, programmer colleagues would sing the praises of the concept of
writing applications in a high-level language rather than assembler, in
order to have the same user interface regardless of which platform the
application was compiled for.
I cannot think that an application like Skype is written in assembler! I am
aware that there are challenges in writing a high level language in such a
way that the program can be easily compiled for different platforms, but I
would have thought that Skype would use substantially common code between
Mac and Windoze versions. Why then is there so much difference in the user
interface between the two versions?
--
Graham J
Pd
> I would have thought that Skype would use substantially common code
> between Mac and Windoze versions. Why then is there so much difference in
> the user interface between the two versions?
Probably just the luck of the drawer.
--
Pd
Steve Firth
> I cannot think that an application like Skype is written in assembler!
IRC Skype is written in Java.
T i m
<gra...@nospam.zen.co.uk> wrote:
>> Of course I would be less bothered if a function was better, worse or
>> missing entirely if I didn't use it but I obviously use this one.
>
>Years ago, programmer colleagues would sing the praises of the concept of
>writing applications in a high-level language rather than assembler, in
>order to have the same user interface regardless of which platform the
>application was compiled for.
Ok.
>
>I cannot think that an application like Skype is written in assembler! I am
>aware that there are challenges in writing a high level language in such a
>way that the program can be easily compiled for different platforms, but I
>would have thought that Skype would use substantially common code between
>Mac and Windoze versions. Why then is there so much difference in the user
>interface between the two versions?
Well to be fair I don' know that they are as I haven't compared them
side-by side as such (and I can't remember a phone number till I find
a pen) and in principal they are all Skype as such but in use these
little things (like the 'other person writing' doohickey) seem to be
important (or to me anyway) and are therefore, noticed by their
(effective) absence.
There has been many a time where our daughter has asked me why I have
say a background set on something a particular way and my reply is
often "because I don't know how to set it back or care enough to find
out". ;-) [1]
Cheers, T i m
[1] Lik his Appl kyboard is sizing up again and I'v jus had to go back
and add a load of missing e's and t's. I's bn like this for ags and I
know how to fix i but i's not (y) important nough to dal wih (but ging
wors so ging closr). ;-(
Dorian Gray
"Graham J" <gra...@nospam.zen.co.uk> wrote:
> Why then is there so much difference in the user
> interface between the two versions?
There isn't. They are pretty much the same, including where the drawer
lives and that it contains the same sized pen-and-paper icon thingo in
the same region of the screen. See my previous post with the XP
screenshot.
James Jolley
Now that is interesting. Java applications usually pose terrible
accessibility issues, certainly in Windows. Now, I'm guessing that the
low-level stuff for handling calls/confrences/whatever is written using
java, but the UI is native Cocoa? If it's indeed entirely written in
Java, it's one of the most accessible applications i've ever used
that's been written with it.
Best
-James-
James Jolley
Try listening to that via TTS. Makes Lovecraftion horror look
philosophical and understandable.
T i m
<D.G...@picture.invalid> wrote:
>In article <4b1926e3$0$2527$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk>,
> "Graham J" <gra...@nospam.zen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Why then is there so much difference in the user
>> interface between the two versions?
>
>There isn't.
True, except some key features.
> They are pretty much the same, including where the drawer
>lives
I see no mention whatsoever of 'a draw' on this XP version. There is a
compact view and a default view. The default view expands a pane to
the right that is about 3 x bigger than the compact view, nothing like
a draw or the draw on the McSkype. There is no mention of a draw on
the App (unlike the Mac one) that I can see.
>and that it contains the same sized pen-and-paper icon thingo in
>the same region of the screen.
On your preferred view maybe. On mine it's in the draw and miles away.
> See my previous post with the XP
>screenshot.
Which looks little like the XP Skype I have in front of me now (on XP)
so could be considered irrelevant.
Cheers, T i m
p.s. I offered to send Dorian example of the screen shots so he could
see for himself but as yet has not accepted my offer. I wonder why?
Tim Streater
> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 17:13:05 +0000, Dorian Gray
> <D.G...@picture.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article<4b1926e3$0$2527$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk>,
>> "Graham J"<gra...@nospam.zen.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Why then is there so much difference in the user
>>> interface between the two versions?
>>
>> There isn't.
>
> True, except some key features.
>
>> They are pretty much the same, including where the drawer
>> lives
>
> I see no mention whatsoever of 'a draw' on this XP version.
Thass 'cos its a draw-er-er-er-er-er-er.
> p.s. I offered to send Dorian example of the screen shots so he could
> see for himself but as yet has not accepted my offer. I wonder why?
Send it to me then.
T i m
<D.G...@picture.invalid> wrote:
This one you mean?
http://share.skype.com/sites/en/chat_typingindicator_smaller.gif
Doohickey top right, incoming next bottom left.
This is more like what I see on my XP version:
http://www.jaanuskase.com/en/compact%20chat%20window.png
Doohickey appears directly beside the incoming text (where you would
be looking for it).
Mac version as I see it:
http://share.skype.com/sites/mac/newmac2.png
Incoming text appears in the big box (scrolling down?), doohickey
appears up by each avatar. Close draw as you are only talking to one
person, no doohickey at all?
HTH.
T i m
T i m
wrote:
>Try listening to that via TTS. Makes Lovecraftion horror look
>philosophical and understandable.
Doh, sorry about that James, I forgot you might be listening! ;-(
Cheers, T i m
T i m
<timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
>> I see no mention whatsoever of 'a draw' on this XP version.
>
>Thass 'cos its a draw-er-er-er-er-er-er.
Ok 'Drawer' (don't you go stupid on me as well). My point, there is a
specific button called 'Drawer' in the McSkype version and I see no
such mention in the XP version (and I'd not used the term before on
this stuff).
>
>> p.s. I offered to send Dorian example of the screen shots so he could
>> see for himself but as yet has not accepted my offer. I wonder why?
>
>Send it to me then.
See example links in my subsequent reply to Dorian. If you can't see
the difference then nothing I send you is going to help (but I'll send
it anyway).
Cheers, T i m
Dorian Gray
Tim Streater <timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
> On 04/12/2009 17:48, T i m wrote:
> > p.s. I offered to send Dorian example of the screen shots so he could
> > see for himself but as yet has not accepted my offer. I wonder why?
>
> Send it to me then.
Or post links to them on this ng, for heaven's sake!
I don't see posts from T i m anyway, only replies to him. That's why I
was so apologetic about answering his queries - he sucked me in. :)
T i m
<D.G...@picture.invalid> wrote:
>In article <_4ednbsufvAg0YTW...@brightview.co.uk>,
> Tim Streater <timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
>
>> On 04/12/2009 17:48, T i m wrote:
>> > p.s. I offered to send Dorian example of the screen shots so he could
>> > see for himself but as yet has not accepted my offer. I wonder why?
>>
>> Send it to me then.
>
>Or post links to them on this ng, for heaven's sake!
For you you twat, go swivel. I'll send them to someone with the guts
to use their real name and email address.
>
>I don't see posts from T i m anyway, only replies to him. That's why I
>was so apologetic about answering his queries - he sucked me in. :)
What a screwed up coward. Posts 'help' replies to me but has me
killfiled? I wondered what all the groveling apologies were all about.
I should have realised it wasn't actually help just an opportunity to
show off / cause trouble.
Get back under yer stone, Twat.