XP: Cool feature with a weakness
Snit
screen image by pressing control+alt+arrow keys. For the general desktop
this has little utility, but for tablets it is pretty cool... and as long as
the ability is there it is often available on desktop systems. No problems
there... though it does leave open a chance for practical jokes and the
like.
Here is the weakness: I can change the orientation from my user account,
even a non-Admin, and the orientation will stay altered even when I log
out...
Why?
--
€ Deleting from a *Save* dialog is not a sign of well done design
€ A personal computer without an OS is crippled by that lacking
Mayor of R'lyeh
wrote:
>With XP, as many people know, you can change the orientation of the computer
>screen image by pressing control+alt+arrow keys. For the general desktop
>this has little utility, but for tablets it is pretty cool... and as long as
>the ability is there it is often available on desktop systems. No problems
>there... though it does leave open a chance for practical jokes and the
>like.
>
>Here is the weakness: I can change the orientation from my user account,
>even a non-Admin, and the orientation will stay altered even when I log
>out...
>
>Why?
Because you touch yourself at night.
--
Why settle for the lesser evil?
Cthulhu for president 2008
iMojo
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> With XP, as many people know, you can change the orientation of the computer
> screen image by pressing control+alt+arrow keys. For the general desktop
> this has little utility, but for tablets it is pretty cool... and as long as
> the ability is there it is often available on desktop systems. No problems
> there... though it does leave open a chance for practical jokes and the
> like.
>
> Here is the weakness: I can change the orientation from my user account,
> even a non-Admin, and the orientation will stay altered even when I log
> out...
>
> Why?
Who cares?
Snit
01rq13dc1tm1scaia...@4ax.com on 4/11/07 4:16 PM:
Thanks for showing the depth of your technical knowledge.
--
€ There is no known malware that attacks OS X in the wild
€ There are two general types of PCs: Macs and PCs (odd naming conventions!)
€ Mac OS X 10.x.x is a version of Mac OS
Snit
iadvocate-2EE58...@news.videotron.net on 4/11/07 5:11 PM:
I do... why else would I ask?
The problem with this is clear: I, as a non-Admin, can "mess things up" for
other users. That is not a good design.
Jim Lee Jr.
Leave your masturbation fantasies at home.
--
Posted from my 1999 Apple G4 Sawtooth
A 450 MHz G4 running OS X 10.4.8
Jesus
> "iMojo" <iadvoc...@macs.net> stated in post
> iadvocate-2EE58C.20115211042...@news.videotron.net on 4/11/07 5:11 PM:
>
>
>
> > In article <C2429EED.7CF09%S...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> > Snit <S...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>
> >> With XP, as many people know, you can change the orientation of the computer
> >> screen image by pressing control+alt+arrow keys. For the general desktop
> >> this has little utility, but for tablets it is pretty cool... and as long as
> >> the ability is there it is often available on desktop systems. No problems
> >> there... though it does leave open a chance for practical jokes and the
> >> like.
>
> >> Here is the weakness: I can change the orientation from my user account,
> >> even a non-Admin, and the orientation will stay altered even when I log
> >> out...
>
> >> Why?
>
> > Who cares?
>
> I do... why else would I ask?
>
> The problem with this is clear: I, as a non-Admin, can "mess things up" for
> other users. That is not a good design.
>
> --
> € Deleting from a *Save* dialog is not a sign of well done design
> € A personal computer without an OS is crippled by that lacking
...except if you were a non-admin using a tablet, you'd be pretty
pissed off if you had to go get an admin password to flip the screen,
wouldn't you be?
Nashton
Well iMojo, given that it's a practical feature for let's say PC tablets
and given that 95 % of the world uses Windows, I'd say it's an important
issue.
--
Nicolas
iMojo
Snit
1176340585.1...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com on 4/11/07 6:16 PM:
> On Apr 11, 8:21 pm, Snit <S...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>> "iMojo" <iadvoc...@macs.net> stated in post
>> iadvocate-2EE58C.20115211042...@news.videotron.net on 4/11/07 5:11 PM:
>>
>>
>>
>>> In article <C2429EED.7CF09%S...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
>>> Snit <S...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>>
>>>> With XP, as many people know, you can change the orientation of the
>>>> computer
>>>> screen image by pressing control+alt+arrow keys. For the general desktop
>>>> this has little utility, but for tablets it is pretty cool... and as long
>>>> as
>>>> the ability is there it is often available on desktop systems. No problems
>>>> there... though it does leave open a chance for practical jokes and the
>>>> like.
>>
>>>> Here is the weakness: I can change the orientation from my user account,
>>>> even a non-Admin, and the orientation will stay altered even when I log
>>>> out...
>>
>>>> Why?
>>
>>> Who cares?
>>
>> I do... why else would I ask?
>>
>> The problem with this is clear: I, as a non-Admin, can "mess things up" for
>> other users. That is not a good design.
>
> ...except if you were a non-admin using a tablet, you'd be pretty
> pissed off if you had to go get an admin password to flip the screen,
> wouldn't you be?
Sure... but what does that have to do with the fact that as a non-admin I
can not only flip the screen for me but also for others (at the very least
for the log in screen... I did not have anyone else log in)
--
€ Nuclear arms are arms
€ OS X's Command+Scroll wheel function does not exist in default XP
€ Technical competence and intelligence are not the same thing
Snit
4/11/07 7:36 PM:
It is an oddity that allows one user to "screw with" others... something
that is a potential problem in a shared computing situation such as a
computer lab or company loaner computer.
--
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
€ OS X users are at far less risk of malware then are XP users
€ Photoshop is an image editing application
Jesus
> "Jesus" <rustybucket...@gmail.com> stated in post
> 1176340585.188805.127...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com on 4/11/07 6:16 PM:
I suppose there could be separate display settings for each user, but
considering how easy it is to change back and the likelihood that each
user's going to want different persistent display settings, I doubt
it's a feature Microsoft's ever going to implement. In the case of a
tablet, all the tablet users should know how to change the display
back.
Also, I suspect that's a hotkey combination for your display driver
and not an XP key combination. I can't confirm that at the moment,
but it doesn't work on my machine with Vista.
Jesus
Oh, I'm pretty sure that display changes on OS X are also global. I
don't remember if you have to unlock that control panel with an admin
password, but I don't think so. Feel free to prove me wrong. :-)
Snit
>>> Sure... but what does that have to do with the fact that as a non-admin I
>>> can not only flip the screen for me but also for others (at the very least
>>> for the log in screen... I did not have anyone else log in)
>>
>> I suppose there could be separate display settings for each user, but
>> considering how easy it is to change back and the likelihood that each
>> user's going to want different persistent display settings, I doubt
>> it's a feature Microsoft's ever going to implement. In the case of a
>> tablet, all the tablet users should know how to change the display
>> back.
>>
>> Also, I suspect that's a hotkey combination for your display driver
>> and not an XP key combination. I can't confirm that at the moment,
>> but it doesn't work on my machine with Vista.
>
> Oh, I'm pretty sure that display changes on OS X are also global. I
> don't remember if you have to unlock that control panel with an admin
> password, but I don't think so. Feel free to prove me wrong. :-)
On OS X the display changes are not global... I have my account set to a
higher resolution than my "guest" account... and my "guest" account is set
to mirror the monitors, not span then like my account.
--
€ Different version numbers refer to different versions
€ Macs are Macs and Apple is still making and selling Macs
€ The early IBM PCs and Commodores shipped with an OS in ROM
Snit
>>>>>> With XP, as many people know, you can change the orientation of the
>>>>>> computer screen image by pressing control+alt+arrow keys. For the
>>>>>> general desktop this has little utility, but for tablets it is pretty
>>>>>> cool... and as long as the ability is there it is often available on
>>>>>> desktop systems. No problems there... though it does leave open a chance
>>>>>> for practical jokes and the like.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is the weakness: I can change the orientation from my user account,
>>>>>> even a non-Admin, and the orientation will stay altered even when I log
>>>>>> out...
>>
>>>>>> Why?
>>
>>>>> Who cares?
>>
>>>> I do... why else would I ask?
>>
>>>> The problem with this is clear: I, as a non-Admin, can "mess things up" for
>>>> other users. That is not a good design.
>>
>>> ...except if you were a non-admin using a tablet, you'd be pretty
>>> pissed off if you had to go get an admin password to flip the screen,
>>> wouldn't you be?
>>
>> Sure... but what does that have to do with the fact that as a non-admin I
>> can not only flip the screen for me but also for others (at the very least
>> for the log in screen... I did not have anyone else log in)
>
> I suppose there could be separate display settings for each user, but
> considering how easy it is to change back and the likelihood that each
> user's going to want different persistent display settings, I doubt
> it's a feature Microsoft's ever going to implement. In the case of a
> tablet, all the tablet users should know how to change the display
> back.
The computer in question was not a tablet... and few people know how to
change the screen orientation. If I set it to be sideways or upside-down
then the next user cannot even get to display settings until they log in...
from a sideways or upside-down screen.
>
> Also, I suspect that's a hotkey combination for your display driver
> and not an XP key combination. I can't confirm that at the moment,
> but it doesn't work on my machine with Vista.
I know it is pretty common, but it may be unique to the driver Dell is using
on that machine. The fact that it is not consistent makes it even less
likely people will know the key combo. Googling "XP screen sideways",
though, makes it pretty clear the key combo is at least quite common, even
if not well known.
--
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
€ One can be actually guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
Jesus
> "Jesus" <rustybucket...@gmail.com> stated in post
Alright. I rarely change the resolution on on OS X and when I have I
guess the panel was unlocked for administrative status, as all the
user accounts changed to the new settings.
Snit
> On Apr 11, 11:44 pm, Snit <S...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>> "Jesus" <rustybucket...@gmail.com> stated in post
>> 1176349003.461325.267...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com on 4/11/07 8:36 PM:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> Sure... but what does that have to do with the fact that as a non-admin I
>>>>> can not only flip the screen for me but also for others (at the very least
>>>>> for the log in screen... I did not have anyone else log in)
>>
>>>> I suppose there could be separate display settings for each user, but
>>>> considering how easy it is to change back and the likelihood that each
>>>> user's going to want different persistent display settings, I doubt
>>>> it's a feature Microsoft's ever going to implement. In the case of a
>>>> tablet, all the tablet users should know how to change the display
>>>> back.
>>
>>>> Also, I suspect that's a hotkey combination for your display driver
>>>> and not an XP key combination. I can't confirm that at the moment,
>>>> but it doesn't work on my machine with Vista.
>>
>>> Oh, I'm pretty sure that display changes on OS X are also global. I
>>> don't remember if you have to unlock that control panel with an admin
>>> password, but I don't think so. Feel free to prove me wrong. :-)
>>
>> On OS X the display changes are not global... I have my account set to a
>> higher resolution than my "guest" account... and my "guest" account is set
>> to mirror the monitors, not span then like my account.
>
> Alright. I rarely change the resolution on on OS X and when I have I
> guess the panel was unlocked for administrative status, as all the
> user accounts changed to the new settings.
Not sure what you mean... when you change the setting for one user are you
saying it *does* affect your other users? It should not.... just tested it
again and my Guest account is set to be very different than my general
account.
--
€ Pros aren't beginners in their field (though there are new pros)
€ Similarly configured Macs and Win machines tend to cost roughly the same
€ Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
Mayor of R'lyeh
chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>"Mayor of R'lyeh" <mayor.o...@gmail.com> stated in post
>01rq13dc1tm1scaia...@4ax.com on 4/11/07 4:16 PM:
>
>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:19:25 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> With XP, as many people know, you can change the orientation of the computer
>>> screen image by pressing control+alt+arrow keys. For the general desktop
>>> this has little utility, but for tablets it is pretty cool... and as long as
>>> the ability is there it is often available on desktop systems. No problems
>>> there... though it does leave open a chance for practical jokes and the
>>> like.
>>>
>>> Here is the weakness: I can change the orientation from my user account,
>>> even a non-Admin, and the orientation will stay altered even when I log
>>> out...
>>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> Because you touch yourself at night.
>>
>Thanks for showing the depth of your technical knowledge.
For one I know this is an issue with certain graphic card drivers and
not XP. But you go ahead and keep pretending that its all Window's
fault if it makes you feel better.
--
"A president who breaks the law is a threat to the
very structure of our government."
Al Gore
Bill Clinton became eligible for reinstatement to the
bar on January 19,2006 after losing his law license
in 2001 for comitting perjury.
Jesus
> "Jesus" <rustybucket...@gmail.com> stated in post
Correct. On both a PowerMac G4 and an eMac I was able to change the
screen resolution under my admin account and have it affect all users
of the machine. There may be a way to change the setting
individually, but whatever I did changed the setting system-wide. I
don't have access to those machines at the moment so I can't check
what I did, but I do know the setting changed system-wide.
Snit
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:12:21 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>
>> "Mayor of R'lyeh" <mayor.o...@gmail.com> stated in post
>> 01rq13dc1tm1scaia...@4ax.com on 4/11/07 4:16 PM:
>>
>>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:19:25 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> With XP, as many people know, you can change the orientation of the
>>>> computer
>>>> screen image by pressing control+alt+arrow keys. For the general desktop
>>>> this has little utility, but for tablets it is pretty cool... and as long
>>>> as
>>>> the ability is there it is often available on desktop systems. No problems
>>>> there... though it does leave open a chance for practical jokes and the
>>>> like.
>>>>
>>>> Here is the weakness: I can change the orientation from my user account,
>>>> even a non-Admin, and the orientation will stay altered even when I log
>>>> out...
>>>>
>>>> Why?
>>>
>>> Because you touch yourself at night.
>>>
>> Thanks for showing the depth of your technical knowledge.
>
> For one I know this is an issue with certain graphic card drivers and
> not XP. But you go ahead and keep pretending that its all Window's
> fault if it makes you feel better.
What did that have to do with your BS above?
In any case, the fact that this is inconsistent from one machine to another
is *not* a bragging point in favor of XP.
Snit
> Correct. On both a PowerMac G4 and an eMac I was able to change the
> screen resolution under my admin account and have it affect all users
> of the machine. There may be a way to change the setting
> individually, but whatever I did changed the setting system-wide. I
> don't have access to those machines at the moment so I can't check
> what I did, but I do know the setting changed system-wide.
Hmmm, maybe the difference is that I changed the settings from a non-Admin
account... or maybe it is different for PPC machines? Odd...
Mayor of R'lyeh
Its got nothing to do with XP. Its a feature of the video card's
driver. That's why it doesn't affect all machines the same. All
Windows machines don't use the same video card.
Snit
Sure it does: it is how XP is experienced.
> Its a feature of the video card's driver. That's why it doesn't affect all
> machines the same. All Windows machines don't use the same video card.
No argument here - that is why different XP machines are different in this
area.
Sandman
wrote:
> > Who cares?
>
> Well iMojo, given that it's a practical feature for let's say PC tablets
> and given that 95 % of the world uses Windows, I'd say it's an important
> issue.
Did Nashton just use market share figures to make a point about tablet
PCs?? :-D
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve de Mena
Is this control+alt+arrow keys shortcut native to
Windows XP or something a graphics card maker
implemented, or something in Windows XP Tablet
Edition?
In a Parallels window that key combo does nothing.
Neither does it do anything in standalone systems
of mine running Windows Server 2003 and Windows
Vista Ultimate.
Steve
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
It's fun to watch Snit show the depth of his technical knowledge;)
--
"None of you can be honest... you are all pathetic." - Snit
"I do not KF people" - Snit
"Not only do I lie about what others are claiming,
I show evidence from the records".-Snit
"You should take one of my IT classes some day." - Snit
Snit
461df462$0$4856$4c36...@roadrunner.com on 4/12/07 1:57 AM:
It only works if the video card supports it... I believe MS supports it with
their Tablet addition but Intel (and maybe others) copied it for their video
card drivers...
Snit
noone-A22F81....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 4/12/07 6:18 AM:
Do you disagree with what I said? If so, Steve, what is your view?
Sandman
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > No argument here - that is why different XP machines are different in this
> > area.
>
> It's fun to watch Snit show the depth of his technical knowledge;)
It's almost like when he talks about being a professional web
designer. :-D
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
I disagree with the idea the the inconsistency has anything to do with
XP itself. The reason?
It's entirely a function of whether or not there is a particular type of
video card present... a situation that has nothing to do with the OS.
You'd have more of a gripe if there were video cards on the market that
had such a feature as this that XP could not access. Your real argument
here appears to be that they should hide it better. If they had... and
you still found it... you'd probably still have created a thread over
it.
I also disagree with your absolute statement that claimed: "it is how XP
is experienced".
The reasons for my disagreement with this?
Fact: People that don't have the appropriate video card cannot
experience this using XP
Fact: I cannot experience this using my version of XP under Parallels.
Perhaps you should look for a software defeat... video cards that have a
feature like this often have one. Suggestion: If you'd stop making
absolute statements you'll find you won't have people beating you over
the head with reality quite as often as they do.
Snit
mr-BC2909.17...@News.Individual.NET on 4/12/07 8:21 AM:
I do some semi-pro web work... sure. Do you have a suggestion for
improvement for my sites? Unlike you, Sandman, I am open to constructive
criticism. I certainly would not accuse you of forging data from the
WayBackMachine, as you did with me.
Snit
>>>>> Its got nothing to do with XP.
>>>>
>>>> Sure it does: it is how XP is experienced.
>>>>
>>>>> Its a feature of the video card's driver. That's why it doesn't affect all
>>>>> machines the same. All Windows machines don't use the same video card.
>>>>
>>>> No argument here - that is why different XP machines are different in this
>>>> area.
>>>
>>> It's fun to watch Snit show the depth of his technical knowledge;)
>>
>> Do you disagree with what I said? If so, Steve, what is your view?
>
> I disagree with the idea the the inconsistency has anything to do with
> XP itself. The reason?
>
> It's entirely a function of whether or not there is a particular type of
> video card present... a situation that has nothing to do with the OS.
As I note above, Steve, it is part of the experience of using an XP
machine... please note, I did not say it was the fault of the OS. Please,
Steve, try to understand what you read... OK?
>
> You'd have more of a gripe if there were video cards on the market that
> had such a feature as this that XP could not access.
Ah, now you are trying to tell me what I would do and how I would feel...
something you whine about a great deal. What a hypocrite you are!
> Your real argument here appears to be that they should hide it better.
"Hide it better"? What the heck? Where did you come up with that? My
argument is that a non-admin user should not be able to mess with other
users! That has nothing to do with hiding anything! Really, Steve... do
try to understand what you read. Please!
> If they had... and you still found it... you'd probably still have created a
> thread over it.
What are you even talking about? Hiding? Finding? Er? Please try to stay
on topic!
>
> I also disagree with your absolute statement that claimed: "it is how XP
> is experienced".
Well, it is not consistent...
> The reasons for my disagreement with this?
Simple: you will disagree with me at every chance... even if you have to
create BS stories about hiding and finding as you do, above! And yet you
*still* are denying you are consumed by your hatred, aren't you?
>
> Fact: People that don't have the appropriate video card cannot
> experience this using XP
Gee, that is why it is not consistent... just as I said. You *did*
understand that it seems! Good for you!
> Fact: I cannot experience this using my version of XP under Parallels.
You mean it is *still* inconsistent even after you understood my comment
about it being inconsistent! You are not going to try to claim otherwise to
try to argue with me over it! Wow... wait... you are Steve - even though
you agree with me about it being inconsistent you will *still* try to argue
with me... you are *that* predictable.
> Perhaps you should look for a software defeat... video cards that have a
> feature like this often have one. Suggestion: If you'd stop making
> absolute statements you'll find you won't have people beating you over
> the head with reality quite as often as they do.
Absolute statement: you are consumed by your hatred, Steve.
Please... for your own sake: let it go!
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-BC2909.17...@News.Individual.NET on 4/12/07 8:21 AM:
>
> > In article <noone-A22F81....@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> > Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> >
> >>> No argument here - that is why different XP machines are different in this
> >>> area.
> >>
> >> It's fun to watch Snit show the depth of his technical knowledge;)
> >
> > It's almost like when he talks about being a professional web
> > designer. :-D
> >
> I do some semi-pro web work... sure. Do you have a suggestion for
> improvement for my sites? Unlike you, Sandman, I am open to constructive
> criticism. I certainly would not accuse you of forging data from the
> WayBackMachine, as you did with me.
Your sites that you won't post the URL for.
Snit
> In article <C243A882.7CFB9%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
>> mr-BC2909.17...@News.Individual.NET on 4/12/07 8:21 AM:
>>
>>> In article <noone-A22F81....@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
>>> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> No argument here - that is why different XP machines are different in this
>>>>> area.
>>>>
>>>> It's fun to watch Snit show the depth of his technical knowledge;)
>>>
>>> It's almost like when he talks about being a professional web
>>> designer. :-D
>>>
>> I do some semi-pro web work... sure. Do you have a suggestion for
>> improvement for my sites? Unlike you, Sandman, I am open to constructive
>> criticism. I certainly would not accuse you of forging data from the
>> WayBackMachine, as you did with me.
>
> Your sites that you won't post the URL for.
As others have noted, sharing such information with you would be foolish -
you are so consumed by your hatred it is very easy to see you spread your
trolling and lying to my customers.
I *did*, however, point you to some of the sites I have done (not for
customers) *and* the related validation info... but you claimed you would
not click the URL because, um, I forget your BS excuse. In the end, Steve,
I *did* show you some of my sites *and* the validation data that applies to
them. Heck, here they are, again:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sites.pdf>.
Feel free to go back to your whining that I will not share my customer info
with you...
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-7BF606....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 4/12/07 8:54 AM:
>
> >>>>> Its got nothing to do with XP.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sure it does: it is how XP is experienced.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Its a feature of the video card's driver. That's why it doesn't affect
> >>>>> all
> >>>>> machines the same. All Windows machines don't use the same video card.
> >>>>
> >>>> No argument here - that is why different XP machines are different in
> >>>> this
> >>>> area.
> >>>
> >>> It's fun to watch Snit show the depth of his technical knowledge;)
> >>
> >> Do you disagree with what I said? If so, Steve, what is your view?
> >
> > I disagree with the idea the the inconsistency has anything to do with
> > XP itself. The reason?
> >
> > It's entirely a function of whether or not there is a particular type of
> > video card present... a situation that has nothing to do with the OS.
>
> As I note above, Steve, it is part of the experience of using an XP
> machine
Incorrect, it isn't "part of the experience of using an XP machine".
Besides running XP via Parallels, I also own a Gateway with XP on it...
a bona fide " XP machine"... and it does not provide me the experience
you talk about. I'll correct one *obvious* flaw in your "technical
knowledge" right now:
An "XP machine" needn't contain a video card that can "change the
orientation of the computer screen image" to be considered an ""XP
machine".
Feel free to prove me wrong on that.
>... please note, I did not say it was the fault of the OS. Please,
> Steve, try to understand what you read... OK?
I'm reading the thread's title right now, Snit. I've said this many
times before but it obviously needs repeating... I realize you are not
paying attention to posts you are responding to... but it behooves you
to pay attention to what you yourself write.
Fact: In this very response you have told me that this screen
reorientation feature is "part of the experience of using an XP
machine"... which is a total crock of shit. If this is how you advocate
for the Mac I can see why the Winusers come at you the way they do.
You're 'advocating' by spreading outright lies.
> > You'd have more of a gripe if there were video cards on the market that
> > had such a feature as this that XP could not access.
>
> Ah, now you are trying to tell me what I would do and how I would feel...
> something you whine about a great deal. What a hypocrite you are!
No, I'm telling you that your absolute argument regarding XP is an
erroneous argument based on a factor you have repeatedly been told about
by several people but are willing to ignore.
>
> > Your real argument here appears to be that they should hide it better.
>
> "Hide it better"? What the heck? Where did you come up with that? My
> argument is that a non-admin user should not be able to mess with other
> users! That has nothing to do with hiding anything! Really, Steve... do
> try to understand what you read. Please!
I read that you blamed XP for something that had to do with a feature of
certain video cards. Your 'point' leads to a non-admin user not being
able to interact with a computer's hardware... not something that makes
a lot of sense as I see it. In a lab, while it can provide a moment's
entertainment, it's no big deal to label the computers that have video
cards like this with the instructions on how to change it back. As usual
for you... you're trying to create a mountain out of a molehill. I can,
from a user account, hold down the control, option and Apple keys on a
modern Mac while pressing the number 8 and it will "screw with" others
(who may want to run graphics apps or whatever)... and it'll stay that
way when I log out. There is no video card in this equation... but I
guess you'll say it's OK due to the 'consistency'. LOL!
> > If they had... and you still found it... you'd probably still have created
> > a
> > thread over it.
>
> What are you even talking about? Hiding? Finding? Er? Please try to stay
> on topic!
> >
> > I also disagree with your absolute statement that claimed: "it is how XP
> > is experienced".
>
> Well, it is not consistent...
>
> > The reasons for my disagreement with this?
>
> Simple: you will disagree with me at every chance... even if you have to
> create BS stories about hiding and finding as you do, above! And yet you
> *still* are denying you are consumed by your hatred, aren't you?
> >
> > Fact: People that don't have the appropriate video card cannot
> > experience this using XP
>
> Gee, that is why it is not consistent... just as I said.
Yup... a thing I didn't take issue with, which is why you are focusing
on it. You're also saying it is part of the "experience" of an "XP
machine", a thing I *do* take issue with... of course, you're dead wrong.
> You *did* understand that it seems! Good for you!
>
> > Fact: I cannot experience this using my version of XP under Parallels.
>
> You mean it is *still* inconsistent even after you understood my comment
> about it being inconsistent! You are not going to try to claim otherwise to
> try to argue with me over it! Wow... wait... you are Steve - even though
> you agree with me about it being inconsistent you will *still* try to argue
> with me... you are *that* predictable.
>
> > Perhaps you should look for a software defeat... video cards that have a
> > feature like this often have one. Suggestion: If you'd stop making
> > absolute statements you'll find you won't have people beating you over
> > the head with reality quite as often as they do.
>
> Absolute statement: you are consumed by your hatred, Steve.
Apparently, the idea of the existence of a software defeat was too much
for your "technical knowledge" to deal with. Fair enough.
> Please... for your own sake: let it go!
Sorry, Snit... I can't let go of reality as easily as you can.
Sandman
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> In article <C243A882.7CFB9%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>
> > "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> > mr-BC2909.17...@News.Individual.NET on 4/12/07 8:21 AM:
> >
> > > In article <noone-A22F81....@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> > > Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >>> No argument here - that is why different XP machines are different in
> > >>> this
> > >>> area.
> > >>
> > >> It's fun to watch Snit show the depth of his technical knowledge;)
> > >
> > > It's almost like when he talks about being a professional web
> > > designer. :-D
> > >
> > I do some semi-pro web work... sure. Do you have a suggestion for
> > improvement for my sites? Unlike you, Sandman, I am open to constructive
> > criticism. I certainly would not accuse you of forging data from the
> > WayBackMachine, as you did with me.
>
> Your sites that you won't post the URL for.
Hehe, an improvement to his sites would be to remove them. They're
hideous. :-D
And he has explicitly stated that he does *pro* web sites, not just
"semi-pro", whatever that is. According to himself, Snit is a
professional web designer.
I just can't stop laughing at that :)
--
Sandman[.net]
ed
> "Jesus" <rustybucket...@gmail.com> stated in post
> > On Apr 11, 8:21 pm, Snit <S...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> >> "iMojo" <iadvoc...@macs.net> stated in post
> >> iadvocate-2EE58C.20115211042...@news.videotron.net on 4/11/07 5:11 PM:
>
> >>> In article <C2429EED.7CF09%S...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
>
> >>>> With XP, as many people know, you can change the orientation of the
> >>>> computer
> >>>> screen image by pressing control+alt+arrow keys. For the general desktop
> >>>> this has little utility, but for tablets it is pretty cool... and as long
> >>>> as
> >>>> the ability is there it is often available on desktop systems. No problems
> >>>> there... though it does leave open a chance for practical jokes and the
> >>>> like.
>
> >>>> Here is the weakness: I can change the orientation from my user account,
> >>>> even a non-Admin, and the orientation will stay altered even when I log
> >>>> out...
>
> >>>> Why?
>
>
> >> I do... why else would I ask?
>
> >> The problem with this is clear: I, as a non-Admin, can "mess things up" for
> >> other users. That is not a good design.
>
> > ...except if you were a non-admin using a tablet, you'd be pretty
> > pissed off if you had to go get an admin password to flip the screen,
> > wouldn't you be?
>
> can not only flip the screen for me but also for others (at the very least
> for the log in screen... I did not have anyone else log in)
this appears to be a driver specific thing- i have a box here w/ a lcd
that can be rotated into portrait mode, so the video card obviously
supports it, but the key combo you mention doesn't work.
as to why it's persistent, it would be because the driver writes to
the machine hive of the registry rather than the user hive. this was
probably a explicit design decision made with the assumption that most
people on a given machine would want the orientation a given way
relative to the hardware. not hard to understand why they went that
way...
Snit
Gee, Steve... I talked about a feature of XP machines (one that is not
consistent from one machine to another) and you nit picked, trolled, flamed,
lied, and proved - again - how consumed you are by your hatred.
Who do you think is stupid enough to not see through your BS?
Oh, and lest I forget, you also babbled about there is some issue with
hiding things - though I am not sure what things you even mean. Do you?
To try to get you back on topic: the issue is that there a non-admin user
can do things to screw things up for other users... and that this is
something XP should not allow. Your "solution" of posting notes on each
computer telling people how to use a feature most will never need or use is,
well, rather pathetic.
PS: no, Steve, I have no desire to go point by point with your trolling.
Feel free to whine about the crickets you hallucinate about hearing.
--
€ Deleting from a *Save* dialog is not a sign of well done design
€ A personal computer without an OS is crippled by that lacking
Snit
> In article <noone-2D6758....@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <C243A882.7CFB9%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
>> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>>
>>> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
>>> mr-BC2909.17...@News.Individual.NET on 4/12/07 8:21 AM:
>>>
>>>> In article <noone-A22F81....@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
>>>> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> No argument here - that is why different XP machines are different in
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> area.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's fun to watch Snit show the depth of his technical knowledge;)
>>>>
>>>> It's almost like when he talks about being a professional web
>>>> designer. :-D
>>>>
>>> I do some semi-pro web work... sure. Do you have a suggestion for
>>> improvement for my sites? Unlike you, Sandman, I am open to constructive
>>> criticism. I certainly would not accuse you of forging data from the
>>> WayBackMachine, as you did with me.
>>
>> Your sites that you won't post the URL for.
>
> Hehe, an improvement to his sites would be to remove them. They're
> hideous. :-D
Which sites do you mean? Be specific... heck, Sandman, I know you have
found some of the sites I have done for clients. Funny how you will not
talk about them...
>
> And he has explicitly stated that he does *pro* web sites, not just
> "semi-pro", whatever that is. According to himself, Snit is a
> professional web designer.
>
> I just can't stop laughing at that :)
How do you define pro or semi-pro? I make web sites for people for money
but do not do so as a main source of income. I would call myself semi-pro,
Sandman, but if you want to say I am a pro I will not argue.
Snit
1176399580.6...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com on 4/12/07 10:39 AM:
From what I have read it is built into XP Tablet edition and others (such as
Intel) have copied the key combo for specific drivers and cards.
> as to why it's persistent, it would be because the driver writes to
> the machine hive of the registry rather than the user hive. this was
> probably a explicit design decision made with the assumption that most
> people on a given machine would want the orientation a given way
> relative to the hardware. not hard to understand why they went that
> way...
It is for a desktop machine. It would be very, very rare to have one of the
machines in the lab set to be anything other than "standard" orientation
*except* if someone wanted to mess with others. Monitors that rotate are
certainly not the norm, so having that as the default is a bit silly. If it
became a problem in the lab the techs *could* turn the feature off, but why
let people mess with each other like that in the first place?
This would be easily resolved by having the settings be user-based... with a
default for the computer being settable by an Admin.
Do not get me wrong: this is not really that big of an issue - in the real
world I do not know of a single example of this being used as a prank or to
otherwise effect users as I describe.
--
€ A partial subset is not synonymous with the whole
€ A person's actions speak more about him than what others say
€ Apple doesn't provide as many options as the rest of the PC industry
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
I repeat:
An "XP machine" needn't contain a video card that can "change the
orientation of the computer screen image" to be considered an ""XP
machine".
The feature you described is not "part of the experience of using an XP
machine" unless that machine has video circuitry which supports that
feature via a keyboard command, therefore, your title is incorrect (as
is your argument)... this is not a "Cool feature" of XP. The same
feature would likely be available in Vista or any other OS on that same
machine as long as it allows access via a keyboard command.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
So if I managed to load the "XP Tablet edition" onto my Gateway tower
and I do this keypress I will have this feature? Or is the keypress
limited only to machines where the video circuitry allows the feature to
be accessed via this keypress? I'm guessing the latter is the case. If
so, then your title is false as this is not a "Cool feature" of XP at
all. The same feature would be available in Vista or any other OS on
Mayor of R'lyeh
<ste...@stevedemena.com> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
Its a feature of the video card driver. not XP. I can turn my display
sideways using the NVidia driver but I have to go into a menu to do
it. This shortcut doesn't work for me. It doesn't work on my laptop
which has ATI video either.
Snit
>> Gee, Steve... I talked about a feature of XP machines (one that is not
>> consistent from one machine to another) and you nit picked, trolled, flamed,
>> lied, and proved - again - how consumed you are by your hatred.
>>
>> Who do you think is stupid enough to not see through your BS?
>>
>> Oh, and lest I forget, you also babbled about there is some issue with
>> hiding things - though I am not sure what things you even mean. Do you?
>>
>> To try to get you back on topic: the issue is that there a non-admin user
>> can do things to screw things up for other users... and that this is
>> something XP should not allow. Your "solution" of posting notes on each
>> computer telling people how to use a feature most will never need or use is,
>> well, rather pathetic.
>>
>> PS: no, Steve, I have no desire to go point by point with your trolling.
>> Feel free to whine about the crickets you hallucinate about hearing.
>
> I repeat:
Yes, you do. What value do you see in your repeating the same BS? Why not
actually stop and think, if you can... and let go of that all consuming
hatred that controls you so completely? Oh, Steve, before you try to deny
it - remember - *nobody* is as stupid as you want them to be when you beg
them to believe you on that little lie of yours!
Snit
>> Is this control+alt+arrow keys shortcut native to
>> Windows XP or something a graphics card maker
>> implemented, or something in Windows XP Tablet
>> Edition?
>>
>> In a Parallels window that key combo does nothing.
>>
>> Neither does it do anything in standalone systems
>> of mine running Windows Server 2003 and Windows
>> Vista Ultimate.
>>
>> Steve
>
> Its a feature of the video card driver. not XP. I can turn my display
> sideways using the NVidia driver but I have to go into a menu to do
> it. This shortcut doesn't work for me. It doesn't work on my laptop
> which has ATI video either.
As far as I know Intel has copied the keyboard short cuts from MS... I do
not know who else has.
In any case, what keys you press is irrelevant to the point that a non-admin
user can "screw with" other users.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-0BC2F4....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 4/12/07 1:26 PM:
>
> >> Gee, Steve... I talked about a feature of XP machines (one that is not
> >> consistent from one machine to another) and you nit picked, trolled,
> >> flamed,
> >> lied, and proved - again - how consumed you are by your hatred.
> >>
> >> Who do you think is stupid enough to not see through your BS?
> >>
> >> Oh, and lest I forget, you also babbled about there is some issue with
> >> hiding things - though I am not sure what things you even mean. Do you?
> >>
> >> To try to get you back on topic: the issue is that there a non-admin user
> >> can do things to screw things up for other users... and that this is
> >> something XP should not allow. Your "solution" of posting notes on each
> >> computer telling people how to use a feature most will never need or use
> >> is,
> >> well, rather pathetic.
> >>
> >> PS: no, Steve, I have no desire to go point by point with your trolling.
> >> Feel free to whine about the crickets you hallucinate about hearing.
> >
> > I repeat:
>
> Yes, you do.
So why haven't you learned the lesson yet? Geez, 'teachers' can make
poor students. Here it is again, see if you can grasp it this time...
Snit
>>> I repeat:
>>
>> Yes, you do.
>
> So why haven't you learned the lesson yet?
Well, I did pull you from my KF before the month was out... that was,
clearly, a mistake. Glad even you can see that!
Snit
> An "XP machine" needn't contain a video card that can "change the
> orientation of the computer screen image" to be considered an ""XP
> machine".
Has *anyone* disagreed with this? Anyone at all? Before you lie and claim
I have, Steve, let me remind you that I have not.
So, Steve, why do you spew such obvious BS, other than the simple facts
that:
A) You had no real comment in relation to my point about how a
non-admin user in XP can screw with other users.
B) You *want* to show of how consumed by your hatred you are.
> The feature you described is not "part of the experience of using an XP
> machine" unless that machine has video circuitry which supports that
> feature via a keyboard command, therefore, your title is incorrect (as
> is your argument)... this is not a "Cool feature" of XP. The same
> feature would likely be available in Vista or any other OS on that same
> machine as long as it allows access via a keyboard command.
Ah, so you just wanted to nit pick, miss the point, and show off your
irrational and all consuming hatred. OK. Thanks for sharing.
Next time, Steve, why don't you try to contribute something of value to
CSMA. Please.
Here: I will give you another change. Do you have any thoughts on the fact
that, at least in the case I described, a non-Admin user can alter settings
for other users?
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-D0C807....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 4/12/07 1:56 PM:
>
> >>> I repeat:
> >>
> >> Yes, you do.
> >
> > So why haven't you learned the lesson yet?
>
> Well, I did pull you from my KF before the month was out... that was,
> clearly, a mistake. Glad even you can see that!
From your perspective it was a terrible mistake as anyone that can point
out "actual" reality, thus, interfering with your plans to ignore it
whenever possible, can't be a good thing for you.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-D0C807....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 4/12/07 1:56 PM:
>
> > An "XP machine" needn't contain a video card that can "change the
> > orientation of the computer screen image" to be considered an ""XP
> > machine".
>
> Has *anyone* disagreed with this?
You did... you clearly and incorrectly stated that the screen
orientation feature "is part of the experience of using an XP machine".
I wrote:
"It's entirely a function of whether or not there is a particular type
of video card present... a situation that has nothing to do with the OS."
Your reply:
"As I note above, Steve, it is part of the experience of using an XP
machine".
<C243AA36.7CFBB%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
You are clearly wrong as it's only "part of the experience of using an
XP machine" if your "XP machine" has video circuitry that supports the
feature. You have now had two posters who have the feature tell you that
the keyboard sequence you claim activates it in XP doesn't work on their
"XP machines". You have also had two people tell you that it doesn't
work at all via Parallels... this is a pretty good indicator that it's a
function of the video circuitry. You've had me tell you that it doesn't
work with my Gateway tower "XP machine". Your thread's title is
erroneous, your argument is erroneous. Of course, you'll do what you
always do... piss and moan about how you are "hated" or whatever...
anything to avoid admitting you stepped on your dick again;)
> Anyone at all? Before you lie and claim
> I have, Steve, let me remind you that I have not.
Uh... via google... I just proved that you did.
> So, Steve, why do you spew such obvious BS, other than the simple facts
> that:
>
> A) You had no real comment in relation to my point about how a
> non-admin user in XP can screw with other users.
So what? You "can screw with other users" on a Mac, too. Got a point
yet, Mr. "Mac advocate"?
> B) You *want* to show of how consumed by your hatred you are.
Grow up and dump that bullshit argument, Snit... it's not working for
you here.
> > The feature you described is not "part of the experience of using an XP
> > machine" unless that machine has video circuitry which supports that
> > feature via a keyboard command, therefore, your title is incorrect (as
> > is your argument)... this is not a "Cool feature" of XP. The same
> > feature would likely be available in Vista or any other OS on that same
> > machine as long as it allows access via a keyboard command.
>
> Ah, so you just wanted to nit pick, miss the point, and show off your
> irrational and all consuming hatred. OK. Thanks for sharing.
No, I'm pointing out that your thread's title is erroneous... as is your
argument here... made in the name of 'Mac advocacy'.
> Next time, Steve, why don't you try to contribute something of value to
> CSMA. Please.
One of the things I am doing here is pointing out what kind of a Mac
advocate you are. You may not... but I consider that of value to csma. I
don't feel that your thread here was of much value... other than to
prove you can make shit up in a feeble effort to make competing OSes
look bad... not much value there as I see it.
> Here: I will give you another change.
I don't need "another change"... your first erroneous argument is
plenty...and... you have yet to acknowledge that fact.
> Do you have any thoughts on the fact
> that, at least in the case I described, a non-Admin user can alter settings
> for other users?
As can they alter settings on a Mac. Big f*cking deal.
Snit
> In article <C243FF99.7D02B%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
>> noone-D0C807....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 4/12/07 1:56 PM:
>>
>>> An "XP machine" needn't contain a video card that can "change the
>>> orientation of the computer screen image" to be considered an ""XP
>>> machine".
>>
>> Has *anyone* disagreed with this?
>
> You did...
No, Steve, I do not accept you as my spokesperson. Deal with it.
...
>> Do you have any thoughts on the fact that, at least in the case I described,
>> a non-Admin user can alter settings for other users?
>
> As can they alter settings on a Mac. Big f*cking deal.
How can a non-Admin user alter settings for other users on a Mac... assuming
they are not, of course, using an admin ID and password!
I look forward to seeing your wise words on this, Steve. :)
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-67C731....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 4/12/07 3:57 PM:
>
> > In article <C243FF99.7D02B%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> >> noone-D0C807....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 4/12/07 1:56 PM:
> >>
> >>> An "XP machine" needn't contain a video card that can "change the
> >>> orientation of the computer screen image" to be considered an ""XP
> >>> machine".
> >>
> >> Has *anyone* disagreed with this?
> >
> > You did...
>
> No, Steve,
Yes, Snit.
Snit
>>>>> An "XP machine" needn't contain a video card that can "change the
>>>>> orientation of the computer screen image" to be considered an ""XP
>>>>> machine".
>>>>
>>>> Has *anyone* disagreed with this?
>>>
>>> You did...
>>
>> No, Steve, I do not accept you as my spokesperson. Deal with it.
Gee, Steve, you snipped the above apart and responded with a "Yes, Snit"
after just the first two words.
Deal with it, Steve: You do not get to be my spokesperson... no matter how
badly you want to be. You see, Steve, I do not accept what you say *for* me
in in your hate filled delusional drug addled delusional states.
>>>> Do you have any thoughts on the fact that, at least in the case I
>>>> described, a non-Admin user can alter settings for other users?
>>>>
>>> As can they alter settings on a Mac. Big f*cking deal.
>>>
>> How can a non-Admin user alter settings for other users on a Mac... assuming
>> they are not, of course, using an admin ID and password!
>>
>> I look forward to seeing your wise words on this, Steve. :)
And, of course, you had no such words. You made a claim about OS X - that
it would allow a non-Admin user to make such changes for other OS X users.
That, really, gets back to the point of the thread - not your BS trolling
that is, frankly, boring.
So do you have anything to add that is *on topic*... such as giving an
example of what you state about OS X, above?
I would welcome you to give an on topic response... but if all you are going
to do is snip, run, and spew your hate filled lies what value do you think
you offer *anyone*?
John
"Snit" <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote in message
news:C24414A7.7D066%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID...
Didn't you know about the "value" to CSMA provided by Steve? Steve is
responsible for 95% of the BS off topic trolling on the group!
Steve Carroll
"John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
I knew this asshole Snit was missing something... and then along comes
'sphincter John' ;)
Snit
XvGdnXAFkYf6VYPb...@netlojix.com on 4/12/07 5:01 PM:
With you, I, and others pointing out Steve's trolling he actually *has*
shown some improvement... and, above, he talked about OS X and how a
non-Admin account can change settings that effect other users. If true, and
not just based on some weaselly BS about how you can use a admin ID and
password in a non-admin account, Steve might even make a point in this
thread.
As it is, though, he is too busy begging to be my spokesperson - a job he is
most decidedly *not* qualified to do!
--
€ Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family"
€ Dreamweaver and GoLive are professional web development applications
€ Dreamweaver, being the #1 pro web design tool, is used by many pros
Snit
>>>>>>> Do you have any thoughts on the fact that, at least in the case I
>>>>>>> described, a non-Admin user can alter settings for other users?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> As can they alter settings on a Mac. Big f*cking deal.
>>>>>>
>>>>> How can a non-Admin user alter settings for other users on a Mac...
>>>>> assuming they are not, of course, using an admin ID and password!
>>>>>
>>>>> I look forward to seeing your wise words on this, Steve. :)
>>>>>
>>> And, of course, you had no such words. You made a claim about OS X - that
>>> it would allow a non-Admin user to make such changes for other OS X users.
>>> That, really, gets back to the point of the thread - not your BS trolling
>>> that is, frankly, boring.
>>>
>>> So do you have anything to add that is *on topic*... such as giving an
>>> example of what you state about OS X, above?
>>>
>>> I would welcome you to give an on topic response... but if all you are going
>>> to do is snip, run, and spew your hate filled lies what value do you think
>>> you offer *anyone*?
>>
>> Didn't you know about the "value" to CSMA provided by Steve? Steve is
>> responsible for 95% of the BS off topic trolling on the group!
>
> I knew this asshole Snit was missing something... and then along comes
> 'sphincter John' ;)
So, Steve, between your useless BS name calling, can you actually pause for
a moment and talk about how a non-Admin user can alter settings for other
users on OS X... something, above, you claim they can do
> Do you have any thoughts on the fact that, at least in the case I
> described, a non-Admin user can alter settings for other users?
As can they alter settings on a Mac. Big f*cking deal.
I would welcome you actually speaking *on topic* in this thread. Please.
How can a non-Admin OS X user do as you state?
Jesus
> "Steve Carroll" <n...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-5EB0CA.18051712042...@newsgroups.comcast.net on 4/12/07 5:05 PM:
To quote Steve from an earlier message in this thread:
"I can, from a user account, hold down the control, option and Apple
keys on a
modern Mac while pressing the number 8 and it will "screw with"
others
(who may want to run graphics apps or whatever)... and it'll stay that
way when I log out. There is no video card in this equation..."
Assuming that does in fact stay in effect when a normal user logs off,
that's the same "problem" you're talking about with display drivers on
Windows.
Snit
1176501458....@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com on 4/13/07 2:57 PM:
>>> I knew this asshole Snit was missing something... and then along comes
>>> 'sphincter John' ;)
>>
>> So, Steve, between your useless BS name calling, can you actually pause for
>> a moment and talk about how a non-Admin user can alter settings for other
>> users on OS X... something, above, you claim they can do
>>
>> > Do you have any thoughts on the fact that, at least in the case I
>> > described, a non-Admin user can alter settings for other users?
>> As can they alter settings on a Mac. Big f*cking deal.
>>
>> I would welcome you actually speaking *on topic* in this thread. Please.
>> How can a non-Admin OS X user do as you state?
>
> To quote Steve from an earlier message in this thread:
>
> "I can, from a user account, hold down the control, option and Apple keys on a
> modern Mac while pressing the number 8 and it will "screw with" others (who
> may want to run graphics apps or whatever)... and it'll stay that way when I
> log out. There is no video card in this equation..."
>
> Assuming that does in fact stay in effect when a normal user logs off, that's
> the same "problem" you're talking about with display drivers on Windows.
I missed where Steve said that, but assuming he was correct you would be
right... it would be a similar problem. On G3s running 10.3 and on my G4
running 10.4, however, what he says is clearly *not* the case. I wonder if
he can give an example of a case where it is true. Knowing Steve: I bet
not!
Steve Carroll
"Jesus" <rustybu...@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, it's not the exact same problem but it does contain the ability to
"screw with" a user even after logging out. A person logging back in to
that account couldn't really use an app like Photoshop or Painter with
the screen whacked out like this. I once did this to my wife and she
thought the video circuitry was crapping out;)
My prediction... Snit will change the criteria from his OP:
"Here is the weakness: I can change the orientation from my user
account, even a non-Admin, and the orientation will stay altered even
when I log out... " - Snit
Watch for the conditions regarding 'accounts' that will undoubtedly
appear that stray from this 1st post;)
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
That's why I said a modern Mac. Hold on... OK, I just tried it on my
dual G4 1Ghz tower (about 5 years old) and it works as described. The OS
is 10.4.9... but I know it worked before that. Are you sure you are
holding all 3 keys down and then pressing the number 8 (NOT the keypad
8)?
Snit
>> To quote Steve from an earlier message in this thread:
>>
>> "I can, from a user account, hold down the control, option and Apple keys on
>> a modern Mac while pressing the number 8 and it will "screw with" others (who
>> may want to run graphics apps or whatever)... and it'll stay that way when I
>> log out. There is no video card in this equation..."
>>
>> Assuming that does in fact stay in effect when a normal user logs off, that's
>> the same "problem" you're talking about with display drivers on Windows.
>>
> Well, it's not the exact same problem but it does contain the ability to
> "screw with" a user even after logging out. A person logging back in to that
> account couldn't really use an app like Photoshop or Painter with the screen
> whacked out like this. I once did this to my wife and she thought the video
> circuitry was crapping out;)
>
> My prediction... Snit will change the criteria from his OP:
>
> "Here is the weakness: I can change the orientation from my user account, even
> a non-Admin, and the orientation will stay altered even when I log out... " -
> Snit
>
> Watch for the conditions regarding 'accounts' that will undoubtedly appear
> that stray from this 1st post;)
Wow, Steve, how poorly your predictions are. Please note that when I
predict, for example, that you will spew quotes from me taken out of context
*and quotes not from me* and attribute them to in your every post I can
state this with certainty... you are that easy to predict.
As far as you predicting that I would change my conditions, well, read my
response from a previous post:
-----
I missed where Steve said that, but assuming he was correct
you would be right... it would be a similar problem. On G3s
running 10.3 and on my G4 running 10.4, however, what he
says is clearly *not* the case. I wonder if he can give an
example of a case where it is true. Knowing Steve: I bet
not!
-----
Hey, I even made a prediction about you there... I bet it is accurate - you
will not be able to give an example where this actually happens (and, no, a
story you could easily make up about a woman you are not married to who you
have claimed you call your "wife" does not count - especially after you spew
lies and say I have emailed her though she might not exist!... I want
something that is verifiable)
Jesus
> > wrote:
>
> >> With XP, as many people know, you can change the orientation of the computer
> >> screen image by pressing control+alt+arrow keys. For the general desktop
> >> this has little utility, but for tablets it is pretty cool... and as long as
> >> the ability is there it is often available on desktop systems. No problems
> >> there... though it does leave open a chance for practical jokes and the
> >> like.
>
> >> even a non-Admin, and the orientation will stay altered even when I log
> >> out...
>
>
> > Because you touch yourself at night.
>
> Windows XP or something a graphics card maker
> implemented, or something in Windows XP Tablet
> Edition?
>
> In a Parallels window that key combo does nothing.
>
> Neither does it do anything in standalone systems
> of mine running Windows Server 2003 and Windows
> Vista Ultimate.
>
> Steve
It's a graphics card feature, not a Windows feature.
Snit
>>> To quote Steve from an earlier message in this thread:
>>>
>>> "I can, from a user account, hold down the control, option and Apple keys on
>>> a modern Mac while pressing the number 8 and it will "screw with" others
>>> (who may want to run graphics apps or whatever)... and it'll stay that way
>>> when I log out. There is no video card in this equation..."
>>>
>>> Assuming that does in fact stay in effect when a normal user logs off,
>>> that's the same "problem" you're talking about with display drivers on
>>> Windows.
>>
>> I missed where Steve said that, but assuming he was correct you would be
>> right... it would be a similar problem. On G3s running 10.3 and on my G4
>> running 10.4, however, what he says is clearly *not* the case. I wonder if
>> he can give an example of a case where it is true. Knowing Steve: I bet
>> not!
>
> That's why I said a modern Mac. Hold on... OK, I just tried it on my
> dual G4 1Ghz tower (about 5 years old) and it works as described. The OS
> is 10.4.9... but I know it worked before that. Are you sure you are
> holding all 3 keys down and then pressing the number 8 (NOT the keypad
> 8)?
I am sure I am altering the video to go into "white-on-black" mode. And
students at the HS I work at have done this as well... it effects their
account and no other... and does not effect the sign in screen. Same thing
when they mess with the contrast (control+option+command+period).
I will try it on the newer iMacs at the college where I work... I will be
surprised if Apple broke this feature the way you claim, but if they did
then, yes, that is a mistake for them to have done. A non-admin user should
not be able to make such a global change.
I would like to see you show some class and admit you were wrong when you
claimed, about me:
My prediction... Snit will change the criteria from his OP:
"Here is the weakness: I can change the orientation from my
user account, even a non-Admin, and the orientation will stay
altered even when I log out... " - Snit
Watch for the conditions regarding 'accounts' that will
undoubtedly appear that stray from this 1st post;)
No staying at all: if a non-admin user can mess with the video settings and
effect other users in a way that heavily reduces their ability to use the
machine then the OS is doing something incorrect. You *claim* OS X has a
similar problem as does XP in this area but so far it has not been verified.
As noted I have seen this on many machines and it has not done as you
described.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-8DBDF5....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 4/13/07 4:35 PM:
>
> >>> To quote Steve from an earlier message in this thread:
> >>>
> >>> "I can, from a user account, hold down the control, option and Apple keys
> >>> on
> >>> a modern Mac while pressing the number 8 and it will "screw with" others
> >>> (who may want to run graphics apps or whatever)... and it'll stay that
> >>> way
> >>> when I log out. There is no video card in this equation..."
> >>>
> >>> Assuming that does in fact stay in effect when a normal user logs off,
> >>> that's the same "problem" you're talking about with display drivers on
> >>> Windows.
> >>
> >> I missed where Steve said that, but assuming he was correct
So you weren't aware of how to access this feature from the keyboard.
New prediction... listen to the bull you'll spew on your next post to
see you claim you were aware. I'm 1-1 right now... make me 2-2, Snit;)
> >>you would be
> >> right... it would be a similar problem. On G3s running 10.3 and on my G4
> >> running 10.4, however, what he says is clearly *not* the case. I wonder
> >> if
> >> he can give an example of a case where it is true. Knowing Steve: I bet
> >> not!
> >
> > That's why I said a modern Mac. Hold on... OK, I just tried it on my
> > dual G4 1Ghz tower (about 5 years old) and it works as described. The OS
> > is 10.4.9... but I know it worked before that. Are you sure you are
> > holding all 3 keys down and then pressing the number 8 (NOT the keypad
> > 8)?
>
> I am sure I am altering the video to go into "white-on-black" mode.
Gee, it's about time you looked at the 'System Preferences/Universal
Access' panel... Mr. IT teacher.
> And
> students at the HS I work at have done this as well... it effects their
> account and no other...
And there it is... my *extremely accurate* prediction comes true in
record time... in *exactly* the way I said it would play out (account):
"Watch for the conditions regarding 'accounts' that will
undoubtedly appear that stray from this 1st post"
(snip additional crap where Snit strays from his OP)
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
Bull. I called it perfectly.
So... any minute now you're going to create a thread entitled
"OSX: Cool feature with a weakness"... right? I mean, you were wrong
about XP so you should be retracting this thread and apologizing while
you create the new thread that truly *is* a part of the 'experience on
an OSX machine'.
Snit
You claimed that when an OS X screen is put into black-and-white mode that
this carries over to other users. I commented on what that would mean *if
you were correct* (it turns out there is no reason to think you are correct
for *any* Mac)... and then you lied and claimed I must have meant I did not
know the keyboard short cut for the feature. Then, in your grand moment of
glory, you predicted I would call you on your lie. How clever of you, eh?
Yes, Steve, I *often* call you on your lies and your inability to understand
what you read. So you got me - I am calling you on it again. Do you want a
cookie?
--
€ Teaching is a "real job"
€ The path "~/users/username/library/widget" is not common on any OS
€ The term "all widgets" does not specify a specific subgroup of widgets
Snit
Hey, Steve... your BS is not working.
I talked about how it is a mistake to have a non-admin user account be able
to set video settings that would strongly adversely effect other users. You
claimed the same thing could be done on OS X, and yet you cannot find *any*
support for your claim... and I have examples of many machines where this is
*not* the case.
To bury that BS of yours you made up stories about how I did not know
keystrokes you have no way of know if I did or did not know (I did, by the
way) and then puffed up your chest in pride as you predicted I would call
you on your lies.
Do you *still* deny you are consumed by your hatred?
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
The BS here was all yours... your thread's title is as false as the crap
you've written in it.
> I talked about how it is a mistake to have a non-admin user account be able
> to set video settings that would strongly adversely effect other users.
And I pointed out how this sort of condition exists on the Mac. Gee, it
seems you have conveniently forgotten that you also said this was part
of the experience of an XP machine, which was not true.
> You claimed the same thing could be done on OS X,
On "modern" Macs, yes. Of course, it's also true for many older Macs.
> and yet you cannot find *any*
> support for your claim... and I have examples of many machines where this is
> *not* the case.
I haven't seen one example... just you talking about it... in fact, of
the two people in this ng that said they had video cards that could do
this, neither of them could do it using your keyboard sequence. It's not
a "Cool feature" of XP at all... it's a feature of a given video card.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
Yes, I did. What about it?
Snit
>> Hey, Steve... your BS is not working.
>
> The BS here was all yours... your thread's title is as false as the crap
> you've written in it.
>
>
>> I talked about how it is a mistake to have a non-admin user account be able
>> to set video settings that would strongly adversely effect other users.
>
> And I pointed out how this sort of condition exists on the Mac. Gee, it
> seems you have conveniently forgotten that you also said this was part
> of the experience of an XP machine, which was not true.
>
>> You claimed the same thing could be done on OS X,
>
> On "modern" Macs, yes. Of course, it's also true for many older Macs.
>
>
>> and yet you cannot find *any*
>> support for your claim... and I have examples of many machines where this is
>> *not* the case.
>
> I haven't seen one example... just you talking about it... in fact, of
> the two people in this ng that said they had video cards that could do
> this, neither of them could do it using your keyboard sequence. It's not
> a "Cool feature" of XP at all... it's a feature of a given video card.
From a recent post:
> Once Steve starts lying its best to just drop things.
> All he's going to do is get shriller and more personally
> insulting. That's pretty much the extent of his debating
> skills.
A perfect example of this is happening in another thread: I
pointed out that it is a bad thing to have a non-admin user
be able to modify the screen settings to be able to "mess
with" other users. Steve claimed this can be done on OS
X... I stated that if it could then I would agree that OS X
was doing the wrong thing. Steve claimed to have an
example, but it is something I know darn well does *not* do
as he says on, at least, G3 machines running 10.3 nor my G4
machine running 10.4. Steve then went into panic mode and
claimed I did not know keyboard shortcuts (what?!?!... not
even on the topic!) and got all proud when he noted I would
surely call him on his BS.
He has now effectively killed the topic: non-admin users
altering (video) settings for other users and is babbling
about keyboard shortcuts, his "magic" predictive powers, his
unmarried "wife", what it means to be a part of the XP
experience, and anything else he can babble about to avoid
the fact he was clueless about the topic at hand. And, of
course, as you note he is getting more and more personal and
making more and more personal attacks. In the end he will
*never* actually support his claim about OS X.
As I noted, Steve, your BS is not working.... people are not as stupid as
you need them to be!
Snit
>> I talked about how it is a mistake to have a non-admin user account be able
>> to set video settings that would strongly adversely effect other users. You
>> claimed the same thing could be done on OS X, and yet you cannot find *any*
>> support for your claim... and I have examples of many machines where this is
>> *not* the case.
>
> I haven't seen one example... just you talking about it... in fact, of
> the two people in this ng that said they had video cards that could do
> this, neither of them could do it using your keyboard sequence. It's not
> a "Cool feature" of XP at all... it's a feature of a given video card.
Hey, Steve... you got lost *again*. Note the comments you responded to were
about OS X... and you responded as if they were about XP.
You really should try to understand what you read. If you claim you are
trying... well, try harder. :)
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
Yeah... Clyde is a pretty strange guy... he actually had the audacity to
say that as he was the one doing the lying in the thread he wrote that
in. Reminds one of you;) Anyone interesting in seeing Clyde's bullshit
can look here:
<noone-EF0267....@newsgroups.comcast.net>
> A perfect example of this is happening in another thread: I
> pointed out that it is a bad thing to have a non-admin user
> be able to modify the screen settings to be able to "mess
> with" other users.
Yes, we all saw you make a mountain out of a molehill.
> Steve claimed this can be done on OS X...
And it can.
> I stated that if it could then I would agree that OS X
> was doing the wrong thing.
You *should* be agreeing to retracting this thread and apologizing for
having written it.
(snip additional bullshit by Snit)
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-AC2F99....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 4/13/07 6:41 PM:
>
> >> I talked about how it is a mistake to have a non-admin user account be
> >> able
> >> to set video settings that would strongly adversely effect other users.
> >> You
> >> claimed the same thing could be done on OS X, and yet you cannot find
> >> *any*
> >> support for your claim... and I have examples of many machines where this
> >> is
> >> *not* the case.
> >
> > I haven't seen one example... just you talking about it... in fact, of
> > the two people in this ng that said they had video cards that could do
> > this, neither of them could do it using your keyboard sequence. It's not
> > a "Cool feature" of XP at all... it's a feature of a given video card.
>
> Hey, Steve... you got lost *again*. Note the comments you responded to were
> about OS X... and you responded as if they were about XP.
Hey, Snit, you talked about XP and OSX in those comments I replied to. I
*was* referring to XP. Don't stay lost for too long this time, OK? ;)
> You really should try to understand what you read.
You might want to take you own advice. Oh... I almost forgot:
"I find that I follow my own advice less and less" - Snit
LOL!
> If you claim you are trying... well, try harder. :)
Cap off the glue tube;)
Snit
>> A perfect example of this is happening in another thread: I
>> pointed out that it is a bad thing to have a non-admin user
>> be able to modify the screen settings to be able to "mess
>> with" other users.
>
> Yes, we all saw you make a mountain out of a molehill.
>
>> Steve claimed this can be done on OS X...
>
> And it can.
so you claim... but not only did you offer no support, Steve, nor any
counter for my contrary experience on a number of machine, but you felt the
need to *lie* and make up stories about me and my knowledge of short cut
keys.
Below you request an apology if newer Macs actually act as you say... but
you will *never* apologize for your lies about me *nor*, of course, will you
point to an example where I stated your claims about the Mac are wrong - I
have merely stated that their is no evidence, that there is reason to
believe otherwise, and that your word is of no value (as you demonstrate
with your lies about me and short cut keys!)
What comment do you think I would have to apologize for if by some fluke
newer iMacs act as you claim? When will you apologize for your lies about
me and my knowledge of short cut keys? Not that I expect one from a troll
such as you who lies about me in your every post, but it would be a good
sign from you to admit you spouted out, again, and made personal accusations
that were completely unfounded.
>> I stated that if it could then I would agree that OS X
>> was doing the wrong thing.
>
> You *should* be agreeing to retracting this thread and apologizing for
> having written it.
Retract this thread? I am right: it is not a good thing for a non-admin
user to be able to mess with other users on either OS X or XP... at least in
some cases on XP this does happen (stock standard Dells, for example) but
there is no reputable example of this *ever* happening with OS X. If,
however, some Macs have the flaw you claim they do then, yes, I would note
it as a flaw... there simply would be no reason not to.
Steve Carroll
"Jesus" <rustybu...@gmail.com> wrote:
And Snit has been told this several times... yet, he persists with this
sham of a thread. Welcome to Snit's brand of 'Mac advocacy'.
Snit
> In article <C24581E4.7D2B7%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
>> noone-AC2F99....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 4/13/07 6:41 PM:
>>
>>>> I talked about how it is a mistake to have a non-admin user account be able
>>>> to set video settings that would strongly adversely effect other users.
>>>> You claimed the same thing could be done on OS X, and yet you cannot find
>>>> *any* support for your claim... and I have examples of many machines where
>>>> this is *not* the case.
>>>
>>> I haven't seen one example... just you talking about it... in fact, of
>>> the two people in this ng that said they had video cards that could do
>>> this, neither of them could do it using your keyboard sequence. It's not
>>> a "Cool feature" of XP at all... it's a feature of a given video card.
>>
>> Hey, Steve... you got lost *again*. Note the comments you responded to were
>> about OS X... and you responded as if they were about XP.
>
> Hey, Snit, you talked about XP and OSX in those comments I replied to. I
> *was* referring to XP. Don't stay lost for too long this time, OK? ;)
>
>
>> You really should try to understand what you read.
>
> You might want to take you own advice. Oh... I almost forgot:
>
> "I find that I follow my own advice less and less" - Snit
>
> LOL!
>
>> If you claim you are trying... well, try harder. :)
>
> Cap off the glue tube;)
You are proving Mayor right about you. You got lost, thought comments about
OS X were about XP, and then you sank to more of your personal attacks... in
this case by dredging up ancient quotes completely out of context and making
up drug stories about people.
Come on, Steve, can't you be anything other than completely predictable?
--
€ Different version numbers refer to different versions
€ Macs are Macs and Apple is still making and selling Macs
€ The early IBM PCs and Commodores shipped with an OS in ROM
Snit
>>> Is this control+alt+arrow keys shortcut native to
>>> Windows XP or something a graphics card maker
>>> implemented, or something in Windows XP Tablet
>>> Edition?
>>>
>>> In a Parallels window that key combo does nothing.
>>>
>>> Neither does it do anything in standalone systems
>>> of mine running Windows Server 2003 and Windows
>>> Vista Ultimate.
>>>
>>> Steve
>>
>> It's a graphics card feature, not a Windows feature.
>
> And Snit has been told this several times... yet, he persists with this
> sham of a thread. Welcome to Snit's brand of 'Mac advocacy'.
Pssst... Steve... when did I say that what I talked about in regards to XP
was not dependant on the video card? Come on, Steve... where is the quote!
The fact is that on many XP systems one can mess with video settings and
have it effect other users... this is a weakness.
You made the same claim about OS X, could not show it, made up stories about
me and shortcut keys and told other lies... and now you are lashing out in
anger and hatred.
Who do you think is dumb enough to buy your BS?
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-3AE16E....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 4/13/07 7:21 PM:
>
> >>> Is this control+alt+arrow keys shortcut native to
> >>> Windows XP or something a graphics card maker
> >>> implemented, or something in Windows XP Tablet
> >>> Edition?
> >>>
> >>> In a Parallels window that key combo does nothing.
> >>>
> >>> Neither does it do anything in standalone systems
> >>> of mine running Windows Server 2003 and Windows
> >>> Vista Ultimate.
> >>>
> >>> Steve
> >>
> >> It's a graphics card feature, not a Windows feature.
> >
> > And Snit has been told this several times... yet, he persists with this
> > sham of a thread. Welcome to Snit's brand of 'Mac advocacy'.
>
> Pssst... Steve... when did I say that what I talked about in regards to XP
> was not dependant on the video card? Come on, Steve... where is the quote!
This is too easy;) You wrote:
"As I note above, Steve, it is part of the experience of using an XP
machine... please note, I did not say it was the fault of the OS."
Now get someone to read the thread's title and explain it to you;)
> The fact is that on many XP systems one can mess with video settings and
> have it effect other users... this is a weakness.
So now it's "on many XP systems", is it? LOL! It's funny to watch you
crumble like this... one piece at a time... strange that you don't
mention anything about quantity in this thread's title;)
> You made the same claim about OS X, could not show it,
Not to you. I could demonstrate it right in front of you and you'd still
deny you'd seen it... you have your entire being wrapped up in this;)
(snip whining)
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-10994C....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 4/13/07 7:05 PM:
>
> >> A perfect example of this is happening in another thread: I
> >> pointed out that it is a bad thing to have a non-admin user
> >> be able to modify the screen settings to be able to "mess
> >> with" other users.
> >
> > Yes, we all saw you make a mountain out of a molehill.
> >
> >> Steve claimed this can be done on OS X...
> >
> > And it can.
>
> so you claim... but not only did you offer no support,
How could I possibly support it to *you*?
> Steve, nor any
> counter for my contrary experience on a number of machine, but you felt the
> need to *lie* and make up stories about me and my knowledge of short cut
> keys.
You proved you were unaware of that particular keyboard short cut...
your doing so had nothing to do with me.
> Below you request an apology if newer Macs actually act as you say...
You're lying... again. What I said was:
"You *should* be agreeing to retracting this thread and apologizing for
having written it".
(snip even more lies and bullshit by Snit)
> Retract this thread? I am right:
No, you're wrong. The feature you describe is attributable to a feature
found on a limited subset of video cards. This thread's title and your
initial misleading argument are typical of the kind of Mac advocacy one
can expect from you.
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
You talked about far more than that Snit! see below.
> You
> claimed the same thing could be done on OS X, and yet you cannot find *any*
> support for your claim... and I have examples of many machines where this is
> *not* the case.
Actually Steve was very careful *not* to claim that they were the same
thing!
"Well, it's not the exact same problem but it does contain the ability to
"screw with" a user even after logging out. A person logging back in to
that account couldn't really use an app like Photoshop or Painter with
the screen whacked out like this. I once did this to my wife and she
thought the video circuitry was crapping out;)"-Steve Carroll
And as for Steve's prediction...
"My prediction... Snit will change the criteria from his OP:
"Here is the weakness: I can change the orientation from my user
account, even a non-Admin, and the orientation will stay altered even
when I log out... " - Snit
In your OP you talked about changing the orientation from your "user
account" and then stated that it could also be done from "even a non-Admin"
account!
But since then you have restricted your comments to reflect only non-admin
accounts ..such as...
"I pointed out that it is a bad thing to have a non-admin user be able to
modify the screen settings to be able to "mess with" other users."-Snit
Steve's prediction was correct!
"Watch for the conditions regarding 'accounts' that will undoubtedly appear
that stray from this 1st post;)"-Steve Carroll
Steve was also explicit when he talked about the weakness (?) in OSX...
"I can, from a user account, hold down the control, option and Apple keys on
a modern Mac while pressing the number 8 and it will "screw with" others
(who may want to run graphics apps or whatever)..."-Steve Carroll
"a modern Mac"! and you respond by talking about ...
G3 machines running 10.3 and a G4 machine running 10.4.! LOL
"Steve claimed to have an example, but it is something I know darn well does
*not* do as he says on, at least, G3 machines running 10.3 nor my G4 machine
running 10.4."-Snit
Steve's example was clearly the machine(s) that he tried it on...'moderm
Macs' But I can confirm that on my G4 400 with 10.4.8 onboard it performs
exactly as Steve said it would...control-option-command-8 the screen
reverts, shut the computer down or log out whatever you want to do, restart
or log back in and the screen is still as it was as a result of the keys
pressed!
So what you claim to ..."...know darn well..." is certainly not a fact on
all Macs of that vintage...does yours act as you suggest? Personally I doubt
it!
>
> To bury that BS of yours you made up stories about how I did not know
> keystrokes you have no way of know if I did or did not know
As for knowing the keystrokes to use...you *knew darn well* what they were
did you Snit? LOL!
> (I did, by the
> way) and then puffed up your chest in pride as you predicted I would call
> you on your lies.
>
> Do you *still* deny you are consumed by your hatred?
Are you certain that it is he that is being consumed Snit? ;-)
Snit
C2467131.32371%wa...@wally.world.net on 4/13/07 8:53 PM:
I was wondering when you would try to come to Steve's "rescue". Yeah,
Wally, about now, when Steve has completely backed himself into a corner
with his lies, you come over the hill in the nick o' time... but you make no
more sense than he does and your lies are just as transparent!
You, of course, babble more than he does, but that is the closest thing you
have to "style". Regardless, the facts stay the same:
I am right: it is not a good thing for a non-admin user to
be able to mess with other users on either OS X or XP... at
least in some cases on XP this does happen (stock standard
Dells, for example) but there is no reputable example of
this *ever* happening with OS X. If, however, some Macs
have the flaw you claim they do then, yes, I would note it
as a flaw... there simply would be no reason not to.
In the course of the debate Steve spewed all sorts of trolling. It is
detailed more elsewhere, but a decent summary would include Steve having:
* Lied about my views on video cards
* Lied about my knowledge of shortcut keys
* Lied via falsely attributing quotes to me
* Taken quotes out of context and spewed them as if they had meaning
* Made BS accusations about drugs
* Asked for apologies for some comment he cannot point to
* Got confused as to what OS is being referenced
* Tried to tell me what my "gripes" are
* Dishonestly "translated" what people have written
* Dishonestly and repeatedly snipped and ran
* Repeatedly posted with sock puppets and started trolling threads
* Asked for my advice and failed to thank me when I gave it
And you, Wally, it can be completely predicted, will not call Steve on *any*
of his BS, but *will* spew all sorts of BS such as when you try to pretend
that in context a "user account" and a "non-admin" account are somehow not
synonymous!
No thanks, Wally... I have already grown bored with Steve's BS on this
topic... he has, as he always does, humiliated himself and piled lie on top
of lie. If you have nothing of value to add, which you almost surely do
not, do not expect me to give you as much attention as I just give your
buddy co-troll Steve.
PS: when are you going to suck your other co-trolls into the fray... you
know the "professional" web designer who needed my help to figure out how to
validate his CSS and the moron who thought the tilde meant "the hard drive
only" and claims sex and incest are, to him, identical?
Sandman
Wally <wa...@wally.world.net> wrote:
> Steve's example was clearly the machine(s) that he tried it on...'moderm
> Macs' But I can confirm that on my G4 400 with 10.4.8 onboard it performs
> exactly as Steve said it would...control-option-command-8 the screen
> reverts, shut the computer down or log out whatever you want to do, restart
> or log back in and the screen is still as it was as a result of the keys
> pressed!
It doesn't work for me. That is, the keyboard shortcut works just fine
of course, but if I switch user, the setting does not follow. If I set
my admin, or non-admins screen to be zoomed in and reversed (call it
mode X), and switch to another account, the screen will revert back to
normal (mode A). If I change things in that account as well (mode Y),
the screen will switch to mode X when "fast user" swithing to the
first user and go to mode A when I go to the login screen.
MacBook Pro, OSX 10.4.9
PowerMac G5, OSX 10.4.9
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > You claimed
>
> "I can, from a user account, hold down the control, option and Apple
> keys on a modern Mac while pressing the number 8 and it will "screw with"
> others (who may want to run graphics apps or whatever)... and it'll stay
> that way when I log out. There is no video card in this equation..."
>
> Yes, I did. What about it?
But are you claiming that this is carried over to other account
logins? Because I can't make it stick. It will, as expected, revert to
that users settings when I switch user.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
mr-5AD6C4.08...@News.Individual.NET on 4/13/07 11:38 PM:
Universal Access preferences do not carry over on 10.3 (on a G3) nor 10.4
(on a G4)... and I suspect that Apple did not introduce that error on newer
machines either.
Compare that with the Windows machines in question, relatively new Dells,
where switching the screen orientation to be sideways or upside down carries
over to the log in screen ... I did not test to see if it carried over to
other users.
In the end I suspect that Steve saw my comment that OS X did not share a
similar problem to the XP machines I described, and in one of his normal
hate filled rages he just wanted to claim I was wrong... but even Steve
knows that with real testing his claim will not hold up:
Snit: I will test it on newer iMacs next week.
Steve: Why bother? We both know what you're going to say.
Snit: Of course we both know what I am going to say: I will be
honest about my testing. Even you, with all your delusions,
can predict *that*! As to why bother... I am curious... on
the off chance you are actually right I want to know.
Steve: Exactly. You'll say you are 'right'...
Steve then went into a round of his hate-filled trolling. Whatever.
Snit
What about the Login window? Does it "inherit" the effects from either an
admin or non-admin user? I suspect not... it surely shouldn't! The
settings for "DisplayUseInvertedPolarity" reside in
~/Library/Preferences/com.apple.CoreGraphics.plist (by default). You could,
I assume, effect the default for all users and maybe the login screen by
creating the appropriate /Library/Preferences/com.apple.CoreGraphics.plist.
Bottom line: I will be shocked if this is not just another example of Steve
lying.
--
€ There is no known malware that attacks OS X in the wild
€ There are two general types of PCs: Macs and PCs (odd naming conventions!)
€ Mac OS X 10.x.x is a version of Mac OS
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
There was never a need for a 'rescue' as Steve was never in strife!
> Yeah,
> Wally, about now, when Steve has completely backed himself into a corner
> with his lies, you come over the hill in the nick o' time....
Lies are lies Snit! there is no "nick o' time" that can change that! the
simple fact is that you can not demonstrate any lies from Steve...it's that
simple!
> but you make no
> more sense than he does and your lies are just as transparent!
And yet just as your accusations about Steve I wager you will not
demonstrate one lie from me!
> You, of course, babble more than he does, but that is the closest thing you
> have to "style". Regardless, the facts stay the same:
>
> I am right: it is not a good thing for a non-admin user to
> be able to mess with other users on either OS X or XP...
As I said previously your changing to emphasize non-admin accounts as
opposed to your OP proves Steve's prediction to have come about!
> at
> least in some cases on XP this does happen (stock standard
> Dells, for example) but there is no reputable example of
> this *ever* happening with OS X.
The feature that Steve mentions is there for a good reason, whether anyone
has used it and shut down leaving the feature enabled for the next person
who may not want it is frankly immaterial, the point being made is that it
'could' happen!
> If, however, some Macs
> have the flaw you claim they do then, yes, I would note it
> as a flaw... there simply would be no reason not to.
I do not claim to have mentioned any 'flaw' it seems perfectly reasonable to
me that if I set up my monitor to White on Black then I expect it to remain
that way until changed, why you expect it to revert to Black on White after
a restart?
>
> In the course of the debate Steve spewed all sorts of trolling. It is
> detailed more elsewhere, but a decent summary would include Steve having:
It is contained in 'your' post Snit that IMO automatically disqualifies it
from being considered a "decent summary'!
>
> * Lied about my views on video cards
> * Lied about my knowledge of shortcut keys
> * Lied via falsely attributing quotes to me
> * Taken quotes out of context and spewed them as if they had meaning
> * Made BS accusations about drugs
> * Asked for apologies for some comment he cannot point to
> * Got confused as to what OS is being referenced
> * Tried to tell me what my "gripes" are
> * Dishonestly "translated" what people have written
> * Dishonestly and repeatedly snipped and ran
> * Repeatedly posted with sock puppets and started trolling threads
> * Asked for my advice and failed to thank me when I gave it
Yup! told you so!
> And you, Wally, it can be completely predicted, will not call Steve on *any*
> of his BS,
For two reasons...
Because I have called you on yours! and I have detected no BS from Steve!
I will have absolutely no problem disagreeing with Steve if ever I have a
different opinion than him on something, because I have no doubt that his
opinion will be based on solid reasoning, whereas with you ....well look at
this reply from you for example you are completely unable to respond in an
honest way to one single point that I put to you ...not one!
> but *will* spew all sorts of BS such as when you try to pretend
> that in context a "user account" and a "non-admin" account are somehow not
> synonymous!
Simply because of your own words Snit....
"Here is the weakness: I can change the orientation from my user
account, even a non-Admin, and the orientation will stay altered even
when I log out... " - Snit
"... from my user account, even a non-Admin,.."
Clearly you are indicating rightly so that that they are/can be different
types of account therefore you cannot claim them to be synonymous as one
would by definition have to suggest the other, that simply is not the case
as a users account may or may not be a non-admin one!
>
> No thanks, Wally... I have already grown bored with Steve's BS on this
> topic... he has, as he always does, humiliated himself and piled lie on top
> of lie. If you have nothing of value to add, which you almost surely do
> not, do not expect me to give you as much attention as I just give your
> buddy co-troll Steve.
The humiliation is yours in you making this post but not being able to
counter one single point that I put to you previously!
> PS: when are you going to suck your other co-trolls into the fray... you
> know the "professional" web designer who needed my help to figure out how to
> validate his CSS and the moron who thought the tilde meant "the hard drive
> only" and claims sex and incest are, to him, identical?
See what I mean Snit.....so sad!
The only good thing from your point of view must be that when someone says
'how the mighty have fallen' you can be confident that they are not
referring to you! as far as I can remember you have always been down where
you are. :-(
Wally
"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <C2467131.32371%wa...@wally.world.net>,
> Wally <wa...@wally.world.net> wrote:
>
>> Steve's example was clearly the machine(s) that he tried it on...'moderm
>> Macs' But I can confirm that on my G4 400 with 10.4.8 onboard it performs
>> exactly as Steve said it would...control-option-command-8 the screen
>> reverts, shut the computer down or log out whatever you want to do, restart
>> or log back in and the screen is still as it was as a result of the keys
>> pressed!
>
> It doesn't work for me. That is, the keyboard shortcut works just fine
> of course, but if I switch user,
I don't remember mentioning switching users!
My G4 is open slather for whoever need to use it!
And Steve did say...
"Well, it's not the exact same problem but it does contain the ability to
"screw with" a user even after logging out. A person logging back in to
that account couldn't really use an app like Photoshop or Painter with
the screen whacked out like this. I once did this to my wife and she
thought the video circuitry was crapping out;)"-Steve Carroll
.... A person logging back in to that account...."
Sorry for any confusion!
Snit
Um, Wally... with all your nit picking, lying, claims that you are blind to
Steve's dishonesty and your other long winded babbling you forgot to really
make any meaningful point other, perhaps, than to show you are trying to be
as stupid and dishonest as he is.
In the end my view does not change one whit:
it is not a good thing for a non-admin user to be able to
mess with other users on either OS X or XP... at least in
some cases on XP this does happen (stock standard Dells, for
example) but there is no reputable example of this *ever*
happening with OS X. If, however, some Macs have the flaw
Steve claims they do then, yes, I would note it as a flaw...
there simply would be no reason not to.
I seriously doubt you or your co-trolls will be able to change my mind on
that... no matter how much you troll and lie. Good luck trying!
Snit
> On 14/4/07 2:35 PM, in article mr-91BC4A.08...@News.Individual.NET,
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <C2467131.32371%wa...@wally.world.net>,
>> Wally <wa...@wally.world.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Steve's example was clearly the machine(s) that he tried it on...'moderm
>>> Macs' But I can confirm that on my G4 400 with 10.4.8 onboard it performs
>>> exactly as Steve said it would...control-option-command-8 the screen
>>> reverts, shut the computer down or log out whatever you want to do, restart
>>> or log back in and the screen is still as it was as a result of the keys
>>> pressed!
>>
>> It doesn't work for me. That is, the keyboard shortcut works just fine
>> of course, but if I switch user,
>
> I don't remember mentioning switching users!
>
> My G4 is open slather for whoever need to use it!
>
> And Steve did say...
>
> "Well, it's not the exact same problem but it does contain the ability to
> "screw with" a user even after logging out. A person logging back in to
> that account couldn't really use an app like Photoshop or Painter with
> the screen whacked out like this. I once did this to my wife and she
> thought the video circuitry was crapping out;)"-Steve Carroll
>
> .... A person logging back in to that account...."
>
>
> Sorry for any confusion!
Before that, though, Steve had stated:
> Do you have any thoughts on the fact that, at least in the case I
> described, a non-Admin user can alter settings for other users?
As can they alter settings on a Mac. Big f*cking deal.
And:
I can, from a user account, hold down the control, option
and Apple keys on a modern Mac while pressing the number 8
and it will "screw with" others (who may want to run
graphics apps or whatever)... and it'll stay that way when I
log out. There is no video card in this equation... but I
guess you'll say it's OK due to the 'consistency'. LOL!
Note how he claims it stays "that way" (inversed) when he logs out... but
you are right... he did post a *different* account of his claim where he
merely noted... *gasp!*... that user settings do not magically change, even
if you log out and back in.
Thanks for helping to point out yet another example of Steve and his
ever-changing claims. Let me guess: you will do *anything* you can to
defend your co-troll buddy Steve... does not matter how pathetic your lie
has to be, you will not admit that Steve's story clearly changed.
>> the setting does not follow. If I set my admin, or non-admins screen to be
>> zoomed in and reversed (call it mode X), and switch to another account, the
>> screen will revert back to normal (mode A). If I change things in that
>> account as well (mode Y), the screen will switch to mode X when "fast user"
>> swithing to the first user and go to mode A when I go to the login screen.
>>
>> MacBook Pro, OSX 10.4.9
>> PowerMac G5, OSX 10.4.9
--
€ Nuclear arms are arms
€ OS X's Command+Scroll wheel function does not exist in default XP
€ Technical competence and intelligence are not the same thing
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> Universal Access preferences do not carry over on 10.3 (on a G3) nor 10.4
> (on a G4)... and I suspect that Apple did not introduce that error on newer
> machines either.
What error?
I would not expect Universal Access preferences to carry over to different
accounts! But I would expect it to carry over whatever the circumstances in
the account that set it up! that is what OS X does! so what error?
Snit
> On 14/4/07 3:00 PM, in article C245CA17.7D31A%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID,
> "Snit" <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>
>> Universal Access preferences do not carry over on 10.3 (on a G3) nor 10.4
>> (on a G4)... and I suspect that Apple did not introduce that error on newer
>> machines either.
>
> What error?
> I would not expect Universal Access preferences to carry over to different
> accounts!
Nor would I. In fact, I do not know of any time a non-admin user can alter
settings for other users... or even the login screen. Steve disagreed with
that:
> Do you have any thoughts on the fact that, at least in the case I
> described, a non-Admin user can alter settings for other users?
As can they alter settings on a Mac. Big f*cking deal.
Note: What I had described was non-admin video settings effecting
the login screen.]
And:
I can, from a user account, hold down the control, option
and Apple keys on a modern Mac while pressing the number 8
and it will "screw with" others (who may want to run
graphics apps or whatever)... and it'll stay that way when I
log out. There is no video card in this equation... but I
guess you'll say it's OK due to the 'consistency'. LOL!
> But I would expect it to carry over whatever the circumstances in
> the account that set it up! that is what OS X does! so what error?
OS X has the settings persist from one login to the next... just as I have
said and you, Sandman, and anyone else with a moderate amount of experience
with OS X will likely agree with... but it does not have the black-on-white
setting carry over to the login screen nor does it have it carry over any
user-level video settings that I know of to other users. Steve was simply
wrong... and then he felt the need to lie and troll and flame when it was
pointed out he was wrong.
At least, Wally, you show here you agree with me about the user video
settings... though I suspect you *thought* you were agreeing with Steve. :)
--
€ It is OK to email yourself files and store them there for a few weeks
€ No legislation supercedes the Constitution (unless it amends it)
€ Apple's video format is not far from NTSC DVD and good enough for most
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
The points are still in all my posts Snit! go at it tear them apart..I dare
you!
>
> In the end my view does not change one whit:
>
> it is not a good thing for a non-admin user to be able to
> mess with other users on either OS X or XP...
They cannot! unless you consider having specific settings stick after a
restart 'messing with'? I do not!
> at least in
> some cases on XP this does happen (stock standard Dells, for
> example)
Settings stick on XP just as they do on OS X?.....WOW!
> but there is no reputable example of this *ever*
> happening with OS X.
You have stated that you have not tried it on XP switching users,
"I did not test to see if it carried over to other users. "-Snit
therefore you must be talking about the same account! anyone can do as I did
and try it on their Mac and they will get the same result as I did...that
sounds reputable to me!
> If, however, some Macs have the flaw
What flaw?
> Steve claims they do then, yes, I would note it as a flaw...
> there simply would be no reason not to.
>
> I seriously doubt you or your co-trolls will be able to change my mind on
> that... no matter how much you troll and lie. Good luck trying!
Arguing with you is not about changing your mind Snit...after all that would
entail you admitting it! are you serious? ROTFL!
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
Where is the inconsistency?
As I said previously Settings stick on XP just as they do on OS X?.....WOW!
> And:
>
> I can, from a user account, hold down the control, option
> and Apple keys on a modern Mac while pressing the number 8
> and it will "screw with" others (who may want to run
> graphics apps or whatever)... and it'll stay that way when I
> log out. There is no video card in this equation... but I
> guess you'll say it's OK due to the 'consistency'. LOL!
Still no inconsistency! there is nothing to indicate that he is not talking
about the same account, merely different users!
".... A person logging back in to that account....""-Steve Carroll
> Note how he claims it stays "that way" (inversed) when he logs out...
Yes! because it does! and it will still be that way when someone logs in!
why are you so surprised?
> but you are right...
I know!
> he did post a *different* account of his claim where he
> merely noted... *gasp!*... that user settings do not magically change, even
> if you log out and back in.
No he didnšt! he has remained consistent!
> Thanks for helping to point out yet another example of Steve and his
> ever-changing claims. Let me guess: you will do *anything* you can to
> defend your co-troll buddy Steve... does not matter how pathetic your lie
> has to be, you will not admit that Steve's story clearly changed.
Because it didnšt!
Snit
>> Um, Wally... with all your nit picking, lying, claims that you are blind to
>> Steve's dishonesty and your other long winded babbling you forgot to really
>> make any meaningful point other, perhaps, than to show you are trying to be
>> as stupid and dishonest as he is.
>
> The points are still in all my posts Snit! go at it tear them apart..I dare
> you!
Why not just show your ignorance in the very post I am responding to.... no
need to dig!
>> In the end my view does not change one whit:
>>
>> it is not a good thing for a non-admin user to be able to
>> mess with other users on either OS X or XP...
>
> They cannot!
Not on OS X... not as far as I know anyway. Yet Carroll claims otherwise.
I had noted about XP machines in a lab:
Here is the weakness: I can change the orientation from my
user account, even a non-Admin, and the orientation will
stay altered even when I log out...
As I discussed that, Steve stated:
> Do you have any thoughts on the fact that, at least in the case I
> described, a non-Admin user can alter settings for other users?
As can they alter settings on a Mac. Big f*cking deal.
But, as you note above, on OS X a user cannot do that. Steve was simply
wrong. Steve also said, of OS X:
I can, from a user account, hold down the control, option
and Apple keys on a modern Mac while pressing the number 8
and it will "screw with" others (who may want to run
graphics apps or whatever)... and it'll stay that way when I
log out. There is no video card in this equation... but I
guess you'll say it's OK due to the 'consistency'. LOL!
But, again, Steve is wrong, at least based on all accounts from others - if
a user presses the control+option+command+8 and goes to "black on white"
mode, the effect does not carry over to the login screen.
> unless you consider having specific settings stick after a
> restart 'messing with'? I do not!
Nor do I. Nor have I suggested I did. That is your mistaken (and ignorant)
insinuation.
>> at least in some cases on XP this does happen (stock standard Dells,
>> for example)
>
> Settings stick on XP just as they do on OS X?.....WOW!
As noted above, they act differently: on OS X the settings do not carry over
to the login screen.
>> but there is no reputable example of this *ever*
>> happening with OS X.
>
> You have stated that you have not tried it on XP switching users,
>
> "I did not test to see if it carried over to other users. "-Snit
>
> therefore you must be talking about the same account!
No. You are simply wrong... will you admit to it?
> anyone can do as I did and try it on their Mac and they will get the same
> result as I did...that sounds reputable to me!
Do you now see where you comments are not on topic? The question is not
about persistence of settings from one login to another... you simply have
not understood the debate!
>> If, however, some Macs have the flaw
>
> What flaw?
Do you now understand that the flaw in question is or do you remain ignorant
still?
>> Steve claims they do then, yes, I would note it as a flaw...
>> there simply would be no reason not to.
>>
>> I seriously doubt you or your co-trolls will be able to change my mind on
>> that... no matter how much you troll and lie. Good luck trying!
>
> Arguing with you is not about changing your mind Snit...after all that would
> entail you admitting it! are you serious? ROTFL!
Your trolling is noted, but remember I have been very specific about how I
would test what Steve claimed and comment on it: if it turns out that Steve
is right and that on newer Macs the black-on-white setting is applied to the
login screen when it is set from a non-admin I will openly admit that the
newer Macs share a similar weakness with the XP machines in question. Why
would you think otherwise, Wally, other than the fact you are a very, very
poor judge of character and you frequently feel the need to lie about me and
troll and flame me.
--
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
€ OS X users are at far less risk of malware then are XP users
€ Photoshop is an image editing application
Snit
> No he didnąt! he has remained consistent!
>
>> Thanks for helping to point out yet another example of Steve and his
>> ever-changing claims. Let me guess: you will do *anything* you can to
>> defend your co-troll buddy Steve... does not matter how pathetic your lie
>> has to be, you will not admit that Steve's story clearly changed.
>
> Because it didnąt!
>
>>>> the setting does not follow. If I set my admin, or non-admins screen to be
>>>> zoomed in and reversed (call it mode X), and switch to another account, the
>>>> screen will revert back to normal (mode A). If I change things in that
>>>> account as well (mode Y), the screen will switch to mode X when "fast user"
>>>> swithing to the first user and go to mode A when I go to the login screen.
>>>>
>>>> MacBook Pro, OSX 10.4.9
>>>> PowerMac G5, OSX 10.4.9
Wally: please take a reading comprehension class. The question is *not*
about persistence of video settings from one login to another (though, as
you noted, in one account Steve gave he tried to alter the topic to that)...
it is about a user being able to alter the settings for the login screen and
thus being able to "mess with" with other users (as I described at the start
of this thread).
Other than to simply note that you are still not "getting it" and keep
confusing those two concepts, there really is nothing else I can do to help
you.
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C246A588.323B4%wa...@wally.world.net on 4/14/07 12:36 AM:
>
>> On 14/4/07 3:00 PM, in article C245CA17.7D31A%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID,
>> "Snit" <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>>
>>> Universal Access preferences do not carry over on 10.3 (on a G3) nor 10.4
>>> (on a G4)... and I suspect that Apple did not introduce that error on newer
>>> machines either.
>>
>> What error?
So what error? Or what do you claim as an error?
>> I would not expect Universal Access preferences to carry over to different
>> accounts!
>
> Nor would I. In fact, I do not know of any time a non-admin user can alter
> settings for other users... or even the login screen. Steve disagreed with
> that:
No he didnšt! he specifically said...
"... A person logging back in to that account...."-Steve Carroll
>> Do you have any thoughts on the fact that, at least in the case I
>> described, a non-Admin user can alter settings for other users?
> As can they alter settings on a Mac. Big f*cking deal.
Of course! anyone logging into 'that' account will encounter the settings
that had previously been set! why are you so surprised? Macs are good but
they are not yet so good that they can tell that it's a different person
logging into the same account!
>
> Note: What I had described was non-admin video settings effecting
> the login screen.]
>
> And:
>
> I can, from a user account, hold down the control, option
> and Apple keys on a modern Mac while pressing the number 8
> and it will "screw with" others (who may want to run
> graphics apps or whatever)... and it'll stay that way when I
> log out. There is no video card in this equation... but I
> guess you'll say it's OK due to the 'consistency'. LOL!
What point are you desperately trying to make Snit? So far you have simply
shown how consistent Steve has been! surely that was not your intent?
>> But I would expect it to carry over whatever the circumstances in
>> the account that set it up! that is what OS X does! so what error?
I'm still waiting for you to describe what you see as an error Snit, will
you? Can you?
> OS X has the settings persist from one login to the next... just as I have
> said and you, Sandman, and anyone else with a moderate amount of experience
> with OS X will likely agree with... but it does not have the black-on-white
> setting carry over to the login screen nor does it have it carry over any
> user-level video settings that I know of to other users. Steve was simply
> wrong...
You are wrong about the Black on White/White on black settings any number of
users will have the Black on White/White on black settings carry over no
matter how many times they log in, with one proviso....the one that Steve
mentioned...
.... A person logging back in to *that account*...." (emphasis mine)
As for the log in screen why are you surprised that Black on White/White on
black settings don't take hold until after log in? Haven't you noticed that
users desktop patterns do exactly the same thing? You should have noticed
that it starts Grey (dark grey apple centered) the OS starts, a plain blue
screen appears momentarily, then it reverts to 'Aqua Blue' and will remain
that way until log in is complete only then does it reflect the settings
that had been previously set by a user! why would you expect the Black on
White/White on black settings to act any differently Snit?
> and then he felt the need to lie and troll and flame when it was
> pointed out he was wrong.
>
> At least, Wally, you show here you agree with me about the user video
> settings... though I suspect you *thought* you were agreeing with Steve. :)
If we are in agreement other than to agree that you are incapable of
answering any points put to you Snit, I surely did miss that!
Sandman
Wally <wa...@wally.world.net> wrote:
> >> Steve's example was clearly the machine(s) that he tried it on...'moderm
> >> Macs' But I can confirm that on my G4 400 with 10.4.8 onboard it performs
> >> exactly as Steve said it would...control-option-command-8 the screen
> >> reverts, shut the computer down or log out whatever you want to do, restart
> >> or log back in and the screen is still as it was as a result of the keys
> >> pressed!
> >
> > It doesn't work for me. That is, the keyboard shortcut works just fine
> > of course, but if I switch user,
>
> I don't remember mentioning switching users!
I don't think you did, but for this to be a weakness in the operating
system it has to work across account logins, otherwise it's the same
as to say that it's a weakness in OSX that it if one user write
profanities in an open text document and another users sees it, they
could be insulted.
> My G4 is open slather for whoever need to use it!
But anything you do in your account that affect others that use your
account is not a weakness/property of OSX.
> And Steve did say...
>
> "Well, it's not the exact same problem but it does contain the ability to
> "screw with" a user even after logging out. A person logging back in to
> that account couldn't really use an app like Photoshop or Painter with
> the screen whacked out like this. I once did this to my wife and she
> thought the video circuitry was crapping out;)"-Steve Carroll
>
> .... A person logging back in to that account...."
>
> Sorry for any confusion!
I don't feel very confused. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> > It doesn't work for me. That is, the keyboard shortcut works just fine
> > of course, but if I switch user, the setting does not follow. If I set
> > my admin, or non-admins screen to be zoomed in and reversed (call it
> > mode X), and switch to another account, the screen will revert back to
> > normal (mode A). If I change things in that account as well (mode Y),
> > the screen will switch to mode X when "fast user" swithing to the
> > first user and go to mode A when I go to the login screen.
> >
> > MacBook Pro, OSX 10.4.9
> > PowerMac G5, OSX 10.4.9
> >
> What about the Login window? Does it "inherit" the effects from either an
> admin or non-admin user?
The answer to that question is contained within the paragraph above.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
since it affected other accounts than the one rotating the
screen
2. Snit was shown that XP had no such feature, and that any monitor
rotation was done with graphic drivers
3. Snit refused to admit that his initial claim of XP weakness was
incorrect
4. Steve seemed to want to claim that Snit was a hypocrite since OSX
had similar "weaknesses" and presented the "invert screen" command
in Universal Access
5. Steve, however, didn't show how this carried over to other accounts
(which it doesn't) so it's not similar to this supposed "weakness"
of XP that didn't exist.
--
Sandman[.net]