Quicklook no longer plays Video?

[FPP]

I noticed that quicklook doesn't play my .mov or .mp4 files any longer.
is this the same for everyone else?

I haven't checcked any other filetypes... but I suspect a few of them
won't be available for a quick look either.

I'm really trying to be positive about Mavericks... but it's getting
harder every day.

Quicklook doesn't work as well as in Mt Lion.

MT Newswatcher doesn't work at all.

I can't open folders the way I could in Mt lion - the way I prefer.

And the name of the OS *still* sucks.

I'm only running it on a secondary drive - so it's not imperative that
everything works to my liking. (I also have drives with Snow Leopard,
Lion, Mt Lion, Windows XP and Windows 7 - so it's not like I'm stuck
with Mavericks.)

This new operating system may have been free - but I'm coming to the
realization that it just ain't worth the price.

FPP

--
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits."

[gtr]

On 2013-10-31 05:09:33 +0000, FPP said:

> I noticed that quicklook doesn't play my .mov or .mp4 files any longer.
> is this the same for everyone else?

Works for me.

> I haven't checcked any other filetypes... but I suspect a few of them
> won't be available for a quick look either.

I don't know why. It works with pages and numbers documents.

> I'm really trying to be positive about Mavericks... but it's getting
> harder every day.
>
> Quicklook doesn't work as well as in Mt Lion.
>
> MT Newswatcher doesn't work at all.

Hardly 10.9's fault, right?

> I can't open folders the way I could in Mt lion - the way I prefer.

How did you open them with MLion?

> And the name of the OS *still* sucks.

10.9? Which don't you like, the 10 or the 9? ;-)

> I'm only running it on a secondary drive - so it's not imperative that
> everything works to my liking. (I also have drives with Snow Leopard,
> Lion, Mt Lion, Windows XP and Windows 7 - so it's not like I'm stuck
> with Mavericks.)
>
> This new operating system may have been free - but I'm coming to the
> realization that it just ain't worth the price.

Every OS change produces changes that some simply can't accept.
Frequently they seem wholly inconsequential to me, but I know the
changes that incur my wrath seem irrelevant to others as well.

[FPP]

In article <2013103110205236184-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:

> On 2013-10-31 05:09:33 +0000, FPP said:
>
> > I noticed that quicklook doesn't play my .mov or .mp4 files any longer.
> > is this the same for everyone else?
>
> Works for me.

I'm not alone in this one. I'm seeing a lot of reports about some video
files that worked in Mt Lion's Quicklook that don't work anymore.

> > I haven't checcked any other filetypes... but I suspect a few of them
> > won't be available for a quick look either.
>
> I don't know why. It works with pages and numbers documents.

These are Apple's own apps. I used to be able to view many more
formats, from eps to psd, etc. I can't anymore...

> > MT Newswatcher doesn't work at all.

> Hardly 10.9's fault, right?

Nope... but it's another domino in the line.

> > I can't open folders the way I could in Mt lion - the way I prefer.
>
> How did you open them with MLion?

I double-clicked the folder, and it opened in a new window. That don't
happen no more :-) Apple removed the preference.

> > And the name of the OS *still* sucks.
>
> 10.9? Which don't you like, the 10 or the 9? ;-)

The name's suckage is just a personal preference.

[Lloyd E Parsons]

On 2013-10-31 19:02:46 +0000, FPP said:

>>> I can't open folders the way I could in Mt lion - the way I prefer.
>>
>> How did you open them with MLion?
>
> I double-clicked the folder, and it opened in a new window. That don't
> happen no more :-) Apple removed the preference.

Yeah, they did. Now you can open in a new tab instead. Not quite as
handy sometimes imo.

--
Lloyd

[Michelle Steiner]

In article <fredp151-F9FED0...@news.eternal-september.org>,

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I noticed that quicklook doesn't play my .mov or .mp4 files any longer.
> is this the same for everyone else?

I noticed that if the .mov icon is a generic .mov icon, quicklook shows
that the file is zero bytes, and doesn't play it, even though Quicktime
Player can open it. But if the icon contains a frame from the movie,
then Quicktime will play it.

None of my .mp4 files have a generic icon, so I can't test this
behavior for them.

Michelle

[Michelle Steiner]

In article <fredp151-01AA84...@news.eternal-september.org>,

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > I can't open folders the way I could in Mt lion - the way I prefer.
> >
> > How did you open them with MLion?
>
> I double-clicked the folder, and it opened in a new window. That don't
> happen no more :-) Apple removed the preference.

Command-double-click will open the folder in a new window.

-- Michelle

[gtr]

On 2013-10-31 19:02:46 +0000, FPP said:

>>> I noticed that quicklook doesn't play my .mov or .mp4 files any longer.
>>> is this the same for everyone else?
>>
>> Works for me.
>
> I'm not alone in this one. I'm seeing a lot of reports about some video
> files that worked in Mt Lion's Quicklook that don't work anymore.

I guess I'm lucky. Which is pretty unusual...

> I used to be able to view many more formats, from eps to psd, etc. I
> can't anymore...

Just tried both. Both work for me.

>>> I can't open folders the way I could in Mt lion - the way I prefer.
>>
>> How did you open them with MLion?
>
> I double-clicked the folder, and it opened in a new window. That don't
> happen no more :-)

The iconography means you're happy about that.

> Apple removed the preference.

Hmm. I've been double clicking with the apple key held down for many
years in order to accomplish that. I'm sure that's not good enough, but
I thought I'd let you know any way.

[gtr]

Oh I see. I use TotalFinder so maybe it works differently in Mavericks
now, but I simply clikc-drag the tab off, if I want it in it's own
stand-alone window. Perhaps that works with Mavericks too.

[Lloyd E Parsons]

Yep, that's the way you do it in Mavericks.

--
Lloyd

[gtr]

On 2013-10-31 19:25:33 +0000, Michelle Steiner said:

> In article <fredp151-F9FED0...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I noticed that quicklook doesn't play my .mov or .mp4 files any longer.
>> is this the same for everyone else?
>
> I noticed that if the .mov icon is a generic .mov icon, quicklook shows
> that the file is zero bytes, and doesn't play it, even though Quicktime
> Player can open it. But if the icon contains a frame from the movie,
> then Quicktime will play it.

I noted that in previous OS's. But I've always thought that was because
it wasn't actually a .mov file, just had a .mov suffix. Maybe
"MediaInfo Mac" or "Media Inspector" would help in this regard.

> None of my .mp4 files have a generic icon, so I can't test this
> behavior for them.

I've found blank .mp4 files that quicklook plays correctly--they don't
have an internal image associated with it to provide anything but a
generic icon.

[Lloyd]

In article <311020131228294873%mich...@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner

Not on mine it doesn't. That opens it in a new tab.

--
Lloyd

[FPP]

In article <311020131228294873%mich...@michelle.org>,
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

So they didn't remove the action... just made it harder to use.

Kinda like Infiniti putting a starter crank back into its latest G model.

I wouldn't really like that, either...

[Your Name]

In article <fredp151-7B0D86...@news.eternal-september.org>,

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <311020131228294873%mich...@michelle.org>,
> Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> > In article <fredp151-01AA84...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I can't open folders the way I could in Mt lion - the way I prefer.
> > > >
> > > > How did you open them with MLion?
> > >
> > > I double-clicked the folder, and it opened in a new window. That don't
> > > happen no more :-) Apple removed the preference.
> >
> > Command-double-click will open the folder in a new window.
>

> So they didn't remove the action... just made it harder to use.
>
> Kinda like Infiniti putting a starter crank back into its latest G model.
>
> I wouldn't really like that, either...

I don't have anything newer handy to check, but in Mac OS X 10.1
through to at least 10.5, you can click on the small gadget in the
top-right corner of the Finder windows to show / hide the toolbar(s).
When the toolbar is displayed, double-clicking folder opens in the same
window, but when the toolbar is hidden the double-clicked folder opens
in a new window.

If it still works in newer versions of Mac OS X, then it could be a
woraround until something like Tinker Tool adds the preference option
back in ... or there's probably a Terminal command to set it.

[Michelle Steiner]

In article <2013103112512213218-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:

> > Yeah, they did. Now you can open in a new tab instead. Not quite as
> > handy sometimes imo.
>
> Oh I see. I use TotalFinder so maybe it works differently in Mavericks
> now, but I simply clikc-drag the tab off, if I want it in it's own
> stand-alone window. Perhaps that works with Mavericks too.

It does. Also right-clicking/control-clicking/two-finger-clicking (on
a trackpad) opens a contextual menu which has "Open in new window" as
its first item.

-- Michelle

And, as I said, command-clicking opens in a new window.

[Michelle Steiner]

In article <311020131504326988%lloy...@live.com>, Lloyd

<lloy...@live.com> wrote:

> > > > > I can't open folders the way I could in Mt lion - the way I prefer.
> > > >
> > > > How did you open them with MLion?
> > >
> > > I double-clicked the folder, and it opened in a new window. That don't
> > > happen no more :-) Apple removed the preference.
> >
> > Command-double-click will open the folder in a new window.
> >
> > -- Michelle
>
> Not on mine it doesn't. That opens it in a new tab.

You can change that in Finder Preferences/General

[Michelle Steiner]

In article <fredp151-7B0D86...@news.eternal-september.org>,
FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Command-double-click will open the folder in a new window.
> >
> > -- Michelle
>
> So they didn't remove the action... just made it harder to use.

Microscopically harder.

[Michelle Steiner]

In article <011120131856007558%Your...@YourISP.com>, Your Name

<Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:

> I don't have anything newer handy to check, but in Mac OS X 10.1
> through to at least 10.5, you can click on the small gadget in the
> top-right corner of the Finder windows to show / hide the toolbar(s).

In Mountain Lion and Mavericks (and maybe in 106 and.or 10.7), that
gadget is gone. Now it takes command-option-t or a menu command to
show or hide the toolbar.

> when the toolbar is hidden the double-clicked folder opens
> in a new window.

Same in Mavericks.

[FPP]

In article <311020132300493888%mich...@michelle.org>,

Twice as hard, actually. I've got two hands.
Making me use two hands instead of one hand isn't microscopic - it's
double the effort. That's not microscopic, it's moronic.

Old way: Eyes on screen; locate folder; double-click folder.

New way: Eyes on keyboard; locate Cmd key; hold Cmd key; eyes on screen;
locate folder; double-click folder.

Three steps vs six steps. Easy vs harder.

I'm not saying it's like climbing Everest - but it's a major annoyance
when you do it five or six hours a day (before you get home and do it
for fun for a few more hours.)

I do this for a living... It's a productivity killer.

My real beef is:

"What does removing an easier way to open a folder ADD to the user
experience?"

"How does making a simple, intuitive action more difficult make the
experience BETTER?"

If you can tell me where it's easier, or better I'll give you the point.
It's not just *different* - it's worse!

Was Steve jobs all about making things more complex?

[Michelle Steiner]

In article <fredp151-01AFBF...@news.eternal-september.org>,

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > Command-double-click will open the folder in a new window.
> > > >
> > > > -- Michelle
> > >
> > > So they didn't remove the action... just made it harder to use.
> >
> > Microscopically harder.
>
> Twice as hard, actually. I've got two hands.

If you're not using the other hand to press the command key, what are
you doing with it? Jerking off?

> Making me use two hands instead of one hand isn't microscopic - it's
> double the effort. That's not microscopic, it's moronic.
>
> Old way: Eyes on screen; locate folder; double-click folder.
>
> New way: Eyes on keyboard; locate Cmd key; hold Cmd key; eyes on screen;
> locate folder; double-click folder.

I don't have to look at the keyboard to find the command key; I just
reach with my thumb while my hand is on the home keys. The difference
in time it takes me to command-click compared to just plain clicking is
immeasurable without sophisticated equipment. By the time I've moved
the mouse pointer to where I want to click, my thumb is already on the
command key.

> "What does removing an easier way to open a folder ADD to the user
> experience?"
>
> "How does making a simple, intuitive action more difficult make the
> experience BETTER?"
>
> If you can tell me where it's easier, or better I'll give you the
> point.
> It's not just *different* - it's worse!

It's a side effect of having tabbed windows in the Finder.

[Michelle Steiner]

In article <fredp151-01AA84...@news.eternal-september.org>,
FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > I noticed that quicklook doesn't play my .mov or .mp4 files any longer.
> > > is this the same for everyone else?
> >
> > Works for me.
>
> I'm not alone in this one. I'm seeing a lot of reports about some video
> files that worked in Mt Lion's Quicklook that don't work anymore.

I found this at tidbits.com:

http://www.macworld.com/article/2058298/why-mavericks-movies-may-not-pre
view-properly.html

Why Mavericks' movies may not preview properly

Reader Arlen Andrews has a concern about his movie files. He writes:
I recently upgraded to Mavericks and now when I attempt to preview a
movie file I see only a window telling me that the movie is zero KB in
size, which I know isn靖 true. When I double-click on the movie, it
opens in QuickTime Player X but then immediately converts. What零 going
on?
This appears to be another under-the-hood change designed so that the
Mac OS better mimics the iOS. If you have one, find a movie file that
ends with .m4v. Dollars-to-doughnuts, if you select that file and press
the space bar, Quick Look will behave exactly as it should and show you
the movie. Now try it again with one of your .mov files. No dice,
right?
Right. And that零 because Mavericks is very particular about the kinds
of movie codecs it allows. For example, I created a movie with
Telestream零 Screenflow 4 and exported it using the application零
Lossless format (which uses the Animation codec by default). When I
attempted to preview the resulting movie with Quick Look I saw exactly
what you did卟 seemingly empty document. When I double-clicked on it,
QuickTime Player X launched, up popped a conversion window, and I had
to wait for that conversion to complete before I could view the movie.
(And now I had two copies of the movie𡑕he original Animation-codec
version and the converted version that used the Apple ProRes 4444
codec.)
However, movies using H.264 encoding previewed perfectly and opened in
QuickTime Player without requiring conversion.
So, in regard to encoding movies in the future, the trick is using
codecs that conform to QuickTime零 whims. The Animation codec is
clearly codeca non grata, but H.264 and MPEG-4 movies (using
QuickTime零 MPEG-4 codec) are aces. Also Apple provides a package of
codecs for the professional user as part of the ProApps QuickTime
Codecs package. (Your Mac must hold a copy of Final Cut Pro, Motion, or
Compressor to install this package.) The package adds support for the
Apple Intermediate, Apple ProRes, AVC-Intra, DVCPRO HD, HDV, XDCAM HD /
EX /, HD422, MPEG IMX, Uncompressed 4:2:2, and XAVC codecs. I encoded a
movie using the Apple ProRes 422 codec and it previewed and played as
it should.
As for those of you who simply want to play your now ill-favored movies
I雋 afraid there零 currently no Quick Look solution. Until Apple or a
third-party creates a Quick Look plug-in that allows these affected
files to play you雹e going to have to open and convert them and then
preview the converted version.
However, if you don靖 care about previewing them but rather want to
play them without the conversion step, you have a couple of choices.
Zongyao Qu零 free MPlayerX will play these movies without converting
them, plus it supports .avi files, which QuickTime won靖 touch.
The venerable (and oh-so-much-more-capable-than-QuickTime-Player-X) $30
QuickTime 7 Pro still works under Mavericks and it too will allow you
to open and play these movies without the conversion step.

[gtr]

On 2013-11-01 10:00:47 +0000, FPP said:

> In article <311020132300493888%mich...@michelle.org>,
> Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
>
>> In article <fredp151-7B0D86...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Command-double-click will open the folder in a new window.
>>>>
>>>> -- Michelle
>>>
>>> So they didn't remove the action... just made it harder to use.
>>
>> Microscopically harder.
>
> Twice as hard, actually. I've got two hands.

It's just plain cruel.

> Making me use two hands instead of one hand isn't microscopic - it's
> double the effort. That's not microscopic, it's moronic.

Not everybody uses a computer the same way. It didn't effect me in the least.

> Three steps vs six steps. Easy vs harder.

It's crueler than cruel.

> "What does removing an easier way to open a folder ADD to the user
> experience?"

Because not everybody uses a computer the same way.

> "How does making a simple, intuitive action more difficult make the
> experience BETTER?"

Because everybody's better is not the same better.

> If you can tell me where it's easier, or better I'll give you the point.
> It's not just *different* - it's worse!
>
> Was Steve jobs all about making things more complex?

Okay then. How 'bout another six times around the block?

[FPP]

In article <2013110107451538408-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:

> It's just plain cruel.
>

> It's crueler than cruel.
>

> Because not everybody uses a computer the same way.
>

> Because everybody's better is not the same better.

Snark is fine... but I have yet to hear an answer to the two questions I
posed.

> "What does removing an easier way to open a folder ADD to the user
> experience?"

> "How does making a simple, intuitive action more difficult make the
> experience BETTER?"

> If you can tell me where it's easier, or better I'll give you the point.
> It's not just *different* - it's worse!

Until you can answer those credibly - you have no real point.

[FPP]

In article <011120130703537716%mich...@michelle.org>,

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

> In article <fredp151-01AFBF...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Command-double-click will open the folder in a new window.
> > > > >
> > > > > -- Michelle
> > > >
> > > > So they didn't remove the action... just made it harder to use.
> > >
> > > Microscopically harder.
> >
> > Twice as hard, actually. I've got two hands.
>
> If you're not using the other hand to press the command key, what are
> you doing with it? Jerking off?

Well, actually, yes - but since it's at work, it's figurative, rather
than literal...

Usually, my other hand is either following a work order, sometimes using
a densitometer or other measuring device. Holding a sample, or a
post-it note with some bit of info on it.

I'm nearsighted, and ocassionally have to remove my (progessive) glasses
to see something close up. Couple that with other eye issues, and it
makes a difference. Not everybody can see 3 point condensed type from a
football field away.

But the point isn't "What else are you doing?" My point is "Why do I
have to do something extra to accomplish the same task?"

I'm still not hearing how the new way using two hands instead of one is
easier or better. (Hint: because it's not...)

Look, I'm not saying it's the end of thr world... but it pisses me off,
and makes Mavericks just a bit harder to use.

[Michelle Steiner]

In article <fredp151-3D11EE...@news.eternal-september.org>,

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm nearsighted, and ocassionally have to remove my (progessive) glasses
> to see something close up. Couple that with other eye issues, and it
> makes a difference. Not everybody can see 3 point condensed type from a
> football field away.

I'm nearsighted too; I wear contacts, but need glasses to see the
screen clearly. Well, sorta clearly; I have cataracts.

> But the point isn't "What else are you doing?" My point is "Why do I
> have to do something extra to accomplish the same task?"

Because it's a side effect of having tabbed windows, as best as I can
figure out. The options for double-clicking would then be threefold
instead of only two. That complicates the Finder Preferences panel.

> I'm still not hearing how the new way using two hands instead of one is
> easier or better. (Hint: because it's not...)

It's not easier or better, but it solves what I, and apparently Apple,
consider to be a bigger issue.

And for the vast majority of users, it's not an issue.

[gtr]

On 2013-11-01 18:02:42 +0000, FPP said:

> In article <2013110107451538408-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>
>> It's just plain cruel.
>>
>> It's crueler than cruel.
>>
>> Because not everybody uses a computer the same way.
>>
>> Because everybody's better is not the same better.
>
> Snark is fine... but I have yet to hear an answer to the two questions I
> posed.

Snark is fine I suppose but I'm pointing out a simple reality: These
microscopic changes that have some people tearing their hair out (and
I've done it myself), sometimes don't reflect the viewpoint of very
many users.

>> "What does removing an easier way to open a folder ADD to the user
>> experience?"

It's not easier for me. It's easier for you. You seem to have confused
your subjective viewpoint with an objective universal. As I said
(without snark), everybody's better is not the same better. Okay, you
can't follow that. I'm done with it: Clearly your absorption of the
idea means nothing to me.

>> "How does making a simple, intuitive action more difficult make the
>> experience BETTER?"
>
>> If you can tell me where it's easier, or better I'll give you the point.
>> It's not just *different* - it's worse!
>
> Until you can answer those credibly - you have no real point.

I have precisely the same point: YOUR experience is not a benchmark
either for all users at large or even of a micro-segment of the market.
I don't know how many it is, obviously. But EVERY change causes some
irritation for somebody. That's just progress, which you might
consider devolution.

[FPP]

In article <011120131206484441%mich...@michelle.org>,

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

> I'm nearsighted too; I wear contacts, but need glasses to see the
> screen clearly. Well, sorta clearly; I have cataracts.

I'm working on cataracts myself... it's a few years away, I'm told. I
plan on surgery, when it becomes more pronounced.

>
> And for the vast majority of users, it's not an issue.

On that we can agree. It won't be a big issue for many, or most. Why
it should be an issue at all is my gripe.

And for the record, I still use a few programs in OSX that make it work
more like OS9, as well. I thought OS9 had some improvements over OSX.

Dragthing to get the Trash on the desktop, and restore pop-up drawers -
and Classic Menu to banish the dock, and return the heirarchical Apple
menu to the upper left corner... the way God intended it to be.

And don't get me started Apples removal of OS9's Windowshade...

fPP

[FPP]

In article <20131101125756345-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:

> Okay, you can't follow that. I'm done with it: Clearly your absorption of the
> idea means nothing to me.

Insult me all you like, I'm not taking the bait...

Like I said, I have yet to hear an answer to the two questions I posed.

> "What does removing an easier way to open a folder ADD to the user
> experience?"

> "How does making a simple, intuitive action more difficult make the
> experience BETTER?"

Until you can answer those credibly - you STILL have no real point.

[Your Name]

In article <fredp151-66FEA0...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Apple has a bit of a habit of "improving" while dropping features:

- "upgrade" from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X (especially the early versions)
- "upgrade" of iMovie
- "upgrade" of iWork
- "upgrade" of Final Cut
- "upgrade" from .Mac to iCloud
- "upgrades" of iMac which first lost the floppy drive,
then the optical drive, and soon the hard drive by
the look of it
- "upgrades" of various Mac models which lost FireWire
- "upgrade" of the Mac Pro which lost PCI slots (and
potentially almost all other user-upgradeable parts)

[FPP]

In article <021120131842557595%Your...@YourISP.com>,

Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:

> Apple has a bit of a habit of "improving" while dropping features:
>
> - "upgrade" from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X (especially the early versions)
> - "upgrade" of iMovie
> - "upgrade" of iWork
> - "upgrade" of Final Cut
> - "upgrade" from .Mac to iCloud
> - "upgrades" of iMac which first lost the floppy drive,
> then the optical drive, and soon the hard drive by
> the look of it
> - "upgrades" of various Mac models which lost FireWire
> - "upgrade" of the Mac Pro which lost PCI slots (and
> potentially almost all other user-upgradeable parts)

I don't doubt that these "improvements" irritated a lot of users of
those apps.

But at least those only affect those who use them. For me, changing
what double-clicking a folder does affects me no matter what program I'm
using.

I always thought double-clicking a folder meant that you were going to
open that folder. It now means that you're going to close one folder,
and open another.

I don't really mind that Apple has made that decision... what I mind is
them removing the preference that let ME decide how I want it to work.

Not upgrading to Mavericks isn't an option for me... so I'm stuck with
it.

[FPP]

> And don't get me started Apples removal of OS9's Windowshade...

Christ on a Crutch... I just found a replacement for OS9's Windowshade
that actually works (after 5 minutes use, anyway) without monkeying
around with the System like Unsanity's haxies.

It's called "WindowMiser":

http://www.rgbworld.com/extras/blog/getblog?blog_id=18#.UnSlCRYxqrt

It's a little slow.. and it doesn't have that nifty sound effect - but
I'm willing to give it a try.

[gtr]

On 2013-11-02 05:30:18 +0000, FPP said:

> Like I said, I have yet to hear an answer to the two questions I posed.

Like I responded, "easier", "intuitive" and "difficult" clearly don't
mean the same to everyone that they mean to you.

One more time around the block?

[FPP]

In article <2013110211122040256-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:

> On 2013-11-02 05:30:18 +0000, FPP said:
>
> > Like I said, I have yet to hear an answer to the two questions I posed.
>
> Like I responded, "easier", "intuitive" and "difficult" clearly don't
> mean the same to everyone that they mean to you.

Actually, yeah, they do.

True, there are NO absolutes... (and ALL generalizations are False) but
words do have meaning. Barring mental illness, reasonable people will
ovewhelmingly make similar judgements.

Graduate Elementary School - "easier" than graduate college.

Remove a blockage in an artery - more "difficult" than remove a splinter.

Dying quickly of a cerebral hemmorage in your sleep - "better" than
dying slowly in a firey blaze.

If Sony came out with a TV remote control that required two hands to
use, REASONABLE people will think this is a step backwards. Your point
is that when Apple does the same thing, it's not.

Granted, not everybody has to put up with it to the same degree - but
those people that LIKE the new method always had the option to do it
that way in Mt Lion.

In Mavericks, they don't. Taking away a choice is a step backwards.
It's a bigger headache for me due to the way I have to use my Mac.

Your Mileage May Vary...

[gtr]

On 2013-11-02 19:07:50 +0000, FPP said:

> In article <2013110211122040256-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>
>> On 2013-11-02 05:30:18 +0000, FPP said:
>>
>>> Like I said, I have yet to hear an answer to the two questions I posed.
>>
>> Like I responded, "easier", "intuitive" and "difficult" clearly don't
>> mean the same to everyone that they mean to you.
>
> Actually, yeah, they do.

Okay, that's settled once and for all.

[Your Name]

In article <fredp151-865101...@news.eternal-september.org>,

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <021120131842557595%Your...@YourISP.com>,
> Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:
> >
> > Apple has a bit of a habit of "improving" while dropping features:
> >
> > - "upgrade" from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X (especially the early versions)
> > - "upgrade" of iMovie
> > - "upgrade" of iWork
> > - "upgrade" of Final Cut
> > - "upgrade" from .Mac to iCloud
> > - "upgrades" of iMac which first lost the floppy drive,
> > then the optical drive, and soon the hard drive by
> > the look of it
> > - "upgrades" of various Mac models which lost FireWire
> > - "upgrade" of the Mac Pro which lost PCI slots (and
> > potentially almost all other user-upgradeable parts)
>
> I don't doubt that these "improvements" irritated a lot of users of
> those apps.
>
> But at least those only affect those who use them. For me, changing
> what double-clicking a folder does affects me no matter what program I'm
> using.

Umm... you're complaining about a feature not being there which also
"only affects those who use it". :-)

> I always thought double-clicking a folder meant that you were going to
> open that folder. It now means that you're going to close one folder,
> and open another.

You're still opening the double-clicked folder, it just opens in the
same window or new tab.

> I don't really mind that Apple has made that decision... what I mind is
> them removing the preference that let ME decide how I want it to work.
>
> Not upgrading to Mavericks isn't an option for me... so I'm stuck with
> it.

Well, if you upgraded the OS, then that's what you get for wanting to
be "first" and not waiting to read the reviews, comments, or waiting
for bug fixes and third-party add-ons to appear.

If you bought a new Mac that shipped with the new OS, then there is
little you could have done.

[dorayme]

In article
<fredp151-307061...@news.eternal-september.org>,

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

> True, there are NO absolutes... (and ALL generalizations are False)

Are you sure about this?

--
dorayme

[Your Name]

In article <dorayme-A8AFA0...@news.albasani.net>, dorayme

In general, yes. ;-)

[Michelle Steiner]

In article <fredp151-66FEA0...@news.eternal-september.org>,

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I'm nearsighted too; I wear contacts, but need glasses to see the
> > screen clearly. Well, sorta clearly; I have cataracts.
>
> I'm working on cataracts myself... it's a few years away, I'm told. I
> plan on surgery, when it becomes more pronounced.

They told me in 2002 or 2003 that I'd need cataract surgery in five to
ten years. Between March of this year and now, my vision has gotten
worse, so I'll be seeing an eye doctor on Wednesday to see whether it's
bad enough to warrant surgery. (Actually, one already told me that it
is, and he offered to do it for $2400 per eye, but next week's visit is
to see whether it's bad enough for the VA to do it for free.)

[Lloyd E Parsons]

I just had both eyes done earlier this summer. 7 minutes per eye and I
was on the golf course the 2nd day after each surgery. It's like
having new eyes!! :)

--
Lloyd

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.11.02, 19:25 , Michelle Steiner wrote:

> to see whether it's bad enough for the VA to do it for free.)

Nothing free about it.

--
"Quotation, n: The act of repeating erroneously the words of another."
-Ambrose Bierce

[FPP]

In article <031120130956340380%Your...@YourISP.com>,

Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:

> You're still opening the double-clicked folder, it just opens in the
> same window or new tab.

And you're closing the previous folder/window. THAT's what I'm
objecting to. That's what's different. If I'd wanted to close the
previous window, I could have held down the option key.

It's exactly the opposite of the way it is now. Was there a big call for
this? Did I miss the uprising? :-)

> Well, if you upgraded the OS, then that's what you get for wanting to
> be "first" and not waiting to read the reviews, comments, or waiting
> for bug fixes and third-party add-ons to appear.

What makes you think that? You're making a pretty big assumption.

First off, it's not MY Mac... it belongs to my employer.

And we didn't just upgrade our working OS to be "first". We upgraded a
clone of our working OS - so that we can play around, test and work out
any kinks BEFORE we have to use it in a production environment - which
we will when our customers start using it.

We're not stupid...

We run every OS from Leopard to Mavericks.

FPP

[Michelle Steiner]

In article <l543lm$6l2$1...@dont-email.me>, Lloyd E Parsons

<lloy...@live.com> wrote:

> > They told me in 2002 or 2003 that I'd need cataract surgery in five
> > to ten years. Between March of this year and now, my vision has
> > gotten worse, so I'll be seeing an eye doctor on Wednesday to see
> > whether it's bad enough to warrant surgery. (Actually, one already
> > told me that it is, and he offered to do it for $2400 per eye, but
> > next week's visit is to see whether it's bad enough for the VA to
> > do it for free.)
>
> I just had both eyes done earlier this summer. 7 minutes per eye and
> I was on the golf course the 2nd day after each surgery. It's like
> having new eyes!! :)

If I understand things correctly, I'll no longer have to wear glasses
or contacts for distance vision, but would still need reading glasses.
(I currently have three prescriptions: reading glasses;
middle-distance glasses primarily for the computer, but also for other
middle-distance use; bifocals with both of the above that I carry with
me when out of the house; and trifocals for when I'm not wearing
contacts.)

[Michelle Steiner]

In article <qPOdnfw13ZM7DujP...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne

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

> > to see whether it's bad enough for the VA to do it for free.)
>
> Nothing free about it.

If I don't pay for it, it's free for me.

[Michelle Steiner]

In article <fredp151-1329B9...@news.eternal-september.org>,

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > You're still opening the double-clicked folder, it just opens in the
> > same window or new tab.
>
> And you're closing the previous folder/window. THAT's what I'm
> objecting to. That's what's different. If I'd wanted to close the
> previous window, I could have held down the option key.
>
> It's exactly the opposite of the way it is now. Was there a big call for
> this? Did I miss the uprising? :-)

It's the same way it was before. I think that before, there may have
been an option to reverse it.

However, if you hide the window's toolbar, you will open a new window
when you double-click a folder.

[Ted Lee]

On 11/2/13, 9:54 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> If I understand things correctly, I'll no longer have to wear glasses
> or contacts for distance vision, but would still need reading glasses.
> (I currently have three prescriptions: reading glasses;
> middle-distance glasses primarily for the computer, but also for other
> middle-distance use; bifocals with both of the above that I carry with
> me when out of the house; and trifocals for when I'm not wearing
> contacts.)

Whether you'll have to wear glasses for distance depends somewhat on how
it turns out. The problem is that they can't control exactly how far
away from the retina the artificial lens ends up sitting. They get it
close, but a few millimeters can make a big difference. My contacts
turned out to be focussing at maybe 10 feet -- so I can see things on
the opposite side of a typical room just fine. That means I don't have
to wear glasses to watch TV -- but I do to drive.

Ted

[FPP]

In article <021120131957462083%mich...@michelle.org>,

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

> It's the same way it was before. I think that before, there may have
> been an option to reverse it.

Never thought about it that way... I just changed it to the way it had
always been.

Re: cataract surgery... $2400 per eye? Total cost, or *your* cost?

Guess you pay it, either way... there's not much choice.

Good luck with the VA.

[Ted Lee]

On 11/2/13, 10:26 PM, Ted Lee wrote:

>
> Whether you'll have to wear glasses for distance depends somewhat on how
> it turns out. The problem is that they can't control exactly how far
> away from the retina the artificial lens ends up sitting. They get it
> close, but a few millimeters can make a big difference. My contacts
> turned out to be focussing at maybe 10 feet -- so I can see things on
> the opposite side of a typical room just fine. That means I don't have
> to wear glasses to watch TV -- but I do to drive.
>
> Ted

Correction: that should be "my lenses", not "my contacts." (I used to
wear contact lenses until I had to switch to bi-focals.)

Ted

[Michelle Steiner]

In article <fredp151-CF5957...@news.eternal-september.org>,

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > It's the same way it was before. I think that before, there may have
> > been an option to reverse it.
>
> Never thought about it that way... I just changed it to the way it had
> always been.
>
> Re: cataract surgery... $2400 per eye? Total cost, or *your* cost?

Both; I don't have medical insurance other than Medicare A because I
get all my medical care at the VA for free. It's free because I have a
service-connected disability. So any medical care I get outside of the
VA system I pay for.

> Guess you pay it, either way... there's not much choice.
>
> Good luck with the VA.

If the VA says my cataracts aren't bad enough to warrant surgery, I'll
wait until they are bad enough.

[Michelle Steiner]

In article <vilain-9E2A63....@news.individual.net>, Michael
Vilain <vil...@NOspamcop.net> wrote:

> I went for LASIK in 2001 and never regretted it.

I've had two opthamologists tell me that I'm ineligible for LASIK, so
it's not an option for me.

[Your Name]

In article <fredp151-1329B9...@news.eternal-september.org>,
FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <031120130956340380%Your...@YourISP.com>,
> Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:
> >
> > You're still opening the double-clicked folder, it just opens in the
> > same window or new tab.
>
> And you're closing the previous folder/window. THAT's what I'm
> objecting to. That's what's different. If I'd wanted to close the
> previous window, I could have held down the option key.

It's not closing the previous folder, it's simply replacing it. The
same way clicking on a link in a web browser (usually) replaces the
current page. That's likely one of the reasons for the feature in the
first place, because so many people using web browsers are used to have
the content replaced and clicking the Back button.

> It's exactly the opposite of the way it is now. Was there a big call for
> this? Did I miss the uprising? :-)

Not really. The same feature has been there since Mac OS X was first
released. Some people prefer to work that way, some don't.

Personally I use both ways depending on what I'm trying to do, and I
can't see any reason at at all for me to ever need tabbed Finder
windows ... so in that sense I agree with you that the option should
stil be there.

[Martin Frost me at invalid stanford daht edu]

An option is monovision, which gives you near vision (e.g., for
reading) in one eye and distance vision in the other eye. That's what
I have after cataract surgery in one eye (for near vision) and wearing
a contact in the other (distance). It has worked out pretty well,
although there's an intermediate distance (2-3 feet) where I can't
focus so well, so I usually use glasses when using a computer (or else
I pull my head in close -- about 18 inches -- if I don't have my
glasses handy).

A good friend of mine in his 40s also chose monovision, via LASIK, and
he's happy with it too.

Now if we only had three eyes, I could have the middle one focused at
30 inches.

Good luck whichever way you go.

Martin

[FPP]

In article <021120132108085437%f...@bar.com>,

Kinda makes how a folder opens a little less life changing, doesn't it...

[FPP]

In article <031120131740389012%Your...@YourISP.com>,

Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:

> It's not closing the previous folder, it's simply replacing it.

A distinction without a difference. I still can't drag files to a
folder that's no longer open...

> Personally I use both ways depending on what I'm trying to do, and I
> can't see any reason at at all for me to ever need tabbed Finder
> windows ... so in that sense I agree with you that the option should
> stil be there.

That would be the smart thing to do. I'm not protesting different
workflows. I'm pissed that they removed a preference for no obvious
reason in favor of tabbed windows (I'm presuming).

At home, it's not a big deal - I stay in one system. At work, it means
disupting how you do your job. I've only been playing with it for week,
and I can't tell you how many times I've had to backtrack through
windows to get to a folder that I shouldn't have had to fish for.

But then, that's why we "play" with a new system. Now I'm going to have
to remember that Mavericks opens windows differently from Snow Leopard -
and I've got to remember which system I'm in at any given time. (That's
not so hard... we use a desktop picture of whichever cat we're using.)

Different cats are easy to spot (pun intended). Now, different waves
are gonna' be a problem.

[Lloyd E Parsons]

On 2013-11-03 08:29:38 +0000, Martin Frost me at invalid stanford daht

They've got new lenses that are multi-focal so some can get them and
not need reading glasses. Unfortunately Medicare/Tricare-for-life
won't pay for them. So I use reading glasses.

My eye surgeon offered the monovision setup, but I had tried that with
contacts and it didn't work out for me very well.

--
Lloyd

[Michelle Steiner]

In article <mya9hlq...@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU>, Martin Frost me at

invalid stanford daht edu <nos...@stanford.edu.invalid> wrote:

> An option is monovision, which gives you near vision (e.g., for
> reading) in one eye and distance vision in the other eye.

I tried that with contacts; I couldn't adjust to it. *sigh* A friend
of mine tried it with LASIK, and eight years later, she needed reading
glasses anyway because her vision changed.

> Good luck whichever way you go.

Thanks.

[Michelle Steiner]

In article <l55hla$64q$1...@dont-email.me>, Lloyd E Parsons

<lloy...@live.com> wrote:

> They've got new lenses that are multi-focal so some can get them and
> not need reading glasses.

I tried them with contacts and they didn't work well for me; my
Presbyopia is so severe that they don't make multifocal contacts that
can handle the difference between prescriptions.

> Unfortunately Medicare/Tricare-for-life won't pay for them. So I use
> reading glasses.

Unfortunately, the VA doesn't pay for contacts, so I wind up paying for
them out of pocket. Fortunately, Arizona allows all medical expenses
to be deducted, unlike the federal income tax rules.

[Michelle Steiner]

In article <fredp151-462F42...@news.eternal-september.org>,

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > If the VA says my cataracts aren't bad enough to warrant surgery,
> > I'll wait until they are bad enough.
>
> Kinda makes how a folder opens a little less life changing, doesn't
> it...

*laugh*

-- Michelle

[Lloyd E Parsons]

On 2013-11-03 15:37:26 +0000, Michelle Steiner said:

> In article <l55hla$64q$1...@dont-email.me>, Lloyd E Parsons
> <lloy...@live.com> wrote:
>
>> They've got new lenses that are multi-focal so some can get them and
>> not need reading glasses.
>
> I tried them with contacts and they didn't work well for me; my
> Presbyopia is so severe that they don't make multifocal contacts that
> can handle the difference between prescriptions.

Too bad, I've heard good things about them. But then VA wouldn't do
them even if they would work I suspect. I think most insurance/medical
plans, including gov't ones, will only pay for single vision lenses for
cataract surgery.

With Medicare/Tricare, I had no out of pocket, but would have to have
paid about $1K per eye to get the better lens I was told.

Fortunately I'm tickled pink with my 'new eyes'!! :)

>
>> Unfortunately Medicare/Tricare-for-life won't pay for them. So I use
>> reading glasses.
>
> Unfortunately, the VA doesn't pay for contacts, so I wind up paying for
> them out of pocket. Fortunately, Arizona allows all medical expenses
> to be deducted, unlike the federal income tax rules.

Neither does Medicare/Tricare. In fact they don't pay for optometrist
stuff at all. Only for certain eye issues treated by an Opthomalogist.

--
Lloyd

[Michelle Steiner]

In article <l55r5t$s0j$1...@dont-email.me>, Lloyd E Parsons

The VA hospital here has an eye clinic; as best as I can tell, it
doesn't have any optometrists on staff, just opthamologists. However,
they're so booked up that they contracted with a civilian eye clinic
for my (and most likely lots of other veterans') appointment next week.

What service were you in, and when did you serve. I was army, from
1961 to 1983.

[Lloyd E Parsons]

I was Navy from 1961 to 1983. Retired as E8 with no disability.

A little family history and current.

My family was very military. My granddad was Navy for how many years,
no one ever knew, the stories he could tell about his time were nothing
short of amazing and riveting.

my dad retired after 22 years in 1957, my uncle retired 10 years later
from the army, my youngest daughter just retired after 22 years from
Navy and her husband will retire one of these days from Navy also. My
eldest daughter's husband retired from the Marines after 32 years.

And there were my 2 sons that went Navy but didn't make it a career,
and other uncles, cousins and nephews that were in various services.

--
Lloyd

[Michelle Steiner]

In article <l55sa2$39b$1...@dont-email.me>, Lloyd E Parsons

<lloy...@live.com> wrote:

> > What service were you in, and when did you serve. I was army, from
> > 1961 to 1983.
>
> I was Navy from 1961 to 1983. Retired as E8 with no disability.

As an E7, I knew that I wouldn't be able to hack it as a First
Sergeant, so I became a warrant officer, I retired as a CWO. In late
2001 or early 2002, I applied for disability and got 10%, which was
later upgraded to 20%. It's for diabetes contracted as a result of
contact with Agent Orange.

My dad and uncles served in WWII (one uncle in the army, the rest in
the navy), but didn't make a career of it. My daughter put in four
years in the army, and her husband retired as an E7 after 21 years.

[Your Name]

In article <fredp151-16551D...@news.eternal-september.org>,

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <031120131740389012%Your...@YourISP.com>,
> Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:
>
> > It's not closing the previous folder, it's simply replacing it.
>
> A distinction without a difference. I still can't drag files to a
> folder that's no longer open...

Some people will tell you that's what Column View is for (as long as
you're moving files between folders in the same heirarchy.

Assuming the option is gone and that no third-party creates an extra to
bring it back, then we're stuck with having to open two windows and
trawl down the folders twice to get to the appropriate points ...which
is the pain-in-the-sit-upon approach that Windoze uses (although
admitedly I've never had time to look for an "open in new window"
option there).

If cut-paste works, then you can cut the file from the source folder,
use the back button to go back up the folder path and then paste the
file into the new location ... still more of a hassle than simply
dragging it though.

[gtr]

On 2013-11-03 10:38:23 +0000, FPP said:

> In article <031120131740389012%Your...@YourISP.com>,
> Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:
>
>> It's not closing the previous folder, it's simply replacing it.
>
> A distinction without a difference. I still can't drag files to a
> folder that's no longer open...

I know you're not looking for solutions, and so don't want to hear of
efficiencies, but if you open a folder with cmd-dbl-click (I
know--twice the labor), it will open in another tab you may then drag
the files to the other tab and they are there.

Just a footnote for those who may not know but you can always cmd-[ or
cmd-] to move backwards or forwards through your various changes.

...Not that it addresses your complaints.

> At home, it's not a big deal - I stay in one system. At work, it means
> disupting how you do your job. I've only been playing with it for week,
> and I can't tell you how many times I've had to backtrack through
> windows to get to a folder that I shouldn't have had to fish for.

I've chided you here for what I consider a small and inconsequential
change, but I stress again that I do sympathize with your difficulties.
Sometimes the tiniest changes in work flow, ones that you've come to do
endlessly every day are the only ones that you don't want to change:
It's almost like moving the "backspace" key to the other side of the
keyboard or something.

The most important thing is--it doesn't effect me in anyway!

[FPP]

In article <201311031718075724-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:

> I've chided you here for what I consider a small and inconsequential
> change, but I stress again that I do sympathize with your difficulties.
> Sometimes the tiniest changes in work flow, ones that you've come to do
> endlessly every day are the only ones that you don't want to change:
> It's almost like moving the "backspace" key to the other side of the
> keyboard or something.
>
> The most important thing is--it doesn't effect me in anyway!

Well, *that's* been going on forever...

> Sounds like you need to take the bull by the horns, grab your Bible and open
> it to Exodus 21:28-30:

> In 1521, Martin Luther apparently drew on these verses to make what many say
> was history's first use of "it depends on whose ox is gored."

[gtr]

On 2013-11-05 12:27:44 +0000, FPP said:

> In article <201311031718075724-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>
>> I've chided you here for what I consider a small and inconsequential
>> change, but I stress again that I do sympathize with your difficulties.
>> Sometimes the tiniest changes in work flow, ones that you've come to do
>> endlessly every day are the only ones that you don't want to change:
>> It's almost like moving the "backspace" key to the other side of the
>> keyboard or something.
>>
>> The most important thing is--it doesn't effect me in anyway!
>
> Well, *that's* been going on forever...
>
>> Sounds like you need to take the bull by the horns, grab your Bible and open
>> it to Exodus 21:28-30:

I don't know know who brought the bibler into the discussion, but it
wouldn't have been me.

[FPP]

Just a footnote. The martin Luther quote just means that Everything
depends upon your perspective - and it's been that way forever.