SL - was it worth the £25?
Phil Taylor
Cheaper than previous OS versions.
So was it worth it?
Cons:
My Appletalk-connected printer no longer works, and will never do so,
so I'll have to keep Leopard around anyway just for printing.
File creator types are no longer recognised, so files belonging to
older programs no longer display the correct icon and open the wrong
program when double-clicked, unless they are given file extensions.
The system of setting which program opens which file is still just as
wonky as it's always been under OS X. (Get Info�, choose a program,
click Change All - hold your breath. Sometimes it works.)
Click and hold on a Dock icon to get the popup menu no longer works.
Instead it activates expose (if it's a running app). Have to use
right-click instead. That is at least consistent, if irritating until
I get used to it.
Quicktime Player X sucks! In order to make it look pretty and run in a
frameless window they've removed the drag bar and the controls. You
have to mouse across the window to see these, and they then obscure
parts of the picture. It doesn't recognise my QT player pro
registration, and doesn't support any of that program's editing or
export feature which I use a lot. Many movies don't open, despite the
fact that the codecs required are there.
Neutral:
Microsoft Exchange? I don't even know what that is.
QT player X can export movies to YouTube etc. I'll never use that.
64 bit? I suppose it's the future, but from the user's POV there's
nothing to see here.
Pros:
Apple do supply a carefully-hidden copy of Quicktime PLayer 7 on the
installer disk.
The Aurora picture in the login screen is a prettier colour.
Um. Anything else?
Phil Taylor
Martin S Taylor
> Um. Anything else?
Image Capture much improved.
Sensible way of displaying folder contents from the dock (option of fan,
grid, list, etc.)
iChat slightly improved (though Chax is broken).
More useful information provided when ejecting a disk.
MST
James Jolley
>
> Pros:
>
> Apple do supply a carefully-hidden copy of Quicktime PLayer 7 on the
> installer disk.
>
> The Aurora picture in the login screen is a prettier colour.
>
> Um. Anything else?
Sorry to bring out this old chestnut again, improved accessibility.
VoiceOver under 10.6 is well worth the upgrade fee for any visually
impaired person. The contextual help, the improved web navigation,
better verbosity control, etc, etc, make it a steal for me. Would never
use Leopard again.
Best
-James-
jonny
> Installed for a couple of weeks now. Installation very easy.
> Cheaper than previous OS versions.
> So was it worth it?
>
> Cons:
>
> My Appletalk-connected printer no longer works, and will never do so,
> so I'll have to keep Leopard around anyway just for printing.
>
> File creator types are no longer recognised, so files belonging to
> older programs no longer display the correct icon and open the wrong
> program when double-clicked, unless they are given file extensions.
> The system of setting which program opens which file is still just as
> click Change All - hold your breath. Sometimes it works.)
>
> Click and hold on a Dock icon to get the popup menu no longer works.
> Instead it activates expose (if it's a running app). Have to use
> right-click instead. That is at least consistent, if irritating until
> I get used to it.
>
> Quicktime Player X sucks! In order to make it look pretty and run in a
> frameless window they've removed the drag bar and the controls. You
> have to mouse across the window to see these, and they then obscure
> parts of the picture. It doesn't recognise my QT player pro
> registration, and doesn't support any of that program's editing or
> export feature which I use a lot. Many movies don't open, despite the
> fact that the codecs required are there.
>
> Neutral:
>
> Microsoft Exchange? I don't even know what that is.
>
> QT player X can export movies to YouTube etc. I'll never use that.
>
> 64 bit? I suppose it's the future, but from the user's POV there's
> nothing to see here.
>
> Pros:
>
> Apple do supply a carefully-hidden copy of Quicktime PLayer 7 on the
> installer disk.
>
> The Aurora picture in the login screen is a prettier colour.
>
> Um. Anything else?
>
> Phil Taylor
The most annoying thing for me, about upgrading was it broke MacPorts, I
had to wipe the lot and start again.
Chris Ridd
> Quicktime Player X sucks! In order to make it look pretty and run in a
> frameless window they've removed the drag bar and the controls. You
> have to mouse across the window to see these, and they then obscure
> parts of the picture. It doesn't recognise my QT player pro
> registration, and doesn't support any of that program's editing or
> export feature which I use a lot. Many movies don't open, despite the
> fact that the codecs required are there.
Install QuickTime 7 then, it'll use the extra codecs and your old QT
Pro license. Currently QT X is usable but incomplete. QT 7 fills in the
incomplete parts.
> 64 bit? I suppose it's the future, but from the user's POV there's
> nothing to see here.
There will be marginal speed improvements.
--
Chris
Ian McCall
<m...@hRyEpMnOoVtEiTsHm.cIo.uSk> said:
> iChat slightly improved (though Chax is broken).
I'm using Chax with it here fine - what are you finding wrong?
Cheers,
Ian
Elliott Roper
<not...@all.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
> Um. Anything else?
Cons
afp://mumble.local has gone glacial and intermittent when connecting to
another SL Mac on the LAN
Pros
The Finder has gone sane. Fast, reliable, non-crashy; keyboard nav
improved out of sight; finder spotlight works far better and comes back
to the same view you left it in. And you can set a pref for where to
start your search from. And, at long last, hitting up and down arrow
with the shift key down extends AND decreases the selection at the
current position. Oh frabjous day!
Um, Preview is even nicer?
--
To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248
Jaimie Vandenbergh
wrote:
>The Finder has gone sane. Fast, reliable, non-crashy; keyboard nav
>improved out of sight; finder spotlight works far better and comes back
>to the same view you left it in. And you can set a pref for where to
>start your search from. And, at long last, hitting up and down arrow
>with the shift key down extends AND decreases the selection at the
>current position. Oh frabjous day!
On the down side, when browsing a network share, if you delete a
folder in 3column view it takes you all the way back to the top level.
Also, deleting a file or folder on a share doesn't give you a
keystroke to choose "yes" in the yes/no box.
Both of these annoy the crap out of me, since most of my stuff lives
on a NAS box.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"If hard work were such a wonderful thing, surely the rich would
have kept it for themselves." - Joseph Lane Kirkland
Elliott Roper
Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 17:14:48 +0000, Elliott Roper <nos...@yrl.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >The Finder has gone sane. Fast, reliable, non-crashy; keyboard nav
> >improved out of sight; finder spotlight works far better and comes back
> >to the same view you left it in. And you can set a pref for where to
> >start your search from. And, at long last, hitting up and down arrow
> >with the shift key down extends AND decreases the selection at the
> >current position. Oh frabjous day!
>
> On the down side, when browsing a network share, if you delete a
> folder in 3column view it takes you all the way back to the top level.
What is this 3column view of which you speak? Round here, in common or
garden column view, deleting a folder on a share takes you one
directory up. As it does on local folders. Where else would be sensible
after the rug you are standing on has been ripped out from under?
> Also, deleting a file or folder on a share doesn't give you a
> keystroke to choose "yes" in the yes/no box.
You mean where you get the dialog "cancel" and "delete" with the
"cancel" highlit?
What's wrong with tab space? Like in just about every other dialog on
the machine.
Oh wait! The keyboard system preference...
Yep! Keyboard shortcuts � Full Keyboard Access � All controls
(^F7 toggles between that and textboxes and lists only)
I'd forgotten that was a preference. Keyboard navaholic that I am.
>
> Both of these annoy the crap out of me, since most of my stuff lives
> on a NAS box.
--
Martin S Taylor
>> iChat slightly improved (though Chax is broken).
>
> I'm using Chax with it here fine - what are you finding wrong?
I haven't tried the SL version, as it's only in alpha at the moment. Is it
sound?
MST
Martin S Taylor
>> Quicktime Player X sucks! In order to make it look pretty and run in a
>> frameless window they've removed the drag bar and the controls. You
>> have to mouse across the window to see these, and they then obscure
>> parts of the picture. It doesn't recognise my QT player pro
>> registration, and doesn't support any of that program's editing or
>> export feature which I use a lot. Many movies don't open, despite the
>> fact that the codecs required are there.
>
> Install QuickTime 7 then, it'll use the extra codecs and your old QT
> Pro license. Currently QT X is usable but incomplete. QT 7 fills in the
> incomplete parts.
Could someone clarify, please, the difference between what is meant by "QT 7"
and "QT X"? Are they just different programs for playing movies, or has the
whole structure of QuickTime and how it lives in the operating system been
altered in SL?
MST
Ian McCall
<m...@hRyEpMnOoVtEiTsHm.cIo.uSk> said:
Had forgotten it was alpha in fact - perfectly sound, yes. Haven't had
any hassles with it at all.
Cheers,
Ian
Phil Taylor
Where's that then? When I eject a disk here it just disappears from
the desktop.
Phil Taylor
Phil Taylor
Colin Harper <colin...@x.com.invalid> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 22:07:12 +0000, Martin S Taylor wrote
> (in article <0001HW.C752FF10...@text.news.virginmedia.com>):
> QT 7 is what used to be QT. It's where your 'Pro' license would be, should
> you have one.
>
> QT X is an ipod-like (er, help!) movie player that doesn't do much in the way
> of editing. Well, it does some 'trim' thing, but I find it hard to use.
>
> Movie files associate with QT X by default on Snow, which is not good. I hate
> the floaty controls in QT X. Still I guess it's okay if you want to just view
> a movie. So glad they left in the real QT though, but one has to wonder for
> how long.
I suspect (hope?) that QT X is simply unfinished, which is why Apple
still give you the option of using QT 7.
Movie files don't associate with QT X by default, they actually
associate with Quicktime Player Launcher.app (do a Get Info� on a movie
file and you'll see). If you have both players installed, this checks
the movie to see if it will work with QT Player X, and if not launches
the older player. Looks like a classic programming kludge to me:-)
Phil Taylor
Elliott Roper
<not...@all.invalid> wrote:
When something was still using the disk it was "try quitting
applications" Now it has a better guess at telling you which one.
Rowland McDonnell
> Installed for a couple of weeks now. Installation very easy.
> Cheaper than previous OS versions.
> So was it worth it?
[snip]
Mine was free. It works better than 10.4 at what it does; too many
abilities have been removed for my liking.
Rowland.
--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland....@dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
Phil Taylor
Colin Harper <colin...@x.com.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 01:09:20 +0000, Phil Taylor wrote
> (in article <201220090109203379%not...@all.invalid>):
>
>
> > Movie files don't associate with QT X by default, they actually
> > associate with Quicktime Player Launcher.app (do a Get Info� on a movie
> > file and you'll see). If you have both players installed, this checks
> > the movie to see if it will work with QT Player X, and if not launches
> > the older player. Looks like a classic programming kludge to me:-)
> >
>
> Wow, I didn't know that. I haven't opened a single movie on here since Snow
> that has launched QT 7 by default. Even flip4mac stuff, or divx.
>
> Cheers for the info.
I have a copy of EvoCam running here, which downloads and saves
timelapse movies from security cams. If I double-click yesterday's
movie it opens QTPX, whereas today's movie will open in QTP7. I think
this is because QTPX cannot deal with files which are already open by
another program.
Phil Taylor
Phil Taylor
<nos...@yrl.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <201220090058334521%not...@all.invalid>, Phil Taylor
> <not...@all.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <0001HW.C752738E...@text.news.virginmedia.com>,
> > Martin S Taylor <m...@hRyEpMnOoVtEiTsHm.cIo.uSk> wrote:
> >
> > > Phil Taylor wrote
> > > > Um. Anything else?
> > >
> > > Image Capture much improved.
> > >
> > > Sensible way of displaying folder contents from the dock (option of fan,
> > > grid, list, etc.)
> > >
> > > iChat slightly improved (though Chax is broken).
> > >
> > > More useful information provided when ejecting a disk.
> >
> > Where's that then? When I eject a disk here it just disappears from
> > the desktop.
>
> When something was still using the disk it was "try quitting
> applications" Now it has a better guess at telling you which one.
Ah yes, so it does.
Phil Taylor
Jaimie Vandenbergh
wrote:
>In article <0q6qi5lrqh7m7a5fr...@4ax.com>, Jaimie
>Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 17:14:48 +0000, Elliott Roper <nos...@yrl.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The Finder has gone sane. Fast, reliable, non-crashy; keyboard nav
>> >improved out of sight; finder spotlight works far better and comes back
>> >to the same view you left it in. And you can set a pref for where to
>> >start your search from. And, at long last, hitting up and down arrow
>> >with the shift key down extends AND decreases the selection at the
>> >current position. Oh frabjous day!
>>
>> On the down side, when browsing a network share, if you delete a
>> folder in 3column view it takes you all the way back to the top level.
>
>What is this 3column view of which you speak? Round here, in common or
>garden column view, deleting a folder on a share takes you one
>directory up. As it does on local folders. Where else would be sensible
>after the rug you are standing on has been ripped out from under?
Not here, pops all the way to the my-computer-name entry on the
sidebar when I delete. Might be a function of the relationship between
SL and my NAS, running netatalk.
Yes, deleting a sub-sub-folder on the share mounted from my Airport
just pops up one level, as expected. Mutter.
Argh. And when mounting an SMB share off the same NAS, it does the
one-level pop too.
Anyone else running a Linux box with netatalk who can test this one on
theirs?
>> Also, deleting a file or folder on a share doesn't give you a
>> keystroke to choose "yes" in the yes/no box.
>
>You mean where you get the dialog "cancel" and "delete" with the
>"cancel" highlit?
>What's wrong with tab space? Like in just about every other dialog on
>the machine.
It's shit, because in Leopard it used to have a glowy blue outer
meaning I could press space to activate it.
>Oh wait! The keyboard system preference...
>Yep! Keyboard shortcuts � Full Keyboard Access � All controls
>(^F7 toggles between that and textboxes and lists only)
I have that set. I can do tab, space. It just annoys me as a
completely pointless change - I used to be able to do just space.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
Growing old is mandatory, growing up is optional.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
wrote:
>In article <201220090058334521%not...@all.invalid>, Phil Taylor
><not...@all.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <0001HW.C752738E...@text.news.virginmedia.com>,
>> Martin S Taylor <m...@hRyEpMnOoVtEiTsHm.cIo.uSk> wrote:
>>
>> > Phil Taylor wrote
>> > > Um. Anything else?
>> >
>> > Image Capture much improved.
>> >
>> > Sensible way of displaying folder contents from the dock (option of fan,
>> > grid, list, etc.)
>> >
>> > iChat slightly improved (though Chax is broken).
>> >
>> > More useful information provided when ejecting a disk.
>>
>> Where's that then? When I eject a disk here it just disappears from
>> the desktop.
>
>When something was still using the disk it was "try quitting
>applications" Now it has a better guess at telling you which one.
Sometimes, but not always. It's definitely better, but Apple have
hoist themselves by their own petard by insisting on pretending that
only .apps exist, rather than unix binaries.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -
massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining,
and a source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you
least expect it." -- Gene Spafford
Martin S Taylor
>> Could someone clarify, please, the difference between what is meant by "QT
>> 7" and "QT X"? Are they just different programs for playing movies, or has
the
>> whole structure of QuickTime and how it lives in the operating system been
>> altered in SL?
>
> you have one.
>
> QT X is an ipod-like (er, help!) movie player that doesn't do much in the way
> of editing. Well, it does some 'trim' thing, but I find it hard to use.
So in SL there's no essential change in the QuickTime technology which
inhabits the operating system, then?
MST
SM
There's an article here:
<http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/6>
Stuart
--
cut that out to reply
James Jolley
real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) said:
> Phil Taylor <not...@all.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Installed for a couple of weeks now. Installation very easy.
>> Cheaper than previous OS versions.
>> So was it worth it?
>
> [snip]
>
> Mine was free. It works better than 10.4 at what it does; too many
> abilities have been removed for my liking.
>
> Rowland.
Awwww! To much accessibility has been added in for my liking. Whiner!
Elliott Roper
Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 20:18:58 +0000, Elliott Roper <nos...@yrl.co.uk>
> wrote:
<snip>
> >You mean where you get the dialog "cancel" and "delete" with the
> >"cancel" highlit?
> >What's wrong with tab space? Like in just about every other dialog on
> >the machine.
>
> It's shit, because in Leopard it used to have a glowy blue outer
> meaning I could press space to activate it.
>
> >Oh wait! The keyboard system preference...
> >Yep! Keyboard shortcuts � Full Keyboard Access � All controls
> >(^F7 toggles between that and textboxes and lists only)
>
> I have that set. I can do tab, space. It just annoys me as a
> completely pointless change - I used to be able to do just space.
Ah, so it does/did. Either a bug or a gentle reminder that it really
will be deleted at once.
My regards to your sigmonster. It is in fine form today.
""Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -
massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining,
and a source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you
least expect it." -- Gene Spafford"
Quality!! A more authoritative source would be hard to find.
Pd
> My regards to your sigmonster. It is in fine form today.
> ""Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -
> massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining,
> and a source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you
> least expect it." -- Gene Spafford"
>
> Quality!! A more authoritative source would be hard to find.
One of the few reasonably well authenticated members of the cabal, if
there were ever to be one.
--
Pd
Martin S Taylor
>> So in SL there's no essential change in the QuickTime technology which
>> inhabits the operating system, then?
>
> There's an article here:
>
> <http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/6>
Thanks. This one helps, too.
<http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/16>
MST
Gordon
> Installed for a couple of weeks now. Installation very easy.
> Cheaper than previous OS versions.
> So was it worth it?
>
>
> My Appletalk-connected printer no longer works, and will never do so,
> so I'll have to keep Leopard around anyway just for printing.
>
> File creator types are no longer recognised, so files belonging to
> older programs no longer display the correct icon and open the wrong
> program when double-clicked, unless they are given file extensions.
> The system of setting which program opens which file is still just as
> click Change All - hold your breath. Sometimes it works.)
>
> Click and hold on a Dock icon to get the popup menu no longer works.
> Instead it activates expose (if it's a running app). Have to use
> right-click instead. That is at least consistent, if irritating until
> I get used to it.
>
> frameless window they've removed the drag bar and the controls. You
> have to mouse across the window to see these, and they then obscure
> parts of the picture. It doesn't recognise my QT player pro
> registration, and doesn't support any of that program's editing or
> export feature which I use a lot. Many movies don't open, despite the
> fact that the codecs required are there.
>
>
> Microsoft Exchange? I don't even know what that is.
>
> QT player X can export movies to YouTube etc. I'll never use that.
>
> nothing to see here.
>
>
> Apple do supply a carefully-hidden copy of Quicktime PLayer 7 on the
> installer disk.
>
> The Aurora picture in the login screen is a prettier colour.
>
> Um. Anything else?
>
> Phil Taylor
64 bit will come into its own with RAM intensive software, such as
Photoshop or 3D packages. 32 bits limits memory address space to 4
gigs per app. If you've got a lot of huge files with a lot of layers
open in Photoshop you can brush up against this limit and run into
problems. 64 bit allows far bigger chunks to be allocated.
Rowland McDonnell
James, what the hell are you talking about?
Have you joined the `We all hate Rowland clique', or what?
Rowland.
(baffled by this bizarre and inexplicable outburst, based seemingly on
nothing other than a lunatic desire to attribute to me some imagined
unpleasant aspect, although what that might be I cannot divine)
James Jolley
real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) said:
> James Jolley <jrjo...@me.com> wrote:
>
>> real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) said:
>>
>>> Phil Taylor <not...@all.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Installed for a couple of weeks now. Installation very easy.
>>>> Cheaper than previous OS versions.
>>>> So was it worth it?
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Mine was free. It works better than 10.4 at what it does; too many
>>> abilities have been removed for my liking.
>>>
>>> Rowland.
>>
>> Awwww! To much accessibility has been added in for my liking. Whiner!
>
> James, what the hell are you talking about?
>
> Have you joined the `We all hate Rowland clique', or what?
>
> Rowland.
> (baffled by this bizarre and inexplicable outburst, based seemingly on
> nothing other than a lunatic desire to attribute to me some imagined
> unpleasant aspect, although what that might be I cannot divine)
No, course not. It just seems like you're never really happy with the
mac OS in general. Obviously it's changed since OS 9, in my case for
the better. These things are all about compromises. Nothing's perfect.
Best
-James-
Ian McCall
Rowland McDonnell
> On 2009-12-22 04:39:01 +0000,
> real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) said:
>
> > James Jolley <jrjo...@me.com> wrote:
> >
> >> real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) said:
> >>
> >>> Phil Taylor <not...@all.invalid> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Installed for a couple of weeks now. Installation very easy.
> >>>> Cheaper than previous OS versions.
> >>>> So was it worth it?
> >>>
> >>> [snip]
> >>>
> >>> Mine was free. It works better than 10.4 at what it does; too many
> >>> abilities have been removed for my liking.
> >>>
> >>> Rowland.
> >>
> >> Awwww! To much accessibility has been added in for my liking. Whiner!
> >
> > James, what the hell are you talking about?
> >
> > Have you joined the `We all hate Rowland clique', or what?
> >
> > Rowland.
> > (baffled by this bizarre and inexplicable outburst, based seemingly on
> > nothing other than a lunatic desire to attribute to me some imagined
> > unpleasant aspect, although what that might be I cannot divine)
>
> No, course not.
What do you mean `of course not'? Of course YES! - what you deny is
what you did, and you even quoted the evidence in your reply!
Have you gone completely insane?
> It just seems like you're never really happy with the
> mac OS in general.
1) So what?
2) Why did you hurl mad abuse at me?
I can't see you've made any sort of sane point at all.
> Obviously it's changed since OS 9, in my case for
> the better.
MacOS 9 was probably the worst MacOS version released. So what?
I really do not understand what you are getting at. MacOS X took
abilities away from me: MacOS X denies me access to things I used to be
able to do. It's less accessible, is MacOS X, compared to previous
versions - because it's taken things away from me.
You seem to take the line that because MacOS X is better for you, then
anyone who doesn't like it should be flamed into oblivion then cast into
the outer darkness for having the temerity for suggesting that needs
other than yours might possibly have some significance.
Or so it seems to me.
> These things are all about compromises. Nothing's perfect.
<puzzled> Obviously.
I keep a Mac capable of running Classic on this desk because I need
access to Classic software which has not been replaced by MacOS X
equivalents.
Since MacOS X denies me access to things I can do under System 6 and
System 7, I call it less good in significant respects.
Your response seems to be a total non-sequitur.
Rowland.
James Jolley
real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) said:
> James Jolley <jrjo...@me.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-12-22 04:39:01 +0000,
>> real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) said:
>>
>>> James Jolley <jrjo...@me.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) said:
>>>>
>>>>> Phil Taylor <not...@all.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Installed for a couple of weeks now. Installation very easy.
>>>>>> Cheaper than previous OS versions.
>>>>>> So was it worth it?
>>>>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>> Mine was free. It works better than 10.4 at what it does; too many
>>>>> abilities have been removed for my liking.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rowland.
>>>>
>>>> Awwww! To much accessibility has been added in for my liking. Whiner!
>>>
>>> James, what the hell are you talking about?
>>>
>>> Have you joined the `We all hate Rowland clique', or what?
>>>
>>> Rowland.
>>> (baffled by this bizarre and inexplicable outburst, based seemingly on
>>> nothing other than a lunatic desire to attribute to me some imagined
>>> unpleasant aspect, although what that might be I cannot divine)
>>
>> No, course not.
>
> What do you mean `of course not'? Of course YES! - what you deny is
> what you did, and you even quoted the evidence in your reply!
I'm not denying anything.
>
> Have you gone completely insane?
Not as far as I know.
>
>> It just seems like you're never really happy with the
>> mac OS in general.
>
> 1) So what?
What's the point of being on this group then? If you're not interested
in OS x because you want to use outdated technologies and in my case
inaccessible technologies then why bother with OS X at all?
>
> 2) Why did you hurl mad abuse at me?
I didn't think it was abuse. It's an observation. you do seem to
complain and whine a lot regarding how you hate this and that, how Mac
os X doesn't do this or the other, tough really as it's here and
working for many.
>
> I can't see you've made any sort of sane point at all.
I'd say whatever, but is this abusive as well?
>
>> Obviously it's changed since OS 9, in my case for
>> the better.
>
> MacOS 9 was probably the worst MacOS version released. So what?
The point being that access for the blind was completely shite in my
view. Outspoken, a third-party screen reader wasn't worth the 600 quid
asking price, crashed a good deal etc, etc. Macs have come on so much
for the disabled in general.
>
> I really do not understand what you are getting at. MacOS X took
> abilities away from me: MacOS X denies me access to things I used to be
> able to do. It's less accessible, is MacOS X, compared to previous
> versions - because it's taken things away from me.
What like? As far as I can see, OS x is much easier to use, less
crashy, not needing to rebuild the database constantly is worth it in
my view.
>
> You seem to take the line that because MacOS X is better for you, then
> anyone who doesn't like it should be flamed into oblivion then cast into
> the outer darkness for having the temerity for suggesting that needs
> other than yours might possibly have some significance.
The same could be said for you in that case. I'm all for equality of
viewpoints, but sometimes it's just how shit is, if things aren't
exactly what we want but can be made to work for us then fair enough.
It's like the iPhone. I could sit there and cry and whine about how
this app is inaccessible, how VO on the mac does this better or that
better, but there's no point. At the end of the day, technology
changes, implementation and software design changes.
>
> Or so it seems to me.
See the rest of this reply.
>
>> These things are all about compromises. Nothing's perfect.
>
> <puzzled> Obviously.
>
> I keep a Mac capable of running Classic on this desk because I need
> access to Classic software which has not been replaced by MacOS X
> equivalents.
I can sort of see it, but surely there are enough OS x apps available
now that make the need to run OS 9 or system 6/7 a waste of time?
Rowland McDonnell
[snip crazy post]
So you are denying that you posted the denial `No, of course not'?
That means the post in which that denial appears must be a forgery.
The headers are as follows:
Path: uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: James Jolley <jrjo...@me.com>
Newsgroups: uk.comp.sys.mac
Subject:
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_MacOS_X_10.6_was_Re:_SL_-_was_it_worth_the___=A325=3F
?=
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 16:03:49 +0000
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <7pc8v5...@mid.individual.net>
References:
<1jb3yw2.1j2iwj8s0mk70N%real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net
SmMIr0WbAUaHCK9wustx5Q9J7kg1Yk7Uksd/VBFVkzm+6dDNz7
Cancel-Lock: sha1:a1mzCA+6GB/YUHxSX/pJTbwcPZM=
User-Agent: Unison/1.8.1
Xref: uni-berlin.de uk.comp.sys.mac:598203
Who made that post, if not you?
It must be a forgery, since you state you did not deny anything.
James Jolley
real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) said:
Fuck you then, plonk! I gave a reasoned reply, talk about waste of time!
Dr. Goof Prone
You know things are getting bad when he starts posting headers. You've just
made it onto Rowlie's Hate List.
--
"It does help me when I want people dead. 100 million
people died today. Many of them were lovely people who died too soon.
I wouldn't be unhappy if someone I considered a blot on humanity joined
them."
Rowland McDonnell - Wants People Dead Since 1999 - 24Jun99
James Jolley
> You know things are getting bad when he starts posting headers. You've just
> made it onto Rowlie's Hate List.
Ah well, shit happens I guess. The guy was reasonable once, now he just
comes over a complete tit. Shame really as I thought I could get
through to him. The fact that he's a whining twat constantly is
something to note, the guy's never happy.
Best
-JAmes-
Rowland McDonnell
> Ah well, shit happens I guess. The guy was reasonable once, now he just
> comes over a complete tit.
But James, you are having a `discussion' with a troll who has come here
to do me down.
Funnily enough, you've never managed to explain what your objections to
me are in terms that actually apply to me - all I get is this baseless
personal abuse, which appears to have no source other than your
malicious vindictiveness.
It's clear that you've decided that you want to be nasty to me for
reasons of pure malice - you're a grade A shit, suitable only for
composting.
>Shame really as I thought I could get
> through to him. The fact that he's a whining twat constantly is
> something to note, the guy's never happy.
Funnily enough, your opinion of me is the opinion I've developed about
you. You're never happy, always whining on about me for no reason at
all except a desire to make malicious false allegations to justify your
shittiness.
Your allegation that I'm a whining twat seems to be strange, coming as
it does in the middle of a post consisting of nothing but miserable
whines from a twat.
Your allegation against me is of course false and malicious, like the
pretty much all the shit you post about me.
(btw, of course I'm never bloody happy, I've got clinical depression -
well, fuck you, you blind twat, I hope your lack of eyesight makes you
walk into a bus next time you're out and if not, let's make sure you
never breed because your type just shouldn't be allowed. You sneer at
me due to my disability, I'll sneer at you over your disability - you
shit)
I've no idea why you think it's okay to post personal abuse directed at
me on this technical newsgroup, nor do I know why you think it's okay
for you whine on and on about me like this in public.
Actually, that's a lie, I know what's going on - you're just a
nasty-minded vindictive shit who's joined the I Hate Rowland Club which
the troll who's been lying to is recruiting for by posting malicious
lies about me and encouraging shits like you to post malicious lies
about me.
And you're doing that because you don't like me and you want to get lots
of other people joining in insulting me so as to justify your own vile
behaviour. After all, if lots of people call me a shit, then shit I
must be!
It's social bullying, James, and it's the behaviour of shits.
And it's you.
Or, to put it another way: James, you're a worthless shit, I despise
you, and if you have any decency in you *AT ALL* you will stop
publishing personal abuse directed at me.
Your behaviour so far indicates that you're a malicious vindictive bitch
so of course you'll just carry on.
Whining lying sadistic blind twat that you are.
James Jolley
real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) said:
> James Jolley <jrjo...@me.com> wrote:
>
>> Ah well, shit happens I guess. The guy was reasonable once, now he just
>> comes over a complete tit.
>
> But James, you are having a `discussion' with a troll who has come here
> to do me down.
Perhaps, but the guy did make some valid points.
>
>
> Funnily enough, you've never managed to explain what your objections to
> me are in terms that actually apply to me - all I get is this baseless
> personal abuse, which appears to have no source other than your
> malicious vindictiveness.
How is it abusive to say that you come over a whiner? The thing is,
you're actually good at what you do, that goes without saying. The
trouble is that you've decided to complain every chance you get.
>
> It's clear that you've decided that you want to be nasty to me for
> reasons of pure malice - you're a grade A shit, suitable only for
> composting.
That's good, hopefully the flowers will be in bloom much quicker then.
>
>> Shame really as I thought I could get
>> through to him. The fact that he's a whining twat constantly is
>> something to note, the guy's never happy.
>
> Funnily enough, your opinion of me is the opinion I've developed about
> you. You're never happy, always whining on about me for no reason at
> all except a desire to make malicious false allegations to justify your
> shittiness.
Again, I don't see that. I only make observations based on what I see.
To me, all you seem to do is complain.
>
> Your allegation that I'm a whining twat seems to be strange, coming as
> it does in the middle of a post consisting of nothing but miserable
> whines from a twat.
Some might think that, I couldn't possibly comment!
>
> Your allegation against me is of course false and malicious, like the
> pretty much all the shit you post about me.
Like the fact that you complain? Are never satisfied with anything?
Think you're an expert at everything? Put people down whenever they may
know more than you? That sort of thing you mean?
>
> (btw, of course I'm never bloody happy, I've got clinical depression -
Well that's my problem how? I've had depression but do you see me
complaining on here? People have there problems, we have to just get on
with it.
> well, fuck you, you blind twat, I hope your lack of eyesight makes you
> walk into a bus next time you're out and if not, let's make sure you
> never breed because your type just shouldn't be allowed. You sneer at
> me due to my disability, I'll sneer at you over your disability - you
> shit)
There's one difference, I get on with my life, you just expect others
to take the blame for you're behaviour. Oh and as for me falling under
a bus? Perhaps you could tell me what colour it was before I die, just
so I can at least say I met the colour of death headon!
>
> I've no idea why you think it's okay to post personal abuse directed at
> me on this technical newsgroup, nor do I know why you think it's okay
> for you whine on and on about me like this in public.
Again, see the rest of this post, though I don't expect you to bother replying.
>
> Actually, that's a lie, I know what's going on - you're just a
> nasty-minded vindictive shit who's joined the I Hate Rowland Club which
> the troll who's been lying to is recruiting for by posting malicious
> lies about me and encouraging shits like you to post malicious lies
> about me.
I'd say whatever, but you won't listen to anyone else but yourself.
>
> And you're doing that because you don't like me and you want to get lots
> of other people joining in insulting me so as to justify your own vile
> behaviour. After all, if lots of people call me a shit, then shit I
> must be!
You said it, not me! Remember that everyone, Rowland's a shit because
he says so.
Fucking tosser!
>
> It's social bullying, James, and it's the behaviour of shits.
Er, this group has tried to accomodate you for years from what I
understand. Why should we all sit back and let you abuse us? Sorry
mate, just because depression's become the new ADHD doesn't make you
exempt from having it dished back.
>
> And it's you.
Nice but only what one would expect.
>
> Or, to put it another way: James, you're a worthless shit, I despise
> you, and if you have any decency in you *AT ALL* you will stop
> publishing personal abuse directed at me.
What are you going to do about it? Nothing. I can post wherever the
hell I want, just as you do.
>
> Your behaviour so far indicates that you're a malicious vindictive bitch
> so of course you'll just carry on.
You say this about everyone who has a differing viewpoint to yours so
i'll not consider it thanks.
>
> Whining lying sadistic blind twat that you are.
You just carry on there mate, carry on talking shite, writing shite and
think what you want. I do my bit for this community, well perhaps not
this group but the blind in general. Perhaps you should remember that
everyone has strengths.
Best
-James-
Dr. Goof Prone
> James Jolley <jrjo...@me.com> wrote:
>
>> Ah well, shit happens I guess. The guy was reasonable once, now he just
>> comes over a complete tit.
>
> But James, you are having a `discussion' with a troll who has come here
> to do me down.
"Rowland, you have a brain please use it! You are the person on this NG
who attracts the trolls and feeds them most."
Loz - Wise Man of UPSD - Oct 30, 2008
>
> Funnily enough, you've never managed to explain what your objections to
> me are in terms that actually apply to me - all I get is this baseless
> personal abuse, which appears to have no source other than your
> malicious vindictiveness.
"Fuck off and die, the lot of you. I'd like to die but I don't know how."
Rowland McDonnell - Making Friends - Oct 26, 2008
>
> It's clear that you've decided that you want to be nasty to me for
> reasons of pure malice - you're a grade A shit, suitable only for
> composting.
ļæ½Oh, I'm just sick of this world, the shitty people, and all the fucking
shit. I wish all the bastards would just kill and compost themselves. We
could do something useful with them then."
- Rowland McDonnell showing his love for humanity. August 2007
>
>>Shame really as I thought I could get
>> through to him. The fact that he's a whining twat constantly is
>> something to note, the guy's never happy.
>
> Funnily enough, your opinion of me is the opinion I've developed about
> you. You're never happy, always whining on about me for no reason at
> all except a desire to make malicious false allegations to justify your
> shittiness.
"I can see the real thing: you're a total fucking wanker, along with
Zoara, Jim, and a few others arseholes like you."
Rowland McDonnell - Meeting Friends - 12May08
>
> Your allegation that I'm a whining twat seems to be strange, coming as
> it does in the middle of a post consisting of nothing but miserable
> whines from a twat.
"I can tell you that I don't pay any attention to any nasty things that
the trolls have posted about you because they're in my kill file and I
don't read their posts (well, hardly ever - and I really do mean `hardly
ever', not `10 posts a day from the trolls or more')."
Rowland McDonnell - Not Bothered By Trolls - March 6, 2009
>
> Your allegation against me is of course false and malicious, like the
> pretty much all the shit you post about me.
"He's taken it upon himself to attack me and hound me and generally
behave very nastily towards me because he's decided to hate me and so
feels justified in his vile and nasty behaviour towards me."
Trollin' Rowland McDonnell finds a new enemy - 03 Dec 07
>
> (btw, of course I'm never bloody happy, I've got clinical depression -
> well, fuck you, you blind twat, I hope your lack of eyesight makes you
> walk into a bus next time you're out and if not, let's make sure you
> never breed because your type just shouldn't be allowed. You sneer at
> me due to my disability, I'll sneer at you over your disability - you
> shit)
Make up your mind Rowlie. You used to brag you had Asperger's Syndrome.
Which is it Rowlie? How come people with depression aren't abusive like you
are?
>
> I've no idea why you think it's okay to post personal abuse directed at
> me on this technical newsgroup, nor do I know why you think it's okay
> for you whine on and on about me like this in public.
"I'm telling you that I'm right and you're wrong and that's that."
Rowland McDonnell - July 2007
>
> Actually, that's a lie, I know what's going on - you're just a
> nasty-minded vindictive shit who's joined the I Hate Rowland Club which
> the troll who's been lying to is recruiting for by posting malicious
> lies about me and encouraging shits like you to post malicious lies
> about me.
"Well, they know that I want to hunt them down and kill them
but haven't done so because it's illegal."
Rowland McDonnell - A bad case of troll paranoia.
>
> And you're doing that because you don't like me and you want to get lots
> of other people joining in insulting me so as to justify your own vile
> behaviour. After all, if lots of people call me a shit, then shit I
> must be!
"Most mothers are selfish self-centred child abusers from what I've seen."
Rowland McDonnell the Misogynist - Nov 28, 2007
>
> It's social bullying, James, and it's the behaviour of shits.
"People like you make me wish I were a murdering psychopath so I wouldn't
be as restrained as I am. The world doesn't need your sort and I am not
ashamed but deeply angry that Britain contains scum like you."
Rowland McDonnell - Wants to be a psychopath - May 5, 2008
>
> And it's you.
>
> Or, to put it another way: James, you're a worthless shit, I despise
> you, and if you have any decency in you *AT ALL* you will stop
> publishing personal abuse directed at me.
"Best you don't take any of my posts to this thread *TOO* seriously.
That would be a mistake."
Rowland McDonnell - He's bullshitting again - May 5, 2008
>
> Your behaviour so far indicates that you're a malicious vindictive bitch
> so of course you'll just carry on.
"Don't be daft: it's perfectly safe. No-one can harm anyone else here:
it's a text based internet forum. How can it be dangerous?"
Rowland McDonnell - August 2007
>
> Whining lying sadistic blind twat that you are.
>
"Some nice words from a kind person are useful words that help."
A kinder, gentler, Rowland McDonnell - 19 Dec 07