Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #101408 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-02-28 04:26 -0500 |
| Last post | 2017-02-28 19:31 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 200 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
What's the Verdict on FileVault? Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-02-28 04:26 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-28 04:31 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? "Andre G. Isaak" <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2017-02-28 03:24 -0700
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) - 2017-02-28 04:29 -0600
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Krzysztof Mitko <invalid@kmitko.at.list.dot.pl> - 2017-02-28 10:37 +0000
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-28 05:39 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? "Andre G. Isaak" <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2017-02-28 05:36 -0700
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-02-28 10:10 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-28 13:02 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-02-28 20:01 +0000
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-03-01 04:55 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? befr@eaglesoft.de (Bernd Fröhlich) - 2017-03-01 13:55 +0100
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-03-01 09:15 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Krzysztof Mitko <invalid@kmitko.at.list.dot.pl> - 2017-03-01 15:05 +0000
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-01 11:00 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-03-01 13:29 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-01 13:38 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-01 18:31 +0000
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-01 18:58 +0000
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-01 11:00 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? "David B." <DavidB@nomail.afraid.invalid> - 2017-03-01 16:56 +0000
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-03-01 13:54 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-03-01 13:53 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2017-03-01 19:14 +0000
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-01 14:30 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-01 19:30 +0000
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2017-03-01 21:38 +0000
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2017-03-02 12:49 +1300
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-03-01 19:28 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2017-03-02 13:45 +1300
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-02 00:42 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2017-03-02 18:50 +0000
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-03-02 14:08 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-02 14:26 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-03-02 14:46 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-02 14:58 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2017-03-02 19:26 +0000
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-02 01:25 +0000
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-02 13:52 +0000
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2017-03-03 12:04 +1300
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-03 00:30 +0000
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2017-03-02 18:38 +0000
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-01 19:20 +0000
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-03-01 17:02 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? dcohenspam@talktalk.net (Daniel Cohen) - 2017-03-02 20:42 +0000
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-02 20:46 +0000
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-01 14:30 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-03-01 17:05 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-01 17:08 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-03-01 17:48 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-02 01:11 +0000
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-03-01 21:13 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-02 03:49 +0000
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-03-02 08:24 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-02 14:11 +0000
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-02 16:10 +0000
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-03-02 11:47 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-02 17:16 +0000
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-03-02 13:05 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-03-02 13:54 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-02 13:58 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-03-02 14:23 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-02 13:58 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-02 20:50 +0000
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-02 12:30 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-03-02 13:27 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-02 13:58 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-02 19:53 +0000
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-02 12:30 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-02 18:23 +0000
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-02 13:58 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2017-03-03 04:44 -0800
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-02 20:48 +0000
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-02 00:42 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-02 14:09 +0000
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-02 00:57 +0000
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-01 16:03 +0000
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? "David B." <DavidB@nomail.afraid.invalid> - 2017-03-01 16:57 +0000
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-03-01 14:04 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Alrescha <alrescha@gmail.com> - 2017-03-01 15:52 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? "David B." <DavidB@nomail.afraid.invalid> - 2017-03-02 08:17 +0000
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-03-01 14:02 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-01 14:30 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-03-01 17:24 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-01 17:31 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-03-01 17:49 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-01 19:54 +0000
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-02 01:04 +0000
Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2017-03-01 18:57 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-01 14:24 -0500
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-03-01 14:46 -0500
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-02 01:09 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-02 01:33 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-02 14:01 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-02 16:19 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2017-03-03 04:46 -0800
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-03 15:02 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2017-03-03 17:15 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-03 21:47 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2017-03-02 18:33 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-02 20:17 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2017-03-02 20:27 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-03-02 16:56 -0500
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-02 22:08 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-03-02 20:30 -0500
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-03 03:08 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2017-03-03 04:10 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-03-03 17:03 +1100
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-03 16:03 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-03 07:36 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-03 07:35 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-03 14:55 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-03 00:36 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-03-02 16:46 -0500
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-02 22:08 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2017-03-03 12:04 +1300
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-02 23:52 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2017-03-03 13:13 +1300
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-03 00:45 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-01 19:43 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-03-01 15:01 -0500
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-01 15:02 -0500
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-01 20:41 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-02 01:07 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-03-02 00:48 -0500
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-02 00:50 -0500
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-03-02 19:55 +1100
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-02 13:59 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-02 16:18 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-02 18:17 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-03-02 13:36 -0500
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-02 20:43 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-03-02 16:58 -0500
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-02 22:08 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2017-03-03 12:04 +1300
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-03 00:35 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-03-01 17:41 -0500
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2017-03-01 22:51 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-03-01 18:25 -0500
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2017-03-01 23:43 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-02 01:00 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2017-03-02 18:20 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-02 19:57 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-03-01 18:48 -0500
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-02 01:07 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-02 01:11 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-02 00:56 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-02 14:06 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-02 16:20 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-02 12:30 -0500
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-02 18:20 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-03-02 13:33 -0500
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-02 13:58 -0500
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) "David B." <DavidB@nomail.afraid.invalid> - 2017-03-02 19:18 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2017-03-03 12:04 +1300
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard "David B." <DavidB@nomail.afraid.invalid> - 2017-03-03 08:03 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-03-02 13:27 -0500
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2017-03-02 18:23 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard (was Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?) Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-03-03 18:29 -0500
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2017-03-02 13:04 +1300
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-03-02 15:50 +1100
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2017-03-01 21:00 -0800
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2017-03-02 21:47 +1300
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-03-02 20:00 +1100
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-03-02 00:38 -0500
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2017-03-02 21:47 +1300
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-03-02 13:19 -0500
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2017-03-03 12:04 +1300
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-03-02 20:39 -0500
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2017-03-03 15:22 +1300
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-03-02 22:08 -0500
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-03 07:40 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-03-03 13:21 -0500
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-03-03 21:06 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2017-03-04 01:27 +1300
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-03-02 04:28 -0500
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2017-03-02 23:29 +1300
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2017-03-02 19:06 +0000
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-02 14:26 -0500
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-03-02 16:54 -0500
Re: Leaving Snow Leopard dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2017-03-03 12:04 +1300
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-03-01 17:13 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-02 01:20 +0000
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? "Andre G. Isaak" <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2017-02-28 11:19 -0700
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-02-28 10:08 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-28 13:02 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? "Andre G. Isaak" <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2017-02-28 11:21 -0700
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-28 14:06 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-02-28 10:40 +0000
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Alrescha <alrescha@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 09:24 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-02-28 15:51 +0000
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-03-01 05:00 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-01 18:36 +0000
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-02-28 18:51 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2017-02-28 17:24 -0800
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-03-01 05:02 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-03-01 18:36 +0000
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-03-01 07:52 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-01 11:00 -0500
Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault? Wade Garrett <wade@cooler.net> - 2017-02-28 19:31 -0500
Page 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-03 00:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnobhec4.1bq0.g.kreme@snow.local> |
| In reply to | #101697 |
In message <1n2azuf.1nd1xbhmdmu1rN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote: > Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: >> In message <1n29d21.1cnird4gaevy3N%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> David Empson >> <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote: >> > Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: >> >> >> On 2017-03-01, Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> wrote: >> >> > In article <0001HW.D4DC82C60129EF63B02919BF@news.astraweb.com>, >> >> > Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote: >> >> >> nospam wrote: >> >> >>> nonsense. apps can open older versions of files without issue. >> >> >> >> >> >>For someone so often wrong, you certainly speak with great certainty. >> >> >>Have you ever tried to open a Filemaker 3 file with the current >> >> >>version? Try it and stop back to let us know what happened. >> >> > >> >> > Yeah, "nospam" must be looking at a limited timeframe to make a >> >> > statement like that. >> >> >> >> I don't get that response either. Try opening an AppleWorks file in >> >> Sierra sometime. Not gonna happen. : ) >> >> > That particular case works for me: AppleWorks 6 WP/SS files open in >> > Pages 4.3 or Numbers 2.3 (the iWork '09 versions, not the current >> > versions). >> >> If you are fortunate enough to still have Pages '09, yes. But as far as >> I know, you cannot INSTALL Pages '09 on a Sierra Mac because the >> installer is PPC and Pages installs more than jsut the Application >> (though, for the simple expedience of conversion, you probably only need >> the App, and that is recoverable from opening the packages on the disc. > I was able to install iWork '09 from DVD recently on an Intel Mac > running El Capitan. It certainly isn't a PPC-only installer. Oh good! Glad to hear it. >> And, you also need a disc unless you had the foresight to keep a DMG >> around for the last 8 years. And an optical drive, of course. > I have certainly kept my iWork '09 DVD, which I got as part of a Mac Box > Set family pack with iLife '11 and Snow Leopard. iWork '09 has been > available from places like Amazon in recent years. Yes,. I didn't menpa YOU you, I meant <hand waving> the ephemeral you. Most people will not have an iWork '09 disc. -- Ten Minutes ago you beat a man senseless. He was senseless before I beat him.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-02 18:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o99oru$l3p$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #101590 |
In article <1n29d21.1cnird4gaevy3N%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>, David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote: > >That particular case works for me: AppleWorks 6 WP/SS files open in >Pages 4.3 or Numbers 2.3 (the iWork '09 versions, not the current >versions). > >Not so good for AppleWorks/ClarisWorks 5 or earlier (need a copy of >AppleWorks 6 to convert them) I had to do a bunch of such conversions before getting rid of my Power Mac 9500. It worked out okay. > nor for AppleWorks draw or paint >documents (which can be managed by copying their content into another >document type while running AppleWorks 6) It turns out--who knew?--that Numbers is quite functional for Draw-type documents. I redid the diagram of my living room A/V system in Numbers when I had to move on from AppleWorks and it turned out great. Patty
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-01 19:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ehol7dFm1sfU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #101554 |
On 2017-03-01, Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote: > On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 11:00:25 -0500, nospam wrote > (in article <010320171100258438%nospam@nospam.invalid>): > >> In article <0001HW.D4DC04D7010C6BB7B02919BF@news.astraweb.com>, Nelson >> <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote: >> >>>>>> Hmm. I'm using Snow Leopard and Time Machine so that's a "No"? >>>>> >>>>> why are you still using snow leopard??? >>> >>> Why are you not? >> >> because it's very old > > So am I :) Old is not a reason to upgrade per se. The lack of updates is definitely a reason to upgrade - especially if you are concerned with security (everyone should be). And we all know how crappy the web browsing experience is on such ancient operating systems. Sure, you can run an old version of Firefox, but even that has dropped support for 10.6: <https://support.mozilla.org/t5/Install-and-Update/Firefox-support-has-ended-for-Mac-OS-X-10-6-10-7-and-10-8/ta-p/32725> Web browsing is what very often forces people to finally upgrade their operating system; but security updates are way more important. >> no longer supported > > Heh. Like the current version is? So the current version of macOS is no longer supported? Something tells me you are *very* confused or maybe just trolling. >> you do lose rosetta, but that's about it. however, any app that >> hasn't been updated to run on intel is abandonware and is not getting >> bug fixes or security. > > Every bug they fix, they introduce two more. Apple's internal metrics show bug counts have steadily *decreased* over time. > And besides the OS upgrade introduces a host of new bugs because of > the change in the OS itself. Rather the bugs I know than the ones I > don't :) Buggy old software won't keep working with newer operating systems without also updating said buggy old software. And that's been the case long before Snow Leopard, too. Nothing new here. : ) >>> I know that all these things are do-able and that there are ways >>> around the problems. But what do I gain? A crappy interface, a >>> locked-down computer that can only install apps via the App Store, >> >> nonsense. there is no lockdown. you can install apps from anywhere >> you want without issue. > > https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/macos-sierra-tidbits-apple-file- > system-raid-support-and-more.1977440/page-5 From that thread: "If you want to "proceed anyway" -- you right click or option click the file and open it -- instead of entirely disabling gatekeeper." Very simple. Right-click the app, choose Open. DONE. Meanwhile enjoy the additional protection you get from the feature. Apple isn't preventing you from doing whatever you want with your computer. >>> Applescript riddled with bugs, Big Brother Apple constantly >>> communicating with my computer and trying to force me to use their >>> "cloud" so that I can connect to all the "Social Networks" that I >>> abhor? >> >> nobody is forcing anything. > > If you already have one, you probably don't realize how many times > someone who doesn't gets prompted to create one. I have many machines running the latest operating system that do not have iCloud or social media configured on them. There are no constant prompts as you suggest. You're making stuff up. > If you turn on Little Snitch, you are deluged with constant requests > to connect to the Apple Mothership. Nope. I use Little Snitch, and the only connections made are associated with specific features that are enabled. Apple's not spying on anyone. > All the default behaviors assume you want to be part of the Appleverse > and it takes a lot of effort to opt out. No. That's a flat-out lie. iCloud, social media, etc are all OPT-IN. >>> Synching between all the iToys that I don't own? >> >> how would it sync to something you don't own? > > It wouldn't. The point is that's a function I don't need and hence > will not be upgrading to get. Yes, you're using an optional opt-in feature that you won't use to justify not upgrading yet you are ignoring all of the other stuff you get and would use, including very important security features and bug fixes. If that's what you mean to do, fine - it is what it is. >>> A bunch of new bugs which will probably never be addressed because >>> Cook has lost interest in the Mac? >> >> tim cook has not lost interest in the mac. more bullshit. > >> apple is actively working on mac os and mac hardware, and unlike snow >> leopard, sierra is getting bug fixes and security fixes. > > More bullshit. Just because you say so? NO SALE: <http://www.computerworld.com/article/3175658/apple-mac/macs-do-more-than-ipads-says-apples-tim-cook.html> -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-01 17:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0001HW.D4DCAF19013452B0B02919BF@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #101562 |
On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 14:20:13 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote (in article <ehol7dFm1sfU6@mid.individual.net>): >>> tim cook has not lost interest in the mac. more bullshit. >> >>> apple is actively working on mac os and mac hardware, and unlike snow >>> leopard, sierra is getting bug fixes and security fixes. >> >> More bullshit. > > Just because you say so? NO SALE: I was just echoing the nospam technique of proof by assertion :) -- Nelson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dcohenspam@talktalk.net (Daniel Cohen) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-02 20:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1n294l9.f2lgaof2lcbvN%dcohenspam@talktalk.net> |
| In reply to | #101562 |
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > "If you want to "proceed anyway" -- you right click or option click the > file and open it -- instead of entirely disabling gatekeeper." > > Very simple. Right-click the app, choose Open. DONE. And it only has to be done the FIRST time you open the app. If it had to be done every time an app was used, that would be a hassle, but once is no issue. -- <http://www.decohen.com> The Labyrinth of the Heart: Changed Myths for Changing Lives book and e-book <http://www.decohen.com/labyrinth.htm> Send e-mail to the Reply-To address, not the From address.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-02 20:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ehrel3F8k2kU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #101683 |
On 2017-03-02, Daniel Cohen <dcohenspam@talktalk.net> wrote: > Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > >> "If you want to "proceed anyway" -- you right click or option click the >> file and open it -- instead of entirely disabling gatekeeper." >> >> Very simple. Right-click the app, choose Open. DONE. > > And it only has to be done the FIRST time you open the app. > > If it had to be done every time an app was used, that would be a hassle, > but once is no issue. Good point. Thanks. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-01 14:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <010320171430094777%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #101554 |
In article <0001HW.D4DC82C60129EF63B02919BF@news.astraweb.com>, Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote: > >>>>> Hmm. I'm using Snow Leopard and Time Machine so that's a "No"? > >>>> > >>>> why are you still using snow leopard??? > >> > >> Why are you not? > > > > because it's very old > > So am I :) Old is not a reason to upgrade per se. when it no longer works properly, it is. > > no longer supported > > Heh. Like the current version is? the current version is not only supported but actively being developed and improved. > > and most apps require at > > least mavericks or yosemite, if not later. > > Apps which appeared after those versions, perhaps. But I haven't seen > a compelling novel app (on the order of, say, Excel or Photoshop) that > would drive an upgrade. then you haven't looked very hard. > >>> A good question. > >> > >> And one I've answered before :) Snow Leopard meets my needs and I have > >> yet to see a benefit in the newer systems that would justify the cost > >> in both time, aggravation, and dollars to upgrade. Not to mention > >> there are "features" I would pay _not_ to have. Upgrading the system > >> is the least of the problems. It is upgrading all the apps that I find > >> off-putting. Plus losing the ones that rely on Rosetta. > > > > there is no cost. upgrading is completely free. > > Upgrading the OS perhaps. The App vendors are not so magnanimous. some are, some aren't. you're also getting new functionality, which isn't normally free. > > you do lose rosetta, but that's about it. however, any app that hasn't > > been updated to run on intel is abandonware and is not getting bug > > fixes or security. > > Every bug they fix, they introduce two more. And besides the OS > upgrade introduces a host of new bugs because of the change in the OS > itself. Rather the bugs I know than the ones I don't :) nonsense. > >> There is also the issue of data. It has already become painfully > >> difficult to open files created with older versions of Filemaker, Word, > >> Excel, etc. Along with the application upgrades, I would have to > >> upgrade all these older formats. > > > > nonsense. apps can open older versions of files without issue. > > For someone so often wrong, you certainly speak with great certainty. > Have you ever tried to open a Filemaker 3 file with the current > version? Try it and stop back to let us know what happened. filemaker 3?? wtf?? that's over 20 years old. why all of a sudden do you want to read it now?? > >> I know that all these things are do-able and that there are ways around > >> the problems. But what do I gain? A crappy interface, a locked-down > >> computer that can only install apps via the App Store, > > > > nonsense. there is no lockdown. you can install apps from anywhere you > > want without issue. > > https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/macos-sierra-tidbits-apple-file- > system-raid-support-and-more.1977440/page-5 and? that's just a bunch of people's (mostly uninformed) opinions in a forum. the fact is that apple is not blocking anyone from installing anything. there may be an extra step so that the user knows that they're installing an app that carries additional risks, but that's a good thing. they can accept the risk and install or decide not to accept it. the choice is *theirs*. > >> Applescript > >> riddled with bugs, Big Brother Apple constantly communicating with my > >> computer and trying to force me to use their "cloud" so that I can > >> connect to all the "Social Networks" that I abhor? > > > > nobody is forcing anything. > > If you already have one, you probably don't realize how many times > someone who doesn't gets prompted to create one. If you turn on Little > Snitch, you are deluged with constant requests to connect to the Apple > Mothership. nope. little snitch catches outgoing traffic, which is typically to the developer of the apps, not apple. > All the default behaviors assume you want to be part of the Appleverse > and it takes a lot of effort to opt out. it takes no effort to opt out since you're already out. the effort is to opt *in*. > >> Synching between all > >> the iToys that I don't own? > > > > how would it sync to something you don't own? > > It wouldn't. The point is that's a function I don't need and hence > will not be upgrading to get. then don't use it. > >> A bunch of new bugs which will probably > >> never be addressed because Cook has lost interest in the Mac? > > > > tim cook has not lost interest in the mac. more bullshit. > > > apple is actively working on mac os and mac hardware, and unlike snow > > leopard, sierra is getting bug fixes and security fixes. > > More bullshit. it's not bullshit. apple just released new macbooks with a touchbar, something that was ten years in the making and took a lot of r&d dollars. if they were abandoning the mac, they'd have done nothing. there are rumours of new macs in the pipeline, also something that would not be happening if apple abandoned the mac mac os continues to be developed with a new version to be released in a few weeks, currently in beta. > > > >> Opinions and needs differ, I know. But until I can find a compelling > >> argument to upgrade I won't. > > > > opinions and needs may differ, except that yours are based on > > completely bogus information. > > Well, thank you for disabusing me. any time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-01 17:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0001HW.D4DCAFCA01347C5CB02919BF@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #101565 |
On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 14:30:09 -0500, nospam wrote (in article <010320171430094777%nospam@nospam.invalid>): > apple just released new macbooks with a touchbar, something that was ten > years in the making and took a lot of r&d dollars. > > if they were abandoning the mac, they'd have done nothing. Thanks for that:) I spit my coffee on the screen laughing. Good to see you have a sense of humor after all :) -- Nelson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-01 17:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <010320171708445712%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #101577 |
In article <0001HW.D4DCAFCA01347C5CB02919BF@news.astraweb.com>, Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote: > > > apple just released new macbooks with a touchbar, something that was ten > > years in the making and took a lot of r&d dollars. > > > > if they were abandoning the mac, they'd have done nothing. > > Thanks for that:) I spit my coffee on the screen laughing. Good to > see you have a sense of humor after all :) no humour. what i wrote is correct.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-01 17:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0001HW.D4DCB9E20136D9E5B02919BF@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #101578 |
On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 17:08:44 -0500, nospam wrote (in article <010320171708445712%nospam@nospam.invalid>): > In article <0001HW.D4DCAFCA01347C5CB02919BF@news.astraweb.com>, Nelson > <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote: > >> >>> apple just released new macbooks with a touchbar, something that was ten >>> years in the making and took a lot of r&d dollars. >>> >>> if they were abandoning the mac, they'd have done nothing. >> >> Thanks for that:) I spit my coffee on the screen laughing. Good to >> see you have a sense of humor after all :) > > no humour. what i wrote is correct. Never change, nospam. Never change. -- Nelson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-02 01:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ehp9pbFqg10U4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #101577 |
On 2017-03-01, Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote: > On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 14:30:09 -0500, nospam wrote > (in article <010320171430094777%nospam@nospam.invalid>): > >> apple just released new macbooks with a touchbar, something that was ten >> years in the making and took a lot of r&d dollars. >> >> if they were abandoning the mac, they'd have done nothing. > > Thanks for that:) I spit my coffee on the screen laughing. Good to > see you have a sense of humor after all :) Spit on this one: Today's MacBook Pros have some of THE fastest storage available on *any* mainstream laptop, and there are plenty of other innovations and improvements being made as well. If you want to ignore all of the real improvements and claim there has been no progress, fine. Just don't expect the rest of us to go along with it when reality says otherwise. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-01 21:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0001HW.D4DCEA1301422551B01029BF@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #101600 |
On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 20:11:08 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote (in article <ehp9pbFqg10U4@mid.individual.net>): > On 2017-03-01, Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 14:30:09 -0500, nospam wrote >> (in article <010320171430094777%nospam@nospam.invalid>): >> >>> apple just released new macbooks with a touchbar, something that was ten >>> years in the making and took a lot of r&d dollars. >>> >>> if they were abandoning the mac, they'd have done nothing. >> >> Thanks for that:) I spit my coffee on the screen laughing. Good to >> see you have a sense of humor after all :) > > Spit on this one: Today's MacBook Pros have some of THE fastest storage > available on *any* mainstream laptop, and there are plenty of other > innovations and improvements being made as well. If you want to ignore > all of the real improvements and claim there has been no progress, fine. > Just don't expect the rest of us to go along with it when reality says > otherwise. I was spitting at the touchbar "something that was ten years in the making..." Give me a break. 10 years? For soft keys? You guys. -- Nelson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-02 03:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ehpj1vFs8o9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #101606 |
Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote: > On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 20:11:08 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote > (in article <ehp9pbFqg10U4@mid.individual.net>): > >> On 2017-03-01, Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 14:30:09 -0500, nospam wrote >>> (in article <010320171430094777%nospam@nospam.invalid>): >>> >>>> apple just released new macbooks with a touchbar, something that was ten >>>> years in the making and took a lot of r&d dollars. >>>> >>>> if they were abandoning the mac, they'd have done nothing. >>> >>> Thanks for that:) I spit my coffee on the screen laughing. Good to >>> see you have a sense of humor after all :) >> >> Spit on this one: Today's MacBook Pros have some of THE fastest storage >> available on *any* mainstream laptop, and there are plenty of other >> innovations and improvements being made as well. If you want to ignore >> all of the real improvements and claim there has been no progress, fine. >> Just don't expect the rest of us to go along with it when reality says >> otherwise. > > I was spitting at the touchbar "something that was ten years in the > making..." > > Give me a break. 10 years? For soft keys? Ah. You're misunderstanding the technology in use. Apples implementation is anything but just a standard implementation of soft keys. Instead, the Touch Bar is actually a separate (but integrated) multitouch device running on a custom ARM-based SoC called the Apple T1 similar to the SoC in the Apple Watch with a secure enclave and Touch ID sensor for biometric authentication, Apple Pay support, and so on. It's way more than just soft keys, and way more flexible and useful. You can think of it as an embedded iOS device running right along side macOS. Apple indeed has been working on this technology for a long, long time. Here's a decent (but dated) review: <https://arstechnica.com/video/2016/11/the-2016-13-and-15-inch-touch-bar-macbook-pros-reviewed/> -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-02 08:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0001HW.D4DD874B0166FE2CB01029BF@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #101607 |
On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 22:49:19 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote (in article <ehpj1vFs8o9U1@mid.individual.net>): > Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 20:11:08 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote >> (in article <ehp9pbFqg10U4@mid.individual.net>): >> >>> On 2017-03-01, Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 14:30:09 -0500, nospam wrote >>>> (in article <010320171430094777%nospam@nospam.invalid>): >>>> >>>>> apple just released new macbooks with a touchbar, something that was ten >>>>> years in the making and took a lot of r&d dollars. >>>>> >>>>> if they were abandoning the mac, they'd have done nothing. >>>> >>>> Thanks for that:) I spit my coffee on the screen laughing. Good to >>>> see you have a sense of humor after all :) >>> >>> Spit on this one: Today's MacBook Pros have some of THE fastest storage >>> available on *any* mainstream laptop, and there are plenty of other >>> innovations and improvements being made as well. If you want to ignore >>> all of the real improvements and claim there has been no progress, fine. >>> Just don't expect the rest of us to go along with it when reality says >>> otherwise. >> >> I was spitting at the touchbar "something that was ten years in the >> making..." >> >> Give me a break. 10 years? For soft keys? > > Ah. You're misunderstanding the technology in use. Apples implementation is > anything but just a standard implementation of soft keys. Instead, the > Touch Bar is actually a separate (but integrated) multitouch device running > on a custom ARM-based SoC called the Apple T1 similar to the SoC in the > Apple Watch with a secure enclave and Touch ID sensor for biometric > authentication, Apple Pay support, and so on. It's way more than just soft > keys, and way more flexible and useful. You can think of it as an embedded > iOS device running right along side macOS. Apple indeed has been working on > this technology for a long, long time. Here's a decent (but dated) review: > > <https://arstechnica.com/video/2016/11/the-2016-13-and-15-inch-touch- bar-macbo > ok-pros-reviewed/> > > I don't care if they implemented it with a Quantum Computer an a diamond screen. Functionally, it's little more than glorified soft keys. Hardly a groundbreaking concept. Pathetic, actually, if it really took them ten years to come up with it. And they screwed up a familiar keyboard User Interface to shoehorn it in. -- Nelson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-02 14:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnobga3r.au9.g.kreme@snow.local> |
| In reply to | #101625 |
In message <0001HW.D4DD874B0166FE2CB01029BF@news.astraweb.com> Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote: > On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 22:49:19 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote > (in article <ehpj1vFs8o9U1@mid.individual.net>): >> Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 20:11:08 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote >>> (in article <ehp9pbFqg10U4@mid.individual.net>): >>> >>>> On 2017-03-01, Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 14:30:09 -0500, nospam wrote >>>>> (in article <010320171430094777%nospam@nospam.invalid>): >>>>> >>>>>> apple just released new macbooks with a touchbar, something that was ten >>>>>> years in the making and took a lot of r&d dollars. >>>>>> >>>>>> if they were abandoning the mac, they'd have done nothing. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for that:) I spit my coffee on the screen laughing. Good to >>>>> see you have a sense of humor after all :) >>>> >>>> Spit on this one: Today's MacBook Pros have some of THE fastest storage >>>> available on *any* mainstream laptop, and there are plenty of other >>>> innovations and improvements being made as well. If you want to ignore >>>> all of the real improvements and claim there has been no progress, fine. >>>> Just don't expect the rest of us to go along with it when reality says >>>> otherwise. >>> >>> I was spitting at the touchbar "something that was ten years in the >>> making..." >>> >>> Give me a break. 10 years? For soft keys? >> >> Ah. You're misunderstanding the technology in use. Apples implementation is >> anything but just a standard implementation of soft keys. Instead, the >> Touch Bar is actually a separate (but integrated) multitouch device running >> on a custom ARM-based SoC called the Apple T1 similar to the SoC in the >> Apple Watch with a secure enclave and Touch ID sensor for biometric >> authentication, Apple Pay support, and so on. It's way more than just soft >> keys, and way more flexible and useful. You can think of it as an embedded >> iOS device running right along side macOS. Apple indeed has been working on >> this technology for a long, long time. Here's a decent (but dated) review: >> >> > <https://arstechnica.com/video/2016/11/the-2016-13-and-15-inch-touch- > bar-macbo >> ok-pros-reviewed/> >> >> > I don't care if they implemented it with a Quantum Computer an a > diamond screen. Functionally, it's little more than glorified soft > keys. Says the person who has used it how often? Zero times? Oh right. -- 'Yes, but humans are more important than animals,' said Brutha. 'This is a point of view often expressed by humans,' said Om. (Small Gods)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-02 16:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ehqug6F60atU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #101625 |
On 2017-03-02, Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote: > On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 22:49:19 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote > (in article <ehpj1vFs8o9U1@mid.individual.net>): >> Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote: >>> >>> Give me a break. 10 years? For soft keys? >> >> Ah. You're misunderstanding the technology in use. Apples implementation is >> anything but just a standard implementation of soft keys. Instead, the >> Touch Bar is actually a separate (but integrated) multitouch device running >> on a custom ARM-based SoC called the Apple T1 similar to the SoC in the >> Apple Watch with a secure enclave and Touch ID sensor for biometric >> authentication, Apple Pay support, and so on. It's way more than just soft >> keys, and way more flexible and useful. You can think of it as an embedded >> iOS device running right along side macOS. Apple indeed has been working on >> this technology for a long, long time. Here's a decent (but dated) review: >> ><https://arstechnica.com/video/2016/11/the-2016-13-and-15-inch-touch- > bar-macbo >> ok-pros-reviewed/> > > I don't care if they implemented it with a Quantum Computer an a > diamond screen. Functionally, it's little more than glorified soft > keys. That's a flat-out lie. Show me soft keys that can do biometric authentication in arguably the most secure and privacy-preserving manner on any consumer-grade device. You can't because there is no other as secure that protects your biometric data the way Apple does. You're trolling. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-02 11:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0001HW.D4DDB6D50172226BB01029BF@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #101634 |
On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 11:10:46 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote (in article <ehqug6F60atU2@mid.individual.net>): > On 2017-03-02, Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 22:49:19 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote >> (in article <ehpj1vFs8o9U1@mid.individual.net>): >>> Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Give me a break. 10 years? For soft keys? >>> >>> Ah. You're misunderstanding the technology in use. Apples implementation is >>> anything but just a standard implementation of soft keys. Instead, the >>> Touch Bar is actually a separate (but integrated) multitouch device running >>> on a custom ARM-based SoC called the Apple T1 similar to the SoC in the >>> Apple Watch with a secure enclave and Touch ID sensor for biometric >>> authentication, Apple Pay support, and so on. It's way more than just soft >>> keys, and way more flexible and useful. You can think of it as an embedded >>> iOS device running right along side macOS. Apple indeed has been working on >>> this technology for a long, long time. Here's a decent (but dated) review: >>> >> <https://arstechnica.com/video/2016/11/the-2016-13-and-15-inch-touch- >> bar-macbo >>> ok-pros-reviewed/> >> >> I don't care if they implemented it with a Quantum Computer an a >> diamond screen. Functionally, it's little more than glorified soft >> keys. > > That's a flat-out lie. It's a judgement not a lie. You really should be more careful with your hyperbole and vitriol. Although I can understand how you may have picked up the habit from others in this group. > Show me soft keys that can do biometric > authentication in arguably the most secure and privacy-preserving manner > on any consumer-grade device. You can't because there is no other as > secure that protects your biometric data the way Apple does. You're > trolling. You surely cannot be claiming that the raison d'être of the touch bar is preserving biometric data. -- Nelson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-02 17:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ehr2bnF6pu2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #101638 |
On 2017-03-02, Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 11:10:46 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote > (in article <ehqug6F60atU2@mid.individual.net>): > >> On 2017-03-02, Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 22:49:19 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote >>> (in article <ehpj1vFs8o9U1@mid.individual.net>): >>>> Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Give me a break. 10 years? For soft keys? >>>> >>>> Ah. You're misunderstanding the technology in use. Apples >>>> implementation is anything but just a standard implementation of >>>> soft keys. Instead, the Touch Bar is actually a separate (but >>>> integrated) multitouch device running on a custom ARM-based SoC >>>> called the Apple T1 similar to the SoC in the Apple Watch with a >>>> secure enclave and Touch ID sensor for biometric authentication, >>>> Apple Pay support, and so on. It's way more than just soft keys, >>>> and way more flexible and useful. You can think of it as an >>>> embedded iOS device running right along side macOS. Apple indeed >>>> has been working on this technology for a long, long time. Here's a >>>> decent (but dated) review: >>>> >>> <https://arstechnica.com/video/2016/11/the-2016-13-and-15-inch-touch- >>> bar-macbo >>>> ok-pros-reviewed/> >>> >>> I don't care if they implemented it with a Quantum Computer an a >>> diamond screen. Functionally, it's little more than glorified soft >>> keys. >> >> That's a flat-out lie. > > It's a judgement not a lie. No, it's a lie. Soft keys don't do secure biometric authentication, and they typically aren't multitouch capable with high-quality OLED displays either. Claiming the Touch Bar is little more than glorified soft keys is pure hyperbole. > You really should be more careful with your hyperbole and vitriol. You should take your own advice! You've been spewing hyperbole ever since people wondered why you were sticking with 10.6! >> Show me soft keys that can do biometric >> authentication in arguably the most secure and privacy-preserving manner >> on any consumer-grade device. You can't because there is no other as >> secure that protects your biometric data the way Apple does. You're >> trolling. > > You surely cannot be claiming that the raison d'être of the touch bar > is preserving biometric data. The truth is the Touch Bar has multiple "reasons for being" (functions), one of the major ones being secure and private biometric authentication. It includes a secure fingerprint sensor and a significant portion of the custom SoC is *dedicated* to just that. I realize it would be convenient for you to ignore this functionality as if it holds no value, along with the rest of the functionality that sets it apart from typical "glorified soft keys"; but that's not the reality of the situation. I don't expect you to like or fawn over the Touch Bar; but you could at least try not to spread lies and misinformation about it to justify your position that it has little value beyond "glorified soft keys". We should strive for the truth, always. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-02 13:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0001HW.D4DDC90001766488B01029BF@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #101639 |
On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 12:16:40 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote (in article <ehr2bnF6pu2U1@mid.individual.net>): > On 2017-03-02, Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 11:10:46 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote >> (in article <ehqug6F60atU2@mid.individual.net>): >> >>> On 2017-03-02, Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 22:49:19 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote >>>> (in article <ehpj1vFs8o9U1@mid.individual.net>): >>>>> Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Give me a break. 10 years? For soft keys? >>>>> >>>>> Ah. You're misunderstanding the technology in use. Apples >>>>> implementation is anything but just a standard implementation of >>>>> soft keys. Instead, the Touch Bar is actually a separate (but >>>>> integrated) multitouch device running on a custom ARM-based SoC >>>>> called the Apple T1 similar to the SoC in the Apple Watch with a >>>>> secure enclave and Touch ID sensor for biometric authentication, >>>>> Apple Pay support, and so on. It's way more than just soft keys, >>>>> and way more flexible and useful. You can think of it as an >>>>> embedded iOS device running right along side macOS. Apple indeed >>>>> has been working on this technology for a long, long time. Here's a >>>>> decent (but dated) review: >>>>> >>>> <https://arstechnica.com/video/2016/11/the-2016-13-and-15-inch-touch- >>>> bar-macbo >>>>> ok-pros-reviewed/> >>>> >>>> I don't care if they implemented it with a Quantum Computer an a >>>> diamond screen. Functionally, it's little more than glorified soft >>>> keys. >>> >>> That's a flat-out lie. >> >> It's a judgement not a lie. > > No, it's a lie. Soft keys don't do secure biometric authentication, and > they typically aren't multitouch capable with high-quality OLED displays > either. Claiming the Touch Bar is little more than glorified soft keys > is pure hyperbole. > >> You really should be more careful with your hyperbole and vitriol. > > You should take your own advice! You've been spewing hyperbole ever > since people wondered why you were sticking with 10.6! > >>> Show me soft keys that can do biometric >>> authentication in arguably the most secure and privacy-preserving manner >>> on any consumer-grade device. You can't because there is no other as >>> secure that protects your biometric data the way Apple does. You're >>> trolling. >> >> You surely cannot be claiming that the raison d'être of the touch bar >> is preserving biometric data. > > The truth is the Touch Bar has multiple "reasons for being" (functions), > one of the major ones being secure and private biometric authentication. > It includes a secure fingerprint sensor and a significant portion of the > custom SoC is *dedicated* to just that. I realize it would be convenient > for you to ignore this functionality as if it holds no value, along with > the rest of the functionality that sets it apart from typical "glorified > soft keys"; but that's not the reality of the situation. I don't expect > you to like or fawn over the Touch Bar; but you could at least try not > to spread lies and misinformation about it to justify your position that > it has little value beyond "glorified soft keys". We should strive for > the truth, always. > > Here is the verbatim description of the Touch Bar from Apple.com: "The Touch Bar replaces the function keys that have long occupied the top of your keyboard with something much more versatile and capable. It changes automatically based on what you¹re doing to show you relevant tools you already know how to use system controls like volume and brightness, interactive ways to adjust or browse through content, intelligent typing features like emoji and predictive text, and more." It then adds: "And for the first time, Touch ID is available on a Mac, enabling instant access to logins and fast, secure online purchases with Apple Pay." By the priority and emphasis given, a reasonable person might conclude that the primary function of the Touch Bar is, well, soft keys. That same person might also conclude that because of the technology used to implement the soft keys, Apple was able to shoe-horn in a finger print reader on to the touch bar. Again, fingerprint readers are an old idea and have been available for decades. One might ask why it took Apple so long to get on the band wagon rather than breathlessly marvel that they did. Nor is Apple Pay some magical property of the Touch Bar. It would be enabled by any fingerprint reader. Had Apple implemented an iris scanner, that might be innovative. But a fingerprint reader? Hardly. -- Nelson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-02 13:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0001HW.D4DDD48001791678B01029BF@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #101643 |
On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 13:05:04 -0500, Nelson wrote (in article <0001HW.D4DDC90001766488B01029BF@news.astraweb.com>): > On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 12:16:40 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote > (in article <ehr2bnF6pu2U1@mid.individual.net>): > >> On 2017-03-02, Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 11:10:46 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote >>> (in article <ehqug6F60atU2@mid.individual.net>): >>> >>>> On 2017-03-02, Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 22:49:19 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote >>>>> (in article <ehpj1vFs8o9U1@mid.individual.net>): >>>>>> Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Give me a break. 10 years? For soft keys? >>>>>> >>>>>> Ah. You're misunderstanding the technology in use. Apples >>>>>> implementation is anything but just a standard implementation of >>>>>> soft keys. Instead, the Touch Bar is actually a separate (but >>>>>> integrated) multitouch device running on a custom ARM-based SoC >>>>>> called the Apple T1 similar to the SoC in the Apple Watch with a >>>>>> secure enclave and Touch ID sensor for biometric authentication, >>>>>> Apple Pay support, and so on. It's way more than just soft keys, >>>>>> and way more flexible and useful. You can think of it as an >>>>>> embedded iOS device running right along side macOS. Apple indeed >>>>>> has been working on this technology for a long, long time. Here's a >>>>>> decent (but dated) review: >>>>>> >>>>> <https://arstechnica.com/video/2016/11/the-2016-13-and-15-inch-touch- >>>>> bar-macbo >>>>>> ok-pros-reviewed/> >>>>> >>>>> I don't care if they implemented it with a Quantum Computer an a >>>>> diamond screen. Functionally, it's little more than glorified soft >>>>> keys. >>>> >>>> That's a flat-out lie. >>> >>> It's a judgement not a lie. >> >> No, it's a lie. Soft keys don't do secure biometric authentication, and >> they typically aren't multitouch capable with high-quality OLED displays >> either. Claiming the Touch Bar is little more than glorified soft keys >> is pure hyperbole. >> >>> You really should be more careful with your hyperbole and vitriol. >> >> You should take your own advice! You've been spewing hyperbole ever >> since people wondered why you were sticking with 10.6! >> >>>> Show me soft keys that can do biometric >>>> authentication in arguably the most secure and privacy-preserving manner >>>> on any consumer-grade device. You can't because there is no other as >>>> secure that protects your biometric data the way Apple does. You're >>>> trolling. >>> >>> You surely cannot be claiming that the raison d'être of the touch bar >>> is preserving biometric data. >> >> The truth is the Touch Bar has multiple "reasons for being" (functions), >> one of the major ones being secure and private biometric authentication. >> It includes a secure fingerprint sensor and a significant portion of the >> custom SoC is *dedicated* to just that. I realize it would be convenient >> for you to ignore this functionality as if it holds no value, along with >> the rest of the functionality that sets it apart from typical "glorified >> soft keys"; but that's not the reality of the situation. I don't expect >> you to like or fawn over the Touch Bar; but you could at least try not >> to spread lies and misinformation about it to justify your position that >> it has little value beyond "glorified soft keys". We should strive for >> the truth, always. >> >> > > Here is the verbatim description of the Touch Bar from Apple.com: > > "The Touch Bar replaces the function keys that have long occupied the > top of your keyboard with something much more versatile and capable. It > changes automatically based on what you¹re doing to show you relevant > tools you already know how to use system controls like volume and > brightness, interactive ways to adjust or browse through content, > intelligent typing features like emoji and predictive text, and more." > > > It then adds: > > "And for the first time, Touch ID is available on a Mac, enabling > instant access to logins and fast, secure online purchases with Apple > Pay." > > By the priority and emphasis given, a reasonable person might conclude > that the primary function of the Touch Bar is, well, soft keys. > > That same person might also conclude that because of the technology > used to implement the soft keys, Apple was able to shoe-horn in a > finger print reader on to the touch bar. Again, fingerprint readers > are an old idea and have been available for decades. One might ask why > it took Apple so long to get on the band wagon rather than breathlessly > marvel that they did. > > Nor is Apple Pay some magical property of the Touch Bar. It would be > enabled by any fingerprint reader. Had Apple implemented an iris > scanner, that might be innovative. But a fingerprint reader? Hardly. > > Also, Please explain to me how the touch bar doesn't fit this definition: Definition of: soft key (1) A simulated button or keyboard key that is displayed on a touchscreen. Also called a "soft button," "virtual key" or "virtual button," touchscreen soft keys enable smartphones, tablets and remote controls to display any style of user interface. Source: http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/51642/soft-key And don't say "it also reads fingerprints" :) -- Nelson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web