Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #39158 > unrolled thread

[OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-30 01:16 -0700
    Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-01-30 07:40 -0500
      Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-30 07:19 -0800
    Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson.com> - 2013-01-30 13:54 +0000
    Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-30 09:32 -0600
      Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-30 10:53 -0700
        Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-30 14:59 -0500
          Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-30 13:14 -0700
            Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-30 15:48 -0500
              Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple AV3 <arviso@earthlink.net> - 2013-01-30 17:47 -0500
                Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-30 18:04 -0500
                  Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-30 16:49 -0800
                  Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2013-01-30 22:03 -0500
                Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-30 16:12 -0700
                  Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-30 18:27 -0500
                    Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-30 16:38 -0700
                  Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> - 2013-01-30 18:28 -0500
                    Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2013-01-30 22:05 -0500
                      Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple AV3 <arviso@earthlink.net> - 2013-01-31 10:39 -0500
                        Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@1q2013.subsume.com> - 2013-01-31 15:00 -0600
                          Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-31 13:33 -0800
                          Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> - 2013-01-31 18:13 -0500
                            Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-31 18:35 -0700
                              Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-31 21:00 -0500
                                Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-31 19:10 -0700
                                  Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-31 22:07 -0500
                                    Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-31 20:49 -0700
                                      Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-02-01 00:01 -0500
                                        Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-02-01 00:10 -0500
                                          Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-02-01 06:06 +0000
                                            Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-02-01 01:28 -0500
                                              Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-02-01 16:44 +0000
                                              Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2013-02-01 08:45 -0800
                                            Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2013-02-01 08:43 -0800
                                              Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-02-01 17:38 +0000
                                            Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-02-01 23:18 -0500
                                              Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> - 2013-02-03 11:49 -0500
                                              Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-02-03 23:20 +0000
                                  Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2013-01-31 20:57 -0800
                                    Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2013-02-03 00:36 +1300
                                Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-02-01 06:01 +0000
                              Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> - 2013-01-31 21:47 -0500
                                Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-31 20:57 -0700
                                  Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple AV3 <arviso@earthlink.net> - 2013-02-01 11:00 -0500
                                    Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-02-01 16:50 +0000
                                      Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-02-01 18:55 +0000
                                        Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple AV3 <arviso@earthlink.net> - 2013-02-01 22:05 -0500
                                          Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-02-02 00:15 -0700
                                            Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-02-02 18:29 +0000
                                              Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-02-02 19:42 -0700
                                            Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> - 2013-02-02 15:49 -0500
                                              Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-02-02 19:38 -0700
                                      Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple AV3 <arviso@earthlink.net> - 2013-02-01 23:04 -0500
                                        Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-02-02 00:13 -0700
                                          Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple AV3 <arviso@earthlink.net> - 2013-02-02 11:25 -0500
                                            Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-02-02 11:19 -0700
                                              Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> - 2013-02-02 17:07 -0500
                                                Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-02-02 19:36 -0700
                                                  Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2013-02-03 22:34 +1300
                                                Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-02-03 23:16 +0000
                                                  Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> - 2013-02-04 21:48 -0500
                                                    Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-02-04 23:38 -0700
                                                      Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2013-02-05 22:33 +1300
                                                        Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-02-05 05:35 -0500
                                        Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-02-02 07:20 -0800
                                    Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-02-01 12:03 -0700
                                      Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2013-02-01 12:04 -0800
                                      Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple AV3 <arviso@earthlink.net> - 2013-02-01 21:29 -0500
                                      Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-02-01 23:28 -0500
                                        Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-02-02 00:04 -0700
                                          Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-02-02 18:29 +0000
                                            Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2013-02-03 10:00 +1300
                                            Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-02-02 19:41 -0700
                                        Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@1q2013.subsume.com> - 2013-02-02 11:01 -0600
                                          Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-02-02 18:29 +0000
                                            Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@1q2013.subsume.com> - 2013-02-03 10:23 -0600
                                              Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-02-03 22:17 +0000
                                                Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@1q2013.subsume.com> - 2013-02-04 10:29 -0600
                                                  Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-02-04 22:55 +0000
                                                    Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-02-04 23:32 +0000
                                                      Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-02-06 01:34 +0000
                                                        Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-02-06 06:10 +0000
                                                          Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-02-06 20:12 +0000
                                                            Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-02-07 05:15 +0000
                                                              Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-02-07 19:25 +0000
                                                              Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-02-07 19:23 +0000
                                                              Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-02-08 23:35 +0000
                                              Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-02-03 23:24 +0000
                                                Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-02-04 14:25 +0000
                                                Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple bj <address_is@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-04 13:58 -0600
                                                  Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-02-04 23:33 +0000
                                          Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Invid Fan <invid@loclanet.com> - 2013-02-05 04:54 -0500
                                        Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-02-03 23:21 +0000
                                    Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2013-02-02 18:17 -0500
                                      Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple AV3 <arviso@earthlink.net> - 2013-02-03 11:29 -0500
                                  Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-02-01 23:22 -0500
                                    Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-02-02 18:29 +0000
                                Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-01-31 23:45 -0500
                                  Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple AV3 <arviso@earthlink.net> - 2013-02-01 11:44 -0500
                                    Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-02-01 12:57 -0500
                                      Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-02-01 14:01 -0500
                                  Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-02-03 17:30 +0100
                                Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@1q2013.subsume.com> - 2013-02-01 11:23 -0600
                                Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-02-03 15:37 -0500
                                  Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-02-03 13:52 -0700
                            Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-02-01 05:59 +0000
              Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-30 16:00 -0700
                Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-30 18:10 -0500
                  Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-30 16:32 -0800
              Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-31 10:18 -0600
          Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-30 14:43 -0800
          Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Tom Stiller <tom_stiller@yahoo.com> - 2013-01-30 18:40 -0500
            Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-30 18:44 -0500
              Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-30 16:02 -0800
            Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-31 10:23 -0600
          Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson.com> - 2013-01-31 14:24 +0000
            Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-02-03 15:58 -0500
          Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-31 10:16 -0600
            Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-31 18:41 -0500
    Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-01-30 19:19 -0500
    Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2013-01-30 22:00 -0500
      Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-01-30 22:41 -0500

Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7  Next page →

#39228

In article 
<droleary.usenet-8ACB72.15002331012013@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@1q2013.subsume.com> wrote:

> In article <_KKdnU9oCePTDZfMnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
>  AV3 <arviso@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> > It is quite natural in these circumstances to suppose that OSX and 
> > computers will not attract or receive the attention of Apple's most 
> > talented workers, and I can foresee a day when OSX and computers may be 
> > regarded as an expendable vanity legacy.
> 
> Then clearly you know nothing of the technology behind Apple's products.  
> Every competent iOS developer will tell you that Mac OS X is a key part 
> of the apps they write.  That's to say nothing of the vast amounts of 
> workhorse software that is better run on a 8+ core machine connected to 
> a power outlet.  It's Microsoft that has mistaken the mobile market for 
> a universal market, not Apple.

*clap* *clap* *clap*

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39232

On Jan/31/2013 4:0027 PM, Doc O'Leary wrote:
> In article<_KKdnU9oCePTDZfMnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
>   AV3<arviso@earthlink.net>  wrote:
>
>> It is quite natural in these circumstances to suppose that OSX and
>> computers will not attract or receive the attention of Apple's most
>> talented workers, and I can foresee a day when OSX and computers may be
>> regarded as an expendable vanity legacy.
>
> Then clearly you know nothing of the technology behind Apple's products.
> Every competent iOS developer will tell you that Mac OS X is a key part
> of the apps they write.


I don't expect OS X to disappear but to merge with iOS eventually. I do 
expect the resulting OS to be much more iOS-like than OSX-like.


> That's to say nothing of the vast amounts of
> workhorse software that is better run on a 8+ core machine connected to
> a power outlet.  It's Microsoft that has mistaken the mobile market for
> a universal market, not Apple.
>


I expect the desk top computer to go the way of the console radio, and 
the laptop to merge with a future super-iPad, which will have the 
capacity to edit the most complex files and connect with devices like 
today's computers. Apple itself removed the word "computer" from its 
corporate name, so I would suppose that it will be called a super-iPad, 
not a computer.


Indeed Apple may be ahead of Microsoft and traditional computer makers. 
but the original question was why I took the market share of Mac and OSX 
seriously. It's because I think they're on the way out, but not without 
a worthy replacement, or should I say evolution.


-- 
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net>    ||
||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net>   ||
||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/    ||
||    Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso  ||
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39234

In article <keetrc$idt$1@news.albasani.net>, AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> 
wrote:

> I don't expect OS X to disappear but to merge with iOS eventually.

I don't expect either of those.  People at Apple have repeatedly said that 
the two OSes will remain distinct from each other, although they will share 
commonalities.  Nor do I expect your expectations (in subsequent parts of 
your message) to happen either.

-- 
All usenet users are quirky, but some are more quirky than others.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39236

On 13-01-31 20:35, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> I don't expect either of those.  People at Apple have repeatedly said that 
> the two OSes will remain distinct from each other, although they will share 
> commonalities. 

It is the commonalities that I don't want. Stuff such as removing the
concept of documets you save and try to hide that from you, making the
user interface really dumb and more suited for games (full screen stuff)
rather than work.

Better integration and synching is fine. But the UI elements of a
desktop should remain desktop,  and IOS elements remain IOS.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39237

In article <510b21bb$0$52155$c3e8da3$5d8fb80f@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> > I don't expect either of those.  People at Apple have repeatedly said that 
> > the two OSes will remain distinct from each other, although they will share 
> > commonalities. 
> 
> It is the commonalities that I don't want. Stuff such as removing the
> concept of documets you save and try to hide that from you, making the
> user interface really dumb and more suited for games (full screen stuff)
> rather than work.

Um, I haven't had the OS try to hide any of my documents from me.  And the 
full screen stuff is entirely optional; I don't use it, and frankly, I had 
forgotten about it until I read the above quoted material.

-- 
All usenet users are quirky, but some are more quirky than others.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39239

On 13-01-31 21:10, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> Um, I haven't had the OS try to hide any of my documents from me.


Removing "save as" (and only sort of putting back on to save face), and
that thing when starting an aplication causing it to automatically open
the last document you worked on even if you don't want that app to touch
it are  concepts associated with "document less" platforms such as IOS
which are ill suited for computers.

I had to endure this on my old PSION 5 PDA (predecessor to Symbian OS)
with absolutely terrible UI concept even for a PDA.

It is about dumbing it down for those people who don't understand the
concept of a document copy in your application which is different from
the copy saved on disk.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39240

In article <510b3169$0$52036$c3e8da3$5d8fb80f@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> > Um, I haven't had the OS try to hide any of my documents from me.
> 
> Removing "save as" (and only sort of putting back on to save face), and
> that thing when starting an aplication causing it to automatically open
> the last document you worked on even if you don't want that app to touch
> it are  concepts associated with "document less" platforms such as IOS
> which are ill suited for computers.

That has nothing to do with hiding documents from the user.

-- 
All usenet users are quirky, but some are more quirky than others.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39245

JF Mezei:
> > Removing "save as" (and only sort of putting back on to save face), and
> > that thing when starting an aplication causing it to automatically open
> > the last document you worked on even if you don't want that app to touch
> > it are  concepts associated with "document less" platforms such as IOS
> > which are ill suited for computers.

Michelle Steiner:
> That has nothing to do with hiding documents from the user.

Mr. Mezei tends to be absolutist. If a single Apple application lacks
"Save as" then that's it--no application from any publisher has "Save
as." He probably thinks they've got five feet of snow in Key West just
now.

I have no idea where he got the concept of the OS hiding documents. I
can't see that Mountain Lion on my newest Macs handles files in a
fundamentally different way from System 5(?) on my Mac Plus, at least
not as seen by the user. Except that, contrary to being hidden from me,
files are a bit easier to find these days. The creation date on my
"Excel" and "Word" folders is sometime in 1985.

Mr. Mezei reminds me of a guy I know who says that the fun went out of
motorcycle riding when they put turn signals on them. "Might as well be
driving a semi." A look at the earliest cycles ever made and today's
most advanced bikes shows no fundamental differences; handlebars, two
wheels, engine under driver.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39246

On 13-02-01 00:01, Davoud wrote:

> Mr. Mezei tends to be absolutist. If a single Apple application lacks
> "Save as" then that's it--no application from any publisher has "Save
> as." He probably thinks they've got five feet of snow in Key West just
> now.


Consider that IOS is a UI without a file system. An app has its own
hidden documents and you lose the concept of "save" because of autosave
and you can't save a spreadsheet along with keynote and Pages documenst
in the same folder because there are no folders in IOS.

Apple tried to *start* to move OS-X that way with Lion (autosave,
auto-open,  no save as, versions and icloud), but had to take a step
back with Moutain Lion because they apparently got the message that
people want a file system they can manage. Whether Apple complertly
steps back from "back to mac" features tried in Lion remains to be seen
post Mountain Lion.

Only time will tell.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39251

In message <510b4e47$0$26798$c3e8da3$33881b6a@news.astraweb.com> 
  JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 13-02-01 00:01, Davoud wrote:

>> Mr. Mezei tends to be absolutist. If a single Apple application lacks
>> "Save as" then that's it--no application from any publisher has "Save
>> as." He probably thinks they've got five feet of snow in Key West just
>> now.


> Consider that IOS is a UI without a file system. An app has its own
> hidden documents and you lose the concept of "save" because of autosave
> and you can't save a spreadsheet along with keynote and Pages documenst
> in the same folder because there are no folders in IOS.

And that makes sense in iOS.

> Apple tried to *start* to move OS-X that way with Lion (autosave,
> auto-open,  no save as, versions and icloud)

Bullshit, these have nothing to do with 'hiding' documents, they have to do with making life easier on users. And they do.

I use Numbers for exactly one purpose, tracking Apple App Store
purchases for the kids. Other people use it for other things, but that's
all I use it for. When I open Numbers, my iOS spreadsheet is open. I
enter the app purchased and put the price in the appropriate person's
column and I quit Numbers.

Sometimes I do this on the iPad.

Every time I open Numbers, there is the file I need and the cursor is
where I need it to be. Entering the purchases takes 5-10 seconds instead
of 2-3 minutes, which means that it *always* gets done.

-- 
I WON'T NOT USE NO DOUBLE NEGATIVES Bart chalkboard Ep. BABF02

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39252

On 13-02-01 01:06, Lewis wrote:

> Bullshit, these have nothing to do with 'hiding' documents, they have to do with making life easier on users. And they do.

This is the problem. Emulating IOS may make life easier for low end
users, but it makes life much harder for users who actually need a
computer because they have tasks that are more complex than can be
achieved on IOS iPad.

So trying to dumb down OS-X when OS_X is designed for power user is
wrong. Move the dumbed down users to IOS and keep OS-X for power users
without dumbing down its UI.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39256

In message <510b60a5$0$63322$c3e8da3$3a1a2348@news.astraweb.com> 
  JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 13-02-01 01:06, Lewis wrote:

>> Bullshit, these have nothing to do with 'hiding' documents, they have to do with making life easier on users. And they do.

> This is the problem. Emulating IOS may make life easier for low end
> users, but it makes life much harder for users who actually need a
> computer because they have tasks that are more complex than can be
> achieved on IOS iPad.

But it doesn't make it harder, and certainly not much harder.

> So trying to dumb down OS-X when OS_X is designed for power user is
> wrong.

Well, a dumbed down OS X would certainly be of benefit to *you*.

-- 
The person on the other side was a young woman. Very obviously a young
woman. There was no possible way that she could have been mistaken for a
young man in any language, especially Braille.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39258

On 2013-02-01 06:28:53 +0000, JF Mezei said:

> On 13-02-01 01:06, Lewis wrote:
> 
>> Bullshit, these have nothing to do with 'hiding' documents, they have 
>> to do with making life easier on users. And they do.
> 
> This is the problem. Emulating IOS may make life easier for low end
> users, but it makes life much harder for users who actually need a
> computer because they have tasks that are more complex than can be
> achieved on IOS iPad.

True enough, but you totally blow it with this:
> 
> So trying to dumb down OS-X

Nobody's dumbed down OS X and all your complaining about this thing 
which hasn't happened (and for which there is no evidence whatsoever 
that it is happening or will happen) is at best goofy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39255

On 2013-02-01 06:06:58 +0000, Lewis said:

> In message <510b4e47$0$26798$c3e8da3$33881b6a@news.astraweb.com>
>   JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>> On 13-02-01 00:01, Davoud wrote:
> 
>>> Mr. Mezei tends to be absolutist. If a single Apple application lacks
>>> "Save as" then that's it--no application from any publisher has "Save
>>> as." He probably thinks they've got five feet of snow in Key West just
>>> now.
> 
> 
>> Consider that IOS is a UI without a file system. An app has its own
>> hidden documents and you lose the concept of "save" because of autosave
>> and you can't save a spreadsheet along with keynote and Pages documenst
>> in the same folder because there are no folders in IOS.
> 
> And that makes sense in iOS.

Arg.  Don't make me agree with JF.  It makes sense only in the context of
a system that's meant for small, solitary tasks.  In iOS, it's more a
matter of extra security than intention.  Nobody seriously wants their
documents silo'd by application because nobody thinks "I want to work on
a Numbers".  They think "I want to work on my task and right now I need
a spreadsheet".

Thankfully, however, JF is entirely wrong in that nothing in OS X forces
or even encourages people strongly to do the iOS-ish thing with files.

The closest OS X comes to that is the default behavior of iCloud Documents,
which is entirely optional and can easily be turned off (or never turned on).

Meanwhile, we have *excellent* alternatives which give us cloud functionality
without the application silos - Dropbox, Wuala, Box.net, Sugarsync and others.

> 
>> Apple tried to *start* to move OS-X that way with Lion (autosave,
>> auto-open,  no save as, versions and icloud)
> 
> Bullshit, these have nothing to do with 'hiding' documents, they have 
> to do with making life easier on users. And they do.

Agreed - nothing to do with hiding documents.  However, I do strongly 
believe that AutoSave and Versions are both (a) a *great* idea; and (b) 
a flawed implementation.  Apple's tried to fix a flaw or two in the 
move from Lion to ML, but they've still got a ways to go.
> 
> I use Numbers for exactly one purpose, tracking Apple App Store
> purchases for the kids. Other people use it for other things, but that's
> all I use it for. When I open Numbers, my iOS spreadsheet is open. I
> enter the app purchased and put the price in the appropriate person's
> column and I quit Numbers.

I use it for *hundreds* of spreadsheets.  Auto-re-open is an abominably 
bad idea for me.  Thankfully, I am able to turn it off.

I almost like Auto-Save, however, I am well aware that Versions is 
*not* a revision control system.  At best, it's a way to revert 
*sometimes* because the version repository is not tied to the file, nor 
is it able to be synced between computers -- and it gets lost if you 
move the file from one drive to another even on the same system.  So 
before I do any any major work on a file, I have to duplicate it 
(either in the app or in the Finder) and rename the copy (usually with 
a new date in the filename).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39263

In message <kegrb2$9c4$1@reader1.panix.com> 
  Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> wrote:
> On 2013-02-01 06:06:58 +0000, Lewis said:

> Agreed - nothing to do with hiding documents.  However, I do strongly 
> believe that AutoSave and Versions are both (a) a *great* idea; and (b) 
> a flawed implementation.

I'd agree with that. There are a lot of issues that need to be ironed
out, but I still love it. Autosave makes my life a lot easier.

> I use it for *hundreds* of spreadsheets.  Auto-re-open is an abominably 
> bad idea for me.  Thankfully, I am able to turn it off.

Right. Options. What a concept, eh?

> I almost like Auto-Save, however, I am well aware that Versions is 
> *not* a revision control system.  At best, it's a way to revert 
> *sometimes* because the version repository is not tied to the file, nor 
> is it able to be synced between computers -- and it gets lost if you 
> move the file from one drive to another even on the same system.

Yep, these are some of the issues that need to be ironed out.

-- 
I laugh in the face of danger. Then I hide until it goes away.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39282

On 02-01-2013 01:06, Lewis wrote:
>    JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>> Apple tried to *start* to move OS-X that way with Lion (autosave,
>> auto-open,  no save as, versions and icloud)
>
> Bullshit, these have nothing to do with 'hiding' documents, they have to do
 > with making life easier on users. And they do.

The quantity of pissed-off users suggests otherwise.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   “Isn't embarrassing to quote something you didn't read
    and then attack what it didn't say?”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39336

On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 23:18:32 -0500, Wes Groleau wrote
(in article <kei427$hne$1@dont-email.me>):

> On 02-01-2013 01:06, Lewis wrote:
>> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>>> Apple tried to *start* to move OS-X that way with Lion (autosave,
>>> auto-open,  no save as, versions and icloud)
>> 
>> Bullshit, these have nothing to do with 'hiding' documents, they have to do
>  > with making life easier on users. And they do.
> 
> The quantity of pissed-off users suggests otherwise.
> 
> 

No kidding.

-- 
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39361

In message <kei427$hne$1@dont-email.me> 
  Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> On 02-01-2013 01:06, Lewis wrote:
>>    JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>>> Apple tried to *start* to move OS-X that way with Lion (autosave,
>>> auto-open,  no save as, versions and icloud)
>>
>> Bullshit, these have nothing to do with 'hiding' documents, they have to do
> > with making life easier on users. And they do.

> The quantity of pissed-off users suggests otherwise.

A few dozen (or even a few dozen hundreds) people whining on a web-board
is of no significance whatsoever. The simple fact is the documents are
not hidden (simple fact) and it is easier for most users.

-- 
Space Directive 723: Terraformers are expressly forbidden from
recreating Swindon.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39243

On 2013-02-01 02:10:05 +0000, Michelle Steiner said:

> In article <510b21bb$0$52155$c3e8da3$5d8fb80f@news.astraweb.com>,
>  JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> 
>>> I don't expect either of those.  People at Apple have repeatedly said that
>>> the two OSes will remain distinct from each other, although they will share
>>> commonalities.
>> 
>> It is the commonalities that I don't want. Stuff such as removing the
>> concept of documets you save and try to hide that from you, making the
>> user interface really dumb and more suited for games (full screen stuff)
>> rather than work.
> 
> Um, I haven't had the OS try to hide any of my documents from me.  And the
> full screen stuff is entirely optional; I don't use it, and frankly, I had
> forgotten about it until I read the above quoted material.

Unfortunately, certain app writers do that, with a little bit of complicity
on the part of the OS.  But in no way does the OS force it.

(ie. apps which want to store their data in ~/Library and which don't behave
well when you try to keep your data elsewhere)

And, of course, iCloud uses the iOS application/document model rather than
a general filesystem model, but that's not OS X.  That's iCloud, and nothing
forces anyone to use it.

The usual chicken littles are saying the same old things.

(I note in a followup,
a reference to the whole Save As business as if that were an example of the
iOS-ification, which I think is just silly.  I think it's a badly done part of
a great idea - the whole business of Versions and auto-save - which I 
still think
they're going to keep making iprovements on.  It would also be awfullly nice if
apps would give one the *option* of using it - I have yet to see an app which
had a switch for it).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39296

Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> wrote:

> (I note in a followup, a reference to the whole Save As business as if
> that were an example of the iOS-ification, which I think is just silly.  I
> think it's a badly done part of a great idea - the whole business of
> Versions and auto-save - which I still think they're going to keep making
> iprovements on.  It would also be awfullly nice if apps would give one the
> *option* of using it - I have yet to see an app which had a switch for
> it).

GraphicConverter is one which has a preference for whether to use
Autosave/Versions.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web