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

Groups > comp.sys.mac.apps > #18823 > unrolled thread

Newsreaders

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

Contents

  Newsreaders Michelle Steiner <email@michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-27 09:41 -0700
    Re: Newsreaders Lloyd <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-27 11:56 -0500
    Re: Newsreaders Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-10-27 13:01 -0400
      Re: Newsreaders Lloyd <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-27 12:36 -0500
        Re: Newsreaders Lloyd  E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-27 14:41 -0500
          Re: Newsreaders snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) - 2013-10-27 19:58 +0000
            Re: Newsreaders Lloyd  E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-27 15:05 -0500
              Re: Newsreaders snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) - 2013-10-27 20:42 +0000
              Re: Newsreaders dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2013-10-28 10:23 +1100
    Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-10-27 19:57 +0000
      Re: Newsreaders snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) - 2013-10-27 20:03 +0000
        Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-28 10:58 +1300
          Re: Newsreaders for Mac OS X Mavericks snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) - 2013-10-27 22:11 +0000
            Re: Newsreaders for Mac OS X Mavericks Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2013-10-27 23:31 +0000
              Re: Newsreaders for Mac OS X Mavericks »Q« <boxcars@gmx.net> - 2013-10-27 19:46 -0500
              Re: Newsreaders for Mac OS X Mavericks Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-11-01 16:55 +0100
      Re: Newsreaders gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-10-27 19:16 -0700
        Re: Newsreaders Lloyd <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-28 08:21 -0500
      Re: Newsreaders Bob Harris <nospam.News.Bob@remove.Smith-Harris.us> - 2013-10-28 03:05 +0000
        Re: Newsreaders Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2013-10-28 05:05 +0000
          Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-28 12:32 +0000
            Re: Newsreaders Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2013-10-28 12:48 +0000
              Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-28 13:45 +0000
                Re: Newsreaders Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2013-10-28 15:19 +0000
                  Re: Newsreaders Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-10-28 15:26 +0000
                    Re: Newsreaders Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2013-10-28 16:17 +0000
                      Re: Newsreaders Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-10-28 21:19 +0000
                        Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-28 22:48 +0000
                          Re: Newsreaders Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-10-29 07:44 +0000
                            Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-29 23:19 +0000
                        Re: Newsreaders Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2013-10-29 05:00 +0000
                          Re: Newsreaders Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-10-29 07:47 +0000
                            Re: Newsreaders Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2013-10-29 09:03 +0000
                              Re: Newsreaders Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-10-29 09:42 +0000
                  Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-28 20:47 +0000
                    Re: Newsreaders Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2013-10-29 04:56 +0000
                      Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-29 21:43 +0000
                    Re: Newsreaders Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-11-01 16:48 +0100
                      Re: Newsreaders Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2013-11-02 11:14 -0400
      Re: Newsreaders Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-10-30 20:11 +0100
        Re: Newsreaders Lloyd <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-30 14:45 -0500
    Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-28 10:58 +1300
    Re: Newsreaders M-M <nospam.m-m@ny.more> - 2013-10-27 19:24 -0400
      Re: Newsreaders Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-10-27 23:42 +0000
        Re: Newsreaders M-M <nospam.m-m@ny.more> - 2013-10-27 20:09 -0400
          Re: Newsreaders Lloyd  E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-27 19:16 -0500
          Re: Newsreaders Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-10-28 00:16 +0000
          Re: Newsreaders Lloyd <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-28 08:11 -0500
            Re: Newsreaders Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-10-28 13:54 +0000
              Re: Newsreaders Lloyd  E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-28 09:01 -0500
                Re: Newsreaders Michelle Steiner <email@michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-28 08:51 -0700
                Re: Newsreaders Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-29 09:09 +1300
                  Re: Newsreaders Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-28 20:44 +0000
                  Re: Newsreaders Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-10-30 20:04 +0100
                    Re: Newsreaders Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-31 18:49 +0000
                Re: Newsreaders Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-10-30 20:02 +0100
                  Re: Newsreaders Lloyd <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-30 14:44 -0500
                  Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-31 08:52 +1300
                  Re: Newsreaders Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-30 12:56 -0700
                  Re: Newsreaders Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2013-10-30 20:18 +0000
                    Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-30 23:24 +0000
                      Re: Newsreaders Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2013-10-31 05:25 +0000
                        Re: Newsreaders Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-10-31 17:18 +0100
                          Re: Newsreaders Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-10-31 17:57 +0000
                          Re: Newsreaders Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2013-10-31 18:22 +0000
                          Re: Newsreaders Jesse <jesse.rehmer@blueworldhosting.com> - 2013-10-31 14:48 -0500
                          Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-31 21:26 +0000
              Re: Newsreaders Michelle Steiner <email@michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-28 08:44 -0700
        Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-28 01:26 +0000
          Re: Newsreaders Lloyd  E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-27 21:04 -0500
            Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-28 02:11 +0000
              Re: Newsreaders Lloyd  E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-27 22:01 -0500
                Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-28 03:40 +0000
                  Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-28 17:26 +1300
                    Re: Newsreaders Lloyd <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-28 08:17 -0500
                  Re: Newsreaders Lloyd <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-28 08:16 -0500
                    Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-28 13:39 +0000
                      Re: Newsreaders Lloyd <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-28 08:43 -0500
    Re: Newsreaders Ted Lee <tmplee@mr.net> - 2013-10-27 20:30 -0500
      Re: Newsreaders AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> - 2013-10-28 11:02 -0400
    Re: Newsreaders Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-10-28 00:48 -0400
      Re: Newsreaders Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-28 15:16 +0000
      Re: Newsreaders Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-10-30 19:39 +0100
    Re: Newsreaders Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-28 15:16 +0000
      Re: Newsreaders Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-10-28 15:21 +0000
      Re: Newsreaders Michelle Steiner <email@michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-28 08:31 -0700
        Re: Newsreaders Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-10-28 08:57 -0700
          Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-29 05:25 +1300
          Re: Newsreaders Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-29 09:22 +1300
          Re: Newsreaders Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-10-28 21:22 +0000
            Re: Newsreaders Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-29 13:29 +1300
              Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-29 01:43 +0000
                Re: Newsreaders Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2013-10-29 05:04 +0000
                  Re: Newsreaders Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-29 18:25 +1300
                    Re: Newsreaders nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-29 01:33 -0400
                    Re: Newsreaders Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2013-10-29 05:37 +0000
                      Re: Newsreaders Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-29 19:25 +1300
                        Re: Newsreaders Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2013-10-29 07:25 +0000
                          Re: Newsreaders nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-29 04:07 -0400
                            Re: Newsreaders Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2013-10-29 09:00 +0000
                            Re: Newsreaders Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-29 17:01 +0000
                              Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-30 10:24 +1300
                                Re: Newsreaders Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-30 14:39 +0000
                            Re: Newsreaders Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-10-30 19:33 +0100
                          Re: Newsreaders Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-30 09:26 +1300
                        Re: Newsreaders Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-10-30 19:32 +0100
                          Re: Newsreaders Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-30 12:00 -0700
                          Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-30 19:43 +0000
                          Re: Newsreaders "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2013-10-30 21:53 -0400
                    Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-29 21:35 +0000
                      Re: Newsreaders bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> - 2013-10-29 16:28 -0700
                        Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-30 13:33 +1300
                          Re: Newsreaders bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> - 2013-10-29 23:14 -0700
                            Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-30 21:43 +1300
                          Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-30 12:39 +0000
                            Re: Newsreaders Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-30 14:39 +0000
                              Re: Newsreaders Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-31 09:31 +1300
                            Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-31 08:52 +1300
                        Re: Newsreaders Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-30 19:36 +1300
                          Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-30 12:42 +0000
                            Re: Newsreaders Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-10-30 19:23 +0100
                              Re: Newsreaders Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-31 18:49 +0000
                        Re: Newsreaders Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-30 14:39 +0000
                Re: Newsreaders Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-29 17:01 +0000
              Re: Newsreaders Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-29 17:01 +0000
                Re: Newsreaders Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-30 09:29 +1300
          Re: Newsreaders "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2013-10-30 16:44 -0400
            Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-30 23:22 +0000
            Re: Newsreaders Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-31 13:15 +1300
    Re: Newsreaders "J.P. Kuypers" <Jean-Pierre.Kuypers@adresse.invalid> - 2013-10-29 10:10 +0100
      Re: Newsreaders Lloyd <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-29 08:36 -0500
        Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-30 10:25 +1300
      Re: Newsreaders spamfalle2@arcor.de (Marc Stibane) - 2013-11-05 20:31 +0100

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

#18972

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnl6uonh.37j.t-usenet@ID-685.user.individual.de>, Martin
> ?rautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> wrote:
> 
>> Don't know what they are up to, but they might use hex as well: 
>> MacOS 10.6
>> MacOS 10.9
>> MacOS 10.A
>> MacOS 10.F
> 
> nothing like confusing everyone but geeks, and what do you do after
> 10.f?
Matbe G?

-- 
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad

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

#18987

Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:

> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <slrnl6uonh.37j.t-usenet@ID-685.user.individual.de>, Martin
> > ?rautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> Don't know what they are up to, but they might use hex as well: 
> >> MacOS 10.6
> >> MacOS 10.9
> >> MacOS 10.A
> >> MacOS 10.F
> > 
> > nothing like confusing everyone but geeks, and what do you do after
> > 10.f?
> Matbe G?

That wouldn't be hex.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

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

#19032

Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
> 
>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> In article <slrnl6uonh.37j.t-usenet@ID-685.user.individual.de>, Martin
>>> ?rautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Don't know what they are up to, but they might use hex as well: 
>>>> MacOS 10.6
>>>> MacOS 10.9
>>>> MacOS 10.A
>>>> MacOS 10.F
>>> 
>>> nothing like confusing everyone but geeks, and what do you do after
>>> 10.f?
>> Matbe G?
> 
> That wouldn't be hex.

I see I came up with an interesting new word. I wonder what it might be
used for? 8-)

-- 
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad

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

#19055

nospam wrote:

> In article <slrnl6uonh.37j.t-usenet@ID-685.user.individual.de>, Martin
> ?rautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>> Don't know what they are up to, but they might use hex as well: 
>> MacOS 10.6
>> MacOS 10.9
>> MacOS 10.A
>> MacOS 10.F
>
> nothing like confusing everyone but geeks, and what do you do after
> 10.f?

Why stop at f?  We moved from 16 bit machines some time ago...

-- 
Paul Sture

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

#18980

In article <slrnl6uonh.37j.t-usenet@ID-685.user.individual.de>, Martin
Ԥrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 19:25:09 +1300, Your Name wrote:
> >  Sorry, I didn't mean it would sort any better (which is why it's a
> >  separate paragraph), just that there's a superfluous extra "10" in
> >  there all the time - despite it meant ot be pronounced as "Ex".
> 
> Ah, so you may call it MacOSX for the whole family, but should use
> MacOS 10.6, MacOS 10.7, MacOS 10.10,
> but not MacOSX 6, MacOSX 10, ...

The whole family would simply be Mac OS 10, since the different
versions have the suffix numbers (10.1, 10.4, etc.).




> >  Apple is planning NOT to have "Mac OS X 10.10" and instead move to "Mac
> >  OS Y 1.0" or "Mac OS XI 1.0".   ;-)
> 
> Don't know what they are up to, but they might use hex as well: 
> MacOS 10.6
> MacOS 10.9
> MacOS 10.A
> MacOS 10.F

That only gives them a few more years though. Maybe they should just
continue the alphabet up to Mac OS 10.Z to give themselves more time to
come up with Mac OS 11.  ;-)

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

#19054

Your Name wrote:

> In article <slrnl6uich.37j.t-usenet@ID-685.user.individual.de>, Martin
> Ԥrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 18:25:10 +1300, Your Name wrote:
>> >  Of course, the problem with Apple's 10.Y numbering system is what is
>> >  going to come next? 10.10? It would work for humans, but it's going to
>> >  screw up many computer sorting systems.
>> > 
>> >  They should have simply done the obvious and called it Mac OS X 1, Mac
>> >  OS X 2, Mac OS X 3, etc.
>> 
>> Sorry, I don't get that. Why would Mac OS X 10 vs. Mac OS X 1 sort any
>> better than MacOS 10.1 vs MacOS 10.10?
> <snip> 
>
> Sorry, I didn't mean it would sort any better (which is why it's a
> separate paragraph), just that there's a superfluous extra "10" in
> there all the time - despite it meant ot be pronounced as "Ex".

I hate to point this out, because where I live I've always heard it as
the letter "X", but try this in Terminal with the sound turned on:

say "OS X 10.10"

> Not having it would simply make the name less cumbersome ... unless
> Apple is planning NOT to have "Mac OS X 10.10" and instead move to "Mac
> OS Y 1.0" or "Mac OS XI 1.0".   ;-)

OS ten ten point ten according to what "say" says !!!???!!!

-- 
Paul Sture

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

#19059

In article <0vv7ka-vao.ln1@news.chingola.ch>, Paul Sture
<nospam@sture.ch> wrote:

> I hate to point this out, because where I live I've always heard it as
> the letter "X", but try this in Terminal with the sound turned on:
> 
> say "OS X 10.10"

It works in Applescript editor too.

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

#19064

In message <0vv7ka-vao.ln1@news.chingola.ch> 
  Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> wrote:
> Your Name wrote:

>> In article <slrnl6uich.37j.t-usenet@ID-685.user.individual.de>, Martin
>> Ԥrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 18:25:10 +1300, Your Name wrote:
>>> >  Of course, the problem with Apple's 10.Y numbering system is what is
>>> >  going to come next? 10.10? It would work for humans, but it's going to
>>> >  screw up many computer sorting systems.
>>> > 
>>> >  They should have simply done the obvious and called it Mac OS X 1, Mac
>>> >  OS X 2, Mac OS X 3, etc.
>>> 
>>> Sorry, I don't get that. Why would Mac OS X 10 vs. Mac OS X 1 sort any
>>> better than MacOS 10.1 vs MacOS 10.10?
>> <snip> 
>>
>> Sorry, I didn't mean it would sort any better (which is why it's a
>> separate paragraph), just that there's a superfluous extra "10" in
>> there all the time - despite it meant ot be pronounced as "Ex".

> I hate to point this out, because where I live I've always heard it as
> the letter "X", but try this in Terminal with the sound turned on:

> say "OS X 10.10"

Apple has *always* said "Oh Ess Ten". I have *always* said "Oh Ess Ex"

> OS ten ten point ten according to what "say" says !!!???!!!

Yes, that would be correct.

-- 
"He is simply a shiver looking for a spine to run up." - Paul Keating

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

#19096

In article <0vv7ka-vao.ln1@news.chingola.ch>,
 Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> wrote:

> Your Name wrote:
> 
> > Sorry, I didn't mean it would sort any better (which is why it's a
> > separate paragraph), just that there's a superfluous extra "10" in
> > there all the time - despite it meant ot be pronounced as "Ex".
> 
> I hate to point this out, because where I live I've always heard it as
> the letter "X", but try this in Terminal with the sound turned on:
> 
> say "OS X 10.10"
> 
> > Not having it would simply make the name less cumbersome ... unless
> > Apple is planning NOT to have "Mac OS X 10.10" and instead move to "Mac
> > OS Y 1.0" or "Mac OS XI 1.0".   ;-)
> 
> OS ten ten point ten according to what "say" says !!!???!!!

I get "oh ess ten ten point one zero"

-- 
D.F. Manno | dfmanno@mail.com
GOP delenda est!

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

#18990

In message <291020131825107266%YourName@YourISP.com> 
  Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> In article <slrnl6ugfn.37j.t-usenet@ID-685.user.individual.de>, Martin
> Ԥrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 01:43:48 +0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:
>> >  In message <291020131329139978%YourName@YourISP.com> 
>> >    Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>> > > 
>> > > They should just get rid of the silly names completely. It's much
>> > > easier to know that "Mac OS X 10.9" is newer than "Mac OS X 10.6",
>> > > rather than trying to figure out where in the timeline the different
>> > > silly codenames fit.
>> > 
>> >  The codenames are the names most people know. They are much easier for
>> >  people to keep track of than a number.
>> 
>> I can't. Maybe I'm more the numbers guy, remembering that I jumped from
>> 6.0.8 via 7.0.1 til 7.6.1 to 10.3, upgrading until 10.6.8 and now maybe
>> waiting for 10.9.1 to jump in again. 
>> 
>> Tell me, which one was Capone?

> Exactly. Most normal people use numbers to indicate a series, not
> random silly names.

First, if you ask regular people what OS version they have they are FAR
more likely to tell you the name than the number. If you press for the
number, chances are very good they have no idea. Second, this is even
true for some abnormal people.

> Of course, the problem with Apple's 10.Y numbering system is what is
> going to come next? 10.10?

Yes, 10.10 is already in testing internally.

> It would work for humans, but it's going to screw up many computer
> sorting systems.

Not unless those systems were programmed by gibbering morons.

-- 
you cannot code around infinite implementations of OCD -John C Welch

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

#19001

In article <slrnl70agp.16qu.g.kreme@jaka.local>,
 Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <291020131825107266%YourName@YourISP.com> 
>   Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> > In article <slrnl6ugfn.37j.t-usenet@ID-685.user.individual.de>, Martin
> >rautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 01:43:48 +0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:
> >> >  In message <291020131329139978%YourName@YourISP.com> 
> >> >    Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> >> > > 
> >> > > They should just get rid of the silly names completely. It's much
> >> > > easier to know that "Mac OS X 10.9" is newer than "Mac OS X 10.6",
> >> > > rather than trying to figure out where in the timeline the different
> >> > > silly codenames fit.
> >> > 
> >> >  The codenames are the names most people know. They are much easier for
> >> >  people to keep track of than a number.
> >> 
> >> I can't. Maybe I'm more the numbers guy, remembering that I jumped from
> >> 6.0.8 via 7.0.1 til 7.6.1 to 10.3, upgrading until 10.6.8 and now maybe
> >> waiting for 10.9.1 to jump in again. 
> >> 
> >> Tell me, which one was Capone?
> 
> > Exactly. Most normal people use numbers to indicate a series, not
> > random silly names.
> 
> First, if you ask regular people what OS version they have they are FAR
> more likely to tell you the name than the number. If you press for the
> number, chances are very good they have no idea. Second, this is even
> true for some abnormal people.

I must be abnormally abnormal. Within a few months of installing each 
big cat OS I've forgotten which cat it was. But 10.6.8, which I've been 
running for a couple of years, is top of mind and tip of tongue for me; 
I don't have to think about it.

My wife, whose iMac runs the same OS, remembered Snow Leopard and 10.6, 
but not the .8 part. 

I have a feeling that it's a very individual thing and that we tend to 
assume that the way we remember it ourselves is the normal way.

bill

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

#19002

bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> wrote:

> In article <slrnl70agp.16qu.g.kreme@jaka.local>,
>  Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> 
> > In message <291020131825107266%YourName@YourISP.com> 
> >   Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> > > In article <slrnl6ugfn.37j.t-usenet@ID-685.user.individual.de>, Martin
> > >rautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> wrote:
> > >> On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 01:43:48 +0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:
> > >> >  In message <291020131329139978%YourName@YourISP.com> 
> > >> >    Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> > >> > > 
> > >> > > They should just get rid of the silly names completely. It's much
> > >> > > easier to know that "Mac OS X 10.9" is newer than "Mac OS X 10.6",
> > >> > > rather than trying to figure out where in the timeline the different
> > >> > > silly codenames fit.
> > >> > 
> > >> >  The codenames are the names most people know. They are much easier for
> > >> >  people to keep track of than a number.
> > >> 
> > >> I can't. Maybe I'm more the numbers guy, remembering that I jumped from
> > >> 6.0.8 via 7.0.1 til 7.6.1 to 10.3, upgrading until 10.6.8 and now maybe
> > >> waiting for 10.9.1 to jump in again. 
> > >> 
> > >> Tell me, which one was Capone?
> > 
> > > Exactly. Most normal people use numbers to indicate a series, not
> > > random silly names.
> > 
> > First, if you ask regular people what OS version they have they are FAR
> > more likely to tell you the name than the number. If you press for the
> > number, chances are very good they have no idea. Second, this is even
> > true for some abnormal people.
> 
> I must be abnormally abnormal. Within a few months of installing each
> big cat OS I've forgotten which cat it was. But 10.6.8, which I've been
> running for a couple of years, is top of mind and tip of tongue for me;
> I don't have to think about it.
> 
> My wife, whose iMac runs the same OS, remembered Snow Leopard and 10.6,
> but not the .8 part. 
> 
> I have a feeling that it's a very individual thing and that we tend to
> assume that the way we remember it ourselves is the normal way.
> 
> bill

I know I usually think of the version number first, then try to remember
the big cat name if that doesn't register for the person I'm talking to.
Version numbers after all give useful information - the version, where
in the sequence it fell, etc. Big cat names tell you very nothing unless
you already remember all the rest. Big cat names or place names are
cute. But not useful for anything but marketing. Version numbers are
real useful information.

I've been in many a discussion where big cat names are used and there is
confusion as to where in the sequence each lies (most often with
non-geeks). No such trouble with version numbers. Version numbers are
logical, but unattractive marketing-wise.

That's my experience and personal take on the matter.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

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

#19015

In article <1lbk2pn.1qawsvr1aflc0vN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>,
 jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:

> bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> wrote:

> > I must be abnormally abnormal. Within a few months of installing each
> > big cat OS I've forgotten which cat it was. But 10.6.8, which I've been
> > running for a couple of years, is top of mind and tip of tongue for me;
> > I don't have to think about it.
> > 
> > My wife, whose iMac runs the same OS, remembered Snow Leopard and 10.6,
> > but not the .8 part. 
> > 
> > I have a feeling that it's a very individual thing and that we tend to
> > assume that the way we remember it ourselves is the normal way.
> 
> I know I usually think of the version number first, then try to remember
> the big cat name if that doesn't register for the person I'm talking to.
> Version numbers after all give useful information - the version, where
> in the sequence it fell, etc. Big cat names tell you very nothing unless
> you already remember all the rest. Big cat names or place names are
> cute. But not useful for anything but marketing. Version numbers are
> real useful information.
> 
> I've been in many a discussion where big cat names are used and there is
> confusion as to where in the sequence each lies (most often with
> non-geeks). No such trouble with version numbers. Version numbers are
> logical, but unattractive marketing-wise.
> 
> That's my experience and personal take on the matter.

That seems sensible to me. The number, e.g. 10.6.8, puts the OS version 
in the context of preceding and succeeding versions. There is no such 
logic or connection with the names. 

Mavericks as an OS version name is kind of a shrug for me. It means 
something to California and to surfing communities, I guess, but it has 
no context for anyone else. It looks a bit dead-endish from here. I'll 
stick with the numbers.

bill

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

#19020

bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> wrote:

> In article <1lbk2pn.1qawsvr1aflc0vN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>,
>  jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
> 
> > bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> wrote:
> 
> > > I must be abnormally abnormal. Within a few months of installing each
> > > big cat OS I've forgotten which cat it was. But 10.6.8, which I've been
> > > running for a couple of years, is top of mind and tip of tongue for me;
> > > I don't have to think about it.
> > > 
> > > My wife, whose iMac runs the same OS, remembered Snow Leopard and 10.6,
> > > but not the .8 part. 
> > > 
> > > I have a feeling that it's a very individual thing and that we tend to
> > > assume that the way we remember it ourselves is the normal way.
> > 
> > I know I usually think of the version number first, then try to remember
> > the big cat name if that doesn't register for the person I'm talking to.
> > Version numbers after all give useful information - the version, where
> > in the sequence it fell, etc. Big cat names tell you very nothing unless
> > you already remember all the rest. Big cat names or place names are
> > cute. But not useful for anything but marketing. Version numbers are
> > real useful information.
> > 
> > I've been in many a discussion where big cat names are used and there is
> > confusion as to where in the sequence each lies (most often with
> > non-geeks). No such trouble with version numbers. Version numbers are
> > logical, but unattractive marketing-wise.
> > 
> > That's my experience and personal take on the matter.
> 
> That seems sensible to me. The number, e.g. 10.6.8, puts the OS version
> in the context of preceding and succeeding versions. There is no such
> logic or connection with the names. 
> 
> Mavericks as an OS version name is kind of a shrug for me. It means 
> something to California and to surfing communities, I guess, but it has
> no context for anyone else. It looks a bit dead-endish from here. I'll
> stick with the numbers.
> 
> bill

I guess Leopard and Snow Leopard gave a clue, but other than that - nup.
Even I sometimes forgot and still forget 10.4 is Tiger and 10.3 was
Panther. Don't even bother quizzing me on the big cat names before the
code names because official marketing names, heh :-)
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

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

#19022

In message <1lbk2pn.1qawsvr1aflc0vN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> 
  Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> wrote:

>> In article <slrnl70agp.16qu.g.kreme@jaka.local>,
>>  Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>> 
>> > In message <291020131825107266%YourName@YourISP.com> 
>> >   Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>> > > In article <slrnl6ugfn.37j.t-usenet@ID-685.user.individual.de>, Martin
>> > >rautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> wrote:
>> > >> On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 01:43:48 +0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:
>> > >> >  In message <291020131329139978%YourName@YourISP.com> 
>> > >> >    Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>> > >> > > 
>> > >> > > They should just get rid of the silly names completely. It's much
>> > >> > > easier to know that "Mac OS X 10.9" is newer than "Mac OS X 10.6",
>> > >> > > rather than trying to figure out where in the timeline the different
>> > >> > > silly codenames fit.
>> > >> > 
>> > >> >  The codenames are the names most people know. They are much easier for
>> > >> >  people to keep track of than a number.
>> > >> 
>> > >> I can't. Maybe I'm more the numbers guy, remembering that I jumped from
>> > >> 6.0.8 via 7.0.1 til 7.6.1 to 10.3, upgrading until 10.6.8 and now maybe
>> > >> waiting for 10.9.1 to jump in again. 
>> > >> 
>> > >> Tell me, which one was Capone?
>> > 
>> > > Exactly. Most normal people use numbers to indicate a series, not
>> > > random silly names.
>> > 
>> > First, if you ask regular people what OS version they have they are FAR
>> > more likely to tell you the name than the number. If you press for the
>> > number, chances are very good they have no idea. Second, this is even
>> > true for some abnormal people.
>> 
>> I must be abnormally abnormal. Within a few months of installing each
>> big cat OS I've forgotten which cat it was. But 10.6.8, which I've been
>> running for a couple of years, is top of mind and tip of tongue for me;
>> I don't have to think about it.
>> 
>> My wife, whose iMac runs the same OS, remembered Snow Leopard and 10.6,
>> but not the .8 part. 
>> 
>> I have a feeling that it's a very individual thing and that we tend to
>> assume that the way we remember it ourselves is the normal way.
>> 
>> bill

> I know I usually think of the version number first, then try to remember
> the big cat name if that doesn't register for the person I'm talking to.
> Version numbers after all give useful information - the version, where
> in the sequence it fell, etc. Big cat names tell you very nothing unless
> you already remember all the rest. Big cat names or place names are
> cute. But not useful for anything but marketing. Version numbers are
> real useful information.

> I've been in many a discussion where big cat names are used and there is
> confusion as to where in the sequence each lies (most often with
> non-geeks).

Right. Just like I said, normal people remember the NAME, not the
number.


-- 
The fact is that camels are far more intelligent than dolphins.
Footnote: Never trust a species that grins all the time. It's up to
something. --Pyramids

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

#19030

Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <1lbk2pn.1qawsvr1aflc0vN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> 
>   Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
>> bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> wrote:
> 
>>> In article <slrnl70agp.16qu.g.kreme@jaka.local>,
>>>  Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> In message <291020131825107266%YourName@YourISP.com> 
>>>>   Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>>>> In article <slrnl6ugfn.37j.t-usenet@ID-685.user.individual.de>, Martin
>>>>> rautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 01:43:48 +0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:
>>>>>>>  In message <291020131329139978%YourName@YourISP.com> 
>>>>>>>    Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> They should just get rid of the silly names completely. It's much
>>>>>>>> easier to know that "Mac OS X 10.9" is newer than "Mac OS X 10.6",
>>>>>>>> rather than trying to figure out where in the timeline the different
>>>>>>>> silly codenames fit.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  The codenames are the names most people know. They are much easier for
>>>>>>>  people to keep track of than a number.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I can't. Maybe I'm more the numbers guy, remembering that I jumped from
>>>>>> 6.0.8 via 7.0.1 til 7.6.1 to 10.3, upgrading until 10.6.8 and now maybe
>>>>>> waiting for 10.9.1 to jump in again. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Tell me, which one was Capone?
>>>> 
>>>>> Exactly. Most normal people use numbers to indicate a series, not
>>>>> random silly names.
>>>> 
>>>> First, if you ask regular people what OS version they have they are FAR
>>>> more likely to tell you the name than the number. If you press for the
>>>> number, chances are very good they have no idea. Second, this is even
>>>> true for some abnormal people.
>>> 
>>> I must be abnormally abnormal. Within a few months of installing each
>>> big cat OS I've forgotten which cat it was. But 10.6.8, which I've been
>>> running for a couple of years, is top of mind and tip of tongue for me;
>>> I don't have to think about it.
>>> 
>>> My wife, whose iMac runs the same OS, remembered Snow Leopard and 10.6,
>>> but not the .8 part. 
>>> 
>>> I have a feeling that it's a very individual thing and that we tend to
>>> assume that the way we remember it ourselves is the normal way.
>>> 
>>> bill
> 
>> I know I usually think of the version number first, then try to remember
>> the big cat name if that doesn't register for the person I'm talking to.
>> Version numbers after all give useful information - the version, where
>> in the sequence it fell, etc. Big cat names tell you very nothing unless
>> you already remember all the rest. Big cat names or place names are
>> cute. But not useful for anything but marketing. Version numbers are
>> real useful information.
> 
>> I've been in many a discussion where big cat names are used and there is
>> confusion as to where in the sequence each lies (most often with
>> non-geeks).
> 
> Right. Just like I said, normal people remember the NAME, not the
> number.
> 

Oh, goody!  More proof I'm not normal!  It's so boring.

-- 
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad

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

#19072

In article <l4r5mr$7m0$3@dont-email.me>, Erilar
<drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:

> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> > In message <1lbk2pn.1qawsvr1aflc0vN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> 
> >   Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> >> bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> wrote:
> > 
> >>> In article <slrnl70agp.16qu.g.kreme@jaka.local>,
> >>>  Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> In message <291020131825107266%YourName@YourISP.com> 
> >>>>   Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> >>>>> In article <slrnl6ugfn.37j.t-usenet@ID-685.user.individual.de>, Martin
> >>>>> rautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 01:43:48 +0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:
> >>>>>>>  In message <291020131329139978%YourName@YourISP.com> 
> >>>>>>>    Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> They should just get rid of the silly names completely. It's much
> >>>>>>>> easier to know that "Mac OS X 10.9" is newer than "Mac OS X 10.6",
> >>>>>>>> rather than trying to figure out where in the timeline the different
> >>>>>>>> silly codenames fit.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>  The codenames are the names most people know. They are much easier
> >>>>>>>  for
> >>>>>>>  people to keep track of than a number.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> I can't. Maybe I'm more the numbers guy, remembering that I jumped from
> >>>>>> 6.0.8 via 7.0.1 til 7.6.1 to 10.3, upgrading until 10.6.8 and now maybe
> >>>>>> waiting for 10.9.1 to jump in again. 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Tell me, which one was Capone?
> >>>> 
> >>>>> Exactly. Most normal people use numbers to indicate a series, not
> >>>>> random silly names.
> >>>> 
> >>>> First, if you ask regular people what OS version they have they are FAR
> >>>> more likely to tell you the name than the number. If you press for the
> >>>> number, chances are very good they have no idea. Second, this is even
> >>>> true for some abnormal people.
> >>> 
> >>> I must be abnormally abnormal. Within a few months of installing each
> >>> big cat OS I've forgotten which cat it was. But 10.6.8, which I've been
> >>> running for a couple of years, is top of mind and tip of tongue for me;
> >>> I don't have to think about it.
> >>> 
> >>> My wife, whose iMac runs the same OS, remembered Snow Leopard and 10.6,
> >>> but not the .8 part. 
> >>> 
> >>> I have a feeling that it's a very individual thing and that we tend to
> >>> assume that the way we remember it ourselves is the normal way.
> >>> 
> >>> bill
> > 
> >> I know I usually think of the version number first, then try to remember
> >> the big cat name if that doesn't register for the person I'm talking to.
> >> Version numbers after all give useful information - the version, where
> >> in the sequence it fell, etc. Big cat names tell you very nothing unless
> >> you already remember all the rest. Big cat names or place names are
> >> cute. But not useful for anything but marketing. Version numbers are
> >> real useful information.
> > 
> >> I've been in many a discussion where big cat names are used and there is
> >> confusion as to where in the sequence each lies (most often with
> >> non-geeks).
> > 
> > Right. Just like I said, normal people remember the NAME, not the
> > number.
> > 
> 
> Oh, goody!  More proof I'm not normal!  It's so boring.

Nope, you're "normal" ... or at least as "normal" as the vast majority
of people living in the real world.   :-) 

Lewis is simply a moron living in fantasy geekworld - just ignore him.

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

#19068

Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <1lbk2pn.1qawsvr1aflc0vN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> 
>   Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> > bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> wrote:
> 
> >> In article <slrnl70agp.16qu.g.kreme@jaka.local>,
> >>  Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> >> 
> >> > In message <291020131825107266%YourName@YourISP.com> 
> >> >   Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> >> > > In article <slrnl6ugfn.37j.t-usenet@ID-685.user.individual.de>, Martin
> >> > >rautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> wrote:
> >> > >> On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 01:43:48 +0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:
> >> > >> >  In message <291020131329139978%YourName@YourISP.com> 
> >> > >> >    Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> >> > >> > > 
> >> > >> > > They should just get rid of the silly names completely. It's
> >> > >> > > much easier to know that "Mac OS X 10.9" is newer than "Mac OS
> >> > >> > > X 10.6", rather than trying to figure out where in the
> >> > >> > > timeline the different silly codenames fit.
> >> > >> > 
> >> > >> >  The codenames are the names most people know. They are much
> >> > >> >  easier for people to keep track of than a number.
> >> > >> 
> >> > >> I can't. Maybe I'm more the numbers guy, remembering that I jumped
> >> > >> from 6.0.8 via 7.0.1 til 7.6.1 to 10.3, upgrading until 10.6.8 and
> >> > >> now maybe waiting for 10.9.1 to jump in again.
> >> > >> 
> >> > >> Tell me, which one was Capone?
> >> > 
> >> > > Exactly. Most normal people use numbers to indicate a series, not
> >> > > random silly names.
> >> > 
> >> > First, if you ask regular people what OS version they have they are FAR
> >> > more likely to tell you the name than the number. If you press for the
> >> > number, chances are very good they have no idea. Second, this is even
> >> > true for some abnormal people.
> >> 
> >> I must be abnormally abnormal. Within a few months of installing each
> >> big cat OS I've forgotten which cat it was. But 10.6.8, which I've been
> >> running for a couple of years, is top of mind and tip of tongue for me;
> >> I don't have to think about it.
> >> 
> >> My wife, whose iMac runs the same OS, remembered Snow Leopard and 10.6,
> >> but not the .8 part. 
> >> 
> >> I have a feeling that it's a very individual thing and that we tend to
> >> assume that the way we remember it ourselves is the normal way.
> >> 
> >> bill
> 
> > I know I usually think of the version number first, then try to remember
> > the big cat name if that doesn't register for the person I'm talking to.
> > Version numbers after all give useful information - the version, where
> > in the sequence it fell, etc. Big cat names tell you very nothing unless
> > you already remember all the rest. Big cat names or place names are
> > cute. But not useful for anything but marketing. Version numbers are
> > real useful information.
> 
> > I've been in many a discussion where big cat names are used and there is
> > confusion as to where in the sequence each lies (most often with
> > non-geeks).
> 
> Right. Just like I said, normal people remember the NAME, not the
> number.

And suffer confusion as a result :-)
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

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

#19016

In article <billvan-57FF32.16285329102013@news.shawcable.net>, bill van
<billvan@delete.shaw.ca> wrote:
> In article <slrnl70agp.16qu.g.kreme@jaka.local>,
>  Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> > In message <291020131825107266%YourName@YourISP.com> 
> >   Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> > > In article <slrnl6ugfn.37j.t-usenet@ID-685.user.individual.de>, Martin
> > >rautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> wrote:
> > >> On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 01:43:48 +0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:
> > >> >  In message <291020131329139978%YourName@YourISP.com> 
> > >> >    Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> > >> > > 
> > >> > > They should just get rid of the silly names completely. It's much
> > >> > > easier to know that "Mac OS X 10.9" is newer than "Mac OS X 10.6",
> > >> > > rather than trying to figure out where in the timeline the different
> > >> > > silly codenames fit.
> > >> > 
> > >> >  The codenames are the names most people know. They are much easier for
> > >> >  people to keep track of than a number.
> > >> 
> > >> I can't. Maybe I'm more the numbers guy, remembering that I jumped from
> > >> 6.0.8 via 7.0.1 til 7.6.1 to 10.3, upgrading until 10.6.8 and now maybe
> > >> waiting for 10.9.1 to jump in again. 
> > >> 
> > >> Tell me, which one was Capone?
> > 
> > > Exactly. Most normal people use numbers to indicate a series, not
> > > random silly names.
> > 
> > First, if you ask regular people what OS version they have they are FAR
> > more likely to tell you the name than the number. If you press for the
> > number, chances are very good they have no idea. Second, this is even
> > true for some abnormal people.
> 
> I must be abnormally abnormal. Within a few months of installing each 
> big cat OS I've forgotten which cat it was. But 10.6.8, which I've been 
> running for a couple of years, is top of mind and tip of tongue for me; 
> I don't have to think about it.
> 
> My wife, whose iMac runs the same OS, remembered Snow Leopard and 10.6, 
> but not the .8 part. 
> 
> I have a feeling that it's a very individual thing and that we tend to 
> assume that the way we remember it ourselves is the normal way.

Don't worry. Lewis is a dimbulb geek who thinks absolutely everyone
else does what he and his five geeky friends do (which is why the
numbnut is in my killfile). :-\

The fact is that in the real world very few people know what the
codename of the Mac OS is, and most people don't even know (nor care)
what OS they're using at all ... some Mac users even think they're
using Windows.

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

#19023

In message <301020131936128878%YourName@YourISP.com> 
  Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> In article <billvan-57FF32.16285329102013@news.shawcable.net>, bill van
> <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> wrote:
>> In article <slrnl70agp.16qu.g.kreme@jaka.local>,
>>  Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>> > In message <291020131825107266%YourName@YourISP.com> 
>> >   Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>> > > In article <slrnl6ugfn.37j.t-usenet@ID-685.user.individual.de>, Martin
>> > >rautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> wrote:
>> > >> On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 01:43:48 +0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:
>> > >> >  In message <291020131329139978%YourName@YourISP.com> 
>> > >> >    Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>> > >> > > 
>> > >> > > They should just get rid of the silly names completely. It's much
>> > >> > > easier to know that "Mac OS X 10.9" is newer than "Mac OS X 10.6",
>> > >> > > rather than trying to figure out where in the timeline the different
>> > >> > > silly codenames fit.
>> > >> > 
>> > >> >  The codenames are the names most people know. They are much easier for
>> > >> >  people to keep track of than a number.
>> > >> 
>> > >> I can't. Maybe I'm more the numbers guy, remembering that I jumped from
>> > >> 6.0.8 via 7.0.1 til 7.6.1 to 10.3, upgrading until 10.6.8 and now maybe
>> > >> waiting for 10.9.1 to jump in again. 
>> > >> 
>> > >> Tell me, which one was Capone?
>> > 
>> > > Exactly. Most normal people use numbers to indicate a series, not
>> > > random silly names.
>> > 
>> > First, if you ask regular people what OS version they have they are FAR
>> > more likely to tell you the name than the number. If you press for the
>> > number, chances are very good they have no idea. Second, this is even
>> > true for some abnormal people.
>> 
>> I must be abnormally abnormal. Within a few months of installing each 
>> big cat OS I've forgotten which cat it was. But 10.6.8, which I've been 
>> running for a couple of years, is top of mind and tip of tongue for me; 
>> I don't have to think about it.
>> 
>> My wife, whose iMac runs the same OS, remembered Snow Leopard and 10.6, 
>> but not the .8 part. 
>> 
>> I have a feeling that it's a very individual thing and that we tend to 
>> assume that the way we remember it ourselves is the normal way.

> Don't worry. Lewis is a dimbulb geek who thinks absolutely everyone
> else does what he and his five geeky friends do (which is why the
> numbnut is in my killfile). :-\

Yay!

But no, I was not describing what I do, or any geeks do. I was
describing what normal everyday non-geeks do. The sort of people who
call me up and say "when I try to send mail it doesn't work" and don't
mention their computer isn't even turned on.

Geeks, obviously, use version numbers.

-- 
I WILL NOT BARF UNLESS I'M SICK Bart chalkboard Ep. 8F15

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

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

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

csiph-web