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

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #51450 > unrolled thread

Quicklook no longer plays Video?

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

Contents

  Quicklook no longer plays Video? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2013-10-31 01:09 -0400
    Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-10-31 10:20 -0700
      Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2013-10-31 15:02 -0400
        Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Lloyd  E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-31 14:15 -0500
          Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-10-31 12:51 -0700
            Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Lloyd  E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-31 14:54 -0500
            Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-31 22:58 -0700
        Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-31 12:28 -0700
          Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Lloyd <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-31 15:04 -0500
            Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-31 22:59 -0700
          Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2013-11-01 00:36 -0400
            Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-01 18:56 +1300
              Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-11-01 00:20 -0700
            Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-31 23:00 -0700
              Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2013-11-01 06:00 -0400
                Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-11-01 07:03 -0700
                  Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2013-11-01 14:16 -0400
                    Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-11-01 12:06 -0700
                      Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2013-11-02 01:25 -0400
                        Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-02 18:42 +1300
                          Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2013-11-02 02:50 -0400
                            Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-03 09:56 +1300
                              Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2013-11-02 20:59 -0400
                                Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-11-02 19:57 -0700
                                  Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2013-11-02 23:26 -0400
                                    Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-02 21:08 -0700
                                      Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2013-11-03 05:27 -0500
                                        Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-03 08:38 -0700
                                Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-03 17:40 +1300
                                  Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2013-11-03 05:38 -0500
                                    Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-04 09:24 +1300
                                    Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-11-03 17:18 -0800
                                      Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2013-11-05 07:27 -0500
                                        Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-11-05 09:14 -0800
                                          Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2013-11-05 13:46 -0500
                        Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2013-11-02 03:15 -0400
                        Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-11-02 16:25 -0700
                          Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Lloyd  E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-11-02 18:59 -0500
                            Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-11-02 19:54 -0700
                              Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Ted Lee <tmplee@mr.net> - 2013-11-02 22:26 -0500
                                Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Ted Lee <tmplee@mr.net> - 2013-11-02 22:29 -0500
                              Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2013-11-02 20:31 -0700
                                Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-02 21:09 -0700
                              Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Martin Frost me at invalid stanford daht edu <nospam@stanford.edu.invalid> - 2013-11-03 00:29 -0800
                                Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Lloyd  E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-11-03 07:04 -0600
                                  Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-03 08:37 -0700
                                    Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Lloyd  E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-11-03 09:47 -0600
                                      Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-03 08:56 -0700
                                        Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Lloyd  E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-11-03 10:06 -0600
                                          Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-03 12:05 -0700
                                Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-03 08:33 -0700
                          Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-11-02 20:07 -0400
                            Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-11-02 19:55 -0700
                Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-11-01 07:45 -0700
                  Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2013-11-01 14:02 -0400
                    Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-11-01 12:57 -0700
                      Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2013-11-02 01:30 -0400
                        Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-11-02 11:12 -0700
                          Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2013-11-02 15:07 -0400
                            Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-11-02 13:14 -0700
                            Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2013-11-03 08:33 +1100
                              Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-03 12:06 +1300
        Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-10-31 12:49 -0700
        Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-11-01 07:06 -0700
    Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-31 12:25 -0700
      Re: Quicklook no longer plays Video? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-10-31 12:54 -0700

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

#51613

In article <021120131842557595%YourName@YourISP.com>,
 Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#51648

In article <fredp151-865101.02505202112013@news.eternal-september.org>,
FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <021120131842557595%YourName@YourISP.com>,
>  Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Apple has a bit of a habit of "improving" while dropping features:
> > 
> >    - "upgrade" from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X (especially the early versions)
> >    - "upgrade" of iMovie
> >    - "upgrade" of iWork
> >    - "upgrade" of Final Cut
> >    - "upgrade" from .Mac to iCloud
> >    - "upgrades" of iMac which first lost the floppy drive, 
> >      then the optical drive, and soon the hard drive by 
> >      the look of it
> >    - "upgrades" of various Mac models which lost FireWire
> >    - "upgrade" of the Mac Pro which lost PCI slots (and
> >      potentially almost all other user-upgradeable parts)
> 
> I don't doubt that these "improvements" irritated a lot of users of 
> those apps. 
> 
> But at least those only affect those who use them.  For me, changing 
> what double-clicking a folder does affects me no matter what program I'm 
> using.

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



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

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



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

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

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

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

#51686

In article <031120130956340380%YourName@YourISP.com>,
 Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We're not stupid...

We run every OS from Leopard to Mavericks.

FPP

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

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

#51706

In article <fredp151-1329B9.20592802112013@news.eternal-september.org>,
FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:

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

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

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

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

#51709

In article <021120131957462083%michelle@michelle.org>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

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

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

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

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

Good luck with the VA.

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

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

#51718

In article <fredp151-CF5957.23262902112013@news.eternal-september.org>,
FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

#51743

In article <021120132108085437%foo@bar.com>,
 Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> wrote:

> In article <fredp151-CF5957.23262902112013@news.eternal-september.org>,
> FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Re: cataract surgery... $2400 per eye?  Total cost, or *your* cost?
> 
> Both; I don't have medical insurance other than Medicare A because I
> get all my medical care at the VA for free.  It's free because I have a
> service-connected disability.  So any medical care I get outside of the
> VA system I pay for.  
> 
> > Guess you pay it, either way... there's not much choice.
> > 
> > Good luck with the VA.
> 
> If the VA says my cataracts aren't bad enough to warrant surgery, I'll
> wait until they are bad enough.

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

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

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

#51754

In article <fredp151-462F42.05271503112013@news.eternal-september.org>,
FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:

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

*laugh*

-- Michelle

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

#51721

In article <fredp151-1329B9.20592802112013@news.eternal-september.org>,
FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <031120130956340380%YourName@YourISP.com>,
>  Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> >
> > You're still opening the double-clicked folder, it just opens in the
> > same window or new tab.
> 
> And you're closing the previous folder/window.  THAT's what I'm 
> objecting to.  That's what's different.  If I'd wanted to close the 
> previous window, I could have held down the option key.

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



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

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

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

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

#51744

In article <031120131740389012%YourName@YourISP.com>,
 Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#51788

In article <fredp151-16551D.05382303112013@news.eternal-september.org>,
FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <031120131740389012%YourName@YourISP.com>,
>  Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> 
> > It's not closing the previous folder, it's simply replacing it. 
> 
> A distinction without a difference.  I still can't drag files to a 
> folder that's no longer open...

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

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

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

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

#51815

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

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

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

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

...Not that it addresses your complaints.

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

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

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

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

#51877

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#51885

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

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

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

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

#51894

In article <2013110509144638948-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:

> On 2013-11-05 12:27:44 +0000, FPP said:
> 
> > In article <201311031718075724-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> > 
> >> I've chided you here for what I consider a small and inconsequential
> >> change, but I stress again that I do sympathize with your difficulties.
> >> Sometimes the tiniest changes in work flow, ones that you've come to do
> >> endlessly every day are the only ones that you don't want to change:
> >> It's almost like moving the "backspace" key to the other side of the
> >> keyboard or something.
> >> 
> >> The most important thing is--it doesn't effect me in anyway!
> > 
> > Well, *that's* been going on forever...
> > 
> >> Sounds like you need to take the bull by the horns, grab your Bible and 
> >> open
> >> it to Exodus 21:28-30:
> 
> I don't know know who brought the bibler into the discussion, but it 
> wouldn't have been me.

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

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

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

#51614

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

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

It's called "WindowMiser":

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

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

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

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

#51664

In article <fredp151-66FEA0.01251502112013@news.eternal-september.org>,
FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:

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

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

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

#51674

On 2013-11-02 23:25:00 +0000, Michelle Steiner said:

> In article <fredp151-66FEA0.01251502112013@news.eternal-september.org>,
> FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>> I'm nearsighted too; I wear contacts, but need glasses to see the
>>> screen clearly.  Well, sorta clearly; I have cataracts.
>> 
>> I'm working on cataracts myself...  it's a few years away, I'm told.  I
>> plan on surgery, when it becomes more pronounced.
> 
> They told me in 2002 or 2003 that I'd need cataract surgery in five to
> ten years.  Between March of this year and now, my vision has gotten
> worse, so I'll be seeing an eye doctor on Wednesday to see whether it's
> bad enough to warrant surgery.  (Actually, one already told me that it
> is, and he offered to do it for $2400 per eye, but next week's visit is
> to see whether it's bad enough for the VA to do it for free.)

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

-- 
Lloyd

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

#51700

In article <l543lm$6l2$1@dont-email.me>, Lloyd  E Parsons
<lloydp21@live.com> wrote:

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

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

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

#51708

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

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

Ted

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

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

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

csiph-web