Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #51653 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2013-11-02 15:16 -0700 |
| Last post | 2013-11-08 09:48 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 183 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-11-02 15:16 -0700
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-11-02 18:42 -0400
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-11-02 16:43 -0700
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-03 12:50 +1300
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-11-02 20:04 -0400
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2013-11-03 05:53 -0500
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-03 13:28 -0400
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-11-03 12:14 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-03 15:17 -0400
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-11-03 17:09 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2013-11-04 15:15 -0500
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-04 15:26 -0500
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-11-05 09:12 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-04 09:28 +1300
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-03 20:56 +0000
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-03 16:25 -0400
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-11-03 17:10 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-11-03 17:50 -0500
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-11-03 17:11 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-11-03 12:11 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-03 15:17 -0400
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-11-03 17:08 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-03 20:28 -0400
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-11-03 21:49 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-04 01:14 -0500
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-11-04 06:46 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-04 13:11 -0500
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-11-05 09:09 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-05 12:58 -0500
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-11-05 10:52 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-11-05 21:37 +0000
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2013-11-14 09:49 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-15 09:13 +1300
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2013-11-14 16:38 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-15 18:57 +1300
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-11-15 09:45 +0100
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-15 09:42 -0500
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2013-11-15 08:14 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-11-15 09:23 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-11-17 12:25 +0100
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-15 12:56 -0500
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-16 10:28 +1300
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-11-15 09:44 +0100
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-16 10:24 +1300
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2013-11-16 16:37 +1300
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-14 21:33 -0700
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-02 19:57 -0400
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-11-02 19:46 -0700
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-11-03 08:00 -0500
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-03 08:40 -0700
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-03 13:28 -0400
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-03 13:34 -0500
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-03 20:59 +0000
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-03 12:00 -0700
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-03 14:27 -0400
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2013-11-14 11:44 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-15 09:16 +1300
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2013-11-14 16:38 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-15 19:01 +1300
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks rcp27g@gmail.com - 2013-11-15 07:10 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2013-11-15 08:19 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-15 12:59 -0500
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-16 11:40 +1300
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-16 10:36 +1300
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-15 23:35 -0500
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-15 22:31 -0700
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-16 01:23 -0500
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-11-16 08:27 +0100
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-16 08:32 -0700
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-16 18:54 +1300
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-16 08:34 -0700
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-11-20 17:33 +0100
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-16 11:41 +1300
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks bob <rcp27g@gmail.com> - 2013-11-16 13:14 +0100
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-16 14:18 +0000
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-16 12:40 -0500
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks bob <rcp27g@gmail.com> - 2013-11-16 23:29 +0100
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-17 12:17 +1300
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-16 20:15 -0500
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Andreas Rutishauser <andreas@macandreas.ch> - 2013-11-17 09:10 +0100
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-18 09:36 +1300
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-17 15:41 -0500
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-16 20:12 -0500
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-16 12:30 -0500
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2013-11-16 09:43 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks rcp27g@gmail.com - 2013-11-18 02:13 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-19 09:01 +1300
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-15 09:24 -0700
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-11-14 13:59 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2013-11-14 11:37 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-11-03 12:00 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-11-03 17:40 -0500
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-11-03 16:24 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-11-06 16:52 -0500
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-07 13:31 +1300
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks rcp27g@gmail.com - 2013-11-07 06:02 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-04 18:24 +1300
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-11-03 21:49 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-04 19:15 +1300
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-11-03 11:59 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-03 13:43 -0700
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks rcp27g@gmail.com - 2013-11-04 03:00 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-11-02 20:02 -0400
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks rcp27g@gmail.com - 2013-11-04 02:57 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-04 13:11 -0500
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-11-04 10:24 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks rcp27g@gmail.com - 2013-11-05 02:24 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-05 09:59 -0500
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-05 08:59 -0700
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-05 20:01 -0500
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-05 20:29 -0500
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-11-06 07:45 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks rcp27g@gmail.com - 2013-11-06 02:20 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-06 07:56 -0500
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-11-05 08:39 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-05 12:58 -0500
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-05 20:02 -0500
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-06 16:38 +1300
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks bob <rcp27g@gmail.com> - 2013-11-05 21:55 +0100
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-05 17:04 -0500
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-06 09:29 +1300
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2013-11-14 11:47 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks rcp27g@gmail.com - 2013-11-15 06:57 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-15 13:01 -0500
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks bob <rcp27g@gmail.com> - 2013-11-16 13:25 +0100
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2013-11-14 09:47 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-15 09:09 +1300
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-11-14 14:06 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-11-02 16:56 -0700
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-11-02 17:34 -0700
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-11-03 11:59 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-03 12:04 +1300
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-11-02 16:46 -0700
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-02 19:57 -0400
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-11-02 17:35 -0700
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-03 13:03 +1300
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-11-02 21:52 -0700
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-03 18:03 +1300
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-02 22:06 -0700
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-11-03 12:09 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-03 15:26 -0500
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-11-03 17:07 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-04 00:41 -0500
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-11-03 21:47 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-04 06:30 -0700
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-11-04 06:38 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-04 18:26 +1300
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-11-03 12:28 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-03 13:44 -0700
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-11-03 12:09 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-11-03 12:20 +0100
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-11-02 16:53 -0700
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-11-02 17:41 -0700
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Ted Lee <tmplee@mr.net> - 2013-11-02 19:49 -0500
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2013-11-03 14:22 +1300
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-11-02 18:34 -0700
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-11-03 12:15 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-11-03 12:30 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-04 18:29 +1300
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-11-02 19:48 -0700
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-11-03 02:00 +0100
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-11-02 18:13 -0700
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-11-03 07:59 +0100
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-11-03 00:05 -0700
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-03 08:39 -0700
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-11-03 07:51 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-11-03 08:26 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-11-04 17:14 +0100
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-11-04 09:11 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-03 01:20 +0000
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-11-03 12:16 +0100
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-03 00:22 -0400
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-11-02 21:56 -0700
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-03 13:38 -0500
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-11-03 17:51 -0500
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-11-03 12:14 +0100
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-11-03 12:08 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks glawrie <gavin.lawrie@2gc.co.uk> - 2013-11-07 15:02 +0000
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Lloyd <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-11-07 09:24 -0600
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-11-07 09:06 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-11-07 08:27 -0800
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-10 16:45 +1300
Re: Spotlight & Other Changes in Mavericks Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2013-11-08 09:48 -0800
Page 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
| From | Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-15 08:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <l65hja$af8$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #52284 |
On 2013-11-15 15:10:34 +0000, rcp27g@gmail.com said: > On Friday, 15 November 2013 07:01:06 UTC+1, Your Name wrote: > >> It doesn't bother me at all since I don't use any version of Mac OS X >> with the silliness in it ... yet. :-) >> >> Personally I don't want silly "Versions" or ridiculous "Duplicate" >> commands. The Mac OS has worked perfectly well without them for decades >> ... as the saying goes, you don't fix what aint broke. > > If we followed that philosophy, we would have no personal computers > (hey, my mechanical typewriter still works, why do I need to replace > it?), cars (I can walk, take the train or ride a horse, who needs a > car?) or all manner of other inventions. True enough. Arguing against innovation is just goofy. > > Versions and auto-save offer protection from unplanned events (software > or hardware failure, power cuts, other unplanned events), and offers > possibilities to create a new document as a fork of an old document > from some intermediate point in the old document's life, that can > genuinely save time. Yet, on the other hand, the best you can say about Versions and Auto-save is that they are still a work in progress. Someday, they may work as seamlessly and reliably as they should. And I'd like to say that they're getting there, but unfortunately, I cannot. The only things which have changed since they were first introduced is (a) the return of Save As; (b) the additional option in Prefs->General to ask if you want to revert to saved before closing a document; and (c) [imho, unfortunately] the removal of Auto-lock (without any option to reinstate it that I know of). In other words, they haven't actually fixed any of the problems, nor have they even made it optional. The only thing I can figure is that they're trying to fold it into a further push for folks to use iCloud since one of the biggest failings in Versions is that it completely fails when you move files between filesystems or sync them using any kind of service like Dropbox. > > After user feedback, all the old functionality is right there, all it > requires is the selection of two preference tick-boxes (that remember > their state, one to ask before closing a document whether to keep or > discard changes, the other to automatically revert the parent document > to the old state when creating a new one using "save as") and holding > down the option key when making a "save as". Seems just about optimal > to me: new features are there, old functionality is available at > minimal effort if still desired. New features are still no better than they were when first introduced. Mind you, I think Versions and Auto-Save are *great* ideas. I'm just really disappointed with the implementation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-15 12:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <l65neg$jr2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #52287 |
On 11-15-2013, 11:19, Bread wrote:
> Yet, on the other hand, the best you can say about Versions and Auto-save
Apple likely believes they make non-geeks happy.
Since geeks are by far a minority, they figure irritating us
is worth the effect on the bottom line.
--
Wes Groleau
From the cowardice that shrinks from new truth,
From the laziness that is content with half-truths,
From the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
O God of Truth, deliver us.
--Leslie Dixon Weatherhead
--Rabbi Mordechai M. Kaplan
--ancient prayer
--unknown
--(no attempt at attribution)
(a thousand thanks to someone who can tell me who
really wrote it AND persuade me they're not making it up!)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-16 11:40 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <161120131140461031%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #52287 |
In article <l65hja$af8$1@reader1.panix.com>, Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> wrote: > On 2013-11-15 15:10:34 +0000, rcp27g@gmail.com said: > > > On Friday, 15 November 2013 07:01:06 UTC+1, Your Name wrote: > > > >> It doesn't bother me at all since I don't use any version of Mac OS X > >> with the silliness in it ... yet. :-) > >> > >> Personally I don't want silly "Versions" or ridiculous "Duplicate" > >> commands. The Mac OS has worked perfectly well without them for decades > >> ... as the saying goes, you don't fix what aint broke. > > > > If we followed that philosophy, we would have no personal computers > > (hey, my mechanical typewriter still works, why do I need to replace > > it?), cars (I can walk, take the train or ride a horse, who needs a > > car?) or all manner of other inventions. > > True enough. Arguing against innovation is just goofy. "Versions" isn't an innovation ... it's just annoying. ;-) Besides, not all inventions of innovations are actually a good idea.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-16 10:36 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <161120131036149758%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #52284 |
In article <27cbd04e-59a2-4c81-a00b-3e863e59acea@googlegroups.com>, <rcp27g@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, 15 November 2013 07:01:06 UTC+1, Your Name wrote: > > > It doesn't bother me at all since I don't use any version of Mac OS X > > with the silliness in it ... yet. :-) > > > > Personally I don't want silly "Versions" or ridiculous "Duplicate" > > commands. The Mac OS has worked perfectly well without them for decades > > ... as the saying goes, you don't fix what aint broke. > > If we followed that philosophy, we would have no personal computers (hey, my > mechanical typewriter still works, why do I need to replace it?), A computer is a different device to a typewriter, although a computer (with a printer) can also do typewriter functions. > cars (I can walk, take the train or ride a horse, who needs a car?) You can't walk across the country or even the city ... well, you can, but you'd likely be insane and it would take MUCH longer than a car. If you knew New Zealand's public transport system, you'd know that trains and busses are a complete waste of time. You could stil use horse, and at least it would provide jobs for people to clean up the mess left on the streets every day, but horse need rest stops on long journeys, unlike cars (or at least cars with multiple people who can take over the driving duty). > or all manner of other inventions. There are MANY MANY MANY pointless and even ridiculous inventions. Flick throught the patent lists to find lots of them. There was a little magazine that came with the local newspaper this week about "the future", and one of the things it mentions is a new clothes washing machine protype that washes the clothes without using powder or water, supposedly making it "green" / evironmentally friendly ... except that it idiotically uses jets of CO2 to blast the dirt off clothes - the main gas we're supposed to be getting rid of, not producing more of it. :-\
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-15 23:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <l66sn2$s3s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #52312 |
On 11-15-2013, 16:36, Your Name wrote:
> <rcp27g@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If we followed that philosophy, we would have no personal computers (hey, my
>> mechanical typewriter still works, why do I need to replace it?),
>
> A computer is a different device to a typewriter, although a computer
> (with a printer) can also do typewriter functions.
I got a chuckle out of an advert that appeared in Byte Magazine every
month for years. Don't no what the program cost, but the ad offered to
"Turn your $1000 computer into a $60 typewriter!"
I presume it just converted any keypress into an unbuffered character on
the printer.
>> cars (I can walk, take the train or ride a horse, who needs a car?)
>
> You can't walk across the country or even the city ... well, you can,
> but you'd likely be insane and it would take MUCH longer than a car.
Unless "the city" is Manhattan. I'm weird, but not insane and I walk
all over (but more often I bike). And I don't live in New York. A car
would be faster, but the bike isn't bad.
> There was a little magazine that came with the local newspaper this
> week about "the future", and one of the things it mentions is a new
> clothes washing machine protype that washes the clothes without using
> powder or water, supposedly making it "green" / evironmentally friendly
> ... except that it idiotically uses jets of CO2 to blast the dirt off
> clothes - the main gas we're supposed to be getting rid of, not
> producing more of it. :-\
I doubt it generates carbon dioxide. More likely you have to buy
canisters of it that come from a place that also doesn't produce it,
merely removes it from the air and compresses it. I can pretty much
guarantee that the machine doesn't work though.
--
Wes Groleau
He that complies against his will is of the same opinion still.
— Samuel Butler, 1612-1680
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-15 22:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <151120132231312786%foo@bar.com> |
| In reply to | #52331 |
In article <l66sn2$s3s$1@dont-email.me>, Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote: > I got a chuckle out of an advert that appeared in Byte Magazine every > month for years. Don't no what the program cost, but the ad offered to > "Turn your $1000 computer into a $60 typewriter!" You wrote the same thing in soc.genealogy.computing on Jan 22, 2008. ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-16 01:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <l67321$jfl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #52336 |
On 11-16-2013, 00:31, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>> I got a chuckle out of an advert that appeared in Byte Magazine every
>> month for years. Don't no what the program cost, but the ad offered to
>> "Turn your $1000 computer into a $60 typewriter!"
>
> You wrote the same thing in soc.genealogy.computing on Jan 22, 2008. ;)
Obviously seeing the silly thing so many times made me remember it.
I only saw that post once (maybe twice) in the past five years,
so I don't remember it as well. Besides, I'm too old to be searching
through Usenet to see whether I said something five years before.
What makes _you_ remember it?
Or you still young enough to look out for
us old fogies repeating ourselves?
--
Wes Groleau
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible
will make violent revolution inevitable.
— John F. Kennedy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-16 08:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <l67a8t$aph$1@tota-refugium.de> |
| In reply to | #52338 |
On 16.11.2013 07:23, Wes Groleau wrote: > On 11-16-2013, 00:31, Michelle Steiner wrote: >> <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote: >>> I got a chuckle out of an advert that appeared in Byte Magazine every >>> month for years. Don't no what the program cost, but the ad offered to >>> "Turn your $1000 computer into a $60 typewriter!" >> >> You wrote the same thing in soc.genealogy.computing on Jan 22, 2008. ;) > > Obviously seeing the silly thing so many times made me remember it. > I think the mentionned program must be very powerful, if it can bring a $1000 Macbook air to print something directly on a piece of paper. I just wonder where to insert the carbon ribbon. :-) > I only saw that post once (maybe twice) in the past five years, > so I don't remember it as well. Besides, I'm too old to be searching > through Usenet to see whether I said something five years before. > > What makes _you_ remember it? > Aunt Google never forgets, she don't use Spotlight ;-) > -- One computer and three operating systems, not the other way round. One wife and many hotels, not the other way round ! ;-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-16 08:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <161120130832064999%foo@bar.com> |
| In reply to | #52338 |
In article <l67321$jfl$1@dont-email.me>, Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote: > >> I got a chuckle out of an advert that appeared in Byte Magazine > >> every month for years. Don't no what the program cost, but the ad > >> offered to "Turn your $1000 computer into a $60 typewriter!" > > > > You wrote the same thing in soc.genealogy.computing on Jan 22, > > 2008. ;) > > Obviously seeing the silly thing so many times made me remember it. > > I only saw that post once (maybe twice) in the past five years, so I > don't remember it as well. Besides, I'm too old to be searching > through Usenet to see whether I said something five years before. > > What makes _you_ remember it? I googled the quote to try to find the advertisement itself, but the only hit I got was your post. > Or you still young enough to look out for us old fogies repeating > ourselves? Considering that I'll be experiencing* my 71st birthday in 15 days, I think that I qualify for "old fogy" myself. *I originally wrote "celebrating", but I'm not going to be doing that. -- Michelle
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-16 18:54 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <161120131854460031%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #52331 |
In article <l66sn2$s3s$1@dont-email.me>, Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote: > On 11-15-2013, 16:36, Your Name wrote: > > <rcp27g@gmail.com> wrote: > >> If we followed that philosophy, we would have no personal computers (hey, > >> my > >> mechanical typewriter still works, why do I need to replace it?), > > > > A computer is a different device to a typewriter, although a computer > > (with a printer) can also do typewriter functions. > > I got a chuckle out of an advert that appeared in Byte Magazine every > month for years. Don't no what the program cost, but the ad offered to > "Turn your $1000 computer into a $60 typewriter!" > > I presume it just converted any keypress into an unbuffered character on > the printer. There are still people who use typewriters. I occasionally see a cheque or letter that has come through from a typewriter. On a similar note, the sales of vinyl records are apparently growing (albeit slowly) and more bands / music companies are producing vinyl copies of their music. Many of the buyers and creators of these were born well after the CD was established too. :-) > >> cars (I can walk, take the train or ride a horse, who needs a car?) > > > > You can't walk across the country or even the city ... well, you can, > > but you'd likely be insane and it would take MUCH longer than a car. > > Unless "the city" is Manhattan. I'm weird, but not insane and I walk > all over (but more often I bike). And I don't live in New York. A car > would be faster, but the bike isn't bad. Many years ago my father worked at the opposite side of the city to where we lived (after the company moved further south). It used to take almost an hour by car in peak time traffic. If he had tried to walk or bike that distance it would have taken days to get there ... even ignoring the fact that you can't walk over the harbour bridge, so in reality he would have had to go the much longer way around as well. You can't bike over the harbour bridge either, but you can take the bike over on a ferry or a bus. A horse would be quicker (although again can't go over the harbour bridge nor on a ferry), but it would still take most of the day, if not longer, to get there. There is no train system from this side of the harbour bridge either, and the trains on the other side are still hopelessly bad. I'm not sure how close his office was to the nearest train station, but quite a distance. Going by bus would mean walking to the nearest bus stop, then at best catching one bus in to the city centre, walk from one bus stop to another, and catch a second bus out again, then walking to the office (which was on a main road, so the bus likely went past outside) ... even assuming the two buses arrived and left at a co-operative time schedule, it would have taken longer than one hour. Despite what the dimbulbs in local Government and the greeny-brigade like to believe, public transport here is utterly useless and the only sensible way to travel any real distance is by private car (taxis are hideously expensive). > > There was a little magazine that came with the local newspaper this > > week about "the future", and one of the things it mentions is a new > > clothes washing machine protype that washes the clothes without using > > powder or water, supposedly making it "green" / evironmentally friendly > > ... except that it idiotically uses jets of CO2 to blast the dirt off > > clothes - the main gas we're supposed to be getting rid of, not > > producing more of it. :-\ > > I doubt it generates carbon dioxide. More likely you have to buy > canisters of it that come from a place that also doesn't produce it, > merely removes it from the air and compresses it. I can pretty much > guarantee that the machine doesn't work though. It may not have generated CO2, but it would obviously have to release it ... BUT, having since looked it up via Google, this particular washing machine is supposeldy a "closed system" - it apparently fires jets of "solid CO2" at the clothes to clean them, and then sucks the CO2 back inside the machine to be used again next time. <http://www.tuvie.com/orbit-spherical-washing-machine-for-future-generat ions/> The relaity is that it's aman-made machine at least some of that CO2 will escape ... and it still looks very silly (and danergous) in it's current design. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-16 08:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <161120130834444445%foo@bar.com> |
| In reply to | #52337 |
In article <161120131854460031%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > There are still people who use typewriters. I occasionally see a cheque > or letter that has come through from a typewriter. At the bridge tournament I was in last week, all the results were printed on a dot-matrix printer. I hadn't seen one of those in decades.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-20 17:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ds4vla-rff1.ln1@news.chingola.ch> |
| In reply to | #52331 |
Wes Groleau wrote: > On 11-15-2013, 16:36, Your Name wrote: >> <rcp27g@gmail.com> wrote: >>> If we followed that philosophy, we would have no personal computers (hey, my >>> mechanical typewriter still works, why do I need to replace it?), >> >> A computer is a different device to a typewriter, although a computer >> (with a printer) can also do typewriter functions. > > I got a chuckle out of an advert that appeared in Byte Magazine every > month for years. Don't no what the program cost, but the ad offered to > "Turn your $1000 computer into a $60 typewriter!" > > I presume it just converted any keypress into an unbuffered character on > the printer. That was a feature of my first home computer, an Amstrad PCW. It had a "typewriter mode" which allowed you to fill in pre-printed forms using the daisy wheel printer. It worked well as I recall, but for one-offs handwriting was far faster and for anything repetitive I'd use my programming skills. I had after all spent a lot of time doing that sort of thing for work so it really was quite easy. The Amstrad PCW's real downfall* IMO wasn't the CP/M operating system but the fact that it only took their own non-standard floppies. * well OK, it was shoddily put together too - I took the first model back because the contrast knob fell off during unpacking and I got the shop to deliver that machine's replacement which suffered from something similar. -- Paul Sture
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-16 11:41 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <161120131141233243%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #52284 |
In article <27cbd04e-59a2-4c81-a00b-3e863e59acea@googlegroups.com>, <rcp27g@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, 15 November 2013 07:01:06 UTC+1, Your Name wrote: > > > It doesn't bother me at all since I don't use any version of Mac OS X > > with the silliness in it ... yet. :-) > > > > Personally I don't want silly "Versions" or ridiculous "Duplicate" > > commands. The Mac OS has worked perfectly well without them for decades > > ... as the saying goes, you don't fix what aint broke. > > If we followed that philosophy, we would have no personal computers (hey, my > mechanical typewriter still works, why do I need to replace it?), A computer is a different device to a typewriter, although a computer (with a printer) can also do typewriter functions. > cars (I can walk, take the train or ride a horse, who needs a car?) You can't walk across the country or even the city ... well, you can, but you'd likely be insane and it would take MUCH longer than a car. If you knew New Zealand's public transport system, you'd know that trains and busses are a complete waste of time. You could stil use horse, and at least it would provide jobs for people to clean up the mess left on the streets every day, but horse need rest stops on long journeys, unlike cars (or at least cars with multiple people who can take over the driving duty). > or all manner of other inventions. There are MANY MANY MANY pointless and even ridiculous inventions. Flick throught the patent lists to find lots of them. There was a little magazine that came with the local newspaper this week about "the future", and one of the things it mentions is a new clothes washing machine protype that washes the clothes without using powder or water, supposedly making it "green" / evironmentally friendly ... except that it idiotically uses jets of CO2 to blast the dirt off clothes - the main gas we're supposed to be getting rid of, not producing more of it. :-\
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bob <rcp27g@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-16 13:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <l67nj3$avc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #52315 |
On 2013-11-15 22:41:23 +0000, Your Name said: > In article <27cbd04e-59a2-4c81-a00b-3e863e59acea@googlegroups.com>, > <rcp27g@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Friday, 15 November 2013 07:01:06 UTC+1, Your Name wrote: >> >>> It doesn't bother me at all since I don't use any version of Mac OS X >>> with the silliness in it ... yet. :-) >>> >>> Personally I don't want silly "Versions" or ridiculous "Duplicate" >>> commands. The Mac OS has worked perfectly well without them for decades >>> ... as the saying goes, you don't fix what aint broke. >> >> If we followed that philosophy, we would have no personal computers (hey, my >> mechanical typewriter still works, why do I need to replace it?), > > A computer is a different device to a typewriter, although a computer > (with a printer) can also do typewriter functions. Sure, but people got by for decades without them, and their working methods using typewriters and sending letters worked perfectly well. Those working processes were not broken, and indeed still exist, and do not need fixing. When the first PCs came on the market, outside of the niche of people actually programming them themselves, they weren't capable of doing very much more than a person could achieve with a typewriter. It is only once people adopted the new technology and altered their working methods to take advantage of the new functionality that the additional possibilities could be realised. >> cars (I can walk, take the train or ride a horse, who needs a car?) > > You can't walk across the country or even the city ... well, you can, > but you'd likely be insane and it would take MUCH longer than a car. Sure, but when cars were first invented, you would be insane to undertake such a journey in them. Every year in November there is the London-Brighton veteran motor car run, where participation is restricted to cars registered before 1905. The time taken to complete that journey and the number of entrants that fail to make the finish line shows that compared with technology of 1905 (the steam railway, the horse), the motor car was far inferior. Those technologies were not broken and did not need fixing. > If you knew New Zealand's public transport system, you'd know that > trains and busses are a complete waste of time. If you knew Switzerland's public transport system, you'd know that trains and buses are and extremely reliable and useful technology. They are sufficiently good that for many people in Switzerland owning a car is a complete waste of time and money. The reason trains and buses in New Zealand are not useful is not an intrinisic characteristic of trains and buses as technologies, rather it is the implimentation. > You could stil use horse, and at least it would provide jobs for people > to clean up the mess left on the streets every day, but horse need rest > stops on long journeys, unlike cars (or at least cars with multiple > people who can take over the driving duty). An individual horse needs rest, but the rider can simply get on a different horse, or the carriage can have a different horse or team of horses hitched up (whence the "stage" in stage coach). A car can only drive as long as it has petrol in its tank and a suitable road to drive along (assuming it has been maintained so as not to break down). Different transport technologies require different infrastructure. That we adopted one set of technologies and built infrastructure to support it does not mean that other technologies with other sets of infrastructure can not be used, and it does not mean that those other technologies are broken or need fixing. Of course some might argue that a technology that kills thousands of people every day is broken and does need fixing (globally there are in the region of 1.2 million road deaths a year). >> or all manner of other inventions. > > There are MANY MANY MANY pointless and even ridiculous inventions. > Flick throught the patent lists to find lots of them. Their adoption or otherwise generally does not depend on whether previous technologies are broken or "need fixing". The adoption generally depends on either the new technology offering better functionality or the same functionality more efficiently. Back to where we started, the idea that computer user has to actively intervene by carrying out a specific action in order to save progress when working on a document is an inefficiency the removal of which offers an improvement in efficiency. The ability to roll the state of a document back to any point in its history and make a copy of it in that state without affecting the current state of the document is a significant improvement in functionality. Robin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-16 14:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnl8evme.16t5.g.kreme@mbp55.local> |
| In reply to | #52343 |
In message <l67nj3$avc$1@dont-email.me> bob <rcp27g@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2013-11-15 22:41:23 +0000, Your Name said: >> In article <27cbd04e-59a2-4c81-a00b-3e863e59acea@googlegroups.com>, >> <rcp27g@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Friday, 15 November 2013 07:01:06 UTC+1, Your Name wrote: >>> >>>> It doesn't bother me at all since I don't use any version of Mac OS X >>>> with the silliness in it ... yet. :-) >>>> >>>> Personally I don't want silly "Versions" or ridiculous "Duplicate" >>>> commands. The Mac OS has worked perfectly well without them for decades >>>> ... as the saying goes, you don't fix what aint broke. >>> >>> If we followed that philosophy, we would have no personal computers (hey, my >>> mechanical typewriter still works, why do I need to replace it?), >> >> A computer is a different device to a typewriter, although a computer >> (with a printer) can also do typewriter functions. > Sure, but people got by for decades without them, and their working > methods using typewriters and sending letters worked perfectly well. > Those working processes were not broken, and indeed still exist, and do > not need fixing. When the first PCs came on the market, outside of the > niche of people actually programming them themselves, they weren't > capable of doing very much more than a person could achieve with a > typewriter. Well, that's just silly. Even the very basic computers like the Atari 400 or the Apple ][ had huge advantages over the typewriter. Heck, one of the very first things I did on a computer was print out a letter for my dad that was the same letter, but addressed to 40 different people with 40 different addresses. This would have taken someone with a typewriter typing 40 copies of the letter. All I had to do was type the 40 different names and addresses and print, never touching the letter. This was in 1978 or 79, and we didn't have anything that did "Mail Merge" (or if we did, we didn't know about it). > It is only once people adopted the new technology and altered their > working methods to take advantage of the new functionality that the > additional possibilities could be realised. Simply not true, there were huge advantages from the very start which is why computers replaced typewriters so quickly. My summer job in the late 80s there was one employee who used a typewriter, and that was one of the secretaries for one of the executives. She was a demon on the IBM Selectric and could type over 100wmp on it. She wasn't able to type much over 70wmp on a computer keyboard. She used the typewriter for speedy "one-offs", but even she used the computer more than the typewriter, and this was barely 5 years after the IBM PC. >>> cars (I can walk, take the train or ride a horse, who needs a car?) >> >> You can't walk across the country or even the city ... well, you can, >> but you'd likely be insane and it would take MUCH longer than a car. > Sure, but when cars were first invented, you would be insane to > undertake such a journey in them. Or with a horse. Cars were cheaper than horses, required less space to keep, and generated less pollution. > Every year in November there is the > London-Brighton veteran motor car run, where participation is > restricted to cars registered before 1905. The time taken to complete > that journey and the number of entrants that fail to make the finish > line shows that compared with technology of 1905 (the steam railway, > the horse), the motor car was far inferior. Those technologies were > not broken and did not need fixing. The horse was broken and it did need replacing because horses and cities do not mix well at all. Horses require a lot of care, a lot of food, a lot of space, and generate a lot of waste. > An individual horse needs rest, but the rider can simply get on a > different horse, or the carriage can have a different horse or team of > horses hitched up (whence the "stage" in stage coach). So, now you are replacing dozens of horse (and dozens of support staff for those horses) with a single car. Sounds superior to me. > A car can only drive as long as it has petrol in its tank and a > suitable road to drive along Which is a much greater range than a horse. > Back to where we started, the idea that computer user has to actively > intervene by carrying out a specific action in order to save progress > when working on a document is an inefficiency the removal of which > offers an improvement in efficiency. The ability to roll the state of > a document back to any point in its history and make a copy of it in > that state without affecting the current state of the document is a > significant improvement in functionality. On that we agree, 100%. -- Not that I condone fascism, or any -ism for that matter. -Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in The Beatles, I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was The Walrus. I could be The Walrus and I'd still have to bum rides off of people.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-16 12:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <l68alj$j7o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #52347 |
On 11-16-2013, 09:18, Lewis wrote:
> Well, that's just silly. Even the very basic computers like the Atari
> 400 or the Apple ][ had huge advantages over the typewriter. Heck, one
> of the very first things I did on a computer was print out a letter for
> my dad that was the same letter, but addressed to 40 different people
> with 40 different addresses. This would have taken someone with a
> typewriter typing 40 copies of the letter. All I had to do was type the
> 40 different names and addresses and print, never touching the letter.
> This was in 1978 or 79, and we didn't have anything that did "Mail
> Merge" (or if we did, we didn't know about it).
In the 1960s, there were "memory typewriters." The IBM one on my Navy
ship in 1775 was an IBM think that stored text on card made of material
similar to five-inch floppies.
I don't know what the one my mother used in a secretarial job in the
1960s, but they had paragraphs written by the boss and numbered. He'd
read a letter, and "answer it" with a string of numbers. My mother or
another secretary would put those paragraphs in order, touch it up if
the segues were awkward, and print it. He'd sign it, and they'd mail
it. If he thought it needed a paragraph not yet written, he'd write it
and they would add it to the collection.
So not really what we would call a computer, but certainly an
improvement over the typewriter.
--
Wes Groleau
There are more Baroque musicians than any other kind.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bob <rcp27g@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-16 23:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <l68rkr$o8v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #52347 |
On 2013-11-16 14:18:54 +0000, Lewis said: > In message <l67nj3$avc$1@dont-email.me> > bob <rcp27g@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Sure, but people got by for decades without them, and their working >> methods using typewriters and sending letters worked perfectly well. >> Those working processes were not broken, and indeed still exist, and do >> not need fixing. When the first PCs came on the market, outside of the >> niche of people actually programming them themselves, they weren't >> capable of doing very much more than a person could achieve with a >> typewriter. > > Well, that's just silly. Even the very basic computers like the Atari > 400 or the Apple ][ had huge advantages over the typewriter. Heck, one > of the very first things I did on a computer was print out a letter for > my dad that was the same letter, but addressed to 40 different people > with 40 different addresses. This would have taken someone with a > typewriter typing 40 copies of the letter. All I had to do was type the > 40 different names and addresses and print, never touching the letter. > This was in 1978 or 79, and we didn't have anything that did "Mail > Merge" (or if we did, we didn't know about it). Photocopiers. Type the letter once with gaps for the personalised bits. Photocopy it 40 times. Type the names/addresses once each. No need for a computer. >> It is only once people adopted the new technology and altered their >> working methods to take advantage of the new functionality that the >> additional possibilities could be realised. > > Simply not true, there were huge advantages from the very start which is > why computers replaced typewriters so quickly. > > My summer job in the late 80s there was one employee who used a > typewriter, and that was one of the secretaries for one of the > executives. She was a demon on the IBM Selectric and could type over > 100wmp on it. She wasn't able to type much over 70wmp on a computer > keyboard. She used the typewriter for speedy "one-offs", but even she > used the computer more than the typewriter, and this was barely 5 years > after the IBM PC. Personal computers date from the end of the 1970s, they were nearly 10 years old by the late '80s. The IBM PC was late to the party. >>>> cars (I can walk, take the train or ride a horse, who needs a car?) >>> >>> You can't walk across the country or even the city ... well, you can, >>> but you'd likely be insane and it would take MUCH longer than a car. > >> Sure, but when cars were first invented, you would be insane to >> undertake such a journey in them. > > Or with a horse. > > Cars were cheaper than horses, required less space to keep, and > generated less pollution. > >> Every year in November there is the >> London-Brighton veteran motor car run, where participation is >> restricted to cars registered before 1905. The time taken to complete >> that journey and the number of entrants that fail to make the finish >> line shows that compared with technology of 1905 (the steam railway, >> the horse), the motor car was far inferior. Those technologies were >> not broken and did not need fixing. > > The horse was broken and it did need replacing because horses and cities > do not mix well at all. Horses require a lot of care, a lot of food, a > lot of space, and generate a lot of waste. Alternatives to the horse were avaialble long before the motor car. Passenger railways came in from the 1830s. Metros from the 1860s. Trams from the 1870s. >> An individual horse needs rest, but the rider can simply get on a >> different horse, or the carriage can have a different horse or team of >> horses hitched up (whence the "stage" in stage coach). > > So, now you are replacing dozens of horse (and dozens of support staff > for those horses) with a single car. Sounds superior to me. > >> A car can only drive as long as it has petrol in its tank and a >> suitable road to drive along > > Which is a much greater range than a horse. So take the train instead. Robin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-17 12:17 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <171120131217246570%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #52371 |
In article <l68rkr$o8v$1@dont-email.me>, bob <rcp27g@gmail.com> wrote: > <snip> > > Alternatives to the horse were avaialble long before the motor car. > Passenger railways came in from the 1830s. Metros from the 1860s. > Trams from the 1870s. > <snip> And if you believe the "alien ancestors" nutters, then spaceships were in regular use (albeit only by the rulers, rich and powerful) way back before the early Egyptian / Mayan / etc. days. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-16 20:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <l695be$b0p$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #52373 |
On 11-16-2013, 18:17, Your Name wrote:
> In article <l68rkr$o8v$1@dont-email.me>, bob <rcp27g@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
> <snip>
>>
>> Alternatives to the horse were avaialble long before the motor car.
>> Passenger railways came in from the 1830s. Metros from the 1860s.
>> Trams from the 1870s.
>>
> <snip>
>
> And if you believe the "alien ancestors" nutters, then spaceships were
> in regular use (albeit only by the rulers, rich and powerful) way back
> before the early Egyptian / Mayan / etc. days. :-)
Seen in Cinque Terre:
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.org/Italy/May_4th/20130504_111007.jpg
--
Wes Groleau
------
“The reason most women would rather have beauty than brains is
they know that most men can see better than they can think.”
— James Dobson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andreas Rutishauser <andreas@macandreas.ch> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-17 09:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <andreas-7950E8.09103617112013@news.individual.de> |
| In reply to | #52377 |
Salut Wes In article <l695be$b0p$2@dont-email.me>, Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote: > On 11-16-2013, 18:17, Your Name wrote: > > In article <l68rkr$o8v$1@dont-email.me>, bob <rcp27g@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > <snip> > >> > >> Alternatives to the horse were avaialble long before the motor car. > >> Passenger railways came in from the 1830s. Metros from the 1860s. > >> Trams from the 1870s. > >> > > <snip> > > > > And if you believe the "alien ancestors" nutters, then spaceships were > > in regular use (albeit only by the rulers, rich and powerful) way back > > before the early Egyptian / Mayan / etc. days. :-) > > Seen in Cinque Terre: > > http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.org/Italy/May_4th/20130504_111007.jpg dunno what you want to say with that, but the thing that might look like an "UFO" is a lamp for fishing at night... Cheers Andreas -- MacAndreas Rutishauser, <http://www.MacAndreas.ch> EDV-Dienstleistungen, Hard- und Software, Internet und Netzwerk Beratung, Unterstuetzung und Schulung <mailto:andreas@MacAndreas.ch>, Fon: 044 / 721 36 47
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web