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

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #51177 > unrolled thread

Mavericks-Can't Open Folder in New Window?

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

Contents

  Mavericks-Can't Open Folder in New Window? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2013-10-29 06:42 -0400
    Re: Mavericks-Can't Open Folder in New Window? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-29 07:47 -0700
      Re: Mavericks-Can't Open Folder in New Window? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-10-29 12:13 -0400
        Re: Mavericks-Can't Open Folder in New Window? John White <jccw@comcast.net> - 2013-10-29 14:46 -0400
          Re: Mavericks-Can't Open Folder in New Window? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-10-29 15:04 -0400
        Re: Mavericks-Can't Open Folder in New Window? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-29 23:46 +0000
          Re: Mavericks-Can't Open Folder in New Window? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-10-29 20:24 -0400
            Re: Mavericks-Can't Open Folder in New Window? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2013-10-30 00:58 -0400
              Re: Mavericks-Can't Open Folder in New Window? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2013-10-31 03:30 -0400
              Re: Mavericks-Can't Open Folder in New Window? Julian Vrieslander <MY_FIRST_NAME@MY_LAST_NAME.com> - 2013-11-11 04:35 -0800
                Re: Mavericks-Can't Open Folder in New Window? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2013-11-16 11:01 -0500
                  Re: Mavericks-Can't Open Folder in New Window? Julian Vrieslander <MY_FIRST_NAME@MY_LAST_NAME.com> - 2013-11-20 06:41 -0800
                    Re: Mavericks-Can't Open Folder in New Window? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-11-20 09:49 -0800
                    Re: Mavericks-Can't Open Folder in New Window? George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-11-20 13:14 -0600
                      Re: Mavericks-Can't Open Folder in New Window? Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@googlemail.com> - 2013-11-22 07:13 +0100
                        Re: Mavericks-Can't Open Folder in New Window? Julian Vrieslander <MY_FIRST_NAME@MY_LAST_NAME.com> - 2013-11-23 17:14 -0800
                          Re: Mavericks-Can't Open Folder in New Window? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-24 15:12 +1300
                    Re: Mavericks-Can't Open Folder in New Window? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2013-11-21 02:15 -0500
                      Re: Mavericks-Can't Open Folder in New Window? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-11-21 10:40 -0800
                        Re: Mavericks-Can't Open Folder in New Window? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2013-11-23 03:23 -0500
                          Re: Mavericks-Can't Open Folder in New Window? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-11-23 11:49 -0800
                            Re: Mavericks-Can't Open Folder in New Window? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-11-23 15:05 -0800
                              Re: Mavericks-Can't Open Folder in New Window? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-11-24 16:09 -0800
                                Re: Mavericks-Can't Open Folder in New Window? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-11-24 17:47 -0800
                                  Re: Mavericks-Can't Open Folder in New Window? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-11-24 18:39 -0800
                    Re: Mavericks-Can't Open Folder in New Window? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-11-21 10:31 -0800
            Re: Mavericks-Can't Open Folder in New Window? Julian Vrieslander <MY_FIRST_NAME@MY_LAST_NAME.com> - 2013-11-11 04:29 -0800
              Re: Mavericks-Can't Open Folder in New Window? Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-11 08:21 -0700
        Re: Mavericks-Can't Open Folder in New Window? nmassello@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) - 2013-10-29 18:47 -0600
          Re: Mavericks-Can't Open Folder in New Window? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-29 17:56 -0700
            Re: Mavericks-Can't Open Folder in New Window? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-10-29 23:48 -0400
      Re: Mavericks-Can't Open Folder in New Window? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-29 14:32 -0400
        Re: Mavericks-Can't Open Folder in New Window? android <here@there.was> - 2013-10-30 21:19 +0100
      Re: Mavericks-Can't Open Folder in New Window? nmassello@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) - 2013-10-29 15:14 -0600
        Re: Mavericks-Can't Open Folder in New Window? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-29 16:05 -0700
      Re: Mavericks-Can't Open Folder in New Window? M-M <nospam.m-m@ny.more> - 2013-11-20 18:11 -0500
    Re: Mavericks-Can't Open Folder in New Window? Julian Vrieslander <MY_FIRST_NAME@MY_LAST_NAME.com> - 2013-10-29 21:46 -0700
      Re: Mavericks-Can't Open Folder in New Window? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-10-30 09:44 -0400
    Re: Mavericks-Can't Open Folder in New Window? genesurber@gmail.com - 2013-11-21 22:06 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#51177 — Mavericks-Can't Open Folder in New Window?

It appears that mavericks has fundamentally changed the way you open 
folders.

It used to be that there was a preferene setting that allowed you to 
open a folder inside a new window.  Mavericks has now gotten rid of that 
option.

Now, it appears that you have to Opt-Click the folder to open it in it's 
own window.  Why?  How does adding a key modifier make things better?

It's a minor annoyance - but it changes the way I've been working for 
years.  In a production setting, these little annoyances quickly become 
time wasting productivity killers.

Added to the loss of MT-Newswatcher, and the fact that my fonts in Pages 
look horrendous - well, Mavericks is leaving me with a decidedly bad 
taste in my mouth.

I also see that the "grid spacing" options in the finder is different - 
so now I have to shuffle my icons around to different positions in order 
to fit the same number in their customary positions.  Another "minor" 
annoyance.  BUT it's an annoyance that wasn't there in Mt Lion.

About the only plus I've noticed is that Font Book finally opens up in 
under 2 minutes.  That's actually quite an improvement over ML.

Oh, and "Mavericks" is still a pretty crappy name for an operating 
system.  I wonder why they didn't spell it with an "X"?  At least 
"MaverickX" would have been clever, as well as accurate...

FPP

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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#51191

In article <fredp151-630A90.06420529102013@news.eternal-september.org>,
FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:

> It appears that mavericks has fundamentally changed the way you open 
> folders.
> 
> It used to be that there was a preferene setting that allowed you to 
> open a folder inside a new window.  Mavericks has now gotten rid of that 
> option.
> 
> Now, it appears that you have to Opt-Click the folder to open it in it's 
> own window.  Why?  How does adding a key modifier make things better?

It used to be that if you double-clicked a folder, it would open in the
same window, and you could use the back arrow to move back to the
previous window.  Strike "used to be" because it's still the same way.

Ditto for option double clicking a folder; it used to and still opens
the folder while closing the enclosing folder.

The change is that previously, command-double clicking a folder would
open it in a new window; now it opens it in a new tab in the same
window.

> Added to the loss of MT-Newswatcher,

Blame that on Simon Frasier; he stopped developing MNNW years ago. Open
Transport was deprecated many versions of OS X ago, and finally removed
in Mavericks.

> Oh, and "Mavericks" is still a pretty crappy name for an operating 
> system.  I wonder why they didn't spell it with an "X"?

Because the surfing site it's named after is named "Mavericks".

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

#51200

On 10-29-2013, 10:47, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <fredp151-630A90.06420529102013@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> Oh, and "Mavericks" is still a pretty crappy name for an operating
>> system.  I wonder why they didn't spell it with an "X"?
>
> Because the surfing site it's named after is named "Mavericks".

Another minor annoyance: The install changed the rotating desktop 
backgrounds on all accounts to ba a constant photo of a big wave.

And it is apparently a small photo, so it looks grainy when stretched to 
my screen size.

If you blow up the installer icon, you can see just a hint of that image 
peeking through the X as if it were a cut-out.  Few will notice, as at 
regular size, it's just a dark blue X.  I think it would have bee better 
to have the disk show the wave, with a white X in front of it.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   There are some ideas so wrong that only a
   very intelligent person could believe in them.
                         — George Orwell

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

#51219

In article <l4omrr$3kd$1@dont-email.me>,
 Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> 
> Another minor annoyance: The install changed the rotating desktop 
> backgrounds on all accounts to ba a constant photo of a big wave.

Didn't happen to me; I still have the same rotating desktop backgrounds 
that I had before the Mavericks install.

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

#51221

On 10-29-2013, 14:46, John White wrote:
>   Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>
>> Another minor annoyance: The install changed the rotating desktop
>> backgrounds on all accounts to be a constant photo of a big wave.
>
> Didn't happen to me; I still have the same rotating desktop backgrounds
> that I had before the Mavericks install.

Hmmm....weird.  Anyone with GraphicConverter (GC) and/or MS Office 2011 
who did NOT have them forget that you were licensed?

More weirdness: I avoided opening mail due to the GMail issues I had 
been warned about.  I clicked the GC support link without thinking and 
it launched Mail, which worked the same as before, i.e. poorly, but with 
no new problems and no change in the old ones.

-- 
Wes Groleau

    I've noticed lately that the paranoid fear of computers becoming
    intelligent and taking over the world has almost entirely disappeared
    from the common culture.  Near as I can tell, this coincides with
    the release of MS-DOS.
                                  — Larry DeLuca

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

#51269

In message <l4omrr$3kd$1@dont-email.me> 
  Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> On 10-29-2013, 10:47, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>> In article <fredp151-630A90.06420529102013@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> Oh, and "Mavericks" is still a pretty crappy name for an operating
>>> system.  I wonder why they didn't spell it with an "X"?
>>
>> Because the surfing site it's named after is named "Mavericks".

> Another minor annoyance: The install changed the rotating desktop 
> backgrounds on all accounts to ba a constant photo of a big wave.

Not on any of my machines

> And it is apparently a small photo, so it looks grainy when stretched to 
> my screen size.

It is a HUGE photo, much higher resolution than any screen you own.

-- 
BART BUCKS ARE NOT LEGAL TENDER Bart chalkboard Ep. 8F06

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

#51274

On 10-29-2013, 19:46, Lewis wrote:
> In message <l4omrr$3kd$1@dont-email.me>
>    Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>> On 10-29-2013, 10:47, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>> In article <fredp151-630A90.06420529102013@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>>> Oh, and "Mavericks" is still a pretty crappy name for an operating
>>>> system.  I wonder why they didn't spell it with an "X"?
>>>
>>> Because the surfing site it's named after is named "Mavericks".
>
>> Another minor annoyance: The install changed the rotating desktop
>> backgrounds on all accounts to ba a constant photo of a big wave.
>
> Not on any of my machines
>
>> And it is apparently a small photo, so it looks grainy when stretched to
>> my screen size.
>
> It is a HUGE photo, much higher resolution than any screen you own.

Then it has intentionally been made grainy.  Or they took a small one 
and enlarged it for some reason.

-- 
Wes Groleau

Heroes, Heritage, and History
http://UniGen.us/webtrees

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

#51303

In article <l4pjkp$ref$2@dont-email.me>,
 Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> >> And it is apparently a small photo, so it looks grainy when stretched to
> >> my screen size.
> >
> > It is a HUGE photo, much higher resolution than any screen you own.
> 
> Then it has intentionally been made grainy.  Or they took a small one 
> and enlarged it for some reason.

No.  It's just a lousy picture.  Shitty, in fact.  I'm surprised Apple 
chose such a low quality image to represent it's new baby.

It's not very clear, or sharp - more like a snapshop than a profesional 
photograph.

I've been in the printing business for 30+ years (pre-press), and I've 
seen a million images just like this one.  Hell, I've *taken* a million 
pictures just like this one...

It looks like a non-professional photo that my mother-in-law could have 
taken with her Kodak point and shoot.  It wasn't exactly what you'd 
expect from a Hasselblad :-)

Resolution and image *quality* have NOTHING to do with one another.

FPP

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

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

#51458

In article <fredp151-83DCAC.00582030102013@news.eternal-september.org>,
 FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:

> No.  It's just a lousy picture.  Shitty, in fact.  I'm surprised Apple 
> chose such a low quality image to represent it's new baby.
> 
> It's not very clear, or sharp - more like a snapshop than a profesional 
> photograph.
> 
> I've been in the printing business for 30+ years (pre-press), and I've 
> seen a million images just like this one.  Hell, I've *taken* a million 
> pictures just like this one...
> 
> It looks like a non-professional photo that my mother-in-law could have 
> taken with her Kodak point and shoot.  It wasn't exactly what you'd 
> expect from a Hasselblad :-)
> 
> Resolution and image *quality* have NOTHING to do with one another.
> 
> FPP

Ha!  It *was* Amateur Night in Dixie... 

see:
http://osxdaily.com/2013/06/10/get-the-default-os-x-mavericks-wave-wallpa
per/

There actually is a better, clearer, much more appealing version of the 
"wave" desktop picture - and it's apparently from Apple.

Mavericks wave = 5120 x 2880 @ 240 dpi

Apple's "original" wave = 3533 x 1987 @ 72 dpi

So, it appears that the Mavericks version was blown up and increased in 
resolution.  All of which means that it's gonna look like shit compared 
to the "original" photo.

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

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

#52132

In article <fredp151-83DCAC.00582030102013@news.eternal-september.org>,
 FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:

> No.  It's just a lousy picture.  Shitty, in fact.  I'm surprised Apple 
> chose such a low quality image to represent it's new baby.
> 
> It's not very clear, or sharp - more like a snapshop than a profesional 
> photograph.

Could be that this shot was upsampled to match the pixel dimensions of 
some (as-yet-unannounced) large Apple monitor or TV.

Another possibility is that they low-pass filtered it, to remove high 
frequency detail that could cause aliasing (Moire) when the file is 
displayed on smaller screens.

-- 
Julian Vrieslander

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

#52350

In article <MY_FIRST_NAME-B7D32B.04354411112013@news.giganews.com>,
 Julian Vrieslander <MY_FIRST_NAME@MY_LAST_NAME.com> wrote:

> In article <fredp151-83DCAC.00582030102013@news.eternal-september.org>,
>  FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > No.  It's just a lousy picture.  Shitty, in fact.  I'm surprised Apple 
> > chose such a low quality image to represent it's new baby.
> > 
> > It's not very clear, or sharp - more like a snapshop than a profesional 
> > photograph.
> 
> Could be that this shot was upsampled to match the pixel dimensions of 
> some (as-yet-unannounced) large Apple monitor or TV.
> 
> Another possibility is that they low-pass filtered it, to remove high 
> frequency detail that could cause aliasing (Moire) when the file is 
> displayed on smaller screens.

Ussed to be that I would complain about the low-res quality of Windows 
OS desktops.  How times have changed...

Macs usually have some of the most gorgeous hi-res desktop pictures I've 
ever seen (usually tucked away in the Desktop Pictures screensaver 
folder).

It's the face of a new Operating System - and it's not impressing me.  
The fact that I could find a better version *of the exact same image* is 
a little confusing.  

I don't have to like the subject matter - but it should at least be a 
decent quality image.

FPP

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

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

#52445

In article <fredp151-253F88.11014116112013@news.eternal-september.org>,
 FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ussed to be that I would complain about the low-res quality of Windows 
> OS desktops.  How times have changed...
> 
> Macs usually have some of the most gorgeous hi-res desktop pictures I've 
> ever seen (usually tucked away in the Desktop Pictures screensaver 
> folder).

I'm an advanced amateur photographer, shooting SLRs and DSRs for over 40 
years.  Like you, I tend to be fussy about images.  But for my desktop, 
I just use the solid medium gray option.

This makes it easier to read file names for icons on my desktop. A 
uniform grey background does not bias my color judgments when I am doing 
critical image editing in Photoshop.  The new HiDPI ("Retina") displays 
are more prone to temporary image persistence, so a desktop picture can 
cause a bit of ghosting when a new window is opened.

And there's a sentimental reason - the gray background reminds me of my 
first Mac, back in 1984...

-- 
Julian Vrieslander

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

#52449

On 2013-11-20 14:41:57 +0000, Julian Vrieslander said:

> I'm an advanced amateur photographer, shooting SLRs and DSRs for over 40
> years.  Like you, I tend to be fussy about images.  But for my desktop,
> I just use the solid medium gray option.

I tend to the same kind of things. I think that's because of my 
interest in photography and images. In background images, I've found 
the most successful are tree bark, mostly grey and with a little 
texture, or stone walkways I've taken pictures of, also grey, curiously.

Since I am a musician, I don't care for "background music". There is no 
such thing "background music" for me. It's something that distracts and 
interrupts because I've spent a lifetime listening--there are few 
settings in which my listen-machine is turned off.

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

#52453

On 11/20/13 8:41 AM, in article
MY_FIRST_NAME-1CD95C.06415720112013@news.giganews.com, "Julian Vrieslander"
<MY_FIRST_NAME@MY_LAST_NAME.com> wrote:

> In article <fredp151-253F88.11014116112013@news.eternal-september.org>,
>  FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Ussed to be that I would complain about the low-res quality of Windows
>> OS desktops.  How times have changed...
>> 
>> Macs usually have some of the most gorgeous hi-res desktop pictures I've
>> ever seen (usually tucked away in the Desktop Pictures screensaver
>> folder).
> 
> I'm an advanced amateur photographer, shooting SLRs and DSRs for over 40
> years.  Like you, I tend to be fussy about images.  But for my desktop,
> I just use the solid medium gray option.
> 
> This makes it easier to read file names for icons on my desktop. A
> uniform grey background does not bias my color judgments when I am doing
> critical image editing in Photoshop.  The new HiDPI ("Retina") displays
> are more prone to temporary image persistence, so a desktop picture can
> cause a bit of ghosting when a new window is opened.
> 
> And there's a sentimental reason - the gray background reminds me of my
> first Mac, back in 1984...

Same here Julian. It is the best B/G when editing my work, anything else is
distracting and influencing - whether it real, illusionary, or imagined.

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

#52509

On 20.11.2013 20:14, George Kerby wrote:
>
>>  Like you, I tend to be fussy about images.  But for my desktop,
>> I just use the solid medium gray option.
>>
>> This makes it easier to read file names for icons on my desktop. A
>> uniform grey background does not bias my color judgments when I am doing
>> critical image editing in Photoshop.  The new HiDPI ("Retina") displays
>> are more prone to temporary image persistence, so a desktop picture can
>> cause a bit of ghosting when a new window is opened.
>>
>> And there's a sentimental reason - the gray background reminds me of my
>> first Mac, back in 1984...
>
> Same here Julian. It is the best B/G when editing my work, anything else is
> distracting and influencing - whether it real, illusionary, or imagined.
>
The Apple Luxury leather background from DeviantArt / Levitation design 
is non distracting and elegant altogether.
http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs22/f/2008/016/8/5/Luxury_Apple_by_Stratification.png

Enjoy!

-- 
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]

#52572

In article <l6msnb$j52$1@tota-refugium.de>,
 Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@googlemail.com> wrote:

> The Apple Luxury leather background from DeviantArt / Levitation design 
> is non distracting and elegant altogether.
> http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs22/f/2008/016/8/5/Luxury_Apple_by_Stratification.
> png
> 
> Enjoy!

But is it real Corinthian leather?

Actually, this sort of stuff is so 2012.  Scott Forstall is out.  Jonny 
Ive is in. Skeuomorphic UI elements are now déclassé.

-- 
Julian Vrieslander

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

#52576

In article <MY_FIRST_NAME-845DC5.17145823112013@news.giganews.com>,
Julian Vrieslander <MY_FIRST_NAME@MY_LAST_NAME.com> wrote:

> In article <l6msnb$j52$1@tota-refugium.de>,
>  Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 
> > The Apple Luxury leather background from DeviantArt / Levitation design 
> > is non distracting and elegant altogether.
> >
> > http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs22/f/2008/016/8/5/Luxury_Apple_by_Stratificatio
> > n.
> > png
> > 
> > Enjoy!
> 
> But is it real Corinthian leather?
> 
> Actually, this sort of stuff is so 2012.  Scott Forstall is out.  Jonny 
> Ive is in. Skeuomorphic UI elements are now déclassé.

Yep, the horrible plastic PlaySkool UI is now "in".  :-(

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

#52469

In article <MY_FIRST_NAME-1CD95C.06415720112013@news.giganews.com>,
 Julian Vrieslander <MY_FIRST_NAME@MY_LAST_NAME.com> wrote:

> In article <fredp151-253F88.11014116112013@news.eternal-september.org>,
>  FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Ussed to be that I would complain about the low-res quality of Windows 
> > OS desktops.  How times have changed...
> > 
> > Macs usually have some of the most gorgeous hi-res desktop pictures I've 
> > ever seen (usually tucked away in the Desktop Pictures screensaver 
> > folder).
> 
> I'm an advanced amateur photographer, shooting SLRs and DSRs for over 40 
> years.  Like you, I tend to be fussy about images.  But for my desktop, 
> I just use the solid medium gray option.
> 
> This makes it easier to read file names for icons on my desktop. A 
> uniform grey background does not bias my color judgments when I am doing 
> critical image editing in Photoshop.  The new HiDPI ("Retina") displays 
> are more prone to temporary image persistence, so a desktop picture can 
> cause a bit of ghosting when a new window is opened.
> 
> And there's a sentimental reason - the gray background reminds me of my 
> first Mac, back in 1984...

I work in EPP (Electronic Pre-Press) dept. and we also use a medium grey 
background on our desktops.  Our light booths (5000K lighting) are also 
a neutral grey suitable for viewing printed sheets.

At home, I hunger for something that isn't grey.

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

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

#52489

On 2013-11-21 07:15:42 +0000, FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> said:

> In article <MY_FIRST_NAME-1CD95C.06415720112013@news.giganews.com>,
>  Julian Vrieslander <MY_FIRST_NAME@MY_LAST_NAME.com> wrote:
> 
>> In article <fredp151-253F88.11014116112013@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Ussed to be that I would complain about the low-res quality of Windows
>>> OS desktops.  How times have changed...
>>> 
>>> Macs usually have some of the most gorgeous hi-res desktop pictures I've
>>> ever seen (usually tucked away in the Desktop Pictures screensaver
>>> folder).
>> 
>> I'm an advanced amateur photographer, shooting SLRs and DSRs for over 40
>> years.  Like you, I tend to be fussy about images.  But for my desktop,
>> I just use the solid medium gray option.
>> 
>> This makes it easier to read file names for icons on my desktop. A
>> uniform grey background does not bias my color judgments when I am doing
>> critical image editing in Photoshop.  The new HiDPI ("Retina") displays
>> are more prone to temporary image persistence, so a desktop picture can
>> cause a bit of ghosting when a new window is opened.
>> 
>> And there's a sentimental reason - the gray background reminds me of my
>> first Mac, back in 1984...
> 
> I work in EPP (Electronic Pre-Press) dept. and we also use a medium grey
> background on our desktops.  Our light booths (5000K lighting) are also
> a neutral grey suitable for viewing printed sheets.
> 
> At home, I hunger for something that isn't grey.

Here is one which is definitely not grey. ;-)
< https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_391.jpg >


-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

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

#52538

In article <2013112110401939592-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
 Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_391.jpg

I said "hunger"...  not "salivate".

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

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web