Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #73487 > unrolled thread

How do mac users create a blank text file where you want it?

Started by	"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
First post	2015-04-20 00:40 +0000
Last post	2015-04-22 09:09 -0700
Articles	20 on this page of 379 — 28 participants

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

Page 5 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 19 Next page →

#73638

From	jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet)
Date	2015-04-20 18:49 +1200
Message-ID	<1m36wum.3m06x82m2tl7N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>
In reply to	#73601

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in message
> 190420152153079585%michelle@michelle.org
> 
> > You do not lose the capability for choosing the sub-types of formatting;
> > they are all there in the Save-As dialog, but only the ones that are
> > relevant to the type of document you are saving.
> 
> I belatedly fully agree with you that I was mistaken, mostly misled by
> the Apple-specific meaning of "formatting" versus "saving" (both of which
> are simply saving in the case of a new document).

Wrong. A format change from Rich text<->Plain text saves nothing.

> It's non-intuitive that the default text editor has two different menus
> for *saving* files, one for what Apple calls *formatting* a file (to 
> either ASCII or RTF), and the other to *Save As* a variety of other 
> formats.
> 
> 1. Format > Make Plain/Rich Text 
> 2. File > Save > File Format > {a variety of formats}
> 
> I will let the user know to use the two-menu method, and *not* to use the
> preferences method, which is the worst of the possible choices (because
> it hides capabilities).

Wrong. Only Save or Save As saves a document.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

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

#73666

From	"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
Date	2015-04-20 07:22 +0000
Message-ID	<mh29g4$i5o$51@news.albasani.net>
In reply to	#73638

jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote in message
1m36wum.3m06x82m2tl7N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz

> Wrong. A format change from Rich text<->Plain text saves nothing.

Now you're nitpicking because I wasn't extremely explicit in *every* post.

How's this summary?

To save to pure text, you use one menu sequence:
Format > Make Plain Text, File > Save

To save as other formats, you use a different menu sequence:
File > Save > File Format > {other formats}

They both have the word format in them but only one involves a format 
change from Rich text<->Plain text.

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

#73733

From	Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
Date	2015-04-20 14:23 +0000
Message-ID	<cpkgecFg4haU7@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#73666

On 2015-04-20, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote in message
> 1m36wum.3m06x82m2tl7N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz
>
>> Wrong. A format change from Rich text<->Plain text saves nothing.
>
> Now you're nitpicking because I wasn't extremely explicit in *every* post.
>
> How's this summary?
>
> To save to pure text, you use one menu sequence:
> Format > Make Plain Text, File > Save
>
> To save as other formats, you use a different menu sequence:
> File > Save > File Format > {other formats}

Wrong. To save as "other formats" (rich text), all you do is:
File > Save

You seem to have completely forgotten that TextEdit has a preference
setting that allows you to set the default format. If you want to save a
document in the default format, all you do is save! No formatting is
required, since the document is already using the default format, silly.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

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

#73770

From	jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet)
Date	2015-04-21 03:36 +1200
Message-ID	<1m37kmw.1hb2z4hb3ekxwN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>
In reply to	#73733

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2015-04-20, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> > jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote in message
> > 1m36wum.3m06x82m2tl7N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz
> >
> >> Wrong. A format change from Rich text<->Plain text saves nothing.
> >
> > Now you're nitpicking because I wasn't extremely explicit in *every* post.
> >
> > How's this summary?
> >
> > To save to pure text, you use one menu sequence:
> > Format > Make Plain Text, File > Save
> >
> > To save as other formats, you use a different menu sequence:
> > File > Save > File Format > {other formats}
> 
> Wrong. To save as "other formats" (rich text), all you do is:
> File > Save
> 
> You seem to have completely forgotten that TextEdit has a preference
> setting that allows you to set the default format. If you want to save a
> document in the default format, all you do is save! No formatting is
> required, since the document is already using the default format, silly.

Perhaps he doesn't realise plain text documents cannot contain the
formatting a rich text document can, thus it makes sense to set the
document type before one ever reaches the point of saving changes. Maybe
he's lying about all his supposed experience ;-) Certainly he seems
unaware of some very common computing conventions.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

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

#73924

From	Alan Baker <email@domain.com>
Date	2015-04-22 12:27 -0700
Message-ID	<mh8sn1$6hg$2@news.datemas.de>
In reply to	#73666

On 2015-04-20 07:22:44 +0000, Adam H. Kerman said:

> jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote in message
> 1m36wum.3m06x82m2tl7N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz
> 
>> Wrong. A format change from Rich text<->Plain text saves nothing.
> 
> Now you're nitpicking because I wasn't extremely explicit in *every* post.
> 
> How's this summary?

Utterly misleading.

> 
> To save to pure text, you use one menu sequence:
> Format > Make Plain Text, File > Save
> 
> To save as other formats, you use a different menu sequence:
> File > Save > File Format > {other formats}
> 
> They both have the word format in them but only one involves a format
> change from Rich text<->Plain text.

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

#73731

From	Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
Date	2015-04-20 14:19 +0000
Message-ID	<cpkg8dFg4haU5@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#73601

On 2015-04-20, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in message
> 190420152153079585%michelle@michelle.org
>
>> You do not lose the capability for choosing the sub-types of formatting;
>> they are all there in the Save-As dialog, but only the ones that are
>> relevant to the type of document you are saving.
>
> I belatedly fully agree with you that I was mistaken, mostly misled by 
> the Apple-specific meaning of "formatting" versus "saving" (both of which 
> are simply saving in the case of a new document).

Wrong. The format command has absolutely *nothing* to do with saving the
document! All the format command does is change the format of the
document in memory to either plain text or rich text, which also causes
TextEdit to present a different set of controls to the user based on the
chosen format. For instance, there is no reason to display a tab bar for
plain text documents, so that is hidden when the format is set to plain
text.

> It's non-intuitive

It's perfectly intuitive. You're just slow.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

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

#73626

From	dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson)
Date	2015-04-20 18:32 +1200
Message-ID	<1m36u6u.hoc9xyqd2n2rN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>
In reply to	#73569

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in message
> 190420152037478396%michelle@michelle.org
> 
> >> It wasn't intuitive that you have to basically turn off the capability
> >> to Save As, by turning on the capability for the default text editor to
> >> save ASCII text, but it's done.
> > 
> > You don't lose anything.
> 
> Actually, if what nospam, David Empson, and David Ritz said is true,
> you *do* (temporarily) lose the capability to Save As whenever you set
> the capability to save to ASCII text in the default editor preferences.

I neither wrote nor implied any such thing.

Save As works fine in either Plain Text or Rich Text mode. You just get
different choices depending on the mode for the particular document.

> It's almost as if Apple made saving ASCII as convoluted & unintuitive as
> possible; but, I now think I understand what you folks do every day
> to have the option to save *either* as ASCII or some other format
> from your default text editor.

It isn't my default text editor - I rarely use TextEdit for plain text
documents as I prefer much more powerful software like TextWrangler (for
features such as regular expression searches).

I do use TextEdit for editing simple rich text documents.

> You either:
> a. Temporarily unhide the preference to save ASCII and then save
>    the ASCII file and then re-hide the preference to save ASCII.
> 
> or, you:
> 
> b. Temporarily save as the wrong format (e.g., RTF), and then
>    you go to the Format menu and then you save into the desired 
>    format (i.e., ASCII text).

Wrong and wrong. I can't be bothered explaining it again.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

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

#73645

From	"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
Date	2015-04-20 06:51 +0000
Message-ID	<mh27ks$i5o$40@news.albasani.net>
In reply to	#73626

dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote in message
1m36u6u.hoc9xyqd2n2rNMon, 20 Apr 2015 18:32:15 +1200empson@actrix.gen.nz

> It isn't my default text editor - I rarely use TextEdit for plain text
> documents as I prefer much more powerful software like TextWrangler (for
> features such as regular expression searches).

Over the years, I have been on plenty of systems, from IBM mainframes to 
PDP 11s to a variety of DEC and Masscomp and Sun systems, to Windows, 
Apple and Linux boxes more recently and even to embedded systems like 
routers and microcontrollers.

One thing I've learned is that you can *only* always rely on the 
*default* text editor being there.

So, when I'm on someone else's machine, the *default* text editor is the 
one I will seek out first.

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

#73658

From	dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson)
Date	2015-04-20 19:08 +1200
Message-ID	<1m36xtg.3lvc0l1wsog1dN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>
In reply to	#73645

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote in message
> 1m36u6u.hoc9xyqd2n2rNMon, 20 Apr 2015 18:32:15 +1200empson@actrix.gen.nz
> 
> > It isn't my default text editor - I rarely use TextEdit for plain text
> > documents as I prefer much more powerful software like TextWrangler (for
> > features such as regular expression searches).
> 
> Over the years, I have been on plenty of systems, from IBM mainframes to
> PDP 11s to a variety of DEC and Masscomp and Sun systems, to Windows,
> Apple and Linux boxes more recently and even to embedded systems like
> routers and microcontrollers.
> 
> One thing I've learned is that you can *only* always rely on the 
> *default* text editor being there.

Or bring a copy of your preferred text editor with you. I'll usually
have my own computer with me anyway, and can use that if I need to do
any complicated editing.

Despite using other people's Macs reasonably often (to help them with
technical problems), I can't think of the last time I had a need to edit
a plain text file on anyone else's computer. If there was such an
occasion, I probably used TextEdit or a Unix text-based editor.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

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

#73667

From	"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
Date	2015-04-20 07:26 +0000
Message-ID	<mh29mg$i5o$52@news.albasani.net>
In reply to	#73658

dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote in message
1m36xtg.3lvc0l1wsog1dNMon, 20 Apr 2015 19:08:16 +1200empson@actrix.gen.nz

> Despite using other people's Macs reasonably often (to help them with
> technical problems), I can't think of the last time I had a need to edit
> a plain text file on anyone else's computer.

A Macintosh is different, but, on Linux, we are *always* editing plain 
text files (so, we're really good at editing, using regular expressions, 
and global substitutions, etc.).

For example, when I edit my /etc/hosts file to add a web site I never wish
to see ever again, I simply press "v" and the following occurs:

$ cat ~/.exrc|grep v
:map v :s;http://\([^/][^/]*\)\(/.*\)*;127.0.0.1 \1

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

#73675

From	"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
Date	2015-04-20 07:39 +0000
Message-ID	<mh2afk$i5o$59@news.albasani.net>
In reply to	#73667

"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote in message
mh29mg$i5o$52@news.albasani.net

> $ cat ~/.exrc|grep v 

oooops.

I typed that off the cuff because I was gonna just cat out the entire 
~/.exrc, and then belatedly (because it was too long and involved), just 
grepped out the v; but, if all I had wanted was the one line, I'd have 
used this instead...

$ grep v ~/.exrc

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

#73696

From	Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>
Date	2015-04-20 10:26 +0100
Message-ID	<200420151026433421%timstreater@greenbee.net>
In reply to	#73667

In article <mh29mg$i5o$52@news.albasani.net>, Adam H. Kerman
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote in message
>1m36xtg.3lvc0l1wsog1dNMon, 20 Apr 2015 19:08:16 +1200empson@actrix.gen.nz
>
>> Despite using other people's Macs reasonably often (to help them with
>> technical problems), I can't think of the last time I had a need to edit
>> a plain text file on anyone else's computer.
>
>A Macintosh is different, but, on Linux, we are *always* editing plain 
>text files (so, we're really good at editing, using regular expressions, 
>and global substitutions, etc.).
>
>For example, when I edit my /etc/hosts file to add a web site I never wish
>to see ever again, I simply press "v" and the following occurs:
>
>$ cat ~/.exrc|grep v
>:map v :s;http://\([^/][^/]*\)\(/.*\)*;127.0.0.1 \1

RegExps are not wildly different from line noise, which is why I never
use them.

-- 
Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on
a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web,
when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another
computer, another word processor, or another network. -- Tim Berners-Lee

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

#73715

From	Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies>
Date	2015-04-20 13:09 +0000
Message-ID	<slrnmj9umg.42i.g.kreme@amelia.local>
In reply to	#73658

In message <1m36xtg.3lvc0l1wsog1dN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> 
  David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>> dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote in message
>> 1m36u6u.hoc9xyqd2n2rNMon, 20 Apr 2015 18:32:15 +1200empson@actrix.gen.nz
>> 
>> > It isn't my default text editor - I rarely use TextEdit for plain text
>> > documents as I prefer much more powerful software like TextWrangler (for
>> > features such as regular expression searches).
>> 
>> Over the years, I have been on plenty of systems, from IBM mainframes to
>> PDP 11s to a variety of DEC and Masscomp and Sun systems, to Windows,
>> Apple and Linux boxes more recently and even to embedded systems like
>> routers and microcontrollers.
>> 
>> One thing I've learned is that you can *only* always rely on the 
>> *default* text editor being there.

> Or bring a copy of your preferred text editor with you. I'll usually
> have my own computer with me anyway, and can use that if I need to do
> any complicated editing.

> Despite using other people's Macs reasonably often (to help them with
> technical problems), I can't think of the last time I had a need to edit
> a plain text file on anyone else's computer. If there was such an
> occasion, I probably used TextEdit or a Unix text-based editor.

I use textedit quite a lot, despite always having BBEdit (TextWrangler's
payware sibling) and vi/vim available.

First off, it's small and light and launches instantly. Second, I can
leave unsaved files in it for weeks or months without worrying about
having to save them off somewhere, so it's very useful as a sort of
scratchpad. Third, it's icloud aware (unlike BBEdit or vim) so if I do
save something, I can get to it from other computers without setting up
Dropbox or Google Drive.

As an example, last week I was having some weird errors with
spamass-milter and SpamAssassin and postfix. I used an untiled document
in textedit to keep notes, log lines, and basically the bones of an
email to the SpamAssassin mailing list.

Over the course of two days I added to this scratch pad and then, when I
was done and had solved the problem, I just closed the window. As it
turned out, I never needed to send the email.

Could I have done that in BBedit? Sure, but I use BBEdit for real
documents. Textedit is often more convenient for me as a scratchpad.

-- 
A: You can never go too far. B: If I'm gonna get busted, it is *not*
gonna be by a guy like *that*.

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

#73678

From	jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet)
Date	2015-04-20 20:12 +1200
Message-ID	<1m370vg.14lvjor1c7c181N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>
In reply to	#73645

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote in message
> 1m36u6u.hoc9xyqd2n2rNMon, 20 Apr 2015 18:32:15 +1200empson@actrix.gen.nz
> 
> > It isn't my default text editor - I rarely use TextEdit for plain text
> > documents as I prefer much more powerful software like TextWrangler (for
> > features such as regular expression searches).
> 
> Over the years, I have been on plenty of systems, from IBM mainframes to
> PDP 11s to a variety of DEC and Masscomp and Sun systems, to Windows,
> Apple and Linux boxes more recently and even to embedded systems like
> routers and microcontrollers.
> 
> One thing I've learned is that you can *only* always rely on the 
> *default* text editor being there.
> 
> So, when I'm on someone else's machine, the *default* text editor is the
> one I will seek out first.

Some 'seeking' given you're unaware of even where the Applications
folder is.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

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

#73695

From	Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>
Date	2015-04-20 10:25 +0100
Message-ID	<200420151025329149%timstreater@greenbee.net>
In reply to	#73645

In article <mh27ks$i5o$40@news.albasani.net>, Adam H. Kerman
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote in message
>1m36u6u.hoc9xyqd2n2rNMon, 20 Apr 2015 18:32:15 +1200empson@actrix.gen.nz
>
>> It isn't my default text editor - I rarely use TextEdit for plain text
>> documents as I prefer much more powerful software like TextWrangler (for
>> features such as regular expression searches).
>
>Over the years, I have been on plenty of systems, from IBM mainframes to 
>PDP 11s to a variety of DEC and Masscomp and Sun systems, to Windows, 
>Apple and Linux boxes more recently and even to embedded systems like 
>routers and microcontrollers.
>
>One thing I've learned is that you can *only* always rely on the 
>*default* text editor being there.

Oh really? I've always had difficulty finding a text editor on a
Windows machine.

-- 
Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on
a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web,
when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another
computer, another word processor, or another network. -- Tim Berners-Lee

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

#73697

From	Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid>
Date	2015-04-20 09:44 +0000
Message-ID	<cpk04eFc4dcU3@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#73695

On 2015-04-20, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> In article <mh27ks$i5o$40@news.albasani.net>, Adam H. Kerman
><ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>>dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote in message
>>1m36u6u.hoc9xyqd2n2rNMon, 20 Apr 2015 18:32:15 +1200empson@actrix.gen.nz
>>
>>> It isn't my default text editor - I rarely use TextEdit for plain text
>>> documents as I prefer much more powerful software like TextWrangler (for
>>> features such as regular expression searches).
>>
>>Over the years, I have been on plenty of systems, from IBM mainframes to 
>>PDP 11s to a variety of DEC and Masscomp and Sun systems, to Windows, 
>>Apple and Linux boxes more recently and even to embedded systems like 
>>routers and microcontrollers.
>>
>>One thing I've learned is that you can *only* always rely on the 
>>*default* text editor being there.
>
> Oh really? I've always had difficulty finding a text editor on a
> Windows machine.

I can only assume you're being pedantic about Notepad.


-- 
Today is Setting Orange, the 37th day of Discord in the YOLD 3181
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

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

#73700

From	Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>
Date	2015-04-20 10:52 +0100
Message-ID	<200420151052527565%timstreater@greenbee.net>
In reply to	#73697

In article <cpk04eFc4dcU3@mid.individual.net>, Huge
<Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

>On 2015-04-20, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>> In article <mh27ks$i5o$40@news.albasani.net>, Adam H. Kerman
>><ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote in message
>>>1m36u6u.hoc9xyqd2n2rNMon, 20 Apr 2015 18:32:15 +1200empson@actrix.gen.nz
>>>
>>>> It isn't my default text editor - I rarely use TextEdit for plain text
>>>> documents as I prefer much more powerful software like TextWrangler (for
>>>> features such as regular expression searches).
>>>
>>>Over the years, I have been on plenty of systems, from IBM mainframes to 
>>>PDP 11s to a variety of DEC and Masscomp and Sun systems, to Windows, 
>>>Apple and Linux boxes more recently and even to embedded systems like 
>>>routers and microcontrollers.
>>>
>>>One thing I've learned is that you can *only* always rely on the 
>>>*default* text editor being there.
>>
>> Oh really? I've always had difficulty finding a text editor on a
>> Windows machine.
>
>I can only assume you're being pedantic about Notepad.

Probably, yes. At least on Linux I can run vi in a Terminal (or
whatever it's called) window, and I can dig out my trusty Ultrix cheat
card to remind me what the commands do. On OS X of course the first
thing I do is install TextWrangler. But even there I can run vi if I
happen to be working in a Terminal window at that point.

-- 
HAL 9000:    Dave.  Put down those Windows disks.  Dave.  DAVE!

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

#73701

From	Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid>
Date	2015-04-20 10:03 +0000
Message-ID	<cpk17bFc4dcU5@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#73700

On 2015-04-20, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> In article <cpk04eFc4dcU3@mid.individual.net>, Huge
><Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On 2015-04-20, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>>> In article <mh27ks$i5o$40@news.albasani.net>, Adam H. Kerman
>>><ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote in message
>>>>1m36u6u.hoc9xyqd2n2rNMon, 20 Apr 2015 18:32:15 +1200empson@actrix.gen.nz
>>>>
>>>>> It isn't my default text editor - I rarely use TextEdit for plain text
>>>>> documents as I prefer much more powerful software like TextWrangler (for
>>>>> features such as regular expression searches).
>>>>
>>>>Over the years, I have been on plenty of systems, from IBM mainframes to 
>>>>PDP 11s to a variety of DEC and Masscomp and Sun systems, to Windows, 
>>>>Apple and Linux boxes more recently and even to embedded systems like 
>>>>routers and microcontrollers.
>>>>
>>>>One thing I've learned is that you can *only* always rely on the 
>>>>*default* text editor being there.
>>>
>>> Oh really? I've always had difficulty finding a text editor on a
>>> Windows machine.
>>
>>I can only assume you're being pedantic about Notepad.
>
> Probably, yes. At least on Linux I can run vi in a Terminal (or
> whatever it's called) window, and I can dig out my trusty Ultrix cheat
> card to remind me what the commands do. On OS X of course the first
> thing I do is install TextWrangler. But even there I can run vi if I
> happen to be working in a Terminal window at that point.

Notepad is a desperately poor text editor, but it does, at least, edit text
and recent Windows systems always have it.

I usually install Notepad++, which works well.


-- 
Today is Setting Orange, the 37th day of Discord in the YOLD 3181
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

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

#73749

From	Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>
Date	2015-04-20 15:41 +0100
Message-ID	<200420151541103537%timstreater@greenbee.net>
In reply to	#73701

In article <cpk17bFc4dcU5@mid.individual.net>, Huge
<Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

>On 2015-04-20, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>> In article <cpk04eFc4dcU3@mid.individual.net>, Huge
>><Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2015-04-20, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>>>> In article <mh27ks$i5o$40@news.albasani.net>, Adam H. Kerman
>>>><ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote in message
>>>>>1m36u6u.hoc9xyqd2n2rNMon, 20 Apr 2015 18:32:15 +1200empson@actrix.gen.nz
>>>>>
>>>>>> It isn't my default text editor - I rarely use TextEdit for plain text
>>>>>> documents as I prefer much more powerful software like TextWrangler (for
>>>>>> features such as regular expression searches).
>>>>>
>>>>>Over the years, I have been on plenty of systems, from IBM mainframes to 
>>>>>PDP 11s to a variety of DEC and Masscomp and Sun systems, to Windows, 
>>>>>Apple and Linux boxes more recently and even to embedded systems like 
>>>>>routers and microcontrollers.
>>>>>
>>>>>One thing I've learned is that you can *only* always rely on the 
>>>>>*default* text editor being there.
>>>>
>>>> Oh really? I've always had difficulty finding a text editor on a
>>>> Windows machine.
>>>
>>>I can only assume you're being pedantic about Notepad.
>>
>> Probably, yes. At least on Linux I can run vi in a Terminal (or
>> whatever it's called) window, and I can dig out my trusty Ultrix cheat
>> card to remind me what the commands do. On OS X of course the first
>> thing I do is install TextWrangler. But even there I can run vi if I
>> happen to be working in a Terminal window at that point.
>
>Notepad is a desperately poor text editor, but it does, at least, edit text
>and recent Windows systems always have it.

I suspect the problem I was having was that Notepad doesn't understand
about non-Windows line endings. TW, f'rinstance, understands all three
line endings and allows you to choose which one to use when saving a
file.

>I usually install Notepad++, which works well.

Yeah. I'll prolly do the same if I get annoyed enough.

-- 
HAL 9000:    Dave.  Put down those Windows disks.  Dave.  DAVE!

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

#73764

From	Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
Date	2015-04-20 15:07 +0000
Message-ID	<cpkj0lFg4haU26@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#73749

On 2015-04-20, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>
> I suspect the problem I was having was that Notepad doesn't understand
> about non-Windows line endings. TW, f'rinstance, understands all three
> line endings and allows you to choose which one to use when saving a
> file.

Yep, Notepad is fucked up like that in *many* ways.

>>I usually install Notepad++, which works well.
>
> Yeah. I'll prolly do the same if I get annoyed enough.

One of the first things I do when I set up a new Windows installation is
get Notepad++. 

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

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

Page 5 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 19 Next page →

csiph-web

How do mac users create a blank text file where you want it?

Contents

#73638

#73666

#73733

#73770

#73924

#73731

#73626

#73645

#73658

#73667

#73675

#73696

#73715

#73678

#73695

#73697

#73700

#73701

#73749

#73764