Messages In This Digest (25 Messages)
- 1a.
- Re: Win7 Boot Issues in Lion From: Douglas Neale
- 1b.
- Re: Win7 Boot Issues in Lion From: Bob Cook
- 1c.
- Re: Win7 Boot Issues in Lion From: Harry Flaxman
- 1d.
- Re: Win7 Boot Issues in Lion From: Harry Flaxman
- 2a.
- Re: Import CD with FTD From: Otto Nikolaus
- 3a.
- Re: iTunes App From: Otto Nikolaus
- 4a.
- Re: IPad and kindle fire From: Otto Nikolaus
- 4b.
- Re: IPad and kindle fire From: Denver Dan
- 4c.
- Re: IPad and kindle fire From: Pat Osborne
- 5.1.
- Re: iDefrag 2 News From: Jim Saklad
- 5.2.
- Re: iDefrag 2 News From: Tod Hopkins
- 5.3.
- Re: iDefrag 2 News From: Otto Nikolaus
- 5.4.
- Re: iDefrag 2 News From: Tod Hopkins
- 6a.
- More on the Kindle fire From: Blaine Gordon
- 6b.
- Re: More on the Kindle fire From: paul smith
- 6c.
- Re: More on the Kindle fire From: Pat Osborne
- 6d.
- Re: More on the Kindle fire From: Jim Saklad
- 6e.
- Re: More on the Kindle fire From: paul smith
- 6f.
- Re: More on the Kindle fire From: Pat Osborne
- 6g.
- Re: More on the Kindle fire From: Keith Whaley
- 6h.
- Re: More on the Kindle fire From: Jim Saklad
- 6i.
- Re: More on the Kindle fire From: Pat Osborne
- 7a.
- Re: Bentley Mulsanne with iPads & MacMini From: paul smith
- 7b.
- Re: Bentley Mulsanne with iPads & MacMini From: Harry Flaxman
- 8a.
- Re: 25 Worst Password Choices of the Year From: Don
Messages
- 1a.
-
Re: Win7 Boot Issues in Lion
Posted by: "Douglas Neale" doug@dougneale.co.uk djneale
Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:07 am (PST)
Hi Bob,
Lion won't recognise the older bootcamp partitions ( ie Windows
partitions) created by Snow Leopard and Leopard, just its own new ones
with a different GUID value.
HTH
Doug Neale
- 1b.
-
Re: Win7 Boot Issues in Lion
Posted by: "Bob Cook" cookrd1@discoveryowners.com cookrd1
Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:41 am (PST)
Thanks, Doug, that clarifies it. I don't have Bootcamp anymore.
-Bob
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 7:07 AM, Douglas Neale <doug@dougneale.co.uk > wrote:
> **
>
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> Lion won't recognise the older bootcamp partitions ( ie Windows
> partitions) created by Snow Leopard and Leopard, just its own new ones
> with a different GUID value.
>
> HTH
>
> Doug Neale
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- 1c.
-
Re: Win7 Boot Issues in Lion
Posted by: "Harry Flaxman" harry.flaxman@comcast.net hflaxman001
Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:45 am (PST)
Sure it does. I had an XP partition, created a long time ago. As long as you don't install the new Bootcamp software in Windows, Lion will recognize it.
There was just a thread on this a short while ago.
Harry
On Nov 18, 2011, at 7:07 AM, Douglas Neale wrote:
> Hi Bob,
>
> Lion won't recognise the older bootcamp partitions ( ie Windows
> partitions) created by Snow Leopard and Leopard, just its own new ones
> with a different GUID value.
>
> HTH
>
> Doug Neale
Harry Flaxman
harry.flaxman@comcast.net
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- 1d.
-
Re: Win7 Boot Issues in Lion
Posted by: "Harry Flaxman" harry.flaxman@comcast.net hflaxman001
Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:47 am (PST)
See this thread. Don't have the message number, but here is the text:
"I installed Lion with Bootcamp running XP in a Windows partition and had no problem. When I reboot holding the OPTION key, the Windows partition shows up and boots with everything intact. I can't guarantee what will happen for you, but all worked well with my MacBook Pro.
Ed"
Harry
On Nov 18, 2011, at 7:45 AM, Harry Flaxman wrote:
> Sure it does. I had an XP partition, created a long time ago. As long as you don't install the new Bootcamp software in Windows, Lion will recognize it.
>
> There was just a thread on this a short while ago.
>
> Harry
>
>
> On Nov 18, 2011, at 7:07 AM, Douglas Neale wrote:
>
>> Hi Bob,
>>
>> Lion won't recognise the older bootcamp partitions ( ie Windows
>> partitions) created by Snow Leopard and Leopard, just its own new ones
>> with a different GUID value.
>>
>> HTH
>>
>> Doug Neale
>
Harry Flaxman
harry.flaxman@comcast.net
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- 2a.
-
Re: Import CD with FTD
Posted by: "Otto Nikolaus" otto.nikolaus@googlemail.com nikyzf
Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:31 am (PST)
There's another solution (I think!).
Assuming that your iTunes library is on your mini, make it available for
*file* sharing but *don't* start up iTunes.
On the Mac with the CD/DVD drive, start up iTunes with the Option key held
down. You can then choose an existing library. Navigate to the one on the
mini and let iTunes use that. You are now using the mini's iTunes library
on the other Mac.
Import the CD(s) as normal. Close iTunes.
Start up iTunes on the mini. It will now see the updated library including
the CDs just imported.
If you try to run both iTunes together, I think only the one first started
can update the library; the other will have read-only access. I'm not sure
about this, though, so it's probably safer to run only one iTunes at a
time.
No need to use the Option key in future. iTunes will remember that setting
in its prefs; it will automatically connect to the library on the mini.
We do something very similar: the library is on a NAS and both Macs can
access it.
Otto
On 17 November 2011 21:25, Jay Abraham <jaygroups@abrahamgroup.net > wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> Thanks. I hadn't realized that the Remote Disc they talk about with Lion
> on the MacMini doesn't work with Audio CDs and movie DVD's. It only works
> for installing software, etc.
>
> Given that the easiest solution was to import the CD into the other Mac
> whose drive I was trying to share and then transfer the CD over to the
> MacMini using Home Sharing.
>
> FTD and/or buying an external CD/DVD burner seemed like too much work for
> occasionally importing a CD. Most of my CDs have already been imported.
>
> Thanks again.
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- 3a.
-
Re: iTunes App
Posted by: "Otto Nikolaus" otto.nikolaus@googlemail.com nikyzf
Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:42 am (PST)
Is this it?
Icon Project App
http://itunes.apple.com/ us/app/icon- project-home- screen-icon/ id434277910? mt=8&ls=1
Otto
On 17 November 2011 22:04, Barbara Elbe <beadedimages@earthlink. > wrote:net
> In the last day someone mentioned an app for just .99 in the iTunes Store
> (I think it was mentioned here). I believe it had to do with creating your
> own icons for iphone or ipad, but I'm not sure. They gave two links, one
> to the iTunes App the other I believe to the makers website.
>
> Unfortunately I have deleted all the latest posts and I've tried to find
> the message in the Yahoo archives with no luck.
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- 4a.
-
Re: IPad and kindle fire
Posted by: "Otto Nikolaus" otto.nikolaus@googlemail.com nikyzf
Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:50 am (PST)
But I would guess a 3G version will follow. Of course, you would then have
to pay for a data plan as streaming uses a lot of data.
Otto
On 18 November 2011 00:58, Curby Keith <clkeith50@yahoo.com > wrote:
> No. It's wifi only.
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- 4b.
-
Re: IPad and kindle fire
Posted by: "Denver Dan" denver.dan@verizon.net denverdan22180
Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:13 am (PST)
Howdy.
Kindle's Fire is a renamed RIM (Blackberry) Playbook. It seems to have
fewer capabilities than even the original Playbook. The Playbook has
been a gigantic market failure.
In addition, the Fire runs a custom version of Android and this has
been a weak area of the many devices made by different hardware makers
that use Android. Many customized Androids. Hardware makers are
responsible for providing system updates and this has been a
significant area of very uneven experiences. Many Android devices have
never had a system update and the ability to run a lot of new apps can
be an awkward experience as a result.
The major benefit, IMO, to a Playbook is convenient access to reading
content via Amazon. Numerous reports say that Amazon is selling each
Fire unit at a major financial loss that they intend to make up for as
people purchase reading content.
Denver Dan
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 10:37:49 -0700, Blaine Gordon wrote:
> I have an iPad and my mother has a kindle fire. I set both Up and act
> as tech support for her kindle fire. The iPad is much more powerful
> and user friendly, however the kindle fire automatically retrieved
> all her books from her old kindle. She can get her email and the
> browser is quite functional. She has all the apps she needs. I
> suppose choosing between an iPad and the kindle fire is not so much a
> matter of price as it is what you plan to do. For me I needed the
> power and usability of the iPad so I shelled out the extra money. My
> point is there is no comparison just a choice based on intended use.
> Sent from my iPad
- 4c.
-
Re: IPad and kindle fire
Posted by: "Pat Osborne" pako-3908@fusemail.com pako98_2000
Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:52 am (PST)
On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 12:12:55 -0500, Denver Dan wrote:
> Kindle's Fire is a renamed RIM (Blackberry) Playbook.
Based on what? External appearance?
Alistair Barr, Reuters, says "not!" Similar components but...
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ >2011/11/16/ kindle-fire- ifixit-teardown_ n_1096977. html
"But inside it has a completely different layout, smaller battery, and
different orientations for its components."
--
Pat
- 5.1.
-
Re: iDefrag 2 News
Posted by: "Jim Saklad" jimdoc@me.com jimdoc01
Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:48 am (PST)
> I shut it down, waited a couple of minutes, and timed a cold boot.
> 93 seconds to the login screen.
>
> I then used SuperDuper! to bring my backup current, and rebooted from the backup drive.
> I then ran iDefrag on the internal drive, doing a complete (files and metadata) defrag.
>
> I then rebooted from the internal drive, doing a Safe Boot to clean up any cruft, and to restore the boot caches.
>
> Then shut it down, waited several minutes, and did another timed cold boot.
> 77 seconds to the login screen ˆ 16 seconds or 17% faster.
In retrospect, I should have just done the metadata fix. It would have been more revealing, and I would have gotten to bed hours sooner....
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~
Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@me.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- 5.2.
-
Re: iDefrag 2 News
Posted by: "Tod Hopkins" hoplist@hillmanncarr.com todhop
Fri Nov 18, 2011 12:44 pm (PST)
Jim's test intrigued me on several levels. So I looked for empirical testing and did some evaluations of my own.
Found almost no empirical testing on performance improvements (with due deference to Jim's test). Lot's of statements like "it felt so much faster" but no actual before and after measurements. What I did find, however, indicates that iDefrag optimization does improve load times for both the system and large apps. At least on a badly fragmented machine. I am presuming this machine must have had a very full drive based on the iDefrag fragmentation numbers (see discussion below), though the tester did not say. The conclusion from this one measured test was that the amount of real world time saved, a few minutes per day, was vastly outweighed by the time spent optimizing.
I got the iDefrag demo myself. The demo will evaluate my drive, but not actually optimize it. My 2008 Macbook with 500GB drive and plenty of available space has a mere 0.01% file fragmentation. This drive has been working several hours per day for a year without significant maintenance beyond Apple routine scripts and Disk Utility. Clearly, file fragmentation, on an uncluttered drive, is not a big deal.
But that's only file fragmentation. My drive does have extensive "disk fragmentation" meaning free space is not consolidated. I don't believe this is a performance issue, but I might run into problems attempting to create very, very large contiguous files.
None of the routine maint tests I tried changed the iDefrag numbers at all. I ran all the Apple maint scripts plus some additional clearing of caches and what not (using Onyx). Apple's maint scripts clearly do not defrag anything.
I ran a series of tests, like Jim's, measuring boot time changes after each individual maint pass. And concluded this is a lousy test on my machine. ;) The reason is my boot times started at 39 seconds and maxed at 52 seconds for a normal cold boot to login. The boot time variation appeared to be entirely random. Three sequential boots will vary within that range. Nothing I did had any noticeable effect.
I also determined that the the "POST" time -- from button push to tone -- varies from 5 seconds to 20 seconds. That was a surprise. The entire variation in my reboots could be accounted for by the variation in POST time, which does not involve the OS at all.
In the words of Betrand Russell, "Time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time at all."
Cheers,
tod
On Nov 18, 2011, at 2:46 AM, Jim Saklad wrote:
> Since I have owned iDefrag for years, I decided to try a test.
>
> This is using a late-2008 15" Macbook Pro (2.8 GHz, 6 GB RAM, 320 GB, 7200 RPM internal drive), running MacOS 10.7.2
>
> I shut it down, waited a couple of minutes, and timed a cold boot.
>
> 93 seconds to the login screen.
>
> I then used SuperDuper! to bring my backup current, and rebooted from the backup drive.
> I then ran iDefrag on the internal drive, doing a complete (files and metadata) defrag.
>
> I then rebooted from the internal drive, doing a Safe Boot to clean up any cruft, and to restore the boot caches.
>
> Then shut it down, waited several minutes, and did another timed cold boot.
>
> 77 seconds to the login screen ˆ 16 seconds or 17% faster.
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~
> Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@me.com
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> --------------------- --------- ------
>
> Group FAQ:
> <http://www.macsupportcentral. >com/policies/
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
Tod Hopkins
Hillmann & Carr Inc.
todhopkins@hillmanncarr.com
- 5.3.
-
Re: iDefrag 2 News
Posted by: "Otto Nikolaus" otto.nikolaus@googlemail.com nikyzf
Fri Nov 18, 2011 12:49 pm (PST)
IMO you need to run any timed event such as boot time *at least* 3 times to
get a meaningful figure.
Otto
On 18 November 2011 20:44, Tod Hopkins <hoplist@hillmanncarr.com > wrote:
> Jim's test intrigued me on several levels. So I looked for empirical
> testing and did some evaluations of my own.
>
> Found almost no empirical testing on performance improvements (with due
> deference to Jim's test). Lot's of statements like "it felt so much
> faster" but no actual before and after measurements. What I did find,
> however, indicates that iDefrag optimization does improve load times for
> both the system and large apps. At least on a badly fragmented machine. I
> am presuming this machine must have had a very full drive based on the
> iDefrag fragmentation numbers (see discussion below), though the tester did
> not say. The conclusion from this one measured test was that the amount of
> real world time saved, a few minutes per day, was vastly outweighed by the
> time spent optimizing.
>
> I got the iDefrag demo myself. The demo will evaluate my drive, but not
> actually optimize it. My 2008 Macbook with 500GB drive and plenty of
> available space has a mere 0.01% file fragmentation. This drive has been
> working several hours per day for a year without significant maintenance
> beyond Apple routine scripts and Disk Utility. Clearly, file
> fragmentation, on an uncluttered drive, is not a big deal.
>
> But that's only file fragmentation. My drive does have extensive "disk
> fragmentation" meaning free space is not consolidated. I don't believe
> this is a performance issue, but I might run into problems attempting to
> create very, very large contiguous files.
>
> None of the routine maint tests I tried changed the iDefrag numbers at
> all. I ran all the Apple maint scripts plus some additional clearing of
> caches and what not (using Onyx). Apple's maint scripts clearly do not
> defrag anything.
>
> I ran a series of tests, like Jim's, measuring boot time changes after
> each individual maint pass. And concluded this is a lousy test on my
> machine. ;) The reason is my boot times started at 39 seconds and maxed at
> 52 seconds for a normal cold boot to login. The boot time variation
> appeared to be entirely random. Three sequential boots will vary within
> that range. Nothing I did had any noticeable effect.
>
> I also determined that the the "POST" time -- from button push to tone --
> varies from 5 seconds to 20 seconds. That was a surprise. The entire
> variation in my reboots could be accounted for by the variation in POST
> time, which does not involve the OS at all.
>
> In the words of Betrand Russell, "Time you enjoy wasting is not wasted
> time at all."
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- 5.4.
-
Re: iDefrag 2 News
Posted by: "Tod Hopkins" hoplist@hillmanncarr.com todhop
Fri Nov 18, 2011 1:07 pm (PST)
On Nov 18, 2011, at 3:48 PM, Otto Nikolaus wrote:
> IMO you need to run any timed event such as boot time *at least* 3 times to
> get a meaningful figure.
>
Totally agree.
I ran 12 full, cold, and properly timed reboots. In between a few of those were restarts and reboots that were not properly timed and also a variety of maint tasks. All boots were completely cold (several minutes) and were allowed to go to full completion before rebooting again, even though I only measured from button press to login screen.
Yeah, I went a bit overboard. I think this is the most reboots this machine has seen in one day.
The cold reboots varied from 36 seconds to :52 seconds. I saw no "pattern" to the times. The one Safe Mode boot took 3:01 minutes. I believe Safe Mode does a full disc verification when it boots.
This MacBook Pro has a 500GB, 7500rpm drive less than half full. I also have hard network connection and wireless, an external drive attached (for Time Machine) and bluetooth enabled. I did not change any of this while testing.
Cheers,
tod
>
>
>
> Otto
>
> On 18 November 2011 20:44, Tod Hopkins <hoplist@hillmanncarr.com > wrote:
>
> > Jim's test intrigued me on several levels. So I looked for empirical
> > testing and did some evaluations of my own.
> >
> > Found almost no empirical testing on performance improvements (with due
> > deference to Jim's test). Lot's of statements like "it felt so much
> > faster" but no actual before and after measurements. What I did find,
> > however, indicates that iDefrag optimization does improve load times for
> > both the system and large apps. At least on a badly fragmented machine. I
> > am presuming this machine must have had a very full drive based on the
> > iDefrag fragmentation numbers (see discussion below), though the tester did
> > not say. The conclusion from this one measured test was that the amount of
> > real world time saved, a few minutes per day, was vastly outweighed by the
> > time spent optimizing.
> >
> > I got the iDefrag demo myself. The demo will evaluate my drive, but not
> > actually optimize it. My 2008 Macbook with 500GB drive and plenty of
> > available space has a mere 0.01% file fragmentation. This drive has been
> > working several hours per day for a year without significant maintenance
> > beyond Apple routine scripts and Disk Utility. Clearly, file
> > fragmentation, on an uncluttered drive, is not a big deal.
> >
> > But that's only file fragmentation. My drive does have extensive "disk
> > fragmentation" meaning free space is not consolidated. I don't believe
> > this is a performance issue, but I might run into problems attempting to
> > create very, very large contiguous files.
> >
> > None of the routine maint tests I tried changed the iDefrag numbers at
> > all. I ran all the Apple maint scripts plus some additional clearing of
> > caches and what not (using Onyx). Apple's maint scripts clearly do not
> > defrag anything.
> >
> > I ran a series of tests, like Jim's, measuring boot time changes after
> > each individual maint pass. And concluded this is a lousy test on my
> > machine. ;) The reason is my boot times started at 39 seconds and maxed at
> > 52 seconds for a normal cold boot to login. The boot time variation
> > appeared to be entirely random. Three sequential boots will vary within
> > that range. Nothing I did had any noticeable effect.
> >
> > I also determined that the the "POST" time -- from button push to tone --
> > varies from 5 seconds to 20 seconds. That was a surprise. The entire
> > variation in my reboots could be accounted for by the variation in POST
> > time, which does not involve the OS at all.
> >
> > In the words of Betrand Russell, "Time you enjoy wasting is not wasted
> > time at all."
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
Tod Hopkins
Hillmann & Carr Inc.
todhopkins@hillmanncarr.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- 6a.
-
More on the Kindle fire
Posted by: "Blaine Gordon" blainegordon@ymail.com blainegordon@ymail.com
Fri Nov 18, 2011 11:47 am (PST)
The kindle fire is an ideal machine for those that just like to get emails, surf the web and mainly buy books. It has a good battery and nice covers for the machine. (I know because my mother just got one for hers). You can get apps like "angry birds" and music. It operates on the "Gillette Principle." Give them the razor and sell them the blades. My mother is the kind of customer they want. She was drawn in by the color and apps but mainly buys books. The old kindles operated on this principle also. They didn't just have color and the nice apps. I am not comparing it to the iPad because I think there is no comparison. Each is after their own flavor of customers. I do not see Mac giving away the iPod and luring you into buying from the Mac book store. If you're going to read books but want email and the web then get the kindle fire. Just watch your bill when your debit card drops really low or your credit card gets a little higher than you want. Comparing the kindle to the iPad is comparing apples to oranges. Neither is an any trouble of being stomped on by the other
Blaine Gordon
Mac mini early 2009
iPad 2
iPhone 4
- 6b.
-
Re: More on the Kindle fire
Posted by: "paul smith" kullervo@nycap.rr.com waldonny
Fri Nov 18, 2011 12:03 pm (PST)
Make that, for those who mainly buy books FROM AMAZON.
You can't get them from anywhere else with a Kindle Fire, accordingly to reviews.
--
PSmith
MacBook Pro, 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4 GB DDR2 SDRAM, OS 10.7.2
On Nov 18, 2011, at 3:15 PM, Blaine Gordon wrote:
The kindle fire is an ideal machine for those that just like to get emails, surf the web and mainly buy books.
- 6c.
-
Re: More on the Kindle fire
Posted by: "Pat Osborne" pako-3908@fusemail.com pako98_2000
Fri Nov 18, 2011 12:59 pm (PST)
On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:03:02 -0500, paul smith wrote:
> Make that, for those who mainly buy books FROM AMAZON.
> You can't get them from anywhere else with a Kindle Fire, accordingly
> to reviews.
Imagine the reviews being wrong!!! Never happened before, has it?
;^)
--
HTH,
Pat
- 6d.
-
Re: More on the Kindle fire
Posted by: "Jim Saklad" jimdoc@me.com jimdoc01
Fri Nov 18, 2011 1:29 pm (PST)
> The kindle fire is an ideal machine for those that just like to get emails, surf the web and mainly buy books. It has a good battery and nice covers for the machine. (I know because my mother just got one for hers). You can get apps like "angry birds" and music. It operates on the "Gillette Principle." Give them the razor and sell them the blades.
The best estimates of costs suggest that Amazon is actually selling each and every one at a loss.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~
Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@me.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- 6e.
-
Re: More on the Kindle fire
Posted by: "paul smith" kullervo@nycap.rr.com waldonny
Fri Nov 18, 2011 1:57 pm (PST)
Are you saying that they *are* wrong?
Not being interested in buying a Kindle Fire just to find out, I must rely on those who actually have used the device. Such as reviewers.
BTW, does anyone know whether users can buy merchandise from Amazon from a Nook? Or vice versa?
--
PSmith
MacBook Pro, 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4 GB DDR2 SDRAM, OS 10.7.2
On Nov 18, 2011, at 3:59 PM, Pat Osborne wrote:
Imagine the reviews being wrong!!! Never happened before, has it?
- 6f.
-
Re: More on the Kindle fire
Posted by: "Pat Osborne" pako-3908@fusemail.com pako98_2000
Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:07 pm (PST)
On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 16:57:20 -0500, paul smith wrote:
> Are you saying that they *are* wrong?
Yes.
> ...I must
> rely on those who actually have used the device. Such as reviewers.
If you wish to trust them. No idea of their level of expertise but
apparently some useful aspects are overlooked!
> BTW, does anyone know whether users can buy merchandise from Amazon
> from a Nook? Or vice versa?
"Not being interested in buying a" Nook "just to find out..." Try
it! Amazon is inclusive on what it sells!
If the Nook can get to Amazon.com, then it should be able to shop!
Like your reviewer of Kindle Fire, I have no experience with Nook!!
;^)
--
Pat
- 6g.
-
Re: More on the Kindle fire
Posted by: "Keith Whaley" keith_w@dslextreme.com keith9600
Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:17 pm (PST)
Pat Osborne wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:03:02 -0500, paul smith wrote:
> > Make that, for those who mainly buy books FROM AMAZON.
> > You can't get them from anywhere else with a Kindle Fire, accordingly
> > to reviews.
> Imagine the reviews being wrong!!! Never happened before, has it?
> ;^)
> --
> HTH,
> Pat
The manual says the Fire can read the following formats:
AZW (Kindle format):
http://wiki.mobileread. com/wiki/ AZW
http://www.mobileread.com/forums/ showthread. php?t=23686
http://www.mobileread.com/forums/ showthread. php?t=36449
.txt, .doc, .docx
.pdf
Mobi (unprotected)
http://www.mobipocket.com/en/ eBooks/firstTime .asp?Language= EN
PRC, AAC (http://www.prentrom.com/ )
AA, AAX (audible)
MP3, MP4 OGF, Wav, VP8
That's quite few more than just Amazon formatted books, isn't it? <g>
keith
- 6h.
-
Re: More on the Kindle fire
Posted by: "Jim Saklad" jimdoc@me.com jimdoc01
Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:26 pm (PST)
>> ...I must rely on those who actually have used the device. Such as reviewers.
>
> If you wish to trust them. No idea of their level of expertise but apparently some useful aspects are overlooked!
How about David Pogue?
<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/ >11/14/technology /personaltech/ the-fire- aside-amazons- lower-priced- kindles-also- shine.html
> For one thing, the Fire is not nearly as versatile as a real tablet. It is designed almost exclusively for consuming stuff, particularly material you buy from Amazon, like books, newspapers and video. It has no camera, microphone, GPS function, Bluetooth or memory-card slot. There is a serviceable e-mail program, but no built-in calendar or note pad.
>
> Most problematic, though, the Fire does not have anything like the polish or speed of an iPad. You feel that $200 price tag with every swipe of your finger. Animations are sluggish and jerky — even the page turns that you'd think would be the pride of the Kindle team. Taps sometimes don't register. There are no progress or "wait" indicators, so you frequently don't know if the machine has even registered your touch commands. The momentum of the animations hasn't been calculated right, so the whole thing feels ornery.
>
> Children's books, with their reliance on color, have never been possible on E Ink tablets, so they make their first Kindle appearance on the Fire. Amazon's contribution here is that you can tap a text block to enlarge the type — a peculiar choice, since children's books already tend to have jumbo fonts.
>
> Magazines are supposed to be among the best new features. Most offer two views. There is Page View, which shows the original magazine layout — but shrunken down too small to read, and zooming is limited. Then there is Text View: simple text on a white background. It's great for reading, but of course now you're missing the design and layout, which is half the joy of reading a magazine. And Text View sometimes loses words, cartoon captions and so on.
> Videos play well, although neither movies nor TV shows match the screen's proportions, and you can't zoom in to eliminate the letterbox bars. Glare on this superglossy screen is a problem, too.
>
> The built-in Web browser is supposed to accelerate delivery of Web pages by handing off some of the processing tasks to Amazon's own online computers. Furthermore, when you are on, say, the New York Times home page, Amazon tries to guess what link you will tap next, based on its popularity. It prefeeds your Kindle pieces of the page that would then appear, to save even more time.
>
> In practice, it's not clear what all of that gains you: nytimes.com takes 10 seconds to load,eBay.com takes 17 seconds, Amazon.com takes 8 seconds. The iPad took about half as long each time. On the other hand, the Fire can play Flash videos (if a little jerkily), which the iPad can't.
>
> The Fire deserves to be a disruptive, gigantic force — it's a cross between a Kindle and an iPad, a more compact Internet and video viewer at a great price. But at the moment, it needs a lot more polish; if you're used to an iPad or "real" Android tablet, its software gremlins will drive you nuts.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~
Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@me.com
- 6i.
-
Re: More on the Kindle fire
Posted by: "Pat Osborne" pako-3908@fusemail.com pako98_2000
Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:45 pm (PST)
On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:26:12 -0500, Jim Saklad wrote:
...
> How about David Pogue?
Pogue is VERY good, has helped me with a couple versions of Mac OS, for
sure!!
...
>> For one thing, the Fire is not nearly as versatile as a real tablet.
Who has said Fire is as versatile as, say, the VERY expensive,
comparatively, iPad?
>> ...but no built-in calendar or note pad.
Isn't that what "apps" are for? Find the one that suits YOU rather
than one pushed upon you.
>> Most problematic, though, the Fire does not have anything like the
>> polish or speed of an iPad. You feel that $200 price tag with every
>> swipe of your finger.
;^) Nonsense!! Only if you can compare the two NON-similar items!!!
>> Animations are sluggish and jerky ¡½ even the
>> page turns that you¡Çd think would be the pride of the Kindle team.
Whew, wonder WHEN he had one to review? Not true of the one I have.
>> ...the whole thing feels ornery.
Ah, Pogue is a comedian!! Too cute!
>> ...On the other
>> hand, the Fire can play Flash videos (if a little jerkily), which
>> the iPad can¡Çt.
Wow! Bet you're all excited about that, eh? <sarcasm>
>> The Fire deserves to be a disruptive, gigantic force ¡½ it¡Çs a
>> cross between a Kindle and an iPad, a more compact Internet and
>> video viewer at a great price.
Yep, GREAT price!!! ;^) If I were able to afford an iPad, then my
bias might be skewed too.
I know you hard-core Apple lovers cannot be convinced of Fire's
utility. As was said earlier, do NOT compare Apples with Oranges!
:-P
--
HTH,
Pat
- 7a.
-
Re: Bentley Mulsanne with iPads & MacMini
Posted by: "paul smith" kullervo@nycap.rr.com waldonny
Fri Nov 18, 2011 11:51 am (PST)
Meanwhile, Ford picked Microsoft for their "connected" vehicles, and reports of buggy software behavior are becoming more and more common. Hmmm...
--
PSmith
MacBook Pro, 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4 GB DDR2 SDRAM, OS 10.7.2
On Nov 17, 2011, at 9:26 PM, Denver Dan wrote:
Have a spare $350,000 USD and milord needs a new Bentley for
Christmas?
Bentley taps Apple for connected Mulsanne concept
- 7b.
-
Re: Bentley Mulsanne with iPads & MacMini
Posted by: "Harry Flaxman" harry.flaxman@comcast.net hflaxman001
Fri Nov 18, 2011 11:56 am (PST)
Hmm…just found this on Ford's connected vehicles. They're going open source? :
<http://www.electronista.com/ >articles/ 11/09/12/ project.based. on.technology. from.bug. labs/
Might be because of a short history of bugs??
:)
Harry
On Nov 18, 2011, at 2:50 PM, paul smith wrote:
> Meanwhile, Ford picked Microsoft for their "connected" vehicles, and reports of buggy software behavior are becoming more and more common. Hmmm...
> --
> PSmith
> MacBook Pro, 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4 GB DDR2 SDRAM, OS 10.7.2
Harry Flaxman
harry.flaxman@comcast.net
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- 8a.
-
Re: 25 Worst Password Choices of the Year
Posted by: "Don" y-groups.96705@hawaiiantel.net don.96705
Fri Nov 18, 2011 12:39 pm (PST)
A few years ago I worked at NASA's supercomputer center in Sunnyvale CA. We got a new CRAY computer [$15 million] and somebody decided to try cracking passwords on about 250 UNIX systems in the facility before we got down to serious work. We started with a list of "common" passwords, then built passwords using random number generators.
Sorry, Yahoo won't let me give you the list. The top password found at NASA was F*** followed by f***. All the top 25 were obscene words/expressions.
Don at 21.9N 159.6W
Mac Pro 2-2.93 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
OS X 10.7.1
6GB Ram
On Nov 15, 2011, at 10:02, Denver Dan wrote:
> Howdy.
>
> A link to AOL/Daily Finance and an article on:
>
> Internet Insecurity: The 25 Worst Passwords of 2011
>
> By Sheryl Nance-Nash
>
> <http://www.dailyfinance.com/ >2011/11/15/ internet- insecurity- the-25-worst- passwords- of-2011/? a_dgi=aolshare_ facebook
>
> Here's the list of 25 copied and pasted from the online article.
>
> 1. password
>
> 2. 123456
>
> 3. 12345678
>
> 4. qwerty
>
> 5. abc123
>
> 6. monkey
>
> 7. 1234567
>
> 8. letmein
>
> 9. trustno1
>
> 10. dragon
>
> 11. baseball
>
> 12. 111111
>
> 13. iloveyou
>
> 14. master
>
> 15. sunshine
>
> 16. ashley
>
> 17. bailey
>
> 18. passwOrd
>
> 19. shadow
>
> 20. 123123
>
> 21. 654321
>
> 22. superman
>
> 23. qazwsx
>
> 24. michael
>
> 25. football
>
> - - - - -
>
> Denver Dan (I added the hyphens so folks wouldn't think Denver Dan a
> password, :-) )
>
>
>
> --------------------- --------- ------
>
> Group FAQ:
> <http://www.macsupportcentral. >com/policies/
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Need to Reply?
Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the Daily Digest.
MARKETPLACE
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Individual | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
