2/19/2012

[macsupport] Digest Number 8750

Messages In This Digest (25 Messages)

Messages

1.1.

Re: Finder alternative

Posted by: "Otto Nikolaus" otto.nikolaus@googlemail.com   nikyzf

Sun Feb 19, 2012 6:34 am (PST)



Again, as I said before, you can open extra windows using command-n and use
command-w to close ones you no longer need, and you should also see the
options available under Finder > Preferences > General. In my case, Finder
windows open with the view I'm currently using (OS X 10.5, yours might be
different.)

OK, windows are not panes, but I'm guessing they do want you want.

Otto

On 19 February 2012 04:55, Jim McGarvie <jim@mcgarvie.us> wrote:

> Thanks Otto. Yes, I realize in list view I can sort on any column by
> clicking in that column header. But in order to obtain the two (or more)
> panes I thought I had to go to column view, and in column view I don't have
> a column header. Am I missing something?
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (45)
1.2.

Re: Finder alternative

Posted by: "Andrew Buc" andrewbuc@staxman.net   andrewbuc

Sun Feb 19, 2012 9:49 am (PST)



On Feb 13, 2012, at 7:31 PM, Jim McGarvie wrote:

> Just doesn't seem like a nice neat presentation with folders at the
> top.

Path Finder puts the folders at the top.

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (45)
1.3.

Re: Finder alternative

Posted by: "Harry Flaxman" harry.flaxman@me.com   hflaxman001

Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:13 am (PST)



On 2/19/2012 9:33 AM, Otto Nikolaus wrote:
> Again, as I said before, you can open extra windows using command-n and use
> command-w to close ones you no longer need, and you should also see the
> options available under Finder> Preferences> General. In my case, Finder
> windows open with the view I'm currently using (OS X 10.5, yours might be
> different.)

Yup, seems to be the easiest way for me. I've tried apps like
Pathfinder, only to find them eventually too cumbersome and feature
loaded to be quick and useful.

Native Finder does it best!

Harry

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (45)
1.4.

Re: Finder alternative

Posted by: "Jim McGarvie" jim@mcgarvie.us   jgarv2002

Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:28 am (PST)



Thanks, I'll check it out.

On Feb 19, 2012, at 9:48 AM, Andrew Buc wrote:

On Feb 13, 2012, at 7:31 PM, Jim McGarvie wrote:

> Just doesn't seem like a nice neat presentation with folders at the
> top.

Path Finder puts the folders at the top.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (45)
1.5.

Re: Finder alternative

Posted by: "Bill B." bill501@mindspring.com   kernos501

Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:28 pm (PST)



At 1:13 PM -0500 2/19/12, Harry Flaxman wrote:
>Yup, seems to be the easiest way for me. I've tried apps like
>Pathfinder, only to find them eventually too cumbersome and feature
>loaded to be quick and useful.
>
>Native Finder does it best!

I use Finder and Path Finder together. If I'm searching for a system or Library file or sorting a folder with 1000's of files by Kind, Path Finder is better.

Bill

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (45)
2a.

Re: OS X Mountain Lion to be download-only, USB stick going the way

Posted by: "Bill B." bill501@mindspring.com   kernos501

Sun Feb 19, 2012 6:57 am (PST)



At 1:47 PM +0000 2/19/12, Bill Boulware wrote:
>OS X Mountain Lion to
>be download-only, USB stick going the way of the dodo

They said the same thing about Lion. Then the flash drive appeared. Don't take everything you read as gospel.

Bill B.

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (4)
2b.

Re: OS X Mountain Lion to be download-only, USB stick going the way

Posted by: "N.A. Nada" whodo678@comcast.net

Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:25 pm (PST)




On Feb 19, 2012, at 6:57 AM, Bill B. wrote:

> At 1:47 PM +0000 2/19/12, Bill Boulware wrote:
> >OS X Mountain Lion to
> >be download-only, USB stick going the way of the dodo
>
> They said the same thing about Lion. Then the flash drive appeared. Don't take everything you read as gospel.

And there could be 3rd party work arounds.

This would be a problem for those with limited or slow internet access or limited data usage.

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (4)
3a.

Re: processor speed

Posted by: "Oneal Neumann" wardell.h.s@gmail.com   newalander

Sun Feb 19, 2012 7:15 am (PST)




Back in the day, when I had my first real computer (a Performa with OS 7.5 that I kept for a decade) all PCs were advertised with listed processor speeds.

Occasionally comparisons were made to Macs as to which platform could do its thing faster, however it was said that comparing processor speeds across platforms was essentially meaningless given the different OSs.

It was felt that Macs (more than?) held their own against PCs back then, which would be the mid1990s to the early 2000s.

What brings this to mind is a recently received flyer from Future Shop here in Hamilton (Ontario). I was surprised to learn that FS is an authorized Apple reseller.

In a reversal of a decade-old practice, none of the advertised PC laptops (Lenovos, Acers, Asuses, Samsungs, Toshibas, HPs, etc) made mention of processor speeds, however all the Macs flashed their GHz figures.

Interestingly, my two-year-old ProBook is (presumably) still faster (at 2.8 GHz) than each of the advertised Mac laptops.

QUESTION: How do Macs hold up against PCs in the speed department these days?

Thanx. Oneal

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (5)
3b.

Re: processor speed

Posted by: "Chris Jones" jonesc@hep.phy.cam.ac.uk   bobstermcbob

Sun Feb 19, 2012 8:25 am (PST)



Hi,

> Interestingly, my two-year-old ProBook is (presumably) still faster (at 2.8 GHz) than each of the advertised Mac laptops.

That depends. How many cores does your 'ProBook' have compared to the macs ?

The reason why the number of GHz a machine has is no longer banded around so much, is it is far from the only thing that matters. The number of cores, the amount of L1 cache and the chipset etc. all matter as much as the raw GHz of each.

It also depends on what you want to run. An application that is single threaded, thus cannot use more than one core, would (probably) find a dual core 2.8GHz machine faster than a quad core 2GHz machine. However another application, that can multi-thread, would prefer the Quad core box.

Also, a lot of tasks are not bound by the CPU at all. I/O speeds, the amount of raw or even the graphics capabilities are all important.

Basically the speed of the CPU clock is only one of many factors that you have to take into account, and its wrong to focus on it exclusively.

Chris

>
> QUESTION: How do Macs hold up against PCs in the speed department these days?
>
> Thanx. Oneal
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Group FAQ:
> <http://www.macsupportcentral.com/policies/>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (5)
3c.

Re: processor speed

Posted by: "Arjun Singhal" arjunsinghal@yahoo.com   arjunsinghal

Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:53 am (PST)



My late 2008 edition macbook pro was a dual core 2.4 GHz machine. Topped with a 7200rpm 500 Gigabyte drive and 6 Gigs of DDR3 RAM.

I am now using the late 2011 Macbook Pro that comes with 2.2 GHz Core i7. Topped with a 5400rpm 500 Gigabyte drive and 4 Gigs of DDR3 RAM.

The RAM on the newer machine, is I think 1333 MHz while on the older machine it was 1000.

I use a variety of applications on my notebook, and for everyday use, I used to find the older machine faster - faster to boot up, faster to load basic applications, and faster to transfer large volumes of data. I've used Lion on both the machines.

However, when it comes to multi-threaded applications - like Handbrake, or iMovie - they are comparatively much faster on the newer machine.

However, it's irritating to spend hours opening and closing the applications, and so many times things will just become unresponsive. If I do a restart with "Reopen Windows when Logging back in", the option is absolutely unreliable with the new mac. Although Lion has a much touted feature of auto-save, even with apps such as Pages, I've lost data a number of times, and if you're expecting Lion to load back up after restart, where you've left it, it probably closes a few applications, and says "------ application prevented shutdown" and that's where you're in the lurch of having to manually shut down the applications and then restart it.

We have three Late 2011 15-in MBPs and all of them have this problem. There are a few folks who use Macbook Airs, and that works fine. I checked with the "Genius" at the Premium Reseller, and they didn't have a clue. One of them said, "Macbook Air gives better performance than MBP" and that's crazy coz most of the fellas here, don't know what use MBPs can be put to. A lot of the flamboyant crowd likes to flaunt a Macbook Air for style, and sales are higher than MBPs and that's probably the reason why they say they're better performing notebooks, but that's it.

I feel the MBPs selling with 5400 RPM drives is a great mismatch. There is no option for user changeability now, and SSDs aren't available in India. Nor are 7200 rpm drives. I feel like opening my notebook and popping in a 7200 rpm drive of my own. One reseller has offered me a 7200 rpm drive for INR 35000 - that's like $700, which is a rip off. He says its the official apple price. I simply walked out there.

Bottom line is, number of cores are good if you're into multi-threaded computing. For everyday use, a dual core with a high speed drive or SSD is perhaps better.

Regards,
Arjun

On 18-Feb-2012, at 10:06 AM, Oneal Neumann wrote:

>
> Back in the day, when I had my first real computer (a Performa with OS 7.5 that I kept for a decade) all PCs were advertised with listed processor speeds.
>
> Occasionally comparisons were made to Macs as to which platform could do its thing faster, however it was said that comparing processor speeds across platforms was essentially meaningless given the different OSs.
>
> It was felt that Macs (more than?) held their own against PCs back then, which would be the mid1990s to the early 2000s.
>
> What brings this to mind is a recently received flyer from Future Shop here in Hamilton (Ontario). I was surprised to learn that FS is an authorized Apple reseller.
>
> In a reversal of a decade-old practice, none of the advertised PC laptops (Lenovos, Acers, Asuses, Samsungs, Toshibas, HPs, etc) made mention of processor speeds, however all the Macs flashed their GHz figures.
>
> Interestingly, my two-year-old ProBook is (presumably) still faster (at 2.8 GHz) than each of the advertised Mac laptops.
>
> QUESTION: How do Macs hold up against PCs in the speed department these days?
>
> Thanx. Oneal
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> TODAY(Beta) • Powered by Yahoo!
> Strange roadside attractions across the U.S.
> "The Thing" has kept travelers along Interstate 10 guessing for more than 60 years.
> Privacy Policy

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (5)
3d.

Re: processor speed

Posted by: "Chris Jones" jonesc@hep.phy.cam.ac.uk   bobstermcbob

Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:25 am (PST)



Hi,

On 19 Feb 2012, at 6:53pm, Arjun Singhal wrote:

> My late 2008 edition macbook pro was a dual core 2.4 GHz machine. Topped with a 7200rpm 500 Gigabyte drive and 6 Gigs of DDR3 RAM.
>
> I am now using the late 2011 Macbook Pro that comes with 2.2 GHz Core i7. Topped with a 5400rpm 500 Gigabyte drive and 4 Gigs of DDR3 RAM.
>
> The RAM on the newer machine, is I think 1333 MHz while on the older machine it was 1000.
>
> I use a variety of applications on my notebook, and for everyday use, I used to find the older machine faster - faster to boot up, faster to load basic applications, and faster to transfer large volumes of data. I've used Lion on both the machines.
>
> However, when it comes to multi-threaded applications - like Handbrake, or iMovie - they are comparatively much faster on the newer machine.

I also have a late 15in MacBook Pro (2.54Ghz core 2 duo) and a mid 2011 mac mini (2GHz quad i7). Both have 8G ram. I would agree for some tasks the two are similar in speed, nothing much to pick, but for sure the newer machine is not significantly slower, like you describe. Maybe you newer machine, that only have 4GB is limited by that. I know when I upgrade the ram on both from 4 to 8 Gig, I saw a speed boost on both. If you have a lot of applications open, this could be a limiting factor on the newer one. The 5400rpm drive will also not help - I have a 7200rpm drive on my macbook and I'm sure that also helps. The mini only has a 5400rpm drive.

> However, it's irritating to spend hours opening and closing the applications, and so many times things will just become unresponsive. If I do a restart with "Reopen Windows when Logging back in", the option is absolutely unreliable with the new mac. Although Lion has a much touted feature of auto-save, even with apps such as Pages, I've lost data a number of times, and if you're expecting Lion to load back up after restart, where you've left it, it probably closes a few applications, and says "------ application prevented shutdown" and that's where you're in the lurch of having to manually shut down the applications and then restart it.

I have to agree that this feature does not work that well, as far as I can tell...

> We have three Late 2011 15-in MBPs and all of them have this problem. There are a few folks who use Macbook Airs, and that works fine. I checked with the "Genius" at the Premium Reseller, and they didn't have a clue. One of them said, "Macbook Air gives better performance than MBP" and that's crazy coz most of the fellas here, don't know what use MBPs can be put to. A lot of the flamboyant crowd likes to flaunt a Macbook Air for style, and sales are higher than MBPs and that's probably the reason why they say they're better performing notebooks, but that's it.
>
> I feel the MBPs selling with 5400 RPM drives is a great mismatch. There is no option for user changeability now, and SSDs aren't available in India. Nor are 7200 rpm drives. I feel like opening my notebook and popping in a 7200 rpm drive of my own. One reseller has offered me a 7200 rpm drive for INR 35000 - that's like $700, which is a rip off. He says its the official apple price. I simply walked out there.

Well, I cannot speak for India, but the UK Apple store certainly still offers several upgrade options for the harddrives in the macbook pros. Both 15in models have an option to upgrade to a 7200rpm drive..

SSDs are for sure a big step up from normal drives. I have no plans to replace my macbook for a few years, by which time I hope Pros come with SSD, as the airs to now…

>
> Bottom line is, number of cores are good if you're into multi-threaded computing. For everyday use, a dual core with a high speed drive or SSD is perhaps better.

Quite true.

Chris

>
> Regards,
> Arjun
>
> On 18-Feb-2012, at 10:06 AM, Oneal Neumann wrote:
>
>>
>> Back in the day, when I had my first real computer (a Performa with OS 7.5 that I kept for a decade) all PCs were advertised with listed processor speeds.
>>
>> Occasionally comparisons were made to Macs as to which platform could do its thing faster, however it was said that comparing processor speeds across platforms was essentially meaningless given the different OSs.
>>
>> It was felt that Macs (more than?) held their own against PCs back then, which would be the mid1990s to the early 2000s.
>>
>> What brings this to mind is a recently received flyer from Future Shop here in Hamilton (Ontario). I was surprised to learn that FS is an authorized Apple reseller.
>>
>> In a reversal of a decade-old practice, none of the advertised PC laptops (Lenovos, Acers, Asuses, Samsungs, Toshibas, HPs, etc) made mention of processor speeds, however all the Macs flashed their GHz figures.
>>
>> Interestingly, my two-year-old ProBook is (presumably) still faster (at 2.8 GHz) than each of the advertised Mac laptops.
>>
>> QUESTION: How do Macs hold up against PCs in the speed department these days?
>>
>> Thanx. Oneal
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> TODAY(Beta)  Powered by Yahoo!
>> Strange roadside attractions across the U.S.
>> "The Thing" has kept travelers along Interstate 10 guessing for more than 60 years.
>> Privacy Policy
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Group FAQ:
> <http://www.macsupportcentral.com/policies/>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (5)
3e.

Re: processor speed

Posted by: "Tod Hopkins" hoplist@hillmanncarr.com   todhop

Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:59 pm (PST)



On Feb 17, 2012, at 11:36 PM, Oneal Neumann wrote:
> In a reversal of a decade-old practice, none of the advertised PC laptops (Lenovos, Acers, Asuses, Samsungs, Toshibas, HPs, etc) made mention of processor speeds, however all the Macs flashed their GHz figures.
>
The bottom line is that "clock" speed no longer correlates well with processor "power." It's quite common for more powerful machines to have slower clock speeds than weaker machines.

However, because all Mac models within a line share a common architecture, the number of cores and the processor speed are the most important distinguishing factors in the current line (but not from generation to generation), so Macs still advertise these numbers.
>
> Interestingly, my two-year-old ProBook is (presumably) still faster (at 2.8 GHz) than each of the advertised Mac laptops.
>
Nope, not in processing speed, just "clock" speed. Whens current processor designs advance, it's generally necessary to reduce clock speed to maintain stability. This does not mean the processor is less powerful. If you have the top of the line 2010, the current top Mac Book Pro is almost twice as fast.

To see this "speed" comparison, get the MacTracker app. Find your model and click the "Processor Speed" link. These numbers are a much better comparison of raw power and they can be compared linearly.
>
> QUESTION: How do Macs hold up against PCs in the speed department these days?
>
Mac Pros and Mac Book Pros are kings of the heap. It is possible to purchase PCs with similar power but they require special configuration. I believe only HP makes a "stock" machine that is competitive with an 8-core Mac Pro and it's in their "pro" line, and there is a 12-core Mac Pro. The Mac Pro is so superior to anything made on the PC side that it is not uncommon for people who need raw power to purchase Mac Pros for their Windows workstations. They simply reformat and install Windows or run dual-boot.

The one big exception is serious PC gaming. It is more difficult to configure a Mac with a top-of-the-line video subsystem. The Mac video configs are good, but not top-of-the-line.

Cheers,
tod
>

Tod Hopkins
Hillmann & Carr Inc.
todhopkins@hillmanncarr.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (5)
4a.

Re: Application Safari Web Content

Posted by: "Bill B." bill501@mindspring.com   kernos501

Sun Feb 19, 2012 7:17 am (PST)



At 2:30 PM -0800 2/18/12, Tanya Metaksa wrote:
>>>As I mentioned in a previous email, I installed Private Eye. As it runs it shows a lot of activity from the Application Safari Web Content. Could anyone tell me what it does and can one detele it?<<<

It is clear to me that this app should only be used by those who know what they are doing. I have not tried it since I don't use Lion.

Bill B.

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (19)
4b.

Re: Application Safari Web Content

Posted by: "Jim Saklad" jimdoc@me.com   jimdoc01

Sun Feb 19, 2012 8:41 am (PST)



>> As I mentioned in a previous email, I installed Private Eye. As it runs it shows a lot of activity from the Application Safari Web Content. Could anyone tell me what it does and can one delete it?
>
> It is clear to me that this app should only be used by those who know what they are doing.
> I have not tried it since I don't use Lion.
> Bill B.

It is clear to me that almost any app should only be used by those who know what they are doing.

What is the connection between using this App and running Lion?

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@me.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (19)
4c.

Re: Application Safari Web Content

Posted by: "Bill B." bill501@mindspring.com   kernos501

Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:20 pm (PST)



At 11:41 AM -0500 2/19/12, Jim Saklad wrote:
>What is the connection between using this App and running Lion?

Private Eye only works with 10.7

Bill

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (19)
4d.

Re: Application Safari Web Content

Posted by: "Jim Saklad" jimdoc@me.com   jimdoc01

Sun Feb 19, 2012 4:43 pm (PST)



>> What is the connection between using this App and running Lion?
>
> Private Eye only works with 10.7
> Bill

Ah.
Didn't realize it was Lion-only.
Thanks.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@me.com

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (19)
5a.

Re: Disappearing desktop icons

Posted by: "Harry Flaxman" harry.flaxman@me.com   hflaxman001

Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:15 am (PST)



On 2/18/2012 11:47 PM, Randy B. Singer wrote:
> There are a very extensive set of suggestions in this discussion thread:
>
> <https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3193793?start=0&tstart=0>
> or
> http://is.gd/iUkTtd

Randy,

Interesting, the discussion only mentions UPGRADING to Lion. Is there
something specific to the 10.7.3 update?

I'm assuming this was an upgrade from 10.6 to 10.7 the way the thread is
reading.

Harry

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (7)
5b.

Re: Disappearing desktop icons

Posted by: "LARRY PYLE" lpyle@pacbell.net   lpyle@pacbell.net

Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:06 am (PST)



I am right handed, so obviously the left button on the mouse is the right button the mouse. Or is it the other way around. Sorry for the error in my earlier message, i meant to say the right mouse button stopped working. It is back now, but still a mystery.

Eliot aka Larry Pyle
Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (7)
5c.

Re: Disappearing desktop icons

Posted by: "Denver Dan" denver.dan@verizon.net   denverdan22180

Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:14 am (PST)



Howdy.

The disappearing icons problem may be specific to the Mac OS X 10.7.3
update.

It wasn't a problem in Mac OS X 10.7.2.

Denver Dan

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:15:28 -0500, Harry Flaxman wrote:
> On 2/18/2012 11:47 PM, Randy B. Singer wrote:
>> There are a very extensive set of suggestions in this discussion thread:
>>
>> <https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3193793?start=0&tstart=0>
>> or
>> http://is.gd/iUkTtd
>
> Randy,
>
> Interesting, the discussion only mentions UPGRADING to Lion. Is there
> something specific to the 10.7.3 update?
>
> I'm assuming this was an upgrade from 10.6 to 10.7 the way the thread is
> reading.
>
> Harry

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (7)
6a.

Re: OS X Mountain Lion to be download-only, USB stick going the way

Posted by: "Keith Whaley" keith_w@dslextreme.com   keith9600

Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:37 am (PST)



Bill Boulware wrote:
> I made the mistake of installing MTN Lion on my iMac (used 8-16x7) and
> it killed VMWare and Parallels - spent 16 hours yesterday getting it
> back to Lion 10.7.3 (had to restore from Time Capsule twice, boot to
> external, run the 10.7.3 combo updater and several other things just to
> get it to boot)
> http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/17/os-x-mountain-lion-to-be-download-only/
>
> Sent to you by Bill Boulware via Google Reader: OS X Mountain Lion to
> be download-only, USB stick going the way of the dodo via Engadget by
> Dante Cesa on 2/17/12
> Last time around, Apple was cognizant not everyone has broadband to
> download a 4GB OS, offering solace to those with slow internet with a
> (pricey $69) USB stick alternative. Times change though, as Cupertino's
> confirmed to Pocket-lint that the recently unveiled OS X Mountain Lion
> won't be offered with a physical counterpart. Apple's reasoning? "It
> was an interesting test, but it turns out the App Store was just fine
> for getting the new OS." So there's that. High time you took the plunge
> and upgraded to broadband apparently, or contemplated moving within the
> vicinity of an Apple Retail Store's willing WiFi. That or you could
> just buy a new machine. Your call.
> OS X Mountain Lion to be download-only, USB stick going the way of the
> dodo originally appeared on Engadget on Fri, 17 Feb 2012 21:31:00 EDT.
> Please see our terms for use of feeds.
> Permalink Gizmodo | Pocket-lint | Email this | Comments
> Things you can do from here:
> - Subscribe to Engadget using Google Reader
> - Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your
> favorite sites
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (4)
7a.

Re: [macsupport] Apple¹s iCloud Is No Dropbox Killer (It

Posted by: "N.A. Nada" whodo678@comcast.net

Sun Feb 19, 2012 4:19 pm (PST)




On Feb 18, 2012, at 10:39 AM, bob morin wrote:

>
> On Feb 18, 2012, at 12:35 PM, Denver dan wrote:
>
> > There are well over 150 US cities with free public city-wide WiFi access. Probably more since the list I found online was from late in 2010.
> >
>
> Thanks for the info, I haven't lived in one of those cities. The big issue to come is service for the more rural communities.

Well, universal broadband in the US would be like the Rural Electrification back in the 40's or 50's. We have a huge landmass with huge areas with less than 25 people per square mile.
Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (22)
7b.

Re: [macsupport] Apple¹s iCloud Is No Dropbox Killer (It

Posted by: "bob morin" rbmorin11@gmail.com   rbmorin2002

Sun Feb 19, 2012 4:26 pm (PST)




On Feb 19, 2012, at 6:19 PM, N.A. Nada wrote:

>
> Well, universal broadband in the US would be like the Rural Electrification back in the 40's or 50's. We have a huge landmass with huge areas with less than 25 people per square mile

People in the 30's were left out as were my grandparents and relatives in NE Penna.

bob

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (22)
7c.

Re: Apple¹s iCloud Is No Dropbox Killer (It

Posted by: "Bob Cook" cookrd1@discoveryowners.com   cookrd1

Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:13 pm (PST)



>There are well over 150 US cities with free public city-wide WiFi access.
Probably more since the list I found online was from late in 2010.

Have you tried them? Pitiful, no way have I ever found one able to
download a Win update, much less the HUGE OS X updates. Don't even try
this at a McD.
However, Vz LTE works really great. I used 26 GB last month. Most places
were 20 Mbps.
Bob

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (22)
8a.

Re: Apple's iCloud Is No Dro pbox Killer (It

Posted by: "N.A. Nada" whodo678@comcast.net

Sun Feb 19, 2012 4:29 pm (PST)




On Feb 18, 2012, at 11:07 PM, Rob Frankel wrote:

> At 10:59 PM -0700 2/18/12, Bob Cook wrote thusly:
>
> >
> >
> >Apple, first you take away Save As, and then you try to force us to live in
> >your ecosystem.
> >
>
> Which is why I will stay in the 10.6.8 orbit until further notice.....

And where is Save As missing? Like missing from which app?

I'm running 10.7.3 and it is available when I need it or you can save a document as a version, which is pretty much the same as Save As, only you have to rename it. Worse case, leave the app, and Duplicate it in Finder.

Brent
Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (22)
8b.

Re: Apple's iCloud Is No Dro pbox Killer (It

Posted by: "Bob Cook" cookrd1@discoveryowners.com   cookrd1

Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:05 pm (PST)



>where is Save As missing

Sorry but save a version and duplicate is a PITA. Added steps. For
example, i used to be able to quickly resize pics in Preview. Much easier
to do in Windows now. Show me how to quickly resize a couple hundred
photos, renaming each with a tn_ prefix while keeping the original. I could
be missing something, but it is more steps in Lion than SL. Other blog
posts I read lament the demise of Save As, so I assume there is no easy
workaround.
But, since there are several things I need to do that OS X can't do, I
guess that is no big deal.
I am amazed of all the things I need to do that must be done on Windows,
either no software or no good Mac software. Blew my dream of a complete
conversion to Mac.
But, I at least have the best of both worlds, able to easily run OS X and
Win on a great laptop - my MBP or MBA.
Bob

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (22)
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
New web site?

Drive traffic now.

Get your business

on Yahoo! search.

Yahoo! Finance

It's Now Personal

Guides, news,

advice & more.

Sell Online

Start selling with

our award-winning

e-commerce tools.

Need to Reply?

Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the Daily Digest.

Create New Topic | Visit Your Group on the Web
Posted by at