13 New Messages
Digest #9201
3a
Re: Why OS-X 10.7+ requires a mandatory replacement for my MacPro? by "Denver Dan" denverdan22180
5a
Lost my top bar that allows me to change setting in OSX Mt Lion Mail by "Tanya Metaksa" tmetaksa@att.net
5c
Re: Lost my top bar that allows me to change setting in OSX Mt Lion by "apple" tanya.metaksa@att.net
Messages
Sat Oct 27, 2012 4:15 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Denver Dan" denverdan22180
Howdy.
Barb, you can check manually in your backups to see if the Aperture
files are there. It might take some time, however.
You just open the Backups.backupdb folder on the Time Machine drive and
start looking.
A Find app might also help.
I've sent you a direct message with an attached screen capture showing
the path to backup files just as an example.
Denver Dan
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 14:54:42 -0700, Barbara Adamski wrote:
> Thanks. Basically, I want to know if my Aperture files have been
> included or not. I don't want to get the drive replaced without
> confirming this. The reason I'm wondering is that I can't recall
> whether or not I excluded it or not a long time ago, when I first set
> things up.
>
> I am hoping that I decided against excluding Aperture, but would
> really like to confirm it. Most of my photos are housed elsewhere (on
> my Photoshelter account), but not all of them are.
>
> Thanks,
> Barb
Barb, you can check manually in your backups to see if the Aperture
files are there. It might take some time, however.
You just open the Backups.backupdb folder on the Time Machine drive and
start looking.
A Find app might also help.
I've sent you a direct message with an attached screen capture showing
the path to backup files just as an example.
Denver Dan
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 14:54:42 -0700, Barbara Adamski wrote:
> Thanks. Basically, I want to know if my Aperture files have been
> included or not. I don't want to get the drive replaced without
> confirming this. The reason I'm wondering is that I can't recall
> whether or not I excluded it or not a long time ago, when I first set
> things up.
>
> I am hoping that I decided against excluding Aperture, but would
> really like to confirm it. Most of my photos are housed elsewhere (on
> my Photoshelter account), but not all of them are.
>
> Thanks,
> Barb
Sat Oct 27, 2012 7:57 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Barbara Adamski" bkadamski
Thanks, Dan.
I get a weird message when I try that. And now I can't access Aperture at all.
I've found these instructions online, but I can't get past step 2 :-P
http://documentation.apple.com/en/aperture/usermanual/index.html#chapter=27%26section=10%26tasks=true
Barb
On 2012-10-27, at 4:15 PM, Denver Dan <denver.dan@verizon.net > wrote:
> Howdy.
>
> Barb, you can check manually in your backups to see if the Aperture
> files are there. It might take some time, however.
>
> You just open the Backups.backupdb folder on the Time Machine drive and
> start looking.
>
> A Find app might also help.
>
> I've sent you a direct message with an attached screen capture showing
> the path to backup files just as an example.
>
> Denver Dan
>
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 14:54:42 -0700, Barbara Adamski wrote:
> > Thanks. Basically, I want to know if my Aperture files have been
> > included or not. I don't want to get the drive replaced without
> > confirming this. The reason I'm wondering is that I can't recall
> > whether or not I excluded it or not a long time ago, when I first set
> > things up.
> >
> > I am hoping that I decided against excluding Aperture, but would
> > really like to confirm it. Most of my photos are housed elsewhere (on
> > my Photoshelter account), but not all of them are.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Barb
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I get a weird message when I try that. And now I can't access Aperture at all.
I've found these instructions online, but I can't get past step 2 :-P
http://documentatio
Barb
On 2012-10-27, at 4:15 PM, Denver Dan <denver.dan@verizon.
> Howdy.
>
> Barb, you can check manually in your backups to see if the Aperture
> files are there. It might take some time, however.
>
> You just open the Backups.backupdb folder on the Time Machine drive and
> start looking.
>
> A Find app might also help.
>
> I've sent you a direct message with an attached screen capture showing
> the path to backup files just as an example.
>
> Denver Dan
>
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 14:54:42 -0700, Barbara Adamski wrote:
> > Thanks. Basically, I want to know if my Aperture files have been
> > included or not. I don't want to get the drive replaced without
> > confirming this. The reason I'm wondering is that I can't recall
> > whether or not I excluded it or not a long time ago, when I first set
> > things up.
> >
> > I am hoping that I decided against excluding Aperture, but would
> > really like to confirm it. Most of my photos are housed elsewhere (on
> > my Photoshelter account), but not all of them are.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Barb
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sat Oct 27, 2012 4:18 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"HAL9000" jrswebhome
Regularly back up about 250 GBs of data (from my 1TB iMac) on a 500 GB firewire drive. I choose which folders to backup. I don't care about having a bootable back up. It's the data I want. I can easily reinstall the system.
I suspect that TM threw out all the older backups when he filled the backup drive w backups. It's happened to me too six months ago. I normally only care about the latest backup anyway. I don't use it to back up any business data, otherwise I would have a larger disk on which to backup.
jr
--- In macsupportcentral@yahoogroups.com , Dave C <davec2468@...> wrote:
>
> Time Machine has been backing up my Mac mini since new, summer of last year.
>
> Today I entered TM to find a file and see that backups go back to only yesterday at 9 PM.
>
> The backup drive is 250 GB, I have about 500 GB filled on my main 750 GB boot drive.
>
> What would cause backups to go away like that?
>
> I have in the past weeks, retrieved files from backups many months old, so I know TM was doing its job well not so long ago.
>
> Not serious, but very inconvenient, and most of all, disconcerting.
>
> Thanks,
> Dave
>
> 2011 Mini 2.7 GHz dual i7 / 16 GB / 250 GB / 750 GB
> OS X 10.6.8 Snow Leopard
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
I suspect that TM threw out all the older backups when he filled the backup drive w backups. It's happened to me too six months ago. I normally only care about the latest backup anyway. I don't use it to back up any business data, otherwise I would have a larger disk on which to backup.
jr
--- In macsupportcentral@
>
> Time Machine has been backing up my Mac mini since new, summer of last year.
>
> Today I entered TM to find a file and see that backups go back to only yesterday at 9 PM.
>
> The backup drive is 250 GB, I have about 500 GB filled on my main 750 GB boot drive.
>
> What would cause backups to go away like that?
>
> I have in the past weeks, retrieved files from backups many months old, so I know TM was doing its job well not so long ago.
>
> Not serious, but very inconvenient, and most of all, disconcerting.
>
> Thanks,
> Dave
>
> 2011 Mini 2.7 GHz dual i7 / 16 GB / 250 GB / 750 GB
> OS X 10.6.8 Snow Leopard
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Sat Oct 27, 2012 4:33 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Patti A Robertson" parpiano
That was my point.
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 27, 2012, at 2:02 PM, "N.A. Nada" <whodo678@comcast.net > wrote:
> But he has 1/2 the capacity on the TM, not twice.
>
> On Oct 27, 2012, at 1:15 PM, Patti A Robertson wrote:
>
> Yes, I've read that twice the computer's hard drive capacity is a good rule of thumb.
>
> Patti
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 27, 2012, at 1:09 PM, Denver Dan <denver.dan@verizon.net > wrote:
>
> > Howdy.
> >
> > Dave, if I understand your post correctly, then you are trying to
> > backup 500 GB of files to a 250 GB hard drive and that doesn't work.
> >
> > It's like trying to put 500 ounces of beer into a 250 ounce mug.
> > There'd be some splashing and loss of precious beverage.
> >
> > Time Machine is designed to start deleting the oldest backed up files
> > once the backup drive has been filled up and it's supposed to notify
> > you before this happens.
> >
> > Unless I misunderstood your message, or perhaps you did a typo with the
> > numbers, I'd suggest getting a backup drive that is larger than the
> > drive to be backed up, or, at least equal in capacity.
> >
> > Denver Dan
> >
> > On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 09:58:10 -0700, Dave C wrote:
> > > Time Machine has been backing up my Mac mini since new, summer of last year.
> > >
> > > Today I entered TM to find a file and see that backups go back to
> > > only yesterday at 9 PM.
> > >
> > > The backup drive is 250 GB, I have about 500 GB filled on my main 750
> > > GB boot drive.
> > >
> > > What would cause backups to go away like that?
> > >
> > > I have in the past weeks, retrieved files from backups many months
> > > old, so I know TM was doing its job well not so long ago.
> > >
> > > Not serious, but very inconvenient, and most of all, disconcerting.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Dave
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 27, 2012, at 2:02 PM, "N.A. Nada" <whodo678@comcast.
> But he has 1/2 the capacity on the TM, not twice.
>
> On Oct 27, 2012, at 1:15 PM, Patti A Robertson wrote:
>
> Yes, I've read that twice the computer's hard drive capacity is a good rule of thumb.
>
> Patti
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 27, 2012, at 1:09 PM, Denver Dan <denver.dan@verizon.
>
> > Howdy.
> >
> > Dave, if I understand your post correctly, then you are trying to
> > backup 500 GB of files to a 250 GB hard drive and that doesn't work.
> >
> > It's like trying to put 500 ounces of beer into a 250 ounce mug.
> > There'd be some splashing and loss of precious beverage.
> >
> > Time Machine is designed to start deleting the oldest backed up files
> > once the backup drive has been filled up and it's supposed to notify
> > you before this happens.
> >
> > Unless I misunderstood your message, or perhaps you did a typo with the
> > numbers, I'd suggest getting a backup drive that is larger than the
> > drive to be backed up, or, at least equal in capacity.
> >
> > Denver Dan
> >
> > On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 09:58:10 -0700, Dave C wrote:
> > > Time Machine has been backing up my Mac mini since new, summer of last year.
> > >
> > > Today I entered TM to find a file and see that backups go back to
> > > only yesterday at 9 PM.
> > >
> > > The backup drive is 250 GB, I have about 500 GB filled on my main 750
> > > GB boot drive.
> > >
> > > What would cause backups to go away like that?
> > >
> > > I have in the past weeks, retrieved files from backups many months
> > > old, so I know TM was doing its job well not so long ago.
> > >
> > > Not serious, but very inconvenient, and most of all, disconcerting.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Dave
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sat Oct 27, 2012 6:09 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Jim Saklad" jimdoc01
> Dave, if I understand your post correctly, then you are trying to backup 500 GB of files to a 250 GB hard drive and that doesn't work.
>
> It's like trying to put 500 ounces of beer into a 250 ounce mug. There'd be some splashing and loss of precious beverage.
>
> Time Machine is designed to start deleting the oldest backed up files once the backup drive has been filled up and it's supposed to notify you before this happens.
>
> Unless I misunderstood your message, or perhaps you did a typo with the numbers, I'd suggest getting a backup drive that is larger than the drive to be backed up, or, at least equal in capacity.
My rule of thumb is that a Time Machine backup drive should be a minimum of twice as large as the data to be backed up. For example, I've been backing up 185 GB of data (formerly on a 320 GB drive, now on a 500 GB drive) onto a 700 GB partition.
Thus I will have room, even if I double the data content of the primary drive
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@me.com
>
> It's like trying to put 500 ounces of beer into a 250 ounce mug. There'd be some splashing and loss of precious beverage.
>
> Time Machine is designed to start deleting the oldest backed up files once the backup drive has been filled up and it's supposed to notify you before this happens.
>
> Unless I misunderstood your message, or perhaps you did a typo with the numbers, I'd suggest getting a backup drive that is larger than the drive to be backed up, or, at least equal in capacity.
My rule of thumb is that a Time Machine backup drive should be a minimum of twice as large as the data to be backed up. For example, I've been backing up 185 GB of data (formerly on a 320 GB drive, now on a 500 GB drive) onto a 700 GB partition.
Thus I will have room, even if I double the data content of the primary drive
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@me.com
Sat Oct 27, 2012 4:50 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Denver Dan" denverdan22180
Howdy.
I think Chas, that perhaps you have gotten some facts cross wise.
This message to you is being written on a Mac Pro Machine ID 1,1, just
like yours, with Mac OS X 10.7.5 Lion cheerfully installed and running
on it.
This model Mac Pro (specifically the Machine ID 1,1) is the first
generation Mac Pro and it can not boot into 64-bit kernel boot mode.
It can still, however, run both 32 and 64-bit applications and a 64-bit
Finder. One of the issues is that to run all of the 64-bit system
extension it needs to boot into the 64-bit kernel boot mode.
All of the 2nd generation and beyond Mac Pro models, the newer ones,
can boot into 64-bit kernel boot mode.
It's this 64-bit kernel boot mode that is the issue with not being able
to install Mac OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion which requires 64 bit kernel
boot stuff.
Your Mac Pro (and mine) was introduced 6 years ago and technology
changes.
I'm patiently waiting for a new Mac Pro to be released with Thunderbolt
ports and a significantly faster server level processor.
Apple has been very very slow about a major upgrade to the Mac Pro
tower line. There is even a FaceBook group for people asking Apple to
fix this laggardly situation.
Good luck and post again if you have questions about installing Lion on
your Mac Pro tower.
Denver Dan
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 15:57:11 -0500, chas wrote:
>
> I do not understand why Apple went to a new machine platform as a
> requirement
> for the new 10.7 and later versions of the OS-X?
>
> This is reminiscent of the FORCED requirement to replace several other
> personal computers with the change over to later OS by MS as well as Intel
> and M$.
>
> After all, when you put $2500 into a MacPro and then are virtually required
> to dump it when a new OS version is released or certain apps are updated to
> the extent that they will only run on the new version of the OS which means
> you have to replace your entire machine to be able to run the app or the OS.
>
> There should be backward compatibility of the OS so that you can get more
> than 3 or 4 yrs ( 6 in the case of the MacPro Intel) out of the machine
> without having to replace it.
>
> or, will Apple continue to support the 10.6.x OS for another 4 yrs or so?
>
> It seems to me that Apple should provide a 50% trade in for my 1,1
> (2006) on
> the new-er (2009 or 2010) MacPro.
>
> I just cannot understand the reasoning behind the forced obsolescence
> and why
> they did not offer at least a trade in on the relatively new 1,1 .
>
> iow, looking at what I have in my machine, all I need is a patch to allow me
> to run 10.7 -- after all, I don't need much more in a replacement
> MacPro just
> to be able to run the newer OS, or so it seems to me.
>
>
> Anyone??
>
> thanks
> chas
>
>
> Hardware Overview:
>
> Model Name: Mac Pro
> Model Identifier: MacPro1,1
I think Chas, that perhaps you have gotten some facts cross wise.
This message to you is being written on a Mac Pro Machine ID 1,1, just
like yours, with Mac OS X 10.7.5 Lion cheerfully installed and running
on it.
This model Mac Pro (specifically the Machine ID 1,1) is the first
generation Mac Pro and it can not boot into 64-bit kernel boot mode.
It can still, however, run both 32 and 64-bit applications and a 64-bit
Finder. One of the issues is that to run all of the 64-bit system
extension it needs to boot into the 64-bit kernel boot mode.
All of the 2nd generation and beyond Mac Pro models, the newer ones,
can boot into 64-bit kernel boot mode.
It's this 64-bit kernel boot mode that is the issue with not being able
to install Mac OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion which requires 64 bit kernel
boot stuff.
Your Mac Pro (and mine) was introduced 6 years ago and technology
changes.
I'm patiently waiting for a new Mac Pro to be released with Thunderbolt
ports and a significantly faster server level processor.
Apple has been very very slow about a major upgrade to the Mac Pro
tower line. There is even a FaceBook group for people asking Apple to
fix this laggardly situation.
Good luck and post again if you have questions about installing Lion on
your Mac Pro tower.
Denver Dan
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 15:57:11 -0500, chas wrote:
>
> I do not understand why Apple went to a new machine platform as a
> requirement
> for the new 10.7 and later versions of the OS-X?
>
> This is reminiscent of the FORCED requirement to replace several other
> personal computers with the change over to later OS by MS as well as Intel
> and M$.
>
> After all, when you put $2500 into a MacPro and then are virtually required
> to dump it when a new OS version is released or certain apps are updated to
> the extent that they will only run on the new version of the OS which means
> you have to replace your entire machine to be able to run the app or the OS.
>
> There should be backward compatibility of the OS so that you can get more
> than 3 or 4 yrs ( 6 in the case of the MacPro Intel) out of the machine
> without having to replace it.
>
> or, will Apple continue to support the 10.6.x OS for another 4 yrs or so?
>
> It seems to me that Apple should provide a 50% trade in for my 1,1
> (2006) on
> the new-er (2009 or 2010) MacPro.
>
> I just cannot understand the reasoning behind the forced obsolescence
> and why
> they did not offer at least a trade in on the relatively new 1,1 .
>
> iow, looking at what I have in my machine, all I need is a patch to allow me
> to run 10.7 -- after all, I don't need much more in a replacement
> MacPro just
> to be able to run the newer OS, or so it seems to me.
>
>
> Anyone??
>
> thanks
> chas
>
>
> Hardware Overview:
>
> Model Name: Mac Pro
> Model Identifier: MacPro1,1
Sat Oct 27, 2012 6:20 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Jim Saklad" jimdoc01
> I do not understand why Apple went to a new machine platform as a requirement
> for the new 10.7 and later versions of the OS-X?
The 3rd Mac Pro model released -- now 4.5 years old -- came with Leopard, and will nevertheless run Mountain Lion (according to MacTracker).
Only the first 2 models (which came with Tiger) cannot run ML, although they can run Lion.
I am DELIGHTED that Apple does not follow the Microsoft model of trying to make everything backwards compatible to the Dawn Of Time.
> It seems to me that Apple should provide a 50% trade in for my 1,1 (2006) on
> the new-er (2009 or 2010) MacPro.
A 2006 MacPro1,1 was probably not worth 50% by 2009, let alone 2012.
> I just cannot understand the reasoning behind the forced obsolescence and why
> they did not offer at least a trade in on the relatively new 1,1 .
A 6 year old computer is NOT "relatively new".
> ... all I need is a patch to allow me to run 10.7 -- after all, I don't need much more in a replacement MacPro just to be able to run the newer OS, or so it seems to me.
According to MacTracker, MacPro1,1 will run MacOS 10.7.4
> SOFTWARE
> Original OS Mac OS X 10.4.7 (8K1079)
> Later OS Mac OS X 10.4.8 (8N1430, 8N1250), 10.4.9 (8P4037), 10.4.10 (8R3032, 8R3041), 10.5 (9A581, 9A3129)
> Maximum OS Mac OS X 10.7.4
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@me.com
> for the new 10.7 and later versions of the OS-X?
The 3rd Mac Pro model released -- now 4.5 years old -- came with Leopard, and will nevertheless run Mountain Lion (according to MacTracker).
Only the first 2 models (which came with Tiger) cannot run ML, although they can run Lion.
I am DELIGHTED that Apple does not follow the Microsoft model of trying to make everything backwards compatible to the Dawn Of Time.
> It seems to me that Apple should provide a 50% trade in for my 1,1 (2006) on
> the new-er (2009 or 2010) MacPro.
A 2006 MacPro1,1 was probably not worth 50% by 2009, let alone 2012.
> I just cannot understand the reasoning behind the forced obsolescence and why
> they did not offer at least a trade in on the relatively new 1,1 .
A 6 year old computer is NOT "relatively new".
> ... all I need is a patch to allow me to run 10.7 -- after all, I don't need much more in a replacement MacPro just to be able to run the newer OS, or so it seems to me.
According to MacTracker, MacPro1,1 will run MacOS 10.7.4
> SOFTWARE
> Original OS Mac OS X 10.4.7 (8K1079)
> Later OS Mac OS X 10.4.8 (8N1430, 8N1250), 10.4.9 (8P4037), 10.4.10 (8R3032, 8R3041), 10.5 (9A581, 9A3129)
> Maximum OS Mac OS X 10.7.4
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@me.com
Sat Oct 27, 2012 6:04 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Bill Boulware" boulware0224
Also of note, Apple does NOT pay for any product placement. I read an
interview from a TV producer a while ago that said they use their own
computers and products in shots...
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Otto Nikolaus <otto.nikolaus@googlemail.com
> wrote:
> **
>
>
> On 23 October 2012 21:35, Chris Jones <jonesc@hep.phy.cam.ac.uk > wrote:
>
> >
> > Aesthetics are an important design criteria, just as much as function.
> > Apple knows this and does both better than most others. Yes, these
> beauties
> > don't need to be that thin at the edges, but it doesn't half look
> stunning.
> > The fact they are thicker at the centre really doesn't 't matter, you
> don't
> > see that....
> >
> > You must have noticed that apple products seem to find their way into an
> > awful lot of tv shows or films these days, that need computer props. They
> > don't do that because of their USB ports ...
> >
>
> Not just props. They are commonly seen in news, science, and other factual
> programs here in the UK. Quite often the Apple logo on the laptops is
> covered, so it's not simple product placement.
>
> Otto
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
interview from a TV producer a while ago that said they use their own
computers and products in shots...
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Otto Nikolaus <otto.nikolaus@
> wrote:
> **
>
>
> On 23 October 2012 21:35, Chris Jones <jonesc@hep.phy.
>
> >
> > Aesthetics are an important design criteria, just as much as function.
> > Apple knows this and does both better than most others. Yes, these
> beauties
> > don't need to be that thin at the edges, but it doesn't half look
> stunning.
> > The fact they are thicker at the centre really doesn't 't matter, you
> don't
> > see that....
> >
> > You must have noticed that apple products seem to find their way into an
> > awful lot of tv shows or films these days, that need computer props. They
> > don't do that because of their USB ports ...
> >
>
> Not just props. They are commonly seen in news, science, and other factual
> programs here in the UK. Quite often the Apple logo on the laptops is
> covered, so it's not simple product placement.
>
> Otto
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sat Oct 27, 2012 8:59 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Tanya Metaksa" tmetaksa@att.net
I opened mail this evening and found that the top bar in my mail program is hidden. So I can't find the View Edit, etc buttons.
How do I get it back?
Many thanks,
Tanya Metaksa
tanya.metaksa@gmail.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
How do I get it back?
Many thanks,
Tanya Metaksa
tanya.metaksa@
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sat Oct 27, 2012 9:33 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Jim Saklad" jimdoc01
> I opened mail this evening and found that the top bar in my mail program is hidden. So I can't find the View Edit, etc buttons.
> How do I get it back?
Most likely guess is that you accidentally entered Full Screen mode.
Press <Control><Command><f>
Also, if you run your cursor up to the top of the screen, the menus should re-appear as long as the cursor is up there.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@me.com
> How do I get it back?
Most likely guess is that you accidentally entered Full Screen mode.
Press <Control><Command>
Also, if you run your cursor up to the top of the screen, the menus should re-appear as long as the cursor is up there.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@me.com
Sun Oct 28, 2012 7:17 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"apple" tanya.metaksa@att.net
Thanks, Jim that did it.
Tanya
On Oct 27, 2012, at 9:32 PM, Jim Saklad <jimdoc@me.com> wrote:
> > I opened mail this evening and found that the top bar in my mail program is hidden. So I can't find the View Edit, etc buttons.
> > How do I get it back?
>
> Most likely guess is that you accidentally entered Full Screen mode.
> Press <Control><Command><f>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Tanya
On Oct 27, 2012, at 9:32 PM, Jim Saklad <jimdoc@me.com> wrote:
> > I opened mail this evening and found that the top bar in my mail program is hidden. So I can't find the View Edit, etc buttons.
> > How do I get it back?
>
> Most likely guess is that you accidentally entered Full Screen mode.
> Press <Control><Command>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sun Oct 28, 2012 2:50 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Oneal Neumann" newalander
I am now residing in Budapest, where we just moved back to Standard Time. I want my girlfriend (currently sharing the use of a Dell laptop with her son) to move up to a Mac.
Only marginally comp-literate, my girlfriend basically does emails with the laptop. She wants to get her own device, perhaps a (used) notebook (from her daughter) that would allow her to do things on her own timetable.
I proposed getting a Mac, for which I would pay. The problem is that I really don't know what's out there. I want to get her something used, perhaps a year or two old, on which she can do emailing, picturing storing and other minimalist stuff.
Since I don't do PCs, I can't help her there, however getting a used Mac would allow me to upgrade her comp skills by working in tandem with me.
Any ideas on something not too fancy? There are probably many who have had to provide (grand)parents with similar devices.
Thanx. Oneal
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sun Oct 28, 2012 6:18 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Daly Jessup" dalyjessup
On Oct 28, 2012, at 2:50 AM, Oneal Neumann wrote:
> I proposed getting a Mac, for which I would pay. The problem is that I really don‚t know what‚s out there. I want to get her something used, perhaps a year or two old, on which she can do emailing, picturing storing and other minimalist stuff.
I like looking at the Refurbished items at Apple's web site:
go to http://store.
Scroll down until you see the "Special Deals" section in the column on the left. These machines are refurbished by Apple and come with AppleCare.
However, if you are needing to buy something in Budapest, this probably wouldn't be possible or practical. I would suggest getting a used or refurbished iMac wherever one might be available.
Daly
GROUP FOOTER MESSAGE
