15 New Messages
Digest #9595
Messages
Wed Jun 12, 2013 4:44 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"bob morin" rbmorin2002
On Jun 11, 2013, at 8:12 PM, Pat Taylor <pat412@mac.com> wrote:
> I had a similar situation with the phone company here a few years ago, switched to Comcast & couldn't be happier. Our own Denver Dan explained the difference to me & his insight helped me make the switch so I appreciate him every day!
>
In moving to a suburb of Austin TX i contracted with ATT for the bundle of services. Had great trouble with TV signals and had them here three times to no avail. I switched to our local cable company for a service that worked and saved $60 per month. ATT lines had too many splices I was finally told.
bob
bob morin
rbmorin11@gmail.
Wed Jun 12, 2013 5:03 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Bekah" bekalex
I'm neither Dan nor Pat but I'm pretty sure I can get cable as the local company came around offering it when they finally made it available to this side of town a couple years ago. Cable was available on the west side for years before they got over here to the less populated area. That would make sense if cable can serve more customers or a further distance than broadband.
On Jun 11, 2013, at 9:26 PM, N.A. Nada <whodo678@comcast.net > wrote:
> Dan or Pat,
>
> Can you give us the bare bones of what was said that made Pat switch to cable over DSL? I know they both have a distance limit, but I thought that cable had a much longer distance.
>
>
> Brent
>
>
> On Jun 11, 2013, at 6:12 PM, Pat Taylor wrote:
>
> I had a similar situation with the phone company here a few years ago, switched to Comcast & couldn't be happier. Our own Denver Dan explained the difference to me & his insight helped me make the switch so I appreciate him every day!
>
> On Jun 11, 2013, at 5:19 PM, Bekah <bekah0176@sbcglobal.net > wrote:
>
>> Well - the saga continues - I asked that very question and the second technician yesterday said that sometimes the modems fry out - but … this is a new modem - clean lines. Anyway, he gave up and said it had to be the distance - I was over their max. Imo, it's easily possible that they added a bunch of ATT customers between me and the source (whatever that is that sends the signal).
>>
>> Anyway, the lower speed stopped working, too. This morning the new modem at lower speed was doing the same thing as everything before. After some thought I called another service provider here, an old established company but a bit more costly, and they'll be out here tomorrow to check "IF" I can get reception. I used them from 1996-2000 or so. If they can't do it then there are a couple other sources - Charter Cable - ??? If worse comes to worse, I still can use the Verizon hot spot (4G but expensive). Verizon broadband doesn't extend out here, though - (heh). I'm at the very edge of town, the next to last house on the block before the wet-land area.
>>
>> Anyway, then I called ATT and discontinued service. And yes, they did it right quick - no problems. I guess I'd already gone through all the hoops by trying all that stuff and working with techs and technicians and new modems and stuff. If I can't get service per their own technicians then that's a pretty good reason ~ The person doing my discontinue wasn't surprised a bit - even gave me my full month refund (so she said - we'll see). I kept my ATT phone land line - since 1980, I think. That's no problem.
>>
>> Bekah
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 11, 2013, at 3:18 PM, N.A. Nada <whodo678@comcast.net > wrote:
>>
>>> If it works, run with it!
>>>
>>> But it makes no sense. It worked for 8 months, and now you are now "just a wee tad out of range". Did you upgrade speeds and not mention it, or did they move the CO for the DSL "a wee tad"?
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 11, 2013, at 5:16 AM, Bekah wrote:
>>>
>>> And the end of story is that the second tech finally, after a couple more hours (techs at the house from 9:30 AM to 6PM), decided that I'm just a wee tad out of range for the high speed DSL. He advised me to downsize the speed. I called ATT and got that done, saved a bit of money - not a lot - and they did what they do and I'm now getting a lower speed DSL but it seems to come in a bit faster. That was a long tiring weekend!
>>>
>>> Bekah
>>>
>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Group FAQ:
>>> <http://www.macsupportcentral.com/policies/ >
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Group FAQ:
>> <http://www.macsupportcentral.com/policies/ >
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Group FAQ:
> <http://www.macsupportcentral.com/policies/ >
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Group FAQ:
> <http://www.macsupportcentral.com/policies/ >
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
On Jun 11, 2013, at 9:26 PM, N.A. Nada <whodo678@comcast.
> Dan or Pat,
>
> Can you give us the bare bones of what was said that made Pat switch to cable over DSL? I know they both have a distance limit, but I thought that cable had a much longer distance.
>
>
> Brent
>
>
> On Jun 11, 2013, at 6:12 PM, Pat Taylor wrote:
>
> I had a similar situation with the phone company here a few years ago, switched to Comcast & couldn't be happier. Our own Denver Dan explained the difference to me & his insight helped me make the switch so I appreciate him every day!
>
> On Jun 11, 2013, at 5:19 PM, Bekah <bekah0176@sbcglobal
>
>> Well - the saga continues - I asked that very question and the second technician yesterday said that sometimes the modems fry out - but … this is a new modem - clean lines. Anyway, he gave up and said it had to be the distance - I was over their max. Imo, it's easily possible that they added a bunch of ATT customers between me and the source (whatever that is that sends the signal).
>>
>> Anyway, the lower speed stopped working, too. This morning the new modem at lower speed was doing the same thing as everything before. After some thought I called another service provider here, an old established company but a bit more costly, and they'll be out here tomorrow to check "IF" I can get reception. I used them from 1996-2000 or so. If they can't do it then there are a couple other sources - Charter Cable - ??? If worse comes to worse, I still can use the Verizon hot spot (4G but expensive). Verizon broadband doesn't extend out here, though - (heh). I'm at the very edge of town, the next to last house on the block before the wet-land area.
>>
>> Anyway, then I called ATT and discontinued service. And yes, they did it right quick - no problems. I guess I'd already gone through all the hoops by trying all that stuff and working with techs and technicians and new modems and stuff. If I can't get service per their own technicians then that's a pretty good reason ~ The person doing my discontinue wasn't surprised a bit - even gave me my full month refund (so she said - we'll see). I kept my ATT phone land line - since 1980, I think. That's no problem.
>>
>> Bekah
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 11, 2013, at 3:18 PM, N.A. Nada <whodo678@comcast.
>>
>>> If it works, run with it!
>>>
>>> But it makes no sense. It worked for 8 months, and now you are now "just a wee tad out of range". Did you upgrade speeds and not mention it, or did they move the CO for the DSL "a wee tad"?
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 11, 2013, at 5:16 AM, Bekah wrote:
>>>
>>> And the end of story is that the second tech finally, after a couple more hours (techs at the house from 9:30 AM to 6PM), decided that I'm just a wee tad out of range for the high speed DSL. He advised me to downsize the speed. I called ATT and got that done, saved a bit of money - not a lot - and they did what they do and I'm now getting a lower speed DSL but it seems to come in a bit faster. That was a long tiring weekend!
>>>
>>> Bekah
>>>
>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------
>>>
>>> Group FAQ:
>>> <http://www.macsuppo
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------
>>
>> Group FAQ:
>> <http://www.macsuppo
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------
>
> Group FAQ:
> <http://www.macsuppo
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------
>
> Group FAQ:
> <http://www.macsuppo
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Wed Jun 12, 2013 5:54 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Ken" avliska
This has already become an issue with my 62 year old eyes. Any opportunity to join the chorus to get it improved, I will take. Thanks.
Ken S.
> I agree about the poor contrast though, like the Apple hardware that has
> light grey-on-white type.
>
> Otto
Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:31 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Pat Taylor" pat412255
Mavericks is the code name for OSX 10.9.
On Jun 12, 2013, at 4:44 AM, Otto Nikolaus <otto.nikolaus@googlemail.com > wrote:
> I'm confused. The subject line says Maverick but this is about iOS7, not
> 10.9. Does Maverick mean 10.9 *and/or* iOS7?
>
> I agree about the poor contrast though, like the Apple hardware that has
> light grey-on-white type.
>
> Otto
>
> On 12 June 2013 08:39, HAL9000 <jrswebhome@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
> > http://osxdaily.com/2013/06/10/ios-7-screen-shots-features/
> >
> > Why would anyone design w white type on light pastel colored icons?
> >
> > I look at the present interface beside the future 7 interface and wonder
> > what price my eyes will pay?
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
On Jun 12, 2013, at 4:44 AM, Otto Nikolaus <otto.nikolaus@
> I'm confused. The subject line says Maverick but this is about iOS7, not
> 10.9. Does Maverick mean 10.9 *and/or* iOS7?
>
> I agree about the poor contrast though, like the Apple hardware that has
> light grey-on-white type.
>
> Otto
>
> On 12 June 2013 08:39, HAL9000 <jrswebhome@yahoo.
>
> > http://osxdaily.
> >
> > Why would anyone design w white type on light pastel colored icons?
> >
> > I look at the present interface beside the future 7 interface and wonder
> > what price my eyes will pay?
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Wed Jun 12, 2013 7:11 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Otto Nikolaus" nikyzf
And *not* for iOS7.
Otto
On 12 June 2013 14:30, Pat Taylor <pat412@mac.com> wrote:
> Mavericks is the code name for OSX 10.9.
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Otto
On 12 June 2013 14:30, Pat Taylor <pat412@mac.com> wrote:
> Mavericks is the code name for OSX 10.9.
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Wed Jun 12, 2013 7:31 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Dave C" davec2468
This has got to stop. Art (look & feel) is one thing but to extend this to the point of affecting the useability is beyond the pale.
This is the major reason that even though I bought a modern Mini (2011) I "downgraded" to 10.6 -- it has not gone with the low contrast system fonts.
I have configured a function key with the web service "Zap" which converts a web page to black text for easier reading.
But can't do this for system fonts, as far as I know...
At the very least put a setting for "text minimum contrast" in Sys Prefs that allows the user to choose how light/dark the fonts are.
Dave
Sent from my iPod
On 12 Jun 2013, at 05:54 AM, "Ken" wrote:
This has already become an issue with my 62 year old eyes. Any opportunity to join the chorus to get it improved, I will take. Thanks.
Ken S.
I agree about the poor contrast though, like the Apple hardware that has light grey-on-white type.
Otto
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This is the major reason that even though I bought a modern Mini (2011) I "downgraded&qu
I have configured a function key with the web service "Zap" which converts a web page to black text for easier reading.
But can't do this for system fonts, as far as I know...
At the very least put a setting for "text minimum contrast" in Sys Prefs that allows the user to choose how light/dark the fonts are.
Dave
Sent from my iPod
On 12 Jun 2013, at 05:54 AM, "Ken" wrote:
This has already become an issue with my 62 year old eyes. Any opportunity to join the chorus to get it improved, I will take. Thanks.
Ken S.
I agree about the poor contrast though, like the Apple hardware that has light grey-on-white type.
Otto
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Wed Jun 12, 2013 7:53 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"HAL9000" jrswebhome
You're right, skip the Maverick reference, the iOS7 interface of pastel w white type interface is looneys.
--- In macsupportcentral@yahoogroups.com , "HAL9000" <jrswebhome@...> wrote:
>
> http://osxdaily.com/2013/06/10/ios-7-screen-shots-features/
>
> Why would anyone design w white type on light pastel colored icons?
>
> I look at the present interface beside the future 7 interface and wonder
> what price my eyes will pay?
>
--- In macsupportcentral@
>
> http://osxdaily.
>
> Why would anyone design w white type on light pastel colored icons?
>
> I look at the present interface beside the future 7 interface and wonder
> what price my eyes will pay?
>
Wed Jun 12, 2013 9:06 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Pat Taylor" pat412255
Correct
On Jun 12, 2013, at 8:11 AM, Otto Nikolaus <otto.nikolaus@googlemail.com > wrote:
> And *not* for iOS7.
>
> Otto
>
> On 12 June 2013 14:30, Pat Taylor <pat412@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > Mavericks is the code name for OSX 10.9.
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
On Jun 12, 2013, at 8:11 AM, Otto Nikolaus <otto.nikolaus@
> And *not* for iOS7.
>
> Otto
>
> On 12 June 2013 14:30, Pat Taylor <pat412@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > Mavericks is the code name for OSX 10.9.
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Wed Jun 12, 2013 7:30 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Ron West" ronwestb12
Fantastic pic!
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:30 AM, HAL9000 <jrswebhome@yahoo.com > wrote:
> **
>
>
> http://images.apple.com/home/images/osx_hero_2x.jpg
>
> Sorry folks. here it is. Its just dull in contrast and color to me.
>
>
> --- In macsupportcentral@yahoogroups.com , Otto Nikolaus <otto.nikolaus@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Should there be a link? I can't see one.
> >
> > Otto
> >
> > On 11 June 2013 19:57, HAL9000 <jrswebhome@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Anyone think this image a tad dull? No contrast, no luminous greens,
> OMHO.
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:30 AM, HAL9000 <jrswebhome@yahoo.
> **
>
>
> http://images.
>
> Sorry folks. here it is. Its just dull in contrast and color to me.
>
>
> --- In macsupportcentral@
> wrote:
> >
> > Should there be a link? I can't see one.
> >
> > Otto
> >
> > On 11 June 2013 19:57, HAL9000 <jrswebhome@
> >
> > > Anyone think this image a tad dull? No contrast, no luminous greens,
> OMHO.
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Wed Jun 12, 2013 8:40 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Carol Corley" floridabouvs
So far nothing has worked to solve my problem of the iMac not recognizing one Yahoo email account password. I did the keystroke thing, and that worked until the next day.
So I called Apple techs, and they walked me through a bunch of stuff, which didn't work. They were going to put me on with an email expert, but my FiOS burped and I lost phone and email for a second, just enough to disconnect the Apple expert, and when I called back I got his VM. So I'll try again later today.
In the meantime, I deleted the one Yahoo email account that I was having all the problems with. I can't understand why it persistently does not like only one of 4 Yahoo accounts.
BTW, he had me change my Yahoo PW, and that didn't help.
Sigh,
Carol
Sent from my iPad 3
So I called Apple techs, and they walked me through a bunch of stuff, which didn't work. They were going to put me on with an email expert, but my FiOS burped and I lost phone and email for a second, just enough to disconnect the Apple expert, and when I called back I got his VM. So I'll try again later today.
In the meantime, I deleted the one Yahoo email account that I was having all the problems with. I can't understand why it persistently does not like only one of 4 Yahoo accounts.
BTW, he had me change my Yahoo PW, and that didn't help.
Sigh,
Carol
Sent from my iPad 3
Wed Jun 12, 2013 10:34 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"David Brostoff" dcbrostoff
On Jun 12, 2013, at 08:40 , Carol Corley <floridabouvs@gmail.com > wrote:
> So far nothing has worked to solve my problem of the iMac not recognizing one Yahoo email account password. I did the keystroke thing, and that worked until the next day.
Have you tried clicking Cancel when it happens, then checking for new mail again? That always works for me.
David
> So far nothing has worked to solve my problem of the iMac not recognizing one Yahoo email account password. I did the keystroke thing, and that worked until the next day.
Have you tried clicking Cancel when it happens, then checking for new mail again? That always works for me.
David
Wed Jun 12, 2013 10:20 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Oneal Neumann" newalander
http://mad.ly/
This is the Security Bundle 2013 from MacLegion.
Thirty bucks (down from 360$) for six apps.
Not sure that I see the point of any of these.
Oneal
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Wed Jun 12, 2013 11:29 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"bobbystar" bobbystar
I have a "late 2009 21.5" iMac with the original 4Gb of Ram. Two of the four slots are empty.
The computer can take up to 16Gb of RAM.
I have seen conflicting information regarding if I can add two additional 4Gb modules or if I have to add only two 2Gb modules. In other words some say the memory in each slot must match.
From what I see on the Apple web site and the Crucial web site I have flexibility as to what I can add. However, elsewhere I have seen it stated that all the memory modules must be the same size.
Thanks,
Bob
The computer can take up to 16Gb of RAM.
I have seen conflicting information regarding if I can add two additional 4Gb modules or if I have to add only two 2Gb modules. In other words some say the memory in each slot must match.
From what I see on the Apple web site and the Crucial web site I have flexibility as to what I can add. However, elsewhere I have seen it stated that all the memory modules must be the same size.
Thanks,
Bob
Wed Jun 12, 2013 11:45 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Dave C" davec2468
Bob sez:
I have seen conflicting information regarding if I can add two additional 4Gb modules or if I have to add only two 2Gb modules. In other words some say the memory in each slot must match.
OWC is the authority when it comes to upgrading RAM on my Macs. Send them an email with your questions and they will be most helpful. Good prices on memory, too.
http://www.macsales
Dave
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Wed Jun 12, 2013 11:46 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Bill Boulware" boulware0224
All four do not have to match but you want to make sure each pair matches
so if you have 2 x 2GB and want to add 2 x 4GB for 12GB total - go for it
or you can replace all of them for 4 x 4GB for 16GB. My newer Dec 2012
iMac has 2 x 4GB and 2 x 8GB for total 24GB
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:29 PM, bobbystar <bobbystar@yahoo.com > wrote:
> **
>
>
> I have a "late 2009 21.5" iMac with the original 4Gb of Ram. Two of the
> four slots are empty.
>
> The computer can take up to 16Gb of RAM.
>
> I have seen conflicting information regarding if I can add two additional
> 4Gb modules or if I have to add only two 2Gb modules. In other words some
> say the memory in each slot must match.
>
> From what I see on the Apple web site and the Crucial web site I have
> flexibility as to what I can add. However, elsewhere I have seen it stated
> that all the memory modules must be the same size.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
so if you have 2 x 2GB and want to add 2 x 4GB for 12GB total - go for it
or you can replace all of them for 4 x 4GB for 16GB. My newer Dec 2012
iMac has 2 x 4GB and 2 x 8GB for total 24GB
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:29 PM, bobbystar <bobbystar@yahoo.
> **
>
>
> I have a "late 2009 21.5" iMac with the original 4Gb of Ram. Two of the
> four slots are empty.
>
> The computer can take up to 16Gb of RAM.
>
> I have seen conflicting information regarding if I can add two additional
> 4Gb modules or if I have to add only two 2Gb modules. In other words some
> say the memory in each slot must match.
>
> From what I see on the Apple web site and the Crucial web site I have
> flexibility as to what I can add. However, elsewhere I have seen it stated
> that all the memory modules must be the same size.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
GROUP FOOTER MESSAGE
