15 New Messages
Digest #9678
3a
Replacing my Comcast internet/voice access point, moving up to 802.1 by "James Robertson" jamesrob328i
Messages
Wed Jul 31, 2013 7:55 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"T Hopkins" todhop
While I love RTF and use it frequently in place of plain text, I would be a bit concerned about relying on it as a high-end word processing format. The world seems to have moved solidly to ODF. Docx is related but not compliant. Direct support of ODF in and out of MS products is good. Nothing at all wrong with RTF as long as it supports the features you want but ODF is the document format of the future, at least for now. I honestly don't know what RTF can and can't do. TextEdit, by the way, supports both.
The elephant in the room in any conversation about word processors is text processing versus "publishing." Word and it's direct competition generally feel the need to do both - complex text and complex layout. Deciding which you need is the first step in picking a word processor. You can divide apps into the two camps, okay three: text oriented, layout oriented, and kitchen sink.
Word is a kitchen sync app. Not perfect for either complex layout or focused writing but powerful for both and great for mixed environments, which is why big corporations like it. Also strong on large group collaboration (also for corporations). It is the swiss army knife of documents. OpenOffice variants are direct competition. They can do much that the MS Office suite can't, and vice-versa, but the intention is to be a one size fits all tool.
Most other word processors -- as opposed to "office suites" -- specialize on one side or other of this divide. Pages is great at layout. There a many document processors like NWP that focus on supporting writers, rather than publishers, for whom Word often "gets in the way." These people often don't care much about compatibility because compatibility is mostly about layout, not text. Text is easy, easy, easy.
If you must work in a highly collaborative environment whose standard is Word, you need Word, or you can consider an alternative that is imperfectly compatible, but supports those features that you actually need. I would test this by doing a bunch of importing of representative documents and examining the results, then re-exporting and looking at the result again in Word.
cheers,
tod
On Jul 31, 2013, at 3:48 AM, Anna Larson wrote:
>
> On July 30, 2013, at 19:36, T Hopkins wrote:
>
>> Can NWP handle Word comments?
>>
>>
>
> Yes.
>
> I tested this once again today.
>
> I created three files with text containing SmartArt and two comments, and saved them in Word as
> docx
> doc and
> rtf
>
> The comments were formatted and had color, and one word in the comments had the attribute "Text Highlight Yellow". As User Information I used a European name that requires unicode (Þuríður Þorláksdóttir).
>
> Before I had even started to convert the files, Word had already screwed up the commentator's name in the RTF file (!!!) The other formats rendered the commentator's name correctly.
>
> The conversion results:
>
> = > The rtf version was 100% correct. All formatting in the comments was preserved, even the garbage from Word (i.e. the commentator's name) was preserved! :-)
>
> In the doc version the *formatting* of the comments was gone. The main text and the SmartArt were correct.
>
> In the docx version the commentator's name was gone; otherwise everything was like in the doc version.
>
>
> So the result was as expected:
> Rich Text File is always best. The other formats should be used with caution when compatibility is an important issue.
>
>
> Anna
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Group FAQ:
> <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/macsupportcentral/files/faq.htm >
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
The elephant in the room in any conversation about word processors is text processing versus "publishing.
Word is a kitchen sync app. Not perfect for either complex layout or focused writing but powerful for both and great for mixed environments, which is why big corporations like it. Also strong on large group collaboration (also for corporations)
Most other word processors -- as opposed to "office suites" -- specialize on one side or other of this divide. Pages is great at layout. There a many document processors like NWP that focus on supporting writers, rather than publishers, for whom Word often "gets in the way." These people often don't care much about compatibility because compatibility is mostly about layout, not text. Text is easy, easy, easy.
If you must work in a highly collaborative environment whose standard is Word, you need Word, or you can consider an alternative that is imperfectly compatible, but supports those features that you actually need. I would test this by doing a bunch of importing of representative documents and examining the results, then re-exporting and looking at the result again in Word.
cheers,
tod
On Jul 31, 2013, at 3:48 AM, Anna Larson wrote:
>
> On July 30, 2013, at 19:36, T Hopkins wrote:
>
>> Can NWP handle Word comments?
>>
>>
>
> Yes.
>
> I tested this once again today.
>
> I created three files with text containing SmartArt and two comments, and saved them in Word as
> docx
> doc and
> rtf
>
> The comments were formatted and had color, and one word in the comments had the attribute "Text Highlight Yellow"
>
> Before I had even started to convert the files, Word had already screwed up the commentator&#
>
> The conversion results:
>
> = > The rtf version was 100% correct. All formatting in the comments was preserved, even the garbage from Word (i.e. the commentator&#
>
> In the doc version the *formatting* of the comments was gone. The main text and the SmartArt were correct.
>
> In the docx version the commentator&#
>
>
> So the result was as expected:
> Rich Text File is always best. The other formats should be used with caution when compatibility is an important issue.
>
>
> Anna
>
>
> ------------
>
> Group FAQ:
> <http://tech.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
Wed Jul 31, 2013 8:44 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Charles Carroll" charlesmarkcarroll
I am enjoying this dialog and will try Nissus as well as NeoOffice but as a
high end MS Word user I agree with randy the high end (TOC, Indexes,
Figures, References, Smart Art, WordArt) MS-Word has the edge with some
first class highly mature features that a few macros or add-ins cannot
catch up with unless your needs are very basic.
At moment I edit high end/high feature docs in MS Word proper and my low to
medium end ones in the cloud (Zoho.com) or NeoOffice and I will try Nissus
as well to see what I think.
ODF is a nice standard compared to RTF for sure.
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:55 AM, T Hopkins <hoplist@hillmanncarr.com >wrote:
> **
>
>
> While I love RTF and use it frequently in place of plain text, I would be
> a bit concerned about relying on it as a high-end word processing format.
> The world seems to have moved solidly to ODF. Docx is related but not
> compliant. Direct support of ODF in and out of MS products is good. Nothing
> at all wrong with RTF as long as it supports the features you want but ODF
> is the document format of the future, at least for now. I honestly don't
> know what RTF can and can't do. TextEdit, by the way, supports both.
>
> The elephant in the room in any conversation about word processors is text
> processing versus "publishing." Word and it's direct competition generally
> feel the need to do both - complex text and complex layout. Deciding which
> you need is the first step in picking a word processor. You can divide apps
> into the two camps, okay three: text oriented, layout oriented, and kitchen
> sink.
>
> Word is a kitchen sync app. Not perfect for either complex layout or
> focused writing but powerful for both and great for mixed environments,
> which is why big corporations like it. Also strong on large group
> collaboration (also for corporations). It is the swiss army knife of
> documents. OpenOffice variants are direct competition. They can do much
> that the MS Office suite can't, and vice-versa, but the intention is to be
> a one size fits all tool.
>
> Most other word processors -- as opposed to "office suites" -- specialize
> on one side or other of this divide. Pages is great at layout. There a many
> document processors like NWP that focus on supporting writers, rather than
> publishers, for whom Word often "gets in the way." These people often don't
> care much about compatibility because compatibility is mostly about layout,
> not text. Text is easy, easy, easy.
>
> If you must work in a highly collaborative environment whose standard is
> Word, you need Word, or you can consider an alternative that is imperfectly
> compatible, but supports those features that you actually need. I would
> test this by doing a bunch of importing of representative documents and
> examining the results, then re-exporting and looking at the result again in
> Word.
>
> cheers,
> tod
>
>
> On Jul 31, 2013, at 3:48 AM, Anna Larson wrote:
>
> >
> > On July 30, 2013, at 19:36, T Hopkins wrote:
> >
> >> Can NWP handle Word comments?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > I tested this once again today.
> >
> > I created three files with text containing SmartArt and two comments,
> and saved them in Word as
> > docx
> > doc and
> > rtf
> >
> > The comments were formatted and had color, and one word in the comments
> had the attribute "Text Highlight Yellow". As User Information I used a
> European name that requires unicode (Þuríður Þorláksdóttir).
> >
> > Before I had even started to convert the files, Word had already screwed
> up the commentator's name in the RTF file (!!!) The other formats rendered
> the commentator's name correctly.
> >
> > The conversion results:
> >
> > = > The rtf version was 100% correct. All formatting in the comments was
> preserved, even the garbage from Word (i.e. the commentator's name) was
> preserved! :-)
> >
> > In the doc version the *formatting* of the comments was gone. The main
> text and the SmartArt were correct.
> >
> > In the docx version the commentator's name was gone; otherwise
> everything was like in the doc version.
> >
> >
> > So the result was as expected:
> > Rich Text File is always best. The other formats should be used with
> caution when compatibility is an important issue.
> >
> >
> > Anna
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Group FAQ:
> > <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/macsupportcentral/files/faq.htm >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
high end MS Word user I agree with randy the high end (TOC, Indexes,
Figures, References, Smart Art, WordArt) MS-Word has the edge with some
first class highly mature features that a few macros or add-ins cannot
catch up with unless your needs are very basic.
At moment I edit high end/high feature docs in MS Word proper and my low to
medium end ones in the cloud (Zoho.com) or NeoOffice and I will try Nissus
as well to see what I think.
ODF is a nice standard compared to RTF for sure.
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:55 AM, T Hopkins <hoplist@hillmanncar
> **
>
>
> While I love RTF and use it frequently in place of plain text, I would be
> a bit concerned about relying on it as a high-end word processing format.
> The world seems to have moved solidly to ODF. Docx is related but not
> compliant. Direct support of ODF in and out of MS products is good. Nothing
> at all wrong with RTF as long as it supports the features you want but ODF
> is the document format of the future, at least for now. I honestly don't
> know what RTF can and can't do. TextEdit, by the way, supports both.
>
> The elephant in the room in any conversation about word processors is text
> processing versus "publishing.
> feel the need to do both - complex text and complex layout. Deciding which
> you need is the first step in picking a word processor. You can divide apps
> into the two camps, okay three: text oriented, layout oriented, and kitchen
> sink.
>
> Word is a kitchen sync app. Not perfect for either complex layout or
> focused writing but powerful for both and great for mixed environments,
> which is why big corporations like it. Also strong on large group
> collaboration (also for corporations)
> documents. OpenOffice variants are direct competition. They can do much
> that the MS Office suite can't, and vice-versa, but the intention is to be
> a one size fits all tool.
>
> Most other word processors -- as opposed to "office suites" -- specialize
> on one side or other of this divide. Pages is great at layout. There a many
> document processors like NWP that focus on supporting writers, rather than
> publishers, for whom Word often "gets in the way." These people often don't
> care much about compatibility because compatibility is mostly about layout,
> not text. Text is easy, easy, easy.
>
> If you must work in a highly collaborative environment whose standard is
> Word, you need Word, or you can consider an alternative that is imperfectly
> compatible, but supports those features that you actually need. I would
> test this by doing a bunch of importing of representative documents and
> examining the results, then re-exporting and looking at the result again in
> Word.
>
> cheers,
> tod
>
>
> On Jul 31, 2013, at 3:48 AM, Anna Larson wrote:
>
> >
> > On July 30, 2013, at 19:36, T Hopkins wrote:
> >
> >> Can NWP handle Word comments?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > I tested this once again today.
> >
> > I created three files with text containing SmartArt and two comments,
> and saved them in Word as
> > docx
> > doc and
> > rtf
> >
> > The comments were formatted and had color, and one word in the comments
> had the attribute "Text Highlight Yellow"
> European name that requires unicode (Þuríður Þorláksdóttir).
> >
> > Before I had even started to convert the files, Word had already screwed
> up the commentator&#
> the commentator&#
> >
> > The conversion results:
> >
> > = > The rtf version was 100% correct. All formatting in the comments was
> preserved, even the garbage from Word (i.e. the commentator&#
> preserved! :-)
> >
> > In the doc version the *formatting* of the comments was gone. The main
> text and the SmartArt were correct.
> >
> > In the docx version the commentator&#
> everything was like in the doc version.
> >
> >
> > So the result was as expected:
> > Rich Text File is always best. The other formats should be used with
> caution when compatibility is an important issue.
> >
> >
> > Anna
> >
> >
> > ------------
> >
> > Group FAQ:
> > <http://tech.
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Wed Jul 31, 2013 8:42 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Denver Dan" denverdan22180
Howdy.
FileMaker has announced it is discontinuing the low cost Bento database program. Last day available on App Store will be September 30, 2013. FM said it will continue tech support for Bento through July 31, 2014.
Denver Dan
[|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|]
iSent from iDan's iPad
FileMaker has announced it is discontinuing the low cost Bento database program. Last day available on App Store will be September 30, 2013. FM said it will continue tech support for Bento through July 31, 2014.
Denver Dan
[|][|][|][|]
iSent from iDan's iPad
Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:44 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"N.A. Nada"
WHAT!?!
Now is the time for Bento users to express their sincere distress at this sudden dis-continuation of this product by Filemaker.
http://www.filemaker.com/company/contact/documentation_feedback.html
There is nothing on the Filemaker site that I can find for Bento other than the dis-continuation page, so you have to use this Filemaker feedback page and fudge the product info.
The lowest priced version of Filemaker starts at $179.00, where as Bento costs $49.99, for Mac versions.
I left Filemaker after upgrading to 10.7.5, and could not justify paying about $200 to upgrade my version of Filemaker. I used Bento more on my Mac, especially since I can sync a copy to my iDevice, in 6 months, than I had used Filemaker in many years. And now without warning they are discontinuing it.
I realize that I can continue to use my current version, until it no longer works with the current version of OS X or iOS. And a lot of that has happened in the last several years.
And for those that do not know Apple owns Filemaker.
Brent
PS: Thanks for the heads up Dan.
On Jul 31, 2013, at 8:42 AM, Denver Dan wrote:
Howdy.
FileMaker has announced it is discontinuing the low cost Bento database program. Last day available on App Store will be September 30, 2013. FM said it will continue tech support for Bento through July 31, 2014.
Denver Dan
[|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|]
iSent from iDan's iPad
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Now is the time for Bento users to express their sincere distress at this sudden dis-continuation of this product by Filemaker.
http://www.filemake
There is nothing on the Filemaker site that I can find for Bento other than the dis-continuation page, so you have to use this Filemaker feedback page and fudge the product info.
The lowest priced version of Filemaker starts at $179.00, where as Bento costs $49.99, for Mac versions.
I left Filemaker after upgrading to 10.7.5, and could not justify paying about $200 to upgrade my version of Filemaker. I used Bento more on my Mac, especially since I can sync a copy to my iDevice, in 6 months, than I had used Filemaker in many years. And now without warning they are discontinuing it.
I realize that I can continue to use my current version, until it no longer works with the current version of OS X or iOS. And a lot of that has happened in the last several years.
And for those that do not know Apple owns Filemaker.
Brent
PS: Thanks for the heads up Dan.
On Jul 31, 2013, at 8:42 AM, Denver Dan wrote:
Howdy.
FileMaker has announced it is discontinuing the low cost Bento database program. Last day available on App Store will be September 30, 2013. FM said it will continue tech support for Bento through July 31, 2014.
Denver Dan
[|][|][|][|]
iSent from iDan's iPad
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:56 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"John Masters" joemastersk
Apparently registered owners of Bento can get $120 off the price of Filemaker for a limited time. I believe till the end of October.
http://www.tuaw.com/2013/07/30/filemaker-announces-bento-will-be-discontinued-on-september-30/
John Masters
johnmasters@me.com
On 31 Jul 2013, at 18:44, "N.A. Nada" <whodo678@comcast.net > wrote:
> WHAT!?!
>
> Now is the time for Bento users to express their sincere distress at this sudden dis-continuation of this product by Filemaker.
>
> http://www.filemaker.com/company/contact/documentation_feedback.html
>
> There is nothing on the Filemaker site that I can find for Bento other than the dis-continuation page, so you have to use this Filemaker feedback page and fudge the product info.
>
> The lowest priced version of Filemaker starts at $179.00, where as Bento costs $49.99, for Mac versions.
>
> I left Filemaker after upgrading to 10.7.5, and could not justify paying about $200 to upgrade my version of Filemaker. I used Bento more on my Mac, especially since I can sync a copy to my iDevice, in 6 months, than I had used Filemaker in many years. And now without warning they are discontinuing it.
>
> I realize that I can continue to use my current version, until it no longer works with the current version of OS X or iOS. And a lot of that has happened in the last several years.
>
> And for those that do not know Apple owns Filemaker.
>
> Brent
>
> PS: Thanks for the heads up Dan.
>
>
> On Jul 31, 2013, at 8:42 AM, Denver Dan wrote:
>
> Howdy.
>
> FileMaker has announced it is discontinuing the low cost Bento database program. Last day available on App Store will be September 30, 2013. FM said it will continue tech support for Bento through July 31, 2014.
>
> Denver Dan
>
> [|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|]
> iSent from iDan's iPad
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Group FAQ:
> <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/macsupportcentral/files/faq.htm >
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
http://www.tuaw.
John Masters
johnmasters@
On 31 Jul 2013, at 18:44, "N.A. Nada" <whodo678@comcast.
> WHAT!?!
>
> Now is the time for Bento users to express their sincere distress at this sudden dis-continuation of this product by Filemaker.
>
> http://www.filemake
>
> There is nothing on the Filemaker site that I can find for Bento other than the dis-continuation page, so you have to use this Filemaker feedback page and fudge the product info.
>
> The lowest priced version of Filemaker starts at $179.00, where as Bento costs $49.99, for Mac versions.
>
> I left Filemaker after upgrading to 10.7.5, and could not justify paying about $200 to upgrade my version of Filemaker. I used Bento more on my Mac, especially since I can sync a copy to my iDevice, in 6 months, than I had used Filemaker in many years. And now without warning they are discontinuing it.
>
> I realize that I can continue to use my current version, until it no longer works with the current version of OS X or iOS. And a lot of that has happened in the last several years.
>
> And for those that do not know Apple owns Filemaker.
>
> Brent
>
> PS: Thanks for the heads up Dan.
>
>
> On Jul 31, 2013, at 8:42 AM, Denver Dan wrote:
>
> Howdy.
>
> FileMaker has announced it is discontinuing the low cost Bento database program. Last day available on App Store will be September 30, 2013. FM said it will continue tech support for Bento through July 31, 2014.
>
> Denver Dan
>
> [|][|][|][|]
> iSent from iDan's iPad
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------
>
> Group FAQ:
> <http://tech.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:25 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"N.A. Nada"
Thanks for that bit of info, but...
What happens when it is time to upgrade in a year or so? You get to pay a lot more.
There was a reason that I was using FM 5.5, when FM 11 was the current version, $$$!
Filemaker versus Bento, is like MS Office versus a simple word processor and a simple spreadsheet apps. In other words, an expensive app, loaded with features that most users will never use, even if they are advanced users, versus a simple, clean, inexpensive app that does what 90% of the users need.
Brent
On Jul 31, 2013, at 10:55 AM, John Masters wrote:
Apparently registered owners of Bento can get $120 off the price of Filemaker for a limited time. I believe till the end of October.
http://www.tuaw.com/2013/07/30/filemaker-announces-bento-will-be-discontinued-on-september-30/
John Masters
johnmasters@me.com
On 31 Jul 2013, at 18:44, "N.A. Nada" <whodo678@comcast.net > wrote:
> WHAT!?!
>
> Now is the time for Bento users to express their sincere distress at this sudden dis-continuation of this product by Filemaker.
>
> http://www.filemaker.com/company/contact/documentation_feedback.html
>
> There is nothing on the Filemaker site that I can find for Bento other than the dis-continuation page, so you have to use this Filemaker feedback page and fudge the product info.
>
> The lowest priced version of Filemaker starts at $179.00, where as Bento costs $49.99, for Mac versions.
>
> I left Filemaker after upgrading to 10.7.5, and could not justify paying about $200 to upgrade my version of Filemaker. I used Bento more on my Mac, especially since I can sync a copy to my iDevice, in 6 months, than I had used Filemaker in many years. And now without warning they are discontinuing it.
>
> I realize that I can continue to use my current version, until it no longer works with the current version of OS X or iOS. And a lot of that has happened in the last several years.
>
> And for those that do not know Apple owns Filemaker.
>
> Brent
>
> PS: Thanks for the heads up Dan.
>
>
> On Jul 31, 2013, at 8:42 AM, Denver Dan wrote:
>
> Howdy.
>
> FileMaker has announced it is discontinuing the low cost Bento database program. Last day available on App Store will be September 30, 2013. FM said it will continue tech support for Bento through July 31, 2014.
>
> Denver Dan
>
> [|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|][|]
> iSent from iDan's iPad
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Group FAQ:
> <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/macsupportcentral/files/faq.htm >
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
What happens when it is time to upgrade in a year or so? You get to pay a lot more.
There was a reason that I was using FM 5.5, when FM 11 was the current version, $$$!
Filemaker versus Bento, is like MS Office versus a simple word processor and a simple spreadsheet apps. In other words, an expensive app, loaded with features that most users will never use, even if they are advanced users, versus a simple, clean, inexpensive app that does what 90% of the users need.
Brent
On Jul 31, 2013, at 10:55 AM, John Masters wrote:
Apparently registered owners of Bento can get $120 off the price of Filemaker for a limited time. I believe till the end of October.
http://www.tuaw.
John Masters
johnmasters@
On 31 Jul 2013, at 18:44, "N.A. Nada" <whodo678@comcast.
> WHAT!?!
>
> Now is the time for Bento users to express their sincere distress at this sudden dis-continuation of this product by Filemaker.
>
> http://www.filemake
>
> There is nothing on the Filemaker site that I can find for Bento other than the dis-continuation page, so you have to use this Filemaker feedback page and fudge the product info.
>
> The lowest priced version of Filemaker starts at $179.00, where as Bento costs $49.99, for Mac versions.
>
> I left Filemaker after upgrading to 10.7.5, and could not justify paying about $200 to upgrade my version of Filemaker. I used Bento more on my Mac, especially since I can sync a copy to my iDevice, in 6 months, than I had used Filemaker in many years. And now without warning they are discontinuing it.
>
> I realize that I can continue to use my current version, until it no longer works with the current version of OS X or iOS. And a lot of that has happened in the last several years.
>
> And for those that do not know Apple owns Filemaker.
>
> Brent
>
> PS: Thanks for the heads up Dan.
>
>
> On Jul 31, 2013, at 8:42 AM, Denver Dan wrote:
>
> Howdy.
>
> FileMaker has announced it is discontinuing the low cost Bento database program. Last day available on App Store will be September 30, 2013. FM said it will continue tech support for Bento through July 31, 2014.
>
> Denver Dan
>
> [|][|][|][|]
> iSent from iDan's iPad
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------
>
> Group FAQ:
> <http://tech.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:30 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Earle Jones" earlejones501
On Jul 31, 13, at 8:42 AM, Denver Dan <denver.dan@verizon.
> Howdy.
>
> FileMaker has announced it is discontinuing the low cost Bento database program. Last day available on App Store will be September 30, 2013. FM said it will continue tech support for Bento through July 31, 2014.
>
> Denver Dan.
>
>
>
*
I'm sorry to see that. Although Bento is not FileMaker Pro, it is pretty useful if you do not need the full relational aspects of FM.
earle
*
____________
Earle Jones 
501 Portola Road #8008
Portola Valley CA 94028
Home: 650-424-4362
Cell: 650-269-0035
earle.jones@
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:49 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"chas" schuetzen
On 7/31/13 12:55 PM, John Masters wrote:
> Apparently registered owners of Bento can get $120 off the price of
> Filemaker for a limited time. I believe till the end of October.
>
> http://www.tuaw.com/2013/07/30/filemaker-announces-bento-will-be-discontinued-on-september-30/
>
> John Masters johnmasters@me.com
I started with the NASA engineer's software for keeping track of the shuttle
tiles, a 4G called R:Base. before I developed my logical thought progression
(loss of), I used to write 2 or 3 pages of code in R:Base, I loved it. beat
the heck out of d:Base, etc. Bento isn't a lot better than Excel but still,
I put my money into the program and a couple of upgrades (if warranted with
sufficient amounts of improvements) but I will not upgrade to FileMaker.
I wonder what else is still out there? especially for a crippled (obsolete)
MacPro...
iow, I am ticked with still another example of obsolescence!
fwiw
73 chas k5dam
--
PLEASE REMEMBER TO DELETE HEADERS!
If you forward this e-mail, please delete the forwarding history, which
includes my email address.
It is a courtesy to me and to others who do not wish to have their e-mail
addresses sent all over the world.
If you are including me in a multi-address email, please use the Bcc feature.
Thanks
CHAS
> Apparently registered owners of Bento can get $120 off the price of
> Filemaker for a limited time. I believe till the end of October.
>
> http://www.tuaw.
>
> John Masters johnmasters@
I started with the NASA engineer'
tiles, a 4G called R:Base. before I developed my logical thought progression
(loss of), I used to write 2 or 3 pages of code in R:Base, I loved it. beat
the heck out of d:Base, etc. Bento isn't a lot better than Excel but still,
I put my money into the program and a couple of upgrades (if warranted with
sufficient amounts of improvements) but I will not upgrade to FileMaker.
I wonder what else is still out there? especially for a crippled (obsolete)
MacPro...
iow, I am ticked with still another example of obsolescence!
fwiw
73 chas k5dam
--
PLEASE REMEMBER TO DELETE HEADERS!
If you forward this e-mail, please delete the forwarding history, which
includes my email address.
It is a courtesy to me and to others who do not wish to have their e-mail
addresses sent all over the world.
If you are including me in a multi-address email, please use the Bcc feature.
Thanks
CHAS
Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:55 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Barry Austern" barryaus
On Jul 31, 2013, at 2:30 PM, Earle Jones wrote:
>
> On Jul 31, 13, at 8:42 AM, Denver Dan <denver.dan@verizon.
>
> > Howdy.
> >
> > FileMaker has announced it is discontinuing the low cost Bento database program. Last day available on App Store will be September 30, 2013. FM said it will continue tech support for Bento through July 31, 2014.
> >
> > Denver Dan.
> >
> >
> >
>
> *
> I'm sorry to see that. Although Bento is not FileMaker Pro, it is pretty useful if you do not need the full relational aspects of FM.
>
>
>
Here's a solution I thought of. The 8-bit Apple ][ version of AppleWorks has less capability than the Mac version and certainly less than FileMaker Pro or Bento, but it is still a pretty good database program. I've been using it since the mid 80's for my tax records. I run it on a IIgs emulator called Sweet-16. I'm still running 10.6.8, so I can't guarantee that Sweet-16 will run under Lion or later, but the command-I "get info" does say it is a universal binary, so it should work.
--
Barry Austern
barryaus@fuse.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:11 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Dave C" davec2468
Barry,
Since you're running Snow, why not use AW native to Snow (I think it's 6.2?). What does the A][ version have that the Mac version doesn't?
Curious,
Dave
Sent from my phone.
Please forgive auto-fill errors and typos.
On 31 Jul 2013, at 11:55 AM, Barry Austern <barryaus@fuse.net > wrote:
Here’s a solution I thought of. The 8-bit Apple ][ version of AppleWorks has less capability than the Mac version and certainly less than FileMaker Pro or Bento, but it is still a pretty good database program.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Since you're running Snow, why not use AW native to Snow (I think it's 6.2?). What does the A][ version have that the Mac version doesn't?
Curious,
Dave
Sent from my phone.
Please forgive auto-fill errors and typos.
On 31 Jul 2013, at 11:55 AM, Barry Austern <barryaus@fuse.
Here’s a solution I thought of. The 8-bit Apple ][ version of AppleWorks has less capability than the Mac version and certainly less than FileMaker Pro or Bento, but it is still a pretty good database program.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:41 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Barry Austern" barryaus
On Jul 31, 2013, at 3:11 PM, Dave C wrote:
> Barry,
> Since you're running Snow, why not use AW native to Snow (I think it's 6.2?). What does the A][ version have that the Mac version doesn't?
>
> Curious,
> Dave
>
> Sent from my phone.
> Please forgive auto-fill errors and typos.
>
> On 31 Jul 2013, at 11:55 AM, Barry Austern <barryaus@fuse.
>
> Here's a solution I thought of. The 8-bit Apple ][ version of AppleWorks has less capability than the Mac version and certainly less than FileMaker Pro or Bento, but it is still a pretty good database program.
I'm running the old Apple ][ version simply because I have always run it from back around 1986 or so. I do use the Mac version of AppleWorks, and that is one big reason I still am on Snow Leopard. I suggest it, though, under emulation with Sweet-16, to those who cannot run the Mac version of AppleWorks.
--
Barry Austern
barryaus@fuse.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:56 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"John Engberg" mrbyte
On Jul 31, 2013, at 1:55 PM, John Masters <johnmasters@
> Apparently registered owners of Bento can get $120 off the price of Filemaker for a limited time. I believe till the end of October.
>
> http://www.tuaw.
>
> John Masters
> johnmasters@
>
>
That's REALLY SWEET!!!! It will only cost us $179. I like deals like this!!! Can you believe that we are being dumped on like that. This is incredible and, I think, totally unprincipled on their part.
John Engberg
Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:31 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Randy B. Singer" randybrucesinger
On Jul 31, 2013, at 11:30 AM, Earle Jones wrote:
> Although Bento is not FileMaker Pro, it is pretty useful if you do not need the full relational aspects of FM.
In time many Bento users are going to want something to migrate their data to that is in roughly the same class as Bento. I don't know what all the export capabilities of Bento are, and what all the import capabilities are of the following, but here are a few suggestions for you to write their developers and ask them about a migration path from Bento:
Panorama Sheets ($40)
http://provue.
See this regarding importing your Bento data:
http://provue.
iList Data ($70)
http://www.lakewood
iDatabase ($20)
http://www.apimac.
Valentina (FREE/$200)
http://www.paradigm
http://www.valentin
____________
Randy B. Singer
Co-author of The Macintosh Bible (4th, 5th, and 6th editions)
Macintosh OS X Routine Maintenance
http://www.macattor
____________
Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:34 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"James Robertson" jamesrob328i
About two weeks ago I posted a question regarding a temporary inability to make some SSL--but not all (https) connections from my home LAN (Gigabit Airport Extreme router, Comcast Digital Voice cablemodem (and perhaps router as well - I'm not certain). I'm not certain, but my guess is that this was actually a DNS problem.
That particular issue has not recurred (it disappeared after I rebooted the AirPort Extreme (802.11n) router, but that particular problem couldn't be the WiFi, because I experienced the same issue with my Mac Pro, which is on my Ethernet network.
In the interim, I've had some other issues, which ARE WiFi specific. For reasons unknown to me, my "Transmit Rate" will fall from 130 to 6 and stay there for several minutes, then spontaneously return to its prior throughput. There's no need to <Command-option-mousedown) on the WiFi menubar icon to see the glacial throughput when this happens; it's painfully obvious watching web pages load or emails come and go.
The Genius at my local Apple Store says he thinks this is very likely not related to the WiFi card in my first generation 15" Retina Display MacBook Pro. He tells me there's no test or script I can run to test the integrity of the WiFi card (curious, because Airport Utility contains a routine to do just that and send the report to Apple). The Genius also doubted the problem was with my AirPort Extreme; he suspects my cable modem or access point. Must admit I don't know whether it's also a router; it was configured by the Comcast Tech, who of course didn't "speak" Macintosh.
Comcast has just sent me a snailmail letter informing me of the availability of a free upgrade to a "DOCSIS 3.0" cable modem/digital voice access point (although if they install it, there's a charge, and there's also a charge for the backup battery that keeps 911 services available in the event of a power outage).
One clue that my Comcast box may have routing capabilities is that the graphic display of my connection to the internet in Airport Utility sometimes shows the "Internet"; "virtual LED" in Orange for several seconds, during which I cannot "see" services from the Internet. My guess is that represents a transient "double NAT" situation when I awaken the computer running Airport Utility from sleep.
Always lusting after the "latest and greatest", I'm wondering whether there's any reason to consider updating to the newest Airport Extreme which enables 802.11c, and adding an Amped Wireless' ACA1 802.11ac WiFi adapter (connects to the laptop via USB 3, and it's supposedly Mac compatible). I think it's the first 802.11ac adapter available that claims to work with Macs (all the others come with Windows OS installers on CD, which could be the only reason they're not "Mac compatible.")
In addition to any list members' reports on "real world" experiences with 802.11c, I'm wondering whether anyone has suggestions on ways to test my router as well as ways to decipher whether my Comcast box is merely an access point (Cable Modem) or whether it's actually a router itself. I have the application "iNet" installed on my Mac. It doesn't "see" the Comcast box, and it lists my Airport Extreme as my Internet Access Point.
Thanks so much,
Jim Robertson
That particular issue has not recurred (it disappeared after I rebooted the AirPort Extreme (802.11n) router, but that particular problem couldn't be the WiFi, because I experienced the same issue with my Mac Pro, which is on my Ethernet network.
In the interim, I've had some other issues, which ARE WiFi specific. For reasons unknown to me, my "Transmit Rate" will fall from 130 to 6 and stay there for several minutes, then spontaneously return to its prior throughput. There's no need to <Command-
The Genius at my local Apple Store says he thinks this is very likely not related to the WiFi card in my first generation 15" Retina Display MacBook Pro. He tells me there's no test or script I can run to test the integrity of the WiFi card (curious, because Airport Utility contains a routine to do just that and send the report to Apple). The Genius also doubted the problem was with my AirPort Extreme; he suspects my cable modem or access point. Must admit I don't know whether it's also a router; it was configured by the Comcast Tech, who of course didn't "speak" Macintosh.
Comcast has just sent me a snailmail letter informing me of the availability of a free upgrade to a "DOCSIS 3.0" cable modem/digital voice access point (although if they install it, there's a charge, and there's also a charge for the backup battery that keeps 911 services available in the event of a power outage).
One clue that my Comcast box may have routing capabilities is that the graphic display of my connection to the internet in Airport Utility sometimes shows the "Internet"
Always lusting after the "latest and greatest"
In addition to any list members' reports on "real world" experiences with 802.11c, I'm wondering whether anyone has suggestions on ways to test my router as well as ways to decipher whether my Comcast box is merely an access point (Cable Modem) or whether it's actually a router itself. I have the application "iNet" installed on my Mac. It doesn't "see" the Comcast box, and it lists my Airport Extreme as my Internet Access Point.
Thanks so much,
Jim Robertson
Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:16 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"N.A. Nada"
I can not address most of your issues, but I can share with you some real-life experiences.
I use Comcast in Oregon, and I use my own Linksys (Com100 ???) DOCSIS 2.0 modem/bridge, and connect my MacBook Pro to it by Ethernet. I often have problems with web page drawing slowdowns, or video slowdowns while streaming, audio continues without problems.
The other devices that connect to my AEBS by WiFi do not show any slowdown, because of how I use them and what I use them for.
They keep sending me emails saying they have increased by speed, if I have a 3.0 DOCSIS modem. You might go out and buy one of the ones on their approved list and see what that does for you. But that will not help if you are in a situation where the node that you are on is overloaded with users. You would see faster speeds at times of low usage, but probably still see slowdowns at times of peak usage.
To determine if Comcast provided you a router, you can either look up the model online, or it may even be listed on your bill because they will bill you for it. Unless you have phone service provided by your ISP you do not need the backup battery. I don't believe 911 can determine a location with VOIP, which is what your Comcast Voice service is.
There are is two advantages of having a landline. One, the POT, plain old telephone provider, is required to provide the battery at their switching office. And two, with a landline, 911 can determine you location.
What is the exact model of Airport Extreme you own?
Hopefully, someone will comment on WiFi speeds compared to Ethernet speeds, as I understood, WiFi is a little slower than Ethernet, but in most cases, you should not be able to tell.
Brent
On Jul 31, 2013, at 9:34 AM, James Robertson wrote:
About two weeks ago I posted a question regarding a temporary inability to make some SSL--but not all (https) connections from my home LAN (Gigabit Airport Extreme router, Comcast Digital Voice cablemodem (and perhaps router as well - I'm not certain). I'm not certain, but my guess is that this was actually a DNS problem.
That particular issue has not recurred (it disappeared after I rebooted the AirPort Extreme (802.11n) router, but that particular problem couldn't be the WiFi, because I experienced the same issue with my Mac Pro, which is on my Ethernet network.
In the interim, I've had some other issues, which ARE WiFi specific. For reasons unknown to me, my "Transmit Rate" will fall from 130 to 6 and stay there for several minutes, then spontaneously return to its prior throughput. There's no need to <Command-option-mousedown) on the WiFi menubar icon to see the glacial throughput when this happens; it's painfully obvious watching web pages load or emails come and go.
The Genius at my local Apple Store says he thinks this is very likely not related to the WiFi card in my first generation 15" Retina Display MacBook Pro. He tells me there's no test or script I can run to test the integrity of the WiFi card (curious, because Airport Utility contains a routine to do just that and send the report to Apple). The Genius also doubted the problem was with my AirPort Extreme; he suspects my cable modem or access point. Must admit I don't know whether it's also a router; it was configured by the Comcast Tech, who of course didn't "speak" Macintosh.
Comcast has just sent me a snailmail letter informing me of the availability of a free upgrade to a "DOCSIS 3.0" cable modem/digital voice access point (although if they install it, there's a charge, and there's also a charge for the backup battery that keeps 911 services available in the event of a power outage).
One clue that my Comcast box may have routing capabilities is that the graphic display of my connection to the internet in Airport Utility sometimes shows the "Internet"; "virtual LED" in Orange for several seconds, during which I cannot "see" services from the Internet. My guess is that represents a transient "double NAT" situation when I awaken the computer running Airport Utility from sleep.
Always lusting after the "latest and greatest", I'm wondering whether there's any reason to consider updating to the newest Airport Extreme which enables 802.11c, and adding an Amped Wireless' ACA1 802.11ac WiFi adapter (connects to the laptop via USB 3, and it's supposedly Mac compatible). I think it's the first 802.11ac adapter available that claims to work with Macs (all the others come with Windows OS installers on CD, which could be the only reason they're not "Mac compatible.")
In addition to any list members' reports on "real world" experiences with 802.11c, I'm wondering whether anyone has suggestions on ways to test my router as well as ways to decipher whether my Comcast box is merely an access point (Cable Modem) or whether it's actually a router itself. I have the application "iNet" installed on my Mac. It doesn't "see" the Comcast box, and it lists my Airport Extreme as my Internet Access Point.
Thanks so much,
Jim Robertson
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I use Comcast in Oregon, and I use my own Linksys (Com100 ???) DOCSIS 2.0 modem/bridge, and connect my MacBook Pro to it by Ethernet. I often have problems with web page drawing slowdowns, or video slowdowns while streaming, audio continues without problems.
The other devices that connect to my AEBS by WiFi do not show any slowdown, because of how I use them and what I use them for.
They keep sending me emails saying they have increased by speed, if I have a 3.0 DOCSIS modem. You might go out and buy one of the ones on their approved list and see what that does for you. But that will not help if you are in a situation where the node that you are on is overloaded with users. You would see faster speeds at times of low usage, but probably still see slowdowns at times of peak usage.
To determine if Comcast provided you a router, you can either look up the model online, or it may even be listed on your bill because they will bill you for it. Unless you have phone service provided by your ISP you do not need the backup battery. I don't believe 911 can determine a location with VOIP, which is what your Comcast Voice service is.
There are is two advantages of having a landline. One, the POT, plain old telephone provider, is required to provide the battery at their switching office. And two, with a landline, 911 can determine you location.
What is the exact model of Airport Extreme you own?
Hopefully, someone will comment on WiFi speeds compared to Ethernet speeds, as I understood, WiFi is a little slower than Ethernet, but in most cases, you should not be able to tell.
Brent
On Jul 31, 2013, at 9:34 AM, James Robertson wrote:
About two weeks ago I posted a question regarding a temporary inability to make some SSL--but not all (https) connections from my home LAN (Gigabit Airport Extreme router, Comcast Digital Voice cablemodem (and perhaps router as well - I'm not certain). I'm not certain, but my guess is that this was actually a DNS problem.
That particular issue has not recurred (it disappeared after I rebooted the AirPort Extreme (802.11n) router, but that particular problem couldn't be the WiFi, because I experienced the same issue with my Mac Pro, which is on my Ethernet network.
In the interim, I've had some other issues, which ARE WiFi specific. For reasons unknown to me, my "Transmit Rate" will fall from 130 to 6 and stay there for several minutes, then spontaneously return to its prior throughput. There's no need to <Command-
The Genius at my local Apple Store says he thinks this is very likely not related to the WiFi card in my first generation 15" Retina Display MacBook Pro. He tells me there's no test or script I can run to test the integrity of the WiFi card (curious, because Airport Utility contains a routine to do just that and send the report to Apple). The Genius also doubted the problem was with my AirPort Extreme; he suspects my cable modem or access point. Must admit I don't know whether it's also a router; it was configured by the Comcast Tech, who of course didn't "speak" Macintosh.
Comcast has just sent me a snailmail letter informing me of the availability of a free upgrade to a "DOCSIS 3.0" cable modem/digital voice access point (although if they install it, there's a charge, and there's also a charge for the backup battery that keeps 911 services available in the event of a power outage).
One clue that my Comcast box may have routing capabilities is that the graphic display of my connection to the internet in Airport Utility sometimes shows the "Internet"
Always lusting after the "latest and greatest"
In addition to any list members' reports on "real world" experiences with 802.11c, I'm wondering whether anyone has suggestions on ways to test my router as well as ways to decipher whether my Comcast box is merely an access point (Cable Modem) or whether it's actually a router itself. I have the application "iNet" installed on my Mac. It doesn't "see" the Comcast box, and it lists my Airport Extreme as my Internet Access Point.
Thanks so much,
Jim Robertson
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
GROUP FOOTER MESSAGE
