On 26 Apr 2002, at 11:51, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > On 26.04.2002 0:11 Uhr, David W. Fenton wrote > > >> On 25.04.2002 22:51 Uhr, David W. Fenton wrote > >> > >>> PS is simply irrelevant to me and certainly to the vast majority of > >>> Windows users. > >> > >> Well, it is certainly not irrelevant if you ever have to give something to a > >> professional printing service to be printed in colour. > > > > Nothing I wrote implied that it was irrelevant to everyone, so your > > answer is really a non sequitur, and exactly what's wrong with these > > kinds of discussions. > > May I remind you that it was you who started the discussion, by entering a > discussion which was originally only concerned with changes from System 8 to > System 9 on the Mac. You immediately took one pretty minor point, which in > addition you never quite understood (there are no hardwired application or > documents folders on Mac, it is just that some recent applications _expect_ > these folders to be present - it is not the OS that does this) and used it > to bash the Mac platform. There was no real cause for this at all.
I did *not* do any such thing. I asked if it were not the case that the folders were *not* hard-wired, and observed that if they *were*, then it was a flaw in the OS. In fact, here's what I wrote: On 22 Apr 2002, at 22:31, David W. Fenton wrote: > I didn't mean to suggest that there was a system registry on the > Mac, only that there must of necessity to be a structure in the > Mac OS similar in function to the system registry (a place for > storing system settings) and, presumable, a UI somewhere for > modifying those settings. > > If there isn't, well, I don't have anything profitable to say, > only remarks that would be dismissed as platform bashing. No one came forward and said "Yes, there clearly are such structures, and there's a Control Panel for setting them." Why is that? > Philip then remarked that for him it was more important to have system > support for certain features like PS printing, than being able to configure > the paths for the applications folder. This discussion has now gone into > Windows boot managers etc, which really hasn't got anything to do with the > original problem. It wasn't *me* who took it there. > So perhaps this is the problem with the discussion, which to be honest never > had any potential to lead anywhere at all. I never bashed the Mac OS. I asked a question with an assumption about how the Mac OS most likely would have been designed. That assumption, it seems, turns out to have been correct. It is only because no one chose to actually answer my question straight out that the incorrect idea that it was not user configurable made its way into the discussion. > I expected this to happen as soon as you entered the discussion, which was > why I said I hesitate to go on. > > It escapes me why whenever a discussion about any Mac specific problems, > even short comings comes up you have to enter it with non-knowledge on Mac > issues just to question the quality of the Mac System per se. My original assumption was correct, as you yourself have said. I don't see the issue, except that other people seem not to have understood the question. -- David W. Fenton | http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates | http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
