On Wednesday, December 17, 2003, at 04:26 AM, Phil Daley wrote:
This is not about hiding windows or arranging windows, it's about
_finding_
windows.
I never lose them, must be a Mac thing.
Not a Mac thing. I'm on Mac, and I too cannot visualize why I should
be so excited about Exposé.
I'm
On 18 Dec 2003, at 03:36 AM, Mark D Lew wrote:
On Wednesday, December 17, 2003, at 04:26 AM, Phil Daley wrote:
This is not about hiding windows or arranging windows, it's about
_finding_
windows.
I never lose them, must be a Mac thing.
Not a Mac thing. I'm on Mac, and I too cannot visualize
You know, this sounds just like Billyboy saying that 640KB memory is more
than anyone will ever need.
Why is it that noone hears me say you have to try it to know what it is
about.
Johannes
On 18.12.2003 9:36 Uhr, Mark D Lew wrote
Not a Mac thing. I'm on Mac, and I too cannot visualize why I
At 12/17/2003 03:12 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Seems useless to me, but maybe the Mac doesn't have a row of buttons
for every program on the start bar.
And how useful are those buttons under these circumstances:
1. you have multiple instances of the same application with different
documents.
At 12/17/2003 03:26 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Also, having Expose also available for navigating between document
windows *within* an application seems like a very good thing. In
Windows programs, yes, we can Ctrl-F6, but that doesn't have the
visual representation that Alt-Tab has, so you're
At 12/17/2003 03:23 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 17 Dec 2003 at 7:26, Phil Daley wrote:
I don't get it. Why would it be hard to find? That's how I work all
the time and any window is just a mouse click away.
Mine aren't. Some windows are two clicks away because MS changed the
behavior of a
At 12/18/2003 03:36 AM, Mark D Lew wrote:
Maybe some day it will make sense to me, as Johannes suggests. In the
meantime it's just one more clever UI feature to add to the pile. OS X
already has umpteen different ways to do things. So long as I can find
the one I like (and I already have), I
On Thursday, December 18, 2003, at 02:23 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
You know, this sounds just like Billyboy saying that 640KB memory is
more
than anyone will ever need.
Could be. Throughout my computer life I've always been a few years
behind the curve on memory needs.
Why is it that noone
On 18 Dec 2003 at 11:23, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
You know, this sounds just like Billyboy saying that 640KB memory is
more than anyone will ever need.
Why is it that noone hears me say you have to try it to know what it
is about.
I've never used it, and it's bloody obvious to me how useful
On 18 Dec 2003 at 7:21, Phil Daley wrote:
At 12/17/2003 03:23 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 17 Dec 2003 at 7:26, Phil Daley wrote:
I don't get it. Why would it be hard to find? That's how I work
all the time and any window is just a mouse click away. Mine
aren't. Some windows are
[Could you change your quoting to not start with a space? It
completely screws up most mail readers' ability to recognize quoted
text and then reformat it appropriately with added quotation
characters]
On 18 Dec 2003 at 7:08, Phil Daley wrote:
At 12/17/2003 03:12 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 18 Dec 2003 at 7:23, Phil Daley wrote:
At 12/17/2003 03:26 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Also, having Expose also available for navigating between document
windows *within* an application seems like a very good thing. In
Windows programs, yes, we can Ctrl-F6, but that doesn't have the
On 17.12.2003 13:26 Uhr, Phil Daley wrote
I don't get it. Why would it be hard to find? That's how I work all the
time and any window is just a mouse click away.
Right, I tried. You won't believe me anyway, so this whole subject has been
more than exausted. Just wait for the next Windows
At 11:25 PM 12/16/03 +0100, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
OK, since you didn't understand the text on the Panther web site
Johannes,
Thanks for the explanation. It turns out I did understand most of the Apple
page, except how it made small windows to mouse around for selection.
This is not about
On 16 Dec 2003 at 23:25, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
I can do the same just for the windows of the front application. I can
also just hide all windows to see the desktop. The point is I can
immediately restore all windows to full size, get the one to front
which I need. I know this sounds as
On 17 Dec 2003 at 7:25, Phil Daley wrote:
At 12/16/2003 12:46 PM, Fiskum, Steve wrote:
WinXP had user switching in its initial release, so it seems to me
that Exposé is copied from WinXP, though, quite obviously, with a
UI that is vastly superior to and more intuitive than MS's boring
On 17 Dec 2003 at 7:26, Phil Daley wrote:
At 12/16/2003 05:25 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Imagine you are working with several applications at once, say you
have your email program open with the main window and an open
message in a separate window, you also have your browser open with
On 17 Dec 2003 at 8:09, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
As a very fast user of ALT-TAB and CTL-TAB (and not having seen this
new Mac thing), I don't think I'd be using such a feature because I'm
at the keyboard, not the mouse. And a screen full of little windows
doesn't seem especially different
FWIW, Exposé is by default mapped to F9, F10, and F11. You can also
configure hot corners to invoke it via mouse movements, or you can pick
your own keyboard -- or multi-button mouse -- shortcuts.
F9 shows you miniature versions of all open windows. F10 shows you
miniature versions of all
On Wednesday, December 17, 2003, at 12:57 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
Let's say I've just created a PDF and saved it to the desktop...
Not to detract from Exposé's features at all, but by utilizing PDF
Services, which adds menu choices to the output destination for a PDF,
one can print to an
Hey, that's great!
Questions, though...
Why isn't this configured by default?
And where can I get those other scripts they show on that web page
(Compress PDF, Convert PDF to Text, Purpose PDF for Web, etc?
- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn NY
On 17 Dec 2003, at 04:57 PM, Philip Aker
While we are on the question of PDF creation, does anyone know how to
control what fonts are included in a System created PDF? I find that PDFs
created directly from the print dialog are much larger than PDFs created by
printing a PS file and sending them through Ghostscript, and I cannot find
any
On Wednesday, December 17, 2003, at 02:17 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
Hey, that's great!
Questions, though...
Why isn't this configured by default?
No idea. Maybe the same brillo that made it impossible to Empty Trash
without an intervening dialog in 10.0.0.
And where can I get those other
On Wednesday, December 17, 2003, at 02:34 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
While we are on the question of PDF creation, does anyone know how to
control what fonts are included in a System created PDF? I find that
PDFs created directly from the print dialog are much larger than PDFs
created by
On 16.12.2003 3:19 Uhr, Andrew Stiller wrote
I do not have a reasonably decent backup system. I've been backing
up to CDs, wh. are immensely smaller than my boot drive. Even if I
invested in an auxiliary drive just for backups, there's all those
invisible system files that wouldn't copy over,
On Monday, December 15, 2003, at 10:17 AM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Well, the question was over testing by Coda of a new version. If it
ran without a hitch on Jaguar why wouldn't it also run without a hitch
on Panther?
Coda is trying to support a wide range of MacOSes and items marked
deprecated
On Monday, December 15, 2003, at 06:19 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote:
I didn't buy Disk Warrior at the time because I wasn't doing anything
with OSX then. I'm hardly using it now, except to install Panther in
anticipation of FinMac 2K4, and trying to upgrade all the (numerous!)
relevant apps I have
On 14.12.2003 21:07 Uhr, David W. Fenton wrote
Let's see how F2K2/F2K3 does on that system because it's
supposed to be Gate's rip-off of MacOS X features.
Oh? Exactly how is the new file system (which is really what Longhorn
is about) a ripoff of of OS X? It's a lot more than journalling
On 16 Dec 2003 at 12:28, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 14.12.2003 21:07 Uhr, David W. Fenton wrote
Let's see how F2K2/F2K3 does on that system because it's
supposed to be Gate's rip-off of MacOS X features.
Oh? Exactly how is the new file system (which is really what
Longhorn is about)
On 16.12.2003 18:14 Uhr, David W. Fenton wrote
. . . One
feature I am sure will eventually enter the Windows Gui is Exposé. . .
WinXP had user switching in its initial release, so it seems to me
that Exposé is copied from WinXP, though, quite obviously, with a UI
that is vastly superior to
On 16 Dec 2003 at 18:40, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 16.12.2003 18:14 Uhr, David W. Fenton wrote
. . . One
feature I am sure will eventually enter the Windows Gui is Exposé.
. .
WinXP had user switching in its initial release, so it seems to me
that Exposé is copied from WinXP,
From: David W. Fenton
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 11:14 AM
. . . One
feature I am sure will eventually enter the Windows Gui is Exposé. . .
WinXP had user switching in its initial release, so it seems to me
that Exposé is copied from WinXP, though, quite
On 16.12.2003 18:46 Uhr, Fiskum, Steve wrote
WinXP had user switching in its initial release, so it seems to me
that Exposé is copied from WinXP, though, quite obviously, with a UI
that is vastly superior to and more intuitive than MS's boring
implementtation (which most people don't
At 09:54 PM 12/16/03 +0100, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
See what I mean? The whole point is you have to have used it to understand
what it does. What you think it does is not what it is for.
I'm sure you have to use it didn't come up in the coding phase, so
somebody must have a way of expressing it,
On Sunday, December 14, 2003, at 12:07 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
The one thing about OS X that I don't really understand is why a .x
upgrade would break programs that ran well on the previous release.
What's that about?
I'd have to have a specific example to comment.
Is Apple removing
Darcy James Argue wrote:
What now? Boot from the Panther installation CD and run Disk Utility.
Let it fix everything it wants to fix. If this won't solve the problem,
you will probably need to reformat your drive and start fresh, but
hopefully Norton didn't foul things up beyond the point
On Monday, December 15, 2003, at 07:28 AM, Robert Patterson wrote:
Darcy James Argue wrote:
What now? Boot from the Panther installation CD and run Disk
Utility. Let it fix everything it wants to fix. If this won't solve
the problem, you will probably need to reformat your drive and start
On 15 Dec 2003 at 6:14, Philip Aker wrote:
On Sunday, December 14, 2003, at 12:07 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
The one thing about OS X that I don't really understand is why a .x
upgrade would break programs that ran well on the previous release.
What's that about?
I'd have to have a
But Andrew brought up a remarkably similar issue several months ago
and you proffered the same advice. Obviously he hasn't purchased DW
and why should he? Seems to me that if one has a reasonably decent
backup system, it's a useless expense because using Apple's Disk
Utility does a good job at
On 15 Dec 2003, at 09:19 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote:
I do not have a reasonably decent backup system. I've been backing
up to CDs, wh. are immensely smaller than my boot drive. Even if I
invested in an auxiliary drive just for backups, there's all those
invisible system files that wouldn't copy
Until about three weeks ago I felt pretty similar to you about OS X.
However, Panther has changed this, and for that very reason I am actually
glad that the release date was not before but after the Panther release
date. It would have been absolute desaster if Finale had come out Jaguar
compatible
On Sunday, December 14, 2003, at 08:47 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
With Panther I can now see that I actually get a lot more from OS X
than I would ever have got from an updated OS 9.
That was always the goal of OS X. It was perhaps difficult to see how
the merging of OS 9, NeXT, and Unix would
Darcy:
(Have you even tried Fin 3.2 in Panther's Classic?)
I haven't done *anything* in Panther Classic, because every time the
OS wants to go there, I get alerts to the effect that various of my
utilities need to be changed to some other version in order to work
well in the Classic
On 14.12.2003 20:03 Uhr, Andrew Stiller wrote
I haven't done *anything* in Panther Classic, because every time the
OS wants to go there, I get alerts to the effect that various of my
utilities need to be changed to some other version in order to work
well in the Classic environment. I am
On 14 Dec 2003 at 6:30, Dennis W. Manasco wrote:
At 4:40 pm -0500 12/13/03, David W. Fenton wrote:
Basically, Microsoft has backwards compatibility down.
Yeah.
Right.
Much of the rest of your message either apologizes for Microsoft's
ineptitude at providing adequate
On 14 Dec 2003 at 9:50, Philip Aker wrote:
On Sunday, December 14, 2003, at 08:47 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
With Panther I can now see that I actually get a lot more from OS X
than I would ever have got from an updated OS 9.
That was always the goal of OS X. It was perhaps difficult
On Sunday, December 14, 2003, at 11:03 AM, Andrew Stiller wrote:
After installing Panther, System 9 started alerting me that my catalog
file was busted. I fixed it with Disc Doctor (which found and
corrected a number of things, but I'm still getting the busted-catalog
alert), whereupon OSX
On 14 Dec 2003, at 02:03 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote:
Darcy:
(Have you even tried Fin 3.2 in Panther's Classic?)
I haven't done *anything* in Panther Classic, because every time the
OS wants to go there, I get alerts to the effect that various of my
utilities need to be changed to some other
Brad:
If 2004 for the Mac still debuts with Coda/MakeMusic's excremental
phone home copy-protection scheme, then doing the upgrade is a
suicide-watch for our files anyway. I have no desire to experience
that. YMMV.
Coda/MakeMusic:
Please notify me when Coda/MakeMusic produces a version that
I'm engraving and editing for a publishing house that just received
some WinFin2004 files as a submission. Since my computer has both
Sibelius and Finale, usually we just get files from composers and I
print them out for the editors to review. Since we now have a
composer who is a version
On Friday, December 12, 2003, at 08:36 AM, Andrew Stiller wrote:
And I'm *not* looking forward to switching to OSX: I foresee endless
hassles
Attitude problem?
and expense getting it to work properly.
What I'm finding is that once the Midi stuff is taken care of,
maintenance fees for OS X are
I acknowledge the frustration some of you feel, and some of the real-world
issues. But I'd just say to you MM employee/lurkers on the list, I
appreciate that you're trying to do this right, and that you're doing it for
a very small market share (us Mac users). Not that we're unimportant, of
Finally. An intelligent, well-worded, well thought out, and non-emotional
view of the situation.
***
J.D. Thomas
ThomaStudios
West Linn OR
http://www.thomastudios.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
on 12/12/03 10:56 AM, Brian Williams at [EMAIL
You could say that about this assessment, and be correct, maybe two
years ago. Most other companies finished the migration well over a
year ago, and even Quark, purported to be the last major manufacturer
of Mac software to complete the migration, got there several months
ago. We are now in
Exactly. The only other application I can think of that I use that isn't
OS X is Pgmusic's Band in a Box. I've pretty much given up on them doing
a OS X version.
All the other major things, even Quark, are OS X now. Protools. MOTU
Digital Performer, etc, etc.
I totally agree. Two years ago,
Just got this in an email:
December 11, 2003
Dear Macintosh customer,
You have waited patiently for Finale 2004 and we need to ask you for just a
little more patience.
We have made tremendous progress over the past few weeks in readying Finale
2004 for Macintosh
Makes me wonder if they are going to make it as a company. Seriously,
missing 2 ship dates...
I could do without the soundfonts or whatever they are called. And the
making of audio CDs. I just want the program to run and do music and
MIDI in OS X.
I hope there is COAL in all the Makemusic
I, as a user, would like to see them get OS X happening and MIDI. All
that other crap, the making of CDs, the sound playback stuff could wait.
Just OS X, and Midi and the other features (like the new expression
thing) working. I think some of the fluff is delaying it.
Brad Beyenhof
At 1:28 PM -0800 12/11/03, Brad Beyenhof wrote:
on 12/11/03 1:16 PM, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
Makes me wonder if they are going to make it as a company. Seriously,
missing 2 ship dates...
In their defense, they didn't give a hard and fast date of 12/15. They
said no earlier than, but of
On Thursday, December 11, 2003, at 01:58 PM, Linda Worsley wrote:
At 1:28 PM -0800 12/11/03, Brad Beyenhof wrote:
on 12/11/03 1:16 PM, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
Makes me wonder if they are going to make it as a company.
Seriously,
missing 2 ship dates...
In their defense, they didn't give a
I wonder what they will charge us for Finale 2005 in August?
Joel Sears
At 03:10 PM 12/11/2003, Brad Beyenhof wrote:
Just got this in an email:
December 11, 2003
Dear Macintosh customer,
You have waited patiently for Finale 2004 and we need to ask you for just a
Wait, you think that they could MAKE a shipping deadline?!?!?!
I think hell just froze over ;-)
Joel Sears wrote:
I wonder what they will charge us for Finale 2005 in August?
Joel Sears
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I can't imagine that the soundfonts and save as audio would be the
holdup--it seems like that kind of thing is very easy in OS X. I
wonder if Panther somehow threw it off...? In any case, can there be
any doubt that this migration wasn't ever well planned?
Tim
On Dec 11, 2003, at 4:16 PM,
63 matches
Mail list logo
