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
[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 7:21, 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
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
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
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
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
>behavio
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 03:12 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
>doc
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
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
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 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 print
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
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
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
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
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 ope
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 differe
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
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 M
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 t
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 hid
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 ve
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
>> implementtation (which most people don't u
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 two (full screen) windows,
>Finale with a score and
On 16.12.2003 22:41 Uhr, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz 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 e
On Tuesday, December 16, 2003, at 12:33 PM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
Virtual cross-wiring scripting (not programming) language so that I
can get any programs to act on any other program's information, in
real time, regardless of what kind of information it is. (I just
restored a bunch of my
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 i
On 16.12.2003 21:33 Uhr, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote
> Multiple mouses/cursors and manipulation devices. I have a mouse (right
> hand), a trackball (left hand), and a tablet (right hand) on my machine --
> and they all move the same cursor and do the same clicking. I want them
> assignable to separ
On 16.12.2003 21:03 Uhr, David W. Fenton wrote
> I think it's similar to the way Internet Explorer users don't
> understand why Mozilla users are so attached to tabbed browsing -- if
> you haven't used it, you won't be able understand how much it changes
> the user experience.
Absolutely. You are
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. Tile Windows has
certainly nothing to do with it.
I think you either go to your next Panther equipped Mac friend and try it,
or you wait for the next major Windows
I agree with Johannes previous email. It is difficult to describe and is best
experienced.
Steve
> From: Dennis Bathory-Kitsz
> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 1:49 PM
>
> At 11:46 AM 12/16/03 -0600, Fiskum, Steve wrote:
> >Here is some info on Expose. I think you may have a di
At 03:03 PM 12/16/03 -0500, David W. Fenton wrote:
>You've described a whole set of methods for doing all the things that
>Expose does in a unified fashion, with a UI that is more intuitive
>than task switching, tiling and taskbar manipulation.
I see. Since I tend to adapt fairly quickly to what
On 16 Dec 2003 at 14:49, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
> At 11:46 AM 12/16/03 -0600, Fiskum, Steve wrote:
> >Here is some info on Expose. I think you may have a different
> >response
> after reading.
> >http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/expose/
>
> I just read this, and I'm not sure what the dea
At 11:46 AM 12/16/03 -0600, Fiskum, Steve wrote:
>Here is some info on Expose. I think you may have a different response
after reading.
>http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/expose/
I just read this, and I'm not sure what the deal is.
Even in Win98SE, Right-click toolbar | Tile does what is descr
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 u
> 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 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
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 supe
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
> > Longh
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 journall
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 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 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
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
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 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
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
f
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 of
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 functio
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 vers
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 st
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 diff
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 backwa
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 p
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 environmen
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
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
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 backwards-compatibility or blames
the creators of 'incompatible' software.
On 13 Dec 2003 at 16:03, Darcy James Argue wrote:
> As for dropping support for old software, this is just an unfortunate
> fact of life, but this situation has been long before OS X was
> introduced. Most OS 6 apps wouldn't run in OS 8, many OS 7 apps
> wouldn't run in OS 9, etc. Finale was an
On 13 Dec 2003, at 09:52 AM, Andrew Stiller wrote:
I'm pissed off that I still have to dual-boot,
- Darcy
So am I, but it's Apple I'm pissed at. Long after FinMac2K4 is on my
machine, I will still have to dual-boot because of my numerous files
created in (and still printed from) versions as
I'm pissed off that I still have to dual-boot,
- Darcy
So am I, but it's Apple I'm pissed at. Long after FinMac2K4 is on my
machine, I will still have to dual-boot because of my numerous files
created in (and still printed from) versions as early as FinMac3.2.
OSX is a nice piece of whiz-ban
Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 12 Dec 2003, at 02:42 PM, JD wrote:
Finally. An intelligent, well-worded, well thought out, and
non-emotional
view of the situation.
I'm sorry, no disrespect to JD or Brian, but this is reminiscent of a
currently popular talking point among right-wing pundits that
On 12 Dec 2003, at 02:42 PM, JD wrote:
Finally. An intelligent, well-worded, well thought out, and
non-emotional
view of the situation.
I'm sorry, no disrespect to JD or Brian, but this is reminiscent of a
currently popular talking point among right-wing pundits that some of
Bush's critics are
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, ye
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 t
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 PROTECTE
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
course!
Eric Dannewitz wrote:
> 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 delayin
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 a
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 ahe
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 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, Er
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]
http://lists.shsu.edu/
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
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 "ha
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 co
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 Beyenho
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 course I'm still incensed. I was mad enough
af
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 Makemusi
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 r
82 matches
Mail list logo
