Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: What makes a mac better?

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: What makes a mac better?

 
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2012
On Saturday, November 3, 2012 8:12:30 AM UTC, David Taylor wrote:
> "What makes a mac better?"
>
>
>
> - having the ability to run Windows, of course!
>


And choosing not to for sanity reasons

> --
>
> Cheers,
>
> David
>
> Web: http://www.satsignal.eu


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2012
On 05/11/2012 14:04, Whisky-dave wrote:
> On Saturday, November 3, 2012 8:12:30 AM UTC, David Taylor wrote:
>> "What makes a mac better?"
>>
>>
>>
>> - having the ability to run Windows, of course!
>>

>
> And choosing not to for sanity reasons


To be honest, I think I've had more furstrations with the quirks of the
iPad than I have had with Windows, but I would consider myself more
familiar with Windows. I find it amusing that, to delete directories of
photos on my iPad (what they call "albums"), I have to connect it to a
PC (Windows or Mac). Otherwise I have to tap each photo individually to
select it before deletion. There's no multi-file selection.

Yes, Apple's forced way of working does drive you insane!
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2012
On Monday, November 5, 2012 2:20:48 PM UTC, David Taylor wrote:
> On 05/11/2012 14:04, Whisky-dave wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, November 3, 2012 8:12:30 AM UTC, David Taylor wrote:

>
> >> "What makes a mac better?"

>
> >>

>
> >>

>
> >>

>
> >> - having the ability to run Windows, of course!

>
> >>

>
> >

>
> > And choosing not to for sanity reasons

>
>
>
> To be honest, I think I've had more furstrations with the quirks of the
>
> iPad than I have had with Windows,


I've found a few frustrations with the ipad but far more with windows and it';s always the silly things.

Can anyone tell me why, when clicking on my document folder (W7) with the option to view arranged by date modified does it still list the files in alphbetical order :-0.
When I click on by name the top 20+ files a are all titles _primary.dat areall 1kB in size and all from 2007.
But I'll ignore it.






> but I would consider myself more
>
> familiar with Windows.


the ideal person to answer the above then

> I find it amusing that, to delete directories of
>
> photos on my iPad (what they call "albums"),


Well most people keep their pictures/photos in albums, have done since the beginngin of photography I'm not sure it's any advantage to refer to them as directories or folders even.

> I have to connect it to a
>
> PC (Windows or Mac). Otherwise I have to tap each photo individually to
>
> select it before deletion. There's no multi-file selection.


That is somewhat an ommision I guess but I haven't found a use for such an option and can;t think why I might need one.
Why would I copy 1000s of pictures to a ipad only to delete them without viewing them, I'd have to tap to view so tapping to delete isn;t much more effort, in fact it's a littel eaisr than on a computer. I can view the picture and if I don;t want it I tap on the trash can at the top, that's easier than dragging or right clicking.

maybe I'm missing the point, or deleted it but why would anyone want tomanually delete 1000s pictures from their ipad, why not just NOT load themon to it in the first place ?
I took about 15 photos last night using the ipad then reviewed them by tapping and taping again to delete the 12 or so I didn't want.

>
>
> Yes, Apple's forced way of working does drive you insane!


That's true , but if you try the Apple way most things seem to work better and more logically.

>
> --
>
> Cheers,
>
> David
>
> Web: http://www.satsignal.eu


 
Reply With Quote
 
David Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2012
On 05/11/2012 16:11, Whisky-dave wrote:
[]
> That is somewhat an ommision I guess but I haven't found a use for such an option and can;t think why I might need one.
> Why would I copy 1000s of pictures to a ipad only to delete them without viewing them, I'd have to tap to view so tapping to delete isn;t much more effort, in fact it's a littel eaisr than on a computer. I can view the picture and if I don;t want it I tap on the trash can at the top, that's easier than dragging or right clicking.
>
> maybe I'm missing the point, or deleted it but why would anyone want to manually delete 1000s pictures from their ipad, why not just NOT load them on to it in the first place ?
> I took about 15 photos last night using the ipad then reviewed them by tapping and taping again to delete the 12 or so I didn't want.

[]

Why? Because you have used your iPad during a trip away from a computer
to view the pictures from your own camera, and provide a backup. It's
not just for photos taken on the iPad. You might even want to look at
pictures from someone else or perhaps to demonstrate how good the iPad
display is using their images. Many reasons.

We are agreed that the inability to delete all images in an album at
once is an omission on Apple's part. I'm disappointed that it hasn't
been rectified in iOS updates.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mayayana
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2012
>
When I click on by name the top 20+ files a are all titles _primary.dat are
all 1kB in size and all from 2007.
But I'll ignore it.
>


No need to ignore it. You're on Windows, not iPad.
You can manage and organize your files. Just "lasso"
all those _ files, then right-click -> Delete.

Another nice thing about Windows is that since it's
used by almost everyone, you can usually go online
and find solutions:

http://www.windowsbbs.com/windows-xp...ts-folder.html

It turns out that the problem you're having is probably
related to poor quality software that you installed. To
avoid the risks associated with being able to choose what
software you install, you might want to switch to an iPad.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Anthony Polson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2012
David Taylor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 05/11/2012 16:11, Whisky-dave wrote:
>[]
>> That is somewhat an ommision I guess but I haven't found a use for such an option and can;t think why I might need one.
>> Why would I copy 1000s of pictures to a ipad only to delete them without viewing them, I'd have to tap to view so tapping to delete isn;t much more effort, in fact it's a littel eaisr than on a computer. I can view the picture and if I don;t want it I tap on the trash can at the top, that's easier than dragging or right clicking.
>>
>> maybe I'm missing the point, or deleted it but why would anyone want to manually delete 1000s pictures from their ipad, why not just NOT load them on to it in the first place ?
>> I took about 15 photos last night using the ipad then reviewed them by tapping and taping again to delete the 12 or so I didn't want.

>[]
>
>Why? Because you have used your iPad during a trip away from a computer
>to view the pictures from your own camera, and provide a backup. It's
>not just for photos taken on the iPad. You might even want to look at
>pictures from someone else or perhaps to demonstrate how good the iPad
>display is using their images. Many reasons.
>
>We are agreed that the inability to delete all images in an album at
>once is an omission on Apple's part. I'm disappointed that it hasn't
>been rectified in iOS updates.



But it looks cool, David. For some people that is all that matters.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2012
-hh <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Nov 2, 1:23*pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> -hh <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> > On Oct 31, 1:03*pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> > wrote:
>> >> -hh <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >> > Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >> >> -hh <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >> >> > [...big snip...]
>> >> >> You wouldn't need to 'direct people to right-click & save' if
>> >> >> you used the correct type: it would either open in the right
>> >> >> application or be offered to be saved.


>> >> > Incorrect, because what you're overlooking is that the ".PPT" suffix
>> >> > didn't exist as part of the naming convention under this particular
>> >> > application at the time of its file creation, so there is no one
>> >> > single "correct" way to configure a contemporary webserver for this
>> >> > class of files.


>> >> Obviously you've been misinformed. *Suffixes are informatory only
>> >> (except on DOS and Windows, where they stupidly replace file
>> >> attributes like "executable"). *That's why e.g. web servers do
>> >> transmit the file type instead of just relying on the suffix of
>> >> the ending. *(And that's why getting a .php-file doesn't mean
>> >> your local PHP is supposed to start up and execute the file.)


>> > Keep on trying to convince yourself of that. *What you've not realize
>> > is that the period in this filename is not a delimiter for a file type
>> > identification suffix.


>> *I* realized that.


> Unfortunately, if your claim really is true, then it begs the question as to why you kept on harping on an irrelevant issue.


1) look up "begging the question"!
2) The question is why you don't understand what I am saying.
Either my command of English is terrible or yours is.
3) You sidetracked the whole discussion with your example of how
one can deliberately choose a file format singularily unsuited
to archival and then harping about that as if that was the
average or usual case.

>> > When you saw that the original name wasn't an '8.3' but was a '4.13',
>> > you should have gotten a clue.


>> When I saw "text/plain" I got the right clue. *I didn't look at
>> the filename for info.


> Unfortunately, if your claim really is true, then it begs the question as to why you kept on harping on an irrelevant issue.


1) look up "begging the question"!
2) The question is why you don't understand what I am saying.
Either my command of English is terrible or yours is.
3) You sidetracked the whole discussion with your example of how
one can deliberately choose a file format singularily unsuited
to archival and then harping about that as if that was the
average or usual case.


> Gee, see a pattern here yet? I do.


Yep. I see one. You're being as obstinate as a mule just
for the love of being contrary *and* you're wrong.


>> >> > The alternative was to rename the file to add .PPT - - - but to do so
>> >> > represents a post-creation alteration of the original contents of the
>> >> > original file: *if that had been done, you would now be bitching about
>> >> > the file's providance having being "corrupted" by that post-creation
>> >> > renaming.
>> >> What's in a name? that which we call a rose
>> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >> By any other name would smell as sweet;
>> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >> So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
>> >> Retain that dear perfection which he owes
>> >> Without that title.
>> > Romeo is dead. *So are some file formats.


>> So are some brain cells!


> Yet another ad hominem personal insult.


Your command of the English language is really fourth-rate, you
cannot distinguish between a non-personal "some" and a personal
"yours".

But if the cap fits, wear it.


> Clearly, poster "Wolfgang" has decided that he can't win the disagreement based on its actual *merits*, so he tries to attack the messenger instead.


Merits? What merits?
3) You sidetracked the whole discussion with your example of how
one can deliberately choose a file format singularily unsuited
to archival and then harping about that as if that was the
average or usual case.


>> Neither Romeo nor file formats have anything to do with renaming
>> files to add '.PPT'


> Unfortunately, if your claim really is true, then it begs the question as to why you brought up Romeo in the first place.


1) look up "begging the question"!
2) The question is why you don't understand what I am saying.
Either my command of English is terrible or yours is.
3) You sidetracked the whole discussion with your example of how
one can deliberately choose a file format singularily unsuited
to archival and then harping about that as if that was the
average or usual case.


>> > This is an example thereof,
>> > and why this "successfully archived" file still is not recoverable.


>> This is mostly an example of how someone who doesn't have a real
>> name also doesn't have basic skill of telling a webserver what
>> type of files it is supposed to serve.


> A particularly ironic remark from a poster at "The Original Disposable Email Address Company", sneakemail.com


Ah! An ad hominem to misdirect us from the fact that Haw-Haw
cannot even handle not even running, but simply correctly
using a webserver.

My email address is replyable and gets read. I've been using it
since 2003-01-25 (that's "just shy of 10 years" to you). Which is
perfectly easy to find out. What more do you want, Lord Haw-Haw?
(And yes, that *is* a personal insult. You deseve it.)

So, do you sort "irony" next to "coppery" and "silvery"?


>> And an example of how someone who doesn't have a real name also
>> doesn't have the skill of reading what is written or keeping
>> the context.


> And the hypocrisy is that I'm posting from my own domain, whose registration info isn't hidden at all...as if reading it off of the domain's homepage is not a "...handle basic computing tasks..." easy enough task.


Yep, you're posting from google.com. That makes you ...
Larry Page or
Sergey Brin or
one of the 53,564 Google employees or
one of the many, many, many people who own Google stock.

But is "DNS Admin" really your name?

And can't you use a proper usenet reader on your own computer?
You'd at least not produce overly long lines ...

As to your name "-hh" --- if that is your real name, you really
need to sue your parents. But you're not even inventive enough
to find a believable false name. Nor do you have the cojones to
use your real name. And the domain in the "From"? That one is
likely from someone else.


>> [...snip...]


> I read on and simply see more ad hominem personal insult attempts.


I read on and simply see you not having answers, except
for insults to my intelligence.

>> [...snip...]


> I read on and see flat out lies: sorry, but I've not removed even a single URL or file from my website.


So you admit you lied (i.e. provided deliberately false
facts) when you posted that broken URL of yours.

Thank you! Liar!

So you are still unable to handle a simple web server ...


>> There's *no* suffix in
>> * *http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/ADPA-snipertrainer


> Sorry, but you mistyped:


Nope. I copy&pasted from
Message-ID: <(E-Mail Removed)>
(Look it up, google can do that for you.)

The mistype (you called it a lie) is yours.


> the filename in question (which is still online) is:


> http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/ADPA.snipertrainer


Still no suffix.
OK, OK, there *are* suffixes. Like "iner", "pertrainer" and
"PA.snipertrainer".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffix...ence%29#Suffix
I assume you didn't mean those.


> The irony of "...handle basic computing tasks..." bites a second time.


The irony is that *I* copy&pasted ... from *your* post.


>> Point is: while YOU might though it unlikely for floppy disks
>> to "vaporize", everyone with a functioning brain was well
>> aware it was on it's way out.


> Oops, and yet another innocent "accident" on his part -- golly, what an amazing coincidence! I'm sorry, but the archives clearly show that what I said was that all media standards are temporary (transient), and I cited floppies as a recent real world example of said transient nature.


The record states:
Me:
| >> It's extremely unlikely that all JPEG decoders along with the
| >> information how JPEG works will be lost in this century barring
| >> a global catastrophy. *It's unlikely that that knowledge will
| >> be lost in a span of time when chemical film and prints will
| >> already have lost their usefulness. *A recoding to whatever is the
| >> then-common format can be done fully automatic by the computer ---
| >> quite unlike translating hieroglyphs.

Haw-Haw:
| > And fifteen years ago, we would have made similar claims about how
| > unlikely it would be for floppy disk technology to vaporize.

Even *if* you are typing through Google Translate, you should
get that.

Simple question: Who changed the topic from JPEG to floppies?

Simple question: Who got handed his head because he didn't bother
to look up what was 15 years ago, but was all blustery and
holier-than-thou?


> Sure, digital data can be archived successfully, but for ease of subsequent use, it is not a "zero maintenance" activity, particularly in comparison to prior technologies which can more readily tolerate years/decades of benign neglect and still be adequately recovered.


Film under "benign neglect" survives on the average as long as
photos on a not backupped computer. Before you answer, look up
the word "average" and remember the user copies his files to his
new computer every couple years.

> Similarly, it is pedantically possible to invoke heroic (and expensive) measures to recover something, but pragmatically, this won't be done for the vast majority of "somethings", because invariably, the potential (or perceived) value of said 'something' isn't known to justify the expense, usually because of the Catch-22 that said 'something' hasn't been adequately identified so as to make a value assessment.


On the other hand, heroic and expensive measures are needed
to save film. For one example how much heroic work is needed
to create a incomplete result --- and that from a work that
was distributed and more or less archived worldwide (quite the
opposite of benign neglegt) --- see Metropolis.

As to "value": See Metropolis. See very many of the early
film works. Studios were *burning* the prints, believing them
*worthless* once they'd phased out of the cinema. Had they only
been copyable and storeable as easy as hard drives today ...


> Finally, the process of data recovery isn't merely the format of the bits, but also the medium of how those bits are being stored - - it is both software and hardware, and the failure of either one makes the data permanently irretrievable.


Ah ... no.
Physical media can be duplicated and parts from one copy spliced
with parts from another copy. Works with digital just as well as
with analog --- in fact, it works better with digital if there's
any overlap.

As to "formats", they can be just as problematic with analog.
"phonautograph".


> Unfortunately, the tragedy is that this actual issue of how to subsequently decide how to manage digitally based data archives has been ignored, because it is more important to "Wolfgang's" ego to try to attack this Messenger, rather than to potentially acknowledge the validity of any part of the message.


Your message is as valid as the claims of those who say that
an asteroid strike will wipe us all out in the next 10 years.
We cannot prove this will not happen, but simple statistics
shows that the event as painted is rather unlikely.



>> > If it really was as trivial as you claimed, you would have been
>> > successful two months ago and RPD would have been spared the past two
>> > months (yes, since August!) of your impotent whining.


>> I'm simply not interested in your stupid "decode this secret
>> proprietary unused format" games. *Thus, I have not even tried.


> Not only is this lame,


Maybe it is lame not to fall for your idiotic 'examples'.

> but "Wolfgang's" public criticism of how my domain served up the files as "text/plain" says that he did try. Yet another untruth is thus revealed.


I did try to *download* them. I did a "strings" on them. I used
"wget -S" to see the headers. That's all.
If that's "trying" ... well, then blindly hammering
with both feet on a keyboard is "writing a work of world
literature".


>> [...snip...]


I see. You agree that I was completely right. Your reported "NASA"
story is complete bullshit, thus you reneged on it. Your
hieroglyphs were shot down in flames, so you gave them up.

You didn't manage to deliver the specifications for your
ADPA.snipertrainer-file, thus proving you knew it wasn't an
archivable format like, say JPEG, as I specified: widely used,
open, documented. Shot down in flames, again.

> "Wolfgang" has surrendered all semblance of being capable of carrying on a reasonable conversation and not perpetuating even more outright lies between his Ad Hominem personal attack attempts and other quotation/citation "accidents".


Ah, the ad hominem to misdirect again.




> Clearly, we are done here.


> Any interested parties who wish to continue this conversation offline are free to contact me ... this email address forwards to a general account that will require a "yes I'm human" reply to self-whitelist prior to retransmission to counter spam. Otherwise, I'll never see it.


> -hh


-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2012
In article <k78quu$2lj$(E-Mail Removed)>, David Taylor
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> We are agreed that the inability to delete all images in an album at
> once is an omission on Apple's part. I'm disappointed that it hasn't
> been rectified in iOS updates.


it's not something that a lot of people miss not being there.
 
Reply With Quote
 
-hh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2012
On Nov 5, 7:23*pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> On 2012-11-05 15:03:01 -0800, Wolfgang Weisselberg
> <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
> > -hh <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> Unfortunately, if your claim really is true, then it begs the question
> >> as to why you kept on harping on an irrelevant issue.

>
> > 1) look up "begging the question"!
> > 2) The question is why you don't understand what I am saying.
> > * *Either my command of English is terrible or yours is.
> > 3) You sidetracked the whole discussion with your example of how
> > * *one can deliberately choose a file format singularily unsuited
> > * *to archival and then harping about that as if that was the
> > * *average or usual case.

>
> "Begs the question" or "Begging the question" is not what it might seem
> to be to those unfamiliar to the term when used in logic.
>
> "Begs the question" is the conclusion, or result of a circular argument
> and is an indication that further debate is pointless. To "Beg the
> question" presupposes the conclusion of an argument to complete the
> circularity.
> ...and most importantly, it is usually not stated.
>
> "Begs the question" should not be used when what is meant and intended
> is to say, "Raises the following question", or "leads us to ask and
> consider the following question".
>
> So, for simplicity's sake, "Begs the question" is not the same as
> "Raises the question".


Thanks, but unfortunately, nothing's capable of satisfying Wolfgang's
bruised pride. Even giving him the last word would not suffice...he
will just simply find some other alternative outlet.

....after that distraction, its then back to the grind of a batch of
19th century tin photo originals.


-hh
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2012
On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 16:23:23 -0800, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2012-11-05 15:03:01 -0800, Wolfgang Weisselberg
><(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>> -hh <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>>> Unfortunately, if your claim really is true, then it begs the question
>>> as to why you kept on harping on an irrelevant issue.

>>
>> 1) look up "begging the question"!
>> 2) The question is why you don't understand what I am saying.
>> Either my command of English is terrible or yours is.
>> 3) You sidetracked the whole discussion with your example of how
>> one can deliberately choose a file format singularily unsuited
>> to archival and then harping about that as if that was the
>> average or usual case.

>
>"Begs the question" or "Begging the question" is not what it might seem
>to be to those unfamiliar to the term when used in logic.
>
>"Begs the question" is the conclusion, or result of a circular argument
>and is an indication that further debate is pointless. To "Beg the
>question" presupposes the conclusion of an argument to complete the
>circularity.
>...and most importantly, it is usually not stated.
>
>"Begs the question" should not be used when what is meant and intended
>is to say, "Raises the following question", or "leads us to ask and
>consider the following question".
>
>So, for simplicity's sake, "Begs the question" is not the same as
>"Raises the question".


It's a phrase often discussed in English usage groups. You are right.
The phrase is misused more than it is correctly used.

I don't ever use the phrase because most people think it means
something it doesn't mean, and therefore would misinterpret my
meaning.

In defense of those who misuse the phrase, a logical parsing would
lead one to think it means "It begs (me to ask) the question". Those
of us who are interested in usage points know, though, that English is
not always logical.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: What makes a mac better? tony cooper Digital Photography 109 08-31-2012 08:29 PM
Re: What makes a mac better? nospam Digital Photography 0 08-27-2012 08:39 AM
Re: What makes a mac better? nospam Digital Photography 2 08-26-2012 09:05 PM
Re: What makes a mac better? nospam Digital Photography 0 08-26-2012 05:57 PM
Re: What makes a mac better? nospam Digital Photography 0 08-26-2012 05:57 PM



Advertisments