From info at stevendewitt.ca Fri Dec 1 13:14:38 2006 From: info at stevendewitt.ca (Steven DeWitt) Date: Fri Dec 1 13:14:59 2006 Subject: Test Message-ID: <3BA78A6A-379F-44E2-A802-59407F772B12@stevendewitt.ca> From scott at maxify.com Fri Dec 1 23:27:20 2006 From: scott at maxify.com (Scott Stevenson) Date: Fri Dec 1 23:27:41 2006 Subject: [Moderator] Test Message-ID: <36EC03AE-7DA0-4469-9526-A437AD656339@maxify.com> test From kcall at mac.com Sun Dec 3 11:17:21 2006 From: kcall at mac.com (Kevin Callahan) Date: Sun Dec 3 11:17:27 2006 Subject: Parallels/Boot Camp questions Message-ID: A friend was asking me the following: "The demo video that I saw of this ( http://mirror.video.blip.tv/ MichaelVerdi-Parallels367.mov ) implies that you can use boot camp with the Parallels virtual machine. Does that mean that it is possible to set up your Mac to do dual boot (OSX or Win2k/XP) and also, when using OSX and Parallels, run the same Win2k/XP installation inside of Parallels? Seems like some of the critical hardware drivers would be different for that Hosted vs Native Windows OS. VMs like Parallels and VMWare usually have their own drivers for display, networking, and such. If booting a Windows partition natively with the option of running it in a VM is possible, that could be way cool. That way if you needed the speed, you could natively run Windows (e.g. 3D OpenGL graphics apps). Does anyone know the nitty-gritty of this?" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /mailman/archive/macosx-talk/attachments/20061203/bda2e71d/attachment.html From david at nodnod.net Sun Dec 3 11:23:24 2006 From: david at nodnod.net (David Zhou) Date: Sun Dec 3 11:23:33 2006 Subject: Parallels/Boot Camp questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 3, 2006, at 2:17 PM, Kevin Callahan wrote: > Does anyone know the nitty-gritty of this?" It uses Windows hardware profiles. Unfortunately, that means you will have to activate twice: once when running under bootcamp, and another when running under Parallels. But AFAIK, the Windows license allows VMs, so it's possible to active twice with the same copy of XP. --- David Zhou david@nodnod.net From pelorus at mac.com Sun Dec 3 13:53:23 2006 From: pelorus at mac.com (Matt Johnston) Date: Sun Dec 3 13:53:37 2006 Subject: Parallels/Boot Camp questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <543056A7-D607-4CFA-9148-4FB441E24538@mac.com> On 3 Dec 2006, at 19:23, David Zhou wrote: > But AFAIK, the Windows license allows VMs, so it's possible to > active twice with the same copy of XP. Didn't Vista remove this? For all but Premium? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /mailman/archive/macosx-talk/attachments/20061203/a1baa4ee/attachment.html From david at nodnod.net Sun Dec 3 14:00:25 2006 From: david at nodnod.net (David Zhou) Date: Sun Dec 3 14:00:39 2006 Subject: Parallels/Boot Camp questions In-Reply-To: <543056A7-D607-4CFA-9148-4FB441E24538@mac.com> References: <543056A7-D607-4CFA-9148-4FB441E24538@mac.com> Message-ID: <254DA148-43B3-4863-B042-53E3DC7114EF@nodnod.net> On Dec 3, 2006, at 4:53 PM, Matt Johnston wrote: > On 3 Dec 2006, at 19:23, David Zhou wrote: > >> But AFAIK, the Windows license allows VMs, so it's possible to >> active twice with the same copy of XP. > > Didn't Vista remove this? For all but Premium? I think so, which is why I specified XP. --- David Zhou david@nodnod.net From pelorus at mac.com Sun Dec 3 14:03:27 2006 From: pelorus at mac.com (Matt Johnston) Date: Sun Dec 3 14:03:35 2006 Subject: Parallels/Boot Camp questions In-Reply-To: <254DA148-43B3-4863-B042-53E3DC7114EF@nodnod.net> References: <543056A7-D607-4CFA-9148-4FB441E24538@mac.com> <254DA148-43B3-4863-B042-53E3DC7114EF@nodnod.net> Message-ID: <06985F47-721C-4689-B6AB-9ABBBC1DC9E7@mac.com> On 3 Dec 2006, at 22:00, David Zhou wrote: > > On Dec 3, 2006, at 4:53 PM, Matt Johnston wrote: > >> On 3 Dec 2006, at 19:23, David Zhou wrote: >> >>> But AFAIK, the Windows license allows VMs, so it's possible to >>> active twice with the same copy of XP. >> >> Didn't Vista remove this? For all but Premium? > > I think so, which is why I specified XP. I just wasn't sure. I remember reading it. But couldn't google the link. From chad at objectwerks.com Sun Dec 3 15:27:55 2006 From: chad at objectwerks.com (Chad Leigh) Date: Sun Dec 3 15:27:58 2006 Subject: Parallels/Boot Camp questions In-Reply-To: <543056A7-D607-4CFA-9148-4FB441E24538@mac.com> References: <543056A7-D607-4CFA-9148-4FB441E24538@mac.com> Message-ID: On Dec 3, 2006, at 2:53 PM, Matt Johnston wrote: > > On 3 Dec 2006, at 19:23, David Zhou wrote: > >> But AFAIK, the Windows license allows VMs, so it's possible to >> active twice with the same copy of XP. > > Didn't Vista remove this? For all but Premium? Not if you read the license literally. It only applies to using a VM on the licensed device and OS X / Mac is not a licensed device until WinV is installed on it and you cannot install on it unless maybe using bootcamp. On explanation I read was to stop the same copy of windows from being the VM host and the OS running in the VM Chad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /mailman/archive/macosx-talk/attachments/20061203/842e6821/attachment.html From das at doit.wisc.edu Sun Dec 3 15:36:42 2006 From: das at doit.wisc.edu (Dave Schroeder) Date: Sun Dec 3 15:36:53 2006 Subject: Parallels/Boot Camp questions In-Reply-To: <543056A7-D607-4CFA-9148-4FB441E24538@mac.com> References: <543056A7-D607-4CFA-9148-4FB441E24538@mac.com> Message-ID: <0C6A8FEC-5E57-4C17-8354-788D2C6B35B9@doit.wisc.edu> On Dec 3, 2006, at 3:53 PM, Matt Johnston wrote: > > On 3 Dec 2006, at 19:23, David Zhou wrote: > >> But AFAIK, the Windows license allows VMs, so it's possible to >> active twice with the same copy of XP. > > Didn't Vista remove this? For all but Premium? It's much more complicated than this. Also, there is no such thing as "Vista Premium"; there is "Vista Home Premium", which also doesn't allow virtualization. There are actually several versions of Vista that allow virtualization. Activation, in this context, and virtualization are unrelated. Windows XP (all versions) can legally be used in a VM. Since Windows typically allows you to activate using the same code more than once (until you hit some limit, at which point you have to call Microsoft to get it "okayed"), the new Parallels Boot Camp functionality will require retail Windows XP users to activate once under Boot Camp, and activate again under Parallels. Vista's EULA, on the other hand, prohibits VM usage for Vista Home Basic and Home Premium. There is NOTHING technical stopping it from being used; it's purely an artificial EULA restriction, and really one from more of a support context than anything: Microsoft doesn't want people buying lower-end retail versions of Vista and then having to support them (since Microsoft, as opposed to PC OEMs, provides support for retail Vista). Also, Vista Home Basic and Home Premium can be "legally" used in a VM if obtained for purposes of development and testing via MSDN (the Microsoft Developer Network). Higher versions of Vista not only allow virtualization, but some actually include additional licenses allowing that same instance of the OS to be used for virtualization simultaneously. This means that if someone is running one of these versions of Vista on a physical PC and *also* wants to virtualize it (easy now that Microsoft Virtual PC for Windows is now free), they can run that same copy of the OS on the physical hardware and in VMs at the same time, legally. Of course, these are *technically* the only versions of Vista that allow any virtualization usage at all (via the EULA; remember, nothing technical prevents VM usage of any version of Vista, and activation doesn't change anything fundamentally). The versions of Vista that DO NOT allow virtualization via the EULA (but do if used in the context of MSDN): - Vista Home Basic - Vista Home Premium The versions of Vista that DO allow virtualization, including simultaneous native and VM usage: - Vista Business - Vista Enterprise - Vista Ultimate More info: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/editions/ http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/software/0,39044164,61969665,00.htm - Dave -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2380 bytes Desc: not available Url : /mailman/archive/macosx-talk/attachments/20061203/f8fe0946/smime.bin From das at doit.wisc.edu Sun Dec 3 15:41:01 2006 From: das at doit.wisc.edu (Dave Schroeder) Date: Sun Dec 3 15:41:05 2006 Subject: Parallels/Boot Camp questions In-Reply-To: References: <543056A7-D607-4CFA-9148-4FB441E24538@mac.com> Message-ID: On Dec 3, 2006, at 5:27 PM, Chad Leigh wrote: > > On Dec 3, 2006, at 2:53 PM, Matt Johnston wrote: > >> >> On 3 Dec 2006, at 19:23, David Zhou wrote: >> >>> But AFAIK, the Windows license allows VMs, so it's possible to >>> active twice with the same copy of XP. >> >> Didn't Vista remove this? For all but Premium? > > Not if you read the license literally. It only applies to using a > VM on the licensed device and OS X / Mac is not a licensed device > until WinV is installed on it and you cannot install on it unless > maybe using bootcamp. On explanation I read was to stop the same > copy of windows from being the VM host and the OS running in the VM. That's what I thought to. Unfortunately that's not the case: http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/software/0,39044164,61969665,00.htm ...and an exchange I had with Paul Thurrott, below. The bottom line is that the restriction is arbitrary, and is probably designed to prevent people from installing the low-cost versions of Vista in virtual machine environments they don't understand, and then expecting support directly from Microsoft for things that Microsoft really isn't responsible for. - Dave ----- From: thurrott@gmail.com Subject: RE: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing? Date: October 23, 2006 8:34:07 AM CDT To: das@doit.wisc.edu Yeah, that's what they told me. My guess is that they don't want people purchasing the low-cost versions, installing them on virtual machine environments they don't understand (like Parallels) and then demanding support. -----Original Message----- From: Dave Schroeder [mailto:das@doit.wisc.edu] Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 9:31 AM To: Paul Thurrott Subject: Re: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing? So Microsoft actually does intend the EULA to prohibit someone from, say, buying Vista Home as a retail box and then installing it in Parallels Desktop on a Mac? (I know there is nothing technical preventing that.) This still seems curious, given that in that scenario, not only does Vista Ultimate allow VM use, but also includes an additional license specifically so that same copy can be installed in a VM on the same device. Why wouldn't Home's license allow a single instance of itself to be used in a VM as long as it's not already installed somewhere else? The language all revolves around "the software installed on the licensed device", and I take that to mean the software *already* installed on that device, but I suppose that could be argued to mean that it can't be installed on *any* device where it would be used in a virtualization environment... - Dave On Oct 23, 2006, at 8:23 AM, Paul Thurrott wrote: > Microsoft told me that the retail EULA forbids the installation of > Windows > Vista Home Basic or Home Premium in virtual machines. They said > that if > developers wanted to do this, they should get an MSDN subscription, > which > has a different license allowing such an install. All that said, > there's > nothing technical from preventing users from installing any Vista > version in > a virtual machine. > > Paul > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Schroeder [mailto:das@doit.wisc.edu] > Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 9:15 AM > To: thurrott@windowsitpro.com > Subject: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing? > > Paul, > > In reading about Vista virtualization, it occurred to me that all > this may be a result of the incorrect interpretation of the EULA: > > Microsoft's Vista EULA says: > > "4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the > software installed[1] on the licensed device[2] within a virtual (or > otherwise emulated) hardware system." > > This means you can't use the *same* installation of Vista Home inside > a virtualization technology on the "licensed device". > > This DOES NOT mean you can't use it by itself in a virtualization > product on any platform. If that instance of Vista is not installed > anywhere else, there is no preexisting "licensed device". > > The reason this is included in the EULA is because Vista Business and > Ultimate actually include additional licenses specifically so the > same license can be used to also run in a virtualization environment > on the same device where Vista is already installed. > > The higher end versions of Vista actually include more in terms of > virtualization licensing than any other commercial OS. > > In any case, by my reading, this means all versions of Vista can > still be legally used standalone in a virtualized environment, such > as Parallels or VMWare. > > [1] This means "the software" (i.e., Vista Home Basic or Premium) is > already installed on a licensed device. > > [2] The "licensed device" is the device that Vista Home is already > installed on, and that license may not be reused to also install it > in a virtualization environment, which you CAN do with Vista Business > and Ultimate, because Microsoft includes additional licenses > specifically for virtualization use, which is why there are all these > specifics about virtualization use on the lower end Vista versions in > the EULA in the first place. > > Thoughts? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2380 bytes Desc: not available Url : /mailman/archive/macosx-talk/attachments/20061203/e56c712a/smime.bin From chad at objectwerks.com Sun Dec 3 15:45:05 2006 From: chad at objectwerks.com (Chad Leigh) Date: Sun Dec 3 15:45:09 2006 Subject: Parallels/Boot Camp questions In-Reply-To: References: <543056A7-D607-4CFA-9148-4FB441E24538@mac.com> Message-ID: <08872F18-7E04-4FB0-AB8D-DF9CB53AB365@objectwerks.com> On Dec 3, 2006, at 4:41 PM, Dave Schroeder wrote: > > On Dec 3, 2006, at 5:27 PM, Chad Leigh wrote: > >> >> On Dec 3, 2006, at 2:53 PM, Matt Johnston wrote: >> >>> >>> On 3 Dec 2006, at 19:23, David Zhou wrote: >>> >>>> But AFAIK, the Windows license allows VMs, so it's possible to >>>> active twice with the same copy of XP. >>> >>> Didn't Vista remove this? For all but Premium? >> >> Not if you read the license literally. It only applies to using a >> VM on the licensed device and OS X / Mac is not a licensed device >> until WinV is installed on it and you cannot install on it unless >> maybe using bootcamp. On explanation I read was to stop the same >> copy of windows from being the VM host and the OS running in the VM. > > That's what I thought to. Unfortunately that's not the case: > > http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/software/0,39044164,61969665,00.htm Then they have to re-write the license as the license does not say that. Chad > > ...and an exchange I had with Paul Thurrott, below. The bottom line > is that the restriction is arbitrary, and is probably designed to > prevent people from installing the low-cost versions of Vista in > virtual machine environments they don't understand, and then > expecting support directly from Microsoft for things that Microsoft > really isn't responsible for. > > - Dave > > ----- > > From: thurrott@gmail.com > Subject: RE: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing? > Date: October 23, 2006 8:34:07 AM CDT > To: das@doit.wisc.edu > > Yeah, that's what they told me. My guess is that they don't want > people > purchasing the low-cost versions, installing them on virtual machine > environments they don't understand (like Parallels) and then demanding > support. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Schroeder [mailto:das@doit.wisc.edu] > Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 9:31 AM > To: Paul Thurrott > Subject: Re: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing? > > So Microsoft actually does intend the EULA to prohibit someone from, > say, buying Vista Home as a retail box and then installing it in > Parallels Desktop on a Mac? (I know there is nothing technical > preventing that.) > > This still seems curious, given that in that scenario, not only does > Vista Ultimate allow VM use, but also includes an additional license > specifically so that same copy can be installed in a VM on the same > device. Why wouldn't Home's license allow a single instance of itself > to be used in a VM as long as it's not already installed somewhere > else? The language all revolves around "the software installed on the > licensed device", and I take that to mean the software *already* > installed on that device, but I suppose that could be argued to mean > that it can't be installed on *any* device where it would be used in > a virtualization environment... > > - Dave > > On Oct 23, 2006, at 8:23 AM, Paul Thurrott wrote: > >> Microsoft told me that the retail EULA forbids the installation of >> Windows >> Vista Home Basic or Home Premium in virtual machines. They said >> that if >> developers wanted to do this, they should get an MSDN >> subscription, which >> has a different license allowing such an install. All that said, >> there's >> nothing technical from preventing users from installing any Vista >> version in >> a virtual machine. >> >> Paul >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dave Schroeder [mailto:das@doit.wisc.edu] >> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 9:15 AM >> To: thurrott@windowsitpro.com >> Subject: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing? >> >> Paul, >> >> In reading about Vista virtualization, it occurred to me that all >> this may be a result of the incorrect interpretation of the EULA: >> >> Microsoft's Vista EULA says: >> >> "4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the >> software installed[1] on the licensed device[2] within a virtual (or >> otherwise emulated) hardware system." >> >> This means you can't use the *same* installation of Vista Home inside >> a virtualization technology on the "licensed device". >> >> This DOES NOT mean you can't use it by itself in a virtualization >> product on any platform. If that instance of Vista is not installed >> anywhere else, there is no preexisting "licensed device". >> >> The reason this is included in the EULA is because Vista Business and >> Ultimate actually include additional licenses specifically so the >> same license can be used to also run in a virtualization environment >> on the same device where Vista is already installed. >> >> The higher end versions of Vista actually include more in terms of >> virtualization licensing than any other commercial OS. >> >> In any case, by my reading, this means all versions of Vista can >> still be legally used standalone in a virtualized environment, such >> as Parallels or VMWare. >> >> [1] This means "the software" (i.e., Vista Home Basic or Premium) is >> already installed on a licensed device. >> >> [2] The "licensed device" is the device that Vista Home is already >> installed on, and that license may not be reused to also install it >> in a virtualization environment, which you CAN do with Vista Business >> and Ultimate, because Microsoft includes additional licenses >> specifically for virtualization use, which is why there are all these >> specifics about virtualization use on the lower end Vista versions in >> the EULA in the first place. >> >> Thoughts? From chad at objectwerks.com Sun Dec 3 15:51:48 2006 From: chad at objectwerks.com (Chad Leigh) Date: Sun Dec 3 15:51:51 2006 Subject: Parallels/Boot Camp questions In-Reply-To: <08872F18-7E04-4FB0-AB8D-DF9CB53AB365@objectwerks.com> References: <543056A7-D607-4CFA-9148-4FB441E24538@mac.com> <08872F18-7E04-4FB0-AB8D-DF9CB53AB365@objectwerks.com> Message-ID: <375CF1ED-015D-423F-8624-B27FA9030052@objectwerks.com> On Dec 3, 2006, at 4:45 PM, Chad Leigh wrote: > > On Dec 3, 2006, at 4:41 PM, Dave Schroeder wrote: > >> >> On Dec 3, 2006, at 5:27 PM, Chad Leigh wrote: >> >>> >>> On Dec 3, 2006, at 2:53 PM, Matt Johnston wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On 3 Dec 2006, at 19:23, David Zhou wrote: >>>> >>>>> But AFAIK, the Windows license allows VMs, so it's possible to >>>>> active twice with the same copy of XP. >>>> >>>> Didn't Vista remove this? For all but Premium? >>> >>> Not if you read the license literally. It only applies to using >>> a VM on the licensed device and OS X / Mac is not a licensed >>> device until WinV is installed on it and you cannot install on it >>> unless maybe using bootcamp. On explanation I read was to stop >>> the same copy of windows from being the VM host and the OS >>> running in the VM. >> >> That's what I thought to. Unfortunately that's not the case: >> >> http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/software/0,39044164,61969665,00.htm > > Then they have to re-write the license as the license does not say > that. > > Chad In other words, the binding terms are the license terms as they exist when you purchase the SW, not the interpretation of some MS drone on ZDNET or Mr Paul T. As long as they key it to running in a VM on the licensed device, as long as there is not a WinV installed on the machine itself in a runnable form, the Mac *cannot* be the licensed device as far a I can see and hence the prohibition wouldn't apply. IANALAIDPOOTV Chad From das at doit.wisc.edu Sun Dec 3 16:13:24 2006 From: das at doit.wisc.edu (Dave Schroeder) Date: Sun Dec 3 16:13:37 2006 Subject: Parallels/Boot Camp questions In-Reply-To: <375CF1ED-015D-423F-8624-B27FA9030052@objectwerks.com> References: <543056A7-D607-4CFA-9148-4FB441E24538@mac.com> <08872F18-7E04-4FB0-AB8D-DF9CB53AB365@objectwerks.com> <375CF1ED-015D-423F-8624-B27FA9030052@objectwerks.com> Message-ID: On Dec 3, 2006, at 5:51 PM, Chad Leigh wrote: > > On Dec 3, 2006, at 4:45 PM, Chad Leigh wrote: > >> >> On Dec 3, 2006, at 4:41 PM, Dave Schroeder wrote: >> >>> >>> On Dec 3, 2006, at 5:27 PM, Chad Leigh wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Dec 3, 2006, at 2:53 PM, Matt Johnston wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 3 Dec 2006, at 19:23, David Zhou wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> But AFAIK, the Windows license allows VMs, so it's possible to >>>>>> active twice with the same copy of XP. >>>>> >>>>> Didn't Vista remove this? For all but Premium? >>>> >>>> Not if you read the license literally. It only applies to using >>>> a VM on the licensed device and OS X / Mac is not a licensed >>>> device until WinV is installed on it and you cannot install on >>>> it unless maybe using bootcamp. On explanation I read was to >>>> stop the same copy of windows from being the VM host and the OS >>>> running in the VM. >>> >>> That's what I thought to. Unfortunately that's not the case: >>> >>> http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/software/0,39044164,61969665,00.htm >> >> Then they have to re-write the license as the license does not say >> that. >> >> Chad > > In other words, the binding terms are the license terms as they > exist when you purchase the SW, not the interpretation of some MS > drone on ZDNET or Mr Paul T. As long as they key it to running in > a VM on the licensed device, as long as there is not a WinV > installed on the machine itself in a runnable form, the Mac > *cannot* be the licensed device as far a I can see and hence the > prohibition wouldn't apply. > > IANALAIDPOOTV I'm not disagreeing with essentially what you're saying. But this has been heavily publicized and Microsoft has made several official public statements to the effect that virtualization is "not allowed" by the EULA for the Home versions of Vista (unless via MSDN). If Microsoft wants to make that clear, then they need to say that in the EULA. However, if Microsoft's intent is really to stop virtualization, then maybe rewriting the EULA is NOT a good idea, since as it stands, I certainly read it as allowing virtualization as long as the license isn't in use elsewhere. - Dave -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2380 bytes Desc: not available Url : /mailman/archive/macosx-talk/attachments/20061203/aef7a4a6/smime.bin From pelorus at mac.com Mon Dec 4 00:48:01 2006 From: pelorus at mac.com (Matt Johnston) Date: Mon Dec 4 00:47:36 2006 Subject: Parallels/Boot Camp questions In-Reply-To: <0C6A8FEC-5E57-4C17-8354-788D2C6B35B9@doit.wisc.edu> References: <543056A7-D607-4CFA-9148-4FB441E24538@mac.com> <0C6A8FEC-5E57-4C17-8354-788D2C6B35B9@doit.wisc.edu> Message-ID: <453690AD-B598-4D3D-BCF7-A9DCCCF4F2EC@mac.com> On 3 Dec 2006, at 23:36, Dave Schroeder wrote: > > On Dec 3, 2006, at 3:53 PM, Matt Johnston wrote: > >> >> On 3 Dec 2006, at 19:23, David Zhou wrote: >> >>> But AFAIK, the Windows license allows VMs, so it's possible to >>> active twice with the same copy of XP. >> >> Didn't Vista remove this? For all but Premium? > > It's much more complicated than this. Also, there is no such thing > as "Vista Premium"; there is "Vista Home Premium", I didn't have enough registers to hold ALL of the marketing names for "Windows Vista" at once. :) Thanks, Dave. Matt From jahergan at mac.com Tue Dec 5 07:30:11 2006 From: jahergan at mac.com (Jeffrey Hergan) Date: Tue Dec 5 07:30:21 2006 Subject: test delete Message-ID: <0bf5fff2db747907f73a3416ff92acd6@mac.com> From info at stevendewitt.ca Thu Dec 7 06:22:51 2006 From: info at stevendewitt.ca (Steven DeWitt) Date: Thu Dec 7 06:23:14 2006 Subject: Transferring Mail messages Message-ID: Hello, I have an iMac and an iBook and use Mail as my mail application. Until now, I have been using the iMac as my "main" e-mail workstation and then using the iBook to check e-mail periodically (I have Mail configured so that messages sit on my server until I have moved them out of the inbox on the iMac). Now however I want to start using my iBook as my main mail workstation. I can change the configuration so that messages sit on my server until I move them out of my inbox on the iBook instead, but is there a way to transfer all old messages sitting in folders on my iMac to my iBook? Thanks, Steven -- Steven DeWitt, C. Tran. (FR>EN, es>en, en>fr) Fredericton NB CANADA mail [at] stevendewitt [dot] ca From david at idiomatrix.com Sat Dec 9 04:53:04 2006 From: david at idiomatrix.com (David Herren) Date: Sat Dec 9 04:53:34 2006 Subject: mail.app using 85% + processor Message-ID: <7155DB7C-3F63-4759-ABF7-DA8F7E43386A@idiomatrix.com> For some reason, mail has started running wild on my my machine. Mark any message as spam, and the activity viewer shows "updating junk mail status of message 1 of 1" and top shows mail jumnping up to consuming nearly all the processor. The laptop starts to heat up and battery life drops. Mail becomes almost non-responsive at that point, and I have to force quit. I've reset my junk mail settings to see if that will help--didn't seem to. Like everyone, I've started receiving floods of spam in all my accounts so ironically resetting the junk mail status didn't cause an increase in spam hitting my in box--stayed about the same. Running 10.4.8 with all latest updates applied. Any ideas? /david -- david herren - shoreham, vt us na terra solsys orionarm "My administration has been calling upon all the leaders in the--in the Middle East to do everything they can to stop the violence, to tell the different parties involved that peace will never happen." -George W. Bush, Crawford, TX, Aug 13, 2001 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /mailman/archive/macosx-talk/attachments/20061209/7b71e696/attachment.html From scott at maxify.com Sun Dec 10 02:40:27 2006 From: scott at maxify.com (Scott Stevenson) Date: Sun Dec 10 02:40:46 2006 Subject: [Moderator] Test McTest-Test Message-ID: Hello. - Scott From kcall at mac.com Sun Dec 10 13:15:36 2006 From: kcall at mac.com (Kevin Callahan) Date: Sun Dec 10 13:15:52 2006 Subject: The Clicker: A sitdown with Microsoft's Joe Belfiore (Part I) - Engadget Message-ID: <26B667CC-DFB8-4E51-BBD5-8B808B03D06F@mac.com> does this mean Apple will have to partner with TiVO or somebody in order to compete? " ... It explains that soon after MS ships, Vista a media center PC will be able to take in encrypted cable directly to the PC negating the need for a cable box and allowing a pc to function as a DRV" From kcall at mac.com Sun Dec 10 15:39:07 2006 From: kcall at mac.com (Kevin Callahan) Date: Sun Dec 10 15:39:14 2006 Subject: iTV, cablecard, .n Message-ID: <07C82B5F-9112-4C24-88C6-E2E83C29893D@mac.com> Friends and family are asking me about using a Mac like the MS media center. I'm not familiar with the media center, but someone mentioned that Vista and the new media center will use "CableCARD" so that it can decrypt digital cable signal. Does anyone expect iTV to sport such a card? or is it expected that Apple will have us stick with TiVO or EyeTV and in some way get those files into Front Row? We all realize that the point of iTV is for any Mac user on the network to vend their digital media to the big screen. But, it's clear a lot of folks want their recorded shows (not just iTMS downloads) to seamlessly integrate with Front Row. also, is 802.11n a factor in the delay of iTV? it's odd that Apple showed iTV so far ahead of schedule. From larkost at softhome.net Mon Dec 11 12:22:11 2006 From: larkost at softhome.net (Karl Kuehn) Date: Mon Dec 11 12:49:08 2006 Subject: Transferring Mail messages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 7, 2006, at 9:22 AM, Steven DeWitt wrote: > I have an iMac and an iBook and use Mail as my mail application. > Until now, I have been using the iMac as my "main" e-mail > workstation and then using the iBook to check e-mail periodically > (I have Mail configured so that messages sit on my server until I > have moved them out of the inbox on the iMac). Now however I want > to start using my iBook as my main mail workstation. I can change > the configuration so that messages sit on my server until I move > them out of my inbox on the iBook instead, but is there a way to > transfer all old messages sitting in folders on my iMac to my iBook? For this sort of setup I would strongly suggest that you look around for an email provider that provides IMAP service with a good mailbox quota. If you get that, then the only difference between your primary and secondary (or any other) computers is that your primary would be the one to hold your email archives (to reduce used space on the server). I actually run my own email server so that I have effectively unlimited space on my personal email. I even use it to archive work emails so that I don't overrun my quote at work. -- Karl Kuehn larkost@softhome.net From kcall at mac.com Mon Dec 11 12:32:52 2006 From: kcall at mac.com (Kevin Callahan) Date: Mon Dec 11 12:50:21 2006 Subject: [Moderator] Test McTest-Test In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A632D60-E526-49BB-A47C-E8C435BD184F@mac.com> On Dec 10, 2006, at 2:40 AM, Scott Stevenson wrote: > Hello. > > - Scott hello back Kevin Callahan http://www.kevincallahan.org/ http://www.kevincallahan.org/software/accessorizer.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /mailman/archive/macosx-talk/attachments/20061211/c7b5f9a1/attachment.html From david at nodnod.net Mon Dec 11 12:24:21 2006 From: david at nodnod.net (David Zhou) Date: Mon Dec 11 12:51:34 2006 Subject: Transferring Mail messages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <85E6DA93-C447-41D0-AAB3-65737B7B9431@nodnod.net> On Dec 7, 2006, at 9:22 AM, Steven DeWitt wrote: > but is there a way to transfer all old messages sitting in folders > on my iMac to my iBook? What I've always done in the past is to just copy the ~/Library/Mail folder wholesale to the new computer. As well as any preferces in ~/ Library/preferences. --- David Zhou david@nodnod.net From joar at joar.com Mon Dec 11 12:36:58 2006 From: joar at joar.com (j o a r) Date: Mon Dec 11 12:55:21 2006 Subject: iTV, cablecard, .n In-Reply-To: <07C82B5F-9112-4C24-88C6-E2E83C29893D@mac.com> References: <07C82B5F-9112-4C24-88C6-E2E83C29893D@mac.com> Message-ID: On 11 dec 2006, at 00.39, Kevin Callahan wrote: > or is it expected that Apple will have us stick with TiVO or EyeTV > and in some way get those files into Front Row? I wouldn't expect for iTV to be anything but an extension of iTunes (and the whole QT + iTMS platform), just like the AirPort Express is for audio content. > We all realize that the point of iTV is for any Mac user on the > network to vend their digital media to the big screen. I would be _seriously_ surprised if it didn't work with both Mac + Windows! Again, just like iTunes, iTMS and the AirPort Express. > But, it's clear a lot of folks want their recorded shows (not just > iTMS downloads) to seamlessly integrate with Front Row. Anything that can be played in QuickTime can be played in Front Row, right? I would guess that the same thing holds true for iTV. Steve likes his home video projects, so I'm sure you will be able to play more than iTMS downloads through the iTV. > also, is 802.11n a factor in the delay of iTV? it's odd that > Apple showed iTV so far ahead of schedule. I think that 802.11n could be a part of the delay, but it's probably not the whole reason. Apples difficulties in getting more partners providing video content to iTMS is more likely at the core. j o a r From das at doit.wisc.edu Mon Dec 11 13:11:56 2006 From: das at doit.wisc.edu (Dave Schroeder) Date: Mon Dec 11 13:12:40 2006 Subject: iTV, cablecard, .n In-Reply-To: <07C82B5F-9112-4C24-88C6-E2E83C29893D@mac.com> References: <07C82B5F-9112-4C24-88C6-E2E83C29893D@mac.com> Message-ID: <97EEDB87-3309-4691-9F4B-7B5FEF3B8C20@doit.wisc.edu> On Dec 10, 2006, at 5:39 PM, Kevin Callahan wrote: > Friends and family are asking me about using a Mac like the MS > media center. I'm not familiar with the media center, but someone > mentioned that Vista and the new media center will use "CableCARD" > so that it can decrypt digital cable signal. > > Does anyone expect iTV to sport such a card? > > > > > > or is it expected that Apple will have us stick with TiVO or EyeTV > and in some way get those files into Front Row? iTV will definitely not have CableCARD or any kind of TV recording capability. Apple's model is iTMS downloads. TV recording is a nightmare, specifically because of the tuning aspect. And even if you get CableCARD, CableCARD 1.x sucks completely and doesn't even have a program guide (granted, this could be done online), and even if you go CableCARD 2.x, what do you do about Dish Network and DirecTV? And that's only the US marketplace. I believe Apple doesn't even want to wade into this, and Jobs himself said in a CNBC interview something to the effect that tuning cable and satellite TV the world over was a rat's nest. Microsoft is trying to go the DVR route, and frankly, it hasn't been that successful thus far. > We all realize that the point of iTV is for any Mac user on the > network to vend their digital media to the big screen. But, it's > clear a lot of folks want their recorded shows (not just iTMS > downloads) to seamlessly integrate with Front Row. > > also, is 802.11n a factor in the delay of iTV? it's odd that > Apple showed iTV so far ahead of schedule. If it does indeed feature 802.11n, perhaps. It is odd that Apple showed it in advance, but I think it was really required for analysts to be able to see how Apple was planning on pulling together this iTMS strategy with the living room. - Dave -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2380 bytes Desc: not available Url : /mailman/archive/macosx-talk/attachments/20061211/2ce0ab20/smime.bin From joar at joar.com Mon Dec 11 13:18:35 2006 From: joar at joar.com (j o a r) Date: Mon Dec 11 13:18:44 2006 Subject: Transferring Mail messages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <638DF717-4D6D-4898-8656-F9F81DBB0688@joar.com> On 11 dec 2006, at 21.22, Karl Kuehn wrote: >> I have an iMac and an iBook and use Mail as my mail application. >> Until now, I have been using the iMac as my "main" e-mail >> workstation and then using the iBook to check e-mail periodically >> (I have Mail configured so that messages sit on my server until I >> have moved them out of the inbox on the iMac). Now however I want >> to start using my iBook as my main mail workstation. I can change >> the configuration so that messages sit on my server until I move >> them out of my inbox on the iBook instead, but is there a way to >> transfer all old messages sitting in folders on my iMac to my iBook? > > For this sort of setup I would strongly suggest that you look > around for an email provider that provides IMAP service with a good > mailbox quota. If you get that, then the only difference between > your primary and secondary (or any other) computers is that your > primary would be the one to hold your email archives (to reduce > used space on the server). I just got this same question from a friend of mine. The problem in his case is that he is a graphics designer and photographer, so he has HUGE mailboxes - which, of course, makes the suggestion to use IMAP impractical / impossible, unless you run your own server. Any solutions for keeping two copies of Mail in sync without using IMAP? I'm hoping that he will end up using Mail only on his new MacBook Pro, and not on his desktop, but it seems like a silly limitation, and a problem without a simple and reliably solution... :-( It would of course be possible to hack something together using rsync, but that's not something I would personally be interested in either developing or supporting... I'm looking for something more reliable, preferably with proper support. BTW: If anyone is interested in running their own IMAP mailserver for home use, check out the new "Community Edition" of the Communigate Pro mail server: Communigate Pro is a great piece of software - extremely reliable, capable, and easy to administrate. That you can now get their 5-user version for free is pretty cool. j o a r From das at doit.wisc.edu Mon Dec 11 13:19:31 2006 From: das at doit.wisc.edu (Dave Schroeder) Date: Mon Dec 11 13:20:13 2006 Subject: iTV, cablecard, .n In-Reply-To: References: <07C82B5F-9112-4C24-88C6-E2E83C29893D@mac.com> Message-ID: On Dec 11, 2006, at 2:36 PM, j o a r wrote: > > On 11 dec 2006, at 00.39, Kevin Callahan wrote: > >> or is it expected that Apple will have us stick with TiVO or EyeTV >> and in some way get those files into Front Row? > > I wouldn't expect for iTV to be anything but an extension of iTunes > (and the whole QT + iTMS platform), just like the AirPort Express > is for audio content. Exactly. iTV will definitely work with any iTunes-capable computer, Mac or Windows. >> We all realize that the point of iTV is for any Mac user on the >> network to vend their digital media to the big screen. > > I would be _seriously_ surprised if it didn't work with both Mac + > Windows! Again, just like iTunes, iTMS and the AirPort Express. Definitely. >> But, it's clear a lot of folks want their recorded shows (not just >> iTMS downloads) to seamlessly integrate with Front Row. > > Anything that can be played in QuickTime can be played in Front > Row, right? I would guess that the same thing holds true for iTV. > Steve likes his home video projects, so I'm sure you will be able > to play more than iTMS downloads through the iTV. iTV will definitely support H.264 (and probably MPEG-4, and possibly any media that QuickTime can play or understand from any source), as long as iTunes is aware of it (i.e., in the iTunes library). I don't see how they'd be able to do this any other way. It definitely won't only be able to play purchased iTMS content. Essentially, iTV will be able to play/display any media that is in any iLife application (or iTunes on Windows) from any source. >> also, is 802.11n a factor in the delay of iTV? it's odd that >> Apple showed iTV so far ahead of schedule. > > I think that 802.11n could be a part of the delay, but it's > probably not the whole reason. > Apples difficulties in getting more partners providing video > content to iTMS is more likely at the core. Agreed. Apple needs more video content, and it's kind of a Catch-22. They need content to drive sales, and they need sales to drive content. In the meantime, they hope to capitalize on the success of the music/audio portion of iTunes - and remember how that started out? (On the flip side, it did start out small, but they also were able to sign up all the big labels from the beginning - they weren't able to do that with the movie houses. However, they've got pretty much all the major TV studios/channels on board; what this comes down to is the content owners trying to ensure that they get as much money from as many sources as possible. Even if it's not exclusive to iTMS, I hope Apple is able to solidify agreements with all the major movie houses. If they don't, the movie portion of iTMS could *really* suck.) - Dave -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2380 bytes Desc: not available Url : /mailman/archive/macosx-talk/attachments/20061211/d45b8a97/smime.bin From pelorus at mac.com Mon Dec 11 12:23:21 2006 From: pelorus at mac.com (Matt Johnston) Date: Mon Dec 11 13:20:30 2006 Subject: Transferring Mail messages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 7 Dec 2006, at 14:22, Steven DeWitt wrote: > Hello, > > I have an iMac and an iBook and use Mail as my mail application. > Until now, I have been using the iMac as my "main" e-mail > workstation and then using the iBook to check e-mail periodically (I > have Mail configured so that messages sit on my server until I have > moved them out of the inbox on the iMac). Now however I want to > start using my iBook as my main mail workstation. I can change the > configuration so that messages sit on my server until I move them > out of my inbox on the iBook instead, but is there a way to transfer > all old messages sitting in folders on my iMac to my iBook? I just move the following across ~/Library/Mail ~/Library/Mail Downloads ~/Library/Preferences/com.apple.Mail.plist From kcall at mac.com Mon Dec 11 13:22:10 2006 From: kcall at mac.com (Kevin Callahan) Date: Mon Dec 11 13:22:25 2006 Subject: iTV, cablecard, .n In-Reply-To: References: <07C82B5F-9112-4C24-88C6-E2E83C29893D@mac.com> Message-ID: <50033C5B-BB0D-4A7A-BE87-4A246D393CD2@mac.com> On Dec 11, 2006, at 12:36 PM, j o a r wrote: > > On 11 dec 2006, at 00.39, Kevin Callahan wrote: > >> or is it expected that Apple will have us stick with TiVO or EyeTV >> and in some way get those files into Front Row? > > I wouldn't expect for iTV to be anything but an extension of iTunes > (and the whole QT + iTMS platform), just like the AirPort Express > is for audio content. that's my guess as well, as it's what Steve demoed > >> We all realize that the point of iTV is for any Mac user on the >> network to vend their digital media to the big screen. > > I would be _seriously_ surprised if it didn't work with both Mac + > Windows! Again, just like iTunes, iTMS and the AirPort Express. oh -no doubt it will work for Windows as well > >> But, it's clear a lot of folks want their recorded shows (not just >> iTMS downloads) to seamlessly integrate with Front Row. > > Anything that can be played in QuickTime can be played in Front > Row, right? I would guess that the same thing holds true for iTV. > Steve likes his home video projects, so I'm sure you will be able > to play more than iTMS downloads through the iTV. We recently bought EyeTV - mostly so that we can view things commercial free. It has its own "Front Row" look-a-like interface, but it's not integrated with Apple's Front Row. I'm hoping Elgato can figure out a way to make their live TV and their recorded material interface nicely with iTunes and Front Row - and that's what some of us are hoping will be the case. The current solution is not great: something recorded in EyeTV can be viewed through the EyeTV software (and through CyTV and VLC, displayed on other machines on the network - albeit unreliably), but not via iTunes or Front Row - * unless you first tag the recorded material to be converted to iPod format and copied to your movies playlist in iTunes so that FrontRow can play it. You can manually export to other video formats and manually add the result to iTunes, but ... The export and conversion process can be VERY, VERY long and processor intensive (and I'm not doing HD). Right now, the combination of media residing in different places (iTunes and Elgato) and figuring out what app you're supposed to use to view the material is not cool . Assuming TV is part of the media experience, just adding iTV to my scenario does nothing to improve it. There has to be some coupling in terms of software, at least, to make it a one-stop media center. I can see that Apple's iTV is really just AE plus video and photos with iTMS integration. But what's missing is the interfacing with live and recorded TV. While much of TV material sucks, there's a fair share of documentaries, travel, music, history ... and other subjects that sometimes need to be timeshifted - and it would be nice if there were one interface to one's media. I guess that's what MS is trying to do by offering integrated digital TV. Maybe all that's needed is for Elgato's EyeTV software to provide for better automated conversion and export ? so that the process becomes more transparent? In any event, it sounds like a Mac media center (that includes TV) will require some third party integration to make it all happen. I was trying to get friend interested in buying a Mac mini with Front Row - he went to the Apple store to test drive a setup, but he ended up spending nearly 5.5K on a Windows media center - said it was because everything was integrated - tuner, music, videos, photos etc. He did say it doesn't work very well, however. > >> also, is 802.11n a factor in the delay of iTV? it's odd that >> Apple showed iTV so far ahead of schedule. > > I think that 802.11n could be a part of the delay, but it's > probably not the whole reason. > Apples difficulties in getting more partners providing video > content to iTMS is more likely at the core. makes sense K > > j o a r > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /mailman/archive/macosx-talk/attachments/20061211/ac8801f9/attachment.html From bentley at crenelle.com Mon Dec 11 13:39:28 2006 From: bentley at crenelle.com (Michael Brian Bentley) Date: Mon Dec 11 14:26:32 2006 Subject: iTV, cablecard, .n In-Reply-To: <50033C5B-BB0D-4A7A-BE87-4A246D393CD2@mac.com> References: <07C82B5F-9112-4C24-88C6-E2E83C29893D@mac.com> <50033C5B-BB0D-4A7A-BE87-4A246D393CD2@mac.com> Message-ID: Can anyone who has played an HD movie downloaded from iTMS tell me that you get bona fide HD resolution? -m From jearle at gmail.com Mon Dec 11 14:15:12 2006 From: jearle at gmail.com (Jared Earle) Date: Mon Dec 11 14:41:23 2006 Subject: Transferring Mail messages In-Reply-To: <638DF717-4D6D-4898-8656-F9F81DBB0688@joar.com> References: <638DF717-4D6D-4898-8656-F9F81DBB0688@joar.com> Message-ID: <5bbc0cd60612111415m79b3990ao410fdd6f2cfc2180@mail.gmail.com> On 12/11/06, j o a r wrote: > Any solutions for keeping two copies of Mail in sync without using IMAP? Oh, damn, you want us to walk, but without using legs? You know that this is precisely what IMAP is for, though. I'm afraid that if you can't use the standard, you're going to have to botch something together, which is never good. -- Jared Earle :: There is no SPORK jearle@gmail.com :: http://www.23x.net The Spodcast :: http://spodcast.org From joar at joar.com Mon Dec 11 15:05:09 2006 From: joar at joar.com (j o a r) Date: Mon Dec 11 15:06:57 2006 Subject: Transferring Mail messages In-Reply-To: <5bbc0cd60612111415m79b3990ao410fdd6f2cfc2180@mail.gmail.com> References: <638DF717-4D6D-4898-8656-F9F81DBB0688@joar.com> <5bbc0cd60612111415m79b3990ao410fdd6f2cfc2180@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0D77BA67-0F1B-4106-9FBD-AFC9F811FF85@joar.com> On 11 dec 2006, at 23.15, Jared Earle wrote: > Oh, damn, you want us to walk, but without using legs? You know that > this is precisely what IMAP is for, though. I agree; IMAP is great, and with your own server you can use it for any amount of email - but not everyone is cut out to be an email admin... > I'm afraid that if you can't use the standard, you're going to have to > botch something together, which is never good. OK, I was hoping for something geared specifically for synchronizing files and folders. Seems like there should be something in that segment that's both easy to use, and super reliable. Thanx, j o a r From joar at joar.com Mon Dec 11 14:06:32 2006 From: joar at joar.com (j o a r) Date: Mon Dec 11 15:07:43 2006 Subject: iTV, cablecard, .n In-Reply-To: <50033C5B-BB0D-4A7A-BE87-4A246D393CD2@mac.com> References: <07C82B5F-9112-4C24-88C6-E2E83C29893D@mac.com> <50033C5B-BB0D-4A7A-BE87-4A246D393CD2@mac.com> Message-ID: <27F490E4-B153-469A-A6EB-CA8B5C865662@joar.com> On 11 dec 2006, at 22.22, Kevin Callahan wrote: > We recently bought EyeTV - mostly so that we can view things > commercial free. It has its own "Front Row" look-a-like interface, > but it's not integrated with Apple's Front Row. Have you tried MediaCentral? Unfortunately not compatible with EyeTV (as far as I can tell). > I was trying to get friend interested in buying a Mac mini with > Front Row - he went to the Apple store to test drive a setup, but > he ended up spending nearly 5.5K on a Windows media center - said > it was because everything was integrated - tuner, music, videos, > photos etc. He did say it doesn't work very well, however. That's always the case, isn't it... ;-) I made the mistake of buying a D-Link WiFi base station a while back. It was for a small company with both Windows and Mac users. I figured that it might be a tad more difficult to set up, but that it would be cheaper and more capable. It turned out to be a complete nightmare with a crappy web interface, and in the end plain didn't work. I ended up getting an AirPort Express instead. Up and running in 5 minutes of course. Lesson learned. What's wrong with most (all?) companies not affiliated with the Mac platform? What they think is "good enough" isn't. This line of thought made me remember an old blog post by John Gruber: There are a lot of clever observations in that article, but I can't agree with everything, for example: "Mac OS X is better than Windows if you care about user interface design; if you don?t, though, it?s just different, not better." It's not just about the UI! It's about soul, culture, love, respect and responsibility. Anyway - I'm off on a tangent now for sure... Better quit before I get smacked down by the list mom. j o a r From charles.dyer at gmail.com Mon Dec 11 15:39:59 2006 From: charles.dyer at gmail.com (Charles Dyer) Date: Mon Dec 11 15:40:17 2006 Subject: More compatible that Microsoft? Message-ID: <94A854C4-6CF9-449C-9449-0E993EF6B983@gmail.com> If this is true, it appears that Apple software (apparently TextEdit) will be able to read MS Office 2007 files before Microsoft Office for Mac. One wonders if Pages and Keynote will also read Office 2007. One further wonders if Apple will finally release a spreadsheet as part of iWork 07, and if that will read Excel 2007 files. If one wanted to be sarky (who, me?) one might wonder if FileMaker will read Access 2007 files. One might also wonder if Apple might release iWork 07 Pro, bundling iWork 07 (with, please, a spreadsheet) and FileMaker. If there's a spreadsheet in iWork 07 I'll buy it. If FileMaker, or at least some kind of reasonable database system, is bundled in, the sonic bang you hear will be me getting out my _corporate_ credit card, and not just my personal card. From rogerhoward at rogerroger.org Mon Dec 11 15:39:36 2006 From: rogerhoward at rogerroger.org (rogerhoward@rogerroger.org) Date: Mon Dec 11 15:40:30 2006 Subject: iTV, cablecard, .n In-Reply-To: References: <07C82B5F-9112-4C24-88C6-E2E83C29893D@mac.com> Message-ID: On Dec 11, 2006, at 12:36 PM, j o a r wrote: >> But, it's clear a lot of folks want their recorded shows (not just >> iTMS downloads) to seamlessly integrate with Front Row. > > Anything that can be played in QuickTime can be played in Front > Row, right? I would guess that the same thing holds true for iTV. > Steve likes his home video projects, so I'm sure you will be able > to play more than iTMS downloads through the iTV. Front Row has access to the complete Quicktime stack. Unless the iTV is a repackaged Mac Mini, I would seriously doubt that *anything* that can be played in Front Row will be playable on iTV. Granted most people just think simple video/audio when they think Quicktime, but QT playback on Mac and Windows supports far, far more, and I'd be shocked to ever see all that functionality available on a device like iTV. More likely, we'll see a subset of what's playable in Quicktime - more like iTV will support what iPod supports (and perhaps extended to support higher resolution). Best -Rh From kcall at mac.com Mon Dec 11 15:54:34 2006 From: kcall at mac.com (Kevin Callahan) Date: Mon Dec 11 15:54:39 2006 Subject: iTV, cablecard, .n In-Reply-To: References: <07C82B5F-9112-4C24-88C6-E2E83C29893D@mac.com> Message-ID: <7300F629-AA32-4CA1-A55D-BA29497B40B3@mac.com> On Dec 11, 2006, at 3:39 PM, rogerhoward@rogerroger.org wrote: > > On Dec 11, 2006, at 12:36 PM, j o a r wrote: > > >>> But, it's clear a lot of folks want their recorded shows (not >>> just iTMS downloads) to seamlessly integrate with Front Row. >> >> Anything that can be played in QuickTime can be played in Front >> Row, right? I would guess that the same thing holds true for iTV. >> Steve likes his home video projects, so I'm sure you will be able >> to play more than iTMS downloads through the iTV. > > Front Row has access to the complete Quicktime stack. Unless the > iTV is a repackaged Mac Mini, I would seriously doubt that > *anything* that can be played in Front Row will be playable on iTV. > Granted most people just think simple video/audio when they think > Quicktime, but QT playback on Mac and Windows supports far, far > more, and I'd be shocked to ever see all that functionality > available on a device like iTV. More likely, we'll see a subset of > what's playable in Quicktime - more like iTV will support what iPod > supports (and perhaps extended to support higher resolution). > > Best -Rh i bet you're right on the money From shawnce at gmail.com Mon Dec 11 16:03:44 2006 From: shawnce at gmail.com (Shawn Erickson) Date: Mon Dec 11 16:03:53 2006 Subject: iTV, cablecard, .n In-Reply-To: <7300F629-AA32-4CA1-A55D-BA29497B40B3@mac.com> References: <07C82B5F-9112-4C24-88C6-E2E83C29893D@mac.com> <7300F629-AA32-4CA1-A55D-BA29497B40B3@mac.com> Message-ID: On 12/11/06, Kevin Callahan wrote: > > On Dec 11, 2006, at 3:39 PM, rogerhoward@rogerroger.org wrote: > > > > > On Dec 11, 2006, at 12:36 PM, j o a r wrote: > > > >>> But, it's clear a lot of folks want their recorded shows (not > >>> just iTMS downloads) to seamlessly integrate with Front Row. > >> > >> Anything that can be played in QuickTime can be played in Front > >> Row, right? I would guess that the same thing holds true for iTV. > >> Steve likes his home video projects, so I'm sure you will be able > >> to play more than iTMS downloads through the iTV. > > > > Front Row has access to the complete Quicktime stack. Unless the > > iTV is a repackaged Mac Mini, I would seriously doubt that > > *anything* that can be played in Front Row will be playable on iTV. Well if Apple did something like what they did with the Airport Express it may well be able to play "anything" that QuickTime/iTunes can play. The Airport Express basically supports an encrypted Apple Lossless audio stream with iTunes (running on your computer) decoding whatever you are playing and re-encoding it in Apple Lossless before being sent off to the Airport Express. In theory Apple could do a similar thing with video streams (CPU bandwidth may be a limiter to this however). ...of course this assumes that the iTV is on "dumber" end of the hardware spectrum. -Shawn From scott at maxify.com Mon Dec 11 16:25:49 2006 From: scott at maxify.com (Scott Stevenson) Date: Mon Dec 11 16:30:11 2006 Subject: mail.app using 85% + processor In-Reply-To: <7155DB7C-3F63-4759-ABF7-DA8F7E43386A@idiomatrix.com> References: <7155DB7C-3F63-4759-ABF7-DA8F7E43386A@idiomatrix.com> Message-ID: <3194B02C-4C1F-46F1-8CA5-F82CB90439D3@maxify.com> On Dec 9, 2006, at 4:53 AM, David Herren wrote: > For some reason, mail has started running wild on my my machine. > Mark any message as spam, and the activity viewer shows "updating > junk mail status of message 1 of 1" and top shows mail jumnping up > to consuming nearly all the processor. The laptop starts to heat up > and battery life drops. Mail becomes almost non-responsive at that > point, and I have to force quit. If you have the developer tools installed, try running Spin Control. It should detect Mail running wild and record some information about it. Depending on how much you know about programming, it might help you deduce what's going on. If not, maybe you can post a small (very small) snippet of the output to the list. Often the functions are named something reasonable enough to tell you what might be happening. - Scott From rogerhoward at rogerroger.org Mon Dec 11 16:11:18 2006 From: rogerhoward at rogerroger.org (rogerhoward@rogerroger.org) Date: Mon Dec 11 17:17:16 2006 Subject: iTV, cablecard, .n In-Reply-To: References: <07C82B5F-9112-4C24-88C6-E2E83C29893D@mac.com> <7300F629-AA32-4CA1-A55D-BA29497B40B3@mac.com> Message-ID: <5DFB293F-72B6-471F-965E-A60FDF231947@rogerroger.org> On Dec 11, 2006, at 4:03 PM, Shawn Erickson wrote: > On 12/11/06, Kevin Callahan wrote: >> >> On Dec 11, 2006, at 3:39 PM, rogerhoward@rogerroger.org wrote: >> >> > >> > On Dec 11, 2006, at 12:36 PM, j o a r wrote: >> > >> >>> But, it's clear a lot of folks want their recorded shows (not >> >>> just iTMS downloads) to seamlessly integrate with Front Row. >> >> >> >> Anything that can be played in QuickTime can be played in Front >> >> Row, right? I would guess that the same thing holds true for iTV. >> >> Steve likes his home video projects, so I'm sure you will be able >> >> to play more than iTMS downloads through the iTV. >> > >> > Front Row has access to the complete Quicktime stack. Unless the >> > iTV is a repackaged Mac Mini, I would seriously doubt that >> > *anything* that can be played in Front Row will be playable on iTV. > > Well if Apple did something like what they did with the Airport > Express it may well be able to play "anything" that QuickTime/iTunes > can play. The Airport Express basically supports an encrypted Apple > Lossless audio stream with iTunes (running on your computer) decoding > whatever you are playing and re-encoding it in Apple Lossless before > being sent off to the Airport Express. In theory Apple could do a > similar thing with video streams (CPU bandwidth may be a limiter to > this however). ...of course this assumes that the iTV is on "dumber" > end of the hardware spectrum. Sorry if I wasn't more clear, but there is a vast amount of functionality present in Quicktime that cannot be replicated on Airport Express either. Just a few examples: - Sprites - Interactivity - Flash tracks - Quicktime VR panorama and object movies - Text tracks (closed captions, etc) - Multiple audio tracks - Movie-in-movie - Dynamically loaded content - Quartz Composer compositions Anyway, as I said I'd fully expect the iTV to play anything that the iPod can, with the addition of higher resolutions. But to say it'll support anything that Quicktime can play is ignoring a huge amount of functionality possible in Quicktime content. Suggesting the same for Airport Express just demonstrates how poorly Apple has defined Quicktime, as this is a pretty technical crowd. Cheers -Rh From pelorus at mac.com Mon Dec 11 23:59:58 2006 From: pelorus at mac.com (Matt Johnston) Date: Tue Dec 12 00:00:20 2006 Subject: iTV, cablecard, .n In-Reply-To: References: <07C82B5F-9112-4C24-88C6-E2E83C29893D@mac.com> Message-ID: On 11 Dec 2006, at 23:39, rogerhoward@rogerroger.org wrote: > Front Row has access to the complete Quicktime stack. Unless the iTV > is a repackaged Mac Mini, I would seriously doubt that *anything* > that can be played in Front Row will be playable on iTV. Granted > most people just think simple video/audio when they think Quicktime, > but QT playback on Mac and Windows supports far, far more, and I'd > be shocked to ever see all that functionality available on a device > like iTV. More likely, we'll see a subset of what's playable in > Quicktime - more like iTV will support what iPod supports (and > perhaps extended to support higher resolution). Ah, but iTunes converts the AAC, WAV, MP3 files in itunes to a standard format (Apple Lossless) for the Airport Express. I would have thought that the iTV would essentially do the same. Course it would mean a lot of processing on the client side..... M From joar at joar.com Tue Dec 12 09:01:51 2006 From: joar at joar.com (j o a r) Date: Tue Dec 12 09:02:09 2006 Subject: iTV, cablecard, .n In-Reply-To: References: <07C82B5F-9112-4C24-88C6-E2E83C29893D@mac.com> Message-ID: <393CAAAB-4B65-4839-8899-77204F33605E@joar.com> On 12 dec 2006, at 08.59, Matt Johnston wrote: > I would have thought that the iTV would essentially do the same. > Course it would mean a lot of processing on the client side..... Ouch. I hope they have something better in mind. If they for example were to support a fair share of the more common standard video formats, a re-encode would be an exception rather than the rule. I don't see why they shouldn't be able to support multiple video formats, even if I agree with Roger that supporting *everything* that QT supports would be both difficult and mostly pointless. j o a r From info at stevendewitt.ca Tue Dec 12 11:31:22 2006 From: info at stevendewitt.ca (Steven DeWitt) Date: Tue Dec 12 11:31:37 2006 Subject: Transferring Mail messages In-Reply-To: <0D77BA67-0F1B-4106-9FBD-AFC9F811FF85@joar.com> References: <638DF717-4D6D-4898-8656-F9F81DBB0688@joar.com> <5bbc0cd60612111415m79b3990ao410fdd6f2cfc2180@mail.gmail.com> <0D77BA67-0F1B-4106-9FBD-AFC9F811FF85@joar.com> Message-ID: Many thanks to all for the explanations -- I am fine with copying over the folders for now, that's exactly what I was looking for. Cheers, Steven From rogerhoward at rogerroger.org Tue Dec 12 12:22:44 2006 From: rogerhoward at rogerroger.org (Roger Howard) Date: Tue Dec 12 12:22:59 2006 Subject: iTV, cablecard, .n In-Reply-To: <393CAAAB-4B65-4839-8899-77204F33605E@joar.com> References: <07C82B5F-9112-4C24-88C6-E2E83C29893D@mac.com> <393CAAAB-4B65-4839-8899-77204F33605E@joar.com> Message-ID: <49241.216.163.143.130.1165954964.squirrel@webmail.rogerroger.org> On Tue, December 12, 2006 9:01 am, j o a r wrote: > > On 12 dec 2006, at 08.59, Matt Johnston wrote: > >> I would have thought that the iTV would essentially do the same. >> Course it would mean a lot of processing on the client side..... > > Ouch. I hope they have something better in mind. If they for example > were to support a fair share of the more common standard video > formats, a re-encode would be an exception rather than the rule. Same here; it would be a major flop if it required realtime transcoding of video. It works for audio because they are transcoding to a very computationally easy (and thus bandwidth unfriendly) audio format; to do something similar with video you'd be transcoding to something like PNG or even Photo JPEG codecs, but then there's no way you'd be streaming those. To transcode in realtime to a stream-friendly video format just for playback would be a not-insignificant CPU load and quality hit. I think it would be far more likely (and reasonable) to natively support (on the iTV) the most popular subset of the video/audio codecs in Quicktimes and stream them without any transcoding. > > I don't see why they shouldn't be able to support multiple video > formats, even if I agree with Roger that supporting *everything* that > QT supports would be both difficult and mostly pointless. Yep, I just wanted to make the point clear that supporting *anything* that plays in Frontrow/Quicktime is unrealistic, and probably not favorable from a cost/benefit perspective. In most cases it also wouldn't make sense - what would an iTV do with interactive Quicktime content designed for mouse/kbd control? From joar at joar.com Wed Dec 13 15:59:50 2006 From: joar at joar.com (j o a r) Date: Wed Dec 13 16:00:39 2006 Subject: iTV, cablecard, .n In-Reply-To: <49241.216.163.143.130.1165954964.squirrel@webmail.rogerroger.org> References: <07C82B5F-9112-4C24-88C6-E2E83C29893D@mac.com> <393CAAAB-4B65-4839-8899-77204F33605E@joar.com> <49241.216.163.143.130.1165954964.squirrel@webmail.rogerroger.org> Message-ID: On 12 dec 2006, at 21.22, Roger Howard wrote: >> I don't see why they shouldn't be able to support multiple video >> formats, even if I agree with Roger that supporting *everything* that >> QT supports would be both difficult and mostly pointless. > > Yep, I just wanted to make the point clear that supporting > *anything* that > plays in Frontrow/Quicktime is unrealistic, and probably not favorable > from a cost/benefit perspective. In most cases it also wouldn't > make sense > - what would an iTV do with interactive Quicktime content designed for > mouse/kbd control? Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple were to add more things to the iTV. Simple games for example - Just like on the iPod. j o a r From scott at maxify.com Wed Dec 13 16:14:48 2006 From: scott at maxify.com (Scott Stevenson) Date: Wed Dec 13 17:15:26 2006 Subject: OmniPlan is Out Message-ID: http://www.omnigroup.com/applications/omniplan/ - Scott From pcoskren at mac.com Wed Dec 13 17:17:43 2006 From: pcoskren at mac.com (Patrick Coskren) Date: Wed Dec 13 17:18:35 2006 Subject: OmniPlan is Out In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <64D9CC40-D41B-4EE5-80B8-5978ADB50809@mac.com> On Dec 13, 2006, at 7:14 PM, Scott Stevenson wrote: > http://www.omnigroup.com/applications/omniplan/ Have people tried the betas? What did you all think? -Patrick From kcall at mac.com Wed Dec 13 20:26:47 2006 From: kcall at mac.com (Kevin Callahan) Date: Wed Dec 13 20:26:51 2006 Subject: Apple Remote: MUTE Message-ID: I just picked up a new MBPro and am wondering how I make the Apple remote MUTE audio ? is there a way? Thanks K From lists at quernstone.com Thu Dec 14 02:44:31 2006 From: lists at quernstone.com (Jonathan Sanderson) Date: Thu Dec 14 02:44:54 2006 Subject: OmniPlan is Out In-Reply-To: <64D9CC40-D41B-4EE5-80B8-5978ADB50809@mac.com> References: <64D9CC40-D41B-4EE5-80B8-5978ADB50809@mac.com> Message-ID: <963F0A8E-02A6-4F93-8A87-6F6717EBD5FB@quernstone.com> On 14 Dec 2006, at 01:17, Patrick Coskren wrote: > Have people tried the betas? What did you all think? Mostly, I rather liked it. I found some aspects of the model confusing, but I think that's unfamiliarity on my part rather than deficiency in the app. I can't help thinking it's a missed opportunity, however, in that appears to be a project management app in exactly the same manner as Merlin, MS Project, et al. If you want Gantt charts and percentage completion tracking, you're in. I was after something slightly different, but if you're after a substitute for MS Project, I'd say OmniPlan was worth a look. For my purposes I'd rather have a calendar view - what I really want is a calendaring app with conditional events ('you can't do that before you've done this') and resource tracking ('You've used eighteen days of that person'). At the moment I'm rolling my own by exporting blank iCal month views into OmniGraffle and using lots of bits of paper - it's crazy, but at least the final schedule can be comprehended by my (non Gantt-reading) staff! Is anyone aware of a project management/scheduling app that really is for 'the rest of us'? -- Jonathan Sanderson 'If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter.' (Pascal) From kcall at mac.com Thu Dec 14 12:11:59 2006 From: kcall at mac.com (Kevin Callahan) Date: Thu Dec 14 12:12:05 2006 Subject: Calendars have been reset (.MAC) - what to do? Message-ID: <857E820C-0AD3-4A7B-ADA2-5EEF458CC199@mac.com> For a couple of days, I've been getting an alert saying my calendars have been reset on .Mac -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Picture 4.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 12009 bytes Desc: not available Url : /mailman/archive/macosx-talk/attachments/20061214/75634dcf/Picture4.jpg -------------- next part -------------- considering I sync 4 computers, a cell phone and an couple of iPods, what's the best way to handle this? BTW: did Apple reset everyone's calendars ? or am I just an unlucky one? K From dez at mac.com Thu Dec 14 13:31:58 2006 From: dez at mac.com (Derek Chesterfield) Date: Thu Dec 14 13:32:25 2006 Subject: Calendars have been reset (.MAC) - what to do? In-Reply-To: <857E820C-0AD3-4A7B-ADA2-5EEF458CC199@mac.com> References: <857E820C-0AD3-4A7B-ADA2-5EEF458CC199@mac.com> Message-ID: <5F8FF95B-A162-4021-8481-29352272A7FA@mac.com> On 14 Dec 2006, at 20:11, Kevin Callahan wrote: > For a couple of days, I've been getting an alert saying my > calendars have been reset on .Mac > > > > considering I sync 4 computers, a cell phone and an couple of > iPods, what's the best way to handle this? I would completely reset .Mac. To do that, remove all computer from the Advanced tab of .Mac preferences. When you remove the last one, it prompts you if you want to reset everything - say yes. Then add the most up-to-date Mac, and do the first sync, then add the rest. Is that all necessary? No idea. But you asked what I would do! > BTW: did Apple reset everyone's calendars ? or am I just an > unlucky one? Not me. But I have had very odd problems in the past, where the above fixed it. From kcall at mac.com Thu Dec 14 13:47:26 2006 From: kcall at mac.com (Kevin Callahan) Date: Thu Dec 14 13:47:33 2006 Subject: python CPU load on MBPro at 99.9% Message-ID: A friend pointed out that top was taking up a lot of cycles on his new MBPro - so I launched the terminal and ran top - mine was in the 8-10% range on my MBPro (we each have MBPro17s) but I noticed a lot of python cycles - apps showing in my DOCK that are running right now include: Finder Dashboard (with NO widgets running) Terminal how do I track down the python processes ? is the Finder in 10.4.8 running python ? 6243 python 99.9% 5:44:24 3 36 84 3.25M 1.11M 4.13M- 31.0M 6209 python 0.0% 0:00.38 1 16 77 2.93M 1.11M 3.84M 29.8M 6201 python 0.0% 0:00.50 1 16 77 2.93M 1.11M 3.84M 29.8M 5184 python 0.0% 0:00.42 1 16 77 2.93M 1.11M 3.84M 29.8M 4661 python 0.0% 0:00.54 1 32 77 3.05M 1.11M 3.96M 29.8M 4406 python 0.0% 0:00.36 1 16 77 2.93M 1.11M 3.58M 29.8M 2652 python 0.0% 0:00.45 1 16 77 2.93M 1.11M 3.58M 29.8M 2572 python 0.0% 0:00.37 1 16 77 2.93M 1.11M 3.58M 29.8M 2559 python 0.0% 0:02.97 3 36 92 3.46M 1.11M 3.91M 31.5M 2551 python 0.0% 0:00.50 1 16 77 2.93M 1.11M 3.58M 29.8M 2288 python 0.0% 0:00.55 1 16 77 2.93M 1.11M 3.58M 29.8M -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /mailman/archive/macosx-talk/attachments/20061214/a513301f/attachment.html From pelorus at mac.com Thu Dec 14 13:54:10 2006 From: pelorus at mac.com (Matt Johnston) Date: Thu Dec 14 13:54:22 2006 Subject: python CPU load on MBPro at 99.9% In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8DB18AC9-614A-4950-99CB-305BDA2B4635@mac.com> On 14 Dec 2006, at 21:47, Kevin Callahan wrote: > apps showing in my DOCK that are running right now include: > > Finder > Dashboard (with NO widgets running) > Terminal > > how do I track down the python processes ? is the Finder in 10.4.8 > running python ? > > 6243 python 99.9% 5:44:24 3 36 84 3.25M 1.11M > 4.13M- 31.0M > No. I have no python processes. What else are you running, Kevin? Widen your Terminal window to screen width and do a ps -aux | grep python That'll tell you what's running. M -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /mailman/archive/macosx-talk/attachments/20061214/ab443a9d/attachment.html From jearle at gmail.com Thu Dec 14 13:58:57 2006 From: jearle at gmail.com (Jared Earle) Date: Thu Dec 14 13:59:03 2006 Subject: python CPU load on MBPro at 99.9% In-Reply-To: <8DB18AC9-614A-4950-99CB-305BDA2B4635@mac.com> References: <8DB18AC9-614A-4950-99CB-305BDA2B4635@mac.com> Message-ID: <5bbc0cd60612141358h11670e24yada021dde0907e0a@mail.gmail.com> On 12/14/06, Matt Johnston wrote: > ps -aux | grep python > > That'll tell you what's running. ... or even $ ps wwaux | grep -v grep | grep python -- Jared Earle :: There is no SPORK jearle@gmail.com :: http://www.23x.net The Spodcast :: http://spodcast.org From pelorus at mac.com Thu Dec 14 14:00:29 2006 From: pelorus at mac.com (Matt Johnston) Date: Thu Dec 14 14:01:19 2006 Subject: python CPU load on MBPro at 99.9% In-Reply-To: <5bbc0cd60612141358h11670e24yada021dde0907e0a@mail.gmail.com> References: <8DB18AC9-614A-4950-99CB-305BDA2B4635@mac.com> <5bbc0cd60612141358h11670e24yada021dde0907e0a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 14 Dec 2006, at 21:58, Jared Earle wrote: > On 12/14/06, Matt Johnston wrote: >> ps -aux | grep python >> >> That'll tell you what's running. > > ... or even > $ ps wwaux | grep -v grep | grep python *snore* UNIX sockwaving is sooooo...... From kcall at mac.com Thu Dec 14 14:03:19 2006 From: kcall at mac.com (Kevin Callahan) Date: Thu Dec 14 14:03:25 2006 Subject: python CPU load on MBPro at 99.9% In-Reply-To: <8DB18AC9-614A-4950-99CB-305BDA2B4635@mac.com> References: <8DB18AC9-614A-4950-99CB-305BDA2B4635@mac.com> Message-ID: <860904DD-A31D-4F23-BED2-54ADFD3CAB72@mac.com> I just figured it out: I suspected CyTV and sure enough, CyTV uses python - but when you quit CyTV, it doesn't kill its python processes - and anyway, 99% is a significant tax on my system - CyTV crashes a lot, so I'll probably not use it anymore - great idea, but needs a lot of work K On Dec 14, 2006, at 1:54 PM, Matt Johnston wrote: > > On 14 Dec 2006, at 21:47, Kevin Callahan wrote: > >> apps showing in my DOCK that are running right now include: >> >> Finder >> Dashboard (with NO widgets running) >> Terminal >> >> how do I track down the python processes ? is the Finder in >> 10.4.8 running python ? >> >> 6243 python 99.9% 5:44:24 3 36 84 3.25M 1.11M >> 4.13M- 31.0M >> > > No. > > I have no python processes. > > What else are you running, Kevin? > > Widen your Terminal window to screen width and do a > > ps -aux | grep python > > That'll tell you what's running. > > M > _______________________________________________ > MacOSX-talk mailing list > MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk Kevin Callahan http://www.kevincallahan.org/ http://www.kevincallahan.org/software/accessorizer.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /mailman/archive/macosx-talk/attachments/20061214/a82028cc/attachment.html From jearle at gmail.com Thu Dec 14 14:16:39 2006 From: jearle at gmail.com (Jared Earle) Date: Thu Dec 14 14:16:52 2006 Subject: python CPU load on MBPro at 99.9% In-Reply-To: References: <8DB18AC9-614A-4950-99CB-305BDA2B4635@mac.com> <5bbc0cd60612141358h11670e24yada021dde0907e0a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5bbc0cd60612141416x55a745ceo21de4e01184189ba@mail.gmail.com> On 12/14/06, Matt Johnston wrote: > On 14 Dec 2006, at 21:58, Jared Earle wrote: > > $ ps wwaux | grep -v grep | grep python > > *snore* > > UNIX sockwaving is sooooo...... Yeah, but you missed the ww option on ps. That's a no-no for this. Not just a coc..er, sockwave. -- Jared Earle :: There is no SPORK jearle@gmail.com :: http://www.23x.net The Spodcast :: http://spodcast.org From pelorus at mac.com Thu Dec 14 14:21:22 2006 From: pelorus at mac.com (Matt Johnston) Date: Thu Dec 14 14:21:29 2006 Subject: python CPU load on MBPro at 99.9% In-Reply-To: <5bbc0cd60612141416x55a745ceo21de4e01184189ba@mail.gmail.com> References: <8DB18AC9-614A-4950-99CB-305BDA2B4635@mac.com> <5bbc0cd60612141358h11670e24yada021dde0907e0a@mail.gmail.com> <5bbc0cd60612141416x55a745ceo21de4e01184189ba@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <08B0C2D3-D249-4165-80B3-2E80E5440441@mac.com> On 14 Dec 2006, at 22:16, Jared Earle wrote: > On 12/14/06, Matt Johnston wrote: >> On 14 Dec 2006, at 21:58, Jared Earle wrote: >> > $ ps wwaux | grep -v grep | grep python >> >> *snore* >> >> UNIX sockwaving is sooooo...... > > Yeah, but you missed the ww option on ps. That's a no-no for this. Not > just a coc..er, sockwave. Unnecessary. Revisionist. Clutter. Next you'll be colouring ls. M From chad at objectwerks.com Thu Dec 14 14:44:19 2006 From: chad at objectwerks.com (Chad Leigh) Date: Thu Dec 14 14:44:23 2006 Subject: python CPU load on MBPro at 99.9% In-Reply-To: <08B0C2D3-D249-4165-80B3-2E80E5440441@mac.com> References: <8DB18AC9-614A-4950-99CB-305BDA2B4635@mac.com> <5bbc0cd60612141358h11670e24yada021dde0907e0a@mail.gmail.com> <5bbc0cd60612141416x55a745ceo21de4e01184189ba@mail.gmail.com> <08B0C2D3-D249-4165-80B3-2E80E5440441@mac.com> Message-ID: On Dec 14, 2006, at 3:21 PM, Matt Johnston wrote: > > On 14 Dec 2006, at 22:16, Jared Earle wrote: > >> On 12/14/06, Matt Johnston wrote: >>> On 14 Dec 2006, at 21:58, Jared Earle wrote: >>> > $ ps wwaux | grep -v grep | grep python >>> >>> *snore* >>> >>> UNIX sockwaving is sooooo...... >> >> Yeah, but you missed the ww option on ps. That's a no-no for this. >> Not >> just a coc..er, sockwave. > > Unnecessary. depends on how big your terminal windows are Could be necessary Chad > Revisionist. Clutter. > > Next you'll be colouring ls. > > M > _______________________________________________ > MacOSX-talk mailing list > MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk From shawnce at gmail.com Thu Dec 14 15:02:00 2006 From: shawnce at gmail.com (Shawn Erickson) Date: Thu Dec 14 15:00:19 2006 Subject: python CPU load on MBPro at 99.9% In-Reply-To: References: <8DB18AC9-614A-4950-99CB-305BDA2B4635@mac.com> <5bbc0cd60612141358h11670e24yada021dde0907e0a@mail.gmail.com> <5bbc0cd60612141416x55a745ceo21de4e01184189ba@mail.gmail.com> <08B0C2D3-D249-4165-80B3-2E80E5440441@mac.com> Message-ID: On Dec 14, 2006, at 2:44 PM, Chad Leigh wrote: > > On Dec 14, 2006, at 3:21 PM, Matt Johnston wrote: > >> >> On 14 Dec 2006, at 22:16, Jared Earle wrote: >> >>> On 12/14/06, Matt Johnston wrote: >>>> On 14 Dec 2006, at 21:58, Jared Earle wrote: >>>> > $ ps wwaux | grep -v grep | grep python >>>> >>>> *snore* >>>> >>>> UNIX sockwaving is sooooo...... >>> >>> Yeah, but you missed the ww option on ps. That's a no-no for >>> this. Not >>> just a coc..er, sockwave. >> >> Unnecessary. > > depends on how big your terminal windows are You saying you have a small terminal window? -Shawn From chad at objectwerks.com Thu Dec 14 15:02:31 2006 From: chad at objectwerks.com (Chad Leigh) Date: Thu Dec 14 15:02:36 2006 Subject: python CPU load on MBPro at 99.9% In-Reply-To: References: <8DB18AC9-614A-4950-99CB-305BDA2B4635@mac.com> <5bbc0cd60612141358h11670e24yada021dde0907e0a@mail.gmail.com> <5bbc0cd60612141416x55a745ceo21de4e01184189ba@mail.gmail.com> <08B0C2D3-D249-4165-80B3-2E80E5440441@mac.com> Message-ID: <882044E3-0E3E-46E4-915E-D891014D8631@objectwerks.com> On Dec 14, 2006, at 4:02 PM, Shawn Erickson wrote: > > On Dec 14, 2006, at 2:44 PM, Chad Leigh wrote: > >> >> On Dec 14, 2006, at 3:21 PM, Matt Johnston wrote: >> >>> >>> On 14 Dec 2006, at 22:16, Jared Earle wrote: >>> >>>> On 12/14/06, Matt Johnston wrote: >>>>> On 14 Dec 2006, at 21:58, Jared Earle wrote: >>>>> > $ ps wwaux | grep -v grep | grep python >>>>> >>>>> *snore* >>>>> >>>>> UNIX sockwaving is sooooo...... >>>> >>>> Yeah, but you missed the ww option on ps. That's a no-no for >>>> this. Not >>>> just a coc..er, sockwave. >>> >>> Unnecessary. >> >> depends on how big your terminal windows are > > You saying you have a small terminal window? Mine aren't, but the default is quite small. I am on a 30" screen and make quite big ones. (I read Shawn's line a few times and don't see a joke :-) Hopefully it is not on me :-) ) Chad > > -Shawn From scott at maxify.com Thu Dec 14 15:37:14 2006 From: scott at maxify.com (Scott Stevenson) Date: Thu Dec 14 15:37:32 2006 Subject: Can I Get a Hallelujah? Message-ID: Photoshop CS3 beta tomorrow. It runs natively on processors by a company called "Intel". - Scott From glennc at mac.com Thu Dec 14 15:39:43 2006 From: glennc at mac.com (Glenn Carnagey) Date: Thu Dec 14 15:50:31 2006 Subject: Can I Get a Hallelujah? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <90B74EEF-494B-4B92-885E-F7F203A16E78@mac.com> amen, preach on brother! g./ On Dec 14, 2006, at 5:37 PM, Scott Stevenson wrote: > Photoshop CS3 beta tomorrow. It runs natively on processors by a > company called "Intel". > > 200612/121406Photoshop.html> > > > - Scott > _______________________________________________ > MacOSX-talk mailing list > MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk From kcall at mac.com Thu Dec 14 15:56:25 2006 From: kcall at mac.com (Kevin Callahan) Date: Thu Dec 14 15:56:38 2006 Subject: python CPU load on MBPro at 99.9% In-Reply-To: <860904DD-A31D-4F23-BED2-54ADFD3CAB72@mac.com> References: <8DB18AC9-614A-4950-99CB-305BDA2B4635@mac.com> <860904DD-A31D-4F23-BED2-54ADFD3CAB72@mac.com> Message-ID: On Dec 14, 2006, at 2:03 PM, Kevin Callahan wrote: > I just figured it out: > > I suspected CyTV and sure enough, CyTV uses python - but when you > quit CyTV, it doesn't kill its python processes - and anyway, 99% > is a significant tax on my system - > > CyTV crashes a lot, > so I'll probably not use it anymore - great idea, but needs a lot > of work > > K I should be specific here: I noted the 99.9% cpu cycles on my MBPro running the CyTV client (even after I had quit the client, the python processes continued to eat up cycles). I was running the CyTV server on my PB17 G4 1.67 - I checked python there, and even while the server was running, python was only sucking up 10% or so. K > > On Dec 14, 2006, at 1:54 PM, Matt Johnston wrote: > >> >> On 14 Dec 2006, at 21:47, Kevin Callahan wrote: >> >>> apps showing in my DOCK that are running right now include: >>> >>> Finder >>> Dashboard (with NO widgets running) >>> Terminal >>> >>> how do I track down the python processes ? is the Finder in >>> 10.4.8 running python ? >>> >>> 6243 python 99.9% 5:44:24 3 36 84 3.25M 1.11M >>> 4.13M- 31.0M >>> >> >> No. >> >> I have no python processes. >> >> What else are you running, Kevin? >> >> Widen your Terminal window to screen width and do a >> >> ps -aux | grep python >> >> That'll tell you what's running. >> >> M >> _______________________________________________ >> MacOSX-talk mailing list >> MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com >> http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk > > Kevin Callahan > http://www.kevincallahan.org/ > http://www.kevincallahan.org/software/accessorizer.html > > > > _______________________________________________ > MacOSX-talk mailing list > MacOSX-talk@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk Kevin Callahan http://www.kevincallahan.org/ http://www.kevincallahan.org/software/accessorizer.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /mailman/archive/macosx-talk/attachments/20061214/640f23f8/attachment.html From kcall at mac.com Thu Dec 14 15:59:16 2006 From: kcall at mac.com (Kevin Callahan) Date: Thu Dec 14 15:59:24 2006 Subject: Can I Get a Hallelujah? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2CD08D72-365C-403E-8899-90EA747B96FE@mac.com> On Dec 14, 2006, at 3:37 PM, Scott Stevenson wrote: > Photoshop CS3 beta tomorrow. It runs natively on processors by a > company called "Intel". > > 200612/121406Photoshop.html> > > > - Scott > so Dual Quadcores at MacWorld ? From kcall at mac.com Thu Dec 14 16:24:42 2006 From: kcall at mac.com (Kevin Callahan) Date: Thu Dec 14 16:24:54 2006 Subject: python and CyTV / VLC clients (cycles) Message-ID: <05F507C3-4A90-4205-B396-C8F3DB83DB4C@mac.com> I rebooted and am checking to see if I note the same cycles problem - so far so good: 335 VLC 34.7% 1:26.17 13 200 656 53.6M+ 39.6M 66.8M + 615M+ 333 python 1.8% 0:04.55 3 36 98 4.32M- 1.22M 5.24M 32.0M 327 CyTV Clien 0.2% 0:00.90 8 127 145 3.49M 12.4M 11.9M 365M -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /mailman/archive/macosx-talk/attachments/20061214/1c92af9f/attachment.html From rogerhoward at rogerroger.org Thu Dec 14 21:33:15 2006 From: rogerhoward at rogerroger.org (rogerhoward@rogerroger.org) Date: Thu Dec 14 21:33:38 2006 Subject: Can I Get a Hallelujah? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 14, 2006, at 3:37 PM, Scott Stevenson wrote: > Photoshop CS3 beta tomorrow. It runs natively on processors by a > company called "Intel". > > 200612/121406Photoshop.html> And can I be the first one to say how much it rocks? :) Other than a few open bugs which will certainly be fixed before release, this is a great new version. A few high points: - Intel native. Yeah, obviously, but seriously this rocks. I have a feeling if it wasn't for the ram differential (I work with large, no huge, files), my little Macbook would keep pace with my G5 easily. - New UI makes for a FAR better experience on portables - dockable palettes (I forget Adobe's new term for these) are just great. Also works great on machines with huge desktops. - Smart Objects just keep getting better - Bridge CS3 is a huge leap forward. The loupe (when it works - still buggy) is much needed - the whole Bridge layout is fully configurable, and savable in workspaces. - ACR4 is taking on new options from Lightroom - Bridge is generally much faster - Darker window backdrop is much welcomed, and will be even better once they get rid of the Aqua remnants - Aperture-like tiling of multiple (selected) images in the preview panel is great Amen brotha! From kcall at mac.com Thu Dec 14 21:41:54 2006 From: kcall at mac.com (Kevin Callahan) Date: Thu Dec 14 21:42:01 2006 Subject: Can I Get a Hallelujah? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9CAA3AC3-CD48-4875-B64E-32A3D52D8EC8@mac.com> On Dec 14, 2006, at 9:33 PM, rogerhoward@rogerroger.org wrote: > > On Dec 14, 2006, at 3:37 PM, Scott Stevenson wrote: > >> Photoshop CS3 beta tomorrow. It runs natively on processors by a >> company called "Intel". >> >> > 200612/121406Photoshop.html> > > And can I be the first one to say how much it rocks? :) > > Other than a few open bugs which will certainly be fixed before > release, this is a great new version. A few high points: > > - Intel native. Yeah, obviously, but seriously this rocks. I have a > feeling if it wasn't for the ram differential (I work with large, > no huge, files), my little Macbook would keep pace with my G5 easily. > - New UI makes for a FAR better experience on portables - dockable > palettes (I forget Adobe's new term for these) are just great. Also > works great on machines with huge desktops. > - Smart Objects just keep getting better > - Bridge CS3 is a huge leap forward. The loupe (when it works - > still buggy) is much needed > - the whole Bridge layout is fully configurable, and savable in > workspaces. > - ACR4 is taking on new options from Lightroom > - Bridge is generally much faster > - Darker window backdrop is much welcomed, and will be even better > once they get rid of the Aqua remnants > - Aperture-like tiling of multiple (selected) images in the preview > panel is great > > Amen brotha! > does it leverage any benefits Mac OS X has over Windows ? or are they keeping the app identical across platforms? K From rogerhoward at rogerroger.org Thu Dec 14 21:45:38 2006 From: rogerhoward at rogerroger.org (rogerhoward@rogerroger.org) Date: Thu Dec 14 21:45:42 2006 Subject: Can I Get a Hallelujah? In-Reply-To: <9CAA3AC3-CD48-4875-B64E-32A3D52D8EC8@mac.com> References: <9CAA3AC3-CD48-4875-B64E-32A3D52D8EC8@mac.com> Message-ID: <2A15C570-61D1-410E-9FB6-E9D8455B70C7@rogerroger.org> On Dec 14, 2006, at 9:41 PM, Kevin Callahan wrote: > > On Dec 14, 2006, at 9:33 PM, rogerhoward@rogerroger.org wrote: > >> >> On Dec 14, 2006, at 3:37 PM, Scott Stevenson wrote: >> >>> Photoshop CS3 beta tomorrow. It runs natively on processors by a >>> company called "Intel". >>> >>> >> 200612/121406Photoshop.html> >> >> And can I be the first one to say how much it rocks? :) >> >> Other than a few open bugs which will certainly be fixed before >> release, this is a great new version. A few high points: >> >> - Intel native. Yeah, obviously, but seriously this rocks. I have >> a feeling if it wasn't for the ram differential (I work with >> large, no huge, files), my little Macbook would keep pace with my >> G5 easily. >> - New UI makes for a FAR better experience on portables - dockable >> palettes (I forget Adobe's new term for these) are just great. >> Also works great on machines with huge desktops. >> - Smart Objects just keep getting better >> - Bridge CS3 is a huge leap forward. The loupe (when it works - >> still buggy) is much needed >> - the whole Bridge layout is fully configurable, and savable in >> workspaces. >> - ACR4 is taking on new options from Lightroom >> - Bridge is generally much faster >> - Darker window backdrop is much welcomed, and will be even better >> once they get rid of the Aqua remnants >> - Aperture-like tiling of multiple (selected) images in the >> preview panel is great >> >> Amen brotha! >> > > does it leverage any benefits Mac OS X has over Windows ? or are > they keeping the app identical across platforms? Photoshop is and has been for years completely feature-complete on both platforms and I really doubt that'll change any time soon... which is a good thing, as frankly if they were inclined to favor one platform over another we *might* not like the choice! I mean certainly there are differences that can be chalked up to platform differences, but they are mainly UI, not app features only available on one or the other. So no, and yes :) From kcall at mac.com Thu Dec 14 22:06:22 2006 From: kcall at mac.com (Kevin Callahan) Date: Thu Dec 14 22:07:01 2006 Subject: Can I Get a Hallelujah? In-Reply-To: <2A15C570-61D1-410E-9FB6-E9D8455B70C7@rogerroger.org> References: <9CAA3AC3-CD48-4875-B64E-32A3D52D8EC8@mac.com> <2A15C570-61D1-410E-9FB6-E9D8455B70C7@rogerroger.org> Message-ID: On Dec 14, 2006, at 9:45 PM, rogerhoward@rogerroger.org wrote: > > On Dec 14, 2006, at 9:41 PM, Kevin Callahan wrote: > >> >> On Dec 14, 2006, at 9:33 PM, rogerhoward@rogerroger.org wrote: >> >>> >>> On Dec 14, 2006, at 3:37 PM, Scott Stevenson wrote: >>> >>>> Photoshop CS3 beta tomorrow. It runs natively on processors by a >>>> company called "Intel". >>>> >>>> >>> 200612/121406Photoshop.html> >>> >>> And can I be the first one to say how much it rocks? :) >>> >>> Other than a few open bugs which will certainly be fixed before >>> release, this is a great new version. A few high points: >>> >>> - Intel native. Yeah, obviously, but seriously this rocks. I have >>> a feeling if it wasn't for the ram differential (I work with >>> large, no huge, files), my little Macbook would keep pace with my >>> G5 easily. >>> - New UI makes for a FAR better experience on portables - >>> dockable palettes (I forget Adobe's new term for these) are just >>> great. Also works great on machines with huge desktops. >>> - Smart Objects just keep getting better >>> - Bridge CS3 is a huge leap forward. The loupe (when it works - >>> still buggy) is much needed >>> - the whole Bridge layout is fully configurable, and savable in >>> workspaces. >>> - ACR4 is taking on new options from Lightroom >>> - Bridge is generally much faster >>> - Darker window backdrop is much welcomed, and will be even >>> better once they get rid of the Aqua remnants >>> - Aperture-like tiling of multiple (selected) images in the >>> preview panel is great >>> >>> Amen brotha! >>> >> >> does it leverage any benefits Mac OS X has over Windows ? or are >> they keeping the app identical across platforms? > > Photoshop is and has been for years completely feature-complete on > both platforms and I really doubt that'll change any time soon... > which is a good thing, as frankly if they were inclined to favor > one platform over another we *might* not like the choice! > > I mean certainly there are differences that can be chalked up to > platform differences, but they are mainly UI, not app features only > available on one or the other. > > So no, and yes :) > I'm a Sibelius user (music scoring) and recommend it. But, when I make a request that might leverage a Mac feature (and what I consider an advantage), I get the "there is no analog on Windows, so we won't do that ... ". Considering Leopard and what I personally believe will further differentiate the platform, I view this approach with a disgruntled visage. Regarding UI, that's exactly what I'm taking about. I believe the Mac UI is one of the key benefits wrt productivity. We're talking about "user interface". Are there no advantages to the Mac user interface? K Kevin Callahan http://www.kevincallahan.org/ http://www.kevincallahan.org/software/accessorizer.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /mailman/archive/macosx-talk/attachments/20061214/6a96118a/attachment.html From rogerhoward at rogerroger.org Thu Dec 14 22:27:38 2006 From: rogerhoward at rogerroger.org (rogerhoward@rogerroger.org) Date: Thu Dec 14 22:27:43 2006 Subject: Can I Get a Hallelujah? In-Reply-To: References: <9CAA3AC3-CD48-4875-B64E-32A3D52D8EC8@mac.com> <2A15C570-61D1-410E-9FB6-E9D8455B70C7@rogerroger.org> Message-ID: <192B639F-10CC-430A-9ACF-47D0B06DC415@rogerroger.org> On Dec 14, 2006, at 10:06 PM, Kevin Callahan wrote: >> >> Photoshop is and has been for years completely feature-complete on >> both platforms and I really doubt that'll change any time soon... >> which is a good thing, as frankly if they were inclined to favor >> one platform over another we *might* not like the choice! >> >> I mean certainly there are differences that can be chalked up to >> platform differences, but they are mainly UI, not app features >> only available on one or the other. >> >> So no, and yes :) >> > > I'm a Sibelius user (music scoring) and recommend it. But, when I > make a request that might leverage a Mac feature (and what I > consider an advantage), I get the "there is no analog on Windows, > so we won't do that ... ". > > Considering Leopard and what I personally believe will further > differentiate the platform, I view this approach with a disgruntled > visage. For audio apps that may well be, but I'd be pretty hard-pressed to imagine something relevant to a Photoshop user that can be done on Leopard that can't be done on Vista. > Regarding UI, that's exactly what I'm taking about. I believe the > Mac UI is one of the key benefits wrt productivity. We're talking > about "user interface". Are there no advantages to the Mac user > interface? Well by UI differences I may have implied too much; the differences between the apps are very subtle between the OSX and Windows builds - minor things mostly, or just native dressing (window themes and standard dialogs for instance). While I don't disagree about the overall productivity differences - at least for me - between OSX and Windows, again I'm not sure how that would impact the UI within a complex app like Photoshop, which is pretty damn self-contained, and not constrained by the OS in terms of UI. Photoshop is one of the few apps I can comfortably switch between platforms and barely miss a beat. From kcall at mac.com Thu Dec 14 22:53:06 2006 From: kcall at mac.com (Kevin Callahan) Date: Thu Dec 14 22:53:15 2006 Subject: Can I Get a Hallelujah? In-Reply-To: <192B639F-10CC-430A-9ACF-47D0B06DC415@rogerroger.org> References: <9CAA3AC3-CD48-4875-B64E-32A3D52D8EC8@mac.com> <2A15C570-61D1-410E-9FB6-E9D8455B70C7@rogerroger.org> <192B639F-10CC-430A-9ACF-47D0B06DC415@rogerroger.org> Message-ID: <8E132403-1EF8-4E61-A313-463E8323337E@mac.com> On Dec 14, 2006, at 10:27 PM, rogerhoward@rogerroger.org wrote: >> >> Considering Leopard and what I personally believe will further >> differentiate the platform, I view this approach with a >> disgruntled visage. > > For audio apps that may well be, but I'd be pretty hard-pressed to > imagine something relevant to a Photoshop user that can be done on > Leopard that can't be done on Vista. Here's a non-audio example for an audio/graphics (scoring) app: I want Mighty Mouse 360 support. NOPE ! "no analog on Windows" support for 360 movement across a large orchestral score that is many staves tall and many pages long would be a productivity boon there are killer features coming in Leopard -- will we see these benefits in cross-platform apps like Sibelius and PS ? I can look at it from the vendor's side -- or even from the user's perspective who needs to work on any platform -- so I'm not flipping out about it ... but it CAN be frustrating to see clear advantages to the Mac not being leveraged and if application vendors do not leverage the benefits of a given platform, we end up with the lowest common denominator > >> Regarding UI, that's exactly what I'm taking about. I believe the >> Mac UI is one of the key benefits wrt productivity. We're talking >> about "user interface". Are there no advantages to the Mac user >> interface? > > Well by UI differences I may have implied too much; the differences > between the apps are very subtle between the OSX and Windows builds > - minor things mostly, or just native dressing (window themes and > standard dialogs for instance). > > While I don't disagree about the overall productivity differences - > at least for me - between OSX and Windows, again I'm not sure how > that would impact the UI within a complex app like Photoshop, which > is pretty damn self-contained, and not constrained by the OS in > terms of UI. Photoshop is one of the few apps I can comfortably > switch between platforms and barely miss a beat. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /mailman/archive/macosx-talk/attachments/20061214/38c77d2d/attachment.html From fusion at mx6.tiki.ne.jp Thu Dec 14 23:12:13 2006 From: fusion at mx6.tiki.ne.jp (Jean-Christophe Helary) Date: Thu Dec 14 23:12:33 2006 Subject: Can I Get a Hallelujah? In-Reply-To: <8E132403-1EF8-4E61-A313-463E8323337E@mac.com> References: <9CAA3AC3-CD48-4875-B64E-32A3D52D8EC8@mac.com> <2A15C570-61D1-410E-9FB6-E9D8455B70C7@rogerroger.org> <192B639F-10CC-430A-9ACF-47D0B06DC415@rogerroger.org> <8E132403-1EF8-4E61-A313-463E8323337E@mac.com> Message-ID: <802FB0CB-6B46-4A2C-9411-75AA7D762004@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> On 15 d?c. 06, at 15:53, Kevin Callahan wrote: > and if application vendors do not leverage the benefits of a given > platform, we end up with the lowest common denominator No, we end up with smart people who create real Mac apps. In the middle term. Jean-Christophe Helary From joar at joar.com Thu Dec 14 23:22:46 2006 From: joar at joar.com (j o a r) Date: Thu Dec 14 23:23:01 2006 Subject: Can I Get a Hallelujah? In-Reply-To: <802FB0CB-6B46-4A2C-9411-75AA7D762004@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> References: <9CAA3AC3-CD48-4875-B64E-32A3D52D8EC8@mac.com> <2A15C570-61D1-410E-9FB6-E9D8455B70C7@rogerroger.org> <192B639F-10CC-430A-9ACF-47D0B06DC415@rogerroger.org> <8E132403-1EF8-4E61-A313-463E8323337E@mac.com> <802FB0CB-6B46-4A2C-9411-75AA7D762004@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> Message-ID: On 15 dec 2006, at 08.12, Jean-Christophe Helary wrote: >> and if application vendors do not leverage the benefits of a given >> platform, we end up with the lowest common denominator > > No, we end up with smart people who create real Mac apps. In the > middle term. Then they get successful, and ported to Windows, and the cycle begins anew! ;-) Apple should use their iPod money to buy Adobe and discontinue the Windows versions of their apps. Wham! j o a r From kcall at mac.com Thu Dec 14 23:24:28 2006 From: kcall at mac.com (Kevin Callahan) Date: Thu Dec 14 23:24:37 2006 Subject: Can I Get a Hallelujah? In-Reply-To: References: <9CAA3AC3-CD48-4875-B64E-32A3D52D8EC8@mac.com> <2A15C570-61D1-410E-9FB6-E9D8455B70C7@rogerroger.org> <192B639F-10CC-430A-9ACF-47D0B06DC415@rogerroger.org> <8E132403-1EF8-4E61-A313-463E8323337E@mac.com> <802FB0CB-6B46-4A2C-9411-75AA7D762004@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> Message-ID: On Dec 14, 2006, at 11:22 PM, j o a r wrote: > > On 15 dec 2006, at 08.12, Jean-Christophe Helary wrote: > >>> and if application vendors do not leverage the benefits of a >>> given platform, we end up with the lowest common denominator >> >> No, we end up with smart people who create real Mac apps. In the >> middle term. > > Then they get successful, and ported to Windows, and the cycle > begins anew! ;-) > > Apple should use their iPod money to buy Adobe and discontinue the > Windows versions of their apps. Wham! :-) > > j o a r > > From jearle at gmail.com Thu Dec 14 23:51:41 2006 From: jearle at gmail.com (Jared Earle) Date: Thu Dec 14 23:51:45 2006 Subject: Can I Get a Hallelujah? In-Reply-To: References: <9CAA3AC3-CD48-4875-B64E-32A3D52D8EC8@mac.com> <2A15C570-61D1-410E-9FB6-E9D8455B70C7@rogerroger.org> <192B639F-10CC-430A-9ACF-47D0B06DC415@rogerroger.org> <8E132403-1EF8-4E61-A313-463E8323337E@mac.com> <802FB0CB-6B46-4A2C-9411-75AA7D762004@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> Message-ID: <5bbc0cd60612142351k1fb77e6cm7b1d9191fe4b2880@mail.gmail.com> On 12/15/06, j o a r wrote: > Apple should use their iPod money to buy Adobe and discontinue the > Windows versions of their apps. Wham! Nothing would help this more: http://www.microsoft.com/products/expression/ :D -- Jared Earle :: There is no SPORK jearle@gmail.com :: http://www.23x.net The Spodcast :: http://spodcast.org From jesusdiaz at apinet.es Fri Dec 15 02:25:15 2006 From: jesusdiaz at apinet.es (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jes=FAs_D=EDaz_Blanco?=) Date: Fri Dec 15 02:25:35 2006 Subject: Can I Get a Hallelujah? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <88270785-4AD4-428A-BFFD-D45673376561@apinet.es> > Photoshop CS3 beta tomorrow. It runs natively on processors by a > company called "Intel". > > 200612/121406Photoshop.html> WTF! Do you mean Macs have Intel processors inside them n... ah... hmmm. OK. j. From scott at maxify.com Fri Dec 15 04:45:18 2006 From: scott at maxify.com (Scott Stevenson) Date: Fri Dec 15 04:45:39 2006 Subject: Can I Get a Hallelujah? In-Reply-To: <802FB0CB-6B46-4A2C-9411-75AA7D762004@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> References: <9CAA3AC3-CD48-4875-B64E-32A3D52D8EC8@mac.com> <2A15C570-61D1-410E-9FB6-E9D8455B70C7@rogerroger.org> <192B639F-10CC-430A-9ACF-47D0B06DC415@rogerroger.org> <8E132403-1EF8-4E61-A313-463E8323337E@mac.com> <802FB0CB-6B46-4A2C-9411-75AA7D762004@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> Message-ID: <07E72507-5C60-4611-8E28-B53A571CD9A5@maxify.com> On Dec 14, 2006, at 11:12 PM, Jean-Christophe Helary wrote: > No, we end up with smart people who create real Mac apps. In the > middle term. What's a real Mac app? Do Aperture or Motion count? What about iLife or Keynote? - Scott -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /mailman/archive/macosx-talk/attachments/20061215/caaf6ab9/attachment.html From fusion at mx6.tiki.ne.jp Fri Dec 15 05:15:02 2006 From: fusion at mx6.tiki.ne.jp (Jean-Christophe Helary) Date: Fri Dec 15 05:15:15 2006 Subject: Can I Get a Hallelujah? In-Reply-To: <07E72507-5C60-4611-8E28-B53A571CD9A5@maxify.com> References: <9CAA3AC3-CD48-4875-B64E-32A3D52D8EC8@mac.com> <2A15C570-61D1-410E-9FB6-E9D8455B70C7@rogerroger.org> <192B639F-10CC-430A-9ACF-47D0B06DC415@rogerroger.org> <8E132403-1EF8-4E61-A313-463E8323337E@mac.com> <802FB0CB-6B46-4A2C-9411-75AA7D762004@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <07E72507-5C60-4611-8E28-B53A571CD9A5@maxify.com> Message-ID: <221C560C-9A07-486A-946C-5A68A2B2CD37@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> On 15 d?c. 06, at 21:45, Scott Stevenson wrote: > On Dec 14, 2006, at 11:12 PM, Jean-Christophe Helary wrote: > >> No, we end up with smart people who create real Mac apps. In the >> middle term. > > What's a real Mac app? Do Aperture or Motion count? What about > iLife or Keynote? An app that is not limited to being a copy of what exists on Windows because "such and such features have no equivalent on Windows". Since the 4 apps you mention fit this definition, I suppose they are real Mac apps. And I'd say Office 2004 is too, since it offers full AppleScript support plus being compatible with Office 2003. Jean-Christophe From scott at maxify.com Fri Dec 15 05:33:51 2006 From: scott at maxify.com (Scott Stevenson) Date: Fri Dec 15 05:34:01 2006 Subject: Can I Get a Hallelujah? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7D73B362-0FED-43DD-BA98-7A6327B31EE1@maxify.com> On Dec 14, 2006, at 9:33 PM, rogerhoward@rogerroger.org wrote: >> Photoshop CS3 beta tomorrow. It runs natively on processors by a >> company called "Intel". >> >> > 200612/121406Photoshop.html> > > And can I be the first one to say how much it rocks? :) More than any feature, what I'd like to see is an application design that better represents the modern Mac design mindset. There are still a lot of modal dialogs in Photoshop (at least CS1 -- I didn't upgrade last time around), and a number of controls that look and act more more like Windows controls than Mac controls. - Scott -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /mailman/archive/macosx-talk/attachments/20061215/2ae4731a/attachment.html From rogerhoward at rogerroger.org Fri Dec 15 07:44:31 2006 From: rogerhoward at rogerroger.org (Roger Howard) Date: Fri Dec 15 07:44:39 2006 Subject: Can I Get a Hallelujah? In-Reply-To: <221C560C-9A07-486A-946C-5A68A2B2CD37@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> References: <9CAA3AC3-CD48-4875-B64E-32A3D52D8EC8@mac.com> <2A15C570-61D1-410E-9FB6-E9D8455B70C7@rogerroger.org> <192B639F-10CC-430A-9ACF-47D0B06DC415@rogerroger.org> <8E132403-1EF8-4E61-A313-463E8323337E@mac.com> <802FB0CB-6B46-4A2C-9411-75AA7D762004@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <07E72507-5C60-4611-8E28-B53A571CD9A5@maxify.com> <221C560C-9A07-486A-946C-5A68A2B2CD37@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> Message-ID: <60717.216.163.128.130.1166197471.squirrel@webmail.rogerroger.org> On Fri, December 15, 2006 5:15 am, Jean-Christophe Helary wrote: > > On 15 d?c. 06, at 21:45, Scott Stevenson wrote: > >> On Dec 14, 2006, at 11:12 PM, Jean-Christophe Helary wrote: >> >>> No, we end up with smart people who create real Mac apps. In the >>> middle term. >> >> What's a real Mac app? Do Aperture or Motion count? What about >> iLife or Keynote? > > An app that is not limited to being a copy of what exists on Windows > because "such and such features have no equivalent on Windows". > Since the 4 apps you mention fit this definition, I suppose they are > real Mac apps. I often get the feeling people who want platform-specific features in Photoshop aren't Photoshop users... so pray tell, what do Photoshop users need, specific to the OSX platform, that we don't already have? Like it or not, Photoshop is a cross-platform product; even just a few years ago asking for platform-specific functionality would largely have meant focusing *more* on Windows, not OSX. But again, frankly without a huge rewrite, completely changing the UI in some undefined way, I'm at a loss for what people think is wrong with Photoshop as the x-platform champ that it is. The current state of Photoshop on OSX is *not* that it's a cheap copy of the Windows version; if anything, the Windows version is the second-class citizen IMHO. From rogerhoward at rogerroger.org Fri Dec 15 07:47:08 2006 From: rogerhoward at rogerroger.org (Roger Howard) Date: Fri Dec 15 07:47:09 2006 Subject: Can I Get a Hallelujah? In-Reply-To: <7D73B362-0FED-43DD-BA98-7A6327B31EE1@maxify.com> References: <7D73B362-0FED-43DD-BA98-7A6327B31EE1@maxify.com> Message-ID: <62104.216.163.128.130.1166197628.squirrel@webmail.rogerroger.org> On Fri, December 15, 2006 5:33 am, Scott Stevenson wrote: > > On Dec 14, 2006, at 9:33 PM, rogerhoward@rogerroger.org wrote: > >>> Photoshop CS3 beta tomorrow. It runs natively on processors by a >>> company called "Intel". >>> >>> >> 200612/121406Photoshop.html> >> >> And can I be the first one to say how much it rocks? :) > > More than any feature, what I'd like to see is an application design > that better represents the modern Mac design mindset. There are still > a lot of modal dialogs in Photoshop (at least CS1 -- I didn't upgrade > last time around), and a number of controls that look and act more > more like Windows controls than Mac controls. Ok, this I can agree with - there are too many modal dialogs still in Photoshop, but I don't think of this as a Windows-ism, more like a legacy Photoshop-ism. I can think of no reason why, for instance, the basic Image>Adjust dialogs (Curves, Levels, etc) shouldn't be modeless, especially now that we have non-destructive Adjustment Layers. Don't know about the Windows controls though... again, the platform seems more like the Adobe Virtual Machine than OSX or Windows to me. From jearle at gmail.com Fri Dec 15 07:58:13 2006 From: jearle at gmail.com (Jared Earle) Date: Fri Dec 15 07:58:17 2006 Subject: Can I Get a Hallelujah? In-Reply-To: <60717.216.163.128.130.1166197471.squirrel@webmail.rogerroger.org> References: <9CAA3AC3-CD48-4875-B64E-32A3D52D8EC8@mac.com> <2A15C570-61D1-410E-9FB6-E9D8455B70C7@rogerroger.org> <192B639F-10CC-430A-9ACF-47D0B06DC415@rogerroger.org> <8E132403-1EF8-4E61-A313-463E8323337E@mac.com> <802FB0CB-6B46-4A2C-9411-75AA7D762004@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <07E72507-5C60-4611-8E28-B53A571CD9A5@maxify.com> <221C560C-9A07-486A-946C-5A68A2B2CD37@mx6.tiki.ne.jp> <60717.216.163.128.130.1166197471.squirrel@webmail.rogerroger.org> Message-ID: <5bbc0cd60612150758p7d75004dv9b3d1b847613c823@mail.gmail.com> On 12/15/06, Roger Howard wrote: > The current state of Photoshop on OSX is *not* that it's a cheap copy of > the Windows version; if anything, the Windows version is the second-class > citizen IMHO. This is borne out by the Windows version needing a huge grey box for everything to fit in. -- Jared Earle :: There is no SPORK jearle@gmail.com :: http://www.23x.net The Spodcast :: http://spodcast.org From scott at maxify.com Fri Dec 15 08:04:46 2006 From: scott at maxify.com (Scott Stevenson) Date: Fri Dec 15 08:04:57 2006 Subject: Can I Get a Hallelujah? In-Reply-To: <62104.216.163.128.130.1166197628.squirrel@webmail.rogerroger.org> References: <7D73B362-0FED-43DD-BA98-7A6327B31EE1@maxify.com> <62104.216.163.128.130.1166197628.squirrel@webmail.rogerroger.org> Message-ID: <5D5ACA8C-B06F-4D6C-AF60-5BC926237CF6@maxify.com> On Dec 15, 2006, at 7:47 AM, Roger Howard wrote: > Don't know about the Windows controls though... again, the platform > seems > more like the Adobe Virtual Machine than OSX or Windows to me. You can call it whatever you want, but the lowest common denominator approach doesn't really resonate with me. Adobe is, of course, free to pursue any strategy they like, but ultimately I'm a Mac user who currently uses Photoshop, not the other way around. The core engine is fantastic, I just want a UI that is designed with the Mac in mind. - Scott -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /mailman/archive/macosx-talk/attachments/20061215/27159410/attachment.html From rogerhoward at rogerroger.org Fri Dec 15 08:48:29 2006 From: rogerhoward at rogerroger.org (Roger Howard) Date: Fri Dec 15 08:48:34 2006 Subject: Can I Get a Hallelujah? In-Reply-To: <5D5ACA8C-B06F-4D6C-AF60-5BC926237CF6@maxify.com> References: <7D73B362-0FED-43DD-BA98-7A6327B31EE1@maxify.com> <62104.216.163.128.130.1166197628.squirrel@webmail.rogerroger.org> <5D5ACA8C-B06F-4D6C-AF60-5BC926237CF6@maxify.com> Message-ID: <57418.216.163.128.130.1166201309.squirrel@webmail.rogerroger.org> On Fri, December 15, 2006 8:04 am, Scott Stevenson wrote: > > On Dec 15, 2006, at 7:47 AM, Roger Howard wrote: > >> Don't know about the Windows controls though... again, the platform >> seems >> more like the Adobe Virtual Machine than OSX or Windows to me. > > You can call it whatever you want, but the lowest common denominator > approach doesn't really resonate with me. Adobe is, of course, free > to pursue any strategy they like, but ultimately I'm a Mac user who > currently uses Photoshop, not the other way around. I guess I don't see it as a lowest-common-denominator approach; if they only used controls or features available on both platforms then maybe, but Adobe builds their own UI with their own controls, so it's not limited by what's available on the lesser platform. There have been many cases too where the Mac version *did* exceed the Windows version; SMP support, color management, AppleScript support, etc. If this was a lowest common denominator approach we wouldn't have seen any of those capabilities on the Mac version. > The core engine is fantastic, I just want a UI that is designed with > the Mac in mind. Care to give any examples of where it's clearly limited by having to pander to Windows too, versus just being limited by their own UI concepts? I don't think the presence of modal dialogs has *anything* to do with Windows, for instance; you might disagree. PS, I agree in principle that even as an x-platform product it should embrace whatever platform it's on. I'm just trying to understand what specific complains there are. When this subthread first started I thought we were talking about more than UI - I know when CoreImage first came out a lot of people thought Adobe should somehow leverage that, for instance, so I'll grant that as an example (though one I'm not really qualfied to weigh in on). From merlyn at stonehenge.com Fri Dec 15 09:44:39 2006 From: merlyn at stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) Date: Fri Dec 15 09:44:51 2006 Subject: Can I Get a Hallelujah? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <86mz5pt5o8.fsf@blue.stonehenge.com> >>>>> "Scott" == Scott Stevenson writes: Scott> Photoshop CS3 beta tomorrow. It runs natively on processors by a company Scott> called "Intel". Scott> 200612/121406Photoshop.html> I don't see the download link from labs.adobe.com. Are they hiding it? -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training! From david at nodnod.net Fri Dec 15 10:09:39 2006 From: david at nodnod.net (David Zhou) Date: Fri Dec 15 10:10:19 2006 Subject: Can I Get a Hallelujah? In-Reply-To: <86mz5pt5o8.fsf@blue.stonehenge.com> References: <86mz5pt5o8.fsf@blue.stonehenge.com> Message-ID: On Dec 15, 2006, at 12:44 PM, Randal L. Schwartz wrote: >>>>>> "Scott" == Scott Stevenson writes: > > Scott> Photoshop CS3 beta tomorrow. It runs natively on processors > by a company > Scott> called "Intel". > > Scott> Scott> 200612/121406Photoshop.html> > > I don't see the download link from labs.adobe.com. Are they hiding > it? I think you need to log in first? It's also on MacUpdates. --- David Zhou david@nodnod.net From merlyn at stonehenge.com Fri Dec 15 10:14:22 2006 From: merlyn at stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) Date: Fri Dec 15 10:14:26 2006 Subject: Can I Get a Hallelujah? In-Reply-To: References: <86mz5pt5o8.fsf@blue.stonehenge.com> Message-ID: <86irgdt4ap.fsf@blue.stonehenge.com> >>>>> "David" == David Zhou writes: >> I don't see the download link from labs.adobe.com. Are they hiding it? David> I think you need to log in first? David> It's also on MacUpdates. Thanks... I thought I *was* logged in. It keeps forgetting