[Trevor]

"vdubreeze" wrote in message
news:d5fbdbb9-5121-4092-958d-
That's all true. And naturally I wasn't referring to sitting at the
OS and not the program. But it was all the years of unhappily doing
file management on Windows when I wished I was in the Finder that
formed most of my preferences, not any Apple Kool-Aid. While both
have their oddities, count me in as one whose annoyances at OSX are
far fewer than my annoyances with Windows.

You do realise that there are hundreds of replacement file managers
available for Windows.? (Many of them free)
Everyone has their own idea of what user friendly means to them, so simply
select one that suits you, rather than buying a computer for its file
manager. Now that's really silly IMO.

Trevor.

[Arny Krueger]

"vdubreeze" wrote in message
...

On Jun 4, 6:39 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"vdubreeze" wrote in message

...
On Jun 2, 1:52 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

One might have thought that when Apple went over to the Intel side,
that
people would notice that a Mac has become just another PC clone,
running
an
OS that is probably the most limited in terms of device support of all
even
vaguely mainstream software platforms.

Because it isn't? : )

If you really believe that, then there must be an explanation.

There is. It's called everyday use.

I guess you don't understand the question, because that is not any way a
relevant response.


I could care less about the hardware argument, whether Macs are less
power for the money. As long as I don't have to sit in front of any
version of Windows I'm satisfied paying the price.


I understand blind hatred. Mac bigots accuse me of it. It is often very
hypocrtical of them to do so, but they really don't care about avoiding
looking that way in public.

?

Yet another irrelevant response.


Just doing the
mundane stuff on a great PC running Windows makes me want to slit my
wrists.

Yeah, it no doubt makes you feel so, so, so ordinary.

Not exactly. I work all day in front of both. I much prefer OSX for
getting things done. If you disagree, then fine. If you think OSX
and Macs are stupid junk for morons you don't have enough experience
with them.

That's a strange and kinda dysfunctional world you seem to live in. I think
that *any* OS is fine if it gets the job done in a reasonably efficient way.


I don't care who makes fun of OSX. I use them both and have
no problem proudly stating that I'm no fanboi but I simply way prefer
it to the clunkiness of Windows.

Yeah, you're not a Mac fanboy and Sarah Palin isn't a woman.


Like I said, I'm no fanboy. I sit in front of both for hours at a
time and when I'm on OSX I'm happier because it does things the way I
want it to.

Seems like you have a very narrow view of using a computer.


I own equipment of all makers and OS's. If that makes me
a fanboy you have a pretty low threshold for who qualifies as one, but
makes no difference to me.

Classic straw man argument of several in this post. You're a fanboy because
of your dysfunctionally strong reactions to computers - you see to think
that Windows computers are somehow dramatically inferior to all the rest.


I don't own an iPad.

Yet another straw man.

You can retort with
all the foolish remarks you care to, but it only serves that you're
not really making any point except to offer up personal insults
instead of good opinion.

At this point you're so far ahead of me in the personal insult contest that
you made up for yourself that I simply must bow to your abilities to be
insulting and alienate people.

I think there is a role for the counterpoint to Sale Carnegie's classic
book, and you seem to be a very likely person to write it.

[Arny Krueger]

"Trevor" wrote in message
...

"vdubreeze" wrote in message
news:d5fbdbb9-5121-4092-958d-
That's all true. And naturally I wasn't referring to sitting at the
OS and not the program. But it was all the years of unhappily doing
file management on Windows when I wished I was in the Finder that
formed most of my preferences, not any Apple Kool-Aid. While both
have their oddities, count me in as one whose annoyances at OSX are
far fewer than my annoyances with Windows.

You do realise that there are hundreds of replacement file managers
available for Windows.? (Many of them free)
Everyone has their own idea of what user friendly means to them, so simply
select one that suits you, rather than buying a computer for its file
manager. Now that's really silly IMO.

To me file management is hardly a reasonable basis to hate or love an OS.
If Windows Explorer gives someone a tummyache, they first need to figure out
how to avoid having to do all that file management, and then learn how to
use it for what little file management most people actually need to do.

Mr. Breeze seems to need more of a life, one in which he doesn't have time
to obsess over nits.

[vdubreeze]

On Jun 7, 9:02*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Trevor" wrote in message

...



"vdubreeze" wrote in message
news:d5fbdbb9-5121-4092-958d-
That's all true. *And naturally I wasn't referring to sitting at the
OS and not the program. *But it was all the years of unhappily doing
file management on Windows when I wished I was in the Finder that
formed most of my preferences, not any Apple Kool-Aid. *While both
have their oddities, count me in as one whose annoyances at OSX are
far fewer than my annoyances with Windows.

You do realise that there are hundreds of replacement file managers
available for Windows.? (Many of them free)
Everyone has their own idea of what user friendly means to them, so simply
select one that suits you, rather than buying a computer for its file
manager. Now that's really silly IMO.

To me file management is hardly a reasonable basis to hate or love an OS.
If Windows Explorer gives someone a tummyache, they first need to figure out
how to avoid having to do all that file management, and then learn how to
use it for what little file management most people actually need to do.

Mr. Breeze seems to *need more of a life, one in which he doesn't have time
to obsess over nits.

If you actually read my post it merely points to what formed my
preferences, not today, and I simply am stating preferences, of which
you seem to feel an invalid reason. Yes of course obviously there are
many free file managers, they are a necessity. I think it's great
that there are many ways to overcome the way Windows wants you to
work. But it's just another layer of a band aid to me. We could
argue for hours about why an OS should have ever had executables,
which is my personal bane. I like that there isn't the need for
everyone to write drivers for everything, that the Mac OS has always
said, sorry tomake it harder to write the app, but you must write it
this way, hook into our toolkit, access out drivers, but everything
works for me.

Yes of course, of course, I know that there can be little necessary
difference in the interfaces in this day and age, but I attribute that
to Windows thankfully becoming more OSX-like than the OSX becoming
more Windows like. But silly to argue this as if I'm the sole OSX
user in the universe. Do you know other Mac users? Are they all
idiots for their preference?

We could go around like this for months, so let's not. It's another
way of working that has it's fans, and to call someone who prefers
Macs a foolish fanboy is just childish, sorry. I would consider
maybe 10% of Mac users "fanboys". and I never considered myself one,
and I don't think you know me better than I do.

As far as who begins and is ahead in the personal flaming of someone
they don't know dept Arny, please...

Respectfully,

v

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
vdubreeze wrote:

On Jun 6, 11:13*pm, Jenn wrote:

Have you seen today's announcement about OSX Lion?



Jenn, to be honest very little about it is of interest to me. I don't
own any smartphones, and though I love my iPodTouch and refer to it
regularly I don't get any charge out of new social app developments or
anyone's music service. I'm just not much of a consumer.

It seems to be less about the cloud than it is about some convenience
features like "gestures" (as in the iPad, etc.), i.e. "pinching" and
swiping for screen management, etc. I like the way that the iPhone and
the iPad works in these regards, so it will be interesting to see how it
translates to a laptop and desktop setting.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/whats-new/#video-lion

Guess I
just lost my "fanboy" status. : )

lol Just another "Mac bigot" I guess! ;-)

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[Trevor]

"vdubreeze" wrote in message
...
Yes of course obviously there are
many free file managers, they are a necessity.

Right, all programs are a necessity or else it is pointless buying ANY
computer. If you don't like the ones included with some OS, you simply buy
or download others.


I think it's great
that there are many ways to overcome the way Windows wants you to
work.

Windows doesn't care how you choose to work. Use the included programs or
not, it's up to you.
Well actually Microsoft would like you to use Internet Explorer it seems,
but MANY people are quite happy not using that either. In fact the programs
I REALLY hate are Apple Quicktime and Adobe Flash. Too many stupid web sites
that insist on one or both :-( :-(


But it's just another layer of a band aid to me.

Then you simply don't understand what a computer and operating system are in
relation to the programs/applications.


We could
argue for hours about why an OS should have ever had executables,
which is my personal bane. I like that there isn't the need for
everyone to write drivers for everything, that the Mac OS has always
said, sorry tomake it harder to write the app, but you must write it
this way, hook into our toolkit, access out drivers, but everything
works for me.

Of course everything *that you can use* might work. There are PLENTY of
things that don't work on a Mac that do work on Windows however. FAR fewer
the other way around.


Yes of course, of course, I know that there can be little necessary
difference in the interfaces in this day and age, but I attribute that
to Windows thankfully becoming more OSX-like than the OSX becoming
more Windows like.

What crap, they all started out as Xerox Parc rip-offs and have just
developed from there.


But silly to argue this as if I'm the sole OSX
user in the universe. Do you know other Mac users? Are they all
idiots for their preference?

Nope, just idiots if they feel the need to justify the extra cost because
they prefer the Apple finder/file manager :-)

Trevor.

[Arny Krueger]

"vdubreeze" wrote in message
...

If you actually read my post

Typical *** bigot self-pity. Later on you prove conclusively that you don't
read mine.

it merely points to what formed my
preferences, not today, and I simply am stating preferences, of which
you seem to feel an invalid reason.

I think they are an invalid reason for libeling good software.

Yes of course obviously there are
many free file managers, they are a necessity. I think it's great
that there are many ways to overcome the way Windows wants you to
work.

There's that self-absorption, again.

But it's just another layer of a band aid to me. We could
argue for hours about why an OS should have ever had executables,
which is my personal bane.

You seem to like to struggle with the obvious. In this case obviously wrong.

I know of no OS that lacks executables. Certainly all permutations of the
Mac OS's and *nix have them. Heck, my cable box and Blu Ray player have
them. My programmable house thermostat has them. You see to believe that
they don't. If you really believe that, then you are delusional or really
need a good basic education in computer science before you go around
libeling every piece of software there is because it has executables.

I like that there isn't the need for
everyone to write drivers for everything,

Every computer you ever obtained that ran required everyone to write device
drivers for everything. I used to stand next to mainframes that had 1/100
the CPU power of my Sansa Clip and someone had to write device drivers for
it. You seem to put *nix on a pedestal, and based on what you say, it must
be because you seriously think that nobody has to write device drivers for
it! Wake up!


that the Mac OS has always
said, sorry to make it harder to write the app, but you must write it
this way, hook into our toolkit, access out drivers, but everything
works for me.

You can approach every working computer that way. AFAIK, he current Mac may
even run the exact same drivers as that the same hardware uses when it boots
windows, or not. Its not impossible.

BTW, you just blew *nix out the windows because it violates every rule
you've propounded so far.

Yes of course, of course, I know that there can be little necessary
difference in the interfaces in this day and age, but I attribute that
to Windows thankfully becoming more OSX-like than the OSX becoming
more Windows like. But silly to argue this as if I'm the sole OSX
user in the universe. Do you know other Mac users? Are they all
idiots for their preference?

Talk about not reading someone's posts. I already told you that there are at
least two operational Macs in my house. What I didn't tell you is that my
daughter and son-in-law who have their own house have a Mac. I know zillions
of people who have Macs and I've had two myself. No, I don't think that they
are idiots, but then again they don't try tell me that Macs don't have
executables.

AFAIK strurcturally, OSx is just a custom shell running on a heavily modded
and somewhat brain dead (especially when it comes to device support) dialect
of *nix.

We could go around like this for months, so let's not.

No, we can't go around for months because I have a long history of having a
short fuse when it comes to tolerating ignorant fools. Post again when you
actually learn something about how computers work, before you try to again
try to pontificate this authoritatively about computer science.

[Scott Dorsey]

Trevor wrote:

You do realise that there are hundreds of replacement file managers
available for Windows.? (Many of them free)
Everyone has their own idea of what user friendly means to them, so simply
select one that suits you, rather than buying a computer for its file
manager. Now that's really silly IMO.

I don't know how anyone can stand moving files around with a gui file
manager. I find the command line much, much easier for dealing with
file manipulation. It's more flexible and there are so many more things
you can do.

Right now I think OSX does have it all over Windows XP in the command line
department, which was definitely not the case for OS9. On the other hand,
Windows 7 now comes with Powershell which is a huge improvement over the
cheesy command.com. So things are getting better on both fronts.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[John Williamson]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Trevor wrote:
You do realise that there are hundreds of replacement file managers
available for Windows.? (Many of them free)
Everyone has their own idea of what user friendly means to them, so simply
select one that suits you, rather than buying a computer for its file
manager. Now that's really silly IMO.

I don't know how anyone can stand moving files around with a gui file
manager. I find the command line much, much easier for dealing with
file manipulation. It's more flexible and there are so many more things
you can do.

Right now I think OSX does have it all over Windows XP in the command line
department, which was definitely not the case for OS9. On the other hand,
Windows 7 now comes with Powershell which is a huge improvement over the
cheesy command.com. So things are getting better on both fronts.
--scott

Power Shell can be installed on XP, too. I got offered it as an optional
update recently.

I miss DOSShell, and Midnight Commander.

I always install mc on any Linux box as a first step to customising it.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

On 2011-06-08 (ScottDorsey) said:
I don't know how anyone can stand moving files around with a gui
file manager. I find the command line much, much easier for
dealing with file manipulation. It's more flexible and there are
so many more things you can do.

tHis is the one thing I"ve seen in all this argument about
the same old tired Mac vs. PC thread I'd agree with 100% all
the time. Even if the damned box won't tell the blind man
what he's doing he can sit down there and at least move
files around, or automate tasks in a script to do such
things. I learned my way around batch scripting for Dos and
command.com variants rather well over the years, still use
that stuff every day g.

Which GUI is the best? Imho none of them. IF I want a
"tape" transport for audio, that's what I want, clearly
discernible controls I can reach out and touch, reliably.
IF I want to move around files, I like my command line
thankyouverymuch.

AS for the remaindr of this thread, "wake me up when it's
over" grin.

Regards,



Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[tbrac]

On Jun 8, 5:23*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"vdubreeze" wrote in message

...

If you actually read my post

Typical *** bigot self-pity. Later on you prove conclusively that you don't
read mine.

it merely points to what formed my
preferences, not today, and I simply am stating preferences, of which
you seem to feel an invalid reason.

I think they are an invalid reason for libeling good software.

Yes of course obviously there are
many free file managers, they are a necessity. *I think it's great
that there are many ways to overcome the way Windows wants you to
work.

There's that self-absorption, again.

*But it's just another layer of a band aid to me. * We could
*argue for hours about why an OS should have ever had executables,
which is my personal bane.

You seem to like to struggle with the obvious. In this case obviously wrong.

I know of no OS that lacks executables. Certainly all permutations of the
Mac OS's and *nix have them. Heck, my cable box and Blu Ray player have
them. My programmable house thermostat has them. You see to believe that
they don't. If you really believe that, then you are delusional or really
need a good basic education in computer science before you go around
libeling every piece of software there is because it has executables.

*I like that there isn't the need for
everyone to write drivers for everything,

Every computer you ever obtained that ran required everyone to write device
drivers for everything. I used to stand next to mainframes that had 1/100
the CPU power of my Sansa Clip and someone had to write device drivers for
it. *You seem to put *nix on a pedestal, and based on what you say, it must
be because you seriously think that nobody has to write device drivers for
it! *Wake up!

that the Mac OS has always
said, sorry to make it harder to write the app, but you must write it
this way, hook into our toolkit, access out drivers, but everything
works for me.

You can approach every working computer that way. AFAIK, he current Mac may
even run the exact same drivers as that the same hardware uses when it boots
windows, or not. *Its not impossible.

BTW, you just blew *nix out the windows because it violates every rule
you've propounded so far.

Yes of course, of course, I know that there can be little necessary
difference in the interfaces in this day and age, but I attribute that
to Windows thankfully becoming more OSX-like than the OSX becoming
more Windows like. * But silly to argue this as if I'm the sole OSX
user in the universe. *Do you know other Mac users? Are they all
idiots for their preference?

Talk about not reading someone's posts. I already told you that there are at
least two operational Macs in my house. What I didn't tell you is that my
daughter and son-in-law who have their own house have a Mac. I know zillions
of people who have Macs and I've had two myself. No, I don't think that they
are idiots, but then again they don't try tell me that Macs don't have
executables.

AFAIK strurcturally, OSx is just a custom shell running on a heavily modded
and somewhat brain dead (especially when it comes to device support) dialect
of *nix.

We could go around like this for months, so let's not.

No, we can't go around for months because I have a long history of having a
short fuse when it comes to tolerating ignorant fools. Post again when you
actually learn something about how computers work, before you try to again
try to pontificate this authoritatively about computer science.


Wow. And you're saying *I* have no life? : ) I post once, then
ask not to make personal baseless flames and you spend an evening
picking apart every sentence in a post where I say there's no point in
arguing over preferences?

[tbrac]

On Jun 7, 11:19*pm, "Trevor" wrote:
"vdubreeze" wrote in message

...

Yes of course obviously there are
many free file managers, they are a necessity.

Right, all programs are a necessity or else it is pointless buying ANY
computer. If you don't like the ones included with some OS, you simply buy
or download others.

I think it's great

that there are many ways to overcome the way Windows wants you to

work.

Windows doesn't care how you choose to work. Use the included programs or
not, it's up to you.
Well actually Microsoft would like you to use Internet Explorer it seems,
but MANY people are quite happy not using that either. In fact the programs
I REALLY hate are Apple Quicktime and Adobe Flash. Too many stupid web sites
that insist on one or both :-( :-(

But it's just another layer of a band aid to me.

Then you simply don't understand what a computer and operating system are in
relation to the programs/applications.

*We could

argue for hours about why an OS should have ever had executables,
which is my personal bane. *I like that there isn't the need for
everyone to write drivers for everything, that the Mac OS has always
said, sorry tomake it harder to write the app, but you must write it
this way, hook into our toolkit, access out drivers, but everything

works for me.

Of course everything *that you can use* might work. There are PLENTY of
things that don't work on a Mac that do work on Windows however. FAR fewer
the other way around.

Yes of course, of course, I know that there can be little necessary

difference in the interfaces in this day and age, but I attribute that
to Windows thankfully becoming more OSX-like than the OSX becoming

more Windows like.

What crap, they all started out as Xerox Parc rip-offs and have just
developed from there.

*But silly to argue this as if I'm the sole OSX

user in the universe. *Do you know other Mac users? Are they all

idiots for their preference?

Nope, just idiots if they feel the need to justify the extra cost because
they prefer the Apple finder/file manager :-)

Trevor.

Trevor, I understand your position, but in my quest for brevity in my
post I merely focused on that issue. My whole world doesn't rest on
it. I own both, use both. Prefer OSX.

BTW, when I bought my MBP in 2009 there wasn't a laptop for the same
price with the same features, including a matte screen, that ran the
programs I wanted to run. So I didn't pay more for it.

But I'm glad you like your rig. I like mine.

[vdubreeze]

On Jun 8, 10:39*pm, tbrac wrote:
On Jun 8, 5:23*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:









"vdubreeze" wrote in message

....

If you actually read my post

Typical *** bigot self-pity. Later on you prove conclusively that you don't
read mine.

it merely points to what formed my
preferences, not today, and I simply am stating preferences, of which
you seem to feel an invalid reason.

I think they are an invalid reason for libeling good software.

Yes of course obviously there are
many free file managers, they are a necessity. *I think it's great
that there are many ways to overcome the way Windows wants you to
work.

There's that self-absorption, again.

*But it's just another layer of a band aid to me. * We could
*argue for hours about why an OS should have ever had executables,
which is my personal bane.

You seem to like to struggle with the obvious. In this case obviously wrong.

I know of no OS that lacks executables. Certainly all permutations of the
Mac OS's and *nix have them. Heck, my cable box and Blu Ray player have
them. My programmable house thermostat has them. You see to believe that
they don't. If you really believe that, then you are delusional or really
need a good basic education in computer science before you go around
libeling every piece of software there is because it has executables.

*I like that there isn't the need for
everyone to write drivers for everything,

Every computer you ever obtained that ran required everyone to write device
drivers for everything. I used to stand next to mainframes that had 1/100
the CPU power of my Sansa Clip and someone had to write device drivers for
it. *You seem to put *nix on a pedestal, and based on what you say, it must
be because you seriously think that nobody has to write device drivers for
it! *Wake up!

that the Mac OS has always
said, sorry to make it harder to write the app, but you must write it
this way, hook into our toolkit, access out drivers, but everything
works for me.

You can approach every working computer that way. AFAIK, he current Mac may
even run the exact same drivers as that the same hardware uses when it boots
windows, or not. *Its not impossible.

BTW, you just blew *nix out the windows because it violates every rule
you've propounded so far.

Yes of course, of course, I know that there can be little necessary
difference in the interfaces in this day and age, but I attribute that
to Windows thankfully becoming more OSX-like than the OSX becoming
more Windows like. * But silly to argue this as if I'm the sole OSX
user in the universe. *Do you know other Mac users? Are they all
idiots for their preference?

Talk about not reading someone's posts. I already told you that there are at
least two operational Macs in my house. What I didn't tell you is that my
daughter and son-in-law who have their own house have a Mac. I know zillions
of people who have Macs and I've had two myself. No, I don't think that they
are idiots, but then again they don't try tell me that Macs don't have
executables.

AFAIK strurcturally, OSx is just a custom shell running on a heavily modded
and somewhat brain dead (especially when it comes to device support) dialect
of *nix.

We could go around like this for months, so let's not.

No, we can't go around for months because I have a long history of having a
short fuse when it comes to tolerating ignorant fools. Post again when you
actually learn something about how computers work, before you try to again
try to pontificate this authoritatively about computer science.

Wow. *And you're saying *I* have no life? * : *) * *I post once, then
ask not to make personal baseless flames and you spend an evening
picking apart every sentence in a post where I say there's no point in
arguing over preferences?

Whoops. Loaned my laptop for ten minutes and someone else logged on
and not off.

[vdubreeze]

On Jun 8, 10:45*pm, tbrac wrote:
On Jun 7, 11:19*pm, "Trevor" wrote:









"vdubreeze" wrote in message

....

Yes of course obviously there are
many free file managers, they are a necessity.

Right, all programs are a necessity or else it is pointless buying ANY
computer. If you don't like the ones included with some OS, you simply buy
or download others.

I think it's great

that there are many ways to overcome the way Windows wants you to

work.

Windows doesn't care how you choose to work. Use the included programs or
not, it's up to you.
Well actually Microsoft would like you to use Internet Explorer it seems,
but MANY people are quite happy not using that either. In fact the programs
I REALLY hate are Apple Quicktime and Adobe Flash. Too many stupid web sites
that insist on one or both :-( :-(

But it's just another layer of a band aid to me.

Then you simply don't understand what a computer and operating system are in
relation to the programs/applications.

*We could

argue for hours about why an OS should have ever had executables,
which is my personal bane. *I like that there isn't the need for
everyone to write drivers for everything, that the Mac OS has always
said, sorry tomake it harder to write the app, but you must write it
this way, hook into our toolkit, access out drivers, but everything

works for me.

Of course everything *that you can use* might work. There are PLENTY of
things that don't work on a Mac that do work on Windows however. FAR fewer
the other way around.

Yes of course, of course, I know that there can be little necessary

difference in the interfaces in this day and age, but I attribute that
to Windows thankfully becoming more OSX-like than the OSX becoming

more Windows like.

What crap, they all started out as Xerox Parc rip-offs and have just
developed from there.

*But silly to argue this as if I'm the sole OSX

user in the universe. *Do you know other Mac users? Are they all

idiots for their preference?

Nope, just idiots if they feel the need to justify the extra cost because
they prefer the Apple finder/file manager :-)

Trevor.

Trevor, I understand your position, but in my quest for brevity in my
post I merely focused on that issue. * My whole world doesn't rest on
it. *I own both, use both. *Prefer OSX.

BTW, when I bought my MBP in 2009 there wasn't a laptop for the same
price with the same features, including a matte screen, that ran the
programs I wanted to run. *So I didn't pay more for it.

But I'm glad you like your rig. *I like mine.


Same. My words, not my login. Apologies.

[hank alrich]

Arny Krueger wrote:

No, we can't go around for months because I have a long history of having a
short fuse when it comes to tolerating ignorant fools.

Must make mornings difficult.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
I don't know how anyone can stand moving files around with a gui file
manager. I find the command line much, much easier for dealing with
file manipulation. It's more flexible and there are so many more things
you can do.

I use both methods to suit the job in hand, with a choice of two GUI file
managers or command line, depending on the task.


Right now I think OSX does have it all over Windows XP in the command line
department, which was definitely not the case for OS9. On the other hand,
Windows 7 now comes with Powershell which is a huge improvement over the
cheesy command.com. So things are getting better on both fronts.

I've never used the OSX command line, but I haven't found a problem doing
all the file manipulation I need in Windows.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"tbrac" wrote in message
...
Trevor, I understand your position, but in my quest for brevity in my
post I merely focused on that issue. My whole world doesn't rest on
it. I own both, use both. Prefer OSX.
BTW, when I bought my MBP in 2009 there wasn't a laptop for the same
price with the same features, including a matte screen, that ran the
programs I wanted to run. So I didn't pay more for it.
But I'm glad you like your rig. I like mine.

OK, fair enough, I can't argue with what you posted now. I'm happy with my
choice, and as I've said all along, everyone is welcome to their own choice
of how they spend their money. It's just I don't accept there is any huge
benefit of one over the other to justify the cost, and I simply hate the way
Apple tries to "straight-jacket" the users of most of it's products. Of
course that is exactly what many others love about them. Each to their own.
I note there is a whole segment of users who revel in "jail-breaking" Apple
products however, so obviously they aren't all happy with the Apple
philosophy.

BTW my Samsung laptop also has a matte screen, and all my desktop screens
are sufficiently anti-glare as to cause no problems for me. And all the
software I own is PC, so have no desire to change now! I agree the reverse
also applies for Mac users though. Most of the big programs are available in
both Mac and Windows versions though, so it's not an issue when making a
choice IMO. I guess if they REALLY insist on using Logic, Garage Band etc.
without ever wanting to learn the PC alternatives, then they are stuck. But
of course they would have needed to choose the Mac for some reason in the
first place to ever be in that postion. And the reason for that IME is
simply that they are told the Mac is easier to use when they buy their first
computer and have no experience with computing.

As always I have to admire Apple's marketing, if not their prices :-)

Trevor.

[vdubreeze]

On Jun 9, 2:13*am, (hank alrich) wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
No, we can't go around for months because I have a long history of having a
short fuse when it comes to tolerating ignorant fools.

Must make mornings difficult.


Hank, I'm sorry to have usurped your position : )

[vdubreeze]

On Jun 9, 6:54*am, "Trevor" wrote:
"tbrac" wrote in message

...Trevo r, I understand your position, but in my quest for brevity in my

post I merely focused on that issue. * My whole world doesn't rest onit. *I own both, use both. *Prefer OSX.
BTW, when I bought my MBP in 2009 there wasn't a laptop for the same

price with the same features, including a matte screen, that ran the

programs I wanted to run. *So I didn't pay more for it.
But I'm glad you like your rig. *I like mine.

OK, fair enough, *I can't argue with what you posted now. I'm happy with my
choice, and as I've said all along, everyone is welcome to their own choice
of how they spend their money. It's just I don't accept there is any huge
benefit of one over the other to justify the cost, and I simply hate the way
Apple tries to "straight-jacket" the users of most of it's products. Of
course that is exactly what many others love about them. Each to their own.

[William Sommerwerck]

No, we can't go around for months because I have a long history
of having a short fuse when it comes to tolerating ignorant fools.

Do you tolerate knowledgable fools (of which I am one)?

[Scott Dorsey]

Trevor wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

Right now I think OSX does have it all over Windows XP in the command line
department, which was definitely not the case for OS9. On the other hand,
Windows 7 now comes with Powershell which is a huge improvement over the
cheesy command.com. So things are getting better on both fronts.

I've never used the OSX command line, but I haven't found a problem doing
all the file manipulation I need in Windows.

The command.com is just awful. It's basically a copy of the CP/M command
language, written by someone who didn't really understand why and how CP/M
did a lot of things. CP/M itself is a knock-down bargain-basement imitation
of RT-11.

Consequently, command.com has things like pipes and filters, but they don't
work right and aren't really very useful. It's lacking a lot of standard
features that were normal on small computers back in the seventies.

Powershell is a night and day improvement; it has pipes and filters that
work, it has variables and strings that work, and functions and conditionals
to manipulate them. It doesn't have the whole Software Tools utilities
that have been around since the seventies and which are very handy on OSX,
but you could do far worse.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On 2011-06-10 (ScottDorsey) said:
The command.com is just awful. It's basically a copy of the CP/M
command language, written by someone who didn't really understand
why and how CP/M did a lot of things. CP/M itself is a knock-down
bargain-basement imitation of RT-11.
Consequently, command.com has things like pipes and filters, but
they don't work right and aren't really very useful. It's lacking
a lot of standard features that were normal on small computers back
in the seventies.

THis is as folks who really know and taught me say as well.
I really got into doing what I do with anything other than
stand alone music computers from the early '90's on, so I
learned command.com with all its limitations. AS I
commented elsewhere, I've learned to do a lot with its batch
scripting, but I've also found add on tools over the years,
many of them freeware which give one back some of what
command.com out of the box is missing.

TO see its glaring weaknesses up close and personal consider
what one can, and can't do with the command.com find command
g. I found a port of grep that works for most of what I
need however.


Regards,



Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 17:15:44 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:


On 2011-06-10 (ScottDorsey) said:
The command.com is just awful. It's basically a copy of the CP/M
command language, written by someone who didn't really understand
why and how CP/M did a lot of things. CP/M itself is a knock-down
bargain-basement imitation of RT-11.
Consequently, command.com has things like pipes and filters, but
they don't work right and aren't really very useful. It's lacking
a lot of standard features that were normal on small computers back
in the seventies.

THis is as folks who really know and taught me say as well.
I really got into doing what I do with anything other than
stand alone music computers from the early '90's on, so I
learned command.com with all its limitations. AS I
commented elsewhere, I've learned to do a lot with its batch
scripting, but I've also found add on tools over the years,
many of them freeware which give one back some of what
command.com out of the box is missing.

TO see its glaring weaknesses up close and personal consider
what one can, and can't do with the command.com find command
g. I found a port of grep that works for most of what I
need however.


Regards,

I have a friend who refused to learn to use any text editor beyond
EDLIN. His rationale was that no matter what, it would always be there
for him in any operating system that was ever shipped. He happily put
up with the clunky, near useless interface while everyone around him
was editing fast and easy with windows editors. EDLIN, of course, has
gone the way of the dodo.

Why wou;d anyone want to type COPY
C:\this_directory\that_directory\another\directory \file.doc to
d:\yet_another_****ing_directory\Ive_lost_the_will _to_live\the_wrong_file_name.doc
when a single mouse click and drag does precisely that?

As for batch files - how many different things do you need to work on
at once? Sort it all out once and for all and be dragged kicking and
screaming into the twentieth century. The twenty-first can come later.

d

[[email protected]]

On 2011-06-10 (DonPearce) said:
I have a friend who refused to learn to use any text editor beyond
EDLIN. His rationale was that no matter what, it would always be
there for him in any operating system that was ever shipped. He
happily put up with the clunky, near useless interface while
everyone around him was editing fast and easy with windows editors.
EDLIN, of course, has gone the way of the dodo.
Always hated that editor. FOund qedit while learning, and
never looked back.

Why wou;d anyone want to type COPY
C:\this_directory\that_directory\another\director y\file.doc to
d:\yet_another_****ing_directory\Ive_lost_the_wil l_to_live\the_wrong
_file_name. doc
I don't mouse, I've never found a gui screenreader I liked
that gave me the functionality this one does, so this old
lind man refuses to mouse, whether it be in unix or any
operating system. That's why I operate with dedicated hard
disk recorders as well, trying to capture 8 16 or 24 tracks
of audio whilst a screenreader is doing its thing is prone
to failure.

As for batch files - how many different things do you need to work
on at once? Sort it all out once and for all and be dragged kicking
and screaming into the twentieth century. The twenty-first can come
I think you misunderstand what a batch script might be, it's
not necessarily working on multiple tasks at once, but doing
multiple things, one after the other repetitively.



Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[vdubreeze]

On Jun 10, 1:25*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:


Why wou;d anyone want to type COPY
C:\this_directory\that_directory\another\directory \file.doc to
d:\yet_another_****ing_directory\Ive_lost_the_will _to_live\the_wrong_file_name.doc
when a single mouse click and drag does precisely that?


Oh jeez, Don, now you've gone and done it. You mean I didn't have to
be so patient when my dentist was using commands to pull up my xrays
from his server, just because he could?

[vdubreeze]

On Jun 10, 2:04*pm, vdubreeze wrote:
On Jun 10, 1:25*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:



Why wou;d anyone want to type COPY
C:\this_directory\that_directory\another\directory \file.doc to
d:\yet_another_****ing_directory\Ive_lost_the_will _to_live\the_wrong_file_name.doc
when a single mouse click and drag does precisely that?

Oh jeez, Don, now you've gone and done it. *You mean I didn't have to
be so patient when my dentist was using commands to pull up my xrays
from his server, just because he could?

Don't want that to come off as anything but a jest. I suffer from my
own set of old habits that are dying hard. But I'm with Don in the
camp of if I wouldn't do something with five people breathing down my
back waiting for me, I wouldn't go back to doing it in the privacy of
my own unless I really preferred it. Just because I know that the
pistons are only going up and down and affect the crankshaft and by
the time the transmission is done with it the wheels are turning
doesn't mean I want to go outside and turn them myself because I know
how it works. OTOH, I change my own oil...because I can.

Oh rats. Not a good argument.

BTW, Don, your command example is coffee-spit worthy.

[[email protected]]

On 2011-06-10 said:
Why wou;d anyone want to type COPY
C:\this_directory\that_directory\another\directory \file.doc to

d:\yet_another_****ing_directory\Ive_lost_the_wil l_to_live\the_wrong
_file _name.doc when a single mouse click and drag does precisely
that?
Oh jeez, Don, now you've gone and done it. You mean I didn't have
to be so patient when my dentist was using commands to pull up my
xrays from his server, just because he could?

OFten the command line is faster than looking down the list,
finding what you want, either tagging it if you've got a
group of files to move, or drag and drop.

I've got a couple point and shoot file manager I might use,
when I only want certain files from a directory moved
somewhere else, and I want to look at their contents
possibly first, etc. IN those situations we'll play mark
targets and shoot, but I find that with most operating
systems bootup to point of getting work done is much faster
without the gui front end. strokes for folks



Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[William Sommerwerck]

I've got a couple point and shoot file manager I might use,
when I only want certain files from a directory moved
somewhere else, and I want to look at their contents
possibly first, etc. IN those situations we'll play mark
targets and shoot, but I find that with most operating
systems bootup to point of getting work done is much faster
without the gui front end. strokes for folks

Some people seem congenitally averse to GUIs. With regard to Windows, you
can open two copies of Windows Explorer, and drag-and-drop between them much
faster than you could ever type in commands.

If you are simply deleting or renaming one or two files, a command line
would probably be faster and less trouble.

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce wrote:

Why wou;d anyone want to type COPY
C:\this_directory\that_directory\another\director y\file.doc to
d:\yet_another_****ing_directory\Ive_lost_the_wil l_to_live\the_wrong_file_name.doc
when a single mouse click and drag does precisely that?

Because I can copy thousands of files doing that with one command.

I can rename all the files that end in .wavx to .wav with one command.

I can convert hundreds of .wav files to .aiff files with one command.

I can take a million .wav files and add a stinger to the beginning of
each one with one command.

As for batch files - how many different things do you need to work on
at once? Sort it all out once and for all and be dragged kicking and
screaming into the twentieth century. The twenty-first can come later.

Batch files? You mean scripting?
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On 2011-06-10 (ScottDorsey) said:
Because I can copy thousands of files doing that with one command.
I can rename all the files that end in .wavx to .wav with one
command.
I can convert hundreds of .wav files to .aiff files with one
command.
I can take a million .wav files and add a stinger to the beginning
of each one with one command.

YEp, and, for Steve King, the commands I use every day,
simple file management stuff, I don't have to crack the
book. sOmething real arcane I might, but most everyday
stuff such as Scott describes, no need for the book.

As for batch files - how many different things do you need to work
on at once? Sort it all out once and for all and be dragged
kicking and screaming into the twentieth century. The twenty-first
can come later.
Batch files? You mean scripting?

YEp, under dos/win etc. they're called batch files, they're
scripting actually. COuldn't live without them for a lot of
stuff I do.


Back in the old dbase days I was the guy who wrote menu
programs to manage the database and manipulate data for the
rest of the folks in the shop, but preferred to work from
the dot prompt myself g.
NOw there was some convulted fubar command syntax for ya.
IF you were going to do that and you had fumble fingers best
to set help off g

Regards,




Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[vdubreeze]

On Jun 10, 4:43*pm, "Steve King"
wrote:

*I do a little video editing, some Photo Shop work, a lot
of writing, a lot of VO recording and editing, some Power Point design, etc.
etc. etc. *The point being that by the time I need to do something that at
one time would have been a command line task, I've forgot whether the the
semi-colon goes before or after the little carrot. *

Steve, and there's one more thing: If you cut typing class in Jr.
High you may have turned out to one be of those who can't use command
line as easily as a GUI regardless of your propellerhead status or the
potential of its use. I use it when its utility prowess easily pokes
through what is broken or confused in the OS, but as a typist I could
flatter myself by saying I'm mediocre. If I push it I can be fairly
serviceable but not without the typo that would sink a string of
commands. Is there a spellcheck for CL? : )

Since computers have forced us all to type and no one writes anymore I
have probably gotten good enough to go back and surprise Miss Maurer,
rest her soul, but there are those of us who aren't good touch typists
and don't relish it enough if we don't have to. I fear I'm one of
those who, even if I had the entire command libraries of every OS at
my disposal in my brain I still wouldn't use CL over a decent GUI,
especially regarding time spent, because my typing isn't up to it, and
I don't get the kick out of it that some do.

v

[The Kumins]

On May 17, 4:00*pm, Mike Rivers wrote:


And, no, I don't care enough about these little annoyances to buy a
Macbook Pro.


Well, my 2008 MBP on 10.6.7 is good waking from deep sleep 95% of the
time, peripherals don't seem to matter. Also not annoying enough to
replace.

The G4 running 10.4 gets confused by the 24" ACER monitor and goes
into a coma instead.

[vdubreeze]

On May 17, 4:00 pm, Mike Rivers wrote:
And, no, I don't care enough about these little annoyances to buy a
Macbook Pro.


Well, my 2008 MBP on 10.6.7 is good waking from deep sleep 95% of the
time, peripherals don't seem to matter. Also not annoying enough to
replace.

The G4 running 10.4 gets confused by the 24" ACER monitor and goes
into a coma instead.

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Because I can copy thousands of files doing that with one command.

I can rename all the files that end in .wavx to .wav with one command.

I can convert hundreds of .wav files to .aiff files with one command.

I can take a million .wav files and add a stinger to the beginning of
each one with one command.


There are plenty of file managers and programs that also allow you to do
all that with wild cards or scripts without leaving the GUI. They've been
around for decades after all.

Trevor.

[Steve King]

"The Kumins" wrote in message
...
On May 17, 4:00 pm, Mike Rivers wrote:


And, no, I don't care enough about these little annoyances to buy a
Macbook Pro.


Well, my 2008 MBP on 10.6.7 is good waking from deep sleep 95% of the
time, peripherals don't seem to matter. Also not annoying enough to
replace.

The G4 running 10.4 gets confused by the 24" ACER monitor and goes
into a coma instead.

This probably isn't the place for it, but I recently had my second failure
of the LCD screen on an iInc-252 flat screen monitor. It was fixed once
under warrantee after about 6 months, then failed again after about a year.
Waiting for a replacement under extended warrantee; one of the only times I
opted for that and only time I've needed it. Lucky.

Steve KIng.

[Scott Dorsey]

Steve King wrote:

This probably isn't the place for it, but I recently had my second failure
of the LCD screen on an iInc-252 flat screen monitor. It was fixed once
under warrantee after about 6 months, then failed again after about a year.
Waiting for a replacement under extended warrantee; one of the only times I
opted for that and only time I've needed it. Lucky.

What failed? Did the screen not light up? Was an image visible faintly
with a flashlight against the screen?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Steve King]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Steve King wrote:

This probably isn't the place for it, but I recently had my second failure
of the LCD screen on an iInc-252 flat screen monitor. It was fixed once
under warrantee after about 6 months, then failed again after about a
year.
Waiting for a replacement under extended warrantee; one of the only times
I
opted for that and only time I've needed it. Lucky.

What failed? Did the screen not light up? Was an image visible faintly
with a flashlight against the screen?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On boot up (or on turn off-turn on with the monitor power switch) the screen
flashes on then within a second or two goes to black. The repair report on
the first one I sent back indicated they replaced the screen. The symptoms
on the repaired monitor , after about 6 months, showed the same symptons.

Steve King

[Bill Graham]

Steve King wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Steve King wrote:

This probably isn't the place for it, but I recently had my second
failure of the LCD screen on an iInc-252 flat screen monitor. It
was fixed once under warrantee after about 6 months, then failed
again after about a year.
Waiting for a replacement under extended warrantee; one of the only
times I
opted for that and only time I've needed it. Lucky.

What failed? Did the screen not light up? Was an image visible
faintly with a flashlight against the screen?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On boot up (or on turn off-turn on with the monitor power switch) the
screen flashes on then within a second or two goes to black. The
repair report on the first one I sent back indicated they replaced
the screen. The symptoms on the repaired monitor , after about 6
months, showed the same symptons.
Steve King

Sounds like the mechanics who worked on my car. The battery would run down
when the car sat undriven for three days or more. I took it to the dealer,
and told them to find out what was running the battery down. When I picked
it up the next day, they said, "There isn't anything wrong with your
battery. We charged it up and it works fine." (I eventually found the trunk
switch broken so the trunk light was on all the time.)

[Scott Dorsey]

Steve King wrote:

On boot up (or on turn off-turn on with the monitor power switch) the screen
flashes on then within a second or two goes to black. The repair report on
the first one I sent back indicated they replaced the screen. The symptoms
on the repaired monitor , after about 6 months, showed the same symptons.

That's either a power supply problem or a backlight inverter problem. If it
is a backlight inverter problem, shining a flashlight on the screen will
allow you to see the image very faintly. It's there, it's just not lit.

Backlight inverter problems that are RoHS-related are very very common...
folks in some places east of us have yet to figure out that high voltage
circuits need to be laid out very differently with lead-free solder. They
work for a few months, the solder migrates and then they stop working.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."