Snow Leopard on iPad?
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: Your Name on 9 May 2010 01:46 "Wes Groleau" <Groleau+news(a)FreeShell.org> wrote in message news:hs5eg4$kcv$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > On 05-08-2010 21:33, Your Name wrote: > > Touchscreen is great for simple tasks, but useless for complex and or > > fiddly ones, especially on high-resolution displays, and especially when > > that display is basically a vertical surface. Prolonged use would be > > AWFUL! > > I never heard any complaints from my wife, who used one six to eight > hours a day for years. Of course, if she had to type on a full > keyboard mounted vertically, she probably would have complained. :-) > > But ten-key, no problem. Confirmed by my own experience in occasional > use. I can do ten-key vertically just as easily as horizontally. > > Having used both light-pens and touch screens occasionally for years, > I've always been puzzled why neither (until now) ever seem to catch on. Touchscreens have, but only for those very simple tasks like operating a bank's ATM / money machine or in-car navigation / control systems where all you have to do is push a few large buttons. In terms of real computer use it's unlikely they ever will.
From: Wes Groleau on 9 May 2010 16:45 On 05-09-2010 01:42, Your Name wrote: > news:hs5e41$h0b$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> Obviously, if you want to depend on fingers, you adjust display >> resolution, icon size, and/or text size. All three have been doable >> in Mac OS for ages. Does that make it not a "true" computer OS? >> (Mac Haters, FOAD) > <snip> > > Except people don't want their 27" iMac running at a resolution of 200x300. Exaggeration. 600x800 and maybe 1024x768 would be fine. And believe it or not, I still have website visitors with both of those resolutions. Actually, on a 27" monitor, you could probably go a lot higher. Plus, in Mac OS at least, you can change sizes of icons and text without changing the screen resolution. I've used touch screens and stylus screens. The iPod is the first one that ever gave me any trouble, and it's not bad. -- Wes Groleau Kids say … http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1361
From: Your Name on 9 May 2010 17:10 "Wes Groleau" <Groleau+news(a)FreeShell.org> wrote in message news:hs76th$rb1$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > On 05-09-2010 01:42, Your Name wrote: > > news:hs5e41$h0b$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > >> Obviously, if you want to depend on fingers, you adjust display > >> resolution, icon size, and/or text size. All three have been doable > >> in Mac OS for ages. Does that make it not a "true" computer OS? > >> (Mac Haters, FOAD) > > <snip> > > > > Except people don't want their 27" iMac running at a resolution of 200x300. > > Exaggeration. 600x800 and maybe 1024x768 would be fine. And believe it > or not, I still have website visitors with both of those resolutions. My PowerMac uses 1024x768 and this hopeless Windows PC uses 800x600, but both are only 19" screens. Someone who bought a 27" screen si not going to want to run it in 800x600 (unless they have vision problems). > Actually, on a 27" monitor, you could probably go a lot higher. > Plus, in Mac OS at least, you can change sizes of icons and text > without changing the screen resolution. I've used touch screens > and stylus screens. The iPod is the first one that ever gave me > any trouble, and it's not bad. The Mac OS you can change the size of text, etc. in the Finder, but you can't in alter it most applications. Even ignoring those problems, a computer's display is near vertical, which would be tiresome (at best) for long term touchscreen use.
From: wetpixel on 9 May 2010 17:50 In article <siegman-2BD0E5.14232230042010(a)bmedcfsc-srv02.tufts.ad.tufts.edu>, AES <siegman(a)stanford.edu> wrote: > In article <4bdb3255$0$14763$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com>, > Warren Oates <warren.oates(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > The DVD standard allows the author to disable _everything_ on the > > remote, piece by piece or all-at-once, while authoring, if needed. It's > > not temporary, though: once you've disabled functions on the remote, > > they're permanently disabled for that particular DVD. > > > > The US federal guvamint has no say in the matter, however. Where did you > > get that idea? > > Sorry if I'm suffering from misunderstandings here (don't make much use > of commercial media myself; occasional viewer of Netflix DVDs, but not > much else). > > My experience is that most of these DVDs start off by playing the > standard FBI warning message (as sternly worded as it is stupidly > pointless), during which user-initiated Fast Forward, Play, Menu, and > other similar commands are always temporarily disabled, as indicated > usually by a message that appears somewhere on the screen if you try to > use them, no matter how they're conveyed to the player. > > Then may come a sequence of ads and previews (generally as unwanted as > they are unwelcome), during which these same commands seem to be still > disabled when playing some DVDs but not others. > > My understanding was/is that this command disabling capability was > required by law to be built into the innards of all DVD players sold in > the U.S., in a way that could not be cancelled or overwritten by the > purchaser, on the grounds that the FBI message needed to be viewed by > the purchasers or renters of a DRM-protected DVD each and every time it > was played. > > And my supposition was that this inane legal requirement was most likely > put into the law as the result of bribery (aka lobbying) of Congress by > media companies, some of whom at least wanted to be able to use it to > force us to watch their ads before we could view the entertainment > content on their DVDs. > > Is either of these not the case? Can I buy a cheapo DVD player that > simply elects not to implement that command-disabling capability? Or > such a player in which that command-disabling capability can itself be > disabled or overridden in some simple and documented fashion? Consider this instead: the Federal Governments (whichever) could elect not to prosecute violators of copyright law if you do _not_ notify the user of the appropriate copyright law. It's not that they force people to show it, but that their cooperation may be needed. DVDs/players are made with codes that give basic region information, so they could be compliant by a common language and (perhaps?) an appropriate DVD copyright notice. So, rather than suppose some mistaken bribery; Many courts refuse to prosecute if the copyright holder is not made specifically aware of his rights and restrictions. It happens in many industries, and may sound more appropriate if you consider some different kinds of services and provisions do not have copyright over what they provide.
From: Wes Groleau on 9 May 2010 21:19
On 05-09-2010 17:10, Your Name wrote: > Even ignoring those problems, a computer's display is near vertical, which > would be tiresome (at best) for long term touchscreen use. Again, I never heard that complaint from my wife nor from any other cashiers. Having used them myself, I would not expect to mind any use other than typing text. -- Wes Groleau Kids say … http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1361 |