Thinking of a scanner
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Iphoto 08 to iPhoto 09
Next: Apple Tech Support?
From: Woody on 23 Feb 2010 07:45 Ben Shimmin <bas(a)llamaselector.com> wrote: > Pd <peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid>: > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > >> > And now I actually look, there is also a large XML file that indicates > >> > which files are in which album, so there is no metadata lost if you lost > >> > the application. > >> > >> You're wrong, of course. > >> > >> Since that XML file isn't remotely useful to any normal person without > >> Aperture, the data is in reality lost for any normal person if Aperture > >> goes. > > > > I don't know XML, but as a human (allegedly) person I can read an XML > > file and make some sense of it. That's one of the nice things about XML. > > In general I agree, but try unzipping a .docx file and having a look > at the XML that gives you. Yes, you can read it. No, you wouldn't > really want to. This is true, but the xml within a iPhoto library constitutes 'obvious' (in that any reasonably computer litterate person who would know what an xml file was could work it out). All it gives you is the grouping of events to photos and the people to photos info. It does give you the dates as well, although as that is already contained in the filing system and exif it isn't required. -- Woody
From: Rowland McDonnell on 23 Feb 2010 08:58 Daniel Cohen <dcohenspam(a)talktalk.net> wrote: > Daniel Cohen <dcohenspam(a)talktalk.net> wrote: > > > J. J. Lodder <nospam(a)de-ster.demon.nl> wrote: > > > > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > Well, no it doesn't. No UI, no nothing. The only response I've ever > > > > had from GraphicConverter when trying to TWAIN acquire - is crashing. > > > > > > Any TWAIN-compatible one, which they all are nowadays. > > > > Yes, but there may not be a TWAIN driver (is that the right word?) that > > works with 10.6.2. > > Just had another thought. The old TWAIN driver may well work if Graphic > Converter is run in 32-bit mode rather than the default 64-bit mode. .... but if it's a PPC driver ... ? > Though if Rowland's *only* response from GC was crashing, and that is > meant to mean even before Snow Leopard, then there is probably something > wrong with his system. There is firm evidence that is not case and that it's a bug in Graphic Converter. I've had the same response when running GC to scan using the same scanner - but a previous version of GC running on a 2G4 and a 4G5, neither using an OS beyond 10.4.11. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Rowland McDonnell on 23 Feb 2010 08:58 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > Ben Shimmin <bas(a)llamaselector.com> wrote: > > > Pd <peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid>: > > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > >> > And now I actually look, there is also a large XML file that > > >> > indicates which files are in which album, so there is no metadata > > >> > lost if you lost the application. > > >> > > >> You're wrong, of course. > > >> > > >> Since that XML file isn't remotely useful to any normal person without > > >> Aperture, the data is in reality lost for any normal person if Aperture > > >> goes. > > > > > > I don't know XML, but as a human (allegedly) person I can read an XML > > > file and make some sense of it. That's one of the nice things about XML. I've looked - that claim is purest bullshit. XML stinks and humans like me can't work out what's what inside an XML file. If I'd had the training course, maybe then. > > In general I agree, but try unzipping a .docx file and having a look > > at the XML that gives you. Yes, you can read it. No, you wouldn't > > really want to. > > This is true, but the xml within a iPhoto library constitutes 'obvious' > (in that any reasonably computer litterate person who would know what an > xml file was could work it out). That just means you're setting the scene to permit you to sneer at those who lack the high degree of expertise required. Rather pointless having a human-readable version of something like that when you've got tens of thousands of items to re-index - unless you're the sort of masochist who enjoys reclaiming data from computer problems. I'd much rather keep a card file index myself - much safer, much more reliable. The only computer database I'd trust is one that was run by a properly managed computer department that looked after backups and so on for me. [snip] Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Geoff Berrow on 23 Feb 2010 09:35 On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:58:18 +0000, real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote: >I've looked - that claim is purest bullshit. XML stinks and humans like >me can't work out what's what inside an XML file. It is at least plain text but some XML files can be quite complex and ar only designed to be machine read. -- Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email) It's only Usenet, no one dies. My opinions, not the committee's, mine. Simple RFDs www.4theweb.co.uk/rfdmaker
From: Woody on 23 Feb 2010 09:47
Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > Ben Shimmin <bas(a)llamaselector.com> wrote: > > > > > Pd <peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid>: > > > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > >> > And now I actually look, there is also a large XML file that > > > >> > indicates which files are in which album, so there is no metadata > > > >> > lost if you lost the application. > > > >> > > > >> You're wrong, of course. > > > >> > > > >> Since that XML file isn't remotely useful to any normal person without > > > >> Aperture, the data is in reality lost for any normal person if Aperture > > > >> goes. > > > > > > > > I don't know XML, but as a human (allegedly) person I can read an XML > > > > file and make some sense of it. That's one of the nice things about XML. > > I've looked - that claim is purest bullshit. XML stinks and humans like > me can't work out what's what inside an XML file. Maybe humans like you can't, but a lot of other humans can. It makes more sense to me than a latex file, as it has an obvious structure. That was true the first time I saw both formats. > If I'd had the training course, maybe then. Maybe, I think the majority of computer literate people who could work out simple formats wouldn't have too much of an issue with it > > > In general I agree, but try unzipping a .docx file and having a look > > > at the XML that gives you. Yes, you can read it. No, you wouldn't > > > really want to. > > > > This is true, but the xml within a iPhoto library constitutes 'obvious' > > (in that any reasonably computer litterate person who would know what an > > xml file was could work it out). > > That just means you're setting the scene to permit you to sneer at those > who lack the high degree of expertise required. No it doesn't. That means exactly what it says. > Rather pointless having a human-readable version of something like that > when you've got tens of thousands of items to re-index - unless you're > the sort of masochist who enjoys reclaiming data from computer problems. hardly. You could ask on a forum and there would be any number of people that could turn it into somehting useful for you > I'd much rather keep a card file index myself - much safer, much more > reliable. The only computer database I'd trust is one that was run by a > properly managed computer department that looked after backups and so on > for me. Why is that more useful way of indexing 10s of thousands of items? -- Woody |