iMac manual
in [Mac Systems]
|
Prev: Help With Mac Security! MacBookPro Hacked?
Next: now with a timestamp and log... but still no clue: Re: MacBook Pro automatically shuts down after a while... really don't know why...
From: Jolly Roger on 18 Mar 2010 15:17 In article <4ba26c04$0$4961$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, "Michael" <mcsemike50(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I sat and set it all up for him and then as you said he could change the > entire resolution. The one it comes with is too small for him but the next > one looked good. Thanks again. If this Mac is using an LCD display, you should understand this before you switch to a lower resolution: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_resolution> -- Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts. JR
From: nospam on 18 Mar 2010 15:58 In article <jollyroger-702A12.14171318032010(a)news.individual.net>, Jolly Roger <jollyroger(a)pobox.com> wrote: > > I sat and set it all up for him and then as you said he could change the > > entire resolution. The one it comes with is too small for him but the next > > one looked good. Thanks again. > > If this Mac is using an LCD display, you should understand this before > you switch to a lower resolution: > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_resolution> having everything larger and slightly fuzzy (nowhere near as crappy as the picture in that link) is generally a lot better for someone with visual impairments than having small crisp fonts and other objects at native resolution.
From: Tom Stiller on 18 Mar 2010 17:32 In article <fmoore-102731.15090918032010(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Fred Moore <fmoore(a)gcfn.org> wrote: > In article <1jfjntb.f16p9t16fr9xmN%nospam(a)see.signature>, > nospam(a)see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote: > > > Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > nospam(a)see.signature (Richard Maine) writes: > > > > > > > > Don't forget the zoom feature of control-scrollwheel. My old eyes often > > > > find that useful. > > > > > > As did my middle-aged eyes until I broke down and sprung for a pair of > > > progressives. > > > > > > A valuable feature that lots of people don't know about! > > > > Yeah. I tried progressives, but they didn't work out for me. Tried two > > different ones in case the first was a lemon. I understand that it > > varies widely whether people hate em, love em, or somewhere between. I'm > > towards the "hate em" side - not avidly so, but in that direction. > > Certainly worth trying though, as I understand there are plenty of > > people on the "love em" side. > > Richard, my wife tried progressives, and they made her terminally > nauseous. They killed her? > > However, about 10 yrs. ago when I became presbyopic, I tried them. It > took me a full *9* months of hard work, wearing them a few minutes a day > then increasing the time, until I got comfortable with them. I suppose I > had to retrain my eye-brain interface. But now, I LOVE them and wear > them much more than my mono-focal glasses. I do prefer the mono-focals > for extended periods of distance viewing, such as driving across > country. Otherwise, the progressives are great. -- Tom Stiller PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF
From: Nick Naym on 18 Mar 2010 23:05 In article 1jfjntb.f16p9t16fr9xmN%nospam(a)see.signature, Richard Maine at nospam(a)see.signature wrote on 3/18/10 1:17 PM: > Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> nospam(a)see.signature (Richard Maine) writes: >>> >>> Don't forget the zoom feature of control-scrollwheel. My old eyes often >>> find that useful. >> >> As did my middle-aged eyes until I broke down and sprung for a pair of >> progressives. >> >> A valuable feature that lots of people don't know about! > > Yeah. I tried progressives, but they didn't work out for me. Tried two > different ones in case the first was a lemon. I understand that it > varies widely whether people hate em, love em, or somewhere between. I'm > towards the "hate em" side - not avidly so, but in that direction. > Certainly worth trying though, as I understand there are plenty of > people on the "love em" side. > > What does help me is having a second pair of (regular, lined) bifocals > specifically for computer use. Basically, the computer screen is too far > for the usual reading part of the bifocals and to close for the distant > part. If you use the regular bifocals, you can end up shoving your face > up too close to the screen and craning your neck up so as to look > through the bottom reading part. That's horrible on your neck. For > computer bifocals, they set the top part to a medium distance > corresponding to about where you tend to have your computer screen. Some > people just use single focus lenses for the purpose. My opticial > recommended doing them as bifocals; I'm glad he recommended that, as I'm > often also reading closer paper things while using the computer. > > I understand that some people go with trifocals for the purpose instead > of switching glasses, but I'm sure I couldn't stand the small zones that > would result. > You'd be surprised how easily you adjust...no different than how you adjust to a new pair of glasses with slightly different shaped/size lenses. > The only problem I have with them is a tendency to forget that I have > them on. Distance vision is good enough with them that it doesn't > imediately clue me in until I try to read something at a distance (like > a street sign). -- iMac (27", 3.06 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4 GB RAM, 1 TB HDD) � OS X (10.6.2)
From: Richard Maine on 19 Mar 2010 00:32
Nick Naym <nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid> wrote: > In article 1jfjntb.f16p9t16fr9xmN%nospam(a)see.signature, Richard Maine at > nospam(a)see.signature wrote on 3/18/10 1:17 PM: > > Yeah. I tried progressives, but they didn't work out for me. .... > > I understand that some people go with trifocals for the purpose instead > > of switching glasses, but I'm sure I couldn't stand the small zones that > > would result. > > > You'd be surprised how easily you adjust...no different than how you adjust > to a new pair of glasses with slightly different shaped/size lenses. You overgeneralize what I presume to be your experience. Different people have very different experiences in such things. I am quite confident that I would *NOT* adjust to trifocals. The biggest problem I had with my first pair of progressives was that the reading area was way too small. I did not adjust to that at all. Instead, I ended up just taking my glasses off to read. The second pair of progessives was a different style that didn't have that problem, but I didn't like em for other reasons. And I don't adjust well to different shape/size lenses either. I tend to get pretty much the largest lenses I can so that the edges are as far as possible out on the periphery of my vision. I have seen plenty of data to suggest that I am far from alone in some of these matters. I was careful in my initial post on the topic of glasses to acknowledge that I am aware that reactions vary widely. Don't assume that just because you might have adjusted to trifocals easily (I assume that's why you mention it, though my assumption could be wrong), that necesarily means it would be the same for all others. I know my personal issues well enough to be quite confident of my prediction (and disinclined to waste the time and money to verify it). P.S. Just like I don't have to try sticking contacts in my eyes to know that I won't like that. Ain't gonna happen. No way. -- Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience; email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment. domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain |