I think Apple hired some $MS programmers by mistake.

$MS programmers are known for making easy things difficult, 
and hard things almost impossible.

Apple's policy of 'keeping things simple' seems to be 
slipping lately, so they might be hiring $MS programmers.



Case in point, in Mac OS 10.5.2
********************************

Opened a blank TextEdit window.

In the Edit menu, dropped down 
to "Substitutions", which opened a sub-menu 
with 3 choices, one of which was "Smart Copy/Paste".

Hmm, looked up "Smart Copy/Paste" in the TextEdit 'Help' 
menu, yielded "Nothing Found".

Same result when I looked up "Substitutions" in the 
TextEdit 'Help' menu; no help there, either.


Someone said 'Google is your Friend' so tried the search 
terms:  

    "Smart Copy/Paste" + TextEdit


Got ten hits, one of which was:

<http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Smart+Copy/Paste%22+%2B+TextEdit&hl=en
&client=safari&rls=en&filter=0>


Lots of techie stuff, the best of which was that 
"Smart Copy/Paste" might somehow be used to throw Bash 
scripts into Apple's Mail program to do tricky things.

That is just ducky if you want to be a Unix/$MS/Mac geek 
who delights in tricky things, but how about the rest of 
us dummies who just want computers to do logical chores, 
without all the tricky stuff that needs to be laboriously 
learned and memorized, with NO FRIGGING TUTORIAL.

I am all for useful tricky things, PROVIDED they are explained 
in detail, somewhere - - - anywhere.

Apple failed to do that.  I am not the first guy to complain 
about Apple's "Help" system.  It leaves a lot to be desired.



C'mon Apple, stick to your original mandate of keeping things 
simple, clear, logical.  We don't need that convoluted $MS crap.

If you want to add features that are not intuitive, at least 
show us where we can look to learn how to use those features.

Sheesh! 

Mark-

--
Outside of a little crabbing, I love my Apple computers.

I have enough experience with the Windows OSs to REALLY 
appreciate Macs and Mac software.

Anyone doubts that, I suggest you run Windows for awhile, 
preferably the newest Vista OS.

You will gain a whole new appreciation for your Mac.

In article 
<noneof-E33CA8.23412427022008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
 Mark Conrad <noneof@urbusiness.invalid> wrote:

> C'mon Apple, stick to your original mandate of keeping things 
> simple, clear, logical.  We don't need that convoluted $MS crap.
> 
> If you want to add features that are not intuitive, at least 
> show us where we can look to learn how to use those features.

Apple will most likely never see your comments posted here. 

File a bug report if you want Apple to know about these problems!

-- 
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you 
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to 
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

Mark Conrad wrote:
> I think Apple hired some $MS programmers by mistake.
> 
> $MS programmers are known for making easy things difficult, 
> and hard things almost impossible.
> 
> Apple's policy of 'keeping things simple' seems to be 
> slipping lately, so they might be hiring $MS programmers.
> 
<snip>
> C'mon Apple, stick to your original mandate of keeping things 
> simple, clear, logical.  We don't need that convoluted $MS crap.
> 
> If you want to add features that are not intuitive, at least 
> show us where we can look to learn how to use those features.

You don't need new programmers to make text edit an odd program at
least. Anyone calling their program 'text' edit when it is unable to
save .txt files has a head start already. What you describe here sounds
like enhancements to the existing ridiculousness.

I thought of writing in to Apple's request and bug report page, but when
I came to the wording (please could you make your text edit program able
to save text files) it sounded so ludicrous I thought if it hadn't
occurred to them already, my request wouldn't help anyway.

Andy

"Mark Conrad" <noneof@urbusiness.invalid> wrote in message 
news:noneof-E33CA8.23412427022008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>
> I think Apple hired some $MS programmers by mistake.
>
> $MS programmers are known for making easy things difficult,
> and hard things almost impossible.
>
> Apple's policy of 'keeping things simple' seems to be
> slipping lately, so they might be hiring $MS programmers.
>
>
>
> Case in point, in Mac OS 10.5.2
> ********************************
>
> Opened a blank TextEdit window.
>
> In the Edit menu, dropped down
> to "Substitutions", which opened a sub-menu
> with 3 choices, one of which was "Smart Copy/Paste".
>
> Hmm, looked up "Smart Copy/Paste" in the TextEdit 'Help'
> menu, yielded "Nothing Found".
>
> Same result when I looked up "Substitutions" in the
> TextEdit 'Help' menu; no help there, either.
>
>
> Someone said 'Google is your Friend' so tried the search
> terms:
>
>    "Smart Copy/Paste" + TextEdit
>
>
> Got ten hits, one of which was:
>
> <http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Smart+Copy/Paste%22+%2B+TextEdit&hl=en
> &client=safari&rls=en&filter=0>
>
>
> Lots of techie stuff, the best of which was that
> "Smart Copy/Paste" might somehow be used to throw Bash
> scripts into Apple's Mail program to do tricky things.
>
> That is just ducky if you want to be a Unix/$MS/Mac geek
> who delights in tricky things, but how about the rest of
> us dummies who just want computers to do logical chores,
> without all the tricky stuff that needs to be laboriously
> learned and memorized, with NO FRIGGING TUTORIAL.
>
> I am all for useful tricky things, PROVIDED they are explained
> in detail, somewhere - - - anywhere.
>
> Apple failed to do that.  I am not the first guy to complain
> about Apple's "Help" system.  It leaves a lot to be desired.
>
>
>
> C'mon Apple, stick to your original mandate of keeping things
> simple, clear, logical.  We don't need that convoluted $MS crap.
>
> If you want to add features that are not intuitive, at least
> show us where we can look to learn how to use those features.
>
> Sheesh!
>
> Mark-
>
> --
> Outside of a little crabbing, I love my Apple computers.
>
> I have enough experience with the Windows OSs to REALLY
> appreciate Macs and Mac software.
>
> Anyone doubts that, I suggest you run Windows for awhile,
> preferably the newest Vista OS.
>
> You will gain a whole new appreciation for your Mac.

Good point Mark.  You should have posted on CSMA.  This would be of vital 
interest to that group. 

nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> wrote:

> Anyone calling their program 'text' edit when it is unable to
> save .txt files has a head start already.

Huh? TextEdit can save .txt files, now in Leopard, and for as far back
as I can remember.

-- 
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/musings.cgi> Muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers
<http://bogart-tribute.net> Tribute to Humphrey Bogart

In article <fq6amm$4co$1@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
wrote:

> Anyone calling their program 'text' edit when it is unable to
> save .txt files

Er... you are very confused.

-- 
Bart: This is the worst day of my life.
Homer: This is the worst day of your life SO FAR.

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 07:50:29 -0500, nospamatall wrote
(in article <fq6amm$4co$1@aioe.org>):

> You don't need new programmers to make text edit an odd program at
> least. Anyone calling their program 'text' edit when it is unable to
> save .txt files has a head start already.

I stopped reading right there. You are, not to put a fine point on it, simply 
wrong. TextEdit can, and does, read and write plain text files. If you open a 
plain text file, it will save it as a plain text file unless you otherwise 
specify. If you open a wide range of other file types, including .rtf and 
..doc, you can go to the 'Format' menu and make that document into a plain 
text file. This feature has been there for _years_. Certainly it's been there 
as long as I've been using TextEdit, which I think is as long as it has been 
around but I can't be arsed to check. I _know_ that this goes back to Tiger, 
I'm pretty sure that it goes back to Panther, and I think it goes back to 
Jaguar. I _think_ that somewhere around Jag Apple changed the name and some 
of the features of TextEdit; I know that its gained features since Jag. 
Whatever text editor shipped with Jag and earlier most definitely could read 
and write plain text files too. That I'm certain of. I stopped using 
SimpleText under Classic to read and write plain text when I started using 
Jag, and I didn't use a 3rd-party app, so it's gotta have been whatever Apple 
shipped.

You're not just wrong, m'man. You're earth-shakingly wrong.

-- 
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

In article 
<noneof-E33CA8.23412427022008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
 Mark Conrad <noneof@urbusiness.invalid> wrote:

> Hmm, looked up "Smart Copy/Paste" in the TextEdit 'Help' 
> menu, yielded "Nothing Found".

Gee, I found it; maybe you mistyped it:

Preserving proper spacing around copied text
When you paste or delete words, TextEdit can insert or delete spaces 
around them to ensure the correct amount of spacing remains. This is 
called �smart copy/paste.�


To use smart copy/paste:
?
To use smart copy/paste in the current document, choose Edit > 
Substitutions > Smart Copy/Paste.
?
To use smart copy/paste in all new documents, choose TextEdit > 
Preferences, click New Document, and select �Smart copy/paste.�


If you want to paste or cut exactly what�s selected, turn off smart 
copy/paste.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <fq6amm$4co$1@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
wrote:

> You don't need new programmers to make text edit an odd program at 
> least. Anyone calling their program 'text' edit when it is unable to 
> save .txt files has a head start already.

Text Edit certainly can save .txt files.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article 
<jollyroger-C2BDD9.02031728022008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> > C'mon Apple, stick to your original mandate of keeping things 
> > simple, clear, logical.  We don't need that convoluted $MS crap.
> > 
> > If you want to add features that are not intuitive, at least show 
> > us where we can look to learn how to use those features.
> 
> Apple will most likely never see your comments posted here. 
> 
> File a bug report if you want Apple to know about these problems!

The problem is not with TextEdit; it is with Mark.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

On 2008-02-28, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopiesofposts> wrote:
> In article <fq6amm$4co$1@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
> wrote:
>
>> Anyone calling their program 'text' edit when it is unable to
>> save .txt files
>
> Er... you are very confused.

OK, I never use TextEdit (I like vim) so I don't particularly
care how horrible it is, but I just tried it:

Started TextEdit from the Finder
Typed a few words
Selected File>Save As... and got four options:

Rich Text Format (RTF)
HTML
Word Format
Word XML Format

What no plain text option? But it didn't take me long to find
Format>Make Plain Text, after which the File>Save As menu changes
and it will save as a .txt

So it is possible save a new document as .txt but it is not
immediately obvious how to do so.

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

In article <slrnfsdloc.g91.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
 Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:

> So it is possible save a new document as .txt but it is not
> immediately obvious how to do so.

I just opened a blank document, typed some text, chose "Save" and got 
the Save sheet.  The drop down menu is titled "Plain Text Encoding", and 
there is a checkbox that says "If no extension is provided, use '.txt'."

I can't see how more obvious it can be.

The secret is in Preferences.  The first option in the "New Document" 
tab is to choose "Rich text" or "Plain text" via a pair of radio buttons.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <michelle-F77192.08401528022008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article 
> <noneof-E33CA8.23412427022008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>  Mark Conrad <noneof@urbusiness.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > Hmm, looked up "Smart Copy/Paste" in the TextEdit 'Help' 
> > menu, yielded "Nothing Found".
> 
> Gee, I found it; maybe you mistyped it:
> 
> Preserving proper spacing around copied text
> When you paste or delete words, TextEdit can insert or delete spaces 
> around them to ensure the correct amount of spacing remains. This is 
> called �smart copy/paste.�
> 
> 
> To use smart copy/paste:
> ?
> To use smart copy/paste in the current document, choose Edit > 
> Substitutions > Smart Copy/Paste.
> ?
> To use smart copy/paste in all new documents, choose TextEdit > 
> Preferences, click New Document, and select �Smart copy/paste.�
> 
> 
> If you want to paste or cut exactly what�s selected, turn off smart 
> copy/paste.


Followed your suggestions to the letter, still can't 
get it to work.

Chalk it up to senility here.  :-(

Tried turning the feature off in both the substitutions 
sub-menu AND the TextEdit preferences, however the spacing 
around pasted words remains exactly the same, regardless of  
the initial spacing around those pasted words.



Anyone else get it to work?   (in OS 10.5.2)

If so, would you please post something that 
illustrates the difference?

Mark-

On 2008-02-28, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <slrnfsdloc.g91.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
>  Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:
>
>> So it is possible save a new document as .txt but it is not
>> immediately obvious how to do so.
>
> I just opened a blank document, typed some text, chose "Save" and got 
> the Save sheet.  The drop down menu is titled "Plain Text Encoding", and 
> there is a checkbox that says "If no extension is provided, use '.txt'."

Well that doesn't happen here (Mac OS 10.4.11). Those options are
not available for a new document - they only become available after
you go to the "Format" menu and click on "Make Plain Text".

> I can't see how more obvious it can be.

Well if it happened like you said then I would agree.

> The secret is in Preferences.

Ahh so there is a secret to it! Not exactly obvious when it
relies on knowing a secret is it:-)

> The first option in the "New Document" tab is to choose
> "Rich text" or "Plain text" via a pair of radio buttons.

But the initial setting is "Rich Text" right? So to make it obvious
how to save a new doument as .txt you have to customise the app
by changing a preference - otherwise you need to know about the
Format>Make Plain Text thing.

Look, I agree that the poster who claimed that TextEdit could not
save .txt files was WRONG. All I was saying is that for someone
who has never used TextEdit it is not totallly obvious how to do
it. But that is fine with me because if I want to edit text files
I just use vim, and if I wanted a GUI editor that matched the
usefulness of vim I would probably get something like BBEdit.

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

In article <slrnfsdpfm.h88.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
 Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:

> > The secret is in Preferences.
> 
> Ahh so there is a secret to it! Not exactly obvious when it relies on 
> knowing a secret is it:-)

It's not very much of a secret.  It's right there in the open as soon as 
you open preferences.

And for that matter, the Format menu is even more in the open.

In other words, it is as much of a secret or arcane as double-clicking 
on an icon in the Finder to open a file instead of choosing "Open" from 
the Finder's File menu.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article 
<noneof-06B607.08283628022008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
 Mark Conrad <noneof@urbusiness.invalid> wrote:

> Followed your suggestions to the letter, still can't get it to work.

Not my suggestion; Apple's Help instructions.  The instructions you said 
you couldn't find.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <michelle-345551.09010028022008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <slrnfsdloc.g91.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
>  Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > So it is possible save a new document as .txt but it is not
> > immediately obvious how to do so.
> 
> I just opened a blank document, typed some text, chose "Save" and got 
> the Save sheet.  The drop down menu is titled "Plain Text Encoding", and 
> there is a checkbox that says "If no extension is provided, use '.txt'."
> 
> I can't see how more obvious it can be.
> 
> The secret is in Preferences.  The first option in the "New Document" 
> tab is to choose "Rich text" or "Plain text" via a pair of radio buttons.

The fact that you call it a secret says a lot about just how obvious it 
really is.  ; )  There shouldn't be a freaking preference, if you ask 
me. Apple should allow users to save in whatever format they want 
without having to go into Preferences and toggle a setting.

-- 
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you 
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to 
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

In article <michelle-7FF4CC.10100928022008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <slrnfsdpfm.h88.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
>  Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > > The secret is in Preferences.
> > 
> > Ahh so there is a secret to it! Not exactly obvious when it relies on 
> > knowing a secret is it:-)
> 
> It's not very much of a secret.  It's right there in the open as soon as 
> you open preferences.
> 
> And for that matter, the Format menu is even more in the open.
> 
> In other words, it is as much of a secret or arcane as double-clicking 
> on an icon in the Finder to open a file instead of choosing "Open" from 
> the Finder's File menu.

I think the point is it could be more intuitive. I agree with that 
assertion.

-- 
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you 
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to 
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

In article <slrnfsdloc.g91.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
 Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:

> OK, I never use TextEdit (I like vim) so I don't particularly
> care how horrible it is, but I just tried it:
> 
> Started TextEdit from the Finder
> Typed a few words
> Selected File>Save As... and got four options:
> 
> Rich Text Format (RTF)
> HTML
> Word Format
> Word XML Format
> 
> What no plain text option? But it didn't take me long to find
> Format>Make Plain Text, after which the File>Save As menu changes
> and it will save as a .txt
> 
> So it is possible save a new document as .txt but it is not
> immediately obvious how to do so.

Did you also notice that after you change the format to plain text in 
this way, your document is now viewed as a new "Untitled" document, 
rather than whatever the original name of your document was? -- so that 
you also have to rename if you wish to keep that original name?

I sympathize fully with the OP on this particular gripe, and more 
generally with the view that TextEdit is miserably programmed, 
interfaced, and documented for what would seem to be on of Apple's core, 
or primary, or perhaps even most heavily used programs.

In article 
<jollyroger-DAE287.11574428022008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> > > > The secret is in Preferences.
> > > 
> > > Ahh so there is a secret to it! Not exactly obvious when it 
> > > relies on knowing a secret is it:-)
> > 
> > It's not very much of a secret.  It's right there in the open as 
> > soon as you open preferences.
> > 
> > And for that matter, the Format menu is even more in the open.
> > 
> > In other words, it is as much of a secret or arcane as 
> > double-clicking on an icon in the Finder to open a file instead of 
> > choosing "Open" from the Finder's File menu.
> 
> I think the point is it could be more intuitive. I agree with that 
> assertion.

The only way it could be more intuitive is to make it the out-of-the-box 
default.  And I think that Apple believes that more people are 
interested in having formatted documents than plain text documents.  
Whether they're right or not is debatable, though.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article 
<jollyroger-1AB296.11565828022008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> The fact that you call it a secret says a lot about just how obvious 
> it really is.  ; )

I called it a secret in jest.

> There shouldn't be a freaking preference, if you ask me. Apple should 
> allow users to save in whatever format they want without having to go 
> into Preferences and toggle a setting.

That's just for the default; you can choose the format on a 
document-by-document basis from the Format menu.   Then the Save dialog 
gives you various options for the format you have chosen.

And it's quite easy to see which format you have.  If the window has a 
ruler with tabs, a Styles dropdown menu, spacing options, alignment 
options, you know it's not plain text; if all of those are missing, it 
is plain text.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <michelle-D6D2F6.11310028022008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article 
> <jollyroger-1AB296.11565828022008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > The fact that you call it a secret says a lot about just how obvious 
> > it really is.  ; )
> 
> I called it a secret in jest.
> 
> > There shouldn't be a freaking preference, if you ask me. Apple should 
> > allow users to save in whatever format they want without having to go 
> > into Preferences and toggle a setting.
> 
> That's just for the default; you can choose the format on a 
> document-by-document basis from the Format menu.   Then the Save dialog 
> gives you various options for the format you have chosen.

Ok. If that's the case (I never use TextEdit to edit plain text files - 
I'm a TextWrangler addict!), then I retract what I said about it being 
less-than-intuitive.

-- 
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you 
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to 
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

In article <slrnfsdpfm.h88.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
 Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:

> > The first option in the "New Document" tab is to choose
> > "Rich text" or "Plain text" via a pair of radio buttons.
> 
> But the initial setting is "Rich Text" right? So to make it obvious
> how to save a new doument as .txt you have to customise the app
> by changing a preference - otherwise you need to know about the
> Format>Make Plain Text thing.


But (speaking for myself, not the OP), since I create nearly all of my 
*new* TextEdit documents in .rtf format (TextEdit is my primary word 
processor *and* plain text editor), I *want* this default setting to 
remain as RTF.

And in addition, I've set things up so that incoming Word documents 
(attachments, etc) auto-open not in Word, but in TextEdit, in RTF format 
(this handles almost all Word docs I'm unfortunate enough to receive).

And then, I occasionally want to save one or another of these RTF 
documents, coming from either source, in plain text form for one purpose 
or another.

Word itself can immediately Save As .doc or .rtf files in two different 
versions of plain text format; in fact Adobe Acrobat can "Save As" PDF 
files converted down to two types of plain text format.

So for God's sake, why can't a widely used, basic, near universal Mac 
app like TextEdit have this trivial amenity?  -- along with all the 
other trivial and not so trivial improvements it so badly needs?

In article <fq6amm$4co$1@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
wrote:

> Mark Conrad wrote:
> > I think Apple hired some $MS programmers by mistake.
> > 
> > $MS programmers are known for making easy things difficult, 
> > and hard things almost impossible.
> > 
> > Apple's policy of 'keeping things simple' seems to be 
> > slipping lately, so they might be hiring $MS programmers.
> > 
> <snip>
> > C'mon Apple, stick to your original mandate of keeping things 
> > simple, clear, logical.  We don't need that convoluted $MS crap.
> > 
> > If you want to add features that are not intuitive, at least 
> > show us where we can look to learn how to use those features.
> 
> You don't need new programmers to make text edit an odd program at
> least. Anyone calling their program 'text' edit when it is unable to
> save .txt files has a head start already. 

What application are you talking about?

It's not Apple's TextEdit.app, which quite happily saves plain text 
files if you ask it to. And reading/saving other formats, which it does, 
is a feature, not a but.

In article <slrnfsdloc.g91.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
 Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:

> On 2008-02-28, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopiesofposts> wrote:
> > In article <fq6amm$4co$1@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Anyone calling their program 'text' edit when it is unable to
> >> save .txt files
> >
> > Er... you are very confused.
> 
> OK, I never use TextEdit (I like vim) so I don't particularly
> care how horrible it is, but I just tried it:
> 
> Started TextEdit from the Finder
> Typed a few words
> Selected File>Save As... and got four options:
> 
> Rich Text Format (RTF)
> HTML
> Word Format
> Word XML Format
> 
> What no plain text option? But it didn't take me long to find
> Format>Make Plain Text, after which the File>Save As menu changes
> and it will save as a .txt
> 
> So it is possible save a new document as .txt but it is not
> immediately obvious how to do so.

TextEdit.app: Preferences --> New Document. Select Plain text instead of 
Rich text.

Until you change that preference...

Create a new document, enter some text, then hit command-S, or select 
File --> Save. The save sheet, at the bottom, includes a drop-down menu 
to let you specify the plain text encoding, UTF-8, etc.

Poking around in the menus of J Random App answers most of your 
application questions, most of the time.

On 2008-02-28, Steve Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:

> TextEdit.app: Preferences --> New Document. Select Plain text instead of 
> Rich text.

Yes, Michelle pointed that out and it works fine.

> Until you change that preference...
>
> Create a new document, enter some text, then hit command-S, or select 
> File --> Save. The save sheet, at the bottom, includes a drop-down menu 
> to let you specify the plain text encoding, UTF-8, etc.

Not in my version of TextEdit it doesn't (Tiger). The save sheet
has a drop down menu which offers RTF (the default), HTML, Word
and Word XML. You only get the "Plain Text Encoding" drop down
menu after converting the document to plain text.

Perhaps they changed it in Leopard?

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

In article <slrnfse2v0.h99.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
 Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:

> On 2008-02-28, Steve Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
> 
> > TextEdit.app: Preferences --> New Document. Select Plain text instead of 
> > Rich text.
> 
> Yes, Michelle pointed that out and it works fine.
> 
> > Until you change that preference...
> >
> > Create a new document, enter some text, then hit command-S, or select 
> > File --> Save. The save sheet, at the bottom, includes a drop-down menu 
> > to let you specify the plain text encoding, UTF-8, etc.
> 
> Not in my version of TextEdit it doesn't (Tiger). The save sheet
> has a drop down menu which offers RTF (the default), HTML, Word
> and Word XML. You only get the "Plain Text Encoding" drop down
> menu after converting the document to plain text.
> 
> Perhaps they changed it in Leopard?

Apparently so. At least, as of my quick check here this morning.

In article 
<jollyroger-CD21AE.12445928022008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> > That's just for the default; you can choose the format on a 
> > document-by-document basis from the Format menu.   Then the Save 
> > dialog gives you various options for the format you have chosen.
> 
> Ok. If that's the case (I never use TextEdit to edit plain text files 
> - I'm a TextWrangler addict!), then I retract what I said about it 
> being less-than-intuitive.

Yup, that's the case.  But this is usenet, you're not allowed to retract 
anything.  ;)

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <siegman-418EF8.10204128022008@nntp.stanford.edu>,
 AES <siegman@stanford.edu> wrote:

> > So it is possible save a new document as .txt but it is not 
> > immediately obvious how to do so.
> 
> Did you also notice that after you change the format to plain text in 
> this way, your document is now viewed as a new "Untitled" document, 
> rather than whatever the original name of your document was?

No, I did not notice that, because it doesn't happen.  The name is 
retained, but when I save the document, I get a Save dialog because the 
format is changed.  It will then save the document as a new document, so 
I have one with the txt extension and one with the rtf extension.  But 
the name is not changed to Untitled.

> I sympathize fully with the OP on this particular gripe, and more 
> generally with the view that TextEdit is miserably programmed, 
> interfaced, and documented for what would seem to be on of Apple's 
> core, or primary, or perhaps even most heavily used programs.

I guess that happens for people who can't see the obvious and for those 
who see what isn't there.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <michelle-35C962.08423328022008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article 
> <jollyroger-C2BDD9.02031728022008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > > C'mon Apple, stick to your original mandate of keeping things 
> > > simple, clear, logical.  We don't need that convoluted $MS crap.
> > > 
> > > If you want to add features that are not intuitive, at least show 
> > > us where we can look to learn how to use those features.
> > 
> > Apple will most likely never see your comments posted here. 
> > 
> > File a bug report if you want Apple to know about these problems!
> 
> The problem is not with TextEdit; it is with Mark.

How so?

I posted a problem I was having with "Smart Copy/Paste" 
along with my attempts to learn how to use that feature 
of TextEdit in Mac OS 10.5.2

You replied with Apple's "solution" which I could not get 
to work for myself.

So far, no one else, including you, have posted a way to 
get "Smart Copy/Paste" to work.

Are you implying that using "Smart Copy/Paste" is ONLY 
my problem - - - or will others who attempt to use that 
feature have the same "problem" as I do?

Mark-

In article 
<noneof-6241D3.11545528022008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
 Mark Conrad <noneof@urbusiness.invalid> wrote:

> I posted a problem I was having with "Smart Copy/Paste" along with my 
> attempts to learn how to use that feature of TextEdit in Mac OS 
> 10.5.2

You posted a problem about not being able to find anything about Smart 
Copy/Paste in TextEdit's Help; that's what I was referring to.  Let me 
quote back the relevant items of your whine:

> Opened a blank TextEdit window.
> 
> In the Edit menu, dropped down 
> to "Substitutions", which opened a sub-menu 
> with 3 choices, one of which was "Smart Copy/Paste".
> 
> Hmm, looked up "Smart Copy/Paste" in the TextEdit 'Help' 
> menu, yielded "Nothing Found".
> 
> Same result when I looked up "Substitutions" in the 
> TextEdit 'Help' menu; no help there, either.

<snip about google search results>

> I am all for useful tricky things, PROVIDED they are explained 
> in detail, somewhere - - - anywhere.
> 
> Apple failed to do that.  I am not the first guy to complain 
> about Apple's "Help" system.  It leaves a lot to be desired.

> C'mon Apple, stick to your original mandate of keeping things 
> simple, clear, logical.  We don't need that convoluted $MS crap.
> 
> If you want to add features that are not intuitive, at least 
> show us where we can look to learn how to use those features.
> 
> Sheesh! 

The rant was only about Apple's help, not about Smart Copy/Paste not 
working.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

J.J. O'Shea wrote:

> wrong. TextEdit can, and does, read and write plain text files. If you open a 
> plain text file, it will save it as a plain text file unless you otherwise 
> specify. If you open a wide range of other file types, including .rtf and 
> .doc, you can go to the 'Format' menu and make that document into a plain 
> text file.


Note: I went from 8.6 to a new fresh install of OS-X on a different
machine. (10.4). By default, Textedit was configured for rich text
and/or html. I had to go through the menus to disable this and make it a
"text" edit by default. (such as when creating new files).

What I see in Apple now is a drive to add glitz to OS-X instead of
usability. The stupid semi transparent menus are such an example. Great
"wow" factor at a keynote address when Jobs announces it, but in daily
life, it is a step backwards in usability.


I think the problem is that Apple is now trying to develop "appliances"
based on OS-X, and such appliances might benefit from those glitzy
features. (for instance, transparent menus overlaid over a moving TV
image while you make adjustements to the TV). But many of those are not
desirable for a computer.

In article <47c73fe3$0$25465$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> What I see in Apple now is a drive to add glitz to OS-X instead of
> usability. The stupid semi transparent menus are such an example. Great
> "wow" factor at a keynote address when Jobs announces it, but in daily
> life, it is a step backwards in usability.

Transparency is basically gone in 10.5.2; the menu seems to be between 
97 and 98% opaque.

In article
<noneof-6241D3.11545528022008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, Mark
Conrad <noneof@urbusiness.invalid> wrote:


> So far, no one else, including you, have posted a way to 
> get "Smart Copy/Paste" to work.
> 
> Are you implying that using "Smart Copy/Paste" is ONLY 
> my problem - - - or will others who attempt to use that 
> feature have the same "problem" as I do?

The way to get "Smart Copy/Paste" to work in Textedit is to make sure
that it is checked in the "Edit -> Substitutions -> Smart Copy/Paste"
menu selection. It is not an action, per se, but a mode toggle. It is
either on (enabled) or off (disabled). If it is enabled (menu item is
checked) then whenever you do a paste or copy operation, Textedit will
ensure that there are the proper number of spaces surrounding the text
that you have inserted.

The help feature can be found by typing "smart paste/copy" in the
Textedit help search box. When I do this, I get two items "Menu Items"
and "Help Topics | Preserving proper spacing around copied text".

When I dwell my cursor over the "Menu Items" entry, the actual Textedit
menu appears with a *big* blue arrow pointing to the menu item. I had
never seen this before. Thanks.

If I click on the "Help Topics" item, the referenced "Preserving proper
spacing around copied text" appears and tells me:

"When you paste or delete words, TextEdit can insert or delete spaces
around them to ensure the correct amount of spacing remains. This is
called 'smart copy/paste.'"

I am running version 1.5 (244) of Textedit under OS 10.5.2.

Hope this helps.

-- 
Jim Gibson

 Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
    ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------        
                http://www.usenet.com

In article 
<jollyroger-1AB296.11565828022008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> The fact that you call it a secret says a lot about just how obvious it 
> really is.  ; )  There shouldn't be a freaking preference, if you ask 
> me. Apple should allow users to save in whatever format they want 
> without having to go into Preferences and toggle a setting.

You don't, though.  You can set the formating in, of all palces, the 
format menu.  The save dialog gives you the appropriate actions 
dependent on the format of the document.

It's actually rather clever.

It's only the very small percentage of people who both want plain txt 
files and don't look at the prefs or the format menu that have a 
problem.  And that's a pretty small number.  The fact that I was once 
included in this number has no bearing, it's still a very small number :/

-- 
Bart: This is the worst day of my life.
Homer: This is the worst day of your life SO FAR.

In article <siegman-418EF8.10204128022008@nntp.stanford.edu>,
 AES <siegman@stanford.edu> wrote:
> Did you also notice that after you change the format to plain text in 
> this way, your document is now viewed as a new "Untitled" document, 
> rather than whatever the original name of your document was? -- so that 
> you also have to rename if you wish to keep that original name?

That would be a feature: So that you don't accidently overwrite a 
formatted rtf file with a plain text file.
 
> I sympathize fully with the OP on this particular gripe, and more 
> generally with the view that TextEdit is miserably programmed, 
> interfaced, and documented for what would seem to be on of Apple's core, 
> or primary, or perhaps even most heavily used programs.

See, I think it's a rather neat little text editor.  I mean, I use 
BBEdit, but I am perfectly happy using TextEdit when I'm on someone's 
machine who doesn't have BBEdit.

-- 
Bart: This is the worst day of my life.
Homer: This is the worst day of your life SO FAR.

In article <m9WdnYhKvPfi1VranZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopiesofposts> wrote:

> 
> That would be a feature: So that you don't accidently overwrite a 
> formatted rtf file with a plain text file.
>  

If you have "myFile.rtf" (with or without the .rtf suffix) open and 
active in some app, you can certainly do a Save As [Text] to create a 
new "myFile.txt" without in any way touching or altering the existing 
"myFile.rtf".  I do the equivalent of this all the time in other apps.  
The only question is what is to be the default choice as to which of 
these file's window shall be be open and on top after the Save As 
action; and whichever choice the application makes is clearly visible by 
glancing at the title bar of the top window.

[Or in some apps, when you start with an open doc that's currently in 
format .aaa and do a Save As aimed at format .bbb, the app will give you 
a check box in the Save As dialog box asking "As a copy?".]

On 2008-02-28, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopiesofposts> wrote:
> In article 
><jollyroger-1AB296.11565828022008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> The fact that you call it a secret says a lot about just how obvious it 
>> really is.  ; )  There shouldn't be a freaking preference, if you ask 
>> me. Apple should allow users to save in whatever format they want 
>> without having to go into Preferences and toggle a setting.
>
> You don't, though.  You can set the formating in, of all palces, the 
> format menu.

Well sort of. The Format menu includes an action which allows you
to convert the current document to plain text.

If someone wants to write a three line bash script and thinks
they can just open TextEedit, type the script and save it, then
they will be dissapointed. The script won't work. They should
quickly realise that it is because it is not a text file. Then
they will probably open the save dialog again and see if they
can save it as a text file, but there is no option to do so
(only RTF, HTML, Word and XML Word). So then they would probably
look at the Format menu and find the option to convert it to text.
And then go back to the File menu and see that they can now save
it as text. That is obviously inconvenient so they will either
abandon TextEdit and go back to a proper text editor like vi,
or investigate the Preferences and discover the setting to create
text files by default.

It is not rocket science but it is kind of annoying that you
have to work to make a program called TextEdit actually create
text files.

> It's actually rather clever.

It's a fine line between clever and stupid:-)

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

Mike Rosenberg wrote:
> nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> wrote:
> 
>> Anyone calling their program 'text' edit when it is unable to
>> save .txt files has a head start already.
> 
> Huh? TextEdit can save .txt files, now in Leopard, and for as far back
> as I can remember.
> 
Well it's far from obvious, when you open the 'save as...' dialog it
isn't listed by default. I found some 'plain text file encoding' options
in prefs, but they don't seem to help. In any case, if true this is
better, but still silly, the default should be .txt, or it should at
least be there in the list without having to do voodoo. Otherwise you're
just encouraging people to be more complicated than necessary. The Web,
nwsgroups and emails are littered with silly ` type characters,
admittedly mostly from MS Word users, but still...

How can I make it do plain txt? Thanks

Incidentally Apple's Mail is annoying in this respect too.

Andy

Lewis wrote:
> In article <fq6amm$4co$1@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
> wrote:
> 
>> Anyone calling their program 'text' edit when it is unable to
>> save .txt files
> 
> Er... you are very confused.
> 
Not at all. .txt is not present in save as... dialogs

Andy

In article <michelle-0E9EEA.12472428022008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> But this is usenet, you're not allowed to retract 
> anything.  ;)

hee hee, okay.


Well then let me be the first to retract something, 
maybe I can set a trend.

I re-read my entire opening post, and I can see where 
you would have got the impression that my main beef was 
with Apple's "Help" system.


FWIW, let me retract the entire damn initial post, and 
start over again with a clean slate, okay?




My  _main_  complaint is that I can't see how to use 
the TextEdit feature "Smart Copy/Paste" for any 
constructive purpose.


Can you, or anyone else, shed some light on the 
proper way to use "Smart Copy/Paste" for a 
constructive purpose?

Mark-


--
PS, not interested in what Apple sez in their damn 
"Help" file, because their explanation of 
"Smart Copy/Paste" does not work for me.

I opine the Apple's explanation of the "Smart Copy/Paste" 
feature will not make sense to other Mac users either, 
but we already know that the Apple "Help" system sucks 
so loud that the noise could drown out 
ten loud vacuum cleaners.

J.J. O'Shea wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 07:50:29 -0500, nospamatall wrote
> (in article <fq6amm$4co$1@aioe.org>):
> 
>> You don't need new programmers to make text edit an odd program at
>> least. Anyone calling their program 'text' edit when it is unable to
>> save .txt files has a head start already.
> 
> I stopped reading right there. You are, not to put a fine point on it, simply 
> wrong. TextEdit can, and does, read and write plain text files. If you open a 
> plain text file, it will save it as a plain text file unless you otherwise 
> specify. If you open a wide range of other file types, including .rtf and 
> .doc, you can go to the 'Format' menu and make that document into a plain 
> text file. This feature has been there for _years_. Certainly it's been there 
> as long as I've been using TextEdit, which I think is as long as it has been 
> around but I can't be arsed to check. I _know_ that this goes back to Tiger, 
> I'm pretty sure that it goes back to Panther, and I think it goes back to 
> Jaguar. I _think_ that somewhere around Jag Apple changed the name and some 
> of the features of TextEdit; I know that its gained features since Jag. 
> Whatever text editor shipped with Jag and earlier most definitely could read 
> and write plain text files too. That I'm certain of. I stopped using 
> SimpleText under Classic to read and write plain text when I started using 
> Jag, and I didn't use a 3rd-party app, so it's gotta have been whatever Apple 
> shipped.
> 
> You're not just wrong, m'man. You're earth-shakingly wrong.

I just didn't make a long enough explanation of what I mean.

In any other text editor I can write a file and then 'save' and I get a
dialog with options. One of those options is usually .txt (and being a
TEXT editor, generally plain text is default), but with Text Edit it is
not there. Yes I know I can open an existing txt document and re-save it
as plain text, but if there is a way to save deliberately as txt it is
not apparent and that's what I'm talking about. At best .txt is hidden
away somewhere as if it was some obscure extra that power users might
need. It shows some odd priorities. That's all. I use BBEdit anyway, so
I am not directly affected by it, the reason things like this annoy is
that I get badly formatted webpages, emails and newsgroup messages far
too often, so this tendency to make things 'pretty' by default does
affect me even if I myself avoid crap like MS Word etc.

I know things will not change and will probably get worse as time goes
by, I'm just saying what I think, because I think it. RTF has its value,
and I'm not suggesting it shouldn't be there, just that plain text being
hidden away somewhere is ridiculous.

Andy

Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <slrnfsdloc.g91.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
>  Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> So it is possible save a new document as .txt but it is not
>> immediately obvious how to do so.
> 
> I just opened a blank document, typed some text, chose "Save" and got 
> the Save sheet.  The drop down menu is titled "Plain Text Encoding", and 
> there is a checkbox that says "If no extension is provided, use '.txt'."
> 
> I can't see how more obvious it can be.
> 
> The secret is in Preferences.  The first option in the "New Document" 
> tab is to choose "Rich text" or "Plain text" via a pair of radio buttons.
> 
Fine, it shouldn't be hidden away. As I said above, I don't use it
myself but I'm sick of getting all kinds of formats re-cycled as other
things like web, email etc. It just seems odd that Apple would make a
text editor that newbies would not save plain text files in. The default
should be plain text, not rtf, that should be an option.

But then I suppose they decided that a certain proportion of users would
try it once and conclude it wasn't as 'good' as Word, or somesuch. It
doesn't matter I gave up on common sense a long time ago.

Andy

Ian Gregory wrote:

> Look, I agree that the poster who claimed that TextEdit could not
> save .txt files was WRONG. All I was saying is that for someone
> who has never used TextEdit it is not totallly obvious how to do
> it. But that is fine with me because if I want to edit text files
> I just use vim, and if I wanted a GUI editor that matched the
> usefulness of vim I would probably get something like BBEdit.

What bothers me is that a lot of users don't even know there is such a
thing as 'plain' text. A lot of windows users I know particularly don't
know what I mean when I say, 'just send it as plain text'. Usually I get
a .doc when I ask for that!

If developers don't make these things very obvious they never get used.
Whatever you make the default is the most used. It would be better for
people to learn what plain text is and what rich text is and what both
are appropriate for. Too much hand-holding is bad for adults.

Andy

Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article 
> <jollyroger-DAE287.11574428022008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
>>>>> The secret is in Preferences.
>>>> Ahh so there is a secret to it! Not exactly obvious when it 
>>>> relies on knowing a secret is it:-)
>>> It's not very much of a secret.  It's right there in the open as 
>>> soon as you open preferences.
>>>
>>> And for that matter, the Format menu is even more in the open.
>>>
>>> In other words, it is as much of a secret or arcane as 
>>> double-clicking on an icon in the Finder to open a file instead of 
>>> choosing "Open" from the Finder's File menu.
>> I think the point is it could be more intuitive. I agree with that 
>> assertion.
> 
> The only way it could be more intuitive is to make it the out-of-the-box 
> default.  And I think that Apple believes that more people are 
> interested in having formatted documents than plain text documents.  
> Whether they're right or not is debatable, though.
> 
It would not even need 'intuition' (jeeezuz! is something like that even
an appropriate thing to use the word intuitive with?) if it was there in
the options along with rtf, etc. What the f... are they ashamed of .txt
or something? Why is it hidden away?

Andy

Lewis wrote:
> In article 
> <jollyroger-1AB296.11565828022008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> The fact that you call it a secret says a lot about just how obvious it 
>> really is.  ; )  There shouldn't be a freaking preference, if you ask 
>> me. Apple should allow users to save in whatever format they want 
>> without having to go into Preferences and toggle a setting.
> 
> You don't, though.  You can set the formating in, of all palces, the 
> format menu.  The save dialog gives you the appropriate actions 
> dependent on the format of the document.
> 
> It's actually rather clever.
> 
> It's only the very small percentage of people who both want plain txt 
> files and don't look at the prefs or the format menu that have a 
> problem.  And that's a pretty small number.  The fact that I was once 
> included in this number has no bearing, it's still a very small number :/
> 
My problem with it is not about how you choose, just that .txt is not
default and not even present until you change something. Obviously
everyone here would not be affected by this, even I would have found out
how if I needed to (I use another text editor) because I was aware it
could open .txt. 'intuition' should not come into it, and it shouldn't
be a special operation to make a plain text file, it should be the
default, and the others should be 'options' selected easily. It's just
another example of making things pretty at the expense of effective
communications. As someone else mentioned in this thread about
'appliances', it's what MS did to devastating results with things like
their email clients, only less harmful.

Plain text is the most basic and works anywhere, under any
circumstances. If people are not even aware of it that is a Bad Thing
for anyone who wants to use these networks for anything more than
chatter. I know it is a minor issue, I only mentioned it but it seems to
have generated a lot of response...

Andy

In article <michelle-9C624C.12512828022008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <siegman-418EF8.10204128022008@nntp.stanford.edu>,
>  AES <siegman@stanford.edu> wrote:
> 
> > > So it is possible save a new document as .txt but it is not 
> > > immediately obvious how to do so.
> > 
> > Did you also notice that after you change the format to plain text in 
> > this way, your document is now viewed as a new "Untitled" document, 
> > rather than whatever the original name of your document was?
> 
> No, I did not notice that, because it doesn't happen.  The name is 
> retained, but when I save the document, I get a Save dialog because the 
> format is changed.  It will then save the document as a new document, so 
> I have one with the txt extension and one with the rtf extension.  But 
> the name is not changed to Untitled.

This is common behavior when changing file formats.  For instance, if 
you open a Word document with AppleWorks, it's treated as a new document 
because it translated it from Word format to AppleWorks.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***

In article <fq7out$73e$1@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
wrote:

> My problem with it is not about how you choose, just that .txt is not
> default and not even present until you change something.

I think their reasoning is that it doesn't make sense to try to save a 
document with fonts and styles as plain text, because you'd lose all the 
formatting.  So first you have to change the format of the document 
you're editing to remove all that extra stuff, and then it's safe to 
save it that way.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***

In article <slrnfsejb1.hec.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
 Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:

> If someone wants to write a three line bash script and thinks they 
> can just open TextEedit, type the script and save it, then they will 
> be dissapointed. The script won't work.

When they have the Save dialog open, they should realize that it can't 
save as a text file at that point, if they have any sense at all.

> They should quickly realise that it is because it is not a text file.

Sure it is, if they have set their preferences to default to text files.  
And if they're savvy enough to write bash scripts, they should be 
knowledgeable enough to handle a preferences dialog.

One of the first things I do, if not the first thing, when running a new 
program for the first time is to look at the preferences.  I think that 
the majority of knowledgeable Macintosh users do the same thing.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

nospamatall wrote:
> better, but still silly, the default should be .txt, or it should at

The default _is_ .txt for some types of files.
And in some cases, the @#$%^#$%^ thing refuses to allow
anything else.  It forces me to save as xyz.log.txt
or xyz.html.txt

Yet when I rename the files, it has no problem opening
xyz.log or xyz.html

-- 
Wes Groleau

    You're all individuals!
           Yes, we're all individuals!
    You're all different!
           Yes, we are all different!
                                I'm not!

                      ("Life of Brian")

In article <fq7out$73e$1@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
wrote:

> 'intuition' should not come into it, and it shouldn't be a special 
> operation to make a plain text file, it should be the default, and 
> the others should be 'options' selected easily.

Why?

> Plain text is the most basic and works anywhere, under any 
> circumstances.

True, but how would saving in RTF format cause any problems for the 
average user?

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <fq7o6h$4ep$2@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
wrote:

> It would not even need 'intuition' (jeeezuz! is something like that 
> even an appropriate thing to use the word intuitive with?) if it was 
> there in the options along with rtf, etc. What the f... are they 
> ashamed of .txt or something? Why is it hidden away?

It is not hidden.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

On 2008-02-29, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> One of the first things I do, if not the first thing, when running a new 
> program for the first time is to look at the preferences.  I think that 
> the majority of knowledgeable Macintosh users do the same thing.

Well I don't do it as a rule. I prefer to dive in and use the app
in its default configuration for a while. The author presumably
had reasons for choosing particular defaults and I might learn
something by trying to work with the defaults. I will only look
at customising it when I have got a good handle on the default
behaviour or if it becomes obvious that the defaults are unsuitable
(like the defaults in TextEdit are unsuitable if you want to use it
to create text files).

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

In article <fq7nlr$3kq$1@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
wrote:

> It just seems odd that Apple would make a text editor that newbies 
> would not save plain text files in. The default should be plain text, 
> not rtf, that should be an option.

Why?

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <fq7nd2$2nm$1@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
wrote:

> Yes I know I can open an existing txt document and re-save it as 
> plain text, but if there is a way to save deliberately as txt it is 
> not apparent and that's what I'm talking about.

If you open a txt document in TextEdit and save it, it will be saved as 
a txt document; it does not change the format.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

nospamatall wrote:
> If developers don't make these things very obvious they never get used.
> Whatever you make the default is the most used. It would be better for

Maybe they intentionally made the default to be what more people
want to use.  When I use an app for the first time, I always open
the preferences, see what is available and immediately change any
that I know I am going to want.  So my TextEdit has always been
for editing TEXT not all sorts of fonts and images.

But considering the inexplicable popularity of $%&*%#$%%^#
HTML e-mail, it wouldn't surprise me to hear that more people
prefer TextEdit's default.

-- 
Wes Groleau
   "What you see and hear depends a good deal on where you are standing;
    it also depends on what kind of person you are."
                                                       -- C.S.Lewis

Michelle Steiner wrote:
> Yup, that's the case.  But this is usenet, you're not allowed to retract 
> anything.  ;)

That's right.  You have to claim you never said it.
Make sure you have the phrase "Prove it!" ready.

-- 
Wes Groleau

    I've noticed lately that the paranoid fear of computers becoming
    intelligent and taking over the world has almost entirely disappeared
    from the common culture.  Near as I can tell, this coincides with
    the release of MS-DOS.
                                  -- Larry DeLuca

In article 
<noneof-68600F.17220528022008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
 Mark Conrad <noneof@urbusiness.invalid> wrote:

> My  _main_  complaint is that I can't see how to use 
> the TextEdit feature "Smart Copy/Paste" for any 
> constructive purpose.
> 
> Can you, or anyone else, shed some light on the 
> proper way to use "Smart Copy/Paste" for a 
> constructive purpose?

OK, copy the above quoted text into TextEdit.  Make sure that "smart 
copy/paste" is checked in the Edit menu.

Select "shed" in the second paragraph.  Press Command-C to copy it.

Click between the p and the l in "complaint" in the first paragraph.  
Press command-V to paste.

Notice that "shed" has spaces separating it from the "p" and the "l" in 
"complaint.

Now uncheck "smart copy/paste" in the Edit menu.

Copy "shed" again.

Paste between the p and the l again.

Note that there are no spaces separating "shed" from the "p" and the "l".

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <fq7mmi$qg$2@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
wrote:

> >> Anyone calling their program 'text' edit when it is unable to
> >> save .txt files
> > 
> > Er... you are very confused.
> > 
> Not at all. .txt is not present in save as... dialogs

It's present in my save as...dialogs.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <fq7mlb$qg$1@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
wrote:

> How can I make it do plain txt? Thanks

You have been told that many times already.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

Ian Gregory wrote:
> On 2008-02-28, Steve Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
>> Create a new document, enter some text, then hit command-S, or select 
>> File --> Save. The save sheet, at the bottom, includes a drop-down menu 
>> to let you specify the plain text encoding, UTF-8, etc.
> 
> Not in my version of TextEdit it doesn't (Tiger). The save sheet
> has a drop down menu which offers RTF (the default), HTML, Word
> and Word XML. You only get the "Plain Text Encoding" drop down
> menu after converting the document to plain text.

Think of it as two programs.  One is Word's baby brother,
the other is vi's older brother.  Either the convert option
or the preference setting, both of which have been mentioned
many times already, switches between them.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Promote multi-use trails in northeast Indiana!
   http://www.NorthwestAllenTrails.org/

On 2008-02-29, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <fq7o6h$4ep$2@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
> wrote:
>
>> It would not even need 'intuition' (jeeezuz! is something like that 
>> even an appropriate thing to use the word intuitive with?) if it was 
>> there in the options along with rtf, etc. What the f... are they 
>> ashamed of .txt or something? Why is it hidden away?
>
> It is not hidden.

But it is not in the Save dialog along with the "rich" formats.
You open the drop down menu expecting plain text to be an option
and you see these Microsoft formats and HTML and wonder why the
hell you can't see the plain text option. Yes you figure it out,
but it it is a definite "wtf?" moment.

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

In article <slrnfsf0td.hla.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
 Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:

> > One of the first things I do, if not the first thing, when running 
> > a new program for the first time is to look at the preferences.  I 
> > think that the majority of knowledgeable Macintosh users do the 
> > same thing.
> 
> Well I don't do it as a rule. I prefer to dive in and use the app in 
> its default configuration for a while.

I didn't say that I changed anything, only that I looked at them.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

On 2008-02-29, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <slrnfsf0td.hla.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
>  Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:
>
>> > One of the first things I do, if not the first thing, when running 
>> > a new program for the first time is to look at the preferences.  I 
>> > think that the majority of knowledgeable Macintosh users do the 
>> > same thing.
>> 
>> Well I don't do it as a rule. I prefer to dive in and use the app in 
>> its default configuration for a while.
>
> I didn't say that I changed anything, only that I looked at them.

Well I tend not to look at them either - why bother if I am not
intending to change them? As I said, I prefer to use the vanilla
app for a while before investigating preferences.

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

In article <slrnfsf1ni.hla.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
 Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:

> > It is not hidden.
> 
> But it is not in the Save dialog along with the "rich" formats.

That's right; it's in the Save dialog when the document window is a text 
window, not an RTF window.

> You open the drop down menu expecting plain text to be an option
> and you see these Microsoft formats and HTML and wonder why the
> hell you can't see the plain text option. Yes you figure it out,
> but it it is a definite "wtf?" moment.

Gee, I never had a WTF moment with it.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

nospamatall wrote:

> Fine, it shouldn't be hidden away. 

To be the devil's advocate:

If you created some "rich text" in the editor pane, Apple probably wants
you to actively drop all formatting before being allowed to save as text.

But at the very least, the "Text" format should be grayed in the Save As
to indicate that Apple has chosen to not allow you to save as text using
TextEdit unless you do something else first.

Wes Groleau wrote:

> Maybe they intentionally made the default to be what more people
> want to use.  

No, they had a "Microsoft philosophy" of adding glitz where it was not
needed. Just like Microsoft made HTML default for emails for instance,
opening a whole can of worms with spam, phishing etc.

I have no problem with TextEdit having new capabilities, by the default
should have remained text files.

The initial Tiger release was a big can 'o MS Vista.  Most of the new 
features were not working correctly and they had no help pages.  The 
good news is that the Help Viewer constantly updates itself.  I just 
tried a few missing topics and they now appear after it beachballs for a 
few minutes to download them.  Make sure you have an internet connection 
while using it.

As for the "Tiger" features not working - 10.5.2 gets a bit closer.  
iTunes, Help Viewer, and Dictionary still beachball regularly.  Stacks 
works.  Networking is solid.  Spaces still doesn't work sanely. 
AppleWebKit still has bugs in POST and https.  Time Machine works on 
some remote volumes (and more with tedious hacking).  Mail shows 
multipart mail now but performance is still embarrassing.  G4 
performance is really, really bad.  Xenon performance is quite good.  
"Prebinding" got a new name but is more broken than ever.  QuickTime, 
QuickTime Helper, and Finder log memory manager errors like mad.  
Several unix daemons still crash and re-launch non-stop, especially on a 
G4.

Yeah, it's still Apple's Vista.

-- 
I don't read Google's spam.  Reply with another service.

On 2008-02-29, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <slrnfsf1ni.hla.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
>  Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:
>
>> You open the drop down menu expecting plain text to be an option
>> and you see these Microsoft formats and HTML and wonder why the
>> hell you can't see the plain text option. Yes you figure it out,
>> but it it is a definite "wtf?" moment.
>
> Gee, I never had a WTF moment with it.

Well gee, you never tried to do that until you had played with
TextEdit enough to know it was not built that way.

Anyone who opens TextEdit for the first time and types some
text and then wants to save it as .txt is bound to try opening
the Save dialog right? That is the logical thing to do. They
will see it is set to save as "Rich Text Format", which is not
what they want, so they will open the "File Formats:" drop
down menu and will see a variety of formats listed. They will
be looking for "Plain Text" and they have every reason to expect
it to be there. Why wouldn't it be? They don't see it because
it is not there. They look again, and most likely have a "wtf"
moment. The app is designed in such a way that that is practically
assured.

The only reason I didn't have a wtf moment myself is that the
OP had already claimed that there was no way to save as .txt
and although I didn't believe him I assumed that doing so
would at least require a non-obvious action. It  took me about
10 seconds to find the Format > "Make Plain Text" action and
go back to the Save dialog and see that plain text was now the
only option for saving.

Once you know how it works it makes some sense although from
what I have seen and heard I certainly don't rate TextEdit as
a text editor and I can quite understand why people pay good
money for apps like BBEdit.

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:33:20 -0500, nospamatall wrote
(in article <fq7nd2$2nm$1@aioe.org>):

> Yes I know I can open an existing txt document and re-save it
> as plain text, but if there is a way to save deliberately as txt it is
> not apparent and that's what I'm talking about.

Go to the Format menu, select 'Make Plain Text'. Shift-command-t. It's not 
complex.

> At best .txt is hidden
> away somewhere as if it was some obscure extra that power users might
> need.

Being out there in front of God and radar right on the Format menu _and_ 
given a command-key combination of its very own is _hidden_?! You've got a 
strange idea of how to hide stuff.

-- 
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:03:11 -0500, Michelle Steiner wrote
(in article <michelle-1BCE76.21031128022008@news.west.cox.net>):

> In article <fq7nd2$2nm$1@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
> wrote:
> 
>> Yes I know I can open an existing txt document and re-save it as 
>> plain text, but if there is a way to save deliberately as txt it is 
>> not apparent and that's what I'm talking about.
> 
> If you open a txt document in TextEdit and save it, it will be saved as 
> a txt document; it does not change the format.
> 
> 

Yep. Same as if you open a .rtf or a .doc.

-- 
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

In article <slrnfsf6sf.hla.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
 Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:

> > Gee, I never had a WTF moment with it.
> 
> Well gee, you never tried to do that until you had played with 
> TextEdit enough to know it was not built that way.

Less than five minutes, but it still wasn't a WTF moment.  I understood 
what it meant when I had the window as a text window and what it meant 
when it was an RTF window.  The windows are very different; one is a 
plain window and the other has a formatting ruler.

> Anyone who opens TextEdit for the first time and types some
> text and then wants to save it as .txt is bound to try opening
> the Save dialog right? 

Well, if they never bothered to explore the menus and preferences first, 
they might.  And in the vast majority of cases, it wouldn't matter to 
them anyway.  They typed text, and saved the document.  When they open 
the document, it's there just as they typed it.

> Once you know how it works it makes some sense although from
> what I have seen and heard I certainly don't rate TextEdit as
> a text editor and I can quite understand why people pay good
> money for apps like BBEdit.

It doesn't rate as a text editor?  I guess that you haven't explored it 
very well.  In its Rich Text mode, it's almost a word processor.  You 
can choose fonts and sizes, font styles, writing direction, save and 
retrieve complex styles, have tabs in the ruler (left, right, justified, 
and centered), create outlines/lists, adjust spacing, wrap to window or 
to page, auto-hyphenate at the end of lines, insert line, paragraph, and 
page breaks, have smart quotes and smart links, insert author, company, 
and copyright metadata, autosave, embed CSS, and a bunch more that I'm 
too tired to type.

Most people who buy BBEdit do so for its HTML support; those who want 
something more than BBEdit, but who do not need that HTML support and/or 
don't want to pay for BBEdit, get Text Wrangler, which is freeware from 
Bare Bones Software (the company that makes BBEdit).

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <slrnfsf22j.hla.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
 Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:

> >> > One of the first things I do, if not the first thing, when 
> >> > running a new program for the first time is to look at the 
> >> > preferences.  I think that the majority of knowledgeable 
> >> > Macintosh users do the same thing.
> >> 
> >> Well I don't do it as a rule. I prefer to dive in and use the app 
> >> in its default configuration for a while.
> >
> > I didn't say that I changed anything, only that I looked at them.
> 
> Well I tend not to look at them either - why bother if I am not 
> intending to change them? 

Because if I run across something that I would want to change, I'd have 
an idea of how to go about it instead of having to divert my attention 
for too long from the actual task at hand.

And sometimes I will change something, like for instance a default 
folder for downloading files from a web browser or ftp program.  Or the 
default font size for a document, so I can see it better with my 
65-year-old eyes.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:

> On 2008-02-28, Steve Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
> 
> > TextEdit.app: Preferences --> New Document. Select Plain text instead of
> > Rich text.
> 
> Yes, Michelle pointed that out and it works fine.
> 
> > Until you change that preference...
> >
> > Create a new document, enter some text, then hit command-S, or select
> > File --> Save. The save sheet, at the bottom, includes a drop-down menu
> > to let you specify the plain text encoding, UTF-8, etc.
> 
> Not in my version of TextEdit it doesn't (Tiger). The save sheet
> has a drop down menu which offers RTF (the default), HTML, Word
> and Word XML. You only get the "Plain Text Encoding" drop down
> menu after converting the document to plain text.
> 
> Perhaps they changed it in Leopard?

No, it depends entirely on whether the document is set to rich text or
plain text mode. I can't see any obvious differences between TextEdit's
behaviour in Leopard and Tiger (except for some new formats supported in
Leopard).

If your preference for new documents is set to Plain Text, or you choose
"Make Plain Text" from the Format menu, then you get Save As format
options for plain text files.

If your preference for new documents is set to Rich Text, or you choose
"Make Rich Text" from the Format menu, then you get Save As format
options for rich text files.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

In article <michelle-2E393B.21110228022008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article 
> <noneof-68600F.17220528022008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>  Mark Conrad <noneof@urbusiness.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > My  _main_  complaint is that I can't see how to use 
> > the TextEdit feature "Smart Copy/Paste" for any 
> > constructive purpose.
> > 
> > Can you, or anyone else, shed some light on the 
> > proper way to use "Smart Copy/Paste" for a 
> > constructive purpose?
> 
> OK, copy the above quoted text into TextEdit.  Make sure that "smart 
> copy/paste" is checked in the Edit menu.
> 
> Select "shed" in the second paragraph.  Press Command-C to copy it.
> 
> Click between the p and the l in "complaint" in the first paragraph.  
> Press command-V to paste.
> 
> Notice that "shed" has spaces separating it from the "p" and the "l" in 
> "complaint.
> 
> Now uncheck "smart copy/paste" in the Edit menu.
> 
> Copy "shed" again.
> 
> Paste between the p and the l again.
> 
> Note that there are no spaces separating "shed" from the "p" and the "l".


I am really trying, but your instructions did not work 
as advertised.

Did as instructed, made sure that "Smart Copy/Paste" was 
selected in both the "Substitute" drop-down menu of "Edit", 
and also made certain that the "Smart Copy/Paste" box of 
TextEdit preferrences had a check-mark in it.

When I selected "shed", I was careful to select only the 
four letters of shed, with no spaces before or after.

Pasted "shed" between the lower case letters 'p' and 'l' 
of the word "complaint", as per your instructions.


"Smart Copy/Paste" did not work, there were no spaces 
around the pasted "shed".

i.e., it looked like this:   compshedlaint

In other words, it looked exactly the same as if I had not 
selected "Smart Copy/Paste" at all.


I double-checked the selected "Smart Copy/Paste" in the 
"Substitutions" part of TextEdit's  "Edit" menu, it still 
had a check-mark just before "Smart Copy/Paste".



I have to ask, please do not take offense:

Did you check beforehand to make certain your own 
instructions worked?


I do not know what in the heck is going on here; all I know 
is that I can't get "Smart Copy/Paste" to work.


Frustrated, 

Mark-

In article 
<noneof-9C6AD5.23112428022008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
 Mark Conrad <noneof@urbusiness.invalid> wrote:

> i.e., it looked like this:   compshedlaint
> 
> In other words, it looked exactly the same as if I had not selected 
> "Smart Copy/Paste" at all.
> 
> I double-checked the selected "Smart Copy/Paste" in the 
> "Substitutions" part of TextEdit's  "Edit" menu, it still had a 
> check-mark just before "Smart Copy/Paste".
> 
> I have to ask, please do not take offense:
> 
> Did you check beforehand to make certain your own instructions 
> worked?

Yes I did, and it worked exactly as I described.  Did you make sure that 
smart copy/paste was selected *before* you copied?

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

On 2008-02-29, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <slrnfsf6sf.hla.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
>  Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Once you know how it works it makes some sense although from
>> what I have seen and heard I certainly don't rate TextEdit as
>> a text editor and I can quite understand why people pay good
>> money for apps like BBEdit.
>
> It doesn't rate as a text editor? I guess that you haven't explored it 
> very well.  In its Rich Text mode, it's almost a word processor.

Well that is *part* of the problem. What is it doing trying to
be a "word processor"? It might as well try to be a chess program.

>  You can choose fonts and sizes, font styles,

Well that would be fine if it was a "word processor".

> Most people who buy BBEdit do so for its HTML support;

They do? Not just because it is a much better text editor, which
happens to have all that advanced text editory stuff to help
writing code and markup in all sorts of languages, including
HTML?

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

In article <slrnfsf22j.hla.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
 Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:

> On 2008-02-29, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> > In article <slrnfsf0td.hla.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
> >  Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> > One of the first things I do, if not the first thing, when running 
> >> > a new program for the first time is to look at the preferences.  I 
> >> > think that the majority of knowledgeable Macintosh users do the 
> >> > same thing.
> >> 
> >> Well I don't do it as a rule. I prefer to dive in and use the app in 
> >> its default configuration for a while.
> >
> > I didn't say that I changed anything, only that I looked at them.
> 
> Well I tend not to look at them either - why bother if I am not
> intending to change them? As I said, I prefer to use the vanilla
> app for a while before investigating preferences.

Some applications have really, really *stupid* initial settings (like MS 
Office which has almost every "I know what you're doing more than you 
do" autocorrect setting turned on be default), so a quick perusal of the 
preferences can definitely make your initial experience with an app more 
favourable.

Andr�

In article <michelle-BBA382.01083529022008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > Did you check beforehand to make certain your own instructions 
> > worked?
> 
> Yes I did, and it worked exactly as I described.  Did you make sure that 
> smart copy/paste was selected *before* you copied?

Yes I did.   I also made sure it was  _still_  selected 
after I copied.



My turn ;-)   Did you make sure that you only selected 
the 4 letters "shed"  WITHOUT selecting any spaces 
before you copied?


Mark-

In article <fq7nd2$2nm$1@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
wrote:

> as if it [txt file] was some obscure extra that power users might need

For the vast majority of users, this is exactly correct.

-- 
Bart: This is the worst day of my life.
Homer: This is the worst day of your life SO FAR.

In article <slrnfsfjd5.hod.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
 Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:

> On 2008-02-29, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> > In article <slrnfsf6sf.hla.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
> >  Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> Once you know how it works it makes some sense although from
> >> what I have seen and heard I certainly don't rate TextEdit as
> >> a text editor and I can quite understand why people pay good
> >> money for apps like BBEdit.
> >
> > It doesn't rate as a text editor? I guess that you haven't explored it 
> > very well.  In its Rich Text mode, it's almost a word processor.
> 
> Well that is *part* of the problem. What is it doing trying to
> be a "word processor"? It might as well try to be a chess program.

No, it's trying to be a useful built-in tool for text processing.  
Unlike, say, notepad.

> >  You can choose fonts and sizes, font styles,
> 
> Well that would be fine if it was a "word processor".

You are making a distinction that is meaningless to five nines of the 
population.  You know this, right?

> > Most people who buy BBEdit do so for its HTML support;
> 
> They do? Not just because it is a much better text editor, which
> happens to have all that advanced text editory stuff to help
> writing code and markup in all sorts of languages, including
> HTML?

If you just want a top quality text editor, TextWrangler is free.  The 
main difference between them for most buyers is the HTML support in 
BBEdit.

-- 
Bart: This is the worst day of my life.
Homer: This is the worst day of your life SO FAR.

In article <slrnfsfjd5.hod.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
 Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:

> > Most people who buy BBEdit do so for its HTML support;
> 
> They do? Not just because it is a much better text editor, which
> happens to have all that advanced text editory stuff to help
> writing code and markup in all sorts of languages, including
> HTML?

Well, if they didn't need that HTML (and other languages, which I should 
have mentioned rather than implied) editing stuff, they would get 
TextWrangler for free instead, wouldn't they?

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article 
<noneof-F8009C.07342729022008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
 Mark Conrad <noneof@urbusiness.invalid> wrote:

> My turn ;-)   Did you make sure that you only selected the 4 letters 
> "shed"  WITHOUT selecting any spaces before you copied?

Yes, I did it exactly as I wrote.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

Okay Michelle, we both did everything "right" but the 
"Smart Copy/Paste" feature of TextEdit in OS 10.5.2 
does not work for me, however it  _does_  work for you.

Time to call in the Big Guns.


Big Guns, listen up, there is glory in this for you!

Obviously our resident senile (me) is doing something 
wrong, because he can't get "Smart Copy/Paste" to behave 
like it does for Michelle.



Here is Michelle's test for detecting the difference between 
using "Smart Copy/Paste", or  _not_  using "Smart Copy/Paste".
************************************************************

Michelle mentioned Apple's description immediately below:
-------------------------------------------------------
Preserving proper spacing around copied text -
   When you paste or delete words, TextEdit can insert or 
delete spaces around them to ensure the correct amount 
of spacing remains.  This is called �smart copy/paste.�


Onwards to Michelle's test:

In article <michelle-2E393B.21110228022008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article 
> <noneof-68600F.17220528022008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>  Mark Conrad <noneof@urbusiness.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > My  _main_  complaint is that I can't see how to use 
> > the TextEdit feature "Smart Copy/Paste" for any 
> > constructive purpose.
> > 
> > Can you, or anyone else, shed some light on the 
> > proper way to use "Smart Copy/Paste" for a 
> > constructive purpose?
> 
> OK, copy the above quoted text into TextEdit.  Make sure that "smart 
> copy/paste" is checked in the Edit menu.
> 
> Select "shed" in the second paragraph.  Press Command-C to copy it.
> 
> Click between the p and the l in "complaint" in the first paragraph.  
> Press command-V to paste.
> 
> Notice that "shed" has spaces separating it from the "p" and the "l" in 
> "complaint.
> 
> Now uncheck "smart copy/paste" in the Edit menu.
> 
> Copy "shed" again.
> 
> Paste between the p and the l again.
> 
> Note that there are no spaces separating "shed" from the "p" and the "l".



Michelle and I checked and double checked to make certain 
that we were both doing exactly the same steps in her test.

Nevertheless, works for her, does not work for me.

For me, the results of using "Smart Copy/Paste" as per 
the 'Michelle Test' are exactly the same as  _not_  using 
"Smart Copy/Paste" at all.


My setup:

  OS 10.5.2
  Model Name:  MacBook Pro
  Model Identifier:  MacBookPro3,1
  Processor Name: Intel Core 2 Duo
  Processor Speed:   2.4 GHz
  Number Of Processors: 1
  Total Number Of Cores:   2
  L2 Cache: 4 MB
  Memory:   4 GB
  Bus Speed:   800 MHz
  Boot ROM Version:  MBP31.0070.B02
  SMC Version: 1.16f8
  Sudden Motion Sensor:
  State: Enabled

I have all recent upgrades installed, everything except 
iTunes which I do not use at all, did not install iTunes 
from day one when I installed OS 10.5.0 initially.

Did not check with Michelle to see whether she is running 
OS 10.5.2 - - - perhaps the 10.5.2 upgrade somehow screwed up 
TextEdit, dunno.

Mark-

On 2008-02-29, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <slrnfsfjd5.hod.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
>  Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:
>
>> > Most people who buy BBEdit do so for its HTML support;
>> 
>> They do? Not just because it is a much better text editor, which
>> happens to have all that advanced text editory stuff to help
>> writing code and markup in all sorts of languages, including
>> HTML?
>
> Well, if they didn't need that HTML (and other languages, which I should 
> have mentioned rather than implied) editing stuff, they would get 
> TextWrangler for free instead, wouldn't they?

Quite possibly. There are lots of good GUI text editors for Mac OS X
(TextMate, TextWrangler, SubEthaEdit, BBEdit, Smultron, skEdit). Some
are free but there are also very popular commercial ones. I am aware
of these editors and what their fans say about their strengths and
weaknesses but I don't use them because vim works very well for me.
TextEdit seems more like a mini word processor that does some text
editing on the side than a proper text editor. And it's not that I
am opposed to GUI apps in general - I have been using VoodooPad almost
every day since late 2005 for example.

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article <fq7out$73e$1@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
> wrote:
> 
>> My problem with it is not about how you choose, just that .txt is not
>> default and not even present until you change something.
> 
> I think their reasoning is that it doesn't make sense to try to save a 
> document with fonts and styles as plain text, because you'd lose all the 
> formatting.  So first you have to change the format of the document 
> you're editing to remove all that extra stuff, and then it's safe to 
> save it that way.
> 

I can see the sense in that, so if you open an rtf it should save as
rtf, which it does, but why would a text editor have rich text as
default anyway, and not even have plain text as an option in the default
dialog? It's really a word processor not a text editor.

Andy

Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <slrnfsejb1.hec.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
>  Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> If someone wants to write a three line bash script and thinks they 
>> can just open TextEedit, type the script and save it, then they will 
>> be dissapointed. The script won't work.
> 
> When they have the Save dialog open, they should realize that it can't 
> save as a text file at that point, if they have any sense at all.
> 
>> They should quickly realise that it is because it is not a text file.
> 
> Sure it is, if they have set their preferences to default to text files.  
> And if they're savvy enough to write bash scripts, they should be 
> knowledgeable enough to handle a preferences dialog.
> 
> One of the first things I do, if not the first thing, when running a new 
> program for the first time is to look at the preferences.  I think that 
> the majority of knowledgeable Macintosh users do the same thing.
> 
Why should yo uneed to DO anyhting with a text editor to save plain text
files? It makes more sense to DO something to save as other than plain
text. I know some people think it's more 'fun' to play with fonts etc
but... ahhh fuck it I give up! It's not a tool it's a plaything I keep
forgetting..

Andy

Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <fq7out$73e$1@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
> wrote:
> 
>> 'intuition' should not come into it, and it shouldn't be a special 
>> operation to make a plain text file, it should be the default, and 
>> the others should be 'options' selected easily.
> 
> Why?

Because plain tect in a text editor should be so fucking obvious it
doesn't need any intuition.

>> Plain text is the most basic and works anywhere, under any 
>> circumstances.
> 
> True, but how would saving in RTF format cause any problems for the 
> average user?

The average user doesn't even know what plain text is or what it's
useful for, and that's why I get spurious non-functional characters in
web pages I look at and loads of other things. All the copy I used to
make for putting into quark for magazines I had to spend ages over,
stripping out all the stupid crap and trying to guess what it was meant
to mean, and then formatting as plain text to import because there are
so many different ideas of formatting markup. Some things did come in as
".txt" but even then they were definitely not, being littered with ` and
� and so on which were obviously meant to be something else. The only
use a word processor has is for printing out letters and making into pdf
or whatever. Otherwise it's just bullshit.

Andy

Wes Groleau wrote:
> nospamatall wrote:
>> If developers don't make these things very obvious they never get used.
>> Whatever you make the default is the most used. It would be better for
> 
> Maybe they intentionally made the default to be what more people
> want to use.  When I use an app for the first time, I always open
> the preferences, see what is available and immediately change any
> that I know I am going to want.  So my TextEdit has always been
> for editing TEXT not all sorts of fonts and images.
> 
> But considering the inexplicable popularity of $%&*%#$%%^#
> HTML e-mail, it wouldn't surprise me to hear that more people
> prefer TextEdit's default.
> 
People who don't care and who impose inappropriately formed data on
others should not be considered when deciding the defaults of a program.
That's what MS do and it sucks. If plain text was the default then we'd
have less of this crap to contend with.

Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <slrnfsf1ni.hla.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
>  Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>> It is not hidden.
>> But it is not in the Save dialog along with the "rich" formats.
> 
> That's right; it's in the Save dialog when the document window is a text 
> window, not an RTF window.
> 
>> You open the drop down menu expecting plain text to be an option
>> and you see these Microsoft formats and HTML and wonder why the
>> hell you can't see the plain text option. Yes you figure it out,
>> but it it is a definite "wtf?" moment.
> 
> Gee, I never had a WTF moment with it.
> 
That's the thing, most people don't give a shit and send out html email,
some variety of rich text in a web page, paste gobbledegook into usenet
posts, and have no concept whatsoever of appropriateness for the task at
hand. Why encourage them by making it easier?

Andy

Lewis wrote:
> In article <fq7nd2$2nm$1@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
> wrote:
> 
>> as if it [txt file] was some obscure extra that power users might need
> 
> For the vast majority of users, this is exactly correct.
> 
And unless you are printing something out or making a pdf, it shouldn't
be so. If you're sharing the results with someone else you should either
know in advance what system and software will be opening it and what the
recipient prefers, out of politeness, or just use the simplest and most
universal standard. Making plain text the default would achieve this and
most people wouldn't even notice.

Andy

nospamatall wrote:

> The average user doesn't even know what plain text is or what it's
> useful for, and that's why I get spurious non-functional characters 

Apple needs to be very careful not to alienate its loyal power users
just to attract dumbed down users with dumbed down machine.

And of Apple wants to expand into enterprise market, it needs to have
serious stuff too. With Windows finally faltering under its own weight,
it would be a mistake for Apple to follow in MS' footsepts of glitz over
function.

In article <michelle-BBA382.01083529022008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > Did you check beforehand to make certain your own instructions 
> > worked?
> 
> Yes I did, and it worked exactly as I described.  Did you make sure that 
> smart copy/paste was selected *before* you copied?

Just a followup to thank you for helping me try to 
solve the problem of TextEdit's "Smart Copy/Paste" 
not working.

(for me only, it works for you)




We both checked all the fine points that might have 
prevented it from working at my end, but no luck.



I will keep fooling around with it, maybe I might 
stumble across why it is not working here.


Only thing I can think of is that the TextEdit app' 
might have became corrupted, for some unknown reason.

Think I will completely reload OS 10.5.2 from scratch, 
to see if that will get "Smart Copy/Paste" to working.


I know that Windows OSs are very fussy as regards new 
updates corrupting earlier code, perhaps OS X is getting 
that way also.   I hope not.

Mark-

On 2008-02-29, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> wrote:
> Barry Margolin wrote:
>> In article <fq7out$73e$1@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> My problem with it is not about how you choose, just that .txt is not
>>> default and not even present until you change something.
>> 
>> I think their reasoning is that it doesn't make sense to try to save a 
>> document with fonts and styles as plain text, because you'd lose all the 
>> formatting.  So first you have to change the format of the document 
>> you're editing to remove all that extra stuff, and then it's safe to 
>> save it that way.
>> 
>
> I can see the sense in that,

Well sort of. But if you open a file called foo.rtf and then save it
as foo.txt you are not loosing anything because you still have foo.rtf
I see it more as excessive nannying.

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

In article <fq9vf3$jft$3@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
wrote:

> Michelle Steiner wrote:
> > In article <slrnfsf1ni.hla.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
> >  Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:
> > 
> >>> It is not hidden.
> >> But it is not in the Save dialog along with the "rich" formats.
> > 
> > That's right; it's in the Save dialog when the document window is a text 
> > window, not an RTF window.
> > 
> >> You open the drop down menu expecting plain text to be an option
> >> and you see these Microsoft formats and HTML and wonder why the
> >> hell you can't see the plain text option. Yes you figure it out,
> >> but it it is a definite "wtf?" moment.
> > 
> > Gee, I never had a WTF moment with it.
> > 
> That's the thing, most people don't give a shit and send out html email,
> some variety of rich text in a web page, paste gobbledegook into usenet
> posts, and have no concept whatsoever of appropriateness for the task at
> hand. Why encourage them by making it easier?

And most of the people they send to handle it just fine, too.  Most of 
them aren't posting to Usenet (they've never even heard of it), they're 
forwarding jokes to everyone in their address book.  RTF is the perfect 
format for them -- it's an open standard that handles the common 
formatting needs.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***

In article <fqa029$jft$4@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
wrote:

> Lewis wrote:
> > In article <fq7nd2$2nm$1@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
> > wrote:
> > 
> >> as if it [txt file] was some obscure extra that power users might need
> > 
> > For the vast majority of users, this is exactly correct.
> > 
> And unless you are printing something out or making a pdf, it shouldn't
> be so. If you're sharing the results with someone else you should either
> know in advance what system and software will be opening it and what the
> recipient prefers, out of politeness, or just use the simplest and most
> universal standard. Making plain text the default would achieve this and
> most people wouldn't even notice.

RTF is an open standard -- it's not like it defaults to Word or 
AppleWorks format.  Anyone with a reasonably modern system should have 
no problem reading it.

Plain text can't even deal with automatic line wrapping to the 
recipient's window size.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***

In article <fq9uei$fq5$1@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
wrote:

> Barry Margolin wrote:
> > In article <fq7out$73e$1@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
> > wrote:
> > 
> >> My problem with it is not about how you choose, just that .txt is not
> >> default and not even present until you change something.
> > 
> > I think their reasoning is that it doesn't make sense to try to save a 
> > document with fonts and styles as plain text, because you'd lose all the 
> > formatting.  So first you have to change the format of the document 
> > you're editing to remove all that extra stuff, and then it's safe to 
> > save it that way.
> > 
> 
> I can see the sense in that, so if you open an rtf it should save as
> rtf, which it does, but why would a text editor have rich text as
> default anyway, and not even have plain text as an option in the default
> dialog? It's really a word processor not a text editor.

Yes.  For the vast majority of Mac and PC users, who have never used a 
system that didn't do fonts and styles, there's not really much 
difference.  TextEdit is just a very simple, lightweight word processor.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***

Mark Conrad <noneof@urbusiness.invalid> wrote:

> Only thing I can think of is that the TextEdit app' 
> might have became corrupted, for some unknown reason.
> 
> Think I will completely reload OS 10.5.2 from scratch, 
> to see if that will get "Smart Copy/Paste" to working.

As tempting as it is to let you go ahead with this, I can't in good
conscience.  Before proceeding with that, some of the things worth
trying are:

1. Seeing if the problem exists when you're logged into another user
account.

2. Deleting com.apple.TextEdit.plist

3. Restoring TextEdit from your super-robust backup.

-- 
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/musings.cgi> Muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers
<http://bogart-tribute.net> Tribute to Humphrey Bogart

In article 
<noneof-296938.15504229022008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
 Mark Conrad <noneof@urbusiness.invalid> wrote:

> Only thing I can think of is that the TextEdit app' might have became 
> corrupted, for some unknown reason.
> 
> Think I will completely reload OS 10.5.2 from scratch, to see if that 
> will get "Smart Copy/Paste" to working.

Before you do that, try removing TextEdit's preferences file.  If that 
doesn't work, reinstall just TextEdit instead of the entire OS.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <fqa029$jft$4@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
wrote:

> And unless you are printing something out or making a pdf, it 
> shouldn't be so. If you're sharing the results with someone else you 
> should either know in advance what system and software will be 
> opening it and what the recipient prefers, out of politeness, or just 
> use the simplest and most universal standard. Making plain text the 
> default would achieve this and most people wouldn't even notice.

Why not simply type it into the email instead of into TextEdit and then 
attaching it as a file?

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <fq9vf3$jft$3@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
wrote:

> >> You open the drop down menu expecting plain text to be an option 
> >> and you see these Microsoft formats and HTML and wonder why the 
> >> hell you can't see the plain text option. Yes you figure it out, 
> >> but it it is a definite "wtf?" moment.
> > 
> > Gee, I never had a WTF moment with it.
> > 
> That's the thing, most people don't give a shit and send out html 
> email, some variety of rich text in a web page, paste gobbledegook 
> into usenet posts, and have no concept whatsoever of appropriateness 
> for the task at hand. Why encourage them by making it easier?

Why not just type it into the email in the first place instead of in 
another application and then attaching the file?

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

Mark Conrad <noneof@urbusiness.invalid> wrote:

> Only thing I can think of is that the TextEdit app' 
> might have became corrupted, for some unknown reason.
> 
> Think I will completely reload OS 10.5.2 from scratch, 
> to see if that will get "Smart Copy/Paste" to working.

I finally got around to actually trying TextEdit's "Smart Copy/Paste"
here, and at first it did _NOT_ work as Michelle described.  Then I
realized I'm using the multiple clipboard utility, CopyPaste-X, and when
I deactivated it, the TextEdit behavior matched Michelle's description.
Are you using any similar utility?

-- 
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/musings.cgi> Muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers
<http://bogart-tribute.net> Tribute to Humphrey Bogart

In article <fq9v27$jft$1@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
wrote:

> Because plain tect in a text editor should be so fucking obvious it 
> doesn't need any intuition.

Intuition is what makes it obvious.

> > True, but how would saving in RTF format cause any problems for the 
> > average user?
> 
> The average user doesn't even know what plain text is or what it's 
> useful for, and that's why I get spurious non-functional characters 
> in web pages I look at and loads of other things.

I thought that you got that because the web page's headers are not set 
up properly for the content.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <fq9ujj$fq5$2@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
wrote:

> Why should yo uneed to DO anyhting with a text editor to save plain 
> text files? It makes more sense to DO something to save as other than 
> plain text. I know some people think it's more 'fun' to play with 
> fonts etc but... ahhh fuck it I give up! It's not a tool it's a 
> plaything I keep forgetting..

So you can have some limited word processing capabilities without having 
to pay for a full-fledged word processor.

Man (or woman) does not live by Monaco alone.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article 
<noneof-59A7DF.11251829022008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
 Mark Conrad <noneof@urbusiness.invalid> wrote:

> Did not check with Michelle to see whether she is running OS 10.5.2 - 
> - - perhaps the 10.5.2 upgrade somehow screwed up TextEdit, dunno.

I am using 10.5.2.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

Barry Margolin wrote:

> RTF is an open standard 

The whole point is that it is not suited to email. Not everyone has a
mail client that reads RTF. Secondly, more and more people get smart and
put filters and never read emails whose main bodypart is not text.

You can attach RTF, HTML, WORD etc all you want. But the main bodypart
shoud always be text.

Why ? Because of spam, phishing etc. If everyone refused bloated
messages, then spam and phsishers would lose their playground.

HTML in emails should have never been made a default. And RTF, while
less dangerous, usually ends up calling "WORD" on MS machines and as a
result is dangerous.


Allowing "rich" text in emails is akin to having unprotected sex in Africa.

> Plain text can't even deal with automatic line wrapping to the 
> recipient's window size.

The point of an email is to send a message. Not to send a pretty message
with flashing pink flowers.

If you have content that does require fancy formatting, then send it as
a PDF attachement to your message.

In article <mcmurtri-12C8DB.21225928022008@news.dslextreme.com>,
 Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote:

> Yeah, it's still Apple's Vista.

There were a few issues, but overall Leopard was better than Tiger from 
day one. Was the first release of Vista really that clear a gain over 
XP? Could you be exaggerating maybe just a little?

In article <47c8aa11$0$27831$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> The point of an email is to send a message. Not to send a pretty 
> message with flashing pink flowers.
> 
> If you have content that does require fancy formatting, then send it 
> as a PDF attachement to your message.

All of which has little or nothing to do with the TextEdit application.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

On Feb 27, 11:41 pm, Mark Conrad <non...@urbusiness.invalid> wrote:
> I think Apple hired some $MS programmers by mistake.
>
> $MS programmers are known for making easy things difficult,
> and hard things almost impossible.
>

i used to go to these HP48 meetings in Seattle, and once in awhile
this guy would come, named Alonso(?) something or another...

And one time he was telling us about a project that they were working
on at M$, whether he was on this project or not was unclear...

But the idea was that they were trying to get text recognition to work
on a blackboard, and they kept running into all the usual problems
with written text recognition, so they started working on the problem
from the approach that when a person is standing up and writing, their
elbows move in very distinct & unique loops and such...???

So they were trying to come up with a way to track these elbow
loops...???

Mark Conrad <noneof@urbusiness.invalid> wrote:

> Okay Michelle, we both did everything "right" but the 
> "Smart Copy/Paste" feature of TextEdit in OS 10.5.2 
> does not work for me, however it  _does_  work for you.
> 
> Time to call in the Big Guns.
> 
> 
> Big Guns, listen up, there is glory in this for you!

Ooh, what do I win?

I've found the answer to the problem. (For reference, I'm also running
10.5.2.)

There is a subtlety in the way that TextEdit interprets a selection
which you have Smart Copy/Paste enabled.

If you select a word by double-clicking it, then copy it, then paste it
into the middle of another word, it works as Michelle described, i.e.
you also get spaces around the inserted word.

If you select a word by dragging the selection over all of the letters,
then copy it, then paste it into the middle of another word, then it
works as Mark is experiencing, i.e. you don't get spaces around the
inserted word. This method of selection is obviously ignoring the word
boundaries. It is the act of double-clicking to select a word which
triggers the smart behaviour.

If you want to Smart Copy/Paste multiple words, you need to double-click
on the first word, then shift-click anywhere in the last word, then copy
and paste.

If you turn off the Smart Copy/Paste option in Edit > Substitutions, it
always behaves the same way (never inserting extra spaces), whether you
double-click or drag-select a word.
-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

Ian Gregory wrote:
> Anyone who opens TextEdit for the first time and types some
> text and then wants to save it as .txt is bound to try opening
> the Save dialog right? That is the logical thing to do. They

Define "anyone."  Are you saying that everyone else in this
thread is lying?  Or that we're all not logical?  Obviously,
the people who share your opinion either don't exist or don't
think it's worth the bandwidth.  And I don't think it's worth
all this bandwidth, so this thread is going into my filter list.

-- 
Wes Groleau
   "To know what you prefer, instead of humbly saying
    Amen to what the world tells you you should prefer,
    is to have kept your soul alive."
                          -- Robert Louis Stevenson

In article <1id4qny.y9a3adgoq32fN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>,
 dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:

> If you select a word by double-clicking it, then copy it, then paste 
> it into the middle of another word, it works as Michelle described, 
> i.e. you also get spaces around the inserted word.
> 
> If you select a word by dragging the selection over all of the 
> letters, then copy it, then paste it into the middle of another word, 
> then it works as Mark is experiencing,

I can confirm this.  I just tried it both ways.

Well done, David!

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

The Translucent Amoebae wrote:
> On Feb 27, 11:41 pm, Mark Conrad <non...@urbusiness.invalid> wrote:
>> I think Apple hired some $MS programmers by mistake.
>>
>> $MS programmers are known for making easy things difficult,
>> and hard things almost impossible.
>>
> 
> i used to go to these HP48 meetings in Seattle, and once in awhile
> this guy would come, named Alonso(?) something or another...
> 
> And one time he was telling us about a project that they were working
> on at M$, whether he was on this project or not was unclear...
> 
> But the idea was that they were trying to get text recognition to work
> on a blackboard, and they kept running into all the usual problems
> with written text recognition, so they started working on the problem
> from the approach that when a person is standing up and writing, their
> elbows move in very distinct & unique loops and such...???
> 
> So they were trying to come up with a way to track these elbow
> loops...???
> 
Sounds like the ones who made the big-ass table too.
Andy

Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <fqa029$jft$4@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
> wrote:
> 
>> And unless you are printing something out or making a pdf, it 
>> shouldn't be so. If you're sharing the results with someone else you 
>> should either know in advance what system and software will be 
>> opening it and what the recipient prefers, out of politeness, or just 
>> use the simplest and most universal standard. Making plain text the 
>> default would achieve this and most people wouldn't even notice.
> 
> Why not simply type it into the email instead of into TextEdit and then 
> attaching it as a file?
> 
Why indeed? Ignorance, stupidity, I don't know but it happens. And that
was just an example. It's no big deal but to me it looks like a step
down the slippery slope of MS-style catering to whims that don't take
context into account.

Andy

Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article <fqa029$jft$4@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
> wrote:
> 
>> Lewis wrote:
>>> In article <fq7nd2$2nm$1@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> as if it [txt file] was some obscure extra that power users might need
>>> For the vast majority of users, this is exactly correct.
>>>
>> And unless you are printing something out or making a pdf, it shouldn't
>> be so. If you're sharing the results with someone else you should either
>> know in advance what system and software will be opening it and what the
>> recipient prefers, out of politeness, or just use the simplest and most
>> universal standard. Making plain text the default would achieve this and
>> most people wouldn't even notice.
> 
> RTF is an open standard -- it's not like it defaults to Word or 
> AppleWorks format.  Anyone with a reasonably modern system should have 
> no problem reading it.

Yes I'm not saying it shouldn't be there, just not the default in a text
editor.

> Plain text can't even deal with automatic line wrapping to the 
> recipient's window size.

Strictly speaking, neither can rtf, it's the recipient's reader that
wraps the lines, all rtf does is tell it to. This newsreader I'm using
doesn't need to be told by the text, it does it.

Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <fq9v27$jft$1@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
> wrote:
> 
>> Because plain tect in a text editor should be so fucking obvious it 
>> doesn't need any intuition.
> 
> Intuition is what makes it obvious.
> 
>>> True, but how would saving in RTF format cause any problems for the 
>>> average user?
>> The average user doesn't even know what plain text is or what it's 
>> useful for, and that's why I get spurious non-functional characters 
>> in web pages I look at and loads of other things.
> 
> I thought that you got that because the web page's headers are not set 
> up properly for the content.
> 
In the case of a lot of the content I'm talking about, there isn't a
header that would be 'proper' for said content.

Michelle Steiner wrote:

>> If you have content that does require fancy formatting, then send it 
>> as a PDF attachement to your message.
> 
> All of which has little or nothing to do with the TextEdit application.

Yes it does. It is all about The definition of "Text". Microsoft tried
to redefine "text" to mean "HTML" and made that the default for its
email. Through the defaults set in MS applications, users learned the
wrong things about the internet. Mailing .DOC documents, top posting and
never trimming quotes etc etc.

By setting the defaults of "TextEdit" to a rich text mantra, Apple is
also wrongly training users who don't know the difference.


Yeah, Apple can claim its TextEdit is more powerfful than MS's Notepad.
Woopty Doo ! In the end, the competition is no longer about function, it
has turned to glitz. And when glitz provides wrong defaults it causes a
problem.

Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <fq9ujj$fq5$2@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
> wrote:
> 
>> Why should yo uneed to DO anyhting with a text editor to save plain 
>> text files? It makes more sense to DO something to save as other than 
>> plain text. I know some people think it's more 'fun' to play with 
>> fonts etc but... ahhh fuck it I give up! It's not a tool it's a 
>> plaything I keep forgetting..
> 
> So you can have some limited word processing capabilities without having 
> to pay for a full-fledged word processor.
> 
> Man (or woman) does not live by Monaco alone.
> 
How many times do I have to say it? I'm not suggesting rtf etc should
not be present, only complaining that plain txt is not default and not
even in the list unless you configure the thing deliberately in the
first place.

In article <fqamf0$ned$3@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
wrote:

> How many times do I have to say it? I'm not suggesting rtf etc should 
> not be present, only complaining that plain txt is not default and 
> not even in the list unless you configure the thing deliberately in 
> the first place.

I think that you are making a mountain out of a molehill.  The 
deliberate configuration is a trivial matter.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <47c8dd5e$0$25447$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> >> If you have content that does require fancy formatting, then send 
> >> it as a PDF attachement to your message.
> > 
> > All of which has little or nothing to do with the TextEdit 
> > application.
> 
> Yes it does. It is all about The definition of "Text". 

If you want to send a plain text message in email, type it in the email 
application; why to to the trouble of typing it in a text editor, saving 
it as a file, and then attaching the file to a message.

A text editor application shouldn't come into the picture at all.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <fqaltt$l66$3@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
wrote:

> > Why not simply type it into the email instead of into TextEdit and 
> > then attaching it as a file?
> > 
> Why indeed? Ignorance, stupidity, I don't know but it happens.

So educate people as to which program to use.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <sdfisher-C8B0C6.17073929022008@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
 Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote:

> In article <mcmurtri-12C8DB.21225928022008@news.dslextreme.com>,
>  Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> 
> > Yeah, it's still Apple's Vista.
> 
> There were a few issues, but overall Leopard was better than Tiger from 
> day one. Was the first release of Vista really that clear a gain over 
> XP? Could you be exaggerating maybe just a little?

Sorry.  No chance in hell of that being true.  It was hard enough 
getting 10.5.0 to work at all.  Half the new features still don't work 
correctly.  If you're on PPC, 10.5.2 doesn't work well enough for 
everyday use.  Want to see my console log from a PPC computer with 
Leopard?

-- 
I don't read Google's spam.  Reply with another service.

In article <1id4qny.y9a3adgoq32fN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>,
 dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:

> Mark Conrad <noneof@urbusiness.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > Okay Michelle, we both did everything "right" but the 
> > "Smart Copy/Paste" feature of TextEdit in OS 10.5.2 
> > does not work for me, however it  _does_  work for you.
> > 
> > Time to call in the Big Guns.
> > 
> > 
> > Big Guns, listen up, there is glory in this for you!
> 
> Ooh, what do I win?
> 
> I've found the answer to the problem. (For reference, I'm also running
> 10.5.2.)
......<clipped David's solution 'til later in this post>......


Wow, thanks, who would have suspected TextEdit to be 
that screwed up!

It really pays to call in the Big Guns like yourself.


"Smart Copy/Paste" now works exactly as you said, for me.


Thanky, thanky, thanky, your check is in the mail.


Now all I gotta do is find a legitimate use for this 
obscure Apple TextEdit feature.


For lurkers, here is the solution from David Empson:
*****************************************************
I've found the answer to the problem. (For reference, I'm also running
10.5.2.)

There is a subtlety in the way that TextEdit interprets a selection
which you have Smart Copy/Paste enabled.

If you select a word by double-clicking it, then copy it, then paste it
into the middle of another word, it works as Michelle described, i.e.
you also get spaces around the inserted word.

If you select a word by dragging the selection over all of the letters,
then copy it, then paste it into the middle of another word, then it
works as Mark is experiencing, i.e. you don't get spaces around the
inserted word. This method of selection is obviously ignoring the word
boundaries. It is the act of double-clicking to select a word which
triggers the smart behaviour.

If you want to Smart Copy/Paste multiple words, you need to double-click
on the first word, then shift-click anywhere in the last word, then copy
and paste.

If you turn off the Smart Copy/Paste option in Edit > Substitutions, it
always behaves the same way (never inserting extra spaces), whether you
double-click or drag-select a word.
*****************************************************
End of solution by Big Gun David Empson, thanks David


Mark-


--
Now I better catch up on the other Really Weird TextEdit 
things in this thread, so I do not get blindsided by 
similar Weird TextEdit Stuff :)

In article 
<08aae81b-6e5d-4fe6-8a96-a4631002f37c@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
 The Translucent Amoebae <transamoebae@seanet.com> wrote:

> On Feb 27, 11:41 pm, Mark Conrad <non...@urbusiness.invalid> wrote:
> > I think Apple hired some $MS programmers by mistake.
> >
> > $MS programmers are known for making easy things difficult,
> > and hard things almost impossible.
> >
> 
> i used to go to these HP48 meetings in Seattle, and once in awhile
> this guy would come, named Alonso(?) something or another...
> 
> And one time he was telling us about a project that they were working
> on at M$, whether he was on this project or not was unclear...
> 
> But the idea was that they were trying to get text recognition to work
> on a blackboard, and they kept running into all the usual problems
> with written text recognition, so they started working on the problem
> from the approach that when a person is standing up and writing, their
> elbows move in very distinct & unique loops and such...???
> 
> So they were trying to come up with a way to track these elbow
> loops...???

I believe it, when $MS programmers are involved.

There seems to be a basic difference between the way that 
programming is handled in Microsoft versus Apple.

Apple makes a concerted effort to keep things simple.

Microsoft allows their programmers free reign to clutter up 
their OSs with all sorts of poorly explained 'choices'.


The author of the book "The Inmates are Running the Asylum" 
really was shocked about how $MS management allows their 
programmers to "complicate" things beyond belief.

Mark-

In article <michelle-2E9492.17365429022008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article 
> <noneof-59A7DF.11251829022008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>  Mark Conrad <noneof@urbusiness.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > Did not check with Michelle to see whether she is running OS 10.5.2 - 
> > - - perhaps the 10.5.2 upgrade somehow screwed up TextEdit, dunno.
> 
> I am using 10.5.2.

Yeah, I just tried it on both 10.5.0  and  10.5.1 

It is the same on all 3 versions of Leopard.


I  _never_  would have found that TextEdit glitch 
without David's help.

Mark-

In article <mcmurtri-D73BC8.21433829022008@news.dslextreme.com>,
 Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote:

> Sorry.  No chance in hell of that being true.  It was hard enough 
> getting 10.5.0 to work at all.  Half the new features still don't 
> work correctly.

Like what?

> If you're on PPC, 10.5.2 doesn't work well enough for 
> everyday use.

What processor and what speed is it?

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <1id37de.a841phk4uaa0N%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
 mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> Mark Conrad <noneof@urbusiness.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > Only thing I can think of is that the TextEdit app' 
> > might have became corrupted, for some unknown reason.
> > 
> > Think I will completely reload OS 10.5.2 from scratch, 
> > to see if that will get "Smart Copy/Paste" to working.
> 
> I finally got around to actually trying TextEdit's "Smart Copy/Paste"
> here, and at first it did _NOT_ work as Michelle described.  Then I
> realized I'm using the multiple clipboard utility, CopyPaste-X, and when
> I deactivated it, the TextEdit behavior matched Michelle's description.
> Are you using any similar utility?

No, just have a plain vanilla install of OS 10.5.2

FWIW, when I tried "Smart Copy/Paste" on a totally 
different Mac here, the same problem occurred.


Meanwhile, back at the 'TextEdit Ranch", David Empson 
found the root cause of the problem.

You would not believe what the cause was,<g>

Read his recent post.

Mark-

In article <1id36r7.17co2g4yhm31fN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
 mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> Mark Conrad <noneof@urbusiness.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > Only thing I can think of is that the TextEdit app' 
> > might have became corrupted, for some unknown reason.
> > 
> > Think I will completely reload OS 10.5.2 from scratch, 
> > to see if that will get "Smart Copy/Paste" to working.
> 
> As tempting as it is to let you go ahead with this, I can't in good
> conscience.  Before proceeding with that, some of the things worth
> trying are:
> 
> 1. Seeing if the problem exists when you're logged into another user
> account.
> 
> 2. Deleting com.apple.TextEdit.plist
> 
> 3. Restoring TextEdit from your super-robust backup.


Tried all 3 of those already, no joy.

Mark-

On 29-Feb-2008, Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote:

> n article <sdfisher-C8B0C6.17073929022008@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
>  Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <mcmurtri-12C8DB.21225928022008@news.dslextreme.com>,
> >  Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Yeah, it's still Apple's Vista.
> >
> > There were a few issues, but overall Leopard was better than Tiger from
> > day one. Was the first release of Vista really that clear a gain over
> > XP? Could you be exaggerating maybe just a little?
>
> Sorry.  No chance in hell of that being true.  It was hard enough
> getting 10.5.0 to work at all. Half the new features still don't work
> correctly.  If you're on PPC, 10.5.2 doesn't work well enough for
> everyday use.

It might be more accurate to say it doesn't work for you. Leopard is working
just fine for me.

> Want to see my console log from a PPC computer with Leopard?

No, but I'm not doubting that you are having problems.

I'm only saying that you are painting with too broad a brush.

In article <michelle-584C73.17281729022008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > Only thing I can think of is that the TextEdit app' might have became 
> > corrupted, for some unknown reason.
> > 
> > Think I will completely reload OS 10.5.2 from scratch, to see if that 
> > will get "Smart Copy/Paste" to working.
> 
> Before you do that, try removing TextEdit's preferences file.  If that 
> doesn't work, reinstall just TextEdit instead of the entire OS.

Did all that, naturally BEFORE the great post from David, plus 
did the things that Mike suggested.

Even fired up another Mac, same problem there.

Was ready to turn myself in to the local senile farm.


Damn, never occurred to either one of us to double-check 
how we were selecting the text to-be-copied.

I tried your keyboard method, my drag method, but completely 
overlooked the double-click method of selecting a word.


Gotta sharpen up my troubleshooting skills.

Mark-

In article <Ez6yj.42$x93.7@trndny03>,
 "Little Sir Echo" <just wondering@all this.com> wrote:

> On 29-Feb-2008, Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> > If you're on PPC, 10.5.2 doesn't work well enough for everyday use.

What a load of shit.
 
> It might be more accurate to say it doesn't work for you. Leopard is working
> just fine for me.

Likewise.

> > Want to see my console log from a PPC computer with Leopard?

What sort of G4 machine is this?

> No, but I'm not doubting that you are having problems.
> 
> I'm only saying that you are painting with too broad a brush.

Exactly.

Andy.

In article <michelle-1811FD.21212128022008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <slrnfsf1ni.hla.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
>  Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > > It is not hidden.
> > 
> > But it is not in the Save dialog along with the "rich" formats.
> 
> That's right; it's in the Save dialog when the document window is a text 
> window, not an RTF window.

How does one change a document window from RTF to plain text? If it 
involves a visit to preferences, then this is anything *but* intuitive.

-- 
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you 
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to 
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

In article <slrnfsf6sf.hla.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
 Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:

> On 2008-02-29, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> > In article <slrnfsf1ni.hla.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
> >  Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> You open the drop down menu expecting plain text to be an option
> >> and you see these Microsoft formats and HTML and wonder why the
> >> hell you can't see the plain text option. Yes you figure it out,
> >> but it it is a definite "wtf?" moment.
> >
> > Gee, I never had a WTF moment with it.
> 
> Well gee, you never tried to do that until you had played with
> TextEdit enough to know it was not built that way.
> 
> Anyone who opens TextEdit for the first time and types some
> text and then wants to save it as .txt is bound to try opening
> the Save dialog right? That is the logical thing to do. They
> will see it is set to save as "Rich Text Format", which is not
> what they want, so they will open the "File Formats:" drop
> down menu and will see a variety of formats listed. They will
> be looking for "Plain Text" and they have every reason to expect
> it to be there. Why wouldn't it be? They don't see it because
> it is not there. They look again, and most likely have a "wtf"
> moment. The app is designed in such a way that that is practically
> assured.

Exactly. Even Microsoft Word allows you to save RTF and plain text files 
right there in the Save As dialog box without having to first visit 
preferences to change the document type! Michelle, you must see that 
this is not as intuitive as it could be.

-- 
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you 
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to 
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

In article <Pl3yj.420$dB.225@trnddc01>,
 Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:

> Ian Gregory wrote:
> > Anyone who opens TextEdit for the first time and types some
> > text and then wants to save it as .txt is bound to try opening
> > the Save dialog right? That is the logical thing to do. They
> 
> Define "anyone."  Are you saying that everyone else in this
> thread is lying?  Or that we're all not logical?  Obviously,
> the people who share your opinion either don't exist or don't
> think it's worth the bandwidth.  And I don't think it's worth
> all this bandwidth, so this thread is going into my filter list.

You actually believe most Mac users open TextEdit for the first time, 
type some text, and automatically know they need to visit preferences to 
change the document type *before* they will be allowed to save the file 
as plain text?

-- 
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you 
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to 
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

In article <michelle-4A62BD.23072328022008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <slrnfsf6sf.hla.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
>  Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > > Gee, I never had a WTF moment with it.
> > 
> > Well gee, you never tried to do that until you had played with 
> > TextEdit enough to know it was not built that way.
> 
> Less than five minutes, but it still wasn't a WTF moment.  I understood 
> what it meant when I had the window as a text window and what it meant 
> when it was an RTF window.  The windows are very different; one is a 
> plain window and the other has a formatting ruler.

You're missing the point (or maybe avoiding it). The point is it's not 
intuitive, and is more complicated than need be.

-- 
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you 
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to 
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

In article <fq9v8i$jft$2@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
wrote:

> Wes Groleau wrote:
> > nospamatall wrote:
> >> If developers don't make these things very obvious they never get used.
> >> Whatever you make the default is the most used. It would be better for
> > 
> > Maybe they intentionally made the default to be what more people
> > want to use.  When I use an app for the first time, I always open
> > the preferences, see what is available and immediately change any
> > that I know I am going to want.  So my TextEdit has always been
> > for editing TEXT not all sorts of fonts and images.
> > 
> > But considering the inexplicable popularity of $%&*%#$%%^#
> > HTML e-mail, it wouldn't surprise me to hear that more people
> > prefer TextEdit's default.
> > 
> People who don't care and who impose inappropriately formed data on
> others should not be considered when deciding the defaults of a program.
> That's what MS do and it sucks. If plain text was the default then we'd
> have less of this crap to contend with.

None of that matters much to me. What *does* matter to me is that Apple 
has designed TextEdit in such a way as to make it inconvenient to save a 
document as text. All they need to do is add "Plain Text" as a choice in 
the Save dialog box! It's really not that hard to implement. Even 
Microsoft Word has this.

-- 
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you 
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to 
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

In article <47c7968b$0$25420$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> Wes Groleau wrote:
> 
> > Maybe they intentionally made the default to be what more people
> > want to use.  
> 
> No, they had a "Microsoft philosophy" of adding glitz where it was not
> needed. Just like Microsoft made HTML default for emails for instance,
> opening a whole can of worms with spam, phishing etc.
> 
> I have no problem with TextEdit having new capabilities, by the default
> should have remained text files.

And even if the default is RTF, they should make it *easy* to save as 
plain text. This is a Mac, after all.

-- 
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you 
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to 
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

In article <0212e162$0$5095$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> nospamatall wrote:
> 
> > Fine, it shouldn't be hidden away. 
> 
> To be the devil's advocate:
> 
> If you created some "rich text" in the editor pane, Apple probably wants
> you to actively drop all formatting before being allowed to save as text.

Why?  This is a computer. It's perfeclty capable of automatically 
stripping all formatting on-the-fly.

> But at the very least, the "Text" format should be grayed in the Save As
> to indicate that Apple has chosen to not allow you to save as text using
> TextEdit unless you do something else first.

Yes, I would expect that at the very least.

-- 
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you 
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to 
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

In article <GIidnY2pOexNrlXanZ2dnUVZ_oHinZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopiesofposts> wrote:

> In article <fq7nd2$2nm$1@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
> wrote:
> 
> > as if it [txt file] was some obscure extra that power users might need
> 
> For the vast majority of users, this is exactly correct.

That may be, but that is no reason to make the feature harder to find 
than need be. All that is needed is to add "Plain text" to the format 
choices in the Save dialog box. Most every other text editor I know of 
has this!

-- 
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you 
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to 
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

In article <0001HW.C3ED07760088E522F02066D8@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
 J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:33:20 -0500, nospamatall wrote
> (in article <fq7nd2$2nm$1@aioe.org>):
> 
> > Yes I know I can open an existing txt document and re-save it
> > as plain text, but if there is a way to save deliberately as txt it is
> > not apparent and that's what I'm talking about.
> 
> Go to the Format menu, select 'Make Plain Text'. Shift-command-t. It's not 
> complex.

It's more complex than need be. If Apple included "Plain text" as a 
format choice in the Save dialog, it could automatically convert the 
document to plain text for you on-the-fly.

-- 
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you 
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to 
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

In article <michelle-E9179B.21113128022008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <fq7mmi$qg$2@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
> wrote:
> 
> > >> Anyone calling their program 'text' edit when it is unable to
> > >> save .txt files
> > > 
> > > Er... you are very confused.
> > > 
> > Not at all. .txt is not present in save as... dialogs
> 
> It's present in my save as...dialogs.

Don't play word games. It's *not* present in your save as dialogs when 
the document type isn't plain text. And the document type of a new 
document won't be plain text if you haven't previously visited 
preferences to change the default. 

This complication could be easily solved if Apple were to add "Plain 
text" as a format choice in the save as dialog, and have TextEdit 
automatically convert the document to plain text on-the-fly during save 
- just as most every other freaking text editor on the planet does.

-- 
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you 
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to 
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

In article <yzKxj.21041$Hd.4053@trnddc02>,
 Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:

> nospamatall wrote:
> > better, but still silly, the default should be .txt, or it should at
> 
> The default _is_ .txt for some types of files.
> And in some cases, the @#$%^#$%^ thing refuses to allow
> anything else.  It forces me to save as xyz.log.txt
> or xyz.html.txt
> 
> Yet when I rename the files, it has no problem opening
> xyz.log or xyz.html

More evidence that Apple is going about the design the wrong way. 
TextEdit is one of those Mac applications that happens to be very 
unMac-like, IMO.

-- 
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you 
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to 
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

In article <barmar-F130F6.21171828022008@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
 Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> In article <fq7out$73e$1@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
> wrote:
> 
> > My problem with it is not about how you choose, just that .txt is not
> > default and not even present until you change something.
> 
> I think their reasoning is that it doesn't make sense to try to save a 
> document with fonts and styles as plain text, because you'd lose all the 
> formatting.  

That's bad reasoning. This is a freaking *computer*. Stripping 
formatting out of a document is a *trivial* computing task. There's 
absolutely no reason Apple can't or shouldn't allow users to save as 
plain text and automatically strip formatting on-the-fly. Most every 
other text editor on the planet does this! For whatever reason, Apple 
has chosen to make this simple operation harder for end users. This is 
not the Mac way.

-- 
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you 
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to 
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

In article <michelle-7BCC0C.19200628022008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <slrnfsejb1.hec.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
>  Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > If someone wants to write a three line bash script and thinks they 
> > can just open TextEedit, type the script and save it, then they will 
> > be dissapointed. The script won't work.
> 
> When they have the Save dialog open, they should realize that it can't 
> save as a text file at that point, if they have any sense at all.

Most every other text editor on the planet allows you to save plain text 
in the save as dialog. So I don't think it's unreasonable to expect 
TextEdit to work the same way.

-- 
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you 
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to 
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

In article <michelle-948C6D.17350429022008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <fq9ujj$fq5$2@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
> wrote:
> 
> > Why should yo uneed to DO anyhting with a text editor to save plain 
> > text files? It makes more sense to DO something to save as other than 
> > plain text. I know some people think it's more 'fun' to play with 
> > fonts etc but... ahhh fuck it I give up! It's not a tool it's a 
> > plaything I keep forgetting..
> 
> So you can have some limited word processing capabilities without having 
> to pay for a full-fledged word processor.

Bullshit. You can have both. Even Microsoft Word allows you to save rich 
documents as plain text in the save as dialog. Apple simply decided to 
design it so that it's harder to do than need be.

-- 
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you 
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to 
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

In article <michelle-C9145E.22205429022008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <fqamf0$ned$3@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
> wrote:
> 
> > How many times do I have to say it? I'm not suggesting rtf etc should 
> > not be present, only complaining that plain txt is not default and 
> > not even in the list unless you configure the thing deliberately in 
> > the first place.
> 
> I think that you are making a mountain out of a molehill.  The 
> deliberate configuration is a trivial matter.

I disagree. It's the small things that make Mac OS better than 
alternatives. This is one obvious area where a Mac application is not 
behaving the way a Mac application should.

-- 
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you 
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to 
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

In article 
<jollyroger-E0AEBC.01300601032008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> This complication could be easily solved if Apple were to add "Plain 
> text" as a format choice in the save as dialog, and have TextEdit 
> automatically convert the document to plain text on-the-fly during save 
> - just as most every other freaking text editor on the planet does.

Sigh. Yeah, TextEdit is getting a little more insane with every major OS 
update. I don't think the source code for the Leopard version of 
TextEdit is available from ADC, either.

In article <1id2wj1.1lc2gs913sb77yN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>,
 dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:

> If your preference for new documents is set to Plain Text, or you choose
> "Make Plain Text" from the Format menu, then you get Save As format
> options for plain text files.
> 
> If your preference for new documents is set to Rich Text, or you choose
> "Make Rich Text" from the Format menu, then you get Save As format
> options for rich text files.

This is bad design. It's not as if stripping formatting from a document 
is a complex task that computers cannot do. It's a simple task that most 
text editors on the planet do on-the-fly!

-- 
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you 
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to 
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

In article 
<noneof-9C6AD5.23112428022008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
 Mark Conrad <noneof@urbusiness.invalid> wrote:

> In article <michelle-2E393B.21110228022008@news.west.cox.net>,
>  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> > 
> > Select "shed" in the second paragraph.  Press Command-C to copy it.
> > 
> > Click between the p and the l in "complaint" in the first paragraph.  
> > Press command-V to paste.
> > 
> > Notice that "shed" has spaces separating it from the "p" and the "l" in 
> > "complaint.
> > 
> > Now uncheck "smart copy/paste" in the Edit menu.
> > 
> > Copy "shed" again.
> > 
> > Paste between the p and the l again.
> > 
> > Note that there are no spaces separating "shed" from the "p" and the "l".
> 
> I am really trying, but your instructions did not work 
> as advertised.

The missing factor is how you select the word "shed" above. If you 
select it by double clicking it, you'll get smart copy/paste. If you 
select it with a single click at the start or end and drag to the other 
extreme, you won't.

Crazy way for Apple to decide whether to smart copy-paste, but there it 
is.

In article <lELxj.17750$Sw6.8549@trnddc06>,
 Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:

> Ian Gregory wrote:
> > On 2008-02-28, Steve Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
> >> Create a new document, enter some text, then hit command-S, or select 
> >> File --> Save. The save sheet, at the bottom, includes a drop-down menu 
> >> to let you specify the plain text encoding, UTF-8, etc.
> > 
> > Not in my version of TextEdit it doesn't (Tiger). The save sheet
> > has a drop down menu which offers RTF (the default), HTML, Word
> > and Word XML. You only get the "Plain Text Encoding" drop down
> > menu after converting the document to plain text.
> 
> Think of it as two programs.  One is Word's baby brother,
> the other is vi's older brother.  Either the convert option
> or the preference setting, both of which have been mentioned
> many times already, switches between them.

Right, but reality is this is *one* program - a Mac program - and it 
should behave as such.

-- 
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you 
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to 
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

In article <mcmurtri-D73BC8.21433829022008@news.dslextreme.com>,
 Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote:

> Sorry.  No chance in hell of that being true.  It was hard enough 
> getting 10.5.0 to work at all.  Half the new features still don't work 
> correctly.  If you're on PPC, 10.5.2 doesn't work well enough for 
> everyday use.  Want to see my console log from a PPC computer with 
> Leopard?

No need, that's how I ran it myself until just a couple weeks ago.

In article <sdfisher-085F7B.23395729022008@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
 Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote:

> In article 
> <jollyroger-E0AEBC.01300601032008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > This complication could be easily solved if Apple were to add "Plain 
> > text" as a format choice in the save as dialog, and have TextEdit 
> > automatically convert the document to plain text on-the-fly during save 
> > - just as most every other freaking text editor on the planet does.
> 
> Sigh. Yeah, TextEdit is getting a little more insane with every major OS 
> update. I don't think the source code for the Leopard version of 
> TextEdit is available from ADC, either.

Scratch this, it's included in /Developer.

In article 
<jollyroger-0291CB.01390501032008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <michelle-C9145E.22205429022008@news.west.cox.net>,
>  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
> > In article <fqamf0$ned$3@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > How many times do I have to say it? I'm not suggesting rtf etc should 
> > > not be present, only complaining that plain txt is not default and 
> > > not even in the list unless you configure the thing deliberately in 
> > > the first place.
> > 
> > I think that you are making a mountain out of a molehill.  The 
> > deliberate configuration is a trivial matter.
> 
> I disagree. It's the small things that make Mac OS better than 
> alternatives. This is one obvious area where a Mac application is not 
> behaving the way a Mac application should.

You may have done so already, but could you specify just what _you_
mean by "the way a Mac application should" behave" in this context?
I use TextEdit a lot. And I often deal with conversions to and from 
Plain Text to RTF.

I would (sort of) agree that TextEdit doesn't _quite_ seem to be
"Mac like" -- but I'm really very unsure what it "should" do that
is different from what it does. There is a seriously non-Mac kind
of thing going on when you convert from plaint text to RTF (or the
other way).  I not infrequently scarf up text from a web site and
want to treat it like text (as opposed, for example, to "printing"
to a PDF); in some contexts that I currently deal with, there is a
lot of "garbage" in the RTF format (e.g., background colors). I find
myself frequently tossing away the formatting by down-converting to
plain text, and then immediately reconverting to RTF, only to have
to impose my own preferred formatting. Given that, I'd _like_ to be
able to work within RTF format and discard the crap that web-sites
insist on shoving at us. So I could see a "super" TextEdit that I
could use to just toss out the crap and keep what I like about the
stuff I copy. But as it happens, I _can_ do whatever I like with the
current functionality, and it is not _Apple's_ fault that folks make
stupidly over-specified web pages!

In most cases, I will be imposing my own style (fonts/sizes/etc.) on
the stuff I import into TextEdit, whatever it may import as; I'd like
not to struggle doing this -- but it does not seem to me to be non-Mac
in character to discard garbage formatting from an input and impose a
Mac-like style (or something else if you prefer!) on the filtered
input.

What am I missing in all of this, that TextEdit is "not [really] a
Mac application"? Just how _should_ it behave? And do you honestly
think that _I_ want it to behave exactly the way _you_ do?

Re: automatically stripping format information when "save as text":

There are some design issues with this. Say I spend considerable amount
of time adding nice fonts, flowers, flashing pictures and whatnot to a
love letter.

I save the "untitled" document, it prompts me for file name and file
type.  I specify "text".  But my in-memory version still has all the
pretty formatting.

At that point, should the "revert" be grayed out ? If I quit without
having made any changes since the last save, should the application warn
you about you having never saved the "pretty" version of the document ?

I started off with a "pretty format" by default, and then there is the
issue of discarding the formatting when saving to text.

If the default were to start with text, then there is no such issue
unless the user then specifically selected the menu to make that
document into a "pretty format", at which point, the odds are very high
that he fully intends to save it as a rich text.

Consider that Photoshop (at least older versions) wouldn't let you save
an image as a GIF image until you went to another menu and converted the
image to indexed colour mode. (or save to a b/w bitmap until you
converted it to bitmap and confirmed you wanted to lose all colour
information).

I think Apple probably saw the same type of issue with TextEdit. But
that issue would have been very minimal if the default for TextEdit were
to create text files.

In article <47c92933$0$25377$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> Re: automatically stripping format information when "save as text":
> 
> There are some design issues with this. Say I spend considerable amount
> of time adding nice fonts, flowers, flashing pictures and whatnot to a
> love letter.
> 
> I save the "untitled" document, it prompts me for file name and file
> type.  I specify "text".  But my in-memory version still has all the
> pretty formatting.
> 
> At that point, should the "revert" be grayed out ? If I quit without
> having made any changes since the last save, should the application warn
> you about you having never saved the "pretty" version of the document ?

In that instance, PEBKAC.

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 02:27:19 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote
(in article 
<jollyroger-E45AE7.01271901032008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>):

> In article <0001HW.C3ED07760088E522F02066D8@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
>  J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:33:20 -0500, nospamatall wrote
>> (in article <fq7nd2$2nm$1@aioe.org>):
>> 
>>> Yes I know I can open an existing txt document and re-save it
>>> as plain text, but if there is a way to save deliberately as txt it is
>>> not apparent and that's what I'm talking about.
>> 
>> Go to the Format menu, select 'Make Plain Text'. Shift-command-t. It's not 
>> complex.
> 
> It's more complex than need be. If Apple included "Plain text" as a 
> format choice in the Save dialog, it could automatically convert the 
> document to plain text for you on-the-fly.
> 
> 

shift-command-t does a save-as.

And the original contention was, and I quote:

> You don't need new programmers to make text edit an odd program at
> least. Anyone calling their program 'text' edit when it is unable to
> save .txt files has a head start already.

which is utter bullshit.

The second contention was, and I quote:

> At best .txt is hidden
> away somewhere as if it was some obscure extra that power users might
> need.

which is again utter bullshit.

Apple not only includes the ability it was getting stick for not having, but 
it gives it a command-key combo of its very own and a place on a menu... and 
still people bitch.

-- 
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <1id2wj1.1lc2gs913sb77yN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>,
>  dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
> 
> > If your preference for new documents is set to Plain Text, or you choose
> > "Make Plain Text" from the Format menu, then you get Save As format
> > options for plain text files.
> > 
> > If your preference for new documents is set to Rich Text, or you choose
> > "Make Rich Text" from the Format menu, then you get Save As format
> > options for rich text files.
> 
> This is bad design. It's not as if stripping formatting from a document
> is a complex task that computers cannot do. It's a simple task that most
> text editors on the planet do on-the-fly!

Oh, I quite agree. It threw me for about a minute the first time I
wanted to save a plain text file in TextEdit, until I found the mode
setting in the Format menu.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 00:43:38 -0500, Kevin McMurtrie wrote
(in article <mcmurtri-D73BC8.21433829022008@news.dslextreme.com>):

> In article <sdfisher-C8B0C6.17073929022008@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
>  Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote:
> 
>> In article <mcmurtri-12C8DB.21225928022008@news.dslextreme.com>,
>> Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Yeah, it's still Apple's Vista.
>> 
>> There were a few issues, but overall Leopard was better than Tiger from 
>> day one. Was the first release of Vista really that clear a gain over 
>> XP? Could you be exaggerating maybe just a little?
> 
> Sorry.  No chance in hell of that being true.  It was hard enough 
> getting 10.5.0 to work at all.

I merely ran the installer. it worked.

>  Half the new features still don't work 
> correctly.

That must be the half that I'm not using...

>  If you're on PPC, 10.5.2 doesn't work well enough for 
> everyday use.

Errm... I'm typing this on a PPC machine. An old, slow, PPC machine: a 1.25 
GHz eMac.

>  Want to see my console log from a PPC computer with 
> Leopard?

That would be nice.


-- 
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 01:19:16 -0500, Little Sir Echo wrote
(in article <Ez6yj.42$x93.7@trndny03>):

> 
> On 29-Feb-2008, Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> 
>> n article <sdfisher-C8B0C6.17073929022008@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
>> Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> In article <mcmurtri-12C8DB.21225928022008@news.dslextreme.com>,
>>> Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Yeah, it's still Apple's Vista.
>>> 
>>> There were a few issues, but overall Leopard was better than Tiger from
>>> day one. Was the first release of Vista really that clear a gain over
>>> XP? Could you be exaggerating maybe just a little?
>> 
>> Sorry.  No chance in hell of that being true.  It was hard enough
>> getting 10.5.0 to work at all. Half the new features still don't work
>> correctly.  If you're on PPC, 10.5.2 doesn't work well enough for
>> everyday use.
> 
> It might be more accurate to say it doesn't work for you. Leopard is working
> just fine for me.

Same here.

> 
>> Want to see my console log from a PPC computer with Leopard?
> 
> No, but I'm not doubting that you are having problems.
> 
> I'm only saying that you are painting with too broad a brush.

Sounds like operator error, frankly.

-- 
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

Mark Conrad <noneof@urbusiness.invalid> wrote:

> I  _never_  would have found that TextEdit glitch 
> without David's help.

I don't know that I would have come across the solution on my own, but
now that I know it, it actually makes good sense to me.  If you select a
word by double-clicking, you're specifically instructing the computer to
select a _word_, since the action you used to select it is defined as
such.  If you select by dragging, you're using the same action you would
also use to select just a portion of a word, so the computer cannot
distinguish your intent.

-- 
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/musings.cgi> Muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers
<http://bogart-tribute.net> Tribute to Humphrey Bogart

In article <fqa029$jft$4@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
wrote:

> Lewis wrote:
> > In article <fq7nd2$2nm$1@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
> > wrote:
> > 
> >> as if it [txt file] was some obscure extra that power users might need
> > 
> > For the vast majority of users, this is exactly correct.
> > 
> And unless you are printing something out or making a pdf, it shouldn't
> be so. If you're sharing the results with someone else you should either
> know in advance what system and software will be opening it and what the
> recipient prefers, out of politeness, or just use the simplest and most
> universal standard. Making plain text the default would achieve this and
> most people wouldn't even notice.

RTF as a default works for everyone too, and most people won't even 
notice.  For example, when windoid tards insist on a "word document" 
sending them an rtf means they think it's a word document.

The only time you HAVE to have a plain text file is if you're doing 
something line writing a bash script.

-- 
Bart: This is the worst day of my life.
Homer: This is the worst day of your life SO FAR.

In article <47c8aa11$0$27831$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> The whole point is that it is not suited to email. Not everyone has a
> mail client that reads RTF. Secondly, more and more people get smart and
> put filters and never read emails whose main bodypart is not text.

This has nothing to do with email.  If you're writing an email, you're 
going to write it in Mail.app.  If you're using TextEdit, rtf is a 
perfectly reasonable default.  A better choice than plain text, in fact.

-- 
Bart: This is the worst day of my life.
Homer: This is the worst day of your life SO FAR.

In article 
<noneof-59A7DF.11251829022008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
 Mark Conrad <noneof@urbusiness.invalid> wrote:

> Okay Michelle, we both did everything "right" but the 
> "Smart Copy/Paste" feature of TextEdit in OS 10.5.2 
> does not work for me, however it  _does_  work for you.

Works exactly right here as well (10.5.2)

-- 
Bart: This is the worst day of my life.
Homer: This is the worst day of your life SO FAR.

In article <47c883e1$0$10283$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> nospamatall wrote:
> 
> > The average user doesn't even know what plain text is or what it's
> > useful for, and that's why I get spurious non-functional characters 
> 
> Apple needs to be very careful not to alienate its loyal power users

Power users are not using TextEdit though.

-- 
Bart: This is the worst day of my life.
Homer: This is the worst day of your life SO FAR.

In article <1id36r7.17co2g4yhm31fN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
 mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> As tempting as it is to let you go ahead with this, I can't in good
> conscience.  Before proceeding with that, some of the things worth
> trying are:

Mark reinstalls his system every day or two though, as I understand it.

The solution has been posted.  Mark didn't follow the directions of 
selecting the WORD.  He instead selected the characters.

-- 
Bart: This is the worst day of my life.
Homer: This is the worst day of your life SO FAR.

In article 
<jollyroger-A248C6.01165401032008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <Pl3yj.420$dB.225@trnddc01>,
>  Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
> 
> > Ian Gregory wrote:
> > > Anyone who opens TextEdit for the first time and types some
> > > text and then wants to save it as .txt is bound to try opening
> > > the Save dialog right? That is the logical thing to do. They
> > 
> > Define "anyone."  Are you saying that everyone else in this
> > thread is lying?  Or that we're all not logical?  Obviously,
> > the people who share your opinion either don't exist or don't
> > think it's worth the bandwidth.  And I don't think it's worth
> > all this bandwidth, so this thread is going into my filter list.
> 
> You actually believe most Mac users open TextEdit for the first time, 
> type some text, and automatically know they need to visit preferences to 
> change the document type *before* they will be allowed to save the file 
> as plain text?

I actually believe that most Mac users wouldn't want to save as plain 
text in the first place, so it's not an issue for them.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***

In article 
<jollyroger-D410C7.01113801032008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <michelle-1811FD.21212128022008@news.west.cox.net>,
>  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
> > In article <slrnfsf1ni.hla.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
> >  Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:
> > 
> > > > It is not hidden.
> > > 
> > > But it is not in the Save dialog along with the "rich" formats.
> > 
> > That's right; it's in the Save dialog when the document window is a text 
> > window, not an RTF window.
> 
> How does one change a document window from RTF to plain text? If it 
> involves a visit to preferences, then this is anything *but* intuitive.

Not only that, but it would be wrong.  Preferences are for general 
preferences, but the formatting type is an attribute of a specific 
window (you can have plain text in one window, RTF in another).  That's 
why it's an action in the Format menu, "Make Plain Text".

BTW, did Apple change the default for this?  I'm still using Tiger, and 
it defaults to plain text.  Maybe that's what's raising so many hackles: 
people who've upgraded from Tiger to Leopard are noticing that it 
doesn't work the way they expect, and it's not so obvious why.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***

In article 
<jollyroger-83235B.01344501032008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <barmar-F130F6.21171828022008@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
>  Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> > In article <fq7out$73e$1@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > My problem with it is not about how you choose, just that .txt is not
> > > default and not even present until you change something.
> > 
> > I think their reasoning is that it doesn't make sense to try to save a 
> > document with fonts and styles as plain text, because you'd lose all the 
> > formatting.  
> 
> That's bad reasoning. This is a freaking *computer*. Stripping 
> formatting out of a document is a *trivial* computing task. There's 
> absolutely no reason Apple can't or shouldn't allow users to save as 
> plain text and automatically strip formatting on-the-fly. Most every 
> other text editor on the planet does this! For whatever reason, Apple 
> has chosen to make this simple operation harder for end users. This is 
> not the Mac way.

Of course it's trivial, and it happens when you click on "Make Plain 
Text".

They just didn't want to do it behind the scenes when you're saving, 
because they probably thought that would be more confusing or 
surprising.  You have to take a positive action to strip all the 
formatting.  And when you do this, you'll see immediately what the 
document looks like in plain text.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***

In article 
<jollyroger-0291CB.01390501032008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> > > How many times do I have to say it? I'm not suggesting rtf etc 
> > > should not be present, only complaining that plain txt is not 
> > > default and not even in the list unless you configure the thing 
> > > deliberately in the first place.
> > 
> > I think that you are making a mountain out of a molehill.  The 
> > deliberate configuration is a trivial matter.
> 
> I disagree. It's the small things that make Mac OS better than 
> alternatives. This is one obvious area where a Mac application is not 
> behaving the way a Mac application should.

Do you realize that in all other word processors and text editors, 
saving a document in a format other than the application's native format 
keeps the document "dirty"?  In TextEdit, there are two native formats, 
each with its own Save dialog and options.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article 
<jollyroger-26BB1F.01380101032008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> Bullshit. You can have both. Even Microsoft Word allows you to save 
> rich documents as plain text in the save as dialog. Apple simply 
> decided to design it so that it's harder to do than need be.

And when you save it as text, you're not saving the document; you're 
saving a copy of it with the formatting removed.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article 
<jollyroger-E0AEBC.01300601032008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> > > Not at all. .txt is not present in save as... dialogs
> > 
> > It's present in my save as...dialogs.
> 
> Don't play word games. It's *not* present in your save as dialogs 
> when the document type isn't plain text. 

But the document is almost always plain text.

> And the document type of a new document won't be plain text if you 
> haven't previously visited preferences to change the default. 

But I did.  I did it so long ago that I can't remember when I did it.

> This complication could be easily solved if Apple were to add "Plain 
> text" as a format choice in the save as dialog, and have TextEdit 
> automatically convert the document to plain text on-the-fly during 
> save - just as most every other freaking text editor on the planet 
> does.

They do not convert the document to plain text; they save a plain-text 
copy of the document.  Then when you try to close the document, you get 
a dialog asking if you want to save it, and you thing, "WTF?  I already 
saved it."  Or if you make changes, and press Command-S to save it, you 
get the Save dialog again, instead of saving over the existing file.  If 
you then try to save it, you get an alert telling you there's already a 
document with the same name, and asking if you want to replace it.

It is not as freaking simple as you make it out to be.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <0001HW.C3EEB20800D2AF79F02066D8@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
 J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:

> shift-command-t does a save-as.

No, shift-command-s does a save-as.  Shift-command-t toggles between 
text and rich text.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article 
<jollyroger-988FB0.01215501032008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> And even if the default is RTF, they should make it *easy* to save as 
> plain text. This is a Mac, after all.

The options are

1.  Convert to plain text by choosing Make Plain Text from the Format 
menu.  Then Save the document.  The document is saved

2.  Save the document, then choose "Plain Text" from a popup menu in the 
Save dialog.  A copy of the document is saved.

Same number of steps.  Which one is easier, and why?

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <barmar-1DF6D1.12110201032008@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
 Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> BTW, did Apple change the default for this?  I'm still using Tiger, and 
> it defaults to plain text. 

Never mind, I just noticed that the default format for new windows is a 
preference option, and I have it set to plain.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***

In article 
<jollyroger-A248C6.01165401032008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> You actually believe most Mac users open TextEdit for the first time, 
> type some text, and automatically know they need to visit preferences 
> to change the document type *before* they will be allowed to save the 
> file as plain text?

You actually believe that most Mac users open TextEdit for the first 
time and do not look at the menus and preferences before using it?

You actually believe that most Mac users open TextEdit for the first 
time, and actually care whether the document is saved as plain text or 
rich text?

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 02:11:38 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote
(in article 
<jollyroger-D410C7.01113801032008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>):

> In article <michelle-1811FD.21212128022008@news.west.cox.net>,
>  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
>> In article <slrnfsf1ni.hla.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
>> Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>>> It is not hidden.
>>> 
>>> But it is not in the Save dialog along with the "rich" formats.
>> 
>> That's right; it's in the Save dialog when the document window is a text 
>> window, not an RTF window.
> 
> How does one change a document window from RTF to plain text?

command-shift-t.

> If it 
> involves a visit to preferences, then this is anything *but* intuitive.

You can set the _default_ to plain text in the preferences. Otherwise it's 
RTF.



-- 
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

In article 
<jollyroger-95D5FB.01142201032008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> Exactly. Even Microsoft Word allows you to save RTF and plain text 
> files right there in the Save As dialog box without having to first 
> visit preferences to change the document type! Michelle, you must see 
> that this is not as intuitive as it could be.

No it does not save the document in those formats; it saves a *copy* of 
the document in those formats.  Roger, you must see that this is not as 
simple as you make it out to be.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article 
<jollyroger-D410C7.01113801032008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> How does one change a document window from RTF to plain text? If it 
> involves a visit to preferences, then this is anything *but* 
> intuitive.

Press command-shift-t.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article 
<noneof-A81B0A.22192229022008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
 Mark Conrad <noneof@urbusiness.invalid> wrote:

> I tried your keyboard method, my drag method, but completely 
> overlooked the double-click method of selecting a word.

Double-clicking the word is the easiest way to select it; it did not 
occur to me that someone would select a word any other way.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 12:30:59 -0500, Michelle Steiner wrote
(in article <michelle-B9116B.10305901032008@news.west.cox.net>):

> In article <0001HW.C3EEB20800D2AF79F02066D8@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
>  J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:
> 
>> shift-command-t does a save-as.
> 
> No, shift-command-s does a save-as.  Shift-command-t toggles between 
> text and rich text.
> 
> 

make plain text puts up a new window, with a plain text version of the file. 
That works for me. The same shift-command-t command key combo works the other 
way, too; if I have a plain text file and hit that combo, it generates a .rtf 
version.

This is something I find myself sorely missing in other apps, such as Pages. 
Oh, for a command-key combo which could move between .pages and .doc or 
..pages and .rtf...

-- 
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

In article <barmar-1DF6D1.12110201032008@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
 Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> BTW, did Apple change the default for this?  I'm still using Tiger, 
> and it defaults to plain text.  Maybe that's what's raising so many 
> hackles: people who've upgraded from Tiger to Leopard are noticing 
> that it doesn't work the way they expect, and it's not so obvious 
> why.

You probably changed it so long ago that you don't remember doing it.

Close TextEdit, remove com.apple.TextEdit.plist from your user's 
preferences folder, and launch TextEdit again. See what format a new 
document is; I expect that it will be Rich Text.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <0001HW.C3EEFFE900108A4DF02886D8@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
 J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:

> make plain text puts up a new window, with a plain text version of 
> the file. 

For me, it does it in the same window.  I still have only one window.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <fqamf0$ned$3@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
wrote:

> How many times do I have to say it? I'm not suggesting rtf etc should
> not be present, only complaining that plain txt is not default and not
> even in the list unless you configure the thing deliberately in the
> first place.

Your saying it doesn't change the fact that for the vast majority of 
users, you are wrong.

They open up an editor, they expect to be able to set fonts, centering, 
and all sorts of other 'word processing' features. If those features ae 
not there, they simply think the editor is broken.

The fact is, everything you've said about plain text is just flat out 
wrong for almost every user out there.

-- 
Bart: This is the worst day of my life.
Homer: This is the worst day of your life SO FAR.

In article <mcmurtri-D73BC8.21433829022008@news.dslextreme.com>,
 Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote:

> In article <sdfisher-C8B0C6.17073929022008@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
>  Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote:
> 
> > In article <mcmurtri-12C8DB.21225928022008@news.dslextreme.com>,
> >  Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Yeah, it's still Apple's Vista.
> > 
> > There were a few issues, but overall Leopard was better than Tiger from 
> > day one. Was the first release of Vista really that clear a gain over 
> > XP? Could you be exaggerating maybe just a little?
> 
> Sorry.  No chance in hell of that being true.  It was hard enough 
> getting 10.5.0 to work at all.

Your experiences do not match the vast majority of users out there.  I 
put Leopard on several machines the day it arrived and have had no real 
problems.  A few minor irritations, sure.  But that's true in every OS 
release ever.

> Half the new features still don't work 
> correctly.  If you're on PPC, 10.5.2 doesn't work well enough for 
> everyday use.

Absolutely, 100%, bullshit trolling.  I use it daily on a PPC machine 
and so do several people I know.  iLamp G4s, G5 iMacs, G4 Power Macs all 
running quite happily with Leopard.  And in all cases, running better 
than they did in 10.4.10.

-- 
Bart: This is the worst day of my life.
Homer: This is the worst day of your life SO FAR.

In article 
<noneof-6F7FD1.21512029022008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
 Mark Conrad <noneof@urbusiness.invalid> wrote:

> Wow, thanks, who would have suspected TextEdit to be 
> that screwed up!

It's not screwed up, it's expected behavior.

How you select a 'word' is to double click it.  Dragging the selector 
selects CHARACTERS.

A 'word' has non-printing boundaries at its start and end.  When you 
double click the word, you are selecting these invisible boundaries.  
When you drag, you don't.

[nwc][word boundary][character[1]..character[n]][word boundary][nwc]

where '[nwc]' is a non-word character like a space, comma, period, slash 
or any of several other characters which might vary based on your 
language settings.

If you've ever had to do much work with regex and 'words' you will be 
familiar with this concept, but you can think of it this way:

When you drag a selection, you will always get exactly the characters 
you select.  When you use double (or triple) click you get a logical 
block that contains the selection. Turning off the smart copy/paste in 
TextEdit is simply telling the app that you never want the logical block 
when selecting words.

For example, a triple click in TextEdit will select the paragraph AND 
the return at the end of the paragraph.  Dragging from the first to last 
character of the paragraph will NOT select the return at the end.

-- 
Bart: This is the worst day of my life.
Homer: This is the worst day of your life SO FAR.

In article 
<jollyroger-D410C7.01113801032008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> How does one change a document window from RTF to plain text? If it 
> involves a visit to preferences, then this is anything *but* intuitive.

Format => Convert to Plain Text

-- 
Bart: This is the worst day of my life.
Homer: This is the worst day of your life SO FAR.

In article 
<jollyroger-A248C6.01165401032008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> You actually believe most Mac users open TextEdit for the first time, 
> type some text, and automatically know they need to visit preferences to 
> change the document type *before* they will be allowed to save the file 
> as plain text?

You actually believe most Mac users open TextEdit for the first time,  
type some text, and automatically care that the file is rtf instead of 
txt?  Or would know the difference?  Or would not be annoyed that they 
can't center a line, or change the font, or underline?

-- 
Bart: This is the worst day of my life.
Homer: This is the worst day of your life SO FAR.

In article 
<jollyroger-3A78C3.01211501032008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> All they need to do is add "Plain Text" as a choice in 
> the Save dialog box! It's really not that hard to implement. Even 
> Microsoft Word has this.

And people are shocked and dismayed to see their document stripped of 
all its formatting, spacing, and centering.

-- 
Bart: This is the worst day of my life.
Homer: This is the worst day of your life SO FAR.

On 2008-03-01, Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
> Ian Gregory wrote:
>> Anyone who opens TextEdit for the first time and types some
>> text and then wants to save it as .txt is bound to try opening
>> the Save dialog right? That is the logical thing to do. They
>
> Define "anyone."  Are you saying that everyone else in this
> thread is lying?

Well not those who are agreeing with me for a start:-)

> Or that we're all not logical?

Well most people in this thread will have used TextEdit
before. I am only talking about the experience of those
who have used other text editors to work with plain text
and decide to give TextEdit a spin for the first time
(and I think I made that clear in my posts).

> Obviously, the people who share your opinion either don't
> exist or don't think it's worth the bandwidth.

I was not the one who brought it up. I just (partly) agreed
with the OP and clearly there are people in this thread who
do share my opinion - so either you haven't been reading the
thread properly or you are lying.

And presumably everyone in the thread thinks it is worth the
bandwidth, otherwise they wouldn't be posting.

> And I don't think it's worth
> all this bandwidth, so this thread is going into my
> filter list.

Fair enough. I don't think it is a particularly important
issue, I just felt compelled to argue against those who were
unable to accept what seemed to me to me to be a valid
criticism of TextEdit.

I think TextEdit is a useful app for the average Mac user,
it is just not aimed at the minority of people who want a
"real" text editor. Not a big deal because Apple provides
a "real" text editor (vim) and there are plenty of third
party GUI text editors available - and their popularity
proves my point:-)

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

In article <slrnfsjb18.i1j.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
 Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:

> And presumably everyone in the thread thinks it is worth the
> bandwidth, otherwise they wouldn't be posting.

Oh please, this is USENET.  Bandwidth is like 3 cents a Petabyte.

There's no value here, move along.

-- 
Bart: This is the worst day of my life.
Homer: This is the worst day of your life SO FAR.

On 2008-03-01, Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> RTF is an open standard -- it's not like it defaults to Word or 
> AppleWorks format.  Anyone with a reasonably modern system should have 
> no problem reading it.

Agreed, but RTF is unsuitable for scripts, config files,
etc which are generally created using a text editor. Nor
for Usenet articles (and my Usenet client invokes my text
editor for article composition).

> Plain text can't even deal with automatic line wrapping to the 
> recipient's window size.

Plain text is plain text. It has newline characters to
indicate where a new line is supposed to start. Wrapping
problems have been addressed in RFC 2646 "The Text/Plain
Format Parameter". From the abstract:

> Interoperability problems have been observed with erroneous
> labelling of paragraph text as Text/Plain, and with various
> forms of "embarrassing line wrap." (See section 3.)
>
> Attempts to deploy new media types, such as Text/Enriched
> [RICH] and Text/HTML [HTML] have suffered from a lack of
> backwards compatibility and an often hostile user reaction
> at the receiving end.
>
> What is required is a format which is in all significant
> ways Text/Plain, and therefore is quite suitable for display
> as Text/Plain, and yet allows the sender to express to the
> receiver which lines can be considered a logical paragraph,
> and thus flowed (wrapped and joined) as appropriate.

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

On 2008-03-01, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopiesofposts> wrote:
> In article <slrnfsjb18.i1j.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
>  Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:
>
>> And presumably everyone in the thread thinks it is worth the
>> bandwidth, otherwise they wouldn't be posting.
>
> Oh please, this is USENET.  Bandwidth is like 3 cents a Petabyte.

Oh I thought we were talking about cognitive bandwidth,
the time and mental effort required to post and read articles.
Of course physical bandwidth is irrelevent to most people
apart from those who run NNTP servers (who do presumably
incur significant bandwidth costs, particularly if they
carry binaries).

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

In article <slrnfsjcs2.i1j.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
 Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:

> > RTF is an open standard -- it's not like it defaults to Word or 
> > AppleWorks format.  Anyone with a reasonably modern system should 
> > have no problem reading it.
> 
> Agreed, but RTF is unsuitable for scripts, config files, etc which 
> are generally created using a text editor.

Anyone doing that is sufficiently advanced to be able figure out in a 
very short order what to do.

> Nor for Usenet articles (and my Usenet client invokes my text editor 
> for article composition).

Your Usenet client requires you save the text editor document and then 
imports the file?

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <slrnfsjcs2.i1j.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>, Ian
Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:

> On 2008-03-01, Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> > RTF is an open standard -- it's not like it defaults to Word or 
> > AppleWorks format.  Anyone with a reasonably modern system should have 
> > no problem reading it.
> 
> Agreed, but RTF is unsuitable for scripts, config files,
> etc which are generally created using a text editor. Nor
> for Usenet articles (and my Usenet client invokes my text
> editor for article composition).

Anyone writing scripts, config files, etc., will hopefully have a large
enough quantity of firing neurons to be able to figure out the
difference between plain text and RTF, as well as have the ability to
figure out how to use the tools at hand to save files in the correct
format.

Yes?

-- 
Help improve usenet. Kill-file Google Groups.
http://improve-usenet.org/

Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopiesofposts> wrote:

> You actually believe most Mac users open TextEdit for the first time,
> type some text, and automatically care that the file is rtf instead of
> txt?  Or would know the difference?  Or would not be annoyed that they
> can't center a line, or change the font, or underline?

I'll go further with this.  You actually believe most Mac users open
TextEdit _at all_?  Other than when it opens automatically because
they've double-clicked a read-me file, and even then they aren't aware
that they're using a program called TextEdit, I'd wager that the
majority of my clients aren't aware there's a program by that name on
their computer.  I'm serious, BTW.

-- 
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/musings.cgi> Muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers
<http://bogart-tribute.net> Tribute to Humphrey Bogart

On 2008-03-01, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <slrnfsjcs2.i1j.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
>  Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:
>
>> > RTF is an open standard -- it's not like it defaults to Word or 
>> > AppleWorks format.  Anyone with a reasonably modern system should 
>> > have no problem reading it.
>> 
>> Agreed, but RTF is unsuitable for scripts, config files, etc which 
>> are generally created using a text editor.
>
> Anyone doing that is sufficiently advanced to be able figure out in a 
> very short order what to do.

And will most likely decide that TextEdit is not suitable as
a text editor - yes.

>> Nor for Usenet articles (and my Usenet client invokes my text editor 
>> for article composition).
>
> Your Usenet client requires you save the text editor document and then 
> imports the file?

Efectively Yes. When I hit "f" in slrn to follow up to an article
I get dumped straight into my chosen text editor, which is vim. I
trim and add responses as appropriate then hit ":wq" to save and
exit vim, then "y" to post my article.

I use vim from within my Usenet client and my email client and
as a standalone text editor. The only thing I use TextEdit for
is to view RTF and Word documents.

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

In article <1id4qd7.16mt5i21vr6thlN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
 mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> I'd wager that the majority of my clients aren't aware there's a 
> program by that name [TextEdit] on their computer.  I'm serious, BTW.

Even though it's right there on the Dock?

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <010320081405321044%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
 Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:

> Anyone writing scripts, config files, etc., will hopefully have a 
> large enough quantity of firing neurons to be able to figure out the 
> difference between plain text and RTF, as well as have the ability to 
> figure out how to use the tools at hand to save files in the correct 
> format.
> 
> Yes?

Emphatically yes.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <slrnfsjg02.i1j.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
 Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:

> >> Agreed, but RTF is unsuitable for scripts, config files, etc which 
> >> are generally created using a text editor.
> >
> > Anyone doing that is sufficiently advanced to be able figure out in 
> > a very short order what to do.
> 
> And will most likely decide that TextEdit is not suitable as a text 
> editor - yes.

Gee, all they have to do is change preferences once, and it is perfectly 
suitable.

> > Your Usenet client requires you save the text editor document and 
> > then imports the file?
> 
> Efectively Yes. When I hit "f" in slrn to follow up to an article I 
> get dumped straight into my chosen text editor, which is vim. I trim 
> and add responses as appropriate then hit ":wq" to save and exit vim, 
> then "y" to post my article.

Then what happens to the saved file?  Do you have to manually delete it?

> I use vim from within my Usenet client and my email client and
> as a standalone text editor.

So you're working from within the unix command line, and a gui text 
editor is immaterial.

> The only thing I use TextEdit for is to view RTF and Word documents.

I use Pages for the latter; for the former, I use whatever app opens 
when I double click on the document.  Usually, it is TextEdit, though.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

On 2008-03-01, Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> In article <slrnfsjcs2.i1j.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>, Ian
> Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2008-03-01, Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> > RTF is an open standard -- it's not like it defaults to Word or 
>> > AppleWorks format.  Anyone with a reasonably modern system should have 
>> > no problem reading it.
>> 
>> Agreed, but RTF is unsuitable for scripts, config files,
>> etc which are generally created using a text editor. Nor
>> for Usenet articles (and my Usenet client invokes my text
>> editor for article composition).
>
> Anyone writing scripts, config files, etc., will hopefully have a large
> enough quantity of firing neurons to be able to figure out the
> difference between plain text and RTF, as well as have the ability to
> figure out how to use the tools at hand to save files in the correct
> format.
>
> Yes?

Yes, and my feeling is that if they try using TextEdit for the
job, thinking "TextEdit, must be a text editor" they will be put
off by many things, including the fact that you have to jump
through a hoop to even save as text. Those are the people I
am talking about. TextEdit is a useful app for the average
Mac user, it is just not a very good text editor.

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

On 2008-03-01, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <slrnfsjg02.i1j.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
>  Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:

[missing attribution]

>> > Your Usenet client requires you save the text editor document and 
>> > then imports the file?
>> 
>> Efectively Yes. When I hit "f" in slrn to follow up to an article I 
>> get dumped straight into my chosen text editor, which is vim. I trim 
>> and add responses as appropriate then hit ":wq" to save and exit vim, 
>> then "y" to post my article.
>
> Then what happens to the saved file?  Do you have to manually delete it?

No, slrn deletes it (unless I choose to postpone rather than
post the article, in which case it is saved and is recoveralble
by invoking the list of postponed articles).

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

In article <michelle-2FDE0B.13445301032008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <1id4qd7.16mt5i21vr6thlN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
>  mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
> 
> > I'd wager that the majority of my clients aren't aware there's a 
> > program by that name [TextEdit] on their computer.  I'm serious, BTW.
> 
> Even though it's right there on the Dock?

For about two seconds, on my machine.

Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > I'd wager that the majority of my clients aren't aware there's a 
> > program by that name [TextEdit] on their computer.  I'm serious, BTW.
> 
> Even though it's right there on the Dock?

It's not on the dock by default, and when people open read me files
they're generally not looking at the dock.

-- 
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/musings.cgi> Muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers
<http://bogart-tribute.net> Tribute to Humphrey Bogart

In article <1id4qd7.16mt5i21vr6thlN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
 mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopiesofposts> wrote:
> 
> > You actually believe most Mac users open TextEdit for the first time,
> > type some text, and automatically care that the file is rtf instead of
> > txt?  Or would know the difference?  Or would not be annoyed that they
> > can't center a line, or change the font, or underline?
> 
> I'll go further with this.  You actually believe most Mac users open
> TextEdit _at all_?  Other than when it opens automatically because
> they've double-clicked a read-me file, and even then they aren't aware
> that they're using a program called TextEdit, I'd wager that the
> majority of my clients aren't aware there's a program by that name on
> their computer.  I'm serious, BTW.

Good point.

I find it odd that someone writing scripts and unix config files would 
be even looking at a GUI editor.

I mean, I think of the GUI as UTF-8 land anyway, and I'd rather not have 
/etc/hosts be in UTF-8 format anyway.

-- 
Bart: This is the worst day of my life.
Homer: This is the worst day of your life SO FAR.

In article <slrnfsjgkn.i1j.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
 Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:

> Yes, and my feeling is that if they try using TextEdit for the job, 
> thinking "TextEdit, must be a text editor" they will be put off by 
> many things, including the fact that you have to jump through a hoop 
> to even save as text. Those are the people I am talking about. 
> TextEdit is a useful app for the average Mac user, it is just not a 
> very good text editor.

That hoop has about a one-mile radius, and is firmly on the ground.

And why isn't it a good text editor?

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <slrnfsjgu4.i1j.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
 Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:

> > Then what happens to the saved file?  Do you have to manually 
> > delete it?
> 
> No, slrn deletes it (unless I choose to postpone rather than post the 
> article, in which case it is saved and is recoveralble by invoking 
> the list of postponed articles).

OK, so it is semi-automatic.  Instead of clicking a send button or 
pressing the keystrokes to send (e.g., command-E in MTNW), you tyope :wq 
followed by y.  It is almost like typing within the news reader.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <1id4sqy.n2oc821s03c5eN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
 mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> > > I'd wager that the majority of my clients aren't aware there's a 
> > > program by that name [TextEdit] on their computer.  I'm serious, 
> > > BTW.
> > 
> > Even though it's right there on the Dock?
> 
> It's not on the dock by default, 

I've had it on my Dock for so long that I completely forgot that it's 
not there by default.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

On 2008-03-01, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopiesofposts> wrote:

> I find it odd that someone writing scripts and unix config files would 
> be even looking at a GUI editor.

Are you serious? Many hardcore coders that used to do all their
coding in command line editors like vi and Emacs have switched
alliegence completely to GUI apps. Once you are using a GUI
text editor for your daily workflow you are likely to use it
even for editing simple scripts and config files as well.

The only point I am making is that TextEdit is not designed
to do what the classic command line text editors did so well,
it is much more like a word processor. If it was called
"WordProcess" I would not be posting in this thread:-)

That is precicely why there is such a market for third part
GUI text editors on the Mac - TextEdit is not an appropriate
tool for the job (though it is fine for doing what Apple
designed it to do).

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

In article <slrnfsjm4m.i3q.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
 Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:

> The only point I am making is that TextEdit is not designed to do 
> what the classic command line text editors did so well, it is much 
> more like a word processor. If it was called "WordProcess" I would 
> not be posting in this thread:-)

Even if you take the one-time step of making it default to plain text 
instead of rich text?

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

On 2008-03-01, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <slrnfsjgu4.i1j.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
>  Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:
>
>> > Then what happens to the saved file?  Do you have to manually 
>> > delete it?
>> 
>> No, slrn deletes it (unless I choose to postpone rather than post the 
>> article, in which case it is saved and is recoveralble by invoking 
>> the list of postponed articles).
>
> OK, so it is semi-automatic.  Instead of clicking a send button or 
> pressing the keystrokes to send (e.g., command-E in MTNW), you tyope :wq 
> followed by y.  It is almost like typing within the news reader.

Yes, external editor support is well integrated. It is the
Unix philosophy - why bother re-inventing the wheel and write
a load of text editing code in slrn when you can just call out
to the user's favourite text editor.

Same thing with Cocoa apps in Mac OS X - if the app needs
text editing functionality then the developer will most likely
just use NSTextView. This probably explains the behaviour of
TextEdit that we have been discussing. NSTextView seems to
have separate modes for Rich Text and Plain Text (see attributes
like setRichText and isRichText - Rich Text appears to be
the default).

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

On 2008-03-01, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <slrnfsjm4m.i3q.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
>  Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:
>
>> The only point I am making is that TextEdit is not designed to do 
>> what the classic command line text editors did so well, it is much 
>> more like a word processor. If it was called "WordProcess" I would 
>> not be posting in this thread:-)
>
> Even if you take the one-time step of making it default to plain text 
> instead of rich text?

Even then (at least as I understand it). For a start, you need
to supress the idea that text files have a .txt extension, you
might want to use it for .sh .cf .html (as plain text) .conf
etc. But even then it only provides the most basic functionality
of something like vim. Emacs has so much functionality that some
people talk (only half jokingly) about using it as their operating
system:-)

One thing that some people want in a text editor is for it
to be aware of the syntax of every programming or scripting
language or markup format that they use - so that it can do
automatic structuring, flag up syntax errors, count nesting
levels of various parentheses and quoting characters etc.

Certainly TextEdit has the basic functionality of a text editor,
but as I keep saying, it is really designed to work more like
a word processor.

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

In article <w62dnfZYiJtvNFTanZ2dnUVZ_sytnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopiesofposts> wrote:

> > Wow, thanks, who would have suspected TextEdit to be 
> > that screwed up!
> 
> It's not screwed up, it's expected behavior.
  ...<rest of geek garbage snipped>...


Only expected by geeks, not be "the rest of us", 
as Apple advocates would rightly claim about their 
intuitive and easy-to-use OS.


Lewis, referring to Michelle's post -
> The solution has been posted.

A  _proposed_  solution was posted by Michelle.

Michelle's proposed solution did not work for me.


Lewis, with a false accusation -
> Mark didn't follow the directions of selecting 
> the WORD.  He instead selected the characters.

Wrong.  I specifically asked Michelle if I should 
select only the 4 letters of the word "shed", or 
if I should also select the spaces before and after 
the word "shed" also.

Michelle said to select only the 4 letters, which I did 
by dragging the cursor across those letters, being careful 
to not include any spaces.

Before you go off half-cocked with your accusations again, 
realize that it is common practice for a Mac user to "select" 
a word by dragging the cursor across the word while holding 
down the mouse key.

I suspect that many Mac users are not aware that one method 
of selecting a word "works", while a different method does not.

I just now typed in "select" and later "select a word" in the 
Apple Help files.  Help had nothing to offer about 
the double-click method of selecting a word.


How in the hell are we supposed to learn those methods, other 
than asking questions here, and putting up with your snide 
bullshit and false accusations.



 

I "selected" the word by the drag method, being careful to 
follow Michelle's caution to avoid including any spaces.

After selecting those 4 letters, I strictly followed 
Michelle's written instructions by using the keys 
Command-C to copy my selection.



Michelle's actual instructions posted below:

Mark's Question -
> > My  _main_  complaint is that I can't see how to use 
> > the TextEdit feature "Smart Copy/Paste" for any 
> > constructive purpose.
>
> > Can you, or anyone else, shed some light on the 
> > proper way to use "Smart Copy/Paste" for a 
> > constructive purpose?
>
Michelle's Instructions in her reply - 
> OK, copy the above quoted text into TextEdit.  Make sure that "smart 
> copy/paste" is checked in the Edit menu.
> 
> Select "shed" in the second paragraph.  Press Command-C to copy it.
> 
> Click between the p and the l in "complaint" in the first paragraph.  
> Press command-V to paste.
> 
> Notice that "shed" has spaces separating it from the "p" and the "l" 
> in "complaint.




The outcome of my strictly following those instructions 
did not work, my result was: 

       compshedlaint


....not what Michelle described in her post, namely:

       comp shed laint 



I then asked Michelle if she had followed her own posted 
instructions, she replied that she had.




Later, David Empson posted a solution that did work for me 
from the git-go, no problems whatever with his solution.



> Mark reinstalls his system every day or two though, 
> as I understand it.

Fuck off, you miserable asshole.

Mark-

In article <slrnfsjm4m.i3q.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
 Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:

> Are you serious? Many hardcore coders that used to do all their
> coding in command line editors like vi and Emacs have switched
> alliegence completely to GUI apps. Once you are using a GUI
> text editor for your daily workflow you are likely to use it
> even for editing simple scripts and config files as well.

That's odd.  I do a lot of text processing using BBEdit.  I edit all my 
html and php and such with it.  But when editing system files, 
(httpd.conf, /etc/hosts, /etc/postfix/main.cf, etc) I still use nvi.

-- 
Bart: This is the worst day of my life.
Homer: This is the worst day of your life SO FAR.

In article 
<noneof-67DB03.16314401032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
 Mark Conrad <noneof@urbusiness.invalid> wrote:
> In article <w62dnfZYiJtvNFTanZ2dnUVZ_sytnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>  Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopiesofposts> wrote:
> > It's not screwed up, it's expected behavior.
>   ...<rest of geek garbage snipped>...

Yes, you deleted the actual explanation of what was going on, 
disregarded it all and, I can only assume, didn't even read it well 
enough to understand it or learn anything.  That's fine, hopefully 
someone else learned something and you can continue on with your flawed 
understanding of what is happening and how it 'doesn't work'.  I'm sorry 
I wasted your time.

> Lewis, with a false accusation -
> > Mark didn't follow the directions of selecting 
> > the WORD.  He instead selected the characters.

That is not a 'false accusation' it is the exact description of what 
happened and WHY it didn't work for you.  You selected 4 characters, not 
the word.

> Wrong.  I specifically asked Michelle if I should 
> select only the 4 letters of the word "shed", or 
> if I should also select the spaces before and after 
> the word "shed" also.

That's not the issue.  You select the WORD by double clicking it.

> Michelle said to select only the 4 letters, which I did 
> by dragging the cursor across those letters, being careful 
> to not include any spaces.

Right, you selected the CHARACTERS and not the WORD.

> How in the hell are we supposed to learn those methods, other 
> than asking questions here, and putting up with your snide 
> bullshit and false accusations.

I gave what is a pretty detailed explanation of both what you did and 
why it didn't work.  I've reread it.  If you took it as an accusation, 
that is your problem.

> I "selected" the word by the drag method, being careful to 
> follow Michelle's caution to avoid including any spaces.

Again, you selected the characters, not the WORD.  This is why your 
results did not match Michelle's.  The issue is not about selecting the 
spaces.  If you drag-select the spaces too, you are STILL only selecting 
the characters, and NOT the word.

> > OK, copy the above quoted text into TextEdit.  Make sure that "smart 
> > copy/paste" is checked in the Edit menu.
> > 
> > Select "shed" in the second paragraph.  Press Command-C to copy it.

Yes, it would have been better if Michelle had specified HOW she 
selected the word.

> I then asked Michelle if she had followed her own posted 
> instructions, she replied that she had.

She did.  She just used the 'normal' method of selecting a word.

-- 
Bart: This is the worst day of my life.
Homer: This is the worst day of your life SO FAR.

On 2008-03-02, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopiesofposts> wrote:
> In article <slrnfsjm4m.i3q.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
>  Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Are you serious? Many hardcore coders that used to do all their
>> coding in command line editors like vi and Emacs have switched
>> alliegence completely to GUI apps. Once you are using a GUI
>> text editor for your daily workflow you are likely to use it
>> even for editing simple scripts and config files as well.
>
> That's odd.  I do a lot of text processing using BBEdit.  I edit all my 
> html and php and such with it.  But when editing system files, 
> (httpd.conf, /etc/hosts, /etc/postfix/main.cf, etc) I still use nvi.

Well that is interesting. I edit config files using vim but then
I edit everything using vim (text, c, perl, bash, python, html).
If I switched to a GUI editor for those things then I imagine I
would probably start using it for config files too (other than
cases where there are specific maintainance commands like visudo
and vipw that deal with locking and post processing). What's good
for the goose is good for the gander.

What is your primary reason for sticking with a command line
text editor for config files in particular?

Out of interest do you also use TextEdit in addition to BBEdit
and nvi, and if so, what for? (as I mentioned, I sometimes use
it for viewing RTF files and Word documents).

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

In article 
<noneof-67DB03.16314401032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
 Mark Conrad <noneof@urbusiness.invalid> wrote:

> > Mark didn't follow the directions of selecting the WORD.  He 
> > instead selected the characters.
> 
> Wrong.  I specifically asked Michelle if I should select only the 4 
> letters of the word "shed", or if I should also select the spaces 
> before and after the word "shed" also.
> 
> Michelle said to select only the 4 letters, which I did by dragging 
> the cursor across those letters, being careful to not include any 
> spaces.
> 
> Before you go off half-cocked with your accusations again, realize 
> that it is common practice for a Mac user to "select" a word by 
> dragging the cursor across the word while holding down the mouse key.

It is more common for a Mac user to select a word by double clicking it.  
It is both easier and less prone to errors than shift dragging the 
characters.

> I just now typed in "select" and later "select a word" in the 
> Apple Help files.  Help had nothing to offer about 
> the double-click method of selecting a word.

I just typed "select a word" in Mac Help; the second item it returned 
says "Selecting text to change it".  When I chose that, I got the 
following in the Help window (I'm including only the relevant portions):

   *  Double-click a word to select the whole word.
   *  Drag across text to select a range of text.
   *  Click to place the insertion point at the beginning of your 
selection, then hold down the Shift key and click at the end of your 
selection.
   *  Triple-click to select a whole line, and click more times to 
select a paragraph or the entire document (in some applications).

Notice what the first item is?

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <slrnfsjogv.i3q.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
 Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:

> >> The only point I am making is that TextEdit is not designed to do 
> >> what the classic command line text editors did so well, it is much 
> >> more like a word processor. If it was called "WordProcess" I would 
> >> not be posting in this thread:-)
> >
> > Even if you take the one-time step of making it default to plain 
> > text instead of rich text?
> 
> Even then (at least as I understand it). For a start, you need to 
> supress the idea that text files have a .txt extension, you might 
> want to use it for .sh .cf .html (as plain text) .conf etc.

So, you change the extension to whatever you want.

> One thing that some people want in a text editor is for it
> to be aware of the syntax of every programming or scripting
> language or markup format that they use - so that it can do
> automatic structuring, flag up syntax errors, count nesting
> levels of various parentheses and quoting characters etc.

Some people.  That's what TextWrangler and BBedit are for.

> Certainly TextEdit has the basic functionality of a text editor, but 
> as I keep saying, it is really designed to work more like a word 
> processor.

Only in Rich Text mode; in Plain Text mode, it works like a text editor.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <eI-dnQAigaFtZlTanZ2dnUVZ_tGonZ2d@giganews.com>, Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopiesofposts> wrote:

> In article 
> <noneof-67DB03.16314401032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>  Mark Conrad <noneof@urbusiness.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <w62dnfZYiJtvNFTanZ2dnUVZ_sytnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> >  Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopiesofposts> wrote:
> > > It's not screwed up, it's expected behavior.
> >   ...<rest of geek garbage snipped>...
> 
> Yes, you deleted the actual explanation of what was going on, 
> disregarded it all and, I can only assume, didn't even read it well 
> enough to understand it or learn anything.  That's fine, hopefully 
> someone else learned something and you can continue on with your flawed 
> understanding of what is happening and how it 'doesn't work'.  I'm sorry 
> I wasted your time.
> 
> > Lewis, with a false accusation -
> > > Mark didn't follow the directions of selecting 
> > > the WORD.  He instead selected the characters.
> 
> That is not a 'false accusation' it is the exact description of what 
> happened and WHY it didn't work for you.  You selected 4 characters, not 
> the word.

Mark Conrad/Gerald Smith cannot make the fine distinctions required by
this argument. Even though the distinction is critical to understanding
the behaviour of the software he's complaining about. Shortly, he'l
bemoan the fact nobody has written a book explaining all this in plain
English, ignoring the fact that it has already been explained to him in
plain English.

> > Wrong.  I specifically asked Michelle if I should 
> > select only the 4 letters of the word "shed", or 
> > if I should also select the spaces before and after 
> > the word "shed" also.
> 
> That's not the issue.  You select the WORD by double clicking it.

He doesn't understand the distinction. And, having decided not to
understand it, he never will and you will perpetually be wrong in his
eyes/mind.


<snip a bunch of Mark/Gerald not getting it>

-- 
Help improve usenet. Kill-file Google Groups.
http://improve-usenet.org/

In article <michelle-DAE8A6.18402101032008@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article 
> <noneof-67DB03.16314401032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>  Mark Conrad <noneof@urbusiness.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > > Mark didn't follow the directions of selecting the WORD.  He 
> > > instead selected the characters.
> > 
> > Wrong.  I specifically asked Michelle if I should select only the 4 
> > letters of the word "shed", or if I should also select the spaces 
> > before and after the word "shed" also.
> > 
> > Michelle said to select only the 4 letters, which I did by dragging 
> > the cursor across those letters, being careful to not include any 
> > spaces.
> > 
> > Before you go off half-cocked with your accusations again, realize 
> > that it is common practice for a Mac user to "select" a word by 
> > dragging the cursor across the word while holding down the mouse key.
> 
> It is more common for a Mac user to select a word by double clicking it.  
> It is both easier and less prone to errors than shift dragging the 
> characters.
> 
> > I just now typed in "select" and later "select a word" in the 
> > Apple Help files.  Help had nothing to offer about 
> > the double-click method of selecting a word.
> 
> I just typed "select a word" in Mac Help; the second item it returned 
> says "Selecting text to change it".  When I chose that, I got the 
> following in the Help window (I'm including only the relevant portions):
> 
>    *  Double-click a word to select the whole word.
>    *  Drag across text to select a range of text.
>    *  Click to place the insertion point at the beginning of your 
> selection, then hold down the Shift key and click at the end of your 
> selection.
>    *  Triple-click to select a whole line, and click more times to 
> select a paragraph or the entire document (in some applications).
> 
> Notice what the first item is?

I just had a terrifying thought. Mark Conrad exploring AppleScript and
starting to argue about text, characters, string, unicode text, etc...

Can you imagine what "text 3 thru -4 of theString" would do to him?

-- 
Help improve usenet. Kill-file Google Groups.
http://improve-usenet.org/

In article <010320082022298109%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
 Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:

> I just had a terrifying thought. Mark Conrad exploring AppleScript and
> starting to argue about text, characters, string, unicode text, etc...
> 
> Can you imagine what "text 3 thru -4 of theString" would do to him?

Hey, Mark, try this in Script Editor:

text 3 through -4 of "Hi" as unicode text

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <slrnfsk0ij.i8t.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
 Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:

> On 2008-03-02, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopiesofposts> wrote:
> > In article <slrnfsjm4m.i3q.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
> >  Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> Are you serious? Many hardcore coders that used to do all their
> >> coding in command line editors like vi and Emacs have switched
> >> alliegence completely to GUI apps. Once you are using a GUI
> >> text editor for your daily workflow you are likely to use it
> >> even for editing simple scripts and config files as well.
> >
> > That's odd.  I do a lot of text processing using BBEdit.  I edit all my 
> > html and php and such with it.  But when editing system files, 
> > (httpd.conf, /etc/hosts, /etc/postfix/main.cf, etc) I still use nvi.
> 
> Well that is interesting. I edit config files using vim but then
> I edit everything using vim (text, c, perl, bash, python, html).
> If I switched to a GUI editor for those things then I imagine I
> would probably start using it for config files too (other than
> cases where there are specific maintainance commands like visudo
> and vipw that deal with locking and post processing). What's good
> for the goose is good for the gander.
> 
> What is your primary reason for sticking with a command line
> text editor for config files in particular?

Ease, really. It's far simpler to put up a sudo vi /etc/postfix/main.cf 
than it is to go to BBEdit, navigate to /etc/postfix, find the file open 
it, authenticate, edit it, and then save the changes.

> Out of interest do you also use TextEdit

I only use text edit to store bits of text I think I might use in the 
next few minutes (or days).  Thing I have no intention of saving.  I 
also use it to paste in long command lines from the terminal so I can 
quickly make some editing changes.

-- 
Bart: This is the worst day of my life.
Homer: This is the worst day of your life SO FAR.

Lewis wrote:

....
> 
> I only use text edit to store bits of text I think I might use in the 
> next few minutes (or days).  Thing I have no intention of saving.  I 
> also use it to paste in long command lines from the terminal so I can 
> quickly make some editing changes.
> 

Why not use Stickies for that purpose?
It is about 1/3 the size of TextEdit.

In article <010320082020019230%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
 Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:

> Mark Conrad/Gerald Smith

He has two names?

-- 
Bart: This is the worst day of my life.
Homer: This is the worst day of your life SO FAR.

Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article 
> <jollyroger-988FB0.01215501032008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
>> And even if the default is RTF, they should make it *easy* to save as 
>> plain text. This is a Mac, after all.
> 
> The options are
> 
> 1.  Convert to plain text by choosing Make Plain Text from the Format 
> menu.  Then Save the document.  The document is saved
> 
> 2.  Save the document, then choose "Plain Text" from a popup menu in the 
> Save dialog.  A copy of the document is saved.
> 
> Same number of steps.  Which one is easier, and why?
> 

Not having to convert to plain text in the first place is the simplest.
Plain text is all-purpose, rtf is not. A text editor should edit plain
text by default and offer the options for formatting which is EXTRA.

In article <010320082022298109%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
 Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> Can you imagine what "text 3 thru -4 of theString" would do to him?

Make his head explode?

We can only hope.

I know I just LOVE being called an asshole or taking the time to explain 
something fully.  I mean, I thought my post was quite clear.  <shrug>

-- 
Bart: This is the worst day of my life.
Homer: This is the worst day of your life SO FAR.

On 2008-03-02, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopiesofposts> wrote:
> In article <slrnfsk0ij.i8t.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
>  Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>> What is your primary reason for sticking with a command line
>> text editor for config files in particular?
>
> Ease, really. It's far simpler to put up a sudo vi /etc/postfix/main.cf 
> than it is to go to BBEdit, navigate to /etc/postfix, find the file open 
> it, authenticate, edit it, and then save the changes.

Ah yes! Authentication might swing it for me too. But then
I think it is easier to "vi foo.py" than use a GUI editor
in general, which is why I still use vi(m) for everything.

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

Lewis wrote:
> In article <fqamf0$ned$3@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
> wrote:
> 
>> How many times do I have to say it? I'm not suggesting rtf etc should
>> not be present, only complaining that plain txt is not default and not
>> even in the list unless you configure the thing deliberately in the
>> first place.
> 
> Your saying it doesn't change the fact that for the vast majority of 
> users, you are wrong.
> 
> They open up an editor, they expect to be able to set fonts, centering, 
> and all sorts of other 'word processing' features. If those features ae 
> not there, they simply think the editor is broken.

This is true of a word processor, not of a TEXT editor!
> The fact is, everything you've said about plain text is just flat out 
> wrong for almost every user out there.

Plain text is plain text, and everything I said about plain text is correct.

In article <LRoyj.15970$R84.13550@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
 jack ak <akjack@excite.com> wrote:

> Lewis wrote:
> 
> ...
> > 
> > I only use text edit to store bits of text I think I might use in the 
> > next few minutes (or days).  Thing I have no intention of saving.  I 
> > also use it to paste in long command lines from the terminal so I can 
> > quickly make some editing changes.
> > 
> 
> Why not use Stickies for that purpose?
> It is about 1/3 the size of TextEdit.

Size?

I don't understand.

I only use the dashboard for things that I just look at.  The clocks (5 
of them), Dilbert, the weather, Sunlit Earth, Google Calendar, a temp 
widget for the CPUs... Oh, and a few lyrics widgets, none of which work 
well.

-- 
Bart: This is the worst day of my life.
Homer: This is the worst day of your life SO FAR.

Lewis wrote:
> In article 
> <jollyroger-D410C7.01113801032008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
>> How does one change a document window from RTF to plain text? If it 
>> involves a visit to preferences, then this is anything *but* intuitive.
> 
> Format => Convert to Plain Text
> 
And it doesn't strike you as odd that in a TEXT editor you should have
to convert to text? All I'm saying is that should be the default, rather
than assuming the clueless should have rtf as default. I'm not talking
about how easy or 'intuitive' it maight be to make the change, only that
this default is one of the many things that is a root cause of
unintelligible gobbledygook appearing all over the internet and
elsewhere too, because clueless users are hand-held and saved the
'effort' of learning about the tools they are using and what formats are
appropriate in what situations.

People DO cut and paste things into emails, they DO the same with web
pages, and so on. The evidence is everywhere. RTF should be an option
you choose when it is appropriate, not an assumption that it will always
be appropriate and the default which most users will never even realize
has a specific and limited purpose unless this is brought to their
attention.

Andy

Lewis wrote:
> In article 
> <jollyroger-A248C6.01165401032008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> You actually believe most Mac users open TextEdit for the first time, 
>> type some text, and automatically know they need to visit preferences to 
>> change the document type *before* they will be allowed to save the file 
>> as plain text?
> 
> You actually believe most Mac users open TextEdit for the first time,  
> type some text, and automatically care that the file is rtf instead of 
> txt?  Or would know the difference?  Or would not be annoyed that they 
> can't center a line, or change the font, or underline?
> 
I don't think that at all, my experience has shown me that most users
(mac or otherwise) don't give a fuck about the limitations of the
systems they are using and gaily go ahead and ignore them, expecting the
system to psychically interpret their purpose and magically fix all the
crap in their outputs. I understand the thinking behind cow-towing to
this ignorance fully, but I don't think it is a Good Thing at all.

If changing the format is so easy and intuitive, then why not make the
default plain text and let the lazy inconsiderate fuckers change it if
they really need to, at least that way most would leave it alone, or
pause to wonder why this odd plain text format might exist in the first
place and take a step on the way to making computing a better experience
for everyone?

Andy

Lewis wrote:
> In article 
> <jollyroger-3A78C3.01211501032008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
>> All they need to do is add "Plain Text" as a choice in 
>> the Save dialog box! It's really not that hard to implement. Even 
>> Microsoft Word has this.
> 
> And people are shocked and dismayed to see their document stripped of 
> all its formatting, spacing, and centering.
> 
they wouldn't be if the default was plain text and they needed to click
something to get the formatting menus. It's obviously so easy and
intuitive surely you could have no objection to that?

In article <fqd7p4$nqn$1@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
wrote:

> Lewis wrote:
> > In article 
> > <jollyroger-D410C7.01113801032008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
> >  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> How does one change a document window from RTF to plain text? If it 
> >> involves a visit to preferences, then this is anything *but* intuitive.
> > 
> > Format => Convert to Plain Text
> > 
> And it doesn't strike you as odd that in a TEXT editor you should have
> to convert to text? All I'm saying is that should be the default, rather
> than assuming the clueless should have rtf as default.

You are entitled to your opinion.  it is not the opinion shared by 
everyone, including me.  Most importantly, it is not the opinion shared 
by Apple.

You're not changing anyone's mind.

> People DO cut and paste things into emails, they DO the same with web
> pages, and so on.

Pasting from textedit into email, regardless of format, does the right 
thing.  If the email is plain text, plain text is pasted.  If the email 
is not plain text and the textedit text is not plain text, then plain 
text is NOT pasted.  Just as someone would expect.


> The evidence is everywhere. RTF should be an option
> you choose when it is appropriate, not an assumption that it will always
> be appropriate and the default which most users will never even realize
> has a specific and limited purpose

For almost all users, it is 'plain text' that has specific and limited 
purposes.

But I'm done with this thread, everything's been said.

-- 
Bart: This is the worst day of my life.
Homer: This is the worst day of your life SO FAR.

On 2008-03-02, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <slrnfsjogv.i3q.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
>  Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>> Even then (at least as I understand it). For a start, you need to 
>> supress the idea that text files have a .txt extension, you might 
>> want to use it for .sh .cf .html (as plain text) .conf etc.
>
> So, you change the extension to whatever you want.

You have forced me to look at the preferences:-)
To get TextEdit to behave like a tolerable basic
text editor you have to at least do the following:

Under Preferences > New Document:
Select: Plain Text instead of Rich Text

Under Preferences > Open and Save:
Uncheck: Add ".txt" extension to plain text files
Check: Ignore rich text commands in HTML files

Hopefully that wraps things up nicely. You have
proved your point and I don't have to open the
blasted app again (except as a Word and RTF viewer).

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

In article <2oWdnSPbYLoFglfanZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopiesofposts> wrote:

> In article <010320082020019230%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
>  Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> 
> > Mark Conrad/Gerald Smith
> 
> He has two names?

Indeed.

-- 
Help improve usenet. Kill-file Google Groups.
http://improve-usenet.org/

In article <fqd7p4$nqn$1@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
wrote:

> And it doesn't strike you as odd that in a TEXT editor you should 
> have to convert to text? 

You are not converting to text; you are converting from RICH TEXT to 
PLAIN TEXT.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <2oWdnV_bYLo4uVfanZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopiesofposts> wrote:

> But I'm done with this thread, everything's been said.

This is usenet; you're not allowed to do that until someone invokes 
Godwin's Law.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <fqd74u$lih$1@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
wrote:

> > 1.  Convert to plain text by choosing Make Plain Text from the 
> > Format menu.  Then Save the document.  The document is saved
> > 
> > 2.  Save the document, then choose "Plain Text" from a popup menu 
> > in the Save dialog.  A copy of the document is saved.
> > 
> > Same number of steps.  Which one is easier, and why?
> > 
> 
> Not having to convert to plain text in the first place is the 
> simplest.

But if you want to have fonts, styles (paragraph and text), and other 
formatting, then you want it to be in Rich Text format.

Regardless, I switched mine to Plain Text years ago; I think that it 
took me about 30 seconds to do it.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <2oWdnSPbYLoFglfanZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopiesofposts> wrote:

> > Mark Conrad/Gerald Smith
> 
> He has two names?

He used "Gerald Smith" on the Compuserve Macintosh forums many years 
ago, and that is where David had the misfortune of first meeting him.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <michelle-871967.21435901032008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <2oWdnV_bYLo4uVfanZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>  Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopiesofposts> wrote:
> 
> > But I'm done with this thread, everything's been said.
> 
> This is usenet; you're not allowed to do that until someone invokes 
> Godwin's Law.

Hitler probably would've imposed the use of the RTF format, had it been 
available.

There ya go.


A.

In article <slrnfskajk.ide.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
 Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:

> I don't have to open the
> blasted app again (except as a Word and RTF viewer).

Ain't it grand to have the option to use whatever application you 
consider to be best for your needs?  And to configure it the way you 
want, whichever application you use?

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <no-B0F071.15481702032008@freenews.iinet.net.au>,
 Andy <no@spam.no> wrote:

> > This is usenet; you're not allowed to do that until someone invokes 
> > Godwin's Law.
> 
> Hitler probably would've imposed the use of the RTF format, had it 
> been available.
> 
> There ya go.

Deliberately invoking Godwin's Law nullifies it.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <fqd82c$oh4$1@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
wrote:

> cow-towing

I think cow towing is illegal in most states.

-- 
Bart: This is the worst day of my life.
Homer: This is the worst day of your life SO FAR.

In article <michelle-871967.21435901032008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <2oWdnV_bYLo4uVfanZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>  Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopiesofposts> wrote:
> 
> > But I'm done with this thread, everything's been said.
> 
> This is usenet; you're not allowed to do that until someone invokes 
> Godwin's Law.

Oh yeah, and who died and left you F�hrer?

Nazis.  I hate Nazis.

-- 
Bart: This is the worst day of my life.
Homer: This is the worst day of your life SO FAR.

In article <michelle-038497.21472801032008@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <2oWdnSPbYLoFglfanZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>  Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopiesofposts> wrote:
> 
> > > Mark Conrad/Gerald Smith
> > 
> > He has two names?
> 
> He used "Gerald Smith" on the Compuserve Macintosh forums many years 
> ago, and that is where David had the misfortune of first meeting him.

I wouldn't say misfortune. We had a huge amount of fun playing with him.

-- 
Help improve usenet. Kill-file Google Groups.
http://improve-usenet.org/

In article <010320082229486490%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
 Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:

> In article <2oWdnSPbYLoFglfanZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Lewis
> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopiesofposts> wrote:
> 
> > In article <010320082020019230%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
> >  Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> > 
> > > Mark Conrad/Gerald Smith
> > 
> > He has two names?
> 
> Indeed.

Is he suffering from MPD?  Or does he just have a handy dandy sock 
puppet?

-- 
Bart: This is the worst day of my life.
Homer: This is the worst day of your life SO FAR.

In article <010320082311326707%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
 Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:

> In article <michelle-038497.21472801032008@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
> Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
> > In article <2oWdnSPbYLoFglfanZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> >  Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopiesofposts> wrote:
> > 
> > > > Mark Conrad/Gerald Smith
> > > 
> > > He has two names?
> > 
> > He used "Gerald Smith" on the Compuserve Macintosh forums many years 
> > ago, and that is where David had the misfortune of first meeting him.
> 
> I wouldn't say misfortune. We had a huge amount of fun playing with him.

Was he hard-wiring actuators to his computer's power supply back then 
too?

-- 
Bart: This is the worst day of my life.
Homer: This is the worst day of your life SO FAR.

In article <010320082311326707%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
 Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:

> > > > Mark Conrad/Gerald Smith
> > > 
> > > He has two names?
> > 
> > He used "Gerald Smith" on the Compuserve Macintosh forums many 
> > years ago, and that is where David had the misfortune of first 
> > meeting him.
> 
> I wouldn't say misfortune. We had a huge amount of fun playing with 
> him.

OH, OK.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <0001HW.C3EEC04F0001A238F02066D8@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
 J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:

> On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 00:43:38 -0500, Kevin McMurtrie wrote
> (in article <mcmurtri-D73BC8.21433829022008@news.dslextreme.com>):
> 
> > In article <sdfisher-C8B0C6.17073929022008@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
> >  Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> In article <mcmurtri-12C8DB.21225928022008@news.dslextreme.com>,
> >> Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> Yeah, it's still Apple's Vista.
> >> 
> >> There were a few issues, but overall Leopard was better than Tiger from 
> >> day one. Was the first release of Vista really that clear a gain over 
> >> XP? Could you be exaggerating maybe just a little?
> > 
> > Sorry.  No chance in hell of that being true.  It was hard enough 
> > getting 10.5.0 to work at all.
> 
> I merely ran the installer. it worked.
> 
> >  Half the new features still don't work 
> > correctly.
> 
> That must be the half that I'm not using...
> 
> >  If you're on PPC, 10.5.2 doesn't work well enough for 
> > everyday use.
> 
> Errm... I'm typing this on a PPC machine. An old, slow, PPC machine: a 1.25 
> GHz eMac.
> 
> >  Want to see my console log from a PPC computer with 
> > Leopard?
> 
> That would be nice.

This is a PPC iMac server:

2/13/08 9:59:08 PM   com.apple.launchd[1] (0x115530.Locum[1324]) Exited: Terminated 
2/13/08 10:08:34 PM  com.apple.launchd[1] (0x115530.Locum[1332]) Exited: Terminated 
2/13/08 10:08:58 PM  com.apple.launchd[1] (0x115530.Locum[1334]) Exited: Terminated 
2/13/08 10:09:22 PM  com.apple.launchd[1] (0x115530.Locum[1335]) Exited: Terminated 
2/13/08 10:09:41 PM  com.apple.launchd[1] (0x115530.Locum[1336]) Exited: Terminated 
2/13/08 10:10:42 PM  com.apple.launchd[1] (0x10b390.Locum[1337]) Exited: Terminated 
2/13/08 10:24:00 PM  com.apple.launchd[1] (0x111ca0.login[1358]) Could not setup Mach task special port 9: (os/kern) no access   
2/13/08 10:47:54 PM  com.apple.launchd[1] (com.apple.netauth.sysagent) Throttling respawn: Will start in 5 seconds   
2/13/08 11:27:19 PM  com.apple.launchd[1] (0x1131b0.login[1444]) Could not setup Mach task special port 9: (os/kern) no access   
2/13/08 11:30:30 PM  com.apple.launchd[1] (0x1131b0.login[1455]) Could not setup Mach task special port 9: (os/kern) no access   
2/13/08 11:32:04 PM  com.apple.launchd[1] (0x115630.login[1467]) Could not setup Mach task special port 9: (os/kern) no access   
2/14/08 12:12:45 AM  com.apple.launchd[1] (0x115c00.Locum[1506]) Exited: Terminated 
2/14/08 12:32:56 AM  com.apple.launchd[1] (0x115930.Locum[1512]) Exited: Terminated 
2/14/08 12:49:14 AM  com.apple.launchd[1] (0x1120f0.Locum[1522]) Exited: Terminated 
2/14/08 12:57:46 AM  com.apple.launchd[1] (0x115e40.Locum[1532]) Exited: Terminated 
2/14/08 1:02:05 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] (0x115ad0.Locum[1534]) Exited: Terminated 
2/14/08 1:03:39 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] (0x115530.login[1543]) Could not setup Mach task special port 9: (os/kern) no access   
2/14/08 1:08:30 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] (0x115ad0.Locum[1559]) Exited: Terminated 
2/14/08 1:12:04 AM   com.apple.netauth.useragent[1570]   NetAuthAgent(1570,0xf0081000) malloc: *** error for object 0xc4078: Non-aligned pointer being freed   
2/14/08 1:12:04 AM   com.apple.netauth.useragent[1570]   *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/14/08 1:12:04 AM   com.apple.netauth.useragent[1570]   NetAuthAgent(1570,0xf0081000) malloc: *** error for object 0xc4099: Non-aligned pointer being freed   
2/14/08 1:12:04 AM   com.apple.netauth.useragent[1570]   *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/14/08 1:12:04 AM   com.apple.netauth.useragent[1570]   NetAuthAgent(1570,0xf0081000) malloc: *** error for object 0xc409a: Non-aligned pointer being freed   
2/14/08 1:12:04 AM   com.apple.netauth.useragent[1570]   *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/14/08 1:12:04 AM   com.apple.netauth.useragent[1570]   NetAuthAgent(1570,0xf0081000) malloc: *** error for object 0xc409b: Non-aligned pointer being freed   
2/14/08 1:12:04 AM   com.apple.netauth.useragent[1570]   *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/14/08 1:12:04 AM   com.apple.netauth.useragent[1570]   NetAuthAgent(1570,0xf0081000) malloc: *** error for object 0xc40bd: Non-aligned pointer being freed   
2/14/08 1:12:04 AM   com.apple.netauth.useragent[1570]   *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/14/08 1:12:04 AM   com.apple.netauth.useragent[1570]   NetAuthAgent(1570,0xf0081000) malloc: *** error for object 0xc40df: Non-aligned pointer being freed   
2/14/08 1:12:04 AM   com.apple.netauth.useragent[1570]   *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/14/08 1:12:46 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] (0x115f40.login[1588]) Could not setup Mach task special port 9: (os/kern) no access   
2/14/08 2:59:14 AM   DVD Player[1668]  NSDocumentController Info.plist warning: The values of CFBundleTypeRole entries must be 'Editor', 'Viewer', 'None', or 'Shell'.  
2/14/08 3:09:47 AM   QuickTime Player[1681]  NSOpenGLAutoscaleBounds=NO 
2/14/08 4:48:16 AM   [0x0-0xd00d].com.apple.finder[214]  Finder(214,0xf0185000) malloc: *** error for object 0x9693c90: Non-aligned pointer being freed (2) 
2/14/08 4:48:16 AM   [0x0-0xd00d].com.apple.finder[214]  *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/14/08 4:48:16 AM   [0x0-0xd00d].com.apple.finder[214]  Finder(214,0xf0185000) malloc: *** error for object 0x4915180: Non-aligned pointer being freed (2) 
2/14/08 4:48:16 AM   [0x0-0xd00d].com.apple.finder[214]  *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/14/08 4:49:00 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] ([0x0-0xd00d].com.apple.finder[214]) Exited abnormally: Segmentation fault 
2/14/08 9:48:13 AM   [0x0-0xd10d1].com.apple.finder[1826]   Finder(1826,0xf0185000) malloc: *** error for object 0x6a4380: Non-aligned pointer being freed (2) 
2/14/08 9:48:13 AM   [0x0-0xd10d1].com.apple.finder[1826]   *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/14/08 9:48:13 AM   [0x0-0xd10d1].com.apple.finder[1826]   Finder(1826,0xf0185000) malloc: *** error for object 0x676100: Non-aligned pointer being freed (2) 
2/14/08 9:48:13 AM   [0x0-0xd10d1].com.apple.finder[1826]   *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/14/08 9:48:47 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] ([0x0-0xd10d1].com.apple.finder[1826]) Exited abnormally: Segmentation fault  
2/14/08 10:11:23 AM  com.apple.launchd[1] ([0x0-0xf60f6].com.apple.finder[2050]) Exited: Terminated   
2/14/08 10:13:07 AM  com.apple.launchd[1] (0x1159e0.Locum[2069]) Exited: Terminated 
2/14/08 10:13:28 AM  com.apple.launchd[1] (0x1162a0.login[2070]) Could not setup Mach task special port 9: (os/kern) no access   
2/14/08 10:18:29 AM  com.apple.launchd[1] (0x115f00.Locum[2089]) Exited: Terminated 
2/14/08 10:22:55 AM  com.apple.launchd[1] (0x114bc0.sshd[2098]) Could not setup Mach task special port 9: (os/kern) no access 
2/14/08 10:30:09 AM  com.apple.launchd[1] (0x111ca0.login[2134]) Could not setup Mach task special port 9: (os/kern) no access   
2/14/08 10:31:41 AM  com.apple.launchd[1] (com.apple.UserNotificationCenter) Throttling respawn: Will start in 6 seconds   
2/14/08 8:28:03 PM   com.apple.launchd[1] (com.apple.launchd.peruser.505) Throttling respawn: Will start in 2 seconds   
2/15/08 12:11:12 AM  com.apple.netauth.useragent[2476]   NetAuthAgent(2476,0xf0081000) malloc: *** error for object 0xc4078: Non-aligned pointer being freed   
2/15/08 12:11:12 AM  com.apple.netauth.useragent[2476]   *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/15/08 12:11:12 AM  com.apple.netauth.useragent[2476]   NetAuthAgent(2476,0xf0081000) malloc: *** error for object 0xc4099: Non-aligned pointer being freed   
2/15/08 12:11:12 AM  com.apple.netauth.useragent[2476]   *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/15/08 12:11:12 AM  com.apple.netauth.useragent[2476]   NetAuthAgent(2476,0xf0081000) malloc: *** error for object 0xc409a: Non-aligned pointer being freed   
2/15/08 12:11:12 AM  com.apple.netauth.useragent[2476]   *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/15/08 12:11:12 AM  com.apple.netauth.useragent[2476]   NetAuthAgent(2476,0xf0081000) malloc: *** error for object 0xc409b: Non-aligned pointer being freed   
2/15/08 12:11:12 AM  com.apple.netauth.useragent[2476]   *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/15/08 12:11:12 AM  com.apple.netauth.useragent[2476]   NetAuthAgent(2476,0xf0081000) malloc: *** error for object 0xc40bd: Non-aligned pointer being freed   
2/15/08 12:11:12 AM  com.apple.netauth.useragent[2476]   *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/15/08 12:11:12 AM  com.apple.netauth.useragent[2476]   NetAuthAgent(2476,0xf0081000) malloc: *** error for object 0xc40df: Non-aligned pointer being freed   
2/15/08 12:11:12 AM  com.apple.netauth.useragent[2476]   *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/15/08 12:32:48 AM  com.apple.launchd[1] (org.samba.nmbd[2509]) Exited: Terminated 
2/15/08 12:32:48 AM  com.apple.launchd[1] (org.samba.nmbd) Throttling respawn: Will start in 10 seconds  
2/15/08 4:39:51 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] (com.apple.launchd.peruser.503) Throttling respawn: Will start in 9 seconds   
2/15/08 7:53:11 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] (0x112dd0.mdworker[3267]) Exited: Killed  
2/15/08 7:57:16 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] (0x112dd0.mdworker[3283]) Exited: Killed  
2/15/08 8:05:18 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] (0x112dd0.mdworker[3291]) Exited: Killed  
2/15/08 8:09:23 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] (0x112dd0.mdworker[3301]) Exited: Killed  
2/15/08 8:30:00 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] (0x112dd0.mdworker[3307]) Exited: Killed  
2/15/08 8:37:25 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] (0x112dd0.mdworker[3347]) Exited: Killed  
2/15/08 8:41:00 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] (0x112dd0.mdworker[3360]) Exited: Killed  
2/15/08 9:42:28 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] (0x112dd0.mdworker[3365]) Exited: Killed  
2/15/08 9:58:43 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] (0x112dd0.mdworker[3432]) Exited: Killed  
2/15/08 10:02:46 AM  com.apple.launchd[1] (0x112dd0.mdworker[3452]) Exited: Killed  
2/15/08 10:06:21 AM  com.apple.launchd[1] (0x112dd0.mdworker[3461]) Exited: Killed  
2/15/08 10:09:54 AM  com.apple.launchd[1] (0x112dd0.mdworker[3466]) Exited: Killed  
2/15/08 10:13:28 AM  com.apple.launchd[1] (0x112dd0.mdworker[3467]) Exited: Killed  
2/15/08 10:17:03 AM  com.apple.launchd[1] (0x112dd0.mdworker[3475]) Exited: Killed  
2/15/08 10:21:07 AM  com.apple.launchd[1] (0x112dd0.mdworker[3479]) Exited: Killed  
2/15/08 10:25:13 AM  com.apple.launchd[1] (0x112dd0.mdworker[3485]) Exited: Killed  
2/15/08 10:38:58 AM  com.apple.launchd[1] (0x112dd0.mdworker[3489]) Exited: Killed  
2/15/08 10:42:31 AM  com.apple.launchd[1] (0x112dd0.mdworker[3511]) Exited: Killed  
2/15/08 11:06:45 AM  com.apple.netauth.useragent[3560]   NetAuthAgent(3560,0xf0081000) malloc: *** error for object 0xc4078: Non-aligned pointer being freed   
2/15/08 11:06:45 AM  com.apple.netauth.useragent[3560]   *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/15/08 11:06:45 AM  com.apple.netauth.useragent[3560]   NetAuthAgent(3560,0xf0081000) malloc: *** error for object 0xc4099: Non-aligned pointer being freed   
2/15/08 11:06:45 AM  com.apple.netauth.useragent[3560]   *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/15/08 11:06:45 AM  com.apple.netauth.useragent[3560]   NetAuthAgent(3560,0xf0081000) malloc: *** error for object 0xc409a: Non-aligned pointer being freed   
2/15/08 11:06:45 AM  com.apple.netauth.useragent[3560]   *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/15/08 11:06:45 AM  com.apple.netauth.useragent[3560]   NetAuthAgent(3560,0xf0081000) malloc: *** error for object 0xc409b: Non-aligned pointer being freed   
2/15/08 11:06:45 AM  com.apple.netauth.useragent[3560]   *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/15/08 11:06:45 AM  com.apple.netauth.useragent[3560]   NetAuthAgent(3560,0xf0081000) malloc: *** error for object 0xc40bd: Non-aligned pointer being freed   
2/15/08 11:06:45 AM  com.apple.netauth.useragent[3560]   *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/15/08 11:06:45 AM  com.apple.netauth.useragent[3560]   NetAuthAgent(3560,0xf0081000) malloc: *** error for object 0xc40df: Non-aligned pointer being freed   
2/15/08 11:06:45 AM  com.apple.netauth.useragent[3560]   *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/15/08 12:41:30 PM  com.apple.launchd[1] (0x112dd0.mdworker[3575]) Exited: Killed  
2/15/08 12:45:39 PM  com.apple.launchd[1] (0x112dd0.mdworker[3762]) Exited: Killed  
2/15/08 1:37:48 PM   com.apple.launchd[1] (0x10b170.mdworker[3821]) Exited: Killed  
2/15/08 5:43:35 PM   com.apple.launchd[1] (com.apple.launchd.peruser.501) Throttling respawn: Will start in 8 seconds   
2/15/08 11:19:16 PM  com.apple.AppleFileServer[438]   MDSChannelPeerRequest: (ipc/rcv) timed out   
2/15/08 11:27:24 PM  com.apple.AppleFileServer[438]   MDSChannelPeerRequest: (ipc/rcv) timed out   
2/15/08 11:29:43 PM  com.apple.AppleFileServer[438]   MDSChannelPeerRequest: (ipc/rcv) timed out   
2/15/08 11:36:44 PM  com.apple.AppleFileServer[438]   MDSChannelPeerRequest: (ipc/rcv) timed out   
2/15/08 11:57:02 PM  com.apple.AppleFileServer[438]   MDSChannelPeerRequest: (ipc/rcv) timed out   
2/15/08 11:58:51 PM  com.apple.AppleFileServer[438]   MDSChannelPeerRequest: (ipc/rcv) timed out   
2/15/08 11:59:19 PM  com.apple.AppleFileServer[438]   MDSChannelPeerRequest: (ipc/rcv) timed out   
2/16/08 12:03:11 AM  com.apple.launchd[1] ([0x0-0x1b01b].com.apple.iTunes[425]) Exited: Terminated 
2/16/08 12:04:20 AM  AppleSpell[1261]  *** -[NSMachPort handlePortMessage:]: dropping incoming DO message because the connection or ports are invalid 
2/16/08 12:08:58 AM  com.apple.AppleFileServer[438]   MDSChannelPeerRequest: (ipc/rcv) timed out   
2/16/08 12:11:03 AM  com.apple.AppleFileServer[438]   MDSChannelPeerRequest: (ipc/rcv) timed out   
2/16/08 12:56:25 AM  com.apple.AppleFileServer[438]   MDSChannelPeerRequest: (ipc/rcv) timed out   
2/16/08 12:56:43 AM  com.apple.AppleFileServer[438]   MDSChannelPeerRequest: (ipc/rcv) timed out   
2/16/08 1:10:20 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] (0x115530.login[4978]) Could not setup Mach task special port 9: (os/kern) no access   
2/16/08 1:27:03 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] (0x1162a0.login[5012]) Could not setup Mach task special port 9: (os/kern) no access   
2/16/08 1:29:35 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] (0x112270.login[5026]) Could not setup Mach task special port 9: (os/kern) no access   
2/16/08 1:31:16 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] (0x1163a0.Locum[5024]) Exited: Terminated 
2/16/08 1:37:36 AM   com.apple.AppleFileServer[438]   MDSChannelPeerRequest: (ipc/rcv) timed out   
2/16/08 1:38:01 AM   com.apple.AppleFileServer[438]   MDSChannelPeerRequest: (ipc/rcv) timed out   
2/16/08 1:38:20 AM   com.apple.AppleFileServer[438]   MDSChannelPeerRequest: (ipc/rcv) timed out   
2/16/08 1:39:50 AM   com.apple.AppleFileServer[438]   MDSChannelPeerRequest: (ipc/rcv) timed out   
2/16/08 1:40:36 AM   com.apple.AppleFileServer[438]   MDSChannelPeerRequest: (ipc/rcv) timed out   
2/16/08 1:47:45 AM   com.apple.AppleFileServer[438]   MDSChannelPeerRequest: (ipc/rcv) timed out   
2/16/08 1:50:02 AM   com.apple.AppleFileServer[438]   MDSChannelPeerRequest: (ipc/rcv) timed out   
2/16/08 1:50:24 AM   com.apple.AppleFileServer[438]   MDSChannelPeerRequest: (ipc/rcv) timed out   
2/16/08 1:57:50 AM   com.apple.AppleFileServer[438]   MDSChannelPeerRequest: (ipc/rcv) timed out   
2/16/08 1:58:14 AM   com.apple.AppleFileServer[438]   MDSChannelPeerRequest: (ipc/rcv) timed out   
2/16/08 2:07:24 AM   com.apple.AppleFileServer[438]   MDSChannelPeerRequest: (ipc/rcv) timed out   
2/16/08 2:07:39 AM   com.apple.AppleFileServer[438]   MDSChannelPeerRequest: (ipc/rcv) timed out   
2/16/08 2:08:25 AM   com.apple.AppleFileServer[438]   MDSChannelPeerRequest: (ipc/rcv) timed out   
2/16/08 2:16:57 AM   com.apple.AppleFileServer[438]   MDSChannelPeerRequest: (ipc/rcv) timed out   
2/16/08 2:17:01 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] (0x112270.login[5112]) Could not setup Mach task special port 9: (os/kern) no access   
2/16/08 2:17:54 AM   com.apple.AppleFileServer[438]   MDSChannelPeerRequest: (ipc/rcv) timed out   
2/16/08 2:18:32 AM   com.apple.AppleFileServer[438]   MDSChannelPeerRequest: (ipc/rcv) timed out   
2/16/08 2:20:34 AM   com.apple.AppleFileServer[438]   MDSChannelPeerRequest: (ipc/rcv) timed out   
2/16/08 9:31:08 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] (0x1139e0.mdworker[3995]) Exited: Killed  
2/16/08 11:49:31 PM  com.apple.launchd[1] (0x10b170.mdworker[6920]) Exited: Killed  
2/16/08 11:57:34 PM  com.apple.launchd[1] (0x10b170.mdworker[6979]) Exited: Killed  
2/17/08 12:41:05 AM  com.apple.launchd[1] (0x10b170.mdworker[6992]) Exited: Killed  
2/17/08 1:17:53 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] (0x10b170.mdworker[7051]) Exited: Killed  
2/17/08 1:40:31 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] (0x10b170.mdworker[7098]) Exited: Killed  
2/17/08 2:08:17 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] (0x10b170.mdworker[7128]) Exited: Killed  
2/17/08 2:10:17 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] (org.cups.cupsd) Throttling respawn: Will start in 7 seconds   
2/17/08 2:28:30 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] (0x1139e0.mdworker[7188]) Exited: Killed  
2/17/08 2:38:50 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] (0x1139e0.mdworker[7200]) Exited: Killed  
2/17/08 2:49:23 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] (0x1139e0.mdworker[7214]) Exited: Killed  
2/17/08 2:53:57 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] (0x1139e0.mdworker[7236]) Exited: Killed  
2/17/08 3:23:30 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] (0x1139e0.mdworker[7239]) Exited: Killed  
2/17/08 3:43:47 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] (0x10ae00.mdworker[7199]) Exited: Killed  
2/17/08 3:53:57 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] (0x10ae00.mdworker[7424]) Exited: Killed  
2/17/08 3:58:23 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] (0x10ae00.mdworker[7450]) Exited: Killed  
2/17/08 4:02:59 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] (0x10ae00.mdworker[7456]) Exited: Killed  
2/18/08 12:55:10 AM  com.apple.launchd[1] (org.cups.cupsd) Throttling respawn: Will start in 8 seconds   
2/18/08 3:05:09 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] (org.cups.cupsd) Throttling respawn: Will start in 9 seconds   
2/18/08 12:55:10 AM  com.apple.launchd[1] (org.cups.cupsd) Throttling respawn: Will start in 8 seconds   
2/18/08 3:05:09 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] (org.cups.cupsd) Throttling respawn: Will start in 9 seconds   
2/18/08 1:03:02 PM   com.apple.launchd[1] (com.apple.netauth.useragent) Throttling respawn: Will start in 9 seconds  
2/18/08 1:03:10 PM   com.apple.launchd[1] (0x10b390.login[12866]) Could not setup Mach task special port 9: (os/kern) no access  
2/18/08 1:03:20 PM   com.apple.netauth.useragent[12876]  NetAuthAgent(12876,0xf0081000) malloc: *** error for object 0xc4078: Non-aligned pointer being freed  
2/18/08 1:03:20 PM   com.apple.netauth.useragent[12876]  *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/18/08 1:03:20 PM   com.apple.netauth.useragent[12876]  NetAuthAgent(12876,0xf0081000) malloc: *** error for object 0xc4099: Non-aligned pointer being freed  
2/18/08 1:03:20 PM   com.apple.netauth.useragent[12876]  *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/18/08 1:03:20 PM   com.apple.netauth.useragent[12876]  NetAuthAgent(12876,0xf0081000) malloc: *** error for object 0xc409a: Non-aligned pointer being freed  
2/18/08 1:03:20 PM   com.apple.netauth.useragent[12876]  *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/18/08 1:03:20 PM   com.apple.netauth.useragent[12876]  NetAuthAgent(12876,0xf0081000) malloc: *** error for object 0xc409b: Non-aligned pointer being freed  
2/18/08 1:03:20 PM   com.apple.netauth.useragent[12876]  *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/18/08 1:03:20 PM   com.apple.netauth.useragent[12876]  NetAuthAgent(12876,0xf0081000) malloc: *** error for object 0xc40bd: Non-aligned pointer being freed  
2/18/08 1:03:20 PM   com.apple.netauth.useragent[12876]  *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/18/08 1:03:20 PM   com.apple.netauth.useragent[12876]  NetAuthAgent(12876,0xf0081000) malloc: *** error for object 0xc40df: Non-aligned pointer being freed  
2/18/08 1:03:20 PM   com.apple.netauth.useragent[12876]  *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/18/08 1:55:06 PM   com.apple.launchd[1] (org.cups.cupsd) Throttling respawn: Will start in 9 seconds   
2/18/08 4:47:29 PM   [0x0-0xf90f9].com.apple.finder[2062]   Finder(2062,0xf0185000) malloc: *** error for object 0x2581c20: Non-aligned pointer being freed (2)   
2/18/08 4:47:29 PM   [0x0-0xf90f9].com.apple.finder[2062]   *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/18/08 4:47:29 PM   [0x0-0xf90f9].com.apple.finder[2062]   Finder(2062,0xf0185000) malloc: *** error for object 0x67fa800: non-page-aligned, non-allocated pointer being freed  
2/18/08 4:47:29 PM   [0x0-0xf90f9].com.apple.finder[2062]   *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/18/08 4:47:47 PM   com.apple.launchd[1] ([0x0-0xf90f9].com.apple.finder[2062]) Exited abnormally: Segmentation fault  
2/19/08 12:00:32 AM  com.apple.launchd[1] ([0x0-0x274274].com.apple.finder[13297]) Exited: Terminated 
2/19/08 9:24:33 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] (org.cups.cupsd) Throttling respawn: Will start in 2 seconds   
2/19/08 9:42:38 PM   SoftwareUpdateCheck[16465] Checking for updates 
2/19/08 9:43:13 PM   com.apple.launchd[1] ([0x0-0x2f52f5].SoftwareUpdateCheck[16465]) Exited with exit code: 102  
2/20/08 2:05:24 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] (org.cups.cupsd) Throttling respawn: Will start in 6 seconds   
2/20/08 7:47:17 AM   [0x0-0x299299].com.apple.finder[14162] Finder(14162,0xf0185000) malloc: *** error for object 0x680100: Non-aligned pointer being freed (2)   
2/20/08 7:47:17 AM   [0x0-0x299299].com.apple.finder[14162] *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/20/08 7:47:17 AM   [0x0-0x299299].com.apple.finder[14162] Finder(14162,0xf0185000) malloc: *** error for object 0x6c5e60: Non-aligned pointer being freed (2)   
2/20/08 7:47:17 AM   [0x0-0x299299].com.apple.finder[14162] *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/20/08 7:47:31 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] ([0x0-0x299299].com.apple.finder[14162]) Exited abnormally: Segmentation fault   
2/20/08 11:47:18 AM  [0x0-0x31f31f].com.apple.finder[17541] Finder(17541,0xf0185000) malloc: *** error for object 0x68e2f0: Non-aligned pointer being freed (2)   
2/20/08 11:47:18 AM  [0x0-0x31f31f].com.apple.finder[17541] *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/20/08 11:47:18 AM  [0x0-0x31f31f].com.apple.finder[17541] Finder(17541,0xf0185000) malloc: *** error for object 0x6315d0: Non-aligned pointer being freed (2)   
2/20/08 11:47:18 AM  [0x0-0x31f31f].com.apple.finder[17541] *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/20/08 11:47:38 AM  com.apple.launchd[1] ([0x0-0x31f31f].com.apple.finder[17541]) Exited abnormally: Segmentation fault   
2/20/08 8:47:14 PM   [0x0-0x330330].com.apple.finder[17940] Finder(17940,0xf038d000) malloc: *** error for object 0x6b19e0: Non-aligned pointer being freed (2)   
2/20/08 8:47:14 PM   [0x0-0x330330].com.apple.finder[17940] *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/20/08 8:47:40 PM   com.apple.launchd[1] ([0x0-0x330330].com.apple.finder[17940]) Exited abnormally: Segmentation fault   
2/21/08 2:47:23 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] (org.cups.cupsd) Throttling respawn: Will start in 1 seconds   
2/21/08 9:17:22 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] (org.cups.cupsd) Throttling respawn: Will start in 1 seconds   
2/22/08 5:47:05 AM   [0x0-0x356356].com.apple.finder[18902] Finder(18902,0xf0185000) malloc: *** error for object 0x6b9340: Non-aligned pointer being freed (2)   
2/22/08 5:47:05 AM   [0x0-0x356356].com.apple.finder[18902] *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/22/08 5:47:05 AM   [0x0-0x356356].com.apple.finder[18902] Finder(18902,0xf0185000) malloc: *** error for object 0x64d0f0: Non-aligned pointer being freed (2)   
2/22/08 5:47:05 AM   [0x0-0x356356].com.apple.finder[18902] *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/22/08 5:47:19 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] ([0x0-0x356356].com.apple.finder[18902]) Exited abnormally: Segmentation fault   
2/22/08 4:47:02 PM   [0x0-0x3e53e5].com.apple.finder[22628] Finder(22628,0xf0185000) malloc: *** error for object 0x6b3270: Non-aligned pointer being freed (2)   
2/22/08 4:47:02 PM   [0x0-0x3e53e5].com.apple.finder[22628] *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/22/08 4:47:02 PM   [0x0-0x3e53e5].com.apple.finder[22628] Finder(22628,0xf0185000) malloc: *** error for object 0x6b43a0: Non-aligned pointer being freed (2)   
2/22/08 4:47:02 PM   [0x0-0x3e53e5].com.apple.finder[22628] *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/22/08 4:47:15 PM   com.apple.launchd[1] ([0x0-0x3e53e5].com.apple.finder[22628]) Exited abnormally: Segmentation fault   
2/23/08 5:47:28 PM   com.apple.launchd[1] ([0x0-0x412412].com.apple.finder[24126]) Exited abnormally: Segmentation fault   
2/23/08 5:47:28 PM   com.apple.launchd[1] ([0x0-0x412412].com.apple.finder[24126]) Exited abnormally: Segmentation fault   
2/24/08 12:31:17 PM  Software Update[31048]  arguments=(null)  
2/24/08 12:31:25 PM  com.apple.launchd[1] ([0x0-0x486486].com.apple.finder[29119]) Exited: Terminated 
2/24/08 12:31:39 PM  com.apple.launchd[1] (com.apple.installdb.system) Throttling respawn: Will start in 3 seconds   
2/24/08 12:33:17 PM  com.apple.launchd[1] ([0x0-0x1b41b4].com.apple.iTunes[4882]) Exited: Terminated  
2/24/08 12:40:31 PM  com.apple.launchd[1] (0x117a50.login[31156]) Could not setup Mach task special port 9: (os/kern) no access  
2/24/08 4:47:09 PM   [0x0-0x4da4da].com.apple.finder[31050] Finder(31050,0xf0185000) malloc: *** error for object 0x5532750: Non-aligned pointer being freed (2)  
2/24/08 4:47:09 PM   [0x0-0x4da4da].com.apple.finder[31050] *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/24/08 4:47:09 PM   [0x0-0x4da4da].com.apple.finder[31050] Finder(31050,0xf0185000) malloc: *** error for object 0x47623f0: Non-aligned pointer being freed (2)  
2/24/08 4:47:09 PM   [0x0-0x4da4da].com.apple.finder[31050] *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/24/08 4:47:30 PM   com.apple.launchd[1] ([0x0-0x4da4da].com.apple.finder[31050]) Exited abnormally: Segmentation fault   
2/24/08 8:52:40 PM   com.apple.launchd[1] (org.cups.cupsd) Throttling respawn: Will start in 9 seconds   
2/25/08 12:47:02 PM  [0x0-0x4f64f6].com.apple.finder[31627] Finder(31627,0xf0185000) malloc: *** error for object 0x6bbce0: Non-aligned pointer being freed (2)   
2/25/08 12:47:02 PM  [0x0-0x4f64f6].com.apple.finder[31627] *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/25/08 12:47:02 PM  [0x0-0x4f64f6].com.apple.finder[31627] Finder(31627,0xf0185000) malloc: *** error for object 0x6bedf0: Non-aligned pointer being freed (2)   
2/25/08 12:47:02 PM  [0x0-0x4f64f6].com.apple.finder[31627] *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/25/08 12:47:18 PM  com.apple.launchd[1] ([0x0-0x4f64f6].com.apple.finder[31627]) Exited abnormally: Segmentation fault   
2/25/08 8:44:15 PM   com.apple.launchd[1] (com.apple.launchd.peruser.501) Throttling respawn: Will start in 9 seconds   
2/26/08 2:46:42 AM   [0x0-0x54a54a].com.apple.finder[33607] Finder(33607,0xf0185000) malloc: *** error for object 0x6b5450: Non-aligned pointer being freed (2)   
2/26/08 2:46:42 AM   [0x0-0x54a54a].com.apple.finder[33607] *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/26/08 2:46:42 AM   [0x0-0x54a54a].com.apple.finder[33607] Finder(33607,0xf0185000) malloc: *** error for object 0x6b4500: Non-aligned pointer being freed (2)   
2/26/08 2:46:42 AM   [0x0-0x54a54a].com.apple.finder[33607] *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/26/08 2:46:53 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] ([0x0-0x54a54a].com.apple.finder[33607]) Exited abnormally: Segmentation fault   
2/26/08 4:06:59 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] (org.cups.cupsd) Throttling respawn: Will start in 1 seconds   
2/26/08 9:06:57 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] (org.cups.cupsd) Throttling respawn: Will start in 1 seconds   
2/26/08 8:54:38 PM   com.apple.launchd[1] ([0x0-0x587587].com.apple.finder[35075]) Exited: Terminated 
2/26/08 9:41:53 PM   SoftwareUpdateCheck[43576] Checking for updates 
2/26/08 9:42:22 PM   com.apple.launchd[1] ([0x0-0x5db5db].SoftwareUpdateCheck[43576]) Exited with exit code: 102  
2/26/08 9:47:05 PM   com.apple.launchd[1] ([0x0-0x5d85d8].com.apple.finder[43504]) Exited abnormally: Bus error   
2/27/08 8:04:33 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] (com.apple.newsyslog) Throttling respawn: Will start in 9 seconds 
2/26/08 8:54:38 PM   com.apple.launchd[1] ([0x0-0x587587].com.apple.finder[35075]) Exited: Terminated 
2/26/08 9:41:53 PM   SoftwareUpdateCheck[43576] Checking for updates 
2/26/08 9:42:22 PM   com.apple.launchd[1] ([0x0-0x5db5db].SoftwareUpdateCheck[43576]) Exited with exit code: 102  
2/26/08 9:47:05 PM   com.apple.launchd[1] ([0x0-0x5d85d8].com.apple.finder[43504]) Exited abnormally: Bus error   
2/27/08 8:04:33 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] (com.apple.newsyslog) Throttling respawn: Will start in 9 seconds 
2/26/08 8:54:38 PM   com.apple.launchd[1] ([0x0-0x587587].com.apple.finder[35075]) Exited: Terminated 
2/26/08 9:41:53 PM   SoftwareUpdateCheck[43576] Checking for updates 
2/26/08 9:42:22 PM   com.apple.launchd[1] ([0x0-0x5db5db].SoftwareUpdateCheck[43576]) Exited with exit code: 102  
2/26/08 9:47:05 PM   com.apple.launchd[1] ([0x0-0x5d85d8].com.apple.finder[43504]) Exited abnormally: Bus error   
2/27/08 8:04:33 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] (com.apple.newsyslog) Throttling respawn: Will start in 9 seconds 
2/26/08 8:54:38 PM   com.apple.launchd[1] ([0x0-0x587587].com.apple.finder[35075]) Exited: Terminated 
2/26/08 9:41:53 PM   SoftwareUpdateCheck[43576] Checking for updates 
2/26/08 9:42:22 PM   com.apple.launchd[1] ([0x0-0x5db5db].SoftwareUpdateCheck[43576]) Exited with exit code: 102  
2/26/08 9:47:05 PM   com.apple.launchd[1] ([0x0-0x5d85d8].com.apple.finder[43504]) Exited abnormally: Bus error   
2/27/08 8:04:33 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] (com.apple.newsyslog) Throttling respawn: Will start in 9 seconds 
2/26/08 8:54:38 PM   com.apple.launchd[1] ([0x0-0x587587].com.apple.finder[35075]) Exited: Terminated 
2/26/08 9:41:53 PM   SoftwareUpdateCheck[43576] Checking for updates 
2/26/08 9:42:22 PM   com.apple.launchd[1] ([0x0-0x5db5db].SoftwareUpdateCheck[43576]) Exited with exit code: 102  
2/26/08 9:47:05 PM   com.apple.launchd[1] ([0x0-0x5d85d8].com.apple.finder[43504]) Exited abnormally: Bus error   
2/27/08 8:04:33 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] (com.apple.newsyslog) Throttling respawn: Will start in 9 seconds 
2/28/08 6:15:47 PM   com.apple.launchd[1] (org.cups.cupsd) Throttling respawn: Will start in 7 seconds   
2/28/08 8:34:06 PM   com.apple.launchd[1] (com.apple.launchd.peruser.501) Throttling respawn: Will start in 3 seconds   
2/28/08 10:46:41 PM  [0x0-0x5dc5dc].com.apple.finder[43603] Finder(43603,0xf0185000) malloc: *** error for object 0x6ca070: Non-aligned pointer being freed (2)   
2/28/08 10:46:41 PM  [0x0-0x5dc5dc].com.apple.finder[43603] *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/28/08 10:46:41 PM  [0x0-0x5dc5dc].com.apple.finder[43603] Finder(43603,0xf0185000) malloc: *** error for object 0x6d54a0: Non-aligned pointer being freed (2)   
2/28/08 10:46:41 PM  [0x0-0x5dc5dc].com.apple.finder[43603] *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/28/08 10:47:03 PM  com.apple.launchd[1] ([0x0-0x5dc5dc].com.apple.finder[43603]) Exited abnormally: Segmentation fault   
2/28/08 6:15:47 PM   com.apple.launchd[1] (org.cups.cupsd) Throttling respawn: Will start in 7 seconds   
2/28/08 8:34:06 PM   com.apple.launchd[1] (com.apple.launchd.peruser.501) Throttling respawn: Will start in 3 seconds   
2/28/08 10:46:41 PM  [0x0-0x5dc5dc].com.apple.finder[43603] Finder(43603,0xf0185000) malloc: *** error for object 0x6ca070: Non-aligned pointer being freed (2)   
2/28/08 10:46:41 PM  [0x0-0x5dc5dc].com.apple.finder[43603] *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/28/08 10:46:41 PM  [0x0-0x5dc5dc].com.apple.finder[43603] Finder(43603,0xf0185000) malloc: *** error for object 0x6d54a0: Non-aligned pointer being freed (2)   
2/28/08 10:46:41 PM  [0x0-0x5dc5dc].com.apple.finder[43603] *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
2/28/08 10:47:03 PM  com.apple.launchd[1] ([0x0-0x5dc5dc].com.apple.finder[43603]) Exited abnormally: Segmentation fault   
2/29/08 11:29:54 PM  com.apple.launchd[1] (0x117b50.sshd[57473]) Could not setup Mach task special port 9: (os/kern) no access   
3/1/08 3:17:00 AM com.apple.launchd[1] (org.cups.cupsd) Throttling respawn: Will start in 8 seconds   
3/1/08 6:46:15 AM [0x0-0x6ba6ba].com.apple.finder[52276] Finder(52276,0xf0185000) malloc: *** error for object 0x6c0ee0: Non-aligned pointer being freed (2)   
3/1/08 6:46:15 AM [0x0-0x6ba6ba].com.apple.finder[52276] *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
3/1/08 6:46:15 AM [0x0-0x6ba6ba].com.apple.finder[52276] Finder(52276,0xf0185000) malloc: *** error for object 0x6c5680: Non-aligned pointer being freed (2)   
3/1/08 6:46:15 AM [0x0-0x6ba6ba].com.apple.finder[52276] *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
3/1/08 6:46:33 AM com.apple.launchd[1] ([0x0-0x6ba6ba].com.apple.finder[52276]) Exited abnormally: Segmentation fault   
2/29/08 11:29:54 PM  com.apple.launchd[1] (0x117b50.sshd[57473]) Could not setup Mach task special port 9: (os/kern) no access   
3/1/08 3:17:00 AM com.apple.launchd[1] (org.cups.cupsd) Throttling respawn: Will start in 8 seconds   
3/1/08 6:46:15 AM [0x0-0x6ba6ba].com.apple.finder[52276] Finder(52276,0xf0185000) malloc: *** error for object 0x6c0ee0: Non-aligned pointer being freed (2)   
3/1/08 6:46:15 AM [0x0-0x6ba6ba].com.apple.finder[52276] *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
3/1/08 6:46:15 AM [0x0-0x6ba6ba].com.apple.finder[52276] Finder(52276,0xf0185000) malloc: *** error for object 0x6c5680: Non-aligned pointer being freed (2)   
3/1/08 6:46:15 AM [0x0-0x6ba6ba].com.apple.finder[52276] *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
3/1/08 6:46:33 AM com.apple.launchd[1] ([0x0-0x6ba6ba].com.apple.finder[52276]) Exited abnormally: Segmentation fault   
2/29/08 11:29:54 PM  com.apple.launchd[1] (0x117b50.sshd[57473]) Could not setup Mach task special port 9: (os/kern) no access   
3/1/08 3:17:00 AM com.apple.launchd[1] (org.cups.cupsd) Throttling respawn: Will start in 8 seconds   
3/1/08 6:46:15 AM [0x0-0x6ba6ba].com.apple.finder[52276] Finder(52276,0xf0185000) malloc: *** error for object 0x6c0ee0: Non-aligned pointer being freed (2)   
3/1/08 6:46:15 AM [0x0-0x6ba6ba].com.apple.finder[52276] *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
3/1/08 6:46:15 AM [0x0-0x6ba6ba].com.apple.finder[52276] Finder(52276,0xf0185000) malloc: *** error for object 0x6c5680: Non-aligned pointer being freed (2)   
3/1/08 6:46:15 AM [0x0-0x6ba6ba].com.apple.finder[52276] *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
3/1/08 6:46:33 AM com.apple.launchd[1] ([0x0-0x6ba6ba].com.apple.finder[52276]) Exited abnormally: Segmentation fault   
3/1/08 10:46:14 AM   [0x0-0x764764].com.apple.finder[58570] Finder(58570,0xf0185000) malloc: *** error for object 0x654f70: Non-aligned pointer being freed (2)   
3/1/08 10:46:14 AM   [0x0-0x764764].com.apple.finder[58570] *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
3/1/08 10:46:14 AM   [0x0-0x764764].com.apple.finder[58570] Finder(58570,0xf0185000) malloc: *** error for object 0x67c0b0: Non-aligned pointer being freed (2)   
3/1/08 10:46:14 AM   [0x0-0x764764].com.apple.finder[58570] *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug   
3/1/08 10:46:27 AM   com.apple.launchd[1] ([0x0-0x764764].com.apple.finder[58570]) Exited abnormally: Segmentation fault   
3/1/08 9:21:11 PM com.apple.launchd[1] (0x117b50.sshd[60330]) Could not setup Mach task special port 9: (os/kern) no access

-- 
I don't read Google's spam.  Reply with another service.

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 12:57:57 -0500, Michelle Steiner wrote
(in article <michelle-2EA60A.10575701032008@news.west.cox.net>):

> In article <0001HW.C3EEFFE900108A4DF02886D8@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
>  J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:
> 
>> make plain text puts up a new window, with a plain text version of 
>> the file. 
> 
> For me, it does it in the same window.  I still have only one window.
> 
> 

i must have set something in the prefs a long time ago and forgot it...

-- 
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

Michelle Steiner wrote:

> You actually believe that most Mac users open TextEdit for the first 
> time and do not look at the menus and preferences before using it?


Historically, TextEdit has always been a TEXT application by default.
Somewhere in OS-X, they changed the default to having some fancy text
format.

I got into OS-X at Tiger, and as a new install, the default for TextEdit
was some fancy text format.  Yeah, because I need/want a text editor, I
had to spend some time to figure out why it was no longer a text editor
but rather a word processor, and discover that there was an option to
have it behave as a text editor by default.

But the default should have remained simple text. OR, the first time you
invoke it, it should have prompted you whether you want the default to
be text or some fancy text format.

On one of the first PDAs, the PSION Series3 had an interesting twist to
the editor: Depending on how the parent process would invoke the editor,
it would either bring up a "rich" text editor (The word processor), or a
text editor. (with reduced menus since you didn't need any of the
formating functions).

Perhaps Apple could have done the same. Have a TextEdit application that
invoked TextEdit.app in text mode, and a WordEdit application/alias that
invokled TextEdit.app in rich text mode.

Lewis wrote:

> I find it odd that someone writing scripts and unix config files would 
> be even looking at a GUI editor.

I come from a VMS background. I would configure the EDIT command line
command to fire off the X-window version of TPU (text editor) as a
subprocess. So yes, I would very much want to be able to invoke a real
GUI editor from the command line on the mac. (especially since the
MAC-GUI applications don't really let me peruse the Unix side of the
file system in file selection dialogs).

Ideally, I would have liked to have see a real GUI editor that was the
same whether invoked from the finder or from the command line.

Ideally, said editor would also be the same for editing code (with
various add-ons for the code development "helpers".)

In article <47ca46c9$0$1531$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> Lewis wrote:
> 
> > I find it odd that someone writing scripts and unix config files would 
> > be even looking at a GUI editor.
> 
> I come from a VMS background. I would configure the EDIT command line
> command to fire off the X-window version of TPU (text editor) as a
> subprocess. So yes, I would very much want to be able to invoke a real
> GUI editor from the command line on the mac. (especially since the
> MAC-GUI applications don't really let me peruse the Unix side of the
> file system in file selection dialogs).

Not quite true. In any Open File dialogue box, you can type 
shift-command G and enter a full path to a file.

> 
> Ideally, I would have liked to have see a real GUI editor that was the
> same whether invoked from the finder or from the command line.

Why not just make shell alias to TextWrangler, BBEdit or your favourite 
GUI text editor.  In my .cshrc I have the following:

alias tw     'open -a TextWrangler $1'

which allows me to open any file from the command line using 
TextWrangler.  If it's a file owned by root TextWrangler asks me to 
authenticate with an admin password if I want to save the file.
> 
> Ideally, said editor would also be the same for editing code (with
> various add-ons for the code development "helpers".)

Works for me.

Alan

In article <slrnfsjm4m.i3q.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
 Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:

> Are you serious? Many hardcore coders that used to do all their
> coding in command line editors like vi and Emacs have switched
> alliegence completely to GUI apps. Once you are using a GUI
> text editor for your daily workflow you are likely to use it
> even for editing simple scripts and config files as well.

Not to thread hijack, but does anyone know a way to use vi in Xcode? I'm 
not sure I'd really like it, but I'd love to try it. :)

On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 00:54:40 -0500, Kevin McMurtrie wrote
(in article <mcmurtri-63F9A4.21544001032008@news.dslextreme.com>):

> In article <0001HW.C3EEC04F0001A238F02066D8@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
>  J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 00:43:38 -0500, Kevin McMurtrie wrote
>> (in article <mcmurtri-D73BC8.21433829022008@news.dslextreme.com>):
>> 
>>> In article <sdfisher-C8B0C6.17073929022008@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
>>> Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> In article <mcmurtri-12C8DB.21225928022008@news.dslextreme.com>,
>>>> Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Yeah, it's still Apple's Vista.
>>>> 
>>>> There were a few issues, but overall Leopard was better than Tiger from 
>>>> day one. Was the first release of Vista really that clear a gain over 
>>>> XP? Could you be exaggerating maybe just a little?
>>> 
>>> Sorry.  No chance in hell of that being true.  It was hard enough 
>>> getting 10.5.0 to work at all.
>> 
>> I merely ran the installer. it worked.

Hmm. You didn't reply to this.

>> 
>>> Half the new features still don't work 
>>> correctly.
>> 
>> That must be the half that I'm not using...

or this...

>> 
>>> If you're on PPC, 10.5.2 doesn't work well enough for 
>>> everyday use.
>> 
>> Errm... I'm typing this on a PPC machine. An old, slow, PPC machine: a 1.25 
>> GHz eMac.

or this...

One wonders why.

>> 
>>> Want to see my console log from a PPC computer with 
>>> Leopard?
>> 
>> That would be nice.
> 
> This is a PPC iMac server:
> 

Errm... four things:

1 who was talking about Leopard _Server_? I, for one, was talking about 
Leopard _client_. Which works quite well.

2 how much RAM did you have on that machine?

3 what were you trying to do? You appear to be having a problem with two or 
three specific apps, and a printer. Is it that those apps and that printer 
don't work with Leopard?

4 you _do_ realize that that log started on 13 Feb and continued on to 1 Mar, 
and most of the errors were terminations and time outs? I've got more errors 
than that just from launching VLC and playing a DVD! Which played all the way 
through, without problems other than the annoying VLC 'there's been an error 
which you didn't notice so I'm bringing it to your attention' dialog popping 
up, until I clicked the 'go away and don't bother me anymore' button and even 
those notices went away. And VLC generates the same errors under Tiger...

My log files are larger than that, but they're mostly notices from Safari 
about 509 anchors and notices from Time Machine about backups.

What, exactly, are your problems?

-- 
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

In article <eI-dnQAigaFtZlTanZ2dnUVZ_tGonZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopiesofposts> wrote:

> > > OK, copy the above quoted text into TextEdit.  Make sure that "smart 
> > > copy/paste" is checked in the Edit menu.
> > > 
> > > Select "shed" in the second paragraph.  Press Command-C to copy it.
> 
> Yes, it would have been better if Michelle had specified HOW she 
> selected the word.


Better?    It is absolutely  _critical_  that she specify 
how she selected the word.

The normal click-and-drag way of selecting does  _not_  work.

The double-click way of selecting  _does_  work.


She must have known there were two ways of selecting text, 
but for some reason she chose to ignore that fact. 


The method of selecting text is strictly application 
dependent, the programmer can choose any method he pleases.

For example, word selection is done in my dictation program 
by me speaking:

 "select shed"





To copy the selected "shed", I say:

   "copy that"





Moving the insertion point and pasting is done by speaking:

   "insert before complaint"

   "move right three characters"

   "spacebar"

   "paste that"

   "spacebar"


If a lot of inserting of words in the middle of existing words 
is done, a script macro can be created by the user, to eliminate 
some inserting and pasting steps.



Most likely the new Mac app'  "MacSpeech Dictate" will not have 
user-created voice commands, because of its low $200 price.




> > Lewis, with a false accusation -
> > > Mark didn't follow the directions of selecting 
> > > the WORD.  He instead selected the characters.
> 
> That is not a 'false accusation'

Yes it is a false accusation.   I followed those flawed 
directions explicitly, especially the part that said:

"Select 'shed' in the second paragraph.  I even asked her 
whether I should select just the four letters, or include 
the spaces before and after those four letters."

Those directions are flawed because they omit one critical 
point, namely HOW to select "shed".


There is NOTHING in Michelle's post about WORD, as you posted.
There is NOTHING in Michelle's post about characters.

NOTHING about words versus characters, either.

Am I supposed to be a mind-reader and know what she means?



Michelle's actual instructions posted below:

Mark's Question -
> > My  _main_  complaint is that I can't see how to use 
> > the TextEdit feature "Smart Copy/Paste" for any 
> > constructive purpose.
>
> > Can you, or anyone else, shed some light on the 
> > proper way to use "Smart Copy/Paste" for a 
> > constructive purpose?
>
Michelle's Instructions in her reply - 
> OK, copy the above quoted text into TextEdit.  Make sure that "smart 
> copy/paste" is checked in the Edit menu.
> 
> Select "shed" in the second paragraph.  Press Command-C to copy it.
> 
> Click between the p and the l in "complaint" in the first paragraph.  
> Press command-V to paste.
> 
> Notice that "shed" has spaces separating it from the "p" and the "l" 
> in "complaint.



Mark posted -
> > Wrong.  I specifically asked Michelle if I should 
> > select only the 4 letters of the word "shed", or 
> > if I should also select the spaces before and after 
> > the word "shed" also.  She replied to just select 
> > four letters, no spaces
> 
Lewis interjected his belated straw man distraction about WORD -
> 
> That's not the issue.  You select the WORD by double clicking it.




You are wrong about the entire WORD issue

Michelle NEVER SAID:  "You select the WORD by double clicking it".
 
you are the one who brought that issue up, much later on the 
following day, Saturday.

How can you possibly imply that Michelle posted ANYTHING about 
words versus characters.  Read what she posted again, and show me 
where she posted anything about words versus characters.

I followed her posted instructions verbatim, contrary to 
what you claim.

Am I supposed to be a mind-reader for what is in her mind?




> Yes, you deleted the actual explanation of what was going on, 
> disregarded it all and, I can only assume, didn't even read it well 
> enough to understand it or learn anything.  That's fine, hopefully 
> someone else learned something and you can continue on with your 
> flawed understanding of what is happening and how it 'doesn't work'.


Your harassing tirade about your "actual explanation" was not 
posted until 16 hours AFTER David Empson's explanation of the 
same points.

By then your "actual explanation" was old news, the problem 
had already been solved by David on Friday, to my satisfaction.


<rest of your credit-claiming bullshit not worthy of comment>

In article <michelle-A04B90.10203601032008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article 
> <jollyroger-0291CB.01390501032008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > > > How many times do I have to say it? I'm not suggesting rtf etc 
> > > > should not be present, only complaining that plain txt is not 
> > > > default and not even in the list unless you configure the thing 
> > > > deliberately in the first place.
> > > 
> > > I think that you are making a mountain out of a molehill.  The 
> > > deliberate configuration is a trivial matter.
> > 
> > I disagree. It's the small things that make Mac OS better than 
> > alternatives. This is one obvious area where a Mac application is not 
> > behaving the way a Mac application should.
> 
> Do you realize that in all other word processors and text editors, 
> saving a document in a format other than the application's native format 
> keeps the document "dirty"?

I don't see how that has any bearing what-so-ever on the fact that the 
way Text Edit forces users to visit preferences just to save a rich text 
document as plain text, or whether usability would be improved by 
changing this functionality. The fact is usability is suffering because 
of this bad design. This makes this Mac application un-Mac-like IMO.

-- 
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you 
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to 
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

In article 
<mlsiemon-21438D.01132801032008@C-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
 Michael Siemon <mlsiemon@sonic.net> wrote:

> In article 
> <jollyroger-0291CB.01390501032008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <michelle-C9145E.22205429022008@news.west.cox.net>,
> >  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <fqamf0$ned$3@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > How many times do I have to say it? I'm not suggesting rtf etc should 
> > > > not be present, only complaining that plain txt is not default and 
> > > > not even in the list unless you configure the thing deliberately in 
> > > > the first place.
> > > 
> > > I think that you are making a mountain out of a molehill.  The 
> > > deliberate configuration is a trivial matter.
> > 
> > I disagree. It's the small things that make Mac OS better than 
> > alternatives. This is one obvious area where a Mac application is not 
> > behaving the way a Mac application should.
> 
> You may have done so already, but could you specify just what _you_
> mean by "the way a Mac application should" behave" in this context?
> I use TextEdit a lot. And I often deal with conversions to and from 
> Plain Text to RTF.
> 
> I would (sort of) agree that TextEdit doesn't _quite_ seem to be
> "Mac like" -- but I'm really very unsure what it "should" do that
> is different from what it does. There is a seriously non-Mac kind
> of thing going on when you convert from plaint text to RTF (or the
> other way).  I not infrequently scarf up text from a web site and
> want to treat it like text (as opposed, for example, to "printing"
> to a PDF); in some contexts that I currently deal with, there is a
> lot of "garbage" in the RTF format (e.g., background colors). I find
> myself frequently tossing away the formatting by down-converting to
> plain text, and then immediately reconverting to RTF, only to have
> to impose my own preferred formatting. Given that, I'd _like_ to be
> able to work within RTF format and discard the crap that web-sites
> insist on shoving at us. So I could see a "super" TextEdit that I
> could use to just toss out the crap and keep what I like about the
> stuff I copy. But as it happens, I _can_ do whatever I like with the
> current functionality, and it is not _Apple's_ fault that folks make
> stupidly over-specified web pages!
> 
> In most cases, I will be imposing my own style (fonts/sizes/etc.) on
> the stuff I import into TextEdit, whatever it may import as; I'd like
> not to struggle doing this -- but it does not seem to me to be non-Mac
> in character to discard garbage formatting from an input and impose a
> Mac-like style (or something else if you prefer!) on the filtered
> input.
> 
> What am I missing in all of this, that TextEdit is "not [really] a
> Mac application"? Just how _should_ it behave? And do you honestly
> think that _I_ want it to behave exactly the way _you_ do?

You're overcomplicating the matter. All that is needed is for Apple to 
add "Plain text" to the list of formats in the Save dialog, and, when 
that is chosen, strip all formatting from the document on-the-fly during 
save.

-- 
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you 
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to 
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

In article <michelle-2B5630.10231601032008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article 
> <jollyroger-26BB1F.01380101032008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > Bullshit. You can have both. Even Microsoft Word allows you to save 
> > rich documents as plain text in the save as dialog. Apple simply 
> > decided to design it so that it's harder to do than need be.
> 
> And when you save it as text, you're not saving the document; you're 
> saving a copy of it with the formatting removed.

That doesn't matter.

-- 
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you 
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to 
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

In article <barmar-1401A9.12134901032008@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
 Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> In article 
> <jollyroger-83235B.01344501032008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <barmar-F130F6.21171828022008@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> >  Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <fq7out$73e$1@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> 
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > My problem with it is not about how you choose, just that .txt is not
> > > > default and not even present until you change something.
> > > 
> > > I think their reasoning is that it doesn't make sense to try to save a 
> > > document with fonts and styles as plain text, because you'd lose all the 
> > > formatting.  
> > 
> > That's bad reasoning. This is a freaking *computer*. Stripping 
> > formatting out of a document is a *trivial* computing task. There's 
> > absolutely no reason Apple can't or shouldn't allow users to save as 
> > plain text and automatically strip formatting on-the-fly. Most every 
> > other text editor on the planet does this! For whatever reason, Apple 
> > has chosen to make this simple operation harder for end users. This is 
> > not the Mac way.
> 
> Of course it's trivial, and it happens when you click on "Make Plain 
> Text".
> 
> They just didn't want to do it behind the scenes when you're saving, 
> because they probably thought that would be more confusing or 
> surprising.  You have to take a positive action to strip all the 
> formatting.  And when you do this, you'll see immediately what the 
> document looks like in plain text.

Sorry, but that's just not good enough.

-- 
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you 
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to 
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

In article <michelle-47F52A.10291101032008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article 
> <jollyroger-E0AEBC.01300601032008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > This complication could be easily solved if Apple were to add "Plain 
> > text" as a format choice in the save as dialog, and have TextEdit 
> > automatically convert the document to plain text on-the-fly during 
> > save - just as most every other freaking text editor on the planet 
> > does.
> 
> They do not convert the document to plain text; they save a plain-text 
> copy of the document.  Then when you try to close the document, you get 
> a dialog asking if you want to save it, and you thing, "WTF?  I already 
> saved it."  Or if you make changes, and press Command-S to save it, you 
> get the Save dialog again, instead of saving over the existing file.  If 
> you then try to save it, you get an alert telling you there's already a 
> document with the same name, and asking if you want to replace it.
> 
> It is not as freaking simple as you make it out to be.

Sure it is. All that is needed to fix that problem is to notify the user 
that the plain text version is a copy of the file rather than the 
original. Whatever application you're describing above failed to do 
that, resulting in your confusion.

-- 
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you 
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to 
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

In article <michelle-08E74A.10340801032008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article 
> <jollyroger-988FB0.01215501032008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > And even if the default is RTF, they should make it *easy* to save as 
> > plain text. This is a Mac, after all.
> 
> The options are
> 
> 1.  Convert to plain text by choosing Make Plain Text from the Format 
> menu.  Then Save the document.  The document is saved
> 
> 2.  Save the document, then choose "Plain Text" from a popup menu in the 
> Save dialog.  A copy of the document is saved.

The way I understand it, if the document is RTF, then "Plain Text" isn't 
even an option in the Save dialog. That's a problem.

-- 
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you 
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to 
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

In article <w62dnfNYiJuqNlTanZ2dnUVZ_szinZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopiesofposts> wrote:

> In article 
> <jollyroger-3A78C3.01211501032008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > All they need to do is add "Plain Text" as a choice in 
> > the Save dialog box! It's really not that hard to implement. Even 
> > Microsoft Word has this.
> 
> And people are shocked and dismayed to see their document stripped of 
> all its formatting, spacing, and centering.

PEBKAC...

-- 
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you 
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to 
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

In article <w62dneFYiJvwVlTanZ2dnUVZ_szinZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopiesofposts> wrote:

> I find it odd that someone writing scripts and unix config files would 
> be even looking at a GUI editor.

You obviously havn't used TextWrangler for any length of time.  ; )  
Best Perl editor in the world IMO.  : )

-- 
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you 
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to 
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

In article <michelle-14F14C.10382101032008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article 
> <jollyroger-95D5FB.01142201032008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > Exactly. Even Microsoft Word allows you to save RTF and plain text 
> > files right there in the Save As dialog box without having to first 
> > visit preferences to change the document type! Michelle, you must see 
> > that this is not as intuitive as it could be.
> 
> No it does not save the document in those formats; it saves a *copy* of 
> the document in those formats. 

Big deal. The point is, it does what you want when you want to do it - 
without forcing you to cancel the Save dialog and go back and convert 
the document first.

-- 
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you 
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to 
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR