New Mac Pros.

Quad-Core 3.2 GHz Xeon processor, 6 GB, 1 TB drive:  $2499
12-core (two 6-core Xeons) 2.4 GHz, 12 GB, 1 TB drive:  $3799
Server:  One 3.2 GHz Quad Core, 8 GB, two 1 TB drives:  $2999

The Quad and 12 core models come with a SuperDrive, the Server model 
doesn't, but of course comes with Lion Server.

There are BTO upgrades available as well.

New new iMacs or Minis, though.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

In article <michelle-D1C8F2.12495811062012@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> New Mac Pros.
> 
> Quad-Core 3.2 GHz Xeon processor, 6 GB, 1 TB drive:  $2499
> 12-core (two 6-core Xeons) 2.4 GHz, 12 GB, 1 TB drive:  $3799
> Server:  One 3.2 GHz Quad Core, 8 GB, two 1 TB drives:  $2999
> 
> The Quad and 12 core models come with a SuperDrive, the Server model 
> doesn't, but of course comes with Lion Server.
> 
> There are BTO upgrades available as well.
> 
> New new iMacs or Minis, though.

Damn! You beat me to it.

On 06/11/2012 03:49 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> New Mac Pros.
>
> Quad-Core 3.2 GHz Xeon processor, 6 GB, 1 TB drive:  $2499
> 12-core (two 6-core Xeons) 2.4 GHz, 12 GB, 1 TB drive:  $3799
> Server:  One 3.2 GHz Quad Core, 8 GB, two 1 TB drives:  $2999
>
> The Quad and 12 core models come with a SuperDrive, the Server model
> doesn't, but of course comes with Lion Server.
>
> There are BTO upgrades available as well.
>
> New new iMacs or Minis, though.
>
The real news: no news. Still overpriced stuff.

The focus of the upgrade today was centered around the CPUs. The aging 
pair of six-core 2.93GHz Intel Xeon X5670 processors of the high-end 
model have been replaced with the slightly beefier six-core 3.06GHz 
Intel Xeon X5675. As standard, this model comes with two 2.4GHx six-core 
Xeons, 12GB of RAM and a 1TB hard drive, and will cost you $3,799.

You can configure for yourself a dual-processor Mac Pro system that�s 
fully loaded with 64Gb of RAM and four 2TB hard drives, but this monster 
system does however come with the monster price tag of $9,199.

Graphics for the Mac Pro are powered by ATI�s Radeon HD 5770 with 1GB 
GDDR5, which, while it might be an adequate graphics chip, is hardly 
cutting-edge. In fact, if you wanted to pick up a graphics card with a 
similar spec for a PC it would only cost you about $115. This somehow 
doesn�t seem fitting inside a system that could cost you almost $10,000.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/wwdc-the-mac-pro-isnt-dead-yet/20751

Salut Michelle

In article <michelle-D1C8F2.12495811062012@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> New Mac Pros.
> 
> Quad-Core 3.2 GHz Xeon processor, 6 GB, 1 TB drive:  $2499
> 12-core (two 6-core Xeons) 2.4 GHz, 12 GB, 1 TB drive:  $3799
> Server:  One 3.2 GHz Quad Core, 8 GB, two 1 TB drives:  $2999
> 
> The Quad and 12 core models come with a SuperDrive, the Server model 
> doesn't, but of course comes with Lion Server.

specs seem to have changed since you posted: 1 SuperDrive is standard on 
the server model:
<http://store.apple.com/us_smb_78313/configure/MD772LL/A?>

Cheers
Andreas

-- 
MacAndreas Rutishauser, <http://www.MacAndreas.ch> 
EDV-Dienstleistungen, Hard- und Software, Internet und Netzwerk
Beratung, Unterstuetzung und Schulung
<mailto:andreas@MacAndreas.ch>, Fon: 044 / 721 36 47

In article <andreas-038181.07184112062012@news.individual.de>,
 Andreas Rutishauser <andreas@macandreas.ch> wrote:

> > Quad-Core 3.2 GHz Xeon processor, 6 GB, 1 TB drive:  $2499
> > 12-core (two 6-core Xeons) 2.4 GHz, 12 GB, 1 TB drive:  $3799
> > Server:  One 3.2 GHz Quad Core, 8 GB, two 1 TB drives:  $2999
> > 
> > The Quad and 12 core models come with a SuperDrive, the Server model 
> > doesn't, but of course comes with Lion Server.
> 
> specs seem to have changed since you posted: 1 SuperDrive is standard on 
> the server model:
> <http://store.apple.com/us_smb_78313/configure/MD772LL/A?>

Yup, certainly looks that way.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

On 12-06-11 2:49 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> New Mac Pros.
> 
> Quad-Core 3.2 GHz Xeon processor, 6 GB, 1 TB drive:  $2499
> 12-core (two 6-core Xeons) 2.4 GHz, 12 GB, 1 TB drive:  $3799
> Server:  One 3.2 GHz Quad Core, 8 GB, two 1 TB drives:  $2999

Sadly, this is not really "new". Basically a speed bump.

When I by a Mac Pro, I want to know that it will run "the latest system"
reasonably well at least five years from now. Pros are two pricey to be
replacing more frequently.

The "new" Quad-core is still using the Xeon W3565, which is pretty much
what is in my three year old machine (Early 2009 MacPro). I don't know
what the situation will be when it is time to replace my Mac Pro, but if
I were doing it today, it would not be with another one.

Cheers,

-j

-- 
Jeffrey Goldberg          http://goldmark.org/jeff/
I rarely read HTML or poorly quoting posts
Reply-To address is valid

On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 12:49:58 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> New Mac Pros.
> 
> Quad-Core 3.2 GHz Xeon processor, 6 GB, 1 TB drive:  $2499 12-core (two
> 6-core Xeons) 2.4 GHz, 12 GB, 1 TB drive:  $3799 Server:  One 3.2 GHz
> Quad Core, 8 GB, two 1 TB drives:  $2999
> 
> The Quad and 12 core models come with a SuperDrive, the Server model
> doesn't, but of course comes with Lion Server.
> 
> There are BTO upgrades available as well.

Sorry, wgat's BTO?
> 
> New new iMacs or Minis, though.

I assume you meant "No new" there.  Any change on the Mini pricing though?

In article <urdka9-bg9.ln1@mint-hp.chingola.ch>, Paul Sture
<paul.nospam@sture.ch> wrote:

> > New Mac Pros.
> > 
> > Quad-Core 3.2 GHz Xeon processor, 6 GB, 1 TB drive:  $2499 12-core (two
> > 6-core Xeons) 2.4 GHz, 12 GB, 1 TB drive:  $3799 Server:  One 3.2 GHz
> > Quad Core, 8 GB, two 1 TB drives:  $2999
> > 
> > The Quad and 12 core models come with a SuperDrive, the Server model
> > doesn't, but of course comes with Lion Server.
> > 
> > There are BTO upgrades available as well.
> 
> Sorry, wgat's BTO?

build to order

In article <urdka9-bg9.ln1@mint-hp.chingola.ch>,
 Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> wrote:

> > There are BTO upgrades available as well.
> 
> Sorry, wgat's BTO?

Build to Order.

> > New new iMacs or Minis, though.
> 
> I assume you meant "No new" there.  Any change on the Mini pricing though?

Yes to the first.  No to the second.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

In article <urdka9-bg9.ln1@mint-hp.chingola.ch>,
 Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 12:49:58 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> 
> > New Mac Pros.
> > 
> > Quad-Core 3.2 GHz Xeon processor, 6 GB, 1 TB drive:  $2499 12-core (two
> > 6-core Xeons) 2.4 GHz, 12 GB, 1 TB drive:  $3799 Server:  One 3.2 GHz
> > Quad Core, 8 GB, two 1 TB drives:  $2999
> > 
> > The Quad and 12 core models come with a SuperDrive, the Server model
> > doesn't, but of course comes with Lion Server.
> > 
> > There are BTO upgrades available as well.
> 
> Sorry, wgat's BTO?
> > 
>
    Upgrade to a  Bachman-Turner Overdrive (grin).

-- 
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative, 
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz 

In article <urdka9-bg9.ln1@mint-hp.chingola.ch>, Paul Sture
<paul.nospam@sture.ch> wrote:
> 
> I assume you meant "No new" there.  Any change on the Mini pricing though?

Pricing doesn't usually change until a new model is released, and even
then it's rarely anything more than allowing for currency exchange
changes.

Helpful Harry  :o)

On 12-06-12 1:05 AM, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
> On 12-06-11 2:49 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>> New Mac Pros.
>>
>> Quad-Core 3.2 GHz Xeon processor, 6 GB, 1 TB drive:  $2499
>> 12-core (two 6-core Xeons) 2.4 GHz, 12 GB, 1 TB drive:  $3799
>> Server:  One 3.2 GHz Quad Core, 8 GB, two 1 TB drives:  $2999
> 
> Sadly, this is not really "new".

 http://www.macworld.com/article/1167247/cook_apple_planning_professional_mac_for_2013.html

in which Tim Cook writes to a customer:

> Our Pro customers like you are really important to us. Although we
> didn�t have a chance to talk about a new Mac Pro at today�s event,
> don�t worry as we�re working on something really great for later next
> year.

Cheers,

-j


-- 
Jeffrey Goldberg          http://goldmark.org/jeff/
I rarely read HTML or poorly quoting posts
Reply-To address is valid

On 2012-06-12 16:25 , Kurt Ullman wrote:
> In article <urdka9-bg9.ln1@mint-hp.chingola.ch>,
>   Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 12:49:58 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>
>>> New Mac Pros.
>>>
>>> Quad-Core 3.2 GHz Xeon processor, 6 GB, 1 TB drive:  $2499 12-core (two
>>> 6-core Xeons) 2.4 GHz, 12 GB, 1 TB drive:  $3799 Server:  One 3.2 GHz
>>> Quad Core, 8 GB, two 1 TB drives:  $2999
>>>
>>> The Quad and 12 core models come with a SuperDrive, the Server model
>>> doesn't, but of course comes with Lion Server.
>>>
>>> There are BTO upgrades available as well.
>>
>> Sorry, wgat's BTO?
>>>
>>
>      Upgrade to a  Bachman-Turner Overdrive (grin).

Glad you took care of business on that one.

-- 
"Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities."
             -Samuel Clemens.

Question:

Apple bothered to update the "legacy" MacBook pros with new chips etc,
and also uveiled the wet-dream MacBook Pro/Air with retina display,
flash disk etc.


Sort of interesting to see the old models getting an upgrade.

Is apple going to test the market to see if stuff like ethernet ports
etc are important to "pro" customers ?

Is is this more of a case that the wet-dream MacBook Pro is going to be
in such short supply (due to retina display) that most people will still
b buying the legacy macbook pros ?

On 12-06-12 8:15 PM, JF Mezei wrote:

> Sort of interesting to see the old models getting an upgrade.
> 
> Is apple going to test the market to see if stuff like ethernet ports
> etc are important to "pro" customers ?
> 
> Is is this more of a case that the wet-dream MacBook Pro is going to be
> in such short supply (due to retina display) that most people will still
> b buying the legacy macbook pros ?

I think that there are plenty of people who simply don't want to pay for
a retina display on an MBP. It (along with the sleeker form) adds about
$400. It's only for the very high end MBP.

Cheers,

-j


-- 
Jeffrey Goldberg          http://goldmark.org/jeff/
I rarely read HTML or poorly quoting posts
Reply-To address is valid

In article 
<HelpfulHarry-1306120923480001@203-118-187-105.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
 HelpfulHarry@BusyWorking.com (Helpful Harry) wrote:

> > I assume you meant "No new" there.  Any change on the Mini pricing 
> > though?
> 
> Pricing doesn't usually change until a new model is released, and even 
> then it's rarely anything more than allowing for currency exchange 
> changes.

Here in the USA, the prices of MacBook Airs dropped $100.  The prices of 
the MacBook Pros, though, remained the same.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

In article <a3qgn1F9mgU1@mid.individual.net>, jeffrey+news@goldmark.org wrote:
> On 12-06-12 8:15 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
> > 
> > Sort of interesting to see the old models getting an upgrade.
> > 
> > Is apple going to test the market to see if stuff like ethernet ports
> > etc are important to "pro" customers ?
> > 
> > Is is this more of a case that the wet-dream MacBook Pro is going to be
> > in such short supply (due to retina display) that most people will still
> > b buying the legacy macbook pros ?
> 
> I think that there are plenty of people who simply don't want to pay for
> a retina display on an MBP. It (along with the sleeker form) adds about
> $400. It's only for the very high end MBP.

Yep. As the price of Retina displays drops, the other MacBook Pro and
MacBook Air models will get them too (possibly in the next update),
although the 11" and 13" models may have a reduced battery life.

Helpful Harry  :o)

Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article 
> <HelpfulHarry-1306120923480001@203-118-187-105.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
>  HelpfulHarry@BusyWorking.com (Helpful Harry) wrote:
> 
> > > I assume you meant "No new" there.  Any change on the Mini pricing
> > > though?
> > 
> > Pricing doesn't usually change until a new model is released, and even
> > then it's rarely anything more than allowing for currency exchange 
> > changes.
> 
> Here in the USA, the prices of MacBook Airs dropped $100.

They did? Ah - I didn't notice a price drop, because the cheapest model
hasn't had one. The entry level 11" MacBook Air was US$999 before, and
is still that price.

The higher spec 11" model and both standard configurations of the 13"
model have dropped by US$100. It costs the same to get in the front
door, but the incremental cost of getting a better model is reduced.

The standard configurations of 13" Air are now priced exactly the same
as the 13" Pro, rather than being US$100 more expensive.

In New Zealand, the 13" Air and Pro prices were previously the same.
With the new models, our prices have shifted as follows:

11" Air: same price for entry model, NZ$100 cheaper for high end.
13" Air: NZ$100 cheaper for both models
13" Pro: NZ$100 cheaper for both models
15" Pro: NZ$100 cheaper for entry model, NZ$300 cheaper for high end.

(That's the non-retina 15" Pro, of course.)

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

In article <a3qgn1F9mgU1@mid.individual.net>,
 Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:

> On 12-06-12 8:15 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
> 
> > Sort of interesting to see the old models getting an upgrade.
> > 
> > Is apple going to test the market to see if stuff like ethernet ports
> > etc are important to "pro" customers ?
> > 
> > Is is this more of a case that the wet-dream MacBook Pro is going to be
> > in such short supply (due to retina display) that most people will still
> > b buying the legacy macbook pros ?
> 
> I think that there are plenty of people who simply don't want to pay for
> a retina display on an MBP. It (along with the sleeker form) adds about
> $400. It's only for the very high end MBP.
> 

   That is my take for the next one I get. I don't really have any use 
for a Retina display since 99% of the stuff I do is either in Word since 
I write for a living or the browser. I just don't see the reason for the 
extra $400 the way I use it.

-- 
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative, 
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz 

In article <tbKdnQryBIaGZ0XSnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@earthlink.com>, Kurt Ullman
<kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <a3qgn1F9mgU1@mid.individual.net>,
>  Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:
> > On 12-06-12 8:15 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
> > 
> > > Sort of interesting to see the old models getting an upgrade.
> > > 
> > > Is apple going to test the market to see if stuff like ethernet ports
> > > etc are important to "pro" customers ?
> > > 
> > > Is is this more of a case that the wet-dream MacBook Pro is going to be
> > > in such short supply (due to retina display) that most people will still
> > > b buying the legacy macbook pros ?
> > 
> > I think that there are plenty of people who simply don't want to pay for
> > a retina display on an MBP. It (along with the sleeker form) adds about
> > $400. It's only for the very high end MBP.
> > 
> 
>    That is my take for the next one I get. I don't really have any use 
> for a Retina display since 99% of the stuff I do is either in Word since 
> I write for a living or the browser. I just don't see the reason for the 
> extra $400 the way I use it.

Just like on the iPad, a Retina display will make the text cleaner and
sharper, and easier to read ... assuming you're using a version of Word
that either uses Apple's text routines or has been re-written for Retina
dsiplays.

Helpful Harry  :o)

On 06-13-2012 17:34, Helpful Harry wrote:
> Just like on the iPad, a Retina display will make the text cleaner and
> sharper, and easier to read ... assuming you're using a version of Word
> that either uses Apple's text routines or has been re-written for Retina
> dsiplays.

And unless you're incredibly wealthy or have a visual impairment, that's 
not worth $400.

And Microsoft Word is not likely to be re-written for Retina displays.

-- 
Wes Groleau

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

On 2012-06-14 03:21:52 +0000, Wes Groleau said:

> And Microsoft Word is not likely to be re-written for Retina displays.

And why would anybody want to run Microsoft Word on a Mac when Apple's 
Pages is so much better?

-- 
James Leo Ryan - Austin, Texas

In article <jrblch$9sp$1@dont-email.me>, none.of@your.biz wrote:
> On 06-13-2012 17:34, Helpful Harry wrote:
> > 
> > Just like on the iPad, a Retina display will make the text cleaner and
> > sharper, and easier to read ... assuming you're using a version of Word
> > that either uses Apple's text routines or has been re-written for Retina
> > dsiplays.
> 
> And unless you're incredibly wealthy or have a visual impairment, that's 
> not worth $400.

It's a first generation computer, but eventually the price will come down.


> And Microsoft Word is not likely to be re-written for Retina displays.

Word, like every other major applications, will be updated for Retina
displays ... eventually, because all Macs will have them at some stage.


Helpful Harry  :o)

In article <a3t5j5F7meU1@mid.individual.net>, TaliesinSoft
<taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> > And Microsoft Word is not likely to be re-written for Retina displays.
> 
> And why would anybody want to run Microsoft Word on a Mac when Apple's 
> Pages is so much better?

because the rest of the world uses microsoft word and excel. if you
need to exchange files, you need the real thing.

On 2012-06-14 03:59:39 +0000, nospam said:

> In article <a3t5j5F7meU1@mid.individual.net>, TaliesinSoft
> <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
> 
>>> And Microsoft Word is not likely to be re-written for Retina displays.
>> 
>> And why would anybody want to run Microsoft Word on a Mac when Apple's
>> Pages is so much better?
> 
> because the rest of the world uses microsoft word and excel. if you
> need to exchange files, you need the real thing.

Apple's Pages includes the ability to read and write in Microsoft Word 
format. Thus it is easy to exchange documents with someone using Word.

-- 
James Leo Ryan - Austin, Texas

In article <a3t6ltFebbU1@mid.individual.net>, TaliesinSoft
<taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> >>> And Microsoft Word is not likely to be re-written for Retina displays.
> >> 
> >> And why would anybody want to run Microsoft Word on a Mac when Apple's
> >> Pages is so much better?
> > 
> > because the rest of the world uses microsoft word and excel. if you
> > need to exchange files, you need the real thing.
> 
> Apple's Pages includes the ability to read and write in Microsoft Word 
> format. Thus it is easy to exchange documents with someone using Word.

i take it you've never actually tried it.

it works for simple documents. it does not work for medium to complex
documents.

like i said, if you need to exchange files with the rest of the world,
you need the real thing.

On 2012-06-14 04:15:45 +0000, nospam said:

> In article <a3t6ltFebbU1@mid.individual.net>, TaliesinSoft
> <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
> 
>>>>> And Microsoft Word is not likely to be re-written for Retina displays.
>>>> 
>>>> And why would anybody want to run Microsoft Word on a Mac when Apple's
>>>> Pages is so much better?
>>> 
>>> because the rest of the world uses microsoft word and excel. if you
>>> need to exchange files, you need the real thing.
>> 
>> Apple's Pages includes the ability to read and write in Microsoft Word
>> format. Thus it is easy to exchange documents with someone using Word.
> 
> i take it you've never actually tried it.
> 
> it works for simple documents. it does not work for medium to complex
> documents.
> 
> like i said, if you need to exchange files with the rest of the world,
> you need the real thing.

I've never encountered a problem exchanging a Pages file with Microsoft 
Word. Admittedly I may not be using some of the more "exotic" features 
of Word. We have a member of our local Macintosh user group here in 
Austin that has a special interest group that focusses on Microsoft 
Office and he is willing to state that Pages is a far better 
application than Word.
-- 
James Leo Ryan - Austin, Texas

In article <a3t75eFhqcU1@mid.individual.net>, TaliesinSoft
<taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> >>>>> And Microsoft Word is not likely to be re-written for Retina displays.
> >>>> 
> >>>> And why would anybody want to run Microsoft Word on a Mac when Apple's
> >>>> Pages is so much better?
> >>> 
> >>> because the rest of the world uses microsoft word and excel. if you
> >>> need to exchange files, you need the real thing.
> >> 
> >> Apple's Pages includes the ability to read and write in Microsoft Word
> >> format. Thus it is easy to exchange documents with someone using Word.
> > 
> > i take it you've never actually tried it.
> > 
> > it works for simple documents. it does not work for medium to complex
> > documents.
> > 
> > like i said, if you need to exchange files with the rest of the world,
> > you need the real thing.
> 
> I've never encountered a problem exchanging a Pages file with Microsoft 
> Word. Admittedly I may not be using some of the more "exotic" features 
> of Word. 

i have. try stuff with tables, which is one of the areas where problems
usually occur, but not the only one.

> We have a member of our local Macintosh user group here in 
> Austin that has a special interest group that focusses on Microsoft 
> Office and he is willing to state that Pages is a far better 
> application than Word.

that's just one person's opinion. there are a whole lot more people who
will state that word is far more capable than pages.

pages is adequate for simple stuff, such as letters, brochures, etc.
it's not that great for lengthy documents, such as a thesis or a novel.

On 12-06-13 10:21 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:
> On 06-13-2012 17:34, Helpful Harry wrote:
>> Just like on the iPad, a Retina display will make the text cleaner and
>> sharper, and easier to read ... assuming you're using a version of Word
>> that either uses Apple's text routines or has been re-written for Retina
>> dsiplays.
> 
> And unless you're incredibly wealthy or have a visual impairment, that's
> not worth $400.

I agree. I do have a visual impairment, and found the retina display on
the new iPad fantastic. It, unlike the original iPad, works as an ebook
reader for me. I can read for extended amounts of time.

But the problem I had with reading on the original iPad is not something
I have with an non-retina MBP. So the retina display would really be
wasted on me.

Others, particularly visual designers, may need the new display. But
it's not something I would pay $400 for.

Cheers,

-j


-- 
Jeffrey Goldberg          http://goldmark.org/jeff/
I rarely read HTML or poorly quoting posts
Reply-To address is valid

On 12-06-13 11:12 PM, TaliesinSoft wrote:

>>> And why would anybody want to run Microsoft Word on a Mac when Apple's
>>> Pages is so much better?

Pages still doesn't do things like section numbering and cross
references. It is useless for academic articles. (Personally I use LaTeX
for such things, so it isn't a particular issue for me). I know some
academics who would very much like to move from Word to Pages, but there
is too much that Pages doesn't do.

It's actually becoming a problem for my daughter (now 13). As her school
papers are getting more involved, Pages isn't up to the job. Whether I
nudge her toward LaTeX or let her succumb to Word remains an open question.

> Apple's Pages includes the ability to read and write in Microsoft Word
> format. Thus it is easy to exchange documents with someone using Word.

This is not workable if you have multiple people contributing to the
same document. It may be work, in simple cases, for a one time
conversion (that requires a lot of manual fixes afterwards), but it
isn't useful for documents with multiple authors.

I hate Word as much as the next guy, but I also have to have Office on
my Macs. It's always my last choice for any project, but I'm frequently
out voted.

Cheers,

-j


-- 
Jeffrey Goldberg          http://goldmark.org/jeff/
I rarely read HTML or poorly quoting posts
Reply-To address is valid

On 2012-06-14 03:21:52 +0000, Wes Groleau said:

> On 06-13-2012 17:34, Helpful Harry wrote:
>> Just like on the iPad, a Retina display will make the text cleaner and
>> sharper, and easier to read ... assuming you're using a version of Word
>> that either uses Apple's text routines or has been re-written for Retina
>> dsiplays.
> 
> And unless you're incredibly wealthy or have a visual impairment, 
> that's not worth $400.
> 
> And Microsoft Word is not likely to be re-written for Retina displays.

Not right away, since Microsoft is generally pretty slow to update 
Office for Mac. (They still have not provided support for the new 
versioning features in Lion, for example, although they have promised 
they will.)

But it is possible that the text at least will look fine on Retina 
displays without a rewrite, and even if a rewrite is needed I'm sure it 
will come eventiually.

-- 
Scottintokyo

On 2012-06-14 03:54:13 +0000, TaliesinSoft said:

> On 2012-06-14 03:21:52 +0000, Wes Groleau said:
> 
>> And Microsoft Word is not likely to be re-written for Retina displays.
> 
> And why would anybody want to run Microsoft Word on a Mac when Apple's 
> Pages is so much better?

Some of us have to provide compatibility for benighted clients who have 
standardized on Microsoft Office. It's not as if we use Word (or Excel 
or PowerPoint) by choice.

-- 
Scottintokyo

On 2012-06-14 04:21:02 +0000, TaliesinSoft said:

> I've never encountered a problem exchanging a Pages file with Microsoft 
> Word. Admittedly I may not be using some of the more "exotic" features 
> of Word. We have a member of our local Macintosh user group here in 
> Austin that has a special interest group that focusses on Microsoft 
> Office and he is willing to state that Pages is a far better 
> application than Word.

Actually, even moderately complex tables seem to mess up the conversion 
process. If you are someone who has to work with World documents from a 
variety of sources on a day-to-day basis, you basically have to use 
Word. Fortunately, the compatibility between the PC and Mac versions 
really is excellent.

-- 
Scottintokyo

In article <a3t75eFhqcU1@mid.individual.net>, TaliesinSoft
<taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
> On 2012-06-14 04:15:45 +0000, nospam said:
> > In article <a3t6ltFebbU1@mid.individual.net>, TaliesinSoft
> > <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> And Microsoft Word is not likely to be re-written for Retina displays.
> >>>> 
> >>>> And why would anybody want to run Microsoft Word on a Mac when Apple's
> >>>> Pages is so much better?
> >>> 
> >>> because the rest of the world uses microsoft word and excel. if you
> >>> need to exchange files, you need the real thing.
> >> 
> >> Apple's Pages includes the ability to read and write in Microsoft Word
> >> format. Thus it is easy to exchange documents with someone using Word.
> > 
> > i take it you've never actually tried it.
> > 
> > it works for simple documents. it does not work for medium to complex
> > documents.
> > 
> > like i said, if you need to exchange files with the rest of the world,
> > you need the real thing.
> 
> I've never encountered a problem exchanging a Pages file with Microsoft 
> Word. Admittedly I may not be using some of the more "exotic" features 
> of Word. We have a member of our local Macintosh user group here in 
> Austin that has a special interest group that focusses on Microsoft 
> Office and he is willing to state that Pages is a far better 
> application than Word.

Pages may well be a "better" application (which is really just an
opinion), but the point was that Pages is not FULLY compatible with Word,
neither are any of the free / cheap Office clones. (Mac Word isn't
actually fully compatible with Windows Word either, but it's 95% and as
close as you can get).

Pages and Numbers are reasonably good for simple documents, but complex
documents do have issues. Keynote to PowerPoint is even worse unless you
stick to very simple presentations.

Helpful Harry  :o)

On 2012-06-14 04:39:58 +0000, nospam said:

> pages is adequate for simple stuff, such as letters, brochures, etc.
> it's not that great for lengthy documents, such as a thesis or a novel.

Admittedly I have no experience producing a thesis or novel but for 
several years I was the editor of the monthly newsletter for our 
Macintosh user group and produced a monthly publication, averaging 
about twenty pages per issue, originally producing it in InDesign and 
then switching to Pages. Each issue was rich in illustrations and in 
hyperliinks for such as next page, previous page, back to the beginning 
of a multipaage article, and back to the table of contents. In other 
words Pages was able to deal with a sophisticated document in terms of 
layout and hyperlinks. To be honest I never felt the need to consider 
Word given the capabilities of Pages.

-- 
James Leo Ryan - Austin, Texas

In article <a3t5j5F7meU1@mid.individual.net>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> On 2012-06-14 03:21:52 +0000, Wes Groleau said:
> 
> > And Microsoft Word is not likely to be re-written for Retina displays.
> 
> And why would anybody want to run Microsoft Word on a Mac when Apple's 
> Pages is so much better?

Largely because (at least in my case) Clients insist on it...

-- 
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative, 
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz 

In article <a3t6ltFebbU1@mid.individual.net>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> On 2012-06-14 03:59:39 +0000, nospam said:
> 
> > In article <a3t5j5F7meU1@mid.individual.net>, TaliesinSoft
> > <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
> > 
> >>> And Microsoft Word is not likely to be re-written for Retina displays.
> >> 
> >> And why would anybody want to run Microsoft Word on a Mac when Apple's
> >> Pages is so much better?
> > 
> > because the rest of the world uses microsoft word and excel. if you
> > need to exchange files, you need the real thing.
> 
> Apple's Pages includes the ability to read and write in Microsoft Word 
> format. Thus it is easy to exchange documents with someone using Word.

I have a couple of clients that insist THEIR machines don't accept other 
than MW files. Whether or not that is real is beside the point since 
they demand Word files and they write the checks.

-- 
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative, 
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz 

Scottintokyo <scott@tokyo.jp> writes:

> Not right away, since Microsoft is generally pretty slow to update 
> Office for Mac. (They still have not provided support for the new 
> versioning features in Lion, for example, although they have promised 
> they will.)
> 
> But it is possible that the text at least will look fine on Retina 
> displays without a rewrite, and even if a rewrite is needed I'm sure it 
> will come eventiually.

I don'trecall the details, but I have heard OS X will now accomodate
differences in display resolution (number of pixels vs what you see)
such that this should not be a problem.

Billy Y..
-- 
        sub     #'9+1   ,r0             ; convert ascii byte
	add     #9.+1   ,r0             ; to an integer
	bcc     20$                     ; not a number

http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-macbook-retina-unrepearable-20120613,0,4428807.story

Apple CEO Tim Cook emails customer, promises 2013 Mac pro update

By Salvador Rodriguez
June 12, 2012, 6:15 p.m.

Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook emailed one of his customers Monday and
promised that the tech giant has big things planned for its Mac Pro line of
computers in 2013.

The email from Cook followed the Worldwide Developers Conference keynote in
which Apple neglected to mention the Mac Pro line despite labeling it with a
"NEW" tag on its website and giving it a minor update that included improved
processors.

To appease concerned Mac Pro loyalists who yearn to see their computer given
a significant update after waiting since 2010, Cook said in the email that
Apple's Mac Pro customers are very important to the company and will be
taken care of next year.

"Although we didn't have a chance to talk about a new Mac Pro at today's
event, don't worry as we're working on something really great for later next
year," the Apple CEO said in an email that was confirmed authentic by
Apple's public relations team to Macworld. 

http://www.macworld.com/article/1167247/cook_apple_planning_professional_mac_for_2013.html

The email was reposted in a Facebook group called "We Want a New Mac Pro"
that launched last month and has more than 18,000 "likes."

https://www.facebook.com/MacProsPlease

[...]
-- 
        sub     #'9+1   ,r0             ; convert ascii byte
	add     #9.+1   ,r0             ; to an integer
	bcc     20$                     ; not a number

On 12-06-14 7:18 AM, TaliesinSoft wrote:
> On 2012-06-14 04:39:58 +0000, nospam said:
> 
>> pages is adequate for simple stuff, such as letters, brochures, etc.
>> it's not that great for lengthy documents, such as a thesis or a novel.
> 
> Admittedly I have no experience producing a thesis or novel but for
> several years I was the editor of the monthly newsletter

For a newsletter, Pages is clearly the best option. I used it for a
couple of years when I did the local PTA newsletter.

Cheers,

-j


-- 
Jeffrey Goldberg          http://goldmark.org/jeff/
I rarely read HTML or poorly quoting posts
Reply-To address is valid

In article <a3up03F4s6U1@mid.individual.net>, jeffrey+news@goldmark.org wrote:
> On 12-06-14 7:18 AM, TaliesinSoft wrote:
> > On 2012-06-14 04:39:58 +0000, nospam said:
> > 
> >> pages is adequate for simple stuff, such as letters, brochures, etc.
> >> it's not that great for lengthy documents, such as a thesis or a novel.
> > 
> > Admittedly I have no experience producing a thesis or novel but for
> > several years I was the editor of the monthly newsletter
> 
> For a newsletter, Pages is clearly the best option. I used it for a
> couple of years when I did the local PTA newsletter.

Pages has been designed to be a page layout tool.

Word was designed to be a word processor (despite having "layout" tools
shovelled on top).

Which application you use is largely personal opinion, except when ...

   - doing long documents - Word has features that are useful and
     not currently available in Pages (thesis, etc.).

   - you need to be FULLY compatible with Word, then you must
     use Word.

   - transferring complex documents that need to stil be editable
     (either Word oens or Pages ones), then you need the correct
     application - the conversion process will fail.

The same applies to Excel / Numbers and Powerpoint / Keynote.

Helpful Harry  :o)

In article <puednbJzhvK6v0fSnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Kurt Ullman
<kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <a3t6ltFebbU1@mid.individual.net>,
>  TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
> > On 2012-06-14 03:59:39 +0000, nospam said:
> > 
> > > In article <a3t5j5F7meU1@mid.individual.net>, TaliesinSoft
> > > <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > >>> And Microsoft Word is not likely to be re-written for Retina displays.
> > >> 
> > >> And why would anybody want to run Microsoft Word on a Mac when Apple's
> > >> Pages is so much better?
> > > 
> > > because the rest of the world uses microsoft word and excel. if you
> > > need to exchange files, you need the real thing.
> > 
> > Apple's Pages includes the ability to read and write in Microsoft Word 
> > format. Thus it is easy to exchange documents with someone using Word.
> 
> I have a couple of clients that insist THEIR machines don't accept other 
> than MW files. Whether or not that is real is beside the point since 
> they demand Word files and they write the checks.

Pages will convert to and from Word documents, but unless they're very
simple documents you're wasting your time using Pages - you'll only have
to reformat the converted document in Word anyway.

Helpful Harry  :o)

In article <jrd7pm$mhf$1@reader1.panix.com>, billy@MIX.COM wrote:
> Scottintokyo <scott@tokyo.jp> writes:
> > 
> > Not right away, since Microsoft is generally pretty slow to update 
> > Office for Mac. (They still have not provided support for the new 
> > versioning features in Lion, for example, although they have promised 
> > they will.)
> > 
> > But it is possible that the text at least will look fine on Retina 
> > displays without a rewrite, and even if a rewrite is needed I'm sure it 
> > will come eventiually.
> 
> I don'trecall the details, but I have heard OS X will now accomodate
> differences in display resolution (number of pixels vs what you see)
> such that this should not be a problem.

The Mac OS does handle running non-Retina applications on Retina displays,
but to work properly with Retina displays applications need to be
re-written or at least have their graphical elements redrawn (e.g. button
images).

Some applications have already been re-written for the new MacBook Pro and
Apple is working with the big companies.

<http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/14/developers-begin-to-update-apps-with-retina-support/>

There's also an image on that webpage showing the difference between a
Retina and non-Retina version of Google's Chrome web browser.

Helpful Harry  :o)

In article <a3u353Ft17U1@mid.individual.net>, TaliesinSoft
<taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
> On 2012-06-14 04:39:58 +0000, nospam said:
> >
> > pages is adequate for simple stuff, such as letters, brochures, etc.
> > it's not that great for lengthy documents, such as a thesis or a novel.
> 
> Admittedly I have no experience producing a thesis or novel but for 
> several years I was the editor of the monthly newsletter for our 
> Macintosh user group and produced a monthly publication, averaging 
> about twenty pages per issue, originally producing it in InDesign and 
> then switching to Pages. Each issue was rich in illustrations and in 
> hyperliinks for such as next page, previous page, back to the beginning 
> of a multipaage article, and back to the table of contents. In other 
> words Pages was able to deal with a sophisticated document in terms of 
> layout and hyperlinks. To be honest I never felt the need to consider 
> Word given the capabilities of Pages.

Word or Pages is fine for in-house or high street photocopy-printing (if
the high street copy centre doesn't have Pages, you can export to PDF
instead), but for real press-style printing you have to use InDesign or
Quark Xpress and know what you're doing in terms of things like CMYK,
high-res images, etc. (Some of the free / shareware page layout
applications may also work, but I haven't looked at them recently to see
how well they handle CMYK these days.)

It wasn't that long ago that proper print companies refused to accept Word
(or Publisher) documents, and many still won't. Those that do accept them
have to do a lot of extra work converting the fiels to print-ready
formats, which of course you end up paying for.

Helpful Harry  :o)

In article
<HelpfulHarry-1506120908300001@203-118-187-202.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
Helpful Harry <HelpfulHarry@BusyWorking.com> wrote:

> > >> pages is adequate for simple stuff, such as letters, brochures, etc.
> > >> it's not that great for lengthy documents, such as a thesis or a novel.
> > > 
> > > Admittedly I have no experience producing a thesis or novel but for
> > > several years I was the editor of the monthly newsletter
> > 
> > For a newsletter, Pages is clearly the best option. I used it for a
> > couple of years when I did the local PTA newsletter.
> 
> Pages has been designed to be a page layout tool.
> 
> Word was designed to be a word processor (despite having "layout" tools
> shovelled on top).
> 
> Which application you use is largely personal opinion, except when ...
> 
>    - doing long documents - Word has features that are useful and
>      not currently available in Pages (thesis, etc.).
> 
>    - you need to be FULLY compatible with Word, then you must
>      use Word.
> 
>    - transferring complex documents that need to stil be editable
>      (either Word oens or Pages ones), then you need the correct
>      application - the conversion process will fail.

exactly.

On 2012-06-14 03:21:52 +0000, Wes Groleau said:

> On 06-13-2012 17:34, Helpful Harry wrote:
>> Just like on the iPad, a Retina display will make the text cleaner and
>> sharper, and easier to read ... assuming you're using a version of Word
>> that either uses Apple's text routines or has been re-written for Retina
>> dsiplays.
> 
> And unless you're incredibly wealthy or have a visual impairment, 
> that's not worth $400.

That may not be true.  If you're staring at and reading on a screen all 
day long, if it's more comfortable and produces less eyestrain, even 
avoids one headache over that time period, it may be well worth it.

I don't know about you, but I'm staring at computer screens much of the 
day, almost every day.  $400 spread out over the life of such a device 
- if you use it all the time like I use mine - works out to be pretty 
cheap.  Suppose worst-case scenario: 3 years (max of applecare - though 
I get more like 5-6 years out of most machines) and let's say not even 
every day but make it 5 days/week for only 45 wks/yr.  That's 60 
cents/day.  If you're more like me, getting, say, 5 years and more like 
330 days/yr usage, that's less than a quarter per day.

The things you use all the time, every day - those are the things which 
are most likely to be worth paying up a little bit for if they actually 
improve your life.

Comparing the screens on an iPad2 to an iPad3, or an iPhone3GS to my 
iPhone4, I'd say that since I spend a hell of a lot more time staring 
at a mac, it'd be worth it.  There are *other* tradeoffs about the new 
Retina mac which I don't much like.  And it may well be the case that 
the retina display on the iPad would make a bigger difference because 
I'm more likely to spend hours just reading on it rather than moving 
around and doing all sorts of work.

But $400 for something which has the potential to improve your comfort 
for hours a day for several years?  Sounds pretty cheap to me.
> 
> And Microsoft Word is not likely to be re-written for Retina displays.

Will it have to be in order to take advantage of the new high-res 
fonts?  I haven't seen one of these things in person, but I'm looking 
forward to it.  The difference between the iPhone3 and iPhone4 was 
shocking.  The difference between the iPad2 and iPad3 was almost as 
shocking.  I'm very eager to see how the new mac looks.  Maybe it isn't 
as significant as those other two.

And it certainly does seem likely that MS will update Word as 
necessary.  Why wouldn't they?

(staying out of the whole, silly, "why would you use word?" discussion. 
 I use Pages and Numbers and Word and Excel.  I very much prefer Pages 
and Numbers when they are sufficient - which is like 95% of the time 
for me.  But they just don't do everything that the MS programs do and 
some people really need the additional features.  Criticising that is 
just goofy.)

On 2012-06-14 05:34:54 +0000, Scottintokyo said:

> 
> Not right away, since Microsoft is generally pretty slow to update 
> Office for Mac. (They still have not provided support for the new 
> versioning features in Lion, for example, although they have promised 
> they will.)

I asked this elsewhere and got no response:

Is there *any* apps anywhere other than Pages and Numbers which use 
Apple's Versions features?

I have yet to encounter one.

> But it is possible that the text at least will look fine on Retina 
> displays without a rewrite, and even if a rewrite is needed I'm sure it 
> will come eventiually.

Seems likely that text rendering - which is already handled by the OS 
generally anyway - should benefit immediately from the retina display.  
All the graphical elements - buttons, icons, etc - may need to be 
redone, but - and this is without yet having seen such a machine in 
person - it seems to me that most apps will benefit immediately from 
the retina display at least in text rendering.

Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> wrote:

> On 2012-06-14 05:34:54 +0000, Scottintokyo said:
> 
> > 
> > Not right away, since Microsoft is generally pretty slow to update 
> > Office for Mac. (They still have not provided support for the new 
> > versioning features in Lion, for example, although they have promised
> > they will.)
> 
> I asked this elsewhere and got no response:
> 
> Is there *any* apps anywhere other than Pages and Numbers which use 
> Apple's Versions features?

Keynote, TextEdit and Preview. You actually asked about non-Apple apps,
not just those two.

> I have yet to encounter one.

So far I've encountered:

Pixelmator (2.0.5, didn't check earlier versions).

GraphicConverter (at least as of version 8, not sure when it started).
It has a preference for whether to use Auto Save & Versions, which
appears to be off by default (that might be because it inherited my
preferences from a much older version). If you change the preference,
GraphicConverter has to relaunch before it takes effect.

> > But it is possible that the text at least will look fine on Retina 
> > displays without a rewrite, and even if a rewrite is needed I'm sure it
> > will come eventiually.
> 
> Seems likely that text rendering - which is already handled by the OS
> generally anyway - should benefit immediately from the retina display.

As long as the application uses up-to-date APIs for text display. Chrome
has its own rendering engine, which needs changes to support retina text
display (already in the prerelease version). Not sure about Office, but
it wouldn't surprise me if only Cocoa apps automatically benefit from
retina text display, not Carbon apps.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

In article <jrdseh$nkr$1@reader1.panix.com>,
 Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> wrote:

> I asked this elsewhere and got no response:
> 
> Is there *any* apps anywhere other than Pages and Numbers which use 
> Apple's Versions features?
> 
> I have yet to encounter one.

Taco HTML Edit 3.0  <http://tacosw.com/>.

When you look at the iPhone4, how did IOS do it ?

Wasn't it smart enough to make the screen appear to be normal size to
applications, but render the text using the sharp retina resultion
without apps knowing it ?

Apps that are update to use retina would them flick a software switch
and get access to the retina resolution for their graphics too and draw
the bgger objects (at software level) so they appear normal size to the
user.

In article <jrdseh$nkr$1@reader1.panix.com>, Bread
<BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> wrote:
> On 2012-06-14 05:34:54 +0000, Scottintokyo said:
> > 
> > Not right away, since Microsoft is generally pretty slow to update 
> > Office for Mac. (They still have not provided support for the new 
> > versioning features in Lion, for example, although they have promised 
> > they will.)
> 
> I asked this elsewhere and got no response:
> 
> Is there *any* apps anywhere other than Pages and Numbers which use 
> Apple's Versions features?
> 
> I have yet to encounter one.

The Retina display MacBook Pro was only released a couple of days ago.
Give developers a chance.

The small developers probably didn't get any / much notice. The big
developers have a lot more work to do and a more-or-less "schedule" of
releases - their next updates will likely include the Retina changes.

Helpful Harry  :o)

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> When you look at the iPhone4, how did IOS do it ?
> 
> Wasn't it smart enough to make the screen appear to be normal size to
> applications, but render the text using the sharp retina resultion
> without apps knowing it ?

Yes. Almost all apps on the iPhone are using standard text rendering
APIs, and the standard APIs were updated to automatically render text at
the higher resolution.

Some apps aren't using those APIs, and these are quite noticeable on an
iPhone or iPad with retina display (until the app's own rendering engine
was updated). Anything not updated to support the retina display gets
pixel doubled, so objects are the same physical size.

The Mac has a wider range of APIs including lots of legacy ones, and I
don't know offhand which APIs have been updated to support automatic
rendering of text at HiDPI. I'd expect Cocoa applications using Cocoa
text rendering mechanisms to work automatically. Older carbon APIs might
not, and applications using their own rendering engine will need to
update it.

> Apps that are update to use retina would them flick a software switch
> and get access to the retina resolution for their graphics too and draw
> the bgger objects (at software level) so they appear normal size to the
> user.

Apps using the modern APIs don't need to be updated at all to get retina
text, but the graphical elements of their UI will be pixel doubled
(including any text embedded in graphics rather than being drawn through
text APIs). 

The developer needs to create graphical objects with double resolution
to supply in an updated version of the app, and Cocoa will automatically
pick the appropraite one. If code is used to render graphics, that code
needs to be updated.

There is more to it than "flicking a software switch".

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

In article
<HelpfulHarry-1506121333460001@203-118-187-24.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
HelpfulHarry@BusyWorking.com (Helpful Harry) wrote:
> In article <jrdseh$nkr$1@reader1.panix.com>, Bread
> <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> wrote:
> > On 2012-06-14 05:34:54 +0000, Scottintokyo said:
> > > 
> > > Not right away, since Microsoft is generally pretty slow to update 
> > > Office for Mac. (They still have not provided support for the new 
> > > versioning features in Lion, for example, although they have promised 
> > > they will.)
> > 
> > I asked this elsewhere and got no response:
> > 
> > Is there *any* apps anywhere other than Pages and Numbers which use 
> > Apple's Versions features?
> > 
> > I have yet to encounter one.
> 
> The Retina display MacBook Pro was only released a couple of days ago.
> Give developers a chance.
> 
> The small developers probably didn't get any / much notice. The big
> developers have a lot more work to do and a more-or-less "schedule" of
> releases - their next updates will likely include the Retina changes.

D'oh!! You're talking about the "older" Versions feature - I was replying
to Retina messages and must have skipped ahead without realising. Sorry.

Helpful Harry  :o)

On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 13:40:55 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:

> I have a couple of clients that insist THEIR machines don't accept other
> than MW files. Whether or not that is real is beside the point since
> they demand Word files and they write the checks.

I have come across many job adverts in the past which insist on you 
submitting you CV in Word format.

This is the real "Microsoft tax".

On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:28:54 -0700, Bread wrote:

> But $400 for something which has the potential to improve your comfort
> for hours a day for several years?  Sounds pretty cheap to me.

Seconded.  I once spent a year working too close to a pretty awful dumb 
terminal and my eyes got "lazy" so I needed to get glasses.

On 2012-06-15 00:25:51 +0000, David Empson said:

> Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> wrote:
>> Is there *any* apps anywhere other than Pages and Numbers which use
>> Apple's Versions features?
> 
> Pixelmator (2.0.5, didn't check earlier versions).
> 
> GraphicConverter (at least as of version 8, not sure when it started).
> It has a preference for whether to use Auto Save & Versions, which
> appears to be off by default (that might be because it inherited my
> preferences from a much older version). If you change the preference,
> GraphicConverter has to relaunch before it takes effect.

Not terribly surprised that the author of GC has gone and done what I 
consider to be exactly the right thing -- offer us the choice.  I 
haven't used the app in years, but I used to use it exclusively for my 
photos and it's always been a great program.

>> Seems likely that text rendering - which is already handled by the OS
>> generally anyway - should benefit immediately from the retina display.
> 
> As long as the application uses up-to-date APIs for text display. Chrome
> has its own rendering engine, which needs changes to support retina text
> display (already in the prerelease version). Not sure about Office, but
> it wouldn't surprise me if only Cocoa apps automatically benefit from
> retina text display, not Carbon apps.

Thanks, David.  Make sense.

In article 
<HelpfulHarry-1406121827230001@203-118-187-40.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
 HelpfulHarry@BusyWorking.com (Helpful Harry) wrote:

> 
> Pages may well be a "better" application (which is really just an
> opinion), but the point was that Pages is not FULLY compatible with Word,
> neither are any of the free / cheap Office clones. (Mac Word isn't
> actually fully compatible with Windows Word either, but it's 95% and as
> close as you can get).

I agree --- sort of.  A few years ago we were doing a departmental 
review which I was in charge of.  I was using Word 2008 (mac) and 6 of 
my seven colleagues were giving me their sub-documents in Word 2007 
(win).  The other colleague was using Open Office (linux I think) and 
his parts were the most compatible to my document.

But, at the end, I finally just used Word 2007 under Fusion with Win 7 
to get complete compatibility.

dick

On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 8:21:52 PM UTC-7, Wes Groleau wrote:
> On 06-13-2012 17:34, Helpful Harry wrote:
>=20
> And unless you're incredibly wealthy or have a visual impairment, that's=
=20
> not worth $400.

Quite the opposite, actually.  Unless you have excellent near vision, you w=
on't see the difference!  Without reading glasses, which I don't have to us=
e for normal computer work at 12-24", I couldn't see any difference!  And t=
he effective, usable resolution for most work with be 1440x900.  So, more m=
oney for fewer usable pixels than my old 15" MBP (1680x1050) with a screen,=
 that's less of a mirror than the idiotic screens on most of their computer=
s, but still not as good as the matte option on the old model.

In message <m8bra9-gms.ln1@mint-hp.chingola.ch> 
  Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 13:40:55 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:

>> I have a couple of clients that insist THEIR machines don't accept other
>> than MW files. Whether or not that is real is beside the point since
>> they demand Word files and they write the checks.

> I have come across many job adverts in the past which insist on you 
> submitting you CV in Word format.

RTF is a "Word" format.

-- 
Tina... homecoming is spelled c *O* m
Quis custodiet opsos custodes

On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 07:14:49 +0000, Lewis wrote:

> In message <m8bra9-gms.ln1@mint-hp.chingola.ch>
>   Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 13:40:55 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:
> 
>>> I have a couple of clients that insist THEIR machines don't accept
>>> other than MW files. Whether or not that is real is beside the point
>>> since they demand Word files and they write the checks.
> 
>> I have come across many job adverts in the past which insist on you
>> submitting you CV in Word format.
> 
> RTF is a "Word" format.

I tried that and got bollocked for it.  IIRC the default app for RTF on 
Windows systems is WordPad.

In article <slrnjtocj9.1vaf.g.kreme@krismbp.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <m8bra9-gms.ln1@mint-hp.chingola.ch> 
>   Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 13:40:55 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:
> 
> >> I have a couple of clients that insist THEIR machines don't accept other
> >> than MW files. Whether or not that is real is beside the point since
> >> they demand Word files and they write the checks.
> 
> > I have come across many job adverts in the past which insist on you 
> > submitting you CV in Word format.
> 
> RTF is a "Word" format.

As always with Microsoft, RTF from Word is definitely a specific Word
format with all sorts of extra non-standard rubbish included. RTF from
most other applications is a proper standard RTF format.

Helpful Harry  :o)

In message <HelpfulHarry-1706121025240001@203-118-187-92.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz> 
  Helpful Harry <HelpfulHarry@BusyWorking.com> wrote:
> In article <slrnjtocj9.1vaf.g.kreme@krismbp.local>, Lewis
> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>> In message <m8bra9-gms.ln1@mint-hp.chingola.ch> 
>>   Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 13:40:55 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:
>> 
>> >> I have a couple of clients that insist THEIR machines don't accept other
>> >> than MW files. Whether or not that is real is beside the point since
>> >> they demand Word files and they write the checks.
>> 
>> > I have come across many job adverts in the past which insist on you 
>> > submitting you CV in Word format.
>> 
>> RTF is a "Word" format.

> As always with Microsoft, RTF from Word is definitely a specific Word
> format with all sorts of extra non-standard rubbish included. RTF from
> most other applications is a proper standard RTF format.

The point is, you send someone an RTF, they 'see' a MS WOrd document.

-- 
"I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved
of it." - Mark Twain
If you think that Mick Jagger will still be doing the whole rock star
thing at age fifty, well, then, you are sorely, sorely mistaken.

In article <slrnjtq9s9.2u43.g.kreme@krismbp.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <HelpfulHarry-1706121025240001@203-118-187-92.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz> 
>   Helpful Harry <HelpfulHarry@BusyWorking.com> wrote:
> > In article <slrnjtocj9.1vaf.g.kreme@krismbp.local>, Lewis
> > <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> 
> >> In message <m8bra9-gms.ln1@mint-hp.chingola.ch> 
> >>   Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 13:40:55 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:
> >> 
> >> >> I have a couple of clients that insist THEIR machines don't accept other
> >> >> than MW files. Whether or not that is real is beside the point since
> >> >> they demand Word files and they write the checks.
> >> 
> >> > I have come across many job adverts in the past which insist on you 
> >> > submitting you CV in Word format.
> >> 
> >> RTF is a "Word" format.
> > 
> > As always with Microsoft, RTF from Word is definitely a specific Word
> > format with all sorts of extra non-standard rubbish included. RTF from
> > most other applications is a proper standard RTF format.
> 
> The point is, you send someone an RTF, they 'see' a MS Word document.

That depends on the default application for opening RTF documents on their
computer, which in some cases will baulk at a non-standard supposed-RTF
created by Word. On my computer they open in TextEdit, and someone else
suggested that on Windows they open in NotePad.

Helpful Harry  :o)

On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 13:57:26 +1200, Helpful Harry wrote:

> In article <slrnjtq9s9.2u43.g.kreme@krismbp.local>, Lewis
> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> 
>> The point is, you send someone an RTF, they 'see' a MS Word document.

I managed to avoid Windows for quite few years, but my recollection is 
that while Word can certainly read RTF files, the default application 
used when you double clicked on them was Wordpad.

> That depends on the default application for opening RTF documents on
> their computer, which in some cases will baulk at a non-standard
> supposed-RTF created by Word. On my computer they open in TextEdit, and
> someone else suggested that on Windows they open in NotePad.

Wordpad, not notepad.

In message <itv0b9-0e1.ln1@mint-hp.chingola.ch> 
  Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 13:57:26 +1200, Helpful Harry wrote:

>> In article <slrnjtq9s9.2u43.g.kreme@krismbp.local>, Lewis
>> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>> 
>>> The point is, you send someone an RTF, they 'see' a MS Word document.

> I managed to avoid Windows for quite few years, but my recollection is 
> that while Word can certainly read RTF files, the default application 
> used when you double clicked on them was Wordpad.

Only if Word is not installed.

-- 
THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE DOES NOT END WITH HAIL SATAN Bart chalkboard
Ep. 1F16
Clarke's Law: Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
magic

On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 20:30:09 +0000, Lewis wrote:

> In message <itv0b9-0e1.ln1@mint-hp.chingola.ch>
>   Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 13:57:26 +1200, Helpful Harry wrote:
> 
>>> In article <slrnjtq9s9.2u43.g.kreme@krismbp.local>, Lewis
>>> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> The point is, you send someone an RTF, they 'see' a MS Word document.
> 
>> I managed to avoid Windows for quite few years, but my recollection is
>> that while Word can certainly read RTF files, the default application
>> used when you double clicked on them was Wordpad.
> 
> Only if Word is not installed.

Then why did I get told off for supplying an RTF document?

(I suspect the guy was using rather ancient versions of both Windows and 
Office.)