I have an iMac running Lion and a MacBook Pro running Snow Leopard. 
What a difference! I've grown so accustomed to the Lion interface, 
especially scrolling, that I have difficulty with scrolling under Snow 
Leopard. Like many things there was the time of adaptation but, at 
least to me, Lion's interface is far superior to Snow Leopard's. Others 
might feel different.

-- 
James Leo Ryan - Austin, Texas

TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> writes:

> I have an iMac running Lion and a MacBook Pro running Snow
> Leopard. What a difference! I've grown so accustomed to the Lion
> interface, especially scrolling, that I have difficulty with scrolling
> under Snow Leopard. Like many things there was the time of adaptation
> but, at least to me, Lion's interface is far superior to Snow
> Leopard's. Others might feel different.

There are third party utilities that allow you to reset scrolling
on Snow Leopard so it matches the default behavior on Lion.  I ended
up installing one of them on my Snow Leopard machine and have been
happy with it, but the machine isn't in front of me, and so I don't
know what I installed.  Possibly "scroll-reverser".

In article <a4uck0Fml3U1@mid.individual.net>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> I have an iMac running Lion and a MacBook Pro running Snow Leopard. 
> What a difference! I've grown so accustomed to the Lion interface, 
> especially scrolling, that I have difficulty with scrolling under Snow 
> Leopard. Like many things there was the time of adaptation but, at 
> least to me, Lion's interface is far superior to Snow Leopard's. Others 
> might feel different.

Agree. Lion also makes iCloud a breeze; though I hear Apple's got iCloud 
support in the pipeline for 10.6.

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

In article <a4uck0Fml3U1@mid.individual.net>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> I have an iMac running Lion and a MacBook Pro running Snow Leopard. 
> What a difference! I've grown so accustomed to the Lion interface, 
> especially scrolling, that I have difficulty with scrolling under Snow 
> Leopard. Like many things there was the time of adaptation but, at 
> least to me, Lion's interface is far superior to Snow Leopard's. Others 
> might feel different.

A couple of third-party add-ons I had don't work under Lion, but I knew 
that and ditched them before making the switch, coming up with new ways 
to do the old things. I don't regret upgrading a bit. 

The new OSX is due out any day now, isn't it?

-- 

"If you can, tell me something happy."
- Marybones

In article <jollyroger-DE23BA.12104926062012@news.individual.net>,
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> > I have an iMac running Lion and a MacBook Pro running Snow Leopard. 
> > What a difference! I've grown so accustomed to the Lion interface, 
> > especially scrolling, that I have difficulty with scrolling under Snow 
> > Leopard. Like many things there was the time of adaptation but, at 
> > least to me, Lion's interface is far superior to Snow Leopard's. Others 
> > might feel different.
> 
> Agree. Lion also makes iCloud a breeze; though I hear Apple's got iCloud 
> support in the pipeline for 10.6.

why would they do that, especially with mountain lion weeks away from
release? if they were going to update 10.6 for icloud, they'd have done
it already. they're certainly not going to bother now when it's about
to be 2 versions old.

In article <a4uck0Fml3U1@mid.individual.net>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> I have an iMac running Lion and a MacBook Pro running Snow Leopard. 
> What a difference! I've grown so accustomed to the Lion interface, 
> especially scrolling, that I have difficulty with scrolling under Snow 
> Leopard. Like many things there was the time of adaptation but, at 
> least to me, Lion's interface is far superior to Snow Leopard's. Others 
> might feel different.

There is a 3rd party utility "Scroll Reverser" 
<http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/37872/scroll-reverser> which makes the 
SL scroll function the same as Lion.

I use it on my SL virtual machine to reduce confusion when switching 
to/from Lion.

-- 
PRAY, v.  To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf
of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy. -- Ambrose Bierce

On 2012-06-26 18:47:21 +0000, Doug Anderson said:

> There are third party utilities that allow you to reset scrolling
> on Snow Leopard so it matches the default behavior on Lion.  I ended
> up installing one of them on my Snow Leopard machine and have been
> happy with it, but the machine isn't in front of me, and so I don't
> know what I installed.  Possibly "scroll-reverser".

Scroll Reverser did the job!

The MacBook Pro I have is the first Intel version and unfortunately 
won't run Lion. Because of that I purchased an iMac to be my main 
computer and set my MacBook Pro aside and it remained unused until 
recently when I decided it was perfect for giving Keynote presentations 
and slide shows with the MacBook Pro connected to a projector. That's 
when, after having become totally used to the scrolling conventions of 
Lion that I found it frustrating to have the scrolling reversed in the 
MacBook Pro.

-- 
James Leo Ryan - Austin, Texas

In message <260620121643277841%nospam@nospam.invalid> 
  nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <jollyroger-DE23BA.12104926062012@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

>> > I have an iMac running Lion and a MacBook Pro running Snow Leopard. 
>> > What a difference! I've grown so accustomed to the Lion interface, 
>> > especially scrolling, that I have difficulty with scrolling under Snow 
>> > Leopard. Like many things there was the time of adaptation but, at 
>> > least to me, Lion's interface is far superior to Snow Leopard's. Others 
>> > might feel different.
>> 
>> Agree. Lion also makes iCloud a breeze; though I hear Apple's got iCloud 
>> support in the pipeline for 10.6.

> why would they do that, especially with mountain lion weeks away from
> release? if they were going to update 10.6 for icloud, they'd have done
> it already. they're certainly not going to bother now when it's about
> to be 2 versions old.

Oh, they might do it a few weeks after MobileMe dies, but first they
want to move as many people as they can to Lion. Heck, they will *GIVE*
you Snow Leopard for free right now so that you can update to Lion.

Once they have every possible person on Lion that they can get, THEN
they will release 10.6.9 (it is 9?) with iCloud support to get all those
people who really could not move to Lion onto iCloud.

"We heard you concerns and have decided to integrate iCould support into
Snow Leopard."

-- 
I want to die in my sleep like my grandfather did, not screaming in
terror like his passengers.

In message <copespaz-F34A84.15290726062012@news.eternal-september.org> 
  MC <copespaz@mapca.inter.net> wrote:
> In article <a4uck0Fml3U1@mid.individual.net>,
>  TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

>> I have an iMac running Lion and a MacBook Pro running Snow Leopard. 
>> What a difference! I've grown so accustomed to the Lion interface, 
>> especially scrolling, that I have difficulty with scrolling under Snow 
>> Leopard. Like many things there was the time of adaptation but, at 
>> least to me, Lion's interface is far superior to Snow Leopard's. Others 
>> might feel different.

> A couple of third-party add-ons I had don't work under Lion, but I knew 
> that and ditched them before making the switch, coming up with new ways 
> to do the old things. I don't regret upgrading a bit. 

> The new OSX is due out any day now, isn't it?

July 1st to 31st. My guess is between the 6th and 15th, unless there's a
problem in the latest builds.


-- 
'How come you know all that stuff?' 'I ain't just a pretty face.' 'You
aren't even a pretty face, Gaspode.' 

In article <slrnjukfp3.cgl.g.kreme@krismbp.local>,
 Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> Heck, they will *GIVE* you Snow Leopard for free right now so that you 
> can update to Lion.

How can you get it for free?  I have a friend is still running Leopard.

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

In article <slrnjukfp3.cgl.g.kreme@krismbp.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> >> Agree. Lion also makes iCloud a breeze; though I hear Apple's got iCloud 
> >> support in the pipeline for 10.6.
> 
> > why would they do that, especially with mountain lion weeks away from
> > release? if they were going to update 10.6 for icloud, they'd have done
> > it already. they're certainly not going to bother now when it's about
> > to be 2 versions old.
> 
> Oh, they might do it a few weeks after MobileMe dies, but first they
> want to move as many people as they can to Lion. Heck, they will *GIVE*
> you Snow Leopard for free right now so that you can update to Lion.
> 
> Once they have every possible person on Lion that they can get, THEN
> they will release 10.6.9 (it is 9?) with iCloud support to get all those
> people who really could not move to Lion onto iCloud.

what's in it for apple to do that? 

if you want icloud then you upgrade to lion now or wait a few weeks for
mountain lion and save $10.

In article <michelle-B46564.16522826062012@news.eternal-september.org>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > Heck, they will *GIVE* you Snow Leopard for free right now so that you 
> > can update to Lion.
> 
> How can you get it for free?  I have a friend is still running Leopard.

<http://www.macgasm.net/2012/04/18/apple-now-giving-away-snow-leopard-to-
mobileme-customers-for-free/>

In article <260620122007060969%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> what's in it for apple to do that? 
> 
> if you want icloud then you upgrade to lion now or wait a few weeks for 
> mountain lion and save $10.

If you're planning to go from SL to ML, wait those weeks and save $29.

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

In article <260620122007081089%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > > Heck, they will *GIVE* you Snow Leopard for free right now so that you 
> > > can update to Lion.
> > 
> > How can you get it for free?  I have a friend is still running Leopard.
> 
> <http://www.macgasm.net/2012/04/18/apple-now-giving-away-snow-leopard-to-
> mobileme-customers-for-free/>

According to the article, the offer expired on June 15th.  Also, it 
apparently was available only to people who had paid for Mobile Me.

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

On 2012-06-27 00:07:06 +0000, nospam said:

> In article <slrnjukfp3.cgl.g.kreme@krismbp.local>, Lewis
> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>> 
>> Once they have every possible person on Lion that they can get, THEN
>> they will release 10.6.9 (it is 9?) with iCloud support to get all those
>> people who really could not move to Lion onto iCloud.
> 
> what's in it for apple to do that?

They get everyone who can go to Lion (who uses MobileMe) to go to Lion.

Then the rest of us who still have machines which can't go to Lion 
(like my old iMac) a just a little less annoyed at apple when we get to 
keep syncing our contacts and calendars on that machine.

Apple knows there are lots of us out here in this situation.  And pics 
were leaked a long time ago showing iCloud support messages in some 
non-released versions of Snow Leopard (which made many of us think/hope 
that they'd give us iCloud support sooner).

But waiting until after pulling the plug on MobileMe makes sense.  Were 
it not for that, I may have waited a lot longer to move at least one of 
my machines to Lion.  (Though I'm getting to be more and more 
comfortable with it and actually mostly prefer it over the machine 
running SL at this point, regardless of iCloud).

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <slrnjukfp3.cgl.g.kreme@krismbp.local>, Lewis
> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> 
> > >> Agree. Lion also makes iCloud a breeze; though I hear Apple's got iCloud
> > >> support in the pipeline for 10.6.
> > 
> > > why would they do that, especially with mountain lion weeks away from
> > > release? if they were going to update 10.6 for icloud, they'd have done
> > > it already. they're certainly not going to bother now when it's about
> > > to be 2 versions old.
> > 
> > Oh, they might do it a few weeks after MobileMe dies, but first they
> > want to move as many people as they can to Lion. Heck, they will *GIVE*
> > you Snow Leopard for free right now so that you can update to Lion.
> > 
> > Once they have every possible person on Lion that they can get, THEN
> > they will release 10.6.9 (it is 9?) with iCloud support to get all those
> > people who really could not move to Lion onto iCloud.
> 
> what's in it for apple to do that? 
> 
> if you want icloud then you upgrade to lion now or wait a few weeks for
> mountain lion and save $10.

Thinking through the various issues which occur to me, so excuse the
rambling...

There are several 2006 Mac models which can run Snow Leopard, but not
Lion. Admittedly a small number of Macs compared to all those sold in
2007 and later (ballpark 3 million out of 69 million Intel Macs sold up
to the end of March 2012).

[Sidebar: There is a bigger set which can upgrade to Lion but not
Mountain Lion. Harder to give a rough figure as it depends on relative
sales figures for specific product lines, but it includes all 2007 and
most 2008 MacBooks, which were probably the most popular series prior to
the introduction of the 13" MacBook Pro in mid 2009, and all Mac Minis
in that timeframe. Total Mac sales from late 2006 through to the end of
2008 were 16.7 million, so there might be as many as 8 million Macs not
able to upgrade to Mountain Lion.]

Then there are all the people refusing to upgrade to Lion because they
don't like the user interface changes, Autosave or some other features,
or they need to keep running Rosetta.

As of the end of May, Lion has just overtaken Snow Leopard in web usage
(43% vs 40% of all Mac OS X versions), according to
marketshare.hitslink.com, which should be a reasonable estimate of
relative installed base. Lion took about a month longer to overtake Snow
Leopard than Snow Leopard took to overtake Leopard.

That rather large installed base raises the interesting question of how
long Apple will need to keep supplying security updates for Snow
Leopard. I don't think Apple will be willing to stop supplying security
updates to almost 40% of Mac users as soon as Mountain Lion is released
(as was the pattern with earlier systems). Leopard was down to about 22%
when it got its last full security update. Snow Leopard may not reach
that level for another year or so.

Only Apple knows how many people are still clinging to their MobileMe
accounts until the last possible moment. If there are a significant
number, this may encourage Apple to release iCloud support for Snow
Leopard.

I upgraded to Lion last month, and iCloud a couple of a weeks ago. It
would irritate me slightly if Apple now turned around and released
iCloud support for Snow Leopard, but I've already moved on and will be
updating to Mountain Lion soon.

iCloud support for Snow Leopard might be handy for my Mac Mini Server,
which I'm intending to leave on Snow Leopard for a while longer. It
would also help lots of other Mac users on Snow Leopard with iOS devices
running iOS 5, who could get a decent degree of iCloud sync with their
computer.

Delaying iCloud support for Snow Leopard until after MobileMe shuts down
makes sense in terms of providing a stick for MobileMe users to upgrade
to Lion. Many of them will want to upgrade again to Mountain Lion to get
documents in iCloud.

But...

If Apple were to release iCloud support for Snow Leopard before Mountain
Lion is released, it is likely to encourage some users to stay on Snow
Leopard rather than upgrading straight to Mountain Lion (or eventually
move to Lion, if they can't run Mountain Lion).

It would therefore make more sense to delay such support until Mountain
Lion has had time to get established. By then, Snow Leopard numbers may
have dropped to the point where there is even less reason for Apple to
release iCloud support.

It could also prolong the usage tail for Snow Leopard, forcing Apple to
continue supplying security updates for an even longer period.

Overall I think it is unlikely that Apple will release iCloud support
for Snow Leopard.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

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

> >> Once they have every possible person on Lion that they can get, THEN
> >> they will release 10.6.9 (it is 9?) with iCloud support to get all those
> >> people who really could not move to Lion onto iCloud.
> > 
> > what's in it for apple to do that?
> 
> They get everyone who can go to Lion (who uses MobileMe) to go to Lion.

sure, but what's in it for them to update snow leopard which in less
than a month, it will be *two* revisions outdated, not just one?

> Then the rest of us who still have machines which can't go to Lion 
> (like my old iMac) a just a little less annoyed at apple when we get to 
> keep syncing our contacts and calendars on that machine.

> Apple knows there are lots of us out here in this situation.  And pics 
> were leaked a long time ago showing iCloud support messages in some 
> non-released versions of Snow Leopard (which made many of us think/hope 
> that they'd give us iCloud support sooner).
> 
> But waiting until after pulling the plug on MobileMe makes sense.  Were 
> it not for that, I may have waited a lot longer to move at least one of 
> my machines to Lion.  (Though I'm getting to be more and more 
> comfortable with it and actually mostly prefer it over the machine 
> running SL at this point, regardless of iCloud).

apple wants you to upgrade, either by buying lion or mountain lion, or
preferably, a whole new mac.

there is no motivation for them to help you stay with snow leopard.

In article <1kmcllt.evluml1t2fe6fN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>, David Empson
<dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:

> But...
> 
> If Apple were to release iCloud support for Snow Leopard before Mountain
> Lion is released, it is likely to encourage some users to stay on Snow
> Leopard rather than upgrading straight to Mountain Lion (or eventually
> move to Lion, if they can't run Mountain Lion).
> 
> It would therefore make more sense to delay such support until Mountain
> Lion has had time to get established. By then, Snow Leopard numbers may
> have dropped to the point where there is even less reason for Apple to
> release iCloud support.
> 
> It could also prolong the usage tail for Snow Leopard, forcing Apple to
> continue supplying security updates for an even longer period.

how would this help apple? they want you to buy new stuff, not prolong
the old stuff. they might provide security updates, but that's about
it.

> Overall I think it is unlikely that Apple will release iCloud support
> for Snow Leopard.

agreed. i can't see it happening.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <1kmcllt.evluml1t2fe6fN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>, David Empson
> <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> 
> > But...
> > 
> > If Apple were to release iCloud support for Snow Leopard before Mountain
> > Lion is released, it is likely to encourage some users to stay on Snow
> > Leopard rather than upgrading straight to Mountain Lion (or eventually
> > move to Lion, if they can't run Mountain Lion).
> > 
> > It would therefore make more sense to delay such support until Mountain
> > Lion has had time to get established. By then, Snow Leopard numbers may
> > have dropped to the point where there is even less reason for Apple to
> > release iCloud support.
> > 
> > It could also prolong the usage tail for Snow Leopard, forcing Apple to
> > continue supplying security updates for an even longer period.
> 
> how would this help apple?

It wouldn't. That was my point in the above paragraphs.

> they want you to buy new stuff, not prolong the old stuff. they might
> provide security updates, but that's about it.

Apple also wants to stop supplying security updates for old systems, but
may not be able to justify doing so until usage has dropped to a small
enough proportion of the user base.

They want Snow Leopard usage to decline quickly, not tail off slowly.

Adding iCloud support to Snow Leopard runs against that.

> > Overall I think it is unlikely that Apple will release iCloud support
> > for Snow Leopard.
> 
> agreed. i can't see it happening.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

In article <1kmcoq8.1iy4dss1h7e1vxN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>, David
Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:

> They want Snow Leopard usage to decline quickly, not tail off slowly.
> 
> Adding iCloud support to Snow Leopard runs against that.

that's exactly my point.

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> Agree. Lion also makes iCloud a breeze; though I hear Apple's got iCloud 
> support in the pipeline for 10.6.

Most of iCloud syncing works on Snow Leopard, by manually entering the 
server settings in each app's prefs. I have iCloud calendar and mail 
syncing quite nicely with Snow Leopard's iCal and Mail. Contacts is 
harder to do; it's apparently possible by following the instructions at 
http://ihelpyourmac.com/wordpress/?p=23 but it doesn't work for me.

Snow Leopard users can also access iCloud by pointing any web browser at 
http://icloud.com.

-- 
K.

Lang may your lum reek.

In article <260620122226332982%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > They want Snow Leopard usage to decline quickly, not tail off slowly.
> > 
> > Adding iCloud support to Snow Leopard runs against that.
> 
> that's exactly my point.

There are Macs that can't run Lion, but can run Snow Leopard, and a portion 
of people who own them aren't ready to buy a new computer just to be able 
to access iCloud.  Apple wants as many people as possible to be using 
iCloud, so I can see Apple adding iCloud support to SL.

Whether Apple will do it, though, will be found out in the future.

-- Michelle

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

In message <1kmcllt.evluml1t2fe6fN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> 
  David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> [Sidebar: There is a bigger set which can upgrade to Lion but not
> Mountain Lion. Harder to give a rough figure as it depends on relative
> sales figures for specific product lines, but it includes all 2007 and
> most 2008 MacBooks, which were probably the most popular series prior to
> the introduction of the 13" MacBook Pro in mid 2009, and all Mac Minis
> in that timeframe. Total Mac sales from late 2006 through to the end of
> 2008 were 16.7 million, so there might be as many as 8 million Macs not
> able to upgrade to Mountain Lion.]

Also all the MacPros from 2006-2008.

> Overall I think it is unlikely that Apple will release iCloud support
> for Snow Leopard.

I don't disagree with your reasoning, and you are probably right.
However, there are a lot of Macs out there in that 2006-2008 range that
cannot upgrade to Mnt Lion, and a nearly as large number that can't
update to Lion.

I can easily see Apple saying something like what I posted earlier, "we
listened to your concerns and complaints and have decided to add iCloud
support to Snow Leopard."

-- 
We will fight for Bovine Freedom and hold our large heads high We will
run free with the Buffalo or die

Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <1kmcllt.evluml1t2fe6fN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> 
>   David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> > [Sidebar: There is a bigger set which can upgrade to Lion but not
> > Mountain Lion. Harder to give a rough figure as it depends on relative
> > sales figures for specific product lines, but it includes all 2007 and
> > most 2008 MacBooks, which were probably the most popular series prior to
> > the introduction of the 13" MacBook Pro in mid 2009, and all Mac Minis
> > in that timeframe. Total Mac sales from late 2006 through to the end of
> > 2008 were 16.7 million, so there might be as many as 8 million Macs not
> > able to upgrade to Mountain Lion.]
> 
> Also all the MacPros from 2006-2008.

2006-2007. The 2008 Mac Pro will be supported by Mountain Lion.

I was only bothering to mention the models that would make up the bulk
of the total. Mac Pros are much lower volume than Mac Minis and
especially MacBooks. 2006-2008 Xserves would make an even smaller dent.
Only one generation was dropped for the iMac and MacBook Pro, and the
original MacBook Air was quite expensive so I expect it was also
relatively low volume.

> > Overall I think it is unlikely that Apple will release iCloud support
> > for Snow Leopard.
> 
> I don't disagree with your reasoning, and you are probably right.
> However, there are a lot of Macs out there in that 2006-2008 range that
> cannot upgrade to Mnt Lion, and a nearly as large number that can't
> update to Lion.

I reckon it is in the order of 8 million Macs that will be limited to
Lion, more like 4 million limited to Snow Leopard.

The ones that are limited to Lion are irrelevant to the question of
whether Apple might add iCloud support to Snow Leopard, since Lion does
support iCloud (though some features will require Mountain Lion).

> I can easily see Apple saying something like what I posted earlier, "we
> listened to your concerns and complaints and have decided to add iCloud
> support to Snow Leopard."

Let's consider which iCloud features Apple might add to Snow Leopard,
should they do so.

Snow Leopard already supports iTunes in the Cloud (including iTunes
Match), and App Store re-download.

New iCloud features for Mountain Lion almost certainly won't be added to
Lion or Snow Leopard (e.g. full support for documents in the cloud).

The remaining subset of MobileMe features supported by iCloud seems most
likely: contacts, calendars, bookmarks, mail, Back to my Mac.

Find my Mac and Photostream may have a fair amount of new code to
support them, and could be left for Lion and later only.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <260620122226332982%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
>  nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > > They want Snow Leopard usage to decline quickly, not tail off slowly.
> > > 
> > > Adding iCloud support to Snow Leopard runs against that.
> > 
> > that's exactly my point.
> 
> There are Macs that can't run Lion, but can run Snow Leopard, and a portion
> of people who own them aren't ready to buy a new computer just to be able
> to access iCloud.

From the numbers in my earlier post, after a little further thought:
about 4 million Macs fall into that category, out of what will probably
be 73 million Intel Macs in total at the end of the June 2012 quarter.

Adding a feature for at most 5% of recent Macs (and falling), which were
discontinued five or more years ago, hardly seems a good use of
development resources.

Apart from in California, Apple doesn't offer hardware support for those
models any more. Why go to the trouble of adding a software feature at
this stage?

If Apple were to add iCloud support to Snow Leopard, it would be of more
overall benefit to the much larger number of Macs which are able to
upgrade to Lion (or Mountain Lion) but the owner is reluctant to do so.

I think that is highly unlikely, for the reasons I outlined earlier.

> Apple wants as many people as possible to be using 
> iCloud, so I can see Apple adding iCloud support to SL.

I'm curious why you think Apple would want people on five plus year old
Macs using iCloud? I can see the benefits to the user, but not to Apple
(apart from having happier customers).

Snow Leopard already supports iTunes Match, iTunes and App Store
re-downloads. iTunes Match is probably the main source of income
attributable to iCloud.

> Whether Apple will do it, though, will be found out in the future.

Agreed.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

In article <1kmdecy.6hit4t1g0juw9N%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>,
 dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:

> > Apple wants as many people as possible to be using iCloud, so I can 
> > see Apple adding iCloud support to SL.
> 
> I'm curious why you think Apple would want people on five plus year old 
> Macs using iCloud? I can see the benefits to the user, but not to Apple 
> (apart from having happier customers).

The way that Apple is pushing iCloud, it's apparent that they want as many 
people using it as possible, regardless of the age of the computer.  for 
one thing, Apple can then try to sell them additional storage in the cloud.  
And who knows what else Apple has in store for iCloud.

As I said, I don't know whether Apple will do it, but I can see Apple doing 
it.  This doesn't mean that I advocate that they do do it.

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

In article <michelle-DBED65.09272527062012@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <1kmdecy.6hit4t1g0juw9N%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>,
>  dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
> 
> > > Apple wants as many people as possible to be using iCloud, so I can 
> > > see Apple adding iCloud support to SL.
> > 
> > I'm curious why you think Apple would want people on five plus year old 
> > Macs using iCloud? I can see the benefits to the user, but not to Apple 
> > (apart from having happier customers).
> 
> The way that Apple is pushing iCloud, it's apparent that they want as many 
> people using it as possible, regardless of the age of the computer.  for 
> one thing, Apple can then try to sell them additional storage in the cloud.  
> And who knows what else Apple has in store for iCloud.
> 
> As I said, I don't know whether Apple will do it, but I can see Apple doing 
> it.  This doesn't mean that I advocate that they do do it.

Maybe they thought that iCloud would be a big selling point for Lion, so 
they initially avoided adding it to SL. But then they found that there 
weren't as many upgrades as they'd hoped for, so it's not the enticement 
that it was thought to be.  And meanwhile, lots of SL MobileMe users 
have been screwed, so they're relenting and giving them iCloud, which 
also increases their iCloud user base -- a win-win scenario.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

In article <tom_stiller-F16BFC.16465726062012@news.individual.net>,
 Tom Stiller <tom_stiller@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <a4uck0Fml3U1@mid.individual.net>,
>  TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
> 
> > I have an iMac running Lion and a MacBook Pro running Snow Leopard. 
> > What a difference! I've grown so accustomed to the Lion interface, 
> > especially scrolling, that I have difficulty with scrolling under Snow 
> > Leopard. Like many things there was the time of adaptation but, at 
> > least to me, Lion's interface is far superior to Snow Leopard's. Others 
> > might feel different.

When I got a new MacBook Pro with Lion installed, it took maybe 10 seconds for 
me to get used to the scrolling direction -- probably because my iPod Touch had 
already accustomed me to the notion that my fingers should move in the same 
direction that I wanted the window's contents to move.

But it was the *only* Lion feature I liked.  After using Lion for a month, Auto 
Save, Versions, Auto Resume and Auto Termination were still driving me nuts; 
they're contrary to the way I work and think, and I simply could not adapt to 
them.  So I stopped using the MBP altogether until I was able to downgrade it to 
Snow Leopard.  (Fortunately it's a model that was introduced before Lion, so it 
supports Snow Leopard.  I just had to buy a set of the model-specific install 
discs that had been included before July 2011.)


> There is a 3rd party utility "Scroll Reverser" 
> <http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/37872/scroll-reverser> which makes the 
> SL scroll function the same as Lion.

Thanks!  That's the only thing I've missed since downgrading to SL.  And it 
supposedly works on Leopard too, so I can use it on my old G4.

On 2012-06-27 11:16:29 +0000, David Empson said:
> Apart from in California, Apple doesn't offer hardware support for those
> models any more. Why go to the trouble of adding a software feature at
> this stage?

Because they already wrote it and it'll make a lot of people happy.

If it didn't already exist, I'd say the chances of them adding iCloud 
support for SL were exactly zero.

I believe that it does exist, though.  So I put the chances of them 
releasing it at maybe 5%.  Unlikely, but possible.

I'd certainly appreciate it.

I think part of the issue is that there are a lot of people - more, 
perhaps than Apple had anticipated - who can't or won't either buy new 
hardware or upgrade to Lion or Mountain Lion yet.  And I suspect a big 
part of that is Rosetta and having to purchase new software.  There are 
probably a goodly few folks who start thinking that if they have to do 
a huge software move and/or buy new software, why not just jump to 
Windows.  Apple can't ignore that.

> I'm curious why you think Apple would want people on five plus year old
> Macs using iCloud? I can see the benefits to the user, but not to Apple
> (apart from having happier customers).

As I said, I think it's unlikely.  But the alternative may well be for 
some of those folks to jump ship entirely anyway.  I suspect, though, 
that anyone willing to jump ship entirely is also pretty willing do 
just do without iCloud and/or MobileMe regardless, so maybe it's a 
complete waste of time to release iCloud for SL.  Nevertheless, since I 
believe it's already been written and tested, just not released, Apple 
has to be weighing the upside and the downside and they've certainly 
got way more information on this than we do.

FWIW, the loss of MobileMe hasn't really factored into my interest in 
replacing my ancient SL-but-not-Lion-compatible iMac.  Mainly it's just 
old and slow compared to newer machines.

I really wonder at the rates of iCloud/MobileMe adoption versus simple 
Mac computer use.  Far from all the people I know who have Macs 
actually use those services, certainly far from all of them were 
willing to pay extra for them (under MobileMe).

On 2012-06-27 10:54:14 +0000, David Empson said:

> 
> I reckon it is in the order of 8 million Macs that will be limited to
> Lion, more like 4 million limited to Snow Leopard.

I think the limit is bigger because of software rather than hardware 
issues.  I strongly suspect that there are a lot of people whose 
hardware can run Lion who won't because Lion won't run their older 
software.  The loss of Rosetta is a bigger issue than almost any of the 
recent OS upgrades (since the loss of Classic, I guess).  There may be 
4 million Macs in use which cannot run Lion, but there are certainly a 
lot more than 4 million Macs in use by people who are not going to run 
it any time soon.
> 
> New iCloud features for Mountain Lion almost certainly won't be added to
> Lion or Snow Leopard (e.g. full support for documents in the cloud).

Given how much better Dropbox is for a lot of that, I think most people 
just don't care about "documents in the cloud".  It remains to be seen 
if Apple can make it work.
> 
> The remaining subset of MobileMe features supported by iCloud seems most
> likely: contacts, calendars, bookmarks, mail, Back to my Mac.

Contacts and calendars are, by a long long shot, as far as I can tell, 
the main issue.

Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <1kmdecy.6hit4t1g0juw9N%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>,
>  dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
> 
> > > Apple wants as many people as possible to be using iCloud, so I can
> > > see Apple adding iCloud support to SL.
> > 
> > I'm curious why you think Apple would want people on five plus year old
> > Macs using iCloud? I can see the benefits to the user, but not to Apple
> > (apart from having happier customers).
> 
> The way that Apple is pushing iCloud, it's apparent that they want as many
> people using it as possible, regardless of the age of the computer.  for
> one thing, Apple can then try to sell them additional storage in the cloud.

Additional storage seems to serve no useful purpose unless you store
documents in the cloud. Using that feature is cumbersome in Lion (drag
and drop interface via web browser), and wouldn't be any better in Snow
Leopard.

Mountain Lion is required for apps to have easy access to documents in
the cloud, and I doubt Apple would retrofit that feature to earlier OS
versions, as it is one of the major new features in Mountain Lion.

> And who knows what else Apple has in store for iCloud.

True, but again, Apple's pattern is to add new features to the latest
OS, and rarely extend new features to earlier OS versions.

As of next month, Snow Leopard will be two major versions out of date. I
don't see Lion getting new iCloud features, let alone Snow Leopard.

> As I said, I don't know whether Apple will do it, but I can see Apple doing
> it.  This doesn't mean that I advocate that they do do it.

Understood. I'm just trying to get some idea of what benefit this would
have for Apple (and by extension, Apple's shareholders). So far the
negatives significantly outweigh the positives.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> wrote:

> On 2012-06-27 11:16:29 +0000, David Empson said:
> > Apart from in California, Apple doesn't offer hardware support for those
> > models any more. Why go to the trouble of adding a software feature at
> > this stage?
> 
> Because they already wrote it and it'll make a lot of people happy.

There are rumours that they aleady wrote it.

> If it didn't already exist, I'd say the chances of them adding iCloud
> support for SL were exactly zero.

Agreed.

> I believe that it does exist, though.  So I put the chances of them 
> releasing it at maybe 5%.  Unlikely, but possible.
> 
> I'd certainly appreciate it.

As would I and many others.

> I think part of the issue is that there are a lot of people - more, 
> perhaps than Apple had anticipated - who can't or won't either buy new
> hardware or upgrade to Lion or Mountain Lion yet.  And I suspect a big
> part of that is Rosetta and having to purchase new software.  There are
> probably a goodly few folks who start thinking that if they have to do
> a huge software move and/or buy new software, why not just jump to 
> Windows.  Apple can't ignore that.

Web usage figures suggest that Mac users are upgrading to Lion somewhat
slower than they upgraded to Snow Leopard, but not by a major degree.
Lion took about one month longer than Snow Leopard to become the most
common version.

> > I'm curious why you think Apple would want people on five plus year old
> > Macs using iCloud? I can see the benefits to the user, but not to Apple
> > (apart from having happier customers).
> 
> As I said, I think it's unlikely.  But the alternative may well be for
> some of those folks to jump ship entirely anyway.  I suspect, though,
> that anyone willing to jump ship entirely is also pretty willing do 
> just do without iCloud and/or MobileMe regardless, so maybe it's a 
> complete waste of time to release iCloud for SL.  Nevertheless, since I
> believe it's already been written and tested, just not released, Apple
> has to be weighing the upside and the downside and they've certainly 
> got way more information on this than we do.

Agreed.

> FWIW, the loss of MobileMe hasn't really factored into my interest in
> replacing my ancient SL-but-not-Lion-compatible iMac.  Mainly it's just
> old and slow compared to newer machines.
> 
> I really wonder at the rates of iCloud/MobileMe adoption versus simple
> Mac computer use.  Far from all the people I know who have Macs 
> actually use those services, certainly far from all of them were 
> willing to pay extra for them (under MobileMe).

I'm only aware of two people in my user group who paid for MobileMe
(including me).

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> wrote:

> On 2012-06-27 10:54:14 +0000, David Empson said:
> 
> > 
> > I reckon it is in the order of 8 million Macs that will be limited to
> > Lion, more like 4 million limited to Snow Leopard.
> 
> I think the limit is bigger because of software rather than hardware 
> issues.  I strongly suspect that there are a lot of people whose 
> hardware can run Lion who won't because Lion won't run their older 
> software.  The loss of Rosetta is a bigger issue than almost any of the
> recent OS upgrades (since the loss of Classic, I guess).  There may be
> 4 million Macs in use which cannot run Lion, but there are certainly a
> lot more than 4 million Macs in use by people who are not going to run
> it any time soon.

I'd agree with that, but it wasn't what I was talking about and Lewis
commented on.

> > New iCloud features for Mountain Lion almost certainly won't be added to
> > Lion or Snow Leopard (e.g. full support for documents in the cloud).
> 
> Given how much better Dropbox is for a lot of that, I think most people
> just don't care about "documents in the cloud".  It remains to be seen
> if Apple can make it work.
> > 
> > The remaining subset of MobileMe features supported by iCloud seems most
> > likely: contacts, calendars, bookmarks, mail, Back to my Mac.
> 
> Contacts and calendars are, by a long long shot, as far as I can tell,
> the main issue.

As I understand it, Calendars can already be done with a bit of
fiddling. Contacts cannot.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

On 06-27-2012 16:22, Bread wrote:
> Given how much better Dropbox is for a lot of that, I think most people
> just don't care about "documents in the cloud".  It remains to be seen
> if Apple can make it work.

It already works.  My problem is that it tries too hard to be invisible 
and idiot proof.  With Dropbox and the like, I put what I want in it.
With iCloud, the only way to do anything not planned by Apple is 
disguise it as something else and put it in iTunes or iPhoto.

-- 
Wes Groleau

Heroes, Heritage, and History
http://UniGen.us/webtrees

On 2012-06-28 00:51:18 +0000, Wes Groleau said:

> On 06-27-2012 16:22, Bread wrote:
>> Given how much better Dropbox is for a lot of that, I think most people
>> just don't care about "documents in the cloud".  It remains to be seen
>> if Apple can make it work.
> 
> It already works.  My problem is that it tries too hard to be invisible 
> and idiot proof.  With Dropbox and the like, I put what I want in it.
> With iCloud, the only way to do anything not planned by Apple is 
> disguise it as something else and put it in iTunes or iPhoto.

I know that technically, it operates (within the limits of what Apple 
wants to allow people to do - currently, and apparently as planned).  
In the same way, Apple set up a social network called Ping, which I'm 
sure also worked, but nobody used it.

Dropbox not only works, but it works very well and is getting widely adopted.

Documents in the Cloud, well, I've never heard of anyone anywhere who 
actually uses and likes it.

Especially nice about Dropbox is that adding Dropbox integration to a 
desktop app is generally as simple as telling the app to point at your 
~/Dropbox directory (and perhaps taking some precautions about files 
being written to simultaneously from multiple places).  And lots of iOS 
apps already can talk to files left in your Dropbox by their desktop 
counterparts.

From a user point of view, though it also just works - it's as seamless 
and invisible as anything Apple's aspired to -- if you accept the idea 
that users are comfortable with looking at the filesystem.  It's that 
last which seems to the wrinkle in Apple's ideas.  They clearly have 
some notion (with a reasonable basis, given what I've seen people do) 
that people just aren't very good at filesystems.

It remains to be seen what will really work going forward, though.  
Like Ping, and actually, like Versions and AutoSave, it appears that 
Apple is trying hard to do some new things and with mixed results.  
iCloud's document system, too, is a new and different way of doing it - 
so far, in my estimation, as viable as Ping.  When Mountain Lion comes 
out, though, that may change.  Putting the future of it in the hands of 
an OS that's not even out, while their existing OS has barely surpassed 
the previous one, it's hard to take Documents int he Cloud seriously 
right now.

In message <jsgci0$pau$1@reader1.panix.com> 
  Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> wrote:
> Documents in the Cloud, well, I've never heard of anyone anywhere who 
> actually uses and likes it.

I use it all the time, but only from iOS. All my Pages docs are on my
iPad and I use that to edit them. I will not mess with Pages on the Mac
again until 10.8 comes out with support for Documents in the Cloud.

> Especially nice about Dropbox is that adding Dropbox integration to a 
> desktop app is generally as simple as telling the app to point at your 
> ~/Dropbox directory (and perhaps taking some precautions about files 
> being written to simultaneously from multiple places).  And lots of iOS 
> apps already can talk to files left in your Dropbox by their desktop 
> counterparts.

The drawback to Dropbox is taht the space you use in Dropbox is used on
every machine. So, for example, I have 7GB of Dropbox storage, and when
I had it full last week that was 7GB of space on 5 machines.

> It remains to be seen what will really work going forward, though.  
> Like Ping, and actually, like Versions and AutoSave, it appears that 
> Apple is trying hard to do some new things and with mixed results.  

Versions and Autosave are completely awesome.

> iCloud's document system, too, is a new and different way of doing it - 
> so far, in my estimation, as viable as Ping.  When Mountain Lion comes 
> out, though, that may change.  Putting the future of it in the hands of 
> an OS that's not even out, while their existing OS has barely surpassed 
> the previous one, it's hard to take Documents int he Cloud seriously 
> right now.

The advantage to me is that I have a couple of hundred pages documents
that are not taking up any space on any computer (I have offline
backups, and hardcopies of the really important ones)



-- 
'I really should talk to him, sir. He's had a near-death experience!'
'We all do. It's called living.' 

In message <wayne.morris-0C07BD.13332027062012@news.eternal-september.org> 
  Wayne C. Morris <wayne.morris@this.is.invalid> wrote:

>Auto Save, Versions,

I don't even begin to understand who anyone can object to Auto Save and
Version. Your documents are saved without you doing anything, and you
can go back to any change. This is so clearly better in every possible
way. Your data is always safe and you can recover to any point in the
document's history. What the hell is the complaint?

> Auto Resume 

So disable it.

> Auto Termination

This one is annoying only because the app doesn't stay in the
Dock/Switcher. Relaunch with resume is fast enough that usually I don't
even notice if an app has terminated unless I try to command-tab to it.

-- 
4 priests, 12 rabbis, and 24 lawyers walk into a bar. Bartender says,
"Is this a joke?"

In article <slrnjunp8q.1hah.g.kreme@krismbp.local>,
 Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> The drawback to Dropbox is taht the space you use in Dropbox is used on
> every machine. So, for example, I have 7GB of Dropbox storage, and when
> I had it full last week that was 7GB of space on 5 machines.

Yeah, and when you're in a location with no network access, you can 
still access (and update) the files contained therein.

-- 
PRAY, v.  To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf
of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy. -- Ambrose Bierce

On 2012-06-28 05:01:14 +0000, Lewis said:

> In message <jsgci0$pau$1@reader1.panix.com>
>   Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> wrote:
>> Documents in the Cloud, well, I've never heard of anyone anywhere who
>> actually uses and likes it.
> 
> I use it all the time, but only from iOS. All my Pages docs are on my
> iPad and I use that to edit them. I will not mess with Pages on the Mac
> again until 10.8 comes out with support for Documents in the Cloud.

I tried doing some real work on Pages and Numbers on my iPad and found 
it way too painful - partly because of the way files are dealt with 
(and partly because they are both not fully compatible with the desktop 
versions and partly because I found the touch interface too annoying).  
Organizing files by application makes no sense.  Hopefully, once ML 
comes out, Apple will work out a better way of dealing with that for 
Docs in the Cloud, but as far as it works with iOS, it's pretty much 
dead in the water.  I amend what I said.  /Until now/, I'd never heard 
of anyone…
> 
> The drawback to Dropbox is taht the space you use in Dropbox is used on
> every machine. So, for example, I have 7GB of Dropbox storage, and when
> I had it full last week that was 7GB of space on 5 machines.

It's a mixed blessing.  For my purposes, it's a huge advantage.  (You 
also do have control and don't need to sync up everything - you may 
sync a subset.  For DropBox, though, I sync up everything.  For Wuala, 
I sync up only specific folders.)  But the fact that as far as the user 
is concerned, they're simply using their local filesystem is a huge 
advantage in terms of transparency.  Things just keep working the way 
they've always worked.  Plus it makes it much easier to have full 
backups.  Relative to the costs of not having access, having a 
different means of getting to files, not having local backups, the cost 
of using a bit more space on hard drives is pretty cheap.

I tried some "only in the cloud" systems (ie. Wuala using the 
filesystem plug-in rather than the synchonize functionality, others) 
and I'll take synchronizing to the local filesystem every single time.
> 
>> It remains to be seen what will really work going forward, though.
>> Like Ping, and actually, like Versions and AutoSave, it appears that
>> Apple is trying hard to do some new things and with mixed results.
> 
> Versions and Autosave are completely awesome.

They're *almost* awesome.  Apple sacrificed some clarity in how things 
work for the sake of making things as interfaceless as possible.  We've 
discussed this in detail here before.  I am very optimistic that 
they're going to get a lot better, and I think the complaints are going 
to mostly fade out.  But they are still clearly early efforts and were 
it not for the fact that they just happen, I don't think most people 
would have gone out of their way - not even a single mouseclick's worth 
- to make them happen.

That said, I'm very glad to have them and look forward to them 
improving.  The key is understanding that they are *not* backup or 
revision-control systems.  It's too easy to lose your repository -- 
it's lost when you move a file from one filesystem to another.  While I 
use Versions gladly, because it's not a revision control system, I 
still need to duplicate and date-tag older copies of files, so it 
doesn't really save me much work in that way.  It's just nice to have, 
kinda.  That said, for all the users I know of who've moved to Lion, 
only a very few seem to care about this in the slightest.  Almost every 
one of them was mainly just annoyed at the business about documents 
getting locked and having to learn about the Duplicate command.  
Apple's done a completely crappy job of making clear to people how to 
modify their workflow to deal with them.  And, of course, it's really 
only affected people who work with Apple's programs, as none of the 
main productivity applications in very wide use have adopted them 
(Word, Excel).

At best, I'd call Versions and Autosave works in progress.

In message <tom_stiller-A47CC3.09365728062012@news.individual.net> 
  Tom Stiller <tom_stiller@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <slrnjunp8q.1hah.g.kreme@krismbp.local>,
>  Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>> The drawback to Dropbox is taht the space you use in Dropbox is used on
>> every machine. So, for example, I have 7GB of Dropbox storage, and when
>> I had it full last week that was 7GB of space on 5 machines.

> Yeah, and when you're in a location with no network access, you can 
> still access (and update) the files contained therein.

And oddly enough, I have *never* needed to update or access Dropbox data
in a place with no network access.

-- 
The Germans wore gray, you wore blue.

On 06-27-2012 21:38, Bread wrote:
> I know that technically, it operates (within the limits of what Apple
> wants to allow people to do - currently, and apparently as planned). In
> the same way, Apple set up a social network called Ping, which I'm sure
> also worked, but nobody used it.

I realize your are not disagreeing with me, but just so no one else 
misunderstands, "Ping" is just an example of another Apple mistake.

"Bread" was (AFAIK) not suggesting use of Ping to store files.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   “Beware the barrenness of a busy life.”
                                — Socrates

On 06-28-2012 01:01, Lewis wrote:
> The drawback to Dropbox is taht the space you use in Dropbox is used on
> every machine. So, for example, I have 7GB of Dropbox storage, and when
> I had it full last week that was 7GB of space on 5 machines.
>
>> >It remains to be seen what will really work going forward, though.
>> >Like Ping, and actually, like Versions and AutoSave, it appears that
>> >Apple is trying hard to do some new things and with mixed results.
 >
> Versions and Autosave are completely awesome.

They waste space on every machine, and Versions is completely 
unnecessary for EVERYTHING I have that needs versioning.

Everything I have that needs versioning is already in a version control 
system, and everything else is in Time Machine.

>> >iCloud's document system, too, is a new and different way of doing it -
>> >so far, in my estimation, as viable as Ping.  When Mountain Lion comes

As viable as Ping?!?!  That thing that pissed off most of us until we 
figured out how to hide it?

-- 
Wes Groleau

   “Beware the barrenness of a busy life.”
                                — Socrates

On 2012-06-28 01:01 , Lewis wrote:

> The drawback to Dropbox is taht the space you use in Dropbox is used on
> every machine.

I call that an advantage.

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

On 2012-06-28 12:23 , Lewis wrote:

> And oddly enough, I have *never* needed to update or access Dropbox data
> in a place with no network access.

"Sample of 1" statistics.


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

In article <slrnjup17v.dd3.g.kreme@krismbp.local>,
 Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <tom_stiller-A47CC3.09365728062012@news.individual.net> 
>   Tom Stiller <tom_stiller@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article <slrnjunp8q.1hah.g.kreme@krismbp.local>,
> >  Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> 
> >> The drawback to Dropbox is taht the space you use in Dropbox is used on
> >> every machine. So, for example, I have 7GB of Dropbox storage, and when
> >> I had it full last week that was 7GB of space on 5 machines.
> 
> > Yeah, and when you're in a location with no network access, you can 
> > still access (and update) the files contained therein.
> 
> And oddly enough, I have *never* needed to update or access Dropbox data
> in a place with no network access.

Hmmmmm, that is odd. ;-)

-- 
PRAY, v.  To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf
of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy. -- Ambrose Bierce

On 2012-06-28 17:01:16 +0000, Wes Groleau said:
>> Versions and Autosave are completely awesome.
> 
> They waste space on every machine, and Versions is completely 
> unnecessary for EVERYTHING I have that needs versioning.

As I said in a different note, they are *almost* awesome - they could 
be if we had more control over them and they didn't suffer from some 
absurd problems (like losing your repository if you move a file from 
one filesystem to another).
> 
> Everything I have that needs versioning is already in a version control 
> system, and everything else is in Time Machine.

I think Versions, at least, is sorely misnamed.  It's not a version or 
revision control system by any conventional notion, inasmuch as you 
can't count on having your repository intact.  But it's an awesome 
work-in-progress recovery system that *could* be a great overall system 
but it's just not there.
> 
>>>> iCloud's document system, too, is a new and different way of doing it -
>>>> so far, in my estimation, as viable as Ping.  When Mountain Lion comes
> 
> As viable as Ping?!?!  That thing that pissed off most of us until we 
> figured out how to hide it?

That was my point.  Apple sometimes just completely hoses things.  Ping 
was a disaster.  Apple, finally, rightly, pulled the plug.  Versions 
and AutoSave are not disasters, they're just not quite finished and 
their widespread adoption will likely be painless and not a big deal.  
Documents in the Cloud, however, is pretty much as useful and widely 
used as Ping.  If it can be fixed (Ping, of course, couldn't), maybe 
it'll become useful.  In the meantime, there are actually excellent and 
useful alternatives which have gotten traction, so Apple's got an 
uphill climb on that one.

Tom Stiller <tom_stiller@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <slrnjup17v.dd3.g.kreme@krismbp.local>,
>  Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> 
> > In message <tom_stiller-A47CC3.09365728062012@news.individual.net> 
> >   Tom Stiller <tom_stiller@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In article <slrnjunp8q.1hah.g.kreme@krismbp.local>,
> > >  Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> > 
> > >> The drawback to Dropbox is taht the space you use in Dropbox is used on
> > >> every machine. So, for example, I have 7GB of Dropbox storage, and when
> > >> I had it full last week that was 7GB of space on 5 machines.
> > 
> > > Yeah, and when you're in a location with no network access, you can
> > > still access (and update) the files contained therein.
> > 
> > And oddly enough, I have *never* needed to update or access Dropbox data
> > in a place with no network access.
> 
> Hmmmmm, that is odd. ;-)

Indeed. I do it all the time. I mean really, *all* the time. I'd
consider DropBox nearly useless if I couldn't use the stuff in it while
not connected to the net. I really don't know why I would bother with
DropBox at all in that case, as it would not be much different from just
having an ordinary old file server. My Laptop spend a lot of time
disconnected from the net. DropBox is quite handy for making files
available to work on with my laptop, and then syncing them back to the
home system whenever I later might happen to connect to the net.

-- 
Richard Maine                    | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment.
domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain

On 06-28-2012 01:07, Lewis wrote:
> I don't even begin to understand who anyone can object to Auto Save and
> Version. Your documents are saved without you doing anything, and you

Documents that don't need to be saved or even shouldn't be are being 
saved with no consideration whatsoever of my desires.  And the ones that 
do need to be saved (as well as those that don't) are being saved in 
multiple unneeded and useless versions, wasting disk space that isn't 
always properly cleaned up.

> can go back to any change. This is so clearly better in every possible
> way. Your data is always safe and you can recover to any point in the
> document's history. What the hell is the complaint?

My complaints are:

1. they are resource-wasting piss-poor imitations of things that already 
existed every place I needed them

2. and that they are forced on me in places where I never needed them 
and never will.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   “Beware the barrenness of a busy life.”
                                — Socrates

In message <jsi2ku$330$1@dont-email.me> 
  Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> On 06-28-2012 01:01, Lewis wrote:
>> The drawback to Dropbox is taht the space you use in Dropbox is used on
>> every machine. So, for example, I have 7GB of Dropbox storage, and when
>> I had it full last week that was 7GB of space on 5 machines.
>>
>>> >It remains to be seen what will really work going forward, though.
>>> >Like Ping, and actually, like Versions and AutoSave, it appears that
>>> >Apple is trying hard to do some new things and with mixed results.
> >
>> Versions and Autosave are completely awesome.

> They waste space on every machine,

How much space? Have you checked?

Let's check...

# du -shc /.DocumentRevisions-V100/
268K	/.DocumentRevisions-V100/
268K	total

Oh yeah, lots of wasted space there. Granted, that is my desktop machine
that I haven't used in a few days, but my laptop that I'm using now has
even less space used for Versions.

268K is 0.00000103997687% of my hard drive space. Even on a 500GB drive
it is 0.0000511169434% of your space.

> and Versions is completely 
> unnecessary for EVERYTHING I have that needs versioning.

> Everything I have that needs versioning is already in a version control 
> system, and everything else is in Time Machine.

And Versions ALSO uses Time Machine.

-- 
I always take life with a grain of salt, plus a slice of lime and a
shot of tequila.

Bread wrote:
> On 2012-06-27 11:16:29 +0000, David Empson said:
>> Apart from in California, Apple doesn't offer hardware support for those
>> models any more. Why go to the trouble of adding a software feature at
>> this stage?
>
> Because they already wrote it and it'll make a lot of people happy.

It will make Apple very happy if adding iCloud capability to SL makes IOS 
device sales more likely in that still still sizable userbase.  (Remember, 
it's not about Mac anymore...)

- Rich

Rich Gray wrote:
> Bread wrote:
>> On 2012-06-27 11:16:29 +0000, David Empson said:
>>> Apart from in California, Apple doesn't offer hardware support for those
>>> models any more. Why go to the trouble of adding a software feature at
>>> this stage?
>>
>> Because they already wrote it and it'll make a lot of people happy.
>
> It will make Apple very happy if adding iCloud capability to SL makes IOS
> device sales more likely in that still still sizable userbase.  (Remember,
> it's not about Mac anymore...)
>
> - Rich

s/still still/still/

On 06-28-2012 20:55, Lewis wrote:
> In message <jsi2ku$330$1@dont-email.me>
>    Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>> On 06-28-2012 01:01, Lewis wrote:
>>> The drawback to Dropbox is taht the space you use in Dropbox is used on
>>> every machine. So, for example, I have 7GB of Dropbox storage, and when
>>> I had it full last week that was 7GB of space on 5 machines.
>>>
>>>>> It remains to be seen what will really work going forward, though.
>>>>> Like Ping, and actually, like Versions and AutoSave, it appears that
>>>>> Apple is trying hard to do some new things and with mixed results.
>>>
>>> Versions and Autosave are completely awesome.
>
>> They waste space on every machine,
>
> How much space? Have you checked?

123 Meg.  Doesn't matter, it's still wasted.

> Let's check...
>
> # du -shc /.DocumentRevisions-V100/
> 268K	/.DocumentRevisions-V100/
> 268K	total
>
> Oh yeah, lots of wasted space there. Granted, that is my desktop machine
> that I haven't used in a few days, but my laptop that I'm using now has
> even less space used for Versions.
>
> 268K is 0.00000103997687% of my hard drive space. Even on a 500GB drive
> it is 0.0000511169434% of your space.
>
>> and Versions is completely
>> unnecessary for EVERYTHING I have that needs versioning.
>
>> Everything I have that needs versioning is already in a version control
>> system, and everything else is in Time Machine.
>
> And Versions ALSO uses Time Machine.

Yes, not only is it wasting space on this drive, it's wasting space in 
every backup set.  Also wasting processor time to create all the 
versions and to back them up.

I don't mind Apple recognizing that some people need a full-time parent 
in Cupertino, but I fault them for forcing that on the rest of us.


-- 
Wes Groleau

   “Beware the barrenness of a busy life.”
                                — Socrates

Rich Gray <devnull@nowhere.invalid> wrote:

> Bread wrote:
> > On 2012-06-27 11:16:29 +0000, David Empson said:
> >> Apart from in California, Apple doesn't offer hardware support for those
> >> models any more. Why go to the trouble of adding a software feature at
> >> this stage?
> >
> > Because they already wrote it and it'll make a lot of people happy.
> 
> It will make Apple very happy if adding iCloud capability to SL makes IOS
> device sales more likely in that still still sizable userbase.  (Remember,
> it's not about Mac anymore...)

This subthread is talking about the suggestion that iCloud support would
be added to SL specifically for the benefit of Macs which cannot upgrade
to Lion (or later).

Adding iCloud support for at most 5% of Macs sold since 2006 isn't going
to make a lot of difference to iOS device sales. Macs as a whole make up
about 6% of all computers in use. A feature that benefits 0.3% of all
computer users is hardly going to have a big effect on iOS device sales.

It would make much more sense for Apple to add iCloud support for
Windows XP, which is still being used by almost half of Windows users.

iCloud support in SL would also benefit the group of Mac users whose
computer is able to upgrade to Lion (or later) but who have software or
philosophical reasons not to upgrade. Even then, it is only a small
group compared to Windows XP users, and probably smaller than the market
for iOS device sales to people with no computer at all.

In any case, lack of iCloud support is hardly likely to stop SL users
from buying iOS devices. Almost all of the Mac users I know who bought
iOS devices before the existence of iCloud didn't have a MobileMe
account, and managed just fine using iTunes to sync data.


Another issue which occurs to me is how soon Apple can justify dropping
iTunes support for older operating systems.

The past pattern is that iTunes dropped support for a Mac OS X version
when a new major iOS version was released about four years after that
Mac OS X version was superseded: 10.3 support was dropped with iOS 3
(mid 2009), and 10.4 support was dropped with iOS 5 (late 2011). If the
pattern continues, 10.5 support should be dropped around late 2013, and
10.6 support around late 2015.

I don't think Apple can justify dropping Windows XP support in iTunes
until at least 2013, and probably not before 2014. As of last month's
web stats, XP was still the most common Windows version (though Windows
7 and Vista combined now outweigh XP).

Microsoft is currently planning to continue supplying security updates
for Windows XP until April 2014, but that has already been extended
several times.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

In article <1kmgfyy.1duwifd1yp44w7N%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>,
 dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:

> This subthread is talking about the suggestion that iCloud support would 
> be added to SL specifically for the benefit of Macs which cannot upgrade 
> to Lion (or later).

Something just occurred to me about why Apple might support iCloud on Snow 
Leopard, namely for people who have multiple computers, at least one of 
which runs SL, but can't run Lion or later, while the remaining computers 
run Lion or later.

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

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:38:07 -0700, Bread wrote:

> Especially nice about Dropbox is that adding Dropbox integration to a
> desktop app is generally as simple as telling the app to point at your
> ~/Dropbox directory (and perhaps taking some precautions about files
> being written to simultaneously from multiple places).  And lots of iOS
> apps already can talk to files left in your Dropbox by their desktop
> counterparts.

Dropbox also offer cross-platofrm developer kits:

<https://www.dropbox.com/developers>

-- 
Paul Sture

On 2012-06-29 14:09:51 +0000, Michelle Steiner said:

> In article <1kmgfyy.1duwifd1yp44w7N%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>,
>  dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
> 
>> This subthread is talking about the suggestion that iCloud support would
>> be added to SL specifically for the benefit of Macs which cannot upgrade
>> to Lion (or later).
> 
> Something just occurred to me about why Apple might support iCloud on Snow
> Leopard, namely for people who have multiple computers, at least one of
> which runs SL, but can't run Lion or later, while the remaining computers
> run Lion or later.

That's me and that's why I'm hoping for SL iCloud support.  But I've 
long since given up waiting it out.  I upgraded the other machines to 
Lion and moved to iCloud and if Apple doesn't make me happy regarding 
this, I'm already resigned to live with it.  But it certainly played a 
big part in me waiting until two weeks ago to move to iCloud rather 
than when Apple first started pushing me towards it.

Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <1kmgfyy.1duwifd1yp44w7N%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>,
>  dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
> 
> > This subthread is talking about the suggestion that iCloud support would
> > be added to SL specifically for the benefit of Macs which cannot upgrade
> > to Lion (or later).
> 
> Something just occurred to me about why Apple might support iCloud on Snow
> Leopard, namely for people who have multiple computers, at least one of
> which runs SL, but can't run Lion or later, while the remaining computers
> run Lion or later.

Why single out Macs that can't upgrade beyond Snow Leopard? There are a
lot more PowerPC Macs which can't upgrade beyond Leopard.

Apple's past pattern has been to gradually abandon support for old
computers which cannot upgrade to a later OS version. Why should iCloud
support be handled differently?

As for your earlier argument that Apple wants as many people on iCloud
as possible, then why aren't they supporting iCloud for Windows XP?
That's an awful lot more computers than the ones limited to Snow
Leopard.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

In article <1kmi3ng.zw1oby19zjtg8N%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>,
 dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:

> As for your earlier argument that Apple wants as many people on iCloud
> as possible, then why aren't they supporting iCloud for Windows XP?
> That's an awful lot more computers than the ones limited to Snow
> Leopard.

They probably don't have the infrastructure to make big pronouncements 
yet. They are building a large facility in Reno, NV which is major news 
for our community. They haven't broken ground yet, but the facility is 
supposed to be done by the end of this year. It's for iCloud services 
unless I have completely misunderstood what the local news says.

leo

Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> > Auto Termination
> 
> This one is annoying only because the app doesn't stay in the
> Dock/Switcher. Relaunch with resume is fast enough that usually I don't
> even notice if an app has terminated unless I try to command-tab to it.

Auto termination (Why? this might have been useful in OS 9 and earlier, 
but wasn't OS X supposed to eliminate the need for it?) can thankfully 
be turned off:

defaults write -g NSDisableAutomaticTermination -bool yes

-- 
K.

Lang may your lum reek.