Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Out of context... (Score 1) 292

by BronsCon (#48182365) Attached to: OS X 10.10 Yosemite Review
So then, you're implying that I must be spending time manually resolving conflicts within my solution? It's possible that you're implying that I've never encountered two people editing the same file between syncs, let alone the same line, but let me assure you that I have; which leaves the former option. Let me also tell you that I've not had to manually resolve any conflicts, as the solution I built does a fine job of this. For you to tell me that I do not understand data sync when I've built a data sync solution myself; many, in fact, the Git-based solution I'm bringing up here is simply the most recent, is the insult. If you think the problem is so difficult, it is not unreasonable for me to wish to avoid your work, even if you do find it insulting. There's nothing empty about that.

Comment: Re:Out of context... (Score 1) 292

by BronsCon (#48181845) Attached to: OS X 10.10 Yosemite Review

What you haven't realised is the difficult part is automatically resolving sync conflicts.

Well, it doesn't seem to be a problem in the solution I'm currently using. Mind you, sarcasm>I probably have no clue how it works, given that I implemented it/sarcasm>. But you go right on ahead and keep telling me it's a hard problem. Difficult for you, perhaps, but not hard; there are a finite number of possible solutions and it should not be difficult for a well-built system to solve. True, Git (which I used as the basis for my solution) doesn't do a very good job of this natively; it took some creative and well thought out commit and merge hooks to accomplish it, a good day's work, for sure.

You are correct, though, that there is no one-size-fits-all solution for what to sync and how to handle merging of whatever does eventually get synched. But, then, I never claimed that there was; my claim was that the transport part of the equation is, and has been for decades, solved. Can you argue that point?

Earlier, you said:

They are file formats. They are not methods of handing off open documents between different devices without first saving them somewhere. Completely different thing.

And I didn't disagree. I did, however, point out that the documents are, in fact, saved somewhere (e.g. a temporary file, at the very least), out of necessity. I also pointed out why this was necessary, e.g. if you at all care about data consistency and preventing work loss in case of loss of power or a software or system failure. Can it be done without a temporary file somewhere local? Sure, and without issue, as long as you never lose connectivity or power while working, and your software and system never crash. If you live in a perfect world, you are correct to say that a temp file provides no benefit; however, neither I, nor anyone else I know, live in such a world. When you're using an all that utilizes cloud storage and the app crashes or you close it while you happen to not have any connectivity, it is able to restore your work only because it stored it in a local temp file somewhere.

What application(s) are you involved in. I would like to avoid them.

Comment: Re: I don't follow (Score 1) 320

by BronsCon (#48181767) Attached to: Apple Doesn't Design For Yesterday
So, one iMac base model, the most expensive, renders the other 5 base models that will comprise at least 90% of iMac sales insignificant? The two MacBook Air base models and 13" non-retina MacBook Pro base model which, combined, outsell the 5 retina MacBook Pro retina base models, are insignificant? What of the argument in my other post, to which this was a follow-up and correction?

Comment: Re:Bose is overpriced crap and always has been (Score 1) 301

That's what I prefer to do. Sometimes I get my facts mixed up, but I tend to admit it when it's pointed out to me, and often even thank whoever corrected me. It's the only reason I still have excellent karma despite being regularly downmodded for posting correct information. :)

Comment: Re: Bose is overpriced crap and always has been (Score 1) 301

What you fail to see is that I addressed the fact that what he claims is only possible on OSX is, in fact, possible in Windows and Linux, as well. You can, in fact, install a second OS on a separate partition and both boot to it and run it in a VM, in both Windows and Linux; you can also do the same installing a second OS on a virtual disk. Bootloader support is there in Windows and most major Linux distros, out of the box. Hell, you can boot 3, 4, or any arbitrary number of operating systems you wish on a Windows or Linux PC; you just can't natively boot OSX on one.

That you can't boot OSX on commodity PC hardware, which hasn't been blessed by Apple, is an artificially enforced a shortcoming of OSX, as Apple does actively work to prevent that. Were apple to remove the "genuine hardware" checks (which Chameleon bypasses) from the kernel, OSX would boot just the same on any PC build with supported (whether blessed or not) hardware. And, before anyone jumps on my for trying to make this a religious issue, I'd like to point out two facts:

A) I'm a Mac user and
B) "Blessed" is Apple's own term.

Comment: Re: I don't follow (Score 1) 320

by BronsCon (#48181545) Attached to: Apple Doesn't Design For Yesterday
The new 27" retina 5k iMac ships with a screen that's much higher resolution than retina. It's really the only display they sell, currently, that comes close to possibly cleanly rendering the print font they've co-opted as a display font. It is said (not by me, but I'm sure you can google for your own sources) that print fonts only stop looking like shit at about 600dpi or so; even the 5k @ 27in only provides a 218dpi display. Sure, subpixel rendering allows it to pretend to have a 654ppi horizontal resolution, but, to the eye, the 2-D plane is effectively only roughly 378dpi [( H * V ) ^ .5, or the square root of the horizontal resolution multiplied by the vertical resolution]. Of course, that's only with subpixel rendering, and that's only good when chroma consistency isn't important; without subpixel rendering, it's plain old 218dpi.

As I said in a different post, I don't seen an issue with their font choice, it renders fine, to my eye, on my 17" 1920x1200 display, but a number of other posters have expressed their displeasure; I was simply providing a viable workaround.

And no, the Mac Pro was not designed for video, it was designed as a high-end workstation which, yes, can be used for video; however, let's not limit its use-case to that. It can be used for whatever the displays and other peripherals you attach to it allow it to be used for. I've been eyeballing a Mac Pro since the new ones came out, and video is but one thing I would use it for.

Comment: Re:Yosemite (Score 1) 320

by BronsCon (#48180897) Attached to: Apple Doesn't Design For Yesterday

The fact that the green button now fullscreens an application is another change I don't like.

Agreed. My workaround is an app called BetterSnapTool. I use the green button now when I want to fullscreen an app, but if I just want to maximize it, so I can still CMD+TAB switch applications, I just drag it to the top of the screen and BST does the rest. BST also lets me snap windows to one side, or corner, of the screen. I started using it when I got an LG UltraWide display, with plenty of room to have 2 windows side by side and retain usability, and have been finding new ways to make the app useful ever since.

Comment: Re:Most Macs don't have Retina displays (Score 3, Informative) 320

by BronsCon (#48180671) Attached to: Apple Doesn't Design For Yesterday
This is just another sight that I was correct when I said that Apple computers are poised to become accessories for Apple's iOS devices, rather than the other way around. Apple, clearly, now caters to two groups: iOS device users (who will also be the biggest spenders on apps and media) and creatives. I don't see a problem with this, from a business standpoint it, as it makes perfect sense; I do see a problem from it from the standpoint of software developer and Apple user who loves his 17" MacBook Pro and wishes they'd once again target his demographic.

Creatives will naturally gravitate to the best available displays, which means either the retina-class iMac or MBP, or the Mac Pro and whatever their display of choice happens to be, and Apple definitely has them covered. Helvetica looks just fine on retina displays (honestly, I think it looks just fine @ 1200p on a 17" display, too), so these users won't be likely to complain.

They sell the most expensive hardware to the group least likely to buy a lot of apps and media from Apple, and I agree, that's the way to go. Users of iOS devices have voiced that they want the look and feel of their iPhone, iPod, and iPad everywhere they can possibly get it. Well, those use Helvetica, they also use flat neutrals, transparency, and blur. Apple catered to those users, who are likely to buy the cheaper computer and spend more on apps and media, without a second thought.

If you're not in those two categories or, at least, don't follow either of those spending patterns, I won't say Apple doesn't care about you at all; they certainly care about anyone who wants to give them money, just just don't care enough to give a shit what you want.

Again, I fully agree with this from a business perspective. Unfortunately, I have my own business, which comes with its own perspective, and if that's the view Apple wants to take, it's sadly incompatible with reality for a lot of professional users. It really saddens me, as they were making strides toward developing a huge presence in professional fields before Jobs passed; that has not only slowed, but reversed, since then. It doesn't seem to be hurting their sales, yet, but I imagine it will when they start making more obviously negative changes to OSX's UI. They'll still sell to iOS users and creatives, and they'll probably remain the college student's PC of choice; but, by crapifying the interface (observation of others in this thread, which I've already stated I don't necessarily agree with -- but, me vs them, they're the majority, so I'm using their opinion for my point) on lower-end-but-still-current hardware, which the mass market is more likely to be able to afford when they choose to buy Apple, they're removing much of the allure of their platform. This can't be a good thing.

Reference the NULL within NULL, it is the gateway to all wizardry.