Quake3World

Tsakali_ wrote:but I don't see any flies arou.....ohhh!

holy fuck!

you got the wrong quote chief but you're welcomed

i just saw that megazoomer link now - tx.

but i got the right quote - the holy fuck was at me discovering the "flies"...

ahh, well hope it works I don't have a mac to test it on, but i figured your request should be common enough for a quick google

Dave wrote: Command/Open Apple+J

you suck - that just brings up the box which allows you to add the category of "kind".

Here is an illustration of the problem I'm having - notice how .m files and .mat files are grouped together under the kind "document", making it impossible for me to neatly separate out the .m's from the .mat's

I tried Apple a long time ago. I didn't like it because of the speed issue. I haven't tried a new Mac as of yet. I'm pretty sure they have improved.

[xeno]Julios wrote:

Dave wrote: Command/Open Apple+J

you suck - that just brings up the box which allows you to add the category of "kind".

Here is an illustration of the problem I'm having - notice how .m files and .mat files are grouped together under the kind "document", making it impossible for me to neatly separate out the .m's from the .mat's

your 'problem' lies in the fact that macos doesnt use extensions, therefore the .m is simply part of the filename. extensions help however when its part of a known filetype.
what youre describing is the equivalent of windows not being able to seperate blahblah.doc, blahblah_old.doc, blahblah2.doc, blahblah2_old.doc, etc.

I have my Boss' Macbook for the week. We'll see how that goes. I've been using it on and off for a few days, seems decent...

MKJ wrote:
your 'problem' lies in the fact that macos doesnt use extensions, therefore the .m is simply part of the filename. extensions help however when its part of a known filetype.

Whatever the reason, it's functionally inferior in this respect to windows explorer. Sorting files by file extension is a pretty key feature. It shouldn't be a hard programming challenge to include the category "file extension" in addition to "kind". The Mac Os finder constrains categories according to its own standards, and assumes that a contiguous display of .m files and .mat files is useful, when in fact it is utterly not. My .mat files are data files and my .m files are programming files, and they need to be sorted differently when parsing through directories so I can collect my data files easily.

I would not have this problem with windows explorer, and I really don't see the advantage of sorting it exclusively by kind.

MKJ wrote: what youre describing is the equivalent of windows not being able to seperate blahblah.doc, blahblah_old.doc, blahblah2.doc, blahblah2_old.doc, etc.

The circumstances where you'd want to sort files like this for efficient functioning are probably extremely rare, and if you really wanted to, you could make up your own extensions like .olddoc


I have no problem with admitting xp's weaknesses and osx's strengths, but finder is clearly a weakness.

What are you thoughts on linux (assuming you have enough experience w/ it to form reasonable opinion)?

Correct me if I'm wrong but do mac users find the expose feature so useful is because they don't have a taskbar? The dock has all of your programs on it, and the black arrow indicates if the software is open, but it is still difficult (at least from when I have used the mac) if a program is truly open or not. I also think it's hard to discern between different open documents. I dunno, I think the taskbar satisfies my needs, but without the taskbar, the F9 expose would be much more useful.

BTW jules there are some expose clones if you're looking to use it on windows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expos%C3%A9_clone

[xeno]Julios wrote:

Dave wrote: Command/Open Apple+J

you suck - that just brings up the box which allows you to add the category of "kind".

Here is an illustration of the problem I'm having - notice how .m files and .mat files are grouped together under the kind "document", making it impossible for me to neatly separate out the .m's from the .mat's

blah, blah, blah.. that's wolfram's fault for not typing .m (or .m~ -- lame file extension) to matlab

have heard great things about linux, but haven't made the effort yet.

tx for the link to xp expose thingie

reason I like it is because there'll be times when I have about 8+ windows open just in matlab alone, and being able to bring them all up visually is sometimes superior to a taskbar because the taskbar info just has the title, so it's not always clear which one you need to bring up (for example if I have four figures plotted by matlab I'd immediately recognize it in expose because I know what I'm looking for visually - like a face turned to the left - but a taskbar would only show the title - figure1, figure2, etc.).

Dave wrote: blah, blah, blah.. that's wolfram's fault for not typing .m (or .m~ -- lame file extension) to matlab

1) I don't think wolfram programmed matlab - he does mathematica, whereas matlab is mathworks

2) I don't know what you mean about "typing .m" to matlab. You mean he should have assigned the .m file to the kind titled "matlab"? Then what should he have assigned ".mat"?

3) .m~ is indeed lame - it's a backup file created by matlab which is rarely useful

Well, whoever programmed it, they messed up. Since I don't know the difference between .m and .mat, they should have called them whatever they are.. 'Matlab m file', 'Matlab mat file' or whatever makes sense. But since they didn't associate them, OS X assigns them to the generic Document type. Windows more or less does the same thing when it encounters unknown file types.

Dave wrote:Well, whoever programmed it, they messed up. Since I don't know the difference between .m and .mat, they should have called them whatever they are.. 'Matlab m file', 'Matlab mat file' or whatever makes sense.

I explained the difference between them 6 posts up. That posts also explains why it's important to separate the two extensions.

But since they didn't associate them, OS X assigns them to the generic Document type. Windows more or less does the same thing when it encounters unknown file types.

No, xp actually sorts them by the file extension. If you have a folder full of files each having a unique and bogus file extension, xp will sort them alphabetically and display the file extension in the "type" column.

also, do progammers have the power to create novel and custom kinds, or are they constrained to a finite and pre-ordained list of kinds?

[xeno]Julios wrote:

Dave wrote:Well, whoever programmed it, they messed up. Since I don't know the difference between .m and .mat, they should have called them whatever they are.. 'Matlab m file', 'Matlab mat file' or whatever makes sense.

I explained the difference between them 6 posts up. That posts also explains why it's important to separate the two extensions.

But since they didn't associate them, OS X assigns them to the generic Document type. Windows more or less does the same thing when it encounters unknown file types.

No, xp actually sorts them by the file extension. If you have a folder full of files each having a unique and bogus file extension, xp will sort them alphabetically and display the file extension in the "type" column.

I didn't bother to read the difference, but it's irrelevant anyway.. As I said, the authors had the ability to declare those as separate, well defined file types but they chose not to. I don't know how to declare custom extensions in OS X. You can of course do it, but you might have to do some googling.

The difference between Windows and OS X is that Windows can't live with out file extensions, while Macs generally can. There are a few instances when OS X needs an extension to know what something is (applications for instance are just folders with .app file extensions). It's just a fundamental difference in organization between the OSes.

Try to remove the file extensions from files in a Windows file system and see if Explorer can deal with it. Do the same in OS X and compare the reaction. Windows just shows you a generic looking file icon that won't open anything except the 'what should I open this piece of trash with?' dialog, while OS X will make some attempt to figure out if your file is plain text that can be opened with TextEdit before giving you the 'what should I open this piece of trash with?' dialog.

In conclusion, I was not wrong and I don't suck. The authors of Matlab just don't know how to associate file types in OS X.

[xeno]Julios wrote:also, do progammers have the power to create novel and custom kinds, or are they constrained to a finite and pre-ordained list of kinds?

i.e., could the authors of matlab have actually created a custom kind called "matlab programming file", or "matlab matrix file", or would they be forced to choose from apple's list?

ffs julios... what would you imagine?

brick wall.

i stand by my statement, youre trying to use one os like you would the other.

for the record i dont think theres a 'better' os, especially with the coming of xp. both have their strengths and their quirks.
not being able to sort on file extension (having file extensions is a windows requirement) is *not* one of them.

that's besides the point, the act of separating one thing from another is very useful...the idea of a file type is so fundamental i can't even come up with an analogy ...file types are file types

Dave wrote:applications for instance are just folders with .app file extensions

This is one of my favorite OS X features. Extremely elegant compared to the Windows installation/registry crap, just plop the app into your Programs folder (or wherever you want) and you're done.

As a user, you can choose which applications to associate with which filetypes in OS X by choosing "Get Info" and selecting an application to open that filetype with.

MKJ wrote:brick wall.

i stand by my statement, youre trying to use one os like you would the other.

MKJ: It wouldn't be a brick wall if you chose to actually respond to the points I made rather than harping on the vague blanket statement you just made.

Out of 4 distinct points about OSx which I brought up, only the second one has been defended intelligently (by Dave).

Let me refresh your memory:

1) The bloody maximize button doesn't fully maximize the screen, which I really need. Not all of us have huge displays where partial maximization is sufficient. Besides, some of us like to focus on one particular window without being reminded of the background clutter. When I'm reading a pdf article I want to be immersed in it with a single click of a button. Instead, I have to tediously drag the corners of the window until it approximates a full screen. fucking bullshit.

2) The built in file navigator just blows. Can't sort documents by file type, but rather by file kind, which is too broad of a category for most use.

3) In XP, you can select multiple contiguous groupings of files by nifty use of the shift and ctrl key. In mac you can only select a single grouping. Fucking bullshit.

4) The systems preferences is a goddamn joke - fisher price tweaks and that's it.

Your point about me using one as I'd use the other is vacuous without any meaningful response to accompany it. I may as well have said:

"I tried out a 486 66 mhz machine the other day, and compared to my AMD 2ghz machine, I think it sucks. Here's why:

1) It takes forever to boot

2) Hardly any of the programs I need actually run

3) The machine is so much heavier "

to which you respond:

"Julios, you're problem is that you're trying to use the 486 as you would an AMD 2ghz"

Now you may have a point about me using osX in the incorrect manner, and that this style of usage is blinding me from its real power, but:

a) you have not demonstrated how this might be so

b) you haven't even begun to address my individual points that I brought up.

Therefore:

You are a brick wall

Well, fine...

#1 - get used to it... applications eventually remember the maximized position. And if it's really that important to you, Command + Shift + F in Preview or Command + L in Acrobat will put you into full screen reading mode.
#3 - use the mouse
#4 - isn't worth a response