[JonnyComeLately]

The best "act of kindness" thing Apple could do is to restore Rosetta to their OS. Of course they won't (and yes I know I am taunting the "Apple Can Do No Wrong and Lion Is the Best Thing Ever" crowd, but when Tim Cook said that only 40% of the Macs out there were running Lion, that meant that 60% were running SOMETHING ELSE. 60% were running Snow Leopard or Leopard or Tiger. 60% chose NOT to upgrade (no matter what the silly price is), and I suspect the 60% won't be upgrading to Mountain Lion either.

Apple, for all its billions of dollars, could not -- out of respect to their professional customer base [those who make a living producing creative materials on a Mac] and a pettiness toward IBM and whoever holds the current license to Rosetta -- offer Rosetta towards 60% of its customer base.

Oh, but raise a stink about a silly recycling program, and in less than one week, Apple changes its mind.

[bastion]

JonnyComeLately, on 20 July 2012 - 06:36 PM, said:

The best "act of kindness" thing Apple could do is to restore Rosetta to their OS. Of course they won't (and yes I know I am taunting the "Apple Can Do No Wrong and Lion Is the Best Thing Ever" crowd, but when Tim Cook said that only 40% of the Macs out there were running Lion, that meant that 60% were running SOMETHING ELSE. 60% were running Snow Leopard or Leopard or Tiger. 60% chose NOT to upgrade (no matter what the silly price is), and I suspect the 60% won't be upgrading to Mountain Lion either.

Apple, for all its billions of dollars, could not -- out of respect to their professional customer base [those who make a living producing creative materials on a Mac] and a pettiness toward IBM and whoever holds the current license to Rosetta -- offer Rosetta towards 60% of its customer base.

Oh, but raise a stink about a silly recycling program, and in less than one week, Apple changes its mind.

You're very confused. Apple can't restore Rosetta to OS X because IBM will not license it for that purpose. Period. It has nothing to do with pettiness, on either company's part. IBM is all about the POWER architecture, and that's the decision they've made. They have no interest in making it easier for people to move away from their architecture.

[leicaman]

TeaEarleGreyHot, on 11 July 2012 - 11:29 AM, said:

PHASE 1: I will install Mt. Lion immediately upon release.
PHASE 2: I will then find within 4hr, if not instantly, that it is incompatible with certain legacy software I require, or it loses my mail or even worse, passes all my private information over to Facebook.
PHASE 3: I will then want to un-install and recover.
So it what's the best approach: Clone my system today with CCC? Or just rely on Time Machine to rescue me?

Answer: Yes.

That is, do both. And double up with a second clone done by SuperDuper.

The Take Control folks have really great guides for upgrading to Mountain Lion, and another for using it. They had a special for $10 for both. Very good deal. I have no connection to them other than having bought a bunch if books, and having gotten the Lion versions last year.

[billthecat]

I suppose I should get ready by grouping all my Pages files together, all my Numbers files together, instead of using a file system where things are grouped by topic/project/etc. I'm not sure I like that approach, though. For example, suppose I have a Pages document that ultimately gets printed and signed, scanned as a PDF. I can't have the Pages version with the scanned PDF version. Well, I could by not using the iCloud approach, but clearly Apple is nudging us to group files by type instead of relationships.

[whitedog]

billthecat, on 21 July 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:

I suppose I should get ready by grouping all my Pages files together, all my Numbers files together, instead of using a file system where things are grouped by topic/project/etc. I'm not sure I like that approach, though. For example, suppose I have a Pages document that ultimately gets printed and signed, scanned as a PDF. I can't have the Pages version with the scanned PDF version. Well, I could by not using the iCloud approach, but clearly Apple is nudging us to group files by type instead of relationships.

Do we know that applications specific files have to be stored together for purposes of iCloud syncing? If so, that would indeed make iCloud less than useful. Do you have a source for that information or are you just supposing?

[billthecat]

whitedog, on 21 July 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

billthecat, on 21 July 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:

I suppose I should get ready by grouping all my Pages files together, all my Numbers files together, instead of using a file system where things are grouped by topic/project/etc. I'm not sure I like that approach, though. For example, suppose I have a Pages document that ultimately gets printed and signed, scanned as a PDF. I can't have the Pages version with the scanned PDF version. Well, I could by not using the iCloud approach, but clearly Apple is nudging us to group files by type instead of relationships.

Do we know that applications specific files have to be stored together for purposes of iCloud syncing? If so, that would indeed make iCloud less than useful. Do you have a source for that information or are you just supposing?

http://www.appleinsi..._documents.html

The default is to store documents with / inside the app. liken iOS, with the option to save outside the app in the regular file system if you wish

[whitedog]

bastion, on 20 July 2012 - 05:46 PM, said:

whitedog, on 20 July 2012 - 05:26 PM, said:

kosh, on 20 July 2012 - 04:09 PM, said:

John__B, on 19 July 2012 - 05:29 PM, said:

But you knew it wasn't upgradable when you bought it. The MBAs have been BTO upgradable to at least 4GB since, what, the 2010 release?

Everybody should already know much RAM or hard drive capacity they need in a laptop, now and for all time to come. And forget about wanting to upgrade later when RAM or SSD prices go down. Everybody should be willing to pay today's prices for everything upfront. And everybody should be willing pay for a new system board and CPU when the laptop is out of warranty and there is a problem with the memory or SSD.

You're awfully generous in telling everybody what everybody should do. I don't know where you think you got the wisdom or the authority to lay down the law like that, but I'm sure everybody knows you don't have either wisdom or authority - or the sense God gave a goose. No one knows the future so it's utterly impossible to know what one will need "for all time." Indeed, your presumption is so preposterous I'm tempted to think you are trying to be ironic, but your comments don't come across as in any way amusing. They're just dumb.

I think sarcastic is what the poster was actually going for, but it's simply obnoxious and somewhat ignorant. The previous post makes a valid point. All machines are compromised in some way, and the compromises of the MBA include the fact that you have no guarantee of being able to upgrade RAM or persistent storage beyond what you got up front. It's tough to be sympathetic to someone who wasn't aware of those limitations and, for me at least, not much easier to feel sorry for someone who doesn't understand that future tasks are likely to be more resource-intensive than current ones. I've noted here multiple times that I can't get excited about the Air because to me the lack of after-market RAM expansion is a deal-breaker. I keep my machines for several years and I have no faith that in 2017 8GB is going to be reasonable for the OS and apps I'm using. I understand what the Air represents, and those who value what it brings enough to make that trade-off; I'm just not among them.

My sentiments exactly. It's much the same issue as when people upgrade the OS without doing a little research to see what they will be getting. I like the old carpenter's saying, measure twice, cut once. Or the even older one, look before you leap.

[whitedog]

billthecat, on 21 July 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

whitedog, on 21 July 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

billthecat, on 21 July 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:

I suppose I should get ready by grouping all my Pages files together, all my Numbers files together, instead of using a file system where things are grouped by topic/project/etc. I'm not sure I like that approach, though. For example, suppose I have a Pages document that ultimately gets printed and signed, scanned as a PDF. I can't have the Pages version with the scanned PDF version. Well, I could by not using the iCloud approach, but clearly Apple is nudging us to group files by type instead of relationships.

Do we know that applications specific files have to be stored together for purposes of iCloud syncing? If so, that would indeed make iCloud less than useful. Do you have a source for that information or are you just supposing?

http://www.appleinsi..._documents.html

The default is to store documents with / inside the app. liken iOS, with the option to save outside the app in the regular file system if you wish

This is probably fine for non-professional users. They can already set up albums in iPhoto and playlists in iTunes, which appears to be the model for iCloud. But albums and playlists are still a file system of sorts. You can organize content from the respective libraries in any number of ways, including for specific projects if that's what you need. The question I have is, will apps like those in iWork be equally flexible? If not, then iCloud syncing will be of limited value to anyone whose needs go beyond the basics. There's also the question of data reliability. If you add recent reports of iCloud malfunctions to the already long list of library corruption issues for iPhoto and iTunes, then iCloud ultimately makes things harder, not easier, as you still need to develop a local backup strategy to cover the inevitable glitches in the cloud and the apps.

All of which is to say that services like DropBox will remain invaluable for professional users who need to share data with colleagues or even among their own computers. Unlike iCloud, DropBox is not limited to specific applications, though it's more like iDisk in that you need to store date in a specific folder for synchronization and backup purpose.

The problem remains that complexity and flexibility are the enemies of simplicity. They are, for all practical purposes, mutually exclusive. Apple's strategy has been to boil things down to the essentials. Unfortunately, as we've seen with proliferating functions in iTunes, it's almost impossible to avoid the temptation to add features to an application. iTunes demonstrates that not even Apple can resist that temptation.

[billthecat]

whitedog, on 21 July 2012 - 01:53 PM, said:

billthecat, on 21 July 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

whitedog, on 21 July 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

billthecat, on 21 July 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:

I suppose I should get ready by grouping all my Pages files together, all my Numbers files together, instead of using a file system where things are grouped by topic/project/etc. I'm not sure I like that approach, though. For example, suppose I have a Pages document that ultimately gets printed and signed, scanned as a PDF. I can't have the Pages version with the scanned PDF version. Well, I could by not using the iCloud approach, but clearly Apple is nudging us to group files by type instead of relationships.

Do we know that applications specific files have to be stored together for purposes of iCloud syncing? If so, that would indeed make iCloud less than useful. Do you have a source for that information or are you just supposing?

http://www.appleinsi..._documents.html

The default is to store documents with / inside the app. liken iOS, with the option to save outside the app in the regular file system if you wish

This is probably fine for non-professional users. They can already set up albums in iPhoto and playlists in iTunes, which appears to be the model for iCloud. But albums and playlists are still a file system of sorts. You can organize content from the respective libraries in any number of ways, including for specific projects if that's what you need. The question I have is, will apps like those in iWork be equally flexible? If not, then iCloud syncing will be of limited value to anyone whose needs go beyond the basics. There's also the question of data reliability. If you add recent reports of iCloud malfunctions to the already long list of library corruption issues for iPhoto and iTunes, then iCloud ultimately makes things harder, not easier, as you still need to develop a local backup strategy to cover the inevitable glitches in the cloud and the apps.

All of which is to say that services like DropBox will remain invaluable for professional users who need to share data with colleagues or even among their own computers. Unlike iCloud, DropBox is not limited to specific applications, though it's more like iDisk in that you need to store date in a specific folder for synchronization and backup purpose.

The problem remains that complexity and flexibility are the enemies of simplicity. They are, for all practical purposes, mutually exclusive. Apple's strategy has been to boil things down to the essentials. Unfortunately, as we've seen with proliferating functions in iTunes, it's almost impossible to avoid the temptation to add features to an application. iTunes demonstrates that not even Apple can resist that temptation.

Well, OK, but but my point still stands: I'm not sure I like being limited to grouping files by file type, which is the way Apple is headed. The "file system of sorts" you describe in iTunes and iPhoto are limited to their respective file types.

The regular old file system of files and folders works just fine. The inability of some folks to grasp what is going on in such a system is a litmus test of sorts for stupidity.

[bastion]

billthecat, on 21 July 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

whitedog, on 21 July 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

billthecat, on 21 July 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:

I suppose I should get ready by grouping all my Pages files together, all my Numbers files together, instead of using a file system where things are grouped by topic/project/etc. I'm not sure I like that approach, though. For example, suppose I have a Pages document that ultimately gets printed and signed, scanned as a PDF. I can't have the Pages version with the scanned PDF version. Well, I could by not using the iCloud approach, but clearly Apple is nudging us to group files by type instead of relationships.

Do we know that applications specific files have to be stored together for purposes of iCloud syncing? If so, that would indeed make iCloud less than useful. Do you have a source for that information or are you just supposing?

http://www.appleinsi..._documents.html

The default is to store documents with / inside the app. liken iOS, with the option to save outside the app in the regular file system if you wish

Please go back and read again. You've *really* misinterpreted that article and gone way overboard in what you think it implies/requires for your own file management practices.

[whitedog]

billthecat, on 21 July 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

Well, OK, but but my point still stands: I'm not sure I like being limited to grouping files by file type, which is the way Apple is headed. The "file system of sorts" you describe in iTunes and iPhoto are limited to their respective file types.

The regular old file system of files and folders works just fine. The inability of some folks to grasp what is going on in such a system is a litmus test of sorts for stupidity.

I likewise have no trouble with the Mac (or Windows) filesystem. But I'm not fool enough to generalize from my experience to the whole body of computer users. Nor do I look down my nose at people who don't "get it" or consider them stupid. That would be/is arrogant.

Clearly Apple knows how most people use computers - and we're not talking power users here who can generally make the OS do their bidding. And Apple knows their market - far better than you do it would seem. They are designing for the mass market, while not preventing more capable users from doing things "their" way. If iCloud doesn't work for you, you are free to use another cloud service that better suits your needs. Most such services include Mac specific, and sometimes iOS specific, apps to cater to the Apple community. With the exception of some complex business service providers, we are no longer in a non-Windows ghetto where Mac compatible apps and services are hard to find. Indeed, with capable virtualization solutions available, there is very little that a Windows user can do that a Mac user cannot.

So, you are not limited to grouping files by type, except as required to use iCloud, which you don't have to do. At the same time, most people are inclined to group their files by application, which is how Apple's emerging model works. Apple is serving them, while not preventing you from using your own organization schemes. In my experience, many people store files in their application's folders, something of which I'm inclined to disapprove, but which I nevertheless understand. That is, when they have any system at all for managing files, which they frequently do not. It is this chaos Apple is trying to tame. This is also the goal of AutoSave and Versions in Lion.

What I don't understand is why so many power users feel threatened by Apple's efforts to simplify use of their devices, including the Mac. Despite a complete lack of evidence, like you they evince the fear that simplification will inhibit their use of OS X somehow. This tells me that it is these power users who don't "get it." They don't see how Apple's strategy serves the majority of their customers without in any way impinging traditional use of OS X (except for the bonehead elimination of Save As and the gray ghost Finder sidebar). They are the first to see themselves apart from the madding crowds, yet they begrudge Apple's efforts to serve those crowds better. They don't understand or approve of Apple's increasingly successful, user friendly, business model. They are "self-deporting" as it were, feeling themselves segregated and discriminated against in a way that more accurately reflects their own lack of understanding than anything Apple is doing.

I have been unstinting in my criticism of OS X Lion for problems I deem important. Yet I do not feel threatened by Apple's overall strategy to integrate iOS and OS X and the applications that people use on both platforms. I see the logic in that strategy and how it will make living in a multi-device environment easier. Indeed, given the potential complexity of using multiple devices, this effort at simplification and integration is vital to Apple's continuing success. Further, because Apple makes both the hardware and software, they have a significant advantage over the competition - an advantage of which Microsoft is obviously keenly aware. Hence their initiative with their ultrabook Surface tablets, Windows 8 with Metro and Office 360. Indeed, Microsoft is fending off competition from Google as well as Apple, which may explain the schizophrenic effort to combine Windows with Metro. While I think Microsoft's plan has critical, perhaps even fatal, weaknesses, I can see why they feel compelled to try such a thing. Their philosophy of Windows everywhere is inherently complex. Unfortunately for them, they have no skill at either simplification or integration. Now I could be wrong and Windows 8/Metro and the Surface tablets may prove a smashing success. But, not being a gambling man, I'm not buying any Microsoft stock.

I realize that a discussion of Microsoft may seem off topic, but it provides some context in which to evaluate where Apple is headed and why. And it illustrates why I think Apple's iOS/OS X strategy is eminently reasonable, necessary and appropriate, the faults in Lion notwithstanding.

[billthecat]

whitedog, on 22 July 2012 - 05:33 AM, said:

billthecat, on 21 July 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

Well, OK, but but my point still stands: I'm not sure I like being limited to grouping files by file type, which is the way Apple is headed. The "file system of sorts" you describe in iTunes and iPhoto are limited to their respective file types.

The regular old file system of files and folders works just fine. The inability of some folks to grasp what is going on in such a system is a litmus test of sorts for stupidity.

I likewise have no trouble with the Mac (or Windows) filesystem. But I'm not fool enough to generalize from my experience to the whole body of computer users. Nor do I look down my nose at people who don't "get it" or consider them stupid. That would be/is arrogant.

Clearly Apple knows how most people use computers - and we're not talking power users here who can generally make the OS do their bidding. And Apple knows their market - far better than you do it would seem. They are designing for the mass market, while not preventing more capable users from doing things "their" way. If iCloud doesn't work for you, you are free to use another cloud service that better suits your needs. Most such services include Mac specific, and sometimes iOS specific, apps to cater to the Apple community. With the exception of some complex business service providers, we are no longer in a non-Windows ghetto where Mac compatible apps and services are hard to find. Indeed, with capable virtualization solutions available, there is very little that a Windows user can do that a Mac user cannot.

So, you are not limited to grouping files by type, except as required to use iCloud, which you don't have to do. At the same time, most people are inclined to group their files by application, which is how Apple's emerging model works. Apple is serving them, while not preventing you from using your own organization schemes. In my experience, many people store files in their application's folders, something of which I'm inclined to disapprove, but which I nevertheless understand. That is, when they have any system at all for managing files, which they frequently do not. It is this chaos Apple is trying to tame. This is also the goal of AutoSave and Versions in Lion.

What I don't understand is why so many power users feel threatened by Apple's efforts to simplify use of their devices, including the Mac. Despite a complete lack of evidence, like you they evince the fear that simplification will inhibit their use of OS X somehow. This tells me that it is these power users who don't "get it." They don't see how Apple's strategy serves the majority of their customers without in any way impinging traditional use of OS X (except for the bonehead elimination of Save As and the gray ghost Finder sidebar). They are the first to see themselves apart from the madding crowds, yet they begrudge Apple's efforts to serve those crowds better. They don't understand or approve of Apple's increasingly successful, user friendly, business model. They are "self-deporting" as it were, feeling themselves segregated and discriminated against in a way that more accurately reflects their own lack of understanding than anything Apple is doing.

I have been unstinting in my criticism of OS X Lion for problems I deem important. Yet I do not feel threatened by Apple's overall strategy to integrate iOS and OS X and the applications that people use on both platforms. I see the logic in that strategy and how it will make living in a multi-device environment easier. Indeed, given the potential complexity of using multiple devices, this effort at simplification and integration is vital to Apple's continuing success. Further, because Apple makes both the hardware and software, they have a significant advantage over the competition - an advantage of which Microsoft is obviously keenly aware. Hence their initiative with their ultrabook Surface tablets, Windows 8 with Metro and Office 360. Indeed, Microsoft is fending off competition from Google as well as Apple, which may explain the schizophrenic effort to combine Windows with Metro. While I think Microsoft's plan has critical, perhaps even fatal, weaknesses, I can see why they feel compelled to try such a thing. Their philosophy of Windows everywhere is inherently complex. Unfortunately for them, they have no skill at either simplification or integration. Now I could be wrong and Windows 8/Metro and the Surface tablets may prove a smashing success. But, not being a gambling man, I'm not buying any Microsoft stock.

I realize that a discussion of Microsoft may seem off topic, but it provides some context in which to evaluate where Apple is headed and why. And it illustrates why I think Apple's iOS/OS X strategy is eminently reasonable, necessary and appropriate, the faults in Lion notwithstanding.

Look, I'm enjoying picking a fight with you, but this is just too dreadfully long and repetitive. Could you please keep your retorts to the point? Thanks.

As I acknowledged, but you completely missed, there is the option to save outside the iCloud system, for now. What you don't get is where this is heading - the iOS model, where you DON'T have access to the file system are can ONLY save with the associated app.

What you also don't get is that not everything Apple does is the "right" way. But you seem to be of the mindset that everything trust upon you is for your own good. I prefer to question that and think for myself.

And, further, even if what they do does fit the majority of their customers, I'm free to criticize them because their model doesn't fit my uses. Your expectation that I just sit quietly and "take it" is obnoxious.

And, yes, anyone who can't grasp the hierarchal structure of files and folders IS an idiot. I mean, it's modeled after a filing cabinet for crying out loud!!!!

[whitedog]

billthecat, on 22 July 2012 - 09:49 AM, said:

whitedog, on 22 July 2012 - 05:33 AM, said:

billthecat, on 21 July 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

Well, OK, but but my point still stands: I'm not sure I like being limited to grouping files by file type, which is the way Apple is headed. The "file system of sorts" you describe in iTunes and iPhoto are limited to their respective file types.

The regular old file system of files and folders works just fine. The inability of some folks to grasp what is going on in such a system is a litmus test of sorts for stupidity.

I likewise have no trouble with the Mac (or Windows) filesystem. But I'm not fool enough to generalize from my experience to the whole body of computer users. Nor do I look down my nose at people who don't "get it" or consider them stupid. That would be/is arrogant.

Clearly Apple knows how most people use computers - and we're not talking power users here who can generally make the OS do their bidding. And Apple knows their market - far better than you do it would seem. They are designing for the mass market, while not preventing more capable users from doing things "their" way. If iCloud doesn't work for you, you are free to use another cloud service that better suits your needs. Most such services include Mac specific, and sometimes iOS specific, apps to cater to the Apple community. With the exception of some complex business service providers, we are no longer in a non-Windows ghetto where Mac compatible apps and services are hard to find. Indeed, with capable virtualization solutions available, there is very little that a Windows user can do that a Mac user cannot.

So, you are not limited to grouping files by type, except as required to use iCloud, which you don't have to do. At the same time, most people are inclined to group their files by application, which is how Apple's emerging model works. Apple is serving them, while not preventing you from using your own organization schemes. In my experience, many people store files in their application's folders, something of which I'm inclined to disapprove, but which I nevertheless understand. That is, when they have any system at all for managing files, which they frequently do not. It is this chaos Apple is trying to tame. This is also the goal of AutoSave and Versions in Lion.

What I don't understand is why so many power users feel threatened by Apple's efforts to simplify use of their devices, including the Mac. Despite a complete lack of evidence, like you they evince the fear that simplification will inhibit their use of OS X somehow. This tells me that it is these power users who don't "get it." They don't see how Apple's strategy serves the majority of their customers without in any way impinging traditional use of OS X (except for the bonehead elimination of Save As and the gray ghost Finder sidebar). They are the first to see themselves apart from the madding crowds, yet they begrudge Apple's efforts to serve those crowds better. They don't understand or approve of Apple's increasingly successful, user friendly, business model. They are "self-deporting" as it were, feeling themselves segregated and discriminated against in a way that more accurately reflects their own lack of understanding than anything Apple is doing.

I have been unstinting in my criticism of OS X Lion for problems I deem important. Yet I do not feel threatened by Apple's overall strategy to integrate iOS and OS X and the applications that people use on both platforms. I see the logic in that strategy and how it will make living in a multi-device environment easier. Indeed, given the potential complexity of using multiple devices, this effort at simplification and integration is vital to Apple's continuing success. Further, because Apple makes both the hardware and software, they have a significant advantage over the competition - an advantage of which Microsoft is obviously keenly aware. Hence their initiative with their ultrabook Surface tablets, Windows 8 with Metro and Office 360. Indeed, Microsoft is fending off competition from Google as well as Apple, which may explain the schizophrenic effort to combine Windows with Metro. While I think Microsoft's plan has critical, perhaps even fatal, weaknesses, I can see why they feel compelled to try such a thing. Their philosophy of Windows everywhere is inherently complex. Unfortunately for them, they have no skill at either simplification or integration. Now I could be wrong and Windows 8/Metro and the Surface tablets may prove a smashing success. But, not being a gambling man, I'm not buying any Microsoft stock.

I realize that a discussion of Microsoft may seem off topic, but it provides some context in which to evaluate where Apple is headed and why. And it illustrates why I think Apple's iOS/OS X strategy is eminently reasonable, necessary and appropriate, the faults in Lion notwithstanding.

Look, I'm enjoying picking a fight with you, but this is just too dreadfully long and repetitive. Could you please keep your retorts to the point? Thanks.

As I acknowledged, but you completely missed, there is the option to save outside the iCloud system, for now. What you don't get is where this is heading - the iOS model, where you DON'T have access to the file system are can ONLY save with the associated app.

What you also don't get is that not everything Apple does is the "right" way. But you seem to be of the mindset that everything trust upon you is for your own good. I prefer to question that and think for myself.

And, further, even if what they do does fit the majority of their customers, I'm free to criticize them because their model doesn't fit my uses. Your expectation that I just sit quietly and "take it" is obnoxious.

And, yes, anyone who can't grasp the hierarchal structure of files and folders IS an idiot. I mean, it's modeled after a filing cabinet for crying out loud!!!!

Clearly you couldn't be bothered actually reading my post or you would have gleaned that I am not OK with everything Apple does. Only an idiot would think that I am. But you are of the paranoid persuasion who believes the way the iOS works indicates the way OS X will work eventually. And there's no reasoning with folks like you who see conspiracies under every bed. But I'm not enjoying arguing with you because it's no fun jousting with an unarmed opponent. I went to the trouble to explain why I disagree with you, not so that you might be enlightened - something which is obviously impossible - but so that others might see what's wrong with your argument, if they don't already.

[Dan Frakes]

Folks, let's keep it civil–on both sides–please.