|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 37 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 12 of 37:
| 
Dec 27 23:23 UTC 2010 |
I have a url that I want to store as a bookmark in Firefox. It is
http://www.goodsearch.com/?charityid=927258. However when I open that
and click on Save Bookmark, it rewrites the url as just
http://www.goodsearch.com, which does not save in Firefox with the
appendix /?charityid=927258.
I found a way around this by creating a bookmark alias which can be
saved by Firefox. But is there a direct way to bookmark the page?
|
remmers
|
|
response 13 of 37:
|
Dec 28 19:58 UTC 2010 |
Hmmm... Not exactly an OS X question, but let's see.
When I type that URL directly into Firefox's address box and hit
'return', the '?charityid=927258' query gets stripped off and the page
www.goodsearch.com is displayed. This happens with the Safari and
Google Chrome browsers too. On the other hand, if I just make up some
random querty, like http://www.goodsearch.com/?foo=bar, the query part
is *not* stripped off. This suggests to me that the stripping is
something that's being done by the server. Dunno exactly what's
happening, but the problem seems to be broader than just a Firefox
bookmarking issue.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 14 of 37:
|
Dec 29 04:34 UTC 2010 |
I agree - the site clips the extension. I was hoping that there is a
modification of the url that will fool the cite into not doing that, so
I can bookmark it. What finally I did was copy the desired url to the
clipboard and then used <Clipboard-Save-As 1.0.5> to save it to the HD
as a .htm file. This can then be used as a bookmark, as it is not
changed by the site. (I saved this "revised" bookmark as
file:///Users/ranecurl/Documents/MKC_GoodShop.html.htm
That's what I called an alias.)
|
remmers
|
|
response 15 of 37:
|
Jan 7 14:01 UTC 2011 |
Apple released an OS X update yesterday, bringing it to version 10.6.6.
The most noticeable change was the addition of the Mac App Store, which
is now open for business. It's modeled after the app stores for the
iPhone and iPad, and Apple is really pushing it as the place to get 3rd
party Mac software. After the OS upgrade, you're got a new "App Store"
application with a dock icon and apple menu entry.
I tried it out. Once you get past the hassle of logging in and
authenticating yourself the first time (so that they can charge you for
any for-pay apps you install), the process of installing apps is really
seamless. Just click on the "install" button for the app and the app's
icon floats from the store window to the dock (nice animation effect), a
little progress bar appears in the icon while the app takes a few
seconds to download, and then you've got it. No messing with dmg or zip
files, no dragging of icons to your application folder.
At this point, the store has around 1000 items. Some are free, some
cost money. Lots of games, with $19.99 being a popular price. Seems
steep to me. I suspect prices will fall over time as the competition
heats up.
The store has generated quite a bit of buzz in its first day. A number
of "this changes everything" blog posts. On the flip side, various
complaints about the user interface, suggestions for improvement.
People are already finding and publishing ways that the store can be hacked.
I've got mixed feelings about the "company store" phenomenon that Apple
pioneered with the iPhone. The convenience and ease of use are
impressive, but everything in the store has to meet criteria for
approval that Apple decides. It's true that you can still install
software the old way from other sites or from disk, but I worry that if
the store becomes popular enough, developers will feel that to be
successful they have to get their app into the store, and this means
conforming to Apple's criteria for admissability. I wonder if it's
technically feasible for a third party "store" app to be developed that
has the same level of user-friendliness.
Hm, the store doesn't have "Dropbox" yet, one of the most useful
applications of all time. Hopefully that's a temporary omission.
|
remmers
|
|
response 16 of 37:
|
Jan 7 14:17 UTC 2011 |
Hey, there's already a web comic about the App Store:
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/1487.html
|
nharmon
|
|
response 17 of 37:
|
Jan 9 03:01 UTC 2011 |
Bah, I have the Ubuntu Software Center. ;)
One positive you didn't mention is that the app store could become a
sort of quality benchmark for applications like the ipod/iphone app
store is. I definitely see value in that. Also, a lot of the software
titles are cheaper from the app store than they are at the app[le] store. :)
|
remmers
|
|
response 18 of 37:
|
Jan 9 19:50 UTC 2011 |
Hm. My quality benchmark for an app is reading what people have to say
about it. The web's really good for that. What advantage does an app
store offer over that for ascertaining quality?
It's been noted that one needs to be cautious when navigating the store.
One-click purchasing is the only option, so if you accidentally click
on the "buy" button for an app, you've bought it, with no opportunity to
confirm the decision or change your mind. (The Kindle Store at least
provides an "oops, I clicked by accident" button that will reverse the
charge.) As a precaution, it's recommended that you navigate the store
in a signed-out state, and only sign in when you want to buy something.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 19 of 37:
|
Jan 10 16:56 UTC 2011 |
eeK. Even the iPhone app store requires you to click twice and maybe put
in a password for everything you buy.
|
remmers
|
|
response 20 of 37:
|
Jan 10 23:31 UTC 2011 |
It's such an obvious misfeature that my guess is it'll be fixed via an
update at some point.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 21 of 37:
|
Jan 13 21:38 UTC 2011 |
This is a specific rather than a general OS X question, for which I hope
you will forgive me.
A folder called Developer appeared on my Desktop. I did not put it
there, so I think I accidentally dragged it from elsewhere on the HD. It
contains a folder called Extras, which contains a folder called
Palettes, which contains a folder called QTKit.palette....and so forth.
Where does it belong?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 22 of 37:
|
Jan 14 02:55 UTC 2011 |
/usr/local/bin
no, j/k
|
rcurl
|
|
response 23 of 37:
|
Jan 14 05:49 UTC 2011 |
In directory usr there are directories bin and local, but local does not
contain a bin. /usr/bin does contain a gazillion files. But even given that,
I don't see how I could have pulled Developer out of /usr.., since I don't
play around at that depth. What do the files in Developer do, anyway?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 24 of 37:
|
Jan 14 13:04 UTC 2011 |
http://hintsforums.macworld.com/showthread.php?t=93950
|
rcurl
|
|
response 25 of 37:
|
Jan 14 21:35 UTC 2011 |
Hey, that's great! Thanks. I did try a Google search on those file
names, but didn't find anything. Google does seem to dig into some
forums, but I guess not all (or if they are very old?).
I always install the new software offered. I don't know why this was put
on the Desktop when I did - but it was put behind the window for Mac HD,
which I keep open, so I didn't see it at the time.
I'm not likely to get into "developing", so I guess I can trash it. But
where should it reside? Like in the forum discussion, I'm running OS
10.4.11 (though Intel, not PPC).
|
remmers
|
|
response 26 of 37:
|
Jan 15 22:13 UTC 2011 |
You're still on Tiger? Oh my. Is your Mac Intel or Power PC?
The Developer folder probably should reside in the root directory "/".
That's where the Mac software development tools are stored, for those
who choose to install them. Yes, you can probably trash it.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 27 of 37:
|
Jan 16 05:29 UTC 2011 |
I'm still on OS 10.4.11 Intel (I haven't bothered to remember those
goofy animal names for versions). The installer for 10.5 came with the
computer but I haven't installed it because I think it might make a
bunch of installed apps disfunctional.
You have given me courage to trash it...
|
keesan
|
|
response 28 of 37:
|
Jan 16 14:43 UTC 2011 |
You could put in a different hard drive and try OS 10.5 on it.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 29 of 37:
|
Jan 18 05:23 UTC 2011 |
What will that show?
|
keesan
|
|
response 30 of 37:
|
Jan 18 15:45 UTC 2011 |
That will let you experiment with OS 10.5 without losing 10.4.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 31 of 37:
|
Jan 18 21:08 UTC 2011 |
It's not OS 10.4 I'm afraid of losing. It is the other applications running
under it that might not under 10.5. I'm dependent on some and have no need
to upgrade. Those applications won't be on another drive (which I don't have,
anyway).
|
keesan
|
|
response 32 of 37:
|
Jan 18 23:07 UTC 2011 |
What is the minimum size drive you can install a minimum version of OS 0.5
to?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 33 of 37:
|
Jan 19 04:53 UTC 2011 |
You are missing my point. I'd have to install all those apps to test them
under 10.5, and I might have to buy upgrades to run under 10.5. It
isn't worth it yet.
|
remmers
|
|
response 34 of 37:
|
Jan 22 23:44 UTC 2011 |
The websites associated with your apps would probably have information
on compatibility with 10.5. Also, if you boot from a 10.5 external
drive, it will be able to access the 10.4 internal drive, so you could
test whether the existing versions of the apps will run under 10.5
without reinstalling them.
All of which would be a fun exercise for me (I'm an inveterate futzer)
but maybe not for you. It's just that 10.5 (and, even more, 10.6) has
significant improvements over 10.4 that I use heavily (e.g. Spotlight),
so for me, upgrading to the latest version of the OS was well worth it.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 35 of 37:
|
Jan 23 05:25 UTC 2011 |
Hadn't thought of that. My 10.5 install disk should boot.
(10.4 has Spotlight)
|
remmers
|
|
response 36 of 37:
|
Jan 24 13:46 UTC 2011 |
(Spotlight improved considerably with 10.5.)
|