All I want to do is bring a file from WinXP over to the iPad

nospam wrote in
lid:

they'll be waiting a while, unless they're transferring only one or two
postage size photos.

You have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about.
I transfer large photo files from my Android phone to Linux all the time.

In fact, I *prefer* bluetooth for individual photos because it's so easy
to do, as it doesn't require either device be on any WiFi network
whatsoever so it works between two owners' devices quite nicely without
having to tell anyone your WiFi password.

It's fast enough that a dozen large photos (which is all I transfer
usually) isn't even noticeable because it all happens in the background,
and, the transfer is done for the first photo before you've even selected
the second photo (although they queue up nicely anyway).

I never want someone's entire set of personal photos - I generally just
want the few that he/she took of me/mykids whatever. No sense having them
on my network if I don't have to either.

Of course, you just can't do that - so you see no value in such useful
tools. I guess you'd prefer to set up iTunes on their computers instead
and then sync all their photos with your device just to get the handful
you want.

You consistently persist in suggesting the most outdated and complex
methods possible, mainly because that's what Apple tells you to do, and
you can't conceive of any simple method having any merit.

nospam wrote in
lid:

i said that i *could* do it, and i can.

Yeah, and I could sell you the Brooklyn Bridge, and I can.

What you say has been proven to be meaningless.

In article , Werner Obermeier
wrote:

beyond that, it's way more complex on linux, as is just about
everything.

To copy a few select files from any Linux system on the planet to any
iPad on the planet takes connecting the USB cable and then doubleclicking
on the desired automatic mount point, selecting control+c to copy and
control+v to paste.

That's it. You call *that* complex?

it's more complex than using something that does it *for* me.

that's why i have a computer. to do things so i don't have to.

To copy a few select files from any Linux or Windows system on the planet
without even a cable or a WiFi network, takes selecting the files, and
then hitting the Bluetooth name of the Linux (or Windows) computer.

That's it. You call *that* complex?

i call that slow.

a couple of taps and it can go over *wifi*, without needing an existing
wifi network. this concept is clearly lost on you because you're stuck
in the past.

Once again, you show that you know absolutely nothing about a simple use
model because you prefer to do things the absolutely most complex way
imaginable (using iTunes, of course, as always).

1 step is more complex than 8 steps?

in what world is that?

In article , Werner Obermeier
wrote:

the fact that you're resorting to insults shows just how wrong you are.

Sound familiar?

yep. it's what you do and will no doubt continue to do.

In article , Werner Obermeier
wrote:

they'll be waiting a while, unless they're transferring only one or two
postage size photos.

You have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about.
I transfer large photo files from my Android phone to Linux all the time.

you transfer large photos over bluetooth??

you're either full of **** or you have *way* too much free time.

In fact, I *prefer* bluetooth for individual photos because it's so easy
to do, as it doesn't require either device be on any WiFi network
whatsoever so it works between two owners' devices quite nicely without
having to tell anyone your WiFi password.

try to keep up. airdrop doesn't require either device to be on an
existing wifi network and no passwords need to be used, let alone
telling anyone.

airdrop automatically sets up a peer to peer wifi network between the
devices and sends the file, without the user needing to do a thing.

go look up what peer to peer wifi is before you say more stupid things.

It's fast enough that a dozen large photos (which is all I transfer
usually) isn't even noticeable because it all happens in the background,
and, the transfer is done for the first photo before you've even selected
the second photo (although they queue up nicely anyway).

it's noticeable in that you have to wait for it to complete before
moving out of that 30' bluetooth range.

wifi is 300' (real world a bit less) which is *much* more than
bluetooth.

I never want someone's entire set of personal photos - I generally just
want the few that he/she took of me/mykids whatever. No sense having them
on my network if I don't have to either.

they aren't on any existing network.

On 2015-08-04, Werner Obermeier wrote:
nospam wrote in
lid:

beyond that, it's way more complex on linux, as is just about
everything.

To copy a few select files from any Linux system on the planet to any
iPad on the planet takes connecting the USB cable and then doubleclicking
on the desired automatic mount point, selecting control+c to copy and
control+v to paste.

That's it. You call *that* complex?

He called it *more* complex than iTunes, which is true. You don't seem
to have a very high command of the English language.

To copy a few select files from any Linux or Windows system on the planet
without even a cable or a WiFi network, takes selecting the files, and
then hitting the Bluetooth name of the Linux (or Windows) computer.

That's it. You call *that* complex?

Again, it is *more* complex than using iTunes.

Once again, you show that you know absolutely nothing about a simple use
model because you prefer to do things the absolutely most complex way
imaginable (using iTunes, of course, as always).

Pure projection. He's losing it, folks!

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2015-08-04, nospam wrote:
In article , Werner Obermeier
wrote:

the only idiot is someone who wants to use bluetooth to transfer files.

You are so incredibly stupid that you "just can't" do anything if
you lose your network or your cable.

the fact that you're resorting to insults shows just how wrong you are.

once again, no network or cable is needed.

two devices on a deserted island can transfer files. no wifi. no
cables. just coconut trees.

Yup. iOS automatically discovers nearby devices, uses Bluetooth to set
up a peer-to-peer WiFi connection between them, and transfers the media
between the devices. It's brain-dead simple and automatic. Nothing you
can do with Linux can even begin to compare.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2015-08-04, Werner Obermeier wrote:
nospam wrote in
lid:

they'll be waiting a while, unless they're transferring only one or two
postage size photos.

You have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about.

Nope, he's right that Bluetooth transfer rates are incredibly slow
compared with the latest WiFi standards, which are *much* faster.

I transfer large photo files from my Android phone to Linux all the time.

You don't value your time as much as others then. That's fine, but don't
act like the rest of the human population would enjoy it, because that's
not the case.

In fact, I *prefer* bluetooth for individual photos because it's so easy
to do, as it doesn't require either device be on any WiFi network
whatsoever so it works between two owners' devices quite nicely without
having to tell anyone your WiFi password.

iOS users get WiFi transfer speeds in the exact same situation - no WiFi
or internet, peer-to-peer. Click share, and you are done. So we tend to
prefer faster solutions than the slowest one: Bluetooth.

It's fast enough that a dozen large photos (which is all I transfer
usually) isn't even noticeable because it all happens in the background,
and, the transfer is done for the first photo before you've even selected
the second photo (although they queue up nicely anyway).

Nowhere near as fast as WiFi or USB.

I never want someone's entire set of personal photos - I generally just
want the few that he/she took of me/mykids whatever. No sense having them
on my network if I don't have to either.

Stop pretending it's all or nothing with iTunes. That's getting really
old, and only shows just how little you actually know about th topic.

Of course, you just can't do that - so you see no value in such useful
tools.

Bull****. We not only do it, we do it faster and with less effort than
you. See: AirDrop. : )

I guess you'd prefer to set up iTunes on their computers instead
and then sync all their photos with your device just to get the handful
you want.

Bull****. Nothing at all prevents you from selecting only the photos you
want. You act as if there is some magical evil iTunes god standing by
just to thwart your plans with iTunes. That's not how it works.

You consistently persist in suggesting the most outdated and complex
methods possible

You're projecting again. Lame.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2015-08-04, Werner Obermeier wrote:
Michelle Steiner wrote in
:

Oh wait. I know. Michelle would do the same thing.

You don't know anything.

You must be nospam

Nope. Not even close.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 8/3/15 8:59 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
In article , Ken Springer
wrote:

"What do you want to do with it?"

Thing is that I didn't go into your store with the intent of trying to
decide to buy one of them. People who go into computer stores usually,
if not always, are trying to decide whether to buy a computer. Unless
they went into the wrong store, accidentally, or went in to get out of
the rain, etc.

Exactly what I was doing, I was interested in buying a computer. I
wasn't window shopping any more than if I were shopping different auto
dealers.

But, that is the question I got. So, how would you answer that question
if posed to you?

Well, the first time I went to a computer store, I had an answer for
that question; I wanted to be able to keep a record of my books and
record albums.

Then, I think you were lucky. You knew something computers could do.
For all I knew about computers, you sat them in front of a door as a
door stop? LOL

After getting the question of "What do you want to do with it?" I simply
said something like "I don't know what I want to do with it because I
don't know what it can do." Which got be a blank stare everywhere
except the store with the young kid. He actually said some things, like
write, keep records, or whatever.

I went an bought some books about computer basics then, and started
reading. Eventually bought my first computer system from him.


--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 36.0.4
Thunderbird 31.5
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On 8/3/15 9:23 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Ken Springer
wrote:

Here, I have to agree with Wolf. The inability to customize the
desktop, out of the box, on my Mac is lame compared to Windows. Just 3
basic skins, no font changes, no window colors, etc. Maybe you can do
more in Terminal, but the user shouldn't have to in this case.

in finder, under view options, you can choose a white background, a
colour background with choice of colour or a picture and it can be
different for each window.

Not in Mountain Lion.

yes in mountain lion. in fact, that's what i was using to see what the
choices were actually called.

it's also been there for as long as i can remember. i just checked a
system running leopard (10.5) and it's there too. it was probably there
since puma (10.1) or jaguar (10.2) but i have no way to verify that.

i also neglected to mention that you can set any desktop background
image as well.

This I have done a long time ago. G

as for skinning, macs are probably less skinnable (and for good reason
since most are hideous and make it harder to do stuff). if that's the
biggest problem someone has with a mac then apple is doing pretty good.

for font changes and more, get tinker tool.

windows is no different. i used to use tweakui on xp.

Thing is, if we're going to compare what can and can't be done we should
be comparing what can be done out of the box, not using special tools or
programs.

both comparisons are valid.

bundled tools are designed to be most things to most people but there
are always those who want to do unusual things, which is why there are
all sorts of apps and tweaks.

But, neither Tinker Tool and TweakUI are bundled with the bare system.

And you guys have years of Mac experience that I still lack. I will
always go back to my observation that if a small book or quick start
guide came with any new computer system these days, things would be
different. I used the H out of the cards that came with my 8-bit software.

Gotta admit, I'm getting more help with this Mac than I ever got from
the Apple groups I've visited. Either they would act like the Linux
people I've seen in a few places, or I knew more than most of them. And
that's a bad thing. :-(

--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 36.0.4
Thunderbird 31.5
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On 8/3/15 9:23 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
In article , Ken Springer
wrote:

in finder, under view options, you can choose a white background, a
colour background with choice of colour or a picture and it can be
different for each window.

Not in Mountain Lion.

You are wrong about that.

https://support.apple.com/kb/PH11065?locale=en_US

You could do it way before Mountain Lion, for that matter; you could do
it in Jaguar, which was Mac OS X 10.2.

http://tinyurl.com/oz3k2m8

Amazing what could be done that you said couldn't be done.

Ah, nospam forgot to mention you have to have View As Icons for that to
work. LOL Hate that view, wastes too much screen area. G So
never use it, except if I'm looking for a particular photo and I want a
large icon view to help locate the photo. Once located, it's back to
column view, and small icons.


--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 36.0.4
Thunderbird 31.5
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

| Either an idiot, or a troll - because you can't be that wrong all
| the time without some semblance of purpose.
|

I think it's something like compulsive argumentation
syndrome. But beware. It can be very seductive to
want to clarify the facts. When it gets to the point
that you look back and see several dozen backs and
forths between you and him, you have to ask yourself:
Who's the idiot? No offense intended. It's just
easy to get wrapped up in the pseudo-logic of the
argument, which is always a losing proposition.

In article , Ken Springer
wrote:

Exactly what I was doing, I was interested in buying a computer. I
wasn't window shopping any more than if I were shopping different auto
dealers.

But, that is the question I got. So, how would you answer that question
if posed to you?

Well, the first time I went to a computer store, I had an answer for
that question; I wanted to be able to keep a record of my books and
record albums.

Then, I think you were lucky. You knew something computers could do.
For all I knew about computers, you sat them in front of a door as a
door stop? LOL

No, I didn't know something computers could do. I knew what I wanted a
computer to do. For all I knew at the time, the salesperson could have
told me that the computer couldn't do it.

But here is the elephant in the room: Although personal computers were
fairly new at the time (late 1970s), computers had been around for
about thirty years, so just about every adult in the country had heard
of them and had at least a glimmering of what computers could do. So
pardon me if I take your statement that you had no idea of what
computers could do with a large helping of salt.

In article , Ken Springer
wrote:

Gotta admit, I'm getting more help with this Mac than I ever got from
the Apple groups I've visited.

Keep in mind that this is not a Mac group; it is an iPad group (and a
Windows 7 group).

But you'll find that almost all of the people on this iPad group are
also on the Mac groups.