lorin schultz

fastasleep said:

lorin schultz said:

fastasleep said:

GeorgeBMac said:

fastasleep said:

OutdoorAppDeveloper said:

A locked down operating system like iOS is perfect for consumers but it is useless for professional users. Apple is all about telling users what they need. They are actually surprisingly good at it. Unfortunately that entire business model falls apart when you consider the professional market. Professionals are not interested in what Apple or any other company thinks is best for them. They need to do actual work and complete tasks. Let's say that one of those tasks is to scan the local network to determine what devices are attached. If iOS prevents apps from seeing the actual MAC addresses of those devices then the iPad Pro becomes useless to professionals that need to do that. This is just one example but iOS is full of limitations like that which are entirely created by Apple. Apple should either produce a professional version of iOS or allow any iOS device to be put into "pro" mode with fewer protections but no restrictions on how that device can be used. It should allow users to side load apps, access all of the hardware via the SDK without limitations and do anything the owners of those devices need to do. Only then can Apple call a device "Pro" and target professional users.

What the fuck are you talking about? I can see the MAC address of every device on my network right now in Fing on this very iPad. Why are you making shit up?

Fing - Network Scanner by Fing Limited
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/fing-network-scanner/id430921107?mt=8

I think he just sited the Mac address as an example.

Steve did lock down the iPhone (and iOS) pretty tightly to keep extremely simple to use and bullet proof for grandma.   While a pro CAN use it effectively and many do, often they will require a system (like MacOS) that has more power and flexibility.

It's not an example if it's not true, is it?

People here are constantly introducing me to features and tools I didn't know existed. OutdoorAppDeveloper probably just didn't know about Fing. I didn't.

So? They made a very specific case using that as an example of how "iOS is full of limitations like that which are entirely created by Apple", and it's false on its face. The limitation does not exist, and not knowing about a certain app that has that capability does not excuse lying to support a false narrative. 

You're being too hard on her/him. There's a world of difference between being wrong and lying. A simple correction without the confrontation would cover it.

milleron said:
[...] I don't see how you can fault a solar keyboard for not charging well in the dark.

He wasn't faulting it, he was pointing out a purchase decision consideration people may not think of. I was going to mention it if he didn't. It worked well in our dimly lit control room, but did occasionally need to be left under a lamp for an hour or two. As someone else mentioned it also ties up a USB port on the computer because it uses Logitech's Universal Receiver instead of Bluetooth, which is a bit of a nuisance, especially if you plan to use it with a late model Apple laptop that has only USB-C ports.

For typing and control it seemed just fine to me too. Similar to Apple's wired keyboard.

fastasleep said:

lorin schultz said:

fastasleep said:

ols said:

So when is “Time Machine” backup being removed from MacOS? It is not perfect but I works and that what I like

Time Machine literally has nothing to do with AirPorts, so not sure why that'd be a thing. A Time Capsule was just network attached storage.

It's only a thing because so many third-party routers don't support Time Machine.

We had a big external drive plugged into the USB port on the Airport. Our new router doesn't even have a USB port. The one we tried before this one had a port and allowed setting up the drive as shared storage, but it would not work with Time Machine. Apparently there's something unique about Time Machine that the router must specifically support. Just because a router allows attached storage doesn't necessarily mean that Time Machine will work. The majority of routers we looked at didn't.

Not that we particularly miss it. Before we made the switch we wanted to make complete backups of all our computers. We started with mine, a Touch Bar MBP with about 750GB stored on it. When it still hadn't finished the initial backup after THREE DAYS we gave up on it.

Using a USB drive on an AirPort Extreme was actually not officially supported for Time Machine, and was known to be problematic. 

Really? Are you sure? I'm almost positive the blurb on the Apple web site specifically listed printers and Time Machine backups as uses for that port. I could be wrong, though. It's been known to happen from time to all the time.

If you're right, and I trust your memory more than my own, Apple support is even more forgiving than I thought. Neither telephone support nor the Genius Bar turned me away when I sought help for the slow performance. They didn't offer any solutions, but they didn't say "not supported."

polymnia said:

I’ll go a little further, at the risk of antagonizing you

So now you're saying I'm oversensitive?!

LOL! Just kidding around. Maybe I was being too thin-skinned earlier. We should be good now, though -- I put on my big boy pants.

polymnia said:

I’ve come around to the idea that in certain use cases simple (wireless) is a better design.

You're probably right. I have an ethernet cable sitting only a few feet away from where I use my laptop most, but if the transfer is less than double-digit GB I don't bother with it. Since that behaviour is actually counter-productive it might be a really sad manifestation of human laziness reaching absurd levels, but whatever the reason, the simplicity does seem to appeal to users.

I also have wireless cans that I use on the train. They'e fine for that and most people would be perfectly satisfied. The thing is, wireless listening is much more expensive, adds another device to the charging regime, and limits my choices (I can no longer grab the same cans I use for location work or at the computer and just plug them into my phone, and switching the pairing from one device to another takes way longer and is much more hassle than just pulling a wired plug, even with my W1-equipped headphones). None of that is the end of the world, but I question why most people would bother? What's the payoff? In what applications are that few feet of wire an obstacle? Maybe at the gym, but other than that...

When I asked "Why not just leave the headphone jack?" you asked me to consider the opposite: Why should you be stuck with an unused hole in your phone? To me, one reason is because it still has benefit for enough other people to warrant its existence while its presence has no adverse affect on your experience, or at least very little.

Hey @polymnia, I've been thinking some more about your remarks in the few minutes since my last reply, and I think there might be more to the issue of waterproofing than I originally thought.

I said since ports are sealed from behind they're not really a major concern, and that may be true. However I also said that you can't make it waterproof anyway, because of the speaker and mic holes. Now that I think about, at least the speakers could be fine (and maybe already are, I don't know).

A speaker is just a piston driven by an electric motor. If the speaker driver is made of waterproof material (which it probably already is) and it's sealed along the edge where it opens out to the world so that water can't get behind it into the motor and other electronics (which it may already be), then it wouldn't matter if water got in -- it would just puddle in a waterproof basin (the speaker cone) until it evaporated. It would sound like crap while wet, but would recover just fine once dry.

I don't know about microphones though. They use diaphragms that are not nearly as robust as a speaker cone, and likely use a charged element because of the high sensitivity requirements. I have no idea how manufacturers address that when designing for water resistance.