1,129 karma · joined August 6, 2007
http://fangamer.com/
rofish [ATTT} rofish {PERIOD] net
[ my public key: https://keybase.io/rofish; my proof: https://keybase.io/rofish/sigs/MVUdgZzLZVU2wEGqAyMWJmSo14lUFBbdb7R-tGDZDuY ]
Which is odd, because iOS 7 has Gmail not offering "delete" but "archive" for the inbox.
This is just a hypothesis, I wonder if it's true?
In years past, after an OS X upgrade, Mail.app would show a "Upgrade Mail" prompt before using. Now it appears that instead, it's happily showing a blank set of emails while it slowly (5 minutes-ish for me) converts to the new version.
This is, of course, confusing to the user because it doesn't show ANY indication that it's converting to a new version.
So likely, it's still converting the emails. That's why CPU spikes when you first load too; it's not Spotlight but the conversion process (and Spotlight is reading them while converting).
[1] http://www.destructoid.com/half-of-destructoid-s-readers-blo...
The unintended consequence of charging that much for patches is that simple updates just don't happen, and that everybody gets a lesser game as a result. As much as one would say "get it right the first time", everybody makes mistakes. Thus when it costs $10,000 to fix a save game issue, it's may be a business decision to not patch. Thus, for better games, being in that position shouldn't happen.
* Ability to handle large files (300MB incompressible Photoshop) and able to handle large complete data stores. (1 TB, which is impossible with Dropbox)
* Selectability for certain folders on certain users (no need for all data to be on all machines)
* The ability to 'archive' files to only the host.
* Good LAN networking with host so that the portable machines (iPads, Retina Macbook Pros with puny 128GB HDD) can use it fine.
The 2X dyno at 2x cost doesn't really make me happy, it just invites me to spend more money when it would be more cost-efficient to move.
Most of those background service apps (Google Update, Apple Push, Adobe Update) are because a tiny background app is necessary to preform certain functions, and check for updates in the background, which is a good thing!
For example, 'iTunesAgent.exe' on Windows was to simply detect if you had plugged an iPod in and auto pop-up iTunes. For usability, it makes sense; because otherwise you would plugin an iPod and get nothing or a confusing Windows 'dunno what to do with this drive' screen. And because of Windows' architecture (for better or worse), it requires a background app to do this.
The same for many of the updaters. I would much rather be sure Flash and Java are updated then go running without an important security update.
I still have yet to understand the "no background app, good or bad" manifesto. Good background apps barely use any CPU time, they barely use any memory (and Windows reports too much memory in the first place due to shared memory), and preforms useful functions.
You can't do two/three (native) screens on an Air or even the non-Retina MBP. (You can with USB, but it's laggy and there's no USB 3 things for Mac.)