Forums > MaxMSP

Re: post


MJ
January 15, 2006 | 4:18 am

not another list….

this is the [maxmsp] list the other is a [max-msp] list
who subscibed me to it ?

I assume al [max-msp] members are on this [maxmsp] list
nice we could have cross-list discussions

someone stop this now

-mj


January 15, 2006 | 4:50 am

As you may or may not have gathered, this is not *another* list — this is *the* list. We migrated from one mailing list manager to another, and in doing so, incurred a small name change.

Please read the email Lilli sent earlier today and everything is explained.


January 15, 2006 | 5:57 am

I never received this email from Lilli.

can someone PLEASE repost?


January 15, 2006 | 8:12 am

billy gomberg wrote:

> I never received this email from Lilli.
>
> can someone PLEASE repost?

There’s no need to repost. It’s available via the forum:

http://www.cycling74.com/forums/index.php?t=msg&th=17609

Now that we have this fancy new system, let’s take advantage of it!

thanks

w



f.e
January 15, 2006 | 8:26 am


January 15, 2006 | 12:47 pm

I really like the new setup. Very smart indeed ! It was well worth
the wait in my opinion.
One last thing to make it complete : the merger of maxobjects.com and
cycling74.com !

On 15-jan-2006, at 9:26, f.e wrote:

> Who changed the C74 site ?!


January 15, 2006 | 1:38 pm

At 9:26 +0100 15/01/2006, f.e wrote:

> My God ! Who changed the C74 site ?! It is U.G.L.Y

This is the web.

http://www2.pescadoo.net/thisisthweb.png


Jean-Yves Bernier

http://www.pescadoo.net/


January 15, 2006 | 2:35 pm

On 15 Jan 2006, at 13:38, Jean-Yves Bernier wrote:

> http://www2.pescadoo.net/thisisthweb.png

Uck.

Well, it works in Lynx, although the experience is rather
disorientating…

– N.

nick rothwell — composition, systems, performance — http://
http://www.cassiel.com


January 15, 2006 | 2:41 pm

On around Jan 15, 2006, at 14:38, Jean-Yves Bernier said something like:
> This is the web.
>
> http://www2.pescadoo.net/thisisthweb.png

It’s nice to know that some people still use a Classic Mac OS.-)

I still use OS 8.6 for a lot of things. But not for the Web. I fear
even my Jaguar Safari is not really up to snuff for every site on the
Web. That old Internet Explorer you’re using had quite a bit of
savoir-faire back when it was new. No longer.

< http://www.bek.no/~pcastine/Cycling74.tiff> for how it’s supposed to
look. (This URI will die in a week or so.)

– Peter

————– http://www.bek.no/~pcastine/Litter/ ————–
Peter Castine | ^
| Litter Power & Litter Bundle for Jitter
pcastine@gmx.net |
pcastine@bek.no | iCE: Sequencing, Recording, and Interface Building
4-15@kagi.com | for Max/MSP
| Extremely cool
| http://www.dspaudio.com
| http://www.dspaudio.com/software/software.html


January 15, 2006 | 3:37 pm

At 15:41 +0100 15/01/2006, Peter Castine wrote:

> I fear even my Jaguar Safari is not really up to snuff
> for every site on the Web.

content.

p! ck+
a- -a

*g
%e


Jean-Yves Bernier

http://www.pescadoo.net/


January 15, 2006 | 9:11 pm

On Jan 15, 2006, at 3:26 AM, f.e wrote:

> My God ! Who changed the C74 site ?! It is U.G.L.Y (sincerly sorry
> for the web designer) and the forum is not handy at all.

Seriously… what the hell happened? My eyes!!

Twiki of all things too? Ugh.

- John


January 15, 2006 | 9:49 pm


January 16, 2006 | 12:02 am

On Jan 15, 2006, at 4:49 PM, Peter Castine wrote:

> I have a friend who swears that HTML is the work of the devil and
> the only way to transport content is plain-text email.

HTML email is silly. Not only does it make spam ten times more
annoying, but you pull in the same javascript and other
vulnerabilities that your web browser might have into your email
client. It also has incompatibilities with numerous mail clients (I
know a lot of people that still use mutt/pine for instance). It just
isn’t worth it, especially when you can inline attachments such as
images anyway (although I know people hate these too). No sense
taking a nice, compact email client, and turning it into a behemoth
that pulls in Gecko.

Just my opinion, for what it is worth (not much). ;-)

- John


January 16, 2006 | 2:10 am

On Jan 15, 2006, at 3:49 PM, Peter Castine wrote:

> I have a friend who swears that HTML is the work of the devil and
> the only way to transport content is plain-text email. That’s
> pretty extreme. But, in 2006, a lot of Web sites seem to think it’s
> just as extreme to insist on nothing more modern than HTML 4 with CSS.

In fact, the new Cycling ’74 site *is* presented using nothing more
than HTML and CSS.

The horrid screenshot was clearly from browser that is only partially
compliant with CSS. As Nick pointed out, the site even renders
coherently in Lynx.

best,
Tim


January 16, 2006 | 9:26 am

On around Jan 16, 2006, at 3:10, Timothy Place said something like:
> In fact, the new Cycling ’74 site *is* presented using nothing more
> than HTML and CSS.

Sorry, I should have examined the HTML code behind the screenshots
before claiming otherwise. Also, I recalled something about the
newsfeeds using XML.

Jean-Yves’ screenshot looked like IE, which was (at least in its day)
one of the more CSS-compliant browsers around. But I don’t know which
version of IE.

– P.

————– http://www.bek.no/~pcastine/Litter/ ————–
Peter Castine | ^
| Litter Power & Litter Bundle for Jitter
pcastine@gmx.net |
pcastine@bek.no | iCE: Sequencing, Recording, and Interface Building
4-15@kagi.com | for Max/MSP
| Extremely cool
| http://www.dspaudio.com
| http://www.dspaudio.com/software/software.html


January 16, 2006 | 10:04 am

On Jan 16, 2006, at 4:26 AM, Peter Castine wrote:

> On around Jan 16, 2006, at 3:10, Timothy Place said something like:
>> In fact, the new Cycling ’74 site *is* presented using nothing
>> more than HTML and CSS.
>
> Sorry, I should have examined the HTML code behind the screenshots
> before claiming otherwise. Also, I recalled something about the
> newsfeeds using XML.
>
> Jean-Yves’ screenshot looked like IE, which was (at least in its
> day) one of the more CSS-compliant browsers around. But I don’t
> know which version of IE.

IE 5.x for Mac OS 9 and earlier seems to deal with a lot of CSS
better than the current version for Windows. A lot of people claim IE
beat out Netscape through heavy handedness, but what they forget was
IE was actually a much better browser. (Not to mention that if anyone
was being heavy handed originally, it was Netscape.)

- John


January 16, 2006 | 12:11 pm


January 16, 2006 | 1:24 pm

— Jean-Yves Bernier wrote:

> Il will switch to OSX …. To run
> ProTools 7 with a Digi001 instead of ProTools Free
> with an M.Audio
> interface (remember: PTF don’t run under Classic).

I wish! I had to ditch my 001 in order to run PT
6.something, let alone v.7 !
And I ended up with another ‘barely supported’
Digi-pig, an MBox, which started moaning only a few
minor upgrades later; it doesn’t seem to like OS10.4.4…


Viewing 18 posts - 1 through 18 (of 18 total)