this is the [maxmsp] list the other is a [max-msp] list

I assume al [max-msp] members are on this [maxmsp] list

nice we could have cross-list discussions

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

re-post

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.

> I never received this email from Lilli.

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

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

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

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

I really like the new setup. Very smart indeed ! It was well worth 

One last thing to make it complete : the merger of maxobjects.com and 

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 !

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

-- 
Jean-Yves Bernier
http://www.pescadoo.net/


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

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

nick rothwell -- composition, systems, performance -- 

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

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

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


On around Jan 15, 2006, at 14:38, Jean-Yves Bernier said something like:

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.

look. (This URI will die in a week or so.)

| Litter Power & Litter Bundle for Jitter

pcastine@bek.no | iCE: Sequencing, Recording, and Interface Building

http://www.dspaudio.com/software/software.html

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

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.

 for how it's supposed to 
look. (This URI will die in a week or so.)

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

> I fear even my Jaguar Safari is not really up to snuff

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

> 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!!

> 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.

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 

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

> 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.

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

> 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 

The horrid screenshot was clearly from browser that is only partially 

compliant with CSS. As Nick pointed out, the site even renders 

> 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.

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 

Sorry, I should have examined the HTML code behind the screenshots 

before claiming otherwise. Also, I recalled something about the 

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 

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.

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 

> Sorry, I should have examined the HTML code behind the screenshots 

> before claiming otherwise. Also, I recalled something about the 

> 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 

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.)

> 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.)

> ProTools 7 with a Digi001 instead of ProTools Free

> interface (remember: PTF don't run under Classic).

I wish! I had to ditch my 001 in order to run PT

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...

> 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...


There are numerous treatments and medicines available, however, it isn't always important that they'll be effective on all sorts of puppies.

There are numerous treatments and medicines available, however, it isn't always important that they'll be effective on all sorts of puppies. https://yourworldofbees.com/ 

Re: post