How do I delete photographs from an iPad?

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 15:52:19 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Therefore we can run Photoshop CS6 on an iPad?
How about Lightroom?
Corel PSP

Which ones, Mac version, can we run on the iPad.

haven't been paying attention, have you? no surprise there.

i never said ipads and iphones ran *mac* os x and i've repeatedly
explained how it all fits together.

i said the ipad and other ios devices run os x, which they do.

here's steve jobs saying exactly what i said (at about the 4 min mark,
about 10 seconds from the start point), when the iphone was announced:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VLb5XdxRm8&t=3m50s

I've been paying lots of attention, and cringing at your misstatements.
If the OS is the same, the software should run on both platforms.

if you were actually paying attention, which obviously you haven't,
then you'd realize that isn't what i said at all.

Again, you are shifting positions.

not at all. i've been completely consistent the entire time.

you and certain others don't understand the internals of os x and the
differences between os x, mac os x and ios, which is perfectly fine.
not everyone does. most people just want to use the devices and don't
really care what goes on inside.

what's *not* fine is saying things that are factually incorrect or
worse, fabricating things.

but since you are convinced i'm wrong, perhaps you can explain why
steve jobs himself said *exactly* what i'm saying.

An advertising 'puff'.

or maybe you can't, because what i said is exactly true.

did you even watch the video clip?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 13:51:22 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

With entirely differnt processors they can't run a common core. They
may have a common source code but neithe the Intel chips nor thee
Apple 'A' series havee the ability to directly run an uncompiled
source code.

nobody said they could run uncompiled source code.

they do have common source code, and it's called os x.

Now you say they share a common source code. Not long ago you claimed
they shared a common core.

the parts that are different make it either mac os x or ios.

.... but Mac OS X is not the same as iOS. Not even parts of it are the
same.

Think - different processors need different code to carry out the same
task. Processors constructed as differently as the Intel and the ARM
won't even undertake the same task in identical fashions, they won't
even have identical task capabilities. To claim the operating systems
are the same is stupid. They might be generically similar but that's
the best you can say.


call it shell if you like. call it whatever you want. it's what's
*under* what you are calling a shell that's the same on macs and
idevices, and that's called os x. what's above it is either mac os x or
ios.

"same on macs and idevices". So you can take the code from an Intel
powered mac and run it unchanged on an idevice?

you sure can. quite a bit of code is identical on both platforms.

They might share some of the descriptive text strings but that's all.
THee two varieties of processors don't speak the samee language.

which means it's the same.

Duh!

Copiously different means its the same? What are you smoking?

as i've said a few times now (which you keep missing) is that the user
interface is the part that's different. the rest is basically the same.

As I've said a few times now (which you keep missing) is that even if
you ignore the user interface the rest _has_ to be entirely different
and therefore cannot be the same.

are you saying that compiling something for a different processor makes
it an entirely different operating system?

Ask the processors.

if so, then what did powerpc macs run? current intel macs run mac os x,
so powerpc macs would had to have been something else if it's 'entirely
different'.

Quite right. Calling two software packages by the same generic name
does not make them interchangeable.

you are fixated on the binary being different which is irrelevant.
nobody disputes that a different processor needs a different binary. os
x is processor agnostic, as are other operating systems, notably linux.

once again: os x is the core, which is common to mac os x and ios.

Are you saying that OS X is uncompiled?

what apple engineers work on certainly is.

.... and from there on its a complete mystery to you.

obviously, what is released to the public is not, although some parts
are open source so you can get the uncompiled source if you want it and
even modify it.

That applies to all
idevices no matter what version of the 'A' processor they are using?

correct.

No I don't think so, and neither do you.

not only do i think so, but i know so. you are wrong and talking out
your ass.

how much mac or ios programming have you done? zero. zilch.

By the sound of it I've probably done more programming at the machine
code level than you have.

unlikely, but even if you did, your experience with programming macs
and particularly ios devices is very clearly zero, exactly as i said,
and you've just confirmed it.

In fact you have already claimed the same OS will run "on intel and
power pc chips". You know that's utter nonsense. The introduction of
Intel chips required a complete rewrite of the operating system
culminating in OS X v10.6 "Snow Leopard" which would not run on the
PowerPC based machines.

it's not nonsense at all. mac os x on powerpc is exactly the same as
mac os x on intel. if the user didn't know what processor was in the
mac they're using, they wouldn't be able to tell the difference. the
leopard dvd booted both powerpc and intel macs, and it could be
installed on a hard drive that booted both.

Do you remember I asked you if you had heard of 'conditional instals'?
This is why. The first thing the OS X installer would have to do is
determine the type of processor and then install the correct chunks of
code. Of course the factory wouldn't have to do that more than once.
All they would do is is keep copying the correct version into each new
machine.

except it doesn't work that way. you are once again, wrong.

as i said, the leopard dvd, out of the box, boots *both* powerpc and
intel macs. this is *before* any installer runs. one single dvd, two
totally different platforms. it's a universal binary. just pop it into
the dvd drive and boot.

when you run the leopard installer, it installs a universal system that
works on both platforms. there is no conditional install, which is why
a leopard install on a hard drive will boot *both* powerpc and intel
macs, just as it does from the dvd.

similarly, most mac apps are also universal binaries. the same app runs
on either platform. most mac apps do not have installers, the app is
simply dragged to wherever the user wants to put them. some apps do
have installers, generally ones with many components in various places
such as photoshop, and what they install also runs on both platforms.

If the software is truly as interchangeable as you claim how is it
that Mac OS X Leopard, version 10.5, is the last version to support
bother Power PCs and Intel processors. Later versions supported only
Intel. Was this because Apple stopped providing something in the code
or because at this point they decided to poison the Power PC
processors if they tried to run it?

If what you claim is correct Apple should have been able to go on
supporting both processors in later versions of Leopard. But they
didn't. What happened.

also, what a lot of people don't realize was that mac os x was running
on intel *before* it was running on powerpc. the intel build was kept
secret all along.

the only nonsense is what you keep posting. you haven't a clue.

Why do you keep avoiding the difference between source code and
run-time code?

i'm not avoiding the difference at all. you're fixated on it, for some
reason.

Because its the run-time code which causes a computer to operate.


the point you are missing is that *mac* os x is not os x. the core
is
the same, many of the frameworks are the same, it's the user
interface
where they diverge.

" *mac* os x is not os x." Hoo-boy!

You don't have to dig very far before you discover that Macs use
Intel
processors while the iPhone/Pad have used 'A' series processors the
design of which is licensed from Arm PLC. The A6 design is based on
that of an Arm processor but is not licensed. Each step up the
processor chain has introduced a new instruction set (no doubt
incorporating much of the old).

so what? just because they have different processors doesn't mean
anything.

mac os x runs on intel and powerpc chips.

os x is processor agnostic. the kernel is open source. compile it for
whatever processor you want.

It's not a functioning kernel until you compile. Before that it's
merely a symbolic representation.

so what? it's the same for both platforms. compiling it doesn't change
anything or make one bit of a difference at all.

Then why bother compiling?

the fact you are even asking this indicates you have no idea what
you're talking about.

I'm trying to find out whether or not you know what you are talking
about.

i do.

The fact of the matter is that until you have finished compiling (and
linking etc) you haven't got an operating system. All you have is a
statement of intent.

irrelevant.

It's at the core of our disagreement.

i can see that.

this 'statement of intent' as you call it (making up terms that nobody
but you uses won't help), is the same regardless of processor. the
binary is obviously different, ...

Thank you! That's the point I have been making all along.

then what are you yapping about it being different? you agree it's the
same!

What on earth have you been drinking?


... but that doesn't mean it's a different
operating system.

But it destroys your claim that the same operating system is installed
on all machines.

you just said it was the same!

You really believe that! You are nuts.

Right from the beginning I have been saying the run time code is
processor dependent and will be different for different machines.

mac os x on a powermac looks and feels identical to mac os x on an
intel mac. users can't tell a difference just by using it. in other
words, it's the same.

The computers can tell the difference. If you don't believe me you
should try install Power PC code on an Intel system.

that works just fine. apple went out of their way to make it so that
powerpc apps would run on intel macs.

Until after Mac OS X Leopard, version 10.5, when the interoperability
suddenly stopped. Maybe Apple stopped going out of their way?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

but since you are convinced i'm wrong, perhaps you can explain why
steve jobs himself said *exactly* what i'm saying.

An advertising 'puff'.

it's not a puff. it's exactly as he said it was.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

To claim that OS X is a particular operating system is foolish. To
keep on insisting that it is a particular operating system is stupid.
OS X is a family of related operating systems. The name is generic.

in other words, you admit mac os x and ios are both os x, just as i
said several days ago. crazy.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Therefore we can run Photoshop CS6 on an iPad?
How about Lightroom?
Corel PSP

Which ones, Mac version, can we run on the iPad.

haven't been paying attention, have you? no surprise there.

i never said ipads and iphones ran *mac* os x and i've repeatedly
explained how it all fits together.

i said the ipad and other ios devices run os x, which they do.

here's steve jobs saying exactly what i said (at about the 4 min mark,
about 10 seconds from the start point), when the iphone was announced:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VLb5XdxRm8&t=3m50s

I've been paying lots of attention, and cringing at your misstatements.
If the OS is the same, the software should run on both platforms.

if you were actually paying attention, which obviously you haven't,
then you'd realize that isn't what i said at all.

Again, you are shifting positions.

not at all. i've been completely consistent the entire time.

you and certain others don't understand the internals of os x and the
differences between os x, mac os x and ios, which is perfectly fine.
not everyone does. most people just want to use the devices and don't
really care what goes on inside.

what's *not* fine is saying things that are factually incorrect or
worse, fabricating things.

but since you are convinced i'm wrong, perhaps you can explain why
steve jobs himself said *exactly* what i'm saying.

or maybe you can't, because what i said is exactly true.

did you even watch the video clip?

the fact is your statement is almost meaningless.

it's not at all. further proof you don't understand it.

steve jobs spent several minutes in the keynote explaining how an
iphone runs os x. it's not meaningless. it's what it is.

Most of us have
mothers. Why bother commenting on that.

not relevant.

Please tell us exactly what you are saying, and what's your point?--

i have, several times.

if you've been paying half as much attention as you claim you are, you
would already know.

how about you please tell us why steve jobs said the same thing i am.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

With entirely differnt processors they can't run a common core. They
may have a common source code but neithe the Intel chips nor thee
Apple 'A' series havee the ability to directly run an uncompiled
source code.

nobody said they could run uncompiled source code.

they do have common source code, and it's called os x.

Now you say they share a common source code. Not long ago you claimed
they shared a common core.

one leads to the other.

the parts that are different make it either mac os x or ios.

... but Mac OS X is not the same as iOS.

i never said they were. i said they're both os x.

think of it in layers. at the core is the kernel and then os x above
it. so far, it's the same. above that is either mac os x or ios, the
point at which they diverge.

Not even parts of it are the
same.

wrong. significant portions are the same, including core foundation,
core animation, opengl and quite a bit more. you are welcome to peruse
the extensive apple developer documentation for the gory details.

what that means is that a developer can take substantial amounts of
code from a mac application and put it into an ios app or vice versa.
that would not be possible if parts were not the same. many apps do
exactly that.

you are in well over your head.

Think - different processors need different code to carry out the same
task. Processors constructed as differently as the Intel and the ARM
won't even undertake the same task in identical fashions, they won't
even have identical task capabilities. To claim the operating systems
are the same is stupid. They might be generically similar but that's
the best you can say.

much more than generically the same.

you are fixated on it being bit for bit binary identical. that's just
not going to happen, even among different devices. the iphone 3gs,
iphone 4 and iphone 5 all have different processors and the firmware is
a different binary for each. if you did a bit comparison, you'd find a
lot of differences. however, they're all the same ios version and to
the user, in every way identical. users don't give a hoot that there
are armv7 optimizations in there.

it's entirely possible (and in fact, there are some rumours) that apple
will switch macs to arm processors. then what will you say? no more mac
os x? will it suddenly be ios because a mac might have an arm chip
inside?

it's also possible that apple could switch ios devices to intel if
intel can come up with a chip that's as power efficient as arm. that's
not as likely, but who knows what intel is up to.

users won't notice any difference, nor will they care. developers will
recompile and release an update.

call it shell if you like. call it whatever you want. it's what's
*under* what you are calling a shell that's the same on macs and
idevices, and that's called os x. what's above it is either mac os x or
ios.

"same on macs and idevices". So you can take the code from an Intel
powered mac and run it unchanged on an idevice?

you sure can. quite a bit of code is identical on both platforms.

They might share some of the descriptive text strings but that's all.
THee two varieties of processors don't speak the samee language.

which means it's the same.

Duh!

Copiously different means its the same? What are you smoking?

you said it's the same, then you say it's different. make up your mind.

as i've said a few times now (which you keep missing) is that the user
interface is the part that's different. the rest is basically the same.

As I've said a few times now (which you keep missing) is that even if
you ignore the user interface the rest _has_ to be entirely different
and therefore cannot be the same.

are you saying that compiling something for a different processor makes
it an entirely different operating system?

Ask the processors.

again with the binary.

if they're different, how is it that a developer can write one app that
runs on powerpc and intel macs? they don't code for each processor.

if so, then what did powerpc macs run? current intel macs run mac os x,
so powerpc macs would had to have been something else if it's 'entirely
different'.

Quite right. Calling two software packages by the same generic name
does not make them interchangeable.

they were called the same name because they *are* the same.

you are fixated on the binary being different which is irrelevant.
nobody disputes that a different processor needs a different binary. os
x is processor agnostic, as are other operating systems, notably linux.

once again: os x is the core, which is common to mac os x and ios.

Are you saying that OS X is uncompiled?

what apple engineers work on certainly is.

... and from there on its a complete mystery to you.

wrong. i'm far more familiar with the innards of os x than you'll ever
be.

In fact you have already claimed the same OS will run "on intel and
power pc chips". You know that's utter nonsense. The introduction of
Intel chips required a complete rewrite of the operating system
culminating in OS X v10.6 "Snow Leopard" which would not run on the
PowerPC based machines.

it's not nonsense at all. mac os x on powerpc is exactly the same as
mac os x on intel. if the user didn't know what processor was in the
mac they're using, they wouldn't be able to tell the difference. the
leopard dvd booted both powerpc and intel macs, and it could be
installed on a hard drive that booted both.

Do you remember I asked you if you had heard of 'conditional instals'?
This is why. The first thing the OS X installer would have to do is
determine the type of processor and then install the correct chunks of
code. Of course the factory wouldn't have to do that more than once.
All they would do is is keep copying the correct version into each new
machine.

except it doesn't work that way. you are once again, wrong.

as i said, the leopard dvd, out of the box, boots *both* powerpc and
intel macs. this is *before* any installer runs. one single dvd, two
totally different platforms. it's a universal binary. just pop it into
the dvd drive and boot.

when you run the leopard installer, it installs a universal system that
works on both platforms. there is no conditional install, which is why
a leopard install on a hard drive will boot *both* powerpc and intel
macs, just as it does from the dvd.

similarly, most mac apps are also universal binaries. the same app runs
on either platform. most mac apps do not have installers, the app is
simply dragged to wherever the user wants to put them. some apps do
have installers, generally ones with many components in various places
such as photoshop, and what they install also runs on both platforms.

If the software is truly as interchangeable as you claim how is it
that Mac OS X Leopard, version 10.5, is the last version to support
bother Power PCs and Intel processors. Later versions supported only
Intel. Was this because Apple stopped providing something in the code
or because at this point they decided to poison the Power PC
processors if they tried to run it?

it's because powerpc macs stopped being sold in 2006, some 6 years ago,
so there's little point in maintaining a powerpc build. there just
aren't enough users with powerpc macs anymore to matter. apple is far
better off putting their resources towards developing new features on
new machines, not maintaining old code for a tiny fraction of users.

If what you claim is correct Apple should have been able to go on
supporting both processors in later versions of Leopard. But they
didn't. What happened.

see above. not enough users to bother. they could have but at some
point you need to move forward.

also, what a lot of people don't realize was that mac os x was running
on intel *before* it was running on powerpc. the intel build was kept
secret all along.

the only nonsense is what you keep posting. you haven't a clue.

Why do you keep avoiding the difference between source code and
run-time code?

i'm not avoiding the difference at all. you're fixated on it, for some
reason.

Because its the run-time code which causes a computer to operate.

again, you're fixated on it being bit for bit binary identical. that
isn't the issue. as i said, even products of the same family will have
different binaries, but that doesn't mean they run different operating
systems.

... but that doesn't mean it's a different
operating system.

But it destroys your claim that the same operating system is installed
on all machines.

you just said it was the same!

You really believe that! You are nuts.

Right from the beginning I have been saying the run time code is
processor dependent and will be different for different machines.

so what? that isn't the issue, no matter how hard you try to twist it.

On 2012-11-12 06:28:42 -0800, nospam said:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

To claim that OS X is a particular operating system is foolish. To
keep on insisting that it is a particular operating system is stupid.
OS X is a family of related operating systems. The name is generic.

in other words, you admit mac os x and ios are both os x, just as i
said several days ago. crazy.

Hey nospam! It is time to move on. Most of us gave up on this thread a
week ago.
Nobody cares if you are right or not, we just want you to shut up.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 09:28:43 -0500, nospam
wrote:

--- snip ---

you and certain others don't understand the internals of os x and the
differences between os x, mac os x and ios, which is perfectly fine.
not everyone does. most people just want to use the devices and don't
really care what goes on inside.

what's *not* fine is saying things that are factually incorrect or
worse, fabricating things.

but since you are convinced i'm wrong, perhaps you can explain why
steve jobs himself said *exactly* what i'm saying.

or maybe you can't, because what i said is exactly true.

did you even watch the video clip?

the fact is your statement is almost meaningless.

it's not at all. further proof you don't understand it.

steve jobs spent several minutes in the keynote explaining how an
iphone runs os x. it's not meaningless. it's what it is.

Most of us have
mothers. Why bother commenting on that.

not relevant.

Please tell us exactly what you are saying, and what's your point?--

i have, several times.

if you've been paying half as much attention as you claim you are, you
would already know.

how about you please tell us why steve jobs said the same thing i am.

The question is whether or not all these devices run the same
operating system. You insist they do. Others have repeatedly pointed
out they do not and can not. There are too many differences in the
hardware to enable the same operating system to run on all of them.
Also, there are many things which will run on one operating system and
not another. This applies even if you separate if you separate th
shell from the definition of operating system.

That the operating systems cannot be the same should be evident from
first principles. That they are not the same is mmade evident by he
need to write and enormous number of 'apps' to provide software which
runs on the iPad and iPhone. The same software will not run on the Mac
for the simple reason that the operating systems are too different.

All of this is obvious to most people, but not you. You rely for your
argument on five year old clip of Steve Jobs saying that "the iPhone
runs OS 10". Well, maybe it does if you rely on a simple diagram or
flow chart of OS 10's schema. It may be largely true even at the
source code level (although I expect there will be some enormous
differences). But computing devices do not run on diagrams, flow
charts or source code. As you well know, they run on a binary code
which has to be intelligible to the processor. No matter how you
wriggle and squirm, and no matter how much you deny it, you know all
this as well as I do.

Unless you come up with something really new, I'm stopping at this
point.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 09:28:42 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

To claim that OS X is a particular operating system is foolish. To
keep on insisting that it is a particular operating system is stupid.
OS X is a family of related operating systems. The name is generic.

in other words, you admit mac os x and ios are both os x, just as i
said several days ago. crazy.

They may be similar but they are not identical.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 11/12/2012 9:28 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

Therefore we can run Photoshop CS6 on an iPad?
How about Lightroom?
Corel PSP

Which ones, Mac version, can we run on the iPad.

haven't been paying attention, have you? no surprise there.

i never said ipads and iphones ran *mac* os x and i've repeatedly
explained how it all fits together.

i said the ipad and other ios devices run os x, which they do.

here's steve jobs saying exactly what i said (at about the 4 min mark,
about 10 seconds from the start point), when the iphone was announced:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VLb5XdxRm8&t=3m50s

I've been paying lots of attention, and cringing at your misstatements.
If the OS is the same, the software should run on both platforms.

if you were actually paying attention, which obviously you haven't,
then you'd realize that isn't what i said at all.

Again, you are shifting positions.

not at all. i've been completely consistent the entire time.

you and certain others don't understand the internals of os x and the
differences between os x, mac os x and ios, which is perfectly fine.
not everyone does. most people just want to use the devices and don't
really care what goes on inside.

what's *not* fine is saying things that are factually incorrect or
worse, fabricating things.

but since you are convinced i'm wrong, perhaps you can explain why
steve jobs himself said *exactly* what i'm saying.

or maybe you can't, because what i said is exactly true.

did you even watch the video clip?

the fact is your statement is almost meaningless.

it's not at all. further proof you don't understand it.

steve jobs spent several minutes in the keynote explaining how an
iphone runs os x. it's not meaningless. it's what it is.

Most of us have
mothers. Why bother commenting on that.

not relevant.

Please tell us exactly what you are saying, and what's your point?--

i have, several times.

if you've been paying half as much attention as you claim you are, you
would already know.

how about you please tell us why steve jobs said the same thing i am.


Take a self study course in logic 101.

Bye


--
Peter