[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Introduction, and Proposed GSFH.
From: |
Bissell, Tim |
Subject: |
RE: Introduction, and Proposed GSFH. |
Date: |
Thu, 28 Feb 2002 15:43:32 -0000 |
>
> I feel that 'App' is a short abbreviation, and so less user friendly for
> non-English native speakers, and for non-computer nerds in general.
>
I'm agnostic, but I thought the 'Apps' name was justified because
all[1] applications had the extension '.app' - so when you bought
or downloaded FOO.app, you would drag it to your Apps directory,
this may be clearer than dragging to 'Applications'.
I have been using MacOS X for over a year at home, and I've got
used to 'Applications' now. Mind you, I've got used to RHS scrollers,
and I still hate them...
regards,
Tim
[1] OK, not all, but all apps bundled inside a directory rather than crammed
into a single Mach-O file.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have received this e-mail in error or wish to read our e-mail
disclaimer statement and monitoring policy, please refer to
http://www.drkw.com/disc/email/ or contact the sender.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Re: Introduction, and Proposed GSFH., (continued)
- Re: Introduction, and Proposed GSFH., Nicola Pero, 2002/02/28
- Re: Introduction, and Proposed GSFH., Tim Harrison, 2002/02/28
- Re: Introduction, and Proposed GSFH., Adam Fedor, 2002/02/28
- Re: Introduction, and Proposed GSFH., Marcus Müller, 2002/02/28
Message not available
Re: Introduction, and Proposed GSFH., Erik Dalén, 2002/02/28
Re: Introduction, and Proposed GSFH., David Wetzel, 2002/02/28
RE: Introduction, and Proposed GSFH.,
Bissell, Tim <=