In New York you have MTA Metro North, PATH, MTA Subway, MTA Select Bus Service, NJ Transit, etc.
Plus things like JFK AirTrain, Amtrak.
It's not confusing though --different names for different things. commuter rail vs intra-city transportation. Metro North doesn't share ticketing with the subway even though they're both MTA
NYC and SF aren't comparable at all since NYC is so much larger. But even then, NYC is more well-organized. The majority of the services you mentioned move commuters between NYC and surrounding areas, so it makes sense that they don't fall under MTA. SF separates its bus system from its train system (at least in labeling), and there's more than one train service within the city alone.
EDIT: Bear in mind it wasn't always this way, and NYC went through a painful process to unify its transportation services - something SF might have to do at some point. Competing train companies (IRT and BMT) were nationalized and folded into the city's separate system (IND). That's why you see numbered vs lettered trains. Those trains have entirely different systems - even the tracks have different widths.
NYC is a single political entity and the primary metropolitan region of the state in which the city is located. The former is true of the City and County of San Francisco -- but that's, by itself, not even a particular big city -- but not the 9-county Bay Area which is smaller, in population, than NYC despite having more than 20 times the land area. And the latter isn't true of SF at all.)
> SF separates its bus system from its train system (at least in labeling), and there's more than one train service within the city alone.
San Francisco's bus and train service are both labelled "Muni".
BART also has stops in San Francisco but is a separate multicounty agency (the Bay Area Rapid Transit District) of which SF happens to be a member, it isn't SF's.
> the 9-county Bay Area which is smaller, in population, than NYC despite having more than 20 times the land area.
LIRR, NJ Transit, Metro-North and the Port Authority easily cover more land than the Bay Area – note that these are all state-run agencies. AFAIK California has never taken an interest in creating its own state level transit agencies? The states of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut and the city of New York have been able to cooperate perhaps much better than SF and its surrounding counties.
> AFAIK California has never taken an interest in creating its own state level transit agencies?
It has (e.g., through longstanding cooperation with Amtrak, and more recently through the High-Speed Rail Authority), but not of the same style as those centered around New York or Boston, because California doesn't have any metropolitan areas like New York or Boston to support (even like New York or Boston before they had developed their strong coordinated public transit systems.)
California's urban areas are nothing like New York or Boston in density. Sure, the New York-centered services may cover a land area comparable to the Bay Area -- but the reason for an intense transit system in that area is that there are a lot more people there. New York City alone, has more people than the entire 9-county Bay Area has spread out over 7,000 square miles.
And, of course, while New York City is clearly the economically dominant metropolitan area of New York State (and politically dominant in the State, as the City itself has nearly half the State's population) and a considerable center of gravity even for surrounding states, and Boston has a similar role -- that the city itself isn't so much of the state, the metro area is -- in Massachusetts, the Bay Area isn't the dominant region in California, by population, economic power (despite being pretty strong in per capita wealth), or political influence.
What about it? I've never heard it described as a better internal transit system than the Bay Area has, just a better system as part of the multi-authority feeder into the transit system for the New York City metroplex.
If there was an adjacent New York City-scale metroplex into which the Bay Area fed, it would have very different transportation demands and needs -- and likely a very different transit system -- than it does.
Is BART an "internal" transit system and not a feeder system to/from SF?
NJ Transit is not solely a feeder system into NYC (that's what PATH is for), though that's probably most of it: https://www.njtransit.com/pdf/rail/Rail_System_Map.pdf . Is Oakland not analogous to Newark in this system?
Chromecast lets you "cast" a tab from chrome, but the performance will be subpar. Very subpar. Don't try to watch a video with that or anything. If your macs are all modern enough (sandy bridge or newer) AirPlay display mirroring/extending works pretty well. The latency is noticeable but not the end of the world if you're using it to consume content. You won't want to full screen a 1080p video in VLC though, the framerate will be good but not perfect. There's an app Beamer that can be used for things like that. For most video files it won't need to transcode the whole thing, rather it'll just demux and maybe transcode the audio to AAC (appletv can natively play common video formats).
Especially with the low screen resolution of the 11" MacBook Air, full-screen mode becomes essential. On a 27" 1440p display, not so much. I personally use full screen mode for iTunes (mainly so that iTunes is always a quick multi-swipe away) but not for anything else.
I think the animations on Mac OS make full screen mode great. Slide some fingers on the trackpad and you switch to the next full screen app or virtual desktop. On Win8 it's a jarring zoom in zoom out animation, without any ability to 'peek', at least using a mouse/keyboard interface on a desktop.
and no OneDrive for Business support still. Really tough to sell any company on using that service unless they're a homogenous Windows environment. "It's kinda like DropBox except you have to always use Windows".
Microsoft: supporting BYOD as long as you're bringing Windows.
On a positive note, it's nice to see Microsoft being a good ecosystem citizen and using the Mac App Store. OneNote is visually pleasant, at the same time familiar to Windows users but not foreign to those accustomed to Mac OS.
I know for sure (because I was testing something where a contact had a weird photo) that on 7.0.6 it did the 'small circle contact photo on incoming call' thing. Was full screen photo only activated for high res photos?
