Wireless (cordless) keyboard/mice
Irwell
Leslie Danks
> Any pros and cons?
If you spend much of your time at the computer, you will have to keep
buying batteries - though I don't have any hard data on how often.
--
Les (BrE)
Prai Jei
continuum:
I use rechargeable batteries (NiMH) - get two sets so you have one lot fully
charged ready to pop in. Still keep the hard-wired keyboard and mouse
available for if the cordless ones pack up completely.
--
ξ:) Proud to be curly
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
James Silverton
>> Irwell wrote:
>>
>>> Any pros and cons?
>>
>> If you spend much of your time at the computer, you will have
>> to keep buying batteries - though I don't have any hard data
>> on how often.
> I use rechargeable batteries (NiMH) - get two sets so you have
> one lot fully charged ready to pop in. Still keep the
> hard-wired keyboard and mouse available for if the cordless
> ones pack up completely. --
> ξ:) Proud to be curly
I had an early Logitech wireless keyboard and mouse that had a charging
stand (doubling as wireless receiver) for the mouse and four AA
batteries in the keyboard. The keyboard batteries usually lasted 4-5
months. However, the mouse gave out completely and I had to replace the
set with a newer version that has 2 AAs in the keybord and two in the
mouse. The set is advertised as having batteries that last "up to 3
months". That's literally true; the keyboard lasts about *one* month and
the mouse two.
--
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland
Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
Skitt
> Leslie Danks wrote:
>> Irwell wrote:
>>> Any pros and cons?
>>
>> If you spend much of your time at the computer, you will have to keep
>> buying batteries - though I don't have any hard data on how often.
>
> I use rechargeable batteries (NiMH) - get two sets so you have one
> lot fully charged ready to pop in. Still keep the hard-wired keyboard
> and mouse available for if the cordless ones pack up completely.
The problem with some NiMH batteries is that they lose their power whether
they are in use or not. They lose about 1% of charge per day. The set I
kept "fully charged" was almost as dead as the one I was replacing. I have
now found a brand (Maha Imedion) that does a lot better (15% loss per year).
As for wireless keyboards and mice, there can be some problems between those
devices and their receivers, but not often.
--
Skitt (AmE)
Mike Barnes
About 9 months here for the mouse, over a year for the keyboard
(Logitech S510).
--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England
the Omrud
> Any pros and cons?
I can't see the point of a wireless keyboard at a desktop PC. I do have
a wireless mouse, mostly because I find it very comfortable (a Genius
Netscroll). The receiver trickle-charges a spare pair of batteries - I
have to swap them over every three or four weeks.
--
David
the Omrud
I should have added that I use a smaller wireless mouse with my laptop
PC. It is Bluetooth enabled, so there's no need for a dongle. A pair
of AA Duracells lasts more than a year. Logitech, but I can't remember
the model.
--
David
Ray O'Hara
"Irwell" <ho...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:nd0qu1t3vyp6$.d3jugryrejr7.dlg@40tude.net...
> Any pros and cons?
The cord assures the mouse is always near the computer.
How often does the TV remore end up near the phone or in the kitchen?
A wireless mouse is needless.
annily
> "Irwell" <ho...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:nd0qu1t3vyp6$.d3jugryrejr7.dlg@40tude.net...
>> Any pros and cons?
>
>
Not really in my case. I operate a desktop PC from my lounge chair with
a wireless keyboard and mouse. The wireless mouse provides freedom from
an extra cable, of which there are already too many cluttering the area.
I use rechargeable batteries, which generally need recharging every few
weeks.
--
Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia,
which may or may not influence my opinions.
Stan Brown
>
> Any pros and cons?
Since this is alt.usage.english, I assume you are asking for pros and
cons of the two adjectives.
As far as I can see they're synonyms, but "wireless" is more frequent
where I live, probably because of the influence of "wireless" as
short for wireless access to the Internet.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...
Bertel Lund Hansen
> Any pros and cons?
Only cons in my oppinion. I have tried several different kinds of
mouse [1], and every time I have returned to my favourite that
works precisely as I want and responds immediately to a slight
click. It is the cheapest mouse available in my town, and it is a
Genius mouse with chord, ball, two buttons and a wheel.
The occasional removal of dust that is necessary perhaps every
two months is a small inconvinience compared to being rid of
fiddling with batteries, and the wire-mouse is lighter than any
other mouse I have tried.
I need to have the cord placed exactly right, but once it is in
place, I do not feel it.
[1]
with cord: ball mouse and optic mouse
cordless: ball mouse and optic mouse
--
Bertel, Denmark
Peter Moylan
> Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:00:13 -0800 from Irwell <ho...@yahoo.com>:
>> Any pros and cons?
>
> Since this is alt.usage.english, I assume you are asking for pros and
> cons of the two adjectives.
>
> As far as I can see they're synonyms, but "wireless" is more frequent
> where I live, probably because of the influence of "wireless" as
> short for wireless access to the Internet.
>
language. For reasons that I don't fully understand, it was gradually
displaced by "radio".
The reversal of this trend is an equal mystery. Why do we never speak of
a radio internet connection, or a radio keyboard interface?
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Garrett Wollman
I've never seen a wireless (or cordless) mouse with exactly three
buttons, which is an absolute requirement for me. I have a pair of
fifteen-year-old Logitech mechanical mouses that I intend to keep
working for as long as possible (one for home and one for work).
It does seem to be the case, however, that wireless HIDs are prone to
breaking in mysterious and permanent ways, such that the people I know
who have them at work have to replace them regularly, whereas their
colleagues with corded HIDs don't seem to have this problem. The
keyboards, from everything I've seen, are one giant festering pile of
Suck. (As with mouses, I keep a stash of ten-year-old ALPS-switch
keyboards for use at home and work; if my home keyboard fails, it's
off to clickykeyboards.com to buy new-in-box buckling-spring IBM Model
M.)
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Evan Kirshenbaum
> In article <nd0qu1t3vyp6$.d3jugryr...@40tude.net>,
> Irwell <ho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Any pros and cons?
>
> I've never seen a wireless (or cordless) mouse with exactly three
> buttons, which is an absolute requirement for me.
Don't most mice these days have three buttons, the middle one doing
double-duty as a scroll wheel?
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Specifically, I'd like to debate
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |whether cannibalism ought to be
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |grounds for leniency in murder,
|since it's less wasteful.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | Calvin
(650)857-7572
annily
> wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) writes:
>
>> In article <nd0qu1t3vyp6$.d3jugryr...@40tude.net>,
>> Irwell <ho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Any pros and cons?
>> I've never seen a wireless (or cordless) mouse with exactly three
>> buttons, which is an absolute requirement for me.
>
> Don't most mice these days have three buttons, the middle one doing
> double-duty as a scroll wheel?
>
Yes, my wireless Logitech does. Perhaps he was referring to a third
button which is not also a wheel.
R H Draney
>
>wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) writes:
>
>> In article <nd0qu1t3vyp6$.d3jugryr...@40tude.net>,
>> Irwell <ho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>Any pros and cons?
>>
>> I've never seen a wireless (or cordless) mouse with exactly three
>> buttons, which is an absolute requirement for me.
>
>Don't most mice these days have three buttons, the middle one doing
>double-duty as a scroll wheel?
That's a perspective thing...my mouse has two buttons with a scroll wheel
between them, but the wheel *can* be pressed like a button as well....r
--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?
Mike Barnes
>Irwell wrote:
>> Any pros and cons?
>
>I can't see the point of a wireless keyboard at a desktop PC.
Sometimes I have other people sit at my PC so that I can show something
(a slideshow[1] being the obvious example) while seated beside or behind
them. I can place a wireless mouse and keyboard in a position that's
comfortable for me, and pass them around if necessary. I suppose you
could use an extension lead for the purpose but wireless is less fuss.
[1] By "slideshow" I don't mean that software feature that moves the
picture on at fixed intervals. Many people seem to love the idea but in
practice it always turns out to be more trouble than it's worth IMO.
Much better to advance the slides manually.
Mike Barnes
>Until recently the word "wireless" had almost dropped out of the
>language. For reasons that I don't fully understand, it was gradually
>displaced by "radio".
At the time that that change was taking place, you only had to look into
a wireless to see that it wasn't wireless at all.
>The reversal of this trend is an equal mystery. Why do we never speak of
> a radio internet connection, or a radio keyboard interface?
It's marketing-speak, to describe products in terms of benefits rather
than methods.
the Omrud
> "Irwell" <ho...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:nd0qu1t3vyp6$.d3jugryrejr7.dlg@40tude.net...
>> Any pros and cons?
>
> The cord assures the mouse is always near the computer.
> How often does the TV remore end up near the phone or in the kitchen?
Not in the kitchen. The phone is cordless, so they are often found
together, but only when the phone is visiting the living room.
Why would anybody take the TV remote away from the TV? Why would
anybody take the mouse away from the computer? Neither of these has
ever happened here.
--
David
Mike Lyle
> Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp@retep.?.invalid>:
>> Until recently the word "wireless" had almost dropped out of the
>> language. For reasons that I don't fully understand, it was gradually
>> displaced by "radio".
I grew up in a broadcasting household, and the word "wireless" was
rarely used for "radio". Indeed, for a long part of my childhood it
seemed affected to me (like "purchase" for "buy", and such-like), and I
still don't use it in that sense.
>
> At the time that that change was taking place, you only had to look
> into a wireless to see that it wasn't wireless at all.
>
>> The reversal of this trend is an equal mystery. Why do we never
>> speak of a radio internet connection, or a radio keyboard interface?
>
> It's marketing-speak, to describe products in terms of benefits rather
> than methods.
And in that way it makes sense. But don't some wireless controls use
infra-red rather than yer actual steam-radio-type radio?
--
Mike.
Bertel Lund Hansen
> And in that way it makes sense. But don't some wireless controls use
> infra-red rather than yer actual steam-radio-type radio?
Oh yes, I've got one. They need to be pointed in contrast to a
radio type that works in many mysterious ways.
Once there were some that used ultra high frequency sound, but
they could harm the hearing if held too close to the ear, so this
method has been abandoned.
--
Bertel, Denmark
Bertel Lund Hansen
> Don't most mice these days have three buttons, the middle one doing
> double-duty as a scroll wheel?
Perhaps most, but i have some horrors (cordless) with five or
seven buttons. I can't hold them without activating some strange
function.
--
Bertel, Denmark
James Silverton
>> Don't most mice these days have three buttons, the middle one
>> doing double-duty as a scroll wheel?
> Perhaps most, but i have some horrors (cordless) with five or
> seven buttons. I can't hold them without activating some
> strange function.
I only know Logitech but you can usually program the extra buttons to do
nothing at all. With mine, I can also program a button to double-click,
which I find useful. I use the middle button (scroll wheel) to double
click since I prefer to use only one finger to press mouse buttons.
Programmed buttons can be a little of a nuisance when you try to use
someone else's machine. I have found myself stabbing the wheel
frantically in libraries.
Bertel Lund Hansen
> I only know Logitech but you can usually program the extra buttons to do
> nothing at all.
Probably, but that involves installing a special driver for this
equipment, and I prefer to keep my system as clean as possible.
Besides I do not like to hold those mouses which are heavier than
the one I use, and have portruding things where I don't want
them.
But habbit is of course essential.
--
Bertel, Denmark
Ray O'Hara
"the Omrud" <usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote in message
news:lDNOm.8121$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
You are holding the remote/mouse. the phone rings, you get up and only put
down what you are holding to answer the phone.
Later you can't find the remote/mouse.
Chuck Riggs
>Any pros and cons?
Are you sure you want some? I've known both.
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Irwell
Arthur C Clarke published his theory of satellite communication
in Wireless World in the 1940s, the magazine changed its title to
Wireless and Electronic World in the 1990s.
Garrett Wollman
>> buttons, which is an absolute requirement for me.
>
>Don't most mice these days have three buttons, the middle one doing
>double-duty as a scroll wheel?
Sure, but that's a five-button mouse, which is not exactly three
buttons.
musika
Ray O'Hara <raymon...@hotmail.com> typed:
> "the Omrud" <usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote in message
> news:lDNOm.8121$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> Why would anybody take the TV remote away from the TV? Why would
>> anybody take the mouse away from the computer? Neither of these has
>> ever happened here.
>>
>> --
>> David
>
> You are holding the remote/mouse. the phone rings, you get up and
> only put down what you are holding to answer the phone.
> Later you can't find the remote/mouse.
Try one of these:
http://www.weterm.com/computer_accessories/phone_mouse.htm
--
Ray
UK
Skitt
> "the Omrud" wrote:
>> Ray O'Hara wrote:
>>>> Any pros and cons?
>>>
>>> The cord assures the mouse is always near the computer.
>>> How often does the TV remore end up near the phone or in the
>>> kitchen?
>>
>> Not in the kitchen. The phone is cordless, so they are often found
>> together, but only when the phone is visiting the living room.
>>
>> Why would anybody take the TV remote away from the TV? Why would
>> anybody take the mouse away from the computer? Neither of these has
>> ever happened here.
>
> You are holding the remote/mouse. the phone rings, you get up and
> only put down what you are holding to answer the phone.
> Later you can't find the remote/mouse.
Why would you be *holding* either of those devices? I pick up the remote
when I want to change something, which is not too often. Then I put it down
again. I don't pick up a mouse -- I simply have my hand resting on it, so
if the phone rings, I just remove my hand from the mouse.
--
Skitt (AmE)
Skitt
> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>> (Garrett Wollman) writes:
>>> I've never seen a wireless (or cordless) mouse with exactly three
>>> buttons, which is an absolute requirement for me.
>>
>> Don't most mice these days have three buttons, the middle one doing
>> double-duty as a scroll wheel?
>
> Sure, but that's a five-button mouse, which is not exactly three
> buttons.
I have a six-function corded optical mouse. It has the two usual buttons, a
clickable wheel (that's two more functions), and two more buttons, one on
each side. The latter two are for going back to the previous browser page
and then returning again.
--
Skitt (AmE)
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
Which says:
Minimum order: 2000 pcs
That could solve the problem of losing the item - just unpack a new one
from the pallet.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Wood Avens
wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:00:13 -0800, Irwell <ho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Any pros and cons?
>
>Are you sure you want some? I've known both.
Nice!
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
erilar
"Mike Lyle" <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> And in that way it makes sense. But don't some wireless controls use
> infra-red rather than yer actual steam-radio-type radio?
Mine is blue(tooth). And it doesn't have all kinds of buttons. It IS
the button.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
erilar
the Omrud <usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
> Irwell wrote:
> > Any pros and cons?
>
> I can't see the point of a wireless keyboard at a desktop PC.
If you don't have the perfect height desk, that laptop keyboard can be a
wrist breaker.
Skitt
> the Omrud wrote:
>> I can't see the point of a wireless keyboard at a desktop PC.
>
> If you don't have the perfect height desk, that laptop keyboard can
> be a wrist breaker.
Yabbut isn't a laptop supposed to be on your lap? Just sayin' ...
--
Skitt (AmE)
the Omrud
> In article <OjEOm.8045$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com>,
> the Omrud <usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Irwell wrote:
>>> Any pros and cons?
>> I can't see the point of a wireless keyboard at a desktop PC.
>
> If you don't have the perfect height desk, that laptop keyboard can be a
> wrist breaker.
Adjustable chair?
--
David
a Hilton, somewhere in England
Peter Moylan
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:06:58 -0000, Mike Lyle wrote:
>
>> Mike Barnes wrote:
>>> Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp@retep.?.invalid>:
>>>> Until recently the word "wireless" had almost dropped out of
>>>> the language. For reasons that I don't fully understand, it was
>>>> gradually displaced by "radio".
>> I grew up in a broadcasting household, and the word "wireless" was
>> rarely used for "radio". Indeed, for a long part of my childhood
>> it seemed affected to me (like "purchase" for "buy", and
>> such-like), and I still don't use it in that sense.
Interesting. In my family "radio" was the highfalutin term, and
"wireless" was the down-to-earth term used by ordinary people.
>>> At the time that that change was taking place, you only had to
>>> look into a wireless to see that it wasn't wireless at all.
>>>
>>>> The reversal of this trend is an equal mystery. Why do we never
>>>> speak of a radio internet connection, or a radio keyboard
>>>> interface?
>>> It's marketing-speak, to describe products in terms of benefits
>>> rather than methods.
>> And in that way it makes sense. But don't some wireless controls
>> use infra-red rather than yer actual steam-radio-type radio?
We could quibble and say that it's the same thing; only the frequency is
different. There's a practical difference - IR devices usually use a
directional signal, while at the more conventional radio frequencies we
tend to broadcast - but that's not a hard-and-fast distinction.
Bluetooth, for example, uses the same frequencies as something like a
wireless router, but often uses a directional antenna.
> Arthur C Clarke published his theory of satellite communication in
> Wireless World in the 1940s, the magazine changed its title to
> Wireless and Electronic World in the 1990s.
The (Australian) magazine on which I cut my technical teeth,
_Radio_and_Hobbies_, commenced publication in 1939. All that that shows
is that the two terms were both in use, which probably matches the
memory of all of us. I have no idea whether there was a consistent
variation by country.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Steve Hayes
>Stan Brown wrote:
>> Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:00:13 -0800 from Irwell <ho...@yahoo.com>:
>>> Any pros and cons?
>>
>> Since this is alt.usage.english, I assume you are asking for pros and
>> cons of the two adjectives.
>>
>> As far as I can see they're synonyms, but "wireless" is more frequent
>> where I live, probably because of the influence of "wireless" as
>> short for wireless access to the Internet.
>>
>Until recently the word "wireless" had almost dropped out of the
>language. For reasons that I don't fully understand, it was gradually
>displaced by "radio".
>
>The reversal of this trend is an equal mystery. Why do we never speak of
> a radio internet connection, or a radio keyboard interface?
And why do we speak of "mobile phones" or "cell phones" but never "wireless
phones" or "radio phones"?
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Garrett Wollman
Steve Hayes <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>And why do we speak of "mobile phones" or "cell phones" but never "wireless
>phones" or "radio phones"?
A "radiotelephone" is a really old term for any radio transceiver that
could send and receive audio (as opposed to code). Until about thirty
years ago, anyone who wanted to be on the air at a broadcast station
in the United States had to have (at least) a "Third-Class
Radiotelephone Operator's License" or "Third Phone", which had to be
posted in the studio while that person was on the air.
Irwell
The Radio Times started publication in 1923, (if Wiki is to be believed)
and The Listener in 1929. Both BBC weekly magazines.
Frank ess
I don't use a mouse; Microsoft Trackball Explorers fit my style and
needs. Four buttons, a clicking wheel*, and my finger does the moving:
the device sits still under my hand whether on desk, chair arm, upper
leg, whatever. The first one I had failed after about six months and
it wasn't easy to find a replacement and an additional one for a new
computer. I thought they were very expensive at $60.00 each, so my
delight at winning a case of them on eBaY, was lasting. Only one
failure since then; Begins to look as if I have a lifetime supply,
although I'm amazed to see I could make a large profit in the current
market.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yaoft3a <-- Amazon.com
I got the case of six for less than a hundred dollars. There must be
/something/ good about them.
Keyboards? I have two Microsoft Natural Keyboard Pros with one in
reserve. Another expensive item, no longer available, not to be
confused with the inferior MNK Elite. These things are just the ticket
for wide-body typists like me, very substantial and good for feet-up
lap-based typing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MS_Natural_Keyboard_Pro.JPG
The two buttons that surround the wheel are thumb-operated and
regular-click and right-click; the two that are forward and below the
ball are middle- and ring-finger-operated and are "back" and "forward"
buttons. The wheel scrolls as expected, and if clicked, shows an
icon/cursor which if moved above center-screen scrolls up, below,
scrolls down.
I just set up another computer for my wife's study. Tiny mouse and a
lot of hand motion, tiny flat keyboard with a lot of untrained
distances and azimuths. It would take a bit of practice to get it
right. It is the same as her school apparatuses, and she doesn't want
to try my preferences, yet.
--
Frank ess
annily
The first TV with a wireless remote that my family had was an ultrasonic
black & white Philips. I didn't realize that was the reason they were
abandoned.
--
Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia,
which may or may not influence my opinions.
annily
remote to operate it, but you don't pick up a mouse to operate it, so
why would you pick it up and take it with you when you answer the phone?
annily
> In article <ocmsh0...@hpl.hp.com>,
> Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>> wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) writes:
>>> I've never seen a wireless (or cordless) mouse with exactly three
>>> buttons, which is an absolute requirement for me.
>> Don't most mice these days have three buttons, the middle one doing
>> double-duty as a scroll wheel?
>
> Sure, but that's a five-button mouse, which is not exactly three
> buttons.
>
Not necessarily. My Logitech has only two regular buttons, plus a
wheel/button. No side buttons like a five-button mouse.
Steve Hayes
Wollman) wrote:
>In article <imtog5divsnk8q3fn...@4ax.com>,
>Steve Hayes <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>And why do we speak of "mobile phones" or "cell phones" but never "wireless
>>phones" or "radio phones"?
>
>A "radiotelephone" is a really old term for any radio transceiver that
>could send and receive audio (as opposed to code). Until about thirty
>years ago, anyone who wanted to be on the air at a broadcast station
>in the United States had to have (at least) a "Third-Class
>Radiotelephone Operator's License" or "Third Phone", which had to be
>posted in the studio while that person was on the air.
Be that as it may, technology has advanced to the point where any Tom, Dick or
Harry can practise radio telephony.
I believe "wireless" originally referred to "wireless telegraphy", but I don't
think a wireless mouse communicates in Morse code.
Garrett Wollman
annily <ann...@ihopethisdoesntexist.com> wrote:
>Garrett Wollman wrote:
>> In article <ocmsh0...@hpl.hp.com>,
>> Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>>> wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) writes:
>>>> I've never seen a wireless (or cordless) mouse with exactly three
>>>> buttons, which is an absolute requirement for me.
>>> Don't most mice these days have three buttons, the middle one doing
>>> double-duty as a scroll wheel?
>>
>> Sure, but that's a five-button mouse, which is not exactly three
>> buttons.
>>
>
>Not necessarily. My Logitech has only two regular buttons, plus a
>wheel/button. No side buttons like a five-button mouse.
The wheel is actually three buttons (up, down, and middle), and not
actually very good at that last function -- it's very easy to move the
wheel when trying to press the "middle" button. The mouses that I use
have three real buttons, all approximately the same size and shape,
and the only wheels are the two inside it that encode the motion of
the ball.
Peter Moylan
> I believe "wireless" originally referred to "wireless telegraphy", but I don't
> think a wireless mouse communicates in Morse code.
No, it communicates in Mouse code.
annily
> In article <00852212$0$1604$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>,
> annily <ann...@ihopethisdoesntexist.com> wrote:
>> Garrett Wollman wrote:
>>> In article <ocmsh0...@hpl.hp.com>,
>>> Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>>>> wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) writes:
>>>>> I've never seen a wireless (or cordless) mouse with exactly three
>>>>> buttons, which is an absolute requirement for me.
>>>> Don't most mice these days have three buttons, the middle one doing
>>>> double-duty as a scroll wheel?
>>> Sure, but that's a five-button mouse, which is not exactly three
>>> buttons.
>>>
>> Not necessarily. My Logitech has only two regular buttons, plus a
>> wheel/button. No side buttons like a five-button mouse.
>
> The wheel is actually three buttons (up, down, and middle), and not
> actually very good at that last function -- it's very easy to move the
> wheel when trying to press the "middle" button. The mouses that I use
> have three real buttons, all approximately the same size and shape,
> and the only wheels are the two inside it that encode the motion of
> the ball.
>
How can the wheel be three buttons? It only has one function as a button
(i.e. by clicking it, rather than rolling it), and that function is
programmable.
I agree though that it can be easy to move the wheel when trying to
click it.
Why do you need three real buttons anyway? I don't miss a real middle
button. I don't even use the click function on the wheel.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:43:00 +1100, Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp@retep> wrote:
>
>>Stan Brown wrote:
>>> Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:00:13 -0800 from Irwell <ho...@yahoo.com>:
>>>> Any pros and cons?
>>>
>>> Since this is alt.usage.english, I assume you are asking for pros and
>>> cons of the two adjectives.
>>>
>>> As far as I can see they're synonyms, but "wireless" is more frequent
>>> where I live, probably because of the influence of "wireless" as
>>> short for wireless access to the Internet.
>>>
>>Until recently the word "wireless" had almost dropped out of the
>>language. For reasons that I don't fully understand, it was gradually
>>displaced by "radio".
>>
>>The reversal of this trend is an equal mystery. Why do we never speak of
>> a radio internet connection, or a radio keyboard interface?
>
>And why do we speak of "mobile phones" or "cell phones" but never "wireless
>phones" or "radio phones"?
We do have "cordless phones".
"Radio phone" is sometimes used of a mobile phone handset with integral
radio. For instance:
http://www.unwiredview.com/2008/07/19/sony-ericsson-r300-r306-radio-phones-review/
Stan Brown
<gro.nalyomp@retep>:
> The reversal of this trend is an equal mystery. Why do we never speak of
> a radio internet connection, or a radio keyboard interface?
Not all of them operate at radio frequencies. IR (infrared) is
another popular choice.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...
Stan Brown
<haye...@hotmail.com>:
> I believe "wireless" originally referred to "wireless telegraphy",
In /Upstairs, Downstairs/, Richard Bellamy gets a bit of good news
that he wants to share with his wife, who is on a transatlantic
voyage. He readily agrees to Hudson's suggestion of sending a
"wireless message, a Marconigram". I'm pretty sure that was wireless
telegraphy, and the date was 1912.
Was /U, D/ historically accurate?
Peter Moylan
> Garrett Wollman wrote:
>> The wheel is actually three buttons (up, down, and middle), and not
>> actually very good at that last function -- it's very easy to move
>> the wheel when trying to press the "middle" button. The mouses
>> that I use have three real buttons, all approximately the same size
>> and shape, and the only wheels are the two inside it that encode
>> the motion of the ball.
> How can the wheel be three buttons? It only has one function as a
> button (i.e. by clicking it, rather than rolling it), and that
> function is programmable.
When is a wheel not a wheel? Your software doesn't know about mouse
wheels, so the wheel pretends to be a couple of buttons. When you roll
the wheel, it sends a whole sequence of clicks to the computer.
> Why do you need three real buttons anyway? I don't miss a real middle
> button. I don't even use the click function on the wheel.
If you ever use software that uses three buttons properly - that is,
assigns distinct functions to them, and possibly to combinations of them
- you'll wonder how you could go back to the world of doubleclick.
Suddenly mouse operations become efficient.
It was a sad day when Apple decided to use a one-button mouse for the
original Macintosh. The people who stole their ideas took years to think
of a use for the second mouse button. We can reasonably assume that it
will take them even more years to figure out how to use a three-button
mouse. If Microsoft had plagiarised from somebody else, the Windows
experience might have been a bit different.
At present the dominant idea seems to be "We can't figure out how to
design anything, so how about _you_ work out what to do with the extra
mouse buttons and all that unnecessary extra crap on your keyboard."
Bertel Lund Hansen
> The first TV with a wireless remote that my family had was an ultrasonic
> black & white Philips. I didn't realize that was the reason they were
> abandoned.
A journalist at a (Danish) hifi magazine once held a B&O remote
close to his ear and pressed a button. It took half an hour
before he could hear again (he claimed).
--
Bertel, Denmark
Bertel Lund Hansen
> And unlike the rather-more-widely-available radio ones, your neighbours
> aren't likely to find themselves suddenly receiving your typing (or vice
> versa).
True. The air might soon be cluttered with radio signals - if it
isn't already.
--
Bertel, Denmark
Bertel Lund Hansen
> The wheel is actually three buttons
Is a normal electric switch then two buttons? On and off?
A button is a button and not several. It may have several
functions.
> (up, down, and middle), and not
> actually very good at that last function -- it's very easy to move the
> wheel when trying to press the "middle" button.
I seldom or never press the wheel, but it is absolutely
indispensable to use for scrolling.
--
Bertel, Denmark
Bertel Lund Hansen
> It was a sad day when Apple decided to use a one-button mouse for the
> original Macintosh.
I think you have to blame the Xerox inventor group who invented
the graphic user interface and the mouse. Both Apple an Microsoft
copied their design.
--
Bertel, Denmark
Garrett Wollman
Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 05:00:46 +0200 from Steve Hayes
><haye...@hotmail.com>:
>
>> I believe "wireless" originally referred to "wireless telegraphy",
>
>In /Upstairs, Downstairs/, Richard Bellamy gets a bit of good news
>that he wants to share with his wife, who is on a transatlantic
>voyage. He readily agrees to Hudson's suggestion of sending a
>"wireless message, a Marconigram". I'm pretty sure that was wireless
>telegraphy, and the date was 1912.
>
>Was /U, D/ historically accurate?
Well, Fessenden invented AM around 1903, but his system was then
considered completely impractical. By 1912, people had started to
figure out better ways to both transmit and receive AM, particularly
using Lee De Forest's triode and Armstrong's "regenerative circuit",
but it was still little more than a toy for amateurs, with no obvious
commercial application. The vast majority of radio traffic was still
CW using simple spark-gap transmitters of the sort favored by Marconi.
Audio broadcasting did not really take off until after the Great War,
through a combination of new technology and new business models.
Famously, David Sarnoff, who had been a wireless telegraph clerk for
the American Marconi company, came up with the idea of a "radio music
box" around 1915 or 1916, but his superiors at Marconi saw no value in
it. American Marconi was nationalized during the war, and after the
war was reorganized as a patent pool under the name Radio Corporation
of America. By 1920, (AM) radio broadcasting was becoming popular
enough to attract government regulation, although at that time it was
still used primarily by amateurs; many radio manufacturers and
department stores set up stations as a promotional tool. The radio
business exploded in 1922, and by 1925 some stations were involved in
"toll broadcasting" -- what we would now call "commercial radio".
(AT&T had pioneered the way, with its WBAY and WEAF in New York, and
WCAP in Washington. RCA bought out AT&T's broadcasting interests in
1926 to form the National Broadcasting Company.)
James Silverton
>> Perhaps most, but i have some horrors (cordless) with five or
>> seven buttons. I can't hold them without activating some
>> strange function.
> Hah. I believe the record was 40 buttons. I had one of these,
> though I don't believe anyone ever wrote a Linux driver for it:
> http://www.atarimagazines.com/compute/issue113/8-1.jpg
A long time ago, I had a pocket keyboard using chorded buttons to get a
whole alphanumeric set with one hand. It really worked but was a bear to
learn.
--
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland
Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
Garrett Wollman
No, the Alto had a three-button mouse, as did the MIT Lisp Machine.
It was Apple who decided that consumers were "confused" by having
multiple buttons and built a user interface around the idea of playing
a chord on the keyboard with one hand to make up for the fact that
their mouse only had one button.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 05:00:46 +0200 from Steve Hayes
><haye...@hotmail.com>:
>
>> I believe "wireless" originally referred to "wireless telegraphy",
>
>In /Upstairs, Downstairs/, Richard Bellamy gets a bit of good news
>that he wants to share with his wife, who is on a transatlantic
>voyage. He readily agrees to Hudson's suggestion of sending a
>"wireless message, a Marconigram". I'm pretty sure that was wireless
>telegraphy, and the date was 1912.
>
When I, as a boy in the 1940s, became aware of messages sent by
electrical means there were three types of message (in BrE): "a
telegram", "a cable" (overseas message) and "a wireless".
Wireless telegraphy would have been the only way to communicate with
someone on board a ship.
The Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company supplied not only wireless
equipment for ships but operators as well.
The Wireless Room on a ship was a Marconi office. The wireless operator
was a Marconi employee rather than a member of the ship's crew.
OED:
Marconigram, n.
A radiotelegram.
1902 Daily Chron. 30 Jan. 6/4 When do you expect to start sending
Marconigrams at commercial rates across the Atlantic?
wireless, adj. and n.
2. A radio-telegram.
1903 Courier (Connellsville, Pa.) 5 Mar. 4/2 When the poultry show
managers recived [sic] the entry blank they sent a wireless to Mr
Clawson stating that ostriches were barred.
1940 N. MARSH Surfeit of Lampreys (1941) ii. 25 The steward gave her
two [letters] and a wireless message. She opened the wireless first.
>Was /U, D/ historically accurate?
I think the producers took a fair amount of care with the details. If
they had searched history books for information about ship to shore
communications in 1912 it would not have been long before they came
across information about the Titanic, which sank that year.
http://titanic.marconigraph.com/mgy_wireless.html
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 05:00:46 +0200 from Steve Hayes
><haye...@hotmail.com>:
>
>> I believe "wireless" originally referred to "wireless telegraphy",
>
>In /Upstairs, Downstairs/, Richard Bellamy gets a bit of good news
>that he wants to share with his wife, who is on a transatlantic
>voyage. He readily agrees to Hudson's suggestion of sending a
>"wireless message, a Marconigram". I'm pretty sure that was wireless
>telegraphy, and the date was 1912.
>
>Was /U, D/ historically accurate?
Wasn't it the Titanic in 1912 that sent the first SOS, as opposed to CDQ?
Or am I thinking of some other ship?
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>erilar wrote:
>> the Omrud wrote:
>
>>> I can't see the point of a wireless keyboard at a desktop PC.
>>
>> If you don't have the perfect height desk, that laptop keyboard can
>> be a wrist breaker.
>
>Yabbut isn't a laptop supposed to be on your lap? Just sayin' ...
I dunno. My eyeglasses are not on my eyes.
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Chuck Riggs
<raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"the Omrud" <usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote in message
>news:lDNOm.8121$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> Ray O'Hara wrote:
>>> "Irwell" <ho...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:nd0qu1t3vyp6$.d3jugryrejr7.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>> Any pros and cons?
>>>
>>> The cord assures the mouse is always near the computer.
>>> How often does the TV remore end up near the phone or in the kitchen?
>>
>> Not in the kitchen. The phone is cordless, so they are often found
>> together, but only when the phone is visiting the living room.
>>
>> Why would anybody take the TV remote away from the TV? Why would anybody
>> take the mouse away from the computer? Neither of these has ever happened
>> here.
>>
>> --
>> David
>
>You are holding the remote/mouse. the phone rings, you get up and only put
>down what you are holding to answer the phone.
>Later you can't find the remote/mouse.
>
When I move away from the TV to do this or that, I've been known to
put the remote in a front trouser pocket so I can find it again.
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>Ray O'Hara wrote:
>> "the Omrud" wrote:
>>> Ray O'Hara wrote:
>>>> "Irwell" wrote:
>
>>>>> Any pros and cons?
>>>>
>>>> The cord assures the mouse is always near the computer.
>>>> How often does the TV remore end up near the phone or in the
>>>> kitchen?
>>>
>>> Not in the kitchen. The phone is cordless, so they are often found
>>> together, but only when the phone is visiting the living room.
>>>
>>> Why would anybody take the TV remote away from the TV? Why would
>>> anybody take the mouse away from the computer? Neither of these has
>>> ever happened here.
>>
>> You are holding the remote/mouse. the phone rings, you get up and
>> only put down what you are holding to answer the phone.
>> Later you can't find the remote/mouse.
>
>Why would you be *holding* either of those devices? I pick up the remote
>when I want to change something, which is not too often. Then I put it down
>again. I don't pick up a mouse -- I simply have my hand resting on it, so
>if the phone rings, I just remove my hand from the mouse.
My hand is always on the remote so I can change the volume if I can't
hear the dialogue, mute the sound for adverts or if someone wants to
talk to me or so I can check the progress of that other programme I
wanted to watch, scheduled for the same time, not that I generally do
that.
Irwell
912.
>>
> When I, as a boy in the 1940s, became aware of messages sent by
> electrical means there were three types of message (in BrE): "a
> telegram", "a cable" (overseas message) and "a wireless".
My first job as an office boy for an export company was
to take messages to the Cable and Wireless office, this
was 1941. Later on when in the army I found the procedure
for writing signals was very similar to the civilian format.
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>Irwell wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:06:58 -0000, Mike Lyle wrote:
>>
>>> Mike Barnes wrote:
>>>> Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp@retep.?.invalid>:
>>>>> Until recently the word "wireless" had almost dropped out of
>>>>> the language. For reasons that I don't fully understand, it was
>>>>> gradually displaced by "radio".
>>> I grew up in a broadcasting household, and the word "wireless" was
>>> rarely used for "radio". Indeed, for a long part of my childhood
>>> it seemed affected to me (like "purchase" for "buy", and
>>> such-like), and I still don't use it in that sense.
>
>Interesting. In my family "radio" was the highfalutin term, and
>"wireless" was the down-to-earth term used by ordinary people.
>
>>>> At the time that that change was taking place, you only had to
>>>> look into a wireless to see that it wasn't wireless at all.
>>>>
>>>>> The reversal of this trend is an equal mystery. Why do we never
>>>>> speak of a radio internet connection, or a radio keyboard
>>>>> interface?
>>>> It's marketing-speak, to describe products in terms of benefits
>>>> rather than methods.
>>> And in that way it makes sense. But don't some wireless controls
>>> use infra-red rather than yer actual steam-radio-type radio?
>
>We could quibble and say that it's the same thing; only the frequency is
>different. There's a practical difference - IR devices usually use a
>directional signal, while at the more conventional radio frequencies we
>tend to broadcast - but that's not a hard-and-fast distinction.
>Bluetooth, for example, uses the same frequencies as something like a
>wireless router, but often uses a directional antenna.
The directionality of an electromagnetic signal, regardless of
frequency, is highly dependent on the type and detailed design of the
antenna used for its propagation or reception.
Chuck Riggs
<splittemi...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
>Evan Kirshenbaum skrev:
>
>> Don't most mice these days have three buttons, the middle one doing
>> double-duty as a scroll wheel?
>
>Perhaps most, but i have some horrors (cordless) with five or
>seven buttons. I can't hold them without activating some strange
>function.
My Intellimouse, with its two side buttons, drove a program I used to
use mad if I so much as touched either of them while editing. The
culprit was Yahoo's email program. Now that I've switched to Gmail,
there is no incompatibility problem.
Chuck Riggs
<wood...@askjennison.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:48:36 +0000, Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:00:13 -0800, Irwell <ho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Any pros and cons?
>>
>>Are you sure you want some? I've known both.
>
>Nice!
Thank you, Katy.
John Varela
wrote:
> I thought they were very expensive at $60.00 each, so my
> delight at winning a case of them on eBaY, was lasting. Only one
> failure since then; Begins to look as if I have a lifetime supply,
> although I'm amazed to see I could make a large profit in the current
> market.
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/yaoft3a <-- Amazon.com
>
> I got the case of six for less than a hundred dollars. There must be
> /something/ good about them.
Ye Gods! The asking price of $599 for a new one must be a
collector's, not a user's, price. If I were you I'd sell in a
hurry.
I use a Logitech track ball like
this:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yedayqr
Comparing the limited info on the Amazon site the Logitech appears
to be the functional equivalent of the Microsoft. It's only $24.99
and eligible for free shipping; I've been using mine for some years
now with never a hiccup. It doesn't even need occasional cleaning.
--
John Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email
Nick
I'm certainly more likely to click the right and left buttons together
than to click the wheel (which has the same effect).
--
Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
development version: http://canalplan.eu
Skitt
> I'm certainly more likely to click the right and left buttons together
> than to click the wheel (which has the same effect).
Not on my setup. Not even close.
--
Skitt (AmE)
Robin Bignall
>>> Arthur C Clarke published his theory of satellite communication in
>>> Wireless World in the 1940s, the magazine changed its title to
>>> Wireless and Electronic World in the 1990s.
>>
>> The (Australian) magazine on which I cut my technical teeth,
>> _Radio_and_Hobbies_, commenced publication in 1939. All that that shows
>> is that the two terms were both in use, which probably matches the
>> memory of all of us. I have no idea whether there was a consistent
>> variation by country.
>
>The Radio Times started publication in 1923, (if Wiki is to be believed)
>and The Listener in 1929. Both BBC weekly magazines.
Wireless World also started in the 1920s.
--
Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England
Peter Moylan
> Roger wrote on Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:23:54 +0000 (UTC):
>
>>> Perhaps most, but i have some horrors (cordless) with five or
>>> seven buttons. I can't hold them without activating some strange
>>> function.
>
>> Hah. I believe the record was 40 buttons. I had one of these,
>> though I don't believe anyone ever wrote a Linux driver for it:
>
>> http://www.atarimagazines.com/compute/issue113/8-1.jpg
>
>
> A long time ago, I had a pocket keyboard using chorded buttons to get
> a whole alphanumeric set with one hand. It really worked but was a
> bear to learn.
>
pocket is typing.
annily
> annily wrote:
>
>> How can the wheel be three buttons?
>
> down").
>
That may be the way is is implemented internally from a programming
viewpoint, but it does not make the wheel "actually" three buttons.
In the context of a mouse, my understanding of a button is something you
press, so I apply that term to the click function of the wheel, but not
to the roll function.
>> Why do you need three real buttons anyway? I don't miss a real middle
>> button. I don't even use the click function on the wheel.
>
> That would depend on your choice of operating system and desktop
> environment.
>
Mine's Windows 7. What's yours?
--
Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia,
which may or may not influence my opinions.
annily
> annily wrote:
>> Garrett Wollman wrote:
>
>>> The wheel is actually three buttons (up, down, and middle), and not
>>> actually very good at that last function -- it's very easy to move
>>> the wheel when trying to press the "middle" button. The mouses
>>> that I use have three real buttons, all approximately the same size
>>> and shape, and the only wheels are the two inside it that encode
>>> the motion of the ball.
>
>> How can the wheel be three buttons? It only has one function as a
>> button (i.e. by clicking it, rather than rolling it), and that
>> function is programmable.
>
> When is a wheel not a wheel? Your software doesn't know about mouse
> wheels, so the wheel pretends to be a couple of buttons. When you roll
> the wheel, it sends a whole sequence of clicks to the computer.
>
When is a button not a button? To me, in the context of a mouse, a
button is something you press, so I maintain a wheel contains only one
button. I was referring to "actual" buttons (as stated by Garrett), not
emulated ones.
Nick Spalding
on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:53:04 -0800:
> Arthur C Clarke published his theory of satellite communication
> in Wireless World in the 1940s, the magazine changed its title to
> Wireless and Electronic World in the 1990s.
1945. <http://lakdiva.org/clarke/1945ww/>
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
Mike Lyle
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:17:42 +0200, Steve Hayes
> <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>>
>> And why do we speak of "mobile phones" or "cell phones" but never
>> "wireless phones" or "radio phones"?
>
> We do have "cordless phones".
>
> "Radio phone" is sometimes used of a mobile phone handset with
> integral radio. For instance:
> http://www.unwiredview.com/2008/07/19/sony-ericsson-r300-r306-radio-phones-review/
And, way back when, weren't the things connecting a few wealthy people's
cars and yachts to the telephone network called "radio telephones"? That
would have been a selective pressure against using the term for
carry-about telephones.
--
Mike.
Mike Lyle
[...]
>
> It was a sad day when Apple decided to use a one-button mouse for the
> think of a use for the second mouse button. We can reasonably assume
> that it will take them even more years to figure out how to use a
> three-button mouse. If Microsoft had plagiarised from somebody else,
> the Windows experience might have been a bit different.
>
> At present the dominant idea seems to be "We can't figure out how to
> design anything, so how about _you_ work out what to do with the extra
> mouse buttons and all that unnecessary extra crap on your keyboard."
You misunderstand American politics. It's the kiss of death to be
noticed espousing the sensible principles held by the rest of the world,
so they have to introduce modern ideas by stealth. Microsoft is in fact
a political education organisation providing an object lesson in what a
load of bollocks is the notion that market forces are beneficial to the
public.
"Make a better mousetrap..."? <Mocking laughter>
--
Mike.
Steve Hayes
>At present the dominant idea seems to be "We can't figure out how to
>design anything, so how about _you_ work out what to do with the extra
>mouse buttons and all that unnecessary extra crap on your keyboard."
I've often wondered which idiot decided to put the function keys on top of the
keyboard and then called it "enhanced". It was ergonomically crippled, and
slowed down things like word processing significantly.
Nowadays, of course, things are slowed down by the operating system as much as
by anything else, so it doesn't matter. Some programs ran faster on an 8 Mhz
machine (8088 8-bit processor) than they do on a 32 or 64 bit one with speeds
over a Gigaherz.
There's a story that the QWERTY keyboard was designed to slow down typists so
the keys wouldn't jam. And I wonder if it was for a similar reason that they
put the function keys on top -- to slow down typists to cope with an
ever-slower operating system running on ever-faster processors.
Chuck Riggs
From that remark, I conclude that "jealous sobbing" must be an obscure
definition of "mocking laughter", probably dating from shortly after
the year 1066, that Mike has sprung on the group to test our knowledge
of BrE. Do I win a prize?
Anyway, don't be sad, Mike, you have Rolls Royce. Oh. They went bust,
didn't they? Well, you have British Air. Whoops, that may not have
been too good an example, either.
Mike Lyle
Ah, examples! Thank you. Capitalist enterprises which had to have their
sorry arses saved by taxpayers' money before falling on said buttocks.
Or perhaps you didn't quite read what I wrote...
--
Mike.
Adam Funk
> James Silverton wrote:
>> Roger wrote on Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:23:54 +0000 (UTC):
>>
>>>> Perhaps most, but i have some horrors (cordless) with five or
>>>> seven buttons. I can't hold them without activating some strange
>>>> function.
>>
>>> Hah. I believe the record was 40 buttons. I had one of these,
>>> though I don't believe anyone ever wrote a Linux driver for it:
>>
>>> http://www.atarimagazines.com/compute/issue113/8-1.jpg
>>
>>
>> A long time ago, I had a pocket keyboard using chorded buttons to get
>> a whole alphanumeric set with one hand. It really worked but was a
>> bear to learn.
>>
> Yes, and the onlookers never believe that all you're doing in your
> pocket is typing.
"one-handed typing" IYKWIM
--
No right of private conversation was enumerated in the Constitution.
I don't suppose it occurred to anyone at the time that it could be
prevented. [Whitfield Diffie]
James Silverton
>> James Silverton wrote:
>>> Roger wrote on Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:23:54 +0000 (UTC):
>>>
>>>>> Perhaps most, but i have some horrors (cordless) with five
>>>>> or seven buttons. I can't hold them without activating
>>>>> some strange function.
>>>
>>>> Hah. I believe the record was 40 buttons. I had one of
>>>> these, though I don't believe anyone ever wrote a Linux
>>>> driver for it:
>>>
>>>> http://www.atarimagazines.com/compute/issue113/8-1.jpg
>>>
>>> A long time ago, I had a pocket keyboard using chorded
>>> buttons to get a whole alphanumeric set with one hand. It
>>> really worked but was a bear to learn.
>>>
>> Yes, and the onlookers never believe that all you're doing in
>> your pocket is typing.
> "one-handed typing" IYKWIM
The one-handed keyboard that I remember was a little large for a
trousers' pocket but resembled the currently available BAT keyboard in
its chording method
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAT_keyboard )
It was meant mainly for field use and stored a page or so of typing
that could be downloaded to a computer later. Very small lap-top
computers now compete rather successfully.
Chuck Riggs
<mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
If it wasn't your usual malarkey, Mike, mocking Microsoft's magic,
perhaps I ought to read your words again.
Mike Lyle
Two birds with one stone, really: certainly mocking Microsoft (I think
you're the only person I know who doesn't), but making the more
important slash at market-worship. With a side order of snigger at
American political discourse. All in all, quite an economical posting.
--
Mike.
Garrett Wollman
Steve Hayes <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I've often wondered which idiot decided to put the function keys on top of the
>keyboard and then called it "enhanced". It was ergonomically crippled, and
>slowed down things like word processing significantly.
How is that? Even in my long-ago days of using Microsoft Word (under
DOS, mind you), I don't recall ever making much use of function keys.
The Escape key, yes, but not the function keys. (And even today, the
only function keys I ever use are F5, which seems to have become the
universal "reload" key, and F7, which starts my screen-locker.)
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Mike Barnes
>In article <tc6tg51i8unpvb8c5...@4ax.com>,
>Steve Hayes <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>I've often wondered which idiot decided to put the function keys on top of the
>>keyboard and then called it "enhanced". It was ergonomically crippled, and
>>slowed down things like word processing significantly.
>
>How is that? Even in my long-ago days of using Microsoft Word (under
>DOS, mind you), I don't recall ever making much use of function keys.
>The Escape key, yes, but not the function keys. (And even today, the
>only function keys I ever use are F5, which seems to have become the
>universal "reload" key, and F7, which starts my screen-locker.)
I also cursed the decision to move Fkeys from the left of the keyboard.
In the pre-Windows days function keys were important in many of the
applications I used. The two-by-five layout lent itself to using side-
by-side pairs of keys for complementary functions, and function key
templates were compact, easy to change, and widely available. All that
changed when they moved the function keys to the top of the keyboard,
confusingly parallel to the number keys at the top of the typewriter
section.
My current keyboard allow me to switch the function keys to alternative
uses such as launching programs. One day I set them up with my favourite
programs. Only then did I realise just how much I used them for their
intended purpose: I make frequent use of F2 (rename), F3 (search
(again)), F5 (refresh), and F11 (full screen). Plus other keys in
specific applications. So that experiment lasted only a couple of hours.
--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England
HVS
> My current keyboard allow me to switch the function keys to
> alternative uses such as launching programs. One day I set them
> up with my favourite programs. Only then did I realise just how
> much I used them for their intended purpose: I make frequent use
> of F2 (rename), F3 (search (again)), F5 (refresh), and F11 (full
> screen). Plus other keys in specific applications. So that
> experiment lasted only a couple of hours.
Had exactly the same experience; tried the key-swap mode, and
quickly discovered that I use a lot of the function keys (in my case,
F2,F3,F5 like you, but also F7 and F8 for XNews functions).
By far the most annoying bit is that the "non-traditional" defaults
on this keyboard are highlighted in white on the black keys, whilst
the regular F1, F2, F3 numbers are printed in blue, in tiny type,
below the keys -- so if I'm moving fast, I have to remember that the
"folder with a right-pointing arrow" is F5; that "envelope with a
left-pointing arrow" is F7, and "envelope with a right-pointing
arrow" is F8.
(Yes, I *do* intend at some point to paint them over with the F
numbers. How'd'ya guess?)
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
Peter Moylan
Microsoft is merely one example of the dangers of a blind trust in
market. If you want a more neutral example, look at the banks.
Steve Hayes
Wollman) wrote:
>In article <tc6tg51i8unpvb8c5...@4ax.com>,
>Steve Hayes <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>I've often wondered which idiot decided to put the function keys on top of the
>>keyboard and then called it "enhanced". It was ergonomically crippled, and
>>slowed down things like word processing significantly.
>
>How is that? Even in my long-ago days of using Microsoft Word (under
>DOS, mind you), I don't recall ever making much use of function keys.
>The Escape key, yes, but not the function keys. (And even today, the
>only function keys I ever use are F5, which seems to have become the
>universal "reload" key, and F7, which starts my screen-locker.)
We used XyWrite (which was based on the Atex mainframe publishing sytem) which
used Alt for operations by word, Ctrl for operations by sentence, Shift for
operations by paragraph. Operations by line would use the function keys alone.
So F4 was define (Select in M$-speak) line, Alt-F4 was define word, Ctrl-F4
was define sentence, Shift-F4 was define paragraph. F7 would copy the defined
text and F8 would move it. With the function keys on the left these operations
could be performed very rapidly using the index finger and the fourth finger
of the left hand. With function keys on the top it is a two-handed operation,
and so the keyboard is much less ergonomically efficient with the function
keys on top.
When the "enhanced" keyboard was introduced it slowed down editing
considerably.
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
Who are you accusing of trusting in Microsoft blindly, as I laugh on
my way to the bank?
erilar
wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
> In article <tc6tg51i8unpvb8c5...@4ax.com>,
> Steve Hayes <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >I've often wondered which idiot decided to put the function keys on top of
> >the
> >keyboard and then called it "enhanced". It was ergonomically crippled, and
> >slowed down things like word processing significantly.
I've found them useless since they first cluttered up my keyboard--a
whole row of totally useless keys--until I bought my MacBook pro and
discovered it had little symbols on them, some obvious.
>
> How is that? Even in my long-ago days of using Microsoft Word (under
> DOS, mind you), I don't recall ever making much use of function keys.
> The Escape key, yes, but not the function keys. (And even today, the
> only function keys I ever use are F5, which seems to have become the
> universal "reload" key, and F7, which starts my screen-locker.)
My F5 is "louder", one of three volume keys(one is "mute", which is
often useful when browsing). I have a pair of brightness keys, some I
don't understand because I've never looked them up, a couple blanks, and
"eject". This is the first time I've had any real use for them.
Some time ago, pre-laptop, I tried to program some of them to do things
I could do on-screen with ClarisWorks 4 "buttons", because AppleWorks
wouldn't let me do the same. I managed to do it with three, but had to
tape labels to my keyboard. It wasn't really worth the effort to
attempt more.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
Amethyst Deceiver
wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 10:13:34 +1100, Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp@retep>
>wrote:
>>Microsoft is merely one example of the dangers of a blind trust in
>>market. If you want a more neutral example, look at the banks.
>
>Who are you accusing of trusting in Microsoft blindly, as I laugh on
>my way to the bank?
He didn't accuse anyone of trusting Microsoft blindly, he was talking
of blind trust in the market.
Mike Lyle
But at least a mystery is solved.
--
Mike.
Peter Moylan
More precisely, of blind trust in market forces. Sorry about the missing
word.