Linux user's thoughts on OS X/15" AlBook
Yeechang Lee
(see
<URL:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=slrnbvfo6p.ao0.ylee%40pobox.com>).
Since then I've bought a 15" AlBook of my own; here are some
additional thoughts. Please see the earlier post for background.
POSITIVES:
* Beautiful exterior; the brushed aluminum exterior and uniformly
monochrome color scheme are striking. I daresay that no PC laptop
comes close to Apple's laptops' aesthetics. The IBM ThinkPad T
series, with their magnesium exteriors, probably come closest, but
still ruin the mood somewhat with its multicolored key labels and
the many decals festooned on the bottom.
* Noticeably better speakers than on the iBook, though of course
neither compares to my Linux box's $200 speaker/subwoofer combo. (I
wonder if there's a way to get OS X to feed sound output to artsd on
my Linux box?)
* Found it easy to connect to T-Mobile's GPRS data service with
Bluetooth over my Sony Ericsson T610 phone. 33.6K-speed Internet
service from anywhere in the US I can make a phone call, for no
additional cost!
* Although I'm not a musician, GarageBand (from the iLife '04
Up-To-Date upgrade program) looks pretty darn neat.
* Unsurprisingly, the AlBook is much quieter than my Linux box (a
1400GHz Athlon). Surprisingly, it's also quieter than my brother's
iBook; I've yet to hear the fan come on.
* Sharp and bright screen. Although I have no reason to believe it's
significantly better than those on a comparable PC laptop, it's more
than good enough for me.
* Instant sleep and wake is quite nice.
* Safari is a very nice browser that should comfortably meed the
browsing needs of almost everyone out there. (I run Mozilla
Firebird, because 1) that's what I run everywhere else and 2) there
is a session saving plugin available.)
* Terrific keyboard. Nothing like the genuine IBM Model M keyboard on
my Linux box, of course, but then nothing else is. PowerBook
keyboards are probably the only rivals to IBM ThinkPads' in terms of
quality.
NEGATIVES:
* For the high cost, Apple screens really ought to handle higher
resolutions. It's a pity that this 15" screen can only do 1280x854,
when it's easy to find 15" PC laptops that do roughly 1400x1200 or
even 1600x1400.
* For 21 years people have complained about the lack of multiple
buttons on Apple mice and for 21 years Apple fans have come up with
every excuse under the sun to rationalize the company's
decision. Yes, I can buy a third-party mouse. But while this is an
acceptable solution for a desktop, not so for a laptop. Also, many
PC laptops nowadays come with dedicated scroll regions on their
touchpads. While the free SideTrack utility helps in relieving both
needs, it's not a complete solution.
* Not really Apple's fault per se, but Broadcom and ATI's refusals to
release technical info on their chipsets mean that I will likely
never be able to use Airport Extreme or 3D acceleration under
Linux. OS X is all right, but it's just not the same.
* In retrospect I probably should have ordered a model without a
SuperDrive, given that 1) the likelihood I'll need to burn a DVD on
the road is extremely low and 2) more compatible (+/-/RAM
compliant), FireWire-compliant external drives are available for
less than $300. I also could've saved money by omitting the backlit
keyboard; it's kewl, but as a touch typist I don't really need it.
* While fiddling with AirPort and Bluetooth settings I suddenly found
the spinning pizza wheel wouldn't go away when I moved the cursor
over the menubar. Restarting the Finder did not help, and rebooting
(both from the Apple menu and from a ssh session) hung. I had to
resort to Ctrl-Apple-powerbutton. I'd have tried to manually kill
the offending process, but 'top' didn't help in identifying the
miscreant.
* Too many things need a reboot to activate. On my Linux box,
*nothing* except a kernel upgrade needs rebooting for. I can
understand why, say, the 10.3.2 upgrade needs a reboot, but for some
dinky utility? Geez.
I hope the above doesn't sound like I am dissatisfied with my
PowerBook; I'm not. In fact, at this stage I see no reason why I can't
make this my primary system, in the sense that in addition to a local
Firebird I can easily run my other key applications (Emacs for email
and editing, and slrn for news) on the Linux server through ssh and
GNU screen.
That said, I can't help but wonder whether an iBook like my brother's
would just as easily meed such needs. Anyone in the SF Bay area want
to buy a one week-old 15" AlBook 1.25GHz SuperDrive in pristine
condition for $2400?
--
Read my Deep Thoughts @ <URL:http://www.ylee.org/blog/> PERTH ----> *
03:32:02 up 5 days, 10:18, 10 users, load average: 1.02, 1.10, 1.10
150 processes: 147 sleeping, 3 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped
CPU states: 8.8% user 6.6% system 84.5% nice 0.0% iowait 0.0% idle
Bev A. Kupf
Yeechang Lee (yl...@pobox.com) wrote:
> * Noticeably better speakers than on the iBook, though of course
> neither compares to my Linux box's $200 speaker/subwoofer combo. (I
> wonder if there's a way to get OS X to feed sound output to artsd on
> my Linux box?)
I couldn't figure out a way to do this using tcp/ip, so I did this
the old-fashioned way (my Linux box has ALSA). Run an audio cable
from the earphone jack of the powerbook to the sound-in of your
Linux box. ALSA comes with an application, alsamixer, that lets you
set various parameters for sound-in etc. Works fine, and the sound
quality is awesome.
--
Bev A. Kupf
"The lyfe so short, the craft so long to lerne" -- Chaucer
Tintin turns 75 <http://www.tintin.com>
Peter Hayes
> * Instant sleep and wake is quite nice.
A major improvement over Windows and Linux sleep. There do seem to be
some issues with USB out of sleep, though.
> * Safari is a very nice browser that should comfortably meed the
> browsing needs of almost everyone out there.
It doesn't seem able to upload images to eBay for selling. I have to
resort to Netscape for that.
> * Terrific keyboard.
Feels and looks slightly tacky. The keyboard backlighting is really only
useful if you habitually use the machine in a darkened room, an edit
suite for example. It also uses up F-keys that are habitually used for
other functions, F8/9/10.
<...>
> NEGATIVES:
> * For the high cost, Apple screens really ought to handle higher
> resolutions.
Yeup. But the widescreen format is so much better than 4x3.
> * For 21 years people have complained about the lack of multiple
> buttons on Apple mice and for 21 years Apple fans have come up with
> every excuse under the sun to rationalize the company's
> decision. Yes, I can buy a third-party mouse. But while this is an
> acceptable solution for a desktop, not so for a laptop.
I use a wireless trackball but it still needs the receiver bit plugged
into a USB slot. I'm in the market for a Bluetooth trackball.
<...>
> * Too many things need a reboot to activate. On my Linux box,
> *nothing* except a kernel upgrade needs rebooting for. I can
> understand why, say, the 10.3.2 upgrade needs a reboot, but for some
> dinky utility? Geez.
Rebooting should be a thing of the past for real OSs. And being Unix,
Apple have no excuse.
I would like to see a power socket on both sides of the machine. There's
a 50% chance that the power cord will run across the back of the machine
adding more strain to an already weak spot.
It's much better than running Linux on the Dell, which itself is much
better than Windows on said Dell. However, the 1.3GHz processor
definitely lacks grunt compared to the 1.9GHz P4 on the Dell. Seti WUs
take proportionately about the same time, and the slower processor is
sometimes found wanting for apps like PSE compared to Gimp.
--
Peter
Tim Smith
> NEGATIVES:
...
> * For 21 years people have complained about the lack of multiple buttons
> on Apple mice and for 21 years Apple fans have come up with every excuse
> under the sun to rationalize the company's decision. Yes, I can buy a
> third-party mouse. But while this is an acceptable solution for a desktop,
> not so for a laptop. Also, many
What's sad is that all they have to do is put two or three buttons on, and
make the mouse driver map them all to one by default. If for some reason
they feel that even that would confuse newbies, I'm sure the clever
mechanical engineers and designers at Apple could come up with some kind of
single button that attaches to the top of the three buttons and makes it
appear to be one big button, which people could then remove who want to use
more buttons.
--
--Tim Smith
lefty
> What's sad is that all they have to do is put two or three buttons
> on, and make the mouse driver map them all to one by default. If for
> some reason they feel that even that would confuse newbies, I'm sure
> the clever mechanical engineers and designers at Apple could come up
> with some kind of single button that attaches to the top of the three
> buttons and makes it appear to be one big button, which people could
> then remove who want to use more buttons.
the real problem is that no one wants to walk up to steve and suggest
multiple buttons.
Tim Smith
> release technical info on their chipsets mean that I will likely never be
> able to use Airport Extreme or 3D acceleration under Linux. OS X is all
> right, but it's just not the same.
Ouch. You'd have the same problem on a Windows laptop. However, there is
a workaround: use an XP driver. The same workaround is possible in theory
for Apple laptops, but I don't know if anyone has developed it. The number
of people who want to run Linux on Apple laptops may be too low.
> * In retrospect I probably should have ordered a model without a
> SuperDrive, given that 1) the likelihood I'll need to burn a DVD on the
> road is extremely low and 2) more compatible (+/-/RAM compliant),
> FireWire-compliant external drives are available for less than $300. I
Even better, you can get external drives that are both Firewire and USB2, so
they can be used almost anywhere.
> * Too many things need a reboot to activate. On my Linux box, *nothing*
> except a kernel upgrade needs rebooting for. I can understand why, say,
> the 10.3.2 upgrade needs a reboot, but for some dinky utility? Geez.
Well, only a kernel upgrade requires a reboot on Linux, but if major
libraries are updated, it is probably a good idea, because you'll have
various daemons running using the old libraries. You could restart each
daemon, but it's usually less hassle to just reboot.
> I hope the above doesn't sound like I am dissatisfied with my PowerBook;
> I'm not. In fact, at this stage I see no reason why I can't make this my
> primary system, in the sense that in addition to a local Firebird I can
> easily run my other key applications (Emacs for email and editing, and
> slrn for news) on the Linux server through ssh and GNU screen.
Does that thing that allows OS X to run under Linux work on Powerbooks?
--
--Tim Smith
Dan
Yeechang Lee <yl...@pobox.com> wrote:
> POSITIVES:
>
> NEGATIVES:
Nice, balanced review.
Dan
Chris Brown
lefty <le...@feets.invalid> wrote:
>
>the real problem is that no one wants to walk up to steve and suggest
>multiple buttons.
The NeXT had a two button mouse...
Roger
> * For 21 years people have complained about the lack of multiple
> buttons on Apple mice and for 21 years Apple fans have come up with
> every excuse under the sun to rationalize the company's
> decision.
They're not excuses, they're ergonomic reasons. People don't need more
complicated ways to do things; that's counter to the purpose of
computing. If you have "busy hands," drink less coffee; focus more
emphasis on what you're creating or producing. Computers should be
designed as productivity tools, not ends in themselves.
(This is especially true for laptops. Too many PC laptops feature
junky, tacky multi-button gizmos that probably only work comfortably for
the person who designed it and his or her own hands, apparently, or
maybe just in their minds.)
hth,
Rog
Charles
<ro...@roger.net> wrote:
> They're not excuses, they're ergonomic reasons. People don't need more
> complicated ways to do things; that's counter to the purpose of
> computing.
With all the folks who are used to two button mice, they might prefer
that for ergonomic reasons. It could be a build to order option. For
$49, two buttons, and make most people happy, those who prefer one and
those who prefer two buttons.
--
Charles
Paul Brandon
<fo...@his.com.remove.invalid> wrote:
All they have to do is buy a Kensington (or other) 2- or 4 button mouse
for the Mac (with mapping software) for a lot les than $49.
I've always used trackballs with multiple buttons; never found it worth
using the extra button.
As the man said -- ergonomics.
In engineering terms: KISS
--
* PAUL K. BRANDON pkbr...@mankato.msus.edu *
* Psychology Dept Minnesota State University *
* 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 *
* http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html *
Jim Polaski
"lefty" <le...@feets.invalid> wrote:
Try reading my post on THE History of the Mouse.
--
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do while expecting
that he will get nothing in return!"
Steve Hix
Charles <fo...@his.com.remove.invalid> wrote:
It's already available. For less (in several cases). From Apple.
Check the Apple online store, home page. On the left side column, check
the link to third-party hardware, input devices.
I count 9 two- or more-button mice, including scroll wheels, three
multi-button track pads, and six or so graphic tablet/mouse combos of
various sizes, wired or wireless, etc.
Include it in the online order, or get one of them from an Apple store
at the same time you get a new system (they're on the shelves), or...
This is a non-issue, folks.
lefty
everybody has lost track of the fact that this is a notebook discussion, and
the OP said:
"Yes, I can buy a third-party mouse. But while this is an
acceptable solution for a desktop, not so for a laptop."
ok, you want him to haul around an external pointer. but the "non-issue" is
kind of in the eye of the mouse-hauler.
Charles
<sehix-0F6788....@dsl081-079-101.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net>,
Steve Hix <se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
> It's already available. For less (in several cases). From Apple.
What I am suggesting is a build to order option for a built-in two
buttons. Not for a seperate, optional mouse.
--
Charles
lefty
> In article <2_ednbSsj88...@adelphia.com>,
> "lefty" <le...@feets.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Tim Smith wrote:
>>
>>> What's sad is that all they have to do is put two or three buttons
>>> on, and make the mouse driver map them all to one by default. If
>>> for some reason they feel that even that would confuse newbies, I'm
>>> sure the clever mechanical engineers and designers at Apple could
>>> come up with some kind of single button that attaches to the top of
>>> the three buttons and makes it appear to be one big button, which
>>> people could then remove who want to use more buttons.
>>
>> the real problem is that no one wants to walk up to steve and suggest
>> multiple buttons.
>
> Try reading my post on THE History of the Mouse.
i've been around mac culture long enough (since '84) to know the sacred
cows.
Peter Hayes
> In article <250120041337477927%fo...@his.com.remove.invalid>, Charles
> <fo...@his.com.remove.invalid> wrote:
>
> >In article <roger-56BA4F....@news.east.cox.net>, Roger
> ><ro...@roger.net> wrote:
> >
> >> They're not excuses, they're ergonomic reasons. People don't need more
> >> complicated ways to do things; that's counter to the purpose of
> >> computing.
> >
> >With all the folks who are used to two button mice, they might prefer
> >that for ergonomic reasons. It could be a build to order option. For
> >$49, two buttons, and make most people happy, those who prefer one and
> >those who prefer two buttons.
>
> All they have to do is buy a Kensington (or other) 2- or 4 button mouse
> for the Mac (with mapping software) for a lot les than $49.
> I've always used trackballs with multiple buttons; never found it worth
> using the extra button.
>
> As the man said -- ergonomics.
Which is easier, reaching over to press F12 or to press the scroll wheel
button to run Expose?
Which is easier, to right click on a file to access an alternative menu
or hold down ctrl while clicking the left (or single) mouse button.
> In engineering terms: KISS
--
Peter
Tim McNamara
>> * Too many things need a reboot to activate. On my Linux box,
>> *nothing* except a kernel upgrade needs rebooting for. I can
>> understand why, say, the 10.3.2 upgrade needs a reboot, but for
>> some dinky utility? Geez.
>
> Rebooting should be a thing of the past for real OSs. And being
> Unix, Apple have no excuse.
It's usually .kext installs that require this, and there should be
very little reason to have to do this. I think that many Mac
programmers still think in terms of extensions and don't think about
other options. Keyspan is-or was- a major violator of this using
.kext rather than creating a /dev.
Tim McNamara
What is up with that, anyway? Apple leads the world in popularizing
new and better standards for hardware- 3.5" floppies, mice, AirPort,
FireWire, yadda yadda yadda. But in 20 years they can't come out with
a multiple button mouse as standard, and have to resort to keyboard
modifer keys to emulate that functionality instead.
Steve Hix
Charles <fo...@his.com.remove.invalid> wrote:
Different model PowerBook/iBook?
You're not talking about BTO, you're talking about two major variant
systems.
It certainly wouldn't be a minor cost to Apple, not something that could
be covered by a $49 price differential to the customer.
Steve Hix
Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
You want a multi-button mouse? Buy the bloody mouse, they're cheap.
The OS doesn't care.
StormDrain
"lefty" <le...@feets.invalid> wrote:
Except for the last two years or so, I've never been around Macs much
and have always used the multi-button mouse. After buying this Mac I
don't think I could ever go back to the multi-button. The dependency on
context menus for GUI navigation isn't there in OS X. This is not the
case in windows, linux or the other menued driven interfaces out there.
If apple made a multi button that was just that, a second button
sticking out to the side I might consider it. Otherwise, why throw away
one of the best mice made to gain quick access to marginally useful
context menus?
SD
--
"...merely a preponderance of evidence."
Heywood Mogroot
> NEGATIVES:
> * For the high cost, Apple screens really ought to handle higher
> resolutions. It's a pity that this 15" screen can only do 1280x854,
> when it's easy to find 15" PC laptops that do roughly 1400x1200 or
> even 1600x1400.
Agreed. The GUI isn't DPI-independent though.
> * For 21 years people have complained about the lack of multiple
> buttons on Apple mice and for 21 years Apple fans have come up with
> every excuse under the sun to rationalize the company's
> decision. Yes, I can buy a third-party mouse. But while this is an
> acceptable solution for a desktop, not so for a laptop. Also, many
> PC laptops nowadays come with dedicated scroll regions on their
> touchpads. While the free SideTrack utility helps in relieving both
> needs, it's not a complete solution.
Agreed. Ctrl-click is pretty tough with one hand.
> * Not really Apple's fault per se, but Broadcom and ATI's refusals to
> release technical info on their chipsets mean that I will likely
> never be able to use Airport Extreme or 3D acceleration under
> Linux. OS X is all right, but it's just not the same.
Agreed. Apple should open its platform. If OS X and its apps are so
great it needn't fear competition.
> * In retrospect I probably should have ordered a model without a
> SuperDrive, given that 1) the likelihood I'll need to burn a DVD on
> the road is extremely low and 2) more compatible (+/-/RAM
> compliant), FireWire-compliant external drives are available for
> less than $300.
Nah, it's nice to have everything in one place. You never know when
you'll need to burn a DVD of something (eg. your MP3 collection), and
DVD-R is good enough for me.
> I also could've saved money by omitting the backlit
> keyboard; it's kewl, but as a touch typist I don't really need it.
Yeah. At least it is optional.
> * While fiddling with AirPort and Bluetooth settings I suddenly found
> the spinning pizza wheel wouldn't go away when I moved the cursor
> over the menubar. Restarting the Finder did not help, and rebooting
> (both from the Apple menu and from a ssh session) hung. I had to
> resort to Ctrl-Apple-powerbutton. I'd have tried to manually kill
> the offending process, but 'top' didn't help in identifying the
> miscreant.
Networking isn't 100% good yet IME.
> * Too many things need a reboot to activate. On my Linux box,
> *nothing* except a kernel upgrade needs rebooting for. I can
> understand why, say, the 10.3.2 upgrade needs a reboot, but for some
> dinky utility? Geez.
I really don't have this problem, but I don't have any utilities so I
guess that's not saying anything.
> I hope the above doesn't sound like I am dissatisfied with my
> PowerBook; I'm not. In fact, at this stage I see no reason why I can't
> make this my primary system, in the sense that in addition to a local
> Firebird I can easily run my other key applications (Emacs for email
> and editing, and slrn for news) on the Linux server through ssh and
> GNU screen.
Get an Apple LCD for the ultimate in usage. I run my PBG4 closed 99%
of the time, with a Microsoft kbd and mouse. You can power up from the
monitor power-on button.
> That said, I can't help but wonder whether an iBook like my brother's
> would just as easily meed such needs. Anyone in the SF Bay area want
> to buy a one week-old 15" AlBook 1.25GHz SuperDrive in pristine
> condition for $2400?
iBook can't run clamshell closed, by crippling. Apple should stop
going out its way to cripple its low-end, too.
StormDrain
pe...@seahaze.demon.co.uk (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> Paul Brandon <paul.b...@mnsu.edu> wrote:
>
> > In article <250120041337477927%fo...@his.com.remove.invalid>, Charles
> > <fo...@his.com.remove.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <roger-56BA4F....@news.east.cox.net>, Roger
> > ><ro...@roger.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> They're not excuses, they're ergonomic reasons. People don't need more
> > >> complicated ways to do things; that's counter to the purpose of
> > >> computing.
> > >
> > >With all the folks who are used to two button mice, they might prefer
> > >that for ergonomic reasons. It could be a build to order option. For
> > >$49, two buttons, and make most people happy, those who prefer one and
> > >those who prefer two buttons.
> >
> > All they have to do is buy a Kensington (or other) 2- or 4 button mouse
> > for the Mac (with mapping software) for a lot les than $49.
> > I've always used trackballs with multiple buttons; never found it worth
> > using the extra button.
> >
> > As the man said -- ergonomics.
>
> Which is easier, reaching over to press F12 or to press the scroll wheel
> button to run Expose?
You forgot "reach over to the mouse" and then press. Both require a
reach and press. F12 isn't anything anyway, its F9, F10 & F11 that
activate the Expose features. I guess you could map one of these to the
scroll wheel's clicker. I have the bottom left corner set up to reveal
all windows, and bottom right to reveal the desktop. I stil find the
function keys quicker sometimes if I'm not using the mouse.
> Which is easier, to right click on a file to access an alternative menu
> or hold down ctrl while clicking the left (or single) mouse button.
The only thing on file icon's context menu I would use is "open with"
but I do this so often I just drop the file's icon on the icon of the
program I want it to be open with. The dock is a handy place to drop
these files. Very quick! It's nice using a GUI as opposed to the Menued
Interfaces windows and linux offer. :)
> > In engineering terms: KISS
Definitely! No context menus need apply.
lefty
> In article <slrnc17eg...@pobox.com>,
> Yeechang Lee <yl...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> * For the high cost, Apple screens really ought to handle higher
>> resolutions. It's a pity that this 15" screen can only do 1280x854,
>> when it's easy to find 15" PC laptops that do roughly 1400x1200 or
>> even 1600x1400.
>
> Linux world, where every single app has its own menu bar, title bar,
> and buckets of toolbars. The last comment is more true in Windoze
> than Linux without question. Also, there are Mac-like configurations
> possible on Linux, giving a single menu bar, but they certainly aren't
> the norm in the Linux/*nix world. Since you're not wasting all that
> extra space, you should be more than able to make do with that
> 1280x854...
what if you just wanna see more of your digital photo?
Andrew J. Brehm
> > Not really Apple's fault per se, but Broadcom and ATI's refusals to
> > release technical info on their chipsets mean that I will likely never
> > be able to use Airport Extreme or 3D acceleration under Linux. OS X is
> > all right, but it's just not the same.
>
> Agreed. Apple should open its platform. If OS X and its apps are so great
> it needn't fear competition.
What exactly do you agree with? I understant it is Broadcom and ATI who
refuse to release technical info, not Apple. Apple's platform is
probably as open as it could be without being completely open source.
--
Andrew J. Brehm
Fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC User
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
John Biltz
(in message <roger-56BA4F....@news.east.cox.net>):
We are talking about another button. A button that was on the first
laptop I bought in in 1995. A button that allows me to do something with
one hand instead of two if I choose to do so or do it the other way if I
choose. Pesonally I said I would pass on the kool-aid and bought a
trackball. A lot of people evidently say the same thing.
Peter Hayes
I guess that .kext is an OS9 "classic" thing. I never had anything to do
with OS9 other than the Avid editor.
--
Peter
Matthew Russotto
Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
>It's usually .kext installs that require this, and there should be
>very little reason to have to do this. I think that many Mac
>programmers still think in terms of extensions and don't think about
>other options. Keyspan is-or was- a major violator of this using
>.kext rather than creating a /dev.
You need to have a kext to do what Keyspan does, because its devices
need to talk to other kernel-level drivers.
With Panther, it's now officially unnecessary to reboot even for a new
kext.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrus...@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
Matthew Russotto
Steve Hix <se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
>In article <250120041417099677%fo...@his.com.remove.invalid>,
> Charles <fo...@his.com.remove.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <sehix-0F6788....@dsl081-079-101.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net>,
>> Steve Hix <se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
>>
>> > It's already available. For less (in several cases). From Apple.
>>
>> What I am suggesting is a build to order option for a built-in two
>> buttons. Not for a seperate, optional mouse.
>
>Different model PowerBook/iBook?
>
>You're not talking about BTO, you're talking about two major variant
>systems.
You could do it with one module change.
Peter Hayes
> In article <1g84teq.3zpu3miqlgpgN%pe...@seahaze.demon.co.uk>,
> pe...@seahaze.demon.co.uk (Peter Hayes) wrote:
>
> > Paul Brandon <paul.b...@mnsu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <250120041337477927%fo...@his.com.remove.invalid>, Charles
> > > <fo...@his.com.remove.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > >In article <roger-56BA4F....@news.east.cox.net>, Roger
> > > ><ro...@roger.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> They're not excuses, they're ergonomic reasons. People don't need more
> > > >> complicated ways to do things; that's counter to the purpose of
> > > >> computing.
> > > >
> > > >With all the folks who are used to two button mice, they might prefer
> > > >that for ergonomic reasons. It could be a build to order option. For
> > > >$49, two buttons, and make most people happy, those who prefer one and
> > > >those who prefer two buttons.
> > >
> > > All they have to do is buy a Kensington (or other) 2- or 4 button mouse
> > > for the Mac (with mapping software) for a lot les than $49.
> > > I've always used trackballs with multiple buttons; never found it worth
> > > using the extra button.
> > >
> > > As the man said -- ergonomics.
> >
> > Which is easier, reaching over to press F12 or to press the scroll wheel
> > button to run Expose?
>
> You forgot "reach over to the mouse" and then press. Both require a
> reach and press.
I guess if I'm typing at the keyboard or using the trackpad F12 is
easier, but most of my work is mouse-centric so the scrollwheel button
is almost effortless.
> F12 isn't anything anyway, its F9, F10 & F11 that
> activate the Expose features.
It's F12 on the PowerBook. F8/9/10 control the keyboard illumination and
F11 "exposes" the desktop. Stupid apple design defect, the keyboard
illumination should be a fn function because it's rarely used.
> I guess you could map one of these to the
> scroll wheel's clicker.
That's what I've done and it works a doddle.
> I have the bottom left corner set up to reveal
> all windows, and bottom right to reveal the desktop. I stil find the
> function keys quicker sometimes if I'm not using the mouse.
Yes.
<...>
--
Peter
Matthew Russotto
Heywood Mogroot <imout...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>iBook can't run clamshell closed, by crippling. Apple should stop
>going out its way to cripple its low-end, too.
While Apple does go out of its way to cripple its low end in some
cases (e.g. spanning v. mirroring), the iBook can't run clamshell
closed because (unlike the powerbook) it can't dissipate enough heat
to run without damage in that mode.
David Magda
[...]
> * Too many things need a reboot to activate. On my Linux box,
> *nothing* except a kernel upgrade needs rebooting for. I can
> understand why, say, the 10.3.2 upgrade needs a reboot, but for
> some dinky utility? Geez.
Could you be more specific?
There may be some good explanations:
* if a library is updated, then you want to reboot (or to
single-user and back), to make sure that no running processes
are using the old versions
* since Apples are used by many people that don't care about the
internals of the system, telling them "stop and then restart
this service", really is too much to ask.
Most people don't care which daemons are running, and don't want
to. Rebooting makes sure all binaries and libraries being used
are the most recent. I'm sure you could technically just stop
and stop and app/service/daemon, but to reduce support calls
from "regular people" and diagnose problems, just reboot.
Remeber that with Panther (X.3), multiple users can be on the
box as well. You want *all* users on the same version if you can
help it.
--
David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca>, http://www.magda.ca/
Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under
the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well
under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI
David Magda
> What is up with that, anyway? Apple leads the world in
> popularizing new and better standards for hardware- 3.5" floppies,
> mice, AirPort, FireWire, yadda yadda yadda. But in 20 years they
> can't come out with a multiple button mouse as standard, and have
> to resort to keyboard modifer keys to emulate that functionality
> instead.
Because explaining to complete newbies (not even "Switchers") when to
click, double-click and right-click is a waste of time. The basic
operations of the system can be doubel with single- and
double-clicks. Why complicate matters?
I helped a person out a while ago in an computer shop (they sell
Apples, but *not* an Apple store) figure out whether she needed more
RAM or hard drive space. All she knew was yellow or blue slots
(forget exact colours), and that the OS was complaining about memory,
and that she wanted to get her video editing project for school
done.
*These* are the people Macs were originally designed for, and they
don't care at all about "context menus".
I came from FreeBSD, Linux, Solaris and am now using a PB. *I* simply
use the trackpad and CTRL because the PB is usually on my lap and I
have no where to put the mouse. Would I use a multi-button mouse if I
could, sure. But things work well enough so that in most cases I
don't need the extra buttons (even though I use X11).
To each his own I guess.
Tim Smith
<sehix-F9E29B....@dsl081-079-101.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net>, Steve
Hix wrote:
> You want a multi-button mouse? Buy the bloody mouse, they're cheap.
What about laptops? (Hint: external mice are a pain in the ass in many
situations with a laptop)
--
--Tim Smith
David Magda
[...]
> Well, only a kernel upgrade requires a reboot on Linux, but if
> major libraries are updated, it is probably a good idea, because
> you'll have various daemons running using the old libraries. You
> could restart each daemon, but it's usually less hassle to just
> reboot.
[...]
Well, if you *really* care about the output of uptime(1) you can
probably get away with going down to single-user, and then back up to
multi-user. The only process that will keep running will be init(8).
David Magda
> With all the folks who are used to two button mice, they might
> prefer that for ergonomic reasons. It could be a build to order
> option. For $49, two buttons, and make most people happy, those who
> prefer one and those who prefer two buttons.
US$49? Why? For CA$40 you can get a Microsoft three-button (middle is
scroll-wheel), optical, USB mouse. (Ugh, too many adjectives.)
David Magda
> Which is easier, reaching over to press F12 or to press the scroll
> wheel button to run Expose?
>
> Which is easier, to right click on a file to access an alternative
> menu or hold down ctrl while clicking the left (or single) mouse
> button.
It depends on what you're doing. My hands are on the keyboard a lot
since I mostly type on computers.
Reaching for the mouse slows me down since I'm typing a lot (coding,
replying to e-mail and Usenet). Graphical artists of course will have
different needs.
Steve Hix
russ...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
> In article
> <sehix-42C28D....@dsl081-079-101.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net>,
> Steve Hix <se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
> >In article <250120041417099677%fo...@his.com.remove.invalid>,
> > Charles <fo...@his.com.remove.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> In article
> >> <sehix-0F6788....@dsl081-079-101.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net>,
> >> Steve Hix <se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
> >>
> >> > It's already available. For less (in several cases). From Apple.
> >>
> >> What I am suggesting is a build to order option for a built-in two
> >> buttons. Not for a seperate, optional mouse.
> >
> >Different model PowerBook/iBook?
> >
> >You're not talking about BTO, you're talking about two major variant
> >systems.
>
> You could do it with one module change.
Third-party opportunity!
David Magda
> "Yes, I can buy a third-party mouse. But while this is an
> acceptable solution for a desktop, not so for a laptop."
>
> ok, you want him to haul around an external pointer. but the
> "non-issue" is kind of in the eye of the mouse-hauler.
The poster's point was that if the laptops had multiple "buttons"
below the trackpad (mushpad?), then an external pointer would be
required.
I personally don't feel the *need* for extra buttons most of the time
(even though I do stuff in Emacs and X11). Sometimes it might be
convenient, but everything is close enough on the PB layout that it
works pretty well doing CTRL-click.
Tim Smith
> iBook can't run clamshell closed, by crippling. Apple should stop going
> out its way to cripple its low-end, too.
Ugh. Speaking of using laptops as desktops...what I'd like is a laptop
where the screen can open *very* far...around 250 degrees. With some
simple legs, the laptop could then be used on a desktop like this (side
view) with an external keyboard, but use the laptop screen instead of
an external:
/
/
/ <- back of laptop screen
/
/
O
\
\
/ \ <- back of laptop keyboard section
Legs -> / \
/ \
************************************************** desk surface ***
Maybe make the legs include port replicators for USB2 and Firewire.
--
--Tim Smith
lefty
> "lefty" <le...@feets.invalid> writes:
>
>> "Yes, I can buy a third-party mouse. But while this is an
>> acceptable solution for a desktop, not so for a laptop."
>>
>> ok, you want him to haul around an external pointer. but the
>> "non-issue" is kind of in the eye of the mouse-hauler.
>
> The poster's point was that if the laptops had multiple "buttons"
> below the trackpad (mushpad?), then an external pointer would be
> required.
>
> I personally don't feel the *need* for extra buttons most of the time
> (even though I do stuff in Emacs and X11). Sometimes it might be
> convenient, but everything is close enough on the PB layout that it
> works pretty well doing CTRL-click.
i'm fine with whatever you or the OP feel you need. i just think the
religious aspect (when anyone starts to pontificate on what everyone else
needs) is funny to watch.
Peter Hayes
> Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> writes:
>
> > What is up with that, anyway? Apple leads the world in
> > popularizing new and better standards for hardware- 3.5" floppies,
> > mice, AirPort, FireWire, yadda yadda yadda. But in 20 years they
> > can't come out with a multiple button mouse as standard, and have
> > to resort to keyboard modifer keys to emulate that functionality
> > instead.
>
> Because explaining to complete newbies (not even "Switchers") when to
> click, double-click and right-click is a waste of time.
Remembering which keyboard modifier is at least as unintuitive as which
mouse button to click.
It's irrelevent anyway since OS X supports all sorts of mice and similar
pointing devices.
> The basic
> operations of the system can be doubel with single- and
> double-clicks. Why complicate matters?
>
> I helped a person out a while ago in an computer shop (they sell
> Apples, but *not* an Apple store) figure out whether she needed more
> RAM or hard drive space. All she knew was yellow or blue slots
> (forget exact colours), and that the OS was complaining about memory,
> and that she wanted to get her video editing project for school
> done.
>
> *These* are the people Macs were originally designed for, and they
> don't care at all about "context menus".
>
> I came from FreeBSD, Linux, Solaris and am now using a PB. *I* simply
> use the trackpad and CTRL because the PB is usually on my lap and I
> have no where to put the mouse.
I use a multibutton wireless trackball sitting on the arm of my chair.
> Would I use a multi-button mouse if I
> could, sure. But things work well enough so that in most cases I
> don't need the extra buttons (even though I use X11).
>
> To each his own I guess.
--
Peter
Matthew Russotto
Not so simple. You could design it so you could do it with one module
change. You can't do it with the current design.
Roger
pe...@seahaze.demon.co.uk (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> Paul Brandon <paul.b...@mnsu.edu> wrote:
> > As the man said -- ergonomics.
>
> Which is easier, reaching over to press F12 or to press the scroll wheel
> button to run Expose?
Neither, if you have hot corners set to do this. Even more to the
point, I would have to need Expose every few seconds ( I personally use
it maybe once an hour--but that's irrelevant) to warrant carrying around
an extra gizmo.
> Which is easier, to right click on a file to access an alternative menu
> or hold down ctrl while clicking the left (or single) mouse button.
It's easier to hold down the mouse button and let the menu pop up. And
that way your hand isn't constrained to only one possible position by
multi-button contraptions--gets uncomfortable over long sessions; a
one-button mouse allows you a much more relaxed and unconstrained hand
that can alter positions over a long session. The second easiest is
holding down a key unless you need that menu very often.
> > In engineering terms: KISS
Aye that.
Rog
Steven Fisher
(in message <t-qcncC9cLL...@speakeasy.net>):
> With Panther, it's now officially unnecessary to reboot even for a new
> kext.
Ooh!
Generally, I force quit any installer that asks me to restart. If that
doesn't work, I check the login items and see if it added anything. If it
did, I run it manually.
There's very few installs this doesn't work for, and hopefully they'll
disappear now.
Great news!
Steven Fisher
(in message <m2hdyjh...@Stella-Blue.local>):
> What is up with that, anyway? Apple leads the world in popularizing
> new and better standards for hardware- 3.5" floppies, mice, AirPort,
> FireWire, yadda yadda yadda. But in 20 years they can't come out with
> a multiple button mouse as standard, and have to resort to keyboard
> modifer keys to emulate that functionality instead.
The real reason is that if they offer a multi-button mouse, nobody would buy
the single button one. Including the novice users that really need it. Most
people -- even those who've used Windows -- are *NOT* multi-button trained.
The idea (elsewhere in this thread) of having a multi-button mouse and
mapping all the buttons together is a really good one, though...
Steven Fisher
(in message <86d6974...@number6.magda.ca>):
> I came from FreeBSD, Linux, Solaris and am now using a PB. *I* simply
> use the trackpad and CTRL because the PB is usually on my lap and I
> have no where to put the mouse. Would I use a multi-button mouse if I
> could, sure. But things work well enough so that in most cases I
> don't need the extra buttons (even though I use X11).
Personally, I'd hate to see the trackpad button split in two. I always click
with my right hand for some reason. If it was two button, I'd always be
right-clicking.
Jim Polaski
"lefty" <le...@feets.invalid> wrote:
> Jim Polaski wrote:
> > In article <2_ednbSsj88...@adelphia.com>,
> > "lefty" <le...@feets.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> Tim Smith wrote:
> >>
> >>> What's sad is that all they have to do is put two or three buttons
> >>> on, and make the mouse driver map them all to one by default. If
> >>> for some reason they feel that even that would confuse newbies, I'm
> >>> sure the clever mechanical engineers and designers at Apple could
> >>> come up with some kind of single button that attaches to the top of
> >>> the three buttons and makes it appear to be one big button, which
> >>> people could then remove who want to use more buttons.
> >>
> >> the real problem is that no one wants to walk up to steve and suggest
> >> multiple buttons.
> >
> > Try reading my post on THE History of the Mouse.
>
> i've been around mac culture long enough (since '84) to know the sacred
> cows.
>
>
So you're going to stand by your statement that no one wants to suggest
to Steve that Apple have multi-button mice?
You really want to stand by that, eh?
--
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do while expecting
that he will get nothing in return!"
Peter Hayes
> In article <1g84teq.3zpu3miqlgpgN%pe...@seahaze.demon.co.uk>,
> pe...@seahaze.demon.co.uk (Peter Hayes) wrote:
>
> > Paul Brandon <paul.b...@mnsu.edu> wrote:
>
> > > As the man said -- ergonomics.
> >
> > Which is easier, reaching over to press F12 or to press the scroll wheel
> > button to run Expose?
>
> Neither, if you have hot corners set to do this.
I must look into this.
> Even more to the
> point, I would have to need Expose every few seconds ( I personally use
> it maybe once an hour--but that's irrelevant) to warrant carrying around
> an extra gizmo.
You don't /have/ to carry around any extra gizmos, I don't. I put up
with the single button and F12 if I'm away from my desk.
> > Which is easier, to right click on a file to access an alternative menu
> > or hold down ctrl while clicking the left (or single) mouse button.
>
> It's easier to hold down the mouse button and let the menu pop up. And
> that way your hand isn't constrained to only one possible position by
> multi-button contraptions--gets uncomfortable over long sessions; a
> one-button mouse allows you a much more relaxed and unconstrained hand
> that can alter positions over a long session.
Right clicking is an infrequent operation and most mice/trackballs I've
used seem to fit my hand.
--
Peter
silverdr
[...]
> NEGATIVES:
> * For the high cost, Apple screens really ought to handle higher
> resolutions. It's a pity that this 15" screen can only do 1280x854,
> when it's easy to find 15" PC laptops that do roughly 1400x1200 or
> even 1600x1400.
That's highly arguable. I could easily buy a cheaper PC laptop with
1400xyyyy or 1600xyyyy but I VERY much prefer this 1280x854 over those
1400 or 1600. Why? First probably for the quality of the display, which
I find much better than most of those higher resolution displays. Second
I can work with 1600 on a 21" LCD panel but do prefer 1280 on a 15".
It's all about dpi. I prefer lower dpi over unnecessary enlarging fonts
and other things on screen. I find the display very good.
> * For 21 years people have complained about the lack of multiple
> buttons on Apple mice and for 21 years Apple fans have come up with
> every excuse under the sun to rationalize the company's
> decision. Yes, I can buy a third-party mouse. But while this is an
> acceptable solution for a desktop, not so for a laptop. Also, many
> PC laptops nowadays come with dedicated scroll regions on their
> touchpads. While the free SideTrack utility helps in relieving both
> needs, it's not a complete solution.
Think different! I have been using multiple buttons on every OS except
MacOS for years. Still I don't _really_ miss the other keys working on
the laptop. I do often connect external mouse with three buttons and the
wheel though. Thus do agree that Apple could make the external mice with
multiple buttons option. But I do prefer the clean design of the laptop
without all that mess found around the keyboards of other manufacturers'
designs.
External: Yes. Laptop: no.
[...]
> * While fiddling with AirPort and Bluetooth settings I suddenly found
> the spinning pizza wheel wouldn't go away when I moved the cursor
> over the menubar. Restarting the Finder did not help, and rebooting
> (both from the Apple menu and from a ssh session) hung. I had to
> resort to Ctrl-Apple-powerbutton. I'd have tried to manually kill
> the offending process, but 'top' didn't help in identifying the
> miscreant.
Shit happens... ;-)
> * Too many things need a reboot to activate. On my Linux box,
> *nothing* except a kernel upgrade needs rebooting for. I can
> understand why, say, the 10.3.2 upgrade needs a reboot, but for some
> dinky utility? Geez.
Fully agree. This is a lazy-windowz-style approach. Don't care - just
reboot :-(
silverdr
> pe...@seahaze.demon.co.uk (Peter Hayes) writes:
>
>
>>>* Too many things need a reboot to activate. On my Linux box,
>>>*nothing* except a kernel upgrade needs rebooting for. I can
>>>understand why, say, the 10.3.2 upgrade needs a reboot, but for
>>>some dinky utility? Geez.
>>
>>Rebooting should be a thing of the past for real OSs. And being
>>Unix, Apple have no excuse.
>
>
> It's usually .kext installs that require this, and there should be
> very little reason to have to do this. I think that many Mac
> programmers still think in terms of extensions and don't think about
> other options. Keyspan is-or was- a major violator of this using
> .kext rather than creating a /dev.
Hm, isn't .kext a sort of a similar thing to Linux's kernel module? And
doesn't a /dev/whatever often need a .kext, similar to a /dev/whatever
requiring a Linux kernel module to be inserted to work?
lefty
>> i've been around mac culture long enough (since '84) to know the
>> sacred cows.
>
> So you're going to stand by your statement that no one wants to
> suggest to Steve that Apple have multi-button mice?
>
> You really want to stand by that, eh?
sure, i've also been around mac culture long enough to have friends
(engineers) tell me of their personal encounters with SJ. maybe he's
mellowed a bit, but ...
John Biltz
(in message <1g8548p.afl33g1wm35vcN%pe...@seahaze.demon.co.uk>):
> I use a multibutton wireless trackball sitting on the arm of my chair.
I went to a store and bought a large cutting board for the kitchen. One
of the plastic ones. Then measured, drilled holes in it and inserted
those plastic thingies you use for tables to set glass on. That held the
laptop from sliding. I velcroed a multibutton trackball on it as well.
I normally use my laptop on my laptop and it gave me a good desktop
surface and took care of burning my lap from the heat.
Tim McNamara
> You want a multi-button mouse? Buy the bloody mouse, they're cheap.
Thanks, way ahead of you on that. My point is that Apple should join
the rest of the world on this feature and make it out-of-the-box
standard.
digitaleon
subscribers,
> From: Yeechang Lee <yl...@pobox.com>,
I wanted to add some thoughts of my own to yours :-)
> * Instant sleep and wake is quite nice.
And, once you use it for awhile, find that it's invaluable when you're
on the go and want to get something done really quickly - say if you've
come back home (or wherever) but are then going out again shortly.
> * Safari is a very nice browser that should comfortably meed the
> browsing needs of almost everyone out there. (I run Mozilla
> Firebird, because 1) that's what I run everywhere else and 2) there
> is a session saving plugin available.)
Safari is a nice basic browser that works as advertised (fast). I would
like to suggest that you also have a look at these browsers:
Camino 0.7 <http://www.mozilla.org/projects/camino/>, which is a Cocoa
offshoot of the Mozilla browser component. It's like Firebird but has
been around somewhat longer. News on the site indicates 0.8 release is
close.
OmniWeb 5.0 <http://www.omnigroup.com/applications/omniweb/>; I say this
a bit ahead of time as the above URL has only OmniWeb 4.5. There's a
preview page here <http://www.omnigroup.com/applications/omniweb/5/> of
the 5.0 browser, stating that a public beta will be available on
02-Feb-04. I've been using this browser for a long time (since it
originally came to Mac OS X) and cannot recommend it highly enough; it
was the #1 browser in use until Safari came along, and was overtaken by
Safari because of the problems it had rendering pages with its own
somewhat outdated engine. Now that it uses WebCore and JavaScriptCore,
it is right back in there.
> I hope the above doesn't sound like I am dissatisfied with my
> PowerBook; I'm not. In fact, at this stage I see no reason why I can't
> make this my primary system, in the sense that in addition to a local
> Firebird I can easily run my other key applications (Emacs for email
> and editing, and slrn for news) on the Linux server through ssh and
> GNU screen.
See http://fink.sourceforge.net/ if you want to run these applications
locally with a minimum of setup fuss.
> That said, I can't help but wonder whether an iBook like my brother's
> would just as easily meed such needs. Anyone in the SF Bay area want
> to buy a one week-old 15" AlBook 1.25GHz SuperDrive in pristine
> condition for $2400?
You know you want to keep it =)
digitaleon.
Barry Margolin
pe...@seahaze.demon.co.uk (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> > Because explaining to complete newbies (not even "Switchers") when to
> > click, double-click and right-click is a waste of time.
>
> Remembering which keyboard modifier is at least as unintuitive as which
> mouse button to click.
Non-power users probably don't use the modifier keys with the mouse
much, either.
My mother and her SO (in their 60's and 70's) wanted email, so a few
years ago I bought them an iBook and set them up with an AOL account,
figuring this would be simple enough even for them. It generally is,
but they still can't intuitively guess when they need to single or
double click. I taught them how to shift-click to select ranges of
messages in the mail window, but that's as complicated as I would get
with this class of user. They are "the rest of us" that the Mac was
designed for.
A second mouse button would be too much for them to deal with. :)
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
Snit
> In article <1g8548p.afl33g1wm35vcN%pe...@seahaze.demon.co.uk>,
> pe...@seahaze.demon.co.uk (Peter Hayes) wrote:
>
>>> Because explaining to complete newbies (not even "Switchers") when to
>>> click, double-click and right-click is a waste of time.
>>
>> Remembering which keyboard modifier is at least as unintuitive as which
>> mouse button to click.
>
> Non-power users probably don't use the modifier keys with the mouse
> much, either.
>
> My mother and her SO (in their 60's and 70's) wanted email, so a few
> years ago I bought them an iBook and set them up with an AOL account,
> figuring this would be simple enough even for them. It generally is,
> but they still can't intuitively guess when they need to single or
> double click. I taught them how to shift-click to select ranges of
> messages in the mail window, but that's as complicated as I would get
> with this class of user. They are "the rest of us" that the Mac was
> designed for.
>
> A second mouse button would be too much for them to deal with. :)
I teach people in this age range, and see very much the same abilities as
you describe.
A two button mouse is a hindrance to these users.
Barry Margolin
John Biltz <bilt...@cox.net> wrote:
> We are talking about another button. A button that was on the first
> laptop I bought in in 1995. A button that allows me to do something with
> one hand instead of two if I choose to do so or do it the other way if I
> choose. Pesonally I said I would pass on the kool-aid and bought a
> trackball. A lot of people evidently say the same thing.
Has anyone thought about modifying the code that supports tapping on the
trackpad as a substitute for clicking? It seems to me that it should be
possible for the driver to detect whether you tap on the left or right
side of the trackpad, and treat them as left and right mouse buttons.
Does anyone actually use the "tap the pad" feature? When Apple first
came out with it, I thought it was a cool idea, but I could never get
used to it. I like the feedback of a physical click. Then again, I
mostly use my laptop as a desktop, and normally have a mouse connected
to it, so I've never gotten really good at using the trackpad (but I
still like it better than trackballs and eraserheads).
Barry Margolin
David Magda <dmagda+tr...@ee.ryerson.ca> wrote:
> Yeechang Lee <yl...@pobox.com> writes:
> [...]
> > * Too many things need a reboot to activate. On my Linux box,
> > *nothing* except a kernel upgrade needs rebooting for. I can
> > understand why, say, the 10.3.2 upgrade needs a reboot, but for
> > some dinky utility? Geez.
>
> Could you be more specific?
>
> There may be some good explanations:
>
> * if a library is updated, then you want to reboot (or to
> single-user and back), to make sure that no running processes
> are using the old versions
> * since Apples are used by many people that don't care about the
> internals of the system, telling them "stop and then restart
> this service", really is too much to ask.
Of course, the users shouldn't have to do it. The installer should do
it for them.
David M. Palmer
<dmagda+tr...@ee.ryerson.ca> wrote:
> Well, if you *really* care about the output of uptime(1) you can
> probably get away with going down to single-user, and then back up to
> multi-user. The only process that will keep running will be init(8).
Or you can modify uptime so that it always adds a century to the real
value.
--
David M. Palmer dmpa...@email.com (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)
StormDrain
pe...@seahaze.demon.co.uk (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> StormDrain <Lib...@MS-Free.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1g84teq.3zpu3miqlgpgN%pe...@seahaze.demon.co.uk>,
> > pe...@seahaze.demon.co.uk (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> >
> > > Paul Brandon <paul.b...@mnsu.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <250120041337477927%fo...@his.com.remove.invalid>, Charles
> > > > <fo...@his.com.remove.invalid> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >In article <roger-56BA4F....@news.east.cox.net>, Roger
> > > > ><ro...@roger.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> They're not excuses, they're ergonomic reasons. People don't need
> > > > >> more
> > > > >> complicated ways to do things; that's counter to the purpose of
> > > > >> computing.
> > > > >
> > > > >With all the folks who are used to two button mice, they might prefer
> > > > >that for ergonomic reasons. It could be a build to order option. For
> > > > >$49, two buttons, and make most people happy, those who prefer one and
> > > > >those who prefer two buttons.
> > > >
> > > > All they have to do is buy a Kensington (or other) 2- or 4 button mouse
> > > > for the Mac (with mapping software) for a lot les than $49.
> > > > I've always used trackballs with multiple buttons; never found it worth
> > > > using the extra button.
> > > >
> > > > As the man said -- ergonomics.
> > >
> > > Which is easier, reaching over to press F12 or to press the scroll wheel
> > > button to run Expose?
> >
> > You forgot "reach over to the mouse" and then press. Both require a
> > reach and press.
>
> I guess if I'm typing at the keyboard or using the trackpad F12 is
> easier, but most of my work is mouse-centric so the scrollwheel button
> is almost effortless.
>
> > F12 isn't anything anyway, its F9, F10 & F11 that
> > activate the Expose features.
>
> It's F12 on the PowerBook. F8/9/10 control the keyboard illumination and
> F11 "exposes" the desktop. Stupid apple design defect, the keyboard
> illumination should be a fn function because it's rarely used.
Ahh yes, power book controls, I forgot the thread started as a PowerBook
thing (as someone pointed out). I haven't played with a PowerBook for a
while but does the pad allow for single and double tapping with a finger?
I know some laptops do and it seems like the buttons could be mapped to
something else, I don't know if they _can_ since I've never used a
laptop very much but the buttons seemed extra on those tapper models.
> > I guess you could map one of these to the
> > scroll wheel's clicker.
>
> That's what I've done and it works a doddle.
>
> > I have the bottom left corner set up to reveal
> > all windows, and bottom right to reveal the desktop. I stil find the
> > function keys quicker sometimes if I'm not using the mouse.
>
> Yes.
>
> <...>
SD
--
"...merely a preponderance of evidence."
StormDrain
Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <0001HW.BC397FBC...@news.west.cox.net>,
> John Biltz <bilt...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > We are talking about another button. A button that was on the first
> > laptop I bought in in 1995. A button that allows me to do something with
> > one hand instead of two if I choose to do so or do it the other way if I
> > choose. Pesonally I said I would pass on the kool-aid and bought a
> > trackball. A lot of people evidently say the same thing.
>
> Has anyone thought about modifying the code that supports tapping on the
> trackpad as a substitute for clicking? It seems to me that it should be
> possible for the driver to detect whether you tap on the left or right
> side of the trackpad, and treat them as left and right mouse buttons.
Ha, I should have read your post before I posted mine further down. I
really have to scrunch my hand around to get to those buttons on
trackpads, I couldn't imagine using one all the time.
Another idea would be to treat the pad as the regular mouse button while
the "button" brings up context menus.
> Does anyone actually use the "tap the pad" feature? When Apple first
> came out with it, I thought it was a cool idea, but I could never get
> used to it. I like the feedback of a physical click. Then again, I
> mostly use my laptop as a desktop, and normally have a mouse connected
> to it, so I've never gotten really good at using the trackpad (but I
> still like it better than trackballs and eraserheads).
--
lefty
> but they still can't intuitively guess when they need to single or
> double click.
this strikes me as a more serious issue than mouse buttons. single vs.
double click was hard for non-technical users from the start, but the
preponderance of single click web content has confused it beyond recovery.
imo GUIs will go single-click as the web becomes the "defining"(*)
experience
* - or "reference" or "learning"
Barry Margolin
"lefty" <le...@feets.invalid> wrote:
I'm an experienced computer user, and I just recently converted from OS
9 to OS X. I've noticed that in the Pather Finder I find myself
occasionally double-clicking on things that only need to be
single-clicked on.
Snit
I had not thought of this, but you may have a point. I wonder if they will
ever bring button view back to OS X (as it exists in OS 9)
ZnU
"lefty" <le...@feets.invalid> wrote:
Single vs. double-click is very simple: if an object is selectable, one
click will select it, and two clicks must be used to activate it. If an
object is not selectable, one click will activate it.
Of course, this is just the sort of thing a lot of users have trouble
with. They don't automatically divide objects into classes like that and
determine general rules for the classes. Even if such rules are
explained to them, they typically don't internalize them.
The fundamental problem is that a GUI creates its own sort of universe,
with its own rules, and some people just seem incapable of buying into
such universes.
Imagine, by analogy, how hard it would be to just read a book, if you
hadn't internalized the laws of physics of the real world. You know
there's some way you can get information out of this thing sitting in
front of you, but how? There are all sorts of complex considerations.
You need the right lighting, but you aren't even familiar with the idea
of lighting. You need a surface to put the book on, or you need to hold
it, so it doesn't fall to the floor -- but you may not understand why it
would fall to the floor, or what the consequences of it falling to the
floor would be. Then you have to get the thing open, and figure out how
to turn the pages, which requires a sophisticated internal understanding
of how material objects interact -- of friction, collisions, etc.
I think many people never get past this stage with computers. They learn
how to perform specific tasks by rote, but they simply never understand
the "laws of physics", so if they need to do something else -- like
reading a scroll instead of a book -- they're at a loss. And if anything
goes the slighted bit wrong -- the book gets dropped, or the light blows
out -- they have no idea how to recover.
You can't ever solve this problem by designing a better GUI. It seems
that with some people, it's also impossible to solve it with education --
I've tried for years with my mother, for instance. The only sure way
that I can see to solve it is to make sure every kid gets an early start
with computers. Even then you'll probably have a few people who won't
pick up the skill. In 20 years this will probably be considered a
learning disability on par with things like dyslexia.
--
"Our country puts $1 billion a year up to help feed the hungry. And we're by far
the most generous nation in the world when it comes to that, and I'm proud to
report that. This isn't a contest of who's the most generous. I'm just telling
you as an aside. We're generous. We shouldn't be bragging about it. But we are.
We're very generous."
-- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., July 16, 2003
John Biltz
(in message <Liberty-950BA4...@cnews.newsguy.com>):
> Ha, I should have read your post before I posted mine further down. I
> really have to scrunch my hand around to get to those buttons on
> trackpads, I couldn't imagine using one all the time.
>
> Another idea would be to treat the pad as the regular mouse button while
> the "button" brings up context menus.
I generally would use my thumb and little finger for the buttons and my
middle finger for the pad itself. If you use one all the time you get
used to it but your right, it is not as good as a mouse or a trackball.
Before the trackpads came out I had a laptop with a small trackball and
the truth is seven years later it still is the best pointing device I
ever had on a laptop. At one time they came out with trackpads to be
used with desktops and I think the companies all went out of business
within a year.
Snit
> In article <f_qdnWYnCrx...@adelphia.com>,
> "lefty" <le...@feets.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Barry Margolin wrote:
>>
>>> but they still can't intuitively guess when they need to single or
>>> double click.
>>
>> this strikes me as a more serious issue than mouse buttons. single vs.
>> double click was hard for non-technical users from the start, but the
>> preponderance of single click web content has confused it beyond recovery.
>>
>> imo GUIs will go single-click as the web becomes the "defining"(*)
>> experience
>>
>> * - or "reference" or "learning"
>
> Single vs. double-click is very simple: if an object is selectable, one
> click will select it, and two clicks must be used to activate it. If an
> object is not selectable, one click will activate it.
But if the object is a tool, at least in many programs, the single click
activates it for a single time-use and a double click activates it for
multiple-time use. Add to this the complexity of:
- right-click (control-click)
- shift-click
- alt-click (option-click)
- drag
- right-drag (Windows only)
- triple click (select paragraph in MS programs)
- the ol' click-and-a-half (OS 9).
Now many mice have scroll wheels, which add scrolling, shift scrolling,
alt-scrolling (option-scrolling), scroll-button-press...
Still, this is not the full picture; the mouse pointer offers feedback to
let you know what it will do:
- a hand indicates something can be single clicked... sometimes.
- an arrow indicates general movement / pointing / selecting
- a double arrow indicates resizing, where a double click often
means "intelligent" resizing
- an hourglass, stopwatch or spinning wheel indicates waiting
- an "I" beam indicates text changes (where click and double click
do not select and activate)
- many programs show tools based on mouse pointer icons (paint, for example)
Also, there is the added option that menus work in multiple ways - you can
click and drag or use a series of single clicks. A good feature, but many
new users want *the* answer. There is none for something as simple as
menus. Or, when you do give them rules for menus, many menus break these
rule; not allowing you to drag across menus to open them sequentially,
requiring you use one option or the other, etc.
I am sure I left a lot out. It really is amazing when you think about it
what most of us take for granted. We recognize and adapt to all the above
and more *just* to use the mouse on the computer. And we do it, for the
most part, with almost no thought.
Easy to see why Apple has made the right choice when it comes to trying to
keep the option of a bit less complexity thrown in the face of new users.
Would not doubt it....
Steve Hix
Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
I disagree. (Having said that, *I* prefer to use four- or three-button
mice.)
All but one of five Mac users in our family prefer to use single-button
mice, even after having/used multi-button mice. Even when they *have*
multi-button mice or trackballs, they end up using the single ("left")
button.
Steve Hix
StormDrain <Lib...@MS-Free.com> wrote:
>
> Ahh yes, power book controls, I forgot the thread started as a PowerBook
> thing (as someone pointed out). I haven't played with a PowerBook for a
> while but does the pad allow for single and double tapping with a finger?
Yes.
Sandman
wrote:
> * Instant sleep and wake is quite nice.
Edwin - help him out here. Remember, 10-30 seconds!
--
Sandman[.net]
Barry Margolin
<sehix-1B2F2D....@dsl081-079-101.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net>,
Steve Hix <se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
> I disagree. (Having said that, *I* prefer to use four- or three-button
> mice.)
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who remembers three-button mice
fondly (I've never used a 4-button mouse). They were standard on Xerox
workstations and Lisp Machines in the late 70's and 80's. The left
button performed the default action (like the Mac single click, or
Windows left button), the right button brought up a contextual menu
(like the Mac Control-Click, or Windows right button), and the middle
button performed the secondary default action (analogous to Cmd-Click on
the Mac -- I'm not sure if Windows has something like this). Or
sometimes the difference between the left and middle buttons was that
Left just selected while Middle would select and perform the default
action (Lisp Machines didn't have double-clicking for this).
And of course all of them could be augmented with modifier keys.
Sandman
> * Too many things need a reboot to activate. On my Linux box,
> *nothing* except a kernel upgrade needs rebooting for. I can
> understand why, say, the 10.3.2 upgrade needs a reboot, but for some
> dinky utility?
What utility?
--
Sandman[.net]
Rainer Joswig
I have a Logitech mouse with three buttons and a scroll wheel connected
to my PowerMac. Lately I have been using the new Bluetooth mouse
from Apple - where the whole mouse is the button :-) . Actually
I have to say, I like it very much. I also think that one button on the
PowerBook is fine. When I use X11 or some special software
with heavy use of context menus, then a three button mouse is fine.
But usually the one-mouse-button bluetooth mouse is fine.
Rainer Joswig
> In article <0001HW.BC397FBC...@news.west.cox.net>,
> John Biltz <bilt...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > We are talking about another button. A button that was on the first
> > laptop I bought in in 1995. A button that allows me to do something with
> > one hand instead of two if I choose to do so or do it the other way if I
> > choose. Pesonally I said I would pass on the kool-aid and bought a
> > trackball. A lot of people evidently say the same thing.
>
> Has anyone thought about modifying the code that supports tapping on the
> trackpad as a substitute for clicking? It seems to me that it should be
> possible for the driver to detect whether you tap on the left or right
> side of the trackpad, and treat them as left and right mouse buttons.
There is a non-Apple driver for the trackpad that enables all kinds
of features (like scrolling areas, etc.) that are usually
supported on PCs. Since the trackpad is the same as on some
PC hardware the difference is the driver.
I don't use that driver since I prefer a more simple
approach to using trackpad and buttons.
> Does anyone actually use the "tap the pad" feature? When Apple first
> came out with it, I thought it was a cool idea, but I could never get
> used to it. I like the feedback of a physical click.
Yes, I often use it - especially when I don't want the click
and also don't want the physical press of the button.
> Then again, I
> mostly use my laptop as a desktop, and normally have a mouse connected
> to it, so I've never gotten really good at using the trackpad (but I
> still like it better than trackballs and eraserheads).
I almost exlusively use my Powerbook without a mouse. I just
use the trackpad.
lefty
>> imo GUIs will go single-click as the web becomes the "defining"(*)
>> experience
>>
>> * - or "reference" or "learning"
>
> Single vs. double-click is very simple: if an object is selectable,
> one click will select it, and two clicks must be used to activate it.
> If an object is not selectable, one click will activate it.
>
> Of course, this is just the sort of thing a lot of users have trouble
> with. They don't automatically divide objects into classes like that
> and determine general rules for the classes. Even if such rules are
> explained to them, they typically don't internalize them.
well you are really asking them to intuit the intention of the designer ...
did he want this thing directly clickable or did he want this thing
selectable?
we see it all the time as people test-click things once, or "over click"
them to make sure they get what they want.
> The fundamental problem is that a GUI creates its own sort of
> universe, with its own rules, and some people just seem incapable of
> buying into such universes.
i don't see it as one universe, i see it as shifting gears between web and
non-web universes.
consider this. i'm using win xp at the moment but it shows the strange
transition between these worlds. if i open IE, i can open any link with one
click. or i can press the mouse button down and drag a link off the web
page and drop it onto the desktop (where it becomes an icon). now, the same
thing (a link) doesn't open on one click (that just selects it). now i have
to double-click it to make it go.
should we really keep those double universes forever?
i might have felt something similar - about the pre-web macintosh.
Snit
> ZnU wrote:
>> In article <f_qdnWYnCrx...@adelphia.com>,
>> "lefty" <le...@feets.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> imo GUIs will go single-click as the web becomes the "defining"(*)
>>> experience
>>>
>>> * - or "reference" or "learning"
>>
>> Single vs. double-click is very simple: if an object is selectable,
>> one click will select it, and two clicks must be used to activate it.
>> If an object is not selectable, one click will activate it.
>>
>> Of course, this is just the sort of thing a lot of users have trouble
>> with. They don't automatically divide objects into classes like that
>> and determine general rules for the classes. Even if such rules are
>> explained to them, they typically don't internalize them.
>
> well you are really asking them to intuit the intention of the designer ...
> did he want this thing directly clickable or did he want this thing
> selectable?
And some items show themselves as clickable when you move your mouse over
them: sometimes by looking more "button-like", sometimes by changing
color... it really is very inconsistent.
>
> we see it all the time as people test-click things once, or "over click"
> them to make sure they get what they want.
>
>> The fundamental problem is that a GUI creates its own sort of
>> universe, with its own rules, and some people just seem incapable of
>> buying into such universes.
>
> i don't see it as one universe, i see it as shifting gears between web and
> non-web universes.
And different applications. Or even different features/areas in the same
application.
lefty
> consider this. i'm using win xp at the moment but it shows the
> strange transition between these worlds. if i open IE, i can open
> any link with one click. or i can press the mouse button down and
> drag a link off the web page and drop it onto the desktop (where it
> becomes an icon). now, the same thing (a link) doesn't open on one
> click (that just selects it). now i have to double-click it to make
> it go.
btw, i think the reason early GUIs went with double-click is that people wre
gun-shy with the mouse (mouse-shy?) the idea that you could launch
something just by clicking it once was probably too frightening. or the
idea that you could single-click to open *or* press and drag to move was
seen as too similar. but in the web age everybody does it.
20 years of public acclimatization makes a difference.
sbt
Trautmann <t-...@gmx.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 12:21:11 -0800, Steve Hix wrote:
> > You want a multi-button mouse? Buy the bloody mouse, they're cheap.
> >
> > The OS doesn't care.
>
> Really?
>
> I've got one now (since I wanted especially a scroll wheel). But the OS
> does care heavily about suitable drivers.
>
> The mouse arrow itself was ok, as well as the one and only / left
> button. But how about button two / three / ... up to currently eight (?),
> how about the scroll wheel(s), etc.?
>
> There are not many mouse builders around that do provide MacOS X drivers
> (Microsoft, Logitech for Logitech only and some minor tweeks, e.g.
> Genius).
>
> I found only the Microsoft driver and mouse to support that the right
> button will be option-click.
>
> Kind regards
Huh?? I have a Kensington TurboRing on my G4 and didn't install any
Kensington software. Panther (and Jaguar before it) recognize
left-button, right-button, and the scroll ring.
I also have cheapie Logitech trackball on my iMac and both buttons are
recognized (it doesn't have a scroll wheel, but its predecessor, a
UniMouse did and the scroll wheel was recognized on it).
To get programmed functionality beyond "left=click",
"right=control-click", and scroll wheel, you need some sort of utility
to do the mapping, but for these basics, the OS really doesn't care.
--
Spenser
Heywood Mogroot
> Heywood Mogroot <imout...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > > Not really Apple's fault per se, but Broadcom and ATI's refusals to
> > > release technical info on their chipsets mean that I will likely never
> > > be able to use Airport Extreme or 3D acceleration under Linux. OS X is
> > > all right, but it's just not the same.
> >
> > Agreed. Apple should open its platform. If OS X and its apps are so great
> > it needn't fear competition.
>
> What exactly do you agree with? I understant it is Broadcom and ATI who
> refuse to release technical info, not Apple. Apple's platform is
> probably as open as it could be without being completely open source.
Apple's OEM partners don't want to spend the money supporting external
developers. This is understandable.
I'd like to see Apple move away from having the hardware subsidize the
software, so more people will buy Apple hardware.
There is great convergence happening in the PC space (HyperTransport,
PCI-Express, Firewire); Apple's CPU and other architectural
differences can and should be minimized, provided UE advantages are
maintained. eg. I think we're going to see the ADC video connector go
bye-bye soon. No big loss if DVI+USB can fill the bill (like it does
with my PBG4+Apple Studio Display).
Heywood Mogroot
> Heywood Mogroot <imout...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > > Not really Apple's fault per se, but Broadcom and ATI's refusals to
> > > release technical info on their chipsets mean that I will likely never
> > > be able to use Airport Extreme or 3D acceleration under Linux. OS X is
> > > all right, but it's just not the same.
> >
> > Agreed. Apple should open its platform. If OS X and its apps are so great
> > it needn't fear competition.
>
> What exactly do you agree with? I understant it is Broadcom and ATI who
> refuse to release technical info, not Apple. Apple's platform is
> probably as open as it could be without being completely open source.
Also there are still opaque proprietary bits. the K2 I/O chip:
probably being the main thing for the new G5 architecture.
For the 15" PBG4, the "Intrepid" ASIC:
is also undocumented I would suspect.
Heywood Mogroot
> In article <dd5de929.04012...@posting.google.com>, Heywood
> Mogroot wrote:
> > iBook can't run clamshell closed, by crippling. Apple should stop going
> > out its way to cripple its low-end, too.
>
> Ugh. Speaking of using laptops as desktops...what I'd like is a laptop
> where the screen can open *very* far...around 250 degrees. With some
> simple legs, the laptop could then be used on a desktop like this (side
> view) with an external keyboard, but use the laptop screen instead of
> an external:
>
>
> /
> /
> / <- back of laptop screen
> /
> /
> O
> \
> \
> / \ <- back of laptop keyboard section
> Legs -> / \
> / \
> ************************************************** desk surface ***
>
> Maybe make the legs include port replicators for USB2 and Firewire.
well, the patent clock for you on that idea is now at 1 year and counting down!
Adam Knight
> > understand why, say, the 10.3.2 upgrade needs a reboot, but for some
> > dinky utility? Geez.
>
> Rebooting should be a thing of the past for real OSs. And being Unix,
> Apple have no excuse.
Apple doesn't make the reboot call "for some dinky utility." The
creator of that utility does. There are hooks for reloading kernel
extensions and kicking up startup items so it's really just laziness on
the developer's part that makes that call.
Sandman
wrote:
> > this strikes me as a more serious issue than mouse buttons. single vs.
> > double click was hard for non-technical users from the start, but the
> > preponderance of single click web content has confused it beyond recovery.
> >
> > imo GUIs will go single-click as the web becomes the "defining"(*)
> > experience
> >
> > * - or "reference" or "learning"
>
> Single vs. double-click is very simple: if an object is selectable, one
> click will select it, and two clicks must be used to activate it. If an
> object is not selectable, one click will activate it.
Unfortunately, with the web, we're moving towards a scheme where clicking it is
activating it and right-clicking it brings up those commands that you'd
normally use after selecting it in the first place.
Which one is better? Click->Go to menu and select copy or Right click->Copy ?
Since web objects (heh) aren't selectable in their context (i.e. you don't
select the link if you highlight it, you're selecting the text), and since most
people are more exposed to the Web UI than the computer UI, then I think it's
safe to say that the web UI will win some day.
Actually, I am hoping for a merge, were the benefits of both UI's work
together. I think Apple did it right in Safari where the status bar always show
what will happen when I click a link. This could be incorporated into the
computer UI as well, where the menu bar, or some tool tip always informs me
what will happen when I click something. It could be a frame on the lower right
of the cursor that works like balloon help but instantaneous or when I have CMD
pressed or something like that. I think it would be good to have some generic
cursors for the standard events also.
Imagine the Finder, which behaves oddly to some people, had a intuitive way to
tell the user when a folder will open into a new window, or when it will open a
new tab (that'd be something, tabbed Finder) -either by cursor, status bar or
balloon help.
--
Sandman[.net]
ZnU
"lefty" <le...@feets.invalid> wrote:
Yes. The web is designed for browsing, while file managers are designed
to allow for manipulation. I think trying to force them to work the same
way is a losing proposition. That's one of the reasons I don't like the
direction the Windows UI is taking at all.
[snip]
Matthew Russotto
Steven Fisher <sdfi...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>Personally, I'd hate to see the trackpad button split in two. I always click
>with my right hand for some reason. If it was two button, I'd always be
>right-clicking.
Making two buttons act the same as one is a simple matter of software.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrus...@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
Peter Hayes
So some of those developers must be on Apple's payroll because virtually
every update I've received from Apple has ended in a reboot.
--
Peter
lefty
>> i don't see it as one universe, i see it as shifting gears between
>> web and non-web universes.
>>
>> consider this. i'm using win xp at the moment but it shows the
>> strange transition between these worlds. if i open IE, i can open
>> any link with one click. or i can press the mouse button down and
>> drag a link off the web page and drop it onto the desktop (where it
>> becomes an icon). now, the same thing (a link) doesn't open on one
>> click (that just selects it). now i have to double-click it to make
>> it go.
>>
>> should we really keep those double universes forever?
>
> Yes. The web is designed for browsing, while file managers are
> designed to allow for manipulation. I think trying to force them
> to work the same way is a losing proposition. That's one of the
> reasons I don't like the direction the Windows UI is taking at all.
i think the "problem" is that the browser departed from Apple Human
Interface Guidelines (you can single-click something that is also
selectable) but won mindshare anyway.
really, the UI is the way it is because of the wat it arrived (from NeXT and
Unix apps) rather than because anyone decided it had a different function.
and if you start dividing applications by function, now on earth is the
proverbial grandmother going to build a mental model around that?
ZnU
"lefty" <le...@feets.invalid> wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
> > In article <dpWdndLgF-M...@adelphia.com>,
> > "lefty" <le...@feets.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> i don't see it as one universe, i see it as shifting gears between
> >> web and non-web universes.
> >>
> >> consider this. i'm using win xp at the moment but it shows the
> >> strange transition between these worlds. if i open IE, i can open
> >> any link with one click. or i can press the mouse button down and
> >> drag a link off the web page and drop it onto the desktop (where it
> >> becomes an icon). now, the same thing (a link) doesn't open on one
> >> click (that just selects it). now i have to double-click it to make
> >> it go.
> >>
> >> should we really keep those double universes forever?
> >
> > Yes. The web is designed for browsing, while file managers are
> > designed to allow for manipulation. I think trying to force them
> > to work the same way is a losing proposition. That's one of the
> > reasons I don't like the direction the Windows UI is taking at all.
>
> i think the "problem" is that the browser departed from Apple Human
> Interface Guidelines (you can single-click something that is also
> selectable) but won mindshare anyway.
Err? Links are not really selectable. I mean, you can select the text,
but that's not really the same as selecting the link.
The web has really muddled UI. In a conventional interface, there are
fairly clear barriers between data and tools. This was true of the web
as well, in the early days; hypertext was simply used to link passive
documents together. Web sites have become more like applications -- but
there is no clear separation between data and tools. Everything is
shoved together in the same context, and a link which deletes an entry
from an address book looks exactly like a link which loads a news
article.
There are obviously a lot of people using the web -- but that doesn't
mean it provides a good user experience. UseIt.com has several studies
showing awful success rates for various tasks performed on the web which
should be absolutely trivial.
The long-term solution, I think, is to escape from web-based UI, at
least for most tasks, and access content through native clients designed
specifically for certain content types. RSS readers are an early,
simplistic example. Or consider Usenet vs. web-based message boards.
> really, the UI is the way it is because of the wat it arrived (from NeXT and
> Unix apps) rather than because anyone decided it had a different function.
>
> and if you start dividing applications by function, now on earth is the
> proverbial grandmother going to build a mental model around that?
The mental model of selectable vs. unselectable objects is very
simplistic. I understand that a lot of people can't seem to internalize
it, but as I said, I don't think this class of problem can ever be
solved; the people who have trouble with this would probably have just
as much trouble with any other model which provided equivalent
functionality.
ZnU
pe...@seahaze.demon.co.uk (Peter Hayes) wrote:
The OS X architecture allows pretty much everything to be dynamically
loaded and unloaded, but in any OS this kind of thing can be unwise
simply as a practical matter. What happens if you replace the kernel
extensions related to FireWire support while the system is in the middle
of copying a file off of a FireWire hard drive? Probably nothing good.
lefty
>> i think the "problem" is that the browser departed from Apple Human
>> Interface Guidelines (you can single-click something that is also
>> selectable) but won mindshare anyway.
>
> Err? Links are not really selectable. I mean, you can select the text,
> but that's not really the same as selecting the link.
if you select text containing a link, and drop (or copy/paste) it into a
compatible environment, it should certainly carry the link. that is the
same as selecting the link.
> The web has really muddled UI. In a conventional interface, there are
> fairly clear barriers between data and tools. This was true of the web
> as well, in the early days; hypertext was simply used to link passive
> documents together. Web sites have become more like applications --
> but there is no clear separation between data and tools. Everything is
> shoved together in the same context, and a link which deletes an entry
> from an address book looks exactly like a link which loads a news
> article.
my point was that had the web grown out of HIG it would have used
double-clicks.
> There are obviously a lot of people using the web -- but that doesn't
> mean it provides a good user experience. UseIt.com has several studies
> showing awful success rates for various tasks performed on the web
> which should be absolutely trivial.
>
> The long-term solution, I think, is to escape from web-based UI, at
> least for most tasks, and access content through native clients
> designed specifically for certain content types. RSS readers are an
> early, simplistic example. Or consider Usenet vs. web-based message
> boards.
escape from the web? i think the world is still running the other way.
>> really, the UI is the way it is because of the wat it arrived (from
>> NeXT and Unix apps) rather than because anyone decided it had a
>> different function.
>>
>> and if you start dividing applications by function, now on earth is
>> the proverbial grandmother going to build a mental model around that?
>
> The mental model of selectable vs. unselectable objects is very
> simplistic. I understand that a lot of people can't seem to
> internalize it, but as I said, I don't think this class of problem
> can ever be solved; the people who have trouble with this would
> probably have just as much trouble with any other model which provided
> equivalent functionality.
hey, i used selectable vs. unselectable because you cited it as the
difference earlier.
John Biltz
(in message <1g86jn8.rajpu6rlwtm9N%pe...@seahaze.demon.co.uk>):
I don't think I had to reboot 3 of the last 4 updates. I can't for the
life of me remember what they were though.
lefty
> if you select text containing a link, and drop (or copy/paste) it
> into a compatible environment, it should certainly carry the link.
> that is the same as selecting the link.
hey, let's try it. i'll flip my post to html mode (just this once) and drad
in something from www.osnews.com with a link:
"According to Gartner's preliminary market-share data, Apple held just 1.8%
of the worldwide PC market in the fourth quarter of 2003."
lefty
pffft. i didn't even get html mode ... maybe it only works on new posts and
not replies.
ZnU
"lefty" <le...@feets.invalid> wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
> > In article <z8ednY07H_B...@adelphia.com>,
> > "lefty" <le...@feets.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> i think the "problem" is that the browser departed from Apple Human
> >> Interface Guidelines (you can single-click something that is also
> >> selectable) but won mindshare anyway.
> >
> > Err? Links are not really selectable. I mean, you can select the text,
> > but that's not really the same as selecting the link.
>
> if you select text containing a link, and drop (or copy/paste) it into a
> compatible environment, it should certainly carry the link. that is the
> same as selecting the link.
I have not found that this works reliably at all.
> > The web has really muddled UI. In a conventional interface, there are
> > fairly clear barriers between data and tools. This was true of the web
> > as well, in the early days; hypertext was simply used to link passive
> > documents together. Web sites have become more like applications --
> > but there is no clear separation between data and tools. Everything is
> > shoved together in the same context, and a link which deletes an entry
> > from an address book looks exactly like a link which loads a news
> > article.
>
> my point was that had the web grown out of HIG it would have used
> double-clicks.
No, I don't think so. A link doesn't need double-clicking for the same
reason a button doesn't need double-clicking.
> > There are obviously a lot of people using the web -- but that doesn't
> > mean it provides a good user experience. UseIt.com has several studies
> > showing awful success rates for various tasks performed on the web
> > which should be absolutely trivial.
> >
> > The long-term solution, I think, is to escape from web-based UI, at
> > least for most tasks, and access content through native clients
> > designed specifically for certain content types. RSS readers are an
> > early, simplistic example. Or consider Usenet vs. web-based message
> > boards.
>
> escape from the web? i think the world is still running the other way.
I don't think that's true. RSS is a big new buzzword. Web services in
general provide a mechanism for moving away from browser-based
interaction. Microsoft doesn't quite seem to understand why web UI is
bad (Windows emulates some of its bad points), but even so the company
is taking steps to make it easier for developers to write native clients
to access the sort of stuff traditionally accessed through web sites.
Apple certainly isn't buying into web paradigms for its desktop
software. And look at the iTMS. It's not web-based. It uses hypertext,
but mostly the way it was originally used: for linking passive pages to
each other. For store-wide navigation, and for controls which perform
actions, it uses native desktop UI. Sherlock 3 also looks like an early
attempt to break away from browser-based UI, though its tools typically
don't go "deep" enough yet, and still hand you off you web sites
eventually. And look at the popularity of Karelia's Watson, which is
basically just a native client providing access to a bunch of stuff you
can already access through web sites.
> >> really, the UI is the way it is because of the wat it arrived (from
> >> NeXT and Unix apps) rather than because anyone decided it had a
> >> different function.
> >>
> >> and if you start dividing applications by function, now on earth is
> >> the proverbial grandmother going to build a mental model around that?
> >
> > The mental model of selectable vs. unselectable objects is very
> > simplistic. I understand that a lot of people can't seem to
> > internalize it, but as I said, I don't think this class of problem
> > can ever be solved; the people who have trouble with this would
> > probably have just as much trouble with any other model which provided
> > equivalent functionality.
>
> hey, i used selectable vs. unselectable because you cited it as the
> difference earlier.
--
lefty
> In article <SfednTC_H9b...@adelphia.com>,
> "lefty" <le...@feets.invalid> wrote:
>
>> ZnU wrote:
>>> In article <z8ednY07H_B...@adelphia.com>,
>>> "lefty" <le...@feets.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>> i think the "problem" is that the browser departed from Apple Human
>>>> Interface Guidelines (you can single-click something that is also
>>>> selectable) but won mindshare anyway.
>>>
>>> Err? Links are not really selectable. I mean, you can select the
>>> text, but that's not really the same as selecting the link.
>>
>> if you select text containing a link, and drop (or copy/paste) it
>> into a compatible environment, it should certainly carry the link.
>> that is the same as selecting the link.
>
> I have not found that this works reliably at all.
there is a post called "testing the hated html" in the alt.test newsgroup
that shows it works for me.
as far as reliability, from my programming experiences on the mac and
elsewhere, i think the way it is supposed to work is:
the source application should put as much information as it has into the
clipboard, and the acquiring applicatoin should take data from the clipboard
in as high a level as it can.
if two apps can deal with html then the first one should put it, and the
second one should take it. but it is considered for a second app, which can
understand only (say) text, to take it as text. in the old days this was
accomplished on the mac by an object-oriented linked-list of a data and its
representations.
>>> The web has really muddled UI. In a conventional interface, there
>>> are fairly clear barriers between data and tools. This was true of
>>> the web as well, in the early days; hypertext was simply used to
>>> link passive documents together. Web sites have become more like
>>> applications -- but there is no clear separation between data and
>>> tools. Everything is shoved together in the same context, and a
>>> link which deletes an entry from an address book looks exactly like
>>> a link which loads a news article.
>>
>> my point was that had the web grown out of HIG it would have used
>> double-clicks.
>
> No, I don't think so. A link doesn't need double-clicking for the same
> reason a button doesn't need double-clicking.
look, you were the one who brought up this "selectable vs. unselectable"
thing, now you seem to think it should divide by program intent.
that is no consistency at all.
i use RSS through bloglines, web UI all the way.
Sandman
"lefty" <le...@feets.invalid> wrote:
> >> i think the "problem" is that the browser departed from Apple Human
> >> Interface Guidelines (you can single-click something that is also
> >> selectable) but won mindshare anyway.
> >
> > Err? Links are not really selectable. I mean, you can select the text,
> > but that's not really the same as selecting the link.
>
> if you select text containing a link, and drop (or copy/paste) it into a
> compatible environment, it should certainly carry the link. that is the
> same as selecting the link.
That's not true at all. highlighting a linked text and selecting copy from the
menu only copies the text, naturally.
In the same way, if you drag it from the web page, you drag the link - you
can't drag the text (i.e. the highlight is ignored).
Different web browser may handle it differently, but the above is probably the
most common.
> > The web has really muddled UI. In a conventional interface, there are
> > fairly clear barriers between data and tools. This was true of the web
> > as well, in the early days; hypertext was simply used to link passive
> > documents together. Web sites have become more like applications --
> > but there is no clear separation between data and tools. Everything is
> > shoved together in the same context, and a link which deletes an entry
> > from an address book looks exactly like a link which loads a news
> > article.
>
> my point was that had the web grown out of HIG it would have used
> double-clicks.
Why? objects are double clicked and links are single clicked. I don't see a HIG
team come to any other conclusion. Maybe I'm being to narrow minded.
> > The long-term solution, I think, is to escape from web-based UI, at
> > least for most tasks, and access content through native clients
> > designed specifically for certain content types. RSS readers are an
> > early, simplistic example. Or consider Usenet vs. web-based message
> > boards.
>
> escape from the web? i think the world is still running the other way.
Maybe, but which is the better UI, webchat or mIRC? wbeforum or usenet?
www.cnn.com or a RSS reader? Web based forms or a blog poster?
I am surprised that we don't have more applications like Sherlock, that will
take web based information and wrap it in a consistent UI.
The natural place to do this would be in online shopping, where you click a
buy:// link on a web page which will fire up your favorite online webshop app,
who connects to the site on the encrypted buy protocol and handles everything
in a consistent UI which knows all about your banking information, which won't
be send over the internet.
--
Sandman[.net]
lefty
> if two apps can deal with html then the first one should put it, and
> the second one should take it. but it is considered [OK] for a second
> app, which can understand only (say) text, to take it as text. in
> the old days this was accomplished on the mac by an object-oriented
> linked-list of a data and its representations.
missing word "OK" above
lefty
>> if you select text containing a link, and drop (or copy/paste) it
>> into a compatible environment, it should certainly carry the link.
>> that is the same as selecting the link.
>
> That's not true at all. highlighting a linked text and selecting copy
> from the menu only copies the text, naturally.
there is a post called "testing the hated html" in the alt.test newsgroup