is Steve turning the mac into a PC [Archive]

Josh

Dec 8, 2005, 10:58 AM

I agree Miss Velvet

At first it 'forces' you to Ctrl click, this inadvertently introduces you to shortcuts and in things like photoshop etc its essential to use short cuts if you want productivity.

I constantly have my thumb over the Ctrl/Option buttons ready to hit a shortcut.

The scroller is good for webpages though. In general Windows users that are used to using 2 button mice think one button users are missing out, which is of course simply not true
If you like shortcuts, it confuses me why you wouldn't prefer a two-button mouse :confused:

Using a 2-button mouse, I can right click without having to use two hands to do it. I can type with one hand, while clicking and control-clicking all with the other.

Plus, I have 5 buttons on my mouse. I can access expose controls and dashboard with the click of 1 button, with 1 hand.

I guarantee a person with a multi-button mouse could type a word, select it, control-click it, copy the text, use expose to see all windows, click a window, and control-click to paste the text in the new window MUCH faster than a person with a one-button mouse.

The person with more buttons can access the control-click menu and expose with one hand, and type with the other. They don't need to go back and forth from the control buttons to the F buttons and all that.

Not easy to "scientifically prove", but logically, if a process can be done with one hand where it is, rather than two hands, it is more effective.

And two think the one-button Apple mouse is ergonomically designed is a mistake. There are no ergonomics to it. It is just a simple shape, an elongated circle which is completely unnatural to hold. A mouse that his been crafted to conform to the natural curve of one's hand is much more ergonomic.

I think people just except things Apple says because in their eyes, Apple can do no wrong. If Apple say's it's egonomic, it must be.....right?

Josh396

Dec 8, 2005, 11:46 AM

Also, as you know, they have an awesome roadmap ahead of them.
IBM also said they had a roadmap that would "knock your socks off" a few years ago.;)

electronboy

Dec 8, 2005, 11:47 AM

What Steve and friends are after is TPM for new Macs. Why reinvent the wheel? There is only one company out there that is developing the chip for Intel systems, so if Steve converts to Intel then he gets to save lots of money.

TPM is coming to the Mac folks. :( Get yourself a PowerMac G5 while you can. YEE-Ha!

Here is the Wikipedia link on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trusted_Computing_Group&oldid=29047751

Josh

Dec 8, 2005, 01:25 PM

IBM also said they had a roadmap that would "knock your socks off" a few years ago.;)

The difference is IBM "said" that about their roadmap. Intel has actually provided their roadmap.

Showing > Saying

CanadaRAM

Dec 8, 2005, 01:33 PM

Without dragging this entirely off-topic, I'd like to see what evidence you have for such a statement.
Correction. A two-button mouse makes ME much more productive. I have no ide3a about you .... ;)

Lord Blackadder

Dec 8, 2005, 03:25 PM

I currently prefer my 2 button + scroll wheel mouse over the single button, but I really have no credibility because I was one of the very few that actually liked the "hockey-puck" mouse. :o

I don't think that Macs will "become PCs", and I don't expect OS X to be licensed. Anyway Intel offers a very exciting roadmap whereas IBM has lost interest in consumer PCs. Apple really had no choice but to move to Intel, or at least move away from IBM.

Plymouthbreezer

Dec 8, 2005, 03:46 PM

Most. Beaten. To. Death. Topic. Ever.

Sunrunner

Dec 8, 2005, 03:49 PM

Most. Beaten. To. Death. Topic. Ever.

Perhaps, but I think maybe "powerbook updates" takes the cake on that one... or perhaps "Mac is better than Windows"... :p

FadeToBlack

Dec 8, 2005, 04:20 PM

Most. Beaten. To. Death. Topic. Ever.

I totally agree, man. Glad I'm not the only one who is tired of seeing this.

dmetzcher

Dec 8, 2005, 04:31 PM

Absolute rubbish
I love when people speak that way to others on a forum. If you had nothing to say, why sound off with nothing but two words that make "absolutely" no point. Make a point. Why is it "rubbish"?

That comment is abosulte rubbish. Perhaps for you, one button is more efficient, but for me it is not. As a PC user, switching to a one-button mouse, for the short time that I didn't have a two-button my Mac, was full of wasted seconds. How is using two devices, instead of one, more efficient, anyway? Why would I want to use both hands to control something, if I could quickly do it with one. This is to say nothing about the speed of motor functions when two hands are involved as opposed to one. You may not agree with this comment, but, see, I made a point, even if you don't like my point. I didn't just call your comment trash and sign off.

So, for you, a one-button mouse may be more efficient (though you'd really have to give two-buttons a try first to know for sure, wouldn't you say?), but for others, it's not. As such, it might be "rubbish" for you, but it is certainly not "absolute", because for others it is more efficient. My advice to someone, rather than simply blowing off the idea of a two-button mouse, would be to try them both out and see which works better. For me, it's laughable that anyone would find two-buttons hard to use (an experienced computer user, not someone who just bought one, at least). This isn't rocket science, it's just a mouse, and having more features less than a half inch away is simply easier for me.

This is for everyone else, and not just the person quoted above...
I've always been curious...
Do people who like one-button mice over the two-button variety, actually find two-buttons confusing? I mean this to be said in a completely serious tone. There is nothing more than that to my question. I mean, when you go to click the button, do you have to think about whether it needs to be the left or right button? Does that slow you down? I'm actually really curious about this. For a new user, I can see this being the case, for a little while, but it can't be much more difficult than remembering that they have to push a key on the keyboard (a keyboard full of different keys) to get a contextual menu.

I read this, and it was interesting. I like the marketing explanation for the one-button mouse about half way through:
http://www.gearlive.com/index.php/news/article/why_apple_makes_a_one_buttoned_mouse_01280820/

sethypoo

Dec 8, 2005, 04:34 PM

Without dragging this entirely off-topic, I'd like to see what evidence you have for such a statement.

Calling me out, huh? :rolleyes: :)

Well, for starters, a single button mouse cannot right click. We single-button users have to reach over to our keyboards, hold down control, then click where we want the right click menu to appear. With a two button mouse, there's no extra hand movement, just a flick of your wrist over to your desired right click location.

Next, most two button mice these days have a scroll wheel designed into them. If you can't understand how nice a scroll wheel is to have, you clearly don't understand mouse design.

I think that the two button mouse is an evolution of the mouse Apple first introduced. Things change bluevelvet, technology gets better, yada yada, why not have two buttons?

sethypoo

Dec 8, 2005, 04:37 PM

.....snip.....

Amen to that. Two button mice will always be superior to a one button mouse. I love Apple and all their products, but two button's are better than one.

sethypoo

Dec 8, 2005, 04:38 PM

Absolute rubbish

Cough, ok seriously, this is my last post for at least 15 minutes on this thread.....

But Mr. BakedBeans, I'd like to see what evidence you have to support such a statement.:D

vniow

Dec 8, 2005, 04:39 PM

This thread is making my brain hurt.

Sun Baked

Dec 8, 2005, 04:44 PM

This thread is making my brain hurt.That's too bad we can't make some people's bodies hurt for bringing up the topic again and again.

But the cyberbeatings aren't quite as worthwhile as breaking their fingers to keep them off the keyboard.

Lord Blackadder

Dec 8, 2005, 08:53 PM

This discussion reminds me of a religious debate I had with family members on Thanksgiving....:rolleyes:

MacAficionado

Dec 8, 2005, 09:06 PM

A Mac is a PC :)

But, a PC is not a Mac.

maya

Dec 8, 2005, 09:37 PM

Well it all depends on:

1. One-Button or Multi-Button Mouse depends on preference and if the app requires it like LightWave 3D, Maya 3D, FCP, etc...

2. Intel or PPC processors will mean little to most consumers, I see people buy what is *cheap* and as long as it will be able to surf, email, text, etc...Without the requirement to running professional apps. Just basic things. Is one processor type better than the other, sure both have they advantages and disadvantages and at present the spotlight is on x86, sad but true PPC requires more investment and it is not getting as much as it would like.

3. OS is what matters in the end, since that is the end-users experience and what a user or a multitude of users want the company developing the OS should consider in-order to keep its user base strong and happy.

4. Hardware Case, design also plays a big factor. Some people will not rest with a generic PC case they want that Apple on the case with its trademark designs that win a lot of awards and is an example for the industry to follow. Designer and Status = Appeal.

And there you have it, at first I said to myself I believe the Mac is slowly becoming into a Windows box with features being implemented left, right and center and then I also looked at how Microsoft is taking features from all other OSes out there, so why not if it benefits the end-user(s). :)

solvs

Dec 8, 2005, 09:50 PM

This thread is making my brain hurt.
Yeah, me too. I don't know why I clicked on it. I should have known better. Glutton for punishment I guess.

LethalWolfe

Dec 8, 2005, 11:05 PM

i mean two button mouses, intel processors, i was happy being different, i don't like being the same as everyone else.:confused:

Simple. Don't buy a Mac w/an Intel chip. And don't buy a two button mouse.

Given the choice of moving to x86 or Apple crumbling and eventually closing up shop I'd much rather move to x86.

Actively trying NOT to be like everyone else is as bad as actively trying TO be like everyone else, IMO. Be yourself. Why worry so much about what other people are or are not doing?

Lethal

yg17

Dec 8, 2005, 11:36 PM

Moving to x86 is not going to mean that Macs will be like every other x86 machine.

Thats like saying because a Chevy Aveo comes with Michelin tires, and a Ferrari Enzo comes with Michelin tires, that the 2 cars are the same. Absolute BS.

And in that analogy about Macs and PCs, I think it's obviously which one is the crappy Aveo and which one is the Ferrari ;)

bousozoku

Dec 8, 2005, 11:38 PM

Having a two-button mouse in Photoshop and various other graphics applications makes me more productive, especially on my Logitech keyboard.

I can access tool shortcuts and my scroll wheel with my left hand, while my right hand can stay on the trackball do the visual manipulation and use contextual menus. It's pretty much the same way I've been working since 1987 and works well for me.

As far as Macintosh becoming a run-of-the-mill computer, it's not happening. If you consider all the various technologies Apple has used that they didn't invent/develop, they could already have been considered at that point years ago. Even more so, with the ugly beige boxes, they looked bad and System 7 wasn't even looking as good as Windows 3.x with the theming available.

I like the way Macintosh and Mac OS X are going.

sethypoo

Dec 9, 2005, 01:37 AM

That's too bad we can't make some people's bodies hurt for bringing up the topic again and again.

But the cyberbeatings aren't quite as worthwhile as breaking their fingers to keep them off the keyboard.

Censorship, eh? Riight. Just because a topic comes up again and again does not make it a lesser topic. It's just something that is important to many people.

solvs

Dec 9, 2005, 02:09 AM

Censorship, eh? Riight.
Since it's a private forum, it's not protected under free speech. If the mods wanted, they could ban you for looking at them funny. Though I don't think they can break your fingers.

I don't think.

Henri Gaudier

Dec 9, 2005, 03:33 AM

dmetzcher

Dec 9, 2005, 09:49 AM

Basically, yes. With intel inside they are the best looking PC's with the best OS but inside what sets them apart? I would hazard very little. Literally everything is made at the same few factories in China and the far east. With this move the "feel" of difference will be almost entirely lost.

The only good thing that I hope will happen about this move to intel is surely Apple prices will have to drop by 40% in order to compete with other machines with the same specifification, processor etc only with XP?

So the Megahertz myth was true afterall.
I don't think Apple has to drop prices at all. Remember, you are paying for the great OS (at least I am). I don't care what it's running on, so long as each computer that I buy is significantly more powerful than the one before. So, Apple has to release an iBook that beats the pants off my current iBook. I don't think that Apple is competing with the other PC/Windows vendors on hardware so much as they are competing on the OS. The average user does not care what hardware is inside the box, so long as it performs for them the way that they need it to.

Frank (Atlanta)

Dec 9, 2005, 10:35 AM

I'm sure it's personal preference.

I wouldn't doubt that someone who's used to a one-button mouse wouldn't be able to match productivity with someone who's used to a two button mouse/scroll wheel.

However, force either person to use "the other way" and watch them struggle! :rolleyes:

As somebody that uses MS Word & Excel a lot (on both Mac & PC platforms), the right-click is definitely a time-saver...

Veritas&Equitas

Dec 9, 2005, 11:08 AM

The only good thing that I hope will happen about this move to intel is surely Apple prices will have to drop by 40% in order to compete with other machines with the same specifification, processor etc only with XP?

L O L. I think the chances of Apple dropping the prices 40% of ANY of their products, ESPECIALLY the new line of Intel Powerbooks is one of the best jokes I've heard in in a long time. Seriously though, that took me for a good laugh, thank you.

ijimk

Dec 9, 2005, 11:10 AM

The two button mouse makes you more productive than a single button one,
For games 2 + button clearly dominate but as for productivity / design i dont think there is a clear benefit to having a multi button mouse.

Mr Skills

Dec 9, 2005, 11:12 AM

Absolute rubbish

Let me qualify that: a two-botton mouse lets you be fully productive while simultaneously picking your nose.

decksnap

Dec 10, 2005, 10:21 AM

I guarantee a person with a multi-button mouse could type a word, select it, control-click it, copy the text, use expose to see all windows, click a window, and control-click to paste the text in the new window MUCH faster than a person with a one-button mouse.

A one-button mouse user would say 'double-click, Apple+C, Apple+Tab, Apple+V.' Seems a lot faster than your method. Pay up.

Macmadant

Dec 10, 2005, 10:27 AM

But, a PC is not a Mac.
quite right no one calls a mac a pc even though it is one we all refer to it as the mac:)

Seasought

Dec 10, 2005, 10:29 AM

i mean two button mouses, intel processors, i was happy being different, i don't like being the same as everyone else.:confused:

There are always ways to be 'different' - case modding, colors, lights, stickers (yuck!)...

I get your point though. I tend to think Apple will always find a way to stand out from the crowd; they realize this is a huge factor in pushing their sales (aside from having quality products of course).

Macmadant

Dec 10, 2005, 10:32 AM

solvs

Dec 10, 2005, 06:23 PM

apple say powerpc will be continued to be supported, but that doesn't mean other companys will, would people like aspyr make and sell two versions of there, i don't think so, or what about adobe or macsoft:confused: totally random point btw
Universal Binaries. Why would a company make a product that a majority of it's users couldn't use? May be optimised for Intel, but it'll probably still run on G3s.

generik

Dec 10, 2005, 06:31 PM

If someone looks at a box running OS X and a box running XP and says "oh, they're the same" because they have the same internal processors or two-button mice, then I'd really not worry about anything else that person has to say on the matter. :eek: :D

Erm, they ARE the same, it is just that on one it incorporates DRM with imposes limitations on MY rights on what I can do with my machine.

At the very least Apple really should still strive to build high quality machines, although good god.. it seems like even when you are burning cash you can't buy quality nowadays anymore.

generik

Dec 10, 2005, 06:33 PM

This discussion reminds me of a religious debate I had with family members on Thanksgiving....:rolleyes:

Is it about the religion of the Mac?

generik

Dec 10, 2005, 10:55 PM

I don't think Apple has to drop prices at all. Remember, you are paying for the great OS (at least I am). I don't care what it's running on, so long as each computer that I buy is significantly more powerful than the one before. So, Apple has to release an iBook that beats the pants off my current iBook. I don't think that Apple is competing with the other PC/Windows vendors on hardware so much as they are competing on the OS. The average user does not care what hardware is inside the box, so long as it performs for them the way that they need it to.

Sure, I will pay for the great OS. All $129 of it. Where is the rest of the money going?

Meyvn

Dec 10, 2005, 11:11 PM

Sure, I will pay for the great OS. All $129 of it. Where is the rest of the money going?

The OS is a selling point for the entire hardware system. Apple has stated many times that they are a hardware company. Whether you like it or not, they are not going to make it easy for you to separate their software from their hardware, as the former is meant to be a feature of the latter. On a side note, isn't there anything more constructive to do than constant bashing of Apple?

kretzy

Dec 10, 2005, 11:29 PM

Apple crumbling....mmmm how about with some ice-cream so we can all have some for desert! :p

jefhatfield

Dec 10, 2005, 11:37 PM

i mean two button mouses, intel processors, i was happy being different, i don't like being the same as everyone else.:confused:

ide hard drives, rectuangular laptops, universal motherboard architecture, intel usb, microsoft office for mac? ;)

i have my clamshell ibook and liked being way different from the masses...man, that thing turned a lot of heads in its day

jaduffy108

Dec 10, 2005, 11:55 PM

The difference is IBM "said" that about their roadmap. Intel has actually provided their roadmap.

Showing > Saying

>> I have to disagree. Intel's roadmap is vaporware. HYPE. Yonah is not here yet. Merom/Conroe, etc...not here yet...and word on the street is... Intel *is* indeed having trouble with these chips. Every year Intel has promised the moon...and right now, AMD is kicking their a$$ on every level. Intel's roadmap the last few years has not remotely lived up to their hype. I believe Intel is about to rebound..late 2006...but that is merely a belief/hope...based on nothing solid.

Personally, I would love to see Apple become more like the x86 world. I would love to have apps actually optimized for my platform for a change like windows users enjoy. I would love to have graphic cards' drivers optimized for the graphic card in my machine...again, like windows users enjoy. I would love to have all the choices in hardware and software x86 users have enjoyed for years and years. Bring it on!

peace

steelfist

Dec 11, 2005, 01:33 AM

the multi-button mouses do have their benefits, try playing unreal tournament, warcraft 3, or any game with one button.

i use my computer, and i prefer to only have one hand at the computer, while another flips the pages, holds a cup of juice, etc. and usually i have to hold the mouse instead of the keyboard, so, i would need a multibutton mouse to be more productive. imagine a person that has one hand occupied with reading a book or drinking while the other hand has one buttoned mouse. if he wants to access the menus, he has to go up the the menubar, and select something, then go back to where he was.

the mouses go from multibutton and one buttoned mouses being the same at productivity to having multibutton mouses better to use. there isn't much I can sacrafice when migrating from single button mouses to multibutton mouses (especially logitech's), and they are generally more versatile.

now, intel does not equal PC (windows computers), and switching to them will change macs only to better machines. there is nothing sacrificed.

now, that is different from runing windows on intel macs and macosx on traditional PC boxes. i hate that idea. ew...

people that say that intel macs and PCs are the same is like saying that rulers and a pens are the same just because they use plastic. it's also like saying that both ppc macs and intel pcs are the same just because it uses electricity and has silicone and metal.

generik

Dec 11, 2005, 03:19 AM

On a side note, isn't there anything more constructive to do than constant bashing of Apple?

I am all ears.

Rocksaurus

Dec 11, 2005, 04:28 AM

A one-button mouse user would say 'double-click, Apple+C, Apple+Tab, Apple+V.' Seems a lot faster than your method. Pay up.

So multi-button mice disable keyboard shortcuts. I get it. Wait, no, I don't. I use keyboard shortcuts, and a few months got an 8 button logitech mouse. It's a thing of beauty. Just try a few weeks with expose on your mouse. One of my buttons acts as a double click, coincidentally. Saves me a click everytime I use it, but I guess that saving clicks reduces productivity. Wait, that also does not make sense. I appreciate the elegance of the single button mouse, and on my Mac Classic II the single button mouse is literally perfect. But these days the ergonomics and convenience just aren't there. I don't do a lot of graphics editing, but when you consider the fact that the left click has the exact same functionality as an entire one button mouse, there's just no possibility that it can REDUCE productivity. You can still do all the shortcuts with a multibutton mouse you can with a single button mouse. If a multi-button mouse disabled keyboard shortcuts I wouldn't buy one because keyboard shortcuts make things faster. Just like multibutton mice do. I'm curious to hear your rebuttal.

Morn

Dec 11, 2005, 04:31 AM

What's easy and intuitive about Apple+C, Apple+Tab, Apple+V etc
A right click context menu tells you what commands you can do. It's almost like an interactive bubble help balloon and I think is generally a superior tool to a menu bar or keyboard combination. It's easier and powerful.

Rocksaurus

Dec 11, 2005, 12:32 PM

themacmaestro

Dec 11, 2005, 12:37 PM

i mean two button mouses, intel processors, i was happy being different, i don't like being the same as everyone else.:confused:

Different isn't good all the time. The one button mouse was a stupid idea that never caught on... Now it's revolutionary with Apple! Wow a two button mouse. Look we reinvented the mouse!

Macmadant

Dec 11, 2005, 03:52 PM

ide hard drives, rectuangular laptops, universal motherboard architecture, intel usb, microsoft office for mac? ;)

i have my clamshell ibook and liked being way different from the masses...man, that thing turned a lot of heads in its day

my point exactly, people say WOW! about my g4 imac but when i show them
the G5 imac they go whats that a thick display? :confused:

generik

Dec 11, 2005, 04:32 PM

i mean two button mouses, intel processors, i was happy being different, i don't like being the same as everyone else.

What if I am holding on to something else with my other hand? Like a mug of coffee or a sandwich?

Hey, you are the one who should pay up.

dmetzcher

Dec 11, 2005, 06:13 PM

Sure, I will pay for the great OS. All $129 of it. Where is the rest of the money going?
Apple will say that it's going into the hardware, which you need to run their OS. It's all marketing.

solvs

Dec 11, 2005, 06:37 PM

Look we reinvented the mouse!
I'm pretty sure no one has said that.

damax452

Dec 11, 2005, 08:19 PM

Standards and compatible parts are one of the greatest achievements of mankind. Apple is a great company IMO, but the computer world is a place where it pays to conform to standards. Apple suffers somewhat because their hardware just doesn't fit into our daily lives as easily as PCs. I'm all for being different, but you have to consider the consequences.

Imagine a firearm maker deciding to make a 14 gauge shotgun or a car maker producing a vehicle thats 15 feet wide. It just doesn't work, and consumers would not accept it.

It's only natural that Apple products shifts closer to the PC realm. The vast majority of consumers have made a choice, and that is a PC running Windows. Now whether they made this choice because its a better product or more user friendly or less expensive is a different discussion and is irrelevant anyway. My point is, Apple will still be Apple regardless of what processor is in the boxes they make or whether their OS can be utilized on other hardware.

Stop fighting, resistance is futile. :D

jefhatfield

Dec 11, 2005, 09:10 PM

Stop fighting, resistance is futile. :D

i liked apple when woz and jobs ran it, when scully ran it, and when sj returned to the company

as long as they make unique products with a quality level and industrial design above the rest, along with a better operating system, i will remain a fan of apple inc

even if bill gates or michael dell became ceo i wouldn't care as long as apple led the way like they have been from the very start of home based computers

solvs

Dec 11, 2005, 10:03 PM

even if bill gates or michael dell became ceo i wouldn't care as long as apple led the way like they have been from the very start of home based computers
Yes, but if Gates or Dell ran it, they wouldn't. Look at what started happening before Jobs came back. But I guess if someone like Ive took over, I'd feel pretty good about that.

maestro55

Dec 11, 2005, 10:17 PM

When I read about the switch the Intel processors, I was worried about it. It bothered me to think that the Mac was changing from the PPC processor. However, I now see this is a good move for Apple. Steve is making sure that Apple sticks around, that is what he has to do, and I don't see any problems with it.

sethypoo

Dec 12, 2005, 01:49 AM

Since it's a private forum, it's not protected under free speech. If the mods wanted, they could ban you for looking at them funny. Though I don't think they can break your fingers.

I don't think.

Is this true? Even if it is, the back lash that the site would receive if they did start to censor unfairly would be swift and harsh.....or at least I'd like to think so.

decksnap

Dec 12, 2005, 08:21 AM

So multi-button mice disable keyboard shortcuts. I get it. Wait, no, I don't. I use keyboard shortcuts, and a few months got an 8 button logitech mouse. It's a thing of beauty. Just try a few weeks with expose on your mouse. One of my buttons acts as a double click, coincidentally. Saves me a click everytime I use it, but I guess that saving clicks reduces productivity. Wait, that also does not make sense. I appreciate the elegance of the single button mouse, and on my Mac Classic II the single button mouse is literally perfect. But these days the ergonomics and convenience just aren't there. I don't do a lot of graphics editing, but when you consider the fact that the left click has the exact same functionality as an entire one button mouse, there's just no possibility that it can REDUCE productivity. You can still do all the shortcuts with a multibutton mouse you can with a single button mouse. If a multi-button mouse disabled keyboard shortcuts I wouldn't buy one because keyboard shortcuts make things faster. Just like multibutton mice do. I'm curious to hear your rebuttal.

If you DO use two hands and key commands, then my difference of opinion isn't with you. It's with people who think users of a one button mouse CAN'T be as productive/fast as those with more. I just don't like hearing things like:

"I guarantee a person with a multi-button mouse could type a word, select it, control-click it, copy the text, use expose to see all windows, click a window, and control-click to paste the text in the new window MUCH faster than a person with a one-button mouse."

The example I gave clearly showed a faster method than that specific multi-button mouse user's method... but that's just one example.

For me a double-click takes exactly the same amount of time as a single click, don't know about you...And as for expose, I don't use it because Apple+tab and Apple+` are so much faster.

Morn

Dec 12, 2005, 08:46 AM

Clicking on the dock and right clicking on text to copy is pretty fast too, and I can do it with one hand.

solvs

Dec 12, 2005, 08:57 PM

Is this true? Even if it is, the back lash that the site would receive if they did start to censor unfairly would be swift and harsh.....or at least I'd like to think so.
Well that's why they don't. But they could if they wanted to, legally. Just thought I'd point that out to those who keep saying it would be a violation of their free speech to ban them or ask them not to do something. There are rules here, and if you elect to join you must follow them, whether you like the or not.

So I'll stop breaking one of the rules and going off topic. Yes, Steve is trying to turn the Mac into a PC. However, PC does not have to equal Windows.

Morn

Dec 13, 2005, 05:56 AM

And PC's have good quality hardware, nothing wrong with having mac's based around their hardware.

gnasher729

Dec 13, 2005, 08:02 AM

Sure, I will pay for the great OS. All $129 of it. Where is the rest of the money going?

Mac OS X doesn't cost $129. Apple hasn't been selling MacOS X so far. What you can buy for $129 is an upgrade to any rightfully installed MacOS version.

Expect MacOS X to be sold for something like $399, if it will _ever_ be offered for sale.

emotion

Dec 13, 2005, 08:51 AM

Personally, I would love to see Apple become more like the x86 world. I would love to have apps actually optimized for my platform for a change like windows users enjoy. I would love to have graphic cards' drivers optimized for the graphic card in my machine...again, like windows users enjoy. I would love to have all the choices in hardware and software x86 users have enjoyed for years and years. Bring it on!

The switch to using Intel is not gonna help you there. Unless Apple get more market share and the device manufacturers decide to write better drivers for the bigger _MacOSX_ market.

How many times do people around here have to make the mistake that Macs are still gonna be macs (on the level of above) because they run MacOSX.

emotion

Dec 13, 2005, 08:53 AM

I'd really HATE :mad: to see regular PCs running OS X.
What makes Macs unique is the OS. How many PC users wish they could build their PCs and use OS X?

How many Mac users wish they could build PCs and use OSX?

Count me in.

Laptops are a different matter but a desktop? I'd rather build my own.

link92

Dec 13, 2005, 10:47 AM

Thats like saying because a Chevy Aveo comes with Michelin tires, and a Ferrari Enzo comes with Michelin tires, that the 2 cars are the same. Absolute BS.
The Enzo Ferrari uses Bridgestone tires :D

So the Megahertz myth was true afterall.
You say the Quad G5 is slow? Sure, the G4, which is the latest one avaible for laptops is slow. The Pentium M kicks everything elses ass in that area.

Mac OS X doesn't cost $129. Apple hasn't been selling MacOS X so far. What you can buy for $129 is an upgrade to any rightfully installed MacOS version.

Expect MacOS X to be sold for something like $399, if it will _ever_ be offered for sale.
Having installed Mac OS X on an blank HD with nothing on it, I can say it is a full version. It is not an upgrade.

macg4

Dec 13, 2005, 11:36 AM

people are just worried about the future of such a great company as apple. but i beleive steve will lead us in the right direction

Veritas&Equitas

Dec 13, 2005, 01:46 PM

but i beleive steve will lead us in the right direction

This really is a religion.

macg4

Dec 13, 2005, 01:51 PM

This really is a religion.
i would agree and happy to be a part of it :) you know thats what steve always said about apple

jefhatfield

Dec 13, 2005, 02:15 PM

This really is a religion.

it's actually a cult since a religion seeks truth, or tries its best to be based on truth

apple inc of steve's imagination is based on hype, slick advertising, and clever excuses why apple can't deliver technology on time or in the proper amounts...but that being said, apple inc still produces the best computers in their price range in the market

it's so funny when mac cultists hated microsoft but when steve said microsoft office for mac was ok then it was ok for macdom...usb was evil since it was an intel standard, but proved to be ok once macs used them widely also...now we are moving to intel processors and since steve says it's ok, that makes intel a saintly company

i only look to see how the mac serves me and it has done a better job than my pc computers over the years so my next computer will be a mac

aranhamo

Dec 13, 2005, 02:42 PM

Mac OS X doesn't cost $129. Apple hasn't been selling MacOS X so far. What you can buy for $129 is an upgrade to any rightfully installed MacOS version.

Expect MacOS X to be sold for something like $399, if it will _ever_ be offered for sale.

Weird. How did I get OS X onto the new hard drive I bought then? And it only cost me $70, since I was a student.

On the whole mouse topic, I prefer a multi-button mouse, but I've seen actual studies that found that it doesn't make any difference in productivity. People who know how to use a one-button mouse are just as productive as those who know how to use a multi-button mouse, or a scroll ball for that matter. They just work differently.

IBM still has a pretty impressive roadmap, but they're not focusing on the desktop market. IBM makes some of the most powerful computers in the world, running on PPC processors, and they make the CPU for all three of the major gaming consoles on the market (also PPCs). The embedded computing market is almost all PPC; I went to an embedded systems conference a couple of months ago, and practically every single vendor's products ran on PPC processors. Most of the engineers I know and my professors would argue that PPC is superior to x86.

Nevertheless, Apple has made a business decision to go with x86, and I hope it works out.

link92

Dec 13, 2005, 03:02 PM

I too would argue PPC is superior. However, in cases like the Mac Mini and laptops, there simply aren't anybody developing chips for them.

Freenode is moving away from computers; and IBM focusing on servers, desktops and consoles.

solvs

Dec 14, 2005, 04:28 AM

Having installed Mac OS X on an blank HD with nothing on it, I can say it is a full version. It is not an upgrade.
Yes... but what computer did you load it on? ;)

Morn

Dec 14, 2005, 04:58 AM

You know that in reality, there is barely any difference between powerpc and x86 chips speaking from a CPU engineers view point.

link92

Dec 14, 2005, 10:30 AM

Yes... but what computer did you load it on? ;)
iMac G3.

You know that in reality, there is barely any difference between powerpc and x86 chips speaking from a CPU engineers view point.
Oh, just the byte order being completely different, VMX being 128-bit, compared with SSE being 64-bit(?)...

jefhatfield

Dec 14, 2005, 10:41 AM

iMac G3.

Oh, just the byte order being completely different, VMX being 128-bit, compared with SSE being 64-bit(?)...

depends on what you want to look at...on the component level, computers are all very similar, pc and mac...scott mueller's book on pc repair is a good guide for the home user and professional techie, and is even a good resource for mac gearheads

the book inspired me to go into a phd program in computer engineering at the university of california, but i soon realized that i didn't want to know THAT MUCH about computer hardware ;)

there's a lot of good hype telling people that ppc is so superior to x86, but a lot of that is not based on fact...still, i love my mac and would not trade it for a pc

the operating system experience is really what makes most people love the mac and a good book about the mac experience is "macintosh : the naked truth"...he he, sorry, no nudity there...but maybe at the university of california they still have that nudist policy that....

solvs

Dec 14, 2005, 11:53 PM

iMac G3.
Then it's an upgrade. What OS did your iMac originally come with? Rhetorical question BTW, just trying to prove a point.

Morn

Dec 15, 2005, 09:35 AM

Oh, just the byte order being completely different, VMX being 128-bit, compared with SSE being 64-bit(?)...

SSE is 128bit, and byte ordering doesn't mean much other than the byte ordering is different.;) In terms of the architecture of the CPU's function units.... x86 and PPC CPU's are basically the same with the only real difference being different instruction set. TIf you want to try something more different and exotic, go get an itanium (what's known as EPIC architecture) or a cell, but PPC and x86 are quite similar, both being in the post-risc family of CPU's.

jaduffy108

Dec 15, 2005, 09:56 AM

The switch to using Intel is not gonna help you there. Unless Apple get more market share and the device manufacturers decide to write better drivers for the bigger _MacOSX_ market.

How many times do people around here have to make the mistake that Macs are still gonna be macs (on the level of above) because they run MacOSX.

>>well..you have a point, but that ain't the whole story. Adobe and others are ecstatic(!) over this Apple switch to Intel...why?
Yes..drivers are usually written by the manufacturers, but Apple writes a LOT of code for optimization...such as Java, etc...soooo, first... why doesn't Apple care enough to write decent graphics drivers? You don't think this switch to x86 isn't going to a big help in this regard?..ok...NVIDIA and others disagree.

I'm very excited about what's coming...yonah, merom, etc...but if I'm still left using windows/x86 hand-me-downs in terms of software and hardware, i'm making the switch to windows/x86. I'm sick of it....OS X is great..but it isn't THAT important.

peace

Sunrunner

Dec 15, 2005, 10:01 AM

i mean two button mouses, intel processors, i was happy being different, i don't like being the same as everyone else.:confused:

Yeah right. The two theories of computing are directly opposed.

link92

Dec 15, 2005, 10:57 AM

Then it's an upgrade. What OS did your iMac originally come with? Rhetorical question BTW, just trying to prove a point.
9.0

But how am I upgrading from something that isn't on the HD?

solvs

Dec 15, 2005, 11:15 PM

9.0

But how am I upgrading from something that isn't on the HD?
I think you're missing my point. That Mac came with the Mac OS. You can only install OS X on a Mac (legally), which always comes with an OS. You can't buy a new Mac without it. It's built in to the purchase price. It's an upgrade because you can't put it anywhere else than a machine that came with a Mac OS. Even if you install it on a blank hdd. That's why Apple doesn't sell upgrade disks, because they're all upgrade disks. It's built into the hardware.

aranhamo

Dec 16, 2005, 11:54 AM

I think you're missing my point. That Mac came with the Mac OS. You can only install OS X on a Mac (legally), which always comes with an OS. You can't buy a new Mac without it. It's built in to the purchase price. It's an upgrade because you can't put it anywhere else than a machine that came with a Mac OS. Even if you install it on a blank hdd. That's why Apple doesn't sell upgrade disks, because they're all upgrade disks. It's built into the hardware.

So when somebody spends $299 (retail price at CompUSA) for the full version of XP Pro to put on their Dell, it's really just an upgrade because their Dell came with Win95 on it? But if they had purchased an upgrade version of XP Pro for $199, they wouldn't have been able to install it on their computer at all, because Win95 doesn't qualify for an upgrade to XP.

But the price of the Windows license is built into the price of the Dell. As a matter of fact, every PC dealer that sold any computer with Windows pre-installed had to charge a Windows license even for computers that shipped without Windows; that was one of the points of contention in the anti-trust case. So if you bought a Compaq in 1995, but somehow with no OS on it at all, the purchase price of the computer still had the price of a Windows license built into it, so you should be eligible for an upgrade to WinXP, right?

BFMC999

Dec 16, 2005, 12:58 PM

it's lame that most of you complain that you're not different anymore. the ultimate goal is to have a machine that will run better than anything else. who gives a crap if dell starts shipping with OSX? everyone knows that a Mac with OSX will run better than a pc with it. and i wouldn't complain about an apple two button mouse. mighty mouse is a joke.

solvs

Dec 17, 2005, 01:26 AM

So when somebody spends $299 (retail price at CompUSA) for the full version of XP Pro to put on their Dell, it's really just an upgrade because their Dell came with Win95 on it? But if they had purchased an upgrade version of XP Pro for $199, they wouldn't have been able to install it on their computer at all, because Win95 doesn't qualify for an upgrade to XP.

But the price of the Windows license is built into the price of the Dell. As a matter of fact, every PC dealer that sold any computer with Windows pre-installed had to charge a Windows license even for computers that shipped without Windows; that was one of the points of contention in the anti-trust case. So if you bought a Compaq in 1995, but somehow with no OS on it at all, the purchase price of the computer still had the price of a Windows license built into it, so you should be eligible for an upgrade to WinXP, right?
You should, but M$ doesn't play that way. Apple does. If you bought a Compaq with Linux or built your own (which you can't do with a Mac) you buy the full version. But then, Microsoft didn't see any money from that. You buy an iMac from a friend that came with OS 9, Apple already got their money, and will let you install the upgrade on a blank disk with no need to verify the prior installation because they know you are putting it on a Mac, otherwise it wouldn't work (unless you hack it). If you bought a Compaq with Win2000, you could install the XP upgrade on a blank hard drive, but you'd need the original install disks to prove it used to have Windows on it.

I don't know why we're still arguing this.

jbernie

Dec 17, 2005, 02:02 AM

On the whole mouse thing.. (yawn) I use two...now that is different, well technically a wireless mouse and a wired trackball.

The biggest benifit to Apple's one button mice... style! that is all.

The multi button mouse is more practical etc etc, but very few are remotely close to Apple when it comes to style.

Mind you, i wonder how easy it is to tell a user to hold down the only mouse button for a few seconds to initiate the right click as opposed to telling them multiple times to RIGHT CLICK and not LEFT CLICK...hmmm... naah they would still stuff it up, it is part of the users nature to do it wrong.

Blue Velvet

Dec 17, 2005, 02:47 AM

The biggest benifit to Apple's one button mice... style! that is all.

Nope, not all... at all.

As someone who spends about 10-12 hours a day, sometimes more, on a Mac doing my job and at home, the one-button mouse is far easier on my right hand... especially compared to the two-button mouse on the work Dell (for office emails) that props up my work monitor.

Morn

Dec 17, 2005, 05:20 AM

Must be a pain to spend 10 hours a day without single handed access to a context menu...

Blue Velvet

Dec 17, 2005, 05:48 AM

Must be a pain to spend 10 hours a day without single handed access to a context menu...

Absolutely not.

Who needs restrictive context menus when you have a barrage of left-handed keyboard shortcuts to get your work done?

You guys are missing the point completely. In the hands of a competent operator, the mouse gets used less, not more.

Mitthrawnuruodo

Dec 17, 2005, 07:30 AM

Absolutely not.

Who needs restrictive context menus when you have a barrage of left-handed keyboard shortcuts to get your work done?

You guys are missing the point completely. In the hands of a competent operator, the mouse gets used less, not more.Mouse, what mouse...? ;)

Seriously, I couldn't agree more, I have an iBook, and even if I initially got a cheap USB scroll wheel mouse to go with it I just never got comfortable using it. I get by very fine with the trackpad (with or without the ctrl button), and actually prefer that, for those few occasions where I cannot do what I want with keyboard shortcuts.

And who needs a vertical scroller when you got a spacebar, anyway...? :D

Morn

Dec 17, 2005, 11:01 AM

Who needs restrictive context menus when you have a barrage of left-handed keyboard shortcuts to get your work done?

What if your left hand is not near the keyboard? What if you want to access functions like the spell checker/dictionary/search google/. Download an image from a web site/copy an url from a hyperlink without visiting it etc etc....

Blue Velvet

Dec 17, 2005, 11:08 AM

jbernie

Dec 17, 2005, 11:29 AM

Blue Velvet

Dec 17, 2005, 11:35 AM

I hope for your sake you never ever hurt your left hand or arm to the point it can't be used.

Why? You could say exactly the same about my right.

I'm sorry but that's a completely pointless and straw man-like thing to say and has no logical bearing on the discussion at hand. ;)

If I lost my left hand I'd be a little more worried about other things than work to be honest.

jefhatfield

Dec 17, 2005, 12:02 PM

I hope for your sake you never ever hurt your left hand or arm to the point it can't be used.

ok, keep it clean, there be minors on this forum ;)

cgingrich

Dec 17, 2005, 04:25 PM

I had never used the scroll wheel mouses, mostly because I was too cheap to spring for a special mouse so I just used what came with my PCs. A scroll mouse came standard with my vaio and now I don't know what I'd do without it. I got the apple bluetooth mouse with my new powerbook and while I haven't gotten much chance to play with it yet, I don't know if I'll like it at first, however I'll get used to it. I like using the arrow keys too, so I could always resort to that.

How is the scrolling device on the mighty mouse?

edit: haha just realized I said mouses, wow it's been a long semester, good thing it's over :)

decksnap

Dec 17, 2005, 04:40 PM

What if your left hand is not near the keyboard? What if you want to access functions like the spell checker/dictionary/search google/. Download an image from a web site/copy an url from a hyperlink without visiting it etc etc....

Apple+;
Control+Apple+D
Apple+tab...type
Control+click
Apple+C

bah. NOT GETTING IT. Those who know all the key commands know how to do all this stuff as fast or faster than a one handed mouse operator. My Mac is my work... my left hand isn't just always near the keyboard, it's always ON the keyboard.

I do suppose though if I lost my left arm in an accident, I would use a multi-button mouse. If that's what disabled people are using these days. (What a strange point to try to make...)

:rolleyes:

danny_w

Dec 17, 2005, 04:41 PM

The difference is IBM "said" that about their roadmap. Intel has actually provided their roadmap.
Showing > Saying
However, neither is the same as DOING. That is the hardest part of all, and is rarely if ever accomplished fully (by anybody).

Doing > Showing > Saying

Mitthrawnuruodo

Dec 17, 2005, 04:54 PM

What if your left hand is not near the keyboard? What if you want to access functions like the spell checker/dictionary/search google/. Download an image from a web site/copy an url from a hyperlink without visiting it etc etc....Spell checker (in all cocoa apps): cmd-; / cmd-: (on my Norwegian keyboard, some shortcuts varies from country to country).

Searching using Safari with AcidSearch: Define your own shortcuts, Google is opt-cmd-G by default. AcidSearch also supports find-as-you-type (no need for cmd-F).

Searching using Safari without AcidSearch: cmd-L then tab (which was my preferred way even if it was an extra operation) or use the direct shortcut to the search bar, which is opd-cmd-F.

Searching using Firefox: Find-as-you-type built in (on Macs you don't even have to type /) and use cmd-K to access the search engines.

Downloading images: Just drag them onto your Desktop (or any other Finder window), no need for right-click or context menus.

Navigate all controls, bookmarks (in bookmarks bar) and the contents on website, ie links, forms, etc, using the TAB by enabling Full keyboard access in the Keyboard & Mouse prefpane.

Etc etc...

And, in most apps, you can access the context menu with a one-button mouse, too, without touching the ctrl key. Just click and hold, and after a second or so the context menu appears...

The main point: If you're used to the one button you can be just as effective as someone that's used to two buttons... get over it... :rolleyes:

And keep your hands above the table, please... :p :D

steve_hill4

Dec 17, 2005, 05:04 PM

How is the scrolling device on the mighty mouse?
Not as comfortable to start with as a proper scroll wheel, but it's good. I think that is more than made up by the configurable one/two buttons and the expose/dashboard/config buttons in the middle, (ball), and squeeze buttons on the side. A very nice mouse to use indeed, especially for switchers.

jefhatfield

Dec 17, 2005, 05:58 PM

... my left hand isn't just always near the keyboard, it's always ON the keyboard.

yeah, right you pervert ;)

generik

Dec 17, 2005, 06:39 PM

yeah, right you pervert ;)

I find it difficult to use my left :rolleyes:

decksnap

Dec 18, 2005, 04:37 PM

yeah, right you pervert ;)

Well I am left-handed! I guess that's a bonus? :D

Morn

Dec 18, 2005, 06:48 PM

A right click context menu is a lot more intuitive that all these fancy keyboard combinations.:rolleyes: I say it again, a right mouse button is easier to use.

However, neither is the same as DOING. That is the hardest part of all, and is rarely if ever accomplished fully (by anybody).

Intel is usually very good at accomplishing their roadmaps....

decksnap

Dec 19, 2005, 07:53 AM

A right click context menu is a lot more intuitive that all these fancy keyboard combinations.:rolleyes: I say it again, a right mouse button is easier to use..

Easier for a beginner? Maybe. Faster? definitely not.

jefhatfield

Dec 19, 2005, 09:53 AM

Easier for a beginner? Maybe. Faster? definitely not.

it's all what you get used to

easier is relative...for people who learned windows first, mac os x seems difficult to them...heck, i am so used to classic that os x was a hard transition

dmetzcher

Dec 19, 2005, 10:23 PM

Easier for a beginner? Maybe. Faster? definitely not.
Definitely not according to whom? You? Or me?

Project

Dec 20, 2005, 03:48 AM

the iBook trackpad is amazing. I already owned a logitech mouse and recently bought a mighty mouse but rarely use them. it pains me to use any other laptop without a mouse - the trackpad is *that* good.

Morn

Dec 21, 2005, 08:17 AM

Easier for a beginner? Maybe. Faster? definitely not.

A context menus is very fast as it is and is easier to learn regardless of issues of familiarity it's fundamentally more intuitive. It may be faster to press say command-c but you have to factor in the time and extra effect in moving the left arm to the keyboard.

aristobrat

Dec 21, 2005, 08:54 AM

Is there a way to display the menus with the keyboard to see what the context keys are?

Like in Windows, if you want to see everything under Tools menu, the T is underlined, so you can hit Alt-T to make the whole menu display.

The only way I know how to do this on OS X is to click the Tools menu.

zap2

Dec 21, 2005, 08:59 AM

Without dragging this entirely off-topic, I'd like to see what evidence you have for such a statement.

noone can be worse with a might Mouse right cuz you can just put it in 1 button mode

Blue Velvet

Dec 21, 2005, 09:10 AM

A context menus is very fast as it is and is easier to learn regardless of issues of familiarity it's fundamentally more intuitive. It may be faster to press say command-c but you have to factor in the time and extra effect in moving the left arm to the keyboard.

Firstly, in apps like Photoshop & QuarkXpress, there are only a limited number of options available in a context menu at any given time -- and usually not the one you want -- and secondly, any competent operator who uses their Mac for their job uses keyboard shortcuts. Their left hand is always on the keyboard. You should take a close look at the way you use a Mac rather than saying 'it's not intuitive for me'.

Driving a car is not intuitive the first time you do it but after practice it becomes second nature.

Thirdly, you will find after years of sitting in front of a computer that your right hand, wrist, forearm and shoulder will thank you for taking some of the workload from your mouse hand.

Furthermore, there's a misunderstanding of the word 'intuitive'. Once you use a keyboard shortcut a few times, then muscle memory takes over and it's not a concious effort any more.

Frankly, what I hear here is utter laziness and heads-in-the-sand thinking. Learn a few keyboard shortcuts for your bread and butter app and once they're learnt, forget them. ;)

I would never hire a designer that couldn't find their way around OSX and page-layout/graphics apps without the facility of using core keyboard commands... watching people mouse their way around apps, context menus or not, is just dispiriting and presents an obstacle to their productivity and creativity.

dernhelm

Dec 21, 2005, 10:52 AM

Then it's an upgrade. What OS did your iMac originally come with? Rhetorical question BTW, just trying to prove a point.

What point? I could've purchased mac hardware from yellow dog with only Linux on it. I could then have purchased OS/X from CompUSA and installed it on there later. It works and is not the least bit illegal.

Cloudgazer

Dec 21, 2005, 02:18 PM

Mitthrawnuruodo

Dec 21, 2005, 02:33 PM

The problem with this though, is that the CTRL/Option button on a powerbook are only on the leftside, which makes it difficult for us lefties to keep our hand there, since its on the mouse.
Its discrimination I tell ya!Well I'm right handed but use my left hand to operate the touchpad on my iBook most of the time, and I don't find it hard to reach the ctrl-button with my left little finger while I got the thumb on the button and index finger on the touchpad...

It's much easuer to make problems out of all the little things than finding solutions, isn't it...? :rolleyes:

decksnap

Dec 21, 2005, 02:35 PM

The problem with this though, is that the CTRL/Option button on a powerbook are only on the leftside, which makes it difficult for us lefties to keep our hand there, since its on the mouse.
Its discrimination I tell ya!

Try moving your mouse to your right hand.

If you are using two hands to control your computer like some of us, it may be BETTER to be left-handed, as I am, because the mouse is really just 'point and click', while your left hand does a ton of different things.

dmetzcher

Dec 21, 2005, 02:52 PM

i would agree and happy to be a part of it :) you know thats what steve always said about apple
people are just worried about the future of such a great company as apple. but i beleive steve will lead us in the right direction
Creepy. :rolleyes:

dmetzcher

Dec 21, 2005, 03:15 PM

What if none of these functions are not relevant to my work or the software that I use?
Then I suppose it doesn't matter to you. What you need for work, and what someone else might need for work or play, may not be the same. What if he bought his machine for play, or just for general use? His point was valid. There is no keyboard shortcut for grabbing an image from a Web page without using either (1) a two-button mouse or (2) a one-button mouse and the keyboard.

I look at it this way: Having two buttons allows you to ignore one, if you prefer, and use it only when you absolutely need it. I don't use my right mouse button as much as I use keyboard shortcuts, so I understand your earlier point, but I like having the extra button available to me when I need to do something that a keyboard shortcut cannot perform. If I can use just the keyboard, or just the mouse, I'm happy. If I have to use both, it's a bit limiting, for me at least.

Also, based on other posts in this thread, I find it amazing how this has become almost a fight between two camps. Who cares, really? It's like someone came in here and told everyone that Windows is better than the Mac OS, and everyone went on the defensive. I'm sure this discussion (especially with the tone taken by some) hasn't moved anyone in one way or the other, because it's mostly opinion, and that includes my own previous posts on the topic. It's opinion. If someone has a study that was done on the topic (yes, a scientific one, please - not one that you did with your little brother in the basement of your parents' house, one done by people wearing lab coats, or at least over the age of 15), please post it. I've looked around for one, because I'm interested in knowing which mouse works best for users, especially for users of certain applications.

Bottom line: Do whatever works for you.

dmetzcher

Dec 21, 2005, 03:20 PM

Easier for a beginner? Maybe. Faster? definitely not.
The funny thing is that you just made our point. The whole reason that the right mouse button never made it into an Apple design before Mighty Mouse (barf) is because Apple felt that the second button would be too difficult for a new user to grasp. Keyboard shortcuts (no mouse) are certainly faster, however, and you're right on that.

decksnap

Dec 21, 2005, 03:25 PM

For the most part I agree with you... and I'll say it again, my argument was with people who say working with one button mice is slower, not with those who say 'to each his own'.

To save an image off the web with one button, click on it and drag it wherever you want. Or click and drag, hit expose, or app-switcher, etc...

Mitthrawnuruodo

Dec 21, 2005, 03:32 PM

Then I suppose it doesn't matter to you. What you need for work, and what someone else might need for work or play, may not be the same. What if he bought his machine for play, or just for general use? His point was valid. There is no keyboard shortcut for grabbing an image from a Web page without using either (1) a two-button mouse or (2) a one-button mouse and the keyboard.So when I simply drag an image off a webpage to my desktop (or another Finder window) with a single mouse click-hold-and-drag I'm actually doing something impossible...???:confused: :rolleyes:

Bottom line: Do whatever works for you.That I can agree to...

dmetzcher

Dec 23, 2005, 12:42 AM

So when I simply drag an image off a webpage to my desktop (or another Finder window) with a single mouse click-hold-and-drag I'm actually doing something impossible...???:confused: :rolleyes:

That I can agree to...
Not at all. What's impossible, given your comments above, and your previous posts on this topic, is that you are able to make a comment on the subject without sounding like a smart-ass. ;)

To your question (I'll pretend you were really confused, and not just mocking me)...
Many people may (I do) find dragging it to the Desktop a little limiting. I like right-clicking it, doing a "Save Image As", and selecting the location. I don't store things on my Desktop and move them later. It's more steps than needed, and a waste of time when I want to save an image (which is rarely) and get it stored in a location of my choice. If I can do this in one or two steps, that's the best thing for me.

Here is what you would be doing:
1. Command+Tab to the Finder, press Command+Shift+C to bring up a new Finder window, opened to the computer. (This would be the fastest way to get it done, as it's with the keyboard, and you have two quick key combos.)
2. Browse to your location (assuming it's not in the sidebar, which it might not be, unless you store every folder there, which is not possible). This might take at least a few seconds, if you are browsing a few levels down.
3. Switch back to your browser (Command+Tab).
4. Click the image, drag it to your pre-opened folder location. (Assumes that the browser and the Finder window are both viewable, but having to drag and do a Command+Tab to get back to the Finder window would be quick, so it doesn't really matter here and won't add any real time, just a keystroke or two.)

What I would do is:
1. Right-click the image and click "Save Image As".
2. Browse to the location (you are doing this above). This might take at least a few seconds, if you are browsing a few levels down, same as for you, above.
3. Click OK.

Slice it any way you want, but I did it all without the keyboard, and it took a shorter amount of time. If there is a faster way you would do it, please paste the steps here.

As I said before (I think in this thread, but definitely in others), some things are faster one way, some another. If I can use one of the two devices (keyboard or mouse), instead of both, I tend to find that faster, but there are certainly exceptions to this. In the case of the above scenario, which was first mentioned by someone else that you shot down, I believe that he/she was right, and that you were wrong. He/she just pointed out one example where the right-mouse button helps things move quickly. There are times when the keyboard and mouse combined is faster than one or the other alone, and I agree with this. I just think that limiting yourself to one or the other, or to both combined, is less than productive, for me, at least.

I've also said previously: Does that right mouse button get in your way? Why not have it? Frankly, if Apple had two buttons before anyone else, most people who claim that two-button mice suck would be singing a different tune. Maybe not you, but many others. Some people just can't get past the fact that Apple has now realized that people want two buttons. And by people, I mean new users more than existing users. I think giving users the choice is great.

Also, this isn't really personal, it's just a bunch of people in a simple debate about choice. Taking a snotty or arrogant or nasty or smart-ass tone isn't really necessary. When the Mouse Police show up and make you use two-buttons at gun point, I'll be right there defending your right to use just one, so lighten up a bit.

Mitthrawnuruodo

Dec 23, 2005, 02:55 AM

You're forgetting a couple of important details:

I very rarely surf wuth the browser at full screen thus always leaving a bit of the Finder showing, and even with full screen enabled, I can use Exposé to remove all windows (i.e. after I've clicked'n'grabbed the picture I can move the mouse to the designated screen corner), leaving the whole Desktop and all folders there to drop the image on.

And if I want to drag it somewhere special I just use Mac OS X' built-in spring loaded folders. Once I've held the image over the first folder (or disk icon) the whole machine is at my disposal... ;)

What I answered to was your statement that "There is no keyboard shortcut for grabbing an image from a Web page without using either (1) a two-button mouse or (2) a one-button mouse and the keyboard." and I've just showed a couple of ways:

You can either use the drag'n'drop as described above, or you can in mant apps including Firefox but unfortunately not in Safari it seems - again with one mouse button - click and hold for a brief moment to get the same context menu to appear as you would with a right/ctrl-click.

And how do you know what I do. I've told you several different ways of doing the same thing, but I cannot remember saying anything about what I do, until now: I do whatever's most convenient when I want to do it. Sometimes drag'n'drop and sometimes I ctrl-click (when I use Safari I even use option-ctrl-click sometimes to get the Save As... option and not just Save to default downloads folder).

And, no, on the new mighty mouse the right button doesn't get in the way, but e.g. on a track pad the second button get very annoying very fast so on a laptop the one-button solution is far better IMO.

So I don't care if you want to but a 21 button Logitech mouse with bells and whistles. Just don't assume it's superiour to the one button mouse in simplicity, elegance and productivity. ;)

mad jew

Dec 23, 2005, 03:03 AM

At first, I thought I'd prefer a two button mouse when I switched to Macs back in the day but I resisted the temptation of dirtying my desk with an ugly third party contraption (because they are all ugly). Within a few weeks I'd completely become comfortable with a single button and now I find two buttons useless.

The great thing about OSX is that there's usually more than one way to do anything. It has been cleverly written such that there are even multiple choices when it comes to the single button mouse. Sure, some people prefer having more buttons, that's fair enough, but surely these people are aware enough to notice that the alternative (the single button) is just as easy to use when it comes to manipulating the OS. :)

Puts the red wine down, heads back to the Snowman thread.

Macmadant

Aug 29, 2006, 06:08 PM

No, I don't think that the Mac is going the way of the PC.

When Apple starts putting Windows in Mac's then we can start to panic. The two button mouse makes you more productive than a single button one, and Intel processors are just better than PowerPC processors. Intel processors run cooler and faster, and use less power. Also, as you know, they have an awesome roadmap ahead of them.

LMAO

KingYaba

Aug 29, 2006, 06:18 PM

That actually is pretty funny. *starts to panic*

I'mAMac

Aug 29, 2006, 06:20 PM

This discussion reminds me of a religious debate I had with family members on Thanksgiving....:rolleyes:
What was the debate?

Mr. Mister

Aug 29, 2006, 06:22 PM

This is a thread of people for whom a Mac is the only thing comprising their individuality. Suck it up, some of us use our computers.

beatsme

Aug 29, 2006, 06:28 PM

I wouldn't doubt that someone who's used to a one-button mouse wouldn't be able to match productivity with someone who's used to a two button mouse/scroll wheel.

I've always thought that the problem with the 2-button mouse is that once the programmers start to gear the applications to use that 2nd button it immediately becomes a liability. My experience with Windows is that different apps have different things available when you right-click, and some things that are only available if you right-click...it's confusing.

I wouldn't mind a scroll wheel, though...I think they're kind of handy.

Mr. Mister

Aug 29, 2006, 06:30 PM

Two-button mice are more productive since they save you trips up to the menubar, scrollbars, and if you have a remotely advanced one, even the keyboard. End of argument.

coffey7

Aug 29, 2006, 06:41 PM

I'd really HATE :mad: to see regular PCs running OS X.
What makes Macs unique is the OS. How many PC users wish they could build their PCs and use OS X?
I hope Mr. Jobs keeps OS X on Macs. Period.

My friend has osx on his ibm laptop. He learned how to do this from the people at hak5.org. They even show a video how to do it using knoppix.

Mr. Mister

Aug 29, 2006, 06:45 PM

spicyapple

Aug 29, 2006, 06:46 PM

The two button mouse makes you more productive than a single button one...Without dragging this entirely off-topic, I'd like to see what evidence you have for such a statement.
Maya :)

(actually, you need a 3-button mouse to work effectively in Maya)

How silly would it be for Apple to ship a workstation class Mac Pro with a single button mouse, if apps like Maya require, at a minimum, a 3-button mouse to even operate? Not all of us live in the desktop publishing world. :)

vniow

Aug 29, 2006, 07:07 PM

LMAO

You bumped your almost 8 month dead thread to say that?

RacerX

Aug 29, 2006, 07:41 PM

Apple offering Mac OS X for PCs would be great, the OS is really the single most worthwhile thing Apple makes, I couldn't care less whether my hardware is shiny or not if I can chose any computer in the world. However, it would take them years to support every single component in every single computer...The loss of revenue on Apple's part if they started selling Mac OS X for PC would be massive. To make up for a loss of half their hardware sales (1.5% market share) Mac OS X for PCs would need to capture at least 15% additional market share (and that would be to break even with their current profitability).

If Mac OS X is at all important to you, then Apple hardware should be important to you (even if you are like me and haven't bought a "new" Mac from Apple since 2000). The hardware sales at Apple are what pays for Mac OS X.

We've already seen what happens if a company loses their hardware... after NeXT shutdown hardware production, the OS proved to be a burden. Had Apple not bought NeXT, NeXT was planning on ending development of OPENSTEP altogether. It just wasn't worth it for them in that business model.

Knowing this, even though I think people who buy a new Mac just because Apple released a new Mac are at least a little nuts... I also know that the revenue that those people make for Apple keeps Mac OS X alive and well.

I run Mac OS X on cheep PCs today... of course the cheep PCs I use are used Macs, but the effect is pretty much the same. I get my advanced OS on low priced hardware.

If you care about the future of Mac OS X... you should start caring about that shiny hardware Apple ships. Because even if you never buy any of it while it is shiny and new, the people who do are the ones who are funding Mac OS X's future.

FadeToBlack

Aug 29, 2006, 09:55 PM

The loss of revenue on Apple's part if they started selling Mac OS X for PC would be massive. To make up for a loss of half their hardware sales (1.5% market share) Mac OS X for PCs would need to capture at least 15% additional market share (and that would be to break even with their current profitability).

If Mac OS X is at all important to you, then Apple hardware should be important to you (even if you are like me and haven't bought a "new" Mac from Apple since 2000). The hardware sales at Apple are what pays for Mac OS X.

We've already seen what happens if a company loses their hardware... after NeXT shutdown hardware production, the OS proved to be a burden. Had Apple not bought NeXT, NeXT was planning on ending development of OPENSTEP altogether. It just wasn't worth it for them in that business model.

Knowing this, even though I think people who buy a new Mac just because Apple released a new Mac are at least a little nuts... I also know that the revenue that those people make for Apple keeps Mac OS X alive and well.

I run Mac OS X on cheep PCs today... of course the cheep PCs I use are used Macs, but the effect is pretty much the same. I get my advanced OS on low priced hardware.

If you care about the future of Mac OS X... you should start caring about that shiny hardware Apple ships. Because even if you never buy any of it while it is shiny and new, the people who do are the ones who are funding Mac OS X's future.

Totally agree! Couldn't have said it better myself.

I like it that Apple provides the total package. (hardware+software)

That is one of the many, many things I can't stand about Windows is that when you go to re-install Windows, you also have to go hunting down drivers for the motherboard, graphics card, sound card, etc.) and on a Mac, you just go to Software Update. Simple as that.

prodigiousfool

Aug 29, 2006, 10:46 PM

The loss of revenue on Apple's part if they started selling Mac OS X for PC would be massive. To make up for a loss of half their hardware sales (1.5% market share) Mac OS X for PCs would need to capture at least 15% additional market share (and that would be to break even with their current profitability).

If Mac OS X is at all important to you, then Apple hardware should be important to you (even if you are like me and haven't bought a "new" Mac from Apple since 2000). The hardware sales at Apple are what pays for Mac OS X.

We've already seen what happens if a company loses their hardware... after NeXT shutdown hardware production, the OS proved to be a burden. Had Apple not bought NeXT, NeXT was planning on ending development of OPENSTEP altogether. It just wasn't worth it for them in that business model.

Knowing this, even though I think people who buy a new Mac just because Apple released a new Mac are at least a little nuts... I also know that the revenue that those people make for Apple keeps Mac OS X alive and well.

I run Mac OS X on cheep PCs today... of course the cheep PCs I use are used Macs, but the effect is pretty much the same. I get my advanced OS on low priced hardware.

If you care about the future of Mac OS X... you should start caring about that shiny hardware Apple ships. Because even if you never buy any of it while it is shiny and new, the people who do are the ones who are funding Mac OS X's future.

Personally I don't see how you can make that claim. Sure NeXT was going under, but in all reality, what hardware is Microsoft selling? When was the last time you or anyone else bought a Microsoft PC? You buy Dell's or HP's with Microsoft Windows software (albeit way overpriced software [hint: think Office]), but the point is, Microsoft doesn't make hardware, and they certainly seem to be doing well. What was their last R&D budget? $7.8 billion? Yes Apple can more easily support their OS by selling the matching hardware, and it certainly is worth it becuase we all know the quality of OS that we get with that hardware, but saying that OS X or any OS that Apple makes couldn't carry itself demeans the very value of the OS that you are supposedly praising.

suneohair

Aug 29, 2006, 10:51 PM

Personally I don't see how you can make that claim. Sure NeXT was going under, but in all reality, what hardware is Microsoft selling? When was the last time you or anyone else bought a Microsoft PC? You buy Dell's or HP's with Microsoft Windows software (albeit way overpriced software [hint: think Office]), but the point is, Microsoft doesn't make hardware, and they certainly seem to be doing well. What was their last R&D budget? $7.8 billion? Yes Apple can more easily support their OS by selling the matching hardware, and it certainly is worth it becuase we all know the quality of OS that we get with that hardware, but saying that OS X or any OS that Apple makes couldn't carry itself demeans the very value of the OS that you are supposedly praising.

I don't think the whole world will be switching to Mac OS just because Apple makes it available to everyone.

Microsoft has the OS market wrapped up. If Apple really were to ever think they could compete with the giant that is Microsoft, then they should instead sell whatever drugs they are doing because that might actually turn some profit.

decksnap

Aug 30, 2006, 07:56 AM

Two-button mice are more productive since they save you trips up to the menubar, scrollbars, and if you have a remotely advanced one, even the keyboard. End of argument.

Did you even READ this thread??

You don't make trips to the menu bar if you know the key commands. I basically never use the menu bar, but I use a 1 button mouse.

mrgreen4242

Aug 30, 2006, 08:12 AM

Did you even READ this thread??

You don't make trips to the menu bar if you know the key commands. I basically never use the menu bar, but I use a 1 button mouse.

I'm gonna admit that no, I haven't read this thread. I read the first page, hopped to the end to see if anything had become of the 2-button mouse makes you more efficient argument. Looks like SOMETHING has...

Anyways, you made my counter point for me. You can do all (well most) of the the things you do with the extra button IF you know the command keys. With a second mouse button, you don't have to know them, which is very helpful... even if you do know them, sometimes you forget, or aren't sure what menu it is you want until you see all the options, etc.

Plus with the multi-button mouse you can do more things with one hand, while using the other hand for ... whatever. ;) That wasn't intended to be dirty. I was thinking of using additional modifier keys on the keyboard, shuffle paper, etc. It gives you more options, and theres no way to argue with that.

Claim the one-button mouse is just as good is like saying the numeric keypad isn't needed because we have a number row. Ya, the same keys are there but the speed and ease of accesses them is far better on the numpad.

Mr. Mister

Aug 30, 2006, 08:18 AM

Did you even READ this thread??

You don't make trips to the menu bar if you know the key commands. I basically never use the menu bar, but I use a 1 button mouse.
Yes, but any time you do have to, with a two-button mouse there will probably be a contextual menu available with the command you want.

weg

Aug 30, 2006, 08:21 AM

It'll be interesting to see if OSX (or later) is ever licensed to another hardware manufacturer. I hope it won't be.

Well, good ol' Bill happily provides Windows XP for your Mac, turning it into an ordinary PC (with a slightly superior design).

decksnap

Aug 30, 2006, 08:33 AM

Yes, but any time you do have to, with a two-button mouse there will probably be a contextual menu available with the command you want.

Now I remember why this thread ended... this debate goes in circles. I stand by my claim. The amount of key commands available could never all be listed in a contextual menu, and if they were, it would be useless. Remember that a key command is instant, while scrolling through a list to make a selection isn't.

dsnort

Aug 30, 2006, 08:34 AM

Did you even READ this thread??

You don't make trips to the menu bar if you know the key commands. I basically never use the menu bar, but I use a 1 button mouse.

Yeah, but if you are a recent switcher like me, the loss of that second mouse button can feel like losing an arm. It's really just a matter of personal preference, there's no moral or intellectual superiority to doing it either way.

Mr. Mister

Aug 30, 2006, 08:44 AM

Now I remember why this thread ended... this debate goes in circles. I stand by my claim. The amount of key commands available could never all be listed in a contextual menu, and if they were, it would be useless. Remember that a key command is instant, while scrolling through a list to make a selection isn't.
I think the debate ends with "a multi-button mouse cannot possibly be less productive".

RacerX

Aug 30, 2006, 08:48 AM

Well, lets take a closer look at what you are saying and it may clear things up a bit for you.

Sure NeXT was going under...The first thing to address is the false statement that NeXT was going under... they weren't.

Had NeXT been going under in any way, shape or form, Sun Microsystems would have bought them in a heart beat. Sun had just spent the previous couple years working with NeXT to create a NEXTSTEP environment for Solaris which Sun was going to make the focus of their workstation/desktop push. The new environment was finished and ready, plus Sun had just bought a NeXT software development company for their office suite. All those plans (and all that money Sun spent on the transition) were wiped out when Apple bought NeXT.

It wasn't like Sun couldn't afford to buy NeXT either. At this point Sun was so flush with money that people were speculating that they were going to buy Apple.

What I said was that the operating system business wasn't worth it for NeXT and that they were planning on dropping it. The goal was to get Sun totally up and running with the NeXT environment on their hardware, get the NeXT development community to port their software over, and then NeXT could stop selling their OS and concentrate on Enterprise Objects Frameworks and WebObjects (both of which were very profitable).

Had NeXT either been failing or up for sale in 1996, Sun would have grabbed them instantly. NeXT was for sale to one company and one company only... Apple Computer.

... but in all reality, what hardware is Microsoft selling? When was the last time you or anyone else bought a Microsoft PC? You buy Dell's or HP's with Microsoft Windows software (albeit way overpriced software [hint: think Office]), but the point is, Microsoft doesn't make hardware, and they certainly seem to be doing well. What was their last R&D budget? $7.8 billion?Microsoft was never a hardware seller, their business model was never based on hardware sales, and they have used some of the worst monopolistic practices known to kill off any competition over the last 20 years.

But I didn't say that selling software couldn't be profitable... what I said was that for Apple to be as profitable as they are right now selling hardware, they would need a massive serge in market share for Mac OS X. Losing half their hardware sales to other PC makers would have to be off set by a 5x increase in the number of people using Mac OS X. Losing all their hardware sales to other PC makers would need to be off set by a 10x increase (in other words, they would need to have almost 35% market share).

And this is only to be as profitable as they are right now. This wouldn't be to be more profitable, this would be to break even.

Lets put this another way, if you sell 10 items a month and your after cost profits make you a good amount of money, would you be willing to attempt to go to a model where you would need to find 100 buyers each month to make the same after cost profit? Would that be a smart move in your opinion?

And what would you do while attempting to drum up this extra business? You wouldn't get it overnight and switching from one model to the other would mean a massive loss in revenue for you.

Would you do something like that? Would any one give up what they have now to hopefully work their way back up to the same level of profitability in the future? And in the mean time you make less money?

That type of logic is flawed on so many levels.

Yes Apple can more easily support their OS by selling the matching hardware, and it certainly is worth it becuase we all know the quality of OS that we get with that hardware, but saying that OS X or any OS that Apple makes couldn't carry itself demeans the very value of the OS that you are supposedly praising.Not at all, the reality is that the best products are not the ones that make it in business.

Case in point... OS/2.

OS/2 was a much better OS than anything Microsoft had to offer (in fact, it's foundations would later become what Microsoft offers as Windows today) back in the early 1990s. Why wasn't it successful?

For one thing, IBM had problems getting it preinstalled on PCs. And Microsoft knows that whatever software comes on the average users PC is the software they are going to use.

The first time Microsoft was brought up on monopoly charges was for forcing PC hardware makers to only include MS-DOS on their new PCs. They were able to remove competition from DR-DOS, OS/2 and later the BeOS by doing this. And even though they lost court cases over both DR-DOS and the BeOS, the final effect was that those are no longer threats to Microsoft.

Microsoft knows that better products don't win in the market. That is why they changed their business model in the early 1980s from developing new and innovative software to being reactionary... basically watching what is taking off and then buying their way into (and attempting to take over) those markets.

The best products aren't the most successful. The products that have the most money behind them are. And the ones you can place in front of people are.

This was how Microsoft won the browser wars, people use what is placed in front of them rather than looking for the best product.

It is consumer inertia. A consumer sitting at arms length from a product will use that product rather than getting up to find a better one.

And I can show examples of this within the Mac community too.

Watson was better than Sherlock, but Sherlock came with Mac OS X so people used Sherlock, were unimpressed, and then stopped using those types of apps all together.

Nisus Thesaurus is far better than Dictionary that comes with Mac OS X now, but people won't try Nisus Thesaurus because Dictionary is already there.

OmniWeb is far better than Safari, but again, Safari is bundled with Mac OS X, and people use what is already there.

The reality is that it just doesn't matter that Mac OS X is better than Windows. That is just how the world works.

:rolleyes:

And Microsoft knows this very well.

gauchogolfer

Aug 30, 2006, 09:08 AM

Thanks RacerX for a succinct and reasoned post on this topic. It's amazing how persuasive an argument based on evidence and facts can be. :cool:

decksnap

Aug 30, 2006, 09:09 AM

I think the debate ends with "a multi-button mouse cannot possibly be less productive".

My debate as stated earlier was that a one button mouse isn't less productive, not that it is more productive. I do find contextual menus useless but that's just because I am beyond them for the most part- and when I do use them, it is from they keyboard.

Mr. Mister

Aug 30, 2006, 09:21 AM

But a multi-button mouse will always have the chance, in the right hands, of being more productive. For example, scrolling and working in any 3D app.

decksnap

Aug 30, 2006, 09:31 AM

But a multi-button mouse will always have the chance, in the right hands, of being more productive. For example, scrolling and working in any 3D app.

uggh. read the thread. :rolleyes:

Mr. Mister

Aug 30, 2006, 09:36 AM

I don't need to unless you can tell me what's wrong about my argument.

decksnap

Aug 30, 2006, 09:56 AM

What are you 12? Read the thread because all of this has been hashed out already.

Mr. Mister

Aug 30, 2006, 10:45 AM

I was just stating my opinion, I don't need to read the thread to do that.

solvs

Aug 31, 2006, 12:26 AM

Yeah, but if you are a recent switcher like me, the loss of that second mouse button can feel like losing an arm.
You know you can buy any USB mouse and it'll work fine right? Or just configure your Mighty Mouse as a 2 button one. Or just hold down the 1 button in most apps and a contextual menu pops up.

I was just stating my opinion, I don't need to read the thread to do that.
Maybe it was the way you presented it. ;) Be nice, and back something up if you're going to present it as fact. People can be just as productive with a 1 button mouse if they know how to maneuver the OS (Blue for example), but some are more comfortable with more buttons. I, for one, have a Logitech with 6 buttons. I even use the other 5 occasionally. :p

dsnort

Aug 31, 2006, 06:46 AM

You know you can buy any USB mouse and it'll work fine right? Or just configure your Mighty Mouse as a 2 button one. Or just hold down the 1 button in most apps and a contextual menu pops up.

Yeah, I figured all that out. But it was a stressful couple of days until I did. And though I tried to like it, I eventualy gave the MM the heave ho. Took the M$ mouse off my old PC and it's working fine, ( the M$ mouse is really very decent).

Macmadant

Aug 31, 2006, 07:39 AM

Yeah, I figured all that out. But it was a stressful couple of days until I did. And though I tried to like it, I eventualy gave the MM the heave ho. Took the M$ mouse off my old PC and it's working fine, ( the M$ mouse is really very decent).
Well of course the M$ mouse is good it's not even made by them, they get someone else to make it and slap their logo on it (although i don't recall who makes them)

vvv

Aug 31, 2006, 09:38 AM

Well of course the M$ mouse is good it's not even made by them, they get someone else to make it and slap their logo on it (although i don't recall who makes them)

Unlike apple who makes all of their own stuff......

Mackilroy

Aug 31, 2006, 01:21 PM

OmniWeb is far better than Safari, but again, Safari is bundled with Mac OS X, and people use what is already there.

This is more a matter of personal preference – I've used both Omnieb and Safari and I prefer Safari.

JAT

Aug 31, 2006, 02:01 PM

You are all wrong. I only use 4 buttoned trackballs. They are far more productive than your puny 2 buttons. And cause no carpal pain.

I used to use QuicKeys or equivalent all the time to make the keyboard more productive, along with my trackball. Now that I'm forced to use WinXP at work, I've given up on ease of use for the keyboard, Windows is the worst OS in history for keyboard shortcut use. Ctrl-F4 to close a window, wtf?!

kadajawi

Aug 31, 2006, 06:54 PM

Windows is the worst OS in history for keyboard shortcut use. Ctrl-F4 to close a window, wtf?!
Doesn't that make sense when Alt+F4 closes a program? Recently I switched, and I am really missing Strg+Arrows to move quickly in texts, etc.

RacerX

Aug 31, 2006, 07:44 PM

This is more a matter of personal preference...Perhaps... but I can do amazing things in OmniWeb that can't be done in any other browser.

:rolleyes:

Where as in Safari I can, well, browse.

JMG

Aug 31, 2006, 07:57 PM

i mean two button mouses, intel processors, i was happy being different, i don't like being the same as everyone else.:confused:

so even if it's better you don't want it because it's the same?

BTW Apple computers were always PCs.

Macmadant

Sep 1, 2006, 06:20 AM

so even if it's better you don't want it because it's the same?

BTW Apple computers were always PCs.

No this was ages ago, and I'm over the Intel switch now and can see it's for the better, heck when they announced they were switching i got quoted in a financial times article,, you say about the PC thing, if you walked into PC world and asked for a PC they wouldn't offer you a mac

JAT

Sep 1, 2006, 02:46 PM

Doesn't that make sense when Alt+F4 closes a program? Recently I switched, and I am really missing Strg+Arrows to move quickly in texts, etc.
Point is, it is hard to use, making it almost unused. I'll bet there are more Cmd-Q users than there are Alt-F4 users, and Win users outnumber Mac users 20 to 1.

Chone

Sep 1, 2006, 03:27 PM

Point is, it is hard to use, making it almost unused. I'll bet there are more Cmd-Q users than there are Alt-F4 users, and Win users outnumber Mac users 20 to 1.

Honest, command+q is more intuitive but learning alt+f4 is not that hard :p

FadeToBlack

Sep 1, 2006, 03:37 PM

Point is, it is hard to use, making it almost unused. I'll bet there are more Cmd-Q users than there are Alt-F4 users, and Win users outnumber Mac users 20 to 1.

I'd almost guarantee it. The keyboard shortcuts in Mac OS X are consistent across most, if not all applications, too, which makes them much easier to learn. I never used keyboard shortcuts in Windows, but put me on a Mac and I use the keyboard more than I do the mouse.

decksnap

Sep 1, 2006, 03:39 PM

Plus apple+tab, apple+`, apple+Q, apple+W and apple+S are all right in a nice little grouping next to each other, making them really easy to use in rapid succession, since they are the type of commands you would use one after the other after the other.

Chone

Sep 1, 2006, 06:11 PM

On topic: Hardware wise, from a technical standpoint, Apple computers have sucked (recently), the only thing that makes them good is artistic and ergonomics design, the more Apple hardware is more similar and similar to PC hardware, the better... Apple will give it its artistic and ergonomics touch and it will be even better, take Mighty Mouse for example, not my favorite mouse but an awesome take on 2 button mice, one button was the most retarded thing ever, made the computer harder to use than easier, now take for example Mac Pro, one of the best pre-built computers for the price OVERALL even as a PC and since it can run OS X, I can't think of another 2500-3000$ pre-built computer I would even consider buying besides a Mac Pro, Mac or PC, excluding laptops which are a different category all on its own.

And the "I want to be different" statement is the most stupid thing I've ever heard, as a consumer you should always strive for the best product your money can buy, not the most un-popular, honestly I don't buy Macs to be different, I buy them to run OSX and the more similar they are becoming to PCs the more I'm liking them.

If you want to be different why don't you abandon computers altogether.