From: ibhan@husc8.harvard.edu (Ishir Bhan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Macintosh advocacy (really!)
Date: 19 Nov 92 20:51:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc8.ibhan.722206280
 <1992Oct23.211012.20812@javelin.sim.es.com> <bmccnnll.720056834@unix1.tcd.ie> 
   <1992Oct28.041251.118883@watson.ibm.com> <1992Oct29.051139.11315@cs.uow.edu.au> <6281.2af56fde@hayes.com> <1992

u9147063@cs.uow.edu.au (Richard Barry Ling) writes:

>Two points here

>1. On a multitasking machine the CPU can be doing other things.  Even if a
>program is polling for the mouse button, with pre-emptive multitasking the
>other programs still get a chance to run.

I think he was talking more about the user.  The user has to decide which
button to push.  Most people I know have trouble remembering how to use
menus vs. how to drag objects.  Two mouse buttons only complicates things
further.  It's often something that people who are experienced users have
trouble relating to.

>2. After an hour or so on an Amiga, no user is in the dark about which button
>to use, since each button serves a very specific and unvarying function.  On
>the Mac, there is no option for people to move onto a multi-button mouse
>(providing greater freedom) after they spend an hour mastering a one-button
>mouse; they are locked into it for life.

If you really want another mouse button you can buy one.  The Mac System
Software structure would allow you to use a CP to define the other
button's function.  The popular Kensington TurboMouse employs use of a
second button like this.

>Well done.  Point being, attempting to make a system as simple to use as
>possible will inversely affect its functionality.  The fact that Mac has one
>mouse button makes it (just a tad) easier to master than an Amiga with two.
>But it reduces the functionality.

I've never really noticed a lack in functionality.  With the mac, the
equivalent of having two more buttons can be replaced with pushing a
command, option, shift, or control key while clicking on the mouse.  Since
most people keep one hand ont he keyboard while using the mouse, this is
not a problem.  Since, however, there is only one button on the mouse,
most programs design their software so that only simple single clicks are
necessary, and that users can use only the mouse button for all but
high-end functions.  With a second button, I've noticed that many software
developers are tempted into providing some function for it where 1 button
would suffice.

>With a more complex system, new users can use the menus and requestors, more
>advanced users can hit hotkeys without taking their hands from the keyboard.
>Provided, of course, your keyboard has any decent hotkeys.  Looking at this
>Mac right here running the terminal emulator, I see it only has one
>available (clover key).

Most macs (all current models?) have an option key as well, and a shift
key, and a control key.  Many have F-keys (supported by software or with a
utility).  Combinations of these can provide many functions.  Return
serves to click on the default button in a dialog, and there several
freeware or shareware utilities that let you either control other buttons
or choose menus, etc from the keyboard.  I think you may want to try to
become more experienced with the Mac becore you attack the lack of
feautres that actually exist.

>If another button was to be introduced, software would have to support it to
>make it viable. (There'd have to be a keyboard equivalent, for users of
>single-button mice.)  Then you may find it becomes very popular with more
>experienced Mac users.

I've used systems with multiple mouse buttons a lot (not the Amiga - in
fact, although I deal with computers a lot, I haven't seen an Amiga in
years - perhaps that says something).  I just don't like it.  It provides
unnecessary complications for limited extra functionality.


>A/UX is expensive, huge, memory hungry, CPU intensive, and requires a Sun
>workstation, which is not a cheap piece of hardware.  And it still does not

Again, don't post comments like that unless you know what you're talking
about.  A/UX is a unix package for the Mac and has nothing to do with a
Sun workstation.  IT is pre-emptively multitasking.

>I accept it, and only feel glad that Commodore did not lock its users into
>non-proportional scroll bars, just for the sake of the first few hours when
>the new user is learning to use the system.  I have no recollection of ever
>being confused by proportional scroll bars while learning about my system.

What's the big deal about the scroll bars?  I personally prefer
non-proportional ones.

>Many of the Mac advocacy articles here, arguing about graphics quality,
>sound, multitasking, you name it, seem to consist solely of several
>instances of the phrase "This is not an issue in System 7".  How many Mac
>users have System 7?  None that I know.  I certainly can't run it on this
>machine.

A very large number as far as I know.  Almost all the Mac users I know run
System 7.  Those that don't probably don't have any use for the extra
features.
-- 
             --      Ishir Bhan (ibhan@husc.harvard.edu)      --