Fuck, Apple can't even get people to understand that they don't support third party product ("What do you mean I have to call griffen to get my year old iTrip fixed?") and don't support HP iPods, you think people are smart enough to read a compatability list. How often to morons ask at the stores "will this game run on my computer" when the minimum system requirements are listed on the box?
Ah yes, this makes sense. Let's waste government money and time (which by the way, comes out of my pocket) to dispute something which is not in dispute, and in order to further piss off said cop and judge and everyone else who's time you waste for nothing. Because a cop who has to get up at 9AM, because your stupid ass wants to fight a 30 over ticket you got while speeding through Shady Glenn doing 102 in a 35, after working a 12 hour shift the day before is going to be real fucking lenient the next time he sees you.
The us vs them mentality that you and your ilk have towards cops and the law is exactly why the cops and the law have no respect for you.
Because that's exactly what we need. 5.1 music. Fuck, most artists can't even get 2 chanels of sound right, why the fuck do I want it to be in 5.1? Especialy since of all the audio devices that play music exactly 1 of them is 5.1 and that's my home stereo system, where I'm least likely to put on audio and listen to it in a way suited to enjoying 5.1 sound.
See, now you're moving into the realm of problems with the implimentation rather than problems with the idea, and this is much easier to deal with. Free floating information can be easily dealt with with encryption. Imagine if the same people that have access to the DMV records (so no one new in the equation) have access to a computer which contains the ability to decode the information on the license plate, and the information on the chip on the plate is encrypted. Just because it's RFID doesn't mean it has to be wide open.
As far as your cheating problem goes, well, quite simply you're screwed anyway. I mean think about it. If it's your wife's brother or a friend of his and suddenly you're acting all wierd, he's going to want to know why, and he'll look into it on his own.
Wow you're dense and have horrible reading comprehension.
f a chip in a security badge can hold my name, address, medical history and fingerprints, a chip the size of a license plate could certianly hold an address. And before you say "But they won't", how do you know? And how can you prove it if someone just tells you?
The point was, all the information you fear the chip giving to the cops is freely availible to them because it's all tied to your LICENCE PLATE which is on the back of your car already. If you're parked at Anti-Bush Ralley 721, and they want to know who's there, they don't need RFID, your license plate gives them all they could want.
Because I'm hosting a surprise birthday party for a friend and I want to KEEP it a surprise. Or maybe I'm visiting a child I gave up for adoption that none of my friends knows about. Or, maybe, just possibly, it's none of your damn business - or the police's if they don't have a better 'probable cause' than that. If they have enough probable cause to get a warrant out of a judge, then I'll give them my life story if they want it. Until then, they have no need to know.
Because of course the cops are going to go and blab to your friends about the suprise party you're planning (why are you there at the time of a murder if the party is in the future though?) or tell everyone that you're a whore who fucks everything that moves. They have nothing better to do than to blab your deepest darkest secrets all over town. As far as it being their business it is. You see they're investigating a crime, and thus it is there business to know why people who were at the crime scene who don't belong there were there. You don't have to give them your life story, you don't have to let them search your house and car, and yes, you don't have to tell them why you were there, however, life is so much easier when one learns that a little communication can go a long way. A simple "I was planning a suprise party for a friend" gives them everything they need and nothing they don't.
But providing tools to let idiots be even bigger idiots is a good thing, right?
Which is why we shouldn't issue cops guns, the ability to check on license plates, handcuffs, any powers of arrest whatsoever and a car. After all, having tools that give a small minority the ability to make an ass of themselves is far more dangerous than not giving cops access to tools which make their job easier and safer.
And the police don't care either. I'm a number that popped into their database that they can profile anyway they want - or sell to the highest bidder. Did you see anything in saying they wouldn't. And if you did, do you have enough ESP to be absolutely sure that in the future they never will? Governments will always need money. And selling information would be a real quick way to get it.
So now we've gone from being paranoid that the government will arrest you for exercising your right of freedom of assebly to being paranoid that they will tell the wold you have an illegitimate child to being paranoid that they're going to collect and sell information on your driving habits to the highest bidder? Here's a hint my friend, the government already has huge collections of information about you, and any information the government could collect from the RFID tags in license plates is already availible to the highest bidder beccause it's all owned by private companies.
I hope for your sake, you always pay in cash, always use public transportation, a bike or walk, never look up at anything or anyone and never never never use any credit or loans for anything and I certainly hope that your internet connection is provided to you free of charge by the coffe shops you never visit more than once because otherwise, you're in the database, and your information is already bought and sold.
No, I can't imagine a single "bureaucrat" who cares where I was at 2:00AM. But I can imagine a "bureaucrat" who might be interested in those cars sitting outside the headquarters for anti-way rally. Who owns them? Where do they live? They must be anti-American scum who don't believe in our president.
Because the license plate number on the back of the vehicle can't provide them with that information.
Or better yet--gee, your car was a block away while this brutal murder happened. What were you doing in that neighborhood? What, you don't want to tell us? Could you have been doing something you shouldn't? Perhaps we should investigate you more.
Why don't you want to say? As has been pointed out many a time before, so much could be resolved if people would just bother to communicate.
Better yet--you're black and your car was parked close to this robbery! Well, that makes you a chief suspect right there. After all, what was a black man doing parked in this predominantly white neighborhood. He must have been up to no good.
Because RFID is the cause of all racism.
Good point. That's why I don't worry about spyware on my computer. After all, I'm only one of several hundred million people on line. Why would anybody target me?
But they aren't targeting you. You see, you don't matter. The spy ware companies don't care whether you're a quadrapalegic or you like fucking animals or you sit naked while surfing slashdot except insofar as it's information they can sell. But they don't care about you as a person. You are nothing and if you died tomorrow, they wouldn't care.
And what "real world" is this? There are only 3 real world situations I can think of where you don't have access to reference information when you really need it:
1) Who wants to be a millionare
2) Hostage situation with the riddler
3) Flying down the highway at 100 MPH with no brakes.
Beyond that, you always have reference or you've done the task repetatively enough that reference is unneeded.
Odd, my spelling improved dramatically since I got a computer. As a kid, I could not spell for the life of me. It was just something I couldn't do. I had an excellent command of the english language and was easily one of the best writers in any of my classes but I couldn't spell worth a damn. Then I got a computer, and between spell check (the non automatic kind) and the fact that I could easily and quickly go back and fix errors until the word looked right, my spelling improved 100 fold.
If I remember right from the last upgrade I bought, it isn't quite a 1:1 just because bus speed and some other things have improved over time, but it's a definate improvement.
If you have a sawtooth, it looks like you have a decent ammount oc cache already so you won't see much benefit there. A system bus of 100 Mhz is going to hurt somewhat for the processor given that just about everything G4 is running at 167 now.
Odd that one who is so insisant that people "decide for themselves" is so intent on convincing other people that their decisions are not only wrong but made from ingnorance.
Without knowing more about your tower (like which type of G4 tower it was) it sounds like if you're looking for a processor upgrade, you want one of these:
As far as memory goes, with the exception of the lowest end G4 you can max that thing out at 2 gigs, and I highly recomend you do. Memory will give you so much more life out of your mac than processor upgrades (not that a processor upgrade hurts mind you)
That G4 is more than serviceable. Just throw some extra memory into it. Sure, at 6 years it's starting to get on in age but you'd be amazed what a bit of extra memory can do for it.
Right-click, C, Alt+Tab, Ctrl+V, Alt+Tab. Rinse, repeat 9 times. Now imagine yourself doing it the hard^H^H^H^HMac way.
No one said the alternative single button method would be faster. I never stated that anywhere. I simply stated that such a method should exist.
But it's a different matter entirely. Yes, top menu may be more logical to a first-time computer user, but it's 2005 already, it's time to stop designing software for newbies only. The context menu is a learned location, but once it's learned, it's more logical for certain kinds of functionality (basically for everything related to the active object). For a somewhat experienced computer user the context menu is the first place to look for such functionality.
No no no no no no no. We should NEVER stop designing applications for new users. The day the world stops designing applications with new users in mind is the day that we go back to the command line for everything.
This is a strawman attack. No one has ever said that it should be the only way.
Oh really? Allow me to quote you:
This is an arbitrary requirement that doesn't make sense. Why shouldn't the user be required to use the right mouse button?
Sounds like you do think it should be the only way.
I'm done. My point was and always has been that the requirement the developers write their programs so that all functionality can be accessed without using more than one button is a good requirement.
Do you mean load a new page and copy its address? What if it's not available? What if you suspect it's a trojan (and want to copy the link to your e-mail to tech. support)? What if you need to copy 10 links?
Hey, it isn't Apple's fault the web broke conventions making a single click activate the item. That said, the problem is easily solved by clicking and dragging a link to whereever you want to copy it to, even less steps than a context menu.
Pray tell, how does one copy 10 links with a single context menu?
Open Help index, click on features. Look through the document, just like you would look through the menu. A nice way to discover the functionality, isn't it?
And how many applications have you used where the online documentation (or hell even the supplied documentation) was useful for discovering new features?
All your argument is based on the assumption that the top menu is a logical place to look for functionality, while the context menu is not. Guess what, this assumption is false.
No, the assumption is that the top menu is the primary logical location, and that a context menu is a logical secondary and learned location which is a true assumption.
Context menus should be used in specifica cases, when you have several objects and want to perform and action on one of them. Yes, it's possible to replicate the functionality with the menu. But it's faster for the users to open the context menu, it's natural and expected (once they learn what the right click is) and there is no reason why it shouldn't be used.
Again, I am not saying that context menus should not be used. I am saying that a context menu should not be the ONLY way to access functionality.
One may argue that most functionality should also be accessible using a keyboard shortcut, a menu, a voice command, a command line switch, etc., but one thing is clear - there is nothing wrong with making the context menu activated by the right mouse button the primary way of performing an action. It is quick, it is natural and that's enough.
No it's not enough, because it isn't natural untill you know that a particular action is associated with such an object.
Furthermore, you should read some of the other posts detailing where context menus are nearly useless such as any assisted computing device.
What, are you running a marathon with it? Perhaps you have small hands, but the mouse is designed to perfectly fit into the palm of the average persons hand and give your hand a comfortable place to rest while using it.
Not at all, but if you can't see that the MX 1000 is bigger and bulkier than your average mouse, you're not using an MX 1000. I like the bulk because it's wireless and so the wieghting it provides gives good resistance but it's still big compared to most mice
Again, this must be due to some hand deformity.
Not at all try this. Grab the MX 1000 in your hand and lift it off the desk. Grab it so that it fits comfortably and then loosen the muscles of your wrist so that your wrist sits at it's natural angle. Now place the mouse and your hand back on the desk. Notice that the mouse is at an angle rather than properly oriented.
In a resting position, my thumb sits directly below the forward/back buttons. Because of their shape I can simply angle my thumb slightly upwards (or inwards, I guess) and it presses the appropriate button.
Using the task button does require a little bit more movement of my thumb. I have to bend it a bit and "aim" for the task button... but it's not all that common to use that button anyway. (I do use it, however, as the voice comm button for Counter Strike, and that works well.)
The problem is, that doesn't feel natural. At least to me. I don't like just smushing a button, I like actually pressing it, so I aim for any of those side buttons.
Care to be a bit more specific? I find myself using the download scroll button quite often. I set it to basically be a page down so I can quickly scroll through documents. Works great. I don't use the scroll up button very often, however.
I just don't like them. Their positioning makes the up one useful and the down one worthless, and since the page down is a more likely used function than the page up, this makes them rather useless as a pair. Me, I would have preferred them both to be just above the scroll wheel so that they're both easily accessable.
Your mouse must be busted, man. My left/right buttons require the exact same amount of pressure, as far as I can tell.
Possible but doesn't change the fact that this is my experience with the mouse.
So you would rather have a mouse that in no way matches the contours of your hand and instead more closely mimics the contours of a squished twinkie.
The problem is, it doesn't match the contours of my hand at all. It is by far the closest of the mice I've used, but it still doesn't match, and if it isn't going to match, then I'd rather have a symetrical mouse because I'm left handed and I like being able to grip the mouse with either hand depending on what I happen to be doing at the time.
Awkward to grip, causes the mouse to often orient at a slight angle.
The buttons on the side are useless, requiring far too much of a contortion to get to work.
Scroll wheel is nice, scroll buttons suck.
left and right click require different ammounts of force to initiate, very disconcerting for the first few days.
Rechargeable batteries = good
However, despite it's short commings, I do like the mouse and feel it's the best in it's class, as evidenced by the fact that it's sitting here in front of me but I might just go a pick up this Apple mouse because one thing I hate about modern mice is ergonomics. I don't want funky contours, I want a symetrical mouse.
Yes, it works the same for the mighty mouse. You really have to give the sides a squeeze to get them to activate so it will work fine for picking up when you run out of desk space.
Maybe it's just me (and every other person I know) but I don't spend a whole lot of time looking at my mouse, so visual cues as to the buttons are worthless to me. If I right click and get a context menu, I'm using a two button mouse, if I right click and get a click, then I'm using a one button mouse. This is no more or less confusing than using any mouse because in case you didn't notice, the functionality of mice in windows can be changed as well.
Most users will not be confused because:
1) The mouse gets it's bahavior from user preferences.
2) Using the mouse like a one button mouse makes it act like a one button mouse. You have to make an actual right click motion with your hand (which is different than the motion you make on a one button mouse) in order to generate a right click.
Remind me again, how do you copy link addresses in Safari without using right mouse button or command+click?
Click on a link and copy it out of the adress bar.
When you have a number of objects that you want to be able to act on, you either need to focus on them (select) and use the menu, or just right click. Right-clicking, once taught, is much more intuitive, because, unlike with the menus, you don't need to hunt 5-10 lists (and the sublists), you are shown the relevant actions that you can perform on this particular object at this particular moment.
True, but just because it's more convenient doesn't mean that it should be the only way. The menus give me the commands I can execute, the mouse allows me to select objects, therefore I should be able to select an object and chose a command from the menu. I am not denying the usefulness or the functionality behind a context menu however it is bad programing design to hide commands only in a contex menu.
And to discover all possible right-clicking functionality you can read the help. I don't see how looking through all menus is better.
Tell me, how do you know what to look for in help if you don't even know the command exists?
There is no reason why all functions should be discoverable on startup from the menu. If you want to see what's possible to do with an object, right click on it. Sounds extremely straight-forward and logical.
Yes there is a reason. Discoverability. I should not have to hunt and pick through ever possible object to know what the various functions I have at my fingertips are. Should you be able to? YES. Should it be the only way? NO.
Why shouldn't they be forced to? Because it's non discoverable that way if you don't make it that way. If I want to see the functions I can have in a program, a brief tour of the menus tells me everything I need to know. If functionality is hidden in context menus it may never be discovered.
Click on the desktop, press the Shortcut key (or whatever it's called, the one between Windows key and the right Ctrl).
Or press Ctrl+Esc, press Esc, press Tab two or three times, Press Shift+F10, then use arrows and Enter to choose create new folder. See? You don't even need a mouse or special Windows keys...
And a user is supposed to know to do this because...........?
it does appear that you need to remove your index finger from the left side to make a right click, however, this isn't nearly as unnatural as it seems, but then, that just could be how I mouse naturaly.
Actually, from a logical standpoint, the modifier key is the correct way to do this by default. The mouse is a pointing and selection device, thus the commands issued to the computer should be "I wasnt to do X with this". Thus if in the case of downloading a link, the option key tells the system to download, so download THIS and then click on what THIS is. Granted this would work even better if there were a key that said download, but personaly, I would hate to see them cram any more keys into a laptop already:)
It's not a matter of not using the right mouse button. It's that you shouldn't have to use the right mouse button.
Tell me, in windows, how do I create a new folder on the desktop from the desktop?
That's exactly what Apple aims to avoid. You can have second mouse button functionality all you want, but you shouldn't be FORCED to use that functionality, just like, if I so chose, I don't need to use a mouse.
Assuming you don't have 2 accounts, this is accomplished by the fact that defautl behavior in two button mose says that if a user clicks with their fingers covering both sides of the mouse (like most novice users) it's a left click.
Slashdot Mirror
Fuck, Apple can't even get people to understand that they don't support third party product ("What do you mean I have to call griffen to get my year old iTrip fixed?") and don't support HP iPods, you think people are smart enough to read a compatability list. How often to morons ask at the stores "will this game run on my computer" when the minimum system requirements are listed on the box?
Ah yes, this makes sense. Let's waste government money and time (which by the way, comes out of my pocket) to dispute something which is not in dispute, and in order to further piss off said cop and judge and everyone else who's time you waste for nothing. Because a cop who has to get up at 9AM, because your stupid ass wants to fight a 30 over ticket you got while speeding through Shady Glenn doing 102 in a 35, after working a 12 hour shift the day before is going to be real fucking lenient the next time he sees you.
The us vs them mentality that you and your ilk have towards cops and the law is exactly why the cops and the law have no respect for you.
Because that's exactly what we need. 5.1 music. Fuck, most artists can't even get 2 chanels of sound right, why the fuck do I want it to be in 5.1? Especialy since of all the audio devices that play music exactly 1 of them is 5.1 and that's my home stereo system, where I'm least likely to put on audio and listen to it in a way suited to enjoying 5.1 sound.
See, now you're moving into the realm of problems with the implimentation rather than problems with the idea, and this is much easier to deal with. Free floating information can be easily dealt with with encryption. Imagine if the same people that have access to the DMV records (so no one new in the equation) have access to a computer which contains the ability to decode the information on the license plate, and the information on the chip on the plate is encrypted. Just because it's RFID doesn't mean it has to be wide open.
As far as your cheating problem goes, well, quite simply you're screwed anyway. I mean think about it. If it's your wife's brother or a friend of his and suddenly you're acting all wierd, he's going to want to know why, and he'll look into it on his own.
Wow you're dense and have horrible reading comprehension.
f a chip in a security badge can hold my name, address, medical history and fingerprints, a chip the size of a license plate could certianly hold an address. And before you say "But they won't", how do you know? And how can you prove it if someone just tells you?
The point was, all the information you fear the chip giving to the cops is freely availible to them because it's all tied to your LICENCE PLATE which is on the back of your car already. If you're parked at Anti-Bush Ralley 721, and they want to know who's there, they don't need RFID, your license plate gives them all they could want.
Because I'm hosting a surprise birthday party for a friend and I want to KEEP it a surprise. Or maybe I'm visiting a child I gave up for adoption that none of my friends knows about. Or, maybe, just possibly, it's none of your damn business - or the police's if they don't have a better 'probable cause' than that. If they have enough probable cause to get a warrant out of a judge, then I'll give them my life story if they want it. Until then, they have no need to know.
Because of course the cops are going to go and blab to your friends about the suprise party you're planning (why are you there at the time of a murder if the party is in the future though?) or tell everyone that you're a whore who fucks everything that moves. They have nothing better to do than to blab your deepest darkest secrets all over town. As far as it being their business it is. You see they're investigating a crime, and thus it is there business to know why people who were at the crime scene who don't belong there were there. You don't have to give them your life story, you don't have to let them search your house and car, and yes, you don't have to tell them why you were there, however, life is so much easier when one learns that a little communication can go a long way. A simple "I was planning a suprise party for a friend" gives them everything they need and nothing they don't.
But providing tools to let idiots be even bigger idiots is a good thing, right?
Which is why we shouldn't issue cops guns, the ability to check on license plates, handcuffs, any powers of arrest whatsoever and a car. After all, having tools that give a small minority the ability to make an ass of themselves is far more dangerous than not giving cops access to tools which make their job easier and safer.
And the police don't care either. I'm a number that popped into their database that they can profile anyway they want - or sell to the highest bidder. Did you see anything in saying they wouldn't. And if you did, do you have enough ESP to be absolutely sure that in the future they never will? Governments will always need money. And selling information would be a real quick way to get it.
So now we've gone from being paranoid that the government will arrest you for exercising your right of freedom of assebly to being paranoid that they will tell the wold you have an illegitimate child to being paranoid that they're going to collect and sell information on your driving habits to the highest bidder? Here's a hint my friend, the government already has huge collections of information about you, and any information the government could collect from the RFID tags in license plates is already availible to the highest bidder beccause it's all owned by private companies.
I hope for your sake, you always pay in cash, always use public transportation, a bike or walk, never look up at anything or anyone and never never never use any credit or loans for anything and I certainly hope that your internet connection is provided to you free of charge by the coffe shops you never visit more than once because otherwise, you're in the database, and your information is already bought and sold.
No, I can't imagine a single "bureaucrat" who cares where I was at 2:00AM. But I can imagine a "bureaucrat" who might be interested in those cars sitting outside the headquarters for anti-way rally. Who owns them? Where do they live? They must be anti-American scum who don't believe in our president.
Because the license plate number on the back of the vehicle can't provide them with that information.
Or better yet--gee, your car was a block away while this brutal murder happened. What were you doing in that neighborhood? What, you don't want to tell us? Could you have been doing something you shouldn't? Perhaps we should investigate you more.
Why don't you want to say? As has been pointed out many a time before, so much could be resolved if people would just bother to communicate.
Better yet--you're black and your car was parked close to this robbery! Well, that makes you a chief suspect right there. After all, what was a black man doing parked in this predominantly white neighborhood. He must have been up to no good.
Because RFID is the cause of all racism.
Good point. That's why I don't worry about spyware on my computer. After all, I'm only one of several hundred million people on line. Why would anybody target me?
But they aren't targeting you. You see, you don't matter. The spy ware companies don't care whether you're a quadrapalegic or you like fucking animals or you sit naked while surfing slashdot except insofar as it's information they can sell. But they don't care about you as a person. You are nothing and if you died tomorrow, they wouldn't care.
And what "real world" is this? There are only 3 real world situations I can think of where you don't have access to reference information when you really need it:
1) Who wants to be a millionare
2) Hostage situation with the riddler
3) Flying down the highway at 100 MPH with no brakes.
Beyond that, you always have reference or you've done the task repetatively enough that reference is unneeded.
Odd, my spelling improved dramatically since I got a computer. As a kid, I could not spell for the life of me. It was just something I couldn't do. I had an excellent command of the english language and was easily one of the best writers in any of my classes but I couldn't spell worth a damn. Then I got a computer, and between spell check (the non automatic kind) and the fact that I could easily and quickly go back and fix errors until the word looked right, my spelling improved 100 fold.
If I remember right from the last upgrade I bought, it isn't quite a 1:1 just because bus speed and some other things have improved over time, but it's a definate improvement.
If you have a sawtooth, it looks like you have a decent ammount oc cache already so you won't see much benefit there. A system bus of 100 Mhz is going to hurt somewhat for the processor given that just about everything G4 is running at 167 now.
Odd that one who is so insisant that people "decide for themselves" is so intent on convincing other people that their decisions are not only wrong but made from ingnorance.
Without knowing more about your tower (like which type of G4 tower it was) it sounds like if you're looking for a processor upgrade, you want one of these:
e ncorestg4
http://www.sonnettech.com/product/pricelist.html#
As far as memory goes, with the exception of the lowest end G4 you can max that thing out at 2 gigs, and I highly recomend you do. Memory will give you so much more life out of your mac than processor upgrades (not that a processor upgrade hurts mind you)
That G4 is more than serviceable. Just throw some extra memory into it. Sure, at 6 years it's starting to get on in age but you'd be amazed what a bit of extra memory can do for it.
Right-click, C, Alt+Tab, Ctrl+V, Alt+Tab.
Rinse, repeat 9 times. Now imagine yourself doing it the hard^H^H^H^HMac way.
No one said the alternative single button method would be faster. I never stated that anywhere. I simply stated that such a method should exist.
But it's a different matter entirely. Yes, top menu may be more logical to a first-time computer user, but it's 2005 already, it's time to stop designing software for newbies only. The context menu is a learned location, but once it's learned, it's more logical for certain kinds of functionality (basically for everything related to the active object). For a somewhat experienced computer user the context menu is the first place to look for such functionality.
No no no no no no no. We should NEVER stop designing applications for new users. The day the world stops designing applications with new users in mind is the day that we go back to the command line for everything.
This is a strawman attack. No one has ever said that it should be the only way.
Oh really? Allow me to quote you:
This is an arbitrary requirement that doesn't make sense. Why shouldn't the user be required to use the right mouse button?
Sounds like you do think it should be the only way.
I'm done. My point was and always has been that the requirement the developers write their programs so that all functionality can be accessed without using more than one button is a good requirement.
Do you mean load a new page and copy its address? What if it's not available? What if you suspect it's a trojan (and want to copy the link to your e-mail to tech. support)? What if you need to copy 10 links?
Hey, it isn't Apple's fault the web broke conventions making a single click activate the item. That said, the problem is easily solved by clicking and dragging a link to whereever you want to copy it to, even less steps than a context menu.
Pray tell, how does one copy 10 links with a single context menu?
Open Help index, click on features. Look through the document, just like you would look through the menu. A nice way to discover the functionality, isn't it?
And how many applications have you used where the online documentation (or hell even the supplied documentation) was useful for discovering new features?
All your argument is based on the assumption that the top menu is a logical place to look for functionality, while the context menu is not. Guess what, this assumption is false.
No, the assumption is that the top menu is the primary logical location, and that a context menu is a logical secondary and learned location which is a true assumption.
Context menus should be used in specifica cases, when you have several objects and want to perform and action on one of them. Yes, it's possible to replicate the functionality with the menu. But it's faster for the users to open the context menu, it's natural and expected (once they learn what the right click is) and there is no reason why it shouldn't be used.
Again, I am not saying that context menus should not be used. I am saying that a context menu should not be the ONLY way to access functionality.
One may argue that most functionality should also be accessible using a keyboard shortcut, a menu, a voice command, a command line switch, etc., but one thing is clear - there is nothing wrong with making the context menu activated by the right mouse button the primary way of performing an action. It is quick, it is natural and that's enough.
No it's not enough, because it isn't natural untill you know that a particular action is associated with such an object.
Furthermore, you should read some of the other posts detailing where context menus are nearly useless such as any assisted computing device.
What, are you running a marathon with it? Perhaps you have small hands, but the mouse is designed to perfectly fit into the palm of the average persons hand and give your hand a comfortable place to rest while using it.
Not at all, but if you can't see that the MX 1000 is bigger and bulkier than your average mouse, you're not using an MX 1000. I like the bulk because it's wireless and so the wieghting it provides gives good resistance but it's still big compared to most mice
Again, this must be due to some hand deformity.
Not at all try this. Grab the MX 1000 in your hand and lift it off the desk. Grab it so that it fits comfortably and then loosen the muscles of your wrist so that your wrist sits at it's natural angle. Now place the mouse and your hand back on the desk. Notice that the mouse is at an angle rather than properly oriented.
In a resting position, my thumb sits directly below the forward/back buttons. Because of their shape I can simply angle my thumb slightly upwards (or inwards, I guess) and it presses the appropriate button.
Using the task button does require a little bit more movement of my thumb. I have to bend it a bit and "aim" for the task button... but it's not all that common to use that button anyway. (I do use it, however, as the voice comm button for Counter Strike, and that works well.)
The problem is, that doesn't feel natural. At least to me. I don't like just smushing a button, I like actually pressing it, so I aim for any of those side buttons.
Care to be a bit more specific? I find myself using the download scroll button quite often. I set it to basically be a page down so I can quickly scroll through documents. Works great. I don't use the scroll up button very often, however.
I just don't like them. Their positioning makes the up one useful and the down one worthless, and since the page down is a more likely used function than the page up, this makes them rather useless as a pair. Me, I would have preferred them both to be just above the scroll wheel so that they're both easily accessable.
Your mouse must be busted, man. My left/right buttons require the exact same amount of pressure, as far as I can tell.
Possible but doesn't change the fact that this is my experience with the mouse.
So you would rather have a mouse that in no way matches the contours of your hand and instead more closely mimics the contours of a squished twinkie.
The problem is, it doesn't match the contours of my hand at all. It is by far the closest of the mice I've used, but it still doesn't match, and if it isn't going to match, then I'd rather have a symetrical mouse because I'm left handed and I like being able to grip the mouse with either hand depending on what I happen to be doing at the time.
My own review of the MX1000
Big and bulky
Awkward to grip, causes the mouse to often orient at a slight angle.
The buttons on the side are useless, requiring far too much of a contortion to get to work.
Scroll wheel is nice, scroll buttons suck.
left and right click require different ammounts of force to initiate, very disconcerting for the first few days.
Rechargeable batteries = good
However, despite it's short commings, I do like the mouse and feel it's the best in it's class, as evidenced by the fact that it's sitting here in front of me but I might just go a pick up this Apple mouse because one thing I hate about modern mice is ergonomics. I don't want funky contours, I want a symetrical mouse.
Sure:
Big and bulky
Awkward to grip, causes the mouse to often orient at a slight angle.
The buttons on the side are useless, requiring far too much of a contortion to get to work.
Scroll wheel is nice, scroll buttons suck.
left and right click require different ammounts of force to initiate, very disconcerting for the first few days.
Rechargeable batteries = good
Yes, it works the same for the mighty mouse. You really have to give the sides a squeeze to get them to activate so it will work fine for picking up when you run out of desk space.
Maybe it's just me (and every other person I know) but I don't spend a whole lot of time looking at my mouse, so visual cues as to the buttons are worthless to me. If I right click and get a context menu, I'm using a two button mouse, if I right click and get a click, then I'm using a one button mouse. This is no more or less confusing than using any mouse because in case you didn't notice, the functionality of mice in windows can be changed as well.
Most users will not be confused because:
1) The mouse gets it's bahavior from user preferences.
2) Using the mouse like a one button mouse makes it act like a one button mouse. You have to make an actual right click motion with your hand (which is different than the motion you make on a one button mouse) in order to generate a right click.
Remind me again, how do you copy link addresses in Safari without using right mouse button or command+click?
Click on a link and copy it out of the adress bar.
When you have a number of objects that you want to be able to act on, you either need to focus on them (select) and use the menu, or just right click. Right-clicking, once taught, is much more intuitive, because, unlike with the menus, you don't need to hunt 5-10 lists (and the sublists), you are shown the relevant actions that you can perform on this particular object at this particular moment.
True, but just because it's more convenient doesn't mean that it should be the only way. The menus give me the commands I can execute, the mouse allows me to select objects, therefore I should be able to select an object and chose a command from the menu. I am not denying the usefulness or the functionality behind a context menu however it is bad programing design to hide commands only in a contex menu.
And to discover all possible right-clicking functionality you can read the help. I don't see how looking through all menus is better.
Tell me, how do you know what to look for in help if you don't even know the command exists?
There is no reason why all functions should be discoverable on startup from the menu. If you want to see what's possible to do with an object, right click on it. Sounds extremely straight-forward and logical.
Yes there is a reason. Discoverability. I should not have to hunt and pick through ever possible object to know what the various functions I have at my fingertips are. Should you be able to? YES. Should it be the only way? NO.
Why shouldn't they be forced to? Because it's non discoverable that way if you don't make it that way. If I want to see the functions I can have in a program, a brief tour of the menus tells me everything I need to know. If functionality is hidden in context menus it may never be discovered.
Click on the desktop, press the Shortcut key (or whatever it's called, the one between Windows key and the right Ctrl).
Or press Ctrl+Esc, press Esc, press Tab two or three times, Press Shift+F10, then use arrows and Enter to choose create new folder. See? You don't even need a mouse or special Windows keys...
And a user is supposed to know to do this because...........?
it does appear that you need to remove your index finger from the left side to make a right click, however, this isn't nearly as unnatural as it seems, but then, that just could be how I mouse naturaly.
Actually, from a logical standpoint, the modifier key is the correct way to do this by default. The mouse is a pointing and selection device, thus the commands issued to the computer should be "I wasnt to do X with this". Thus if in the case of downloading a link, the option key tells the system to download, so download THIS and then click on what THIS is. Granted this would work even better if there were a key that said download, but personaly, I would hate to see them cram any more keys into a laptop already :)
It's not a matter of not using the right mouse button. It's that you shouldn't have to use the right mouse button.
Tell me, in windows, how do I create a new folder on the desktop from the desktop?
That's exactly what Apple aims to avoid. You can have second mouse button functionality all you want, but you shouldn't be FORCED to use that functionality, just like, if I so chose, I don't need to use a mouse.
Assuming you don't have 2 accounts, this is accomplished by the fact that defautl behavior in two button mose says that if a user clicks with their fingers covering both sides of the mouse (like most novice users) it's a left click.