If Apple cannot patent this, although it has been known and used for approx. 50 years now, they will be _SHAMELESSLY_ ripped off!
Show me the previous art!
No really, show me a trackpad shaped like a doughnut and with accompanying software and display so that it can be used to navigate a hierarchically ordered list? It's entirely possible someone else did this (not likely 50 years ago). I've never seen credible evidence though.
The invention machine that is Apple _HAS_ to be protected by any means, as much as possible.
Sarcasm aside do you actually think patents are not beneficial? I know the current patent system is pretty messed up, especially with look-and-feel, business process, and software patents but this is a traditional, real-world patent we're talking about. Like it or not, without Apple computer hardware would be years behind where it is today. So many of the hardware used on all computers was first included by Apple and proven successful by them many years before being adopted by the rest of the market. If Apple or other major companies gain no benefit from spending millions on R&D do you think they will keep doing it? We'd end up with a bunch of companies like Dell who invent nothing and who stay profitable by buying and selling the cheapest components in the largest quantities.
The system as set up says if you invest a lot of money and come up with something new, then you can have exclusive rights to it for 7 years. What has happened is someone is using paperwork submitted some time after the introduction of the ipod (and rejected multiple times) to claim a feature of that invention is already patented by them. Gee I'm sure Microsoft researchers would never abuse the system in a dishonest way. I'm sure MS would never try to engage Apple in an expensive legal battle in order to try to hurt them. Get a clue.
I get the impression from the "tone" of the headline and summary that patents are good as long as Apple owns them. Reality check here.
When has anyone here argued against patents in general? Got a link? I've seen plenty of arguments against software patents, and some against "look-and-feel" patents. I've seen plenty against copyright. I don't recall seeing anyone here take the position that traditional patents (like this one) in general are not beneficial.
If you read about this you'll see this is about an patent filed by a MS researcher for something unrelated to the ipod, but which includes one similar UI element as is in the ipod. He was approved for his patent even though it was applied for many months after the ipod was in stores. Basically, the patent office did not check for prior art one of the many times MS submitted the patent and now they are using it to cause Apple legal headaches. Not really much of a story.
And when you download it from a website somewhere without contact info? Which does happen btw.
So here are the possible scenarios:
download software and run it - if you know what you're doing and are confident you don't need support for this software this is the cheapest option.
download software and contract support or get the software and support through a vendor - if you don't know what you're doing or just want to make sure your ass is covered this is usually cheaper than closed software and gives you the option of going with a different vendor in future without expensive migration costs. This also insures that migration is possible if the software becomes abandoned.
Buy closed source and support from a proprietary vendor - this usually costs more than any other option and often locks you in to a single supplier. If they raise the price or abandon it you're probably screwed.
If you download software and don't arrange for support, or use software written by some shmoe who doesn't even post a contact e-mail address then whether or not the software is open source is the least of your problems.
Managing a recovery plan and running and installing software is completely different from finding a bug in software.
...your point being? If you find a bug with any software you can ask your vendor to fix it and hope they do so. With closed source if they don't want to for some reason you're screwed. With open source you can also hire any number of competing developers to fix it. You might even get it fixed for free if you ask someone nicely.
...admins only get paid about 50k, so finding one who can handle everything is fairly rare.
Any even halfway decent admin should be able to learn. I've never hired anyone who knew how to run all the software required for their job. Everyone I've hired has had to learn, which they are capable of doing. Learning is really not that hard.
...and thus need some form of support. The thing to remember is that not everyone is an UberGeek.
They don't have to be ubergeeks. If you need support, buy support. It's not like there aren't dozens of companies like IBM that provide exactly that support. With open source you can often even choose from among a number of good, competing vendors. For some reason that often makes your support costs much lower than when you are locked into one vendor. All your arguments have been, "But if I don't know what I'm doing and don't buy support I'm I'll have problems." Well either figure out what you're doing, or buy support. This is not rocket science.
Until something doesn't work, then who do you call?
Umm, your vendor or whomever you contracted for support.
...in a corporate(business) environment, if something goes down, it has to be back up fast and without support, how does one accomplish that if it isn't withing that admin's realm of expertise?
If your admin can't manage a recovery plan and/or can't figure out how to run and install the software you need then you need a new admin. This has nothing to do with open vs. closed source or commercial vs. free software. Do you work for the government or something? That is the only place I've heard of where decisions are made that way. "We wanted to build a concrete building but the contractor we hired only knows how to build log cabins, so the building will be made out of logs." You choose your employees and your software based upon their strengths and weaknesses. If you can save 100K a year by using Apache instead of IIS across your whole enterprise, but your systems administrator can't figure out Apache, fire his ass pronto. He's got to be incompetent. It's as bad as those correspondence school programmers who want a job at a real development shop but can only program in visual basic and are completely unable to learn any other languages. It's just sad.
You may want tot look at WebWorks pro application for sanely exporting Word files as HTML/XML. I've used it in the past (a handful of years ago) and it was pretty reasonable. It is worth investigating in any case.
Have you considered Microsoft Exchange and Outlook? It has a very rich feature, can be accessed via a Web form, and Microsoft makes things pretty darn easy to administer.
Please tell that to my sysadmin. We've had two major failures in the last two weeks, both with some data loss and both resulting in messages being silently dropped for a period of time. Add to that a very poorly designed web interface, and being locked into a small subset of mail clients, some of which only implement a limited subset of the features, and very, very shoddy support for non-windows OS's. We're still running Exchange servers for some users but most everyone in engineering transitioned over to our parallel deployment of IMAP servers.
The rest of your comments are spot on though. Also, don't forget to keep careful track of the logs for the webmail and be careful about the spam filtering for inexperienced users. Overly strict spam filtering has lost many a sale. Don't forget to have a mandatory informational meeting about not opening suspicious attachments and phishing too. Eventually a virus or phishing e-mail will get to your users so make sure they know what to do about it.
I personally think that hypervisors are overhyped (pun fun!), and that the most practical and useful form of "virtualization" is actually separation...
For the most part I agree and VMWare's focus on that market is going to get them in trouble down the road. Their implementation, however, allows for virtual networks and guest OS's, both of which are lucrative markets where they have little competition. Separation is great for logically dividing and protecting an OS homogenous system, but I'm much more interested in running secondary OS's for testing, application compatibility, and honey pots. I wish there was some more competition and advancement for their workstation offerings.
Reasonable? Hardly. If you don't back it up, you can't moan about it when it's gone.
So by analogy, if you don't keep your money in fire safe you have no reason to complain if it burns up when your house is burnt down? Even if the fire was caused by a defective product? I strongly disagree. It is a good idea to take precautions, especially given the myriad causes of data loss, but that in no way absolves the responsible party of their guilt.
that's like saying you only use your car to go back and forth to the grocery store, so why bother checking to make sure the tires are bolted on.
You check your lug nuts whenever you go to the store? You would consider it your fault if a defective run of rotors caused them to come loose? I check my lug nuts about twice a year, and I'd be pissed if they came loose regularly, and if I could trace the source of that problem I'd demand recompense for the defective product and any damage it caused.
The SP1 installer worked on millions of computers worldwide, but somehow his computer got screwed up and that's Microsoft's fault?
It also screwed up on many computers worldwide, and, yes I think you should be able to reasonably expect an update to not break your computer. Maybe my standards are just too high.
I'd be willing to wager dollars to donuts that if you did an analysis of his system after the crash, it would have been riddled with shoddy 3rd party software, pirated games, free porn and spyware. Anyone of these could have be a contributing factor to the crash, yet some how Microsoft is to blame?
So what you're saying is having porn on your computer means that if a vendor update breaks your machine it is your fault. What an interesting argument. Why should it matter what is installed? Userland apps and images should not cause any problems with upgrades and if they do either your architecture is fundamentally flawed or you're doing something very wrong.
I am not a MS Fanboy...
And yet you think that updates required to fix critical security flaws breaking a machine is ok? If I make a mistake I own up to it and try to make amends. MS made a mistake in the form of critical bugs that needed fixing. They further made a mistake by including non-critical updates bundled with their bug fixes. Finally, they made a mistake by distributing an update that breaks some systems. I'd say they are plenty culpable.
Maybe, this particular user happened to have a coincidental hardware problem or maybe they had somehow modified their system in such a way so as to break the upgrade. It does not matter. They ran the upgrade because MS said to trust them and the user had little choice. They ran the upgrade because MS had already made a mistake they were trying to fix. I'd say that makes any problems pretty firmly rooted in MS's buggy code.
You hate Microsoft because YOU failed to backup 4 years of data before attempting to do a major patch of your operating system? How is this Microsoft's fault?
A lot of data is not very important and a lot of home users have large amounts of it. For example, it is cost prohibitive for me to back up all of my files so some of them (like images, random informative PDFs, and intermediate drafts of work) are not backed up. I'd like to have all these things forever, but I'm not willing to pay enough money for a few more external drives or a case of DVDs and another burner with which to back them up. To me this means that there is a perfectly valid reason to not backup all data. Do you agree that this is reasonable?
Given that, I certainly don't want upgrades to hose my files, screw up, or require me to wipe my data for any other reason. If an upgrade I do install does this, then it is the vendor's fault and I sure as hell am going to blame them, whoever they are. I recognize that there are always risks, but that does not mean we should excuse poorly written updates. Hosing my data is a bug and vendors should be responsible for shoddy products, especially if a previous bug is necessitating the update in the first place. If vendors are not held responsible for their mistakes, what motivation do they have to avoid them in the future?
Sometimes, a Microsoft product is the right choice based on what you're trying to do, who you have employed and what other systems you want it to work with.
Occasionally this is true. Most of the time, however, a decision maker chooses Windows because either they know it and don't want to learn something new or because it is cheaper in the short term. Long-term planning is something that has gone the way of the dodo for most American companies. It is all about making money now, making contacts, scratching the other guy's back and moving on. High paid executives don't stay in one place these days, they make money, screw the employees and the companies long-term future, and move on. Hell that is even what business schools are teaching them to do these days.
So sure sometimes MS is the right solution, but more often it is the most advantageous solution for the decision maker and due to that, most people here discount those rare cases.
People here champion Linux as the answer to everyone's computing needs, from personal to commercial. Then, when someone comes along and says, "no, it's not", the answer is "WELL THEN WHY DONT YOU FIX IT YOURSELF H0M0FAG!!11"
Neither you nor the previous poster are speaking the language of business. The previous poster asked, "well what are they going to do about it." You stepped even further away with your script-kiddy-speak. The response to this that business users should be expecting and will completely understand is, "How much money will you give me to do it?."
Most large businesses with in house developers already fix all the problems they run into and everyone benefits. What we're dealing with here are the less technically proficient and and smaller businesses that just want it to work. 90% of them that have purchased Linux bought from a vendor and will ask that vendor to add whatever they want. The other 10% are worthless and won't pay for what they want or do it themselves. The other chunk of people we are talking about are those who have not purchased Linux, but want to and want new features. They will take bids from IBM, Redhat, etc., make whatever feature is missing a requirement for the sale and it will be taken care of. It happens every day. Why is this news?
Perhaps you need to broaden your scope a little bit. I know a lot of people who have recently made the switch from Linux to OS X as their primary workstation/laptop. The number one problem is that people try to recreate what they used to do in Linux instead of figuring out what their problems are and looking for the best solution. Virtual desktops are a solution to a problem, the problem of organizing and finding windows. Ideally they are built into the OS GUI because the require a fair amount of integration. Expose solves the same problem and is the solution Apple went with. Try using it instead of virtual desktops for a while. There are different pluses and minuses to both solutions. I know a dozen people who used to use virtual desktops constantly who migrated to OS X. All but one abandoned them after getting used to Expose.
That is just an example. OS X is different and you have to use it differently. It has a learning curve just like any other OS.
I can only say that when it set it up on my Panther powerbook, it worked like a charm. When I tried to do the exact same thing w/ my friend's 14.0 powerbook, I couldn't get it to work
That is unfortunate, but very new OS releases often have problems with some software, until that software or installation procedure is updated. That is part of the price of progress. I'm sure if you thought about it you could come up with plenty of examples of software breaking across upgrades of Linux as well. I know I've seen my share.
it's tiresome to hear "linux sucks" all the time.
Linux does not suck. It is great at a lot of things and the best platform for many applications. At the same time it is really really hard to do a number of tasks on Linux, not because the tasks are hard, but because there are still many developers who create software for themselves and don't care if anyone else can use it. On top of that, a large number of the people who use Linux are tinkerers who do manage to get things to work (most of the time). The main reason I prefer OS X for my primary workstation is the availability of commercial software and the second most important reason is because 99% of the time when I want to do something it requires no configuration or tinkering. I don't have to read any manuals or search google. That has made my computing life a lot better. I could give up Expose. I'd have a hard time giving up system services and systemwide PDF support, spellchecking, translation, etc. I'm not sure I can ever go back to having to mess with everything to get it to work.
Allow me to address your two most recent points:
Mac's do let you open folders by holding a file over them, but of course in Konqueror, with the directory tree sidebar enabled, you can simply hold a file over a folder in the sidebar and its folders will display allowing you to navigate folders until you get to the one you want.
I just tried it and it works for me (column view on 10.4.2).
Some OSX apps allow you to pick exactly which directory something should be saved to. But many have only a few choices leaving the user to save to desktop (or documents or whatever, but not to a subfolder) and then move the file around afterwards. This turns a one step process into two
Click the little triangle to the right of the filename and it expands to show a complete tree of your accessible files. It even has the last 5 places you saved things.
OS X isn't perfect and it does not have 100% of the same functionality that Linux does. It is a pretty darn good OS though if you give it a go with an open mind. Don't assume you can or can't do anything and don't assume you know the best way to do anything. Just try to accomplish tasks and see what works to do so and what doesn't. I think you might be pleasantly surprised at how easy certain tasks have become.
Both yourself and the first person responding to this post have a long laundry list of items you don't like about OS X, as compared to Linux. They can, for the most part, be boiled down to, "This doesn't work the way Linux does and I'm not going to learn a new way to do things."
Task switching...
I actually prefer cycling by app, but that is probably because I use applications that have 15 Windows open for a single task. The truth of the matter is, I rarely use this anyway. After becoming accustomed to expose as activated by my middle mouse button I'm able to switch to any window very quickly. I don't even bother to organize or dock any windows anymore.
It would be nice if Apple added a option for Windows-like cycling, actually I just looked and they do have this feature. It is mapped to cntrl-F4 by default although you can reassign it to whatever you want.
Middle click paste
This might be another option that would be nice for people coming from other UNIXes, but I much prefer using the middle button for expose.
Multiple desktops (see prior post).
Expose (see prior post). Seriously, I just stopped using them once I became accustomed to expose. I bought a license to the codetek application, but did not even bother to install it on my current machine.
Mouse focus
Yeah, that would be nice sometimes, as would sloppy focus for some users. I'm all for it.
Clicking on dock program icon doesn't maximize the document if it is minimized in the dock.
Actually it does, provided you don't already have a document open in that application and not minimized. It pulls up the last item you minimized. In my opinion this is also the behavior I want. I'd hate to have all my minimized windows (ok I hardly ever have them anymore) all come out of the dock when what I really want is the one I'm working on.
Clicking on an application icon won't open a new window if a window already exists and in many cases, if it did exist but was closed.
That's because opening a blank file is a function of starting the program, not clicking the icon in the dock. Clicking the icon pulls open applications into focus. This is the proper behavior, even if I don't have any windows open for it. This is a side effect of the mentality "the window is not the application" that is a much better paradigm in my mind. I like being able to have applications open without having a window open in them and without a new window appearing every time I focus them. The alternative is the sort of hell you get with windows where you have to have a window for every application and if you don't you can't access the program at all.
Don't know about your firewire drive, but burning discs is easier with k3b than with finder.
k3b is just an application. If you want to argue which OS has better applications, well I've a pretty strong opinion about that to. Just install a decent CD/DVD burning app.
Menu items in the title bar is awkward when the window itself is way off to the right of the screen but the menu item is way off to the left.
I'm not sure I'm understanding this one. Menu items are always along the top edge, which makes it one of the easiest places to get to. The difficult part of using a mouse is getting it where you want. placing the cursor in the corners takes the least effort and time, the edges are single dimensional and next easiest to hit, and anything else takes 2 dimensions and the most effort. User interface design is a pretty well developed science. What is your issue?
One button on my powerbook
This one always makes me laugh. People are willing to move or contort their fingers to try to reach a second button, when they already have modifier keys right under them. Just try using the modifier for secondary buttons for a while on a laptop after you are used to it, it is so much easier.
Under Windows with the standard HID driver this mouse doesn't behave like a one-button mouse.
This argument is spurious. You might as well say, trains were not innovative because when placed on traditional roads they behaved just the same as any other giant iron wagon.
Sometimes multiple features, often both hardware and software, are required for an innovation. The innovation here is having a one button mouse that can turn into a four button mouse in software, and works transparently as a one button mouse for novice users. Just because this innovation does not work completely in Windows yet, does not mean it does not exist. Without the proper software all mice are useless.
if there is a mouse like that somewhere in public place and the mouse's 4 buttons are enabled
Who in their right mind would change the default setting to an advanced setting for a public terminal?
They made IPod, didn't they? They know how to make good UIs.
You know there is more than one person working there. Just because on UI is good does not mean they all will be. Besides one rev of the ipod had a touch ring with a very sub-par user feedback. No one is perfect.
This mouse is a stupid UI - confusing in a useless way. The only reason I can see this done is on purpose.
Or maybe they did user testing and found that having separate keys shown confused more people who wanted to use it as a single button mouse (their core market) than not having any delineation confused more advanced users.
The only reason I can see this done is on purpose.
Yeah, it is just so likely they are intentionally building this flawed to so the 20 people that care... why was it again that they would do this?
...since there is no good logical reason to make a mouse that has no visual/tectile cues to its function and the company proved that it knows how to build UIs well...
You mean since there is no good reason you can discern. By the way, it does give tactile feedback, just like the old one.
...this had to be done as a cover up for their reluctant admittance of the simple fact - mice need more buttons than 1.
I think they've already proved that they don't, although multiple buttons are useful for some users. Heck they've been selling third party multi-button mice on their website for many years. Probably, they just thought it looked cooler having a smooth, unmarred surface. Or maybe they did extensive usability testing and it actually does work better for people. I know I've done usability testing and found some pretty unintuitive results. Basically, I think you're really grasping at straws. They just made a one button mouse that is very similar to the old mice, but this one can transform into a multi-button mouse for power users. It's nice and all, and I expect it will become the new default mouse, but I don't think Apple is going to change their one-button by default stance. Heck, enabling OS-wide support for multi-button mice years ago was a lot more of a nod to the functionality of multiple buttons than selling a multi-button mouse is.
Computers need multiple mouse buttons the same way they need multiple monitors. Implemented properly they can be a great boon to the end user, and the os and applications should handle both options gracefully. At the same time, systems and more importantly applications should not be designed to require either multiple buttons or multiple monitors. Multi-button mice on Windows applications today are akin to AIM clients that detect extra monitors and fill them with a cool pictures while you type, or word processors that always fill your second monitor with a screen full of statistics on your current file. It is moderately useful, but by and large a waste of a valuable resource that could be better allocated. I certainly hope Apple does not follow Windows into making my second button worthless.
I'm not seeing where the OS requires the right button, anywhere. In fact, I can't see where it requires a mouse (nice for 508 compliance). The right button does enhance the experience (but this seems true on any OS).
As I mentioned in my previous post, my Windows machine is in the shop right now, so all this is from memory.
I'm sure there are ways around it, they are just not easy to find. For example to find out what version of Windows 2000 you are running you right click the "My Computer" icon and select properties. I've no idea how else you do that. I assume you could highlight it and select an option somewhere, although I'm not sure where.
Minesweep, no right button needed. Using the wrong button is a different issue though.
How do you flag a block without using the right mouse button? I'd say that is pretty critical functionality.
All those tablet PC users seem to be pretty content with the touch interface.
First, they do use right-clicking copied from MacOS, you select with the pen and hold for a second to get right-click functionality. Second, MS recommends all developers provide a tablet version of their applications designed to work with tablets. Third, have you ever tried to use one? Neither has anyone else because aside from a few specialized tasks they suck and no one wants them.
A developer can still write apps that depend on the context menu on a Mac
And yet they don't. Oh sure a few rare exceptions do, but for the most part no one writes an application that relies upon a context menu because anyone foolish enough to do so and who does no user testing is swamped with support calls, or reviewers rate their applications as junk. On Windows you're expected to have a context menu because everyone has a second mouse button. It is usually useless (like notepad) or moderately useful but nowhere near as useful as one you define yourself.
You don't think not having a second mouse button by default does not discourage developers from relying upon context menus, fine. Explain why so many Windows apps require one and basically no mac apps do? Explain why it is so freaking hard to use a Windows machine without a second mouse button, but it is no problem at all on a mac? Maybe it is not intentional and maybe it is, but it works.
What applications are these where the right button is useless?
A better question is what applications are the right button menus useful for? I can think of a few where it is very useful like Firefox and a lot is where it is sort of useful, like Photoshop. How about notepad, what useful features do you use from the right-button menu there? Wouldn't you rather have your own custom menus?
How about something like InDesign. It is a full-featured, professional application I use on both platforms. By default on Windows and the Mac you can check your spelling, insert some special characters, open in the text/XML editor thingy, and perform a half dozen other tasks I never do. On the mac, however, I have overridden those options because there is no application I use that needs the second mouse button to do a task. As a result on the mac, instead of having 2 functions I use and 8 I don't, I have those 2, plus a quick translation into 2 languages, a couple scripts to quickly perform some monkey work, a grammar checker, an online dictionary lookup for acronyms, an option to open URLs in my browser, a couple links to open specific directories, a CVS commit option for the file, etc.
The question boils down to who knows better what should be in the right-button menu me, or the developer? By shipping with one mouse button only, Apple assures that all the develops will create programs that assume I do.
...they are doing it to force the developers? That wouldn't be a very friendly thing to do.
You're right (as far as I know) in claiming that Apple never intimates the reason why they ship with one button by default. I guess it is a number of reasons, but just looking at my setups on my mac and my Windows machine it is really easy to see which one results in a more usable interface for me. Maybe that is happenstance and maybe it is design.
As for friendliness, are we talking friendly to developers or friendly for users? Windows is a great example of what happens when you do ship with multiple mouse buttons by default. Developers rely upon them. You mentioned Gimp, But additionally there is the OS itself that requires right clicking to easily get to many options. Most high-end graphics suites and publishing software relies upon a right-click. Every CAD application I've ever used does as well. Games rely upon it, even Minesweeper. I could list more, but my Windows machine is being repaired right now.
What does that matter? Aside from my ability to assign useful features to the right mouse button, it also means Windows absolutely sucks to use standard software with a touch screen, or alternate interface. It also causes problems for novice users (my father gave up on minesweeper after clicking the wrong button too many times and still clicks the wrong button about 1 time in 5 when trying to use his work machine).
Another poster here came up with a better analogy than I ever have. Two monitors are better than one. You can fit more windows and play full screen games while still having your aim client visible. That does not mean developers should not make sure their applications work with just one. If shipping one button mice standard with all machines is what it takes to insure all applications work with just one mouse button then I'm all for it.
...those with tighter budgets will still be sticking to Google alone...
Unless Yahoo is substantially cheaper. They might bill themselves as a bargain, for half the price, per view, you can reach users through Yahoo. After operational costs, this is all pretty much gravy for them anyway. A price war could be just the thing to make this more affordable.
You put it into your hand and for some reason things start popping up!
I'd rather there was some indication of the buttons too, but do you really think anyone who is savvy enough to enable the buttons will be confused when they start working?
There can only be one reason:
People who make statements of absolutes like this immediately lose all credibility in my mind. Did you ever think that Jobs was shipping a one button mouse because it was the best option until a one button mouse that could transform into a two button mouse appeared? Then, since that was the best solution, he decided to start shipping that?
Jobs cannot take it like a man, that he was wrong, and so he masks a 4 button mouse as a 1 button mouse.
And you explain the fact that he, personally, chose to ship a two button mouse on the NeXT systems how? Let me guess, he was forced to. Or maybe he made the decision while on an all night bender. Or maybe he likes multiple buttons and recognizes the advantages for many users but recognizes that shipping them by default causes problems for novice users and facilitates endless headaches with improperly designed application user interfaces? And maybe this new mouse solves that problem by shipping by default as a one button mouse, but still allowing power users to enable additional buttons? Nah, that's too far fetched. I'm sure it is all a personal dislike he has of multiple buttons that he forgot about for a few years and then remembered later on. After all you did say there can only be one reason, right?
So she states that she resents Apple for shipping a one button mouse (actually she states "we" do) shortly after proclaiming that one button mice are simpler for most people. It seems to me she is only looking at the simplicity for novice users and is not considering the advantages for power users. Perhaps the resentment she mentions stems from thinking that Apple's decision is less advantageous for power users. Or perhaps she thought it best to try to empathize with her potential readers who she assumes have a poor understanding of the issue. Either way I'm not all that thrilled with someone speaking on my behalf, however abstractly, nor am I thrilled with someone who would intentionally propagate that type of misunderstanding on a site for power users. Whatever, literary license or something.
because of this mouse that we are discussing here. It is the proof that he was wrong.
Non sequitur.
it has no visual cues that it is a 4-button mouse but acts like one
What is the difference between a four button mouse that looks and acts like a one button mouse and a one button mouse? All this is is a transformer that saves advanced users a couple of bucks and lets advanced users and novices share the same device without problems.
For the record, I'd say the original respondent was right on with his analogy about multiple monitors and multiple buttons. As for Apple they still ship with a one button mouse by default, even if they start shipping the mighty mouse as standard. All this does is make it a little easier to upgrade.
P.S. Ha ha my second mouse button is useful all the time. In Windows where it is useless the majority of the time. (I'm sure this has nothing to do with shipping one button by default... purely coincidence.)
If your grandma is confused by two buttons that do different things you can set them in software to act the same.
Ahh, but can she do that?
The answer is no, she can't and she would never spend the time and effort to learn how. One button by default has many advantages, and two buttons optionally is an innovation above and beyond two buttons that can be made to both act as the same thing. Not all science is physics and mechanics. Believe it or not psychology and human interface design really are science.
As for the mouse, well thats nice I guess. Find me a nice trackball, with a second, small trackball as the the scroll wheel and I'll mail you a cookie.
I actually found the statement, "...by taking the trickier route of attempting to explain the HCI theories behind one-button mice, all the while secretly resenting Apple for putting us into that position." to be presumptuous and insulting. I'm not sure how it makes the author a tool though.
It gave me the impression that she did not understand why Apple ships with a one button mouse, has not bothered to research it, and is assuming and asserting that not only is Apple wrong in the decision, but that everyone secretly agrees with her but is only defending Apple out of some sense of loyalty.
I don't know Apple's reasoning for a one button mouse as the default, maybe it is to keep it simple for inexpert users. Maybe it is to force developers to program their UIs correctly. Maybe Martians told Steve Jobs to do it. Maybe it is a combination of reasons.
One thing I can say is I like the result. On my OS X machine, my second mouse button is useful all the time. Every application has the shortcuts, scripts, services, functions, and links I use with that application handy, and I use them every day. On my Windows machine the right mouse button is useful in a few applications (although not as useful as it would be if I was able to customize it however I wanted) and it is completely useless in the rest of my applications. That is the second easiest button available to me, completely useless.
I don't think she is a company tool, I just think she is ignorant and has never bothered to actually use multiple OSs to get work done, and then spent any real time thinking about what makes one better than another. She can't seem to grasp that "one button by default" != "you must use a one button mouse" and has not considered what advantages the situation brings.
And while there may be no NEED to right-click in MacOS right now, given the growing popularity of multi-button mice on the Mac, eventually some apps will require it for certain functions.
First, there are already a few programs that require multiple button mice (Shake and Maya if I recall correctly). So far they have been limited to high-end applications where the users can be assumed to be technically proficient and will not mind the expense of buying a third-part mouse. This mouse partially mitigates the latter concern. If Apple ships this by default, then the cost will no longer be a concern (except for laptops). This is a problem, not a benefit.
From a developer's point of view it is awfully tempting to put features in a right-click contextual menu and really easy to put features only there. The only thing stopping you is the fact that you can't rely upon your users to have multi-button mice and thus access to them. Putting features only in a right-click menu is WRONG! It makes them unavailable to not only people with single button mice, but people using any sort of alternate interface (for the disabled, voice recognition, touch screens, etc.). Further, it prevents power users from easily customizing the right-button menu with what they want to put there. For all intents and purposes, it makes the right mouse button useless in the majority of applications because then all the programs that don't put really useful things there still can't have a custom menu because your application needs that mouse assigned to it's default purpose.
To simplify, one button by default makes multi button mice more useful. Shipping a one button mouse that can transform in software to a two button mouse not only has 90% of the advantage of keeping developers developing properly, but it also saves the expense of buying a new mouse (assuming it starts shipping as the standard mouse).
All of this is meaningless to me, as I am addicted to using a trackball. The real question is, when can I get a trackball with a small trackball on top instead of a scroll wheel? Logitech, please start copying this feature immediately.
Slashdot Mirror
If Apple cannot patent this, although it has been known and used for approx. 50 years now, they will be _SHAMELESSLY_ ripped off!
Show me the previous art!
No really, show me a trackpad shaped like a doughnut and with accompanying software and display so that it can be used to navigate a hierarchically ordered list? It's entirely possible someone else did this (not likely 50 years ago). I've never seen credible evidence though.
The invention machine that is Apple _HAS_ to be protected by any means, as much as possible.
Sarcasm aside do you actually think patents are not beneficial? I know the current patent system is pretty messed up, especially with look-and-feel, business process, and software patents but this is a traditional, real-world patent we're talking about. Like it or not, without Apple computer hardware would be years behind where it is today. So many of the hardware used on all computers was first included by Apple and proven successful by them many years before being adopted by the rest of the market. If Apple or other major companies gain no benefit from spending millions on R&D do you think they will keep doing it? We'd end up with a bunch of companies like Dell who invent nothing and who stay profitable by buying and selling the cheapest components in the largest quantities.
The system as set up says if you invest a lot of money and come up with something new, then you can have exclusive rights to it for 7 years. What has happened is someone is using paperwork submitted some time after the introduction of the ipod (and rejected multiple times) to claim a feature of that invention is already patented by them. Gee I'm sure Microsoft researchers would never abuse the system in a dishonest way. I'm sure MS would never try to engage Apple in an expensive legal battle in order to try to hurt them. Get a clue.
I get the impression from the "tone" of the headline and summary that patents are good as long as Apple owns them. Reality check here.
When has anyone here argued against patents in general? Got a link? I've seen plenty of arguments against software patents, and some against "look-and-feel" patents. I've seen plenty against copyright. I don't recall seeing anyone here take the position that traditional patents (like this one) in general are not beneficial.
If you read about this you'll see this is about an patent filed by a MS researcher for something unrelated to the ipod, but which includes one similar UI element as is in the ipod. He was approved for his patent even though it was applied for many months after the ipod was in stores. Basically, the patent office did not check for prior art one of the many times MS submitted the patent and now they are using it to cause Apple legal headaches. Not really much of a story.
And when you download it from a website somewhere without contact info? Which does happen btw.
So here are the possible scenarios:
If you download software and don't arrange for support, or use software written by some shmoe who doesn't even post a contact e-mail address then whether or not the software is open source is the least of your problems.
Managing a recovery plan and running and installing software is completely different from finding a bug in software.
...your point being? If you find a bug with any software you can ask your vendor to fix it and hope they do so. With closed source if they don't want to for some reason you're screwed. With open source you can also hire any number of competing developers to fix it. You might even get it fixed for free if you ask someone nicely.
Any even halfway decent admin should be able to learn. I've never hired anyone who knew how to run all the software required for their job. Everyone I've hired has had to learn, which they are capable of doing. Learning is really not that hard.
They don't have to be ubergeeks. If you need support, buy support. It's not like there aren't dozens of companies like IBM that provide exactly that support. With open source you can often even choose from among a number of good, competing vendors. For some reason that often makes your support costs much lower than when you are locked into one vendor. All your arguments have been, "But if I don't know what I'm doing and don't buy support I'm I'll have problems." Well either figure out what you're doing, or buy support. This is not rocket science.
Until something doesn't work, then who do you call?
Umm, your vendor or whomever you contracted for support.
If your admin can't manage a recovery plan and/or can't figure out how to run and install the software you need then you need a new admin. This has nothing to do with open vs. closed source or commercial vs. free software. Do you work for the government or something? That is the only place I've heard of where decisions are made that way. "We wanted to build a concrete building but the contractor we hired only knows how to build log cabins, so the building will be made out of logs." You choose your employees and your software based upon their strengths and weaknesses. If you can save 100K a year by using Apache instead of IIS across your whole enterprise, but your systems administrator can't figure out Apache, fire his ass pronto. He's got to be incompetent. It's as bad as those correspondence school programmers who want a job at a real development shop but can only program in visual basic and are completely unable to learn any other languages. It's just sad.
You may want tot look at WebWorks pro application for sanely exporting Word files as HTML/XML. I've used it in the past (a handful of years ago) and it was pretty reasonable. It is worth investigating in any case.
Have you considered Microsoft Exchange and Outlook? It has a very rich feature, can be accessed via a Web form, and Microsoft makes things pretty darn easy to administer.
Please tell that to my sysadmin. We've had two major failures in the last two weeks, both with some data loss and both resulting in messages being silently dropped for a period of time. Add to that a very poorly designed web interface, and being locked into a small subset of mail clients, some of which only implement a limited subset of the features, and very, very shoddy support for non-windows OS's. We're still running Exchange servers for some users but most everyone in engineering transitioned over to our parallel deployment of IMAP servers.
The rest of your comments are spot on though. Also, don't forget to keep careful track of the logs for the webmail and be careful about the spam filtering for inexperienced users. Overly strict spam filtering has lost many a sale. Don't forget to have a mandatory informational meeting about not opening suspicious attachments and phishing too. Eventually a virus or phishing e-mail will get to your users so make sure they know what to do about it.
I personally think that hypervisors are overhyped (pun fun!), and that the most practical and useful form of "virtualization" is actually separation...
For the most part I agree and VMWare's focus on that market is going to get them in trouble down the road. Their implementation, however, allows for virtual networks and guest OS's, both of which are lucrative markets where they have little competition. Separation is great for logically dividing and protecting an OS homogenous system, but I'm much more interested in running secondary OS's for testing, application compatibility, and honey pots. I wish there was some more competition and advancement for their workstation offerings.
that emulator which was supposed to emulate any OS/architecture on any other and run at near realtime? What happened to that?
It's called rosetta now and will be running PPC native binaries on MacOS X for x86.
Reasonable? Hardly. If you don't back it up, you can't moan about it when it's gone.
So by analogy, if you don't keep your money in fire safe you have no reason to complain if it burns up when your house is burnt down? Even if the fire was caused by a defective product? I strongly disagree. It is a good idea to take precautions, especially given the myriad causes of data loss, but that in no way absolves the responsible party of their guilt.
that's like saying you only use your car to go back and forth to the grocery store, so why bother checking to make sure the tires are bolted on.
You check your lug nuts whenever you go to the store? You would consider it your fault if a defective run of rotors caused them to come loose? I check my lug nuts about twice a year, and I'd be pissed if they came loose regularly, and if I could trace the source of that problem I'd demand recompense for the defective product and any damage it caused.
The SP1 installer worked on millions of computers worldwide, but somehow his computer got screwed up and that's Microsoft's fault?
It also screwed up on many computers worldwide, and, yes I think you should be able to reasonably expect an update to not break your computer. Maybe my standards are just too high.
I'd be willing to wager dollars to donuts that if you did an analysis of his system after the crash, it would have been riddled with shoddy 3rd party software, pirated games, free porn and spyware. Anyone of these could have be a contributing factor to the crash, yet some how Microsoft is to blame?
So what you're saying is having porn on your computer means that if a vendor update breaks your machine it is your fault. What an interesting argument. Why should it matter what is installed? Userland apps and images should not cause any problems with upgrades and if they do either your architecture is fundamentally flawed or you're doing something very wrong.
I am not a MS Fanboy...
And yet you think that updates required to fix critical security flaws breaking a machine is ok? If I make a mistake I own up to it and try to make amends. MS made a mistake in the form of critical bugs that needed fixing. They further made a mistake by including non-critical updates bundled with their bug fixes. Finally, they made a mistake by distributing an update that breaks some systems. I'd say they are plenty culpable.
Maybe, this particular user happened to have a coincidental hardware problem or maybe they had somehow modified their system in such a way so as to break the upgrade. It does not matter. They ran the upgrade because MS said to trust them and the user had little choice. They ran the upgrade because MS had already made a mistake they were trying to fix. I'd say that makes any problems pretty firmly rooted in MS's buggy code.
You hate Microsoft because YOU failed to backup 4 years of data before attempting to do a major patch of your operating system? How is this Microsoft's fault?
A lot of data is not very important and a lot of home users have large amounts of it. For example, it is cost prohibitive for me to back up all of my files so some of them (like images, random informative PDFs, and intermediate drafts of work) are not backed up. I'd like to have all these things forever, but I'm not willing to pay enough money for a few more external drives or a case of DVDs and another burner with which to back them up. To me this means that there is a perfectly valid reason to not backup all data. Do you agree that this is reasonable?
Given that, I certainly don't want upgrades to hose my files, screw up, or require me to wipe my data for any other reason. If an upgrade I do install does this, then it is the vendor's fault and I sure as hell am going to blame them, whoever they are. I recognize that there are always risks, but that does not mean we should excuse poorly written updates. Hosing my data is a bug and vendors should be responsible for shoddy products, especially if a previous bug is necessitating the update in the first place. If vendors are not held responsible for their mistakes, what motivation do they have to avoid them in the future?
Sometimes, a Microsoft product is the right choice based on what you're trying to do, who you have employed and what other systems you want it to work with.
Occasionally this is true. Most of the time, however, a decision maker chooses Windows because either they know it and don't want to learn something new or because it is cheaper in the short term. Long-term planning is something that has gone the way of the dodo for most American companies. It is all about making money now, making contacts, scratching the other guy's back and moving on. High paid executives don't stay in one place these days, they make money, screw the employees and the companies long-term future, and move on. Hell that is even what business schools are teaching them to do these days.
So sure sometimes MS is the right solution, but more often it is the most advantageous solution for the decision maker and due to that, most people here discount those rare cases.
People here champion Linux as the answer to everyone's computing needs, from personal to commercial. Then, when someone comes along and says, "no, it's not", the answer is "WELL THEN WHY DONT YOU FIX IT YOURSELF H0M0FAG!!11"
Neither you nor the previous poster are speaking the language of business. The previous poster asked, "well what are they going to do about it." You stepped even further away with your script-kiddy-speak. The response to this that business users should be expecting and will completely understand is, "How much money will you give me to do it?."
Most large businesses with in house developers already fix all the problems they run into and everyone benefits. What we're dealing with here are the less technically proficient and and smaller businesses that just want it to work. 90% of them that have purchased Linux bought from a vendor and will ask that vendor to add whatever they want. The other 10% are worthless and won't pay for what they want or do it themselves. The other chunk of people we are talking about are those who have not purchased Linux, but want to and want new features. They will take bids from IBM, Redhat, etc., make whatever feature is missing a requirement for the sale and it will be taken care of. It happens every day. Why is this news?
I am willing to learn something new.
Perhaps you need to broaden your scope a little bit. I know a lot of people who have recently made the switch from Linux to OS X as their primary workstation/laptop. The number one problem is that people try to recreate what they used to do in Linux instead of figuring out what their problems are and looking for the best solution. Virtual desktops are a solution to a problem, the problem of organizing and finding windows. Ideally they are built into the OS GUI because the require a fair amount of integration. Expose solves the same problem and is the solution Apple went with. Try using it instead of virtual desktops for a while. There are different pluses and minuses to both solutions. I know a dozen people who used to use virtual desktops constantly who migrated to OS X. All but one abandoned them after getting used to Expose.
That is just an example. OS X is different and you have to use it differently. It has a learning curve just like any other OS.
I can only say that when it set it up on my Panther powerbook, it worked like a charm. When I tried to do the exact same thing w/ my friend's 14.0 powerbook, I couldn't get it to work
That is unfortunate, but very new OS releases often have problems with some software, until that software or installation procedure is updated. That is part of the price of progress. I'm sure if you thought about it you could come up with plenty of examples of software breaking across upgrades of Linux as well. I know I've seen my share.
it's tiresome to hear "linux sucks" all the time.
Linux does not suck. It is great at a lot of things and the best platform for many applications. At the same time it is really really hard to do a number of tasks on Linux, not because the tasks are hard, but because there are still many developers who create software for themselves and don't care if anyone else can use it. On top of that, a large number of the people who use Linux are tinkerers who do manage to get things to work (most of the time). The main reason I prefer OS X for my primary workstation is the availability of commercial software and the second most important reason is because 99% of the time when I want to do something it requires no configuration or tinkering. I don't have to read any manuals or search google. That has made my computing life a lot better. I could give up Expose. I'd have a hard time giving up system services and systemwide PDF support, spellchecking, translation, etc. I'm not sure I can ever go back to having to mess with everything to get it to work.
Allow me to address your two most recent points:
Mac's do let you open folders by holding a file over them, but of course in Konqueror, with the directory tree sidebar enabled, you can simply hold a file over a folder in the sidebar and its folders will display allowing you to navigate folders until you get to the one you want.
I just tried it and it works for me (column view on 10.4.2).
Some OSX apps allow you to pick exactly which directory something should be saved to. But many have only a few choices leaving the user to save to desktop (or documents or whatever, but not to a subfolder) and then move the file around afterwards. This turns a one step process into two
Click the little triangle to the right of the filename and it expands to show a complete tree of your accessible files. It even has the last 5 places you saved things.
OS X isn't perfect and it does not have 100% of the same functionality that Linux does. It is a pretty darn good OS though if you give it a go with an open mind. Don't assume you can or can't do anything and don't assume you know the best way to do anything. Just try to accomplish tasks and see what works to do so and what doesn't. I think you might be pleasantly surprised at how easy certain tasks have become.
Both yourself and the first person responding to this post have a long laundry list of items you don't like about OS X, as compared to Linux. They can, for the most part, be boiled down to, "This doesn't work the way Linux does and I'm not going to learn a new way to do things."
Task switching...
I actually prefer cycling by app, but that is probably because I use applications that have 15 Windows open for a single task. The truth of the matter is, I rarely use this anyway. After becoming accustomed to expose as activated by my middle mouse button I'm able to switch to any window very quickly. I don't even bother to organize or dock any windows anymore.
It would be nice if Apple added a option for Windows-like cycling, actually I just looked and they do have this feature. It is mapped to cntrl-F4 by default although you can reassign it to whatever you want.
Middle click paste
This might be another option that would be nice for people coming from other UNIXes, but I much prefer using the middle button for expose.
Multiple desktops (see prior post).
Expose (see prior post). Seriously, I just stopped using them once I became accustomed to expose. I bought a license to the codetek application, but did not even bother to install it on my current machine.
Mouse focus
Yeah, that would be nice sometimes, as would sloppy focus for some users. I'm all for it.
Clicking on dock program icon doesn't maximize the document if it is minimized in the dock.
Actually it does, provided you don't already have a document open in that application and not minimized. It pulls up the last item you minimized. In my opinion this is also the behavior I want. I'd hate to have all my minimized windows (ok I hardly ever have them anymore) all come out of the dock when what I really want is the one I'm working on.
Clicking on an application icon won't open a new window if a window already exists and in many cases, if it did exist but was closed.
That's because opening a blank file is a function of starting the program, not clicking the icon in the dock. Clicking the icon pulls open applications into focus. This is the proper behavior, even if I don't have any windows open for it. This is a side effect of the mentality "the window is not the application" that is a much better paradigm in my mind. I like being able to have applications open without having a window open in them and without a new window appearing every time I focus them. The alternative is the sort of hell you get with windows where you have to have a window for every application and if you don't you can't access the program at all.
Don't know about your firewire drive, but burning discs is easier with k3b than with finder.
k3b is just an application. If you want to argue which OS has better applications, well I've a pretty strong opinion about that to. Just install a decent CD/DVD burning app.
Menu items in the title bar is awkward when the window itself is way off to the right of the screen but the menu item is way off to the left.
I'm not sure I'm understanding this one. Menu items are always along the top edge, which makes it one of the easiest places to get to. The difficult part of using a mouse is getting it where you want. placing the cursor in the corners takes the least effort and time, the edges are single dimensional and next easiest to hit, and anything else takes 2 dimensions and the most effort. User interface design is a pretty well developed science. What is your issue?
One button on my powerbook
This one always makes me laugh. People are willing to move or contort their fingers to try to reach a second button, when they already have modifier keys right under them. Just try using the modifier for secondary buttons for a while on a laptop after you are used to it, it is so much easier.
ODBC, mysql, openoffice was a huge RPIA to
Under Windows with the standard HID driver this mouse doesn't behave like a one-button mouse.
This argument is spurious. You might as well say, trains were not innovative because when placed on traditional roads they behaved just the same as any other giant iron wagon.
Sometimes multiple features, often both hardware and software, are required for an innovation. The innovation here is having a one button mouse that can turn into a four button mouse in software, and works transparently as a one button mouse for novice users. Just because this innovation does not work completely in Windows yet, does not mean it does not exist. Without the proper software all mice are useless.
if there is a mouse like that somewhere in public place and the mouse's 4 buttons are enabled
Who in their right mind would change the default setting to an advanced setting for a public terminal?
They made IPod, didn't they? They know how to make good UIs.
You know there is more than one person working there. Just because on UI is good does not mean they all will be. Besides one rev of the ipod had a touch ring with a very sub-par user feedback. No one is perfect.
This mouse is a stupid UI - confusing in a useless way. The only reason I can see this done is on purpose.
Or maybe they did user testing and found that having separate keys shown confused more people who wanted to use it as a single button mouse (their core market) than not having any delineation confused more advanced users.
The only reason I can see this done is on purpose.
Yeah, it is just so likely they are intentionally building this flawed to so the 20 people that care... why was it again that they would do this?
You mean since there is no good reason you can discern. By the way, it does give tactile feedback, just like the old one.
I think they've already proved that they don't, although multiple buttons are useful for some users. Heck they've been selling third party multi-button mice on their website for many years. Probably, they just thought it looked cooler having a smooth, unmarred surface. Or maybe they did extensive usability testing and it actually does work better for people. I know I've done usability testing and found some pretty unintuitive results. Basically, I think you're really grasping at straws. They just made a one button mouse that is very similar to the old mice, but this one can transform into a multi-button mouse for power users. It's nice and all, and I expect it will become the new default mouse, but I don't think Apple is going to change their one-button by default stance. Heck, enabling OS-wide support for multi-button mice years ago was a lot more of a nod to the functionality of multiple buttons than selling a multi-button mouse is.
Computers need multiple mouse buttons the same way they need multiple monitors. Implemented properly they can be a great boon to the end user, and the os and applications should handle both options gracefully. At the same time, systems and more importantly applications should not be designed to require either multiple buttons or multiple monitors. Multi-button mice on Windows applications today are akin to AIM clients that detect extra monitors and fill them with a cool pictures while you type, or word processors that always fill your second monitor with a screen full of statistics on your current file. It is moderately useful, but by and large a waste of a valuable resource that could be better allocated. I certainly hope Apple does not follow Windows into making my second button worthless.
I'm not seeing where the OS requires the right button, anywhere. In fact, I can't see where it requires a mouse (nice for 508 compliance). The right button does enhance the experience (but this seems true on any OS).
As I mentioned in my previous post, my Windows machine is in the shop right now, so all this is from memory.
I'm sure there are ways around it, they are just not easy to find. For example to find out what version of Windows 2000 you are running you right click the "My Computer" icon and select properties. I've no idea how else you do that. I assume you could highlight it and select an option somewhere, although I'm not sure where.
Minesweep, no right button needed. Using the wrong button is a different issue though.
How do you flag a block without using the right mouse button? I'd say that is pretty critical functionality.
All those tablet PC users seem to be pretty content with the touch interface.
First, they do use right-clicking copied from MacOS, you select with the pen and hold for a second to get right-click functionality. Second, MS recommends all developers provide a tablet version of their applications designed to work with tablets. Third, have you ever tried to use one? Neither has anyone else because aside from a few specialized tasks they suck and no one wants them.
A developer can still write apps that depend on the context menu on a Mac
And yet they don't. Oh sure a few rare exceptions do, but for the most part no one writes an application that relies upon a context menu because anyone foolish enough to do so and who does no user testing is swamped with support calls, or reviewers rate their applications as junk. On Windows you're expected to have a context menu because everyone has a second mouse button. It is usually useless (like notepad) or moderately useful but nowhere near as useful as one you define yourself.
You don't think not having a second mouse button by default does not discourage developers from relying upon context menus, fine. Explain why so many Windows apps require one and basically no mac apps do? Explain why it is so freaking hard to use a Windows machine without a second mouse button, but it is no problem at all on a mac? Maybe it is not intentional and maybe it is, but it works.
What applications are these where the right button is useless?
A better question is what applications are the right button menus useful for? I can think of a few where it is very useful like Firefox and a lot is where it is sort of useful, like Photoshop. How about notepad, what useful features do you use from the right-button menu there? Wouldn't you rather have your own custom menus?
How about something like InDesign. It is a full-featured, professional application I use on both platforms. By default on Windows and the Mac you can check your spelling, insert some special characters, open in the text/XML editor thingy, and perform a half dozen other tasks I never do. On the mac, however, I have overridden those options because there is no application I use that needs the second mouse button to do a task. As a result on the mac, instead of having 2 functions I use and 8 I don't, I have those 2, plus a quick translation into 2 languages, a couple scripts to quickly perform some monkey work, a grammar checker, an online dictionary lookup for acronyms, an option to open URLs in my browser, a couple links to open specific directories, a CVS commit option for the file, etc.
The question boils down to who knows better what should be in the right-button menu me, or the developer? By shipping with one mouse button only, Apple assures that all the develops will create programs that assume I do.
You're right (as far as I know) in claiming that Apple never intimates the reason why they ship with one button by default. I guess it is a number of reasons, but just looking at my setups on my mac and my Windows machine it is really easy to see which one results in a more usable interface for me. Maybe that is happenstance and maybe it is design.
As for friendliness, are we talking friendly to developers or friendly for users? Windows is a great example of what happens when you do ship with multiple mouse buttons by default. Developers rely upon them. You mentioned Gimp, But additionally there is the OS itself that requires right clicking to easily get to many options. Most high-end graphics suites and publishing software relies upon a right-click. Every CAD application I've ever used does as well. Games rely upon it, even Minesweeper. I could list more, but my Windows machine is being repaired right now.
What does that matter? Aside from my ability to assign useful features to the right mouse button, it also means Windows absolutely sucks to use standard software with a touch screen, or alternate interface. It also causes problems for novice users (my father gave up on minesweeper after clicking the wrong button too many times and still clicks the wrong button about 1 time in 5 when trying to use his work machine).
Another poster here came up with a better analogy than I ever have. Two monitors are better than one. You can fit more windows and play full screen games while still having your aim client visible. That does not mean developers should not make sure their applications work with just one. If shipping one button mice standard with all machines is what it takes to insure all applications work with just one mouse button then I'm all for it.
Unless Yahoo is substantially cheaper. They might bill themselves as a bargain, for half the price, per view, you can reach users through Yahoo. After operational costs, this is all pretty much gravy for them anyway. A price war could be just the thing to make this more affordable.
You put it into your hand and for some reason things start popping up!
I'd rather there was some indication of the buttons too, but do you really think anyone who is savvy enough to enable the buttons will be confused when they start working?
There can only be one reason:
People who make statements of absolutes like this immediately lose all credibility in my mind. Did you ever think that Jobs was shipping a one button mouse because it was the best option until a one button mouse that could transform into a two button mouse appeared? Then, since that was the best solution, he decided to start shipping that?
Jobs cannot take it like a man, that he was wrong, and so he masks a 4 button mouse as a 1 button mouse.
And you explain the fact that he, personally, chose to ship a two button mouse on the NeXT systems how? Let me guess, he was forced to. Or maybe he made the decision while on an all night bender. Or maybe he likes multiple buttons and recognizes the advantages for many users but recognizes that shipping them by default causes problems for novice users and facilitates endless headaches with improperly designed application user interfaces? And maybe this new mouse solves that problem by shipping by default as a one button mouse, but still allowing power users to enable additional buttons? Nah, that's too far fetched. I'm sure it is all a personal dislike he has of multiple buttons that he forgot about for a few years and then remembered later on. After all you did say there can only be one reason, right?
So she states that she resents Apple for shipping a one button mouse (actually she states "we" do) shortly after proclaiming that one button mice are simpler for most people. It seems to me she is only looking at the simplicity for novice users and is not considering the advantages for power users. Perhaps the resentment she mentions stems from thinking that Apple's decision is less advantageous for power users. Or perhaps she thought it best to try to empathize with her potential readers who she assumes have a poor understanding of the issue. Either way I'm not all that thrilled with someone speaking on my behalf, however abstractly, nor am I thrilled with someone who would intentionally propagate that type of misunderstanding on a site for power users. Whatever, literary license or something.
because of this mouse that we are discussing here. It is the proof that he was wrong.
Non sequitur.
it has no visual cues that it is a 4-button mouse but acts like one
What is the difference between a four button mouse that looks and acts like a one button mouse and a one button mouse? All this is is a transformer that saves advanced users a couple of bucks and lets advanced users and novices share the same device without problems.
For the record, I'd say the original respondent was right on with his analogy about multiple monitors and multiple buttons. As for Apple they still ship with a one button mouse by default, even if they start shipping the mighty mouse as standard. All this does is make it a little easier to upgrade.
P.S. Ha ha my second mouse button is useful all the time. In Windows where it is useless the majority of the time. (I'm sure this has nothing to do with shipping one button by default... purely coincidence.)
If your grandma is confused by two buttons that do different things you can set them in software to act the same.
Ahh, but can she do that?
The answer is no, she can't and she would never spend the time and effort to learn how. One button by default has many advantages, and two buttons optionally is an innovation above and beyond two buttons that can be made to both act as the same thing. Not all science is physics and mechanics. Believe it or not psychology and human interface design really are science.
As for the mouse, well thats nice I guess. Find me a nice trackball, with a second, small trackball as the the scroll wheel and I'll mail you a cookie.
I actually found the statement, "...by taking the trickier route of attempting to explain the HCI theories behind one-button mice, all the while secretly resenting Apple for putting us into that position." to be presumptuous and insulting. I'm not sure how it makes the author a tool though.
It gave me the impression that she did not understand why Apple ships with a one button mouse, has not bothered to research it, and is assuming and asserting that not only is Apple wrong in the decision, but that everyone secretly agrees with her but is only defending Apple out of some sense of loyalty.
I don't know Apple's reasoning for a one button mouse as the default, maybe it is to keep it simple for inexpert users. Maybe it is to force developers to program their UIs correctly. Maybe Martians told Steve Jobs to do it. Maybe it is a combination of reasons.
One thing I can say is I like the result. On my OS X machine, my second mouse button is useful all the time. Every application has the shortcuts, scripts, services, functions, and links I use with that application handy, and I use them every day. On my Windows machine the right mouse button is useful in a few applications (although not as useful as it would be if I was able to customize it however I wanted) and it is completely useless in the rest of my applications. That is the second easiest button available to me, completely useless.
I don't think she is a company tool, I just think she is ignorant and has never bothered to actually use multiple OSs to get work done, and then spent any real time thinking about what makes one better than another. She can't seem to grasp that "one button by default" != "you must use a one button mouse" and has not considered what advantages the situation brings.
And while there may be no NEED to right-click in MacOS right now, given the growing popularity of multi-button mice on the Mac, eventually some apps will require it for certain functions.
First, there are already a few programs that require multiple button mice (Shake and Maya if I recall correctly). So far they have been limited to high-end applications where the users can be assumed to be technically proficient and will not mind the expense of buying a third-part mouse. This mouse partially mitigates the latter concern. If Apple ships this by default, then the cost will no longer be a concern (except for laptops). This is a problem, not a benefit.
From a developer's point of view it is awfully tempting to put features in a right-click contextual menu and really easy to put features only there. The only thing stopping you is the fact that you can't rely upon your users to have multi-button mice and thus access to them. Putting features only in a right-click menu is WRONG! It makes them unavailable to not only people with single button mice, but people using any sort of alternate interface (for the disabled, voice recognition, touch screens, etc.). Further, it prevents power users from easily customizing the right-button menu with what they want to put there. For all intents and purposes, it makes the right mouse button useless in the majority of applications because then all the programs that don't put really useful things there still can't have a custom menu because your application needs that mouse assigned to it's default purpose.
To simplify, one button by default makes multi button mice more useful. Shipping a one button mouse that can transform in software to a two button mouse not only has 90% of the advantage of keeping developers developing properly, but it also saves the expense of buying a new mouse (assuming it starts shipping as the standard mouse).
All of this is meaningless to me, as I am addicted to using a trackball. The real question is, when can I get a trackball with a small trackball on top instead of a scroll wheel? Logitech, please start copying this feature immediately.