Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Requires Three-Button Mouse for Shake 2.5

pudge posted more than 12 years ago | from the but-i-only-have-a-five-button-mouse dept.

Graphics 116

SpillerC writes "The requirements for the newest version of Shake (cross-platform: Mac OS X, Linux, Windows, Irix) will require a three-button mouse on the Mac. Are there any other Apple-produced applications (Apple owns Shake) that require a three-button mouse? Will Apple release its own three-button mouse now?"

cancel ×

116 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

It is too early for this crap (2, Insightful)

blueroo (553454) | more than 12 years ago | (#3951274)

One specialized application that Apple sells requires a 3 button mouse, and you think this is going to cause them to ship 3 button mice standard?

Does Dell ship cad/cam tablets standard because AutoCad suggests using them?

What kind of nonsense news is this anyway? Can't the Slashdot editors tell a troll when they see one?

Re:It is too early for this crap (2, Informative)

Thenomain (537937) | more than 12 years ago | (#3951539)

The poster didn't suggest "standard". He (or she; I admit not knowing) suggested it might be done "at all".

Does Dell ship cad/cam tablets standard because AutoCad suggests using them?

No, but they might sell cad/cam tablets if they had the idea that more people might want them, which is what the poster was probably suggesting.

I, personally, would be very interested to see what the Apple Design Group would do for a 3-button mouse, but I'm so hooked on my lasermouse-with-mousewheel (that acts like a 3rd mouse button, in a pinch) that even snazzy design and the "Jobs Reality Field" probably couldn't pull me away from it. I'd rather see the ADG work on more important tasks.

Re:It is too early for this crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3955389)

[trimmed quote]
I would be very interested to see what the Apple Design Group would do for a 3-button mouse, but I'm so hooked on my lasermouse-with-mousewheel that even snazzy design probably couldn't pull me away from it.
wait, yer saying you, an apple user, would not ditch your current equipment, even if it looked cool? waijussaminnit -- you mean you actually put function before form????

*tch* *tch* *tch* .. and you call yourself a mac user.

Re:It is too early for this crap (1)

Thenomain (537937) | more than 12 years ago | (#3957527)

I get the same feeling about hard-core PC gamers sometimes. While it would be cool to have my mac glowing blue neon from the inside, I have to wonder: what's the point? And the answer: Because it's cool. Go to ThinkGeek sometime and wonder why people buy half this stuff. The answer: Because it's cool.

So Mac Users don't even come close to having a monopoly on the "Form Over Function" philosophy. Don't even get me started about artists. Function? What function! And people /want/ artistic things? *tch* *tch* *tch* ... and they call themselves people.

The point being, just because platforms have different philosophies doesn't mean the kind of overreaction of the original post is warrented. Some people get worked up over silly things.

In the meantime, I'm going to go see if I can get my Mac to glow blue neon from the inside. That would be so cool.

Re:It is too early for this crap (2)

MrResistor (120588) | more than 12 years ago | (#3951699)

Does Dell own AutoCAD? No, it's just something they offer in a particular bundle on particular workstations.

Does AutoCAD require a cad/cam tablet? No, and in my opinion they aren't particularly useful, especially considering AutoCAD's powerful and flexible command line system.

In contrast, Apple does own Shake, and Shake does require a 3-button mouse.

Personally, Apple would only have to add one button to the iBook to get me to buy one...

Mousebuttons are overrated (2, Interesting)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 12 years ago | (#3956905)

The second and third mouse button are largly overrated. Look, up until last december I was a fervent x86 user and never had any mouse with less than 2 buttons. I laughed at Mac because I found it very limited.
Last december however I bought an iBook (impulse buy...mainly due to OS X), and after about one week you are completely used to it. Your second hand just rests near the "Option" key. I've become that used to it that now when I'm on a PC, I tend to push "Control"-click accidentally. Needless to say that doesn't work ;-) Honestly, don't diss the iBook just because it only has one button. Oh, and the touchpad is the best I ever used. On PC laptops I never found any touchpad that was as accurate and responsive... never... *sigh* Actually with PC's I give up the touchpad after 2 hours and connect a mouse because I'm sick of it.

One thing that is great about the Mac is the pr0n surfing with Internet Explorer. Press Alt-Mousclick on a thumbnail and the link will be saved using the download manager. This is the only reason I still use IE for Mac, because mozilla does not have this function.

I probably sound like a "Apple convert", but really the second mouse button is not needed. And on intel machines I never use the third mousebutton unless running Linux where it's copy paste.

Re:It is too early for this crap (0, Troll)

psyconaut (228947) | more than 12 years ago | (#3952326)

Slashdot has editors?! Could have fooled me...

-psyco

In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3952890)

Driving requires a car. Does this mean the DMV will start production of their own range of vehicles? I'd been holding off on getting a license because of this, but I'd defintely be swayed by a DMV car...

Crap! (1)

vudmaska (584760) | more than 12 years ago | (#3962700)

Funny how an off handed, benignly curious statement can cause such a stir.

In any case, I'm one of those who've wondered where the right mouse click is on my mac(I work on a PC). It provides more robost/immediate io management for me. So 3 is even better. Bring it on.

Otherwise, why not take the mouse click away entirely and instead, when you are over something interesting you hit some 'other' key? Thanks, no.

Temporary (5, Interesting)

Aram Fingal (576822) | more than 12 years ago | (#3951357)

My understanding of Apple's position on multi-button mice is that they unnecessarily complicate the user interface. They give the user one more place to have to look to figure out how to do something. OS X supports multi button mice if you want an alternate way of doing things but Apple ships one button mice to keep programmers from writing stuff that depends on the additional buttons.

Shake is something which Apple acquired from another company. I suspect it will only require a three button mouse until Apple has a chance to rewrite it.

Having said that, one other Apple product which used a three button mouse was, the now long gone, A/UX (Apple UNIX).

Nice theory, but... (3, Informative)

fm6 (162816) | more than 12 years ago | (#3951769)

Shipping one-button mice is not much of a safeguard -- half the Mac people I know use aftermarket mice. The real safeguard is the Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines [apple.com] . Alas, Apple itself no longer seems interested in enforcing these guidelines, even for their own products. I've never used OS X, but I've heard complaints that it violates the MHIG right and left.

Re:Nice theory, but... (5, Informative)

BitGeek (19506) | more than 12 years ago | (#3951846)


This is because OS X apps are not supposed to conform to the MHIG. There is a new set of Human Interface guildines called the Aqua HIG.

These aren't guildines that are "Enforced" -- you can make your app look and work like windows if you want. But Apple certainly does encourage it.

The interface builder has the guildlines built in and will tell you where to place your controls in relation to each other, comes with a default menu layout and the default hotkeys set up. etc.

As to 3 button mice, Apple is correct in not shipping them out of the box. It breaks the paradigm and actually slows people down. I use a three button mouse, though, I got it because its a trackball, the scroll wheel and other button are useful, and I like them.

But for most users, a one button mouse is the correct choice to ship. Billions in productivity have been wasted by microsoft choosing to ship the 2 button mouse (not to mention the billions lost wasting time reinstalling your os, etc. on windows.)

Re:Nice theory, but... (2)

eyepeepackets (33477) | more than 12 years ago | (#3951905)

"Billions in productivity have been wasted by microsoft choosing to ship the 2 button mouse (not to mention the billions lost wasting time reinstalling your os, etc. on windows.)"

Holy shit! I've got five (5) buttons on my mouse, that must translate into trillions, no, quadrillions, no -- THE UNIVERSE IS ABOUT TO IMPLODE!

Sorry dude, just joking around.

Re:Nice theory, but... (1)

Orblivion (548121) | more than 12 years ago | (#3953668)

Holy shit! I've got five (5) buttons on my mouse, that must translate into trillions, no, quadrillions, no -- THE UNIVERSE IS ABOUT TO IMPLODE!
I'm supprised there's no really bad Carl Sagan joke yet...

Re:Nice theory, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3955428)

the universe is made of billions and billions of buttons. the big bang occured when all those buttons converged on one point in space. that massive loss of energetic efficiency caused such a in stability as to explode in the biggest burst of energy concievable.

Re:Nice theory, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3955496)

Billions in productivity have been wasted by microsoft choosing to ship the 2 button mouse

i dont know why i bother reading comments to an 'apple' story. you really are a moron right?

everytime i use a mac, i go to right click to do a wide variety of things. then i think "no, different system. do something different." i'm ok with that. it is a different system, and so it will have different things. ok. but here's where i get pissed off:

Ctrl-click.

WTF?? on a mac i can use almost exclusively the mouse. very little typing fFor the most part. but then i have this thrown at me?? do a full two handed motion, one hand on keyboard, one hand on mouse .. i might as well take up juggling. really. i mean, isnt a paraplegic suposed to be able to use the whole machine? and here i have to use two hands to do a simple GUI operation?

ok. it's a little thing. it's not like i'm reciting a secret password backwards while balancing a unicycle on my chin and shuffle cards with my toes. i am however using two hands to do something on a machine which is supposed to be easy enough fFor a hamster.

meanwhile, your coutless hours of lost productivity are fFor me just a right or left click. am i missing something? how is that ACTUALLY a loss of productivity? if i have as many as 5 buttons, and each button can 'click', 'double click', and 'click and drag' -- i now have fFifteen different operations potentially at my immediate fingertips. as opposed to having to have to use any keys or anything else to do the same thing.

you sir, are wrong. as are the rest of the apple community. more buttons really does mean more options.

if you need an example, here's one. i run autocad, and it is compleetly customized so in fFact every one of my buttons does several things, just as i've said. that's immediate operation literally at my fingertips. i dont have to type a thing, or hunt for a single menu ever, in my world. my workspace is a giant drawing area in which i can click, ANY WHERE, ANY WAY.

THAT's how wrong you are.

Re:Nice theory, but... (1)

Paradise Pete (33184) | more than 12 years ago | (#3955713)

more buttons really does mean more options.

And so you think that more click-of-a-button options automatically means a better interface?
Heck, then why not just put wheels on a keyboard?

Re:Nice theory, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3957074)

well, obviously "more buttons" isnt absolutely going to give you better results on anything. this is a loaded question. but effectively, yes, with good planning and design, more options CAN absolutely be better. chair designers know this, and the best chairs have dozens of points or articulation. for example.

but see, that's why i like linux. i have more options on everything. that's what defines a linux person from an apple person. apple people look for one button simplicity in a sexy package. linux people look for absolute flexibility and who cares what it looks like as long as i can make it do any articulation of things.

2-button mice not the answer; need a new design (2, Insightful)

mikeloader (590119) | more than 12 years ago | (#3962090)

"you sir, are wrong. as are the rest of the apple community. more buttons really does mean more options."

I hate to defend this person's post, especially since I strongly prefer my 2-button Microsoft mouse to Apple's 1-button mouse, but there is one thread of truth here.

For expert users, 2-button mice allow faster access to commands in context menus than either 1-button mice with the Ctrl key or the use of the main menus. Duh. The speed of 2 buttons on laptops is debatable. For novice users, it's not that using 2 buttons is slower, it's that the 2nd button confuses them. Since Apple sells a lot of computers to schools with young children, they should probably keep 1-button mice as standard on iMacs and eMacs but sell 2-button mice for expert PowerMac users.

The real issue isn't that Apple doesn't offer a 2-button mouse, but that a 2-button mouse isn't ideal anyway. There are other gestures that could be supported by a new mouse such as squeezing, rubbing, etc. There's lots of room for innovation. A limited set of unique gestures is faster than context menus because there is no time to acquire the target. Context menus are modal and they require you to move the mouse and then choose a command.

The only reason we need context menus is that programs have so many menu options that it's hard to find the relevant commands. Over the years, toolbars and palettes were invented to let us avoid the menus but then they got so cluttered that we needed context menus. Now context menus are so cluttered in programs like MS Word that MS has to drop some commands in some situations, ruining the predicitability of what's going to be in the menu. A better interface would be to design programs and computers so that you didn't really need context menus.

Re:Temporary (2, Interesting)

Orblivion (548121) | more than 12 years ago | (#3952916)

Where I work, we recently purchased a new Mac so we'd have something we could separately test OS X with reasonable performance. I tried plugged a usb wheel mouse in and it worked. Now having that extra button was great because it actually pulled a menu like I've grown accustomed to on other OS's and desktop environments. Having rarely used a Mac, it wasn't common sense to hold down the Control key and click (2 steps). Seems easier to right click (1 step).

Re:Temporary (2, Insightful)

Aram Fingal (576822) | more than 12 years ago | (#3953211)

... and it was also not common sense to do it the more traditional Mac way and use the top menu which changes as you move around select things to include the stuff which you might otherwise get by right-clicking, etc.

Nothing that I can think of on the Mac actually requires control-clicking except for situations where you are emulating some other machine. A basic part of the HIG, which others have referred to, is that you can find every function of a program in the top pulldown menu. That way, everything is in one place and you don't have to search.

I take your point that it may be easier for occasional users coming from another OS who regularly use a mouse with more than one button. You want to be able to do things without having to think.

Re:Temporary (1)

Orblivion (548121) | more than 12 years ago | (#3953632)

... and it was also not common sense to do it the more traditional Mac way and use the top menu which changes as you move around select things to include the stuff which you might otherwise get by right-clicking, etc.

Or the keyboard shortcuts, since that what the Mac users around me prefer. Just being used to a multi -button mouse and the features associated with it, it was nice under OS X to have it work.

You want to be able to do things without having to think.

I think (no pun intended) it's not about being able to think about how to do stuff, it's more about usability, and being able to use it efficiently....or I'm probably just lazy :-)

Re:Temporary (1)

johnpaul191 (240105) | more than 12 years ago | (#3958179)

i have a logitech optical mouse (my G4 came with the old hockey puck mouse). i have been noticing that OS X and Apple software has stuff that is totally written for the right side button, like the included Mail.app. i been using OS X since the first day it shipped and i have not bothered to download the new drivers for the mouse. so far everything i need is in the OS. it's pretty cool. i do not have the full functionality of all 4 buttons... but the 2 buttons and the scroll wheel work fine and that's what i really wanted.
as a long time Apple user i am still not used to taking advantage of it, so i still try to old keyboard shortcuts or "click and hold". i think as i remember to use the buttons i will dig them. i never use windows, so i don't even think of there being more than one button. i bet a lot of dedicated mac people are the same way. give them a multi-button mouse, show them it does something and they will learn.
i can support the simplicity of 1 button for newbies. maybe they'll start shipping the Pro models with multibuttons, but it hink the iMac an eMac will stay single button for a while. updating the laptops will be a whole new issue. much bigger than just swapping a device. if not the next G4 revision, i would think the next BIG change to the Pro tower (G5 or whatever) would be the logical time to ship a 2+ button device.

3-button might be nice for some thing (1)

0x69 (580798) | more than 12 years ago | (#3951393)

Who here is suggesting that Apple might go to a 3-button STANDARD? Sure, some folks are grasping at crumbs 'cause they want it bad. Others are better at reading what they want to see than the actual words on the page.

A well-done Apple 3-button mouse standard could be good in many situations and extremely good in a few. Don't hold your breath.

Re:3-button might be nice for some thing (0)

blueroo (553454) | more than 12 years ago | (#3951551)

Show me a single piece of hardware that Apple manufactures that they do not sell as a standard feature or add-on option? When you're talking about Apple manufacturing hardware, there are no non-standard parts. Its implied in how they've always behaved.

Who cares, really? (3, Insightful)

webToy (37548) | more than 12 years ago | (#3951401)

I use Apple's ONE button mouse and works just fine. Control-click is not that hard, and if I wanted a two or three button mouse I would probably just buy one from Kensington...
Is it really that big of a deal that Apple doesn't produce one of their own?

Re:Who cares, really? (1)

Garfunkel (3569) | more than 12 years ago | (#3951448)

It's more of a big deal on the laptops. I'm still salivating over a tibook, but the fact it only has one button for the pointer device is sooo frustrating. Sure I could get an external mouse, but that defeats half the purpose of the laptop IMHO. Desktops aren't a big deal, as the mice that come with most of them (PC and Mac) usually suck enough that I want to get my own anyways.

Re:Who cares, really? (2, Insightful)

great om (18682) | more than 12 years ago | (#3951575)

I've just got a Tibook. Held off from getting one for a while beacuse of fears about the uni-button mouse. Its not that hard to adapt to it, especially since (most of) the places I'd want to press a 2nd mouse button --if there was one-- allow me to emulate control+click by simply holding the mouse button down for 2 or 3 sec. With Games, I'll admit that I use a logictech USB 3 button mouse. But I'd probably use a mouse anyway --ever try to aim with a trackpad?

I would, however,like Apple to allow the trackpad tap to emulate a second mouse button

-

Re:Who cares, really? (4, Interesting)

snafu (18104) | more than 12 years ago | (#3952198)

(preface: I'm a Windows *, Linux, Solaris, and OS X user.)

I have come to realize that on a laptop (like my iBook) with a touch-pad or a pointy-stick, one button is much easier to use than two buttons. Using the pointer devices on laptops requires you to contort your hand to use the other button (to right drag or get a menu, usually what I'm doing with it).

However, with OS X and one button, I simply use 'ctrl' with my left. Both hands stay in a natural position and (IMO) this is much faster than right clicking in windows (on one of my pc laptops).

When using a mouse, however, I like the convenience of having two buttons and a scroll wheel, so that's what I plug in (right clicking yields a context-menu, even in "classic" which I don't use).

Re:Who cares, really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3952835)

me too.

I have an ibook, and I wouldn't want another button on the trackpad. The OS is designed to be usable with one button, and control-click is hardly difficult for times when I need it. I do have a Logitech scroll mouse I plugin often, and I like the multiple buttons on it, but more buttons on the trackpad would be cumbersome.

The ibook is so the nicest laptop ever. I've got friends with Viao's and titaniums (the third and second best, respectively), and neither comes close to the ibook in sheer coolness. If only it was as fast as the titanium... oh well, still plenty fast for my needs.

Re:Who cares, really? (1)

Rand Race (110288) | more than 12 years ago | (#3951841)

I just don't get this. My TiBook has - for all practical purposes - a touchpad with 78 buttons. Your hands are there anyways, just use the command and option keys just above and to the left of the pad.

That said, I vastly prefer my tiny two-button and scrollwheel Macally USB optical micro-mouse. Its small enough to use the space to the right of the touchpad as a mousing surface.

Re:Who cares, really? (4, Informative)

BitGeek (19506) | more than 12 years ago | (#3951904)



This is the silliest reason not to buy a TiBook I've ever heard.

You should buy it. you'll quickly discover that you don't need the extra buttons and the machine works fine without them.

The idea that you need more than one button is a false one, it simply isn't true, and you only think you do because you've been using poorly designed operating systems that make you use absurdly complicated controls (like three button mice when only one is *necessary*.)

Something tells me that TiBook would have to be an X86 running at 1/4 speed under battery too, and THEN you'd really buy it.

Re:Who cares, really? (1)

Garfunkel (3569) | more than 12 years ago | (#3952225)

It's not the reason I'm not buying one (money is the reason). I admit that I'd probably get used to it, or figure out some way to do it (like the person who said there was a 78 button mouse implied). If I had the cash and wanted it bad enough, I'd deal with it. I'd just rather not have to relearn things if I don't have to (I'm lazy that way). My response to one mouse button is simply a gut reaction and the troll in me wanting to get out.

Responding to your other points:
I don't think it's a question of _needing_ a mouse with more than one button, it's a question of what your used to and what makes sense to you. Personally, on Windows (rarely used), I use an MS Explorer mouse with 5 buttons. I _really_ like the forward and back buttons for browsing on the mouse. That doesn't work in Linux however (not by default anyways, someday I'll figure it out if I get bored). I don't think this is absurdly complicated and it is quite nice actully because it minimizes the amount of extra movement you have to do.

Personally I don't like using two different input devices. It's not as much of an issue on a laptop because they are so close together you don't need to move your hands. With a desktop though, it would be nice not to have to move my right hand back and forth between the keyboard and mouse. Yes, I'm sure there is hardware I can buy to avoid the issue, but I don't wanna. It seems to me that if I had to make as big of a context switch as moving my hand from keyboard to mouse, then the mouse should do a little more than point and click. And if that's all that's required by the OS, then it seems that the OS should be designed to be more efficient by only using one main input device that doesn't require your hands to move anywhere (yay keybindings!). Laptops with a trackpad right under the keyboard or the ones with the little nipple in the keyboard allieviate this quite a bit and I like that, I just wish they were as easy to use as a mouse (not quite there yet for me, but I probably just need more practice).

I just wish there was an option for more buttons on a ibook, more options are always nice (but having options in hardware isn't really what running a Mac is really all about is it?)
(Sorry, that was too easy and too much fun).

I'm not quite sure what your dig about being and X86 running at 1/4 speed under battery really has to do with anything. I could care less what's under the hood and I certainly don't want to lose speed for any reason. I can run the software I need to run on whatever OS/platform I can get (well almost any platform).

Re:Who cares, really? (2)

BitGeek (19506) | more than 12 years ago | (#3952386)



My point was that x86s don't run at full speed and most people ignore that fact when comparing them to powerbooks-- its yet another reason that the powerbooks are much much MUCH faster computers and better deals since the prices are the same.

You want to us a 5 button mouse iwht your powerbook? Feel free-- you can use the one you already have if its USB.

On the road, however, you can't carry a mouse on any laptop, and so you're going to change your formfactor... and the tibook pad works very well. (Better than the pds on some pc laptops I've tried)

I just think its a silly thing to say you're not buying one because of the mouse button. If its price then you're not buying a laptop at all because of price, cause the Macs are the same price as PCs.

Oh, and you can get used powerbooks, even used tibooks, for less than a grand. They hold their value well.

Re:Who cares, really? (1)

BigBir3d (454486) | more than 12 years ago | (#3952528)

"Oh, and you can get used powerbooks, even used tibooks, for less than a grand. They hold their value well."

Your statement implies that they do not hold their value well. 1/3 the cost after only a year or so? I think not. Even more so now that 10.2 is coming soon.

Re:Who cares, really? (2)

BitGeek (19506) | more than 12 years ago | (#3953222)


I didn't say $3,000 powerbooks could be had for less than a grand.

Remember, some TiBooks cost $2,000 or so.

And they've been out for a year and a half.

iBooks even longer.

Sheesh.

Re:Who cares, really? (1)

BigBir3d (454486) | more than 12 years ago | (#3953488)

When [apple.com] were they ever 2 grand or so? I recall 550's going for 2200, but i am prolly wrong. and that was when the 800's were imminent. iBooks were not mentioned before were they?

My only real problem with Apple (yes, I am currently drooling over 700MHz 12" iBook), is that they upgrade the OS to force people to buy more of their hardware. It is not a easy thing to upgrade a CPU in a Mac and get much more than 10 or 20% gain in performance. And, you have to pay several hundreds of dollars to do it. To upgrade my AMD, it costs $200 tops, and I can get 25% out of it.

Re:Who cares, really? (4, Informative)

Golias (176380) | more than 12 years ago | (#3954510)

My only real problem with Apple (yes, I am currently drooling over 700MHz 12" iBook), is that they upgrade the OS to force people to buy more of their hardware. It is not a easy thing to upgrade a CPU in a Mac and get much more than 10 or 20% gain in performance.

But that's changing the subject, isn't it? Pretty much nobody upgrades the CPU in their laptop computer, Mac or PC, so it has nothing to do with it.

I could get into the "desktop Macs are too hard to upgrade" debate with you, but it's way off the topic of the thread.

Getting back on topic, you simply will not get more ! for your $ in a laptop than buying a Mac. Their CPU's run cooler (and on less power) than either AMD or Intel chips, which allows them to run full-speed and fanless for hours on a single battery. They've got pretty much every feature you need already built in (modem, Ethernet, external video, USB, firewire) and an antenna for adding 802.11b wireless networking for a mere C-note. They are built rugged, have nice screens, and are reasonably priced.

Apple may never be able to compete on raw cost-for-hardware in the destop arena, where a home-built PC remains the ideal choice for penny pinchers (unless a Mac OS machine is worth the slight premium to you)... But their laptops take a back seat to nobody.

Re:Who cares, really? (1)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 12 years ago | (#3956938)

Their CPU's run cooler (and on less power) than either AMD or Intel chips, which allows them to run full-speed and fanless for hours on a single battery.

The CPU certainly runs much cooler, I haven't been able to locate it on my iBook. However there is one component that runs pretty hot and that's the harddisk. Okay, it doesn't get much hot in the sense "it burns!", but a nice "hmmm, warm".
While it is true that the Apple laptops are very very energy efficient, it is mainly due to the fact that the energy management is very good, not because of the CPU. I run Seti@Home on my iBook all the time, and you'd better turn it off while on battery power because I'm pretty sure it won't last 2 hours. (I should time it, I think) Turn Seti@Home off however and it can be used for ages.
Of course, I don't want to know how long a Intel/AMD laptop lives on battery power running Seti@Home. :-)

Re:Who cares, really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3960875)

I have a tiBook, which I refer to as the Titanium Sex Machine. It is by far the best laptop I have every been around. I have one, tiny complaint. The case is made of metal. Metal bends. Bends never go away. Open it once and its never the same. Aside from that it is truly laptop perfection.

Automatic network detection in OSX seals the deal, by the way. Go to work, go home, go to the neighbors and it will always work.

Re:Who cares, really? (1)

SoupIsGoodFood_42 (521389) | more than 12 years ago | (#3952687)

The idea that you need more than one button is a false one, it simply isn't true, and you only think you do because you've been using poorly designed operating systems that make you use absurdly complicated controls (like three button mice when only one is *necessary*.)

But with macs. You have to CTRL + click. IMO, that's more complex. So their goes that argument. Macs are just as bad as PC's in that respect.

Of course. With a lastop, your hands are close to the keyboard anyway. So it's not as bad as a desktop.

Re:Who cares, really? (3, Insightful)

blukens (27693) | more than 12 years ago | (#3953208)

But with macs. You
have to CTRL + click.

I think you, and others, are making a inaccurate assumption here. Unlike Unix or Windows, in a properly designed Mac application there should never be a time where an operation is accessable only through a context-menu. This is, you should never have to ctrl-click (or right-click) on anything.

One of the core interface elements to the Mac environment is the unified menu bar. In many ways, it behaves like an omnipresent contextual menu. Switch from one app to another, it changes to reflect the new context. Within an application, items will enable/disable as they pertain to the currently selected object.

For instance, in Windows it is very common to have a window without menu bar - like in an installer perhaps. If that window contains a text input element, and you want to access Copy and Paste commands (ignoring ctrl-key shortcuts) you have to get them from the context-menu. On a Mac, there will always be an Edit menu in the top menu bar, with those commands ready and waiting.

The fact that Shake requires a 3 button mouse says to me that it is not a properly designed Mac app. That can be okay in some instances. Here, time to market was obviously an issue. And these types of professional apps tend to be an environment unto itself. You'll start the app at the beginning of the day and quit it when you go home, rarely switching between other programs. In such a case, having its own set of rules isn't quite as unforgivable. But I expect Apple to clean it up in time.

Re:Who cares, really? (0)

urmensch (314385) | more than 12 years ago | (#3956199)

so, in a properly designed Mac web browser how do you open a link in a new window/tab? do you hold the mouse button down for a second until you get a contextual menu? highlight the text and go over to the omnipresent context menu? drag it over to the app launcher?

come on... just middle-click it...

seems like there are definitely reasons to have extra mouse buttons and in my opinion apple seems to be ignoring these.

Re:Who cares, really? (2)

blukens (27693) | more than 12 years ago | (#3956365)

Well, holding the command key down and clicking the link works pretty well - much faster than pulling up a context-menu. I'll not argue that middle-clicking is faster still, but that's not the point. You never need to open a link in a new window. One can surf the web just fine in a single window - and, in fact, most people do just that. (As an aside, Mozilla allows you drag a link to an empty spot on the tab bar to create a new tab. I find this approach very appealing from a UI standpoint. But maybe that's just me...)

I think we're arguing two different things here. Contextual menus and multi-button mice are not bad ideas. Apple isn't ignoring them, either. If you plug a multi-button mouse into an OS X box, you'll find that the scroll wheel scrolls, the middle button opens a link in a new window, and the right button brings up context-menus all over the place.

The only different is that multi-button mice are not required, or even expected. This forces the application and os designers to consider single-button access first and foremost. I would argue that this approach almost always leads to a better overall user interface. Of course, my "better" isn't necessarily the same as yours. But, you're more than welcome to use any mouse you like, and open a link in a new window any way you choose.

Re:Who cares, really? (2)

Lars T. (470328) | more than 12 years ago | (#3957177)

Middle-click - on a two-button-mouse?

Anyway, how do you open a link in a new window behind the other windows? In iCab it's just Command-Shift-click on the URL. While you need four buttons.

Re:Who cares, really? (0)

urmensch (314385) | more than 12 years ago | (#3958713)

use chords on a two button mouse

point taken...

there will always be a function that will not be immediately available. however I enjoy having the option to decide which function is most important and therefore resides in a key binding or a specific mouse button.

as far as the specifics go, I don't need to put anything behind another window since a middle click just opens a new tab without giving it the focus.

Re:Who cares, really? (1)

SoupIsGoodFood_42 (521389) | more than 12 years ago | (#3956467)

In that case then. Win2000 is properly designed in terms of the context menu issue. I have never came across a command that could only be acceced via a right click.

Don't forget. Win has it possable to access anything via the keyboard. So it has to be possable to do things without the right mouse button.

It may be more inconvenient to not use the right mouse button. But that's the same story with macs, unless all you ever do is want contextual menus for links in IE.

Rules are made to be broken by the way. And there is no deffinite reason why one mouse button is better than 2. It's just a guide. Anyone who thinks otherwise has no real understaning of actual usablity.

In cases like Shake. It maybe that designing it to use one mouse button maybe infact decrease usablity as opposed to increase it.

Re:Who cares, really? (1)

protohiro1 (590732) | more than 12 years ago | (#3960960)

Some apps are designed to be intuitive and easy to use. Other are designed to be powerful and efficient for a trained user. Multibutton mouse make apps like shake and maya very efficient to work in. The maya interface, for example, is a nightmare at first. Its is confusing and essentially counter-intuitive. Once you get going with all your mouse buttons, your modifier keys, and the most efficient (and complex) contectual menu system ever created the interface becomes sealmess and godlike in efficiency.

And it requires three buttons. Because it isn't supposed to be easy to use. A mac out of the box is meant to be very easy to use, hence, one button. The amount of text on slashdot concecerning this issue is shocking, but lets get this out. You don't need three on a mac, but you can have them if you need them, which you might. In one sentance: Macs ship with one button for beginners, but allow more for advanced users. There is no should here, its flexible, like it should be.

END OF LINE

Re:Who cares, really? (2)

donglekey (124433) | more than 12 years ago | (#3956394)

Only one is necessary for the OS but for programs like Shake, Maya, and Softimage|XSI (best use of the three button mouse ever) it really a very elegant solution, and the simplicity of a one button mouse gets in your way, there needs to be more control.

Re:Who cares, really? (2)

skotte (262100) | more than 12 years ago | (#3955534)

Control-click is not that hard.

you're right. it's not. but if i have to exert any more effort than moving a hand a little bit, i's too much. isnt the macintosh idea to be a computer which a ham snadwich can run? so if i have to use TWO HANDS to do any operation, it's outrageous. right?

it's like this -- what is easier? click this way or that way; or press some button and click with that at the same time; know what i mean?

i'm surprised more people dont have a problem with this. really. i mean, maybe i'm off base here. but isnt a mac supposed to all the work, so i dont have to? which means i shouldnt ever have to do a two-handed action. right?

Re:Who cares, really? (1)

Ciofey (565541) | more than 12 years ago | (#3956655)

To me it is more exertion to always have to NOT press the right mouse button, than to press the CTRL button on the very few occasions that I have to when I am using ill-designed software. CTRL-clicking puts much less strain on my hand. It also allows me to work faster, since I do not have to take extra time every time I click the mouse to make a (conscious or subconscious) decision on which button to press. If the software is not designed for a one-button mouse, then CTRL-clicking is better than to use a mouse with more buttons, because it does not harm my hands. If the software is designed for a one-button mouse, a one-button is the best choice, because it saves time. Apple is not to blame for badly ported Windows games, or M$ bloatware. And in my opinion, they did the best of a bad situation when they added CTRL-clicking functionality to the UI.

Re:Who cares, really? (2)

skotte (262100) | more than 12 years ago | (#3957057)

hm. pretty sound argument. yes, i suppose it does come to a matter of software design. i still argue moving a fFinger is easier than moving a hand or ant entire arm. but you make a good point. if the software is designed entirely to be used in a given way, that way -- no matter how odd it may seem to others -- will always be the best way to use that software.

moral: use the right tool to do the right job.

Re:Who cares, really? (3, Funny)

Lars T. (470328) | more than 12 years ago | (#3956982)

Well, I'm not surprized that using the Shift key is also too much work for you.

I hate to say this, but... (-1, Flamebait)

tps12 (105590) | more than 12 years ago | (#3951407)

Told you so. [slashdot.org] (that comment is regarding Maya, but still applies)

Can't wait to see all the McZealots do a 180 the day Prince Jobs announces the 3-button iMouse.

Re:I hate to say this, but... (2)

PythonOrRuby (546749) | more than 12 years ago | (#3955941)

"iMouse"?

I see it rather the opposite way. If such a thing were to happen at all, the 3 button mouse would more likely take the "Pro" name and the one button(realy in a way "no button") mouse would fall into the consumer arena.

That said, a multi-button mouse would take a lot of design work, given Apple's clear design goal of not exposing moving parts. To this end, a solid-state scroll wheel inspired by the new iPod would probably be quite a nice addition. Perhaps a side to side rocing motion could complement the forward wrist motion to produce three "clicks".

Re:I hate to say this, but... (1)

sebi (152185) | more than 12 years ago | (#3962034)

I don't think that three rocking clicks would work. What if you need to press two buttons at the same time (Maya). I once saw a rip-off of the current Apple Pro Mouse. It had the same form, was translucent and optical. In the middle it had a wheel. Two different clicks where indeed achieved by rocking the whole surface to one side. I tried it and immediately thought it sucked. I don't remember who made it (saw it on display in a store) so I can't really search for pictures.

$30 (1)

Zane Edwards (562074) | more than 12 years ago | (#3951415)

If a post-house is going to buy Shake and a new Mac, surely they can afford a $30 multi-button mouse?

Re:$30 (2)

skotte (262100) | more than 12 years ago | (#3955557)

now this is a good point. perhaps this is really worth dwelling on a moment.

oh, i should mention, i'm a PC person.

so when i buy a PC, i almost as a rule buy a new mouse too. because most pre-packed PC mice just dont cut it. i need an optical mouse with several buttons. all there is to it. and standard pre-packed mice usually are not optical, and often wont have more than 2 buttons.

so. perhaps that's an interesting lesson here: the cost of a nice new mouse should just sort of be tacked on to the price of a whole new machine.

Not a Chance (2, Insightful)

dman123 (115218) | more than 12 years ago | (#3951436)

Apple went from a one-button mouse to a zero-button mouse. If anything, the next interface device will be some sort of device that depends on telepathy or eye movement.

But seriously, Apple will design new hardware for a single piece of software that very few use? If anyone can afford a third-party mouse, it's a Shake user.

Count on Apple simply rewriting the necessary code for version 2.6.

Re:Not a Chance (2, Informative)

Melantha_Bacchae (232402) | more than 12 years ago | (#3951996)

dman123 writes:

> Apple went from a one-button mouse to a
> zero-button mouse. If anything, the next interface
> device will be some sort of device that depends on
> telepathy or eye movement.

An early model of the Mac telepathic interface was lent to Toho in 1996. You can see it, in operation, in the 1997 movie released in the US as "Rebirth of Mothra 2". The same movie also featured Rainbow and Aqua Mothra, and was released five months before OS X and the rainbow hued iMacs were announced.

The number of buttons on mice are platform specific:

The Macintosh is one button,
Windows is two buttons,
The X Window GUI, used on many flavors of UNIX, is three buttons.

How do you get a program requiring three buttons on a one button platform like the Mac? Simple, it was most likely first written for UNIX/X and ported.

Mac being a minority platform that is ported to alot, has to support multiple buttons, while retaining its native one button preference.

The reason why this comes up on Slashdot so often: Slashdotters are more likely to want to run X under OS X so they can run ported UNIX apps. X requires 3 buttons, and a new mouse is a lot pricier to many Slashdotters than it would be to a Shake user.

Though I wonder why someone doesn't just modify their open source X server to simulate the three (seven counting chords) buttons with the same modifiers used by the Mac on its single button. Unless you need to be able to press the middle button in concert with the Control key for some other purpose?

"What I'm thinking is different from what you are."
Belabera, "Mothra 3" 1998

Re:Not a Chance (1)

dman123 (115218) | more than 12 years ago | (#3952547)

The reason why this comes up on Slashdot so often: Slashdotters are more likely to want to run X under OS X so they can run ported UNIX apps. X requires 3 buttons...

Sometimes I get this really odd feeling that His Steveness is developing a three-button (or more) mouse but keeps putting it off every time CmdrTaco complains about it. Sort of like how CT wrote in a FAQ file somewhere that he would delay updating SlashCode every time someone complained about the next version being released later than promised.

Though I wonder why someone doesn't just modify their open source X server to simulate the three (seven counting chords) buttons with the same modifiers used by the Mac on its single button.

You would think that the geeks that try to make web servers out of their telephones, PDAs and Olivettis would have no problem with this. I'm not enough of a geek to know why it's not done more often.

Re:Not a Chance (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3952863)

The reason why this comes up on Slashdot so often: Slashdotters are more likely to want to run X under OS X so they can run ported UNIX apps.

More likely than what? More likely than your grandma?

Most slashdotters are beating off to porn on an old AMD k6-400 with a fuzzy 14" monitor in their mommie's basement. When school isn't in session, they get outside exactly twice a day, on their trip to and from their crappy job at McDonalds or at an outsourced Tech Support place.

Re:Not a Chance (1)

nullard (541520) | more than 12 years ago | (#3954386)

a new mouse is a lot pricier to many Slashdotters than it would be to a Shake user.

I can drive for 20 minutes and buy a 4 button optical mouse for $7. $5 if I don't need it to be optical. $6 can get you a three button mouse and a keyboard. All of the above have scroll wheels.

Mice are cheap! If you buy ten or more, you can even get a bulk discount. Some people can be so cheap.

wow! (1)

jeffy124 (453342) | more than 12 years ago | (#3951458)

CmdrTaco would be proud!

Why don't they (2, Insightful)

Evro (18923) | more than 12 years ago | (#3951502)

just bundle a $20 3-button mouse with this $5000 app? Problem solved.

Re:Why don't they (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3956380)

That will cut the production cost to retail price ratio in half! Are you crazy?

that explains the price cut... (5, Funny)

anothy (83176) | more than 12 years ago | (#3951533)

Apple computer today announced that Shake, a recently-aquired software product, will sell for half price on Apple's own computer systems. The savings is approximatly $5,000.
In a seperate, unrelated announcement, Apple announced it would be releasing a new, multi-button mouse for use with Shake. The new mouse, initially available in a three-button model, will sell for $5,000.

Re:that explains the price cut... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3955696)

i speak for myself and those who like what i say.

Sure, but that other guy's out of town right now.

Not LIkely (2)

Sentry21 (8183) | more than 12 years ago | (#3951567)

More probable is that Apple will require people buying the $5000 package, and possibly a $5000 G4, to also go out and buy a $25 mouse.

That being said, I'd probably buy an Apple wheel mouse if they made one. Doubt it'd happen, but a guy can hope.

--Dan

No $5,0000 G4 (2)

BitGeek (19506) | more than 12 years ago | (#3951882)


Apple doesn't sell a $5,000 G4. The most expensive stock model at the Apple store is $3,000.

Sure you can add stuff to get a G4 up to $5,000 in cost, but you can do that with any computer.

I'm tired of hearing people misrepresent the prices of Macs to make them look expensive. These lies to justify your own prejudice are annoying.

ESPECIALLY in the context of pointing out that Apple is giving its customers a $5,0000 discount.

Once again (Final Cut Pro, Cinema Tools, iMovie, iTunes, iDVD, DVD Studio Pro) apple releases software that used to cost $50-$5,000 more at a great price, saving their customers %100-%50 of the cost and you guys try to use it to claim that Apple's products are overpriced.

How desperate are you?

Re:No $5,0000 G4 (2)

paradesign (561561) | more than 12 years ago | (#3952286)

you obviously havent been to the Apple Store lately.

the ultimate model of the G4 sells for $4,099.00. youd know that if you checked your facts every third millenia or so. and btw if your going to be using shake, your probably going to need the ultimate model plus some scsi drives, lets say 2@72gb. thus bringing our total to $6,049.00, before tax. remember, this is quite cheap compared to what SGI or SUN would charge you. hell the SGI Fuel begins at $11,000. and dont even get me started on the cost of an Octane. real machines cost real money.

now go crawl back into your pc using hole and shut up, you dont know what your talking about.

Re:No $5,0000 G4 (2)

BitGeek (19506) | more than 12 years ago | (#3952400)



You're an idiot. What I said was that the standard configuration G4 is $3,000. Ok, its $2,999. Quote from the Apple store this morning.
Yes, you can get a $4,000 BTO machine. You can get at $5,000 BTO machine if you want.

But the idea that the standard Mac is a $5,000 computer is absurd, and just a continuation of the myth that macs are overpriced.

They aren't, you PC loving zeolot.

Re:No $5,0000 G4 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3957238)

You're an idiot. What I said was that the standard configuration G4 is $3,000. Ok, its $2,999. Quote from the Apple store this morning.

Yes, you can get a $4,000 BTO machine. You can get at $5,000 BTO machine if you want.
All Apple prices exclude monitor cost.
They aren't, you PC loving zeolot.
It's spelt zealot, you zealot.

Re:No $5,0000 G4 (2)

Sentry21 (8183) | more than 12 years ago | (#3955332)

Uhh, someone needs to be a little less sensitive.

If you're spending $5000 on a software package, you're NOT going to get it stock, with 128 megs of ram and a shitty monitor. You're going to need to crank up all the stats and get a kickass display. The display doesn't factor into my five grand, but I've been building a dream system and even mine comes out to about $8000 USD, so you'd better believe a production film studio is going to drop more than I am on their system.

Stop freaking out dude. I never said macs were overpriced. Hell, I have one in my living room, G4/533, bought it brand new, with a monitor that can do 1900x1440 or some shit like that, and it only came to like three grand total. Oh, and a laser printer too. Maybe it was five grand actually, but that's $CDN, so oh well.

Let people say macs are overpriced, it just means you wont' have idiots buying them and bitching because they're too stupid to go out and buy their own two-button mouse instead of bitching about how one isn't included.

--Dan

It's official (2, Insightful)

alernon (91859) | more than 12 years ago | (#3951658)

Rumormongoring about a mouse? Man MWNY must of really dissappointed alot of people if they need to speculate about a new mouse just to make them feel better.

(Posted with a five button Microsoft Intellimouse on a g3 pismo.

Re:It's official (1)

jault (147271) | more than 12 years ago | (#3952216)

Yeah, damn that Apple for posting rumors about themselves on their own website. Wonder if they'll ban themselves from the next MWNY?

/me crosses finges (-1, Troll)

misfit13b (572861) | more than 12 years ago | (#3951680)

gawd i hope so. that's the one thing that's keeping me from seriously looking into an iBook.

default map them all to the same function if you like apple, but at least give us the OPTION!

Re:/me crosses finges (2)

BitGeek (19506) | more than 12 years ago | (#3951929)


You're being silly.

You ahve the option-- go buy an external mouse if you want to slow yourself down.

But to say you're not seriously looking at an ibook because it has only has one mouse button is silly. It doesn't even need that mouse button.

default mapping would not solve the problem-- you'd still be slowed down when you have to stop and think about which mouse button to use. Course you don't think you stop and think, but you do- your mind just ignores that it had to stop .

Its unfortunate that so many people are ignorant about basic CHI science.

Re:/me crosses fingers (1)

misfit13b (572861) | more than 12 years ago | (#3952096)

wow. nice flame.

well, i think anyone paying all that money for an iBook deserves more than that, and if you think that's silly, fine. no wonder apple is such a niche market, where seemingly anyone who wants more than what they are presented is labled ignorant.

who cares karma?

Re:/me crosses fingers (2)

foobar104 (206452) | more than 12 years ago | (#3952320)

well, i think anyone paying all that money for an iBook deserves more than that

All what money? You can get a very nice iBook for $1200. That's right in line with what other laptops cost. The iBook isn't particularly expensive at all.

Re:/me crosses fingers (2)

BitGeek (19506) | more than 12 years ago | (#3952361)



If you think an iBook is too expensive, don't buy a new one. There are great macs out there for $500 that are still better than the new PCs you can get for the same price (Remember you don't get something for nothin.)

And as to being intolerant- -the "two button mouse" issue was laid to rest in, what, 1983? Its a scientific question and it has been asnwered. That you flamed for apple not including a two button mouse shows either your ignorance or your bullheadedness at defying the *FACT* that second mice buttons slow people down.

Sorry, if you didn't know that-- its one of the standard issue, mac Myths that pc zeolots trot out, and so I gave the standard issue response.

Re:/me crosses fingers (1)

CarrionBird (589738) | more than 12 years ago | (#3953079)

Your points on price are true, but your assertion on mice is faulty. So there was a study showing users that were slowed down by two button mice. I can just as easily produce a study showing one button mice slow people down. It's a matter of how the populations are chosen. (If I were to take a group of long time 2 or 3 button mouse users, they would have to stop and think every time they did something involving a context menu.)

I'm not meaning to be an ass, but you've been throwing this "fact" in peoples faces, when it's really an opinion. It is an unfortunate tendancy to take a correlation and brand it as proof without going deeper into the causation.

You're point, though, *is* correct, the price is not as much as issue as poeple make it out to be, and the mice issue is trivial.

Re:/me crosses finges (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3951934)

quote: "but at least give us the OPTION!"

You already have the option. Any and all USB mice and trackballs will work out of the box with os x though you might need drivers if you need more than two buttons and a scrollwheel. Laptops come with only one button but you can just Command-click as this is what the right mouse button is mapped to anyway. The OS and many apps already support context sensitive pop-ups for right-click / Command-click.

So what exactly is stopping you from buying an iBook now?

Re:/me crosses finges (1)

bedheading (175574) | more than 12 years ago | (#3951955)

You have the option- buy a 3-button mouse! This has always been such a non-issue, I can't believe there's actually an entire story on here about it.

It has to change (1)

photon_chac (306576) | more than 12 years ago | (#3951958)

Sure you could use your MAC with a single-button mouse and still feel happy 'cause you only run Photonsh0p or something like that. But what if one day you wanna play War Crvft 3 and find you cant either command your troops or make 'em attack , so what's it that you play for?

Re:It has to change (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3952604)

So running Photoshop is a minor and unimportant use of a computer, but playing a video game is serious power-user stuff? I love the gamer mentality. And why do PC users insist on spelling Mac "MAC"? Mac is short for Macintosh, it's not an acronym for anything.

Re:It has to change (1)

damien_kane (519267) | more than 12 years ago | (#3952850)

Have you ever tried to play War3 with your keyboard? your hand has to be on the left side of the keyboard anyways (for assigning teams) so why not use the keys they've allocated.
Once you learn the keyboard shortcuts you'll find its much faster to play the game without the second button (just try building an orc burrow, f/e).
Your way: point at grunt, click on grunt, point at build command, click on build command, point to burrow structure, click on burrow structure, point to place on map, click on place on map.
My way: point at grunt, click on grunt, hit B, hit O, point to place on map, click on place on map.
I'm not even a hardcore gamer, talk to any true gamer and they will tell you you have to combine your UIs before you can get good at any game.

Re:It has to change (1)

tuxedobob (582913) | more than 12 years ago | (#3954712)

Actually, my iBook is my preferred machine for StarCraft. (It unfortunately doesn't meet the specs for War3.) It's so convenient to have your mouse (trackpad) so close to your keyboard. Set rally points. 0sz9sz8sz7sz. A minute later, I have 24 zerglings ready to group. And how to do that? Control click, control-1, burrow. Control click, control-2, burrow. Pop and attack. Where did I need a second mous button? Attack? Nope. Attack-move. Hit the 'A' key and single click on the ground.

article about apple mice (3, Informative)

trianglecat (318478) | more than 12 years ago | (#3952073)

an article on the subject of apple and mice at
macobserver [macobserver.com]

Apple has shipped multi-button machines (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3952481)

The original Apple PowerBook Duo line (210,230,270) shipped with two track ball buttons. The two buttons could be mapped to perform different tasks.

I remember a small extension that allowed one button to be mapped to control-click so that you could use the contextual menus in System 8.x.

As far as I know all of the other PowerBooks with two buttons were actually wired in parallel so that you could not make them perform different tasks.

-Jason

Re:Apple has shipped multi-button machines (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3955994)

homophobia is gay.

Who Fucking Cares???!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3952610)

jesus you PC dorks are just too much. Your compnay buys into a $5000 software package and $3000+ platform (all of which you WRITE OFF with thr IRS) and you make it sound like a $30 mouse is the deal breaker!!

Even if Apple madea 3 button mouse, half of you would probably say it sucked and STILL woulndt dream of buying a mac anyways.

Re:Who Fucking Cares???!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3955595)

actually, it's the file system i dont like. the mouse is just a crappy accessory.

Why don't you just use a REAL operating system... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3952782)

...instead of screwing around with only one mouse button? Windows has had three mouse buttons for years!

what a weird story (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3952966)

how long ago was the 80s?

computer geek/faggots are weird...

"one mouse button!"

weeeeiiiirrrrd

Maya needs it (1)

skia (100784) | more than 12 years ago | (#3953268)

Maya PLE [aliaswavefront.com] requires a 3-buton mouse. Not made by apple, but not exactly weak sause either.

Open letter to Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3954492)

Dear Apple,

I ama homosexual. I boughtan Apple computer because of its well earned reputation for being "the" gay computer. Since I have become an Apple owner, I have been exposed to a whole new world of gay friends. It is really a pleasure to meet and compute with other homos such as myself. I plan on using my new Apple computer as a way to entice and recruit young schoolboys into the homosexual lifestyle; it would be so helpful if you could produce more software which would appeal to young boys. Thanks in advance.

with much gayness,

Father Randy "Pudge" O'Day, S.J.

apple needs to improve their mice anyways (1)

mieses (309946) | more than 12 years ago | (#3956022)

apple's optical "pro mouse" has lousy tracking and the cord is too short. i find it very difficult to work with, but maybe i'm used to moving my mouse too quickly. otherwise, the design is great.

Mice -- get over it (1)

ianscot (591483) | more than 12 years ago | (#3957456)

God, it's amazing how people fret about their mice. Pretty good example of people letting their computers train them instead of the other way around.

Macs come standard with a no-button mouse. The mouse is hinged, you press the front of the case. It's amazing how little thought you give that after ten seconds. Go noodle on one in the store, see if you even notice it; I'm used to a two-button trackball, and the Apple Optical mouse feels fine.

You can buy the mouse of your choosing -- my optical trackball works fine -- and set it up any which way on your Mac. The Control-click thing works just fine. The OS will let you configure key equivalents for right-clicks and so on. In this case, it'd be simple to assign whatever combo-platter of clicks, chords, and keys you wanted to work this program. I've done the same thing for Photoshop, Pagemaker, and all sorts of games.

There is no correct mouse layout, it's a matter of taste. Apple's deliberately gone a different way, which is kind of cool, okay? Their OS can take anything you throw at it really. What's the big deal? Are you just so completely conditioned by your machine that you can't imagine someone designing it better?

shakin' mouse (2)

Triv (181010) | more than 12 years ago | (#3959221)

((takes deep breath))

shake is not for the first time computer user.

As has been said thousands of times, Apple ships their computers with a single button mouse because it's less confusing. They aren't stopping you from buying another one (although persnally I'd LOVE an Apple-branded two button optical mouse. rock mouse body left / right for different buttons, but that's just me). No new mac user is going to spend a huge chunk of change on a new computer and then throw down $5000 for a program they've never used.

Think of it this way - would you edit professional level digital video on a computer without a jog wheel? Same idea - it's the right tool for the job.

Triv
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?