🚀 go-pugleaf

I'm interested in the same question/answers.  Refer to "Pick of the Litter"
in Byte, Jun 87, for an overview and a review of 5 mice.

In choosing a mouse, I've come up with several criteria:
   (1) "inertia";
   (2) RS232 v. bus interface (v. HPHIL);
   (3) 2-button v. 3-button;
   (4) mechanical v. optical;
   (5) resolution (100 v. 200 dpi);
   (6) "feel".
Personally, I haven't found resolution to be an issue.  "Feel" is too 
subjective to discuss.  As with cameras, the position of the buttons,
size/shape of the mouse, and position of the trackball (or simulation) is 
something you have to test-drive yourself.

By "inertia", I mean the tendency for the mouse to stay put.  For example,
I've found that the MS Mouse has low inertia, while the PC Mouse has high
inertia:  when I "reach" for the button, the MS Mouse tends to move slightly,
whereas the PC Mouse does not.  This might be due to the lower resolution of
the PC Mouse; but I suspect it's due to the felt pads.  Moral:  beware of
too much smoothness in movement.

The potential advantages of a bus mouse is:  it does not use a COM port; and
it can provide faster data transmission.  (The Byte article notes that the
latter is unimportant because of the low data entry rates.)  However, it does
require an extra interface card (= slot).  HPHIL interface (for the HP Vectra) 
avoids the extra slot requirement; but I don't know of any non-HP mouse that
supports this.  My alternative would be RS232 because I don't currently have
demand for COM ports.

At the risk of starting a "religious" war, I find that I prefer a 2-button
mouse, as do most IBM PC applications, so it appears.  However, I'm inclined
to get a 3-button mouse for the few applications that expect them (e.g., PC
Paint?).  Although they all work with 2Bs, they simulate the 3rd button by
simulateous picks of both buttons.  I'm leary of this type of interface, esp.
for kids.  (On the other hand, the extra button could be confusing for kids.)

Originally, I preferred the optical mouse because of the lack of moving parts
to be cluttered with dust.  I didn't mind being limited to a small work 
surface:  picking up the mouse at the pad's edges comes naturally to me.
However, I'm now leaning toward a mechanical mouse because I think it might be
easier for kids to use.

BTW, the Logitech Mouse is an optomechanical mouse.  While the Byte article
touts this as combining the benefits of both flavors (viz., it doesn't 
require a special pad), I see it as combining the bad with the good (viz.,
the dust-sucking trackball).  But I don't have any personal experience with
the critter.

Ken Mintz