🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5674@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> sho@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (Sho Kuwamoto) writes:
<In response to someone who said the
<Amiga system was slightly better because it has a seperate button for
<the mouse, Get REAL!  The Amigas menu bar switches depending on the
<active windows, it's just that you can't see it until you hit the
<right button.  

No, having a second mouse button _is_ a win. You don't gain any
confusion because there is an Interface Guideline which basically says
"thou shalt use the right mouse button for menus (and similar
things)." Very few programs use "similar things," and those that do do
it right. My experience is that people (artists, etc.) don't have
trouble with the second mouse button.

On the other hand, you _do_ lose some capabilities. Without doing any
customization, you lose the "mulitple select" capabilities of the
Amiga. I'm used to configuring programs (at least until I set up the
config files) by doing "mouse menu button; pull down config menu;
mouse select on all options; let up mouse menu button." On the Mac,
this turns into "mouse menu button; pull down config menu; select an
option and let up mouse button; repeat for all options." Much slower -
but still available on the Amiga for the inexperienced users.

<Another thing that scares me.  Customizable mice seem fine for a multi
<user environment; if I get an account on a new Sun, I copy over my
<setup files or whatever and everything is hunky dory, right?  But for
<a single user machine, I couldn't imagine what would happen if *my*
<mac functioned differently from the one my friend has, which
<functioned differently from the one the school has for public use.  

You mean the Mac isn't customizable _at all_? You can't put in your
favorite desktop accessories, and can't load the function keys with
your favorite acceloraters? And what's this I heard about pop-up
menus on the Mac? They don't exist? Or don't count as customization?

Nah, having a customizable micro will work like it always has, and
like having a customizable shell or editor does on Unix - when you
need to work in a different environment, you either arrange to load
your favorite environment, or use the lcd version. The former means
booting your system disk on the Mac/Amiga/CPM-80/MSDOS/whatever, and
creating a login shell as you on a Unix system. No big deal.

And now you start getting to the _real_ wins with that second mouse
button. If you've got popup menus, how do you distinguish between a
click to go to an application and a menu click? I like having a
"follow-mouse" interface, instead of a "click-to-type" interface.
Consider the problem of getting the mouse from the application at the
bottom of the screen to the menu bar at the top. With two buttons,
it's easy - I just hold down the menu button as I go. With one button,
how do I prevent another window from activating while I move it?

As DRI demonstrated, the Mac menu interface can be put on an
two-button mouse with no problem. Until you demonstrate that a
two-button interface (pop up menus + followmouse, or some such) can be
adequately dealt with (by that, I mean that you don't have to drive
the window manager with two hands) on a one-button mouse, the
one-button mouse will have to be considered inferior. Of course, Apple
may have done it right, and left hooks in the software for more
buttons. I know Amiga did.

<What happens with context-sensitive popup menus when the program has
<no windows open?  Say you're running a memory based word processor and
<you have two enormous files to edit.  You edit the first one, close
<it, and edit the second one.  Where do you click to get your popup
<menus when there are no open windows?

The same place you click to reactive it under multifinder :-).
Seriously, there are lots of answers, depending on how the rest of the
window manager works.

And from another source:

>> And don't forget the Mac was the first 'commercially available'
>> personal computer to feature a windowing interface and a secondary
>> input device known as a mouse. 

Not hard to not forget - it's not true. Or don't you remember the
Lisa? If you define "personal computer" to be distinct from "home
computer," then you can also count the Star as a predecessor to the
Mac.

The Mac wasn't the first - it was just the first to not flop.

	<mike

--
Il brilgue: les toves lubricilleux			Mike Meyer
Se gyrent en vrillant dans le guave,			mwm@berkeley.edu
Enmimes sont les gougebosqueux,				ucbvax!mwm
Et le momerade horsgrave.				mwm@ucbjade.BITNET