"kosma@ALAN.LAAC-AI.Dialnet.Symbolics.COM"@alan.kahuna.decnet.lockheed.com (06/07/89)
Received: from BLAISE.LAAC-AI.Dialnet.Symbolics.COM by ALAN.LAAC-AI.Dialnet.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 24499; Mon 5-Jun-89 14:43:41 PDT Date: Mon, 5 Jun 89 14:43 PDT From: Montgomery Kosma <kosma@ALAN.LAAC-AI.Dialnet.Symbolics.COM> Subject: QMouse vs. MachII To: "eagle::amiga-relay%udel.edu"@KAHUNA.LAAC-AI.Dialnet.Symbolics.COM In-Reply-To: Your message of 5 Jun 89 14:31 PDT Message-ID: <19890605214316.2.KOSMA@BLAISE.LAAC-AI.Dialnet.Symbolics.COM> There's been lots of talk about QMouse lately on the net. I've been using MachII, but I was wondering how these two programs compare. Seem pretty similar from what I've heard. I know Mach provides a menu-driven program to modify its options; does Qmouse? I'd appreciate anybody who's used both of these programs to post/EMail a comparison. Thanks in advance! monty kosma le03472%portal.decnet.lockheed.com@austin.lockheed.com
deven@pawl.rpi.edu (Deven T. Corzine) (06/07/89)
In article <17011@louie.udel.EDU> "kosma@ALAN.LAAC-AI.Dialnet.Symbolics.COM"@alan.kahuna.decnet.lockheed.com writes:
There's been lots of talk about QMouse lately on the net. I've been
using MachII, but I was wondering how these two programs compare. Seem
pretty similar from what I've heard. I know Mach provides a menu-driven
program to modify its options; does Qmouse? I'd appreciate anybody
who's used both of these programs to post/EMail a comparison.
I used MachII (V2.5) for a long time, but finally switched to QMouse
recently. MachII is somewhat more flexible (mouse events, preferences
settings, other neat things) but it also wastes about 75K more than
QMouse. (counting MachII and SetMach, they're about 80K) QMouse has
about 80-90% of the functionality of MachII, seems more reliable, and
is much smaller. It also lets you have an ASCII config file with
comments, unlike MachII. Sorry, no fancy menus for changing things,
but I jsut use an editor (like mg) to modify the config file, make
sure I have an Ashell window open, kill QMouse and execute the alias
to restart QMouse with the new config file. Also, QMouse can do a few
things MachII can't, like binding "run dnet" to Left Amiga-D...
Deven
--
shadow@[128.113.10.2] <shadow@pawl.rpi.edu> Deven T. Corzine (518) 272-5847
shadow@[128.113.10.201] <shadow@acm.rpi.edu> 2346 15th St. Pi-Rho America
deven@rpitsmts.bitnet <userfxb6@rpitsmts> Troy, NY 12180-2306 <<tionen>>
"Simple things should be simple and complex things should be possible." - A.K.randy@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Randy Hammock) (06/07/89)
In article <17011@louie.udel.EDU> "kosma@ALAN.LAAC-AI.Dialnet.Symbolics.COM"@alan.kahuna.decnet.lockheed.com writes: >There's been lots of talk about QMouse lately on the net. I've been >using MachII, but I was wondering how these two programs compare. Seem >pretty similar from what I've heard. I know Mach provides a menu-driven >program to modify its options; does Qmouse? I'd appreciate anybody >who's used both of these programs to post/EMail a comparison. I tried MachII once and could not figure out why I was having so much trouble trying to point at things with the mouse. I soon discovered that MachII accelerate *ALL* movement of the mouse (though I could be wrong). At that point, I went straight back to QMouse. QMouse has a settable acceleration threshold so it is possible to still make very fine movements but still have quick movements for long moves. -- /// | randy@jato.jpl.nasa.gov Telos - Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA AMIGA/// | hammock@mars.jpl.nasa.gov ** Voyager II at Neptune August 1989 ** \\\/// |-------------------------------------------------------------------- \XX/ | "If I wanted your opinions, I'd have given them to you!" - Mock
jms@tardis.Tymnet.COM (Joe Smith) (06/07/89)
I prefer Matt Dillon's Dmouse and use it with Tom Rokicki's Mackie.
That is, Dmouse for mouse acceleration + window activate + screen to front
and Mackie for screenblank and newCLI. (The CLI or SHELL created by Mackie
has the right PATH set up because it still connected to a CLI. Dmouse can't
do this because it is a process not attached to any CLI.)
--
Joe Smith (408)922-6220 | SMTP: JMS@F74.TYMNET.COM or jms@tymix.tymnet.com
McDonnell Douglas FSCO | UUCP: ...!{ames,pyramid}!oliveb!tymix!tardis!jms
PO Box 49019, MS-D21 | PDP-10 support: My car's license plate is "POPJ P,"
San Jose, CA 95161-9019 | narrator.device: "I didn't say that, my Amiga did!"stephan@cup.portal.com (Stephen Derek Schaem) (06/11/89)
Dmouse could give you the right path, but what I wanted to say is; If you dont care about screen to back use Qmouse. It's everything you need and also will eat less of your CPU time... 80-110% less than Dmouse.
jms@tardis.Tymnet.COM (Joe Smith) (06/12/89)
In article <19360@cup.portal.com> stephan@cup.portal.com (Stephen Derek Schaem) writes: > Dmouse could give you the right path, but what I wanted to say is; If you >dont care about screen to back use Qmouse. > It's everything you need and also will eat less of your CPU time... >80-110% less than Dmouse. Bullshit. You can't get 110% less CPU time, by definition of percent.xD (I'd like to see the numbers that led you to this erroneous conclusion.) -- Joe Smith (408)922-6220 | SMTP: JMS@F74.TYMNET.COM or jms@tymix.tymnet.com McDonnell Douglas FSCO | UUCP: ...!{ames,pyramid}!oliveb!tymix!tardis!jms PO Box 49019, MS-D21 | PDP-10 support: My car's license plate is "POPJ P," San Jose, CA 95161-9019 | narrator.device: "I didn't say that, my Amiga did!"
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (06/12/89)
In article <251@tardis.Tymnet.COM> jms@tardis.Tymnet.COM (Joe Smith) writes: }In article <19360@cup.portal.com> stephan@cup.portal.com (Stephen Derek Schaem) writes: }> Dmouse could give you the right path, but what I wanted to say is; If you }>dont care about screen to back use Qmouse. }> It's everything you need and also will eat less of your CPU time... }>80-110% less than Dmouse. } }Bullshit. You can't get 110% less CPU time, by definition of percent.xD }(I'd like to see the numbers that led you to this erroneous conclusion.) Wadaya mean? Maybe it makes the machine go _faster_! You know... if you have a big CPU-bound task that is taking FOREVER to run, you just fire up enough of these puppies to generate enough _extra_ CPU speed so that you can get it to go as fast as you please... sounds a bunch cheaper than buying a '030.. /b\