New iMacs. 21.5", 4 GB RAM, 500 GB disk, 3 GHz Core 2 Duo. 27", 4 GB RAM, 1 
TB disk, 2.66 i5. Quad-core units available.

New MacBook. System redesign, multitouch, new battery, backlit display.

New Mac minis. More speed, more RAM, one version with OS X Server 
preinstalled.

New mouse. No more roller ball. Bluetooth all the way.

-- 
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

In article <hbkpin11pl3@news1.newsguy.com>,
 J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:

> New mouse. No more roller ball. Bluetooth all the way.

Also the Mighty Mouse has been rechristened the Apple Mouse.  Apple and CBS 
were both sued over the name, "Mighty Mouse"; I assume that's the reason 
Apple changed the name.

-- 
Member National Rifle Association
Member American Civil Liberties Union
Member Human Rights Campaign

In article <hbkpin11pl3@news1.newsguy.com>,
 J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:
> New iMacs. 21.5", 4 GB RAM, 500 GB disk, 3 GHz Core 2 Duo. 27", 4 GB RAM, 1 
> TB disk, 2.66 i5. Quad-core units available.
> 
> New MacBook. System redesign, multitouch, new battery, backlit display.
> 
> New Mac minis. More speed, more RAM, one version with OS X Server 
> preinstalled.
> 
> New mouse. No more roller ball. Bluetooth all the way.

More detail from Apple press releases posted on Macintouch:

Apple today introduced the new wireless Magic Mouse, the first mouse to 
use Apple's revolutionary Multi-Touch technology. Pioneered on iPhone, 
iPod touch and Mac notebook trackpads, Multi-Touch allows customers to 
navigate using intuitive finger gestures. Instead of mechanical buttons, 
scroll wheels or scroll balls, the entire top of the Magic Mouse is a 
seamless Multi-Touch surface. Magic Mouse comes standard with the new 
iMac and will be available as a Mac accessory at just $69. [...] 

  Magic Mouse features a seamless touch-sensitive enclosure that allows 
it to be a single or multi-button mouse with advanced gesture support. 
Using intuitive gestures, users can easily scroll through long 
documents, pan across large images or swipe to move forward or backward 
through a collection of web pages or photos. Magic Mouse works for left 
or right handed users and multi-button or gesture commands can be easily 
configured from within System Preferences. 

  The Magic Mouse laser tracking engine provides a smooth, consistent 
experience across more surfaces than a traditional optical tracking 
system. Magic Mouse uses Bluetooth wireless capabilities to create a 
clean, cable-free desk top and its secure wireless connection works from 
up to 10 meters away. To extend battery performance, Magic Mouse 
includes an advanced power management system that works with Mac OS X to 
automatically switch to low power modes during periods of inactivity. 
The wireless Magic Mouse is powered by two AA batteries which are 
included. 

  Magic Mouse comes standard with the new iMac and is available at the 
end of October through the Apple Store (www.apple.com), at Apple's 
retail stores and Apple Authorized Resellers for a suggested retail 
price of $69. Magic Mouse requires Mac OS X Leopard version 10.5.8 or 
later.
**

Apple today updated its popular MacBook with a new, durable 
polycarbonate unibody design featuring a brilliant LED-backlit display, 
a glass Multi-Touch trackpad and Apple's innovative built-in battery for 
up to seven hours of battery life. Inheriting technology and design 
features from the MacBook Pro line, the new MacBook is an ideal consumer 
notebook for students and new Mac users, and is available for $999. 
[...] 

  The new MacBook features a unibody, polycarbonate enclosure that makes 
it lighter and more durable. The new design includes a unique non-skid 
bottom surface and at just 4.7 pounds, the sleek MacBook slides easily 
into a backpack or briefcase. MacBook comes standard with a bright, 
LED-backlit display with the same wide-angle viewing technology used in 
the MacBook Pro line. The new MacBook has a 2.26 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo 
processor, 2GB RAM, a 250GB hard drive, and powerful NVIDIA GeForce 
9400M integrated graphics. 

  The new MacBook includes Apple's innovative built-in notebook battery 
for up to seven hours of wireless productivity on a single charge, and 
up to 1,000 recharges. [...] 

  The new MacBook is available immediately through the Apple Store 
(www.apple.com), Apple's retail stores and Apple Authorized Resellers.
**

Apple today unveiled an all new iMac line featuring brilliant 
LED-backlit 21.5 and 27-inch widescreen displays in a new edge-to-edge 
glass design and seamless all aluminum enclosure. The new iMac line, 
starting at $1,199, is the fastest ever with Intel Core 2 Duo processors 
starting at 3.06 GHz, and Core i5 and i7 quad-core processors for up to 
twice the performance. Every new iMac ships with a wireless keyboard and 
the all new wireless Magic Mouse, the world's first mouse with 
Multi-Touch technology pioneered by Apple on the iPhone, iPod touch and 
Mac notebook trackpad. [...] 

  The new iMac features stunning LED-backlit displays with a 16:9 aspect 
ratio, ideal for watching high definition movies and TV shows from 
iTunes, or editing and watching your own videos or photos using iLife. 
The new 21.5-inch iMac features a high resolution 1920-by-1080 pixel 
display. The 27-inch iMac features a beautiful 2560-by-1440 pixel 
display that offers 60 percent more pixels than the previous 24-inch 
model. Both 21.5 and 27-inch displays use IPS technology to deliver 
consistent color across an ultra wide 178 degree viewing angle. 

  The iMac comes standard with a wireless keyboard and the new Magic 
Mouse featuring Apple's revolutionary Multi-Touch technology. [...] 

  The iMac features improved graphics across the line with NVIDIA 
GeForce 9400M integrated graphics or ATI Radeon HD 4670 discrete 
graphics in the 21.5-inch model, and ATI Radeon HD 4670 discrete 
graphics or ATI Radeon HD 4850 discrete graphics in the 27-inch model. 
The new iMac line now also features 4GB of 1066 MHz DDR3 memory and 
capacity up to 16GB across four SO-DIMM slots. Every iMac features a 
built-in iSight video camera, mic and stereo speakers integrated into 
the thin aluminum and glass design. iMac includes built-in AirPort 
Extreme 802.11n Wi-Fi networking, Bluetooth 2.1+EDR, Gigabit Ethernet, a 
total of four USB 2.0 ports, one FireWire 800 port and a new built-in SD 
card slot.
**

Apple today also announced that the Mac Mini, the world's most energy 
efficient desktop, is now faster, offers more storage and comes standard 
with double the memory. Starting at $599, the entry level Mac Mini 
features a faster 2.26 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor and 2GB of DDR3 
1066 MHz memory, a 160GB hard drive, five USB 2.0 ports, FireWire 800, 
NVIDIA GeForce 9400M integrated graphics and a SuperDrive. The $799 Mac 
Mini features a 2.53 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor, 4GB of memory and a 
larger 320GB hard drive. Apple now offers a $999 Mac Mini that is 
specially configured with Mac OS X Snow Leopard Server. Mac Mini with 
Snow Leopard Server features two 500GB hard drives for a total of 1TB of 
server storage in the tiny 6.5-inch square by 2-inch tall Mac Mini 
enclosure.

The new 3.06 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo iMac and Mac Mini lines are now 
shipping and available through the Apple Store (www.apple.com), Apple's 
retail stores and Apple Authorized Resellers.

The Intel Core i5 and i7 quad-core iMacs are available for order and 
will begin shipping this November. Mac Mini with Mac OS X Snow Leopard 
Server is available from the Apple Store and Apple's retail stores.
*****

In article <hbkpin11pl3@news1.newsguy.com>,
 J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:

> New mouse. No more roller ball. Bluetooth all the way.

I wish Bluetooth weren't so noticeably laggy for me.   : (

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <hbkpin11pl3@news1.newsguy.com>,
>  J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:
> 
> > New mouse. No more roller ball. Bluetooth all the way.
> 
> I wish Bluetooth weren't so noticeably laggy for me.   : (

Suppose I'll give it a try.

The 27" iMacs look awfully tempting. I've been sort of resisting a new
Mac while waiting to see what this next upgrade was going to be. I could
have been happy with the last one, but rumors of new stuff comming kept
me waiting. Wow. The 27" monitor if nothing else. I've been of the
opinion that one of the negatives of the iMac line was that I'd really
prefer a bit larger monitor. (When you get to my age, you'll understand.
:-(). But the Mac Pro line was just too expensive for me and the
all-in-one form factor is handy for my desk. I think I'll go buy myself
a birthday present (today being the right day for that).

I can't stand the "mighty mouse", so the worst thing that happens if I
get one of the new mice is that it ends up in the same junk pile as the
mighty mouse would have and I keep using my Logitech. Same price for
both Apple options. Too bad there isn't an option to save a few bucks by
leaving the mouse off.

-- 
Richard Maine                    | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment.
domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain

In article <jollyroger-C1673C.14225820102009@news.individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <hbkpin11pl3@news1.newsguy.com>,
>  J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:
> 
> > New mouse. No more roller ball. Bluetooth all the way.
> 
> I wish Bluetooth weren't so noticeably laggy for me.   : (

I get that lag with my RocketFish BT mouse, but not with the now trashed 
Mighty Mouse, for what that's worth.

In article <hbkpin11pl3@news1.newsguy.com>,
 J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:

> New iMacs. 21.5", 4 GB RAM, 500 GB disk, 3 GHz Core 2 Duo. 27", 4 GB RAM, 1 
> TB disk, 2.66 i5. Quad-core units available.
> 
> New MacBook. System redesign, multitouch, new battery, backlit display.
> 
> New Mac minis. More speed, more RAM, one version with OS X Server 
> preinstalled.
> 
> New mouse. No more roller ball. Bluetooth all the way.

YAWN... nothing to make me purchase. My 07 iMac with Snow leopard does 
all I need. 

Nice new HD screens by where's the blu ray? 

As far as the Mac book goes it is nice BUT all I need in portability is 
a netbook at about $300. Wish Apple would do one of those.

In article 
<p.e.krause-4EE19F.15402120102009@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Paul Krause <p.e.krause@comcast.net> wrote:

> where's the blu ray?

*yawn* I'm not buying Blu Ray on principle.

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

In article <lloydparsons-F97663.14401520102009@port80.individual.net>,
 Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:

> In article <jollyroger-C1673C.14225820102009@news.individual.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <hbkpin11pl3@news1.newsguy.com>,
> >  J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:
> > 
> > > New mouse. No more roller ball. Bluetooth all the way.
> > 
> > I wish Bluetooth weren't so noticeably laggy for me.   : (
> 
> I get that lag with my RocketFish BT mouse, but not with the now trashed 
> Mighty Mouse, for what that's worth.

I get it with my wireless MM with my MacBook Pro. It's just laggy enough 
to be irritating. : (

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

In article <1j7vx70.13b22vx190ym8N%nospam@see.signature>,
 nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:

> the worst thing that happens if I
> get one of the new mice is that it ends up in the same junk pile as the
> mighty mouse would have and I keep using my Logitech

Would you send it to me instead? : )

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:36:14 -0700, Richard Maine wrote:
>  I think I'll go buy myself
>  a birthday present (today being the right day for that).

Alles Gute zum Geburtstag - enjoy your new birthday present,
Martin

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <1j7vx70.13b22vx190ym8N%nospam@see.signature>,
>  nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:
> 
> > the worst thing that happens if I
> > get one of the new mice is that it ends up in the same junk pile as the
> > mighty mouse would have and I keep using my Logitech
> 
> Would you send it to me instead? : )

Well, that was just the worst thing. Might as well try it first; there's
at least a chance that I might decide I like it. :-)

Just placed my order. Modest system (by the new standards). Only upgrade
I made from the baseline 27" 3.06 GHx system was the 4850 Graphics. I
don't see the CPU speed upgrade as worth the cost for me and it might
even be a negative by adding to the heating load. I'm not really pushing
very hard on the 500GB disk capacity of this older iMac (just over 3
years old), so I think 1TB wil be plenty. The 4GB of memory is plenty
for now... and I like that the 4 slots means I can upgrade to 8GB later
for pretty cheap if the time comes that I want to do that.

Also ordered an adaptor cable to hook up to my "little" 24" second
monitor.

The Quad core ones might be great for some things, but I don't think
they are a very good match for my current wants (I hesitate to call them
"needs" :-)) and toy budget.

(And thanks Martin).

-- 
Richard Maine                    | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment.
domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain

In article <jollyroger-E398F9.14461220102009@news.individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <lloydparsons-F97663.14401520102009@port80.individual.net>,
>  Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <jollyroger-C1673C.14225820102009@news.individual.net>,
> >  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <hbkpin11pl3@news1.newsguy.com>,
> > >  J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > New mouse. No more roller ball. Bluetooth all the way.
> > > 
> > > I wish Bluetooth weren't so noticeably laggy for me.   : (
> > 
> > I get that lag with my RocketFish BT mouse, but not with the now trashed 
> > Mighty Mouse, for what that's worth.
> 
> I get it with my wireless MM with my MacBook Pro. It's just laggy enough 
> to be irritating. : (

You need to trade your fingers in for slower ones...  :)

In article <1j7w0fe.1c0bpnc1k163roN%nospam@see.signature>,
 nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:

> Just placed my order.

I decided against getting one.  My current iMac meets my needs, and the new 
ones don't have anything that makes me want to make the replacement.  If 
finances were better, I might be more tempted.

I think, though, that I'll get that new mouse.

-- 
Member National Rifle Association
Member American Civil Liberties Union
Member Human Rights Campaign

Richard Maine <nospam@see.signature> wrote:

> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <hbkpin11pl3@news1.newsguy.com>,
> >  J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:
> > 
> > > New mouse. No more roller ball. Bluetooth all the way.
> > 
> > I wish Bluetooth weren't so noticeably laggy for me.   : (
> 
> Suppose I'll give it a try.
> 
> The 27" iMacs look awfully tempting. I've been sort of resisting a new
> Mac while waiting to see what this next upgrade was going to be. I could
> have been happy with the last one, but rumors of new stuff comming kept
> me waiting. Wow. The 27" monitor if nothing else. I've been of the
> opinion that one of the negatives of the iMac line was that I'd really
> prefer a bit larger monitor. (When you get to my age, you'll understand.
> :-(). But the Mac Pro line was just too expensive for me and the
> all-in-one form factor is handy for my desk. I think I'll go buy myself
> a birthday present (today being the right day for that).

Happy Birthday.

Point of note, which I haven't seen in most of the online commentary so
far. It is mentioned in the comparison chart on the Apple Store.

The 27" iMac's Mini DisplayPort now supports video input as well as
output, so you can use it as a monitor for another computer.

It appears that this will require another adapter and/or the right
cable, and it is probably limited to supporting computers with
DisplayPort or Mini DisplayPort output.

Adapters to convert from DVI or VGA to Mini DisplayPort might be
feasible but would probably be quite expensive and need a separate power
source (similar to the current Dual-link DVI adapter).

The full resolution of the 27" iMac is 2560 x 1440, and that is too high
for single-link DVI.

The 27" iMac's resolution is the same horizontally as the 30" Cinema
display, but it is 16:9 ratio instead of 16:10.

Small pixels!

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

On 10/20/2009 04:47 PM, Richard Maine wrote:
> Jolly Roger<jollyroger@pobox.com>  wrote:
>
>> In article<1j7vx70.13b22vx190ym8N%nospam@see.signature>,
>>   nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:
>>
>>> the worst thing that happens if I
>>> get one of the new mice is that it ends up in the same junk pile as the
>>> mighty mouse would have and I keep using my Logitech
>>
>> Would you send it to me instead? : )
>
> Well, that was just the worst thing. Might as well try it first; there's
> at least a chance that I might decide I like it. :-)
>
> Just placed my order. Modest system (by the new standards). Only upgrade
> I made from the baseline 27" 3.06 GHx system was the 4850 Graphics. I
> don't see the CPU speed upgrade as worth the cost for me and it might
> even be a negative by adding to the heating load. I'm not really pushing
> very hard on the 500GB disk capacity of this older iMac (just over 3
> years old), so I think 1TB wil be plenty.

Don't worry. Nowadays a Seagate 1TB disk is only $109 (CAN). Apple has 
probably not overcharged you much more than $300 for this feature.

Enjoy your Lucky Goldstar monitor!

Otherwise, have a happy birthday!

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:45:26 -0500, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
wrote:

>> where's the blu ray?
>
>*yawn* I'm not buying Blu Ray on principle.

I'm curious - what principle is this?

-- 
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace 
to the legislature, and not to the executive department." 

- James Madison

In article <jhpsd5ph9upbqnr9r1gvuoa7dprj55djcc@4ax.com>,
 Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:45:26 -0500, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >> where's the blu ray?
> >
> >*yawn* I'm not buying Blu Ray on principle.
> 
> I'm curious - what principle is this?

Mostly I am against all the DRM included with it.

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

In article <jhpsd5ph9upbqnr9r1gvuoa7dprj55djcc@4ax.com>,
 Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:45:26 -0500, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >> where's the blu ray?
> >
> >*yawn* I'm not buying Blu Ray on principle.
> 
> I'm curious - what principle is this?

I am against the horrible DRM it's infested with.

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

In article <1j7vx70.13b22vx190ym8N%nospam@see.signature>,
 nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:

> I can't stand the "mighty mouse", so the worst thing that happens if I
> get one of the new mice is that it ends up in the same junk pile as the
> mighty mouse would have and I keep using my Logitech. Same price for
> both Apple options. Too bad there isn't an option to save a few bucks by
> leaving the mouse off.

Sell it as new and unopened?

-- 
Paul Sture

Jolly Roger wrote:
> In article <jhpsd5ph9upbqnr9r1gvuoa7dprj55djcc@4ax.com>,
>  Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:45:26 -0500, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> where's the blu ray?
>>> *yawn* I'm not buying Blu Ray on principle.
>> I'm curious - what principle is this?
> 
> I am against the horrible DRM it's infested with.

Horrible in that it exists at all, or in that it screws up otherwise 
decent operations?
What does the DRM do it shouldn't?

-- 
john mcwilliams

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.sys.mac.system.]
On 2009-10-20, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> In article 
><p.e.krause-4EE19F.15402120102009@news.eternal-september.org>,
>  Paul Krause <p.e.krause@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> where's the blu ray?
>
> *yawn* I'm not buying Blu Ray on principle.

Fair enough, but some people want it (Blu-ray) and there were rumours 
that it would be available as an option. Obviously you would not have 
chosen that option but some people are understandably disappointed that 
it does not exist (personally I would not have got it either but it is a 
question of cost vs utility, not of principle).

Another point about the new iMacs. I have one with a 20" display and I 
would have gone for 24". The new sizes have thrown me. The price and 
power consumption premium on the 27" models is putting me off them (the 
ability to use them as an external monitor might appeal to some people 
but I wouldn't be making use of it).

So it looks like I would be settling for the 21.5". Given the 16:9 (as 
opposed to 16:10) aspect ratio, the 21.5" model only has about 10% more 
screen area than the old 20" (as opposed to 44% more for the old 24").
However, it is HD resolution, and LED backlit, and has a wider viewing 
angle than the old one.  So I guess I would still be on a winner.

The SD card slot appeals to me, and the new mouse (my Mighty Mouse 
roller ball has been stuck for about a year and I haven't got round to 
breaking the case). I wouldn't have paid extra for wireless keyboard and 
mouse but given that you don't get a discount for selecting the wired 
options I would probably go wireless.

I am not rushing out to buy one yet though, I am waiting to see how it 
goes down with Joe Public.

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

On 21 Oct 2009 17:32:58 GMT, Ian Gregory
<foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:

>Another point about the new iMacs. I have one with a 20" display and I 
>would have gone for 24". The new sizes have thrown me. The price and 
>power consumption premium on the 27" models is putting me off them (the 
>ability to use them as an external monitor might appeal to some people 
>but I wouldn't be making use of it).

I didn't catch that latter ability.   It makes a lot of sense for
those with laptop computers.   I have complained about the design of
the old iMacs not being able to do this.

-- 
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace 
to the legislature, and not to the executive department." 

- James Madison

On 10/21/2009 01:32 PM, Ian Gregory wrote:

> Another point about the new iMacs. I have one with a 20" display and I
> would have gone for 24". The new sizes have thrown me. The price and
> power consumption premium on the 27" models is putting me off them

Hey, man, it's Apple! You're not supposed to care about earthly 
considerations like price. You go ahead and just buy it. Is your credit 
card filled or what?

> So it looks like I would be settling for the 21.5". Given the 16:9 (as
> opposed to 16:10) aspect ratio, the 21.5" model only has about 10% more
> screen area than the old 20" (as opposed to 44% more for the old 24").
> However, it is HD resolution, and LED backlit, and has a wider viewing
> angle than the old one.  So I guess I would still be on a winner.

Too bad you don't own a PC. You could get any monitor you want on the 
market.

> The SD card slot appeals to me, and the new mouse (my Mighty Mouse
> roller ball has been stuck for about a year and I haven't got round to
> breaking the case). I wouldn't have paid extra for wireless keyboard and
> mouse but given that you don't get a discount for selecting the wired
> options I would probably go wireless.

Don't worry! The new mouse will break in still another way.

> I am not rushing out to buy one yet though, I am waiting to see how it
> goes down with Joe Public.

Joe Public buys PCs, you know that.

In article <hbnejn$um2$3@news.eternal-september.org>,
 John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:

> Jolly Roger wrote:
> > In article <jhpsd5ph9upbqnr9r1gvuoa7dprj55djcc@4ax.com>,
> >  Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:45:26 -0500, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> where's the blu ray?
> >>> *yawn* I'm not buying Blu Ray on principle.
> >> I'm curious - what principle is this?
> > 
> > I am against the horrible DRM it's infested with.
> 
> Horrible in that it exists at all, or in that it screws up otherwise 
> decent operations?
> What does the DRM do it shouldn't?

I'll post a couple helpful links, but beyond that, I'm going to let you 
rely on your own Google skills to find the information you want. ; )

<http://gear.ign.com/articles/691/691408p1.html>
<http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6283697.html>
<http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/09/microsoft-hd-dvd.ars>
<http://www.pcworld.com/article/124961/burning_questions_no_copying_from_
first_highdef_players.html>
<http://www.blu-ray.com/faq/#bluray_connection>
<http://www.stereophile.com/news/022006fair/>
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/21/dmca_exemptions_controversy/>

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

In article <jollyroger-E7B290.22541020102009@news.individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <jhpsd5ph9upbqnr9r1gvuoa7dprj55djcc@4ax.com>,
>  Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:45:26 -0500, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > >> where's the blu ray?
> > >
> > >*yawn* I'm not buying Blu Ray on principle.
> > 
> > I'm curious - what principle is this?
> 
> I am against the horrible DRM it's infested with.

Yes! The DRM is thoroughly end to end and could cause significant 
problems for Mac users who don't even use it (Google for details.)

Furthermore, people who know a lot more about this than I do say Blu Ray 
is already dead. It's BetaMax all over again, except that VHS is digital 
downloads.

End of the world as Hollywood knows it
<http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-10378654-261.html>

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:31:42 -0500, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
wrote:

>> Horrible in that it exists at all, or in that it screws up otherwise 
>> decent operations?
>> What does the DRM do it shouldn't?
>
>I'll post a couple helpful links, but beyond that, I'm going to let you 
>rely on your own Google skills to find the information you want. ; )

It appears that your main issue is in backing up protected disks. (An
old issue that technology has solved in the past).

What's not real clear to me is whether this protection scheme applies
to media that I create, as well as what I buy.    If it is the former,
then I agree with you.    If not, see my notes below:

><http://gear.ign.com/articles/691/691408p1.html>

2006 article.  HDMI doesn't bother me, it works well.

It especially doesn't matter if the player and the monitor are both in
the computer.   Copy protection never bothered me with earlier formats
(which got broken anyway).   As long as I can play what I paid for -
or record what I want, what's the big deal?    (As long as I can back
up my data)

I have copied laser disks to DvDs in case my laser disk player ever
dies.   I'm not happy with the quality of the result.   But what's the
big deal about spending money and work to back up all of my
commercially available disks.  

><http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6283697.html>

2005 article That's a PS3 game thing.

><http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/09/microsoft-hd-dvd.ars>

2005 article.   Again, I'm not worried about backing up movies - as
long as I can back up my data.

><http://www.pcworld.com/article/124961/burning_questions_no_copying_from_
>first_highdef_players.html>

2006 article.   Again, I'm not worried about backing up movies - as
long as I can back up my data.

><http://www.blu-ray.com/faq/#bluray_connection>

I'm thinking it is "managed backups" which bother you.    As long as
this doesn't get in the way of data backups, and my own media
presentations, it doesn't bother me.    I'm not going to back-up the
movie I just bought.

><http://www.stereophile.com/news/022006fair/>

2006 article about our rights to back-up.

><http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/21/dmca_exemptions_controversy/>

2006 article about our rights to back-up.

-- 
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace 
to the legislature, and not to the executive department." 

- James Madison

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:22:58 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote
(in article <jollyroger-C1673C.14225820102009@news.individual.net>):

[in the  context of a mouse]

> I wish Bluetooth weren't so noticeably laggy for me.   : (

I'm curious as I have no awareness of my Bluetooth mouse (Kensington 
Slimblade Presenter) being "laggy".  If I reach over and move the mouse the 
response seems to be immediate. The same goes for double-clicking on some 
text and for a drag-to-select action.

I use the mouse in conjunction with a 17" MacBook Pro, first generation.

-- 
James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas --- taliesinsoft@me.com

In article <0001HW.C704D808000A00F5B01029BF@News.Individual.NET>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:22:58 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote
> (in article <jollyroger-C1673C.14225820102009@news.individual.net>):
> 
> [in the  context of a mouse]
> 
> > I wish Bluetooth weren't so noticeably laggy for me.   : (
> 
> I'm curious as I have no awareness of my Bluetooth mouse (Kensington 
> Slimblade Presenter) being "laggy".  If I reach over and move the mouse the 
> response seems to be immediate. The same goes for double-clicking on some 
> text and for a drag-to-select action.
> 
> I use the mouse in conjunction with a 17" MacBook Pro, first generation.

I think "lag" was a bad word for me to use. It's hard to describe; but 
I'll try. It's not that the mouse takes too long to respond. It seems to 
respond quickly enough. The problem to which I refer is seemingly one of 
accuracy. 

Here's a way to see the problem. Position a window on the screen. And 
then focus on the first letter of the title of the window. Now pick a 
place on the desktop that is around an inch or so away from the first 
letter of the title of the window. Then try positioning the mouse cursor 
from one point to the other quickly. With a wired mouse, I find I can 
accurately hit each point. With a Bluetooth mouse, I often overshoot or 
undershoot, and end up circling around to adjust.

Adjusting the Tracking Speed setting in System Preferences > Mouse 
doesn't seem to help much. Even as lower settings, it's still harder to 
hit the target than it is with a wired mouse.

I'm not sure why this is, but I believe it has something to do with the 
response time of Bluetooth.

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:39:39 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote (in article 
<jollyroger-9918BA.15393821102009@news.individual.net>): 

> In article <0001HW.C704D808000A00F5B01029BF@News.Individual.NET>, 
> TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote: 
> 
>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:22:58 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote (in article 
>> <jollyroger-C1673C.14225820102009@news.individual.net>): 
>> 
>> [in the  context of a mouse] 
>> 
>>> I wish Bluetooth weren't so noticeably laggy for me.   : ( 
>> 
>> I'm curious as I have no awareness of my Bluetooth mouse (Kensington 
>> Slimblade Presenter) being "laggy".  If I reach over and move the mouse 
>> the response seems to be immediate. The same goes for double-clicking on 
>> some text and for a drag-to-select action. 
>> 
>> I use the mouse in conjunction with a 17" MacBook Pro, first generation. 
> 
> I think "lag" was a bad word for me to use. It's hard to describe; but 
> I'll try. It's not that the mouse takes too long to respond. It seems to 
> respond quickly enough. The problem to which I refer is seemingly one of 
> accuracy. 
> 
> Here's a way to see the problem. Position a window on the screen. And then 
> focus on the first letter of the title of the window. Now pick a place on 
> the desktop that is around an inch or so away from the first letter of the 
> title of the window. Then try positioning the mouse cursor from one point 
> to the other quickly. With a wired mouse, I find I can accurately hit each 
> point. With a Bluetooth mouse, I often overshoot or undershoot, and end up 
> circling around to adjust. 
> 
> Adjusting the Tracking Speed setting in System Preferences > Mouse doesn't 
> seem to help much. Even as lower settings, it's still harder to hit the 
> target than it is with a wired mouse. 
> 
> I'm not sure why this is, but I believe it has something to do with the 
> response time of Bluetooth. 

I tried the above test and it took me perhaps 1/3 to 1/2 second to move the 
mouse accurately to a target one inch away. I have my tracking speed set one 
step closer to "slow" than to "fast".


-- 
James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas --- taliesinsoft@me.com

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:15:14 -0400, Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org>
wrote:

>Furthermore, people who know a lot more about this than I do say Blu Ray 
>is already dead. It's BetaMax all over again, except that VHS is digital 
>downloads.

Personally I want to own a physical copy of my HD movie.    But with a
Mac, I also want the ability to burn a disk with my own media and/or
data and hand carry it.    The bigger the (standard) disk, the better.

-- 
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace 
to the legislature, and not to the executive department." 

- James Madison

Jolly Roger wrote:
> In article <hbnejn$um2$3@news.eternal-september.org>,
>  John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
>> Jolly Roger wrote:
>>> In article <jhpsd5ph9upbqnr9r1gvuoa7dprj55djcc@4ax.com>,
>>>  Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:45:26 -0500, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> where's the blu ray?
>>>>> *yawn* I'm not buying Blu Ray on principle.
>>>> I'm curious - what principle is this?
>>> I am against the horrible DRM it's infested with.
>> Horrible in that it exists at all, or in that it screws up otherwise 
>> decent operations?
>> What does the DRM do it shouldn't?
> 
> I'll post a couple helpful links, but beyond that, I'm going to let you 
> rely on your own Google skills to find the information you want. ; )

/snipped links out/

Er, thanks??

When I post to usenet a question phrased in that way, I am looking for 
the opinion of the person to whom I posed it. If you cannot or don't 
wish to say, thanks anyway. I am quite familiar with Google and several 
of its predecessors.

-- 
John McWilliams

In article <0001HW.C704DE91000B88FCB01029BF@News.Individual.NET>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:39:39 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote (in article 
> <jollyroger-9918BA.15393821102009@news.individual.net>): 
> 
> > In article <0001HW.C704D808000A00F5B01029BF@News.Individual.NET>, 
> > TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote: 
> > 
> >> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:22:58 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote (in article 
> >> <jollyroger-C1673C.14225820102009@news.individual.net>): 
> >> 
> >> [in the  context of a mouse] 
> >> 
> >>> I wish Bluetooth weren't so noticeably laggy for me.   : ( 
> >> 
> >> I'm curious as I have no awareness of my Bluetooth mouse (Kensington 
> >> Slimblade Presenter) being "laggy".  If I reach over and move the mouse 
> >> the response seems to be immediate. The same goes for double-clicking on 
> >> some text and for a drag-to-select action. 
> >> 
> >> I use the mouse in conjunction with a 17" MacBook Pro, first generation. 
> > 
> > I think "lag" was a bad word for me to use. It's hard to describe; but 
> > I'll try. It's not that the mouse takes too long to respond. It seems to 
> > respond quickly enough. The problem to which I refer is seemingly one of 
> > accuracy. 
> > 
> > Here's a way to see the problem. Position a window on the screen. And then 
> > focus on the first letter of the title of the window. Now pick a place on 
> > the desktop that is around an inch or so away from the first letter of the 
> > title of the window. Then try positioning the mouse cursor from one point 
> > to the other quickly. With a wired mouse, I find I can accurately hit each 
> > point. With a Bluetooth mouse, I often overshoot or undershoot, and end up 
> > circling around to adjust. 
> > 
> > Adjusting the Tracking Speed setting in System Preferences > Mouse doesn't 
> > seem to help much. Even as lower settings, it's still harder to hit the 
> > target than it is with a wired mouse. 
> > 
> > I'm not sure why this is, but I believe it has something to do with the 
> > response time of Bluetooth. 
> 
> I tried the above test and it took me perhaps 1/3 to 1/2 second to move the 
> mouse accurately to a target one inch away. I have my tracking speed set one 
> step closer to "slow" than to "fast".

It's not about how fast you can move the mouse, but how *reliably* you 
can hit the point you are aiming for with your cursor. And the exercise 
requires doing so with a wired mouse and a wireless mouse, so you can 
observe the difference.

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

In article <hbnucj$l0s$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
 John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:

> Jolly Roger wrote:
> > In article <hbnejn$um2$3@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >  John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> Jolly Roger wrote:
> >>> In article <jhpsd5ph9upbqnr9r1gvuoa7dprj55djcc@4ax.com>,
> >>>  Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:45:26 -0500, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> where's the blu ray?
> >>>>> *yawn* I'm not buying Blu Ray on principle.
> >>>> I'm curious - what principle is this?
> >>> I am against the horrible DRM it's infested with.
> >> Horrible in that it exists at all, or in that it screws up otherwise 
> >> decent operations?
> >> What does the DRM do it shouldn't?
> > 
> > I'll post a couple helpful links, but beyond that, I'm going to let you 
> > rely on your own Google skills to find the information you want. ; )
> 
> /snipped links out/
> 
> Er, thanks??
> 
> When I post to usenet a question phrased in that way, I am looking for 
> the opinion of the person to whom I posed it. If you cannot or don't 
> wish to say, thanks anyway. I am quite familiar with Google and several 
> of its predecessors.

I'm afraid Google is the best place for you to get the answer to "What 
does the DRM do it shouldn't?". 

Regarding your other question, I'd say the reason I am against the DRM 
in Blue Ray is the ways in which it allows content creators to limit 
just what you can do with the content.

That's really all I have time (or want) to say about it, to be honest. 
When I made the comment that started this sub-thread, it wasn't an 
invitation for a debate. It was simply a comment expressing my feelings. 
If you were wanting more, I apologize.

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

In article jollyroger-9918BA.15393821102009@news.individual.net, Jolly Roger
at jollyroger@pobox.com wrote on 10/21/09 4:39 PM:

> In article <0001HW.C704D808000A00F5B01029BF@News.Individual.NET>,
>  TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:22:58 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote
>> (in article <jollyroger-C1673C.14225820102009@news.individual.net>):
>> 
>> [in the  context of a mouse]
>> 
>>> I wish Bluetooth weren't so noticeably laggy for me.   : (
>> 
>> I'm curious as I have no awareness of my Bluetooth mouse (Kensington
>> Slimblade Presenter) being "laggy".  If I reach over and move the mouse the
>> response seems to be immediate. The same goes for double-clicking on some
>> text and for a drag-to-select action.
>> 
>> I use the mouse in conjunction with a 17" MacBook Pro, first generation.
> 
> I think "lag" was a bad word for me to use. It's hard to describe; but
> I'll try. It's not that the mouse takes too long to respond. It seems to
> respond quickly enough. The problem to which I refer is seemingly one of
> accuracy. 
> 
> Here's a way to see the problem. Position a window on the screen. And
> then focus on the first letter of the title of the window. Now pick a
> place on the desktop that is around an inch or so away from the first
> letter of the title of the window. Then try positioning the mouse cursor
> from one point to the other quickly. With a wired mouse, I find I can
> accurately hit each point. With a Bluetooth mouse, I often overshoot or
> undershoot, and end up circling around to adjust.
> 
> Adjusting the Tracking Speed setting in System Preferences > Mouse
> doesn't seem to help much. Even as lower settings, it's still harder to
> hit the target than it is with a wired mouse.
> 
> I'm not sure why this is, but I believe it has something to do with the
> response time of Bluetooth.


Is it at all possible that the Bluetooth version's responsiveness is
exacerbated by the MM's acceleration curve? I found it to be horrible with
my wired MM, so soon after getting my iMac I got SteerMouse, which made a
world of difference.

FWIW, since my recent upgrade to 10.5.8 my MM works fine _without_
reinstalling SteerMouse. I have no idea why.


-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)

Jolly Roger wrote:
> In article <hbnucj$l0s$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
>  John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
>> Jolly Roger wrote:
>>> In article <hbnejn$um2$3@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>>  John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>> In article <jhpsd5ph9upbqnr9r1gvuoa7dprj55djcc@4ax.com>,
>>>>>  Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:45:26 -0500, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> where's the blu ray?
>>>>>>> *yawn* I'm not buying Blu Ray on principle.
>>>>>> I'm curious - what principle is this?
>>>>> I am against the horrible DRM it's infested with.
>>>> Horrible in that it exists at all, or in that it screws up otherwise 
>>>> decent operations?
>>>> What does the DRM do it shouldn't?
>>> I'll post a couple helpful links, but beyond that, I'm going to let you 
>>> rely on your own Google skills to find the information you want. ; )
>> /snipped links out/
>>
>> Er, thanks??
>>
>> When I post to usenet a question phrased in that way, I am looking for 
>> the opinion of the person to whom I posed it. If you cannot or don't 
>> wish to say, thanks anyway. I am quite familiar with Google and several 
>> of its predecessors.
> 
> I'm afraid Google is the best place for you to get the answer to "What 
> does the DRM do it shouldn't?". 
> 
> Regarding your other question, I'd say the reason I am against the DRM 
> in Blue Ray is the ways in which it allows content creators to limit 
> just what you can do with the content.
> 
> That's really all I have time (or want) to say about it, to be honest. 
> When I made the comment that started this sub-thread, it wasn't an 
> invitation for a debate. It was simply a comment expressing my feelings. 
> If you were wanting more, I apologize.

Simply wanted your opinion, no more, no less [certainly not a debate.]

Please see this as a compliment, and I am sorry if it was an imposition.

-- 
john mcwilliams

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:33:01 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote (in article 
<jollyroger-0389CC.17330021102009@news.individual.net>): 

> In article <0001HW.C704DE91000B88FCB01029BF@News.Individual.NET>, 
> TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote: 
> 
>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:39:39 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote (in article 
>> <jollyroger-9918BA.15393821102009@news.individual.net>): 
>> 
>>> In article <0001HW.C704D808000A00F5B01029BF@News.Individual.NET>, 
>>> TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote: 
>>> 
>>>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:22:58 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote (in article 
>>>> <jollyroger-C1673C.14225820102009@news.individual.net>): 
>>>> 
>>>> [in the  context of a mouse] 
>>>> 
>>>>> I wish Bluetooth weren't so noticeably laggy for me.   : ( 
>>>> 
>>>> I'm curious as I have no awareness of my Bluetooth mouse (Kensington 
>>>> Slimblade Presenter) being "laggy".  If I reach over and move the mouse 
>>>> the response seems to be immediate. The same goes for double-clicking 
>>>> on some text and for a drag-to-select action. 
>>>> 
>>>> I use the mouse in conjunction with a 17" MacBook Pro, first 
>>>> generation. 
>>> 
>>> I think "lag" was a bad word for me to use. It's hard to describe; but 
>>> I'll try. It's not that the mouse takes too long to respond. It seems to 
>>> respond quickly enough. The problem to which I refer is seemingly one of 
>>> accuracy. 
>>> 
>>> Here's a way to see the problem. Position a window on the screen. And 
>>> then focus on the first letter of the title of the window. Now pick a 
>>> place on the desktop that is around an inch or so away from the first 
>>> letter of the title of the window. Then try positioning the mouse cursor 
>>> from one point to the other quickly. With a wired mouse, I find I can 
>>> accurately hit each point. With a Bluetooth mouse, I often overshoot or 
>>> undershoot, and end up circling around to adjust. 
>>> 
>>> Adjusting the Tracking Speed setting in System Preferences > Mouse 
>>> doesn't seem to help much. Even as lower settings, it's still harder to 
>>> hit the target than it is with a wired mouse. 
>>> 
>>> I'm not sure why this is, but I believe it has something to do with the 
>>> response time of Bluetooth. 
>> 
>> I tried the above test and it took me perhaps 1/3 to 1/2 second to move 
>> the mouse accurately to a target one inch away. I have my tracking speed 
>> set one step closer to "slow" than to "fast". 
> 
> It's not about how fast you can move the mouse, but how *reliably* you can 
> hit the point you are aiming for with your cursor. And the exercise 
> requires doing so with a wired mouse and a wireless mouse, so you can 
> observe the difference. 

When I did the test, using my Kensington Slimblade Presenter Bluetooth mouse 
I indeed concentrated on hitting the point I was aiming for. At this time I 
don't have a wired mouse so I wasn't in a position to compare. That aside, 
the speed and accuracy I obtained was well within my not feeling any lag.



-- 
James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas --- taliesinsoft@me.com

In article <0001HW.C705E30E004895C9B02A89BF@News.Individual.NET>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:33:01 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote (in article 
> <jollyroger-0389CC.17330021102009@news.individual.net>): 
> 
> > In article <0001HW.C704DE91000B88FCB01029BF@News.Individual.NET>, 
> > TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote: 
> > 
> >> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:39:39 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote (in article 
> >> <jollyroger-9918BA.15393821102009@news.individual.net>): 
> >> 
> >>> In article <0001HW.C704D808000A00F5B01029BF@News.Individual.NET>, 
> >>> TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote: 
> >>> 
> >>>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:22:58 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote (in article 
> >>>> <jollyroger-C1673C.14225820102009@news.individual.net>): 
> >>>> 
> >>>> [in the  context of a mouse] 
> >>>> 
> >>>>> I wish Bluetooth weren't so noticeably laggy for me.   : ( 
> >>>> 
> >>>> I'm curious as I have no awareness of my Bluetooth mouse (Kensington 
> >>>> Slimblade Presenter) being "laggy".  If I reach over and move the mouse 
> >>>> the response seems to be immediate. The same goes for double-clicking 
> >>>> on some text and for a drag-to-select action. 
> >>>> 
> >>>> I use the mouse in conjunction with a 17" MacBook Pro, first 
> >>>> generation. 
> >>> 
> >>> I think "lag" was a bad word for me to use. It's hard to describe; but 
> >>> I'll try. It's not that the mouse takes too long to respond. It seems to 
> >>> respond quickly enough. The problem to which I refer is seemingly one of 
> >>> accuracy. 
> >>> 
> >>> Here's a way to see the problem. Position a window on the screen. And 
> >>> then focus on the first letter of the title of the window. Now pick a 
> >>> place on the desktop that is around an inch or so away from the first 
> >>> letter of the title of the window. Then try positioning the mouse cursor 
> >>> from one point to the other quickly. With a wired mouse, I find I can 
> >>> accurately hit each point. With a Bluetooth mouse, I often overshoot or 
> >>> undershoot, and end up circling around to adjust. 
> >>> 
> >>> Adjusting the Tracking Speed setting in System Preferences > Mouse 
> >>> doesn't seem to help much. Even as lower settings, it's still harder to 
> >>> hit the target than it is with a wired mouse. 
> >>> 
> >>> I'm not sure why this is, but I believe it has something to do with the 
> >>> response time of Bluetooth. 
> >> 
> >> I tried the above test and it took me perhaps 1/3 to 1/2 second to move 
> >> the mouse accurately to a target one inch away. I have my tracking speed 
> >> set one step closer to "slow" than to "fast". 
> > 
> > It's not about how fast you can move the mouse, but how *reliably* you can 
> > hit the point you are aiming for with your cursor. And the exercise 
> > requires doing so with a wired mouse and a wireless mouse, so you can 
> > observe the difference. 
> 
> When I did the test, using my Kensington Slimblade Presenter Bluetooth mouse 
> I indeed concentrated on hitting the point I was aiming for. At this time I 
> don't have a wired mouse so I wasn't in a position to compare. That aside, 
> the speed and accuracy I obtained was well within my not feeling any lag.

It's not something you can appreciate without comparing the two 
side-by-side, I'm afraid. It's a subtle-but-irritating (to me) 
difference.

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:26:30 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote
(in article <jollyroger-5FB768.10262922102009@news.individual.net>):

[in response to my stating that I only performed his test, described earlier 
in this thread, with a Bluetooth mouse and not also with a wired mouse]

> It's not something you can appreciate without comparing the two 
> side-by-side, I'm afraid. It's a subtle-but-irritating (to me) 
> difference.

Blast you!     :-)

Now I'm not gonna be satisfied until I borrow a friend's wired mouse and run 
the comparison. When I do I'll post my reactions.

-- 
James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas --- taliesinsoft@me.com

In article <slrnhduhea.1sh3.foo@zenatode.org.uk>,
 Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:

> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.sys.mac.system.]
> On 2009-10-20, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > In article 
> ><p.e.krause-4EE19F.15402120102009@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >  Paul Krause <p.e.krause@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> where's the blu ray?
> >
> > *yawn* I'm not buying Blu Ray on principle.
> 
> Fair enough, but some people want it (Blu-ray)

I don't know anybody who actually wants Blu-ray.  As a storage format, 
it is pretty pathetic in comparison to everything else offered.  What 
people seem to really want is the ability to play HD movies.  They can 
get that without using Blu-ray itself.  As I've noted before 
<http://impossiblystupid.com/node/25>, the SD card slots are a message 
that optical media in general is on the outs.

-- 
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com,
    and probably your server, too.

On 2009-10-22, Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@4q2009.subsume.com> wrote:

> I don't know anybody who actually wants Blu-ray.

But surely you don't deny that there are such people? At least one 
person on this group said they want it, and all the standard critisisms 
failed to sway them. In a couple of years it migt be the case that 
nobody wants Blu-ray and I am not saying that Apple made the wrong 
decision in not including it, just that some people were understandably 
disappointed by it.

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

In article <jollyroger-F26CCA.17365421102009@news.individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> When I made the comment that started this sub-thread, it wasn't an 
> invitation for a debate.

This is Usenet, _everything_ is an invitation for a debate.

-- 
D.F. Manno | dfmanno@mail.com
"Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by
faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits."
(Dan Barker, former preacher, musician, b. 1949)

D.F. Manno <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:

> In article <jollyroger-F26CCA.17365421102009@news.individual.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > When I made the comment that started this sub-thread, it wasn't an 
> > invitation for a debate.
> 
> This is Usenet, _everything_ is an invitation for a debate.

No, it's not. :-)

(Please note the smiley.)

-- 
Richard Maine                    | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment.
domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain

Richard Maine <nospam@see.signature> wrote:

> > This is Usenet, _everything_ is an invitation for a debate.
> 
> No, it's not. :-)

This isn't a debate, it's just contradiction.

-- 
My latest dance performance <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvB98fgse-s>

Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi>
Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi>

Mike Rosenberg <mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com> wrote:

> Richard Maine <nospam@see.signature> wrote:
> 
> > > This is Usenet, _everything_ is an invitation for a debate.
> > 
> > No, it's not. :-)
> 
> This isn't a debate, it's just contradiction.

I suppose I'm then obligated to say "No, it's not." :-)

-- 
Richard Maine                    | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment.
domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain

Richard Maine <nospam@see.signature> wrote:

> > > > This is Usenet, _everything_ is an invitation for a debate.
> > > 
> > > No, it's not. :-)
> > 
> > This isn't a debate, it's just contradiction.
> 
> I suppose I'm then obligated to say "No, it's not." :-)

No, you're not.  ;-)

-- 
My latest dance performance <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvB98fgse-s>

Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi>
Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi>

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.sys.mac.system.]
On 2009-10-22, Mike Rosenberg <mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com> wrote:
> Richard Maine <nospam@see.signature> wrote:
>
>> > > > This is Usenet, _everything_ is an invitation for a debate.
>> > > 
>> > > No, it's not. :-)
>> > 
>> > This isn't a debate, it's just contradiction.
>> 
>> I suppose I'm then obligated to say "No, it's not." :-)
>
> No, you're not.  ;-)

It's a fair cop.

By the way, the sketch is available on Monty Python's YouTube channel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

In article <1j800rj.1xtsoye1y6r3l7N%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
Mike Rosenberg <mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com> wrote:

> Richard Maine <nospam@see.signature> wrote:
> 
> > > > > This is Usenet, _everything_ is an invitation for a debate.
> > > > 
> > > > No, it's not. :-)
> > > 
> > > This isn't a debate, it's just contradiction.
> > 
> > I suppose I'm then obligated to say "No, it's not." :-)
> 
> No, you're not.  ;-)

Yes, he IS.

In article <0001HW.C705E5E100493F5AB02A89BF@News.Individual.NET>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:26:30 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote
> (in article <jollyroger-5FB768.10262922102009@news.individual.net>):
> 
> [in response to my stating that I only performed his test, described earlier 
> in this thread, with a Bluetooth mouse and not also with a wired mouse]
> 
> > It's not something you can appreciate without comparing the two 
> > side-by-side, I'm afraid. It's a subtle-but-irritating (to me) 
> > difference.
> 
> Blast you!     :-)
> 
> Now I'm not gonna be satisfied until I borrow a friend's wired mouse and run 
> the comparison. When I do I'll post my reactions.

I am very interested to read your reactions!

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

RE:
"Nice new HD screens by where's the blu ray?"

I figured that they'd include it with the new models, too. 
I'm surprised that they didn't.

However - don't the new iMacs have the ability to play 
incoming video from _another_ (i.e., an "outside") source?

If a BluRay input signal was available, _could_ the new 
iMacs possibly recognize and display it?

Thus, might the iMac receive and play BluRay from an 
_extenal_ player?

I'm back in the stone age, I still have boxes of VCR tapes. 
I have _one_ DVD (an instructional video) - that's it.

But I've seen some "DVD vs. BluRay" demos (local BestBuy) 
and the difference in picture quality is more than obvious - 
it's astounding (if the demo videos are to be believed). No 
comparison. I'm an audio guy, not video, but even I can 
easily see why BluRay killed "Hi-DVD" (or whatever it was 
called). The only thing holding BluRay back is the price of 
the players. Get them down under $100, and it's a market 
that's destined to grow.

Apparently Apple isn't convinced of this yet (and they have 
other "content" they'd like to sell us, anyway). But perhaps 
the "video input" of the new iMacs could portend some kind 
of "external Apple-compatible BluRay device" in the 
not-so-distant future?

- John

RE:
"The price and power consumption premium on the 27" models 
is putting me off them"

Folks who buy Mercedes don't seem to worry much about the 
cost of the fuel.

- John
(who doesn't give a single whit about how much power my 
computer may be using - I'm going to use it anyway, thank 
you very much)

John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> wrote:

> RE:
> "The price and power consumption premium on the 27" models 
> is putting me off them"
> 
> Folks who buy Mercedes don't seem to worry much about the 
> cost of the fuel.
> 
> - John
> (who doesn't give a single whit about how much power my 
> computer may be using - I'm going to use it anyway, thank 
> you very much)

Not surprisingly, different people have different criteria. The power
consumption was a negative for me. Not a big enough negative to keep me
from buying, but a negative. More for environmental reasons than the
direct cost to me.

For me, and I do realize it is different for others, the price was lower
than I expected. I had been at least thinking real hard about getting a
new system anyway, but thought I'd wait to see what this update looked
like. There had been rumors of a price drop, but this was a bigger drop
than I had expected, relatively speaking. (I'm comparing to the previous
24" models). The price drop was modest, but when you factor in the
upgraded specs, it looks like a much more significant drop. Of course,
I'm comparing to the prior 24" models; if you are comparing to the 21.5"
ones, that's a very different comparison.

I had long wished that there was an iMac with a larger screen. Between
the facts that I like to sit a bit back from my monitor and that my eyes
aren't what they used to be... Those 30" displays look lovely, but they
were way too expensive for me, particularly when you factor in the cost
of a Mac Pro to drive em. A bottom end Mac Pro, even downgraded in CPU
speed, costs more without a monitor than a 24" iMac costs with one, at
least for the models I was looking at. I was not expecting to see my
wish granted. That was quite a surprise - a pleasant one.

Apple says mine shipped today.

-- 
Richard Maine                    | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment.
domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:00:59 -0400, John Albert wrote
(in article <4ae10e5b$0$28940$bb8e7a08@news.usenetcompany.com>):

> RE:
> "Nice new HD screens by where's the blu ray?"
> 
> I figured that they'd include it with the new models, too. 
> I'm surprised that they didn't.
> 
> However - don't the new iMacs have the ability to play 
> incoming video from _another_ (i.e., an "outside") source?
> 
> If a BluRay input signal was available, _could_ the new 
> iMacs possibly recognize and display it?

No. The input isn't HDMI, and the required hardware DRM is not present. The 
Blu-ray device would detect the absence of DRM and refuse to play.

> 
> Thus, might the iMac receive and play BluRay from an 
> _extenal_ player?

No. See above. There are already Blu-ray devices which will work on a Mac, 
they just can't play a commercial Blu-ray disc 'cause the DRM is absent.

> 
> I'm back in the stone age, I still have boxes of VCR tapes. 
> I have _one_ DVD (an instructional video) - that's it.
> 
> But I've seen some "DVD vs. BluRay" demos (local BestBuy) 
> and the difference in picture quality is more than obvious - 
> it's astounding (if the demo videos are to be believed). No 
> comparison. I'm an audio guy, not video, but even I can 
> easily see why BluRay killed "Hi-DVD" (or whatever it was 
> called). The only thing holding BluRay back is the price of 
> the players. Get them down under $100, and it's a market 
> that's destined to grow.

It's not 'Blu-ray' that makes the difference, it's that Blu-ray delivers _HD_ 
video (and high-end audio, too). Regulation DVD may provide pretty good 
audio, but not the HD video.

> 
> Apparently Apple isn't convinced of this yet (and they have 
> other "content" they'd like to sell us, anyway). But perhaps 
> the "video input" of the new iMacs could portend some kind 
> of "external Apple-compatible BluRay device" in the 
> not-so-distant future?

It's not that Apple isn't convinced of this; Apple sells HD video stuff on 
the iTunes Store. What Apple (well, the iSteve) isn't convinced of is the 
requirement to lumber the hardware with DRM and to slap yet more DRM into the 
OS itself just to satisfy Hollywood. Note that this is despite the fact that 
the iSteve is himself part of Hollywood due to his ownership of 5% of Disney, 
which makes him the biggest single Disney shareholder and either very senior 
on the board or the chairman of the board, I can't be bothered to look up 
which.

Blu-ray requires end-to-end hardware and software DRM or commercial content 
will not play. Blu-ray capable Windows boxes provide such end-to-end DRM; 
it's one reason why Vista stinks so bad. The iSteve would rather not cripple 
the OS and the hardware.


-- 
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

On 2009-10-23, John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> wrote:
> RE:
> "The price and power consumption premium on the 27" models 
> is putting me off them"
>
> Folks who buy Mercedes don't seem to worry much about the 
> cost of the fuel.

Well I wouldn't buy a Merc either, I travel by train and bicycle.

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

J.J. wrote:
"No. See above. There are already Blu-ray devices which will 
work on a Mac,
they just can't play a commercial Blu-ray disc 'cause the 
DRM is absent."

In that case, why are _some_ recent Macs (laptops, I 
believe) able to play BluRay (from an external drive) when 
booted into Windows?

If the Mac can play BluRay input booted into Windows, what 
"hardware changes" occur when it's booted into OS X?

If BluRay can indeed be played on a Mac via Windows, there 
can't be anything built into the hardware that prevents it. 
Apple would not include a "Windows-only hardware DRM 
decoder" in any Mac.

Might not the same changes or capabilities that permit this 
to be done with already-built Macs, be now built into the 
new iMacs, as well?

I'm sensing that - although Apple didn't include BluRay 
drives in these new Macs - that they are somehow "hedging 
their bets" with the new "video-in" port. Perhaps we could 
see either an Apple-built or Apple-sanctioned external 
BluRay "solution for the Mac" entering the market as the 
Christmas season approaches?

- John

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:24:15 -0400, John Albert wrote
(in article <4ae1ae7f$0$31002$bb8e7a08@news.usenetcompany.com>):

> J.J. wrote:
> "No. See above. There are already Blu-ray devices which will 
> work on a Mac,
> they just can't play a commercial Blu-ray disc 'cause the 
> DRM is absent."
> 
> In that case, why are _some_ recent Macs (laptops, I 
> believe) able to play BluRay (from an external drive) when 
> booted into Windows?

Because Vista provides the DRM software and the external drive the hardware. 
And, frankly, this is the first time that I've heard that it would work 
without the additional hardware in the system. You sure about that?

> 
> If the Mac can play BluRay input booted into Windows, what 
> "hardware changes" occur when it's booted into OS X?

No Blu-ray drive, with the DRM included, on the Mac. And, are you _really_ 
sure that it will play? Yes, there are Blu-ray devices for Macs... but as of 
the last time I heard (direct from OWC when I was researching backup systems) 
Blu-ray commercial content will not play on Macs. Period. Perhaps you're 
right and they're wrong, but I don't care either way.

> 
> If BluRay can indeed be played on a Mac via Windows, there 
> can't be anything built into the hardware that prevents it. 
> Apple would not include a "Windows-only hardware DRM 
> decoder" in any Mac.

See above. The iSteve doesn't want the DRM hardware on his stuff. And I don't 
blame him.

> 
> Might not the same changes or capabilities that permit this 
> to be done with already-built Macs, be now built into the 
> new iMacs, as well?
> 
> I'm sensing that - although Apple didn't include BluRay 
> drives in these new Macs - that they are somehow "hedging 
> their bets" with the new "video-in" port. Perhaps we could 
> see either an Apple-built or Apple-sanctioned external 
> BluRay "solution for the Mac" entering the market as the 
> Christmas season approaches?
>

There are already external Blu-ray systems for Macs available, from OWC and 
other sources. I have not purchased one, because I see no reason to support 
people who feel that I must be a criminal and go to extremes to prevent me 
from stealing content that I have no particular desire to view in the first 
place. The only reason I'd have for geting a Blu-ray device would be for 
backups, and the limited capacity (max 50 GB) and extreme cost ($190 for a 
pack of fifty 50 GB discs) combined with the price of Blu-ray burner (OWC 
wants $350 and more) is sufficient that I'll go with tape or external hard 
drives, thanks.

If I want HD content, I can get it from the iTunes store and never need 
Blu-ray.

If, as you say, you can use an external drive and boot in Vista to play 
Blu-ray on a Mac, well, go for it. I certainly won't stop you. I also won't 
join you.

-- 
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:34:13 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote (in article 
<jollyroger-FDCA27.17341322102009@news.individual.net>): 

[in response to my stating in regards to the comparison between a bluetooth 
mouse and a wired mouse]

>> Now I'm not gonna be satisfied until I borrow a friend's wired mouse and 
>> run the comparison. When I do I'll post my reactions. 
> 
> I am very interested to read your reactions! 

Comparing the performance of a bluetooth and a wired mouse on my Mac and my 
friends Mac neither of us good sense any difference when running the "Jolly" 
test. We were both able to move the mice, both bluetooth and wired, 
accurately to a target an inch away in about a half of a second. Neither of 
us at anytime felt that there was any lag in the movement of the mice.

My Mac is a MacBook Pro 17" first generation Intel.

My friend's Mac is a MacBook Pro 15" brand new.

The bluetooth mouse was my Kensington Slimblade Presenter.

The wired mouse was my friend's Mighty Mouse.


-- 
James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas --- taliesinsoft@me.com

TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> Comparing the performance of a bluetooth and a wired mouse on my Mac and my
> friends Mac neither of us good sense any difference when running the "Jolly"
> test. 

Just so JR knows he's not alone, bluetooth mice always feel kind of
sluggish to me compared to wired mice.

-- 
My latest dance performance <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvB98fgse-s>

Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi>
Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi>

In article <slrnhe1ep6.1tgk.foo@zenatode.org.uk>,
 Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:

> On 2009-10-22, Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@4q2009.subsume.com> wrote:
> 
> > I don't know anybody who actually wants Blu-ray.
> 
> But surely you don't deny that there are such people?

In the absence of evidence, I do.  Nobody seems to be clamoring for it 
as a storage format; it's all about the movies that are being 
distributed on it.

> At least one 
> person on this group said they want it, and all the standard critisisms 
> failed to sway them.

I have a fairly liberal killfile policy, so I might have missed 
someone's unreasonable arguments.  The only thing I saw in *this* thread 
is someone note the apparent disparity of having a high resolution 
display without Blu-ray.  Since there are so many different ways to get 
HD content, including Apple's own iTunes, I don't find it at all 
surprising that Blu-ray is treated like the backwards media format that 
it is.

-- 
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com,
    and probably your server, too.

In article 1j81esh.1q56znmirrtswN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com, Mike
Rosenberg at mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com wrote on 10/23/09 11:35 AM:

> TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
> 
>> Comparing the performance of a bluetooth and a wired mouse on my Mac and my
>> friends Mac neither of us good sense any difference when running the "Jolly"
>> test. 
> 
> Just so JR knows he's not alone, bluetooth mice always feel kind of
> sluggish to me compared to wired mice.


As I opined earlier, I'm wondering if the the mouse's acceleration curve
might be contributing to it.

-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)

In article <slrnhe385b.1tuq.foo@zenatode.org.uk>,
 Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:

> On 2009-10-23, John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> wrote:
> > RE:
> > "The price and power consumption premium on the 27" models 
> > is putting me off them"
> >
> > Folks who buy Mercedes don't seem to worry much about the 
> > cost of the fuel.
> 
> Well I wouldn't buy a Merc either, I travel by train and bicycle.
> 

20 plus years ago I seriously thought about buying a Mercedes. The model 
I was interested in held its resale value exceptionally well (in the 
UK), which more than offset fuel costs. Not much good in snow though.

Oh, we're back to TCO here.

-- 
Paul Sture

"Mike Rosenberg" <mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com> wrote in message 
news:1j800rj.1xtsoye1y6r3l7N%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com...
> Richard Maine <nospam@see.signature> wrote:
>
>> > > > This is Usenet, _everything_ is an invitation for a debate.
>> > >
>> > > No, it's not. :-)
>> >
>> > This isn't a debate, it's just contradiction.
>>
>> I suppose I'm then obligated to say "No, it's not." :-)
>
> No, you're not.  ;-)
>

Monty Python Lives!

Tom Lake

-- 
Are you a bunch of Nazis?
(Just to satisfy Godwin's Law) 

In article <0001HW.C70734A60029816FB02A89BF@News.Individual.NET>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:34:13 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote (in article 
> <jollyroger-FDCA27.17341322102009@news.individual.net>): 
> 
> [in response to my stating in regards to the comparison between a bluetooth 
> mouse and a wired mouse]
> 
> >> Now I'm not gonna be satisfied until I borrow a friend's wired mouse and 
> >> run the comparison. When I do I'll post my reactions. 
> > 
> > I am very interested to read your reactions! 
> 
> Comparing the performance of a bluetooth and a wired mouse on my Mac and my 
> friends Mac neither of us good sense any difference when running the "Jolly" 
> test. We were both able to move the mice, both bluetooth and wired, 
> accurately to a target an inch away in about a half of a second. Neither of 
> us at anytime felt that there was any lag in the movement of the mice.

Again, "lag" was a bad word to use. This really seems to be about 
precision. I find I have a harder time hitting the mark with a wireless 
mouse than I do with a wired mouse. I often overshoot or undershoot with 
a wireless mouse. Such is not the case with a wired mouse. If you aren't 
paying attention to where your cursor actually ends up, then you 
probably won't notice it.

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

In article <1j81esh.1q56znmirrtswN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
 mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
> 
> > Comparing the performance of a bluetooth and a wired mouse on my Mac and my
> > friends Mac neither of us good sense any difference when running the "Jolly"
> > test. 
> 
> Just so JR knows he's not alone, bluetooth mice always feel kind of
> sluggish to me compared to wired mice.

Thanks. My wife noticed it right away as well. So I know I'm not 
delusional.  : )  And no I know she's not either!  : D

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

In article <C70758D0.4973E%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
 Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:

> In article 1j81esh.1q56znmirrtswN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com, Mike
> Rosenberg at mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com wrote on 10/23/09 11:35 AM:
> 
> > TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Comparing the performance of a bluetooth and a wired mouse on my Mac and 
> >> my
> >> friends Mac neither of us good sense any difference when running the 
> >> "Jolly"
> >> test. 
> > 
> > Just so JR knows he's not alone, bluetooth mice always feel kind of
> > sluggish to me compared to wired mice.
> 
> As I opined earlier, I'm wondering if the the mouse's acceleration curve
> might be contributing to it.

Definitely possible. Though I've noticed it with Apple and Logitech mice.

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

In article jollyroger-868D2F.21550523102009@news.individual.net, Jolly Roger
at jollyroger@pobox.com wrote on 10/23/09 10:55 PM:

> In article <1j81esh.1q56znmirrtswN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
>  mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
> 
>> TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Comparing the performance of a bluetooth and a wired mouse on my Mac and my
>>> friends Mac neither of us good sense any difference when running the "Jolly"
>>> test. 
>> 
>> Just so JR knows he's not alone, bluetooth mice always feel kind of
>> sluggish to me compared to wired mice.
> 
> Thanks. My wife noticed it right away as well. So I know I'm not
> delusional.  : ) 

Hmmmm.... 

> And no I know she's not either!  : D

She _did_ marry you, right?

;P

-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)

In article jollyroger-8EC29D.21553923102009@news.individual.net, Jolly Roger
at jollyroger@pobox.com wrote on 10/23/09 10:55 PM:

> In article <C70758D0.4973E%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
>  Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> In article 1j81esh.1q56znmirrtswN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com, Mike
>> Rosenberg at mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com wrote on 10/23/09 11:35 AM:
>> 
>>> TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Comparing the performance of a bluetooth and a wired mouse on my Mac and
>>>> my
>>>> friends Mac neither of us good sense any difference when running the
>>>> "Jolly"
>>>> test. 
>>> 
>>> Just so JR knows he's not alone, bluetooth mice always feel kind of
>>> sluggish to me compared to wired mice.
>> 
>> As I opined earlier, I'm wondering if the the mouse's acceleration curve
>> might be contributing to it.
> 
> Definitely possible. Though I've noticed it with Apple and Logitech mice.


Huh?? What have you noticed?


-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)

Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:

> >>> Just so JR knows he's not alone, bluetooth mice always feel kind of
> >>> sluggish to me compared to wired mice.
> >> 
> >> As I opined earlier, I'm wondering if the the mouse's acceleration curve
> >> might be contributing to it.
> > 
> > Definitely possible. Though I've noticed it with Apple and Logitech mice.
> 
> 
> Huh?? What have you noticed?

That bluetooth mice always feel kind of sluggish (in my words) or
exhibit a lag (his words) compared to wired mice.

-- 
My latest dance performance <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvB98fgse-s>

Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi>
Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi>

In article 1j852t6.1c8is6y17n7g0N%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com, Mike
Rosenberg at mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com wrote on 10/25/09 11:06 AM:

> Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>>>> Just so JR knows he's not alone, bluetooth mice always feel kind of
>>>>> sluggish to me compared to wired mice.
>>>> 
>>>> As I opined earlier, I'm wondering if the the mouse's acceleration curve
>>>> might be contributing to it.
>>> 
>>> Definitely possible. Though I've noticed it with Apple and Logitech mice.
>> 
>> 
>> Huh?? What have you noticed?
> 
> That bluetooth mice always feel kind of sluggish (in my words) or
> exhibit a lag (his words) compared to wired mice.



Ah! OK. Well, I can't comment on Logitech -- the only one I've ever owned (I
still have it, and it still works great) is wireless: a Cordless MouseMan
Optical. But the MM's acceleration curve is (IMO) intrinsically horrid.

But, as I previously mentioned, since I updated to 10.5.8, MM works quite
nicely...I'm not sure if Apple changed MM's acceleration curve in that
update, or if it's something that I unwittingly effected (though I can't
even remotely imagine what that could've been).


BTW: After the 10.5.8 update, so far my system has been behaving rather
nicely (finally, after all these months!) -- at least I haven't been plagued
by all those oddball problems I whined about before. (Only Spotlight remains
a pain in the ass. And then there's that new problem with Time Machine...)

However, I did discover a slightly annoying bug in 10.5.8. Apple verified it
and, as a gesture for doing so (and (allegedly) as well as for all the
aggravation I've experienced with the system's poor performance since nearly
Day #1) is sending me a free SL upgrade.  Whoopee!;P

-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)
ptical

In article <C709DA66.49894%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
 Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:

> In article jollyroger-868D2F.21550523102009@news.individual.net, Jolly Roger
> at jollyroger@pobox.com wrote on 10/23/09 10:55 PM:
> 
> > In article <1j81esh.1q56znmirrtswN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
> >  mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
> > 
> >> TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> Comparing the performance of a bluetooth and a wired mouse on my Mac and 
> >>> my
> >>> friends Mac neither of us good sense any difference when running the 
> >>> "Jolly"
> >>> test. 
> >> 
> >> Just so JR knows he's not alone, bluetooth mice always feel kind of
> >> sluggish to me compared to wired mice.
> > 
> > Thanks. My wife noticed it right away as well. So I know I'm not
> > delusional.  : ) 
> 
> Hmmmm.... 
> 
> > And no I know she's not either!  : D
> 
> She _did_ marry you, right?
> 
> ;P

True enough.  : )

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR