Soft Touch Keyboards
From Jacob:
Dear Mr. Moore,
Because my review of the Internet suggests you are one of the
world's preeminent authorities on this topic, I have a quick question
that I hope you will be able to answer for me.
I'm a few months shy of 70. The wear and tear of years of typing
manuscripts for books and scholarly journals, coupled with a childhood
explosion that affected the fingers on my left hand, are now catching
up with me. The pressure required to hit the keys on my Logitech MX
3000 keyboard is becoming painful. If you have a recommendation for a
good keyboard that requires only a light touch, I'd be much indebted to
you.
Appreciatively,
Jacob
Hi Jacob,
I would never presume to call myself an "authority" on
keyboards (or much of anything else, for that matter!), but I guess I
can safely say that I'm a more thoroughly informed than average layman
with a particular personal interest in this topic.
The problem with making specific recommendations is
that sensitivities and preferences when it comes to keyboard action
tends to be highly idiosyncratic, so what works for one may not prove
ideal for another. I can tell you what works for me.
The keyboards I get along best with are the ones in
the G3 Series PowerBooks - WallStreet/Lombard/Pismo, and the ones in the
metal PowerBooks and first generation MacBook Pros, which are nearly
but not quite as good - so if you've ever used any of those, that will
give you an idea of where I'm coming from on this. Those laptop
keyboards are the standard by which I measure typing comfort of any
keyboard.
The one I've found comes closest to ideal in
freestanding computer keyboards is Kensington's
SlimType 'board. It's one of the very few keyboards I can type on
for more than a few minutes without inciting nerve pain in my arms,
wrists and hands that lasts for hours. Happily, the SlimType is also
relatively inexpensive, with a MSRP of $39.99. (It's also available for
$35.73 from Amazon.com.)
The SlimType 'boards have about the same amount of key
travel as the laptop 'boards I mentioned. For folks who prefer a
slightly longer key travel, the DiNovo
series of keyboards from Logitech offer it in a deluxe keyboard
with a soft touch "PerfectStroke" design. These are premium priced
keyboards carrying a MSRP of $99.99, but available sundry places at a
discount. (Currently $79.15 at Amazon.com.)
I have not been able to test every keyboard available,
so it's quite possible that there are other 'boards out there that
would be as good or better, but for me so far the old Apple laptop
'boards and the Kensington SlimType have been as good as it gets.
Hope this is of some help to you.
Charles
Another Wireless Mouse Option
From John:
Hi, Charles,
I happened to see your Miscellaneous Ramblings column as I was
looking for something else on Low End Mac. I don't know if you're
familiar with the Logitech
MX620 wireless mouse, but I've got two of them and really like
them. They're expensive at retail, but I bought refurbs from Tech4Less.com for $19.99 plus
shipping. I had some trouble getting them to go, so I'll share that
here.
These mice use a small USB receiver, and I had trouble getting mine
to sync. I called Logitech support and got a Mac tech, who told me
that these mice are best paired with their receivers on Windows
machines, then brought back to the Mac for use. The tech told me he had
had success pairing on a Mac only about one time out of ten. Sure
enough, though I tried several times, the receiver and mouse wouldn't
communicate on our 2009 Mac
mini.
Just to see what would happen, I went to my PowerBook G4 Aluminum
17" and tried it there. For whatever reason, the PB paired the receiver
and mouse on the first try. I paired both of the MX620s that way, and
then moved one mouse and its receiver to the mini, where it's been
working fine now for a month or so.
This is a big mouse, with two programmable buttons and a
multifunction scroll wheel. It has a nice ergonomic feel to it and
response is instant. I'd recommend it to anyone who doesn't have to
have a small mouse.
John
Hi John,
Thanks for the observations and workaround report.
Could prove helpful for future reference.
I've never used a MX620 mouse, but have a Logitech
V550 wireless mouse that I like better than any other mouse I've ever
used. It also uses a RF wireless USB receiver. I've never had any
problem with any of various mice (Logitech and others) getting Macs to
recognize them (technically it's not "pairing" unless you're connecting
via Bluetooth.
On the other hand, I've definitely found Bluetooth
cranky at times with certain mice on my Intel MacBook, although never
with PPC machines (other than the tedium of the Bluetooth pairing
process itself). I'm not a big Bluetooth fan.
Charles
Hi, Charles, and thanks for the reply. Regarding "pairing," I used
that term because that's what the Logitech rep called it. He said
refurb mice have to be "paired" with their receivers because, unlike
the retail products, which are "paired" in the assembly process,
refurbs may be sold with either a Logitech receiver or a no-name
receiver. In either case, the receiver has been packaged with the
mouse, but not matched and tested.
Maybe "pair" is a term like "Coke," which in the states sometimes is
used generically to mean a soft drink.
John
Hi John,
I suspect that you're right about the term "pairing"
entering the popular vernacular as a generic as wireless peripherals
become more widely used.
However, that Logitech tech was being sloppy about
terminology. I'm really not a stickler pedant about these things, and
I'm serene about the evolution of popular English usage, but on the
other hand, I'm a sailor, and while landlubbing folks often have the
impression that the use of proper equipment and procedure terminology
by sailing folks is an affectation, it's actually pretty important at
times. In an emergency situation it's not much help to holler "free up
that rope over there" when what's needed is to slacken the jib sheet.
There are lots of "ropes" (technically lines with different
names depending on what they do - "rope" is what you find on a coil at
the chandlery) on a sailboat. ;-)
While proper terminology around computers doesn't have
the safety gravitas that proper usage does on sailboats, it's still
helpful for more precise communication. Officially, "pairing" is
definitely a Bluetooth exclusive term. A few references.
ZDNet
Definition for Bluetooth Pairing:
Establishing a connection between two Bluetooth
devices. For example, to pair a headset with a phone, the phone is
configured to "Discoverable" mode and the headset is set up to pair by
pressing one or more keys for some number of seconds. The headset finds
the phone and establishes a connection using an assigned passkey, which
is typically 0000 (see Car Whisperer).
Wikipedia:
Many of the services offered over Bluetooth can
expose private data or allow the connecting party to control the
Bluetooth device. For security reasons it is therefore necessary to
control which devices are allowed to connect to a given Bluetooth
device. At the same time, it is useful for Bluetooth devices to
automatically establish a connection without user intervention as soon
as they are in range.
To resolve this conflict, Bluetooth uses a
process called pairing. Two devices need to be paired once to
communicate with each other; the pairing process is typically triggered
automatically the first time a devices receives a connection request
from a device it is not yet paired with. Once a pairing has been
established, it is remembered by the devices, which can then connect to
each without user intervention. When desired, the pairing relationship
can later be removed by the user.
Another good definition from Palm:
Bluetooth Pairing happens when two Bluetooth
enabled devices agree to communicate with one another. When this
happens, the two devices join what is called a trusted pair. When one
device recognizes another device in an established trusted pair, each
device automatically accepts communication, bypassing the discovery and
authentication process that normally happen during Bluetooth
interactions.
Charles
RadTech BT600 Mouse
From Dan:
I'm glad you brought up the BT600 in your Mighty Mouse alternatives
post.
I have a BT600 from back when it was a much lower DPI tracking. I
had issues with the feet coming off and the BT connection lagging in
tracking and buttons sticking. I loved the customizable user panes, and
when it worked, it was great.
You probably never see it in stores, since you never see RadTech's
stuff in stores - part of their business model. Fortunately for me,
their HQ is on my drive home from work, so I've been known to pop in
when I want something. In fact, when I brought my trouble mice in, they
usually said it was a "flaw in the manufacture quality" and just threw
a new mouse at me. They even gave me spare feet the last time. Great
service. I may have to go check the tracking on my new desk vs. my
previous gen. Mighty Mouse and ask for a new replacement if it
has tracking issues again. Might just score me a 1200 DPI upgrade
;-)
Hi Dan,
Thank you for the report. Always delighted to hear of
good service experiences with hardware suppliers. I think the BT600
I tested here back in 2006 would have
been the lower resolution model.
Charles
Multiple Mouse Input Bug in OS X 10.5.8
From Danielle in response to Multiple Input Device Bug in Mac OS X
10.5.8:
Hello,
I apologize for emailing you directly, but I've searched for a
follow up to this article and haven't been able to find anything. I
also use a multiple mouse/trackball setup to help with my fibromyalgia
and am experiencing the exact same mouse issues that you describe.
Have you upgraded to Snow Leopard and, if so, did it fix your
problem? I am wondering whether to move forward or backwards in
versions, because I need to have the same mouse functionality I had
before my recent upgrade.
Thank you for your time.
Danielle
Hello Danielle,
No apologies necessary. I welcome questions on Mac
topics.
Unfortunately, I've found no workaround for the
problem introduced with version 10.5.8. I suppose I've accommodated
myself to it to a considerable degree, but it's still very frustrating
and annoying.
I have not upgraded to Snow Leopard, at least partly
because I've been told that the problem still persists up to at least
version 10.6.1. I haven't had any reports on whether they addressed it
with the 10.6.2 update introduced last week.
If you don't absolutely need version 10.5.8 for
specific software support, certainly one provisional solution would be
to downgrade to an earlier version of Leopard. I have been tempted to
do this, although it's such a pain and time consumer to reconfigure
everything after a system downgrade that I haven't given in yet.
I'm still planning to update to Snow Leopard, but I'm
in no particular hurry. Aside from the multiple mouse support issue,
version 10.5.8 has been very satisfactory for me.
Charles
Up-to-Date Browsers for PowerPC Macs
From Peter in response to The Future of Up-to-Date Browsers
for PowerPC Macs:
Hello, Charles:
You've touched on a topic I've given a lot of thought to lately.
I believe the lack of updated browsers accelerated the abandonment
of OS 9. Sure, old applications still run fine, and much hardware still
works well with it, but if people can't surf the Web or get their
Web-based email, they'll need something else. For many multimedia-savvy
folks, this also includes Flash updates - I think the loss of Adobe
Flash updates helped accelerate the process.
I see the same thing happening eventually to G4 OS X versions. I
think the platform's got 2-4 years left in the Internet game, tops.
Sure, these boxes will still run all the apps they had prior, but
again, folks will be compelled to walk away if their web applications
aren't available. The thought saddens me, as it seems my Gigabit Ethernet G4 should
still have a few more years in it, and still has some expandability
left. That's the way things are, though. Some folks who stayed with
their G4s due to budget constraints may not have the luxury of running
out and buying a new Mac - they may buy some cheap Windows box
instead.
If the open-source Flash player Gnash were to be back-ported to G4 OS X
versions, I think that might help stall the demise of the G4 as an
Internet user's platform (it sure would be nice to see it ported to
OS 9 as well). Outside of miracles like that, I give the PowerPCs
2-4 more years before you see 'net addicts retiring them in droves.
Pete
Hi Pete,
I agree entirely with your analysis. The lack of a
decent up-to-date Web browser certainly accelerated my departure from
the platform. Indeed, if there were a viable browser application for
OS 9, I might still be using it for some things (and, in fact, I
still do use it for some production chores running in Classic Mode
under OS X 10.4, but not for Web work of any sort).
I was pleased to note that Apple released a Tiger/PPC
version of Safari 4.0.4 last week, but I'm inclined to suspect that
there will never be a PPC version of Safari 5. Two to four more years
might be optimistic.
Charles
Hello again, Charles -
Your response jogged my brain a bit, and I thought I'd check the Mac
profiles page for something. It looks like the last of the Power Mac G5
machines shipped in 2006. With some companies still religiously
sticking to 5-year refresh cycles, I'd imagine Adobe/Apple would be
leery of leaving customers in a lurch without software support. With
some luck, we might have updates for the PowerPC platform through 2011.
That still falls within your suspected timelines, though.
- Pete
SeaMonkey 2: I Love It!
From Michael:
Hello Charles,
Very good article on
SeaMonkey 2! I love it too! It seems much more snappy than v1.1.18,
doesn't it?
I think SeaMonkey is frowned upon in the Mac OS X community because
of it's vast replacement of Apple applications, such as Address Book,
email, password manager, and composer.
Of course, this doesn't bother me. I use SeaMonkey always and
appreciate the Mozilla community for their support for older versions
of Mac OS X as long as they did (Panther) when Apple dropped
support. Of course, also, I'll be upgrading all our Internet Macs to
10.5 via Family pack here shortly to keep up with security and
compatibility (As much as possible that is)
Next stop, Intel Mac mini (2011-ish)
cheers!
Michael
http://mac4ever.wordpress.com/
Hi Michael,
Thank you for the kind words about the review. Yes
indeed, version 2 is definitely a lot zippier than version 1.x was. I'm
even using SeaMonkey 2.0 on my Intel Mac for a while as an alternative
to Firefox, and am liking it quite well in that environment too. I
don't think it's quite as fast as the Firefox 3.6b2 beta, but it's
certainly no slouch, although a public preview of Chrome, which I'm also using, blows
them both into the weeds speed-wise.
I don't really use very many Apple applications, and
frankly have never been much of a fan of Apple software other than the
OS itself. The last Apple branded application that I really liked was
HyperCard, and of course Steve Jobs killed that off a dozen years or so
ago. Even back in the System 6.0.3 days, I used Microsoft Word 4 and 5
for word processing, and, come to think of it, they were the last
Microsoft applications that I had any affinity for.
Safari is a half decent browser these days, but it's
probably my fifth or sixth favorite of the ones available, and the
speed of Chrome is quite addictive.
I usually keep at least three browsers up and running,
and currently the roster is Chrome 4.0.237.0, Opera 10.01, and
SeaMonkey 2.0.
Charles
Go to Charles Moore's Mailbag index.
