Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!leah!rpi!deven!deven From: deven@pawl.rpi.edu (Deven T. Corzine) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: QMouse vs. MachII Message-ID: Date: 6 Jun 89 22:12:15 GMT References: <17011@louie.udel.EDU> Sender: usenet@rpi.edu Organization: Pi-Rho House, Troy NY Lines: 26 In-reply-to: "kosma@ALAN.LAAC-AI.Dialnet.Symbolics.COM"@alan.kahuna.decnet.lockheed.com's message of 6 Jun 89 18:30:41 GMT In article <17011@louie.udel.EDU> "kosma@ALAN.LAAC-AI.Dialnet.Symbolics.COM"@alan.kahuna.decnet.lockheed.com writes: There's been lots of talk about QMouse lately on the net. I've been using MachII, but I was wondering how these two programs compare. Seem pretty similar from what I've heard. I know Mach provides a menu-driven program to modify its options; does Qmouse? I'd appreciate anybody who's used both of these programs to post/EMail a comparison. I used MachII (V2.5) for a long time, but finally switched to QMouse recently. MachII is somewhat more flexible (mouse events, preferences settings, other neat things) but it also wastes about 75K more than QMouse. (counting MachII and SetMach, they're about 80K) QMouse has about 80-90% of the functionality of MachII, seems more reliable, and is much smaller. It also lets you have an ASCII config file with comments, unlike MachII. Sorry, no fancy menus for changing things, but I jsut use an editor (like mg) to modify the config file, make sure I have an Ashell window open, kill QMouse and execute the alias to restart QMouse with the new config file. Also, QMouse can do a few things MachII can't, like binding "run dnet" to Left Amiga-D... Deven -- shadow@[128.113.10.2] Deven T. Corzine (518) 272-5847 shadow@[128.113.10.201] 2346 15th St. Pi-Rho America deven@rpitsmts.bitnet Troy, NY 12180-2306 <> "Simple things should be simple and complex things should be possible." - A.K.