Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bionet!ig!ames!elroy!jato!randy
From: randy@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Randy Hammock)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: QMouse vs. MachII
Message-ID: <1312@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>
Date: 7 Jun 89 00:55:38 GMT
References: <17011@louie.udel.EDU>
Reply-To: randy@jato.UUCP (Randy Hammock)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Lines: 18

In article <17011@louie.udel.EDU> "kosma@ALAN.LAAC-AI.Dialnet.Symbolics.COM"@alan.kahuna.decnet.lockheed.com writes:
>There's been lots of talk about QMouse lately on the net.  I've been
>using MachII, but I was wondering how these two programs compare.  Seem
>pretty similar from what I've heard.  I know Mach provides a menu-driven
>program to modify its options; does Qmouse?  I'd appreciate anybody
>who's used both of these programs to post/EMail a comparison.
I tried MachII once and could not figure out why I was having so much
trouble trying to point at things with the mouse.  I soon discovered that
MachII accelerate *ALL* movement of the mouse (though I could be wrong).
At that point, I went straight back to QMouse.  QMouse has a settable
acceleration threshold so it is possible to still make very fine
movements but still have quick movements for long moves.

-- 
      /// |   randy@jato.jpl.nasa.gov  Telos - Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA
AMIGA///  | hammock@mars.jpl.nasa.gov  ** Voyager II at Neptune August 1989 **
 \\\///   |--------------------------------------------------------------------
  \XX/    | "If I wanted your opinions, I'd have given them to you!" - Mock