XPost: alt.windows-xp, microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,   
   microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support   
   XPost: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general   
   From: keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net   
      
   On 12/22/2012 5:44 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:   
      
     The counter to that is that the majority (though not all) of us like   
   > what we know. If a new way of doing things is actually better, though   
   > unfamiliar, but they provided the option of keeping the old way, then   
   > the vast majority of _upgrading_ users would immediately switch to the   
   > old way. This would have the result that (a) the users would not benefit   
   > from the new way, (b) MS [and others] would in effect have to duplicate   
   > support effort, in that they'd have to keep supporting both.   
      
   >   
   > So I _can_ see _some_ justification for new ways of doing things, and   
   > forcing them on users. (Compare the seat-belt and crash-helmet laws; I'm   
   > not sure if those are the same in US as UK though. [Here belts must be   
   > fitted, work, and be worn if the car was made later than 19xx, and   
   > helmets must be worn [by riders of motorised two-wheelers!] except by   
   > Sikhs.])   
      
      
   I am not against new things in the operating system. In fact I was using   
   OS/2 when most people were extolling the virtue of the first version of   
   Windows. Why because it was far superior to Windows.   
      
   I gladly upgraded to XP as it was based on part of the code that made   
   OS/2 far superior and stable.   
      
   However, why should I get excited about upgrading to a system that   
   assumes I am using a touch screen on my computer?  In my work on the   
   computer the mouse works best, as it allows me access to all of the   
   areas on the screen with minimal physical movement.  With the mouse I   
   can quickly move to any place on the screen and keep my hand in the area   
   where I am doing non computer things. i.e marking my place on the   
   physical page I am working with, turning the electrical switch over to   
   better see the information written on it, turning the chip to a better   
   angle to read what is written on it.   
      
   When comparing physical movement required by the mouse resting under my   
   hand to the movement needed to move my arm and hand all over the screen   
   to get the same results, the mouse will all ways win.  So what if the   
   operating system is a tad faster, it does not increase the speed that I   
   can move my arm and hand.  The touch screen causes a net increase in the   
   time to do any operation with the operating system because of the   
   increase physical movement of the body to get the job done.   
      
   This difference between the mouse and touch screen increases   
   significantly as the screen size increases and there is more territory   
   to move the hand to get the results you are looking for.   
      
   Using the same computer without a touch screen, still increase the   
   physical interaction time with the computer, because simulating a touch   
   screen using a mouse requires significantly more movement across the   
   screen.  Again a net increase in the physical time to interact with the   
   operating system to get the same results.   
      
   Ergonomically the mouse wins hands down.  How many muscle problems in   
   the arm and shoulder will be caused by keeping your arm and hand   
   extended in front of you for 8 hours a day?   
      
   With Windows 8, Microsoft has create a whole new medical syndrome.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)