16 Button mouse vs. Standard mouse
16 Button mouse vs. Standard mouse
(OP)
I have read several different forums, and it has often been a topic within our own office- a lot of newbys would swear they are just as fast and proficient with a standard mouse than someone using a 16 button mouse and tablet. I just wanted to test some opinions about this.
I have been to a number of seminars with the advent of Acad 2002. While these instructors show and taut their new software as being "the ultimate", I watch them struggle with such simple and repetitive commands as "move", "rotate", "scale", etc.
It is my opinion, as a 16 button mouse user since version 12, that the single fastest, and overall best improvement in Acad continues to be the 16 button mouse. You can invent all the lisp routines you want to, but move for move, pressing your commands while your eyes never leave the drawing simply cannot be beat. Clicking on a tool bar, pull down, or screen menu still requires more effort than simply pressing a couple of buttons.
Those in our office who say a regular mouse is just as fast, has yet to prove it by drawing faster than me, or others who use the 16 button method. I should add that the ones who advocate the standard mouse are either much younger than me, came from using MicroStation, and in many cases, never even took a "drafting" course. Anyone remember those? Pencil on velum or ink on mylar? In which event, one had to know how to "draw", not just key in some info and "voila"! Drafting is fast becoming a lost art.
Many young people who are adept at computers think this can easily transfer to Acad. One still needs the "visualization" that was nurtured back in the older days with good old fashioned drawing.
Am I alone on this opinion? God, I feel old, and I'm only 37!
I have been to a number of seminars with the advent of Acad 2002. While these instructors show and taut their new software as being "the ultimate", I watch them struggle with such simple and repetitive commands as "move", "rotate", "scale", etc.
It is my opinion, as a 16 button mouse user since version 12, that the single fastest, and overall best improvement in Acad continues to be the 16 button mouse. You can invent all the lisp routines you want to, but move for move, pressing your commands while your eyes never leave the drawing simply cannot be beat. Clicking on a tool bar, pull down, or screen menu still requires more effort than simply pressing a couple of buttons.
Those in our office who say a regular mouse is just as fast, has yet to prove it by drawing faster than me, or others who use the 16 button method. I should add that the ones who advocate the standard mouse are either much younger than me, came from using MicroStation, and in many cases, never even took a "drafting" course. Anyone remember those? Pencil on velum or ink on mylar? In which event, one had to know how to "draw", not just key in some info and "voila"! Drafting is fast becoming a lost art.
Many young people who are adept at computers think this can easily transfer to Acad. One still needs the "visualization" that was nurtured back in the older days with good old fashioned drawing.
Am I alone on this opinion? God, I feel old, and I'm only 37!





RE: 16 Button mouse vs. Standard mouse
The department head at my company believe in keeping the acad.pgp file the way it came from Autodesk that's why I went to just putting the shortcuts into lisp. I don't agree with Acad's default pgp file. The keys should be in the same proximity. An example is the shortcut "LTS" for "LTSCALE". "TS" are close but that "L" is clear across the keyboard.
Anyway that's just my opinion,
SEMott
Stephen E. Motichek
Project Consulting Services, Inc.
RE: 16 Button mouse vs. Standard mouse
would be faster. We had them around for
awhile but soon one button would fail and
on and on. We eventially scrapped all of
them.
RE: 16 Button mouse vs. Standard mouse
We do have newer employees who use a standard mouse. Their slower production and less profit speaks for itself. Tablets and 16's are warranted for life, so I cannot buy into the broken button problem. Personally, I just think something very crucial got lost along the way in the "supposed" progress of Acad.
Based on my experience, it appears that the biggest problem with 16's is shear intimidation. It looks like a handful to master. But after about 3 months, no one can touch you in speed and quality.
Nontheless, I still appreciate your feelings on the matter.
RE: 16 Button mouse vs. Standard mouse
I personally prefer a customized system which includes a combination of the wheel mouse, keystrokes, toolbars, menus. I am not the fastest, but I am fast enough which is good enough.
I once knew a designer who used a similar system set up as mine and he sometimes had to wait for the computer to catch up to him. He did not have a slow computer either. He was a speed demon. I have also known designers who used the multi buttons, tablets, etc who were no slouch in the speed department. I think if you use what works for you and you are good with it, keep doing it.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
RE: 16 Button mouse vs. Standard mouse
A fellow employee brought his own track-ball and swears it is faster than the 5-button wheel mouse. It is to cumbersome for me, maybe you can call me intimidated by it, but I say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Don't try to reinvent the wheel.
You have mentioned that you were a user of a puck since r12. That may have been a necessity for speed back then because the graphic user interface didn't come around until r13.
Flores
RE: 16 Button mouse vs. Standard mouse
I tried a mouse with a lot of buttons before, and can see where it would have a lot of advantages, but never worked with it well enough to become proficient. So I can't really offer an opinion either way on them.
My biggest increase in speed was re-organizing the hot-keys in the pgp file. I agree with the earlier comments about putting the keys closer together, and have done so myself. After working with it for a while, I have it set so I can run them left handed, and never need to take my right hand off the track-ball, eyes never leave the screen.
That seems to be a lot faster than on-screen buttons, and pulldowns. For a mouse with a lot of buttons, can't say.
Digitizer? Have nasty thoughts on them, but that was because when I first started CAD drafting, I used one, but the cursor jumped all over the screen when you touched the puck. Took about 3 months for the digitizer company to admit it, and send a grounded puck. By then, I was biased, and likely won't ever change on that one.
RE: 16 Button mouse vs. Standard mouse
.
You stated that "newbees" swear they're faster with your average mouse. (But you didn't admit if they were faster than you or anyone else w/ the 16 button puck).
.
Not to bust chops, but I'd like to hear the end of that thought.
.
And you stated that "seminar" presenters struggle with simple commands.
To play devil's advocate here, usually presenters won't customize their commands so people don't complian about ... "HEY!!! where did you pulled that command!!!!" or "complain to the host that the presenter withheld some steps"....
You can't expect people to read his mind about PGP files and personal LISP routines.
.
Anyone with a 2 or 3 button mouse will almost always cutomize the "ACAD.PGP" ***AND*** add a "ACAD.LSP" (which adds custom LISP routines ... similar to a digitizer.)
Together, all 3 elements make a CAD user efficient. Not to mention that he/ she uses 2 hands to draft. One hand on the keyboard for "2 key strokes" to initialize commands. And the other hand on the mouse. With those elements in play ... a person can be more efficient than a 16 puck and a tablet.
.
I've seen veteran "Puck" users go head to head with veteran "mouse" users and the "mouse" user have always beat the "puck" user.
.
Anyway,
I favor the mouse over the 16 puck.
And I'm sorry in advance if I've offended anyone. It wasn't my intention.
Later..
R.
RE: 16 Button mouse vs. Standard mouse
Think of like this- playing a piano with your fingers, vs. using pulldowns and macros to strike the keys. I say that because I also play piano, however no one else on my teams do and they equally adept. I should note the mouse "converts" who are swapping to learn the puck are young (early 20's) and have the time. Most all of my employees who learned it for the first time usually takes 4-6 months to get really good. But after about 9-10 months they are ALL incredibly fast.
I have gathered by these replies that using a 16 has become a lost art. The older guys who use the mice have acknowledged the awe-inspring speed of my veteran techies, but as I mentioned earlier, have exclaimed they were just too old and set in their ways to take on something like that.
My conclusion: the folks who invented all this stuff apparently thought the 16 was just too darn tough for people to master. And these days maybe they're right, as patience has dwindled with the coming generations. I don't mean to sound condescending, I'm just speaking on what I have seen.
RE: 16 Button mouse vs. Standard mouse
I use a 16-button puck with a 3x5" tablet. Each button (aside from the 'pick' and right-click buttons) can bring up any of four commands, depending on whether the shift or control keys are held down - a total of 56 commands. I also use about 30 1- or 2-character keyboard macros, designed to be quickly input with my left hand. And then I have about 60, less frequently used commands on the tablet overlay.
All of my co-workers are comfortable using 3-button mice, and I wouldn't try to change that. My setup did take some commitment, and I had to accept an initial drop in overall speed for a few months before I became really fluent with it. But in the end, I find it hard to imagine anything faster.
RE: 16 Button mouse vs. Standard mouse
RE: 16 Button mouse vs. Standard mouse
I thought I was alone. I used a 16 button Summagraphics III tablet about 7 years ago and was whipping fast with it. Problems with the tablet and drivers forced me to use a mouse and I've never been as efficient since. I've looked around for a multi-button mouse and came up with nothing that would come close to the 16 button puck. It did take a couple of months to get efficient with the puck, but once I got going I was flying! I miss my 16 button puck. Anyone know of a good mouse replacement to the puck?
RE: 16 Button mouse vs. Standard mouse
http://products.consumerguide.com/cp/office/review/index.cfm/id/22249
RE: 16 Button mouse vs. Standard mouse
I used a 16 button Summagraphics III for years, loved the thing untill I tried the Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer. It's 4 buttons with a wheel, the key board gives you all the short cuts, the mouse lets you pan and zoom while in a command with out touching anything other than the wheel. Loved the 16 but like the new better, and I think it's faster.
Point of view from a old timmer, been using Acad since rev 4, which makes me 18 going on 55, and I still have the callis on my finger from the drawing board.
RE: 16 Button mouse vs. Standard mouse
RE: 16 Button mouse vs. Standard mouse
But, you get stuck in your ways as to how you use Acad, (ie) keep using the same commands, offset, trim, extend. The key board gives you all the instant one touch commands the same as the puck plus a few you probably are not using.
The ones your probably not using are the ones that speed your work. The Intellimouse Optical, still gives the possition acuracy of the tablet, plus four buttons to program as you like, ie: pick, enter.
As for the drawing board, Cad is faster and a lot more accuate, I don't miss it at all.
RE: 16 Button mouse vs. Standard mouse
RE: 16 Button mouse vs. Standard mouse
I guess it's just a matter of preference, when it comes down to it. I just wanted some outside opinions and I gathered many. Thanks to all who have responded.
RE: 16 Button mouse vs. Standard mouse
Anyway, I started out using a mouse at school and home, then when I got into the work field they had this ominous looking 12x12 Kurta tablet with menu areas, drawing field and a 12 button puck. Pretty scarry but very cool. I got the hang of it in a very short time and became very quick. Our tablets slowly became phased out because of their size and driver/port issues. Along the way we tried other things like a drawing pen and a multi-button mouse (that thing must have had 30 buttons on it), but nothing compared to the 12 button puck. The owner did a little drafting also and was one of the first to get rid of his because it took up too much room on the desk, had some other com port issues all the time and with the advent of windows version of Autocad, he figured there was no need for the tablet (he had only a 4 button puck). He thought we were idiots for keeping those dinasaures on our desks. I was even accused of not "Getting with the times"!!! I'm sorry but the 12 button puck still kicks butt (for drafting in Autocad) over any mouse I've used since. I could draw with one hand and have the other free to mark off red lines, keep my place on the plans, etc. Just moving that mouse across the screen to click a menu button or take my hands off the plan (and eyes off the screen) to use the keyboard takes way too much time! For those of you who think I can't type, I'm no speed demon but I can type simple 40 words/min. It's a matter of moving your hands from the plan to the keyboard and your eyes from the plan to the screen to the keyboard at the same time. Most all of the ppl who I've talked to who prefer the mouse draft differently anyway. In our office the ones that converted to the mouse first were the engineers who were thinking between commmands anyway. My drafting use to consist of transfering an engineers hand scetches to CAD. Not much thinking involved just fast paced drafting. I could really blow-and-go. Only drawback it had was the space it took up, the compatibility issues and it had and no wheel (the best thing that has happened to the mouse since rat poison).
I now use a Intellimouse Optical with 4 buttons and a wheel. Its better, but still not as fast as the 12 button I use to have. When I really need to get some drafting done I wish I still had 12 buttons! If only they made the Microsoft Wireless Optical mouse with 12 buttons and, of course, the wheel.
If anyone knows of such a thing, please let me know! dweikle@pattonac.com
RE: 16 Button mouse vs. Standard mouse
In addition to the preferences over which is better, what do think about this phenomenon that has occurred over the years- there is a definite change in what "drafting" actually is. A set of plans is consisting more and more of cutting and pasting, x-reffing, and the like to a point to where very little drafting is taking place. Drawings are more/less "generated" than they are drawn anymore. In many cases this is a terrific time-saver. But all too often it is getting in the way of well drawn, clear to read plans. Frustrated drafters in my office are letting "no-no's" get by because it is beginning to be too time consuming to fix the smallest conflict without having to go through several drawings that are referenced into the user drawing.
I don't know. I just think this whole concept of using a computer to virtually replace good common drafting knowledge is leading to worse and worse looking plans. Now, I am straying a little, so I'll leave it at that.
Sorry this thread got so long, but it has had, at the least, a good stress-reducing effect on me and my job. BTW Dave, like you, I began drafting in 6th grade on through high school and right into the work force. Indeed, a lot has changed....YIKES!
RE: 16 Button mouse vs. Standard mouse
Sorry I don't mean to be had on you, but for a 37 year old your starting to sound more my age of 54. Yes any and all of the (Kids) young people coming out of school, know it all but don't have any idea how a drawing was made in the old days, it was and still is a fine art thats been lost with the computer but does not have to be so. Drawings where and can still be a personal piece of work that shows I made this drawing.
Iam getting long winded, put simply the pride of workmanship has been lost and or never learned.
Quote "Frustrated drafters in my office are letting "no-no's get by". Question, do you have any authority in the office, and if so, my response is have them fix the dam thing or find another job. History of Acad, small no-no's today are major screw ups down the road when you do a lot of cut and paste (import from old drawing files), they multiply over time in about the same way a mouse breeds.
Take care and stay calm it's not worth the ulser.
RE: 16 Button mouse vs. Standard mouse
RE: 16 Button mouse vs. Standard mouse
no offense, but for a 37 year old, I feel like a 54 year old! Thanks for the replies, and I'll keep trying to stay calm.....it aint easy sometimes, but I reckon I get a little better at it with each day.
RE: 16 Button mouse vs. Standard mouse
Stephen E. Motichek
Project Consulting Services, Inc.
RE: 16 Button mouse vs. Standard mouse
This topic regarding pucks pertains ONLY to AutoCad, not your everyday computer work, in which case, a tablet and puck would be nonsense.
RE: 16 Button mouse vs. Standard mouse
Think of how you move that curser across the screen to pick a button on a menu then back again to use the command (pick) on an object. I feel like I'm on a trapeze, swinging back and forth all day. Other tools while in a command helps tremendously too; turning on and off osnap, ortho, snap, canceling out of a command (esc key - use to be cntrl-c) or tabing through osnap handles. I use to have our most used commands; copy, move, line right at my fingertips.
If my left hand could be permantly affixed to the keyboard like my right hand is to my mouse, I may not have a problem with it. But even still you can't tell me you can use your left hand on the entire keyboard without taking your eyes off the screen. Maybe, if all of the keys on the keyboard that you use most often were centrally located so that your left hand could reach them without taking your eyes off the screen (hum, that kinda describes a multi-button puck) would you be as fast (possably faster) as you would be if you used a multi-button puck. Maybe that's what we all need is a small keypad that we could program the buttons to be what we like, where we like it and be used by either hand.... hummm... The only drawback to that would be that, once again, both hands are tied up. I'll still go for the 12 button optical mouse with the wheel, thank you.
By the way, to me, a 4 button puck doesn't fall into the catigory of multi-button. That's the way we started out using our tablets, with 4 button pucks. My current mouse has 4 buttons plus the wheel (not enough options and my fingertips for me). Its was only when we got the 12 button did we take notice of the effeincy.
I agree that the tablets are a pain, but the usefullness of 12 buttons on the puck can't be beat for CAD work (in my opinion).
Hey Microsoft... Bring on the Buttons!
RE: 16 Button mouse vs. Standard mouse
RE: 16 Button mouse vs. Standard mouse
Thanks anyway!
RE: 16 Button mouse vs. Standard mouse
Know please tell me how a 16 button puck is better?????
The problem is you die hards don't want to change.
Sorry, not meant to offend anyone.
RE: 16 Button mouse vs. Standard mouse
Like I said, 70:30, in favor of the puck. If this raises your dander, then just ignore this thread. There's no need to get snippy with those of us who draw faster with our pucks (not to mention, using more commands than 16).
Perhaps you could explain how you can do all your commands, osnaps, block insertions (that's PARTICULAR SPECIFIED blocks on command), set variables and control virtually every aspect of AutoCad from your keyboard. Do the math-
You have 1 pick and 1 enter button, so excluding those for command permutations, that leaves 14, which is 196 possible commands, snaps, variables, you name it.
Incidentally, I do know some folks who have spent YEARS....years and never fully exploited the full potential of 200 commands all in the palm of one hand, including the all versatile CURSOR. If refusing to diminish my options makes me a dinosaur, then so be it. Excuse me, a "Die hard".
Sorry if I came off like a jerk this time, but that's not the first reply you have been less than friendly about.
IMHO, one fo the biggest reasons the puck got lost in the fray was the shear dedication it took to master one. Let's face it, one of the biggest drawbacks from computers is the unspoken issue of making it possible for someone to draw, who knows nothing about drawing in the first place. I see it with EIT's as well. There are a lot folks out there who think computers enable them to do anything, whether they have actually mastered that skill or not. Meanwhile, I will continue to diligently redline and fix their mistakes and stress the importance of using one's head instead of assuming the computer is all powerful and all knowing. It's still only as smart as its user.
RE: 16 Button mouse vs. Standard mouse
The combination of 21 keys, shift+key, ctrl+key and the use of double keys if you really what to get carried away, is 63 commands with one hand excluding the double keys.
One die hard dinosaur to another seeing you admit being one, snippy was not intended either although I do have a way of comming across that way sometimes.
This string is a opinion of personal pref. every one has his or her own the way it should be.
Good bye
RE: 16 Button mouse vs. Standard mouse
RE: 16 Button mouse vs. Standard mouse
I didn't say I did every thing to control virtually every aspect of AutoCad from the keyboard. However most of the basic drawing commands are the rest come from the toolbars.
Setvars, dimstyles, layers, txstyles, plot styles, osnaps - - - - and on are all common between drawings, they are setup in a standard border drawing with attributes for the title block.
Because I use over 600 standard blocks, steel shapes, sprockets, cylinders, motors - - - mech. components, I elected to use the pull down menu with branches (flyouts) for the different types of items. Found it a lot easier than trying to remember the file names.
Statement, the speed that one works at is dependent on thier personal work habits, the knowlege they have in Acad and the end product they are trying to draw. The rest is only a tool, the better your tools the easier your work. The only tool that involves speed of work is the CPU, if you trying to work with a boat anchor its upgrade time.
Good bye, stay calm
RE: 16 Button mouse vs. Standard mouse
RE: 16 Button mouse vs. Standard mouse
Give me your email address I'll send you menu for block management.
RE: 16 Button mouse vs. Standard mouse
Glenny_2u@yahoo.com
RE: 16 Button mouse vs. Standard mouse
turned me off against the tablet and puck, was that I had a bad habit of tossing my floppies next to the puck. Not a good thing.
RE: 16 Button mouse vs. Standard mouse
RE: 16 Button mouse vs. Standard mouse
HOORAY FOR 16 BUTTON PUCKS!!!
I LOVE MY PUCK AND ALL 16 OF ITS TEENY TINY LITTLE BUTTONS!!!
Like sslavik I just couldn't pass the urge to comment on this topic. SouthernDrafter, like you, I began using AutoCAD when you had almost no choice but use the 16 button puck way back in the R10 era. I had watched those with experience use the 16 button cursor like it was some kind of toy, making it do things that I thought were impossible. I never imagined I could ever remember what might exist on 14 user defined buttons nevermind the possibilities of multiple button menus. After my initial indocrination into "digitizer land" I was extremely uncomfortable with the multi-button environment. Indeed I was highly intimidated. It has been some 12 years (geez it don't seem like that long) and before I left my last job I was perhaps the fastest of 15 drafters simply because I had developed and customized my puck to have 8 button menus, each had only 12 items because I used 2 buttons exclusively to toggle between button menus. I NEVER EVER touched the keyboard except to type something in an edit box or to further develop my menus. Of course 0 and 3 were pick and enter (Calcomp DBIII) and 1 & 2 were "top menu" and "next menu" (on my Numonics it was 0 & 1 and 2 & B) anyway to make this shorter. I had my top 96 commands on my mouse and never had to look at it or the keyboard. I want to move an object then I press 4,0,0,3,0,0 Sure it seems like alot of buttons presses, I could press that faster than anyone could press M and enter then select the objects and move them. Essentially the strokes were the same but the movement was reduced. If I needed to trim multiple items, it was 2,2,4,0,0,0,3,0,0. Well enough nostalgia....
A co-worker and I have now moved to a company where the 20 somethings have scorned us from day 1 for bringing our digitizers into the office. The office manager said that they were cumbersome and slow. Well, we initially did not have the button menu customized and have slowly began to customize the digitizers and button menus to meet our needs. Of course never having used a mouse (geez... I need those buttons) I was sloooowwww getting started. However... the two of us with digitizers and 16 button pucks have done something that no one ever does... We use BOTH the mouse in the left hand for zooming and panning (I must admit it is great) and the right hand on the puck for commands. It takes getting used to.. but can you imagine the look on the boss' face when he walked in and saw us using BOTH concurrently. He nearly flipped out. I must admit though, we only did it because they said it was slower. I wonder if they think that now after 6 months we (my partner and I) are producing twice the amount of work as the other 3 draftman put together in the previous year!
I know it sounds farfetched, but I LOVE MY 16 BUTTON PUCK and I will carry it to the grave with me!
So... Come on Microsoft... develop me a cordless optical 16 button mouse with the scroll button, and I will buy at least 3 of em.....
HOORAY FOR 16 BUTTON PUCKS !!!!!!
RE: 16 Button mouse vs. Standard mouse
I couldn't help but notice how many clicks you mentioned for, say, the move command. Mine is like 7,4= move, 7,5= copy, and so on. Each command is no longer than 2 clicks. There are 3 or 4 toggle numbers, though most of us rarely need more than 2. I am summarizing, but it's like the first menu (single button only) is the draw things, second menu (all following menus are, of course 2 click) is osnaps, third is modify/edit, and the next couple are combos of block insertions and what have you. If you moved something using osnaps, I guess that would account for the amount of buttons (4) you'd click, instead of (2). But, like you well know, it all happens so quickly, you'll miss it if you're watching and trying to learn.
And next- "cumbersome"....I suppose I'd say that when talking about one of those huge digitizers (larger than 12"x12") My 12" tablet fits nicely next to my monitor, always has, and takes only a few inches more space than my standard mouse needs to navigate (unless I pick the mouse up over and over in limited space area).
In any event, I have a relatively new tablet and puck on my home system also, use the same menus I helped write for my company, and though it seems routine to me, you can see the jaws drop from clients, friends, even family. I do a little work for whoever needs it, generally.
Thanks for the input, Striker, and good luck in your newer job. You guys show 'em how it's done!