Magic Mouse: out with the old, in with the new.

Tech Life

Mighty and Magic

First impressions on my latest purchase

After tolerating its shortcomings for too long, a couple of days ago I decided to stop using the Mighty Mouse with my primary Mac, pass it to my faithful G4 Cube, and buy a Magic Mouse.

Magic Mouse comes in a minimal, elegant packaging, somewhat reminiscent of that of the iPods. A nice surprise was finding two fresh Energizer alkaline cells included. So, out of the box I just had to turn it on and pair it with my MacBook Pro. In a few moments I was already clicking, panning, and, most of all, scrolling.

Scrolling is something I was awfully missing, thanks to the dreaded scrollball of the Mighty Mouse. It worked flawlessly for months when the mouse was new, then it stopped functioning in a reliable way. Either it scrolled only up or only down. I tried all the suggested methods to clean it (except, admittedly, taking the Mighty Mouse apart), but after furious cleaning sessions the scrollball would work for no longer than 2–3 hours. Then I gave up the scrolling function entirely, and for the last three months I’ve been using the Mighty Mouse just to click and drag and went back to scrolling pages by clicking and dragging the window scrollbars.

All in all the Mighty Mouse hasn’t been a lousy mouse. Its single weak point is just the scrollball. It could have been a nice idea if the mouse had been easier to open and allow for internal cleaning, like the mice of old.

But let’s talk about the Magic Mouse.

I love the build. The materials used and the finishes give the Magic Mouse a higher quality, more expensive look and feel than the Mighty Mouse. I don’t know if it’s due to the shape of the bottom part of the mouse, but it seems it gathers much less dirt than the Mighty Mouse. But speaking of feel, I must say the Magic Mouse won’t definitely fit any hand. It’s shorter and flatter than the Mighty Mouse, and those who are accustomed to resting their hand over the mouse’s surface will need to adjust to the Magic Mouse’s shape.

Mighty and Magic side by side

Here you can see the difference in size, shape and height between the Mighty Mouse and the Magic Mouse.

It fits perfectly in my hand because I have small hands and also because I’m used to handling the mouse by not putting my palm over it: I just hold it between my thumb and ring finger (or little finger or both), keeping the index and middle finger slightly raised. In practice is less fatiguing than it seems. I’ve used and loved the infamous USB round mouse that came with the G3 iMacs (soon nicknamed “hockey puck”) and have held it that way for very long without having the least of hand or wrist strain.

That’s why, after two hours with my new Magic Mouse, I felt as if I’ve had it since forever. After pairing, Snow Leopard recognised it was a Magic Mouse, offering the specific settings in the Mouse panel in System Preferences. I enabled everything: Secondary click [right], Scroll [with momentum], Screen Zoom and the Two Fingers gesture. Scrolling with momentum is fantastic and very smooth: it’s nice having the same kind of scrolling of the iPhone on my Mac. When the Magic Mouse was introduced, many people were disappointed by the lack of side buttons (like on the Mighty Mouse) and the limited gestures available on its multi-touch surface. Considering the way I use a mouse, those aren’t limitations for me. When I purchased the Mighty Mouse, I immediately turned off the side buttons because I kept invoking Exposé by mistake while moving the mouse around. As for gestures, Apple only has to release a software update to enable new ones if it deems them necessary. Those who love multi-button, multi-function mice can try MagicPrefs (Macworld recently reviewed this software), which adds a lot more clicks and gestures. I can do without.

Anyway, I think that the multi-touch technology applied to the mouse is genius: no more moving parts that may get dirty and stop working reliably, or break altogether. This is the best feature of the Magic Mouse, hands down. Scrolling has never been so smooth, in fact, and another thing I noticed is that I’m actually using the mouse more than before to move around inside documents and webpages (I kept using the Page Up/Page Down keys before). Also, perhaps due to its flatter surface, I find right-clicking to be more precise and responsive than on the Mighty Mouse. With the Mighty Mouse, at times, when I right-clicked to invoke a contextual menu, it was registered as a left click, with annoying consequences.

As I said at the beginning, I don’t believe this mouse is for everyone, especially if you come from bigger mice like the Mighty Mouse or the previous USB Pro Mouse, or non-Apple mice with many hardware buttons. The Magic Mouse is truly a “try before you buy” kind of mouse. Despite my enthusiasm when Apple introduced it, I spent some time myself with one of the iMacs on display at the store, which had a Magic Mouse connected to it, because I wanted to be sure the Magic Mouse was what I was looking for.

Those who prefer a mouse with a more traditional shape and feel can still purchase the Mighty Mouse (which Apple now calls simply “Apple Mouse”). It is available on the Apple Store for $49, but only in the wired variant. The only Bluetooth mouse made by Apple is currently the Magic Mouse.

Update: Magic Mouse needs Mac OS X 10.5.8 or later with Wireless Mouse Software Update 1.0 or Mac OS X 10.6.1 or later with Wireless Mouse Software Update 1.0. If you’re using Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger, you can use the Magic Mouse, but without multi-touch support. That means that only tracking, left-clicking and right-clicking will work.

Opera Mini for iPhone vs MobileSafari

Software

Yesterday the Opera Mini browser was approved and made available for download on the App Store. I was hoping Apple would approve it, as I wanted to try a different browser than Safari on my iPhone. Opera Mini is not the first third-party browser available for the iPhone: another major product of this kind is iCab Mobile [iTunes link]. I admit I haven’t tried iCab, not because I think it isn’t a valid app or because it isn’t free, but simply because — judging by the screenshots — I thought it would give me a rather similar experience compared to MobileSafari, and I’m quite pleased with MobileSafari.

Opera Mini, however, sparked my curiosity because of its reputation on other mobile platforms and I wanted to see how it would look and behave on the iPhone. I’ll say it right away: so far I’m rather underwhelmed. I’ve been using it intermittently for a few hours, and I wanted to share my first impressions with this quick review. Emphasis on ‘quick’: what I’m showing here are things that instantly caught my eye when using Opera Mini. No extensive tests, no side-by-side rendering speeds or benchmarks. Just an overview especially focussed on looks and user interface.

The UI

Opera Mini doesn’t look like an iPhone application at all. No UI element looks or is positioned like the familiar CocoaTouch UI. Buttons are different, menus are different, switches are different. I’m not saying that Opera Mini looks particularly awful or anything. The interface is internally consistent and not entirely displeasing, but if you’re accustomed to using iPhone apps which follow Apple’s UI guidelines, you’ll have to adjust to Opera Mini’s button placement a little.

IMG_1267.PNG

.

This is what appears when you launch Opera Mini (well, the very first time you’ll be presented with a quick summary of the browser’s features). Like its Mac/PC counterpart, its first window displays the ‘speed dial’ for quick access to a set of favourite websites (I have removed Facebook and put Apple’s homepage, ahem). This is actually a nice feature: the nine sites are placed like a phone keypad for quick access, and it’s handy if you have a small set of websites you visit often. The address bar and search field have the same look and placement as in MobileSafari. I don’t particularly like the default www. Opera puts in the address bar, though. The search field is more versatile than Safari’s: if you tap on the triangle on the right, a drop-down menu lets you select from a few places you can search in: Google, Amazon, Dictionary.com, eBay, IMDb, Wikipedia. If you tap on the last menu item, Manage Search Engines, you can delete some or all these choices, except Google.

Tapping on the bottom right icon (the wrench), triggers a popup menu with seven buttons:

IMG_1264.PNG

.

As you can see, the menu is not bad in and of itself. If Opera Mini had used the standard CocoaTouch UI elements, though, this menu would have looked better, as the seven buttons would have displayed neatly stacked on a 1‑column, 7‑row grid, instead of leaving the ‘Help’ item alone like that.

Let’s tap on Settings and have a look at another big difference between the Opera Mini interface and the classic iPhone interface:

IMG_1265.PNG

.

Again, there’s nothing inherently wrong in designing a different UI, but I don’t think the choice of placing the Back button always on the top right is a particularly good one. In most iPhone apps (especially those which closely adhere to the standard CocoaTouch UI), when you’re navigating screens of menus, the Back button is usually placed on the left. It’s just natural that way. So my muscle memory made me tap on the untappable label (‘Settings’, or ‘Privacy’ or other submenus) more than once.

I’m not fond of this ‘Cancel’ button when you tap on the search field, either:

IMG_1266.PNG

.

It looks too big for the space it occupies, too two-dimensional, too close to the search field area to the point of looking slightly vertically misaligned.

Opera Mini has also a ‘fullscreen’ mode, but you don’t actually gain much screen estate by activating it:

Opera Mini fullscreen mode

The same webpage in Opera Mini in normal mode (left) and ‘fullscreen’ mode (right).

Yes, you can view some more pixels, as the fullscreen mode shaves the red strip on top and hides the toolbar on the bottom, but putting those two big buttons on the bottom corners doesn’t look like a good idea, usability-wise. I expected a real fullscreen mode with toolbars and buttons completely out of the way and appearing by tapping, double-tapping or holding the finger in certain parts of the screen, for example. This ‘fullscreen’ mode looks a bit useless this way.

Page rendering

On the Opera Mini / Opera Mobile features page you can read that Opera’s streamlined rendering engine and server-side compression allows Opera to load Web pages much more quickly than other mobile phone browsers. Which is true. Without having to use a stopwatch, many sites I visited loaded faster than on Safari. This, I guess, is because Opera fast servers act as a middle-man between us and the Web. Too bad that the ‘server-side compression’ causes pages to render more crudely than in Safari. Fonts are jagged, aliased, and small text is even less legible, often reduced to lines. Zooming in with a pinch solves that, but I found that zooming and panning in Safari is smoother and more responsive.

Here are some examples:

Opera Mini vs MobileSafari

Apple’s homepage. As you can see, in the MobileSafari version, you can still distinguish some small words like the titles in bold of the four sections under the main image.

In some cases, pages aren’t even rendered correctly:

Opera Mini vs MobileSafari

The Apple Store homepage: some elements are not rendered properly and look misaligned.

The poorly-rendered small text issue is evident in sites like BBC News and the New York Times. MobileSafari simply does a better job at displaying them:

Opera Mini vs MobileSafari

The BBC News website: on MobileSafari you can still make out some of the titles.

Opera Mini vs MobileSafari

The New York Times website: MobileSafari renders it better, and you can read the main news’ titles.

It gets worse: when you turn the iPhone in landscape orientation, Opera Mini doesn’t adjust the page to the new window width. MobileSafari does, and in doing so makes the text a little bigger and more readable. In Opera Mini, it remains messy. Here are the same BBC News and New York Times pages in landscape orientation:

Opera Mini vs MobileSafari

The BBC News website in landscape orientation.

Opera Mini vs MobileSafari

The New York Times website in landscape orientation.

When you navigate to a website that provides a mobile version, Opera Mini renders it differently than MobileSafari:

Opera Mini vs MobileSafari

The mobile version of this blog in Opera Mini (left) and MobileSafari (right)

Opera Mini is more focussed on text. It loads the mobile theme completely stripped of images, and has a bare-bones overall feel. MobileSafari’s rendition is more elegant without sacrificing usability.

Miscellaneous considerations

Opera Mini is not a bad browser, all in all. It’s a free app and does its job. When you need to take a quick look to a website, you’ll appreciate Opera Mini’s faster speeds, especially when you’re on slower connections (EDGE, GPRS). The interface is consistent and you can easily find your way around — buttons and settings are rather intuitive. However, the downside of faster rendering is less accuracy: some websites are definitely uglier in Opera Mini than in MobileSafari and, as you’ve seen above, shifting to horizontal view doesn’t make things better. Small text in Opera Mini is often undecipherable and I found myself wanting to zoom more, and more frequently, on Opera Mini. MobileSafari handles text better.

The fact that you can sync your Opera bookmarks, speed dial and search engines between Opera Mini on the iPhone and the Opera browser on your computer via Opera Link is a nice feature. It would also be nice to have the possibility to access MobileSafari’s bookmarks from inside Opera Mini, but I suppose it’s just not possible technically.

As a matter of personal preference, I very much like the CocoaTouch user interface, so I’m not really thrilled by Opera Mini’s UI and controls. It just doesn’t feel like using an iPhone app, more like a Windows Mobile app. Here the design choice has been to develop a mobile browser that looks more or less the same on all platforms, rather than adapting it to the various user experiences on each platform. It might be okay on a BlackBerry, on a Windows Mobile or Android phone. On the iPhone it simply lacks luster.

These are just some initial observations. I’ll keep using Opera Mini and exploring all its features and we’ll see how it goes in the long run. But it surely won’t replace MobileSafari as my primary iPhone browser.

iPad: la recensione di Ars Technica

Mele e appunti

È senza dubbio una delle più approfondite e ben fatte di quelle che ho letto finora. Non per niente è lunga 18 pagine. Si trovano anche delle buone foto ravvicinate di iPad. E si tratta di un lavoro scritto a più mani, e questo è un altro dettaglio che mi piace, ossia il fatto che non sia frutto di un solo punto di vista. La lettura integrale è obbligata, specie prima di lanciarsi in ciance senza spessore (specie se non si è nemmeno provato il dispositivo). Purtroppo sarà un problema per chi non mastica l’inglese, e mi piacerebbe tradurla tutta, ma c’è un limite al lavorare gratis. Ecco però il grosso della conclusione:

iPad rappresenta molte cose diverse per utenze diverse, e scrivere una conclusione che accontenti tutti e riunisca ognuno di questi aspetti differenti è impossibile. […] Anche se abbiamo evidenziato solo un piccolo gruppo di applicazioni nella nostra recensione, è importante sottolineare che molti di noi ritengono che sia il software a fare l’iPad. Questa prima serie di applicazioni è piuttosto buona in generale, ma quel che arriverà in futuro da parte di Apple e degli sviluppatori di terze parti porterà iPad a vette ancora più alte.

In verità, questo dispositivo può essere compreso fino in fondo soltanto maneggiandolo direttamente (lo sappiamo bene, ci sono volute più di 18.000 parole per raccontarvelo). Non importa quante parole si sprechino su iPad, non esiste ancora un modo semplice per descriverne l’uso vero e proprio, il ‘feel’, e come l’esperienza con iPad sia diversa da quella che si ottiene con un computer o con uno smartphone. Quelli del nostro staff che si erano mostrati più scettici prima di toccare il dispositivo, hanno cambiato atteggiamento dopo aver passato un certo tempo usando iPad per davvero. È probabile che sarà lo stesso per moltissimi altri utenti.

iPad presenta una serie di lacune, la maggior parte delle quali possono essere sistemate con aggiornamenti software (e ci contiamo) — ma rimane comunque un dispositivo che inaugurerà un cambiamento in come il grande pubblico interagisce con il software e i contenuti. […]

Ma tornando a oggi: iPad è in grado di sostituire un netbook o un laptop? Per gli utenti più tecnici, probabilmente no. Per coloro che utilizzano i netbook come un’alternativa leggera per navigare il Web, chattare un po’ e svolgere del lavoro poco impegnativo: sì, iPad può funzionare come sostituto. iPad è un buon computer ‘da finesettimana’ e ‘da vacanza’? Certamente. Per come iPad è stato progettato, è più difficile essere risucchiati nella spirale del lavoro o accorgersi di aver buttato ore preziose online rispetto a quanto avviene con un computer ‘normale’, ma è sufficientemente dotato da poter essere utilizzato come strumento di lavoro quando necessario. iPad è abbastanza semplice da usare e a prova di idiota così da poter essere utilizzato da un familiare poco avvezzo alla tecnologia? Sì, se questa persona è disposta a spendere almeno 500 dollari. È un buon lettore di e‑book? Dipende da cosa si intende per ‘buono’. I lettori che impiegano la tecnologia e‑ink (come il Kindle) possono ancora rivelarsi migliori in alcune situazioni, ma se lo osserviamo come gadget unificato, iPad come lettore di e‑book è sufficientemente buono, anche per chi ha la vista delicata.

[…]

Il miglior modo per riassumere la nostra conclusione collettiva e unanime nei confronti di iPad è quello di far notare come iPad sia il primo dispositivo a mantenere in sostanza la promessa fatta da iPhone e, sotto certi aspetti, dal Newton prima di esso. Entrambi questi prodotti di Apple ci hanno dato alcune idee su come potrà essere in futuro un tablet vero, usabile e costruito ad hoc; e iPad, finalmente, ci dà un’immagine più completa. Pertanto, in un certo senso, iPad è sia la fine di un lungo cammino, sia l’inizio di un nuovo percorso. Non vediamo l’ora di vedere dove ci porterà.

Markos Moulitsas sull’iPad

Mele e appunti

Per me la cosa più importante in un dispositivo è che mi semplifichi la vita. Che piaccia o meno agli hacker, che sia sulla bocca di tutti, me ne frego altamente. iPad è venuto incontro alle mie esigenze in modo egregio, con solo qualche impiccio di poco conto. Si è comportato meglio di un computer portatile e mi ha permesso di viaggiare in maniera più efficiente.

Le osservazioni di Moulitsas meritano di essere lette integralmente, se non altro per avere il punto di vista di una persona che può tranquillamente rappresentare l’utente medio di iPad.

Nel segnalare l’articolo, John Gruber commenta con puntualità:

Come ha osservato Tim O’Reilly, questo dovrebbe rappresentare un segnale d’allarme per molte altre aziende. Invece sospetto che il tipo di reazione a cui assisteremo quando iPad diventerà un grande successo, sarà quello di aziende come Microsoft, che lasceranno intendere che sono gli utenti di iPad ad avere qualcosa che non va, non i propri prodotti.