Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Hardware

Microsoft Unveils A Designer Mouse 547

Posted by timothy from the roundy-and-curvy dept.
jeckil writes "Today Microsoft unveiled the new Starck mouse; a new shiny mouse designed to take the 'cool' from other mice such as Logitech or Apple. Microsoft is calling it the 'first museum-quality mouse.' Looks shiny enough to be on a museum display along with other succesful Microsoft products."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Unveils A Designer Mouse More

Microsoft Unveils A Designer Mouse

Comments Filter:

  • puhhhhllleeeaaaassseee! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by yagu ( 721525 ) * <yayagu.gmail@com> on Saturday August 28, 2004 @04:44PM (#10098690) Journal

    The only cause for celebration (their words, not mine...) is more money for a questionable product. I'm not judging the quality of this new optical mouse, just wondering what would make it worth the money (if you "buy", you get links for prices ranging from $25 to $31). Sure it may look pretty, but really, it's another mouse with another pitch from MS about why you should buy THEIRS! Come one, really! A museum piece? I don't think so.

    This just doesn't feel like news. It feels like a free ad.

    • It looks like shit if you ask me. I don't think I've ever seen a really pretty mouse, though.

      Maybe Apple's bluetooth mouse is museum quality (no cord), but seriously... this looks ugly, and worse... useless.

      Then again I don't really like anything from M$, although I am using an M$ mouse right now :)
    • Agreed. However, I have this [microsoft.com] mouse, and quite honestly, it is simply the best mouse I've ever owned. The battery life is truely amazing. Plus, it even runs on just 1 battery. I had the Intellimouse Explorer (2 side buttons) and that thing devoured batteries.

      As much as we all love to hate Microsoft, I have to admit, they do make a good mouse.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
        Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Bah. Cordless mice are too laggy and they don't have good sample rates. Not like a standard USB mouse.

        Sure, it's fine for office stuff but that's all. A person that does graphic work or a person that plays games don't use wireless mice.
        • The newer Logitech models (link [logitech.com], link [logitech.com]) that have this problem pretty well handled (I use the second one listed), however, at the expense of battery life (not a big deal with these models, as they include NiMH batteries and a recharging cradle). Once you get used to cordless mice, dealing with a mouse cord is extremely obnoxious.

          More on-topic, these "Museum-Kwality" mice look fugly.

        • Re:puhhhhllleeeaaaassseee! (Score:5, Funny)

          by h4rm0ny ( 722443 ) * on Saturday August 28, 2004 @07:25PM (#10099640) Journal

          Bah. Cordless mice are too laggy and they don't have good sample rates. Not like a standard USB mouse.

          My favourite problem with a mouse so far happened last week.
          "My mouse isn't working, it keeps jumping in the wrong direction" she said.
          The culprit? Optical mouse with promotional hologram mousepad.
        • USB mice only sample at 125hz. If you want real precision you go PS/2 and run at 200hz.

          • USB mice only sample at 125hz. If you want real precision you go PS/2 and run at 200hz.

            A lot of people who are even aware of mouse sampling rates seem to think that higher is better. What's the point if the refresh is higher than the monitor's refresh? (Which is even more negligible on LCD screens where anything above 30-40Hz is not visible) What I'd really like to see is mouse cursors achieve VSync with the monitor (which has been done on Macs since the beginning). For now, I use only PS/2 mice because
    • I agree with you that this just seems like a free ad, but I've had a Microsoft Intellimouse Optical for a while now, and I've never had a problem with it. Perhaps with the exception of trying to get it working in Linux though, but I think that's just due to the fact I was running it through VMWare.

    • Microsoft Bob (Score:4, Insightful)

      by rd_syringe ( 793064 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @05:05PM (#10098868) Journal
      What was the point of the Microsoft Bob link other than to bash Microsoft over something that came out for Windows 3.1 an entire decade ago?

      I've never gotten the Clippy/Microsoft Bob obsession around here.

      • Re:Microsoft Bob (Score:3, Insightful)

        by leonbev ( 111395 )
        The sad thing is that Microsoft Bob wasn't all that much of a failure. The product itself didn't sell all that well, but the animated assistant idea that came from it is still around in today's versions of Office and Windows.

        Sure, us Slashdot folks think that it's annoying, but the newbies seem to like it.
      • The idea, my humor impaired friend, is that most people don't announce new products and suggest that they are fit to be placed next to dinosaur bones.

      • Re:Microsoft Bob (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Tim C ( 15259 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @05:50PM (#10099157)
        I've never gotten the Clippy/Microsoft Bob obsession around here.

        It's because they're about the only two things that you can justifiably take the piss out of about MS that actually are undeniably bad. All the rest of their software, including IIS, Outlook, Win9x, etc has its good points as well as its bad. At least with Clippy and Bob, the zealots are on safe ground.

    • Re:puhhhhllleeeaaaassseee! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Awptimus Prime ( 695459 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @07:31PM (#10099681)
      Face it, half the stuff on /. is free advertising.

      I do find it amazing that simply being negative about Microsoft will cause a post to magically get moderated +5, Insightful when all it contains is negative opinion and nothing to do with the actual product.

      At $25, it seems like a reasonably priced product. Definitely not something you would find in a museum. Mind you, if you will gripe about this products advertising, then it would only be fair to point out how other businesses pitch their mice.

      Lets take a look at Logitech's sales pitch on a MX510:

      "The Red Mouse for Gamers. Break through with the extreme optical power of the Logitech MX 510, the mouse designed with you in mind. You get the ultimate in mouse precision with no lag, and the gaming-tuned software drivers will help you dominate the competition."

      Well, instead of being a museum masterpiece, it touts itself as having no lag. While lag has not been a problem since 1st generation cordless mice (by Logitech), an advertisement for a corded mouse is bringing up the fact that it has no latency issues. Why? Because it will cause people who are not very keen on what "lag" means in a gaming environment. They will be more likely to purchase this product thinking, "Hey, it will help my lag problems". Another thing this mouse comes close to claiming is that it will make you a better gamer and will dominate the game if you buy this product. The "ultimate" precision they claim is also a slight exaggeration since almost all optical mice have similar resolution and precision.

      Another fine example of bullshit in advertising is Logitech's product description for the MX700 cordless mouse. It claims "Business never stops, neither should your mouse." In regards to a mouse whose batteries only stay charged about 7-8 hours under continuous use. Once the batteries have been depleted, it takes a solid 20-30 minutes of charge time to get another hour or two of use out of it. For this reason, I had to move mine from my work computer to my game PC since I cannot afford abrupt downtimes while working on projects, not over mouse battery issues anyway.

      Is this evil? Perhaps. But this is what marketing departments do. They try to craft a particular product image that will always be more fantasy than reality. Attempting to single one company out for this is rather silly.
      • Amen and I just ran out of mod points.

        A buddy of mine had to go back to using his umbilical cord mouse after getting the MX700 because of short battery life issues.

        It looks pretty on the desk, but doesn't really do anything. Kind of like a model hired for ComDex.

        • You can replace the batteries with longer-life ones.

          That being said, I've had the (dis)pleasure of using an MX700, and frankly, these things are massively overblown. It's convinced me that cordless mice suck -- the weight and battery life are a pain in the ass. Heck, Logitech even makes a wireless *trackball*. What are they thinking?

      • Re:puhhhhllleeeaaaassseee! (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 28, 2004 @09:33PM (#10100312)
        Nice post, but your assertions about the MX510 are simply wrong.

        MX mice (using the mouseware drivers or the applet under linux) operate at 800dpi, rather than the 400dpi of most other mice (including the entire MS range).

        Previous MX series mice had a problem, however: 800dpi, at 125hz with 8bit packets (usb), could generate more movement data that the mouse could send to the host. Thus the sensation of 'negative acceleration' that would be found.

        Under linux, it has always been possible to operate the usb mice at 500hz, removing this problom. Under windows however, these was no solution.

        The MX510 fixed this by sending 12 bit data packets at 125hz, removing the negative acceleration when moving the mouse quickly, which felt a lot like lag.

        In short: The MX series do genuinely operate at a higher resolution than most other mice, and the 510 does fix the problems that this higher resolution made.

        On the topic of the MX700, while I can't comment about battery life, it was the first wireless mouse that talked to the computer at faster than 60hz, which is why none of the previous ones, from both logitech and ms, were usable for serious gaming.

  • I'm thinking of a word.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by JoeLinux ( 20366 ) <joelinux@ g m a i l . c om> on Saturday August 28, 2004 @04:44PM (#10098697)
    and that word is......pretentious.

  • Mousie (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BoldAC ( 735721 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @04:45PM (#10098700)
    Real Picture [navarre.com]

    The mouse buttons, I believe, run the entire length of the mouse... which will make many palm-resters click accidently.

    However, $30 bucks isn't bad...

  • New Mouse... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Looks Like a Space Ship... ZOOOOOM

  • Oh my. (Score:5, Funny)

    by maskedbishounen ( 772174 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @04:45PM (#10098702)
    Looks distubingly like a vibrator to me. But maybe that's just me. Back to my one handed surfing...

  • Am I the only one that sees? (Score:4, Funny)

    by M3wThr33 ( 310489 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @04:46PM (#10098706) Homepage
    Wow! That slit down the middle makes me think it's just a vagina. I can't get a better view, but I also imagine the scroll button placement helps to further that logic.

  • natural? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    "S+ARCK designed this mouse with a unique, curving hemisphere, which makes it feel natural and puts left and right clicking in the palm of your hand."

    Because we all know how some things unnatural feel in the palm of your hand. ;)

  • So... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by i love pineapples ( 742841 )
    What exactly is the point of a pretty mouse when your hand is going to be covering it most of the time, anyway?

  • Cripes! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Quasar1999 ( 520073 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @04:48PM (#10098719) Journal
    Okay Microsoft, listen and listen damned well, as this is the last time I say this... Give me the ORIGINAL natural keyboard, and the ORIGINAL Intelliexplorer mouse... I don't want the fancy million button keyboards, and the god awful small craptacular mice... I want the originals back! You had something good, and you destroyed them... it's not the 'new shiny blue plastic' that will get you sales...

    • Re:Cripes! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Guppy06 ( 410832 )
      Let me just say, while typing on my original MS natural keyboard, sitting next to my original MS Sidewinder game pad... ppbbbbpbpbbttt!!

      Could be worse, though... they could be making networking hardware again...

  • This makes a lot of sense (Score:5, Funny)

    by Noksagt ( 69097 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @04:48PM (#10098720) Homepage
    Only the maker of antequated operating systems would make a "museum quality" mouse.

  • wow... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by pinhead22 ( 660494 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @04:49PM (#10098727)
    im not trying to be all "anti-microsoft" when i say this but that is a really unattractive mouse! im not a fan of apple so much but damn they have a way of making some damn good looking stuff! how much money would it take to get some attractive pc peripherals!

    • Re:wow... (Score:3, Informative)

      by Mr.Spaz ( 468833 )
      Just plug the Mac stuff into your PC. The USB keyboards and mice work just fine (at least they have for me). I use an iMac keyboard on my work PC since my desk there is very small and I wanted a small but functional keyboard. XP recognized it without any trouble.

  • Uhhhh.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sesq ( 575751 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @04:49PM (#10098728)
    Slow news day, I take it?

  • It's just 3 buttons... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Transcendent ( 204992 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @04:49PM (#10098729)
    ok, 2 and a wheel, but seriously... museum quality?

    It reminds me of those "modern" art where it's a blank canvass with a line running down the middle.

    To me it's not art... nor does it look good. It's just superficial "designers" (Ugof need silence!) who think people want their mouse to have hidden meaning.

    Sure it looks ok, maybe i'd even buy one if I needed to, but I'd rather have function over fashion. Right now I'm using Logitechs MX500... and I think it looks sweet too.
  • A remote control for the iBrator [ls-la.net]!

    -- n

  • Looks nice to me. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jeffs72 ( 711141 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @04:49PM (#10098735) Homepage Journal

    I realize it's trendy to bash microsoft at every opprotunity, but I think it looks pretty cool myself. I'm loving the optical mice that companies are coming out with these days.

    I only wish the rechargable ones battery would last longer. We had to ditch a couple of gyro wireless keyboards/wireless rechargable battery mice units at work cause they got to the point where they would only keep a charge for 4 or 5 hours. They also would miss keystrokes from the keyboard if a palm treo 600 phone was too close to them.

    The one really good feature about this new mouse is that it isn't form fitted to your hand, it's gender neutral, I guess, at least from a left or right handed perspective. I'm actually ambidexterous and the last time I bought a mouse for myself there weren't any wireless optical availabl at all that weren't molded for the right hand

    I guess when they come out with a wireless version of this I'll be in the market.

  • Every six months they get tossed for clean replacements. I mean clean literally, the keyboards in particular gather a ridiculous amount of muck, crumbs, etc.
  • Looks pretty bad to me. I like a flat side, mice I've tried with round sides did not feel very good to me.

    My fav has been the Logitech basic optical for a long time. I've bought probably 20 of them. Microsoft's mice have in the past been too fat and tall.
  • It looks like they hired some real designers this time, but maybe not very good ones.

    1. It looks nice, maybe even more than nice. At least they're trying to improve the look of the product.

    2. I'm wondering about the functionality, how does it feel in your hand?

    Personally, I'll stick to my Logitech MX500 (Mice were supposed to be wired, just like $DEITY intended).
    The first time I held my MX500 my first comment was "It feels like a well formed breast I'm touching here, filling my hand in all the right plac

    • Re:Design? (Score:5, Funny)

      by pyrrhonist ( 701154 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @06:00PM (#10099231)
      The first time I held my MX500 my first comment was "It feels like a well formed breast I'm touching here, filling my hand in all the right places

      CAN'T... LEAVE.. THIS.. ONE.. ALONE... ARRRrRRGGgghh!

      Dear Penthouse,

      I never thought it could happen to me! I was in Fry's the other day trying out at an MX500. I was considering purchasing the mouse, when a very attractive sales girl came my way. Attractive is an understatement. She was simply gorgeous, with long flowing blonde hair, a tight ass, and full large breasts.

      "How do you like it?", she asked.

      My first comment was, "It feels like a well formed breast I'm touching here, filling my hand in all the right places." I was taken aback by my faux pas of saying such a thing in front of such a fetching member of the opposite sex, but she just smiled.

      "Do you want a comparison?", she said knowingly. I couldn't help noticing her shaply bosoms beneath her tight shirt. I imagined her moaning as I gently massaged her nipples to their full one and a half inch lengths.

      She motioned me to follow her. I couldn't help staring at her backside. She had on tight jeans reavealing a perfect ass. I could not get the vision out of my head of thrusting my purple-headed warrior deep within her quivering mound of love-pudding. I started to feel a tightness in my loins.

      "This is a new mouse by Microsoft", she said stopping at the next display, "It's designed by S+arck."

      My excitement died. That mouse is ugly.

      - Killjoy NL

      Sorry. I had to.

  • One reason not to buy... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jace of Fuse! ( 72042 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @04:55PM (#10098778) Homepage
    This mouse is beautiful, and it actually matches the theme of my most recent system [jacefuse.com].

    BUT -- I won't buy it for one reason. It has a cord.

    I'm using the Logitech MX700 Optical Cordless mouse with charging station and I absolutely love it.

    I thought I would hate this mouse at first because it's not designed for either right or left hand use but since I normally only use my mouse with my right hand anyway I figured I'd overlook that fact.

    While Microsoft's new object is designed for either hand, I just can't go back to a cord. I've gone cordless, I've gone optical, and I've gone rechargable. The only thing that can convince me to replace this mouse is one that has all those features as well as being usable with either the right or left hand.

    Maybe Microsoft will release a cordless and recharagable version? Until then it's just a pretty mouse on a cord.
    • Mouse and keyboard cords are good. Until they can come up with a cordless mouse that gets its power wirelessly instead of needing a stupid recharging station or batteries, I'm not going there. There's nothing more annoying than your mouse running out of power. Sure, it may not happen often, but it generally does so at the most annoying times.
      • Sure, it may not happen often, but it generally does so at the most annoying times.

        Actually, it happens never.

        On this MX700, the charging station is also the cordless transmitter. Simply remembering to put the mouse on the charger when you leave the system is all it takes.

        If you forget, it's no big deal. The mouse lasts quite a while without a charge. When the batteries start to run down there is a flashing red LED on the top of the mouse and it will flash for quite a while before the mouse actually
  • i have a tablet pc. how long do i have to wait before there is a "sleek, sophisticated, museum quality" stylus for my clicking pleasure? when are people going to catch on that the mouse is a dieing breed.

    viva la voice and touch!

  • designer in question (Score:5, Funny)

    by pyros ( 61399 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @04:59PM (#10098806) Journal
    Isn't he the guy famous for making stuff which is considered artistic and pretty (like go to and art gallery and admire) but functionally useless? Is it supposed to be a foreshadowing of Longhorn?

  • Apple's museum mice (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I think Apple's optical mice [google.com] look much more in place in a museum, with their understated minimalistic look. I also happen to think they are overpriced and suck when you try to actually use them. I mean $49 for one button and no scroll wheel. Now before some rabid Apple fanatics will now try to explain to me why one button is actually better because it leads to less confusion, better ergonomics and that MacOS was designed for one button mice, or whatever, spare your keystrokes. I've been a Mac user since the
  • So why is this story under hardware? As soon as I moused over a color choice and saw the actual design, I was ROTFLMAO.

    This is a museum quality mouse?

    It should be in a museum, right next to all those flying machines that never made it.

  • Real Improvement: IBM Trackpoint Mouse (Score:4, Informative)

    by G4from128k ( 686170 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @05:10PM (#10098908)
    IBM has a prototype of a mouse with trackpoint scroll stick [ibm.com]. Because the trackpoint nubbin is a rate-device, like a joystick, it apparently offers superior productivity to a scrollwheel according to IBM's research (PDF of slides [ibm.com]).

    Has anyone seen any devices like this? As much as I love the scrollwheel, my finger gets tired scrolling through a long document -- I'd rather just pull on a stick/nubbin and zoom along.
    • I've owned one of these [ibm.com] for a while now. The scrollstick works just like a trackpoint, but has a plastic "saddle" instead of the nub (which to me is better). It's nice, scrolls both vertically and horizontally, and it's been available for something like 4 years.

      IBM just doesn't do a good job of marketing their more interesting products, I think. =)

  • "Museum quality" doesn't mean what it used to (Score:3, Insightful)

    by servognome ( 738846 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @05:20PM (#10098963)
    Just look at this [bbc.co.uk] other piece of museum quality art. It's actually rev 2 since the janitor threw out the original by mistake.
    The microsoft mouse looks interesting, but not special, and I wonder how it holds up in the whole ergonomic department, maybe it can come with a matching wrist brace.

  • Mod story as Troll (Score:3, Insightful)

    by alphakappa ( 687189 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @06:00PM (#10099227) Homepage
    "Looks shiny enough to be on a museum display along with other succesful Microsoft products."

    I am not a Microsoft fanboy, but whether the Mouse is good or bad is a subjective matter. What is the basis for comparing it with Microsoft Bob? Stories like this (along with the other trollish story about Gmail posted earlier today- once again with no data or story to back it up) is making Slashdot a tech tabloid. Editors, please use your discretion more carefully while approving stories.

  • This makes sense... (Score:3, Funny)

    by thanq ( 321486 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @06:19PM (#10099331)
    Hardware has guided the evolution of the mouse from its origins as a simple, utilitarian tool to its modern incarnation: a statement of individual style.


    I think they say it all right there: primary purpose of this mouse is to be a fashion statement.

    It falls right into the same bucket as cell phone covers [cellularfactory.com], some of other MS mice [microsoft.com] as well as some other more useless items. [yahoo.com]
    On a side note, did anyone notice that this mouse does not match ANY other MS-driven hardware?

  • Ambidextrous... not. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Daniel Ellard ( 799842 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @06:34PM (#10099407)
    Ambidextrous design makes working more comfortable, whether you mouse with your left or right hand.

    Translated from marketese, this means that it works equally poorly for both hands. Sorry, I think I'll keep my old asymmetric logictech mouse for a while longer; it might just look like a lump of beige plastic, but its shape fits my hand.

  • I dont know about this mouse in particular (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jonwil ( 467024 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @06:39PM (#10099421)
    But Microsoft Mice in general are good.

    In fact, I would say that the MS optical mice are probobly one of the best things to come out of M$.

  • Unlike the Apple Mouse (Score:5, Informative)

    by gexen ( 123248 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @06:42PM (#10099430)
    Unlike the Apple Mouse, the whole left and right side's are buttons. A friend of mine tried one out and he constantly complained that because he rests his hand on his mouse, he mistakingly clicked all over the place. The Apple Mouse, although it has only one button, is only pressure sensitive at the top.

  • MS Hardware is Pretty Good... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Blic ( 672552 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @07:12PM (#10099569)
    I know bashing MS is required on Slashdot, but whatever you think of their software and/or business practices, their hardware has always been great.

    Personally their keyboards and mice are some of the best being made. Logitech isn't bad, but I haven't liked their last couple generations of mice and their keyboards have always been sub-par.

    In terms of innovation, MS released its first mouse in 1983, one year before the Mac was launched. Though I don't know if they invented the mouse wheel and optical mice, but they were the first major manufacturer to promote the technology. And though I personally don't like the "natural" keyboards, I know a lot of people that swear by them.

    And even though I love Apple's industrial design, their mice are utterly useless. I use an MS mouse with my Mac.

    That said, the Starck mouse looks more like an executive desk decoration than a useful mouse. =)

    • MS and innovation (Score:3, Informative)

      by LenE ( 29922 )

      In terms of innovation, MS released its first mouse in 1983, one year before the Mac was launched...

      A clever way to imply that Microsoft innovates, but history says otherwise. Englebart invented the mouse in the late 1960's, and Xerox PARC used it first almost-commercially in the 1970's. Apple produced their first mouse based system, the Lisa in 1982 which was the first real use of the mouse as an input peripheral by any commercially available system. Microsoft's mouse was then, as they are now, devel

  • MOMA already has a mouse in their collection (Score:4, Informative)

    by shawkin ( 165588 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @07:36PM (#10099710)
    MOMA bought a Macintosh Cube and other Macintosh items for their permanent art collection. The Cube came with a Macintosh mouse but MOMA bought some additional Macintosh mice to display separate from the complete Cube.

  • Not entirely original. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by catwh0re ( 540371 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @08:50PM (#10100117)
    It's a shame that an external designer to Microsoft would do a typical 'Microsoft', i.e. take a current product and alter it slightly.

    The click mechanism on this new mouse is identical to that of the now quite-old Apple mouse design.
    It's a trivial thought to simply cut the mouse 50/50 to give it another mouse button, making it suitable for windows.

    The side view of the new mouse is even less original, following an alteration of the curves currently used in the Apple mouse design.

    The designer has been particularly unoriginal, as he'd run into the Apple mouse on a daily basis when dealing with design studios. It's not like an accountant coming to this amazing idea, it's just a rip off. Pity.

  • Who is Philippe Starck? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Riktov ( 632 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @09:39PM (#10100343) Journal
    ...as is says on the web page.

    That seems like a problem right there. How many average computer users know who Starck is? How many Slashdotters know? OK, there are probably a lot of Mac user who know. But if you have to say "this product is great because it was designed by Starck" while most people don't know who Starck is, where's the appeal?

    Philippe Starck is in fact probably the best-known industrial designer of the last 20 years. He's a celebrity.

    But his stuff (among his best known is an orange-juice squeezer that looks like a 3-legged alien landing craft) is the kind that yuppies in the '80s said "Oooh, it's a Starck! I need to get one to display in my condo!" Like I said, there are probably lots of Mac users that Starck appeals to. Anyone who would want a Starck mouse because it's a Starck probably wouldn't be using Windows.

    That's not to say this mouse isn't necessarily ergonomic -- I'm sure Starck's underlings took good care of it. But as far as I can tell, the classic "soap bar" MS mouse got the ergonomics right, and I don't think most hands could tell the difference between it and the Starck. (Look at the touted ergonomic features -- smooth form! Ambidextrous! aren't these the basics that any mouse should have?) This mouse is being marketed solely on a designer name.

  • Best mouse ever.. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Rui del-Negro ( 531098 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @09:45PM (#10100375) Homepage
    ...was the original Logitech MouseMan+ [epinions.com], with the rubber on the sides and the buttons that extended to the edge of the mouse. Looked weird (ugly, even), but it's "the" mouse for (right-handed) people with big hands.

    Then they completely screwed it up when they made the optical model, by reducing the size of the buttons [hardwarecentral.com] (original on the right, optical models on the left and centre).

    Currently, the best compromise is probably the "MX" series [dansdata.com], also from Logitech (a company I don't like much, but they do manage to get it right now and then), especially the MX-500 and above. The main buttons are very well designed, and the side buttons are reasonable. The scroll wheel and the other buttons are too far back on the mouse, though; to reach them you have to either bend your fingers or move your hand back so it actually rests off the mouse.

    And, of course, Logitech's mouse drivers are crap (can't even turn acceleration off completely). Stick to the default OS drivers and you'll be fine.

  • I'll take ergonomics over style any day (Score:5, Informative)

    by lophophore ( 4087 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @09:49PM (#10100394) Homepage
    My wrists have been destroyed by bad keyboards and worse mice. That mouse looks cool, but my wrists start to ache just looking at it.

    I want a mouse that is comfortable to use for long periods of time. I need one that has a good 15-30 degree slant up towards the left, like the Goldtouch Mouse [877ergo.com]. Sure, it's ugly, but I can still hold a beer after a long day of computer use.

  • Quite lovely, but... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jejones ( 115979 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @09:57PM (#10100430) Journal
    I switched to trackballs long ago.

    OTOH, there would be one thing that would tempt me to try a mouse again... some time ago--pushing ten years, now--there was a designer mouse that I actually bought. Thd designer was Italian, and the mouse was shaped rather like a bar of Dove soap, with a beautifully contoured shape that the muscles that let your thumb oppose your finger could gently nestle in, and that supported the hand perfectly. (It was, therefore, not ambidextrous; there were right-handed and left-handed versions.)

    It was long enough ago that the mouse was mechanical, darn it. If there were an optical version of it, I'd buy one in a heartbeat.

  • Geiger (Score:3, Funny)

    by eikonos ( 779343 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @10:04PM (#10100460) Homepage Journal
    Who is this s+arck guy?! I want a mouse designed by H R Giger [hrgiger.com] dammnit!

  • This isn't even old news... (Score:3, Informative)

    by z80 ( 103328 ) on Sunday August 29, 2004 @03:53AM (#10101368) Homepage Journal
    .. this is pre-historic news. I've had this mouse for a month!

    . and yeah, it looks great next to my Mac but is really plastic and it feels really cheap to use.

  • Starck is a charlatan (Score:4, Funny)

    by GrahamCox ( 741991 ) on Sunday August 29, 2004 @07:18AM (#10101762) Homepage
    Starck is a pretentious twat who couldn't design his way out of a paper bag. The first rule of design is Form Follows Function.
    Anyone unfortunate enough to have been bamboozled by his very expensive lemon squeezer that did the rounds of the likes of John Lewis a few years ago will know what I mean.
    It is actually terrible at squeezing lemons, and singularly fails to fulfil its basic function at all well, and costs over 40 GBP!! Here's what's wrong with it:

    you need a separate container to catch the juice (not included!)

    the gap between the legs does not permit the average bowl or cup to fit below it to catch the juice.

    its centre of gravity is so high that it easily topples over when any sort of pressure (like actually trying to squeeze a lemon) is applied.

    that's assuming you can get the legs on a flat surface around the juice catcher - if not you're totally fscked.

    it doesn't catch the pips, so they end up in the juice.

    its shape means that the juice runs off awkwardly, often running down the legs onto the surface instead of into the catcher.
    Frankly, it's a travesty. I have a plastic lemon squeezer I bought in the local supermarket for 99p that does the job perfectly - it has its own container, it catches the pips, and it is strong enough to take as much force as the lemon will. If this mouse is anything like the squeezer, it'll cost a fortune, won't function well, and will probably just end up in the back of a cupboard somewhere. But there will probably still be some pretentious tossers who'll go for it.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell

Close