Fuzzies and Pricklies Awards, Volume 2: Inside Fred's World

Fuzzies and Pricklies, Volume 2

Issue Date: March 9, 1998

Finally, we're back with an all-new edition of Warm Fuzzies and Cold Pricklies! Here's what's great and not - according to me!

First, a couple of games!

*Underworld: This is a shareware clone of the old Atari 8-bit computer game and arcade hit Dig Dug. This one has the bad guys as aliens, but otherwise it’s much the same as the original. Unlike many remakes of classic games, the graphics have been updated but do not detract from the game play. On the one hand, we have games such as Microsoft’s Arcade that are completely true to the original, even keeping the chunky, archaic graphics. On the other hand, we have games like the Loderunner or Frogger remakes that add extra graphics or new features that may interfere with the game play. (Those are not real good examples to support my point, but they’re the best I can think of at the moment.) Underworld seems to strike a nice balance. I’ve made it to level 7 or eight so far. The full version has 31 levels, I believe, and will cost you $20 (US) plus another $3 for shipping. I think it’s a good program, but I’m not sure I’m ready to spring $20 for one remake. Scoreboard: 2 fuzzies

*Age of Empires: This Microsoft offering seems to have received a lot of praise. I hate to knock yet another Microsoft product in these pages, but ... To be fair, I’ve only seen the sampler that I obtained from a disk in one of the computer magazines. First of all, it requires DirectX 5 which was not included in the file. Keep in mind that this was a trial version and came without any manual - or any instructions whatsoever, except for the online help. The graphics are very impressive. The scope of the game seems to be immense. But, when you load it up, you have absolutely no idea what to do or how to do whatever you might decide to do. Obviously, you need to read the online help. Unfortunately, I’ve gotten in the habit of skipping the instructions and plunging right in. Not a good idea with this game. My beef is not so much with the game as with the wisdom of releasing a trial version that requires another set of files before it will work, that lacks any instructions to get you started, that seems to lack any "demo" of how to play it (I may have just missed it.) and that is simply too complicated to just jump in and try it. I have been eying this title for a couple of months, although I think the price is too high for a "game". Honestly, this trial version is not going to temp me to buy the Age of Empires. Scoreboard: Game: 1 fuzzy (I’m being a skinflint). Promotion: 1� cold pricklies.

Just Mousin’ Around

Over the last few months I have acquired a number of new mice. It seems no matter how cheap or expensive your mouse is, it does wear out much sooner than you might expect. It also seems that there is virtually no correlation between quality or usability and price. I have paid anywhere between $5 and $90 for a mouse or trackball. With the exception of the Microsoft ‘ergonomic’ mouse, I have generally had much better results with the cheaper varieties. By and large they work better. It’s very hard to make an objective assessment of quality and durability. I suspect that, on average, cheaper devices tend to stop functioning sooner than expensive ones. However, it’s doubtful that the difference in longevity makes up for the difference in price. If in doubt, buy the cheaper model! Here’s my run-down on mice:

*Microsoft HomeMouse: Yes, despite all my apparent Microsoft-bashing, I keep buying their products (otherwise, how could I keep criticizing them :-) ). I was intending to buy an inexpensive mouse when I saw that Microsoft had bundled this with Microsoft Arcade. Actually, I stupidly thought it was Return of the Arcade, but that’s another story. Despite the unusual shape of its buttons (they look like a house roof), it seems to be a reasonably good product. However, I must qualify this by saying that I just purchased it and have only begun using it. So far, it seems no better and no worse than most other mice. I have noticed one problem: You must have your finger well up on the button (towards the tail) or the button may not register your clicks. This is not an unusual problem, for I have experienced this situation with other mice. I have a relatively small hand with short fingers, so perhaps I tend to click much lower on the button than most people. Scoreboard: 2 fuzzies

* Microsoft Intellimouse Trackball: This was an unfortunate "impulse purchase". I saw it in Costco for $20 or so less than anywhere else and I succumbed. I have always had a fancy for trackballs even though they have always failed to live up to my expectations. This one had a unique design that I thought might finally allow the trackball to live up to its promise, but no such luck. I still have major problems making fine motor adjustments. It does have the "wheel" that allows you to scroll through documents in some programs such as Internet Explorer. I got to use that feature a little, but all in all, I can not recommend this product. It’s fine if you do not have to be very precise with your mouse movements, but otherwise, it is just too frustrating. Scoreboard: 2 cold pricklies. (1 for failing to live up to its potential; 1 for the high cost of the product.)

*Genius NetMouse: Hey, I get to bash somebody else now! This looked like a low-cost alternative to the Microsoft line of "Intellimouse" products with the new "wheel" for easy scrolling. I plugged this in and tried to use it without installing its software. (At the time, the computer I wanted to attach it to was running (actually crawling would be a better term) Windows NT4 and the software that came with the mouse didn’t run under NT4. The mouse worked, but was very jerky. I attributed this to the fact that I had not installed the software. This mouse was set aside until I could get updated software. Later, I had switched that computer back to Windows 95 and I decided to try this mouse again. However, even after installing the software, the mouse still moved jerkily. It would move very smoothly over a large area, but was jerky when moved slowly or for fine adjustments. Instead of Microsoft’s "wheel", this uses a "rocker switch" that allows you to scroll through documents slightly differently than the Microsoft products. There is a chance that I just happened to get a mouse with a defective ball or some other part, so don’t completely write off this product. However, for me, I am disappointed. Scoreboard: 2 pricklies; 1 fuzzy, however, for design and ergonomics.

*Imsi 3-button Mouse: I’m not sure if this has a specific model number. This is the least expensive mouse described so far. It also ranks highest in my experience. So far it has performed flawlessly. The third button, of course, is largely useless and a bit of a distraction, but overall, this is a very satisfactory mouse. However, I do have one complaint: The mouse buttons are sculpted. There is no perceivable reason for this design. Unfortunately, the buttons do not align perfectly. As a result, there are rough edges that make using the mouse less pleasant than it otherwise would be. I don’t believe anyone could actually injure themselves from this situation; it is just an annoyance. Scoreboard: Overall: 2 fuzzies; Design: � cold prickly; Value for money: 3 fuzzies.

All of the mice described so far were purchased largely because they came with some bonus or other: software or a rebate.

*Mitsumi Electronics Mouse: This mouse is currently sold at Mohawk College’s computer store for $15.00 (tax included). That makes this one of the least expensive you can buy. It has a simple, classic design similar to the original(?) Microsoft mouse (before the ‘ergonomic’ one with the asymmetrical design.) It performs on a par with the Imsi mouse and deserves serious consideration. The only question mark is whether it will prove to be long lasting. There are currently many of this type in use in my areas, and I will be reporting later about their durability. Scoreboard: Overall: 2 fuzzies; Value for Money: 3+ fuzzies

Storage

No matter how large your hard drive(s) may be, you always seem to run out of room. There is also the problem of backing up valuable documents against the day when your hard drive crashes. (I had the unfortunate experience of having a Quantum Bigfoot 4.3 Gig drive crash after less than 2 months of use!) Finally, Some of us need to be able to transport documents between home and work. It used to be that you could place several good sized-books worth of data on a 1.44 floppy. But not now. Not with graphics and all the other hooplas of modern computing. Now we need something bigger. There are a number of solutions. One of the first was the Syquest removable hard drive. It was very reliable; reasonably fast; and very expensive. Worst of all, there was little, if any, compatibility (backwards or otherwise) between Syquest models. Then came the Zip drive. It didn’t hold as much as most Syquest drives, but it was cheaper. Now comes the LS120 drive. The disk looks like at 1.44 floppy. It acts like a 1.44 floppy, but it holds 120 megabytes. It’s about the same price as a Zip drive; it comes in internal and parallel port versions; but it also handles normal 1.44 disks. By today’s standards, 120 megabytes isn’t all that much. But that’s almost the only drawback. The other drawback is speed. I’m not comparing its speed to a Zip or a current Syquest (which would be a fair comparison) but to a normal floppy or a hard drive. It takes a noticeable bit of time to get a directory listing from this drive, and it doesn’t seem to make much difference whether it’s the internal or the parallel port version. However, actual copying time is quite fast. Not as fast as a hard drive, but much faster than a conventional floppy. The very newest Syquests offer much more capacity for less money than previous drives. But I think Syquest has blown its chance at being a main-line storage device. I think the next mainline removable storage device will be either the Zip drive or the LS120. Because the LS120 can also handle traditional floppies, I have made it my choice. I think it’s an excellent drive at a reasonable price. The disks, themselves, are a little pricey, at almost $25 (Cdn). You could just about buy the 80 floppies you’d need to match its capacity for the same money. The drives have already started dropping in price. Hopefully the disks will follow suit. Scoreboard: Overall: 3 fuzzies; Value for Money: 2 fuzzies.

Fred Oldfield is
a member of

webmaster