> Funny, this is what I would call "personal opinion"
Funny, I didn't call you "ignorant" right before I posted my opinion. I also made it clear that I was posting my personal experience (hence the term "my experience") and not making some blanket claim.
> And this is what I would call a "factual statement"
Nope. It's more efficient for you, perhaps. It is considerably less efficient for someone who finds it awkward. Moving my hand to the trackpad takes less than a second. I don't consider that a high cost.
If you find yourself in a type-mouse-type-mouse loop that repeats so rapidly that moving your hand to the trackpad is actually a significant cost, then the UI you're using is terrible. Or else you need to learn to use the tab key for switching between fields, which is faster than either the trackpad or the trackpoint.
As for your scrolling example, you're missing a couple of important details. First, modern trackpads support inertial scrolling, which means you can "flick" and then stop the scrolling when you get to the point you want. This is far faster than the trackpoint for long-distance scrolling. Second, the trackpad also supports more fine-grained speed control in general. The trackpoint has a very small range of motion, which means you're trading off speed and accuracy. The large surface of a modern trackpad gives both simultaneously. I can mouse from corner to corner on screen multiple times per second with a trackpad. I can also get extremely fine-grained control. I seriously doubt your trackpoint can match both the speed and accuracy (though you can presumably match one of them). This likely more than offsets the "home row advantage". And even if you could match the speed and accuracy from a hardware standpoint, you'd be asking for either extremely fine inputs from the finger (for control), or extremely firm inputs (for speed), both of which would be very suboptimal in terms of ease of use and comfort.
> The fact that the TrackPoint doesn't move is an advantage, not a disadvantage. It allows you to scroll infinitely, never move your hand from the home row, etc.
No, it's a tradeoff. If you value keeping your hands on the home row, then it might be an advantage for you. I value the intuitive interaction of the trackpad far more.
> Getting used to the TrackPoint is just a matter of time (a few days for me), but having to move your hands a lot when using a trackpad or mouse will never change - it's physical reality.
Sure. You can get used to just about anything. Whether there's value in doing so is a different question. For most people, the answer appears to be no, given the low popularity of the trackpoint. The tradeoff between speed and accuracy in the trackpoint will also never change. That's physical reality, too.
> And if it's so difficult to use a joystick to control things, how is it that millions of people are able to play console video games without any problem? Many of the people who complain about the TrackPoint are the same people who play Wii, 360, or PS3 games that make extensive use of joysticks.
This would be a more compelling argument if interacting with game menus via joystick weren't so annoying (especially if the game gives you a "cursor" to move with said joystick). A joystick is a very useful input method for gameplay because "keep moving in this direction" is a common need there. It's frustrating for traditional interfaces because "keep moving in this direction" is not common. "Jump to this, now this, now this" is far more common.
> I'm sorry you feel that way, but I find no reason to return your ad hominem attack on me, so whatever.
It's a little late to reach for the high road when you start by calling someone ignorant for holding a different opinion, and then end by claiming that Apple users are "chasing after the latest shiny bauble". Also, nothing I posted is actually an ad hominem attack, but if it makes you feel better to think so, please continue.
Funny, I didn't call you "ignorant" right before I posted my opinion. I also made it clear that I was posting my personal experience (hence the term "my experience") and not making some blanket claim.
> And this is what I would call a "factual statement"
Nope. It's more efficient for you, perhaps. It is considerably less efficient for someone who finds it awkward. Moving my hand to the trackpad takes less than a second. I don't consider that a high cost.
If you find yourself in a type-mouse-type-mouse loop that repeats so rapidly that moving your hand to the trackpad is actually a significant cost, then the UI you're using is terrible. Or else you need to learn to use the tab key for switching between fields, which is faster than either the trackpad or the trackpoint.
As for your scrolling example, you're missing a couple of important details. First, modern trackpads support inertial scrolling, which means you can "flick" and then stop the scrolling when you get to the point you want. This is far faster than the trackpoint for long-distance scrolling. Second, the trackpad also supports more fine-grained speed control in general. The trackpoint has a very small range of motion, which means you're trading off speed and accuracy. The large surface of a modern trackpad gives both simultaneously. I can mouse from corner to corner on screen multiple times per second with a trackpad. I can also get extremely fine-grained control. I seriously doubt your trackpoint can match both the speed and accuracy (though you can presumably match one of them). This likely more than offsets the "home row advantage". And even if you could match the speed and accuracy from a hardware standpoint, you'd be asking for either extremely fine inputs from the finger (for control), or extremely firm inputs (for speed), both of which would be very suboptimal in terms of ease of use and comfort.
> The fact that the TrackPoint doesn't move is an advantage, not a disadvantage. It allows you to scroll infinitely, never move your hand from the home row, etc.
No, it's a tradeoff. If you value keeping your hands on the home row, then it might be an advantage for you. I value the intuitive interaction of the trackpad far more.
> Getting used to the TrackPoint is just a matter of time (a few days for me), but having to move your hands a lot when using a trackpad or mouse will never change - it's physical reality.
Sure. You can get used to just about anything. Whether there's value in doing so is a different question. For most people, the answer appears to be no, given the low popularity of the trackpoint. The tradeoff between speed and accuracy in the trackpoint will also never change. That's physical reality, too.
> And if it's so difficult to use a joystick to control things, how is it that millions of people are able to play console video games without any problem? Many of the people who complain about the TrackPoint are the same people who play Wii, 360, or PS3 games that make extensive use of joysticks.
This would be a more compelling argument if interacting with game menus via joystick weren't so annoying (especially if the game gives you a "cursor" to move with said joystick). A joystick is a very useful input method for gameplay because "keep moving in this direction" is a common need there. It's frustrating for traditional interfaces because "keep moving in this direction" is not common. "Jump to this, now this, now this" is far more common.
> I'm sorry you feel that way, but I find no reason to return your ad hominem attack on me, so whatever.
It's a little late to reach for the high road when you start by calling someone ignorant for holding a different opinion, and then end by claiming that Apple users are "chasing after the latest shiny bauble". Also, nothing I posted is actually an ad hominem attack, but if it makes you feel better to think so, please continue.