[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Early Mac Mouse --> Apple II Mouse Card ?
- Subject: Re: Early Mac Mouse --> Apple II Mouse Card ?
- From: mjmahon@aol.com (Michael J. Mahon)
- Date: 08 Mar 2002 08:22:12 GMT
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
- Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
- References: <3c88121f$1@news.uow.edu.au>
- Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.sys.apple2:18040
David Wilson wrote:
>"Sean" <sean@snerts-r-us.org> writes:
>>ABSOLUTELY. The VERY early mac mouse - 128, 512 and 1 meg plus macs all had
>>the same maouse as the iie/iic mouse. DB 9 connector.
>
>Similar but not identical. I have heard that some Mac mice do not work
>on the //e mouse card.
>
>It is not a DB-9. It is a DE-9. The letter tells you the size of the
>connector and the number is the pin count.
>
>DE-9
>DA-15
>DB-25
>DC-37
>DD-50
>
>A DE-15 would describe a VGA video port.
All very true, but a truly broken nomenclature, and almost
totally disregarded for the last few years, at least in the USA.
Broken: Note that the pin count is redundant if the letters
are properly used. But the letters are out of order (and
what's the 19-pin connector). It is logically simpler to
consider the letter redundant, and use the pin count as
the primary specifier, with the most well-known prefix, "DB",
serving as the context tag: "this is a D-subminiature
connector".
In this way we eliminate the need to remember the totally
non-mnemonic second letter and instead use the intuitive
pin count to nail it down. (Oh, and M or F should be part of
any connector designation.)
Disregarded: I note that it has become almost universal
usage (at least in the US) to say "DB-15F" to specify the
obvious connector. In catalogs (Jameco and JDR), both
the original maufacturer's designations and the common
"DB-n" form are used, particularly for "DB-9".
It is true that component suppliers are more likely to use
the manufacturer's designation than are cable suppliers,
who almost universally use "DB-n" (or HDB-n for high-
density connectors).
I'm afraid that defending the non-colloquial usage is going
to be hard, since the colloquial form contains all the relevent
information and, by standardizing the suffix letter, eliminates
a redundant, and frequently incorrect, decoration. Perhaps
this is going the same way as ending a sentence with a
preposition, or even (horrors) to boldly split an infinitive. ;-)
-michael
Email: mjmahon@aol.com
Home page: http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/