Choosing mouse - optical, radio, Bluetooth?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Joe

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2004
1,187
0
19,280
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Great reply. Thanks for the info.

Have you ever thought of taking a breath? :)


"nooneimportant" <no.spam@me> wrote:
>
> I use a MS Wireless InteliMouse Explorer 2.0 ... wouldn't
> trade it for anything! The batteries add just the right
> amount of heft missing from many optical mice, but i've grown
> use to the lighter feel of optical mice anyway. I've never had
> ANY surface related issues with any optical mouse, ive used
> on white formica, woodgrain formica, blue jeans, slacks,
> t'shirts, and when the cat didn't want to get down... cat fur!
> they work on every surface i've tried so far! Some wireless
> mice now are rechargable, but frankly i prefer the battery
> kind, rechargables are known to run out of juice when you need
> the mouse the most, and its a pain to have to wait 45mins+ to
> get enough charge back on to function well, wheras I can throw
> in 2 spare AA batteries in seconds and be on my way , and
> getting a massive stick of bats at costco isn't all that
> expensive(i have half a stick of bats sitting in desk drawer
> to have handy for the mouse), Ive run 2 months now without
> needing to replace! Bluetooth does little more than give you
> more range, who cares about bandwidth of a wireless connection
> when its just a friggen mouse, not much data to tx, much less
> rx! I'm fine with my setup, the USB powered "base" sits out
> of the way behind my monitor, and i can still use the mouse
> from almost across the room, not that i need to, 99.9999
> percent of the time it sits in its usual place right next to
> the keyboard on the desk, but i don't have to worry about its
> cables getting in the way (like they do on my other desktop),
> and on a cramped desk its nice to be able to work the mouse
> from wherever there is room instead of wherever the cable lets
> me go (even if it meens the knee of my pants!) Bluetooth will
> add considerably to a mouse, and like i said all it does is
> provide more range, perhaps it may add some security, but on a
> mouse there isn't much that can be listened to, just movements
> and clicks, listener has no idea what is being moused and
> clicked so i'm not worried about it. Now for keyboards i will
> always be wired, simply for security, sure someone can install
> a keylogger onto my system, but firewalling and good spyware
> antivirus go a long way to prevent that, but NOBODY can sit
> outside with a reciever and pick up what i'm typing cus it
> ain't broadcast wirelessly! IF i had to go wireless for kbd
> it would be bluetooth, and even then i would want the best
> encryption possible! An optical mouse is good for price, and
> IMO not much else. They work great on semisoft surfaces,
> usually poorly on hard surfaces, and surfaces need to be flat
> as a general rule (usually not an issue.) DOWNSIDE is a major
> one for me, and is the reason i left the balled mouse behind,
> AS A BALL MOUSE AGES IT WILL NOT WORK RIGHT! And they do tend
> to age quickly! ANY dust ona surface starts to build up on
> the rollers and before you know it the mouse starts to "hang"
> or "skip" across the screen in one or both dimensions, you can
> start to feel "bumps" in the movement. Sure you can clean it
> out, and its not that hard to do, but ive found no matter how
> clean you make a dirty mouse, it will never work like it did
> when new. Wheras opticals don't have any moving pieces to get
> gummed up, and ive never had an issue with the sensor not
> being able to see the surface, tho I imagine with LOTS of use
> it would be wise to gently clean it (Have an optical mouse
> that ran for 2 years on my machine, and has now run 2 more
> years when i gave that system to my grandmother, both of us
> use(d) the computer more than 3 hours a day, never needed
> cleaning!)
>
> Gotta say that the wheelmouse is the way to go, especially if
> you are used to it. If you go to a mouse without you will
> find yourself trying to scroll a page without realizing you
> don't have the wheel anymore, you never know how much you miss
> it. Some wheelmice can now tilt to scroll horizontally, but i
> have yet to see a SMOOTH implementation of this idea, usually
> tilts to click instead of being an axis like a good wheel
> behaves.
>
> Like other posters have stated try out several, not just in
> the store, but try and find someone that actually has a
> working mouse you can use (look around the demo machines in
> your local computer megastore, chances are you will find a
> decent variaty of mice to try out), but i think there is
> something to be said for removing mechanical components from
> the mouse and going to optical technolegy, Tend to get much
> more precise mouse movement, and just like a ball mouse you
> can tell the OS how fast you want to dictate mouse
> movement/acceleration.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Hehe, sorry bout getting a bit longwinded, tends to happen when i find
myself dragging in late at night to check my email......



"joe" <joe@freedom.com> wrote in message
news:94C78D08A95D38FCE1@64.62.191.203...
> Great reply. Thanks for the info.
>
> Have you ever thought of taking a breath? :)
>
>
> "nooneimportant" <no.spam@me> wrote:
> >
> > I use a MS Wireless InteliMouse Explorer 2.0 ... wouldn't
> > trade it for anything! The batteries add just the right
> > amount of heft missing from many optical mice, but i've grown
> > use to the lighter feel of optical mice anyway. I've never had
> > ANY surface related issues with any optical mouse, ive used
> > on white formica, woodgrain formica, blue jeans, slacks,
> > t'shirts, and when the cat didn't want to get down... cat fur!
> > they work on every surface i've tried so far! Some wireless
> > mice now are rechargable, but frankly i prefer the battery
> > kind, rechargables are known to run out of juice when you need
> > the mouse the most, and its a pain to have to wait 45mins+ to
> > get enough charge back on to function well, wheras I can throw
> > in 2 spare AA batteries in seconds and be on my way , and
> > getting a massive stick of bats at costco isn't all that
> > expensive(i have half a stick of bats sitting in desk drawer
> > to have handy for the mouse), Ive run 2 months now without
> > needing to replace! Bluetooth does little more than give you
> > more range, who cares about bandwidth of a wireless connection
> > when its just a friggen mouse, not much data to tx, much less
> > rx! I'm fine with my setup, the USB powered "base" sits out
> > of the way behind my monitor, and i can still use the mouse
> > from almost across the room, not that i need to, 99.9999
> > percent of the time it sits in its usual place right next to
> > the keyboard on the desk, but i don't have to worry about its
> > cables getting in the way (like they do on my other desktop),
> > and on a cramped desk its nice to be able to work the mouse
> > from wherever there is room instead of wherever the cable lets
> > me go (even if it meens the knee of my pants!) Bluetooth will
> > add considerably to a mouse, and like i said all it does is
> > provide more range, perhaps it may add some security, but on a
> > mouse there isn't much that can be listened to, just movements
> > and clicks, listener has no idea what is being moused and
> > clicked so i'm not worried about it. Now for keyboards i will
> > always be wired, simply for security, sure someone can install
> > a keylogger onto my system, but firewalling and good spyware
> > antivirus go a long way to prevent that, but NOBODY can sit
> > outside with a reciever and pick up what i'm typing cus it
> > ain't broadcast wirelessly! IF i had to go wireless for kbd
> > it would be bluetooth, and even then i would want the best
> > encryption possible! An optical mouse is good for price, and
> > IMO not much else. They work great on semisoft surfaces,
> > usually poorly on hard surfaces, and surfaces need to be flat
> > as a general rule (usually not an issue.) DOWNSIDE is a major
> > one for me, and is the reason i left the balled mouse behind,
> > AS A BALL MOUSE AGES IT WILL NOT WORK RIGHT! And they do tend
> > to age quickly! ANY dust ona surface starts to build up on
> > the rollers and before you know it the mouse starts to "hang"
> > or "skip" across the screen in one or both dimensions, you can
> > start to feel "bumps" in the movement. Sure you can clean it
> > out, and its not that hard to do, but ive found no matter how
> > clean you make a dirty mouse, it will never work like it did
> > when new. Wheras opticals don't have any moving pieces to get
> > gummed up, and ive never had an issue with the sensor not
> > being able to see the surface, tho I imagine with LOTS of use
> > it would be wise to gently clean it (Have an optical mouse
> > that ran for 2 years on my machine, and has now run 2 more
> > years when i gave that system to my grandmother, both of us
> > use(d) the computer more than 3 hours a day, never needed
> > cleaning!)
> >
> > Gotta say that the wheelmouse is the way to go, especially if
> > you are used to it. If you go to a mouse without you will
> > find yourself trying to scroll a page without realizing you
> > don't have the wheel anymore, you never know how much you miss
> > it. Some wheelmice can now tilt to scroll horizontally, but i
> > have yet to see a SMOOTH implementation of this idea, usually
> > tilts to click instead of being an axis like a good wheel
> > behaves.
> >
> > Like other posters have stated try out several, not just in
> > the store, but try and find someone that actually has a
> > working mouse you can use (look around the demo machines in
> > your local computer megastore, chances are you will find a
> > decent variaty of mice to try out), but i think there is
> > something to be said for removing mechanical components from
> > the mouse and going to optical technolegy, Tend to get much
> > more precise mouse movement, and just like a ball mouse you
> > can tell the OS how fast you want to dictate mouse
> > movement/acceleration.
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Bob Adkins <bobadkins@charter.net> wrote:

>>I am still using a corded mouse (logitech wheelmouse).
>>
>>I would like to get a better mouse which has at least as good
>>precision, responsiveness, accuracy, etc.
>>
>>Would an optical mouse be better on all counts?
>>
>>What about a cordless mouse. Are they poor performers? What
>>about a Bluetooth connection - is that good. Is it pricey.
>>
>>Are there any web sites which discuss this. Google is no help
>>to me.
>
>
> Optical is FAR superior to ball. There's no excuse not to buy
> a $15 MS optical mouse now.
>
> PS2 is slightly superior to USB at the moment.
>
> Corded is slightly superior to cordless at the moment.
>
> Perhaps there will soon be USB2 mice and all this will change.


Good info. You cover the points succinctly.
 

Clyde

Distinguished
Apr 10, 2004
136
0
18,680
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

ric wrote:

> E2E t-bot BT wrote:
>
>
>>I am still using a corded mouse (logitech wheelmouse).
>>
>>I would like to get a better mouse which has at least as good
>>precision, responsiveness, accuracy, etc.
>>
>>Would an optical mouse be better on all counts?
>>
>>What about a cordless mouse. Are they poor performers? What about
>>a Bluetooth connection - is that good. Is it pricey.
>
>
> I am using a Logitech MX700 cordless optical mouse. I have been using it
> for over 6 months with NO problems. I'm using the PS/2 interface.

I have exactly the same setup and results. It's the best mouse and
keyboard I've ever used.

BTW, the rechargeable batteries in it last about a half a week for me.
The red light starts blinking way before the batteries are dead with
plenty or warning to put it in the cradle. Actually, I get about a whole
evening with the light blinking. I've never seen it die completely.

Highly recommended.

Clyde
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"E2E t-bot BT" <English-to-English.translator.bot@Babel.Fish> wrote in
message news:94C6825DEB901K187D@64.62.191.98...
> I am still using a corded mouse (logitech wheelmouse).
>
> I would like to get a better mouse which has at least as good
> precision, responsiveness, accuracy, etc.
>
> Would an optical mouse be better on all counts?
>
> What about a cordless mouse. Are they poor performers? What about
> a Bluetooth connection - is that good. Is it pricey.
>
> Are there any web sites which discuss this. Google is no help to
> me.

I like my Logitech wireless mouse - which needs new batteries 3-4 times
a year.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Freddie Clark" <fredclark@SPAM@loxinfo.co.th> wrote:

>> i used to use an infrared microsoft 5 button wireless mouse
>> thing, and the batteries needed to be replaced every 4 weeks
>> did get annoying though i must say!
>>
>> my friends blue tooth on the otherhand... been about 2 or 3
>> months since he last replaced the batteries!
>>
>> battery life does depend quite heavily on the brand used.
>> blue tooth seems the way to go... but i only have experience
>> with these two mice!
>>
>>
> I use logitech cordless desktop, I have tried all logitech
> cordless models. Liked them all, No real problems with the
> keyboard but as a games player I note the mouse does run out
> fairly quickly, I replace the keyboard batteries about every
> 5-6 months. When I am home I can run the mouse out in two
> weeks easily.
> But excellent combo, and a couple of AA batteries every two
> weeks isnt so bad.
>
> Try not to crosspost, it just pisses people off.
>


If people get pissed off at crossposting then they should read up
on it and understand that it is perfectly appropriate if it is not
misused.

If they can not manage their newsreader to squelch subsequrnt
crossposts then they should review what they are using for news or
how they are using it.

The big one: http://www.newsreaders.com/gnksa/gnksa.txt
http://www.itel.gil.com.au/gil/help-me/news-newsgroups/index.asp
http://www.lysator.liu.se/etexts/iguide/chap4.crosspost.html
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 22:22:43 +0100, Tim Auton
>Piotr Makley <pmakley@mail.com> wrote:

>>Is a USB port a better way to connect a mouse than PS/2 port?

>In terms of performance there's probably nothing of note in it, but
>USB has the multi-purpose thing going for it.

So a PS/2 mouse uses up a resource that can be used only for mouse,
whereas a USB mouse uses up resources (USB socket, USB bandwidth, USB
power draw) that could have been used for something else. Hmm.

Couple that with environments where PS/2 mouse works and USB mouse
does not, and avoiding USB mouse begins to look like a no-brainer.

Personally, I'd buy a decent generic cabled PS/2 optical mouse, and
spend the savings on a night out to celebrate :)

One thing to test: Some optical mice are fussy about the surface they
run on (and it goes about what the surface "looks" like, not texture).

Transparent glass tables and certain patterned surfaces (ironically,
such as many ornate or promotional mouse pads) can understandably give
an optical mouse a hard time, but a mouse that works only on a plain
white sheet of paper is one to avoid. I've seen several of those.



>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Running Windows-based av to kill active malware is like striking
a match to see if what you are standing in is water or petrol.
>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 05:11:55 +0100, "Alex Fraser" <me@privacy.net>
>"Peter Ives" <pete@pgives.ALL_STRESSfreeserve.co.uk> wrote in message

>> Yes, but as far as I've read, the sampling frequency for ps/2 can go as
>> high as 200Hz compared to a mere 125Hz for USB allowing for more
>> precision, regardless of the quality of the mouse.

>I'm not aware of any reason that a mouse connected via USB would be limited
>to 125Hz sampling. What I do know about USB leads me to think that this is
>unlikely (1kHz is much more likely), although USB need not be the limiting
>factor. That said, the mouse position reported by Windows on this system
>(with the mouse attached by USB) appears to change at (up to) 125Hz

>The obvious related question is whether or not there is anything to be
>gained by sampling at 200Hz. I think this is debatable

It may also not be the issue here, if delays are caused by other
traffic on the USB that delays mouse events.

Is mouse sampling actively done by the system, or does the system
merey read the mouse even queue every X ms? If the latter, and the
even queue isn't timeously populated because of other USB traffic,
then mouse lag is likely to be an issue with USB.



>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Running Windows-based av to kill active malware is like striking
a match to see if what you are standing in is water or petrol.
>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Alex Fraser" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>> Yes, but as far as I've read, the sampling frequency for ps/2
>> can go as high as 200Hz compared to a mere 125Hz for USB
>> allowing for more precision, regardless of the quality of the
>> mouse.
>
> I'm not aware of any reason that a mouse connected via USB
> would be limited to 125Hz sampling. What I do know about USB
> leads me to think that this is unlikely (1kHz is much more
> likely), although USB need not be the limiting factor. That
> said, the mouse position reported by Windows on this system
> (with the mouse attached by USB) appears to change at (up to)
> 125Hz
>
> The obvious related question is whether or not there is
> anything to be gained by sampling at 200Hz. I think this is
> debatable, and the benefit marginal at best. At 200Hz, there
> is a 2.5ms average and 5ms worst case delay between moving the
> mouse and that movement registering. At "a mere 125Hz", these
> figures increase to 4ms and 8ms respectively. These seem
> rather small periods of time in the context of human
> perception.


ISTR that there is some free software for checking mouse sampling
rates. Do youo know of anything which does this?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"cquirke (MVP Win9x)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in message
news:uufk70lqnj2kb9bunbvd3qs2d5adq8q1pj@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 05:11:55 +0100, "Alex Fraser" <me@privacy.net>
> >The obvious related question is whether or not there is anything to be
> >gained by sampling at 200Hz. I think this is debatable
>
> It may also not be the issue here, if delays are caused by other
> traffic on the USB that delays mouse events.

Well, any such delays can easily be avoided altogether: plug the mouse
directly into a port on the PC.

> Is mouse sampling actively done by the system, or does the system
> merey read the mouse even queue every X ms?

There's no event queue (at the USB level), just data representing the
current button states and relative (to last time) X/Y/wheel movement. (The
same applies to a PS/2 mouse.)

The only way a USB mouse (like any USB device) gets to send data is when the
host invites it to, but whether a mouse is only asked at whatever frequency,
or whether it's asked more often and simply replies "I have nothing to say"
some of the time, I have no idea.

> If the latter, and the even queue isn't timeously populated because of
> other USB traffic, then mouse lag is likely to be an issue with USB.

I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say - that the mouse may not be
read in a timely manner because the USB is busy with other traffic? Using
Interrupt Transfer mode (the obvious choice for a mouse), and assuming a low
speed device (ditto), it can be guaranteed that the position etc is updated
_at least_ every 10ms (100Hz).

Alex
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Piotr Makley" <pmakley@mail.com> wrote in message
news:94C98F7C9CFCF31E75@130.133.1.4...
> ISTR that there is some free software for checking mouse sampling
> rates. Do youo know of anything which does this?

I hacked this up to find the rate for my mouse (probably took less time than
looking for something else would have):
http://www.adf.me.uk/mouse_test.exe (36KB)

To use, run it and move the mouse in a circle; press any key to exit. The
maximum rate you see should be accurate to within 2%, if test_count (you'll
see what I mean if you try it) is large, by which I mean in the thousands -
shouldn't be a problem.

Alex
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

I have a MS Wireless Optical Mouse 2.0 and it works great. Can work on just
about any surface(except glass of course) and can use PS2 or USB 2.0. I've
had to change the batteries once every2-3 months because when it's not
actively being used it kind of goes into a power-saving mode.
"E2E t-bot BT" <English-to-English.translator.bot@Babel.Fish> wrote in
message news:94C6825DEB901K187D@64.62.191.98...
> I am still using a corded mouse (logitech wheelmouse).
>
> I would like to get a better mouse which has at least as good
> precision, responsiveness, accuracy, etc.
>
> Would an optical mouse be better on all counts?
>
> What about a cordless mouse. Are they poor performers? What about
> a Bluetooth connection - is that good. Is it pricey.
>
> Are there any web sites which discuss this. Google is no help to
> me.
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Alex Fraser" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

> "Piotr Makley" <pmakley@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:94C98F7C9CFCF31E75@130.133.1.4...
>> ISTR that there is some free software for checking mouse
>> sampling rates. Do youo know of anything which does this?
>
> I hacked this up to find the rate for my mouse (probably took
> less time than looking for something else would have):
> http://www.adf.me.uk/mouse_test.exe (36KB)
>
> To use, run it and move the mouse in a circle; press any key
> to exit. The maximum rate you see should be accurate to within
> 2%, if test_count (you'll see what I mean if you try it) is
> large, by which I mean in the thousands - shouldn't be a
> problem.
>
> Alex


Very cool. Also: http://tscherwitschke.de/mouseratechecker.html

If I plug in a much cheaper mouse than I usually use then I get a
lower rate.

Is this because not all mice work to the same mevel of performance?
I got the impression that this was something which was governed by
the systen rather than the mouse.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:07:01 +0100, "Alex Fraser" <me@privacy.net>
wrote:

| I hacked this up to find the rate for my mouse (probably took less time than
| looking for something else would have):
| http://www.adf.me.uk/mouse_test.exe (36KB)
|
| To use, run it and move the mouse in a circle; press any key to exit. The
| maximum rate you see should be accurate to within 2%, if test_count (you'll
| see what I mean if you try it) is large, by which I mean in the thousands -
| shouldn't be a problem.

Thanks for passing this on, Alex! :)

My MS USB optical gets a little more than 17k. Wonder what others
who've tried the test got?

Larc



§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

In article <fqlt70541kah74fhv50csukjg0ht2sbmcb@4ax.com>, Larc <larc-
news@jupiterlink.net> writes
>On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:07:01 +0100, "Alex Fraser" <me@privacy.net>
>wrote:
>
>| I hacked this up to find the rate for my mouse (probably took less time than
>| looking for something else would have):
>| http://www.adf.me.uk/mouse_test.exe (36KB)
>|
>| To use, run it and move the mouse in a circle; press any key to exit. The
>| maximum rate you see should be accurate to within 2%, if test_count
>(you'll
>| see what I mean if you try it) is large, by which I mean in the thousands -
>| shouldn't be a problem.
>
>Thanks for passing this on, Alex! :)
>
>My MS USB optical gets a little more than 17k. Wonder what others
>who've tried the test got?
>

£4 ps/2 optical got 39.7 to 40.0
--
Peter Ives
Remove ALL_STRESS only before sending me an email
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

For wireless, I find IR is generally more reliable than the old RF. I would
think bluetooth would be OK though (although most certainly wouldnt work in
safe mode/etc).

I agree with a PS/2 is best, and optical. With optical, have plenty of
batteries on hand!

Don McMorris
Ospitare International
"Bob Adkins" <bobadkins@charter.net> wrote in message
news:gsof70p6iootfbi5lpsb8qls3jmj2v6jac@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 12:48:56 +0100, "E2E t-bot BT"
> <English-to-English.translator.bot@Babel.Fish> wrote:
>
> >I am still using a corded mouse (logitech wheelmouse).
> >
> >I would like to get a better mouse which has at least as good
> >precision, responsiveness, accuracy, etc.
> >
> >Would an optical mouse be better on all counts?
> >
> >What about a cordless mouse. Are they poor performers? What about
> >a Bluetooth connection - is that good. Is it pricey.
> >
> >Are there any web sites which discuss this. Google is no help to
> >me.
>
>
> Optical is FAR superior to ball. There's no excuse not to buy a $15 MS
> optical mouse now.
>
> PS2 is slightly superior to USB at the moment.
>
> Corded is slightly superior to cordless at the moment.
>
> Perhaps there will soon be USB2 mice and all this will change.
>
> Bob
>
> Remove "kins" from address to reply.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Donald McMorris - Ospitare International" <newsalias@ospitare.net> wrote in
message news:5JIfc.57348$M3.25142@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> For wireless, I find IR is generally more reliable than the old RF. I
would
> think bluetooth would be OK though (although most certainly wouldnt work
in
> safe mode/etc).
>
> I agree with a PS/2 is best, and optical. With optical, have plenty of
> batteries on hand!
<snip>

That will be wireless optical. I use wired optical mouse and I can say
'Look Ma no batteries!' 24/7 and all year round too :)

Have a happy day.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Larc <larc-news@jupiterlink.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:07:01 +0100, "Alex Fraser"
> <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>| I hacked this up to find the rate for my mouse (probably
>| took less time than looking for something else would have):
>| http://www.adf.me.uk/mouse_test.exe (36KB)
>|
>| To use, run it and move the mouse in a circle; press any key
>| to exit. The maximum rate you see should be accurate to
>| within 2%, if test_count (you'll see what I mean if you try
>| it) is large, by which I mean in the thousands - shouldn't
>| be a problem.
>
> Thanks for passing this on, Alex! :)
>
> My MS USB optical gets a little more than 17k. Wonder what
> others who've tried the test got?


I get a very different reading of about 148/s.

How you get "17K"? Is that really "17,000/s" ?

What do others get?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 16:03:59 +0100, Piotr Makley <pmakley@mail.com>
wrote:

| Larc <larc-news@jupiterlink.net> wrote:
|
| > On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:07:01 +0100, "Alex Fraser"
| > <me@privacy.net> wrote:
| >
| >| I hacked this up to find the rate for my mouse (probably
| >| took less time than looking for something else would have):
| >| http://www.adf.me.uk/mouse_test.exe (36KB)
| >|
| >| To use, run it and move the mouse in a circle; press any key
| >| to exit. The maximum rate you see should be accurate to
| >| within 2%, if test_count (you'll see what I mean if you try
| >| it) is large, by which I mean in the thousands - shouldn't
| >| be a problem.
| >
| > Thanks for passing this on, Alex! :)
| >
| > My MS USB optical gets a little more than 17k. Wonder what
| > others who've tried the test got?
|
|
| I get a very different reading of about 148/s.
|
| How you get "17K"? Is that really "17,000/s" ?

I was referring to Test Count in the first column. The second column
is Change Rate and shows much lower numbers (mine is only 124 to 126).
Which is the meaningful set of numbers?

Larc



§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

In article <fqlt70541kah74fhv50csukjg0ht2sbmcb@4ax.com>, larc-
news@jupiterlink.net says...
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:07:01 +0100, "Alex Fraser" <me@privacy.net>
> wrote:
>
> | I hacked this up to find the rate for my mouse (probably took less time than
> | looking for something else would have):
> | http://www.adf.me.uk/mouse_test.exe (36KB)
> |
> | To use, run it and move the mouse in a circle; press any key to exit. The
> | maximum rate you see should be accurate to within 2%, if test_count (you'll
> | see what I mean if you try it) is large, by which I mean in the thousands -
> | shouldn't be a problem.
>
> Thanks for passing this on, Alex! :)
>
> My MS USB optical gets a little more than 17k. Wonder what others
> who've tried the test got?
>
~64K logitech cordless optical. Not sure what that means, but I thought
I'd pass on the info!
 

alex

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2004
896
0
18,980
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Larc" <larc-news@jupiterlink.net> wrote in message
news:gr4580dq2pn94m0gvh9fanckh7p9o51v93@4ax.com...
> | >| http://www.adf.me.uk/mouse_test.exe (36KB)
[snip]
> I was referring to Test Count in the first column. The second column
> is Change Rate and shows much lower numbers (mine is only 124 to 126).
> Which is the meaningful set of numbers?

If test_count is large (much greater than the rate), the rate is meaningful.
If test_count is small, the change rate could be an underestimate as it
might have missed some position changes. I expect test_count is roughly
proportional to CPU clock speed, assuming there's nothing else soaking up
significant CPU time.

Remember I did say I wrote the above in not much time, far less than I've
spent writing posts about it in fact :). All it does is read the mouse
position as fast as it can, counting the number of times it does so
(test_count) and the number of times it has changed since the last time it
read it. Twice a second, the average rate (ie, number of times position
changed / elapsed time) is calculated and displayed (the change rate), and
the counters are reset.

Alex
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts