Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Choosing mouse - optical, radio, Bluetooth?

Last response: in Systems
Share
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
April 9, 2004 4:48:56 PM

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 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.
April 9, 2004 4:48:57 PM

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 the logitech cordless desktop MX at home and a logitech cordless
keyboard & mouse (forgot model) in work. The MX has a charger / receiver.
The mouse lasts for about 3 days from a charge.

The mouse in work takes standard batteries. I have had it for about 5 months
and never needed to change the batteries (rollerball)

A few points to bear in mind:
- optical mice will drain batteries quicker
- dont go for a cheap brand ( i had a a4 tech keyboard & mouse, ended up
binnign it it was so bad)



"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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
April 9, 2004 4:48:57 PM

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 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?

Probably.

>
>What about a cordless mouse. Are they poor performers? What about
>a Bluetooth connection - is that good. Is it pricey.
>

IMO, in most cases, wireless serves no purpose.

>Are there any web sites which discuss this. Google is no help to
>me.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
April 9, 2004 5:29:00 PM

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 use a Microsoft Wheel Mouse Optical (it's a wired version - about £15 on
Amazon.co.uk). Find it excellent, and the best mouse I've ever used, and
that's saying something as I've got through quite a few over the years.

Movement is good and it seems very responsive. Doesn't suffer from the
clunky feel that a ball based mouse has - it just glides when you move it.
Also the scroll wheel (on mine) is nice and free with a slight bit of a
click as you move it, where as some other models have a much stiffer scroll
wheel which I really don't like. I Spent about 30 minutes in my local PC
World trying out the button presses/wheel scrolling of their mice before
going back home to order one ;-)

Wouldn't go anywhere near a wireless mouse personally, as the two I've had
ate batteries faster than a mouse eats cheese/chocolate... as my PC is on 24
hours a day it's not hard for it to flatten (not fully flat, but beyond
being any use in the mouse) a set of decent batteries within a week or so!
You'll also find that as the batteries get flatter the responsiveness of the
movement goes way downhill, and it's as if you are using a mouse with a
highly gunked up ball/rollers, back to front, with your wrong hand, whilst
using it on your knee... keep far far away (although I know of a few people
who reckon they're great)

Simon
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
April 9, 2004 5:29:01 PM

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

Simon Martin wrote:
> "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 use a Microsoft Wheel Mouse Optical (it's a wired version - about
> £15 on Amazon.co.uk). Find it excellent, and the best mouse I've ever
> used, and that's saying something as I've got through quite a few
> over the years.
>
> Movement is good and it seems very responsive. Doesn't suffer from the
> clunky feel that a ball based mouse has - it just glides when you
> move it. Also the scroll wheel (on mine) is nice and free with a
> slight bit of a click as you move it, where as some other models have
> a much stiffer scroll wheel which I really don't like. I Spent about
> 30 minutes in my local PC World trying out the button presses/wheel
> scrolling of their mice before going back home to order one ;-)
>
> Wouldn't go anywhere near a wireless mouse personally, as the two
> I've had ate batteries faster than a mouse eats cheese/chocolate...
> as my PC is on 24 hours a day it's not hard for it to flatten (not
> fully flat, but beyond being any use in the mouse) a set of decent
> batteries within a week or so! You'll also find that as the batteries
> get flatter the responsiveness of the movement goes way downhill, and
> it's as if you are using a mouse with a highly gunked up
> ball/rollers, back to front, with your wrong hand, whilst using it on
> your knee... keep far far away (although I know of a few people who
> reckon they're great)
>
> Simon

I use wireless mouses exclusively, but your comments are correct. An
USB optical mouse will give better performance and control than a
wireless mouse and wireless do eat batteries. I have gotten accustomed
to the idiosyncrasies of the mouse with the trade-off that I can mouse
from nearly anywhere and there is no cable.

Q
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
April 9, 2004 6:48:55 PM

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:

>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?

It's very much down to personal preference. If find ball mice feel
more positive, probably because they make physical contact with the
mousing surface, offer some resistance and are generally heavier.
Optical mice can be more accurate but can feel less positive and,
despite working on a wider variety of surfaces, can get "confused" by
variations in reflectivity caused by colour changes etc.

The design of the mouse can make a great deal of difference too; you
find some mice more comfortable that others.

If you're thinking spending a reasonable about of money on a good
quality mouse I'd suggest trying it out first. Retail outlets such a
PC World are ideal as they often have lots of display models
side-by-side.

>What about a cordless mouse. Are they poor performers? What about
>a Bluetooth connection - is that good. Is it pricey.

A good cordless mouse will perform as well as a wired one. The
benefit of optical cordless mice is the batteries add weight and, in
my opinion, make it feel more positive in use. The downside is the
batteries don't tend to last long in cordless optical mice so you'll
probably want to add the price of two sets of rechargeables and a
charger to the purchase cost.

Most of the BlueTooth sets offer little benefit over convention
wireless RF except range; RF tends to be limited to distances of
around 6ft between device and receiver where BT is around 30ft.
Driver support isn't as good as many BT devices require loading of a
BlueTooth stack before they will work; this means they only work
within a few supported operating systems. Unless you have a
particular requirement to operate the mice more than 6ft from the PC
I'd stick with conventional wireless equipment.

One exception to both rules is the Logitech wireless mice. Their more
recent models are supplied with rechargeable batteries and a base
station which recharges the mouse when not in use. Their BT
implementation is overlaid over their wireless technology and work in
every situation where their standard wireless or, for that matter, a
wired product would.


--
>iv< Paul >iv<
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
April 9, 2004 9:17:43 PM

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

From my personal experience, I would prefer corded optical mouse.
I have been using my Logitech one for 3 years, still working fine for me.
Also, you don't need to worry about battery or any change in physical
contact of the mouse ball at all!
No problem in sensitivity for general use.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
April 9, 2004 9:39:11 PM

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 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!
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
April 9, 2004 10:28:51 PM

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

Microsoft's Bluetooth mouse is a "piece of **;$%^". It "goes to sleep"
everytime you stop moving for a few seconds. You have to click it to wake
it up. I used it for a few days and threw it in a drawer where it remains.
I will sell it cheap,
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
April 9, 2004 10:39:43 PM

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

imho if your using the mouse with games dont go for cordless versions it
will drain the batteries a whole lot faster if your using cordless only for
graphic and other uses then by all means go for the cordless if you want to
i have a cordless versions both wheel and optical and still get by at least
2-3 months without needing to replace the batteries but get constantly stuck
inbetween games when the batteries run out at the vital moment. soon to be
replace my mouse with a wired version so i dont get caught like this again

"Louie" <popo@google.com> wrote in message
news:XUAdc.48464$_E.31658@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
> From my personal experience, I would prefer corded optical mouse.
> I have been using my Logitech one for 3 years, still working fine for me.
> Also, you don't need to worry about battery or any change in physical
> contact of the mouse ball at all!
> No problem in sensitivity for general use.
>
>
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
April 9, 2004 10:42:22 PM

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

"Louie" <popo@google.com> wrote in message
news:XUAdc.48464$_E.31658@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
> From my personal experience, I would prefer corded optical mouse.
> I have been using my Logitech one for 3 years, still working fine for me.
> Also, you don't need to worry about battery or any change in physical
> contact of the mouse ball at all!
> No problem in sensitivity for general use.
>
>

I have a Microsoft wireless keyboard and mouse combo. However, I am still
using a wireless optical mouse made by Chic, which comes with a
re-chargeable "holster". An overnight charge is sufficient for the mouse to
last the next day. However, I have managed to wear away the silver paint in
two places through usage, so it is looking a bit tatty. :) 

I have ordered a Logitech diNovo Media desktop combo as a replacement ( and
an Easter present to myself). :) 
--
Doug Ramage
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
April 10, 2004 12:01:07 AM

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 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.

I like my logitech cordless optical mouse and keyboard combo. The newer
version of it, where the receiver acts as a battery recharger when not
in use, is even better (batteries run down in the mouse fairly quickly,
in my experience).

--
spammage trappage: replace fishies_ with yahoo
April 10, 2004 12:01:08 AM

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

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 20:01:07 +0800, sooky grumper
<sookygrumper@fishies_.com> 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.
>>
>> Are there any web sites which discuss this. Google is no help to
>> me.
>
>I like my logitech cordless optical mouse and keyboard combo. The newer
>version of it, where the receiver acts as a battery recharger when not
>in use, is even better (batteries run down in the mouse fairly quickly,
>in my experience).

Exactly my thoughts. Love mine, but I'll be selling my combo to get
the MX because of the charger.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
April 10, 2004 1:54:44 AM

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

"Quaoar" <quaoar@tenthplanet.net> wrote:

> I use wireless mouses exclusively, but your comments are
> correct. An USB optical mouse will give better performance
> and control than a wireless mouse and wireless do eat
> batteries. I have gotten accustomed to the idiosyncrasies of
> the mouse with the trade-off that I can mouse from nearly
> anywhere and there is no cable.
>

Is a USB port a better way to connect a mouse than PS/2 port?
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
April 10, 2004 2:17:25 AM

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 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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
April 10, 2004 2:20:12 AM

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 wrote:

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

IMO, no. It's worse.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
April 10, 2004 2:22:43 AM

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:
>"Quaoar" <quaoar@tenthplanet.net> wrote:
>
>> I use wireless mouses exclusively, but your comments are
>> correct. An USB optical mouse will give better performance
>> and control than a wireless mouse and wireless do eat
>> batteries. I have gotten accustomed to the idiosyncrasies of
>> the mouse with the trade-off that I can mouse from nearly
>> anywhere and there is no cable.
>
>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.


Tim
--
Love is a travelator.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
April 10, 2004 2:26:06 AM

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

Paul Hopwood wrote:

> A good cordless mouse will perform as well as a wired one. The
> benefit of optical cordless mice is the batteries add weight and, in
> my opinion, make it feel more positive in use. The downside is the
> batteries don't tend to last long in cordless optical mice so you'll
> probably want to add the price of two sets of rechargeables and a
> charger to the purchase cost.

My MX700 came with NiMH batteries, and the charger is built into
the receiver/cradle. Simply insert the mouse into the cradle while
you sleep.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
April 10, 2004 5:38:42 AM

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 <os4e70h7cjo2dmfcdvap0jh9j1j1kh6q9n@4ax.com>, Tim Auton
<tim.auton@uton.[groupSexWithoutTheY]> writes
>>
>>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.
>
>
Disagree. I've used both and ps/2 is far, far superior. It just
registers your mouse movements with far more accuracy. Went from a £17
USB mouse to ps/2 for less than a fiver 6 months ago and have not gone
back.
--
Peter Ives
Remove ALL_STRESS only before sending me an email
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
April 10, 2004 6:15:44 AM

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

"Peter Ives" <pete@pgives.ALL_STRESSfreeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Mxc4EHASI0dAFwQk@pgives.ALL_STRESSfreeserve.co.uk...
> In article <os4e70h7cjo2dmfcdvap0jh9j1j1kh6q9n@4ax.com>, Tim Auton
> <tim.auton@uton.[groupSexWithoutTheY]> writes
> >>
> >>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.
> >
> Disagree. I've used both and ps/2 is far, far superior. It just
> registers your mouse movements with far more accuracy. Went from a £17
> USB mouse to ps/2 for less than a fiver 6 months ago and have not gone
> back.

But that's a different mouse, so there's no way of knowing whether the
difference was down to the mouse itself or the interface.

I have a Microsoft optical mouse (five button one, no idea what model),
which can be used either via USB or PS/2 (with an adapter). Initially I used
it on PS/2, but I couldn't tell the difference when I switched to USB a year
or so ago.

Alex
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
April 10, 2004 6:31:56 AM

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 <c57hs0$2otro2$1@ID-149533.news.uni-berlin.de>, Alex Fraser
<me@privacy.net> writes
>"Peter Ives" <pete@pgives.ALL_STRESSfreeserve.co.uk> wrote in
>message
>news:Mxc4EHASI0dAFwQk@pgives.ALL_STRESSfreeserve.co.uk...
>> In article <os4e70h7cjo2dmfcdvap0jh9j1j1kh6q9n@4ax.com>, Tim Auton
>> <tim.auton@uton.[groupSexWithoutTheY]> writes
>> >>
>> >>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.
>> >
>> Disagree. I've used both and ps/2 is far, far superior. It just
>> registers your mouse movements with far more accuracy. Went from a
>£17
>> USB mouse to ps/2 for less than a fiver 6 months ago and have not gone
>> back.
>
>But that's a different mouse, so there's no way of knowing whether the
>difference was down to the mouse itself or the interface.
>
>I have a Microsoft optical mouse (five button one, no idea what model),
>which can be used either via USB or PS/2 (with an adapter). Initially I used
>it on PS/2, but I couldn't tell the difference when I switched to USB a year
>or so ago.
>
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.
--
Peter Ives
Remove ALL_STRESS only before sending me an email
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
April 10, 2004 7:38:33 AM

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

"Figurt" <no.one@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:c56jfb$2olo5e$1@ID-182387.news.uni-berlin.de...
> 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.

regards
Freddie
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
April 10, 2004 8:34:46 AM

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 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.

Just my $0.04



"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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
April 10, 2004 9:11:55 AM

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

"Peter Ives" <pete@pgives.ALL_STRESSfreeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:$Rr08CAM60dAFwVX@pgives.ALL_STRESSfreeserve.co.uk...
> In article <c57hs0$2otro2$1@ID-149533.news.uni-berlin.de>, Alex Fraser
> <me@privacy.net> writes
> >I have a Microsoft optical mouse (five button one, no idea what model),
> >which can be used either via USB or PS/2 (with an adapter). Initially I
> >used it on PS/2, but I couldn't tell the difference when I switched to
> >USB a year or so ago.
>
> 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.

Alex
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
April 10, 2004 11:11:46 AM

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 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.
April 10, 2004 5:51:51 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
April 10, 2004 5:51:52 PM

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.
>
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
April 10, 2004 5:53:50 PM

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.
April 10, 2004 6:30:42 PM

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
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
April 10, 2004 9:59:37 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
April 11, 2004 9:12:34 PM

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/...
http://www.lysator.liu.se/etexts/iguide/chap4.crosspost...
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
April 12, 2004 1:05:12 PM

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.
>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
April 12, 2004 1:09:26 PM

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.
>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
April 12, 2004 6:06:19 PM

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?
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
April 12, 2004 7:06:22 PM

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
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
April 12, 2004 7:07:01 PM

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
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
April 14, 2004 8:41:10 AM

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.
>
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
April 15, 2004 5:36:44 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
April 15, 2004 10:49:49 PM

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 - §§§
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
April 16, 2004 4:25:00 AM

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
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
April 16, 2004 7:49:21 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
April 17, 2004 9:26:28 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
April 17, 2004 8:03:59 PM

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?
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
April 18, 2004 6:53:24 PM

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 - §§§
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
April 19, 2004 8:29:21 AM

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!
April 19, 2004 2:08:00 PM

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
!