Optical Mice: Microsoft and Logitech
Table of contents
- 1. Introduction
- 2. Gauging Resolution Is No Cakewalk
- 3. Two Manufacturers, Three Sensors
- 4. Two Manufacturers, Three Sensors, Continued
- 5. No Wires And No Lag
- 6. Microsoft The Power Saver
- 7. PS2
- 8. Innovation Where You Least Expect It
- 9. Innovation Where You Least Expect It, Continued
- 10. Microsoft Wireless Optical Mouse 2.0
- 11. Microsoft Wireless Optical Mouse 2.0, Continued
- 12. Microsoft Wireless Intellimouse Explorer 2.0
- 13. Materials And Colors
- 14. Microsoft Intellimouse Explorer 4.0
- 15. Logitech Click! Optical Mouse
- 16. Do You Really Need The Driver?
- 17. Logitech Cordless Click! Optical Mouse
- 18. Logitech MX310 Optical Mouse
- 19. Logitech Cordless Click! Optical Mouse Plus
- 20. Wireless Discretion
- 21. Terratec Razer Boomslang 2100
- 22. Look, A Trackball
- 23. Better With The Driver
- 24. The Choice Of Weapons
An optical mouse is built around a sensor that monitors the surface at varying degrees of speed, depending on the device. The precision of the mouse depends on the quality of the image electronically registered and the speed. The key factors to bear in mind are the sensor's size and quality, the speed at which it receives and sends images and resolution measured by the number of analyses per inch crossed. Performance is thus measured by three variables about which manufacturers many times don't want to reveal.
Size, for example, is very difficult to determine unless the manufacturer divulges what it is. This variable ranges from about 15x15 to 30x30 pixels. With this value, things are fairly easy: a bigger sensor with equal sensitivity will be better able to supply coordinates.
The rate at which the mouse captures images affects response and hence precision, but this value does not mean much by itself. The image-capture rate of the sensors tested here range from 2,500 to 6,000 images a second.
To note, it is both sensor reactivity and speed that count. Microsoft, for example, was able to get away with decreasing its mouse's reactivity time from 6,000 images a second to 2,500 without any noticeable difference in response or precision, compared to the mouse's predecessor.