Choosing mouse - optical, radio, Bluetooth?

[Peter Ives]

| 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

 

[Donald McMorris - Ospitare International]

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

 

[Broomstick]

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.

 

[Piotr Makley]

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:07:01 +0100, "Alex Fraser"

| 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?

 

[Larc]

|
| > On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:07:01 +0100, "Alex Fraser"
| >
| >| 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 - §§§

 

[Jacqui or (maybe) Pete]

| 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]

| >| 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