Things have changed since the last time I bought a mouse. Now there are
"laser" sensors, 800dpi, 1600dpi, wireless rechargeable's, etc. What makes
a difference and what's just smoke and mirrors?
The mouse pad itself is far underrated these days. Take a
good 1600DPI mouse but a surface where it can't "see" 1/2
the movements (granularity of the surface) and you have
worse than a 800DPI mouse because the granularity will not
be in perfect, continual 1/2 increments.
Highest DPI mice are most useful to those who set their
mouse speed relatively high, such that they don't move the
mouse very far per each pixel(s) of screen movement. For
example, if you often find the typical mouse pad not big
enough (and you don't have "snap-to", buttons, enabled),
then it's unlikely you would get much benefit from 1600 or
much from 800 dpi mice. If on the other hand you seldom
move the mouse more than 3 inches, 800 dpi is almost
manditory for precise work.
Lasers detect lesser details on surfaces. Red LED mice are
next in line. Last the "invisibile light" mice as named by
Logitech, they tend to be the worst of the three.
Then there's the sensor sampling, pixel area, for example
32x32 would allow better tracking of fast movements than a
24x24 window.
Do the mice that support
higher dpi track noticeably better?
if your use benefits, and you have a good surface, generally
yes. There is a point of diminishing return though, if you
had a 32 x 32 sensor and 800 DPI, you might not get much of
any noticable benefit from 1600 dpi alone but on a difficult
surface the laser type may be better at revealing those
pixels.
Do the laser sensors work on surfaces
that "red glow" optical mice do not?
Not really, they work a little better on difficult surfaces
BUT when considering mouse performance, never should any be
used on a difficult surface if avoidable.
Does the laser sensor improve
performance in any other way? Does a wireless mouse using a higher
frequency to talk to the computer make a difference
yes it tends to allow longer range, and more interference
with other devices using the same (commonly 2.4GHz)
frequency.
or is this the same
"higher must be better" silliness used in cordless phone advertising?
Well do you recall the pre-900MHz phones? Typically nowhere
near the range of the 900MHz or 2.4GHz. There seems to be
some further tweaking to the transmission technology as well
because the newer mice also seem to lag less than their
ancestors, though a really discriminating user can still
tell the difference between a corded and cordless mice that
are otherwise similar technology (the corded of course not
having the small lag).
Is
there any advantage to using a USB connection over PS2 or vice versa? What
say you?
Same advantages as always, USB can be hot-plugged, more
compatible with newer notbooks, and more expensive to buy a
KVM for (though I haven't priced them recently, if Chinese
clone manufacturers have nailed down a design they're
probably under $30 by now).
PS2 native sampling rate is lower, but in windows or with
3rd party drivers it can be higher than USB. Overall it's
not really important to consider these things as the typical
name-brand mice come supportive of both interfaces, have a
USB plug on the end but in the package is a USB-PS2 adapter
and the mouse itself is a dual-mode capable device so the
simple pin-adapter works fine if you want PS2, or to try it
both ways.
Something else not yet mentioned is ergonomics. So-called
ergonomic mice may be a personal preference and it is a
good idea to try them in a local store, and with the
cordless mice to be mindful that those cordless taking 2 x
AA batteries may be a lot heavier once the batteries are
added (if they aren't while on display).
