kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
>>>>> "aaronep@pacbell.net" <aaronep@pacbell.net> wrote

>>>>>> I am interested in converting from wired to wireless keyboard & mouse.

>>>>>> If anyone reading this has experience with wireless, I would like
>>>>>> to know if you are happy with them. Are there any negatives?
>>>>>> Can you recommend one brand over another?

>>>>>> Any info on this appreciated.

>>>>> The need for wireless keyboard depends most on whether you move
>>>>> the keyboard off the desk in front of a monitor. I do so I find that useful.

>>>>> Even great wireless mice lag slightly.

>>>> Nope, any mouse lags slightly.

>>> To be reasonable, we'd have to have some reference point that was a mouse,

>> Nope. We know that any mouse thats serially connected
>> to the PC, and all of the current mice are, have to lag
>> slightly due to the speed of the serial connection.

> ... and yet, the wireless connection from a cordless
> to the receiver is multiple times longer lag

Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim with all wireless mice.

> - making it by far the most significant thing to mention since
> we can't get rid of the former lag, but can the larger latter lag.

Pity about when the lag with the wireless part is much smaller than the other lag.

>>> since even the human "lags slightly".

>> Nope, what we are talking about is the time between
>> when say the button is pressed and the PC registers
>> that press. Same with a movement of the mouse.

> Which is also what I'm talking about.

Nope, no human is involved at all with what we are talking about.

> Wireless is always significantly worse lag. Always.

Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim with all wireless mice.

> Take the cheapest junk old generic 400DPI corded mouse and
> it easily beats best modern laser 2.4GHz linked cordless.

Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.

>>> You may not be able to perceive it yourself, but it's there, others can.

>> Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

> No it's not,

Then you will have no trouble doing so. Bet you cant.

> anybody that knows beans about wireless knows
> it's a slower transmission than 0 latency, and the wired
> aspect of the serial connection still exists because the
> receiver is still plugged into the (usually) PS2 or USB port.

Irrelevant to your stupid SIGNIFICANTLY and EASILY BEATS claim.

>>> Similarly some can't perceive CRT monitor flicker at 85Hz but others can.

>> Irrelevant to what is being discussed.

> Only because you refuse to accept you can't perceive something that others can.

Its completely trivial to eliminate all perception and MEASURE the lag.

> That means for you, wireless has no penalty and you don't
> have to consider the difference. It doesn't necessarily mean
> that for others who apparently have more accute senses.

That mindless wanking is why anyone with a clue uses randomised double blind trials.

> Since you're stuck in argument mode

Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?

> I'll just let you talk amongst yourself and your mice, it doesn't bother
> me at all if you disagree so long as we both have the info needed to
> make the choice of the right peripherals for our own subjective needs.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.