Vanguard <vanguard.news@yahooNIX.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Vanguard <vanguard.news@yahooNIX.com> wrote
>>> Sometimes a wireless mouse makes good sense
>> Mostly, actually, you dont have the nuisance of the cable.
> There is still a cable.
Pity you dont actually move what is on the end of that cable around much.
> I think you're focusing on the device end and yet I have no nuisance with the
> cord at the mouse end by making sure it doesn't snag or push against anything
> when the mouse is moved.
Those of us with enough of a clue to put the mouse on the charger
every evening have even less trouble with the batterys in the mouse.
> Sometimes it's just too hard to setup the desk so the cord is unfettered so a
> cordless mouse is nicer *if* you're willing to tradeoff for the heavier
> weight.
Most of us arent so puny that that is anything more than an academic difference.
> Could be a justifiable tradeoff.
No could be about it.
> But we don't know if the OP has such a cluttered desk that there really is a
> problem with the cord; if so, he might also have a problem with the cord for
> the receiver.
Nope, because the receiver doesnt get moved around like the mouse does.
> Where my desks are so cluttered that cordless might justified, there is also
> so little room to move the
> mouse that it wouldn't matter if it was corded or not.
Even you should be able to do something about that.
> For those, I use a trackball and it doesn't matter if it was corded or not
> since the trackball never moves (so I go corded because it is cheaper to buy
> and cheaper to replace).
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
>> Only real downside is that its easier to drop a wireless mouse.
> I used to have a Kensington trackball so I didn't even have to pick up the
> pointing device like you do with mice, except the kids kept taking the ball to
> play with.
Hardly anyone prefers those to mice, and the OP clearly doesnt.
> I found a pool shop where snooker balls were the same size so I bought half a
> dozen. If the ball is missing now, I can usually find one laying around to
> put into the trackball base.
You could have got radical and applied your boot to the kid's arses.
> With a corded mouse, it doesn't wander off as easily as a cordless one (and
> they've gone "walking off" at work, too).
If they're going to steal it, they'll steal anything.
>>> One place a wireless mouse comes in handy is on shared hosts (or, at least,
>>> on shared I/O devices to those hosts).
>> Yes, tho thats a less important factor here since
>> I use Synergy to share the mouse and keyboard
>> and have separate monitors on the switching that.
> Useful if you have the room for all those monitors to let Synergy move the
> mouse between them.
Even someone as stupid as you should be able to manage that too.
> For a home user that has as many monitors as they have hosts (assuming they
> have multiple hosts to qualify the need
> for Synergy), that could be a lot of desktop real estate.
Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant drug crazed fantasys.
> At work with hundreds of hosts in the lab, that many monitors would be an
> impossibility.
Even someone as stupid as you should have
noticed that that aint the OP's situation.
> When I used the plural "hosts", I meant many of them, not just 2.
Is this where we're sposed to swoon, child ?
> "Synergy lets you easily share a single mouse and keyboard between multiple
> computers ..., each with its own display".
> While I might tolerate having multiple boxes around running one or
> multiple operating systems at the same time via VMware or Xen, I
> wouldn't want to require vast desktop or shelf space for all those monitors.
You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.
> My real point was that THE mouse is a deliberate shared resource so cordless
> means users can use it right- or left-handed as they pleased (provided you
> actually get an *ambidexterous* cordless
> mouse) regardless whether or not the mouse was shared amongst
> monitors, through KVMs, for hosts at a test station, or whatever. The device
> is shared by dozens of users so cordless made sense in that case.
Pity that aint the OP's situation either.
>> I run it around on an old A4 book cover on my lap, sometime
>> run it around on my chest when doing something simple mouse
>> wise for a moment with the keyboard on my lap.
> Ah ha ha ha. Now that's a bad picture of a guy rolling a cordless
> mouse around on his hairy chest. Okay, yeah, I know, you're wearing a shirt
> but the image that popped up was funny.
Your problem, child.
> At that point, if you're doing most of your computing from a recliner,
I'm not.
> I would think one of those g-force mice or G-gloves that figures out how to
> move the cursor by you waving it around in mid-air might be a better choice so
> you don't need to contrive a surface for the mouse.
You've clearly never used one for long.
> Yeah, pricier, but then economy doesn't seem crucial to your arguments
Yep, the cost of the mouse is peanuts in the cost of a gaming system.
> (because you're only considering one host or workstation along with unlimited
> funds).
Lying, as always when its got done like a dinner.
>>>>> The only time wireless makes sense is if the system unit will be farther
>>>>> away than the cord, but then wireless devices don't come with very long
>>>>> cords, either.
>>>> Wrong again. The bluetooth devices can be used so far from
>>>> the system that you cant even read the monitor anymore.
>>> What is the point of moving yourself far away from that large monitor
>> I dont do that, I use it in the same place as the smaller monitor used to be.
> So you are still within the same range as a non-Bluetooth cordless
> mouse. Blows the reason for bringing Bluetooth into the arguments.
Wrong, as always. YOU pig ignorantly ranted about cordless
mice getting out of range. If thats actually a problem, you
can use a bluetooth mouse so that never happens, stupid.
>>> I don't recall ever seeing someone down the hallway waving their mouse
>>> around.
>> Yes, but it does blow that silly claim you made about range completely
>> out of the water, and fixes the multiple channel problem completely too.
> And so does using a corded mouse regarding [the lack of] interferrence between
> mouse and keyboard users because there no such problem to have to deal with in
> the first place.
Pity about the limitations on distance that the cord produces.
> If Bluetooth was so great, why did it fail in the marketplace?
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys.
> You see Bluetooth engulfing the entire RF device market?
Irrelevant. Plenty of the cordless mice have sufficient range
without using bluetooth, and plenty of them arent used in a
situation where the unlimited number of channels is needed either.
> Logitech currently has but a single Bluetooth cordless mouse
Yep, Logitech has lagged badly in that area.
> (for use with a Bluetooth notebook or Apple Powerbook)
Wrong again.
> which all of only doubled the 15-foot range to 30 feet (but then who uses
> their cordless mouse more than a couple feet from their monitor excluding,
> of course, the tiny minority of recliner-based users, like yourself?).
You were the one mindlessly rabbitting on about cordless
mice that cant even manage to do 3 feet reliably, child.
And I dont use a recliner either.
> If it was the quintessential RF technology, why didn't it supplant all other
> remote control RF technologies in the over 5 years since it's been around?
It has in most areas now.
> Another use of Bluetooth is creating a 'piconet' (1 master + 7 slaves) ad-hoc
> network. There can be 255 slaves but only 7 can be active at at time which
> pretty much kills it for anything but a "personal" network (since the hubs,
> routers, and other network devices
> would get counted with the hosts in that 7-max active count).
Irrelevant to whether its useful if you do have a problem with interference
between multiple mice and systems with cretins in cubicles etc.
> Even with 7 active slaves, the master can only communicate with 1 host at a
> time in a round-robin scheme.
Irrelevant to whether its useful if you do have a problem with interference
between multiple mice and systems with cretins in cubicles etc.
> Other "interferrence" could be hacking.
Completely trivial to avoid that and its no more than a nuisance with mice
anyway.
> Despite encryption, it was shown over a year ago that pairing between
> Bluetooth devices could be forced to let a outside Bluetooth device sneak into
> your network
> (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06...h_mobo_attack/) and now
> there's Bluesnarfing into Bluetooth phones
> (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/...luetooth.html).
No more than a nuisance with mice, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
> I don't recall ever hearing or reading of anyone that was found wardriving
> into corded mice or corded keyboards.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
> That Bluetooth has greater range but with the same distance between
> cubicles or offices means greater chance of interference from other
> Bluetooth devices (i.e., larger range with same density of users).
Wrong, as always.
> "Bluetooth technology’s adaptive frequency hopping (AFH) capability
> was designed to reduce interference between wireless technologies
> sharing the 2.4 GHz spectrum. AFH works within the spectrum to take
> advantage of the available frequency. This is done by detecting other
> devices in the spectrum and avoiding the frequencies they are using."
> Since they are sharing the same unlicensed 2.4Ghz ISM band as other RF
> devices, and because it uses some adaptive "hopping" around to find
> some bandwidth, seems the "interferrence" could simply be in getting
> choked out from finding any available bandwidth.
You've clearly never used a bluetooth mouse.
> It can hop amongst 79 frequencies, so in a high density populace of Bluetooth
> users, like at some company enamored with the technology, it sure seems
> plausible that its extended range for its sphere of connectivity could
> encompass far more than just 79 different Bluetooth users.
Corse it is, they dont all have to have a different frequency, stupid.
> So the interferrence problem is still an issue
Nope.
> - but maybe not, as you mention, for the home user (i.e., the OP).
Not for your cretins in cubicles either.
> Because it is still RF technology, it is still susceptible to EMF just like
> your cordless telephone.
How odd that I dont actually see any problem
with my cordless phones, or with bluetooth either.
> However, we're on a tangent with Bluetooth
Nope. You were the one stupidly pig ignorantly
rabbiting on about a problem with range and
the number of channels with cretins in cubicles.
> since *NONE* of the gaming mice from Logitech in which the user is or would be
> interested use Bluetooth.
There might just be more suppliers of bluetooth mice
around than Logitech, you pathet excuse for a bullshit artist.
>>> Oh, of course, your response is "not in a properly configured system". You
>>> can configure the "system" only within the limits of the settings that are
>>> provided.
>> And those limits dont exist with bluetooth mice and keyboards.
> Bluetooth has its limits, too.
Not as far as cretins in cubicles using bluetooth mice are concerned.
>>> You are really claiming that it is ALWAYS possible to eliminate
>>> interference with other Bluetooth and other RF devices?
>> Yep. Bluetooth has been designed from scratch to
>> handle multiple bluetooth sessions in close proximity.
>>> If so, time to visit the US Patent Office with that discovery.
>> No point, its already been invented, its called bluetooth.
> No, it's called EMF and it affects any RF device, including Bluetooth.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
>>>>> I've yet to see one that notifies you BEFORE voltage gets too low to
>>>>> affect behavior.
>>>> You need to get out more. The MX700 warns you so early that you
>>>> can continue to use it fine all day once it starts warning of a low
>>>> battery.
>>> During gameplay, just where are you going to see that warning icon?
>> It isnt an icon, the led on the top of the mouse starts blinking slowly.
>> Even you would notice it.
> That's good (that it uses the flash LED on the mouse). A picture of the
> Logitech G7 gaming mouse is shown at
> http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm/pr...ONTENTID=10716
> (click the "Alternate Views" link). Just how are you going to see
> that blinking LED through your hand that rests atop the mouse and
> covers those LEDs?
Doesnt need to. Even you will have to take your hand off the
mouse occasionally and that only needs to be some time in the
day that you have forgotten to put the mouse on the charger routinely
when you stopped using the system the previous evening etc.
> I'm assuming those red rectangles in the picture are the LEDs to which you
> refer.
Stupid assumption, as always.
> While using non-game applications,> your mousing hand probably comes of the
> mouse often enough, like when typing, so you would see the blinking LED.
> During gameplay, your hand is on the mouse all the time.
No it isnt for the entire time that the mouse works fine with the
low battery indicator flashing, to remind you that you need to put
it on the charger when you stop using the system that evening.
Even someone as stupid as you would notice the flashing led when you
take your hand off the mouse before leaving the system, if it wasnt for
the fact that you have clearly wanked yourself completely blind.
The MX1000 shown at
> http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm/pr...CONTENTID=9043
> might have a better chance of some of the light leaking past your palm
> so you might see its reflection on your desktop or mousepad ... maybe.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
>>> I've never seen users watching their mouse.
>> You dont need to. The indicator is so obvious
>> that even you wouldnt be able to miss it.
> So are the LEDs on the keyboard but users miss those, too.
THEY DONT FLASH, FUCKWIT.
> "Why doesn't my password work? Oh, the CapsLock, thanks."
IT DOESNT FLASH, FUCKWIT.
> Now Windows will even popup a prompt in case you type with the CapsLock on
> because users still manage not to see the LED on the keyboard.
IT DOESNT FLASH, FUCKWIT.
> The indicators are NOT in line-of-sight of the monitor, and many users
> eventually learn to actually type so they don't have to peck around on the
> keyboard or even look at the mouse or keyboard to use them, so some
> systems are setup to display the Caps-, Scroll-, and NumLock on the
> screen but they don't display during games (so a tray icon or popup
> dialog for battery voltage won't be and should not be visible).
Irrelevant WHEN THE LOW BATTERY LED FLASHING
IS JUST A REMINDER TO PUT THE MOUSE IN THE
CHARGER WHEN YOU STOP USING THE SYSTEM.
>>> Instead they watch the mouse cursor on the monitor, so it will be when
>>> they experience erratic behavior that they might then check on battery
>>> voltage but then it's low and they have to do something about it then.
>> Wrong again. You get the indication of low battery LONG before you
>> ever get any erratic behaviour with a properly designed wireless mouse.
> And my mouse usage is determined by my work which has priority, not the other
> way around.
Irrelevant to what is being discussed here.
> I want to get my work done, not plan on when I need to replace batteries or
> cradle the mouse during which I'm forced to be idle
THE LOW BATTERY LED FLASHING IS JUST A REMINDER
TO PUT THE MOUSE ON THE CHARGER WHEN YOU STOP
USING THE SYSTEM, IT ISNT NECESSARY TO STOP AND
CHARGE THE MOUSE, BECAUSE IT WILL RUN FINE ALL
DAY WITH THE LOW BATTERY LED FLASHING.
You cant actually be THAT thick, you're clearly flagrantly dishonest.
> I really doubt the indicators are going to give me more than a day's notice
Doesnt need to, a day is enough.
> but then I'm using my mouse all day long (and some of my days are very long).
You might not actually be alone there, child.
> Rather than generalize,
I didnt generalise. I SAID VERY EXPLICTLY THAT
YOU CAN CONTINUE TO USE THE MOUSE ALL
DAY WITH THE LOW BATTERY LED FLASHING.
> just how many hours does the indicator give you a low battery warning? If
> it's 10 hours, how could the battery be so low that a warning is issued and
> yet those low batteries are still usable for another 10 hours
Completely trivial, you start flashing the led when there is still a full
day's use available with a mouse that will go for days on a single charge.
> (which presumably is FULL and CONTINUAL use during those 10 hours)?
Yep. And even you cant actually do that anyway.
>>> Something will happen with the mouse behavior and then they will look at the
>>> voltage indicator.
>
>> Wrong again. You cant miss the low battery
>> indication with a properly designed mouse.
> Your hand is over those battery charge LEDs.
It isnt all day, cretin.
> Those LEDs are not in line-of-sight.
Dont need to be if its bright enough and flashing, stupid.
> Maybe you play your games in the dark which would help you see the reflection
> of that blinking LED but maybe not in a well-lit room when using applications.
Thanks for that completely superfluous
proof that you have never actually used one.
> Yes, you can miss the indicators down on the mouse just like you can miss them
> on the keyboard.
THOSE ARENT HIGH INTENSITY FLASHING LEDS, cretin.
> I focus on what is displayed on the monitor, not what is under my fingers.
> That's why I learned to type so I don't have to
> look down at my fingers, and I never look down at the mouse.
Even someone as stupid as you would notice the flashing led when you
take your hand off the mouse before leaving the system, if it wasnt for
the fact that you have clearly wanked yourself completely blind.
> And when in the heat of solving problems or writing them up, I'm not going to
> bother with blinking LEDs anymore than I'll bother with non-critical email
> alerts. I'm busy so get out of my way.
THE FLASHING LED IS JUST A REMINDER TO PUT THE MOUSE
ON THE CHARGER WHEN YOU STOP USING THE SYSTEM.
>> Pity you dont have to, it will run fine for the rest of the day when its
>> showing a low battery indication.
> It warns a day ahead that the battery is low?
Yep.
> Then it really wasn't low, was it?
ITS WARNING THAT THE MOUSE NEEDS TO BE PUT ON
THE CHARGER WHEN YOU STOP USING THE SYSTEM.
>> Its JUST a reminder to put it on the charger when you are finished with it in
>> the evening,
> Since Logitech says that battery life is 2 to 3 days for gaming mode then
> what's the point of the reminder since you'll end up having to cradle the
> mouse everyday in the first place?
ITS A REMINDER THAT YOU HAVE FAILED TO PUT
THE MOUSE ON THE CHARGER THE PREVIOUS TIME
TO TWO WHEN YOU STOPPED USING THE SYSTEM.
> You certainly wouldn't want to wait until the end of the 2nd day to cradle
> your mouse because it might be dead by then.
Wrong, as always.
> So it is supposed to cradled everyday.
Wrong, as always. ITS A WARNING THAT YOU NEED TO PUT IT ON
THE CHARGER WHEN YOU STOP USING THE SYSTEM BECAUSE
IT WONT LAST ALL THE NEXT DAY TOO IF YOU DONT DO THAT.
> No indicator needed for that.
Wrong as always.
>> You're ignoring the FACT that the low battery indication happens
>> A FULL DAY OF USE BEFORE IT NEEDS TO BE CHARGED.
> Which means it is a useless warning because it isn't warning you when the
> battery is actually low.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> A gas guage that reads low just after you filled it
Doesnt happen, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
> or when it was still half full would get replaced.
ITS A WARNING THAT YOU NEED TO PUT THE MOUSE
ON THE CHARGER WHEN YOU STOP USING THE SYSTEM
BECAUSE IT LIKELY WONT GO THE WHOLE OF THE NEXT DAY.
> Of course, when the mouse really was low, it gets low faster having to light
> up those LEDs.
PITY IT CAN STILL WORK FINE ALL THAT DAY.
> An LED that is lit all day long about low battery voltage is not an alert but
> simply another visual cue that becomes less noticeable over the course of that
> day; i.e., it's been on all day so its importance wanes.
Wota terminal fuckwit.
> Does perhaps the blinking rate change as the voltage gets lower so there is
> some real indication of *remaining* battery life?
ITS A WARNING THAT YOU NEED TO PUT THE MOUSE
ON THE CHARGER WHEN YOU STOP USING THE SYSTEM
BECAUSE IT LIKELY WONT GO THE WHOLE OF THE NEXT DAY.
>>> They'll know to replace the batteries or recharge when and after
>>> the mouse starts behaving erratically, and by then voltage is too low.
>> Wrong, as always.
> You're enamored with the LEDs and apparently are constantly watching them.
You couldnt bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
> I never look at the mouse and keyboard because that would slow down my fingers
> and mousing. Everything is hurried. I don't need to glancing all around to
> check for indicators.
YOU DONT NEED TO DO THAT WITH A FLASHING LED
THAT JUST INDICATES HAT YOU NEED TO PUT THE MOUSE
ON THE CHARGER WHEN YOU STOP USING THE SYSTEM
BECAUSE IT LIKELY WONT GO THE WHOLE OF THE NEXT DAY.
> I used to have an answering machine which blinked an LED when there new
> messages (and it was cordless, too, which meant I had to have a wired phone
> for when there were power outages since the base was dead for the cordless
> telephone).
Even someone as stupid as you should have been
able to work out that it should be on the UPS.
> With all the other blinking indicators, some of which represent a "good"
> state, for all the equipment in my cubicle and on
> my desk, I never saw that I had new messages.
Because you have wanke yourself blind.
You were warned, you wouldnt listen...
> I replaced it with one that would blink an LED *and* would beep once a minute
> so I got an audible alert since obviously I wasn't going to glare at my
> telephone nor do I want to be bothered having to repeatedly glance over at it.
> I don't need my focus drawn away from my work, or from my game.
Some of us actually have enough of a clue to plug the
cordless phone into the UPS and to have the base where
its convenient for putting the handset on it, where the blinking
led cant be missed and actually have enough of a clue to
check the led when they return to the seat after being away etc.
>> Dont need to with a properly designed low battery indicator.
> Properly designed this. Properly designed that. Boring.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
> Unless the LED is in my face, I'm not going to see it.
You've clearly never actually used a properly designed
cordless mouse with a properly designed low battery indicator.
> That's not where is my focus. Distraction wastes time.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
> My car radio's display could be flashing swear words but I'd never know since
> I'm watching the road unlike the idiot prattling into a cell phone, playing
> with his radio, while eating their lunch and using their knees to steer.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
> I don't multitask in my car.
Everyone does, there isnt any other way to do it.
> I do multitask my sight at work and home but ONLY with what is on the monitor,
> not with what is under my fingers.
You've clearly never actually used a properly designed
cordless mouse with a properly designed low battery indicator.
>> Even you'd notice, even tho you have clearly wanked yourself blind.
> And you are way too easily distracted from your work or game,
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
> and probably are sitting in an overly dark room
Guess which pathetic little pig ignorant prat has
just got egg all over its silly little face, yet again ?
> while tiring your eyes from the dilator muscle constantly opening the iris
Guess which pathetic little pig ignorant prat has
just got egg all over its silly little face, yet again ?
> but which lets you perhaps more easily see one particular reflection of a
> blinking LED under your hand.
Guess which pathetic little pig ignorant prat has
just got egg all over its silly little face, yet again ?
> If an active indicator (visual or audible) doesn't require attention now, it
> gets ignored.
You've clearly never actually used a properly designed
cordless mouse with a properly designed low battery indicator.
> Urgency of alerts wanes if they are continuous or extended.
You've clearly never actually used a properly designed
cordless mouse with a properly designed low battery indicator.
> I have better things to do at the time, like doing my work or playing that
> engrossing game.
Wanking yourself completely blind, actually.
>>>>> Also, the polling rate for wireless mices is much slower.
>>>> Wrong again.
>>> Yep, you are right - for GAMING mice. Some examples:
>>> Typical cordless mouse: 125 Hz
>>> Typical corded mouse: 200 Hz
>>> Logitech MX1000 cordless mouse: Logitech doesn't say
>>> Logitech G7 Laser cordless mouse: 500 Hz
>>> Razer Copperhead cordless mouse: 1000 Hz
>>> Logitech doesn't list the reports/sec (Hz) polling rate for the
>>> MX1000. Since they advertise the G7 as their gaming mouse then the
>>> MX1000 is probably something less, like 200 Hz which puts it
>>> equivalent to the corded mice.
>>> So if there are wireless gaming mice, there aren't wired gaming mice?
>> Because all wired mice have an adequate polling rate.
> Well, 200 Hz is usually good enough but then your arguments, so far, have been
> against just "good enough".
Lying, as always.
> If 200 Hz (5 ms) was all that was needed,
Never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.
> why do the "gaming" mice go up to 1000 Hz (for a 1ms poll interval), corded or
> cordless?
Having fun thrashing that straw man are you child ?
> The first tweak I do for the mouse is to max its polling rate. 200 Hz (5 ms)
> is fast but not fast enough for some gamers. Higher polling rates mean less
> reliance on interpolation for very fast mouse movement. While some users
> don't have the room to zoom their mouse all the way across their desk in a
> second to represent fast movement over a long distance as can be done
> by smacking a freely moving trackball, they still may need to make
> extremely quick jerks in movement. A higher polling rate means a more
> accurate representation of the actual movement of the pointing device.
Gone blind yet child ?
>>> After trialing several wireless mice, I decided I liked the much
>>> lighter corded mice due to the lack of weight for the batteries.
>> Your problem. So you clearly arent in any position to say
>> anything useful about how suitable they are for gaming,
>> or anything else at all about them either. You clearly dont
>> actually have a clue about the basics with a low battery
>> indicator with a properly designed wireless mouse either.
> Yep, back to the "properly designed" claim. Yep, what I prefer after actually
> trialing several is of no consequence in my decision as to what I will use.
> You like heavy mice,
Lying, as always.
> so by the same argument, that must also mean that you are in no position to
> say anything useful about non-wireless mice or keyboards and that you clearly
> don't actually have a clue about the basics of ergonomics, economics, and of
> being focused on your work or game. Yep, just as dumb an insult as was yours.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
>>> I use my mouse a LOT over long continuous hours of use.
>> So do I, and I bet its more than you do too.
> I work from 8AM to 6PM.
Pathetic, really. Guess who just won that bet child ?
> And I do mean work and not taking breaks because my mouse battery got low.
Neither do I child.
> Then I go home and program, discuss, play games, or VPN back to work, and
> that's on the weekends,
> too, all the while trying to be Dad and spouse, too.
You'll have to pardon us if we dont actually swoon, child.
> Personally I'd love to get away from the computer but in software QA there are
> too many technologies that get incorporated into enterprise products to keep
> up with with the limited manpower available.
Let go of it before you end up completely blind, child.
>>> Casual users probably won't mind. I'm arguing for less stress and less
>>> fatigue. You're arguing for more of these.
>> Wrong again. I get no stress and no fatigue with my wireless
>> mouse, even tho its is certainly heavier than the corded mice,
>> and I dont just run it around on the tabletop either.
> It's heavier but doesn't require more effort than moving a lighter mouse.
I'm not some puny weakling, child.
> It's heavier but it doesn't incur more strain than moving a lighter mouse.
I'm not some puny weakling, child.
> Yeah, really believable arguments those ... not.
I'm not some puny weakling, child.
>> You must be extremely puny if you cant manage a wireless mouse.
>>> For short use, like a couple hours, you might not mind.
>> I dont mind when I use it for 20+ hours thanks.
> And I can go without eating for several days. And I can go without sleep for
> 84 hours.
You'll have to pardon us if we dont actually swoon, child.
> That's not important because those are not repeat events since if they were
> I'd die from starvation while halucinating.
Wrong, as always.
> It's repeated use that causes strain.
Only for puny weaklings.
> Anyone can do small feats of strength or endurance for short periods or for
> one-time occurrences.
Pig ignorantly assuming again, child.
> Big deal. And don't give us some lame claim that you only sleep 1 hour per
> night since 20+ hours is MORE than 20 hours, you still have to drive from home
> from work,
Guess which pathetic little know it all child has just
got egg all over its pathetic little face, yet again ?
> you still have to drive from work to home,
Guess which pathetic little know it all child has just
got egg all over its pathetic little face, yet again ?
> you still have to eat, you still have to shit
Even someone as stupid as you should be able
to work out how to do all those in 3.x hours, child.
> (although that could be multitasked with eating, shaving, and brushing your
> teeth, I suppose),
Or I could have enough of a clue to not bother with some of those, child.
> so after all those hours you would have maybe an hour to sleep. Yeah, right,
> you're Superman, sure.
Any 2 year old could leave that for dead, child.
>>> The same is true for the newbies that start working in computer rooms and
>>> don't wear ear protectors because, well, gee, all the fans don't seem to be
>>> that loud.
>> Some of us have enough of a clue to assemble quiet systems.
> Yeah, right, YOU assembled all those main- and mid-frames, those Solaris Sparc
> boxes, those HP and AIX machines, those blade servers, all that air
> conditioning, yeah, right, sure.
Only a fool sits next to those for long, child.
> Geez, you think building little Wintel boxes equates to a $7M test lab and a
> $80M computer room?
Only a fool sits next to those for long, child.
> You just admitted that you have NEVER worked in a computer room.
Guess which pathetic little know it all child has just
got egg all over its pathetic little face, yet again ?
> A closet or cubicle with half a dozen PCs, or a test station with a dozen
> Wintel and Linux hosts, does not a computer room make.
Guess which pathetic little know it all child has just
got egg all over its pathetic little face, yet again ?
>>>>> Some are much better than others but then most folks don't go
>>>>> switching between them and wired mice often enough to see the
>>>>> small jerkiness in movement that remains with wireless mice, or
>>>>> they play undemanding and slow games.
>>>> You clearly havent tried a decent gaming wireless mouse.
>>> Paying 5 times the price didn't make economical sense.
>> Mindlessly silly. Even the most expensive wireless mice cost
>> peanuts per year for the 7 years they are warranted for.
> And we should all appreciate paying higher gasoline prices because, well, it's
> only dollars more per year over the few years of the car's warranty
Pathetic, really.
> (as if the warranty somehow ever came into play regarding ROI or
> depreciation).
Still peanuts per year, child. And MUCH less than
the cost of the rest of that gaming system, child.
> 4GB of memory is only a few pennies more over the decades that it will last
> but it still represents more money as a chunk that has to paid out-of-pocket
> for your home PC all at once and up front to actually get that memory. Why
> bother pricing out computer systems since, well, even a $500 difference in
> price is just a quarter per day over 5 years (some other nebulously derived
> term of life). Sales people love to hide cost by pointing out how little it is
> over some arbitrary term.
The OP didnt appear to be that concerned about price, child.
>> Even a desperate pov like you should be able to manage that.
> Yeah, and of course every desparate pov never bothers with free e-mail
> services (hmm, guess you must be a desparate pov since you use Gmail),
> or use free NNTP servers, or install free software, or get free whatever.
Pity about the cordless mice, child.
> And, of course, every desparate pov always wants to blow wads of money on
> computer gear without regard to impact on reserves for when something really
> critical pops up.
Some of us might actually have so much money
available that we can buy dozens of what the
OP asked about without even turning a hair, child.
> Oh yeah, you're talking just about a mouse but your rationale applies to
> everything since all those extra expenses are just pennies a day. Since your
> money means so little to you, how about sending a wad of it to the OP?
Because he appears to be able to afford to pay for it himself, child.
> After all, it's just pennies to you. Yeah, I remember being young and stupid
> when money used to burn a hole through my pockets. Then I got married and had
> children so my priorities changed from being a self-centered egotistic
> money-wasting unplanning idiot.
And some of us might well be old enough
to be your father or grandfather, child.
> Of course no one thinks of economics when buying their computers. Uh huh.
Only fools like you obscess about the cost of the mouse when the
gaming system being discussed costs a lot more than that, child.
>> In spades when you consider the cost of the rest of the gaming hardware.
>>> I can also get a decent gaming WIRED mouse, too. Logitech G3 wired mouse at
>>> $60 (Logitech's price; $47 at newegg.com).
>>> I did NOT include the MX1000 because "cordless performance that equals USB
>>> corded connection" (Logitech's description) means it runs as the measly 125
>>> Hz,
>> You dont know that.
> But you should know yet you didn't even bother to look and mention it.
Pathetic, really.
> The "gaming" mouse has a 500 Hz polling rate, or higher. The standard
> PS/2 mouse can go up to 200 Hz. Since Logitech doesn't label their
> MX1000 as a "gaming mouse" then it is something with LESS performance.
You dont know that.
> They sell their G7 model as something MORE appropriate to gaming than their
> MX1000 model. So the MX100 is under 500 Hz and maybe more than 200 Hz.
You dont know that.
> You could look, really you can. Use Device Management
> (devmgmt.msc) to check what is the polling rate for your mouse device.
> Then you could illuminate the rest of us as to what is the maximum
> polling rate configurable for the MX1000. Otherwise, you're just
> guessing, too, but at least I had some info to back up my guess.
No you dont, you've just got your dick in your hand, as always.
>>> and even my wired non-gaming mouse can do 200 Hz.
>> You dont know that its any worse than that.
> The typical polling rate is 125 Hz for a USB mouse. That is what
> Windows sets the for the device as the default polling rate. "The
> MX1000 equals a USB mouse." The default polling rate is 125 Hz.
Pathetic, really.
> Not much of a leap there as to what the default polling rate is for the
> MX1000. Sure you could probably up the polling rate, but you can do
> that for the wired mouse, too. So the MX1000 doesn't have a polling
> rate any higher - unless you show otherwise - than a wired mouse ...
> and even a non-gaming wired mouse can be set to 200 Hz. So with the
> MX1000 you've spent more only to get the same performance.
Pathetic, really.
>>> The G7 wireless (at the same 500 Hz as the G3 wired) costs $100 (Logitech's
>>> price; $72 at newegg.com)
>> Peanuts per year over 3 years its warranted for when the cost
>> of the rest of the gaming hardware per year is considered.
> And buying a Lexus is just a few more dollars per day over a 7-year loan than
> a more typical commuter car.
Pathetic, really.
> But, hey, we're all rich and can afford more for everything, right? A little
> more per-day cost for gasoline. A little more per-day for food price hikes,
> especially during droughts. A little more per-day for higher heating costs.
> A little more per-day for higher tuition costs. A little more per-day for a
> nicer lunch everyday. A little more per-day ... and on and on. Really nice to
> have an unlimited budget, or maybe living with the parents where they pay all
> the utilities and phone and they buy all your food and give you a car to use
> along with paying the insurance so
> you don't have all those expenses and can instead accumulate readily
> expendable cash because someone else is carrying you. Really nice to
> live alone in a self-centered lifestyle where you don't have kids or
> other dependents, like aging parents with medical problems, so you can
> spend all your money just on yourself. Some of us have lives and
> responsibilities beyond our computers and other toys. Some of us
> actually have limited incomes (i.e., we're not in the Hilton or Gates
> families). Some of us don't want to blow money on unneeded or little
> needed features and economics do come into play when we choose where
> to spend our money.
Pathetic, really.
> So if buying a high-priced gaming mouse is so inconsequential to the economics
> of building or upgrading a computer, just why are you freeloading off of
> Google Gmail, huh?
Because it filters quite effectively without any effort on my part, child.
> Why are you buying cheap NNTP service ($12/yr) from individual.net when you
> could get a bigger newsgroup provider that has all those binary groups
Because I'm not stupid enough to use binary groups, child.
> and has far longer retention times?
I dont need anything like the retention times it has, child.
> You should be getting bigger and better
Nothing is bigger or better that I actually need, child.
> because cost is irrelevant (to you) and can be rationalized as pennies over
> some long term versus the immediate out-of-pocket and up-front expense. You
> should be using a real and paid e-mail service
You dont know that I dont, child.
Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed
the advantage of more than one email address, child.
> since it's just pennies a day. If you're concerned about spam harvesting,
I'm not, child. I dont even bother to mung the address, child.
> you could pay for Sneakemail (and not use their free service) or SpamEx
> because, well, they're just pennies a day. You should be paying for a SpamCop
> account since it's just pennies a day. You should be using the most expensive
> NNTP service around because, hey, it's just more pennies a
> day. Starting to get the gist that "just pennies a day" is a stupid argument?
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.