Logitech MX1000 bluetooth mouse laggy under Vista?

Hi there - I've just installed a Logitech MX5000 bluetooth keyboard
and MX1000 bluetooth mouse under Vista and am experiencing severe
"lagginess" under Vista. I haven't tried it under Windows XP but can
anyone tell me if they've had similar experiences? Is it Vista or
crappy mouse design?

Cheers,
Andy

trojanfoe wrote:
>
> Hi there - I've just installed a Logitech MX5000 bluetooth keyboard
> and MX1000 bluetooth mouse under Vista and am experiencing severe
> "lagginess" under Vista. I haven't tried it under Windows XP but can
> anyone tell me if they've had similar experiences? Is it Vista or
> crappy mouse design?

It's probably Vista. One more bug. Unload it. See the links below.

--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>

"A man who is right every time is not likely to do very much."
-- Francis Crick, co-discover of DNA
"There is nothing more amazing than stupidity in action."
-- Thomas Matthews

On 23 Feb 2007 16:00:18 -0800, "trojanfoe"
<trojanfoe@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Hi there - I've just installed a Logitech MX5000 bluetooth keyboard
>and MX1000 bluetooth mouse under Vista and am experiencing severe
>"lagginess" under Vista. I haven't tried it under Windows XP but can
>anyone tell me if they've had similar experiences? Is it Vista or
>crappy mouse design?
>
>Cheers,
>Andy


Try it without the driver installed for mouse & keyboard.
In that situation is there still lag?

Such problems are typically due to too great a distance from
receiver, too much metal around the receiver (Or
mouse/keyboard themselves), too much interference from
nearby devices operating in same frequency range
(bluetooth's frequency hopping should help, but it's still a
potentially congested band at 2.4GHz), or for mouse-only
problems, a sub-optimal mousing surface.

On Feb 23, 4:00 pm, "trojanfoe" <trojan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi there - I've just installed a Logitech MX5000 bluetooth keyboard
> and MX1000 bluetooth mouse under Vista and am experiencing severe
> "lagginess" under Vista. I haven't tried it under Windows XP but can
> anyone tell me if they've had similar experiences? Is it Vista or
> crappy mouse design?
>
> Cheers,
> Andy

Wireless mice in general are often laggy.

paulmd@efn.org wrote:

>>Hi there - I've just installed a Logitech MX5000 bluetooth keyboard
>>and MX1000 bluetooth mouse under Vista and am experiencing severe
>>"lagginess" under Vista. I haven't tried it under Windows XP but can
>>anyone tell me if they've had similar experiences? Is it Vista or
>>crappy mouse design?
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Andy
>
>
> Wireless mice in general are often laggy.

And more often, not.

"UCLAN" <nomail@thanks.org> wrote in message
news:kRFEh.106923$0y4.3397@newsfe14.phx...
> paulmd@efn.org wrote:
>
>>>Hi there - I've just installed a Logitech MX5000 bluetooth keyboard
>>>and MX1000 bluetooth mouse under Vista and am experiencing severe
>>>"lagginess" under Vista. I haven't tried it under Windows XP but can
>>>anyone tell me if they've had similar experiences? Is it Vista or
>>>crappy mouse design?
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>Andy
>>
>>
>> Wireless mice in general are often laggy.
>
> And more often, not.
>

Maybe a while back but now that's complete BS - my MX1000 (on WinXP) is very
smooth and so was a previous MX700 and before that a ... I think one gets
the picture.

BillL

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:42:53 GMT, "BillL"
<billc1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"UCLAN" <nomail@thanks.org> wrote in message
>news:kRFEh.106923$0y4.3397@newsfe14.phx...
>> paulmd@efn.org wrote:
>>
>>>>Hi there - I've just installed a Logitech MX5000 bluetooth keyboard
>>>>and MX1000 bluetooth mouse under Vista and am experiencing severe
>>>>"lagginess" under Vista. I haven't tried it under Windows XP but can
>>>>anyone tell me if they've had similar experiences? Is it Vista or
>>>>crappy mouse design?
>>>>
>>>>Cheers,
>>>>Andy
>>>
>>>
>>> Wireless mice in general are often laggy.
>>
>> And more often, not.
>>
>
>Maybe a while back but now that's complete BS - my MX1000 (on WinXP) is very
>smooth and so was a previous MX700 and before that a ... I think one gets
>the picture.


They both lag more than their corded counterparts. Depends
on one's definition of laggy, ALL CORDLESS MICE have an
observable lag if you're looking for it, though only certain
tasks would make the difference matter.

kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:42:53 GMT, "BillL"
> <billc1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> "UCLAN" <nomail@thanks.org> wrote in message
>> news:kRFEh.106923$0y4.3397@newsfe14.phx...
>>> paulmd@efn.org wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Hi there - I've just installed a Logitech MX5000 bluetooth
>>>>> keyboard and MX1000 bluetooth mouse under Vista and am
>>>>> experiencing severe "lagginess" under Vista. I haven't tried it
>>>>> under Windows XP but can anyone tell me if they've had similar
>>>>> experiences? Is it Vista or crappy mouse design?
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Andy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wireless mice in general are often laggy.
>>>
>>> And more often, not.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe a while back but now that's complete BS - my MX1000 (on WinXP)
>> is very smooth and so was a previous MX700 and before that a ... I
>> think one gets the picture.

> They both lag more than their corded counterparts.

Irrelevant if you cant detect any difference in a proper double blind trial.

> Depends on one's definition of laggy, ALL CORDLESS
> MICE have an observable lag if you're looking for it,

Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to substantiate that claim with the best cordless rodents.

> though only certain tasks would make the difference matter.

Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to substantiate that claim with the best cordless rodents.

kony wrote:

>>Maybe a while back but now that's complete BS - my MX1000 (on WinXP) is very
>>smooth and so was a previous MX700 and before that a ... I think one gets
>>the picture.
>
> They both lag more than their corded counterparts. Depends
> on one's definition of laggy, ALL CORDLESS MICE have an
> observable lag if you're looking for it, though only certain
> tasks would make the difference matter.

Having used the MX700 for a number of years on various types of
software, I can confidently say that you are quite simply WRONG!
But I never bothered to install the CD stuff that comes with the
mouse. Perhaps that introduces a lag. I doubt it.

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:41:13 -0800, UCLAN
<nomail@thanks.org> wrote:

>kony wrote:
>
>>>Maybe a while back but now that's complete BS - my MX1000 (on WinXP) is very
>>>smooth and so was a previous MX700 and before that a ... I think one gets
>>>the picture.
>>
>> They both lag more than their corded counterparts. Depends
>> on one's definition of laggy, ALL CORDLESS MICE have an
>> observable lag if you're looking for it, though only certain
>> tasks would make the difference matter.
>
>Having used the MX700 for a number of years on various types of
>software, I can confidently say that you are quite simply WRONG!

I own one. It is unquestionably more laggy than same
equivalent generation MX300. If you can't tell the
difference, good for you? It's not hard to notice it doing
any kind of precision mousing.



>But I never bothered to install the CD stuff that comes with the
>mouse. Perhaps that introduces a lag. I doubt it.

With or without the Logitech driver

kony wrote:

>>Having used the MX700 for a number of years on various types of
>>software, I can confidently say that you are quite simply WRONG!
>
> I own one. It is unquestionably more laggy than same
> equivalent generation MX300. If you can't tell the
> difference, good for you? It's not hard to notice it doing
> any kind of precision mousing.

More hot air. There is no observable lag in ANY software that I've
used over the years - PERIOD.

UCLAN <nomail@thanks.org> wrote:
> kony wrote:
>
>>> Maybe a while back but now that's complete BS - my MX1000 (on
>>> WinXP) is very smooth and so was a previous MX700 and before that a
>>> ... I think one gets the picture.
>>
>> They both lag more than their corded counterparts. Depends
>> on one's definition of laggy, ALL CORDLESS MICE have an
>> observable lag if you're looking for it, though only certain
>> tasks would make the difference matter.

> Having used the MX700 for a number of years on various types of
> software, I can confidently say that you are quite simply WRONG!

Yeah, I get the same result you have.

> But I never bothered to install the CD stuff that comes with the mouse. Perhaps that introduces a
> lag. I doubt it.

Cant be that, I have that installed on one of the machines its used on mostly.

kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:41:13 -0800, UCLAN
> <nomail@thanks.org> wrote:
>
>> kony wrote:
>>
>>>> Maybe a while back but now that's complete BS - my MX1000 (on
>>>> WinXP) is very smooth and so was a previous MX700 and before that
>>>> a ... I think one gets the picture.
>>>
>>> They both lag more than their corded counterparts. Depends
>>> on one's definition of laggy, ALL CORDLESS MICE have an
>>> observable lag if you're looking for it, though only certain
>>> tasks would make the difference matter.
>>
>> Having used the MX700 for a number of years on various types of
>> software, I can confidently say that you are quite simply WRONG!

> I own one. It is unquestionably more laggy
> than same equivalent generation MX300.

Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

Bet you couldnt pick it in a proper double blind trial or you have a faulty MX700.

> If you can't tell the difference, good for you? It's not
> hard to notice it doing any kind of precision mousing.

Exactly what 'any kind of precision mousing' are you on about ?

>> But I never bothered to install the CD stuff that comes with the
>> mouse. Perhaps that introduces a lag. I doubt it.

> With or without the Logitech driver

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:19:30 -0800, UCLAN
<nomail@thanks.org> wrote:

>kony wrote:
>
>>>Having used the MX700 for a number of years on various types of
>>>software, I can confidently say that you are quite simply WRONG!
>>
>> I own one. It is unquestionably more laggy than same
>> equivalent generation MX300. If you can't tell the
>> difference, good for you? It's not hard to notice it doing
>> any kind of precision mousing.
>
>More hot air. There is no observable lag in ANY software that I've
>used over the years - PERIOD.


I and many other people have observed it. It's pretty much
common knowledge in gaming circles, are people who depend on
accurate mouse movements going to be LESS likely to observe
any lag that might exist?

.... so you don't _observe_ it... good for you, but that
doesn't mean it isn't present, nor that it wouldn't
necessary be a problem (or reason to discriminate multiple
product choices) for someone else.

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 07:13:14 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:41:13 -0800, UCLAN
>> <nomail@thanks.org> wrote:
>>
>>> kony wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Maybe a while back but now that's complete BS - my MX1000 (on
>>>>> WinXP) is very smooth and so was a previous MX700 and before that
>>>>> a ... I think one gets the picture.
>>>>
>>>> They both lag more than their corded counterparts. Depends
>>>> on one's definition of laggy, ALL CORDLESS MICE have an
>>>> observable lag if you're looking for it, though only certain
>>>> tasks would make the difference matter.
>>>
>>> Having used the MX700 for a number of years on various types of
>>> software, I can confidently say that you are quite simply WRONG!
>
>> I own one. It is unquestionably more laggy
>> than same equivalent generation MX300.
>
>Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

Not hard at all, many many many different people have
independently observed it. What do you consider
substantiation? We do in fact know that there is a higher
latency from a radio communication than over wire. It is
measurable, repeatable, satisfies every criteria of
scientific proof except on Planet Rod.


>
>Bet you couldnt pick it in a proper double blind trial or you have a faulty MX700.

Then you'd lose.
I admit I'm probably more picky about mice than the average
user, and after the recent Google checkout discounts at
buy.com and other seasonal sales I bought quite a few
cordless Logitechs dirt cheap recently in addition to those
I already had.
hmm.... LX710 Laser, G7, V200, pre-V200 (looks almost
identical but red LED type), LX5, Mediaplay, MX700,
whatever-its-called-from-EX110-set. Some of these I did
already have, the pre-V200/Mediaplay/MX700, but comparing
them I see consistent performance differences based on the
optical engine used, none are faulty though the V200, LX5
and Mediaplay are all three significantly pickier about the
mousing surface but that's a different kind of response
problem. It's not the environment either, I've taken
several along with my notebook and the slight lag is still
present.

If you don't notice it, consider yourself fortunate. I'm
not really knocking the MX700, I do like it as I'm not
"opposed" to cordless mice at all, I'm even using one at the
moment - but not for anything demanding high precision.

kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
>>> UCLAN <nomail@thanks.org> wrote
>>>> kony wrote

>>>>>> Maybe a while back but now that's complete BS - my MX1000 (on
>>>>>> WinXP) is very smooth and so was a previous MX700 and before that
>>>>>> a ... I think one gets the picture.

>>>>> They both lag more than their corded counterparts. Depends
>>>>> on one's definition of laggy, ALL CORDLESS MICE have an
>>>>> observable lag if you're looking for it, though only certain
>>>>> tasks would make the difference matter.

>>>> Having used the MX700 for a number of years on various types of
>>>> software, I can confidently say that you are quite simply WRONG!

>>> I own one. It is unquestionably more laggy
>>> than same equivalent generation MX300.

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

> Not hard at all, many many many different people have independently observed it.

Vastly more have claimed to have seen werewolves, dragons, fairys,
vampires, aliens, angels, etc etc etc. Doesnt mean they have tho.

> What do you consider substantiation?

If you could actually pick it in a randomised double blind trial.

> We do in fact know that there is a higher latency
> from a radio communication than over wire.

Irrelevant to whether that is swamped by other factors.

> It is measurable,

No it isnt.

> repeatable, satisfies every criteria of scientific proof

No it doesnt. Thats what double blind trials arou about, fool.

>> Bet you couldnt pick it in a proper double blind trial or you have a faulty MX700.

> Then you'd lose.

Nope.

> I admit I'm probably more picky about mice than the average
> user, and after the recent Google checkout discounts at
> buy.com and other seasonal sales I bought quite a few cordless
> Logitechs dirt cheap recently in addition to those I already had.
> hmm.... LX710 Laser, G7, V200, pre-V200 (looks almost
> identical but red LED type), LX5, Mediaplay, MX700,
> whatever-its-called-from-EX110-set. Some of these I did
> already have, the pre-V200/Mediaplay/MX700, but comparing
> them I see consistent performance differences based on the
> optical engine used,

Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to substantiate that claim.

> none are faulty though the V200, LX5 and Mediaplay are all three
> significantly pickier about the mousing surface but that's a different
> kind of response problem. It's not the environment either, I've taken
> several along with my notebook and the slight lag is still present.

Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to substantiate that claim.

> If you don't notice it, consider yourself fortunate.

Nothing to notice, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

> I'm not really knocking the MX700, I do like it as I'm not
> "opposed" to cordless mice at all, I'm even using one at
> the moment - but not for anything demanding high precision.

Notice you never actually spell out what that situation is. Funny that.

kony wrote:

> Not hard at all, many many many different people have
> independently observed it. What do you consider
> substantiation? We do in fact know that there is a higher
> latency from a radio communication than over wire. It is
> measurable, repeatable, satisfies every criteria of
> scientific proof except on Planet Rod.

LOL. So you are saying you can see the difference in time between
a signal transmitted over wire and one broadcast for a few feet in
the MHz or GHz band? Bull!

kony wrote:

>>>>Having used the MX700 for a number of years on various types of
>>>>software, I can confidently say that you are quite simply WRONG!
>>>
>>>I own one. It is unquestionably more laggy than same
>>>equivalent generation MX300. If you can't tell the
>>>difference, good for you? It's not hard to notice it doing
>>>any kind of precision mousing.
>>
>>More hot air. There is no observable lag in ANY software that I've
>>used over the years - PERIOD.
>
> I and many other people have observed it.

And I saw Elvis last week. Really.

Man, it's *really* time to start rolling up the pants.

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 21:40:24 -0800, UCLAN
<nomail@thanks.org> wrote:

>kony wrote:
>
>>>>>Having used the MX700 for a number of years on various types of
>>>>>software, I can confidently say that you are quite simply WRONG!
>>>>
>>>>I own one. It is unquestionably more laggy than same
>>>>equivalent generation MX300. If you can't tell the
>>>>difference, good for you? It's not hard to notice it doing
>>>>any kind of precision mousing.
>>>
>>>More hot air. There is no observable lag in ANY software that I've
>>>used over the years - PERIOD.
>>
>> I and many other people have observed it.
>
>And I saw Elvis last week. Really.
>
>Man, it's *really* time to start rolling up the pants.


You're the one with a mental problem here... the FACT is,
there is a difference in lag. If you dont mind that, if the
difference is slight enough that it doesn't effect anything
you're doing, or even slight enough to go unnnoticed by you,
then it wasn't a bad product for you.

There are OTHER people with OTHER needs, who deserve FULL
information. Same story different day, while you may
SUBJECTIVELY like a product, an OBJECTIVE comparison would
have to include the fact that there is a response lag.

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 21:36:37 -0800, UCLAN
<nomail@thanks.org> wrote:

>kony wrote:
>
>> Not hard at all, many many many different people have
>> independently observed it. What do you consider
>> substantiation? We do in fact know that there is a higher
>> latency from a radio communication than over wire. It is
>> measurable, repeatable, satisfies every criteria of
>> scientific proof except on Planet Rod.
>
>LOL. So you are saying you can see the difference in time between
>a signal transmitted over wire and one broadcast for a few feet in
>the MHz or GHz band? Bull!


I don't care if you accept this, or understand that it is
not just a binary, single-or-no-signal detection but has to
be a one-way communication.

The fact remains that there is a difference. If ignorance
is bliss, you'll be happy. If you don't need higher
precision/response out of a mouse, you'll be happy. If you
need higher precision/response more than wirelessness, you
won't be happy.

kony wrote:

>>>Not hard at all, many many many different people have
>>>independently observed it. What do you consider
>>>substantiation? We do in fact know that there is a higher
>>>latency from a radio communication than over wire. It is
>>>measurable, repeatable, satisfies every criteria of
>>>scientific proof except on Planet Rod.
>>
>>LOL. So you are saying you can see the difference in time between
>>a signal transmitted over wire and one broadcast for a few feet in
>>the MHz or GHz band? Bull!
>
> I don't care if you accept this, or understand that it is
> not just a binary, single-or-no-signal detection but has to
> be a one-way communication.

This thread certifies the fact that once you make a comment, you
will say ANYTHING, even make up stuff, rather than admit you were
mistaken. Sad, really.

kony wrote:

>>Man, it's *really* time to start rolling up the pants.
>
> You're the one with a mental problem here... the FACT is,
> there is a difference in lag. If you dont mind that, if the
> difference is slight enough that it doesn't effect anything
> you're doing, or even slight enough to go unnnoticed by you,
> then it wasn't a bad product for you.
>
> There are OTHER people with OTHER needs, who deserve FULL
> information. Same story different day, while you may
> SUBJECTIVELY like a product, an OBJECTIVE comparison would
> have to include the fact that there is a response lag.

A lag in the nanosecond range, perhaps. An *observable* lag? Nah.
And the OP was complaining about "severe lagginess." For you to
say that all cordless mice suffer this malady is hardly objective,
and far from the truth.

UCLAN <nomail@thanks.org> wrote:
> kony wrote:
>
>>>> Not hard at all, many many many different people have
>>>> independently observed it. What do you consider
>>>> substantiation? We do in fact know that there is a higher
>>>> latency from a radio communication than over wire. It is
>>>> measurable, repeatable, satisfies every criteria of
>>>> scientific proof except on Planet Rod.
>>>
>>> LOL. So you are saying you can see the difference in time between
>>> a signal transmitted over wire and one broadcast for a few feet in
>>> the MHz or GHz band? Bull!
>>
>> I don't care if you accept this, or understand that it is
>> not just a binary, single-or-no-signal detection but has to
>> be a one-way communication.

> This thread certifies the fact that once you make a comment, you will say ANYTHING, even make up
> stuff, rather than admit you were mistaken.

And that its never managed to grasp the basics of the Rule of Holes either.

> Sad, really.

Pathetic too.

On 24 Feb, 14:19, kony <s...@spam.com> wrote:
> On 23 Feb 2007 16:00:18 -0800, "trojanfoe"
>
> <trojan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Hi there - I've just installed aLogitechMX5000bluetooth keyboard
> >and MX1000 bluetooth mouse under Vista and am experiencing severe
> >"lagginess" under Vista. I haven't tried it under Windows XP but can
> >anyone tell me if they've had similar experiences? Is it Vista or
> >crappy mouse design?
>
> >Cheers,
> >Andy
>
> Try it without the driver installed for mouse & keyboard.
> In that situation is there still lag?
>
> Such problems are typically due to too great a distance from
> receiver, too much metal around the receiver (Or
> mouse/keyboard themselves), too much interference from
> nearby devices operating in same frequency range
> (bluetooth's frequency hopping should help, but it's still a
> potentially congested band at 2.4GHz), or for mouse-only
> problems, a sub-optimal mousing surface.

Sorry for the delay responding - didn't see this thread had exploded
so much. I have helped the problem a little by putting the usb dongle
in one of the front usb sockets, however it really is so sensitive.
There is no more than 2-3m between mouse and usb dongle and they are
in line-of-sight on the same level, and even if I put my knee in the
way the mouse drops out. I can resolve it by holding it in the air
for a few seconds. Getting very very annoying and as the mouse has no
cord it's getting close being smashed against the wall - sod this for
a laugh - I'll go back to a corded mouse and a usb extension cable.

I will try without the SetPoint drivers and see if that helps. I
will also get a usb extension cable and see if I can get the dongle
even closer to the mouse.

Does anything else think this might be a Vista issue rather than a
hardware issue?

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 11:49:35 -0800, UCLAN
<nomail@thanks.org> wrote:

>kony wrote:
>
>>>Man, it's *really* time to start rolling up the pants.
>>
>> You're the one with a mental problem here... the FACT is,
>> there is a difference in lag. If you dont mind that, if the
>> difference is slight enough that it doesn't effect anything
>> you're doing, or even slight enough to go unnnoticed by you,
>> then it wasn't a bad product for you.
>>
>> There are OTHER people with OTHER needs, who deserve FULL
>> information. Same story different day, while you may
>> SUBJECTIVELY like a product, an OBJECTIVE comparison would
>> have to include the fact that there is a response lag.
>
>A lag in the nanosecond range, perhaps. An *observable* lag? Nah.
>And the OP was complaining about "severe lagginess." For you to
>say that all cordless mice suffer this malady is hardly objective,
>and far from the truth.


If you can't even discern it how could you quantify it?

The fact remains, many many many people do have accute
enough senses and demanding enough uses to notice the
difference.

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 11:40:46 -0800, UCLAN
<nomail@thanks.org> wrote:

>kony wrote:
>
>>>>Not hard at all, many many many different people have
>>>>independently observed it. What do you consider
>>>>substantiation? We do in fact know that there is a higher
>>>>latency from a radio communication than over wire. It is
>>>>measurable, repeatable, satisfies every criteria of
>>>>scientific proof except on Planet Rod.
>>>
>>>LOL. So you are saying you can see the difference in time between
>>>a signal transmitted over wire and one broadcast for a few feet in
>>>the MHz or GHz band? Bull!
>>
>> I don't care if you accept this, or understand that it is
>> not just a binary, single-or-no-signal detection but has to
>> be a one-way communication.
>
>This thread certifies the fact that once you make a comment, you
>will say ANYTHING, even make up stuff, rather than admit you were
>mistaken. Sad, really.


I'm not the first nor the last person to notice the
difference. The sad part is that you can't tell and then
think nobody else could because of that alone. I'll bet
there are a lot of thinks you could distinguish that other
people couldn't, with other products, but you don't want to
consider subjectivism.

kony wrote:

>>A lag in the nanosecond range, perhaps. An *observable* lag? Nah.
>>And the OP was complaining about "severe lagginess." For you to
>>say that all cordless mice suffer this malady is hardly objective,
>>and far from the truth.
>
> If you can't even discern it how could you quantify it?

Huh? I'm saying you CAN'T see a lag in the nanosecond range. Period.
Muddle it up all you want.

> The fact remains, many many many people do have accute
> enough senses and demanding enough uses to notice the
> difference.

Right. Are these the same people that can tell the difference in
sound when $200 silver wire is used in line level audio connections,
rather than good quality standard shielded RCA cables?

kony wrote:

>>This thread certifies the fact that once you make a comment, you
>>will say ANYTHING, even make up stuff, rather than admit you were
>>mistaken. Sad, really.
>
> I'm not the first nor the last person to notice the
> difference. The sad part is that you can't tell and then
> think nobody else could because of that alone. I'll bet
> there are a lot of thinks you could distinguish that other
> people couldn't, with other products, but you don't want to
> consider subjectivism.

Like the standard 14 gauge speaker wire I use. People swear that
their $300 MonsterCable speaker wire sounds better because they
WANT it to sound better. You claim you can see a nanosecond lag
in a MX700 because you WANT to see it. You're delusional.

[And what does "...a lot of thinks you..." mean?]

kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 11:49:35 -0800, UCLAN
> <nomail@thanks.org> wrote:
>
>> kony wrote:
>>
>>>> Man, it's *really* time to start rolling up the pants.
>>>
>>> You're the one with a mental problem here... the FACT is,
>>> there is a difference in lag. If you dont mind that, if the
>>> difference is slight enough that it doesn't effect anything
>>> you're doing, or even slight enough to go unnnoticed by you,
>>> then it wasn't a bad product for you.
>>>
>>> There are OTHER people with OTHER needs, who deserve FULL
>>> information. Same story different day, while you may
>>> SUBJECTIVELY like a product, an OBJECTIVE comparison would
>>> have to include the fact that there is a response lag.

>> A lag in the nanosecond range, perhaps. An *observable* lag? Nah.

>> And the OP was complaining about "severe lagginess." For you to say that
>> all cordless mice suffer this malady is hardly objective, and far from the truth.

> If you can't even discern it how could you quantify it?

Pathetic, really.

> The fact remains, many many many people do have accute enough
> senses and demanding enough uses to notice the difference.

The same mindless claims are made by the advocates of oxygen
free cables etc with audio systems. Turns out that not one of the
golden ears brigade can actually pick it in a proper double blind
trial, so its pure fantasy. Drug crazed fantasy in your case.

kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 11:40:46 -0800, UCLAN
> <nomail@thanks.org> wrote:
>
>> kony wrote:
>>
>>>>> Not hard at all, many many many different people have
>>>>> independently observed it. What do you consider
>>>>> substantiation? We do in fact know that there is a higher
>>>>> latency from a radio communication than over wire. It is
>>>>> measurable, repeatable, satisfies every criteria of
>>>>> scientific proof except on Planet Rod.
>>>>
>>>> LOL. So you are saying you can see the difference in time between
>>>> a signal transmitted over wire and one broadcast for a few feet in
>>>> the MHz or GHz band? Bull!
>>>
>>> I don't care if you accept this, or understand that it is
>>> not just a binary, single-or-no-signal detection but has to
>>> be a one-way communication.
>>
>> This thread certifies the fact that once you make a comment, you
>> will say ANYTHING, even make up stuff, rather than admit you were
>> mistaken. Sad, really.

> I'm not the first nor the last person to notice the difference.

True in spades of oxygen free cables, werewolves, leprechauns,
vampires, dragons, yetis, aliens, angels, etc etc etc.

> The sad part is that you can't tell and then
> think nobody else could because of that alone.

True in spades of oxygen free cables, werewolves, leprechauns,
vampires, dragons, yetis, aliens, angels, etc etc etc.

> I'll bet there are a lot of thinks you could distinguish
> that other people couldn't, with other products,

Unlikely, and until he can pick it in a double blind trial, ALL it is is a CLAIM.

> but you don't want to consider subjectivism.

Yep, we've noticed the problem with oxygen free cables, werewolves,
leprechauns, vampires, dragons, yetis, aliens, angels, etc etc etc.