Re: [OT] Mice (was: PS/2 mouse vs USB mouse)
On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 11:06:16 +0100, Darac Marjal wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 06:40:14PM +0000, Camaleón wrote: [cut]
>>
>> I still see some disadvantages for laser or BlueTrack based mice:
>>
>> 1/ They do not work on crystal or clear surfaces
>>
>> 2/ I find batteries (even rechargable) a PITA :-)
>>
>> 3/ There are also some security concerns in using wireless for input
>> devices but nowadays I think the data flow between sender and receiver
>> units can be encrypted
>
> There's no reason that an optical mouse has to be wireless.
True.
But I was replying to a KS post where he was talking about wireless mouse
with an USB receiver so the three points I mentioned were on that line.
> Similarly, there's no reason that a wireless mouse has to be optical.
> I've used wired (USB) optical mice for ages now and love the fact they
> they never get sticky. I find that ball mice gum up with detritus and
> you need to give them a good shove to get the ball to move. Optical
> mice always respond immediately.
I use alcohol to clean the ball and internal rollers. But I'm afraid
laser based mice get also dirty (bottom surface has also to be cleaned
for fast sliding). But as I said on my previous post to Ron, I can live
with them. What happens is that modern mice are a bit "ostentatious" and
full of buttons (or they're targeted to notebook users and are a bit
small).
Yes, I'm very picky with my input peripherals :-)
> As for not working on clear surfaces, consider yourself lucky. Sun
> optical mice (e.g. http://www.memoryxsun.com/3701398.html) require a
> specific mousepad with a calibrated grid printed on them. The mouse can
> only report its movement relative to this grid (rather than relative to
> an arbitrary surface as with modern mice).
He, he... from what century is that piece of hardware? Nineties?
Greetings,
--
Camaleón
Reply to: