Logitech MX-1000 Laser Mouse

[Tremulant]

Eh, I think it looks too 'sci-fi'-ish. Looks like some alien device, atleast in that pic. I wouldn't buy it anyways, the next mouse I'm getting will be a Mx510, and that won't be until my current mouse (2nd gen logitech optical scroll mouse) bites the dust. I have a Mx700 at work though, and the back/forward buttons are nice. I re-mapped the "quick-selector" button to "Close" though, makes it easier for me. But I don't need extra buttons on my mouse at home, cause I can just use my mouse gestures.

 

[Tab]

I am the only one who thinks this is complete BS?

 

[nortexoid]

the latency of this mouse is equivalent to the chorded ones, just as the 510MX is.

 

[lucrioual]

Personally I love my mx500, and wouldn't change it for anything

 

[ArmchairAthlete]

Originally posted by: lucrioual
Personally I love my mx500, and wouldn't change it for anything

Yea, I'm not too keen on cordless...

 

[Dug]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: Dug
I highly doubt it could saturate a USB bus, and I highly doubt you could move the cursor and follow it with your eyes quicker than what can be transmitted. You only have x,y coordinates to deal wtih. This isn't some massive calculation that a Ghz computer couldn't handle.

You obviously don't play online/LAN FPS games. Latency is everything, and most USB input devices have (IMO) horrible latency. The fact that the CPU has to be involved at all in polling an input device is a Bad Thing. I want my frames and I want them yesterday!

Then you've got other problems besideds the mouse if you can notice a difference. Even if what you say is true, there is no way that your cpu couldn't handle it. Ever maxed out your cpu with prime, sisoft sandra, and a mix of other benchmarks at the same time? Even opening a web page takes for ever under these conditions, but notice your mouse moves smooth as silk?

 

[SickBeast]

I'm a CAD monkey and the MX mice are a Godsend. They're pretty good for gaming as well.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

I've adapted my grip to old school plain mice and can't use these contoured mice. I wish they'd make these cordless laser/optical mice in the classic style.

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: Tabb
I am the only one who thinks this is complete BS?

It's not BS.

There is very little info on the net about this one yet, & i really have no release dates for this, but i thought it looked interesting.

The specs i posted are merely copied from a site i found from google, so i cannot say whether they are entirely accurate or not.

The pic is from some training material from Connect 2, a retail fair of sorts.

I acquired the materials from where i work, & again, while i know only what was on the training site, i do know the mouse is eventually coming out.

 

[Mik3y]

i, in one, like the mouse. it looks pretty nifty.

 

[NYHoustonman]

I have an Mx500 and am perfectly happy with it (have had it for quite a while), so I don't think I'll be getting this thing right away, but it's dead sexy.

 

[n7]

I really like the mouse from the crappy pic i have of it.

I have Microsoft mice atm, since the ergonomic Logitechs do not work well with my hand.

This one actually looks very similar in shape to the ergonomic Microsofts, so i may actually be able to get one & like it

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: RockGuitarDude

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: Dug
I highly doubt it could saturate a USB bus, and I highly doubt you could move the cursor and follow it with your eyes quicker than what can be transmitted. You only have x,y coordinates to deal wtih. This isn't some massive calculation that a Ghz computer couldn't handle.

You obviously don't play online/LAN FPS games. Latency is everything, and most USB input devices have (IMO) horrible latency. The fact that the CPU has to be involved at all in polling an input device is a Bad Thing. I want my frames and I want them yesterday!

Quite honestly, that is absolutely bull... Like he said, there is no way you could saturate the usb bus with a mouse. Any lag or unpreciseness is either a result of another piece of hardware not keeping up (video card or network connection) or good old human error.

How is that bull? I *never* claimed that a USB mouse could saturate the USB bus. That's not the point. The point is that USB currently has higher latency, at least for me, and that is a disadvantage in multiplayer FPS games. The suggestion that I made of moving to USB 2.0, again, wasn't because of bandwidth limitations, but of latency, and I believe that the USB 2.0 protocol introduced better support for isochronous-transfer modes for devices. Plus, increasing the bandwidth does reduce the latency of any individual transfers by a small amount.

Addtionally, most people have multiple devices, hubs, etc., connected to their USB ports. "Sharing" the USB port bus bandwidth can also increase the latency, although the easiest fix for that is to simply plug the mouse into its own host USB port.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Mem

You obviously don't play online/LAN FPS games. Latency is everything, and most USB input devices have (IMO) horrible latency. The fact that the CPU has to be involved at all in polling an input device is a Bad Thing. I want my frames and I want them yesterday!

I`ve to disagree with you here,USB mouse is classed as a " low speed USB device" let alone full speed USB 1.1(which is 12Mbps) or even USB 2.0(480Mbps) ,as to CPU resources it`s very low,few facts about USB below.

Yes, I know that. I was suggesting that perhap they should make mice that support USB 2.0 instead.

My Via KT400/8235 chips, running USB 1.1-mode controllers, uses PIO mode to poll USB devices, but I think that the USB 2.0 EHCI interface support is DMA-driven. Perhaps this is more a direct limitation of my chipset, but I don't think that I am alone in this. Many systems with non-Intel chipsets have CPU-driven USB. In fact, in comparisons between external USB 2.0 and Firewire400 HDs, the USB ones showed significantly higher CPU usage. That exemplifies what I am talking about, that USB devices tend to be "CPU-heavy", relative to the alternatives.

Originally posted by: Mem
Do note USB mice and keyboards only need around 1.5Mbits/s to function,info on the newer standard( USB 2.0 )
here..
Btw I play online with my mouse and keyboard(USB) and latency is not a problem, only thing I look for online is low ping servers.

But have you ever tried a non-USB (PS/2 port) mouse instead? With the PS/2 port rate clocked up to 100 or 200Hz?

In WinXP, I get a noticable "lag" with my USB mouse, I can be rapidly moving it back and forth at the desktop, with no major CPU-hog programs running, and the mouse lags behind when I stop and move it back in the other direction by a few frames. It's not "instant", like it is with my PS/2 mouse.

The problem isn't so bad in W2K, which is why I prefer to play games in W2K rather than XP, I suspect it is because the system mouse and keyboard are always "emulated" devices under DirectX in XP, rather than directly talking to the device drivers (HAL vs HEL in DirectX-speak) like in W2K.

But in either case, at times of extreme CPU load, or heavy interrupt load, the USB mouse lags and loses movement info, and the PS/2 one doesn't. I attribute this to the fact that the USB ports share IRQs with other things (disk controller), and the USB bus itself shares bandwidth too, among the devices, whereas the PS/2 port has a dedicated, non-shared IRQ, and a seperate microcontroller to process the serial data packets coming off of the wire. Plus, those packets are smaller than in USB (as per your reference, sorry I deleted that part of the quote), so they have slightly less latency/CPU-load as well to read, although that difference is so miniscule it really shouldn't make a difference.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17
I still don't think that latency would be a problem. Why would they have ever moved mice to have USB connections if it wasn't a better connection?

Why would they move everything under the sun to USB, if it weren't "better"? Easy, because then they get to force us all to re-buy most of our peripherals, and "they" make a boatload of money.

I don't know if you've ever used a USB 1.1 scanner, printer, external HD or CD-RW, or heaven forbid, a USB 1.1 video-capture device, but let me tell you, they definately aren't faster than their original interface formats. Generally slower, buggier, and to top it off, more expensive.

Things have gotten a bit better since the introduction of USB 2.0 - most external HDs and CD/DVD drives are USB 2.0, as are some scanners, but there's still plenty of USB 1.1 printers out there, and they actually seem slightly slower than parallel-port printers. Nevermind, trying to use more than one of these USB 1.1 high-bandwidth devices at the same time - fo'geddaboutit. At least on their original interfaces, you could do that.

Sometimes, I swear that the computer world moves subtly backwards on purpose, just so that next generation, they can move forward again, with great fanfare about technology advances, only just so that we can get back to where we started from.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Dug
Then you've got other problems besideds the mouse if you can notice a difference. Even if what you say is true, there is no way that your cpu couldn't handle it. Ever maxed out your cpu with prime, sisoft sandra, and a mix of other benchmarks at the same time? Even opening a web page takes for ever under these conditions, but notice your mouse moves smooth as silk?

No, actually, my USB-port mouse stutters slightly under extremely high CPU load, whereas my PS/2 one does not. Perhaps this is due to my USB ports being CPU-driven (PIO mode), or because my USB ports share an IRQ, I think with my PCI IDE controller, who knows.

 

[high]

i will definitely grab one...always up for new innovations in mice

 

[beatle]

Anyone else scrutinize the mouse for its physical design and not its interface? Maybe I'll like it, but the impression I get from a wheel that moves side to side is annoyance.

I'm also not sure how the thumb button(s) are supposed to work. Is there a smaller button set in a larger one? If so, I can just imagine trying to hit that while playing a game.

I hope the "deep sculpted thumb support" doesn't put your thumb in the same vertical plane as your index finger.

Anyone care to wager how heavy this mouse will be? I'm praying that the LiIon battery and other advancements allow for a mouse with the same weight of the MX500.

August 21st is right around the corner... can anyone confirm/deny this?

 

[40Hands]

I have an MX500 and I love it. Too bad I the MX510 came out right after I bought mine or I would have gotten that. I am under the impression that a mouse connected USB has a max refresh rate of 125 Hz while a PS/2 connected mouse can be "overclocked" to 200 Hz. I would rather have the faster refresh rate and save a USB port. Love those headshots!

 

[Chad]

I agree with the one dude. I have a USB mouse (MX510) that I instead use on the PS2 port because he's right, it's much much SMOOTHER and has a much better responsivenes.

I don't know why that is, but I know for a fact, it's true.

P.S. I had to change my rate to 200 also.

 

[eastvillager]

placebo .cough.cough.


You guys might want to try a recent usb mouse, made by a manufacturer who isn't trying to make a $5 mouse.

The only 'lag' I find in an mx-700 is at the very start of a session, where it 'wakes up'. That isn't even from the usb, that is from it being wireless.


What are you going to do when the ps2 port gets removed from the pc spec?

 

[So]

Originally posted by: eastvillager
placebo .cough.cough.


You guys might want to try a recent usb mouse, made by a manufacturer who isn't trying to make a $5 mouse.

The only 'lag' I find in an mx-700 is at the very start of a session, where it 'wakes up'. That isn't even from the usb, that is from it being wireless.


What are you going to do when the ps2 port gets removed from the pc spec?

Bitch and moan on the internet, most likely.

 

[imported_zenwhen]

There is no REAL difference between a mouse on a PS2 port and a USB port. The people who say they can sense a difference are just like the people who think putting rainbow foil stickers on the back of CD's makes them sound better.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Assuming this pic is legitimate, I'm damn sick of these huge "ergonomic" mice that are molded to fit my hand. Bulky mice make it difficult to move around the mouse with just your fingers. Which is why I'm still using an old slim-designed two button corded mouse at work and an original MS wheel mouse at home. I also have a Logitech Mouseman optical mouse and the size and heft drives me up the wall. I was at Best Buy yesterday and the various MX encarnations feel equally unimpressive.

Eh, maybe it's just me.

 

[40Hands]

Originally posted by: eastvillager
placebo .cough.cough.


You guys might want to try a recent usb mouse, made by a manufacturer who isn't trying to make a $5 mouse.

The only 'lag' I find in an mx-700 is at the very start of a session, where it 'wakes up'. That isn't even from the usb, that is from it being wireless.


What are you going to do when the ps2 port gets removed from the pc spec?

well placebos are good if they help you, right? when the ps2 is removed from the pc then ill use USB...no big deal.