Wireless mouse with longest battery life?

[kony]

Left of me is not right of me and right of me is not left of me and in
front of me is not in back of me. You used the wrong term. And yes, 3000
is upwards of 300.

Nope, grab a dictionary.

 

[kony]

Left of me is not right of me and right of me is not left of me and in
front of me is not in back of me. You used the wrong term. And yes, 3000
is upwards of 300.

I see now what you mean. Yes, 3000 is upwards of 300 and
what I was thinking was not what I wrote so it was wrong.

 

[UCLAN]

- NiMH are at least $3.50 a pair for anything decent, and
you'll want two pair so the second pair is charged to
eliminate hours of downtime when currently installed
batteries are drained. Then there's addt'l cost for a
charger if OP doesn't have one, or space to pack it if this
is for mobile use. It will take over 7 years just to break
even with typical rechargables, maybe even longer. Will the
mouse even last that long, or be obsolete or broken already?

Now a REAL world scenario: The MX700 wireless mouse CAME with
two NiMH batteries (zero additional cost), needs no spares
since it has a recharging cradle (again, zero additional cost),
and are still going strong after three years. How many alkalines
would have been needed.

Cost compare that!

 

[UCLAN]

Do you deny writing 2900mAh?
Is 2900mAH not qualifying as upwards of 3000mAh too?

Huh? 2900 is upwards of 3000? New math?

Did you need to use the word "upwards"?
I think this is a pointless argument.

I DIDN'T use the word "upwards." YOU did, and tried to say I did.

You are a liar. Of course you'd call this "argument" pointless.

Nope, independant testing shows them under the capacity of a
Sanyo 2700mAh. Candlepowerforums.com amoung other places
has the results but I'm not going Google searching for this
trival, argument's sake.

Nope. I've GOT a device that will measure the mAh capacity of AA and AAA
rechargeable batteries, and the Accupower 2900 mAh batteries test higher
than the Sanyo 2700 mAh batteries. They also run longer in my BCD396T
handheld scanner. Now the NEW Sanyo 2700 mAh batteries hold their charge
longer at no load, but not under a heavy load.

I'm sorry you can't understand this topic but anyone
bothering to do the math will see I'm right. NiMH degrading
in capacity after several charge/discharge cycles makes the
result even more in favor of alkalines.

Do some reading. NiMH mAh capacity actually increases after
"several charge/discharge cycles", not the opposite. And even
inexpensive rechargers can recondition batteries that are very
old up to like new capacity.

This doesn't make NiMH unreasonable to use for a cordless
mouse, but it does directly contradict the OP's expressed
desire to get longest battery life.

No, he said he wanted a mouse with longer battery life. The
Logitech mouse with its INCLUDED NiMH batteries and charger/cradle
has given me over three years worth of use on the one pair of
INCLUDED batteries.

I'd call that long life.

 

[kony]

Now a REAL world scenario: The MX700 wireless mouse CAME with
two NiMH batteries (zero additional cost), needs no spares
since it has a recharging cradle (again, zero additional cost),
and are still going strong after three years. How many alkalines
would have been needed.

Cost compare that!

Ok, your mouse cost about 2X as much, so that's about $20
extra over cost of another mouse versus $2 worth of
alkalines to run 3 years.

It's no great feat to pay extra to get a pair of batteries
and charger included with the mouse instead of paying less
for the mouse in the first place.

That doesn't make it a bad mouse, on the contrary MX700 is a
great mouse for it's target application, but that
application is the opposite of the OP's expressed goal.

Your mouse is not the only on the planet and the opposite of
what the OP would want to meet the goal. In the REAL world,
OP can buy a more power efficient mouse (and that WAS the
whole point of the thread). Did the OP ask "please help me
find one of the most power hungry cordless mice made"?

Why are you confused about this stark contrast?

 

[UCLAN]

Left of me is not right of me and right of me is not left of me and in
front of me is not in back of me. You used the wrong term. And yes, 3000
is upwards of 300.

He'll *never* admit that he was wrong. This is *his* newsgroup,
don't you know? <g>

 

[kony]

I see now what you mean. Yes, 3000 is upwards of 300 and
what I was thinking was not what I wrote so it was wrong.

What I was thinking was the actual capacity in this use is
beyond 3000mAh, IF the cells were rated appropriately.

To elaborate, essentially any NiMH cell with (nnnn)mAh
rating will have to have that rating at a standardized
discharge rate. Increase the rate and the capacity goes
down. Reduce the discharge rate and the capacity goes up,
beyond the labeled rating (unless the manufacturer used a
dubiously slow rate for their rating system). A mouse is
an order of magnitude (probably multiple orders, depends on
the mouse) lower discharge rate than used to meet any
particular rating like 2500, 2900 mAh, whatever, but with
such a low discharge rate that it takes weeks->months, the
self-discharge rate far overtakes that gain.

Thus, NiMH are great for a high drain device but fail at
moderate to low current drains for long term use.

 

[Mitch Crane]

That doesn't make it a bad mouse, on the contrary MX700 is a
great mouse for it's target application, but that
application is the opposite of the OP's expressed goal.

I think the expressed goal was to have the batteries last longer. 3 years
and still going is a long time.

 

[Mitch Crane]

To elaborate, essentially any NiMH cell with (nnnn)mAh
rating will have to have that rating at a standardized
discharge rate. Increase the rate and the capacity goes
down. Reduce the discharge rate and the capacity goes up,
beyond the labeled rating (unless the manufacturer used a
dubiously slow rate for their rating system). A mouse is
an order of magnitude (probably multiple orders, depends on
the mouse) lower discharge rate than used to meet any
particular rating like 2500, 2900 mAh, whatever, but with
such a low discharge rate that it takes weeks->months, the
self-discharge rate far overtakes that gain.

Thus, NiMH are great for a high drain device but fail at
moderate to low current drains for long term use.

I think UCLAN's real world experience shows that they in fact don't fail
in the MX700. All the worry about capacity is really only important if
you are using a separate charger and have to worry about changing the
batteries when they run down. Otherwise it's a moot point.

 

[CBFalconer]

He'll *never* admit that he was wrong. This is *his* newsgroup,
don't you know? <g>

He did.

 

[Rod Speed]

I think UCLAN's real world experience shows that they in fact don't
fail in the MX700.

That's a very high drain mouse tho, you only get a few days of active use.

All the worry about capacity is really only important
if you are using a separate charger and have to worry
about changing the batteries when they run down.

With a mouse or keyboard that does give say 6 months between battery
changes, you are indeed better off not using NiMH batterys because of the
self discharge unless you use the newer eneloop version which has a much
lower self discharge.

Otherwise it's a moot point.

Nope.

 

[UCLAN]

Ok, your mouse cost about 2X as much, so that's about $20
extra over cost of another mouse versus $2 worth of
alkalines to run 3 years.

Gee, *NOW* you add mouse cost to the formula, but not above.
Interesting, but transparent. And you seem to have abandoned
your cost of the second pair of batteries, which are not needed.

My mouse cost "about 2X as much" as WHAT? [BTW, my mouse was
only $55 with 2000mAh batteries at Amazon in 2003. You aren't
gonna get much of a mouse/charger/battery package at that price.]
Even then, you'd be back to changing batteries often.

That doesn't make it a bad mouse, on the contrary MX700 is a
great mouse for it's target application, but that
application is the opposite of the OP's expressed goal.

Most people read his "expressed goal" as not wanting to change
batteries so often. I'd say using the same set for 3+ years and
counting satisfies his goal.

 

[kony]

I think the expressed goal was to have the batteries last longer. 3 years
and still going is a long time.

That's not "longest battery life", that's shortest battery
life.

The OP also wrote "I know that rechargeable batteries are an
option, but would prefer to keep using regular Duracell's,
but with longer life."

I don't understand how there can be any confusion with that
statement.

 

[kony]

I think UCLAN's real world experience shows that they in fact don't fail
in the MX700.

yes they do fail, fail at the OP's expressed goal which is
longest battery life.

The mouse MUST be returned to the charger every few days,
that is the shortest battery life possible from a cordless
mouse.

All the worry about capacity is really only important if
you are using a separate charger and have to worry about changing the
batteries when they run down. Otherwise it's a moot point.

You seem to continually ignore this is NOT what the OP
specifically asked about.

 

[kony]

He'll *never* admit that he was wrong. This is *his* newsgroup,
don't you know? <g>

Oh? See my reply yesterday to Mitch where I wrote:

"I see now what you mean. Yes, 3000 is upwards of 300 and
what I was thinking was not what I wrote so it was wrong."

 

[UCLAN]

I think UCLAN's real world experience shows that they in fact don't fail
in the MX700. All the worry about capacity is really only important if
you are using a separate charger and have to worry about changing the
batteries when they run down. Otherwise it's a moot point.

I think there are two or more related but separate discussions
occurring in this thread. One, dealing with replacing batteries
in cordless mice, and one dealing with capacity ratings of NiMH
batteries.

On the former, I'd say 3+ years without changing batteries solves
that dilemma. On the latter, my testing of the Accupower 2900mAh
batteries versus the Sanyo 2700mAh batteries showed the Accupower
does indeed have more capacity. And using both brands of batteries
in a BCD396T handheld scanner shows that the Accupower 2900mAh
batteries last longer.

And 2900 is *NOT* upwards of 3000, no matter how it is rationalized.

 

[kony]

You are a liar. Of course you'd call this "argument" pointless.

Then why are we arguing?

Simple test- Instead of your mouse geared to utmost
resolution and acceleration from a red LED optical
technology (and thus, higher current rate), try a mouse
targeted towards the OP's expressed goal, one that has
longest battery life and uses alkaline cells.

Your mousing needs are not necessarily equal to someone
else's. I'm not the one who set the criteria. This is what
the OP asked, the reason the thread exists. The argument IS
pointless because you continue to ignore the purpose of the
thread.

The answer is as I already gave- the best mouse for longest
battery life using alkalines is a Logitech brand using their
"invisible light" optical engine. I already named a few
models, and another "might" be the mouse shipping with the
S510 keyboard set (I'm not 100% sure of this one but
Logitech's site should detail it if not a review somewhere).

 

[Paul_B]

My system is a year-and-a-half-old Dell Dimension 8400 running WinXP,
with a Dell wireless keyboard and mouse, and is left on 24 hours a
day. Unfortunately the mouse, which requires two AA batteries, uses up
batteries very fast, so I'd like to replace the mouse with a more
efficient one (but keep my current Dell wireless keyboard).

Which wireless mouse has the longest battery life?

I know that rechargeable batteries are an option, but would prefer to
keep using regular Duracell's, but with longer life.

IMO, the convenience of wireless mice is not worth the loss of
precision. I've reverted to a wired mouse and don't suffer a bit
for its having a cord.

p.

 

[kony]

Gee, *NOW* you add mouse cost to the formula, but not above.
Interesting, but transparent.

You want to cite costs... how can it not include the mouse
itself when one has to pay a premium for one that includes
the rechargeable batteries and charger?

And you seem to have abandoned
your cost of the second pair of batteries, which are not needed.

You seem to even now, still ignore the entire purpose of
this thread. I suggest you reread the OP's first post.

My mouse cost "about 2X as much" as WHAT? [BTW, my mouse was
only $55 with 2000mAh batteries at Amazon in 2003.

If you can't manage to find a cordless mouse for $27.50,
that's not our problem. Over the past three days I've
bought 2 mouse/keyboard sets from buy.com for less than
$27.50 delivered, and a couple more for $20 or less after
rebate (S510 & LX710).

You aren't
gonna get much of a mouse/charger/battery package at that price.]
Even then, you'd be back to changing batteries often.

Are we participating in the same thread?
Did you read the OP's post and understand it?

You seem very focused on trying to argue for the lowest
operating cost over several years time, with the shortest
battery life possible. That's NOT what the OP asked about,
and anyone out there can recognize that a mouse that comes
with rechargeable batteries and a charging stand would allow
recharging. This much was obvious, but which wireless mouse
has "longest battery life" is not so obvious.

Hence the thread.

Most people read his "expressed goal" as not wanting to change
batteries so often. I'd say using the same set for 3+ years and
counting satisfies his goal.

It satisfies your goal. Don't assume everyone has the same
goal. It's quite possible the OP is still mulling over his
choices and might end up wanting a rechargeable battery set,
but as yet that is not the expressed goal and no amount of
argument on your part changes that.

The funny part is that I somewhat agree with your choice for
my own personal use, I do have most of my cordless mice
running from rechargables, but that doesn't make them
"longest battery life" nor alkalines like Duracell.
Instead of second-guessing the OP, we should assume the OP
has a reason why these are the critera and just provide the
information.

 

[kony]

I think there are two or more related but separate discussions
occurring in this thread. One, dealing with replacing batteries
in cordless mice, and one dealing with capacity ratings of NiMH
batteries.

There's a third discussion, which is the reason the OP
started this thread- the wireless mouse with longest battery
life running from alkalines.

On the former, I'd say 3+ years without changing batteries solves
that dilemma. On the latter, my testing of the Accupower 2900mAh
batteries versus the Sanyo 2700mAh batteries showed the Accupower
does indeed have more capacity. And using both brands of batteries
in a BCD396T handheld scanner shows that the Accupower 2900mAh
batteries last longer.

And 2900 is *NOT* upwards of 3000, no matter how it is rationalized.

Incorrect. 2900mAH is derived from a standardized test at a
higher drain rate than seen in an energy conservative mouse.
There is a reason for these standardized test rates- that
the actual capacity goes up, or down, inversely with the
discharge rate.

It's not just rationalizing, it's happening in all your
devices powered by NiMH, though as mentioned previously,
offset by the self-discharge rate which swamps this
difference if a device sips current miserly enough that it'd
run for several weeks, let alone months.