Wireless mouse with longest battery life?

[kony]

Which translates to 2900 is upwards of 3000...how?

Because 2900 is a measurement for standardization purposes,
at a rate far higher than that used on a mouse. On a mouse,
the actual capacity of a 2900 rated cell is higher than
2900, EXCEPT there's still the self-discharge rate to offset
that, and offset it severely over several weeks time.

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

And there are those that *still* argue that the charger/cradle option shouldn't be given.

No one has ever said that.

The OP gave NO indication that he/she knew of such an option.

And has either not bothered to read any of the
replys to its original post or has decided that it
doesnt want to get involved in a mindless shit fight.

 

[Mitch Crane]

Actually, no, read the OP's post.

Here it is with a reasonable interpretation.

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?

So this person feels he is changing batteries too frequently. If you
can't see this and think instead he's thinking in terms of milliamp
hours and statitics then you are just being obtuse.

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

This mentions rechargeable batteries. When he says he wants a new mouse
because his mouse uses up batteries too fast he assumes correctly that
some people may suggest that he buy some rechargeables and a charger,
so he preempts this answer as it doesn't solve the problem.

It may very well be that the OP wouldn't be interested in a mouse with
a recharging stand, but that isn't clear. UCLAN's suggestion was a good
one.

 

[UCLAN]

Because 2900 is a measurement for standardization purposes,
at a rate far higher than that used on a mouse. On a mouse,
the actual capacity of a 2900 rated cell is higher than
2900, EXCEPT there's still the self-discharge rate to offset
that, and offset it severely over several weeks time.

http://www.tapdance.org/

 

[UCLAN]

So this person feels he is changing batteries too frequently. If you
can't see this and think instead he's thinking in terms of milliamp
hours and statitics then you are just being obtuse.

Kony's middle name.

 

[kony]

Kony's middle name.

Yeah, how dare I actually consider what the OP wrote when
considering the correct answer.

 

[Mitch Crane]

Yeah, how dare I actually consider what the OP wrote when
considering the correct answer.

I think the problem isn't considering what the OP wrote. The problems
is that you didn't consider why it was written. Your interpretation
may very well be the right one, but I think it's quite possible that
it isn't.

Take the guy who posted in this group recently about getting a new LCD
to replace his old CRT. He preferred a monitor that natively supported
1024 x 768. Why did he want that? That wasn't stated in the beginning.
Should we only have said yes it will look messed up so you'll have to
get a 15" LCD? I made a typo in my reply and wrote "...you'll find
that a 19" LCD at 1024x768 will be a lot easier on the eyes than your
CRT was at 1024x768." What I meant, of course, was at 1280 x 1024 (the
native resolution) that would be the case. You and others suggested as
much.

The correct thing to do was to consider why this person stated that he
wanted to use the 1024 resolution and upon doing so most people can
guess that it's a matter of viewability. Since a 19" at its native
1280 is probably a lot crisper than that 19" CRT at 1024, it was
perfectly reasonable to suggest that he get a 19" or larger monitor
and use it at its native resolution.

You may argue that the OP's preference in the monitor case was much
more dubious and I suppose I would agree. On the other hand, the
comment about not wanting to use rechargeables pretty clearly refers
to batteries, in my opinion, and so is ambiguous with regard to
whether it means switching to rechargeables for the mouse he now owns
or the use of rechargeables in any and all contexts, so it was left to
us to consider why that comment was made.

 

[Bucky Breeder]

I think the problem isn't considering what the OP wrote. The problems
is that you didn't consider why it was written. Your interpretation
may very well be the right one, but I think it's quite possible that
it isn't.

Take the guy who posted in this group recently about getting a new LCD
to replace his old CRT. He preferred a monitor that natively supported
1024 x 768. Why did he want that? That wasn't stated in the beginning.
Should we only have said yes it will look messed up so you'll have to
get a 15" LCD? I made a typo in my reply and wrote "...you'll find
that a 19" LCD at 1024x768 will be a lot easier on the eyes than your
CRT was at 1024x768." What I meant, of course, was at 1280 x 1024 (the
native resolution) that would be the case. You and others suggested as
much.

The correct thing to do was to consider why this person stated that he
wanted to use the 1024 resolution and upon doing so most people can
guess that it's a matter of viewability. Since a 19" at its native
1280 is probably a lot crisper than that 19" CRT at 1024, it was
perfectly reasonable to suggest that he get a 19" or larger monitor
and use it at its native resolution.

You may argue that the OP's preference in the monitor case was much
more dubious and I suppose I would agree. On the other hand, the
comment about not wanting to use rechargeables pretty clearly refers
to batteries, in my opinion, and so is ambiguous with regard to
whether it means switching to rechargeables for the mouse he now owns
or the use of rechargeables in any and all contexts, so it was left to
us to consider why that comment was made.

Well then, I guess an Explorer Trackball is out of the question? (o;


Best wishes to you and yours for a safe and joyous holiday season.

--

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if someday some fishermen caught
a big shark and cut it open, and there inside was a whole person.
Then they cut the person open, and inside him is a little baby shark.
And in the baby shark there is not a person, because the baby shark
would still be too small. But there's a little doll or something,
like a GI Joe or Barbie little toy person - something like that.
Then they cut the toy person open, and there's the King Cake Baby Jesus
doll.
Curses! I never get the free drink... Well, there's always next year.

 

[kony]

I think the problem isn't considering what the OP wrote. The problems
is that you didn't consider why it was written. Your interpretation
may very well be the right one, but I think it's quite possible that
it isn't.

If the OP had only said it was a pain swapping rechargable
batteries I'd tend to agree.

That wasn't what OP wrote, it was incredibly specifc-
alkalines.

You are essentially ignoring a quite specific request and
pretending that you know better.

You don't. We could as easily assume the OP doesn't want to
swap rechargable batteries every month or two, or that OP
doesn't want to have to put a mouse on the recharge cradle
religiously. Because there are mice that can go for near a
year on a set of alkalines, that is not an unreasonable
alternative no matter how much you prefer something else,
but above all, it IS WHAT OP ASKED.

 

[UCLAN]

Yeah, how dare I actually consider what the OP wrote when
considering the correct answer.

The correct answer? You *do* have an ego, don't you? Since the
OP has abandoned this thread, we can only assume that he read
the various *suggestions*, and acted accordingly.

The "correct" answer, indeed.

 

[Mitch Crane]

If the OP had only said it was a pain swapping rechargable
batteries I'd tend to agree.

That wasn't what OP wrote, it was incredibly specifc-
alkalines.

I know people who say, "Put that bologna in the frigidaire for me,
please?" It doesn't mean that I

You are essentially ignoring a quite specific request and
pretending that you know better.

No more than you ignored this very specific request:

As I understand it if I run at 1024X780 I will experience
noticeable loss in display quality. If that is correct what
options do I have to get 1024X768?

yet you say:

I feel you would get used to the higher resolution and
appreciate it. More modern software seems to waste more
screen space too, it could be hard to work with only
1024x768 pretty soon.

Well, I feel the OP could get used to keeping the mouse on the charging
stand and would appreciate the benefit of not having to change batteries
for years.

You don't. We could as easily assume the OP doesn't want to
swap rechargable batteries every month or two, or that OP
doesn't want to have to put a mouse on the recharge cradle
religiously.

We could, but we should assume neither. We should simply consider that
the questioner may not have considered a mouse with a charging stand.
It's quite possible that he has, but since we don't know it does no harm
to mention that option.

Because there are mice that can go for near a
year on a set of alkalines, that is not an unreasonable
alternative no matter how much you prefer something else,
but above all, it IS WHAT OP ASKED.

Of course it's reasonable. If someone protested your suggestion of such
then I missed it.

 

[Mitch Crane]

I know people who say, "Put that bologna in the frigidaire for me,
please?" It doesn't mean that I

Um, that's what happens when neighbors interrupt me with their internet
problems.

It doesn't mean I should balk if I find their refridgerator is a General
Electric model. I.e. sometime we can take words too literally.

 

[UCLAN]

You don't. We could as easily assume the OP doesn't want to
swap rechargable batteries every month or two, or that OP
doesn't want to have to put a mouse on the recharge cradle
religiously. Because there are mice that can go for near a
year on a set of alkalines, that is not an unreasonable
alternative no matter how much you prefer something else,
but above all, it IS WHAT OP ASKED.

Logitech is very careful to say "up to" one year, but they don't
give specifics. For example, since the mouse "turns off" when not
being used, how much daily usage to they include in their "up to"
one year statement? One hour? Eight hours? Less? And what type of
batteries? Standard alkaline? Premium alkaline? Lithium? And those
with the on/off switch - what happens if you forget to turn it off?
After all, if putting a mouse into a recharger is so hard to remember,
remembering an on/off switch on the bottom of the mouse won't be any
easier.

[I notice they have the caveat: "Battery life may vary depending on
usage" on their site.]

Logitech's newest mice with Li-ion batteries, charging cradle, and
4-LED on mouse charge indicator make it easy. No reason to use
standard alkaline batteries in your mouse, unless it's for a portable
computer. Hence the line of low power mice for laptops.

 

[kony]

No more than you ignored this very specific request:

As I understand it if I run at 1024X780 I will experience
noticeable loss in display quality. If that is correct what
options do I have to get 1024X768?

yet you say:

I feel you would get used to the higher resolution and
appreciate it. More modern software seems to waste more
screen space too, it could be hard to work with only
1024x768 pretty soon.

Actually I first mentioned that it was only attainable with
a 15" size, so I didn't ignore the OP's question and jump
right to an alternative instead.

Well, I feel the OP could get used to keeping the mouse on the charging
stand and would appreciate the benefit of not having to change batteries
for years.

Actually it's quite likely OP would forget to put it in the
cradle every now and then, so the batteries would need
swapped.

 

[kony]

The correct answer? You *do* have an ego, don't you? Since the
OP has abandoned this thread, we can only assume that he read
the various *suggestions*, and acted accordingly.

The "correct" answer, indeed.

I'm really not caring how hard it is for you to grasp that
the OP asked about something specific, not your generalized
idea of what YOU like best in a mouse.

There's a reason more than one mouse exists. Ponder it.

 

[Fuzzy Logic]

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.

Get a Wacom Graphire tablet with mouse. It doesn't use any batteries and is wireless:

http://www.wacom.com/graphire/index.cfm

I have been using Wacom products for many years and they are rock solid. Also if you can take the time to
learn to use the pen you will never go back to using a mouse. It's much easier on your wrist and faster to
navigate with.

 

[Mitch Crane]

Actually I first mentioned that it was only attainable with
a 15" size, so I didn't ignore the OP's question and jump
right to an alternative instead.

Nonetheless, he stated he wanted to use 1024x768 and you gave advice
about using 1280x1024.

Actually it's quite likely OP would forget to put it in the
cradle every now and then, so the batteries would need
swapped.

Possibly. He can make that judgement with the given info. Just as you
felt that poster would get used to the higher resolution, I feel this
one will get used to using a charging stand.

 

[kony]

Possibly. He can make that judgement with the given info. Just as you
felt that poster would get used to the higher resolution, I feel this
one will get used to using a charging stand.

OP didn't ask what you felt could be gotten used to. With
the monitor thread my primary reply, possibly even the first
sentence I typed was the direct answer to the question. In
this thread, I don't see ANY direct reply to the question
from you. That's quite different than adding it as
supplimental information, rather you seem set on the idea
that the OP *must* want what you do, when the only thing
written suggests quite the opposite.

 

[kony]

Nonetheless, he stated he wanted to use 1024x768 and you gave advice
about using 1280x1024.

There is no "nonetheless" relevant here, it's quite central
to the answer you gave which was the opposite of what was
asked.

 

[Mitch Crane]

OP didn't ask what you felt could be gotten used to.

No and the LCD monitor guy didn't ask if you felt he could get used to
1280 x 1024. yet you offered.

With the monitor thread my primary reply, possibly even the first
sentence I typed was the direct answer to the question.

And it was the wrong answer.

In this thread, I don't see ANY direct reply to the question from
you. That's quite different than adding it as supplimental
information, rather you seem set on the idea that the OP *must* want
what you do, when the only thing written suggests quite the
opposite.

No, as I've said many times (as you well know) I feel it's best to let
him decide whether a rechargeable mouse is a good solution to his
problem. It's you who protested any other solution but yours. I've said
on more than one occasion that your solution, if an alkaline battery
really lasts a year or more, seems quite acceptable.

How about a little intellectual honesty on your part? You say that
UCLANs suggestion is inappropriate and shouldn't be given and then
accuse others of only wanting their suggestion forwarded.