just a troll, move along.

Not trolling. Just wanted to know how people worked with this problem. Who knows, I thought maybe I was missing something. The reason I brought this up is because like I said at the end, I'd like to try them out but I didn't know how people were coping with the 400 dpi issue.

That was my first thought too, but still a very odd question.

Must be too much work to move your mouse in a 4.2" x 2 5/8" rectangle.

I dunno, it doesnt bother me, but I use a significantly lower res.

I use 1680x1050 and an Intellimouse 3.0. I also own the Logitech G5 and Razer Death Adder, but I only use the G5 at work, and I hardly touch the DA...

troll

IME3.0 at 1920x1200.. works fine.. I don't think it's slow? :S 10cm across the screen is fine by me..

wtf is wrong with the best mouse ever ms3.0 @ 1680x1050?

think of it as a workout

wtf, I submitted a reply a couple of hours ago and it still hasn't shown up?

Anyways, not a troll it was an honest question. Like I said at the end of my post *I'd like to try them out* but the 400 dpi was holding me back. Hence me making the original post wondering how people were coping with the issue in case I missed something.

your arm is 10 cms long?

I have dual monitors, each at 1280x1024, and I don't really have to move it that much, maybe 15-20cm.

with that resolution, do not use 400dpi , you just encounter problems.. buy a deathadder - its so similar to the 3.0 except much better (same shape and 450dpi if you want to [which is really close to the 3.0]) :) ideal replacement for my old 3.0 and i do not regret paying a stupid price in comparison.. my game improved alot with the zero negative accel aswell after a week or so of getting used to the flick shots, don't forget.. the 1800dpi will be much better for your 16:10 resolution, and also with the button on the bottom of the mouse you can easily swap dpi in game if you prefer to use 450 over 1800 (ie. placebo), although at that resolution, you would be stupid too :)

but as it goes, my 3.0 at 400dpi worked fine at 1680x1050, but like you guessed, i hate the slow speed and i didnt want to change my windows sensitivity bar because of lan events and me forgetting etc, so my DA is a dream :)

What problems?

"The cursor must be unbearably slow since you can't increase windows pointer speed past 6/11"

its right infront of you xD

I guess if you can't move your mouse it's a problem :)

put your sens to 1 on your windows sensitivity, do you find it annoying?

Not really, but 400dpi is fine at massive resolution desktops at 6/11 (1:1 conversion) so why would I intentionally lower it that much, the guy mentions not changing windows sensitivity anyway.

What's worse is really super fast cursor speeds but again it's not a problem.

preference, to me i consider 450dpi on 1680x1050 to be annoyingly slow, i was simply saying that if your using 1024x768 and set your win sens to 1 its a little exaggerated but it almost feels like 400dpi on 1680x1050 when navigating the screen xD luckily my mouse has a dpi switcher :)

It's not a problem though.

sure it is

"A problem is an obstacle which makes it difficult to achieve a desired goal, objective or purpose. It refers to a situation, condition, or issue that is yet unresolved."

"trouble: a source of difficulty; "one trouble after another delayed the job"; "what's the problem?"

probably because you are a high senser and trivial tasks like moving your mouse across your pad are too unbearable?

No, setting it to 4/11 on 1024x768 should take even farther to cross the desktop than default in 1680x1080. Many people actually use 4/11 on the desktop. At 1600x1200 I found it a little slow but not too annoying. Coming from a mid/low sens player. In fact I would probably use this if I played more flash games to have better accuracy in them.

I use 400 dpi on 2x 1680x1050 monitors. Using default sens and no mouse accel. DPI isnt really an issue, you can just up windows sens.

What he said. I just upped Windows sens up to 7 instead of the default 6, and it's all good (on a WMO 1.1a here).

windows sens: 8/11

i use 400 dpi @ a per-pixel accuracy (so no skipping of pixels) and i am fine with it. It doesnt annoy me somehow.

I run it @ 1600x1200, which is more desktop space than you got, and I don't have to move it very far to get from edge to edge. You just can't use only your wrist.

As long as you keep a 1:1 ratio in your windows drivers (6th notch, directly in the middle), then there is no problem with accuracy.

As far as being 'unbearably slow', that's just a misconception you have that people can't use their whole arm to move their mouse around, but contrary to what some may believe, a lot of people actually do, and on large surfaces like a Supermat, without a problem at all.

who the FUCK cares about the damn dpi?

*cough*ultraoverrated*cough*

I have never and will never need more than 400dpi. To call it an issue is hilarious. The technology used in the ie3.0 and wmo have stood the test of time, to suddenly consider it an issue is like saying...ovens are not good enough because if you throw your left overs in the microwave it heats up faster. But we all know microwaved leftovers can get mushy and nasty, just like all the new technology in mice these days. Its way overboard and in general just a ploy to sell counterstrike players mice.

Umm yea ok. Since you've probably been using it for a decade you've probably gotten used scraping your mouse across your pad over and over again to click on an icon and it's not that much of an issue to you.

Question - If Microsoft released a 1.1 and 3.0 with the exact same body, weight, materials and same optical sensor, same price, but added a switch on the bottom that lets you select 400, 800, or 1600, how many people here would buy it to replace their current one?

If I didn't have an alternative I would convince/force/whatever myself to be perfectly fine with 400 as well. But sometimes a higher dpi is nicer, especially for desktop usage.

I own a 2000 dpi Logitech G5 and 1800dpi Razer Death Adder. Both are far, far inferior to the Intellimouse 3.0 @ 400dpi. You have a very, very small mousepad if you're having to pick up the mouse more than once to get from one side of the screen to the other. Also, I use the G5 on a 1280x1024 desktop (it's my office mouse) at 800dpi, because 2000dpi is unusably sensitive, and 400 is too slow to be comfortable. At home I use 1680x1050 for all gaming as well as desktop/browsing use, and my IE 3.0 @ 500hz notch 6 windows sens.
You're being silly.

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/4171/micepl1.jpg

The DA seems a lil smaller than the 3.0, can you confirm or invalidate that ?

At it's widest point, the DA is actually slightly wider than the 3.0, however, it makes far less contact with my palm than the 3.0, because it's lower to the mousepad. Also, it doesn't have the little lips on the sides like the 3.0 does, so picking it up is not as fluent as it should be on the DA.

Thanx :)

I own a death adder, and let it be said, I love the mouse. But that has nothing to do with the dpi, as i turn that down to 450, it has everything to do with shape. I can scroll from one side of my screen to the other at 1680x1050 with my ie3.0 without picking it up. Furthermore, the only reason you would need 1600-2000dpi is if you played at 1680 by X resolution and used an ultra high sensitivity. This would allow you to use a sense as low as 1 inche per 360 and still hit every pixel in the rotation.

I'm on dual monitor, 1680x1050 and 1280x1024. Never tried anything else, but also never saw a problem in that.

lol 2x lcd

i feel bad for you

who said thy're both lcd's?

1680x1050 and 1280x1024

you did when you named two resolutions which will only be used on lcd

I've used 1280x1024 on CRT plenty of times. In fact I believe that's the resolution I used when I played NFS:Most Wanted.

Why use such high resolutions on CRTs though?:S

Because it was a casual game that I wanted to have look pretty and seeing as how I didn't use a mouse in that game I didn't have to worry about skipping pixels whilst I was aiming. I still could use 85hz which was enough for that game.

YOU SKIP PIXELS WHILE YOU ARE STEERING...............

With a keyboard?

probably for the desktop. My CRT is only 19", so using the maximum res of 2048x1536 is overkill.
1280x1024 is actually the recommended resolution for my monitor. I get 100hz at that res. I get 160hz at 800x600, but I'd hate for my desktop/web browsing to be such low res.

1024x768 is enough for me :(

what size screen? 17"?

19" I believe :)

I can't stand high resolutions for desktop or games.

On a 19" I can't do any less than 1152x864. Any lower and everything is so huge I have to sit further away.

Heh, I must admit I don't sit too close to the monitor, probably further away than most people at any rate.

1280x960 is better suited to CRTs, x1024 = fucked up aspect ratio

you might even be able to get a little more hz there too

I used 1280x1024 on desktop when I had a 19" CRT. 1280x960 seemed too narrow for some reason. But now I use 1600x1200 on a 21" CRT.

probably either placebo, or just that you werent used to it... because 1280x960 is the ideal resolution... i used 1280x1024 at first when I was relatively newb to computers and it took me a few days to get used to the correct res :(

I'm on a 21"crt @ 1280x960 atm, could go higher but all I have on their is typically putty (irc/msn)

I've had 1280*1024 for years, didnt notice a thing.

Then all of the sudden I was like 'something is _wrong_' :D

1600*1200 desktop now, 640*480 ingame

800x600 is bestest (21" crt)

I have a 19 inch CRT

Are you sure you weren't using 1280x960... using 1280x1024 seems mighty unwise... the aspect ratio will be completely fucked up... looks horrid

crt's are 4:3, not 5:4

I got gypped. :((

jk... I do game at 1280x960 usually, like Crysis for example. but the desktop looks kinda stretched tall if I use 1280x960 for basic desktop/browsing.

See here-> http://reviews.cnet.com/crt-monitors/nec-mult...17320.html

Near the bottom the "recommended resolution" is listed as 1,280x1,024.

*shrugs.

(I was already aware of the 5:4 vs 4:3 aspect ratio stuff, but it is what it is.)

You're just used to seeing the desktop the wrong way. Go find a monitor test program, there's hundreds of free ones online. Do the geometry test, measure your squares and circles, they'll be ovals and rectangles on 1280x1024.

http://www.ykwong.com/checkemon.html

Nope 1280x1024. Although if it's a 5:4 aspect ratio (which I'm not doubting and I think I might've known that at one point) why would they put that in a game? What monitor even has a 5:4 ratio?

all the 17" tft/lcd monitors are 1280x1024, crts are 1280x960 :/

Oh. I guess I didn't really realize that. Never paid that close attention.

i still pick up my mouse with a really high sensi. Habit.

Using a 400 dpi mouse with a WSXGA+ resolution is complete rubbish since you will miss out 75 % of the pixels which makes you a nup even if you were the best player in the world.

400 dpi is no longer effective on resolutions 1280*1024 and upwards. Hate to admit it, cos I love my WMO, but I use 1024*768 and 800*600 in games so its not a problem for me. However, in the future I'm sure that widescreen will take over too much than it is already and I'll have to switch to a high dpi mouse (maybe laser will improve :) ).

That's nonsense, I use my ie3.0 on my 1600x1200 desktop. It hadn't even crossed my mind that it may be too slow until this thread. People need to quit whining and learn to move the damn mouse a few inches. I don't even have to move my forearm to cross the desktop left/right. I do up/down though.

Say you use the one sensitivity and it skips pixels at 1680x1080 but doesn't skip them at 800x600. Resolution as long as you can see what you're shooting at, wont really matter both give you the same kind of accuracy.

tbh the desktop isnt what i was talking about. skipping pixels is a big problem in games for me and you need high dpi on high resolutions to ensure that doesnt happen. right now, however, 400 dpi at 800*600 is fine :)

Yeah, but at any given distance your target is going to be so many degrees wide and your sensitivity and mouse resolution determine how big of degree 'steps' each mickie from the mouse turns you.

Skipping pixels is a graphical problem, not necessarily a gameplay one. When it becomes a gameplay problem is when you have to use an in-game sensitivity so your degrees per mickie affects your long range aiming. Resolution/cpi don't matter here, just the in-game sensitivity number.

At 800cpi, 2560x1600 resolution, a 35cm/360 would skip pixels (fov 90).

Everyone knows 800cpi is more than enough for playing 35cm/360, since many people get away with half that cpi at such sensitivity. You haven't suddenly required any greater precision for hitting a target just by switching to 2560x1600.

So I'm just saying for gameplay purposes something that's fine at 800x600 and 400cpi still is at 1600x1200 and 400cpi, the screen resolution just becomes high enough to see the 'problem'.

Ultimate fix(?):
If you play lower sensitivity with higher cpi, and turn on strong antialasing at a lower resolution, it will completely eliminate even the crawling effect on lines and edges. Basically you'll turn in gradual increments less than a pixel and the multisampling makes it visible. It looks really nice and can be feel so smooth it's like the mouse is not even digital.

You mouse nerds are so cool <3

Haha thanks, I've toned it down in recent years.

This might warrant another laugh or two.
http://www.overclock.net/computer-peripherals...guide.html

Please do not read or look at thatfor more than 10 seconds.

I'm pretty much terribly embarrassed by the whole thing but it spread all over the inet without my permission in weeks so I can't really take it back now.

It's like I feel personally responsible for creating a whole generation of overly mouse focued gamers bound to fail. Oh well.

I've read it before actually !

I use a WMO, 500hz killed windows accel then q3 accel on(640x480!), so dpi is pretty damn unimportant to me!

1kHz IME3.0 Killed Accel w/ Aion's fix but it doesn't matter since I'm using raw mouse CNQ3 which is $$$.

I've always set my mice to 400dpi even if they can do more. Use lower res as well...it doesn't bother me at all and i don't really have to move at a lot

Hate to be a killjoy, but I really think 400dpi is the right amount. I don't actually think your muscles can be much more accurate than 0.0025 of an inch anyway so all the hype about higher dpi is just to sell more expensive mice. I use 1920 width on my laptop and never considered it a problem, my pad is more than 5 inches wide so why should it be?

You're right pointing out muscles... These nerds consider using 400dpi on high res desktop as a workout, you know. The mouse so heavy that icon so far...

On a high res you'll skip pixels with a low dpi, nothing to do with energy use etc for me, u can just raise sens for that :)

Can you explain that more?

Since I got intelli 3 also and need to use it at 1680X1050.
The thing I would like to know is about how much DPI has an influence on the higher resolutions with medium sense.

You won't skip pixels.

if your sens is high then yes

your mouse isn't any less precies than it was, how is skipping a supersmall pixel on a high res monitor of any consequence? you'll still be aimng at the same spot right?

Same point as mine. If you could hit someone just fine with your sensitivity, r_mode 4 and no pixel problems and then go to a high def resolution and find you jump pixels like crazy, you still have the same aim...

Your ability to aim at the target should be the same yes, but now you have more of a chance to miss because of the inherent hardware deficiency of your mouse. It just simply does not have the ability to cover the entire screen like it was able to at a lower resolution. Now if you were to lower your sensitivity to make up for the higher screen resolution in game, then you wouldn't have an issue because then you would be covering the entire screen like you were before.

Well..

Imagine a WSXGA+ (1680 * 1050) resolution and using a 400 dpi mouse. So if you now set the sensitivty to 'crossing the screen completely with one inch (= 2,54 cm)' then you would have 400 divisions for 1600 pixels what would make you miss out every third pixel (= 75 %). If your oponent was e. g. 3 pixels big you would completely miss him even if you were the tightest pro out there.

So please stop flaming and trolling. It's a fact that high resolutions need high dpi mouses to play properly, nerds..!

Chris

r_mode 6 on widescreen ftw :)

But yes, you can notice it when you start shooting sometimes if you use a intelli 3 on that resolution.
It's to bad there isn't any other mouse that feels like the intelli 3, well maybe deathadder but it's not the same :p

For me the change was pretty easy.

if you turn completely from one side of the screen to the other with one inch of hand movement, you deserve to miss. :X

Of course you do but that ain't the topic.

well, with that method of argument, then couldn't one argue that you'll miss pixels if you want to move from one side of a 2048x1536 resolution screen to the other with one millimeter of hand movement, you will miss pixels.
It's a moot point due to how ridiculous it is.

^^^^^^ No response for this? ^^^^^^

You're the one trolling, no one uses 1 inch/360 (get real), and also most people don't use that of a high resolution IN GAME, which is what matters.

1. This is just the theory, which is correct.
2. Most people != all people. And btw the topic starter DOES IN FACT USE WSXGA+.

so if you're using say 10 inches for crossing the screen this would mean you'd get 400x10 = 4000 division for a 1600 pixels? so ie. lower sens would be ok. so how does this fit into "you need higher sens" theory?

Who uses that high of a sensitivity

stupid nazi

you guys think too much about this.

just plug it in and play.

wmo1.1a ftw