EPT1
11
11
0
Average: 4.6
Old, beat-up wireless M$ laser mouse.
How fast is your mouse? - Page 6
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Southlight
United States11768 Posts
1 11 11 0 Average: 4.6 Old, beat-up wireless M$ laser mouse. | ||
|
HiOT
Sweden1000 Posts
![[image loading]](http://data.fuskbugg.se/skalman01/--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------untitled.JPG) any good? I don't get it. | ||
|
anderoo
Canada1876 Posts
137 1 2 1 Average: NaN Not sure what this means | ||
|
Meta
United States6228 Posts
![[image loading]](http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/6452/zero.png) i scored a zero! :D | ||
|
Rotodyne
United States2263 Posts
| ||
|
wok
United States504 Posts
On September 05 2009 02:34 Meta wrote: i scored a zero! :D Random 0s sometimes occur. Don't really know why. That's why I use averages  | ||
|
Antifate
United States415 Posts
Seems pretty random/untrustworthy. :-P | ||
|
wok
United States504 Posts
![[image loading]](http://img199.imageshack.us/i/trustworthy.jpg/) Likely what happened was you moved your mouse and it counted it as a select and reset the counter. For standard use case, it works fine. | ||
|
wok
United States504 Posts
Screwed up the first click, or you did this exactly as I was editing the page. | ||
|
PokePill
United States1048 Posts
On September 05 2009 02:45 Antifate wrote: If you wait long enough the numbers start to decrease lol. Like I wanted to see how high I could get, and on the first click I got like 130, then waiting 4 seconds I got a 29. >.> Seems pretty random/untrustworthy. :-P hold down left click... let go... | ||
|
numLoCK
Canada1416 Posts
| ||
|
wok
United States504 Posts
LOL! I didn't think that's what he meant, but now rereading his post, makes perfect sense. xD | ||
|
Saracen
United States5139 Posts
| ||
|
Itachii
Poland12466 Posts
| ||
|
ggrrg
Bulgaria2717 Posts
well, now i have an excuse when losing a game :p | ||
|
Antifate
United States415 Posts
On September 05 2009 02:54 wok wrote: LOL! I didn't think that's what he meant, but now rereading his post, makes perfect sense. xD Thank God that "Most Embarrassing" thread isn't around.  Sorry, I didn't understand how it was measured. >.> | ||
|
KCrazy
United States278 Posts
| ||
|
yaoherm50
United States109 Posts
| ||
|
blueblimp
Canada297 Posts
Normal clicking: 80-ish Hard staccato clicking: 45-ish (I voted 40-60) Very light clicking: 8 I find it tricky to get the light clicking to both always register _and_ not double-click. If I could, I guess it would be a superior way to click. Edit: Now I'm having a lot more success consistently doing light clicks. But I still can't do them in combination with other actions (like repeated click+m in rax macro style). | ||
|
wok
United States504 Posts
On September 05 2009 03:22 KCrazy wrote: I can average around a 4 if I click in a stupid way, but get around 40 if I click as I do normally. Wouldn't this have more to do with human error than the mouse itself? Or maybe I don't understand the problem very well.. If you can click in that stupid way repeatedly. (which I don't think you can...) My mouse click tops out no matter how "stupidly I click" but is even slower when executed repeatedly, because the buttons are rather "loose" and have a time when they're vibrating after the click. | ||
| ||
