Can't wait for this mouse
I'm getting this mouse as soon as it comes out.
[angles singing]The Logitech VX Nano Cordless.[/angles singing]
I have the MX Revolution now and it's great. The free spinning scroll wheel is fantastic.
I've been looking for a notebook mouse, bluetooth because I don't want an extra receiver. I hate most BT mice and never found one I wanted to buy.
Then comes the VX Nano with Logitech's superior wireless and tiny receiver that I can leave in all the time. It doesn't free up my USB port but then again beyond the flash drive I never really need it.
[angles singing]The Logitech VX Nano Cordless.[/angles singing]
I have the MX Revolution now and it's great. The free spinning scroll wheel is fantastic.
I've been looking for a notebook mouse, bluetooth because I don't want an extra receiver. I hate most BT mice and never found one I wanted to buy.
Then comes the VX Nano with Logitech's superior wireless and tiny receiver that I can leave in all the time. It doesn't free up my USB port but then again beyond the flash drive I never really need it.
Comments
I have to say it looks a hell of allot like other mice in the past. Another non-bluetooth innovation. Great, and hooray for progress. Now make it bluetooth and we have something.
Is there something that makes Bluetooth input hard to do well? It's hard to believe that companies would bypass it so quickly, and that adding a receiver in the package for a proprietary connection generally works better and is cheaper than the more open standard without a receiver. I know Bluetooth can be done well, and can handle multiple devices simultaneously without trouble, it seems to work well on the Wii and PS3 such that the lag isn't noticeable at all. What did Sony and Nintendo do right that practically everyone else can't?
Is there something that makes Bluetooth input hard to do well? It's hard to believe that companies would bypass it so quickly, and that adding a receiver in the package for a proprietary connection generally works better than the more open standard. I know Bluetooth can be done well, and can handle multiple devices simultaneously without trouble, it seems to work well on the Wii and PS3 such that the lag isn't noticeable at all. What did Sony and Nintendo do right that practically everyone else can't?
Yup. BT mice IME kind of suck.
I'm getting this mouse as soon as it comes out.
[angles singing]The Logitech VX Nano Cordless.[/angles singing]
I have the MX Revolution now and it's great. The free spinning scroll wheel is fantastic.
I've been looking for a notebook mouse, bluetooth because I don't want an extra receiver. I hate most BT mice and never found one I wanted to buy.
Then comes the VX Nano with Logitech's superior wireless and tiny receiver that I can leave in all the time. It doesn't free up my USB port but then again beyond the flash drive I never really need it.
I have to admit..that's a nice moust. I've tinkered with the free spinning scroll wheel and the tiny USB receiver is nice. My MS laser USB receiver is long and it does get in the way.
Bluetooth may be an option for me when I get a Macbook but we'll see.
Is there something that makes Bluetooth input hard to do well? It's hard to believe that companies would bypass it so quickly, and that adding a receiver in the package for a proprietary connection generally works better and is cheaper than the more open standard without a receiver.
Maybe the lag is different for different BT receivers? If so, the BT mouse could give you poor performance through no fault of its own. That is not a risk I'd be happy to take as a mouse manufacturer. Even distinguishing between old BT and 2.0+EDR would probably be too much to ask from the users. Without additional problems, ~30ms (which I read from somewhere to be a typical BT lag) is rather high already.
The controllers are rechargable and therefore do not need to preserve as much power as non-rechargable mice. Bluetooth mice are often non-rechargable because they're geared for mobile use with laptops. They are geared for mobile use, because desktops can use wired peripherals for significantly superior results and generally do not have BT installed.
Where does this lead? Non-rechargable mice, which is the majority of BT mice, need to use much more serious power saving measures and that kills performance.
Also, not even all laptops have internal Bluetooth, and some of them have earlier, slower versions of it. Windows support of Bluetooth isn't perfect.
Of course compatibility and driver problems go to zero when you include your own RF plug and the OS thinks what you have there is just another USB mouse. Performance can be optimized for this particular use. Desktop users will be strictly happy about RF whether or not they are BT-enabled already, as RF will give better performance and desktops are generally not short on USB. After paying Bluetooth licenses I don't think you can save on manufacture by making a BT mouse without receiver vs RF mouse with receiver.
I know Bluetooth can be done well, and can handle multiple devices simultaneously without trouble, it seems to work well on the Wii and PS3 such that the lag isn't noticeable at all. What did Sony and Nintendo do right that practically everyone else can't?
The resolution of the controllers is minuscule, so they aren't harmed by throughput issues as much. The console manufacturers have only one specific BT hardware pair to test and they can pick them to be as compatible and lag-free as possible, so there are no surprise lags or incompatibilities. Console games are built to accommodate inaccurate input. While PS3 felt fine with digital input, I had a feeling of some lag on the Wii. Hard to say as Wii Sports felt really hard to control either way.
Maybe the lag is different for different BT receivers? If so, the BT mouse could give you poor performance through no fault of its own. That is not a risk I'd be happy to take as a mouse manufacturer. Even distinguishing between old BT and 2.0+EDR would probably be too much to ask from the users. Without additional problems, ~30ms (which I read from somewhere to be a typical BT lag) is rather high already.
The controllers are rechargable and therefore do not need to preserve as much power as non-rechargable mice. Bluetooth mice are often non-rechargable because they're geared for mobile use with laptops. They are geared for mobile use, because desktops can use wired peripherals for significantly superior results and generally do not have BT installed.
Where does this lead? Non-rechargable mice, which is the majority of BT mice, need to use much more serious power saving measures and that kills performance.
For what it's worth, my Logitech BT mouse uses rechargeable AAs and includes a drop-in charging dock meant for recharging the AAs.
I just tried a different receiver on the Mac, and it's a little better, but still not something I'm comfortable with.
It's possible that a first party BT receiver would improve things, but Apple didn't really make that easy to get one for a machine that didn't get one, I think they pointed me towards the third party units.
Also, not even all laptops have internal Bluetooth, and some of them have earlier, slower versions of it. Windows support of Bluetooth isn't perfect.
Windows is not a problem on my Mac. It really didn't feel any different to me on either OS, but I didn't try the same receiver.
The resolution of the controllers is minuscule, so they aren't harmed by throughput issues as much. The console manufacturers have only one specific BT hardware pair to test and they can pick them to be as compatible and lag-free as possible, so there are no surprise lags or incompatibilities. Console games are built to accommodate inaccurate input. While PS3 felt fine with digital input, I had a feeling of some lag on the Wii. Hard to say as Wii Sports felt really hard to control either way.
I suppose. The PS3 supports several types of BT accessories, so it's not as if they could eliminate support for everything. I know for sure it will take keyboards, mice, headsets, controllers and a Blu-Ray/DVD remote.
The receiver has a rattle to it? But it works. Maybe I'll email them about it. You have to unlock the wheel with a firm click which is not what I'm used to compared to my MX Rev' mouse. There's a spot in the battery door to hide the receiver which is nice. Runs on 2 AAAs. Logitech software is good so far. I had to uninstall my USB Overdrive because I think they were both trying to control the mouse. The mouse glides very well and of course the tracking is great. It works from many more feet away from the computer than you would need it to. I don't like the placement of the "forward" and "back" buttons.
I wanna try some gaming with it but don't have any FPS installed.
Wooops. I'm getting kernel panics with the logitech software.
Ouch, thats not good.
Wooops. I'm getting kernel panics with the logitech software.
When do you get them, exactly? I complained to Logitech well over a year ago that removing the receiver could cause kernel panics. Sounds like they still haven't fixed that bug.
I still use my Logitech V400 with my MBP. I just don't use the Logitech drivers. Apple's mouse drivers work just fine. (Actually, for this mouse, the Apple drivers work better w.r.t. the scroll wheel.)
What I have learned from the Logitech forum, if you lose its' 5.1 speaker controller unit, you have to buy the whole speaker set again. Logitech will not sell you the controller unit alone.
What if you lost the 2.4 GHz Nano-receiver? Can you buy order it?
What I have learned from the Logitech forum, if you lose its' 5.1 speaker controller unit, you have to buy the whole speaker set again. Logitech will not sell you the controller unit alone.
I read a review that said you could buy a replacement receiver for like $10. I don't know if that's true.
And could they just design the mouse to ONLY work on 2.1 spec reciever?
I have never gotten Logitech or any other mouse drivers to work. I never install them. Get rid of that junk and reinstall USB Overdrive.
Yea I may go back to that.