What is faster for a mouse USB or PS2

[beach2nd]

Or is there any difference at all?

 

[powerMarkymark]

I can't see any diff.

 

[CraigRT]

USB sampling rate is higher, although you can get programs that change the rate of a PS2 to make it exactly like USB

Either way I'd still go USB.. it's more future proof.

 

[MDE]

USB is easier.

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: MDE
USB is easier.

Easier?

What is hard about PS2?



Other than restarting, (which can be a pain)

 

[MDE]

Originally posted by: bjc112

Originally posted by: MDE
USB is easier.

Easier?

What is hard about PS2?



Other than restarting, (which can be a pain)

No rebooting, no little pins to break off the connector.

 

[Insidious]

The only inconvenience I had with a USB mouse was when I had an Intellimouse, the light would not turn off when I turned off the computer

-Sid

 

[The J]

I have a Microsoft Intellimouse Optical 1.1a that has a USB to PS/2 adapter. I have it plugged into the PS/2 port through the adapter and the little red light always stays on.

 

[HeaterCore]

Actually, PS/2 can sample at up to 200Hz, but with USB you're locked at 125Hz. This is one of the reasons some manufacturers (like Logitech) recommend using PS/2. I don't really notice a substantial difference, though, and with my MX510 I find it much easier to customize my setup with USB.

On the other hand...if you're adventurous you can tweak your registry to bump your USB rate, the downside being that some systems get unstable above a certain rate and it may mess with some other USB devices. I pushed my samplerate to 500Hz and noticed a definite difference; tracking felt much more precise, and I didn't run into any stability problems. Anyhoo, here's the link:

http://www.warleagues.com/view...asp?view=45&page=1

-HC-

 

[imported_Phil]

USB.

 

[imported_Computer MAn]

Originally posted by: powerMarkymark
I can't see any diff.

 

[Xponential]

I don't really feel a diff. between the two.

 

[madthumbs]

Originally posted by: Xponential
I don't really feel a diff. between the two.

-You won't at lower resolutions and if you're not playing 3d games.

Last I knew, you couldn't overclock the ps2 bus if it was a wireless mouse, or maybe optical, or both. No reason not to use USB, but a few reasons not to use ps2.

 

[TimboAA]

I plug my mice in through the PS/2 port. It's there, might as well use it. Why waste a USB Port? I only use USB mice when I'm on my laptop and have to use a mouse.

 

[foneman]

yeah, USB is easier for the maker, but *way* more complex for the user!! (USB is a software driven device!!)
My work has recently recieved alot of 'pretty, cheap' ;( Dell compact PCs.. *no ps2 or mouse port!!* - they use USB..

of course all our old software that can't use this has to be reconfigured or trashed... so I can say from experiece that their optical USB mouse feels like a *dirty* rollerball mouse!! It feels like the ball is 'sticking' at points, and this is a 3 Ghz PC with Win2k!! any fine movement (lining up the 'X' to close a page, framing a 'cut-out' point, seems to be very 'laggy' !! (yes, all mouse options are set to high..) The PCs are great otherwise - but I will not be using them unless I can find a way to attach a *real hardware* PS2 mouse...

 

[Auric]

USB offers no advantage to the user except perhaps conceived convenience and the dimmest cannot plug 'em in anywhere wrong -although they can bork 'em trying upside-down connections in the ill-conceived, orientation-less USB plug and jack design. Anyhoo, with the reduced standard sample rate and added CPU usage of USB, PS/2 remains superior.

 

[Pariah]

Without 3rd party "overclocking", PS/2 is faster. As mentioned above, USB is locked a 125Hz, while WinXP gives you the option of setting PS/2 to 20Hz, 40Hz, 60Hz, 80Hz, 100Hz, or 200Hz. Obviously, a 200Hz sampling rate is faster than a 125Hz sampling rate making PS/2 faster. Whether or not you notice the difference is another story. It should be noted that XP defaults to a 100Hz sampling rate for PS/2 so for users who didn't up the rate for PS/2, it's not surprising they didn't notice a difference between 100Hz and 125Hz.

 

[fstime]

PS2 for me.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Insidious
The only inconvenience I had with a USB mouse was when I had an Intellimouse, the light would not turn off when I turned off the computer

-Sid

likely a bios setting - maybe a jumper.

i've only ever seen it the other way - a mouse that stayed on with a ps2 connection, because the system was set to leave power on the ps2 connection.

 

[KamiXkaze]

not much of difference here the only reason I use the usb port for my mouse is because it is up front and that is all

KxK

 

[teutonicknight]

USB. More compatibility with newer computers (My newest laptop has no PS/2 ports)

 

[foneman]

of course it depends *very* much on how you use your PC... someone who doesn't do much, ie, just a bit of word, just one or two websites, wont see the difference..

if you use very powerful software, eg graphical manipulation, or a web browser that loads 15 pages at once, when you start it, you will see the mouse lagging due to the fact it is software maintained, where PS2 is not..

the power of PCs today covers a lot of things up.. If you can't afford the latest PC, you will realise this...

 

[Bassyhead]

I don't see a noticeable difference between the two. I use PS/2, no sense in wasting a port specifically for a mouse and also frees up an additional USB port, not that I need all of them.

 

[imported_Mitchell]

PS2, has a dedicated channel, all USB devices use the CPU, PS2 doesn't.