On Sun, 12 Apr 2026 13:14:59 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
What sucked was when that ring fell of into the mouse, and you had to
shake it to get it out.
The big plastic plate on the bottom that retained the ball? I can't see
how that could fall into the mouse.
On 2026-04-13, rbowman wrote:
On Sun, 12 Apr 2026 13:14:59 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
What sucked was when that ring fell of into the mouse, and you had to
shake it to get it out.
The big plastic plate on the bottom that retained the ball? I can't see
how that could fall into the mouse.
I first thought of a ring of dust, but I'm now thinking Borax Man might
mean one of the little rollers the ball rolls on?
It was a surprise finding about the dust trouble the first time, though,
then deciding I would have to do this routinely. I also cleaned other
people mice, that asked me what was the trouble with theirs
rbowman wrote to alt.folklore.computers <=-
After you find the dust bunny from hell living in your desktop nothing
is surprising.
To: rbowman
rbowman wrote to alt.folklore.computers <=-
After you find the dust bunny from hell living in your desktopnothing rb> is surprising.
Ever open up a computer and realize the previous owner was a smoker?
GaaH!
To: rbowman
rbowman wrote to alt.folklore.computers <=-
After you find the dust bunny from hell living in your desktop nothing
is surprising.
Ever open up a computer and realize the previous owner was a smoker?
GaaH!
As optical mice (ones that would work on a variety surfaces, rather
than special gridded mouse mats) became popular, I can remember
colleagues trying them on all kinds of surfaces. Ones with a texture
of some kind worked best; even something like a plain sheet of paper
would do the trick -- as subtle and fine as it was, the texturing on
that was sufficient for the detector to pick up. I remember that
smooth, transparent glass, like a coffee table top, didnrCOt work well
at all.
Anyone tried that lately? Not sure where IrCOd find a surface like that
in my house ...
"Kurt Weiske" <kurt.weiske@realitycheckbbs.org.remove-lu9-this> writes:
To: rbowman
rbowman wrote to alt.folklore.computers <=-nothing rb> is surprising.
After you find the dust bunny from hell living in your desktop
Ever open up a computer and realize the previous owner was a smoker?
GaaH!
Back in 1984, I moved into an office at Burroughs where the previous
resident had been a chain-smoker. It took two days to clean the tar and nicotine from flat surfaces (walls, desk, chairs, whiteboard). It took
weeks to get the smell out of the carpet and chairs,
even then it was noticable. I moved to a new office shortly thereafter.
I remember that smooth, transparent glass, like a coffee table top,
didnrCOt work well at all.
Anyone tried that lately? Not sure where IrCOd find a surface like that
in my house ...
"Gaming" in quotes since I realized long ago that accurate movement
tracking and good buttons are good for any mouse.
On Fri, 17 Apr 2026 14:19:54 +0300, Anssi Saari wrote:
"Gaming" in quotes since I realized long ago that accurate movement
tracking and good buttons are good for any mouse.
I wonder if thererCOs such a thing as rCLmarathonrCY mice. I tend to wear mine out after a few years.
How many kilometres would you think a mouse would do in a typical
work day? More or less than 1?
I have no idea. I do have a vague memory some mice (or drivers?) even measure that and collect stats on distance and number of clicks. I think there was even a distance unit for it, may have been called mickey? Too
lazy to check now if this was actually a thing at some point.
I have no idea. I do have a vague memory some mice (or drivers?) even
measure that and collect stats on distance and number of clicks. I think
there was even a distance unit for it, may have been called mickey? Too
lazy to check now if this was actually a thing at some point.
https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/how-far-does-my-computer-mouse-move
On 2026-04-21, Dennis Boone <drb@ihatespam.msu.edu> wrote:
I have no idea. I do have a vague memory some mice (or drivers?) even
measure that and collect stats on distance and number of clicks. I think >>> there was even a distance unit for it, may have been called mickey? Too
lazy to check now if this was actually a thing at some point.
https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/how-far-does-my-computer-mouse-move
I bet my mouse movements would be far below the average amount
such a program would measure - but my keystroke count would be
much larger. I'm a command-line kind of guy.
On 2026-04-21, Dennis Boone <drb@ihatespam.msu.edu> wrote:
I have no idea. I do have a vague memory some mice (or drivers?) even
measure that and collect stats on distance and number of clicks. I think >> there was even a distance unit for it, may have been called mickey? Too
lazy to check now if this was actually a thing at some point.
https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/how-far-does-my-computer-mouse-move
I bet my mouse movements would be far below the average amount
such a program would measure - but my keystroke count would be
much larger. I'm a command-line kind of guy.
I think I heard reference to the "mickey" as well.
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> posted:
On 2026-04-21, Dennis Boone <drb@ihatespam.msu.edu> wrote:
I have no idea. I do have a vague memory some mice (or drivers?) even
measure that and collect stats on distance and number of clicks. I think >> there was even a distance unit for it, may have been called mickey? Too >> lazy to check now if this was actually a thing at some point.
https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/how-far-does-my-computer-mouse-move
I bet my mouse movements would be far below the average amount
such a program would measure - but my keystroke count would be
much larger. I'm a command-line kind of guy.
I think I heard reference to the "mickey" as well.
Back in the Windows 3.1 days, I used to have an applet called "Mouse Odometer"
[and it's still available here!
http://annex.retroarchive.org/cdrom/smsw-vol4/WINAPPS/ODOMETER/ ]
that counted the distance your mouse travelled, in a variety of units.
I remember using it for quite a while --it autostarted with Windows 3.1-- and being incredibly disappointed that after months and months of usage,
the thing still only reported less than a mile of distance.
Of course, that was back when Windows was still fairly new, and it wasn't--
my main interface into my computer (DOS was still king; Windows was mainly there for Word 2.0). Thus, were I to use such a program today, I'd probably see more activity, simply because I use a mouse more.
But the TL;DR is that you don't move your mouse anywhere near as much
as you probably think.
On Wed, 22 Apr 2026 13:48:06 GMT
SpallsHurgenson(NG) <user14325@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> posted:
On 2026-04-21, Dennis Boone <drb@ihatespam.msu.edu> wrote:
I bet my mouse movements would be far below the average amountI have no idea. I do have a vague memory some mice (or drivers?) even >>>>> measure that and collect stats on distance and number of clicks. I think >>>>> there was even a distance unit for it, may have been called mickey? Too >>>>> lazy to check now if this was actually a thing at some point.
https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/how-far-does-my-computer-mouse-move >>>
such a program would measure - but my keystroke count would be
much larger. I'm a command-line kind of guy.
I think I heard reference to the "mickey" as well.
Back in the Windows 3.1 days, I used to have an applet called "Mouse Odometer"
[and it's still available here!
http://annex.retroarchive.org/cdrom/smsw-vol4/WINAPPS/ODOMETER/ ]
that counted the distance your mouse travelled, in a variety of units.
I remember using it for quite a while --it autostarted with Windows 3.1--
and being incredibly disappointed that after months and months of usage,
the thing still only reported less than a mile of distance.
TYVM! I never saw this back when W3.1 was "the thing".
It works here under 32bit XP!
I've done nearly 7m already (pshurely that cant' be right - maybe
it's screen movement, not mouse mat movement.
Of course, that was back when Windows was still fairly new, and it wasn't
my main interface into my computer (DOS was still king; Windows was mainly >> there for Word 2.0). Thus, were I to use such a program today, I'd probably >> see more activity, simply because I use a mouse more.
But the TL;DR is that you don't move your mouse anywhere near as much
as you probably think.
TYVM! I never saw this back when W3.1 was "the thing".
It works here under 32bit XP!
"Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> writes:
TYVM! I never saw this back when W3.1 was "the thing".
It works here under 32bit XP!
I imagine that to work out the distance the physical mouse had moved, it would need pretty low-level access to the input from the mouse. You'd
have to ignore, for instance, the sensitivity settings, and count the
number of pulses registered by the axes and know exactly how much
physical movement they correspond to.
Even with the distance the cursor had travelled on the screen, in
addition to knowing the resolution of the screen, you'd also need to
know its physical dimensions. The waters get extra muddy when dealing
with multi-screen setups, which admittedly probably wasn't really much
of a consideration in the Windows 3.1 era.
Jonathan Lamothe <jonathan@jlamothe.net> posted:
"Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> writes:
TYVM! I never saw this back when W3.1 was "the thing".
It works here under 32bit XP!
I imagine that to work out the distance the physical mouse had moved, it
would need pretty low-level access to the input from the mouse. You'd
have to ignore, for instance, the sensitivity settings, and count the
number of pulses registered by the axes and know exactly how much
physical movement they correspond to.
Even with the distance the cursor had travelled on the screen, in
addition to knowing the resolution of the screen, you'd also need to
know its physical dimensions. The waters get extra muddy when dealing
with multi-screen setups, which admittedly probably wasn't really much
of a consideration in the Windows 3.1 era.
According to the readme file (in good old Windows Write format):
"For the techies out there, the program determines the screen resolution
and converts the number of pixels the mouse moves to the units the
odometer is using (e.g., miles). Therefore, the odometer reading
is independent of the screen resolution. "
Of course, that method supposes that the monitor itself is a fixed size. After all, if I move a mouse halfway across a 1024x768 screen, the actual distance is going to vary depending if I have a 12" monitor or a 24" monitor.
It's more a toy than a really serious way to measure mouse-movement. It
was a simpler time and we were all more easily amused.
Of course, that method supposes that the monitor itself is a fixed
size. After all, if I move a mouse halfway across a 1024x768 screen,
the actual distance is going to vary depending if I have a 12"
monitor or a 24" monitor.
It's more a toy than a really serious way to measure mouse-movement. It
was a simpler time and we were all more easily amused.
Ob-a.f.c: Serial computer mouse made it all possible.
I'm not smart enough to have built purpose electronics or hack the
USB data port.
I imagine that to work out the distance the physical mouse had
moved, it would need pretty low-level access to the input from the
mouse. You'd have to ignore, for instance, the sensitivity settings,
and count the number of pulses registered by the axes and know
exactly how much physical movement they correspond to.
On Wed, 22 Apr 2026 21:07:58 GMT
SpallsHurgenson(NG) <user14325@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Of course, that method supposes that the monitor itself is a fixed
size. After all, if I move a mouse halfway across a 1024x768 screen,
the actual distance is going to vary depending if I have a 12"
monitor or a 24" monitor.
That depends on whether you're talking about distance travelled by the cursor, or the mouse itself.
On 22 Apr 2026 03:54:04 -0300, Mike Spencer wrote:
I'm not smart enough to have built purpose electronics or hack the
USB data port.
No need to hack the USB port, when some smart folks have already done
all the low-level work for you <http://www.linux-usb.org/>.
Lawrence Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
No need to hack the USB port, when some smart folks have already
done all the low-level work for you <http://www.linux-usb.org/>.
Tnx for the pointer. That page/site seems to be a bit out of date,
though, including dead links, e.g. "USB Programming Guide", https://lmu.web.psi.ch/docu/manuals/software_manuals/linux_sl/usb_linux_programming_guide.pdf
Jonathan Lamothe <jonathan@jlamothe.net> posted:
"Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> writes:
TYVM! I never saw this back when W3.1 was "the thing".
It works here under 32bit XP!
I imagine that to work out the distance the physical mouse had moved, it
would need pretty low-level access to the input from the mouse. You'd
have to ignore, for instance, the sensitivity settings, and count the
number of pulses registered by the axes and know exactly how much
physical movement they correspond to.
Even with the distance the cursor had travelled on the screen, in
addition to knowing the resolution of the screen, you'd also need to
know its physical dimensions. The waters get extra muddy when dealing
with multi-screen setups, which admittedly probably wasn't really much
of a consideration in the Windows 3.1 era.
According to the readme file (in good old Windows Write format):
"For the techies out there, the program determines the screen resolution
and converts the number of pixels the mouse moves to the units the
odometer is using (e.g., miles). Therefore, the odometer reading
is independent of the screen resolution. "
Of course, that method supposes that the monitor itself is a fixed size. After all, if I move a mouse halfway across a 1024x768 screen, the actual distance is going to vary depending if I have a 12" monitor or a 24"
monitor.
It's more a toy than a really serious way to measure mouse-movement. It--
was a simpler time and we were all more easily amused.
On 2026-04-13, rbowman wrote:
On Sun, 12 Apr 2026 13:14:59 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
What sucked was when that ring fell of into the mouse, and you had to
shake it to get it out.
The big plastic plate on the bottom that retained the ball? I can't see
how that could fall into the mouse.
I first thought of a ring of dust, but I'm now thinking Borax Man might
mean one of the little rollers the ball rolls on?
On 2026-04-13, Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-04-13, rbowman wrote:
On Sun, 12 Apr 2026 13:14:59 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
What sucked was when that ring fell of into the mouse, and you had to
shake it to get it out.
The big plastic plate on the bottom that retained the ball? I can't see
how that could fall into the mouse.
I first thought of a ring of dust, but I'm now thinking Borax Man might
mean one of the little rollers the ball rolls on?
I meant that ring of dust that accumulated inside the mouse, on the
small wheels that moved against the mouse ball.
On 2026-05-10 15:12, Borax Man wrote:
I meant that ring of dust that accumulated inside the mouse, on the
small wheels that moved against the mouse ball.
In the mice I cleaned, that ring seemed glued to the wheels, was hard to remove.
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
In the mice I cleaned, that ring seemed glued to the wheels, was
hard to remove.
Yes. 10x disecting binocular microscope, dental instruments, pointy
forceps. Straightforward but tedious nevertheless.
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
On 2026-05-10 15:12, Borax Man wrote:
I meant that ring of dust that accumulated inside the mouse, on the
small wheels that moved against the mouse ball.
In the mice I cleaned, that ring seemed glued to the wheels, was hard to remove.
Yes. 10x disecting binocular microscope, dental instruments, pointy
forceps. Straightforward but tedious nevertheless.
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
On 2026-05-10 15:12, Borax Man wrote:
I meant that ring of dust that accumulated inside the mouse, on the
small wheels that moved against the mouse ball.
In the mice I cleaned, that ring seemed glued to the wheels, was hard to
remove.
Yes. 10x disecting binocular microscope, dental instruments, pointy
forceps. Straightforward but tedious nevertheless.
Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> posted:
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
On 2026-05-10 15:12, Borax Man wrote:
I meant that ring of dust that accumulated inside the mouse, on the
small wheels that moved against the mouse ball.
In the mice I cleaned, that ring seemed glued to the wheels, was hard to >>> remove.
Yes. 10x disecting binocular microscope, dental instruments, pointy
forceps. Straightforward but tedious nevertheless.
No, I get what Carlos E.R. is saying. You'd pry the grit off the inner rollers, and instead of it neatly falling out of the mouse, the dirt
would instead fall back into the inner part of the shell.
Mostly this was harmless (and often you could just give the mouse a vigorous shake to knock the dirt back out) but sometimes it would embed itself between the photoelectric sensors, blocking it. Then you'd have to unscrew / pry-apart the plastic shell and get the grit out.
Assuming you could even get the dirt off the rollers, that is. Sometimes it was so old and crusty it was like concrete and even the sharpest tools wouldn't dislodge it.
No, I do not miss mechanical mice at all.
On 2026-05-10 23:49, Mike Spencer wrote:
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:Oh, I wish I had those tools. It was my nails, or a jeweller screwdriver
On 2026-05-10 15:12, Borax Man wrote:
I meant that ring of dust that accumulated inside the mouse, on the
small wheels that moved against the mouse ball.
In the mice I cleaned, that ring seemed glued to the wheels, was hard
to remove.
Yes. 10x disecting binocular microscope, dental instruments, pointy
forceps. Straightforward but tedious nevertheless.
or two.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 70 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 39:40:28 |
| Calls: | 948 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,325 |
| Messages: | 280,644 |