Logitech MX1000 Question

ThraxThrax 🐌Austin, TX Icrontian
edited December 2004 in Hardware
Hi guys, I have the Logitech MX700 as many of you know, and I got it in the mouse/keyboard combo. This means that my mouse cradle also acts as the receiver for my wireless keyboard.

I'm looking to purchase the MX1000, but I don't want that to mean I have two cradles sitting there; one for my keyboard, and one for my new mouse. Does anyone know if the mx1000 cradle is compatible with wireless logitech keyboards? I've tried googling it some, but to no avail.

Comments

  • leishi85leishi85 Grand Rapids, MI Icrontian
    edited December 2004
    {{{i'm not 100% sure, but i do believe on the cradle for the 1000, there is a connect button, and it has two different channels i think.

    all you have to do is press the connect button on the cradle and then press connect on your KB to set it to one of the channels, and then do the same on the mouse.}}}

    I AM WRONG, DON'T READ MY POST~!!!! ;D
  • GnomeWizarddGnomeWizardd Member 4 Life Akron, PA Icrontian
    edited December 2004
    I had the mx 100 with the mx700 cradel sitting right next to if for my keyboard. I didnt have to much problems at all but they are two completely diff cradels
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited December 2004
    See last post:

    I bought the MX1000 to use with the keyboard that came with the MX Duo. I could not use the new cradle with my existing keyboard. A call to Logitech support confirmed that the new cradle can not be used with any of the Logitech wireless keyboards. You would have to use two receivers. The MX1000 is going back to the store. I'll just use the MX700.

    God dammit. :(
  • TheSmJTheSmJ
    edited December 2004
    Yeah, the new mouse uses Bluetooth, and is supposed to act as a Bluetooth wireless receiver for your other Bluetooth devices as well.
  • GnomeWizarddGnomeWizardd Member 4 Life Akron, PA Icrontian
    edited December 2004
    the mx1000 doesnt use bluetooth its laser
  • McBainMcBain San Clemente, CA New
    edited December 2004
    Gnome....the wireless tranmission is through bluetooth...Not some sort of crazy laser scheme. ;D
  • entropyentropy Yah-Der-Hey (Wisconsin)
    edited December 2004
    McBain wrote:
    Gnome....the wireless tranmission is through bluetooth...Not some sort of crazy laser scheme. ;D
    However cool that may be :D.

    It'd be like the printer joke, but with a mouse:
    "How do I set this mouse to stun?"
  • leishi85leishi85 Grand Rapids, MI Icrontian
    edited December 2004
    No, the mouse doesn't use bluetooth

    Wireless Technology: Fast RF
  • floppybootstompfloppybootstomp Greenwich New
    edited December 2004
    I believe there are two versions available - USB/PS2 & Bluetooth. Though I could be wrong. Mine's USB/PS2, not bluetooth. And it's a wireless/laser device. Best mouse I ever owned. And my keyboard is a wired Logitech.
  • McBainMcBain San Clemente, CA New
    edited December 2004
    leishi85 wrote:

    Wireless Technology: Fast RF


    ooh ooh...my chance to be thrax....

    Well...TECHNICALLY SPEAKING,

    Radio Frequency operates at the speed of propogation, and since thats a constant through a substance such as air....there is no such thing as a Fast RF, or for that matter, a Slow RF, just a higher frequency.

    So it could be a higher RF, or lower, but its traveling at the same speed.

    /Me Mimics Eyebrow
  • Geeky1Geeky1 University of the Pacific (Stockton, CA, USA)
    edited December 2004
    And if it's operating at a higher frequency, it's transmitting more data. Ergo, it's faster. Duh.

    :Pwned:
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited December 2004
    McBain wrote:
    ooh ooh...my chance to be thrax....

    Well...TECHNICALLY SPEAKING,

    Radio Frequency operates at the speed of propogation, and since thats a constant through a substance such as air....there is no such thing as a Fast RF, or for that matter, a Slow RF, just a higher frequency.

    So it could be a higher RF, or lower, but its traveling at the same speed.

    /Me Mimics Eyebrow

    GAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH ;D I hate you.

    /me does the Eyebrow
  • McBainMcBain San Clemente, CA New
    edited December 2004
    Geeky1 wrote:
    And if it's operating at a higher frequency, it's transmitting more data. Ergo, it's faster. Duh.

    :Pwned:


    Oh ye of little schooling....so because an Intel Pentium 4 is clocked faster than an AMD....it transmits more data and is faster?

    His statment is redundant.....
  • Geeky1Geeky1 University of the Pacific (Stockton, CA, USA)
    edited December 2004
    Two different things, not comparable.

    Take a pair of radio signals. Both have a width of oh, let's say 1 bit. One is at 2.4GHz. The other is 5.8GHz. The 2.4GHz signal has 1/2 the data going across it that the 5.8GHz signal does.

    As you know, processors are worlds more complex than a radio signal. You can't compare 2 different architectures at 2 different speeds- it's not a valid comparison for the purposes of this discussion. :Pwned: again. :p
  • McBainMcBain San Clemente, CA New
    edited December 2004
    Geeky1 wrote:
    Two different things, not comparable.

    Take a pair of radio signals. Both have a width of oh, let's say 1 bit. One is at 2.4GHz. The other is 5.8GHz. The 2.4GHz signal has 1/2 the data going across it that the 5.8GHz signal does.

    As you know, processors are worlds more complex than a radio signal. You can't compare 2 different architectures at 2 different speeds- it's not a valid comparison for the purposes of this discussion. :Pwned: again. :p

    No, frequency is still defined by the same thing. Amount of Reoccurrnences in a given amount of time. My point is that RADIO frequency is bound by the medium it was transferred, air, which is inherently slower than an electronic signal.

    A 5.4 Ghz phone might have twice the bandwidth, but is dramtically slowed down by the method in which it travels.
  • floppybootstompfloppybootstomp Greenwich New
    edited December 2004
    Are we comparing the speed at which bytes flow round a computer to modulated RF?

    In my humble opinion, a rather pointless comparison, if I may say so.
  • McBainMcBain San Clemente, CA New
    edited December 2004
    floppybootstomp wrote:
    Are we comparing the speed at which bytes flow round a computer to modulated RF?

    In my humble opinion, a rather pointless comparison, if I may say so.

    That my friend...is the defintion of thrax'ing.
  • floppybootstompfloppybootstomp Greenwich New
    edited December 2004
    McBain wrote:
    That my friend...is the definition of thrax'ing.

    Oh :scratch: Or maybe..... ;D

    How did this subject come up anyway?

    The MX1000 won't work with an existing combo cradle that formerly used an MX700, it seems, which is a shame. The MX1000 uses laser technology to track the surface, and an RF frequency to transmit to the cradle/receiver.

    The distance between transmitter and receiver, usually in the region of less than 1 metre/1 yard, is so close as to make transmission more or less instantaneous, so it really doesn't matter how fast it is. All a person needs to know is 'fast'.

    I think.
  • SonorousSonorous F@H Fanatic US Icrontian
    edited December 2004
    I'm waitng for an duo version with the mx1000. I might just say "screw it" and replace my mx duo with a denovo.
  • morfeumorfeu Lisbon, Portugal
    edited December 2004
    i wonder if it should be a good substitute for my MX510 on future.
  • gibbonslgibbonsl Grand Forks AFB
    edited December 2004
    I am looking into the Razor Diamondback

    :grumble: luckey right handers :grumble:
  • floppybootstompfloppybootstomp Greenwich New
    edited December 2004
    morfeu wrote:
    i wonder if it should be a good substitute for my MX510 on future.

    In a word: yes. This is one excellent rodent ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.