Holy mother! After months of silence and what felt like desertion from the CM team after constant promises of driver updates, I felt somewhat resentful. Not because I have an inflated sense of entitlement but because I felt I and many others had essentially bought, with the aid of empty promises about future improvements, a buggy and incomplete product.
Well, thank you CMRajiv and CM for stepping up and coming back to an old product. It's great that the long-standing CPU usage bug has been fixed.
I have several further suggestions for your consideration (regarding firmware):
1. The LOD is too high (I understand this may be impossible to fix).
2. There is mild but noticeable angle snapping that occasionally turns the corners of small loops into sheer 90 degree angles.
3. The DPI changes are based on Windows' mouse sensitivity steps rather than the sensor's internal scanning rate, which is bad since the only step that should be used is 6/11 (not sure if this is true).
. According to this independent tester, the mouse suffers a very large click input lag. Even though the sensor may have a 1000hz (or higher) internal polling rate, it looks like the buttons might as well be polled at ~80hz. That kind of makes the whole 1000hz (1ms) vs 500hz (2ms) argument redundant since the actual buttons have so much input lag (~13ms!)! Notice how the Xornet is simultaneously one of the best and one of the worst mice in those tests, dependent on which firmware is installed.
(5. Evidently the new firmware has lowered the max. tracking speed of the mouse - was that intentional? If not, I'd like to suggest a fix
Honestly I find the Spawn near-perfect aside from the above points, which I think are bugs rather than design flaws. I can think of just a few improvements for a new mouse design (I'm posting these here instead of the feedback thread because I want to talk about the "bugs" and my suggestions in the same post):
1. A braided cable.
2. Some form of dust protection for the side buttons. After a year of use these buttons have become unreliable, presumably because there's dust on the contacts.
3. USB 3.0. Before people slam this, consider that USB 3.0 will be the standard very soon. USB 3.0 doesn't poll, and this means less CPU usage (which is always helpful even if today's CPUs are powerhouses), and consequently NO MORE NEED FOR 1000hz. No more 500hz vs 1000hz debates; as long as the internal scan rate of the mouse is high enough, the interface is unlimited, uses low resources, and is latency-free. Moreover you can't overload USB 3.0 hubs in the same way as USB 2.0 hubs when you connect too many devices. I would gladly pay whatever CM decided to inflate the price by for including USB 3.0 in their next mouse.
4. Perhaps a lip for the pinky finger to rest on, instead of having to laterally grip the side of the mouse at all times.Edited by dukeReinhardt - 5/15/13 at 4:08pm