• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About WinWin

Profile Information

  • OS
    Windows 2000 Professional
  1. Wow, this discussion really opened up in the past week or two. There is some really good info here and it gives good motivation to attempt to write a program that can fine-tune such curves a million times better than what is in our defaults. MarkTheC and jaclaz gave a huge amount of insight on this. It seems we have all come across the same roadblock of "compromise" when looking for the best solution. MarkTheC seems to know exactly what is going on when making those curves, the whole caveat being the smooth portion of the curve. It seems that no matter which points you create, that the intermediate values will be smoothed much like a bezier curvea. This explains why some of these worked for slow movements or fast twitchy ones, but left something to be desired in between especially at points near that thresholdb and explains why exact values aren't achieved in the mouse movement recorder. (Thanks to MarkC for this.) Even though there isn't a perfect solution, there is a much better understanding of how things work and if I'm patient and smart enough, I'll eventually try to create a program that can better emulate different "curves" or "jumps". For the time being I've been using Windows XP 64bit edition with MarkC's Mousefix builder 1.4 to achieve an exact 1:1 input and purchased a mouse that can change to any desired DPI on the fly and discovered simply doubling the other mouse's DPI gave back those perfect fast "twitchy" movements compromising the geared down slower ones with faster, jerkier ones. I discovered this to be better than having even a slight curve in between because it's not always predictable on a dime. This predictability is probably why I have become so attached to how it "jumps" with no curve in Win2k but no other subsequent OS; you know exactly where it is going to land every time. The good part is with a newer more responsive mouse, there feels to be a slight decrease in input latency which helps offset the slow jitter and over correction (Maybe 10ms or a frame or 2 at most) and the higher dpi makes it less noticeable. This seems to prove that in the evolution of tweaking the acceleration graph in subsequent versions of Windows OS that simpler is oftentimes the best solution. Again, great discussion, it really helped loads. aBézier curve (Wikipedia) A bit how the "smooth" curve really behaves. (exaggerated for emphasis) b
  2. Thanks for the info. I have used blackwingcat's kernelex: and that's helped with many programs. It doesn't actually replace the kernel so could this really impact cpu hack? Maybe if I installed server or advanced server? Also, with the sata3, would that mean issues for using older sata 2 and 1 drives? It can boot (without OS) I'm sure so I don't see where the driver is mandatory to making it work after loading the OS. Your thoughts? That just leaves a video card. I was hoping for something like this: Has anybody had any success with Radeon HD 7xxxx or even 6xxxx?
  3. I know it's a long shot, but I'm looking to upgrade my old single-core box with something a bit better and I know Win2k support has fallen short. Hopefully this forum has enough diehard Win2k enthusiasts that know a little bit more than me about this. Right now, my main hangup is finding a motherboard that will be suitable. I know something like this: (While totally awesome) may not work right. I know there's specific chipset drivers for different boards and some XP drivers work with 2k, and others do if you do some tweaking. I think I can get a quadcore working well with blackwingcat's cpu limiter removal tweak. Also, I'm using a Quadro FX graphics card because they still have Win2k drivers, but maybe there's a way to get some of the faster, more modern ones working. Anyways, I'm looking for advice if anybody here is experienced enough to lend any.
  4. This sudden jump and no smoothing probably explains why the later "Curves" bother me so much as I can't seem to get a reliable distance for different speeds. In games I usually do fine slow movements (Win2k) or fast twitchy ones and know exactly where it will end up and acceleration appears to be non-existant because of avoiding being close to that threshold. You get the best of both worlds there because you can do quick 180/360 without large movements/fatigue and still do small fine movements. I wonder if it's possible to recreate this curve. I'm not sure what the registry values mean exactly and I haven't seen documentation on it. There's a utility for mac that allows making your own curve, unfortunately nothing for Windows or linux (I think).
  5. I just tried swapping it with the mouclass.sys from win2k and unfortunately it has no effect on the acceleration part. It was worth a shot though. (And also bypassed Windows file protection that replaces the file.) Dencorso: I've used both USB and PS/2 without any notable difference between the two as long as I can adjust the polling rate to the max.
  6. TheWalrus: To answer your question to the best of my ability... I've been gaming on Win2k OS for many years and I have a perfect twitch reflex to the way the mouse behaves. I can turn exactly 180/360/up/down with perfect aim. See something in my field of view and twitch and hit it spot on every time. I have been using it so long that I can make twitch shots without even thinking and faster than I can consciously interpret similar to how you jerk your arm away from something hot before you realize what happened. With the acceleration feature I get very little fatigue because I never have to move the mouse large distances, just speed control. Trying to relearn on another OS's revamped acceleration style is like somebody amputated my hand and gave me somebody elses. There's constant over/under shooting my aim and twitch reflexes are always hit or miss and can never introspectively figure out exactly what is different or wrong, only that it's just not right. With Win2k's scheme, I'm usually the best if not very close to it and also get accused of cheating often because fast twitches look like aimbots. I can still play very well other schemes, but it's never 100%. I never truly shine no matter how many hours, days, weeks I put into it to relearn. That original twitch reflex is always there and spot on with Win2k. I hope that answers it.
  7. thanks jaclaz. In one of those links, I found this: Now to find a way to figure out about what the curves are in Windows 2000...
  8. I remember trying a win32k.sys swap in an act of desperation and it didn't work out. By the way, I've read your blog and you have some great information there. Too bad I don't know Japanese that well and google translate only goes so far.
  9. I've been using Windows 2000 for over 10 years now and I've grown pretty accustomed to how the mouse behaves. There are gamers out there who have posted fixes all over the place for "mouse acceleration" removal from Windows XP, however the absence of all acceleration makes fine selection difficult or large sweeping motions to get the mouse across the screen. MS has had mouse acceleration built into all of their OSs and with each new one they changed it just a little. Just a little means using Windows XP to play games how I want is impossible. I either have to remove it all with a "fix" or live with how it is. Windows 2000 has it's own style and it's the one I've grown accustomed to and prefer. The problem is I can't replicate it on any other OS so I'm stuck using Windows 2000 if I want to play games how I wish. So, I'm wondering, is there any way to copy over or replicate this portion of the OS so I can keep this behavior? I've tried doing things like copying over mouse.drv and msmouse.inf from the system folders but it seems to have no effect. Adusting SmoothMouseXYCurve values as shown here: could possible do it if you knew what each value on the graph did and the values it would take to make it like Windows 2000. There's a GUI interface for MAC that does this, but not for Windows. Hopefully somebody reads this and can help find a solution for this years old problem.