Computing desk
< June 21	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 23 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 22

Version controlled spreadsheet editing

What are the best tool(s) for version controlled editing of spreadsheet-style data? I have spreadsheet with several thousand rows and ~50 columns, that needs to be edited by several different people. We would like to be able to work in such a way that updates will be easily exchanged between different contributors but that changes to the spreadsheet are also traceable and version controlled. What are the best tools for doing that? Dragons flight (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google Docs has spreadsheets with version control and it allows multiple people to edit simultaneously. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 14:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google Sheets has version control for spreadsheets? Did I miss that feature? I've used it for collaborative editing in the past, but I didn't think it did versioning. Dragons flight (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see it by clicking on File > Version History to see previous versions. I can roll back to a previous version or just see differences. I assume it is a standard feature. I don't have a special Google account. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you really want some kind of SQL editor instead of a spreadsheet. That would be able to handle concurrent activities much better, but the interface would be less whizzy. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 02:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bluetooth mice

I've read on numerous occasions that bluetooth mice are (usually) less responsive than USB wireless mice. Given that bluetooth is used for game controllers, why should that be?--Leon (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both devices will sleep when not used and need to wake up when you start using them. When they wake up, they pair up with the receiver on the computer. My experience, which is backed by numerous web search hits, is that Bluetooth devices take significantly longer to pair up compared to an RF/USB mouse. Once paired, both are a little sloppy with fine movement compared to a wired mouse. Similar to video game controllers. Wired controllers are more responsive than wireless. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The truth be told, I've never used a bluetooth game controller (I don't play games), but don't most games require something suitable for fine movement?!--Leon (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Games are programmed to allow for sloppy controls. Players get used to sloppy controls. If you want precise controls, you need to be hard-wired to the console. Because of the programming, you won't notice it much on most games. If you play a game that requires precise controls, such as Madden Football, you will really see a difference between wired/wireless controllers. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on computer system latency. User-perceived latency can be caused by hardware and software details - and those are pretty complicated on a modern system - so I'd be reluctant to compare response-time and latency unless I had actual numerical comparison data.

Here's a blog, Mouse Latency Measurements, by a guy who programmed several popular commercial and open-source human-interface device enhancements. In his testing, on macOS, the wireless mouse performed with latency about 1 ms slower than a wired mouse - but only if the mouse was plugged in the left USB port! If the wired mouse is plugged in to the right port, the wireless mouse had faster latency by 3 ms! And if you're actually a bluetooth mouse programmer, you get to choose from a set of three profiles - "low, medium or high" latency for Bluetooth peripherals. It hardly presents a detailed breakdown about any system or hardware details that cause that latency!

The point is, human interface devices are complicated pieces of software and hardware. Latency benchmarks are plagued by inconsistencies in the data; by software and hardware details that end-users don't know or care about; and by the absolutely immense variety of very complicated special-purpose software and hardware that's out on the marketplace.

And yet, the user may actually notice very tiny differences in latency and performance - so this is a really hard and important problem. The OP asked "why" it's complicated - well, for starters, have a look at the bluetooth protocol specifications: the current version starts off with a thirty-page book listing all of the sub-specifications of the current protocol specification, and the core specification comprises almost 3000 pages of technical details!

Nimur (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IME bluetooth devices just generally suck. Used wired devices when you can, or well-designed (i.e. non-bluetooth) wireless devices when you must. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wireless HIDs require batteries which increase CTO. Sometimes the quality of passive parts appeared be suspect for keeping a price the customer decides his buy. Sometimes, the design of newer wireless HIDs is more integrated and easy to do some repair. As this repair exceeds costs, no professional service might be avail. Typical failures are antenna connector condition, mechanical failures, weak batteries, accumulators and capacitors. It can be fixed when taking time and give it a closer look and having some experience. In general, all wireless connections can be disrupted temporary or permanent affecting the quality or performance. An use in gaming would require a price segment near or beyond the expected performance or durability. Bluetooth has not that bandwidth of USB, ethernet or other wired connections. BT had been designed to substitute RS-232 or similar connections by a wireless device and standard protocol. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 09:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]