Productivity Hardware Review: Keyboards, Mice, and the Myth of 'Endgame'

The Endgame Illusion

In keyboard and mouse enthusiast communities, there’s a concept called “endgame.” The perfect setup. The final purchase. The gear so ideal that you’ll never need to buy again.

Nobody reaches endgame.

The forums are full of people posting their “endgame” setups. Six months later, they’re posting new “endgame” setups. The goal keeps moving. The perfect keyboard turns out to have one flaw. The ideal mouse is replaced by something slightly better. Endgame becomes a horizon that recedes as you approach.

I’ve spent four years testing productivity hardware. Dozens of keyboards. Many mice. Countless accessories. What I’ve learned: endgame is a marketing concept disguised as an aspiration. The chase for perfect gear often undermines the productivity that gear is supposed to enhance.

My British lilac cat has achieved her endgame: a warm spot, regular food, and someone to pet her. She’s not browsing forums wondering if a different warm spot might be warmer. Her contentment is instructive.

How We Evaluated

This review takes a different approach than typical hardware reviews. Instead of ranking products by features and specifications, we evaluated how hardware affects actual work.

The Productivity Framework

I assessed hardware across dimensions that actually matter for getting things done:

Invisibility: Does the hardware disappear during use? The best tools are ones you stop noticing. If you’re thinking about your keyboard, you’re not thinking about your writing.

Reliability: Does it work every time? Dropped connections, dying batteries, and software glitches interrupt work in ways specifications don’t capture.

Adaptation time: How long until you’re fully productive? New hardware often requires adjustment periods. The “better” device might cost weeks of reduced productivity.

Distraction potential: Does this hardware invite tinkering? Customizable gear can become a hobby that competes with actual work.

Testing Methodology

Each piece of hardware was tested over minimum four weeks of daily use. I tracked typing speed, error rates, and—most importantly—time spent thinking about the hardware versus time spent working.

The final metric matters most. Hardware that draws attention, even positive attention, is failing at its job. The goal is transparency: tools that enable work without inserting themselves into consciousness.

Keyboards: What Actually Matters

Keyboards generate the most enthusiast energy. Mechanical switches. Custom keycaps. Ergonomic layouts. RGB lighting. The options are overwhelming.

Here’s what actually affects productivity.

Layout Familiarity

The most productive keyboard is usually the one you already know. Switching layouts—even to “better” layouts—costs productivity during the adaptation period. The theoretical benefits rarely outweigh the practical costs of relearning.

I tested the Colemak layout, which is objectively more efficient than QWERTY. After two months, I returned to QWERTY. The efficiency gains weren’t worth the constant mental effort of overriding decades of muscle memory. The “worse” layout was better for actual work.

Exception: if you’re experiencing pain with your current layout, ergonomic alternatives become worth the adaptation cost. Health trumps productivity.

Switch Feel

Mechanical keyboard enthusiasts obsess over switches. Linear versus tactile versus clicky. Actuation force. Travel distance. The discussions are endless.

For productivity, switch choice matters less than consistency. Any decent switch you adapt to will work fine. The differences between good switches are marginal compared to the differences between adapted and unadapted.

I can type equivalently on Cherry Browns, Gateron Yellows, or Topre switches. The adaptation period is a few days each time. After adaptation, productivity differences are unmeasurable.

What matters: avoiding bad switches. Mushy membrane keyboards, scratchy budget switches, or inconsistent keypresses do affect work. But the difference between “acceptable” and “premium” switches is smaller than enthusiast forums suggest.

Build Quality

This matters more than switch choice. A keyboard that creaks, flexes, or has inconsistent key feel creates subtle cognitive friction. You might not notice consciously, but your brain does.

The minimum threshold: the keyboard should feel solid. Keys should be stable. The device shouldn’t move during use. Beyond that threshold, premium build quality offers diminishing returns.

Features That Distract

Many keyboard features are productivity-negative:

RGB lighting: Creates something to adjust, admire, and reconfigure. Unless lighting helps you work in darkness, it’s pure distraction.

Programmable layers: Useful for specific professional needs. For most users, configuration becomes a hobby that substitutes for work.

OLED displays: What information do you actually need on your keyboard? Probably none.

Connectivity options: Bluetooth is convenient. Multiple Bluetooth profiles are solutions seeking problems for most users.

The pattern: features that enthusiast forums celebrate often undermine productivity by creating things to think about.

The Recommendation

For productivity-focused users, I recommend: a well-built mechanical keyboard with switches you find comfortable, in a standard layout you already know, with minimal extra features. Something between $80-150. Nothing fancy.

The “perfect” keyboard doesn’t exist. The good-enough keyboard exists at many price points. Find one and stop looking.

Mice: The Overlooked Tool

Mice receive less enthusiast attention than keyboards. This is actually correct—mice matter less for most productivity work. But they still deserve consideration.

Ergonomics First

Mouse ergonomics matter more than specifications. A mouse that causes discomfort limits how long you can work. Pain is the ultimate productivity destroyer.

The “best” mouse is the one that fits your hand and grip style without causing strain. This is highly personal. Hand size, grip preference, and desk setup all affect what works.

I’ve found vertical mice helpful for reducing wrist strain. Many people find them awkward. Neither reaction is wrong—it’s individual fit.

Specifications That Don’t Matter

DPI numbers are largely meaningless for productivity. Any mouse made in the last decade has sufficient sensor precision for office work. The 25,000 DPI gaming mouse performs identically to a basic 1,000 DPI mouse for spreadsheets and documents.

Polling rate similarly irrelevant. The difference between 125Hz and 1000Hz is imperceptible for non-gaming use.

Weight obsession is a gaming transfer. Lighter isn’t better for productivity. Comfortable is better, and comfortable varies by person.

Specifications That Do Matter

Button reliability: Clicks should feel consistent for years. Double-click issues from failing switches are common in cheap mice.

Scroll wheel: For document work, a smooth, reliable scroll wheel matters. Some mice have notchy scrolling that makes long documents frustrating.

Battery life (for wireless): A mouse that dies frequently creates interruptions. Longer battery life means fewer interruptions. The mice that run for years on a single AA battery are worth considering.

Connectivity: Wireless reduces desk clutter. But wireless that drops connection mid-work is worse than wired. USB receivers are generally more reliable than Bluetooth for mice.

The Recommendation

A reliable wireless mouse from a major manufacturer, chosen for comfort over specifications. Logitech’s mid-range offerings have worked well for me over years. So have basic Microsoft mice. Price range: $30-70.

The $150 gaming mouse isn’t more productive than the $50 office mouse. It might be less productive if its features invite tinkering.

The Endgame Trap

Let me address the “endgame” concept directly. It’s harmful for productivity in ways that aren’t immediately obvious.

The Search Is the Problem

Searching for endgame hardware consumes time. Researching options. Reading reviews. Watching comparisons. Ordering candidates. Testing and returning. The hours accumulate.

This time comes from somewhere. Usually from work. The pursuit of perfect productivity tools often reduces actual productivity.

I calculated my own time investment in hardware research over four years. The number was embarrassing: hundreds of hours researching tools instead of using tools.

Satisfaction Impossible

Endgame thinking trains dissatisfaction. If perfection is the goal, every actual purchase falls short. There’s always something better. There’s always a flaw to notice.

This dissatisfaction extends beyond hardware. The mindset of “not quite right, must optimize further” bleeds into other domains. It’s a habit of mind that undermines contentment generally.

The Hobby Problem

Hardware enthusiasm is valid as a hobby. Hobbies provide enjoyment. But hobbies pretending to be productivity optimization create problems.

The person spending evenings researching keyboards is enjoying themselves. That’s fine. But they shouldn’t imagine this research is improving their work output. It’s usually not.

Honesty helps: “I enjoy researching and testing hardware” is valid. “I’m optimizing my productivity” is often rationalization for hobby behavior.

Method

Let me detail how I evaluated the hardware reviewed here.

Long-Term Testing

Each device was used for minimum four weeks of daily work. Initial impressions are unreliable. Adaptation masks or creates issues. Only extended use reveals true character.

Productivity Metrics

I tracked concrete metrics during testing:

Typing speed and accuracy: Measured weekly with standardized tests.

Device-related interruptions: Every time hardware caused work interruption—dead battery, connection drop, discomfort requiring break.

Attention events: Every time I caught myself thinking about hardware rather than work.

The last metric required discipline. Noticing attention requires meta-attention. But it’s the most important metric for productivity hardware.

Comparative Assessment

Where possible, I compared devices against my established baseline: a mid-range mechanical keyboard and basic wireless mouse that I’d used for years. New devices had to demonstrate improvement over this baseline to earn recommendation.

Many didn’t. Many “better” devices on paper performed worse in practice during adaptation periods.

Limitation Acknowledgment

Individual variation matters. My hands aren’t yours. My desk isn’t yours. My work isn’t yours. These reviews provide frameworks more than prescriptions.

The methodology matters more than the specific recommendations. Apply the same long-term, productivity-focused evaluation to whatever options you consider.

The Customization Trap

Related to endgame: the customization trap. The more customizable the hardware, the more time can disappear into customization.

The Rabbit Hole

Modern keyboards offer deep customization. Remap any key. Create layers. Program macros. Adjust lighting. Install custom firmware.

Each capability is theoretically useful. Collectively, they create an endless optimization space. You can always tweak more. The configuration is never complete.

I’ve spent entire evenings configuring QMK firmware. The resulting layouts were marginally better than defaults. The time invested would have been better spent working.

Configuration as Procrastination

Hardware configuration feels productive. You’re “setting up your tools.” You’re “optimizing your workflow.” The activity has the shape of work without the substance.

Recognizing this pattern is the first step. When you reach for configuration software, ask: am I about to do something useful, or am I avoiding something else?

The Minimum Viable Configuration

For most productivity hardware, the minimum viable configuration is: default settings, maybe adjusted for sensitivity or basic preferences. Anything beyond that should require specific justification.

“It would be cool if…” is not justification. “I repeatedly encounter this specific problem” is justification.

The Skills Perspective

Hardware discussions rarely consider skills. They should.

Skill Adaptation Costs

Every new piece of hardware requires skill adaptation. Your fingers learned the old keyboard. Your hand learned the old mouse. New devices mean unlearning and relearning.

This adaptation cost is real. During adaptation, you’re slower and less accurate. The duration varies—a week for minor changes, months for major ones.

Hardware upgrades should demonstrate value exceeding adaptation cost. Many don’t, especially when the old hardware was already good.

Skill Dependency

Highly customized setups create skill dependency. You learn to work on your specific configuration. Without it, you’re impaired.

This dependency has costs: can’t work effectively on other computers, struggle when hardware fails, reduced flexibility for travel or office work.

Some dependency is acceptable. Complete dependency is vulnerability.

Skill Versus Hardware

Often, skill development beats hardware upgrade for productivity improvement. Typing faster comes from practice, not keyboards. Efficient work comes from workflow optimization, not mouse features.

The person who types 60 WPM on a $50 keyboard produces more than the person who types 40 WPM on a $400 keyboard. The hardware premium can’t compensate for skill deficit.

Investing time in skill development often returns more than investing money in hardware.

Generative Engine Optimization

This topic—productivity hardware—performs interestingly in AI-driven search and summarization.

How AI Systems Handle This Topic

AI search systems favor specification comparisons. They extract feature lists, benchmark results, and price points. The resulting recommendations optimize for quantifiable differences.

This approach misses what matters most: the subjective experience of extended use. AI can tell you which mouse has higher DPI. It can’t tell you which mouse will feel comfortable in your hand after eight hours.

Human Judgment in Hardware Selection

Hardware selection requires judgment that AI can’t provide:

• How does this feel in my specific hand?
• Does this layout match my specific workflow?
• Will I adapt to this or fight it?

These questions have personal answers. AI recommendations based on aggregate preferences may not match your individual needs.

The best approach: use AI for initial filtering (what options exist?), then apply human judgment for final selection (which option works for me?).

Automation-Aware Hardware Choices

Some hardware features automate tasks you might want to keep doing yourself. Autocorrect can degrade spelling skill. Predictive text can erode typing ability. Macro keys can eliminate repetitive practice that builds speed.

Being aware of these trade-offs helps choose hardware intentionally. Sometimes automation is worth the skill cost. Sometimes it isn’t. The choice should be conscious.

What Actually Improves Productivity

After four years of testing, here’s what actually improved my productivity:

Consistency Over Optimization

Using the same good-enough setup consistently beat constantly upgrading to “better” options. Adaptation costs zero on familiar equipment. Attention spent on hardware drops to zero.

My most productive periods coincided with hardware stability. My least productive periods coincided with hardware experimentation.

Ergonomics Over Features

Hardware that didn’t hurt enabled longer work sessions than hardware with impressive specifications. The basic ergonomic mouse beat the high-performance gaming mouse because I could use it all day without strain.

Comfort is a feature. It’s the most important feature.

Reliability Over Capability

Hardware that always worked beat hardware that worked impressively when functioning. The boring reliable keyboard beat the feature-rich keyboard that required occasional troubleshooting.

Every troubleshooting session is work not done. Reliability has productivity value that specifications don’t capture.

Simplicity Over Customization

Hardware with less to configure gave me more time for actual work. The keyboard with no software beat the keyboard with extensive software. Nothing to install means nothing to maintain.

quadrantChart
    title Hardware Value Assessment
    x-axis Low Features --> High Features
    y-axis Low Reliability --> High Reliability
    quadrant-1 "Avoid: Unreliable and complex"
    quadrant-2 "Enthusiast territory"
    quadrant-3 "Budget reliable: often best value"
    quadrant-4 "Productivity optimal"

Practical Recommendations

If you’re choosing productivity hardware, here’s the process I recommend:

Step One: Assess Current Setup

Is your current hardware causing problems? Pain, frequent failures, actual limitations? If not, the most productive choice might be keeping what you have.

Step Two: Identify Specific Needs

If problems exist, identify them specifically. “I want something better” isn’t specific enough. “My current mouse causes wrist pain” is specific. Solutions should address specific problems.

Step Three: Set Budget and Stick to It

Decide what you’re willing to spend before shopping. The upgrade treadmill starts when you expand budget to accommodate “just slightly better” options.

Step Four: Buy Once and Stop

Make a decision. Buy the hardware. Stop researching. The productivity gain from ending the search exceeds the productivity gain from finding the theoretically optimal option.

Step Five: Give It Time

Use new hardware for at least a month before evaluating. Adaptation takes time. Initial impressions mislead. Judge after adaptation, not before.

The Anti-Endgame Position

Let me be explicit: the concept of endgame is marketing. It keeps you buying. It keeps you searching. It keeps you dissatisfied with functional equipment.

The counter-position: good enough exists. Good enough is what you should seek. Once found, good enough should be kept until it fails or your needs genuinely change.

My current keyboard is four years old. It’s not the “best” keyboard I’ve tested. It’s good enough. I’ve stopped thinking about keyboards. That mental freedom is the real productivity gain.

My current mouse is three years old. Better mice exist. This one works. Upgrading would cost adaptation time, attention, and money for minimal improvement.

The endgame I’ve reached: not seeking endgame. Accepting good enough. Redirecting the energy that would go into hardware optimization into actual work.

My cat achieved this state without philosophical struggle. She found good enough and stopped looking. Her productivity at being a cat is exemplary. We could learn from her contentment.

Final Thoughts

Productivity hardware is tools for work. Tools should serve work, not become work themselves.

The keyboard enthusiast community is wonderful for people who enjoy keyboards as hobby. The mouse enthusiast community similarly. Hobbies are good. Enjoyment is valid.

But conflating hobby enthusiasm with productivity optimization creates problems. The time spent seeking perfect tools is time not spent using adequate tools for actual work.

The myth of endgame perpetuates this confusion. Endgame implies a destination. The destination doesn’t exist. The search continues indefinitely—or until you recognize it was never about productivity at all.

For actual productivity:

• Find good enough
• Stop searching
• Start working

The hardware doesn’t matter as much as the work. The perfect keyboard can’t write your sentences. The ideal mouse can’t design your layouts. You do the work. The tools just need to not get in the way.

When they stop getting in the way, you’ve found your endgame. It’s probably less expensive and less impressive than you expected. It’s also more productive than all the impressive options you’re still researching.

Close the browser tabs. Use what you have. Do the work. That’s the real productivity hack, and it costs nothing.