Yggdrasil said:

I had a bluetooth mouse once.
Then I lost it.
That's the problem with these cordless mice.

blowdart said:

No bluetooth? Then no buy

Plus it looks ergonomically unsafe

stevo_ said:

blowdart said:

*snip*

Who cares if its bluetooth? my mx revolution and dinovo edge are RF.. my old dinovo setup was bluetooth, if anything - bluetooth seems to be the old.

Yggdrasil said:

stevo_ said:

*snip*

The disadvantage of RF for laptops is that you need a receiver. I use my laptop everywhere - in class, on the bus, in cafes - and I hate having to set things up. Just whip it out and start working. A bluetooth mouse simply works, out of the box. If I have to plug in a USB receiver as well it annoys me. It's a small thing, but enough to get on my nerves.

Of course, since I lost my bluetooth mouse I simply use the trackpad, and I'm fine with that, too.

stevo_ said:

blowdart said:

*snip*

Who cares if its bluetooth? my mx revolution and dinovo edge are RF.. my old dinovo setup was bluetooth, if anything - bluetooth seems to be the old.

blowdart said:

stevo_ said:

*snip*

I care, I don't want or *need* a usb dongle just to talk to a mouse. I already have bluetooth built into my laptop.

AndyC said:

Still using mice, eh? How terribly quaint.

If I asked you to draw a happy young girl sitting on a fence, in Expression Design, what would you use?

wisemx said:

AndyC said:

*snip*

If I asked you to draw a happy young girl sitting on a fence, in Expression Design, what would you use?

AndyC said:

wisemx said:

*snip*

Stylus

Itslloydhere said:

AndyC said:

*snip*

Yay for styli! (is that the plural?)

Doesn't really look too comfy. Still, looks good...

XaeroVincent said:

blowdart said:

*snip*

I hate wireless peripherals, such as mice and keyboards.

Recharging batteries suck.

Yggdrasil said:

stevo_ said:

*snip*

The disadvantage of RF for laptops is that you need a receiver. I use my laptop everywhere - in class, on the bus, in cafes - and I hate having to set things up. Just whip it out and start working. A bluetooth mouse simply works, out of the box. If I have to plug in a USB receiver as well it annoys me. It's a small thing, but enough to get on my nerves.

Of course, since I lost my bluetooth mouse I simply use the trackpad, and I'm fine with that, too.

Bas said:

Yggdrasil said:

*snip*

When will laptops (or desktops, for that matter) start coming out with built-in RF receivers? Even if all the manufacturers use different protocols and frequencies, surely they should all be able to just use a standard RF receiver?

blowdart said:

Bas said:

*snip*

Why bother? That's what bluetooth is there for already. And wireless USB (when it arrives)

blowdart said:

Bas said:

*snip*

Why bother? That's what bluetooth is there for already. And wireless USB (when it arrives)

stevo_ said:

blowdart said:

*snip*

Who cares if its bluetooth? my mx revolution and dinovo edge are RF.. my old dinovo setup was bluetooth, if anything - bluetooth seems to be the old.

Bas said:

blowdart said:

*snip*

Why bother? Because for some reason, nobody is using bluetooth in their mice. I personally don't care what technology they use, as long as I get a built-in receiver so that I don't have stuff dangling off my notebook. If RF is what mouse manufacturers use, give me RF.

Yggdrasil said:

Bas said:

*snip*

Seeing as Bluetooth is already a standard for many peripherals (though not all, despite the early dreams of a cableless workstation), wouldn't it make more sense to start petitioning mouse manufacturers to make more bluetooth mice, rather than petition computer manufacturers to bundle RF receivers?

Bas said:

Yggdrasil said:

*snip*

Personally, I think it'd make more sense to get something that'll work now. Adding an RF receiver to laptops would allow you to use all wireless devices. Getting hardware manufacturers to agree on one technology is never going to happen.

blowdart said:

Bas said:

*snip*

Why go RF when wireless USB is coming soon anyway? You're asking for a stop gap measure which already replaces a standard. Bluetooth works now.

Bas said:

blowdart said:

*snip*

Bluetooth doesn't work now, because not all devices are Bluetooth. Only a bluetooth and an RF receiver would work now.

As for Wireless USB.. Excuse me if I don't wait for that to replace both Bluetooth and RF and for all hardware manufacturers to jump on it as the single medium.

blowdart said:

Bas said:

*snip*

That's like saying RF won't work because some devices are bluetooth; a real straw man argument.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Only a built-in bluetooth and an RF receiver would be a good solution to the whole "I don't want a dongle" thing. Devices using both are out there now, so why not support both? And waiting for wireless USB is a great solution for when all wireless devices use wireless USB, which isn't now.

And either you have no idea what a straw man argument is, or we're completely misunderstanding each other.

Bas said:

blowdart said:

*snip*

That's exactly what I'm saying. Only a built-in bluetooth and an RF receiver would be a good solution to the whole "I don't want a dongle" thing. Devices using both are out there now, so why not support both? And waiting for wireless USB is a great solution for when all wireless devices use wireless USB, which isn't now.

And either you have no idea what a straw man argument is, or we're completely misunderstanding each other.

Bas said:

Yggdrasil said:

*snip*

Personally, I think it'd make more sense to get something that'll work now. Adding an RF receiver to laptops would allow you to use all wireless devices. Getting hardware manufacturers to agree on one technology is never going to happen.

Yggdrasil said:

Bas said:

*snip*

Problem with adding a generic RF receiver is that I'm sure different manufacturers use custom and properietary encoding/modulating/whatevering for their devices. It's not standardized and probably will have a hard time building a generic receiver that works well for all devices.

Yggdrasil said:

Bas said:

*snip*

Seeing as Bluetooth is already a standard for many peripherals (though not all, despite the early dreams of a cableless workstation), wouldn't it make more sense to start petitioning mouse manufacturers to make more bluetooth mice, rather than petition computer manufacturers to bundle RF receivers?

Yggdrasil said:

Bas said:

*snip*

Problem with adding a generic RF receiver is that I'm sure different manufacturers use custom and properietary encoding/modulating/whatevering for their devices. It's not standardized and probably will have a hard time building a generic receiver that works well for all devices.

1. Why was this not implemented with RF in the first place? This is one really mature technology.
2. Is RF not mostly for long distances, a very power hungry? Do you not then run into the problem of limited frequency ranges, think walkie-talkies.
3. Does bluetooth not work in pretty much the same way as RF would i.e., its about transmitting and receiving.
4. IF a TV or DVD/Blue Ray can have a UV/RF transmitter, why change things for the PC. Most TV's are computers anyway now?

Bas said:

Yggdrasil said:

*snip*

Wouldn't that be a protocol thing, though, that would simply be solved by providing different drivers? Granted, I have no idea how RF works, but wouldn't you encode/decode the signal in software?

Bas said:

blowdart said:

*snip*

That's exactly what I'm saying. Only a built-in bluetooth and an RF receiver would be a good solution to the whole "I don't want a dongle" thing. Devices using both are out there now, so why not support both? And waiting for wireless USB is a great solution for when all wireless devices use wireless USB, which isn't now.

And either you have no idea what a straw man argument is, or we're completely misunderstanding each other.

Dodo said:

stevo_ said:

*snip*

And then again, many cellphones have bluetooth and I sometimes use it to hook up web access on the go with that. If I need a dongle, I just want to use one, not two. So bluetooth is the way to go I think.

vesuvius said:

Yggdrasil said:

*snip*

I am going to jump in with some rather silly questions

1. Why was this not implemented with RF in the first place? This is one really mature technology.
2. Is RF not mostly for long distances, a very power hungry? Do you not then run into the problem of limited frequency ranges, think walkie-talkies.
3. Does bluetooth not work in pretty much the same way as RF would i.e., its about transmitting and receiving.
4. IF a TV or DVD/Blue Ray can have a UV/RF transmitter, why change things for the PC. Most TV's are computers anyway now?

Bass said:

vesuvius said:

*snip*

RF is not some kind of technology or standard, it's a natural thing, just like "electricity" is. Devices capitalize on this natural occurrence by transmitting "radio waves", a type of electricomagnetic wave will high penetration and low health risks. These waves travel though the air and can carry information along with them, usually by frequency or amplitude multiplexing.

Bluetooth is a standard that specifies what frequency, amplitude, multiplexing scenerios, and goes even as high has how the data should be structured. Bluetooth uses electromagentic waves which travel at Radio Frequency, as virtually all devices bluetooth or not do. As the frequency goes high, the risks of diseases like cancer increase from exposure, so human made electromagentic trasnmitters are typically low (radio) frequency.

blowdart said:

Bas said:

*snip*

I think it may be misunderstanding, it wasn't clear (to me) you wanted both

Bass said:

Bas said:

*snip*

RF stands for "radio frequency". I.E. pretty much any generic wireless interface is also uses RF, including Bluetooth. It's kind of like asking that every laptop should have a generic "wire port" because there are so many different types of wires out there.

Bas said:

Yggdrasil said:

*snip*

Wouldn't that be a protocol thing, though, that would simply be solved by providing different drivers? Granted, I have no idea how RF works, but wouldn't you encode/decode the signal in software?

AndyC said:

Still using mice, eh? How terribly quaint.

Yggdrasil said:

Bas said:

*snip*

Seeing as Bluetooth is already a standard for many peripherals (though not all, despite the early dreams of a cableless workstation), wouldn't it make more sense to start petitioning mouse manufacturers to make more bluetooth mice, rather than petition computer manufacturers to bundle RF receivers?

Bas said:

Bass said:

*snip*

Thanks for the pedantry. I think you know just as well as I do what is meant with RF in this context.

XaeroVincent said:

blowdart said:

*snip*

I hate wireless peripherals, such as mice and keyboards.

Recharging batteries suck.

Matthew van Eerde said:

AndyC said:

*snip*

Computer.

(pause)

Hello, computer?

Bass said:

Bas said:

*snip*

I'm sorry. I figured when you wrote something this:

"Wouldn't that be a protocol thing, though, that would simply be solved by providing different drivers? Granted, I have no idea how RF works, but wouldn't you encode/decode the signal in software?"

That perhaps you wanted an explanation of how RF works. My apologies, Bas.

Bas said:

Group hug!