Microsoft to build a whole new mouse ...

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.

I like how Bluetooth is so flexible.. then again, since Bluetooth is so flexbile couldn't this pose a problem? Since many devices already connect using Bluetooth, couldn't also connecting a mouse put lots of pressure on the Bluetooth module? (or whatever it's called). For example, I have my Treo (not for long!) set up so that when I recieve a call when I'm on my laptop, it uses the laptops mic and speakers - saves me picking up the phone. Surely this must have an impact on other Bluetooth devices connected? So perhaps it's best if must-have peripherals are kept seperate.

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?

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.

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.

Thats exactly what I thought, hence was wondering why one would choose RF over bluetooth when that is merely a refined, or more structured version of RF?

W3bbo is right when he says name something how it works. I'm a sucker for cool names sometimes, but a more meaningful name like Super Structured Radio Frequency or SSRF (of the top of my head) lends itself to be ascertained immediately, from a technical view point. Only problem is its not very user friendly, acronyms like RF were great.

blowdart said:

Bas said:

*snip*

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

Ah. Well, yeah, then it wouldn't have made much sense, no. Bad wording on my part, I guess.

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.

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

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?

The problem with putting a "generic" RF receiver in a computer is that you can't make a receiver listen to more than one frequency at once.  So, you could have a generic receiver capable of picking up a bunch of different frequencies (say, the 2.4 GHz used by Bluetooth and the ~27 MHz used by many wireless mice), but you won't be able to use both at the same time unless you have two receivers.

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?

Too curvy. But I like the whole concept.

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.

My MS Wireless optical mouse 4000 is the best mouse I ever had.  It takes a single AA battery and just goes and goes.  True, I would rather not have to deal with the usb receiver, but not a big deal.

Matthew van Eerde said:

AndyC said:

*snip*

Computer.

(pause)

Hello, computer?

For the three people who don't know where that's from:

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.

Eh, likewise. I had a crappy day yesterday and didn't close the browser in time before taking it out on someone.

Group hug!

Bas said:

Group hug!

Awwww!!! ...

I'm feelin' the love guys (and I mean that in a non-familiar, overly-Christian kind of way)

The situation calls for a cute kitten ...