| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft Reveals World’s First Commercially Available Bluetooth Desktop Solution | |
|
||
| Time: 12:49 EST/17:49 GMT | News Source: Microsoft Press Release | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Today at the Windows® Hardware Engineering Conference (WinHEC) 2002, Microsoft Corp., the leading innovator in desktop peripherals, will unveil the world’s first commercially available Bluetooth™-enabled wireless mouse and keyboard solution. Microsoft Chairman and Chief Software Architect Bill Gates will demonstrate the devices during his keynote address, which is scheduled for 9:30 a.m. The Microsoft® product suite is expected to be available later this year and will include a Bluetooth-enabled keyboard, mouse and transceiver, as well as support for the Windows XP operating system. This desktop solution will highlight the benefits of the Windows-based PC platform, making the latest technology innovations accessible and easy to use. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 224 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:19:38 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/18/2002 3:42:44 PM |
|
I'm looking at this new iMac desk lamp, and I noticed that it doesn't have a wireless keyboard and mouse.
Now why is that? I thought Apple was an innovator? |
| #2 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/18/2002 4:10:51 PM |
| #2 Oh yeah - that was so funny. For a lot of users, there are compelling reasons not to have a wireless keyboard. Apple released their Bluetooth spec and support for it before MS so now you're annoyed. MS claims the "availability" of the first commercial BT desktop solution, but it won't be AVAILABLE till the end of the year. There is a rumor that Apple will be releasing a two-button BT mouse and keyboard in the next couple of months or at MWNY--just a rumor, I wouldn't stick by it--but we'll see if MS's claim will hold true. I will stick to this--I bet all new Apple computers, as they get rev'ed, will come with a Bluetooth transceiver going forward; I bet every Apple by the end of 2002 has Bluetooth. Can you say the same for the PC industry? |
| #3 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/18/2002 4:27:49 PM |
|
Coach and AC, that's also the flaw in PCs: that's why you are still stuck with serial connections and floppy drives and why USB2 will take forever to overtake USB. I'm not being a soldier--you are jumping all over me for Macs containing features you don't want--well, I was jumping on soda for suggesting the iMac sucked or wasn't innovative because it doesn't have the exact feature he wants it to. (He wants it to be wireless? What? Talk about hypocrisy.)
Btw, the cost associated with BT? Less than $30. I'd accept that for actually moving towards the concept of PANs (a term we're hearing a lot now; even though it first came out 2-3 years ago and has been dead since...) Without ubiquity, what's the point in having a PDA or cellphone or anything that can autodiscover networks within my radius if only 10% of the computers are going to send out a signal? See, suckas, I'm not just pointing this out because I'm a zealot, and I could give a crap about BT, but I still want every computer on my platform to have it--otherwise, I'd rather have IR or 802.11. This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, April 18, 2002 at 18:57. |
| #4 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/18/2002 4:29:37 PM |
| Anon, since Bluetooth is slower than regular USB; I don't think there's much reason to be getting all jumpy about USB2. Just worry about if it's functional. And secure--don't forget the security nightmare we are about to enter. |
| #5 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/18/2002 4:31:16 PM |
| Oh, #6, btw, since I can't possible own a computer that hasn't been built yet, I could just go out and by the USB transceiver--TODAY!! |
| #6 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/18/2002 4:43:07 PM |
|
Anon, I have no idea what YOU are saying so I don't know. I'm saying Bluetooth is only interesting to me for the PAN concept. If I had a PC, and the only way to implement it was to buy Bluetooth myself and it was only in some devices, particularly the one right in front of me--well, big freaking deal! I want to be able to use it to talk to anything within range. Otherwise, a 2 ft. FW cable would give me all the functionality of Bluetooth but greater bandwidth and functionality. This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, April 18, 2002 at 16:47. |
| #7 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/18/2002 4:43:09 PM |
|
Jesus, why don't one of the admins start a story that simply explains why the site is running like crap all of a sudden--so we can understand it and have an outlet. Twice today no stories were displaying, and I think everyone is tired of editing double posts. This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, April 18, 2002 at 16:44. |
| #8 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/18/2002 5:39:55 PM |
|
sodajerk - Annoyed? According to this http://www.apple.com/bluetooth/ Apple's bluetooth support is still in beta.
Besides, I'll be the first to admit that not everybody needs or wants a DVD writer, yet you claim that is innovative. Not everybody needs or wants IEEE-1394 yet you claim that is innovative. I was simply making fun of you. I thought Apple was all about taking things invented first on the PC, making them standard on the Mac and then claiming this as an innovation? |
| #9 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/18/2002 5:58:51 PM |
|
It is still in beta--so is MS's. MS isn't even releasing their beta SDK for another month. Apple is already selling the transceiver along with the software.
I didn't claim DVD writing was innovative, nor are they in every computer, nor did I claim they should be in every computer. FireWire is innovative and should be in every computer, but oh well, the PC world doesn't know that. |
| #10 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 4/18/2002 6:22:30 PM |
| Why is Apple once again selling beta technology? OS X wasn't enough? :-) *ducks for cover* |
| #11 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/18/2002 6:26:31 PM |
| The software's FREE enforcer, it's the adaptor you buy. OS X beta was FREE as well since you didn't have to pay for the PAID version (minus $20). But I understand that ignorance is bliss, I understand. |
| #12 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/18/2002 6:51:18 PM |
| Again, anonymous, you haven't said anything ("to say the least"--yes, you're very good at saying next to nothing). Where are the flaws? And where's the abrasiveness for that matter; is "Anon" a bad word to you, or "freaking"? Does "freaking scare you?! Is that even you? I see a bunch of Anons with different IPs--in other words, I don't care. I wasn't aware that we were discussing anything so don't worry--I wasn't waiting for a response. |
| #13 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 4/18/2002 7:13:00 PM |
| Sodajerk, I was referring to the released version of OS X. You had to pay for OS X if you weren't buying a new computer. Apple has been releasing updates to the OS that add functionality and performance improvements that should have been present in the initial release. 10.1.4 is the most recent update. |
| #14 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/18/2002 7:29:33 PM |
|
Yeah, and you only had to pay $20 if you wanted hard CDs; if you downloaded from the web, it was free. 10.2 will be free too when that is released at MWNY.
If you didn't participate in the beta, or buy 10.0, or buy 10.1, yes, you paid for it. Is this something new and crazy? What's your point? I participated in the beta over a year and a half ago--paid $109. When 10.0 came out, I was offered the opportunity to buy the full version for $20 (which isn't extra because the OS is $129). I haven't paid anything extra since, and I'm running 10.1.4. Thanks, by the way, I appreciate you're pointing that out to me--so for $129, the cost of the OS, I have had an updated OS for a year and a half, two packaged versions, and all of the free up to date developer tools. This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, April 18, 2002 at 19:36. |
| #15 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 4/18/2002 7:54:37 PM |
| My main point is the state in which OS X (final retail) was released. Apple clearly released OS X in a state that would've been considered beta by most other companies, and was considered beta by many Mac users. Even Apple shipped computers with OS 9 as the default OS because of OS X's lack of support for standard features, and performance problems. Yet the OS was sold to the general public as final retail software. |
| #16 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/18/2002 8:03:13 PM |
|
Yes, and obviously, you are entirely ignorant of the developer need to have it released. It's a whole new platform, but there is quite a sizable developer community. What would you do if developers neede incentive and a codebase and a user base to work from to have the incentive to produce software. Ridiculous point, anyone who realized and knew what they were buying and wanted to knew that they were basically a part of creating momentum. Have you seen a single ad pitching OS X yet? No, and Apple isn't going to pitch it until 10.5.
Why are you whining about it in the first place? I never brought up the $800 Mira beta, did I? |
| #17 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 4/18/2002 9:17:39 PM |
|
What was keeping Apple from providing developers with beta copies? That's what everyone else does. Since Apple is dropping legacy OSes anyway, the developers would already have been assured of a userbase. If they wanted to generate user interest, why not have a free public preview. There were plenty of ways to get developers the OS and give users a taste of what was to come without releasing a beta-qualtiy product as a final product.
Mira is a closed beta, not a beta product Microsoft is selling to the public as final. What's your point? |
| #18 By 3339 (64.175.43.125) at 4/18/2002 9:48:47 PM |
|
My point is: why are you bitching about something you don't understand or are affected by? If you want OS X, buy it. If you don't, don't. You've got nothing to feel burned about. People who DO know and care can be of two perspectives, or even more, or they actually understand and weigh multiple perspectives at the same time: get the product out to convince users and developers that it's real and worth developing for vs. wait, wait, wait and we never see it. (For one thing, most wouldn't agree with you that it was beta software.) The Apple world isn't the Wintel world where developers are slobbering to get whatever they can from MS, because they don't provide it themselves and because it's guaranteed to have a large marketplace--I'm not arguing that either is better, I'm saying it's a different world that you don't have the perspective for nor do you have any entitlement to be making these bitch claims.
I mean are you pissed that Apple could sell a half million of the REAL public Beta for $109? Or are you pissed that it was worth it? Are you pissed that Apple can't keep up with iMac orders? And they can't make 'em fast enough? And they can still achieve fantastic sales and beat estimates? Awwww, poor enforcer. |
| #19 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 4/18/2002 10:33:08 PM |
|
Sodajerk, I never mentioned or implied I was burned by Apple. You seem to be the only one pissed off in this discussion while my tone has remained calm. My original comment was made mostly in jest (hence the smiley), but it appears I have hit a nerve. I have perspectives from the Mac, Windows, Linux, and Unix side of things. I have used all of the platforms at one time or another, and have followed them on various websites. I can substantiate the claim of Apple releasing a beta-quality product from the reactions of many users on various Mac-related sites, and the fact that the OS contains/contained many usability, support, and performance issues that are characteristic of a beta. There is also the many MacWorlds with Steve talking about the clock and how Window resizing and app launch times have been improved in the next update. Then there are users that acquire the update when it's released and report that still more work is needed. There are currently users with the latest update that complain about UI slowness. I applaud Apple's work to bring ease of use to Unix. I just think they could have done better with the OS' retail launch by having a more complete product for the end-user.
From your description of developers in the Wintel world, don't Mac developers have it just as bad, if not worse when they must "slobber to get whatever they can" from Apple? Don't end-users face a worse, more dependent situation when they must follow whatever direction Apple decides for the platform, buying a totally new computer along the way. |
| #20 By 1295 (216.84.210.100) at 4/18/2002 11:16:07 PM |
| Will you two get a room already :) |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 224 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:19:38 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
