Xref: utzoo comp.windows.misc:786 comp.sys.next:966 comp.sys.mac:24293
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!think!barmar
From: barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.misc,comp.sys.next,comp.sys.mac
Subject: wireless keyboard (was Re: replacing the desktop metaphor)
Keywords: desktop metaphor, graphical interfaces, computing environments
Message-ID: <34173@think.UUCP>
Date: 22 Dec 88 16:54:06 GMT
References: <4362@pitt.UUCP> <257@gloom.UUCP> <82702@sun.uucp> <8939@ut-emx.UUCP>
Sender: news@think.UUCP
Reply-To: barmar@kulla.think.com.UUCP (Barry Margolin)
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Lines: 21

In article <8939@ut-emx.UUCP> osmigo@emx.UUCP (Ron Morgan) writes:
>I don't know why a wireless keyboard would be far-fetched.

Hardly far-fetched, since it was done in a commercial computer several
years ago.  The original IBM PC Jr had a wireless keyboard that used
infrared signals.  They eventually punted it because it didn't work
too well.  Input would be missed because someone would walk between
the keyboard and the PC, and it could get confusing with multiple
machines in the same room.

Wireless communication is pretty noisy and error prone.  It is well
suited to low-bandwidth applications such as telegraphy, or less
error-sensitive applications such as voice.  For applications such as
terminal I/O integrity is important, so you would need an
error-detecting protocol between the PC and the device.

Barry Margolin
Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com
{uunet,harvard}!think!barmar