Xref: utzoo comp.windows.misc:857 comp.sys.next:1063 comp.sys.mac:24491 Path: utzoo!yunexus!geac!geaclib!rae From: rae@geaclib.UUCP (Reid Ellis) Newsgroups: comp.windows.misc,comp.sys.next,comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: replacing the desktop metaphor Summary: wireless != infrared, neccessarily Keywords: desktop metaphor, graphical interfaces, computing environments Message-ID: <3504@geaclib.UUCP> Date: 24 Dec 88 22:00:08 GMT Article-I.D.: geaclib.3504 References: <4362@pitt.UUCP> <257@gloom.UUCP> <82702@sun.uucp> <8939@ut-emx.UUCP> Reply-To: rae@geaclib.UUCP (Reid Ellis) Organization: T'nir Software Lines: 28 Ron Morgan writes: |.. Many |top rock and roll bands, for example have a little 3" antenna sticking out of |their electric guitars instead of a clumsy cable. Then there are wireless |telephones, not to mention all kinds of "remote controls" that work via |infrared pulses. So how about a wireless keyboard and/or mouse? People have pointed out the PCjr's IR keyboard, but I wonder why IR was used and not RF? As you point out, there are *two* kinds of wirless controls currently in widespread use: RF and IR [Radio Frequency and InfraRed]. My question is this: why hasn't anyone come up with an RF keyboard/whatever? IR controls are generally "aimed", in that you have to point at the device, more or less in order to control it. Yes, you can bounce off walls, and some units are so powerful that if you are in the same room, it will work, but for the most part you have to point at the thing to control it. Now with a keyboard, you don't want to restrict yourself to a few degrees of freedom [no pun intended there:-)] because the infrared beam has to be pointed *there*. It would bye much nicer to be able to rest in any position you like and tap away. Now since we have other RF devices in the home [radio telephones spring to mind] which also can co-exist nicely, using different frequencies, why not keyboards? Is it a question of cost? -- Reid Ellis geaclib!rae@geac.uucp