Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Hardware

Microsoft Intellimice and Bluetooth Issues? 50

Posted by Cliff from the it-doesn't-like-playing-with-others dept.
An anonymous reader asks: "I just bought a Microsoft Intellimouse Explorer for Bluetooth for my Mac OS X 2.2 box. Like typical Mac fashion, it was entirely plug and play, no software required. However, I go to pair the mouse with the adapter in Bluetooth prefs and it asks me for a pairing password! Others on XP SP1 using integrated/third party adapters other than the one provided by Microsoft also report the same pairing password (on a side note, the MS adapter doesn't even pair with most Palms or Cellphones, what kind of standards following is that?). I called MS tech support and they gave me a weak 'It doesn't work on the Mac.' reply. So, has anyone managed to get this mouse to work on OS X, Linux, or XP (SP1 with a third party adapter)? Perhaps a cracked security password?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Intellimice and Bluetooth Issues? More

Microsoft Intellimice and Bluetooth Issues?

Comments Filter:
  • Well who would have thought eh? If only they had included somekind of warning on the box eh? Like "MICROSOFT" product.

    Seriously. You go buy a product you should always make sure that it works on the OS of youre choice. In youre defence mouses have always been kinda safe since all the new developments happened on the mouse while the interface to the computer has stayed more or less the same (compared to other comp components). Still it makes you sound like those ********** who complain that they couldn't get their new USB mouse to work on the Pentium/W95 machines. Duh!

    Classic case of RTFB (Read The Fucking Box) syndrome.

    BTW bluetooth is well known for not working well in integration. The real question should perhaps be, has MS or Apple broken the spec so that the two can not talk to each other?

    • Re:Geez, a MS mouse works only on windows. (Score:4, Informative)

      by sofar ( 317980 ) on Monday December 02, 2002 @09:05AM (#4792585) Homepage
      You are being obnoxious, and the statements you are making are false.

      Mocrosoft mice (USB, I have several) apparently even function better the the competitors (Logitech) when it comes to cross-platform support. The dang logitech mice will not work with KVM switches and multiboot linux/NT/2K systems, but the stupid M$ logo on my mice will not refrain me from buying them anymore.

      If M$ is abusing the USB protocol, IMO they are abandoning the standard and should not be allowed to sell their mice anymore as "USB mice", just as mutilated anti-copy CD's are officially not allowed to wear the "Compact Disc (R)" logo.
      • I know I am obnoxious no need to tell me. I would however like to know wich of my statements is false?

        The reference to USB was that windows 95 and for that matter NT4 never supported it. You can buy a third party product that works quite well but that is of little help to most people. I did not claim that this is a bad thing to do by MicroSoft. Just that I have encountered an awful lot of people who just didn't seem to get that 95/NT does not support USB no not even MicroSoft USB products. If I remember correctly this was in fact mentioned on the box. Something like supported systems 98/2K.

        Oh and to be really obnoxious, cut out the lame "M$" crap especially when you are defending them.

      • The dang logitech mice will not work with KVM switches and multiboot linux/NT/2K systems

        I have a Logitech Pilot mouse with a wheel hooked up to an Addertec KVM controlling 3 linux boxes and a multi-boot dos/win98/NT4/2K/linux box. Works just fine thanks.

    • I think he is complaining about how a company would try and disable functionality of one product (In this case, using cheesy methods to make the mouse only work in windows, NOT leaving something OUT with the intention of keeping costs down, but rather, ADDING to the product to REMOVE functionality) in order to leverage sales of another, totally different product.
      Thats monopolizing the computer industry.
      We have laws that used to protect consumers from that sort of abuse. They dont seem to work anymore though.

      • Re:Geez, a MS mouse works only on windows. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Monday December 02, 2002 @10:27AM (#4793021) Journal
        I am not sure but I think the password required for pairing is a security function. With unprotected bluetooth every device in radio range can and will receive the input/output. This makes the open Wireless Lan look like a very small matter indeed. Yes bluetooth has a small range but is often used in places where people are close together, restaurants - public transport, and radio waves have the odd habit off traveling far further then advertised when you do NOT want it.

        So MS has done a security measure that is part of the bluetooth spec. Why it should be incompatible with Apples implementation I have no idea. Maybe apple has done its side wrong or has not yet implemented this.

        Even if MS has done it on purpose, wich I doubt, is that really illegal or that bad? If I produce an addon for a PS2 then you can't really complain if it doesn't work with an X-box even if the connectors look the same.

        • Even if MS has done it on purpose, wich I doubt, is that really illegal or that bad? If I produce an addon for a PS2 then you can't really complain if it doesn't work with an X-box even if the connectors look the same.

          Maybe your right about the mouse, I really dont know. And your right about the PS2 add-on, too. Its if something was actually designed into something, ADDED to something, to make it incompatible with anything but a different product, that makes me furious. I dont know if thats the case, but when a manufacturer spends extra money to effectively strip functionality out of a device to use as leverage to sell another, mostly unrelated product, it is very very unfair to both the consumer and smaller businesses which have a much tighter budget. An example that gets me fuming is Apple's DVD burning software. From my understanding, otherwise compatible DVD burners are unusable from this software because Apple wanted to use their software to increase sales of their hardware. If it was a case of having to write drivers for the other DVD burners, fine, of course, why the heck would Apple do that? (Unless they were concerned more with making a great product and less about money, but not many think that way, not even me, unfortunately) But, and this may be a weak weak understanding of this, I was lead to think that Apple had DISABLED support for devices that would have worked had that disabling-code not been _added_ to the software. Thats the stuff that makes me cringe. Its an example of how it gets easier and easier to make money, the more money you have.
          Side note: This is the most stratefied our economy has ever been. There has never been a more uneven distribution of the country's wealth. Thats what lights my fires these days.
          • You know I am not the biggest Microsoft fan but by what your saying, big corporations or rich folks don't have a right to make money. That's BS. Microsoft got to where it is today by lots of us plunking down our hard earned money. Microsoft did a good job and now your blaming them for it? Same with Apple. If you are so po'd becuase your not getting your fair share, then get off yer keester and work for it! What do you expect the government to HAND you money???? I personally would look for a semi decent paying job that paid more then unemployment first if I was in that situation rather then wait until I only have a week or so left on unemployment. Only way I would take unemployement is as a stop gap until I get my new job as the local department store. Sure, it may not be what I make but it's a job and keeps me from RELYING on the government for every little thing. It isn't the governments job to feed my family it's mine. You should think the same way. Those that are wealthy were not all born with a silver spoon in their mouth. They worked hard to get there. Period.
            • Actually I think we are 100% in agreement. I think that everyone should do their shake. In return, I think the playing field should also be fair. That is definitely not the case though, it is much easier for those who have *lots* of money to *make* lots of money. Once you have tons of money, unbelievable opportunities open up. You can afford to *effectively* lobby your congressmen to write laws in your favor. As an indirect result, you also have to pay out a much smaller share of your earnings then the little guys. You also can take Wal-Marts approach: Run stores at a LOSS until you've driven all nearby competition out of business, and then return to normal, profitible pricing strategies. A small business can not afford to do this.
              I have no idea how you could possibly fix this, or even if there is a CONSTITUTIONAL way to do it, maybe not, and rants like mine will become less and less common, but I hope not, I hope someday a person with a little bit of gumption can have just as much chance for making a difference as a big rich CEO.
              You are probably smarter than george w. bush, but look where you are, and look where he is, thats evidence enough of how unfair the playing field is. the rich get richer, the poor, as a whole, get poorer, that has been the actual economic trend of the US in the last 3 decades, and its because of how easy it is to make (big) money ONCE YOU HAVE IT (and how hard it is when you dont.) There are a few "Rags to riches" stories out there, for sure. But do you think that thats the rule? I worked at a country club in High School, and I also live in a wealthy town. I *KNOW* its the exception, at least in the population sample I am exposed to.

              • Rich get richer? Not always true. Bill Gates isn't worth as much now as he was just 2 years ago. He lost....ALOT in the stock market.

                In any case, I sure as heck don't see the "poor" getting poorer. People are starting to come off the welfare roles because they have no choice. Low and behold, these folks can get JOBS! Sure they may not be big money, but they are jobs and sometimes they make more then they did on welfare. Also, I am much better off now then I ever was in 1998/1999. I make more money then I ever have and I am finally being challenged again in my job. Personally when a job gets boring I like to move on.

                I am personally against Election Finance Reform. Election Finance reform is against the first amendement by restricting your speech. If you want to run for office it is possible to get started. You don't necessarily need lots of cash either. The republicans and the democrats have their differences, but one that doesn't exist is money. They both have it.

                Listen..IT IS POSSIBLE to make as much money as you want if you work hard enough for it. Do you realize that sometimes those "rich" folks failed sometimes 2-3 times before they made it big? Also, money!=Happiness. Sure I don't make all that I would like but I make enough to keep my happy. Enough to pay the bills and enough leftover to get some toys sometimes. Also consider that Bill G may not have any more hard days now, but I bet he had a lot of hard days before. I don't want to limit companies from making money. I am one of the few that believe Microsoft does not have a monopoly. Sure they have done some questionable things, but it's still possible to buy a pc with Linux on it or OSX on it (albeit there's a real monopoly there with Apple). If Microsoft had a true monopoly, then none of these things would even be interesting or would have ever had support. Linux may not have even been doing as well if it had not been for Windows. If it were a true monopoly, we'd all use Microsoft and Linux may not have been around at all. Also, I don't know of very many Data Centers that use exclusively Windows 2000 servers. Most are a ugly mesh of machines that make things possible. Also, Monopolies have to be proven by the fact that they hurt the consumer. This isn't the case as our story from yesterday about TCO differences between Windows 2000 and Linux shows that it costs less to use Windows (I don't believe it entirely either, but we'll give them the benefit of the doubt).

                That said, I think that the BT keyboard and mouse not working on a mac is the matter of no drivers. They may have had to make slight changes to the way it's used inorder to make it work with BT. It will only be a matter of time before Micrsoft or someone else gets this going on OS/X,
                • Many, many, many people would argue that linux is a much better platform than windows.
                  However, windows usage is all over the place.
                  Thats because microsoft has CONTROL OF THE MARKET. thats a "monopoly". They dont just have the power to make using windows "easier". They have the power to make using unix HARDER by subtle control of software and hardware vendors.

                  As for the rich working hard to get their money, get real. Remember how long ago JD Rockefeller was around? Now look at how much land his god damned descendants still have. They are still all ridiculously wealthy. And to a smaller (ok, much smaller) degree that happens all over america. That is why THIS IS THE MOST STRATEFIED ECONOMY IN AMERICAN HISTORY. Do some research before saying "The poor arent getting poorer". The separation is larger than it ever has been.
                  You talk about Bill gates having "Bad days before." It'd be nice to be so naive. Was it such a bad day when his dad, a very wealthy attorney, bought a software company for him so Billy could market their operating system to IBM?
                  So maybe billy does have hard times, but they aren't financially hard, never have been, he has _always_ been rich, from the moment concieved. Yet another example of the rich staying rich. Know your subject before arguing with people about it.
                  • Um so? That's THEIR perogative. Do you expect their decendents to start giving money and land to you? My advice to you is stop being jealous about what others have and start working towards that goal yourself. The JD Rockefeller's decendents are a RARITY. There's alot of people in this country. Milton Hershey went bankrupt 6 times before his chocolate company hit it big. This country is built on making your own way and being proud of it. According to the 2000 Census, more people make 50,000 to 74,000 then any other amount. There are only about 2 million that make over 200,000 a year. If the economy was stratified as you say, then the amount of people would be the same or close for each income level. It looks more like lumpy layers to me. If you make 50,000 or more, then you are in the top 25 percent of wage earners in this country. Congrats. You can be considered rich. The amount of people born into money in this country is very low. The amount of folks who make alot of money on their own are more. Michael Dell started Dell out of his garage and was not rich. Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak started Apple out of a garage and definitely were not rich. If I remember right, HP was also started by Hewlitt and Packard out of their garage too. Ray Kroc had enough money to buy a McDonalds, perfect it buy them outright and now there are over 30,000 stores. He did not need much to buy that restaurant. Hendrick Meijer started his chain in 1934 in Greenville, Michigan (now call Meijer). Now there's a Meijer in 5 states and the company will be 100 in 2034. Oh and I forgot...the company is still family owned. These are but a few of the great americans who started poor and got rich. That's something you deem impossible.
                    • Heh heh I dont think you understand "Stratefied".

                      Only about 2 million people that make over 200,000 a year.

                      Now, keep that in your head, and think about the fact that 98% of this country's wealth is controlled by less than half of one percent of the population.
                      Amazing isnt it? Thats "Statefication"
                      Now heres where your argument really is flawed though. You listed a couple, say, 5 or 6 cases of people who tried hard and made it big. And you are trying to use that to argue that the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS CAN ALL DO THE SAME THING. Yes, a few people got Really, Really, REALLY LUCKY. I cant believe you are trying to extend that to hundreds of millions of people. But go on thinking everythings OK and the poor dont get screwed. It'll make your SUV trip to the office in the morning that much more relaxing.
        • Have you actually thought this through?

          A password, built into the driver, the same on all the same type of mice ( I assume), not chosen by the user is a security feature? Think it through a little bit more please.
        • Even if MS has done it on purpose, wich I doubt, is that really illegal or that bad? If I produce an addon for a PS2 then you can't really complain if it doesn't work with an X-box even if the connectors look the same.

          Is it bad? You really can't be serious? I agree it's probably not on purpose, it's currently a glitch or a bug, which is bad enough. If it WERE on purpose, which you propose, it's a hideous subversion of standards, worse than they've ever done.

          It's not just the connector, it's a protocol. They are specifically marketing this as a BlueTooth device. That's a protocol, a refined set of specifications for how the product works, and how it interfaces. You're right in that if I made a joystick for PS2 that had the same pinout on the connector as the XBox (Which it doesnt, but we'll use your straw man example just for shits and giggles.) I'd be wrong to expect it to work on the XBox. Unless, of course, the controller/port in question was USB, or firewire, or, say, BlueTooth.

          If, for example, you sold a hard drive which had a standard 50 pin connector, and you labeled it as "Narrow SCSI-2", and sold it as such, yet it only worked with the "SCSI" card that you also sold, then yes, I would be completely right in being upset.

          I'm no Microsoft Basher, I personally use nothing but MS Intellimouse and Natural Keyboard products. But I would be highly pissed about buying a BlueTooth mouse and not having it work with the bluetooth adapter already in my machine.

    • Does Embrace, Extend, Extinguish ring any bells?
      Remember microsofts' previous antagonism to bluetooth?
      Remember java?
      Interoperability means interoperability with MS standards.
    • Well the way OS X uses bluetooth is a little funky i advise you look at this article http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=517 70

  • Standard? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Wiwi Jumbo ( 105640 ) on Monday December 02, 2002 @10:08AM (#4792914) Homepage Journal
    From the website:
    Wireless Transceiver Microsoft Wireless Transceiver for Bluetooth is supported for use with your Microsoft Bluetooth devices. Because Bluetooth wireless technology follows a standardized specification, you may be able to use other devices with the Microsoft Wireless Transceiver.
    Maybe?
    What kind of standard is that?

  • Password (Score:5, Informative)

    by wanderb ( 559144 ) on Monday December 02, 2002 @11:02AM (#4793275) Homepage
    Have you tried four zeros (0000)? It's the standard security code for most bluetooth devices.
  • So, has anyone managed to get this mouse to work on OS X, Linux, or XP (SP1 with a third party adapter)? Perhaps a cracked security password?

    Maybe I have, maybe I havent. But posting it here would be a violation of the DMCA. Sorry, man. :P
    • Funny, but untrue. If you're interested, take a look at the Anticircumvention FAQ [chillingeffects.org].
      • Yes, I think it is true, though IANAL. Mirosoft holds the copyright on the driver software. None of the DMCA circumvention exemptions apply in this case. From your own link:

        Question: What does circumvention mean?

        Answer: Circumvention, according to Section 1201(a)(3)(A), means "to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner." While the full scope of activities and practices that would fall under this definition has not yet been examined by the courts, any act of undoing a "lock" or "block" in a digital system may well be considered circumvention.

        --

        Question: Are there exceptions that allow the circumvention of technological protection systems?

        Answer: There are seven exemptions built into section 1201 of the DMCA, some of which permit the circumvention of access and copy controls for limited purposes, some of which allow for the limited distribution of circumvention tools in particular circumstances. These seven exemptions are for:

        * Libraries, archives, and educational institutions for acquisition purposes;
        * Law enforcement and intelligence gathering activities;
        * Reverse engineering in order to develop interoperable programs;
        * Encryption Research;
        * Protecting minors from material on the Internet;
        * Protecting the privacy of personally identifying information;
        * Security Testing

        --

        Question: How is the development of interoperable products affected by the DMCA?

        Answer: The anti-circumvention provisions may hinder innovation in information technology by limiting the ability of potential competitors to reverse engineer the technological protection system behind which the original manufacturer hides their product. Reverse engineering is a traditional method used by industry to understand how systems work and create interoperable products. While the DMCA has an exception that permits reverse engineering to create interoperable products, as discussed below, it may only permit reverse engineering for interoperability between programs, but not for the purpose of making a program available in other platforms. . A strict interpretation of the DMCA may prohibit reverse engineering, regardless of whether or not copyright infringement occurs in the process.

  • We took ours back (Score:2, Interesting)

    by octover ( 22078 )
    My boss is big into being as wireless as possible. TiBooks, bluetooth cell phones, Tungsten T, and when he saw the MS mouse he picked it up. Of course having the TiBook with a spoon sticking out its back end was unacceptable as well so he bought DLink blue tooth adapaters.


    Unfortunatly we ran into the same problem, what is the pairing password. After a quick search of the CD's on a windows computer and trying all the default pairing passwords we had seen, we gave up and took the mouses back, MS apparently doesn't want our money. Which is unfortunate cause while I was trying to pair the stupid thing I grew like the no wire feel of the mouse.


    On another note, it is sad that there isn't more blue tooth adoption. I remember blue tooth first getting a lot of press over two years ago, and people are still early adopters today. I personally plan on getting a Sony-Ericcson T68i and a Tungsten T based purelly on the geek appeal of it all.

  • In the depths of Redmond... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02, 2002 @12:01PM (#4793693)
    MS employee: Ha - if only he knew the password was "12345"

    Bill: Funny - that's the same as my luggage combination

  • The problem is... (Score:4, Informative)

    by vrmlguy ( 120854 ) <samwyse AT gmail DOT com> on Monday December 02, 2002 @01:07PM (#4794257) Homepage Journal
    The problem is, Bluetooth devices in general just don't interoperate. See, for example, the article PC, Mac OS updates may spark Bluetooth [infoworld.com]:
    "For Microsoft to take the existing state of Bluetooth and embed it into XP would just be begging for trouble," said Martin Reynolds, an analyst at Gartner, in Stamford, Conn. "Bluetooth interoperability is a complete disaster ... by and large, one Bluetooth device is not going to work with another Bluetooth device, because the specifications don't work. We need someone to take the lead with this thing and fix it."

    Also, see Wi-Fi News: News for 8/1/2002 [weblogger.com]:

    Note also how casual the Bluetooth folk are about certifying interoperable: it's more like the regular meetings of Esperanto speakers arguing on the fine points of the language -- or perhaps Unitarians -- than, say, the Academie Français. That is, certification to Bluetooth is left up the individual company's testing procedures. This is unfortunate, as the Wi-Fi mark has been one of the single biggest factors in coalescing the 802.11b protocol into something that businesses and consumers can rely on. Bluetooth will sputter if interoperability certification doesn't become one of the requirements of the mark. No consumer will want to use Bluetooth if buying two or more identically marked devices doesn't offer complete intercompatibility.
    • Funny, we have Compaq Evo N600c's with a Bluetooth adapter. We also have Nokia 6310i's with Bluetooth. They interoperate flawlessly with each other. We also had a Bluetooth Access Point (made by yet another different company) and it too worked flawlessly with the laptops.

      Sure, there might be some problems between products from different manufacturers, but from my experience the interoperability is pretty good. No, I'm not claiming to have tested every Bluetooth combination there is, but the ones I have tried have always worked.

  • Don't quite know what to make of this...

    At
    http://www.microsoft.com/catalog/display.asp?site= 11495&subid=22&pg=4

    which is the FAQ link for the product in question, it states:

    This product does not offer Common Questions.

  • According to this article:

    http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/wireless/2002/08 /1 3/bluetooth_osx.html?page=1

    You should just be putting in a password, your password and that's it....

    Maybe you didn't set up the device in the Bluetooth Preference Pane as illustrated in the article above?

    In the O'Reilley article it clearly shows setting up and setting a password for each new Bluetooth device you want to add to your machine.

    Well, check out the article and see if that helps. Or google around a bit more like I started to and you may find what you need to know. One thing you can't expect is for Microsoft to provide tech support for your Mac. They don't know any more about your OS than you do. I'd never expect Apple to provde support for a One-Button mouse if a person was trying to use it on a Windows machine, would you? or how about hooking up an Airport device to a Windows XP machine? Yes it should be possible and should work just like all other 802.11b devices but since it was made only for Apple products and they don't claim otherwise, I would be SOL and on my own.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close