Microsoft Intellimice and Bluetooth Issues?

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?"

Comments

Re:Geez, a MS mouse works only on windows.

[sofar]

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.

Standard?

[Wiwi Jumbo]

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?

Re:Geez, a MS mouse works only on windows.

[SmallFurryCreature]

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.

Password

[wanderb]

Have you tried four zeros (0000)? It's the standard security code for most bluetooth devices.

In the depths of Redmond...

[Anonymous Coward]

MS employee: Ha - if only he knew the password was "12345"

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

Re:Geez, a MS mouse works only on windows.

[watchmaker1]

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.

The problem is...

[vrmlguy]

The problem is, Bluetooth devices in general just don't interoperate. See, for example, the article PC, Mac OS updates may spark Bluetooth:

"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:

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.