«

Chris Hope wrote:
> ams67 wrote:
>
>
>>No comment...Just a huge LoL!!!!
>>http://nl2.vnunet.com/news/1160317
>
>
> Were they demonstrating a beta version of the media center or something?

No, something went wrong with the remote Gates was using or the IR
received on the Media Centre PC

Some comments from a Microsoftee's blog
http://blog.seanalexander.com/ces.htm behind the scenes

> I think I've only ever managed to make my XP totally crash once or twice
> in a couple of years and even then it was because I was testing out
> firewalls and hadn't fully uninstalled one before installing the other.
>
> You think they'd be a bit more careful when demonstrating their
> software. Kinda makes MS a laughing stock when this sort of thing
> happens.

**** happens. Even to Chief Software Architects.

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 15:56:44 +1300, Nathan Mercer wrote:

>> You think they'd be a bit more careful when demonstrating their
>> software. Kinda makes MS a laughing stock when this sort of thing
>> happens.
>
> **** happens. Even to Chief Software Architects.

I don't think I've ever seen a BSOD on one of my *nix boxen.

I've seen a few segmentation errors tho' - but not recently.


Divine

--
"Installing and running Unix hardly counts as one of the more difficult
intellectual tasks. It's hard, sure, if you're used to something different,
but the description 'windows people' includes novelists, artists and nuclear
scientists who just don't give a damn about the stupid OS their computer
runs."

On 15 Jan 2005 19:34:23 -0800, "Nathan Mercer" <>
wrote:


>For all I know it could have even been industrial espionage
>

You're going to get heaps for this comment

ams67 wrote:
>>>Still shouldn't cause an OS crash though, should it?

>>The OS didn't crash whatsoever.

> Then someone must be a liar.
> According to:
> http://nl2.vnunet.com/news/1160317
> "Blue screen of death crashes Gates at CES"...
> What can it be consider more 'OS crashed" the a nice BSOD?

I've read this aswell, but not from any of the usual tech sites I read,
only ones posted in this group.

And the tech site I normally read would have made comment of it, they're
run by a bunch of pricks who hassle anythingand everything.

wrote:
>>In the Media
>>Center demo the IR remote didn't work because of hardware issues

> Such as ...?

I seem to recall reading that it was IR interference... too many IR auto
focus cameras being used that confused the poor thing.

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 08:15:48 +1300, Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:

>>>In the Media
>>>Center demo the IR remote didn't work because of hardware issues
>
>> Such as ...?
>
> I seem to recall reading that it was IR interference... too many IR auto
> focus cameras being used that confused the poor thing.

So why didn't they simply change frequency/channel?


Divine

--
Only two people at Microsoft worked on MS-DOS 1.0. One of them, Chris
Peters, later testified when Seattle Computer Products sued Microsoft
concerning the purchase of QDOS: "Again, from the programmer's point of
view, MS-DOS 1.0 was primarily a clone of CP/M."

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 20:32:35 +1300, Axle wrote:

>> So why didn't they simply change frequency/channel?
>
> Interference from other sources is ambient infrared, not at the
> subcarrier frequency.

LOL - so if it's too warm, ie too much radiant heat, then an IR remote
won't work correctly.


> IR receiver diodes respond over quite a wide band around 900 nanometers
> wavelength

So change the frequency on which it responds? Surely that is possible. I
mean radios can do that, and can isolate desired transmissions from
undesired interference.

Why cannot IR links do the same?


Divine

--
The Queen's Mother: "Well I don't know what all you queens are doing,
but this old Queen wants a drink."

wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 20:32:35 +1300, Axle wrote:
>
>
>>>So why didn't they simply change frequency/channel?
>>
>>Interference from other sources is ambient infrared, not at the
>>subcarrier frequency.
>
>
> LOL - so if it's too warm, ie too much radiant heat, then an IR remote
> won't work correctly.

Not exactly, but if there is a lot of emission at the wavelength that
the receivers work at, the noise can mask the code.
>
>
>
>>IR receiver diodes respond over quite a wide band around 900 nanometers
>>wavelength
>
>
> So change the frequency on which it responds? Surely that is possible. I
> mean radios can do that, and can isolate desired transmissions from
> undesired interference.
>
> Why cannot IR links do the same?
>

They can do all sorts of things with optics, but not for $2 worth of
components in a TV remote control.

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:32:56 +1300, Axle wrote:

>> LOL - so if it's too warm, ie too much radiant heat, then an IR remote
>> won't work correctly.
>
> Not exactly, but if there is a lot of emission at the wavelength that
> the receivers work at, the noise can mask the code.

So they should switch frequencies.


Divine

--
Mhyrvold, January 5, 1989: Microsoft "preannounced Windows, signed up the
major OEMs and showed a demo to freeze the market and prevent VisiOn from
getting any momentum. It sure worked - VisiOn died, VisiCorp died, and DOS
kept on chugging."

wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:32:56 +1300, Axle wrote:
>
>
>>>LOL - so if it's too warm, ie too much radiant heat, then an IR remote
>>>won't work correctly.
>>
>>Not exactly, but if there is a lot of emission at the wavelength that
>>the receivers work at, the noise can mask the code.
>
>
> So they should switch frequencies.
>
>
> Divine
>


Imagine if someone is sending you morse code via light beam on a wall,
now imagine if the ambient light on the wall is brighter than the light
beam.
Changing the rate that the light flashes will not help