New Microsoft Tech Makes Battery Changes a Breeze
in [Embedded]
|
Prev: need ur help for my Masters project(TASM project)
Next: Full-featured Controller Area Network simulator available for free
From: David L. Jones on 3 Jul 2010 06:08 Don McKenzie wrote: > larwe wrote: >> On Jul 2, 5:55 pm, Don McKenzie <5...(a)2.5A> wrote: >> >>> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2365995,00.asp >>> >>> On Thursday, Microsoft announced a technology called InstaLoad, >>> which will allow you to insert a battery into electronic devices >>> any way you please. >> >> People where I work are kicking themselves that we did not think of >> this. It's such an obvious idea. > > After sending this info onto to a few private associates, some didn't > understand how it worked, I found this page to be a much better > explanation: > http://www.microsoft.com/hardware/mouseandkeyboard/licensing/instaloadoverview.mspx Brilliant, just frigg'n brilliant! Surely someone has done it before, somewhere, in some obscure product? Dave. --------------------------------------------- Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast: http://www.eevblog.com
From: Jasen Betts on 3 Jul 2010 06:12 On 2010-07-03, Sylvia Else <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > On 3/07/2010 7:21 PM, tim.... wrote: >> "Paul Gotch"<paulg(a)at-cantab-dot.net> wrote in message >> news:yrt*H85ct(a)news.chiark.greenend.org.uk... >>> In comp.arch.embedded Tim Wescott<tim(a)seemywebsite.com> wrote: >>>> It doesn't quite meet the "not obvious" criteria -- it makes you wonder >>>> why Microsoft is even bothering with a patent. >>> >>> Because they can and because they appear to be only licensing it >>> royalty free for certain classes of devices. That is to say certain >>> ones that don't compete with the thing they developed it for which >>> appears to be wireless keyboards and mice. >> >> Can you see anybody buying a product because of this USP? >> >> I can't. >> >> It's a nice gimmick, but not one that translates into money IMHO. >> >> tim >> >> > > It would elminate warranty returns by people who've put batteries in the > wrong way. Equipment damaged that way wouldn't usually be covered by > warranty, but just determining that that was the cause of the failure > costs money. Most battery compartments are constructed so that only the positive nipple can contact the positive terminal. The cost is a fractuion of a cent's worth of plastic to build hedges either side of the +ve contact. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Kulin Remailer on 3 Jul 2010 08:23 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:898f6bF1fsU1(a)mid.individual.net... > Don McKenzie wrote: >> Tim Wescott wrote: >>> On 07/02/2010 02:55 PM, Don McKenzie wrote: >>>> New Microsoft Tech Makes Battery Changes a Breeze >>>> >>>> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2365995,00.asp >>>> >>>> On Thursday, Microsoft announced a technology called InstaLoad, >>>> which will allow you to insert a battery into electronic devices >>>> any way you please. >>>> >>>> The InstaLoad technology will be licensed on a royalty-free basis, >>>> Microsoft said. Duracell was named as a partner for the technology, >>>> as well as several manaufacturers of electronic devices, including >>>> ClearSound's hearing aids, NovaTac's LED flashlights, and Black >>>> Diamond's headlamps for mountaineering. >>> >>> It doesn't quite meet the "not obvious" criteria -- it makes you >>> wonder why Microsoft is even bothering with a patent. > >> Just wonder how tested against little children and preying fingers >> they are. > > Just how many children do you know with preying fingers ? > >> Did Micro$oft test them to the nth degree like they did with Vista? >> :-) > > Likely better than your proof reading. That says a lot about your reading, Woddleypoo. "little children and preying fingers" And, a conjuction. HTH, you fuckstained retard.
From: Sylvia Else on 3 Jul 2010 08:44 On 3/07/2010 7:59 PM, tim.... wrote: > "Sylvia Else"<sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote in message > news:898ehsFs4fU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> On 3/07/2010 7:21 PM, tim.... wrote: >>> "Paul Gotch"<paulg(a)at-cantab-dot.net> wrote in message >>> news:yrt*H85ct(a)news.chiark.greenend.org.uk... >>>> In comp.arch.embedded Tim Wescott<tim(a)seemywebsite.com> wrote: >>>>> It doesn't quite meet the "not obvious" criteria -- it makes you wonder >>>>> why Microsoft is even bothering with a patent. >>>> >>>> Because they can and because they appear to be only licensing it >>>> royalty free for certain classes of devices. That is to say certain >>>> ones that don't compete with the thing they developed it for which >>>> appears to be wireless keyboards and mice. >>> >>> Can you see anybody buying a product because of this USP? >>> >>> I can't. >>> >>> It's a nice gimmick, but not one that translates into money IMHO. >>> >>> tim >>> >>> >> >> It would elminate warranty returns by people who've put batteries in the >> wrong way. Equipment damaged that way wouldn't usually be covered by >> warranty, but just determining that that was the cause of the failure >> costs money. > > do you think that anybody returns a 9.99 mouse under the warranty? Where does it say that this is limited to use in mouses costing $9.99? Sylvia.
From: Nomen Nescio on 3 Jul 2010 08:55
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:898f6bF1fsU1(a)mid.individual.net... > Don McKenzie wrote: >> Tim Wescott wrote: >>> On 07/02/2010 02:55 PM, Don McKenzie wrote: >>>> New Microsoft Tech Makes Battery Changes a Breeze >>>> >>>> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2365995,00.asp >>>> >>>> On Thursday, Microsoft announced a technology called InstaLoad, >>>> which will allow you to insert a battery into electronic devices >>>> any way you please. >>>> >>>> The InstaLoad technology will be licensed on a royalty-free basis, >>>> Microsoft said. Duracell was named as a partner for the technology, >>>> as well as several manaufacturers of electronic devices, including >>>> ClearSound's hearing aids, NovaTac's LED flashlights, and Black >>>> Diamond's headlamps for mountaineering. >>> >>> It doesn't quite meet the "not obvious" criteria -- it makes you >>> wonder why Microsoft is even bothering with a patent. > >> Just wonder how tested against little children and preying fingers >> they are. > > Just how many children do you know with preying fingers ? > >> Did Micro$oft test them to the nth degree like they did with Vista? >> :-) > > Likely better than your proof reading. That says a lot about your reading, Woddleypoo. "little children and preying fingers" And, a conjuction. HTH, you fuckstained retard. |