Two Apple Wireless keyboards (at 2 locations) vs 1 G4 PoowerBook

Question

I like using my Apple Wireless keyboard with my Powerbook G4 which stands on an iCurve at work. I make heavy use of the extra keys.
At the moment I take the wireless keyboard home with the PowerBook but this is getting tiresome. I am considering buying a second wireless keyboard.
Before I do my question is this:
Can I Pair a second Apple Wireless Keyboard (which stays at Home) and maintain the office wireless keyboard (which stays at work) pairing too?
NB I don't want to have to delete any pairing everytime I go home or come to my place of work. I want seemless 'finding' of the keyboard it finds at boot time.
The two keyboards will never exist in the same location, in fact they are 50 miles apart.
I have searched through the discussions but could not find this situation discussed.
Thanks.
PowerBook G4 1.66GHz Mac OS X (10.4.5) Apple Wireless Keyboard

Answer 1

Hi, G.Cactus!
I've participated in a number of threads about this issue, with fairly consistent — albeit not unanimous — results. Unfortunately, many folks never post back to confirm the results of their experience; I'm guessing this is because the "answer" is unsatisfying, and ~counter-intuitive. (More on this in a minute. [1])
  How? Apple is pretty unambiguous on the subject in KnowledgeBase Article 86471 — Bluetooth: How to Delete a Paired Device —"Note: Some Bluetooth devices (such as keyboards and mice) are designed to be paired and used with one computer at a time. If you pair your keyboard or mouse with another computer, delete the pairing with the original computer first. This will ensure that the device only attempts to operate with the intended computer."Logically, the converse should also be true.
Given this, your"NB I don't want to have to delete any pairing everytime I go home or come to my place of work. I want seemless 'finding' of the keyboard it finds at boot time."...appears to be too tall an order. Making your keyboard a "Favorite" enhances "seamlessness" — but multiple pairings appear to require the "extra step" — for input devices, anyway...
A number of folks have reported that this (deleting pairing/re-pairing) worked for them — although they consider it annoying. C'est la vie — if the "delete pairing" and "re-pairing" process takes more than ~a minute or two, something else is awry...
In ~10 months of watching this & a few other Bluetooth forums, I can only recall one poster who reported success without having to delete pairing. See [ Richard Kroc, "Re: Can you pair 1 mouse to 2 computers?" Jan 28, 2006 9:45 pm ], if you're interested.
You can peruse other threads from this forum on the topic by using — search terms such as < delete +(pair OR pairing OR paired) > — along with delimiters of your choice (such as (+keyboard !mouse)...
[1]   Why?  "Unsatisfying" is apparent.
"Counter-intuitive" (imo) because one of Bluetooth's strong points is that it facilitates inter-operability across a range of Bluetooth-enabled devices — even allowing one device to work ~concurrently across multiple "piconets" (Bluetooth™ Personal Area Networks of up to 1 "master" and 7 "slave" devices each).   But it appears that HID (Human Interface Devices, "geekspeak" for "input devices" such as mice & keyboards) are in a different category among Bluetooth-enabled device in this regard. Intentionally.
The Bluetooth technology defines numerous "Profiles" through which Bluetooth-enabled devices of different kinds can communicate, using standardized protocols.
      If a "requirement" for such redundant "re-pairing" were the case for PDAs, phones, headsets, etc.,
      my guess is that the Bluetooth SIG would consider this an intolerable limitation.
As defined in the latter document cited ("Profiles Overview"), the HID profile within the core Bluetooth specification was designed using "the USB definition of a HID device in order to leverage the existing class drivers for HID devices" — i.e., in an effort toward a ~universal approach among similar products.  But there are clearly differences once the cables are removed.
I've read through the available HID specification ["Human Interface Design Profile (HID)," May 2003; available from here] — as best I can as a layperson.   The "limitation" is intentional, and ~complex. I think I understand the rationale for it, at least in part and in general terms. Apparently, two factors control in this regard for HID:
  • Limitations on discoverability/non-discoverability to facilitate ~rapid connection
  • The need for rigorous support of authentication/bonding/encryption for HID "due to the extraordinary
      sensitivity of the information that commonly travels from these devices" compared to other
      Bluetooth profiles.
Note also that the pairing and authentication/encryption processes involve very complex communication protocols that are defined specifically wrt to each piconet. My guess is that this represents a practical boundary — at least at the moment. Depending on the evolution of Bluetooth technology, growing use of multiple "concurrent" piconets in some environments may motivate changes.
I'd be interested to hear more about your experience and views on this.
I realize this isn't the answer you wanted to hear, but...
HTH!
Dean
      I edited this message...   But probably not enough!
[1,957 ⊥ 3,340]