Talk:Bluetooth stack

message: The list of embedded stacks reads like a who's who of the Bluetooth stack peddler market. Should this simply be removed an a pointer to an external website listing one or more of the implementations put in its place? "There are many embedded implementations of the Bluetooth protocol stack, generally focusing on memory and CPU constraints of those platforms.[xx]"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.172.39 (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:SELFPROMOTE

message: User 194.116.180.250, I have removed some of your text that may have leaned too much into the opinion region.  These include "probably the simplest and most powerful API to use", "this has the most pleasant and intuitive user interface", and "the API is the most clumsy of all those available".  From my own experience as a programmer, these can be subjective things and what one person calls "clumsy" can be another person's "elegant".  Lathe26 19:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV violations

message: "Generally, only a single stack can be used at any time: switching usually requires uninstalling the current stack, although a trace of previous stacks remains in the registry" -- why is this uncited, Windows-specific information in the definition of Bluetooth stack?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinyplasticbag (talk • contribs) 00:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Windows specific cruft?

message: The word "stack" has (within the computing category) multiple meanings. Should there exist a category page or other type of referral wherein the variety of "stack" this article attempts to explain is defined, then such a link aught be the first available link in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the either the first section or (should one exist) topic summary (ie. whatever the analogue of an article's "Abstract" heading is on wiki).
Without a definition or other kind of "contextual referral" the article is totally meaningless (to me anyway). As well I should add that, being an IT professional, I'm not exactly "computer illiterate". I may be illiterate on this particular topic, but not in general. So terms like "stack" could be explained to (and understood by) me were there a place to find out what it is.
The upshot is that authors of articles like this one (and many others) are essentially "speaking in tongues" when the language in use hasn't been indicated. Alancarre (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to technical terminology lacking 

message: Looking at http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/DeviceDrivers/Conceptual/Bluetooth/BT_Bluetooth_On_MOSX/BT_Bluetooth_On_MOSX.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP30000997-CH215-TPXREF108 , it is clear that OS X support the serial port profile, and many which aren't listed. 93.97.77.139 (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracies Regarding Mac OS X profile support 

message: Please note that I had to spend more than one month to try to fix the issued Bluetooth headphone to Microsoft Windows 7 and 10 PCs. However, it might be basically impossible to fix it. Several people spent more than three - five months to find the solution, but no luck as there is no way without specific firmware developed by Microsoft or the issued Bluetooth vendor.  If you find the firmware of plantronics or Altec headsets to  Microsoft Windows 7 and 10 PCs, Please update the subject above  Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparability issue of Bluetooth devices