Searching \ for '[EE] Bluetooth upgrade rides 802.11 radios' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=bluetooth+upgrade
Search entire site for: 'Bluetooth upgrade rides 802.11 radios'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE] Bluetooth upgrade rides 802.11 radios'
2009\04\22@012318 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=216900437
Quote:
The Bluetooth Special Interest Group has released its version 3.0 specification
supporting data rates up to 24 Mbits/second over a shared 802.11 radio, a
small but significant step toward the technology becoming a de facto
protocol for ad hoc, secure wireless peer-to-peer networks.

--
Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com

2009\04\22@124606 by Herbert Graf

picon face
On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 13:23 +0800, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=216900437
> Quote:
> The Bluetooth Special Interest Group has released its version 3.0 specification
> supporting data rates up to 24 Mbits/second over a shared 802.11 radio, a
> small but significant step toward the technology becoming a de facto
> protocol for ad hoc, secure wireless peer-to-peer networks.

This sort of thing annoys me.

Bluetooth is crap. When it works it's great, but there are SO many
interoperability issues it's maddening. Trying to transfer small files
between different devices is ALWAYS hit and miss. I'm not even going to
mention the turd pile that the "profiles" brings (does your device
support this profile? Who knows. What profile does this device need? No
way to tell). The fact that the iPhone didn't even support Bluetooth
audio is a perfect example of this garbage heap.

The Bluetooth SIG should focus more on getting what is already in the
spec WORKING RELIABLY on devices. Manufacturers have been so loose with
implementations that about the only thing most people use Bluetooth for
is headsets, and even there I've had problems (headset pairs with my
laptop once, then never again, grr...).

While this is a nice feature, I can't imagine it'll work very well, and
is therefore going to be skipped by most consumers.

I'm ignoring the fact that while 24Mbps is nice for cell cam photos and
low bitrate MP3s, it's really behind the times when it comes to high
quality photos, lossless audio formats, and never mind good quality
video.

Just my overly critical 2 cents...

2009\04\22@130004 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
Herbert Graf ha scritto:
> On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 13:23 +0800, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>> The Bluetooth Special Interest Group has released its version 3.0 specification
>> supporting data rates up to 24 Mbits/second over a shared 802.11 radio, a
>> small but significant step toward the technology becoming a de facto
>> protocol for ad hoc, secure wireless peer-to-peer networks.
>
> This sort of thing annoys me.
>
> Bluetooth is crap. When it works it's great, but there are SO many
> interoperability issues it's maddening. Trying to transfer small files
> between different devices is ALWAYS hit and miss. I'm not even going to
> mention the turd pile that the "profiles" brings (does your device
> support this profile? Who knows. What profile does this device need? No
> way to tell).

Defeinitely agreed Herbert!!
:)

2009\04\22@164443 by Dwayne Reid

flavicon
face
At 10:46 AM 4/22/2009, Herbert Graf wrote:

>This sort of thing annoys me.
>
>Bluetooth is crap. When it works it's great, but there are SO many
>interoperability issues it's maddening.

I've used Bluetooth for only a few things, but its worked VERY well for me.

1) Laptop or netbook with bluetooth means that I don't have to plug
anything into a USB port in order to use a decent mouse with the
computer.  I've seen WAY too many wrecked dongles (and laptops) when
those dongles get snagged on something.

2) Cell-phone with wireless headset - every combination I've used has
worked every time, first time.  Admittedly, I tend to keep such
appliances for a really long time and thus have had to do this only a
few times.  But its always worked.

That said: I'm with you in that I'd prefer to see the working group
deal with making the existing protocols more reliable if there are
reliability issues that need fixing.

dwayne

--
Dwayne Reid   <spam_OUTdwaynerTakeThisOuTspamplanet.eon.net>
Trinity Electronics Systems Ltd    Edmonton, AB, CANADA
(780) 489-3199 voice          (780) 487-6397 fax
http://www.trinity-electronics.com
Custom Electronics Design and Manufacturing

2009\04\23@011548 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Herbert Graf <.....hkgrafKILLspamspam@spam@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm ignoring the fact that while 24Mbps is nice for cell cam photos and
> low bitrate MP3s, it's really behind the times when it comes to high
> quality photos, lossless audio formats, and never mind good quality
> video.

24Mbps is the maximum bitrate for AVCHD 1080p video, which is quite
good HD video quality, and it wouldn't surprise me if that's one of
the reasons they chose that rate as the maximum (since it doesn't map
to the 11, 54, 108, etc of normal 802.11 maximums)...

-Adam

2009\04\23@095116 by Tony Smith
flavicon
face
> > small but significant step toward the technology becoming a de facto
> > protocol for ad hoc, secure wireless peer-to-peer networks.
>
> This sort of thing annoys me.
>
> Bluetooth is crap. When it works it's great, but there are SO many
> interoperability issues it's maddening. Trying to transfer small files
> between different devices is ALWAYS hit and miss. I'm not even going to
> mention the turd pile that the "profiles" brings (does your device
> support this profile? Who knows. What profile does this device need? No
> way to tell). The fact that the iPhone didn't even support Bluetooth
> audio is a perfect example of this garbage heap.


There's always IRDA.  I don't think they ever changed the spec for that.

Tony

2009\04\23@110018 by Herbert Graf

picon face
On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 01:15 -0400, M. Adam Davis wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Herbert Graf <hkgrafspamKILLspamgmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm ignoring the fact that while 24Mbps is nice for cell cam photos and
> > low bitrate MP3s, it's really behind the times when it comes to high
> > quality photos, lossless audio formats, and never mind good quality
> > video.
>
> 24Mbps is the maximum bitrate for AVCHD 1080p video, which is quite
> good HD video quality, and it wouldn't surprise me if that's one of
> the reasons they chose that rate as the maximum (since it doesn't map
> to the 11, 54, 108, etc of normal 802.11 maximums)...

Actually that is an interesting note, but in this case I don't see why
that would be a "good" thing, since assuming you get 24Mbps, that means
you are transferring the video in real time! YUCK! A 1 hour video takes
one hour to transfer? Unless they are thinking of using this Bluetooth
link to link devices for video playback (something that I haven't seen
mentioned anywhere) this doesn't sound at all appealing vs. just using a
USB cable.

That's all assuming the tech works between devices, given the history of
Bluetooth inter-device compatibility I have my doubts.

TTYL

2009\04\23@110239 by Herbert Graf

picon face
On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 23:48 +1000, Tony Smith wrote:
> > > small but significant step toward the technology becoming a de facto
> > > protocol for ad hoc, secure wireless peer-to-peer networks.
> >
> > This sort of thing annoys me.
> >
> > Bluetooth is crap. When it works it's great, but there are SO many
> > interoperability issues it's maddening. Trying to transfer small files
> > between different devices is ALWAYS hit and miss. I'm not even going to
> > mention the turd pile that the "profiles" brings (does your device
> > support this profile? Who knows. What profile does this device need? No
> > way to tell). The fact that the iPhone didn't even support Bluetooth
> > audio is a perfect example of this garbage heap.
>
>
> There's always IRDA.  I don't think they ever changed the spec for that.

Very true, unfortunately it is too slow for pretty much all uses beyond
using your phone as a modem and exchanging address book contacts. Shame
really, it was at one time pretty universal, and I don't recall having
problems sending contacts between phones. That said, pretty much no
phones have IR anymore, and many laptops have also dropped it.

TTYL

2009\04\23@145343 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Herbert Graf <.....hkgrafKILLspamspam.....gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 01:15 -0400, M. Adam Davis wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Herbert Graf <EraseMEhkgrafspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTgmail.com> wrote:
>> > I'm ignoring the fact that while 24Mbps is nice for cell cam photos and
>> > low bitrate MP3s, it's really behind the times when it comes to high
>> > quality photos, lossless audio formats, and never mind good quality
>> > video.
>>
>> 24Mbps is the maximum bitrate for AVCHD 1080p video, which is quite
>> good HD video quality, and it wouldn't surprise me if that's one of
>> the reasons they chose that rate as the maximum (since it doesn't map
>> to the 11, 54, 108, etc of normal 802.11 maximums)...
>
> Actually that is an interesting note, but in this case I don't see why
> that would be a "good" thing, since assuming you get 24Mbps, that means
> you are transferring the video in real time! YUCK! A 1 hour video takes
> one hour to transfer? Unless they are thinking of using this Bluetooth
> link to link devices for video playback (something that I haven't seen
> mentioned anywhere) this doesn't sound at all appealing vs. just using a
> USB cable.

Bluetooth, while it supports data transfer, is really tending more
towards real time usage scenarios.  The headset doean't need to go
faster than voice communication requires, for instance.

I'm pretty sure what they're targetting with this is being able to
play video on your HDTV from your camcorder without wires - when you
want to transfer files for use you'll still have to connect it to a
computer for faster transfer.

I know I want it so I can use a handheld camera at geek group meetings
and have it go directly to my computer for live internet streaming.
Right now the best I can get is bad SD video transmitters with a
firewire or USB video input on the laptop going to the internet...

> That's all assuming the tech works between devices, given the history of
> Bluetooth inter-device compatibility I have my doubts.

Yes, it's a mess.  We got a DECT phone system that connects both to
the home phone and to a bluetooth cell phone, so when I'm in the house
I can make cell phone calls using the home system while the cell phone
is plugged in and charging (among other reasons - long distance free
calls to friends and family, etc) - unfortunately it causes problems
with the cell phone we've linked to it - sometimes it fails to ring
when it should, and she started missing calls.  Now it's just a plain
home line cordless phone system.

-Adam

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2009 , 2010 only
- Today
- New search...