My BLUE TOOTH needs to be PULLED!!!!

[zveruga]

Now that I got your attention

What does it exactly do? I saw some nifty little bluetooth dongles for a laptop, with antennas sticking out... what will it do precisely? What will it work with?

Thanks!

 

[Utterman]

It is pretty much a little wireless network device. It uses a radio wave that is very short in distance. With blue tooth, you can use on it many devices such as a printer, so you can print with no wires to the computer. There are a lot of other purpose and devices coming out.

 

[zveruga]

How about internet surfing??

 

[Utterman]

Blue Tooth has a bandwith of about 1 megabit /sec, so it is possible to get internet access with it. The distance blue tooth is about 30 feet, so if you have a computer nearby, then you can share your net connection. Newegg sells several blue tooth network cards as shown Here

 

[VBboy]

LOL, you funny little geek

Google.com -> "what is blue tooth"

 

[Insane3D]

The distance blue tooth is about 30 feet,

Those products you linked to say a range of 100-150 meters...than pretty damn far..

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

The distance blue tooth is about 30 feet,

Those products you linked to say a range of 100-150 meters...than pretty damn far..

I think that is it possible to have that far of range (even further IIRC) but it requires more power and it creates interference.

 

[Eug]

Not exactly correct, but one way to think of Blue Tooth is as wireless USB.

802.11b on the other hand is "real" wireless LAN.

By the way, I'm surprised it says 150 m. You won't even get that most times with 802.11b, which usually has a MUCH higher range. BlueTooth's usually spec'd at about 10 m.

 

[zveruga]

Thanks to those who didn't make fun of my question. And to those, and those only -- a follow up question: What do I need in order to share my desktop net connection with my laptop? I know I need one of those newegg wireless cards. What about the desktop -- what do I need to connect to it? Do i need any special software to do this? An explanation or a link would be appreciated.

Also -- which blootooth card do u guys recommend??

Anandtech mod -- I am not sure what you mean by stinkin' buttons. Please message me privately, if my question was inappropriate or redundant. I did an search for previous postings on "blue tooth" before I posted my question in this forum.

VBbbbbboy -- Thank you for your infinite wisdom. Your sagely advice is invaluable... and useless. I posted questions here, because the explanations I found using a search engine were very technical. I found nothing on actual practical uses of the technology for the home user -- especially as related to internet access. I have come to depend on this forum for the "how to" advice. And if you dont like my question, dont answer it.

 

[CZroe]

Eug: That's EXACTLY how I've had to describe it to everyone! All PC mags can't help but compare the two in similar applications and that's not fair. You'll never find 802.11b wireless keyboards/mice. And playing between the next-gen Game Boys will be simple. Just get near the other players. Throw a Bluetooth/Internet enabled Cell phone in the mix and you can have players wirelessly playing across the country! Did you ever see the articles claiming "Bluetooth is dead before it arrived. 802.11b had won. Microsoft officially supports 802.11b putting the final nail in the coffin for Bluetooth."? As if they were competing in any way! Wireless networking AND wireless I/O is here. Long live Blue-tooth!

 

[joohang]

Anandtech mod -- I am not sure what you mean by stinkin' buttons. Please message me privately, if my question was inappropriate or redundant. I did an search for previous postings on "blue tooth" before I posted my question in this forum.

That was a sig, btw.

 

[zveruga]

That was a sig, btw.

DOH!!!! I feel like a n00b

 

[zippy]

LMAO!

Btw, Mod, don't chop the poor guy's head off, he didn't know about the stinkin' buttons.

 

[merlocka]

Bluetooth is a low-power low cost "wire-replacement" technology.

To break it down fairly simply, there are two main low-level links that Bluetooth maintains. One is an serial data connection, the other is an audio connection.

With the serial connection (SPP) you can emulate RS232 (COM ports), USB, Parallel ports, PS2, etc... basically anything. The protocol stack runs "profiles" which structure how the established link is used. There are numerous "profiles" for applications such as Dial-up networking, serial port, printer port, access point, fax, etc... it's really limitless and all software driven.

In addition, Bluetooth supports audio links as well. These connections (SCO) are made after a data connection has been completed and allow up to 3 simultanios audio streams between devices. The target usage of the SCO links are for handsfree / headset / and other wireless audio applications.

Some popular Bluetooth applications which will hit the market soon are...

Bluetooth headset's -> use a lightweight headset to replace the wired cellphone headset. When you receive a call, the Bluetooth enabled cellphone creates a connection to your headset and you can receive the call without touching your phone. Future headsets will be the size of hearing-aids, and have amazing battery life.

Data syncronization -> Bluetooth basically replaces the Serial or USB cable between your PDA/Cellphone/Laptop. Your palm sync's up to your laptop once it's in range.

Ad-hoc networks -> 4 Bluetooth enabled laptops can easily share documents, etc... software can allow this to emulate a real (ethernet) network and you can share internet connections as well.

BT keyboards and mice -> this is a no brainer for people who travel with laptops. carry a small mouse with you and use it for any BT enabled laptop!

The applications are really limitless, it's all software driven.

Some misconceptions of Bluetooth :

It's slower and shorter range than 802.11b so who cares? -> It had better be!!! or else your cell phone battery wouldn't last too long the usage models of BT and 802.11b are very different, and 802.11b isn't very practical for portables yet.

It's range is only 5/10/15/20/whatever feet! -> Bluetooth has 3 different classes of devices

Class 1 -> Power range of 0dBm to 20dBm with power control. Range can be up to 100m (on a good day with the wind at your back)

Class 2 -> Power range of -6 to +4dBm. The most popluar range for portables because of power consumption. Specified range is 10 meters, although many solutions can go farther.

Class 3 -> Everything else below Class2 there will be some devices that only need a few meters of connection and will fall into this classification.

Also, there is some misconception about Bluetooth data rates. The maximum data rate of the modulation is 1Mbps, but in real links this is divided between uplink and downlink. The fastest connection in an asymetrical link is about 723kbps, when only one device is connected. That's fairly quick for a zero configuration internet connection.

Basically, Bluetooth was hyped so much because there are really many many applications which can use it. I believe that it will be a must-have technology soon because the price point is getting so low for embedded applications. I'd like to see all laptops, desktop motherboards, pda's and cell phones to have it embedded.

Hope this helps.

 

[merlocka]

Oh, BTW. Check out the worlds smallest BT USB dongle...

I have a couple of these laying around and I can attest that they are the coolest thing I've played with in a long time. They are only shipping with Mac software (for now )

 

[CZroe]

Glad to see someone else is as excited as I am!

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: CZroe
Eug: That's EXACTLY how I've had to describe it to everyone! All PC mags can't help but compare the two in similar applications and that's not fair. You'll never find 802.11b wireless keyboards/mice. And playing between the next-gen Game Boys will be simple. Just get near the other players. Throw a Bluetooth/Internet enabled Cell phone in the mix and you can have players wirelessly playing across the country! Did you ever see the articles claiming "Bluetooth is dead before it arrived. 802.11b had won. Microsoft officially supports 802.11b putting the final nail in the coffin for Bluetooth."? As if they were competing in any way! Wireless networking AND wireless I/O is here. Long live Blue-tooth!

Well, I should point out to you that I'm not particularly enamoured with BlueTooth because:

1) The max data rate is too slow for many uses BlueTooth is hyped for.
2) It potentially interferes with 802.11b transmissions.

It's slower and shorter range than 802.11b so who cares? -> It had better be!!! or else your cell phone battery wouldn't last too long the usage models of BT and 802.11b are very different, and 802.11b isn't very practical for portables yet.

There's nothing wrong with having low data rate devices for this purpose, but BlueTooth doesn't allow for a higher speed spec at this time, which I see as a flaw.

And I'm not sure what you mean by 802.11b not being very practical for portables. If you mean cell phones etc, I totally agree, but if you mean laptops then I disagree. (Just clarifying.)

Anyways, I am biased because I value 802.11b way more at this point and want nothing to interfere with my 802.11b transmissions. Hence, I don't own 2.4 GHz phones, and won't install BlueTooth any time soon.

I'd be more impressed if the BlueTooth people actually would demo some stuff like non-wired cell-phone headsets etc. where it would really shine. However, the demos I've seen have been for stuff like ad-hoc networking, but in many ways, BlueTooth implementations of this pale in comparison to 802.11b (of course 802.11a). I've also seen a BlueTooth miniDV cam, but quite frankly I don't see the point. BlueTooth transmissions of multimedia data would take just about forever.

 

[merlocka]

1) The max data rate is too slow for many uses BlueTooth is hyped for.

Well, this isn't a issue for any type of headset / handsfree / cordless telephony applications which are a significant chunck of the applications.

It's not an issue for wireless mouse, keyboards, and 90% of printing and data synchronization applications.

It's not even an issue for dial-up networking when using GPRS or CDMA 1X since those will be service limited rather than transport limited.

Basically, it's an issue for networking and internet access, which I agree 802.11b is better suited for. BT was never meant to replace those, but having used it in these applications I can say that in a pinch (such as travelling and at meetings when you want to share documents) it's a nice feeling to know you can connect with people without having to plug in or line up the IR.

2) It potentially interferes with 802.11b transmissions.

By the time Bluetooth is integrated into everything, the mainstream solutions will be capable of what's called AFH (Adaptive Frequency Hopping) which will dramatically limit the amout BT interferes with 802.11b.

If you mean cell phones etc, I totally agree, but if you mean laptops then I disagree. (Just clarifying.)

Compared to cellphones and PDA's, a laptop battery is like the Sun

I read a review of the new Toshiba PDA. The reviewer tested battery life with the integrated 802.11b radio ON, but not transmitting a single bit of data. Just having the thing ON reduced the PDA battery life to less than 2 hours.

Anyways, I am biased because I value 802.11b way more at this point and want nothing to interfere with my 802.11b transmissions.

Amen brother. I threw away all my "Gigarange Extreme" phones months ago. They should rename them "Giga-wideband-noise Extreme".

I'd be more impressed if the BlueTooth people actually would demo some stuff like non-wired cell-phone headsets etc. where it would really shine.

I've seen it, and it is good

Yeah, the marketing might be slightly off but manufacturers are starting to get the big picture. The problem is that the software is lagging (doesn't it always ).

But keep an eye out. As we say in the office, "it's gonna be a Blue Christmas"

 

[CZroe]

There's nothing wrong with having low data rate devices for this purpose, but BlueTooth doesn't allow for a higher speed spec at this time, which I see as a flaw.

I didn't see bandwidth as much of a flaw in USB (The proper comparison) except for networking or file transfer/storage, which is what 802.11b is for, not Blurtooth.

And I'm not sure what you mean by 802.11b not being very practical for portables. If you mean cell phones etc, I totally agree, but if you mean laptops then I disagree. (Just clarifying.)

Bluetooth is not supposed to be specific to computers. Bluetoth devices can communicate with themselves without a PC and I'm sure that will be the primary use. I was specifically referring to Game Boys and portable communication devices. See the benefit there?

Anyways, I am biased because I value 802.11b way more at this point and want nothing to interfere with my 802.11b transmissions. Hence, I don't own 2.4 GHz phones, and won't install BlueTooth any time soon.

A noted concern but I haven't heard of any real-world interferance yet...

I'd be more impressed if the BlueTooth people actually would demo some stuff like non-wired cell-phone headsets etc. where it would really shine. However, the demos I've seen have been for stuff like ad-hoc networking, but in many ways, BlueTooth implementations of this pale in comparison to 802.11b (of course 802.11a). I've also seen a BlueTooth miniDV cam, but quite frankly I don't see the point. BlueTooth transmissions of multimedia data would take just about forever.

PC Mag had a review and comparison of a Sony and Motorola Bluetooth Headset a long time ago. What you are pointing out, the media's insistance on comparing it to 802.11b and focusing on its inferior network abilities, are EXACTLY what I'm upset about! A webcam that replaces a Game Boy Camera ($9 in stores), Visor springboard camera and cell-phone video phone all at once makes sense. A DVcam? What were they thinking?!

 

[Eug]

Hmmm... I hadn't seen the headset demos. Sounds nice.

As for the data rate, it still does concern me. The reason is that while it wouldn't be important for talking on cell phones, etc., it's going to be very important in the near term for something I'd want BlueTooth for, which would include PDA synchronization and digicam still image transfers.

Even for things as simple as AvantGo, PDA synchronization runs into the several MB range, or even into the 10s of MB range, which translates into potentially nearly a hundred Mbits. And for digicams, we're talking up to Gigabits of information. Even USB is damn slow for this, and USB is a factor of >10 faster than BlueTooth. Indeed, because I find synchronizing photos from my camera to my computer so slow on USB, I usually use an external Firewire CompactFlash reader. Going to something 1/10th of the speed of USB would cause me to rip my hair out. I know you guys say file transfers are not its forte, but like I'm not comparing file transfers of LAN networking here. My example seems to me to be a logical extension of what BlueTooth should be - quick synchronization of multimedia data, in my case from a digicam.

By the way, the miniDV cam with BlueTooth I've seen is available in dept. stores, and is one of the higher end Sonys. MiniDV with wireless data transfer would be killer at faster than USB speeds, but BlueTooth is not the solution. Granted, the intent is not to transfer 2 GB of miniDV data, but nonetheless some of he listed functions (like MPEG video uploads) would still take a long time. The review is here.

 

[merlocka]

My example seems to me to be a logical extension of what BlueTooth should be - quick synchronization of multimedia data, in my case from a digicam.

Well, after spending many hours with a few different digital camera manufacturers trying to convince them that they need to use Bluetooth in their camera's I can tell you that they probably are not going to use Bluetooth in their cameras .

The Digital camera industry is brutal right now and no one wants to add features that cost anything (to the camera). They were very interested in wireless docking stations though. I think a popular strategy will be to use 802.11b in the camera docking station. That way, they can not add the cost to the camera, say it's "wireless", and have 1 docking station work for all their camera's so they can economize on the 802.11b module in the dock.