Why has 802.11 flourished and Bluetooth failed?

[NFS4]

http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0%2C14179%2C2913885%2C00.html

 

[ScrapSilicon]

limited acceptance by device manufacturers maybe...

 

[Chadder007]

Because Bluetooth = SLOOOW

By the way he speaks .....its like the 802.11 protocols are the wired ones and not the wireless kind. He is comparing the wrong things together.

 

[krackato]

Why do I want Bluetooth? What do I do with it? Synchronize my cell phone? Uh... is that it?

 

[Davegod75]

isn't bluetooth only designed to be used for devices within like 10 feet of your computer or each other?

that's kinda limiting don't ya think?

 

[Speedy3D!]

Originally posted by: Davegod75
isn't bluetooth only designed to be used for devices within like 10 feet of your computer or each other?

that's kinda limiting don't ya think?

30 feet I believe.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Originally posted by: Speedy3D!

Originally posted by: Davegod75
isn't bluetooth only designed to be used for devices within like 10 feet of your computer or each other?

that's kinda limiting don't ya think?

30 feet I believe.

That is still limiting because with a wall, you'll lose range, at if you're sitting away from the computer, you'll get a lower quality reception.

I think its because Bluetooth isn't in as much demand as 802.11 because 802.11 is proven while Bluetooth is still new. I may be wrong because I haven't been keeping up very much with wireless networks and reviews, but I have 802.11 at home as well as a 100mbit wired house in every room, and 802.11 works just fine for me.

 

[dowxp]

don't think bluetooth was meant be a means of wirelesss lanning for ut2k3. =o

 

[squidman]

Lol, obvious;
Bluetooth - SOny
802.11 - Intel.
Need i say more? Its like buying a EU2500 VAIO with 64 mb MX420. LOL!

 

[GoSharks]

Originally posted by: squidman
Lol, obvious;
Bluetooth - SOny
802.11 - Intel.

i thought it was ibm that was behind bluetooth.

 

[OldSpooky]

Bluetooth was meant for peripherals, but there's only so much you can do there. 802.11x on the other hand means high bandwidth without wires over a couple dozen meters. Which do people want more? Bandwitdth without wires, or a radio mouse?

 

[MistaTastyCakes]

A little more than a year ago, EDS was doing some stuff w/ Bluetooth that seemed pretty interesting, involving home security and such. I guess nothing much came of it. They also had a kickass internet fridge that was being beta tested in Denmark or something

802.11b > Bluetooth simply because more people have accepted it as the standard, and it's compatible with 802.11a networks in most cases. More backwards compatibility, faster speeds.. Bluetooth isn't developed enough yet.

 

[BigToquex]

Originally posted by: squidman
Lol, obvious;
Bluetooth - SOny
802.11 - Intel.
Need i say more? Its like buying a EU2500 VAIO with 64 mb MX420. LOL!

Bluetooth is IBM technology.

Anyway, I thought the idea was bluetooth could be used to sync peripherals and such. More of a low bandwidth kinda thing. 802.11 is a high bandwidth solution.

 

[krackato]

But why not just use 802.11b to sync?

 

[boran]

bluetooth is not ment to be a wireless lan system, it's supposed to be used for small devices that only need limited amounts of transfer speed (I think 768 Kbps is the max of BT and I dont even kno if that's duplex or single channel) it's intended to replace cables, at a very limited amount of energy, I dont see any use for 802.11 in a wireless headset, it would consume far too much energy and space wherase bluetooth can be kept compact and low on anergy usage, and scince it's never far away from the other device it is no problem with the mimited range, range will never go over 2 to 3 metres (6 to 9 feet)

they're not competitive products, except for one market, PDA's PDA syncronising can be done with both BT as well as WiFI but there I think you just need to decide wether u need speed or not, because 768 Kbps is only 96 KB/s which will be awfully slow to transfer data to your CF card, so there I would say WiFi is the way to go.

 

[Confused]

BT and 802.11 are designed for different purposes.

Think of BlueTooth as wireless USB, and 802.11 as wireless Ethernet.


BT replaces things like sync cables for PDAs/phones, kb/mouse etc

802.11 is for connecting and sharing data between PCs on a network, and for gaming etc.


Wireless networking is more popular because more people need to connect 2 or more computers together, and don't want to run wires. BT hasn't taken off too much yet because not too many people have PDA's or phones that have BT, or they don't really want a wireless kb/mouse if they never sit more than a metre away from the box!


Confused