BlueTooth - AAAARRRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!

[Ed Hansberry]

I have been hearing about how BlueTooth is going to revolutionize our lives for quite some time now, and finally we have products. Well, I have been spending the last hour configuring, tweaking, rebooting, resetting and generally mumbling trying to get ActiveSync with my 3875 iPAQ and Anycom BlueTooth card with XP Pro working - and yes - I have the new Anycom drivers. I just downloaded them, never actually bothering to load the ones from the CD. The best I've done so far is to get my iPAQ to start the ActiveSync process and the orange light on the Anycom BlueTooth to blink for a few seconds, but ActiveSync on the desktop never formally starts the connection process, and this despite following the simple 1.5 page "ActiveSync for iPAQ 3870" directions that came with the card.<br /><br />It isn't just this though. I spent 30 minutes with Dale Coffing last week trying to transfer a file from my iPAQ to his - both 3870 iPAQ's. After half an hour, we gave up. We actually got the process started, but the signal kept dropping. The distance? He was in the front seat of the taxi, I was in the back!<br /><br />I guess I'll bang on it for another few hrs and if all else fails, email Anycom on Monday. Anyone else having some realworld seamless scenarios working with BlueTooth?<br /><br /><b>UPDATE!</b> Well, I gave up and took the kids to the park. Came back, ejected the card, rebooted, reinserted, configured it up for the eleventeenth time, rebooted again (required) and it worked. Yahoo! I still question the technology. I think 802.11 will ulitimately replace BlueTooth, but I hope in the mean time, the configuration software becomes much more user friendly. I guess like all new technologies, you have to put up with the teething pains.

[chris234]

I've been using Bluetooth (using the Socket BT card) to connect my iPaq to my cell phone (Ericsson R520m) for data calls with no problems. It was pretty trivial to setup. On the non-PPC side I occasionally use my laptop in a similiar mode (with Toshiba PC cards), and I also have an Ericsson BT headset.

[barrman]

I use an HP/3Com Bluetooth Card to connect my Sony Vaio Laptop to my Ericsson T39m Bluetooth enabled phone. It works flawlessy now... Installation and setup on Windows XP Pro was quite a pain , however. Just ordered an HP/Lucent 802.11 PC Card for my laptop/pocket pc via PC Card Adapter... again hoping for a smooth setup with windows xp and ppc2002 (yeah right)

-Brian

[pt]

i've got a hp 568, anycom bt card, ericsson t68, moto bt headset. all works seamless, and i use WAY too much :-] it wasn't like installing software, but it wasn't difficult.

cheers,
pt

[JohnnyFlash]

I have been hearing about how BlueTooth is going to revolutionize our lives for quite some time now, and finally we have products. Well, I have been spending the last hour configuring, tweaking, rebooting, resetting and generally mumbling trying to get ActiveSync with my 3875 iPAQ and Anycom BlueTooth card with XP Pro working


I feel compassion and I can feel your pain. Been there, done that. If you want to connect PDA with Bluetooth to cell phone with Bluetooth -> no problem. But if you want sync, connect to LAN, etc. the hell begins...

I myself dumped Bluetooth (sold the damn card) for the sake of WLAN (=WiFi=802.11)...

I think that we need native support for Bluetooth in PocketPC and in XP before we can say "the technology is mature, the pieces are working flawlessly". "Native" meaning: built-in into OS, Bluetooth stack and drivers from Microsoft, not from third companies which has limited resources...

[dunneldeen]

If they ever get bluetooth working in XP as well as 802.11b works now, it would be awesome. I've used 802.11 on Linux, Win2k, XP and PPC2002 and I would tell anyone using 802.11 to switch to XP, hands down the best wireless OS on the market.

[Snickers]

Ed I have to mention that to think that 802.11b will replace BT doesn't make any sense to me. I don't really see these techonologies as a competing technologies. They both have there place. Although the original purpose of BT might have been to connect to a network. I see it as more of a replacement for IR and making some devices wireless like maybe a mouse, speakers and local printers. Just my 2 cents worth.

[JonnoB]

I don't really see these techonologies as a competing technologies. They both have there place. Although the original purpose of BT might have been to connect to a network. I see it as more of a replacement for IR and making some devices wireless like maybe a mouse, speakers and local printers.


Bluetooth has the automatic connect and sync stuff... and WiFi is strictly a LAN interface. If WiFi could bring down the size and battery req. to that of BT and on top of that, integrate some of the untethered wire connectivity without LAN infrastructure, it wins. WiFi is a much faster and wider range technology. For as much as the technologies are meant for different purposes, perception is reality and the current perception in the market is that they compete.

[Snickers]

For as much as the technologies are meant for different purposes, perception is reality and the current perception in the market is that they compete.


Well then maybe we could all do ourselves a favor and change the current perception. To lose BT technology just because people don't understand what it can be and should be used for would be a damn shame. It is a great technology and we should do what we can to promote it whenever possible.

[JoeThielen]

Bluetooth suffers from the same problems that Linux does, in my opinion... Initial Configuration Problems (ICP is in da hauugh :twisted: ).

Linux suffers big time because it's not easy to install (although recent distros make it much easier than the past), and installing hardware can also be a painful process if there aren't tried and tested drivers for the device. I've been using Linux for a while, I know some things are very hard to do.

With these configuration problems at hand, the only way BT can really open up, in my opinion, is if it's shoved down our throats while we're screaming. And I just don't see that happening. Companies are just getting their feet wet, and waiting for others to test the waters before they drop the cash.

Until BT is pervasive (and once again, I mean in EVERYTHING that needs a wire (or would be cool to have one)... from your GPS to pager) and the users revolt and demand it gets fixed, it's just not going to happen.

Just my drunken ramblings :roll:

[ppctk]

I'd agree with Ed's original post-- AAAARGH! Compaq Bluetooth doesn't work. I've got 802.11b products here from 4 vendors working with no problems.

I bought a 3Com USB Bluetooth adapter specifically to ActiveSync my iPAQ 3870 to my Win 2K laptop. I can send Vcards, but no ActiveSync.

In January 3Com and Compaq each blamed each other and different Bluetooth versions. By the end of January 3Com had updates out and said a Compaq update was needed.

Ever since early February Compaq has been saying that an updated Bluetooth manager will be available in about a week. One time it was in beta, but had just been pulled the day before so I missed my chance to get the beta version. Its' been 90 days since I started on this and a lot longer since the 3870 first shipped, C'mon!

Compaq has no credibility with Bluetooth support as far as I'm concerned.

I'm ready to write to [email protected] who is the contact for their 3870 Bluetooth certification per the Bluetooth.org qualification lab

See http://qualweb.bluetooth.org/Template2.cfm?LinkQualified=QualifiedProducts&Details=Yes&ProductID=543]

It IS supposed to work, right? That IS why they have certification.

[heliod]

I've been using Socket's card and it works perfectly with my phone. That's right, it still doesn't exchange data with a PC or other PDA, but this is about to be fixed in April, when they will give ActiveSync capability through BT.

After all, using a Notebook I would say Wi Fi is preferably, but for the Pocket PC I want something that can also communicate with my network, operate my phone and bond directly to an unknown printer, in ONE CARD and without having to deal with TCP/IP configuration

[FredMurphy]

I've had no problems with a Jornada 568, Socket CF BT card and Ericsson T68. Must admit I've had problems on XP using a PCMCIA to CF converter for the card. (If anyone else is trying the trick is to use Nokia drivers as Socket still haven't got anything other than CE drivers out yet!)

Have to agree with the posts that say Bluetooth is a replacement for IR and doesn't try to compete with WLAN. It's great at what is does but most of the public (i.e. non-techies) are confused as to the difference.

Support for things like ActiveSync over BT are still dreadful but that's really more down to Microsoft and their non-standard RS232 implementation than a problem with Bluetooth.

Fred

[Steve Bush]

I still question the technology. I think 802.11 will ulitimately replace BlueTooth...
Isn't this a bit like saying "I think airplanes will ultimately replace buses..."? 802.11 is wireless LAN while Bluetooth is wireless PAN. One replaces Ethernet and the other replaces serial and USB cables and infrared. Or am I missing something?

[jeffmckean]

I agree with Steve. Uptake of Bluetooth has been hampered by people confusing it with 802.11. They are for completely different purposes. Bluetooth is basically a replacement for device-to-device cabling or infrared. I think at Fall Comdex the Bluetooth vendors did a decent job of trying to do a public reset of expectations for the technology.
I've had very few troubles with 3870, Socket BT card, T68 and Bluetooth headset.

[Ed Hansberry]

Isn't this a bit like saying "I think airplanes will ultimately replace buses..."? 802.11 is wireless LAN while Bluetooth is wireless PAN. One replaces Ethernet and the other replaces serial and USB cables and infrared. Or am I missing something?

I understand the difference between BT and 802.11, quite well in fact. I still think that if technology allows 802.11 components to shrink down and reduce battery life, there will be no reason for BT to stick around. It may not disappear completely. But as you said, airplanes effectively replaced busses. There are still some busses around, but not many.

[Steve Bush]

I wasn't saying that airplanes had replaced buses, Ed, quite the opposite in fact. What I was insinuating was that saying that 802.11 will replace Bluetooth is as absurd as saying that airplanes will replace buses.

BTW, according to The New York Times Almanac, from 1980 to 1996, the total number of buses increased from 59,411 to 67,874, while the number of planes decreased from 205,305 to 193,273.

[JoeThielen]

BTW, according to The New York Times Almanac, from 1980 to 1996, the total number of buses increased from 59,411 to 67,874, while the number of planes decreased from 205,305 to 193,273.


I love you guys :).

I think the point here is that buses are used in the majority for LOCAL AREA transport (i.e. PAN), while airplanes are used for LONG DISTANCE transport (i.e. LAN/WAN). You wouldn't take an airplane to work, you'd take a bus... it just fits. You'd rather not take a bus to Idaho, 'cause it's slow :).

Using 802.11b just to replace a cable is overkill. But it can work (i.e. Larry Ellison using his personal jet to go from home to the other side of town to work ;) ).

On the flipside, you can use bluetooth to access the network, but the distance is surely limited, as well as the speed...

802.11b is a longer-distance technology. Bluetooth is an extremely local technology, BY DESIGN.

"ALL ARE PUNISHED"... "ALL... ARE... PUN-ISH-ED"
Romeo & Juliet

[albsilva]

Hi,
I've tried BT comunication between several iPaq 3870 with no problems, as well as with Ericson T39m mobile phone...

About comunication with XP, I think that XP will have native BT support only in July. Until then I guess is normal having the same kind of problems found with new technologies...

About BT/WiFi... I think that they will co-exist... 802.11 is available for several years, and there are no such things as 802.11 serial and paralell adapters for 'dumb' devices, however there are already some for BT...

Regards,
Alberto Silva
Portugal

[Sven Johannsen]

Other than the troubles just getting the drivers to work (cutting edge technology sometimes is bloody), could it be the brilliant new PPC Connections concept that distinguishes between Home (ActiveSync) and Work (network). I have to mess with mine periodically to switch between talking to stuff on my home network and talking to stuff outside my home network. Depends on whether I am attched to my network via the cradle or a CF NIC. Never had an issue with PPC2000. It just worked.

Never had to explain to my J548 whether it was attached via USB or serial and to which partner either. It just figured it out on it's own when I cradled it. My J568, on the other hand, will not sync with my serial macine at work unless I tell it it is serial, and who to talk to.

If MS was going to screw up the connection process, they could have at least given us a way to store a setting suite that works, and recall it easily.

[GregWard]

I bought a Socket CF card so I could link my iPaq 3660 to my T68 - the intention was a "work-around" for when I'm in the States as my 9210 doesn't work there!!! RESULT - Worked straight out of the box - no sweat - no tears.

I bought a TDK usb adaptor for my XP box (so I could ActiveSync away from the PC). RESULT - absolutely useless can't get it to do ANYTHING useful yet. :(

So Bluetooth is a "curates egg" (good in parts) - but isn't that what you expect when you're on the "bleeding edge" of a new technology? It needs time to get it's act together.

What I am REALLY dissappointed in is that there seem to be so many inter-manufacturer issue - I thought this was supposed to be a standard!

[Bob]

Sounds like we have some folks that have been sucessful with BT connections.

I have noticed that the 3875 is somewhat slow when powering on. It might be that the BT tools (even when not enabled) are trying to initialize. I have never seen this on other PPC 2002 devices. Anyone else seen this?

Thx.
Bob

[heliod]

I agree with Steve and Jeff regarding the difference between BT and 802.11b. Anyway, this could change when the BT access points grow in usage. I believe that the notebook users will still prefer 802.11b, but as a Pocket PC user, I would prefer to have one card only that can dial my phone and send SMS, print to a printer without a network, and also enter my network, instead of carrying two cards.

What do you think?

[Ed Hansberry]

I believe that the notebook users will still prefer 802.11b, but as a Pocket PC user, I would prefer to have one card only that can dial my phone and send SMS, print to a printer without a network, and also enter my network, instead of carrying two cards.

This is why I think BlueTooth will eventually (4-5 years) fade out. Who wants to be bothered with wondering which card to take on a trip? Will they have bluetooth or WiFi access? As a TV manufacturer, should I bother with adding a bluetooth chip so the remote control can be bluetooth? I need a WiFi chip anyway to be on the WAN so the owner can contact the TV from anywhere and set it to record a program. So now do I put two in there? Or just put a WiFi chip in the remote?

More and more PC's at work have WiFi and ethernet access. Why bother with BT in a printer? Just stick WiFi in there and be done with it.

I know WiFi is overkill in some applications, but I think it is becoming so pervasive, BlueTooth is not only more overkill in redundancy, but cost as well. I know there are size, cost and battery life issues to overcome in WiFi first, but BT messed around for nearly a decade before getting to where we are today. I think WiFi will get there in a short enough time.

[Steve Bush]

I know there are size, cost and battery life issues to overcome in WiFi...
Oh, those silly little issues? :)

WiFi will obviate Bluetooth about the same time that a Boeing 747 pulls up to the bus stop in front of my house. ;)

[Ed Hansberry]

Oh, those silly little issues? :)

Yeah, those same issues that 6 years ago if I had told anyone I'd be carrying around a device that fit in my pocket that had 64MB of RAM, a 206MHz processor (matching Pentium Pro desktops of the day) full color screen and able to slide in a 1GB hard drive, I'd have been laughed out of the room. :roll: