Bluetooth still lacks bite [Archive]

View Full Version : Bluetooth still lacks bite

Ed Hansberry

07-09-2002, 12:26 AM

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/ptech/07/08/tech.test.bluetooth.ap/index.html">http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/ptech/07/08/tech.test.bluetooth.ap/index.html</a> This from the "I could have told you that 4 months ago" department. <img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif" /> The author states "the Bluetooth devices I tested couldn't all "find" each other. Even when they could, they didn't always work right." He had an iPAQ 3870, Ericsson phone, IBM T30 laptop with built in BT, a Sony-Ericsson headset and the 3COM BT USB adapter. He had about as much fun, and success, as most people do trying to load 8 different types of device drivers for DOS in one config.sys file. "So Bluetooth still isn't quite ready for prime time. But it ought to be, and soon." Uh huh. I'll believe it when I see it. I really hope it works, but I've been hearing about Bluetooth and seeing demo's since 1999. Three years later, I am hearing about it, seeing demos and reading reviews like this. Great when it works, but getting it to work can be very frustrating if you aren't lucky enough to have it work out of the box. I'll stick with my cables for now. Well, not my ethernet cable. That is collecting dust thanks to my WiFi card. And my travel USB cable. That too is collecting dust thanks to IR.

Jason Dunn

07-09-2002, 12:33 AM

Uh-oh. You're gonna' catch hell from Duncan and the BFC (Bluetooth Faithful Crew) for this one. :twisted:

Ed Hansberry

07-09-2002, 12:46 AM

Uh-oh. You're gonna' catch hell from Duncan and the BFC (Bluetooth Faithful Crew) for this one. :twisted:
Yeah, I know. That is why I am going home now. :lol:

Duncan

07-09-2002, 01:52 AM

I'm just going to quote one little bit of the review:During my testing of a Compaq iPAQ handheld and an Ericsson phone, for instance, the devices recognized each other. But I couldn't use the phone to connect the iPAQ to the Internet -- even after an hour's help from tech support. I bought an r520m phone and an iPAQ 3870 - I had never used BT before or owned an Ericsson phone. I am not a technician and don't even like to open the casing of my PC - but I had the devices connecting and was surfing the net within 20 minutes. Either I'm a genius or he's a moron!

His other problems? Well 3COM implemented BT very badly - I say as I always have - that makes it their fault not the fault of BT. IBM problem? Who knows - but he's a tech writer and doesn't understand you need to enable GPRS??! I'm going to go for the safe side and assume he's a moron.

Guys - I have not problems with you criticising various companies implementations of BT - but you and I know there are many WiFi manufacturers who similarly make poorly implemted products - so that makes WiFi and immature technology not ready for the primtime - yes?

kaiden.1

07-09-2002, 02:32 AM

WiFi may be moving fast enough to maybe get the jump on bluetooth? I know that doesn't make a lot of IPAQ people happy, but as more WiFi innovations come on board, that jump maybe more than we'd like to admit!

I for one like WiFi and am excited that all the products are starting to roll out. The keyboard; now a camera; it's only a matter of time and you would be able to do everything wireless WiFi....... :D

Ed Hansberry

07-09-2002, 02:46 AM

- but I had the devices connecting and was surfing the net within 20 minutes. Either I'm a genius or he's a moron!

Neither. You were lucky and he wasn't. BT technology is a crapshoot right now. I saw two M515's with Palm Bluetooth cards that couldn't bond to each other a few weeks ago. It is just such a mess. Far worse than X/2-56KFlex modems. Worse than USB drivers ever thought about being. I cannot think of a computer technology that was designed to work together that has failed as miserably at its goal as bluetooth. Nothing. Not token-ring, ethernet, WiFi, IR, even Plug-and-play in Win95 was better than this. Heck, it was better in NT 3.51!

jdhill

07-09-2002, 02:50 AM

Ed,

I thought that you were going home ?!?!?! :wink:

Ed Hansberry

07-09-2002, 02:55 AM

Ed,

I thought that you were going home ?!?!?! :wink:
I am, but my WiFi connection makes it too easy to post this from my couch. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

ThomasC22

07-09-2002, 03:14 AM

WiFi may be moving fast enough to maybe get the jump on bluetooth? I know that doesn't make a lot of IPAQ people happy, but as more WiFi innovations come on board, that jump maybe more than we'd like to admit!

Well, I think you have to split this up into long term and Short Term.

Short Term, I'm a Wi-Fi man (I just got my e740, Wi-Fi and two free slots, ladies and gentlemen, there is a god). Bluetooth still has too many bugs, it's range isn't as good, etc...

Long Term, I think Blue tooth will take over. The thing about Bluetooth is that the spec is heading in the right direction, easy configuration, connecting personal devices to each other rather than to a LAN, etc...

That being said, it is my hope that either Bluetooth will get better or a hybrid technology will be developed because I don't want to have to have bluetooth AND Wi-Fi built into my PDA so I can access both my LAN and my Cell. Phone

dave

07-09-2002, 04:25 AM

as much as i want it to work as promised, bluetooth is, in its current form, failed. i have an ericsson t68 and attempted to get some outlook synchronization going with a 3com usb bt dongle. after following one of the most ridiculous workaround sequences i have ever seen (courtesy of some dude from israel who had somewhat conquered the issue and posted his procedures on the newsgroups), i finally got it to synchronize. of course the sync rate was slower than IR, and it took several steps on the phone and the pc to get the relationship set up every time.

i have reverted to IR, though i have to say that the thought of the socket card in my jornada using thunderhawk to use the web over gprs is very tempting. which, btw, thunderhawk kicks ass and would be well worth $50 a year if voicestream could come correct with their iStream rates, but that's another issue entirely.

so, anyway, back to IR. i am settling for mere synchronization now, but i have to admit that even IR is giving me headaches. anyone had a good deal of success with any particular USB IR transmitter and XP driver? i am using some BAFO bu//$#!+ that i got at fry's and it is kinda hit and miss.

Ed Hansberry

07-09-2002, 04:36 AM

anyone had a good deal of success with any particular USB IR transmitter and XP driver? i am using some BAFO bu//$#!+ that i got at fry's and it is kinda hit and miss.
Hmmmm.. usb and IR? Might be asking a bit much. I use IR all of the time, never had a problem, but it has always been an IR port on my laptop that looked like a COM port to the system, & ActiveSync.

Ed Hansberry - on the couch (still) posting from a WiFi equipped pocket pc. :wink:

ThomasC22

07-09-2002, 04:43 AM

I really wish there was a way to delete double posts. :(

jdhill

07-09-2002, 04:51 AM

I really wish there was a way to delete double posts. :(
As the author of the post, you are able to edit it (and could delete the text and replace it with something like "duplicate post--deleted by author"). Been there. Done that.

hollis_f

07-09-2002, 05:14 AM

I can't believe he couldn't get a 3870 to connect to the net via BT with an Ericsson phone. After having done it with IR it was a breeze doing it with my 3850 and Bluepaq, all I had to do was change the modem from 'Generic IR' to 'Bluetooth Modem'. Now, I am a genius - but I'm sure you don't need to be to work that one out!

Duncan

07-09-2002, 05:33 AM

See - Dave had a problem with a 3COM BT device - just like the reviewer - 3COM have justifiably been slammed for very poor implementation of BT!

Bluetooth is not bug-ridden. The software written to take advantage of BT in some devices is - Bill G's fault for not being bother to put standardised drivers in Windows!

Hybrid tech is on the way. It makes a lot of sense.

You know, Ed, it isn't a crap shoot - the reviewer was an idiot. am amazed that he couldn't get BT to work for him! You bring up - again - I saw two M515's with Palm Bluetooth cards that couldn't bond to each other a few weeks ago. Now in other circumstances you'd be quick to point the finger of blame at Palm - but not in this case! Despite the fact that Palm are clearly at fault - you choose to blame BT! If you knew all that I have learnt about BT you would realise that two devices finding each other and bonding is, if the device manufacturer doesn't muck it up with some half-thought out proprietory interface, fool-proof! And there's the rub - the proprietory interfaces and drivers that mess up a straightforward process...

Ericsson have it right, TDK have it right, Fujitsu-Siemens have it right, Sony have it right etc. - tick to the companies that get it right and you will have hassle free BT connections! :)

ghoonk

07-09-2002, 05:46 AM

Funny, I have 6 computers (desktops and notebooks, running Win98 or Win2K) at home with MSI BT dongles happily sharing files and whatnot with each other, 2 PPC2002 devices (both iPAQ, one 3870, the other a 3650 with BT sleeve) ActiveSyncing with any of the 6 computers, sharing files with each other, and sending and receiving an assortment of vCards from 2 SonyEricsson T39s and 1 SonyEricsson T68 mobile phones. Not to mention that my T68 and T39 (I use 2 mobile phones) both connect well with my Ericsson HBH-15 BT headset.

Took me less than 1 man-day to rig up the whole setup.

Oh wait, did I mention that I carry around a spare MSI BT dongle, in case I needed to connect to a new computer?

Lucky? Hardly. It starts with learning to read manuals. Many forget why manufacturers spend money on tech writers to do up easy to understand manuals, thinking that they're smarter, and then coming back to bitch about inconsistent technology after they can't get it to work.

Bluetooth isn't that difficult to get working. My only gripe is that I use it would supprot throughput above 768kbps.

Marc Zimmermann

07-09-2002, 09:08 AM

His other problems? Well 3COM implemented BT very badly - I say as I always have - that makes it their fault not the fault of BT.

The problem is that virtually none of the current Bluetooth is working as well as we are made to believe. That makes problematic implementations rather the norm that the exception, thus giving the whole technology a bad name.

angelseye2000

07-09-2002, 09:37 AM

Funny to see that you can find articles like 'this' one (by Jim Krane) at other websites as well. Don't get me wrong, i don't say you can be critical or skeptical (why should i?). I also don't think this Jim Krane is a good example for what am trying to say but others are. The following article by a SO-CALLED tech expert called By J. William Gurley was posted almost everywhere on the internet (before checking the content) .

Bye-bye, Bluetooth (should be 'Bye bye, Gurley' i think lol)
http://news.com.com/2010-1072-281535.html?legacy=cnet&tag=bt_pr

"This type of article can certainly spook the market. We noted declines in
other Bluetooth related companies as well.

Gurley needs quite a bit of education. He treats Bluetooth and Wireless LAN
as addressing the same networking needs with 802.11 as faster and covering a
longer distance at the same cost. In reality, Wireless LAN is a fixed
location network technology which devices need to be within, whereas
Bluetooth is a moving network technology that will work anywhere, and with
good access to either local area networks or wide area networks (over mobile
phones) can go anywhere. 802.11 requires too much power to work well for
long periods with handheld devices, which was exactly why Bluetooth was
created. Gurley assumes that Bluetooth is a "cable replacement" technology
only, ignoring the point to multi-point capabilities that it has. He
assumes that "cables were obsolete anyway" with persons hooking up over the
Internet, without saying how a variety of devices such as handheld computers
will get to the Internet. He is equating current costs for Bluetooth
technology, before incidentally it is shipping to more than a few, to 802.11
costs for products that have been shipping for several years. There are
some 2,500 companies worldwide (all members of the Bluetooth special
interest group) that would be happy to prove Mr. Gurley wrong, and many of
them will begin shipping Bluetooth-enabled products over the next several
months.

We believe both technologies work well and will be widely supported. They
are clearly not in competition with each other."

Best regards,

Dave Dunlap, CFO Socket Comm
http://www.socket.com

My response on the CNET article at that time was:

1. He begins with a very cheap title called 'Bye-bye, Bluetooth'(?).
2. He is right when he says 'Personal Local Area Networks, are a wireless replacement for the cable that you have to use to connect your PDA, cell phone, MP3 player, or digital camera to your PC.' But then he follows with comparing PAN with LAN? They have different usage (although there is some overlap).
So even though he mentions himself that Bluetooth is not a competitor to 802.11, he still bases his entire article on the fact that it is.
4. Didn't read anything on (wifi-802.11b) security? Could this be coincidence looking at the many '802.11b security fails' articles these days?
Wireless Network Group Discloses New Vulnerability
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010805/tc/tech_wireless_security_dc_4.html
5. The cell phone analogy is incorrect: The connection from the cell phone is a peer-to-peer connection to the nearest cell, roaming switches that connection as necessary. This technology is being worked on for Bluetooth.
6. The hidden cost in 802.11 is the Access Point. OK the cards cost the same as Bluetooth currently does but the access points cost three times as much and you MUST have one if you want to get a hold of all those lovely internet-based services.
7. Until batteries get so good that power consumption is not even something you have to think about anymore, 802.11 will still be too battery hungry to put into small mobile devices like PDAs and mobile phones. Yes, you can buy 802.11 cards for your PDA but your PDA won't last very long unless you add a bulky battery (ala the PCMCIA adapter for iPAQ where an extra battery is embedded).
8. Why on earth would I want to put all my valuable data directly onto the Internet? Anybody could get at it there and what's more my server could go down or my ISP could go down, etc, etc. With Bluetooth, I am only dependant on the two devices that I am currently using and there is a certain security in the fact that only those within range can get a hold of it.
9. The internet-based services argument which he has ripped off from the other article only holds up where there is pervasive internet connectivity. That may be the case in densely populated cities but it is far from a reality, especially in Europe.
10. 'Microsoft announced a few months back that it would drop Bluetooth support from its upcoming Windows XP OS release, despite rousing support for 802.11.'......as posted before: MSFT will integrate bluetooth in the Windows XP but it wasn't ready yet (said MSFT). The new Windows CE called talisker will include Bluetooth (see latest MSFT press release.). MSFT is SUPPORTING both 802.11b and Bluetooth.
Again....it's not a 802.11b OR Bluetooth thing. People still can't understand it.
11. Then he says "A "cable replacement" is simply not needed". Oh?, don't we want these horrible cables out of the way in our homes? I want it. And it will be easier when (bluetooth chip) volume kicks in and prices come down.

WECA(=WIFI=802.11b) says "Wi-Fi will not make Bluetooth obsolete"
http://www.planetee.com/planetee/servlet/DisplayDocument?ArticleID=15964

Another nice example came from Michael Kanellos of ZDnet who said that "Bluetooth has already lost the battle to become the wireless network standard, according to the head of Intel's communications strategy."
http://www.zdnet.com.au/reviews/coolgear/wireless/story/0,2000023546,20258118,00.htm

The writer doesn't even understand the differences. As if Bluetooth would be the no. 1 Wireless NETWORK standard?????? Why write it down? Absolutely not interesting. Bluetooth=cable replacement (although you could use it for wireless networking it's not prefered). The article was based on Sean's comments (next time he should listen a little bit better) :

BARB members,

Probably everyone has heard about the comments made by Sean Maloney, VP and GM of the Intel Communications Group. ICG focuses on providing building blocks for communication products. These include Intel's
products utilizing 802.11b, 802.11a, and Bluetooth wireless
technology. The comments were taken out of context. Sean was
commenting that Bluetooth is not a competitor or alternative to IEEE
802.11 for networking functionality. Intel continues to support
Bluetooth as a wireless cable replacement technology. Simon Ellis is
working with Intel PR to spread this message to analysts.

If your marketing members have questions, please direct them to Mike
McCamon or Simon Ellis. My sincerest apologies for adding to the
recent spate of negative press.

---
Jon Inouye
Communications Architecture
Mobile Platform Group
Intel Corporation

I also find this today.....

The marvel of wireless P2P and PANs
By: Jørgen Sundgot, Monday, 08.07.02 07:08 GMT

"Jørgen Sundgot has been using Bluetooth for instant P2P and establishing PANs for the last few months. Now, he tells you what he loves about it, and what he'd like to see more of.

You remember Bluetooth? The technology that was for a while doomed to fail, just like oh, say, Symbian OS? Well, it didn't, and it's at the very core of what I'll be writing about in this column. For the last few months, I've been using Bluetooth extensively, but never as much as in the course of the past 14 days - and I thought I'd share my story with y'all, to let you know how much I've grown to love the very limited capabilities of peer-to-peer (P2P) communications and personal area networks (PAN) I've been toying around with."

http://www.infosync.no/news/2002/n/2024.html

heliod

07-09-2002, 10:05 AM

The problem must be the reviewer

My first experience with Bluetooth some months ago included the following configuration:

Jornada 568 with Socket Card
Nokia 6210
Dell Notebook with the Nokia card

What I could do immediately:

Dial from the Pocket PC and talk in the phone.
Send SMS from the Pocket PC
Send faxes from the Pocket PC
Connect to the internet from the Pocket PC
Connect to the Internet from the Notebook
Sync the notebook with the phone

Since then I have:

upgraded the Nokia 6210 to an Ericsson r520m
bought a BT headset.

To the functions above I can add dialing from the PDA for talking with the headset (using Running Voice GSM).

Setup took less than 20 minutes and I am no genius at all. My only problem was with ActiveSync, and it was connected to the Nokia drivers that were too old, and never updated. Solved at the end by using compatible drivers from a different maker.

So, after solving my only real problem, I can also ActiveSync my Jornada with the notebook. Smoothly, no problems at all.

So, can I say anything bad about my experience with Bluetooth? Surely not.

But you should be careful with the equipment you get. 3COM always means trouble; but regarding the others, I don't know where this guy found the problems, he surely had to dig hard.

angelseye2000

07-09-2002, 10:32 AM

ed: "I really hope it works, but I've been hearing about Bluetooth and seeing demo's since 1999. Three years later, I am hearing about it, seeing demos and reading reviews like this. Great when it works, but getting it to work can be very frustrating if you aren't lucky enough to have it work out of the box. I'll stick with my cables for now. Well, not my ethernet cable. That is collecting dust thanks to my WiFi card. And my travel USB cable. That too is collecting dust thanks to IR."

-Not the hype issue again!? I thought we've been there? And is IF 802.11 came overnight? They STARTED with 802.11 in 1990!!!!!!!!!!!!! "hearing and seeing"? What about using? My headset works great with my phone. My iPaq works great with my phone ditto........

jason: "Uh-oh. You're gonna' catch hell from Duncan and the BFC (Bluetooth Faithful Crew) for this one."

-What about the 'Bluetooth negative crew'?

kaiden.1: "WiFi may be moving fast enough to maybe get the jump on bluetooth?"

-Nice to see all the new WiFi products coming, but both wireless technologies will NOT replace eachother (802.11 SEE: size, battery sapping, costs, different applications....)

ed: "You were lucky and he wasn't. BT technology is a crapshoot right now. " and "I cannot think of a computer technology that was designed to work together that has failed as miserably at its goal as bluetooth."

-HELLO, anybody there? Yeahhhh, and i was lucky 2 hey. Funny guy you are ed. So now we are comparing technologies with eachother again (token-ring, ethernet, WiFi, IR, even Plug-and-play?????).....as if there has been a Bluetooth Standard before? I have to admit that Bluetooth pros can also be it's minors: to make devices work with eachother CAN be difficult. But to compare the Bluetooth Standard with WiFi from a technical side for instance is comparing your car with your bicycle.

ed: "I am, but my WiFi connection makes it too easy to post this from my couch."

Am using a Toshiba notebook with a Bluetooth Solution from my living room chair at the moment ;) Works just fine. ;)

ThomasC22: "Long Term, I think Blue tooth will take over."

Don't think so Thomas. These technologies will work side to side eachother. 802.11a, OFDM, UWB coming?????? Time will tell.

dave: "as much as i want it to work as promised, bluetooth is, in its current form, failed. "

Consumer experience is impoartant. But i think you mean SOME Bluetooth products have failed. That's something different.

Marc Zimmermann: "The problem is that virtually none of the current Bluetooth is working as well as we are made to believe."

?. None of the current Bluetooth.....what? products or standards Marc?

Duncan

07-09-2002, 11:47 AM

You see what happens when you make challenges Ed? You get responses from people whose experence and knowledge of Bluetooth is vastly greater than mine!

The myth and the reality:

Bluetooth is a WiFi competitor
- no - but it CAN do some of the jobs that WiFi currently does more easily and with less power and can provide an access point to a LAN network (wired or wireless)

There are hardly any Bluetooth products:
- there are nearly 700

Bluetooth is just a cable replacement
- I have so far listed 37 categories of BT device- not just a cable replacement then!

Most Bluetooth devices aren't working properly
- SOME aren't - but it isn't the Bluetooth that's faulty with them. Most work just fine thanks.

Bluetoot should be easy to use and it isn't
- funny - I showed my wife - who has difficulty enough with using a mouse - how to connect an Ericsson phone and my iPAQ. It took five minutes to show her and her response? - 'That was really easy!'

I can give a generic explanation on how to set up and use a Bluetooth connection between any two devices in less than 50 words so that it works for anyone. Could the same be done for WiFi? I don't think so.

Thing is WiFi is a wonderful thing - and the newer implementations will make it more and more important. Much of the impetus of the anti-BT feeling seems to be motivated by insecurity - 'I've invested a lot in my WiFi set up. I'm worried that BT is going to undermine this - so I must make BT seem like a failure.'

I think I'm going to have to start sending you guys links to the many positive BT articles I've seen written over the past year - see if we can redress the balance a little.

Ed Hansberry

07-09-2002, 02:19 PM

You know, Ed, it isn't a crap shoot - the reviewer was an idiot. am amazed that he couldn't get BT to work for him!
After spending 2+ hrs on the phone with various tech support people trying to get it to work, the reviewer was not an idiot. He was an average everyday person.

Jason Dunn

07-09-2002, 02:26 PM

but you and I know there are many WiFi manufacturers who similarly make poorly implemted products

There are? :? I haven't had any problems with any Wifi product I've ever used - I was amazed at how simple it was actually, never having used ANY sort of wireless product before. I think that Bluetooth is just an immature technology and has the growing pains that goes along with that. I only started using 802.11b last year, but I'm sure that three years ago it had many of the same implementation problems as Bluetooth...

Duncan

07-09-2002, 02:28 PM

No - he was an idiot. If he is a tech writer he should have known better than to ring a tech support desk...

Seriously - the number of us who have made the exact same connection work without breaking a sweat - against one (remarkably uninformed) reviewer... I'm an everage person when it comes to technology. I'm a user of tech as a tool. I have made it my business to understand more about BT NOW - but that isn't how I started! This guy writes about technology for a living. Logic dictates, therefore, that he is either: an idiot, a fool, lazy or someone with an agenda to prove.

I'll tell you what - I'll send a message to this board later from a Pocket Loox via a BT connection to my laptop from the garden 8)

denivan

07-09-2002, 02:46 PM

Great, I've been waiting for a big Bluetooth war thread, so I could ask you guyz a question :lol:

I bought a T68i phone (awesome stuff :twisted: ) and I'm looking for a way to make my iPAQ 3660 (with silver slider) bluetooth compatible. So I was browsing around expansys.com and found this article :
http://www.expansys.com/product.asp?code=ARM-BLCF

They claim it's tested with the T68i, but I'm looking for first hand, user experience, saying that it actually works. Also, if you have a T68i and an ipaq with another BT card (socket for instance), please share your experiences here ! This way I can finally decide what to buy ;)

Greetz

Ivan

Jason Dunn

07-09-2002, 03:28 PM

I'll tell you what - I'll send a message to this board later from a Pocket Loox via a BT connection to my laptop from the garden 8)

I'm confused - has anyone EVER said that Bluetooth doesn't work for YOU? You are taking this so personally! No one is saying "Duncan, Bluetooth doesn't work, you're deluding yourself". We're not saying that at all. Some of you have gotten Bluetooth to work, great! Others, like Ed and myself, have had frustrating experiences and couldn't get it to work. Are you going to call us idiots now too? 8O

:!: Why are you so unwilling to admit that there are implementations of Bluetooth out there now simply aren't polished enough for consumer consumption? :!:

jdhill

07-09-2002, 03:34 PM

Children, children, children !!!

This sounds more like a good old-fashioned Palm vs. Pocket PC flame war.

Perhaps all of you need to ratchet it down a notch or two !!!

angelseye2000

07-09-2002, 07:06 PM

I'm confused - has anyone EVER said that Bluetooth doesn't work for YOU? You are taking this so personally! No one is saying "Duncan, Bluetooth doesn't work, you're deluding yourself". We're not saying that at all. Some of you have gotten Bluetooth to work, great! Others, like Ed and myself, have had frustrating experiences and couldn't get it to work. Are you going to call us idiots now too?

Same can be said about statements like "crapshoot"!!!!!! When i have bad experience with 802.11, then the technology is "crapshoot" ditto????

ed: "You were lucky and he wasn't. BT technology is a crapshoot right now. " and "I cannot think of a computer technology that was designed to work together that has failed as miserably at its goal as bluetooth."

Some nice quotes ed.

innersky

07-09-2002, 09:51 PM

I used to be a heavy bluetooth supporter. Until I bought some bt products.
Been there, done that, bluetooth stinks. What else is new?

Ed Hansberry

07-10-2002, 02:08 PM

When i have bad experience with 802.11, then the technology is "crapshoot" ditto????

ed: "You were lucky and he wasn't. BT technology is a crapshoot right now. " and "I cannot think of a computer technology that was designed to work together that has failed as miserably at its goal as bluetooth."
Perhaps if you understood the word "crapshoot" equates to "gamble" and not the word "crap."

Go pick 10 Bluetooth devices at random. I'd bet money you could only get half of them to work together out of the box.

Corn Bread

07-10-2002, 02:47 PM

BlueTooth is so cool, when it works. My own personal BT combo works like a charm (iPAQ, Socket BT CF card and Ericsson r520) BUT, my friend who uses a different branded BT CF card on his iPAQ has problem connecting to his r520. My iPAQ BT combo can't bond with iPAQ BT combo either. The problem with BT I think is that some of the hardware manufacturers releases crappy drivers for their BT products, which causes compatibility problems with other BT hardware.

I'd like to add more but I'm pulling my hair out right now just trying to get my r520 and iPAQ connected to my brother's desktop which has an MSI Bluetooth enabled motherboard. I can get my phone and PDA paired but they won't bond!!!! AAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!! and my brother was able to pair and bond his Nokia 6310 to it with no problems. 8O

Ed Hansberry

07-10-2002, 03:00 PM

The problem with BT I think is that some of the hardware manufacturers releases crappy drivers for their BT products, which causes compatibility problems with other BT hardware.
I am not so sure it is this as much as there is so much room for interpretation and implementation in the Bluetooth 1.0/1.1 standard. 3COM, SocketCom, AnyCom, Compaq, Toshiba... these guys aren't idiots. They know releasing crap will cause returns and problems. I suspect the standard needs to be tightened up some.

Or, as Duncan would say, you could just be an idiot Corn. :wink:

Corn Bread

07-10-2002, 04:34 PM

Or, as Duncan would say, you could just be an idiot Corn. :wink:

8O

/still trying to get my phone and PDA bonded to the desktop PC

Corn Bread

07-10-2002, 04:35 PM

DANG!!! Double posts again. Jason, thanks for your response in PM but whenever I try to send you a PM, I always get a "page not found message" Plus whenever I post, I'll always get the "Page not found" thus causing the double post.

And for the life of me, I can't see the delete button. 8O All I can see is the edit and quote button.

smille

09-25-2002, 10:21 AM