Bluetooth vs. WiFi: Why it's NOT a death match

[Jason Dunn]

<a href="http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/stories/story/0,10738,2868374,00.html">http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/stories/story/0,10738,2868374,00.html</a><br /><br />This article is from May, but I think it's a good resource for those of you who are confused about the differences between WiFi and Bluetooth. They are not competing technologies, but with the rise of Bluetooth access points, there's a lot of confusion about what each technology is good at. Give this article a read to find out.<br /><br />"Does the world really need two wireless networking technologies? Bluetooth and WiFi (aka 802.11b) have both been much in the news lately. Of the two, WiFi got the fastest start. But Bluetooth is gaining traction in the marketplace; Microsoft, for example, has announced that it will build native Bluetooth support into a future version of Windows XP.<br /><br />Yesterday I wrote about a new Bluetooth printing kit, which lets me print from a laptop to my Epson inkjet without wires. Yet I already have a WiFi network, which I can use for printer sharing and other connected applications. The only limitation of that network: The PC that's connected to the printer has to be turned on before I can print from another device.<br /><br />Which raises a passel of questions: Why should I pay for Bluetooth printing when I already have WiFi? Are the two technologies complementary or competitive? To go back to my original question, do we really need two different kinds of wireless networking that--on the surface, at least--seem to do many of the same things?"

[Ed Hansberry]

I am not confused about their purpose. I do think that any overlap should be handled by WiFi though. Bluetooth should be relegated to portable PANs - like a headset to a cell phone. Stationary objects with power supplies and non-stationary objects with an ounce of intelligence, like a Pocket PC, should be on the WAN with an IP number.

Of course, Bluetooth should work too, but that is another thread. :twisted:

[Jimmy Dodd]

If you have a printer that's BlueTooth enabled, and a PC that's BlueTooth enabled, and a PDA that's BlueTooth enabled, and both the PDA and the PC start a print job who controls the communication? Does a BlueTooth printer have additional hardware to handle two (or three, or four) devices competing at once?

I understand how WiFi works in this scenario because it is just an ethernet replacement, there just aren't any cables. With BlueTooth there has to be something else here besides simple "cable replacement" doesn't it?

---
Bwana Jim

[bargle]

Of course, Bluetooth should work too, but that is another thread. :twisted:


Ive actuly been waiting for you to comment...... I just got the HP 995c.. My second blue tooth device... I admit setting up the printer wasn't intutive.... But onece I read the dirrections.. It setup fine... It works....

[possmann]

for the article - goos overall comparrison. I'd favor the BT if only the speed could increase to over 1MG/s. I'm OK with the limited range as I would be looking to use something like this in a "closed" environment - like as a home network or PAN outside of the home. For these limited purposes, BT does well.

Otherwise, WiFi will continue to dominate and hopefully the alphabet soup game on standards will resolve itself soon too... (refering to the 802.11b,c,d etc...)

[mikeschmidt]

I see the two areas merging to something else. WiFi was developed to replace Ethernet cables and bluetooth to replace serial cables. Now they are expanding to each other's speciality. It would be cool if my phone was a GPRS Router instead of modem, but I don't know how many people would want to setup their phone as a router/gateway possibly with NAT.

My house is wired, I have WLAN, and several bluetooth devices. Thankfully, I don't have to choose what technology to use. Would I like them to merge?

Yes: New technology is always fun.
No: I am happy with my current configuration and new hardware is expensive

If I had to choose one, I would easily choose bluetooth. Why would I give-up WiFi? As I mentioned, my house is wired. It is a small inconvience to move to a nearby RJ-45 jack. I am not as mobile with my laptop as I am with my PDA so wires are not that inconvient. Since I have a laptop it is not a big sacrifice to give-up surfing on the PDA while at home. (My PCMCIA ehternet card is not supported by PPC). Since I am a mobile PDA user and there is no WiFi solution to connect my PDA to my phone, I find the lose of cable between my Phone and PDA to be the biggest advantage. It is also nice to work on my PDA while connected to my PC without the interfering cable.

I prefer not to choose.

/ mike

[bargle]

Of course, Bluetooth should work too, but that is another thread. :twisted:


Ive actuly been waiting for you to comment...... I just got the HP 995c.. My second blue tooth device... I admit setting up the printer wasn't intutive.... But onece I read the dirrections.. It setup fine... It works....

Corse This is the thoughts of the admins only apparenty... becase I feel he has fibbed, I was censored.... Why? Becase he claims "Bluetooth should work". And it dose.... I didn't call him names. I simply said that was a lie. Guess Its back to useing the site for news and not opnions.

[JonnoB]

It is because WiFi -can- be point to point that potentially makes BT irrelevant. There is nearly 100% overlap of WiFi over BT if someone makes each device IP capable with WiFi. BT however has yet to illustrate what it can do that WiFi cannot... I know there are implementations of BT (ie remote headset) that WiFi does not do, but WiFi is still capable of it if someone makes one.

Can WiFi be made to consume less power? Yes and it probably will.
Can WiFi be made to support packetized cabling type technology? Yes and it is already happening with things like SIP.
Will BT be enhanced to allow for more flexible roaming? Maybe
Will BT increase in speed to eliminate need for all cables? Probably not. USB2.0 and 1394 already make BT incapable of replacing important cables. WiFi however with Mira is making cable replacement for video over IP. The proof of concept is there.

There are still good uses for both, but as time evolves, I think although unintentional, WiFi will tramble on BT.

[gmelfissg]

Hi,

I don't know who said that the server pc need to be "on" on the network to be able to print from a wireless pc on the network. That is a flas statement as my own wifi network, i use a wireless gateway with three port, a wan port (dsl) and a printer server port (all for 99$) and it let's me connect to this printer without having the server printer on. I have trhree laptops wirelessly hook to my network and they all can print just fine without any server to be on. By the way i bought trhee pmcia wireless card (802b), 1 usb (802b) and a wireless gateway all for about $330 including shipping at pctek online. Good deal for linking 1 wire server pc and 4 wireless pc on a network !!!! :D

So to summarize NO bluetooth won't get wide spread acceptance because wifi is so far ahjead of it. It might be used for extended ir port (wireless keyboard or mouse or printer in worst case but that it's.

[Jason Dunn]

Corse This is the thoughts of the admins only apparenty... becase I feel he has fibbed, I was censored.... Why? Becase he claims "Bluetooth should work". And it dose.... I didn't call him names. I simply said that was a lie. Guess Its back to useing the site for news and not opnions.

Oh please, it's not like I chopped off your hand or anything here! :roll:

You originally said "It setup fine... It works....Dispite your lies... " I only edited out the "lies" part and left everything else intact. Did I change the point you were trying to make? Not about Bluetooth.

As I explained in my private message, saying that someone is lying is flaming them. Flaming is not a nice thing to do, and it's against the policies we have on the site. You can feel free to dispute Ed's claims about Bluetooth, since it obviously works for you, and that's great. Express your opinion about Bluetooth all you want! But personal attacks are simply not permitted in any way on this site. Period. If that's not acceptable to you, you should find another discussion board more to your liking.

If you really think this is censorship, go read a history book and see what REAL censorship is like.

[jdhill]

Isn't Duncan a big Bluetooth fan? I don't see anything from him here yet. Someone go wake him up !!!

[Ed Hansberry]

Isn't Duncan a big Bluetooth fan? I don't see anything from him here yet. Someone go wake him up !!!
I sort of figured my one-liner would be a siren call to him. :wink:

I am glad BT is working for many of you. I just happen to have seen it fail more than work and it is almost a habitual rant with me. That said - LONG LIVE WIFI!!!!!

:onfire:

[JonnoB]

That said - LONG LIVE WIFI!!!!!

amen

[Duncan]

I'm here - just bored with the argument. Sure WiFi can replace Bluetooth and do all the things Bletooth can do... but its overkill. The standards will work together just fine, each with its own specialised area of expertise. Just like ethernet cables and USB/Serial cables in fact...

There are many fine arguments in favour of both technologies existing together (I think I can recall Jason referring to one recently) - Ed (and anyone else) can look them up for himself.

As for BT not working - I'm afraid I just think Ed has been unlucky...

I like and value both technologies! :D

[bargle]

You originally said "It setup fine... It works....Dispite your lies... " I only edited out the "lies" part and left everything else intact. Did I change the point you were trying to make? Not about Bluetooth.


yes, that he dose lie and minpulates the truth to fit and justify his apprent want to sqash bluetooth standard. While it may be his opinion that bluetooth is horable and shouldn't exist, that is fine with me... I could careless. Ive allways apciated this site for its honest opnions. But to say that is dose not work, is a flat out lie. If I was some newbie to this site, and didn't know his dislike for bluetooth I might assume just that it dosn't work... Ive run into standards that are broken, and tend not to work...


As I explained in my private message, saying that someone is lying is flaming them. Flaming is not a nice thing to do, and it's against the policies we have on the site. You can feel free to dispute Ed's claims about Bluetooth, since it obviously works for you, and that's great.


I admit Im pissy..There is a reason I chose my avatar of my cat giveing me the toung (Actuly she is in the process of her nevious tick of licking he nose).. But a lie is a lie.... It may not work for everyone, such as people who bought the 3com bluetooth devices. But it dosn't mean the whole thing dose not work.


Express your opinion about Bluetooth all you want! But personal attacks are simply not permitted in any way on this site. Period. If that's not acceptable to you, you should find another discussion board more to your liking.


It wasn't a personal attack on him.... It was an attack on his fib... He has been claiming blue tooth dosn't work for a while... I may think Compaq is a pitifull company, but it would be a lie to say none of there devices work..
I know I have had noting but pains from swapping from my e-115 to the iPAQ 3870... But you want catch me saying the iPAQ never works.... That would be a lie and a false "flame" agenst a company. If i were to say everything he says is a false lie, that would be wrong.... I still apciate his opnions.... Why I plan to came back still for the news....



If you really think this is censorship, go read a history book and see what REAL censorship is like.

Its censorship.... Its nothing major I admit.... But its censorship... You have every right to censor me.... It's your BBS and db, And you have every right to... I simply wantted to let others know its a lie that bluetooth dose not work before you decided you didn't want me around and blocked my IP or somthing.

As far as calling Ed a liar.... I don't think of him as such.... He dosn't lie all the time..... I would call what he did a lie.... Some may tend and I guess by defination this would make him a lier. But do i think of him as such? no... Humans lie to fit there sitiuwation. have I ever lied? yes.... Could I be lieing that my 3870 works with hp 995c? I could be.... But Im not... It worked fine for me once I fallowed dirrections... (I think I have moved it way off topic enfough now :agrue: ) And I should have proably said "lie" not "lies" looking back...

[klinux]

troll... :roll:

[bargle]

troll... :roll:

Talk about inflamitory.. And you think I am flaming ed? I wasn't attacking him calling him names..

[Jason Dunn]

This thread is now locked since people can't seem to behave themselves. :?