09-08-2002, 08:00 AM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29,160
|
|
Bluetooth Networking
http://www.pocketpcpower.net/Bluetooth.htm
Ever wanted to learn more about networking with Bluetooth? Sam from Pocket PC Power has written up an excellent article that discusses why he chose Bluetooth over Wifi, how he got it working, and what the results were. Give it a read if you're curious.
For my needs, Bluetooth simply doesn't have the bandwidth - or does it? Sam mentions 723 Kbps (big K) as the bandwidth, but on this page they say it's 723 kbps (little K). The former is more bandwidth than my cable modem can pull anyway, but the latter is only 90 KB/s - not all that fast, especially when I'm transferring large files (something I do quite often). I'm looking forward to the Microsoft Bluetooth keyboard, because if done properly Bluetooth is a great device to device protocol, but I'm not sure I'd want to run a LAN on it. Bluetooth isn't the answer to everything, just as Wifi isn't.
What's your experience with this? Good, bad, ugly?
|
| |
|
|
|
09-08-2002, 08:42 AM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 194
|
|
I use Bluetooth for syncing and for browsing the Internet from my Pocket PC while going around the apartment.
For this purpose, speed is very good. I transfer files between the PC and the Pocket PC very quickly, check and answer emails, browse the net and post in forums, with a very slight delay comparing to the speed of using the machine in which the DSL modem is connected. So I believe (actually I am sure) the right number is with the big K.
|
| |
|
|
|
09-08-2002, 08:53 AM
|
|
Swami
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 4,396
|
|
Re: Bluetooth Networking
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jason Dunn
For my needs, Bluetooth simply doesn't have the bandwidth - or does it? Sam mentions 723 Kbps (big K) as the bandwidth, but on this page they say it's 723 kbps (little K). The former is more bandwidth than my cable modem can pull anyway, but the latter is only 90 KB/s - not all that fast, especially when I'm transferring large files (something I do quite often). I'm looking forward to the Microsoft Bluetooth keyboard, because if done properly Bluetooth is a great device to device protocol, but I'm not sure I'd want to run a LAN on it. Bluetooth isn't the answer to everything, just as Wifi isn't.
What's your experience with this? Good, bad, ugly? |
Three points.
First, I don't believe it's the "K" that matters -- 723 Kbps = 723 kbps. It's the "B" that matters -- b = bits, B = Bytes. Maybe some people use "K" vs. "k" if they don't use the "B" or "b" (723K = 723 kBps, while 723k = 723 kbps), but it appears both articles used the "b".
Second, 723 kbps is still pretty fast. Maybe some cable modems get up to 1500 kbps, but most consumer DSL doesn't. I have a 756 kbps line, which typically works out to about 600+ kbps of real data.
In any case, I've heard that my iPAQ 3870 is limited to something like 115 kbps. :-( This would make bandwidth a bigger issue for those of us considering Bluetooth vs. 802.11b.
Third and last, while bandwidth may be an issue, I think range would be the killer. 30 feet is simply not going to work for me. (I recently heard about "Class A" Bluetooth devices, which have a 300-foot range, but the iPAQ 3870 is not Class A, so that's a moot point.)
I keep my access point in my bedroom, which is where my laptop is. I typically use my iPAQ to access the Internet in two places -- bed and the living room. In bed, 30 feet would probably be fine, but the living room probably wouldn't work.
Steve
|
| |
|
|
|
09-08-2002, 11:46 AM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 197
|
|
Bluetooth - Small, medium and large
Hi
Out of interest if you have two bluetooth devices - one with a 10m range another with a 100m range - is the bonding restricted by the "small" device.
Another point of interest - I have a iPAQ 3850 and I am considering getting a CF sleeve and a CF Bluetooth Card - mainly because there is no BT SD card. Will the card be quicker that an iPAQ 3870.
I am surprised that the on board BT is limited to 115 isn't this the speed of infrared. I haven't used k's or K's because I do not really understand modem speeds etc - a tutorial on kbs would be useful.
Martin
|
| |
|
|
|
09-08-2002, 11:56 AM
|
|
Swami
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,303
|
|
Yes, with 2 devices the range is limited to the lower of the two (which is logical really if you think about it). Class 1 is up to 100m, Class 2 is up to 10m and class 3 is up to 1m (though these distances will increase in the open - up to 250m for class 1 BT in an open room for example).
|
| |
|
|
|
09-08-2002, 01:12 PM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 17
|
|
bluetooth speed under the best condition is still rated under 1Mbps, (800-700Kbps)
wi-fi is around 4-6Mbps. So depending upon your transfer needs, it can take an eternity (computer time) to transfer mp3, mpgs or any large files from ppc to pc, etc. I guess thats where the low power consumption comes in handy for bluetooth, when you are dealing with an eternity.
unless your connection is higher than 750Kbps, you wont notice any difference. worse still, the screen redraw on a ppc will definitely take away any high speed internet connection advantage.
but wi-fi is still much more convenient if you travel, or visit corporate networks, etc.
with regards to abbreviations, kilo means one thousand exactly. In the communications world a thousand bits transmitted in a second = 1 kilobit per second. Makes sense. 1000 is a nice round number for humans to work with, it isn't for computers. Mathematically speaking humans use decimal or base 10 numbers and computers use binary or base 2. 1024 is 2 to the power of 10 which is a significant binary value and so is represented by kilo in the computer world. Mega is similar except it means one million and in the computer world is 1024 kilo or 1,048,576. Ideally when abbreviations are used, k means 1000 and K means 1024.
|
| |
|
|
|
09-08-2002, 01:31 PM
|
|
Swami
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,303
|
|
Re: Bluetooth Networking
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pony99CA
Three points.
First, I don't believe it's the "K" that matters -- 723 Kbps = 723 kbps. It's the "B" that matters -- b = bits, B = Bytes. Maybe some people use "K" vs. "k" if they don't use the "B" or "b" (723K = 723 kBps, while 723k = 723 kbps), but it appears both articles used the "b".
Second, 723 kbps is still pretty fast. Maybe some cable modems get up to 1500 kbps, but most consumer DSL doesn't. I have a 756 kbps line, which typically works out to about 600+ kbps of real data.
|
Cable modems are typically 512 KB (KiloBytes/s) (ie 4096 Kilo Bits/s).
So actually 723 kbps is pretty slow really. I rather think you have a 756 KB/s line, that's 8x as fast.
I agree that the b or B is more significant - but to save confusion I usually talk about KiloBytes as KB and kilobits as kb. KB is what we really want to know anyway. kb are used when people want to make the numbers look larger. It's easily confused however, like when Steve Jobs confused KB and kb at Mac Expo.
|
| |
|
|
|
09-08-2002, 02:11 PM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 68
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by don996cab
but wi-fi is still much more convenient if you travel, or visit corporate networks, etc.
|
I disagree. This is not true in the real world. It would be very nice if we could get access to a WiFi AP anywhere, anytime, but that just is not happening right now. When travelling, a tri-band BT telephone + a BT-enabled PPC will keep you connected a higher percentage of the time (very high if you're travelling in Europe).
Also, there are many corporations that refuse to install WiFi networks for security reasons. So, even today, a PPC with bluetooth, a bluetooth phone and an oldfashioned LAN CF card will probably keep most people better connected than WiFi. A LAN card will get you connected to just about any LAN, whereas WiFi may or may not--unless you always travel with a spare AP just in case or you only like hanging out at WiFi-enabled cafes, etc.
My only doubt is: which is better, built-in BT or built-in WiFi? I bought a Socket Bluetooth card earlier in the year, and it is already outdated. The card I bought is BT version 1.0, while the lastest version 1.1 is the one that supports networking. So, if I were to buy an e740, which version would be the safest bet: built-in BT or built-in WiFi?
|
| |
|
|
|
09-08-2002, 02:35 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 253
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mgd
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by don996cab
but wi-fi is still much more convenient if you travel, or visit corporate networks, etc.
|
I disagree. This is not true in the real world. It would be very nice if we could get access to a WiFi AP anywhere, anytime, but that just is not happening right now. When travelling, a tri-band BT telephone + a BT-enabled PPC will keep you connected a higher percentage of the time (very high if you're travelling in Europe).
Also, there are many corporations that refuse to install WiFi networks for security reasons. So, even today, a PPC with bluetooth, a bluetooth phone and an oldfashioned LAN CF card will probably keep most people better connected than WiFi. A LAN card will get you connected to just about any LAN, whereas WiFi may or may not--unless you always travel with a spare AP just in case or you only like hanging out at WiFi-enabled cafes, etc.
My only doubt is: which is better, built-in BT or built-in WiFi? I bought a Socket Bluetooth card earlier in the year, and it is already outdated. The card I bought is BT version 1.0, while the lastest version 1.1 is the one that supports networking. So, if I were to buy an e740, which version would be the safest bet: built-in BT or built-in WiFi? |
I see that you live in Spain. In the US, Wi-Fi is MUCH more prevelant than BT. College campuses, businesses, airports, coffee shops, etc use Wi-Fi heavily. Also the stores here have sales on Wi-Fi components all the time...you never even seen Bluetooth stuff advertised in Office Depot, Office Max, CompUSA, Best Buy, etc.
Also, given the fact that 802.11b support is native with Windows XP, setup is painless and easy. I read the instructions in the original post on what the guy had to go through to get his BT network setup working and it sounded like he was reading steps to launch a nuclear missle. That's pitiful IMHO.
I plugged in my D-Link DWL-120 USB 802.11b device in my USB port and installed the drivers. I ran the network wizard in WinXP and had a network established in 15 - 20 seconds. All I had to do next was turn on my e550g (with the free 802.11b card I got with it at CompUSA) and I was ready to go.
Also, unlike the author of this article (who keeps making assumptions about 802.11b without providing any actual facts), Wi-Fi is NOT expensive (at least not here in the US). You can regularly get PCMCIA 802.11b cards for $39.99 or less. PCI cards normally run about $49 after MIR. And I got my 802.11b CF card for free with my e550g. Access points can easily be had for $100 or less. I know that Office Max currently has a D-Link Access Point for $69.
The author may have only paid $60 for a Bluetooth USB adatper, but he also had to pay friggen $750 for a BT enabled PDA. Highway robbery if you ask me.
And another thing, you don't need a router for 802.11b. You can simply use Internet Connection Sharing with Win98/WinMe/Win2k/WinXP.
|
| |
|
|
|
09-08-2002, 03:36 PM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 357
|
|
I have the exact same setup as Sam in this article. Even the same USB bluetooth adapter he has pictured... which is not the Belkin BT USB adapter... it looks like an unbranded Broadcom BT3030 USB adapter, which happens to be the same as the Belkin BT USB, and Tecom BT3030. This unbranded version can be found for about $45.
I too, have a nice small NY apartment so this was a nicely inexpensive wireless solution. I don't care about broadband at home since I don't download alot of porn and my websites are hosted elsewhere, so I still have a dialup modem. And a cool thing you can do with the BT3030 is connect to the desktop's modem as though it were attached to the iPAQ 3970. So I can just set up a DUN connection in the iPAQ's connection mangler, set the modem as the Bluetooth modem, and dial out while sitting outside or on the couch. Disconnecting the DUN connection on the iPAQ disconnects the modem on the desktop (unlike Activesync).
As for the network access, this does work for Network shares, but I think the network has to have DHCP. So say you've got static Ips on the network 'cause there's servers and such, it would probably be a bit trickier to get the BT network access working since you can't assign static IP, DNS, etc. to the BT network adapter on the iPAQ. In other words, don't go enabling ICS on a server with a static IP 'cause it will probably screw up the networking on that computer.
Other services such as Bluetooth FTP are kind of cool, but you can't browse shares from the iPAQ. You can only send files. However, you can browse shares from the desktop computer, so that's kind of cool. Another thing I havn't tried but appears to be possible is using the desktop modem to Fax documents. I guess I would need some Fax software on the iPAQ.
As for travelling, I like not having to use extra hardware for WiFi since the bluetooth is built in. The ability to connect to bluetooth cell phones is great. And why not just bring a little Bluetooth Access Point where ever you go??
http://www.bluetoothupgrades.de/pico_modem.htm - Here's a bluetooth modem that you can just plug into any land line and get wireless internet access through DUN. I havn't ordered one of those yet, but it sounds like a pretty cool idea. When you're at a hotel, or visiting somewhere else� there may or may not be GPRS coverage, and even if there is, you might not want to waste your MBs. Just plug in the Bluetooth modem and connect to your Dial up ISP.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
