03-30-2003, 09:47 AM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29,160
|
|
Tom's Hardware Guide: Bluetooth, A Rundown
"Bluetooth is a promising technology in the making. The keenest manufacturers keep assuring us that next year will be the year of Bluetooth, no matter that they've been doing so for the last seven years. But the reality is that IT shows tantalize us with oodles of mouth-watering products that never actually hit the shelves. Logitech has had a prototype Bluetooth keyboard/mouse set since 2000, but has finally been check-mated -- three years later -- by Microsoft with the Wireless Optical Desktop for Bluetooth."
|
| |
|
|
|
03-30-2003, 10:07 AM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 315
|
|
and then when they do hit shelves.. they cost lots of money. As if Bluetoothes range wasnt a big strike against it, the fact that wifi is cheaper accross all platforms in all forms. be it USB, PC, or compact flash, you can find wifi devices on sale for $50 easy, while BT rarly sales (just do a search on anandtech) and is allways around the $100 price point.
|
| |
|
|
|
03-30-2003, 12:18 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 152
|
|
Please, not another WiFi/Bluetooth debate...these technologies do not compete with each other at all!
Bluetooth: replaces serial cables/IR
WiFI: replaces Ethernet
Hope that helps ;-)
|
| |
|
|
|
03-30-2003, 01:35 PM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 62
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by gpspassion
Please, not another WiFi/Bluetooth debate...these technologies do not compete with each other at all!
Bluetooth: replaces serial cables/IR
WiFI: replaces Ethernet
Hope that helps ;-)
|
that's like saying:
"Please, not another car/scooter debate...these transportations do not compete with each other at all!
Scooter: replaces walking for running short errands
Car: replaces buggy for going longer distances"
but if you can use a car for both - why does one need a scooter?
|
| |
|
|
|
03-30-2003, 01:43 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 152
|
|
You can't use WiFi for most of wat BT lets you do and vice versa, if you prefer it's like comparing apples and oranges, you can eat both and that's about it.
I think that until you've used a Bluetooth device like a GPS or a Phone and hooked it up to a PocketPC (or a PC) it will be hard to imagine/see te benefits. You can take my word for it...or not!
|
| |
|
|
|
03-30-2003, 01:50 PM
|
|
Contributing Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,350
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by snowlion
that's like saying:
"Please, not another car/scooter debate...these transportations do not compete with each other at all!
Scooter: replaces walking for running short errands
Car: replaces buggy for going longer distances"
but if you can use a car for both - why does one need a scooter?
|
Because a scooter has certain advantages, such as that it runs more miles on a gallon, which helps saving the environment. In fact using the acoustic motorbike would even be better.
To take it on topic - in the case of Pocket PCs - Bluetooth gives me more juice out of my battery. I'd hate to use WiFi just for my connection to my mobile phone, if it costs as much battery life as WiFi web browsing...  OTOH I love WiFi for networking, and had nothing but headaches with BT networking. Must be my problem, but fact is, WiFi worked better in that asepct for me.
|
| |
|
|
|
03-30-2003, 01:57 PM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 62
|
|
the original statement of "these technologies do not compete with each other at all" i found a tad too strong. both of them allow wireless communications!
wifi could replace bt if need be and if the vendors produced such products.
...but i can also see each having their own place under the silicon sun.
|
| |
|
|
|
03-30-2003, 01:58 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 152
|
|
exactly my point!
I was able to browse te web via BT but it was a pain to set up and rather slow, slow enough that the PocketIE rendering had speed to spare...On the other hand it's probably safe to say they'll likely never make a WiFi GPS or a WiFi phone (unless it has a decent browser and fuel cell batteries of course...). There's just no point using 3x as much power for a connection that never needs to be more than for a few meters! Not to mention the whole master/slave setups built-in in Bluetooth that WiFi lacks.
I'm glad to we have both at our disposal! Something we couldn't dream of 3 years ago!
"wifi could replace bt if need be and if the vendors produced such products. " most likely not for the above stated reasons, but maybe you know something I don't ;-)
|
| |
|
|
|
03-30-2003, 04:59 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 125
|
|
Let me throw here another possibility for the near future
Wifi with some sort of range-control to stretch or shrink the battery use. cell phones could make good use of it, some sort of sub-wifi to talk with our wifi-powered ppc�s and etc at short distances using way less battery power
just a thought though... :wink:
|
| |
|
|
|
03-30-2003, 05:27 PM
|
|
Contributing Editor
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 123
|
|
After all of this time...
I've spent a lot of time working with Bluetooth technologies for the last 6 months. In the last month alone, I've worked with around a half dozen Bluetooth products for reviews.
The things that still amaze me after all of this are:
1) Vendors/Bluetooth leaders still do not effectively communicate the differences that differentiate this technology from WiFi. There is still a lot of confusion over the "Why Bluetooth" question, and I have to believe that it is due largely in part to even the vendors not being able to communicate the message.
I just demonstrated a number of Bluetooth solutions at our Boston Pocket PC UG meeting. I started each one with a "problem"; I then demonstrated how Bluetooth could solve the problem. In most cases, I also explained why the Bluetooth solution worked better than any other (including WiFi). For a lot of people, the lightbulb went on for the first time. If vendors and Bluetooth industry leaders could more effectively market this message, I think everyone would be better off.
2) Bluetooth vendors want widespread consumer acceptance, but write drivers/firmware/support software only "techies" understand. Most of the problems with Bluetooth are NOT the specification - it's the vendor's implementations. For general consumer acceptance, a technology MUST (no expections) be easy to both implement and work with. Some of the most "God-awful" applications written today are those from the vendors of Bluetooth hardware.
Hey, I understand that the current Bluetooth specifcation is not perfect (that's why there are new specs under review), but that does not give a vendor an excuse for cutting corners on the interfaces for end users. If anything, more effort needs to be put into overcoming technical limitations. BOTTOM LINE - If it is too difficult for a general consumer to use Bluetooth, it will not succeed in that general consumer market - period.
3) Those who know better still "muddy the waters". The Pocket PC community spends more time ranting and raving about how the mainstream press is either clueless, bias, or just plain "not worthy" when it comes to covering the Pocket PC. Well, the same thing happens with regards to Bluetooth. In many cases, the folks who are p**sed off about the Pocket PC issue are the biggest proponents of "Bluetooth = WiFi" and "WiFi is better" positions. Let's not have double standards here - misinformation (for any reason - prejudice, preference, or lack of knowledge) is still misinformation.
I'm sorry if I come off as "rant-ish" on this issue  ops: . Nothing frustrates and/or angers me more in life than avoidable nuisances/annoyances/grief. So much of what has been the pains surrounding Bluetooth are just that - avoidable. If more time was addressed on the real issues regarding Bluetooth, I think they might have already been solved.
DonS
P.S. - Now that I got that off my chest, I'm feeling better... :mrgreen:
__________________
Don SorcinelliMicrosoft MVP, Windows Mobile DevicesEditor-In-Chief, BostonPocketPC.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
