Bluetooth, again.... Sigh.....

[Ed Hansberry]

I had a great trip to Ft. Lauderdale for the DDH Software HandBase Summit. I'll have a write-up in the next day or so, but suffice it to say, HanDBase 3.0 seems to have all of the bases covered, from a single doctor to enterprise data synchronization.<br /><br />One of the new features is the ability to do peer to peer synchronization of a database via bluetooth. HanDBase 3.0 is still in beta and the Palm bits are about 30 days ahead of the Pocket PC bits, so they demoed the bluetooth synchronization using a DDH software M515 with a Palm (Toshiba) SD BT card and an audience member that had an identical setup. Well, they tried. And tried. The twin M515's wouldn't bond. I swear I could have installed Palm Desktop on two randomly selected laptops, enabled IR in the BIOS, watched Windows ME pitch a hissy about some IRQ conflict (I am amazed at the number of those with relatively new hardware that haven't upgraded to XP), flicked some stuff in the device manager, rebooted, synced the Palms to their respective PC's and then swapped floppies. And I STILL would have had time to get a refill on my coffee! <img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/images/smiles/icon_mad.gif" /> It certainly wasn't DDH Software's fault. Probably wasn't Palm's either. Bluetooth just doesn't work as advertised. I see more driver patches and updates to make BT devices compatible, yet that is what the BT standard is supposed to do.<br /><br />Î know, I know, some of you love it. You have your iPAQ and Ericcson working great together. Well, there were some people that didn't have a problem with Service Pack 2 for Windows NT 4.0.

[dhettel]

I had a great trip to Ft. Lauderdale for the DDH Software HandBase Summit. I'll have a write-up in the next day or so, but suffice it to say, HanDBase 3.0 seems to have all of the bases covered, from a single doctor to enterprise data synchronization.

One of the new features is the ability to do peer to peer synchronization of a database via bluetooth. HanDBase 3.0 is still in beta and the Palm bits are about 30 days ahead of the Pocket PC bits, so they demoed the bluetooth synchronization using a DDH software M515 with a Palm (Toshiba) SD BT card and an audience member that had an identical setup. Well, they tried. And tried. The twin M515's wouldn't bond. I swear I could have installed Palm Desktop on two randomly selected laptops, enabled IR in the BIOS, watched Windows ME pitch a hissy about some IRQ conflict (I am amazed at the number of those with relatively new hardware that haven't upgraded to XP), flicked some stuff in the device manager, rebooted, synced the Palms to their respective PC's and then swapped floppies. And I Still would have had time to get a refill on my coffee! http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/images/smiles/icon_mad.gif It certainly wasn't DDH Software's fault. Probably wasn't Palm's either. Bluetooth just doesn't work as advertised. I see more driver patches and updates to make BT devices compatible, yet that is what the BT standard is supposed to do.

Î know, I know, some of you love it. You have your iPAQ and Ericcson working great together. Well, There were some people that didn't have a problem with Service Pack 2 for Windows NT 4.0.

It's nice to hear someone else saying that standard doesn't work! But.. In this case, I would have tested this out first, and have been sure it was working before demoing it.

David

[jpzr]

Bluetooth just doesn't work as advertised. I see more driver patches and updates to make BT devices compatible, yet that is what the BT standard is supposed to do.

Î know, I know, some of you love it. You have your iPAQ and Ericcson working great together. Well, There were some people that didn't have a problem with Service Pack 2 for Windows NT 4.0.

Ed, have you ever played multi-player games over Bluetooth?
I did. It changes everything.

Bluetooth works as expected - you just need to know what to expect from it...

[Duncan]

I'm sorry Ed but you are talking absolute nonsense and are way off base on this one!

Bluetooth works fine - some software implementations of it are, sadly, very poor and some manufacturers inexplicably choose not to support all of the profiles they can. How is that the fault of Bluetooth?

To date - I have synced an iPAQ 3870 with a TDK BT dongle on a work computer - the devices had never connected before but there was abolutely no problem. I have connected the iPAQ - numerous times - to an Ericsson R520m mobile - through walls, floors etc. - no problem (well except for the iPAQ stack problem - but that's Compaq's fault!). I connected the iPAQ to a Sony Vaio with built-in BT - no problem. I connected the Vaio to an HP 995c BT printer to test it - I didn't buy the printer but it worked flawlessly. Finally I connected my old iPAQ to another iPAQ which was using a BT sleeve and transmitted a contact. Again - no problem!

So - where do you get the strange notion that BT itself is at fault?!! Either Palm or HanDBase were at fault. The BT standard is great - but, like web standards, if people don't implement it properly there will be incompatibilities - thus the need for patches! Blaming the standard itself for the shortfall of manufacturers in meeting it is more than a little unfair to the standard! It's becoming one of those oft repeated, but entirely without foundation, BT myths - like the old 'not many devices using BT available' myth...

I will stand by this - not one patch has had to be issued for ANY BT enabled device to make up for a shortfall in the BT standard itself. Every single patch released has been to correct a software or hardware fault that has prevented the standard from being properly implemented. The BT 1.1 standard has remained unaltered and revised since it went gold (any other wireless - or even wired - standard that can say the same? 8) ).

[ChrisD]

Basically I tend to agree that there are additional needs for standards beyond how the Bluetooth 1.1 stack works.

Overall the stack defines standard interfaces such as serial, voice and network connections. The problem is Microsoft needs to set some standards that are part of the APIs in Windows:

1. Compaq implemented a 128k limitation in their hardware and that causes other vendors that run at full speed to fail to work.
2. Serial port implementations outside the standard ports that ActiveSync supports. So you can't sync with some cards due to this.
3. Standard detection of a Bluetooth device in the system at the OS level.
4. Standard implementation of API calls to the Bluetooth stack to allow for connections.

Also, some Bluetooth implementations are still 1.0 and do not support all the profiles. (Anycom and Socket just released their Bluetooth 1.1 cards for example) So a user has to know what profiles each device supports and then they can figure out how they can work together. For example only the Fujitsu Loox supports the Bluetooth voice profile out of all the Pocket PCs!

All of these things must come before users can guarantee connectivity.

My suggestion to users who want to get Bluetooth is to make sure that the hardware vendor you choose has tested and endorsed the connectivity to the devices you plan on using. Otherwise there may be some glitch that prevents the connectivity from working.

[heliod]

I've been working with Bluetooth for over 6 months now, with my pocket pc and different phones, using Running Voice, Pocket Phone Tools and others, and these things have been working fantastically well.

Every time I came around something that did not work, it turned out that the developer did not know how to support BT accordingly, and after a patch from his side, it began to work.

There are still some glitches in the BT support of some devices, but they are all converging very quickly.

Helio

[innersky]

I hate to say this, but I'm beginning really to dislike bluetooth.
Promises, promises.

I've got 2 bluetooth devices from the same brand, and they even don't work properly together...

As a consumer, I don't care what the cause is that it doesn't work right. Up to date, I've spent too much time trying to get these things work together. If the manufacturers don't get their act together, then I don't want it anymore.

[jpzr]

I hate to say this, but I'm beginning really to dislike bluetooth.
Promises, promises.

I've got 2 bluetooth devices from the same brand, and they even don't work properly together...


WRONG!!!! You need to be more specific and say "I'm beginning really to dislike bluetooth FROM SUCH AND SUCH VENDOR" because I really have seen almost-perfect Bluetooth implementations from various vendors and it is possible...

[innersky]

I know it is possible. It's just not happening.

And if you want me to call names : it's the usb dongle and the pc card from Tdksys.

BTW, there's really no need to shout here.

[fishd1]

I've got my Jornada720 using a Socket (with BT1.1) Bluetooth card talking to my Nokia 6210 with Bluetooth pack... it works really well.

I would agree with the poster earlier who said that the majority of problems are caused by application bugs. I use DUN and bFax without issue but mPhone and KSETruefax can cause the Bluetooth stack to crash meaning a soft reset of phone and PDA (Both companies are "working on it").

Patience is a virtue... and I know you have it... after all, how long have we waited for a useable version of WindowsCE ??? :twisted:

[hollis_f]

Yup, it seems that some vendors are doing a great job of killing BT. With some (Yes, Sony, I'm looking at you) it's so bad that one almost believes it deliberate.

Never had any problems with TDK and Ericsson stuff.

[Paragon]

Î know, I know, some of you love it. You have your iPAQ and Ericcson working great together. Well, There were some people that didn't have a problem with Service Pack 2 for Windows NT 4.0.

:D :D :D

I'm not going to relate stories of Bluetooth working or not. However it is pretty easy to see that there are numerous problems with the Bluetooth technology. That is not to say that is necessarily the Bluetooth standard that is causing the probleems. Rather that the Bluetooth experience overall has a ways to go yet, before everyone is reading off the same page, or for that matter reading the whole page.
It's kinda like using cables... they work great as long as they have the right connectors on both ends. :-)
Dave

[Ed Hansberry]

Bluetooth works as expected - you just need to know what to expect from it...

I expect it to just work. No power cycles, which I've had to do with a BT PCMCIA card on my WinXP laptop, my iPAQ and Palm's with the SD bluetooth card. I expect it to transfer a 700K file between two devices about 6 feet apart without locking up or dropping the connection. It is advertised as a cable replacement, so I expect it to work as seamlessly as my cables do, but it doesn't.

[FredMurphy]

I think a lot of Bluetooth's interoperability problems will be eased now that different products have been available for a while. e.g Socket have sorted their drivers out - initial problems were (apparently) due to the fact that when they were developing the drivers there were really only phones about to to test against.

Native support for Bluetooth in the OS (promised for XP SP1 but I don't know if it is in the beta) should help give manufacturers a baseline to work with.

My personal experience:
Socket CF :)
TDK PCMCIA :(
Ericsson T68 :)
Ericsson-supplied software (e.g. XTND Connect) :(

Fred

[Jason Lee]

I think Bluetooth is a great idea. But how many years have we been baby-stepping along waiting for Bluetooth to mature? I thought it was supposed to be this great low cost all cable replacement? I have not had the chance to use bluetooth because there are no phones available in my area nor do I feel the need to pay $300+ to sync or print wirelessly when I can already do both with 802.11b. What I wouldn't give to not have to carry my ppc, cell phone, and 12 feet of cable around just to get my email. *sigh*
This has all become a big issue for me recently with the release of the Toshiba e740. 802.11b or bluetooth or neither....? I may have to go 802.11b because it works now and works in my location. I am sure it will be replaced with 802.11a in a few years or even a few months but at least I know it works with the hardware i have now.
I really hate the 12 feet of cable to connect my ppc to my cell.... Bluetooth, take me away....

[angelseye2000]

Bluetooth just doesn't work as advertised.

Aha, so now it doesn't work as advertised? (like 802.11 isn't running 11 Mbps? but less). Last time you (and your friend Jason) said "I have come to the conclusion that, currently, Bluetooth sucks."
http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=9143&highlight=#9143

You have received some nice replies haven't ya. lol. They show that Bluetooth WORKS. Simple is that. Full stop.

We all agree (i think) that Bluetooth has still some nice way to go. But to say that it sucks and related statements like that aren't really informative.

Am just got back from the Bluetooth Congress in Amstedam (see below) and i saw plenty Bluetooth devices like PDA's (Palm and PPC's with Bluetooth Cards), Notebooks, Headsets, Telematic products, Printers, projector etc. WORKING JUST FINE.

Red-M, Rococo (java/bluetooth), Clipcomm and Extended Systems showed me some interesting products and demo's.

Checked a Bluetooth Session by Jawad Khaki speach of Microsoft and the role of Bluetooth in Microsoft.Net (quite nice and crowdy ;o)

The Bluetooth Congress in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, June 11-14.

Bluetooth allows PCs, handhelds and mobile phones to communicate wirelessly within a distance of about 30 feet.

The incredible line up of speakers include some on the most influence figures in the current adoption of Bluetooth - with Microsoft, Chrysler, FedEx, Sony, Apple, Palm, Nokia, Ericsson Motorola, Toshiba and Compaq just few of the over 150 companies presenting at the event.

http://www.ibctelecoms.com/bluetoothcongress/main.asp

Plenty New Bluetooth Products and press releases coming up....
http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news?p=bluetooth&n=10&a=1
http://hoovnews.hoovers.com/ticker_news.asp?query=bluetooth&which=news

Bluetooth update: Bluetooth: Finally Making An Impact
http://www.hometoys.com/htinews/apr02/articles/navin/navin.htm

To compare: 802.11 developing started in 1990 and Bluetooth in the mid 90's.

How fast we forget.....

Paul Munnery, MD of wireless integrator Wireless CNP, said: "It reminds me of the fiasco in 1997 with 802.11. The industry got into so much trouble then trying to second-guess the standard.

http://wireless.ittoolbox.com/browse.asp?c=WirelessNews&r=/news/dispnews.asp?i=73801

Patience required.

[mar2k]

I can't take Bluetooth seriously until it is a standard part of my desktop PC. Unfortunately, Microsoft has announced that Bluetooth drivers will NOT be a part of XP SP1 as originally planned. They have delayed BT drivers indefinitely and that's not good news. Apparently Microsoft has some major concerns about the technology.

[angelseye2000]

I think Bluetooth is a great idea. But how many years have we been baby-stepping along waiting for Bluetooth to mature? I thought it was supposed to be this great low cost all cable replacement? I have not had the chance to use bluetooth because there are no phones available in my area nor do I feel the need to pay $300+ to sync or print wirelessly when I can already do both with 802.11b. What I wouldn't give to not have to carry my ppc, cell phone, and 12 feet of cable around just to get my email. *sigh*
This has all become a big issue for me recently with the release of the Toshiba e740. 802.11b or bluetooth or neither....? I may have to go 802.11b because it works now and works in my location. I am sure it will be replaced with 802.11a in a few years or even a few months but at least I know it works with the hardware i have now.
I really hate the 12 feet of cable to connect my ppc to my cell.... Bluetooth, take me away....

You have to understand the difference if you compare 802.11 with Bluetooth. Then you will see that they complement eachother (although there is a little overlap. You can 'network' with Bluetooth but that would not be my first choice). OVERHYPE is one of the important factors why Bluetooth hasn't taken of like 802.11. But you have to keep in mind that they started with 802.11 in 1990 (so some 12 years ago!!!!!!!).

No phones available in your area? Try these links (isn't internet and google great?)

Bluetooth Online
http://www.teleadaptusa.com/nme/bluetooth101.htm (US)
http://www.4cellular.com/search/item_browse.cfm?table=phones&hasbluetooth=true (US)
http://www.mphone.co.uk/usa.htm (GSM Handsets that work in USA/Canada)
http://www.ustronics.com/bimborsrchtt3.html (US)
http://www.expansys.com/d_bluetooth.asp (UK)
http://www.alltalking.com (UK)
http://www.blueunplugged.com (UK)
http://www.mphone.co.uk/ (UK)
http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/search-handle-url/102-1579739-7288135?ix=fixed-price&rank=%2Ditm&fqp=org-unit-id%014%02site-org-unit-id%014%02status%01open%02title%01bluetooth&sz=3&pg=1%26field-enddate%3D0a-&size=50/102-1579739-7288135

TI is already offering a Bluetooth Chip at $4 (what's the price of the cheapest 802.11 chip?) and others like CSR and Broadcom are close to the $5 mark. Prices will come down when volume kicks in. Who needs 802.11 speed (above 2Mbps) for printing. 802.11a (5Ghz) and Bluetooth (2.4Ghz) work fine together (CSR is working on such a solution). They are also working on co-existence of Bluetooth-802.11b (see Intersil-Silicon Wave, Bandspeed, Symbol, Intel, or check http://www.mobilian.com )

802.11: great for networking, battery sapping, bigger and more expensive chip then Bluetooth, no anywhere-everywhere wireless connectivity (you need access points/hotspots).....

bluetooth: cable replacement, low power, different (more) applications, smaller and cheaper chip then 802.11, anywhere-everywhere wireless connectivity (with your mobile phone), bluetooth also holds an advantage concerning voice communication (no voice-over-IP needed), bluetooth does not need a base radio station because every device can create a local network.
.....

Comparing High Heels to Sneakers
by Margaret Dilloway of WIDCOMM's Test & Integration Department and author of "Bluetooth for Dummies," coming out in November:

Bluetooth and 802.11b are often depicted as being pitted against each other, as they are interchangeable technologies. This is not true. Nothing exists as a substitution for Bluetooth. Just as a woman may have both high heels and sneakers in her closet for different occasions, so may Bluetooth and 802.11b coexist, as they serve entirely different needs.

http://www.widcomm.com/bluetooth/80211b.asp

Ruining Bluetooth and 802.11 Interference
15:00 PM GMT on Apr 09, 2002
[CommVerge]

A few months ago, some technology observers were predicting the demise of the Bluetooth wireless technology before it ever got off the ground. It would be done in, they said, by 802.11b (Wi-Fi) wireless-LAN technology. There wasn't room in the marketplace for both, they said.

They were wrong, because their conclusions were based on a misguided comparison of Bluetooth and 802.11b for application as a LAN. The two serve very different purposes and simply don't compete in the marketplace (see the sidebar, "Different animals").

more
http://www.anywhereyougo.com/bluetooth/Article.po?id=4278075




regards,

angel

[angelseye2000]

Apparently Microsoft has some major concerns about the technology.

That wasn't what Microsoft told us (me included) at the Bluetooth Congress today. ;o)

Windows XP still waiting for Bluetooth
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=MSFT&read=107528 (original link doesn't work at ppct!?)

Microsoft Selects Taiyo Yuden as its Bluetooth Module Supplier for the Development of Wireless HID --Human Interface Device-- Systems
SCHAUMBURG, Ill.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--June 11, 2002--Taiyo Yuden Co. Ltd., a forerunner in Bluetooth module development and manufacturing, today announced that it has been selected as the Bluetooth module supplier for Microsoft Corp. for its next generation wireless keyboard and mouse systems.
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/020611/110309_1.html

It's taken more time then they thought. They aren't ready yet i think

[Jason Dunn]

I can't take Bluetooth seriously until it is a standard part of my desktop PC. Unfortunately, Microsoft has announced that Bluetooth drivers will NOT be a part of XP SP1 as originally planned. They have delayed BT drivers indefinitely and that's not good news. Apparently Microsoft has some major concerns about the technology.

Microsoft is working on a wireless keyboard + mouse combo that will use Bluetooth - I imagine the drivers will come with that bundle first.

[Ed Hansberry]

I think Bluetooth is a great idea.
I don't think many would argue with that - though there are those that argue everything should have an IP address and just be on the network - I tend to fall on that side to be honest, but for PDA data exchange, headphones, cradleless sync's, BT is a good idea. And has been since 1997. I remember seeing a demo of a bluetooth wireless headset on CBNC in 1999 - late summer. The CEO of whatever .bomb it was that is now gone said BT would revolutionize the way we use various devices. 3 years later, we are all still waiting.

[Jason Dunn]

You have received some nice replies haven't ya. lol. They show that Bluetooth WORKS. Simple is that. Full stop.


Wrong. Bluetooth SOMETIMES works. Watch the front page...I feel a rant coming on.

And, sheesh, why do your posts have to take up entire screens? 8O

[Jason Lee]

I agree angela. I was not compairing or contrasting bluetooth and 802.11b. I should have been more clear. there are 4 things that i want bluetooth to do for me, sync, access to corporate network via access point, connect to my cell, and data transfer between devices. Right now i can do all of them but the cell phone connection with my current home and office setup, 802.11b. In the cell phone area i have problems. There are no bluetooth enabled phones for sale in my area. In theory i should be able to get a gsm phone from somewhere else and activate it with voice stream. However, voice stream has only had service here for a few months so the phone would only work in town. I could not use the phone at home or many other places i would be. that is not really an option. so that leaves sprint, at&t, cingular, and altel. Altel sucks, at&t, and cingular have no wirless internet coverage other than downtown. So that leaves sprint. At the moment sprint does not offer any bluetooth enabled phones, althought i heard about the new adiox which they should carry some day. So i guess i should of said that i cannot justify the price for switching to bluetooth (at current prices $149+ per device) nor will my office support it in the near or distant future. :(

I also agree with Ed. Bluetooth should be used in plce of cables. 802.11b is for networking. Both standards are for totally diferent purposes although some may overlap a bit.

just my 34.2 cents...
:wink:

[jpzr]

I expect it to transfer a 700K file between two devices about 6 feet apart without locking up or dropping the connection.

If you don't use ActiveSync or LAN profiles, but just FileTransfer profile then transferring files over Bluetooth works excellently!!! I was trying it among various Bluetooth devices, non-Microsoft included and it works fine! (sometimes files land in strange directories but once you know their location it is not a problem) So cheer up!

[innersky]

If you don't use ActiveSync or LAN profiles, but just FileTransfer profile then transferring files over Bluetooth works excellently!!!

That's the most lousy excuse I heard in years.
Sure, include profiles that don't work, that's the way to go....

[Ed Hansberry]

If you don't use ActiveSync or LAN profiles, but just FileTransfer profile then transferring files over Bluetooth works excellently!!! I was trying it among various Bluetooth devices, non-Microsoft included and it works fine! (sometimes files land in strange directories but once you know their location it is not a problem) So cheer up!
I didn't use AS or LAN. It was a file transfer between two iPAQ's. And it didn't work fine! We gave up trying to be cool with Bluetooth and just did it via IR.

[angelseye2000]

You have received some nice replies haven't ya. lol. They show that Bluetooth WORKS. Simple is that. Full stop.


Wrong. Bluetooth SOMETIMES works. Watch the front page...I feel a rant coming on.

And, sheesh, why do your posts have to take up entire screens? 8O

The first 802.11 stuff i bought didn't WORK either. So 802.11 SOMETIMES works?

[angelseye2000]

And, sheesh, why do your posts have to take up entire screens? 8O

What about the CONTENT?

[jpzr]

That's the most lousy excuse I heard in years.
Sure, include profiles that don't work, that's the way to go....

I myself use PocketPC with Bluetooth and a cell phone with Bluetooth and I am 100% satisfied.

For all these CRY-BABIES my site features 2 elaborate articles:

- browsing Internet with PocketPC over Bluetooth over Nokia phone over GPRS network:
http://wirelesssoftware.info/Nokia6310iPaqSocketBT/

- syncing your PocketPC over Bluetooth to ActiveSync on desktop PC with USB Bluetooth adapter:
http://wirelesssoftware.info/iPAQSocketBT3Com/

... so it IS really possible (I use just first case, but second one also works fine for some people).

Cry babies, stop crying!!!

[Ed Hansberry]

I myself use PocketPC with Bluetooth and a cell phone with Bluetooth and I am 100% satisfied.
Good for you jpzr. And I am satisfied with ActiveSync, and as I staetd in my original post, many users and sys-admin's that installed SP2 on WinNT4 were satisfied. That does NOT negate the fact that others have problems.

[jpzr]

sys-admin's that installed SP2 on WinNT4 were satisfied

oh my God!!! somebody is using still WinNT4 ? the oldest windows I could spot in my environment is windows 2000, I myself use XP of course...

WinNT4 is an ancient history already... no wonder new stuff like blue is not working on it...

[innersky]

That's the most lousy excuse I heard in years.
Sure, include profiles that don't work, that's the way to go....

I myself use PocketPC with Bluetooth and a cell phone with Bluetooth and I am 100% satisfied.

For all these CRY-BABIES my site features 2 elaborate articles:

- browsing Internet with PocketPC over Bluetooth over Nokia phone over GPRS network:
http://wirelesssoftware.info/Nokia6310iPaqSocketBT/

- syncing your PocketPC over Bluetooth to ActiveSync on desktop PC with USB Bluetooth adapter:
http://wirelesssoftware.info/iPAQSocketBT3Com/

... so it IS really possible (I use just first case, but second one also works fine for some people).

Cry babies, stop crying!!!

Jpzr, you still don't get it huh ?

Yes, it sometimes works partially.
But that's not good enough. I'm not happy with a crappy product that doesn't do what it advertises.

If a bluetooth device claims having 10 profiles, then I'm not happy with having only 3 of them working properly.

Suppose you buy a computer that has 3 usb v2.0 ports, and only one of them works, but is only v1.0. Are you gonna be happy ?

[jpzr]

Suppose you buy a computer that has 3 usb v2.0 ports, and only one of them works, but is only v1.0. Are you gonna be happy ?

There is such a saying:

WANT WHAT YOU HAVE, AND YOU WILL ALWAYS HAVE WHAT YOU WANT

... shortly speaking: scale down your expectations and stick to this what is most important/useful for you and you will be happy! I am happy with Bluetooth.

[angelseye2000]

[quote=jpzr]That does NOT negate the fact that others have problems.

There will always be 'OTHERS with problems' even if a technology (like 802.11) is standarized.

[jpzr]

That does NOT negate the fact that others have problems.

There will always be 'OTHERS with problems' even if a technology (like 802.11) is standarized.


jpzr has never said this sentence! It was Ed. angelseye2000, be careful what are you quoting!

[DJR]

If you don't use ActiveSync or LAN profiles, but just FileTransfer profile then transferring files over Bluetooth works excellently!!! I was trying it among various Bluetooth devices, non-Microsoft included and it works fine! (sometimes files land in strange directories but once you know their location it is not a problem) So cheer up!
I didn't use AS or LAN. It was a file transfer between two iPAQ's. And it didn't work fine! We gave up trying to be cool with Bluetooth and just did it via IR.

This was the h387x? Compaq released it before it was ready for prime-time in order to claim "first PDA with integrated BT" IMNSHO. I had a similarly frustrating time with it; then finally Compaq released some improved BT patches. Aside from my H3875 experience, I've had great success with 3Com's PCCard in ThinkPad and Satellite laptops, HP's 995c printer, S-E's T68i phone, and (shhh) m515 with the Toshiba/Palm SDIO card.