More Bluetooth Madness

[Ed Hansberry]

<a href="http://www.ppcw.net/desktop.php?itemid=1681">http://www.ppcw.net/desktop.php?itemid=1681</a><br /><br />Arne Hess has just received a new laptop that includes Bluetooth. Being a mobile devices nut, his goal was to allow synchronization with his various devices to his laptop.<br /><br />"Companies like Sony do their own stuff just to protect their product range? As you remember I bought a new Notebook which also includes Bluetooth now. One reason to buy a Notebook with Bluetooth was - for sure - to use Bluetooth with other devices (at least that's what Bluetooth was created for - isn't it Mr. Sony ) While my Notebook works as a beauty to make a GPRS dial-up connection through my PPCW.Net i-Mate Smartphone2 (aka Orange SPV E200/HTC Voyager) this Bluetooth Sony software on the Notebook doesn't want to work as a serial connection with ActiveSync. While I first thought I'm to dumb, a Google search offered me some hints and the most important result is I'm not alone."<br /><br />Come on people! These various profiles in Bluetooth are going to be its undoing. You can't do serial with this device, and that device has no headset profile, and the device over there can't see the bluetooth keyboard, and these two won't talk to each other for who knows what reason. :evil: There is <a href="http://www.infosyncworld.com/news/n/4427.html">additional info at InfoSync</a>.

[DubWireless]

Come on people! These various profiles in Bluetooth are going to be its undoing.

thought it had gone far too long since the last Hansberry Bluetooth Rant or HBR ;)

it is the non-interoperable implementation by some companies that cause the major headaches, i.e. devices that should work together but don't

this is the same kind of situation that dogged Nokia's initial Bluetooth implementation - only their Card and Digianswer based drivers (now the Socket card) were able to sync with their initial Bluetooth handsets... they finally implemented a fix for some of their handsets several months later after many complaints...

it's good to see PPCW.net highlight these issues so that the companies producing such proprietary solutions are pressured to sort out their interoperability...

however, you appear to be mixing profile interoperability and specific Bluetooth profile support offered by various devices this HBR - they are separate issues...

[rapidnet_rick]

RETURN the hardware, and let them know why!


Money(or the loss of sales) talks. I would also call support, ask for a manager, and voice my opinion again.


If I was extremely upset, I might buy the several Sony notebooks at different stores, and return them all! Then the retail chains would complain to Sony as well, about the number of returns....(Yes, I can be evil, but if it makes them listen and adhere to standards....)

Oh well, just my .02...

[Ed Hansberry]

[owever, you appear to be mixing profile interoperability and specific Bluetooth profile support offered by various devices this HBR - they are separate issues...
Call it whatever you want. This is bluetooth. It doesn't work. Sort of like when your car doesn't run. You don't care why, you just want it to work.

I like "HBR" though. :)

[DubWireless]

[owever, you appear to be mixing profile interoperability and specific Bluetooth profile support offered by various devices this HBR - they are separate issues...
Call it whatever you want. This is Bluetooth. It doesn't work.

when two manufacturers (or even the same one!) have issues getting the same profile working together is where the major hassle is - and continues being a problem / headache :( - and this is where rants / exposure of specific issues can hopefully get a solution delivered from those concerned

why specific profiles are included or left out is separate - and Bluetooth profiles are a major factor that makes this technology so good - it's one of the biggest misunderstandings that because two devices have Bluetooth they should immediately be able to do everything together - it takes the cable connection away - it isn't magic!

my Bluetooth phone should print to that Bluetooth printer - ok but are there printer drivers available?; my Bluetooth GPS unit should direct me using my Bluetooth headset - sure where are the instructions to be processed?; my PDA doesn’t work with a Bluetooth keyboard - ok, but Bluetooth PDA keyboards still aren't available yet and neither are the drivers – when they product and drivers are then the profile should be implemented...

Sort of like when your car doesn't run. You don't care why, you just want it to work.

true - but my car not running because two things that should work together aren't working (like the gas and the engine) is different from my car not doing something it isn't designed or capable of doing (like hover!)


I like "HBR" though. :)

cool :D

[daS]

Call it whatever you want. This is bluetooth. It doesn't work. Sort of like when your car doesn't run. You don't care why, you just want it to work.
Well I would hope that you are just a little better informed than the car owner that calls the shop and says "my car doesn't work - fix it!" Mechanic: "What seems to be the problem sir?" Ed: "How should I know? You're the mechanic!"

The handful of Bluetooth profiles are specifically designed to standardize interoperability. You should focus your attacks on the companies like Sony and Nokia (and often Microsoft) that choose to ignore such standards instead of assuming that the standard should be able to overcome the companies' attempts at creating islands of technology for themselves. The good news is that things are set to improve: Ericsson (not Sony-Ericsson) has announced a Bluetooth interoperability testing program. You can read about it on my www.BluetoothNews.com (http://www.BluetoothNews.com) site (the link is about three articles down on the right side.)

I agree with the others here: If Sony doesn't provide a simple serial profile for Bluetooth in their notebook, then the unit should be returned and replaced with something that provides this basic Bluetooth feature.

Bluetooth profiles are an excellent way to avoid the need for custom drivers for each device you wish to use. Instead, for example, any phone and headset that properly follow the standard will talk - without loading new software. We all seem to forget that USB is not really "plug-and-play" since you most often need to install the drivers for a new device before pluging it in. Falure to do things in the right order can be very problematic for the typical user. And how about when my Smartphone can't connect to my laptop via USB? Does that mean that USB is bad, or the specific driver for my Smartphone? And let's not even get into how much support I need to give to Wi-Fi users, or how many times my own laptop drops its Wi-Fi connection seemingly for no reason at all! And Wi-Fi is a single purpose (just a wireless Ethernet connection) standard that some poeple claim Bluetooth should emulate. If these are the standards to which Bluetooth is being compaired, well... :roll:

[Ed Hansberry]

The handful of Bluetooth profiles are specifically designed to standardize interoperability.
There are 25 profiles at http://www.palowireless.com/infotooth/tutorial/profiles.asp and a note saying there are "A number of additional Bluetooth profiles are currently in the final stages of development."

If they are designed to standardize interoperability, it fails. Everyone takes potshots at me for my stance on bluetooth as if I am on some jihad against it. I'm not. I use BT daily. I still wouldn't recommend anything to a family member or friend that I didn't explicitly know works, because I know for a fact that the bluetooth logo is 100% worthless when it comes to compatibility and interoperability.

Maybe that is what the BT consortium needs. A logo done by an outside testing lab that guarantees the device will work with all other devices with the logo where applicable. For example, no one would expect a printer to have a headset profile, but a PC or Pocket PC would be expected to work with both simultaneously and flawlessly. Palm of course could work with both but not simultaneously until OS6. :twisted: Then the market will start buying only logo'd devices, incentivising OEMs to get the logo. Sort of like the Windows logo. I wouldn't consider buying hardware without the Windows logo on it.

[rmasinag]

Heck, return the friggin notebook and give them a neon sign for the reason you're returning it, then buy an el cheapo BT dongle that works. I got a a D-Link one for $30, it's only less than an inch long. :D

[Ed Hansberry]

Call it whatever you want. This is bluetooth. It doesn't work. Sort of like when your car doesn't run. You don't care why, you just want it to work.
Well I would hope that you are just a little better informed than the car owner that calls the shop and says "my car doesn't work - fix it!" Mechanic: "What seems to be the problem sir?" Ed: "How should I know? You're the mechanic!"
On that point, you are very likely more informed.

I could do rudimentary troubleshooting. I have as much inclination to tear into the dark corners of BT interoperability as I had inclination to tear into the vagaries of config.sys himem commands to get drivers and TSRs to load in DOS. That is to say, very little.

Most people are going to give up or take it back to the store and get someone there to configure if the bonding wizard doesn't work the first time.

[Duncan]

Ed,

We take 'potshots' at you for consistently hitting the wrong target - and frankly it's becoming something of an entertainment in terms of your total predictability.

Companies such as Sony and MS are deliberately crippling an open standard in order to force people down proprietorial routes. Of course the general public don't care about this - but that doesn't change the simple fact that thet it is not, despite your prejudices, the standard that is to blame! You know full well that it is wilful refusal to implement the necessary profiles that is the problem - not the profiles themselves. Why is it always the standard that faces the attack and not the company eh?

Sad thing is - I think you've long since convinced yourself that Bluetooth is a failure and so you interpret everything you read in such a way as to support this highly short-sighted belief (flying in the face of masses of actual evidence to the contrary...). This includes a distinct lack of response on your part to any of the many Bluetooth success stories.

Y'know - there are many examples of good things that have suffered in places due to poor implementation - but which we still recognise as largely successful and a good thing - democracy anyone? Or should we expect a 'Democracy is dead' post sometime soon...! ;)

I have to say Ed - I regularly recommend BT products to friends - both technicaly minded and not (and have still kept on excellent terms with all!). If you feel unable to do so for yours then I can only think you underestimate them (and the simplicity of the standard) and do them something of a disservice!

[daS]

The handful of Bluetooth profiles are specifically designed to standardize interoperability.
There are 25 profiles at http://www.palowireless.com/infotooth/tutorial/profiles.asp and a note saying there are "A number of additional Bluetooth profiles are currently in the final stages of development."

If they are designed to standardize interoperability, it fails.
Well 25 and counting is certainly a lot better than the thousands of drivers that are preloaded with Windows, plus the thousands more that are needed for every new device that comes along for the PC. That may work for PCs that have gigabytes of storage to spare, but not for a wireless headset or a cell phone.

Everyone takes potshots at me for my stance on bluetooth as if I am on some jihad against it. I'm not. I use BT daily.
Ed, I hope you don't think I "take potshots at you", but instead I try to counter the fact that you seem to relish any opportunity to point out the well known deficiencies in Bluetooth. Specifically there are but two: interoperability and ease of initial configuration. Both of these are problems that the SIG is focusing on. From my perspective, it's really easy to find problems to talk about with any complex technology - the laundry list for the Pocket PC is as long as my arm, but while I might point out a specific problem once, I don't write about every instance of ActiveSync bombing out because of a mysterious email message, or each time someone tells me they lost information in a synchronized Word document. Instead, I try to help people avoid the landmines while focusing on the advantages of the technology.

I still wouldn't recommend anything to a family member or friend that I didn't explicitly know works, because I know for a fact that the bluetooth logo is 100% worthless when it comes to compatibility and interoperability.
You seem to set the bar much higher for Bluetooth than for any other computer technology. I have many programs and USB devices that work with one of my computers, but not with others running the same version of Windows. They all carry the Windows logo... does that make the Windows logo worthless? After all, I know for a fact that there is plenty of software and hardware out there that carry the logo and won't work together.

Maybe that is what the BT consortium needs. A logo done by an outside testing lab that guarantees the device will work with all other devices with the logo where applicable.

Ed, did you read my last posting? Ericsson announced just such a program. I have the details from a meeting I had with them at the Bluetooth Americas Conference earlier this month in an article (http://www.bluetoothnews.com/industrynews/ericsson_interoperability.htm)on BluetoothNews (http://www.BluetoothNews.com). As I get more information I'll let you know.

[PPCMD]

I don't have any BT devices simply for the reason stated you can't guarantee two things will work together. To the point any mfg. who is touting their BT feature should (and we should demand) that they tell us up front that a Sony Vaio won't allow a PPC with BT to connect let alone a PalmOne device. I figure when they get it all worked out some other idiot will come along and change just one little thing and nothing will work again.

One last thought, I always felt the reason mfg's come together was to create a standard for which all would or could follow so things worked. But then again Cisco prefers ether channel instead of MLT go figure.

[daS]

I don't have any BT devices simply for the reason stated you can't guarantee two things will work together. To the point any mfg. who is touting their BT feature should (and we should demand) that they tell us up front that a Sony Vaio won't allow a PPC with BT to connect let alone a PalmOne device. I figure when they get it all worked out some other idiot will come along and change just one little thing and nothing will work again.
By that logic, you should avoid anything with a USB logo. After all, most USB devices don't work with the USB port on your Pocket PC. You can't plug in your USB printer, keyboard, camera, etc., yet they don't tell you that up front.

You should also return any Wi-Fi hardware because I can assure you that some devices have trouble connecting to certain Wi-Fi access points.

As was last pointed out, if you are going to condemn anyone for this, it's not the Bluetooth SIG, it should be Sony - a company well known for snubbing standards.

[freitasm]

http://www.ppcw.net/desktop.php?itemid=1681


Come on people! These various profiles in Bluetooth are going to be its undoing. You can't do serial with this device, and that device has no headset profile, and the device over there can't see the bluetooth keyboard, and these two won't talk to each other for who knows what reason. :evil: There is additional info at InfoSync (http://www.infosyncworld.com/news/n/4427.html).

What Infosync fails to mention is that the original information came from Geekzone - read Arne's original article and there's a link there to an entry in our forums.

The problem is that Sony only guarantees the Serial profile to work with their Clie.

The way I see it is that they only support Clie - because it's a Sony product. But note the word support. It means if you seek assistance they will only bother replying or doing anything if both devices are Sony.

In other words it may even work, depending on configuration but they can't be bothered to spend the time with a non-Sony customer (or just 50% because the laptop is, but the handheld is not).

:? Is interesting how news are filtered and the original source is not listed after a few "translations". So, for the record, here is the original URL: http://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?ForumId=6&amp;TopicId=656

[freitasm]

You should also return any Wi-Fi hardware because I can assure you that some devices have trouble connecting to certain Wi-Fi access points.

As was last pointed out, if you are going to condemn anyone for this, it's not the Bluetooth SIG, it should be Sony - a company well known for snubbing standards.

Agreed. I've returned a Sandisk wi-fi SD Card because the thing wouldn't work with my H3970 and Dell Access Point.

[Barak]

Ed, I hope this is not off topic. I just bought a laptop with bluetooth and am hoping to be able to use it with my HP 4350 bluettooth.

Did you have any trouble connecting these types of devices??

[freitasm]

Ed, I hope this is not off topic. I just bought a laptop with bluetooth and am hoping to be able to use it with my HP 4350 bluettooth.

Did you have any trouble connecting these types of devices??

You'll have a non-positive response from Ed :D

One interesting thing: We have had more than 400,000 page views in our Geekzone Bluetooth Guides, and only a few left messages asking for help while trying to connect devices using Bluetooth.

Even so, most of the problems were:

a) firewall blocking all communications
b) incorrect configuration on ActiveSync
c) corrupt registry entry for user (thus causing Bluetooth to stop working - as soon as a new user was created on the same computer it worked).
d) incorrect configuration of ICS (if using network sharing)

You see, most non-related to Bluetooth really, but to the OS platform.

[daS]

Ed, I hope this is not off topic. I just bought a laptop with bluetooth and am hoping to be able to use it with my HP 4350 bluettooth.

Did you have any trouble connecting these types of devices??
That depends on the type of laptop. This duscussion is about Sony laptops and the fact that Sony refuses to support standards. If you have a Sony laptop, then expect to have to buy only other Sony products such as the Clie PDA and over priced Memory Sticks.

I wrote a step-by-step guide here (http://www.bluetoothnews.com/features/ActiveSync.htm)on getting ActiveSync to work over Bluetooth. Let us know if you get stuck.

[Ed Hansberry]

Ed,

We take 'potshots' at you for consistently hitting the wrong target {snip} You know full well that it is wilful refusal to implement the necessary profiles that is the problem - not the profiles themselves. Why is it always the standard that faces the attack and not the company eh?
And this is relevent how to my Anycom BT PCMCIA card in my Windows XP laptop that refused to reliably connecto to my 3870 without rebooting periodically? Heck, my bone stock Nokia 3650 has to be rebooted about 25% of the time before BT connections work and my 2215 has to be soft reset about 10% of the time to connect to the 3650. This is a simple profile I presume. one that is 110% analogous to WiFi connections. I can recall having to soft reset my 2215 2-3 times this year to get WiFi working and rebooting my 802.11b router, uhm... NEVER.

So, maybe it was crapware drivers that came with the Anycom card. maybe it was poorly designed hardware. Maybe the 3650 isn't as robust as it should be in BT implementation. Maybe the 2215 BT stack needs a few tweaks. Maybe my old T68/68i needed some tweakes too. Man I hated that phone. So lets see, combine the Anycom, 3870, 3970, 2215, Nokia 3650 and S/E t68 and I have had problems with 100% of them when it comes to BT, each to varyng degrees and the 2215/3650 combo is low enough I heartily recommend the combo to people that need more than a smartphone can offer. Then I show them how to reboot both.

The defense I see of BT is borderline what I saw in defense of OS/2. I don't run operating systems! I run applications. The OS is a means to an end. I don't do bluetooth. I communcate. The transport is a means to an end. The means sucks when it starts with a "b", ends with a "h" and has "luetoot" in the middle. It looks awful pretty on paper though. :roll:

[Thinkingmandavid]

I have always liked the possibilities of bluetooth, but also undertand it is like any other technology. It takes time to be fully developed. I am in full support for a standard by which all companies would be required to follow if they are to include bluetooth on their devices. This is from cell phones, pda's, computers, laptops, refrigerators, cars, printers, head phones, etc.
This will help the industry become strong in this area.
I must say I am impressed with how geekzone and bluetoothnews have done their tutorials. I think it is a good place to send people for an easily understandable and educational site on bluetooth.
I know at work they attempted to pair up a ambicom bluetooth dongle on a laptop to a 4155, but were not ever able to get it to work. The 4155 recognized the laptop, but not vice versa.

[daS]

Heck, my bone stock Nokia 3650 has to be rebooted about 25% of the time before BT connections work and my 2215 has to be soft reset about 10% of the time to connect to the 3650. This is a simple profile I presume. one that is 110% analogous to WiFi connections. I can recall having to soft reset my 2215 2-3 times this year to get WiFi working and rebooting my 802.11b router, uhm... NEVER.
I still find it amazing that you can claim that 802.11b is reliable on anything. I'm not saying that your experience with Bluetooth is the way it should be, I just think you have selected memory when it comes to problems with Bluetooth vs any other technology.

I have used lots of different Bluetooth devices and while I've had a few glitches, in general, I don't see the huge problems you seem to have with it.

On the other hand, I have set up a dozen or more people with Wi-Fi connections in the office (since I was the one that forced them to use a WEP key after I got there and found that they had an open network) and some computers work the first time, others never see the DHCP server and I have to give them fixed IP addresses, and still others never work at all. Those that do work, will often drop their connections for no apparent reason (even though the signal is very strong.) In fact - this is no lie - while writing this message, my laptop lost its connection to my home Wi-Fi network. It shows up in the "available networks" list, but won't connect. Pulling the Wi-Fi card and reinserting it made it work again.

Considering Wi-Fi has only one thing to do, I would have expected the vendors to have got right by now, but no...

However, I don't bother reporting it constantly because (with the execption of your flawless 802.11b network) everybody knows about Wi-Fi issues, but we all just use it since it works better than anything else for the job.

What I really don't understand is why you bother to use Bluetooth if it gives you such major heartburn all the time. Perhaps you should do yourself (and the rest of us) a favor and consider using cables instead. I'll even be willing to start a collection here to buy you the overpriced phone connection cable for your current phone to your current iPAQ (one of which will most likely change before you get a chance to use it) if you promise to stop abusing yourself by trying to use that obviously useless technology that starts with a "B" and ends with "h". :wink:

[Ed Hansberry]

So lets see, combine the Anycom, 3870, 3970, 2215, Nokia 3650 and S/E t68 and I have had problems with 100% of them when it comes to BT, each to varyng degrees ...
On the other hand, I have set up a dozen or more people with Wi-Fi connections in the office (since I was the one that forced them to use a WEP key after I got there and found that they had an open network) and some computers work the first time, others never see the DHCP server and I have to give them fixed IP addresses, and still others never work at all. Those that do work, will often drop their connections for no apparent reason (even though the signal is very strong.)
So, by your own admission, you haven't seen a 100% issue rate. :wink: :lol:

in all seriousness, I've only experienced a dropped signal in one room and the signal booster I purchased fixed that. My laptop maintains a signal to the router for days on end. Thanksgiving weekend, Wednesday afternoon to Monday AM, no probs. I am confident I'll see the same this week. No probs with DHCP or activesync over WiFi either. I know it isn't perfect. No technology is. To me and others, BT just isn't ready for prime time.

[SassKwatch]

[quote=PPCMD]As was last pointed out, if you are going to condemn anyone for this, it's not the Bluetooth SIG, it should be Sony - a company well known for snubbing standards.
I have to side with Ed. It doesn't matter how well the BT SIG writes the 'standard'. If the end user has to wrestle with getting 2 BT equipped devices to talk to each other, then the *technology* has failed. And that end user couldn't give a fat rat's axx about who to point the finger at. And shouldn't need to care!

You're certainly right in that these sort of incompatibilities are not hardly limited to BT technology. The whole I.T. industry has become one big finger pointing, blame shifting mess.......
"Your hardware is the problem."
"No, it isn't. It's your software."
"You installed the wrong driver for that model."
"But I installed the driver you shipped with that model."
"But that driver was only good for that model with Version X of your OS."

Ad nauseum, ad nauseum, ad nauseum.

Because BT isn't the only technology suffering such nonsense, doesn't mean it should be spared criticism. At least not in my book.

At the rate incompatibility issues arise in the I.T. world, I'm not entirely sure our grandchildren won't be very enamored of a pen/paper/slide rule combination. :)

[rapidnet_rick]

[quote=Duncan]Ed,


The defense I see of BT is borderline what I saw in defense of OS/2. I don't run operating systems! I run applications. The OS is a means to an end. I don't do bluetooth. I communcate. The transport is a means to an end. The means sucks when it starts with a "b", ends with a "h" and has "luetoot" in the middle. It looks awful pretty on paper though. :roll:

I would place the blame soley on Sony for this one. How can they support the Clie, via Bluetooth and nothing else? As everyone else says, they are both Sony products. If everyone let's them do it, then they will keep doing it. However, if enough people know, complain, and don't buy.....Guess what happens..... They (Sony) will fix it......After all, they are looking for sales.......


I use bluetooth all the time, for Basic things....like

SE-T616 Phone to Ipaq 5550 for wireless connection....

Jabra Bluetooth headset to SE-T616..

etc....

I have never had a real issue.....

Bluetooth is ok, but it's too slow! I prefer Wi-Fi, and use it for active-sync and printing, whenever possible!

BTW, I am generally wary of hype....BT has lots of hype, and generally only useful for somethings, because it's so slow. IE, bluetooth active-sync, give me Wi-Fi everyday for Active-Sync..... The fastest way to go, while BT is about the slowest.....well, perhaps IR is slower....

Does BT suck, no. Is it the next greatest thing and will change the world and how we do things, no! but it's ok......

[daS]

To me and others, BT just isn't ready for prime time.

Fair enough. My only issue is reading about the same old problems from the same people (I won't call you "old" since I know I'm far older. :wink: ) Can we please have a moratorium on rants about interoperability and/or time to set up Bluetooth products? We all are very much aware of these things by now.

[daS]

I have to side with Ed. It doesn't matter how well the BT SIG writes the 'standard'. If the end user has to wrestle with getting 2 BT equipped devices to talk to each other, then the *technology* has failed. And that end user couldn't give a fat rat's axx about who to point the finger at. And shouldn't need to care!
So by that standard, the following technologies have failed: Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, USB, Windows, Pocket PCs, PalmOS PDAs, CF Cards, SD Cards, Cable TV/VCRs, IrDA, Ethernet, all document scanners, data-enabled mobile phones, etc., etc., etc...

You're certainly right in that these sort of incompatibilities are not hardly limited to BT technology. The whole I.T. industry has become one big finger pointing, blame shifting mess.......
And that's my only point here. Ed has elected to single out the problems with Bluetooth for reasons I don't understand.

Because BT isn't the only technology suffering such nonsense, doesn't mean it should be spared criticism. At least not in my book.
Not in my book either, but at the same time it shouldn't be held to a different standard than other technologies. This is especially true given the fact that the Bluetooth SIG is actively addressing these issues - which is more than I can say for the Wi-Fi Consortium.

At the rate incompatibility issues arise in the I.T. world, I'm not entirely sure our grandchildren won't be very enamored of a pen/paper/slide rule combination. :)
Well I like pens, slide rules and my Curta calculator. 8) If I ever have grandchildren, I will give them these things and hope that they are enamored with them too! :)

[FredMurphy]

I reckon it's definitely Sony rather than Bluetooth that's at fault here. I really want a Bluetooth mouse I can use with my laptop WITHOUT an external dongle. The Logitech MX900 looked like it fitted the bill but guess what..... my Sony Vaio PCG-Z1MP doesn't support the HID profile! :roll:

[SassKwatch]

I have to side with Ed. It doesn't matter how well the BT SIG writes the 'standard'. If the end user has to wrestle with getting 2 BT equipped devices to talk to each other, then the *technology* has failed. And that end user couldn't give a fat rat's axx about who to point the finger at. And shouldn't need to care!
So by that standard, the following technologies have failed: Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, USB, Windows, Pocket PCs, PalmOS PDAs, CF Cards, SD Cards, Cable TV/VCRs, IrDA, Ethernet, all document scanners, data-enabled mobile phones, etc., etc., etc...

Just my opinion, but of those technologies you've named, only 'data-enabled mobile phones' *might* qualify as 'failed'. Are all the others problematic at times? You bet.....in varying degrees to each individual. But they're also all in far more widespread use, so I really don't see how we could classify them as 'failed'.

Now, there may be a quite large number of BT equipped devices sold these days, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if half the people with BT equipped mobile phones don't have a clue about BT's capabilities....let alone how to use it.

But we could go on for weeks about that. What I don't understand is why you're concerned with Ed singling out BT for repeated criticism.(?) I say....why not BT?? If we can agree for the moment that BT is the least widely used of all the 'problematic' technologies you've listed above, then it would seem to me the one technology that one lone Howard Beale...er..., I mean Ed Hansberry :), screaming "I'm Mad As Hell, And I'm Not Going To Take It Anymore" from the pulpit of one of the more respected web sites loosely involved in the technology has a chance of being heard by those with the power to make some changes.

Maybe that's wishful thinking. And maybe Ed's just in serious need of a Prozac refill. But if that's the case, then I'll be standing in line at Walgreens right behind him. Because rather than question why he's singling out BT from the many problematic technologies, it seems to me we should be praising him for at least taking a stand.

Quite frankly, the I.T. industry as a whole could stand to have a lot more like him doing the best Howard Beale imiation they possibly can. Exactly for the reasons you state....BT is not hardly the only problematic technology out there!

[Bajan Cherry]

And this is relevent how to my Anycom BT PCMCIA card in my Windows XP laptop that refused to reliably connecto to my 3870 without rebooting periodically? Heck, my bone stock Nokia 3650 has to be rebooted about 25% of the time before BT connections work and my 2215 has to be soft reset about 10% of the time to connect to the 3650. This is a simple profile I presume. one that is 110% analogous to WiFi connections. I can recall having to soft reset my 2215 2-3 times this year to get WiFi working and rebooting my 802.11b router, uhm... NEVER.

I dont know about you, but for me, bt works, and very well too. I connect my win2k laptop, xp desktop, ipaq 2215 and nokia 3650 over bt and no problems so far. Only time I get irritated is when I try to activesync the pocket pc, and Nokia start asking if it should accept the connection from the laptop.

[Ed Hansberry]

Bluetooth profiles are an excellent way to avoid the need for custom drivers for each device you wish to use. Instead, for example, any phone and headset that properly follow the standard will talk - without loading new software.
That is a bit disingenuous. I seem to recall downloading and installing drivers for my Anycom BT card so XP could use it and having problems with beta drivers for a WM2003 iPAQ to use the Socket BT card. Sounds like drivers to me. It isn't like BT is magic with no drivers. If you add bluetooth functionality to a device, there are drivers.

And what about printers? Are you saying that if you BT connect a printer to your PC, you don't have to load any drivers? No, I didn't think so. Of course you need printer drivers. The BT connection is the transport. Just like TCP/IP is the transport. I can "talk" to any TCP/IP IPv4 & v6 device with my PCs and Pocket PC. But I'll need a driver for many of them to take advantage of their special capabilities - printers, scanners, etc. Things like servers, routers, etc. just work.

[daS]

Bluetooth profiles are an excellent way to avoid the need for custom drivers for each device you wish to use. Instead, for example, any phone and headset that properly follow the standard will talk - without loading new software.
That is a bit disingenuous. I seem to recall downloading and installing drivers for my Anycom BT card so XP could use it and having problems with beta drivers for a WM2003 iPAQ to use the Socket BT card. Sounds like drivers to me. It isn't like BT is magic with no drivers. If you add bluetooth functionality to a device, there are drivers.
Come on Ed, of course you need to load a driver for the Bluetooth device on your own machine (if it not pre-installed), it's the communications to other Bluetooth devices that I'm talking about. Compare that to USB, where you need drivers for both your USB controller and every USB device you connect to (often including different drivers for each brand/model Pocket PC for example. :roll: )

Bluetooth gets both prase and hits (depending on one's agenda :wink: ) for the added complexity of having usage profiles. The detractors try to claim that this somehow violates the "7 layer" communcations stack used to define communications architectures. However, the reality is that Bluetooth simply implements higher layers than most other comm standards.

While I admit that some of these profiles are yet to be locked down well enough to assure 100% compatibility, things are much better than they were even a year ago. If you know what profiles your device supports, you have reasonable assurance that it will work with other devices using the same profile(s). THe biggest problem today is that there is still a certain level of flexibility for vendors to choose different profiles for the same type of product. For example, most Bluetooth headsets implement the (duh) "Headset Profile". However, there is also a more flexible "Handsfree Profile". Nokia only has the handsfree profile in their 3650 phone, so that's why it doesn't work with many headsets. However, quite a few of the newer headsets offer both the headset and handfree profiles and will work with Nokia, as well as other phones. Is this a confusing mess today? Yes. Is it being addressed? Yes - and quite quickly. (How many of your early - say 3 years ago - 802.11b devices worked with products from other vendors? Or even work with today's equipment?)

And what about printers? Are you saying that if you BT connect a printer to your PC, you don't have to load any drivers? No, I didn't think so. Of course you need printer drivers. The BT connection is the transport. Just like TCP/IP is the transport. I can "talk" to any TCP/IP IPv4 & v6 device with my PCs and Pocket PC. But I'll need a driver for many of them to take advantage of their special capabilities - printers, scanners, etc. Things like servers, routers, etc. just work.
Actually, you're wrong about this: The Basic Printing Profile (BPP)and Basic Imaging Profile (BIP) eliminate the need for printer-specific drivers. As I understand it, a printer that provides BIP uses xHTML to render graphic data. So while you would need a single driver to support your Bluetooth interface that has BIP, you wouldn't need a new driver for each printer you find out there. Isn't that cool? 8)

Of course, this is a newer profile and you won't find it in very many devices yet. And this is where the problems come in. But it will get better as things mature. Remember that, while Bluetooth has been talked about (and over hyped) for many years, we've only seen real products for the last couple of years. How long after USB hit the market was it before every printer and digital camera came with it?

[Ed Hansberry]

And what about printers? Are you saying that if you BT connect a printer to your PC, you don't have to load any drivers? No, I didn't think so. Of course you need printer drivers. The BT connection is the transport. Just like TCP/IP is the transport. I can "talk" to any TCP/IP IPv4 &amp; v6 device with my PCs and Pocket PC. But I'll need a driver for many of them to take advantage of their special capabilities - printers, scanners, etc. Things like servers, routers, etc. just work.
Actually, you're wrong about this: The Basic Printing Profile (BPP)and Basic Imaging Profile (BIP) eliminate the need for printer-specific drivers. As I understand it, a printer that provides BIP uses xHTML to render graphic data. So while you would need a single driver to support your Bluetooth interface that has BIP, you wouldn't need a new driver for each printer you find out there. Isn't that cool? 8)
It would be if it were real. I just looked at the HP 995 bluetooth printer - http://h20015.www2.hp.com/hub_search/document.jhtml?lc=en&amp;docName=bpd09286 - 16 steps to install and one of them is a driver for the printer. I don't care with BIP does, most (every?) OEM is going to add their own gee-whiz features to their printer and that requires a driver.

You can talk about how good bluetooth is and how well designed it is, and you may be technically correct. However, if I came up with the new ehans2000 engine for cars that was the best engine in the world and sold it in a Yugo designed car and labeled them all as ehans2000 powered, it wouldn't matter how robust the engine was. After the electric windows stopped working, a headlight needed replacing every 3-4 months, the radio was sporadic and the gas gauge read half full when the tank was bone dry, it wouldn't take long for anything "ehans2000 powered" was looked at as junk. And that is bluetooth. It may be this wonderful core, but on the whole, it stinks.

There is no excuse for me and Dale Coffing to not be able to transfer a 750KB file between two iPAQ 3870s via BT. We tried and tried. It never got past 300-400KB before dying. No amount of rebonding and soft resetting worked. We finally stopped being cool and I beamed him the file via IR. I watched a demo fail because two Palm M5xx devices with Palm BT SD cards couldn't see each other but they could see other devices and other devices could see them. They couldn't see each other to bond though.

In both cases, was it BT that failed or something on the periphery? Who cares? Most of us don't give a flip the technical reason. Bluetooth wasn't working and that is all I most people care about, and that is what BT fans seem to miss.

[freitasm]

There is no excuse for me and Dale Coffing to not be able to transfer a 750KB file between two iPAQ 3870s via BT. We tried and tried. It never got past 300-400KB before dying. No amount of rebonding and soft resetting worked. We finally stopped being cool and I beamed him the file via IR. I watched a demo fail because two Palm M5xx devices with Palm BT SD cards couldn't see each other but they could see other devices and other devices could see them. They couldn't see each other to bond though.

Let's see. Pocket PC Magazine .lit file, 2.23MB. iPAQ H4155 and H3970. Not paired/bonded. I tried transferring the file - and it was completed!

http://www.geekzone.co.nz/images/forums/btfiletransfer.jpg

Perhaps one of your devices was set to turn off after 30 seconds? Too much interference (not likely, I've noticed that some wi-fi router stop working when using a DECT 2.4Ghz cordless phone in the vicinity, but Bluetooth keeps working fine)?

Anyway, it worked for me.

[Ed Hansberry]

Let's see. Pocket PC Magazine .lit file, 2.23MB. iPAQ H4155 and H3970. Not paired/bonded. I tried transferring the file - and it was completed!

Perhaps one of your devices was set to turn off after 30 seconds? Too much interference (not likely, I've noticed that some wi-fi router stop working when using a DECT 2.4Ghz cordless phone in the vicinity, but Bluetooth keeps working fine)

Come one. Dale and I aren't tech wizards but we aren't dumb enough to allow 30 second poweroffs interrupt the process. :roll: I never said it shouldn't work - it SHOULD. I said it didn't work. No, no cordless phones around or wifi routers or anything else. We have no clue why it didn't work, but it sure didn't put a plus in the pro column of Bluetooth for me.

[daS]

I just looked at the HP 995 bluetooth printer - http://h20015.www2.hp.com/hub_search/document.jhtml?lc=en&amp;docName=bpd09286 - 16 steps to install and one of them is a driver for the printer. I don't care with BIP does, most (every?) OEM is going to add their own gee-whiz features to their printer and that requires a driver.
Well as I pointed out BPP and BIP are fairly new and the HP 995 doesn't use it. That printer simply uses the serial port profile. Also, just because HP suggests you use a device-specific driver (especially true with Windows) that doesn't mean that you couldn't simply find the printer with your Bluetooth enabled Pocket PC or cell phone and print without loading any new drivers. No you may not get all features (most likely the only thing missing would be the ink status indicators), but you should be able to print.

You can talk about how good bluetooth is and how well designed it is, and you may be technically correct. However, if I came up with the new ehans2000 engine for cars that was the best engine in the world and sold it in a Yugo designed car and labeled them all as ehans2000 powered, it wouldn't matter how robust the engine was. After the electric windows stopped working, a headlight needed replacing every 3-4 months, the radio was sporadic and the gas gauge read half full when the tank was bone dry, it wouldn't take long for anything "ehans2000 powered" was looked at as junk. And that is bluetooth. It may be this wonderful core, but on the whole, it stinks.
Then please stop using it! I really can't understand why you claim to use something every day which you think stinks. Or do you just enjoy the debate?

There is no excuse for me and Dale Coffing to not be able to transfer a 750KB file between two iPAQ 3870s via BT. We tried and tried. It never got past 300-400KB before dying.

Once again - If I posted a message about every time I ran into an unexplained problem with Windows, Wi-Fi or even our beloved Pocket PCs, I'll be listed here as a Pocket PC Mystic. Pick any modern technology and, if you want to, you can find plenty of problems. THe big difference that I see is that the Bluetooth SIG is listening and doing something about the problems that you note. That's more than I can say about other technologies: I have the same problems with auto-numbering in Word 2003 as I did with Word 2.0! W-Fi is flaky and everyone knows it, but uses it anyway because it's the best solution for wireless networking.

Then there's ActiveSync... Verson 3.71 and counting... Same old problems... Need I say anything more? :evil:

Most of us don't give a flip the technical reason. Bluetooth wasn't working and that is all I most people care about, and that is what BT fans seem to miss.
I don't miss that at all. What you seem to miss is that you appear to hold Bluetooth to a higher standard than you do other technologies. And you don't give it credit for being both young (in terms of actually available products) and in the process of fixing many of these early growning pains.

[Ed Hansberry]

Then please stop using it! I really can't understand why you claim to use something every day which you think stinks. Or do you just enjoy the debate? {snip} I don't miss that at all. What you seem to miss is that you appear to hold Bluetooth to a higher standard than you do other technologies. And you don't give it credit for being both young (in terms of actually available products) and in the process of fixing many of these early growning pains.

I've told you and others time and time again, it works pretty well with my 2215/Nokia 3650 combo even though it requires a phone reboot about a quarter of the times.

As for it having growing pains - yes, it does. To me they are pretty bad and in many cases I think the public is beta testing the stuff. I'll continue to speak my mind about it as I do on anything else I get the urge to do on this site. that would be the "Thoughts" in Pocket PC Thoughts. :-) We aren't about boring news. I think the formula Jason came up with is why this is the #1 Pocket PC forum on the internet and better than most device neutral sites out there. :way to go: Feel free to ignore my posts. ;-) I really don't understand why some feel I and others are not allowed to dislike the way a technology is implemented and works -or doesn't work.

[daS]

I'll continue to speak my mind about it as I do on anything else I get the urge to do on this site. that would be the "Thoughts" in Pocket PC Thoughts. :-) We aren't about boring news. I think the formula Jason came up with is why this is the #1 Pocket PC forum on the internet and better than most device neutral sites out there. :way to go: Feel free to ignore my posts. ;-) I really don't understand why some feel I and others are not allowed to dislike the way a technology is implemented and works -or doesn't work.
Please don't take my comments the wrong way. I don't think that you should be censored, and I won't ignore your posts because most of the time :wink: I agree with you, and when I don't I will feel compelled to offer counterpoint. :D I just don't understand why you have elected to pick on Bluetooth as opposed to any other technology as the one that you give zero tolerance. (BTW: I have said this more than once in this thread and each time you have ignored that point. :?: )

Is the public being used as beta testers? Yes, I agree with you that we are! But no more so than for Pocket PCs, Windows, etc.. Why don’t I see you calling all that junk? (Once again ActiveSync)

And as for the “thoughts” vs. “news” comment: I’m sorry that you think my site is just "about boring news". While I will never claim to compete with PocketPCThoughts, if you read my articles and comments on www.BluetoothNews.com as well as here, you will see that I am at times critical of Bluetooth’s faults. I just feel that balance is appropriate.

[Janak Parekh]

Is the public being used as beta testers? Yes, I agree with you that we are! But no more so than for Pocket PCs, Windows, etc.. Why don’t I see you calling all that junk? (Once again ActiveSync)
Oh, we do. Each of us have our "pet peeves". Ed's other favorite rant is about "Smart Minimize". I think he's roasted Microsoft much harder on that one than he does BT. In BT's case, I think myself and Ed play good cop, bad cop. :razzing: As for ActiveSync, we've all complained about it many, many times...

And as for the “thoughts” vs. “news” comment: I’m sorry that you think my site is just "about boring news". While I will never claim to compete with PocketPCThoughts, if you read my articles and comments on www.BluetoothNews.com as well as here, you will see that I am at times critical of Bluetooth’s faults. I just feel that balance is appropriate.
I'm quite certain Ed didn't mean you when he said that, just pointing out that we're not just "Pocket PC News", but rants, raves, and views as well.

Ed, BTW: the file transfer issue with the 3870 was likely due to the buggy nature of the early Compaq BT stacks. I noticed that the WM2003 update brings it up to the very latest BT software. I'd be curious if that resolves the problem as well...

--janak

[Ed Hansberry]

I'll continue to speak my mind about it as I do on anything else I get the urge to do on this site. that would be the "Thoughts" in Pocket PC Thoughts. :-) We aren't about boring news. I think the formula Jason came up with is why this is the #1 Pocket PC forum on the internet and better than most device neutral sites out there. :way to go: Feel free to ignore my posts. ;-) I really don't understand why some feel I and others are not allowed to dislike the way a technology is implemented and works -or doesn't work.
Please don't take my comments the wrong way. I don't think that you should be censored, and I won't ignore your posts because most of the time :wink: I agree with you, and when I don't I will feel compelled to offer counterpoint. :D I just don't understand why you have elected to pick on Bluetooth as opposed to any other technology as the one that you give zero tolerance. (BTW: I have said this more than once in this thread and each time you have ignored that point. :?: )
I don't have zero tolerance for BT problems. There are just so many. As I stated, I have had some problem with 100% of the BT devices I have used.Is the public being used as beta testers? Yes, I agree with you that we are! But no more so than for Pocket PCs, Windows, etc.. Why don’t I see you calling all that junk? (Once again ActiveSync) I disagree. The Pocket PC OS has been quite stable and reliable since day one. Are there bugs? Yes. But it isn't a half baked technology being hyped as the end all be all technology that isn't ready for prime time. Yeah, I know about activesync. You know why I've not ranted about it? Because believe it or not, I have not had any real problem with it since ActiveSync 3.0 was released. 8O That's right. Since upgrading to 3.7.1 I've had a slightly irritating problem that causes me to have to kill wcescomm.exe and restart it using the WinXP Task Manager, but that is it. No sync failures. No USB issues. I VPN into my corporate lan and AS via either WiFi at home/hotspots or via my 3650 remotely. No hosts file needed. I've had AS on 5 machines with over a dozen Pocket PC/Palm-sized/HPC devices. Never an issue. I know there are problems but since I don't experience them, I'm not going to harp on them because I don't personally see them. I think Jason has that covered. :wink: And as for the “thoughts” vs. “news” comment: I’m sorry that you think my site is just "about boring news". While I will never claim to compete with PocketPCThoughts, if you read my articles and comments on www.BluetoothNews.com as well as here, you will see that I am at times critical of Bluetooth’s faults. I just feel that balance is appropriate.Whoa.... back the truck up. {beep}{beep}{beep}.

I didn't say your site was boring. To be honest, I've only visited it once and that is simply because I don't find bluetooth interesting. It is a means to an end. I'd not visit a site on IR technology, TCP/IPv6, USB, or many others. In fact, I don't find particular Pocket PCs interesting or for that matter, the Pocket PC OS interesting in and of itself. What I like about the Pocket PC is that it enables me to do things that no other platform does. If you look at my posts vs others here at 'Thoughts, you'll see I am the least likely to post on hardware. I am most likely to post on software and content. That is what it is about for me. What it enables.

BT does none of that for me. I use it for one thing. To use my 3650 as a modem. I have no BT headset. No desire. I don't talk 2 hrs a month on my cell phone. No desire for a BT printer. USB or parallel do just fine for me and the rest of my machines access it via the WLAN. BT keyboards and mice? Nah. Nothing wrong with that thin little cable. In fact, I just ordered a new Media PC and it comes with a wireless keyboard and mouse. Guess what? IR. Which is totally fine with me. I know IR works and I'm sure Gateway thought the same thing when that is what they included with it. And the day someone comes out with a Pocket PC Phone that has a CF slot, I'll probably give up my normal phone and BT connection. BT just doesn't do it for me. Maybe if I had as little trouble with BT as I have with WiFi (none), USB (none), Activesync (minor glitches), and all other technology I use.

Sorry if that irritates some people. Sorry if my rants on BT do, but here is the thing. If BT weren't as bad as I think, there wouldn't be so much fodder for my rants. Maybe my rants, plus the countless others out there is what is causing the BT community to come up with this BT logo/compatiblity program. They recognize it is a problem. A huge problem. Great! Maybe they will fix it and BT will become ubiquitious. One thing is for sure, if they don't, it will remain a niche relegated to cell phones and headsets until another technology comes along and totally supplants it.

[freitasm]

... and these two won't talk to each other for who knows what reason. :evil: ....

Well, it looks like wi-fi is not better than Bluetooth in this area either... Oh, my goodness, I've just stirred the thread a little more:

From the article on ZDNET http://news.zdnet.co.uk/communications/wireless/0,39020348,39119037,00.htm

"Based on testing of more than 1,000 products over several IEEE 802.11 standards, products that are prepared for Wi-Fi certification testing fail 25 to 30 percent of the time -- or more depending on the technology being tested," said Wi-Fi Alliance managing director, Frank Hanzlik.

"Products that do not go through the rigorous testing preparation process have an even higher failure rate. Without Wi-Fi certification, these product failures would have been experienced by the technology consumer," Hanzlik added.

A product that fails Wi-Fi certification can still be launched, though, and a manufacturer could still label their wireless products as "802.11b compatible" even if they only work with its own range of kit, and not with those from another vendor."

[JustinGTP]

Bluetooth is now available on the new Toyota Prius Hybrid Sedan so that you can use use your phone handsfree in your car.

Anyhow,

I dont think that Bluetooth is going to die, that is all theoretical. Its a growing business with more and more options and upgrades available.

-Justin.

[Thinkingmandavid]

yeah, I happened to be at best buy visiting a friend again, and a guy was looking to buy a bt phone for his wife because she had just purchased a car that used bt. He did not know much about it but he found it interesting how she would be able to communicate with the car via bt.
I agree that it is not going to die, however they do need to get the standard locked in. Geekzone.com is really great at following up on bt info.

[Ed Hansberry]

http://www.infosyncworld.com/news/n/4512.html

P900 Bluetooth not trouble-free

Sony Ericsson users pick up on problems with UIQ handheld's PAN technology, warn potential buyers that all's not plain sailing.

...

In the My-Symbian thread, which requires registration, 70% of the 72 respondents to the poll have stated that they have issues with the Bluetooth implementation on this handheld.