Bluetooth 3.0 is Fast Like Ricky Bobby

[Marcus Yam]

Shake and bake!

Bluetooth 3.0 is Fast Like Ricky Bobby : Read more

 

[Tyellock]

"Like Ricky Bobby in Talladega Nights, this latest version was 'born to go fast,'

i like... "I wake up in the morning and I piss excellence"

 

[tweak13]

"I'm all jacked up on Mountain Dew Chip!"

 

[Guest]

"Dear Eight Pound, Six Ounce, Newborn Baby Jesus, don’t even know a word yet, just a little infant, so cuddly, but still omnipotent."

I too wonder if advanced cell phones with bluetooth as well as 802.11 antennas will be able to 'upgrade' to the new standard. I currently have an ATT tilt, and I HATE synching it to the computer to get media onto the device. Likewise, taking the micro sd card out of the phone and into the computer to put media on it makes me nervous, as it's always a struggle and I'm afraid to break the chip in half. I love using bluetooth for media transfer, but it is SOOOO slow when the file is 10MB+!

 

[akhodjaev]

I think it is not good.
if you have wifi, why you need bluetooth to utilize it? I think, bluetooth is like a software to use it.
So it is not a real improvement.

 

[keither5150]

"From now on, it’s Magic Man and El Diablo"

They should call it "Magic Man" or "El Diablo" instead of Bluetooth 3.0

 

[Guest]

I somewhat agree with akhodjaev. It seems to me that all they are really doing is outsourcing transfers to 802.11 and calling it Bluetooth 3.0, when it's still just two different technologies working together. You could accomplish the same thing with software using the existing standards. In fact, if all you wanted to do is sync a device or transfer data, you wouldn't need Bluetooth at all if you already had 802.11.

 

[outacontrolpimp]

[citation][nom]Tyellock[/nom]i like... "I wake up in the morning and I piss excellence"[/citation]


Can i add this to what i want on the new iphone? or is that to late...

 

[mightymax]

Gotta love how more than 50% of the comments here are about Talladega Nights lol

 

[NocturnalOne]

[citation][nom]TheCapulet[/nom]Totally agree here. This isnt bluetooth 3.0, this is bluetooth 2.0+Wifi through software emulation.[/citation]

You're confusing the various layers of the stack. The wifi radio is simply the physical layer. Bluetooth adds the convenience of ad-hoc point to point connectivity without requiring a full TCP/IP implementation on either side. I mean do you really care what type of radio implements your current BT? We should applaud the BT SIG for trying to re-use installed and cheap commodity hardware to enhance their product. If they'd done that earlier on BT would be much more widely adopted right now.

If it makes sense for devices to support TCP/IP then the 802.11 radio can do both BT and wifi. For file transfers BT seems more suitable as it's essentially a wireless serial link. Wifi is not.

 

[afrobacon]

[citation][nom]keither5150[/nom]"From now on, it’s Magic Man and El Diablo"They should call it "Magic Man" or "El Diablo" instead of Bluetooth 3.0[/citation]

isn't "El Diablo" spanish for "fighting chicken"?

 

[kelfen]

rick rolled? lawls!

 

[michaelahess]

This is stupid, why not just impliment the BT layer 1 stack on the 802.11(what version) radio and do away with the BT radio?

This is a simple software solution that has no additional BT features, it just offloads the task to the better component.

BT should only be for headsets, pairing phones, etc. It's like email, it was never intended as a file transfer tool, users just misuse it out of stupidity or just plain being naive to the tech.

 

[neiroatopelcc]

[citation][nom]michaelahess[/nom]This is stupid, why not just impliment the BT layer 1 stack on the 802.11(what version) radio and do away with the BT radio?This is a simple software solution that has no additional BT features, it just offloads the task to the better component.BT should only be for headsets, pairing phones, etc. It's like email, it was never intended as a file transfer tool, users just misuse it out of stupidity or just plain being naive to the tech.[/citation]

must be 802.11g since it's limited to such a low speed - but still over twice that of 802.11b - and only b/g/n are common after all... and they speak of a common radio.

 

[Guest]

I think this is a great solution:
1. Bluetooth was designed to use as little power as possible. My phones battery drains rapidly when I enable the 802.11 antenna while when only using bluetooth the power lasts longer.
2. The technology enables the use of an already existing hardware to facilitate more efficient transfers of data. Transferring over bluetooth for 15 minutes (when I transfer movie clips and such that IS how long it takes because USB synching sucks on my headset) will drain more power than transferring over wifi for a minute or less.

I think crowning it bluetooth 3 IS misleading though. Like someone else said, it should be called bluetooth 2+wifi

As a side note, I REALLY wish MS would re-enable their synching over bluetooth option. Their ActiveSynch used to have that option, but they disabled it due to security concerns... personally, I always have my bluetooth off if I'm not using it, so they took the feature away for people who are too lazy to set security on their devices.