synching ipod via bluetooth

Bluetooth isn't that fast. USB will already max its bandwidth. Personally, I'd rather just plug in the freakin' cable.

 

Airport shouldn't be much faster than bluetooth either...it's only 11Mbits per second.

Maybe if Airport was 802.11a (50-75Mbits/sec) it could work, but I'd just rather use the firewire also.

-Pete

 

11Mbit Airport versus 1Mbit Bluetooth seems pretty significantly faster to me (1000% faster).

 

also consider that 802.11b runs at 54mb and most wireless cards (other than apple) our now 54mb instead of the 11mb apple uses. as soon as apple catches up airport could become a viable option for syncing your ipod. especially if apple jumps straight to the 128mb wireless connections a couple companies are selling nowadays (ooooh wireless faster than firewire...)

what id really like to see instead of this crappy usb bluetooth adapter is for apple to integrate it into the computers the same way they have integrated airport capability into the machines. adaptors and other odd things sticking out the side of of your computer as something less than attractive and are typically associated with legacy machines trying to extend their life not brand new machines trying to simply use standard technology. any posibility we will see apple incorporate bluetooth into the machines anytime soon? cuz that would be cool.

 

New Keyboard and Mouse

I think that Apple will release a new Bluetooth Keyboard and Mouse. The iMac is just too pretty to have any cables connecting the keyboard and mouse to it.

 

I'd like to bring up a point that was discussed the last time the wireless keyboard/mouse was discussed: power! I don't know about you guys, but adding two battery sources that will evetually need replacing is not worth it to me. It's an extra cost. Even if it's not that expensive, it's just one more thing that requires maintenance.

 

I'm actually a little surprised that Apple, or anyone with an investment in 802.11 technology, is going after Bluetooth. "But Gelfin," you say, "Bluetooth doesn't compete with 802.11. They fill different niches." And you'd be nominally right to say so.

But while they don't necessarily serve competing purposes, they do compete for the 2.4GHz spectrum, and Bluetooth is a VERY unfriendly specification. 802.11 and Bluetooth both implement frequency hopping. But where 802.11 is very polite, hopping channels at most twice per second and checking to see if the channel is in use before hopping, Bluetooth can hop frequencies hundreds of times a second, and doesn't look before it leaps. In short, a Bluetooth device operating completely in-spec is likely to cause interference with every other 2.4GHz-band device within its range, including your AirPort network and your 2.4GHz home telephone. At least that's my non-wireless-network-engineer understanding of the situation.

This really sucks because I truly love the idea of Bluetooth. I just don't know if I can justify having it in my house due to this FHSS issue.

 

Not correct. 802.11a runs at 54Mbps, is not compatible with any other wireless standard, and is Intel's bastardization of wireless. 802.11b is 11Mbps and 802.11g is 54Mbps and IS compatible with 802.11b stuff. If you want high-speed wireless networking that will work with airport cards wait for 802.11g stuff probably next year at the latest. stay away from 802.11a and help screw Intel over for forcing a non-backwards compatible standard on the world.

 

Keep in mind, that's megaBIT, not megaBYTE, so 128 megabits is 16 mbytes/sec. Firewire is 400 megabit, or 50 mbytes/sec.

 

As I wrote before, it doesn't matter.

People will have Bluetooth in their cellphones and PDAs and MP3-players and digital cameras, and unless you want to stripsearch your guests or customers, you and your Airport base stations will be surrounded by Bluetooth waves.

Accept it. Just like Windows.

 

FireWire is 100, 200, and 400 mbits a second, it would still be faster than wireless.

 

Well, I occasionally do want to stripsearch my guests, but that's another issue entirely.

Seriously, I know you're exactly right about that, but I don't have to like it.

 

you are right of course. wireless will always be a bit behind because even at it speeds up s will wired connections. and there is just a inherent advantage to speed through a physical medium such as a wire versus one such as air.

but airport will get pretty darn fast. fast enough to allow us to find synching 10gig ipods wirelessly. of course by then we shoudlhave gigabit firewire2 and the choice will be there. wireless and hassle free or wired and freakin' fast?

with apple embracing bluetooth and airport and remote computing the future of handheld devices looks much brighter. if we just had a cellular style high speed internet connection we would be set. you have your crappy little pda with a small amount of storage and memory and processing powerr. as large a display as can fit in a hand. synching with your cell phone and other handhelds. and wirelessly using the internet to serve as a remote terminal for your desktop at home or work. ok ok im dreaming again but a guy is allowed to dream right?

 

You know there is still a problem with wireless: you've still got to plug the thing in to charge it, now way around that. I don't think Apple will put wireless connectivity in an iPod for a long time for this reason.

 

Grin.

You will have fun with Bluetooth, trust me.

A lot of people forget to protect their equipment when using Bluetooth, which brings an opportunity to access their cellphones from your own computer or cellphone. You can connect to the net on their expense, download their SMS and phone contacts, and you can even set multiple wake-up alarms at 0400 AM Sunday morning in their calendars. Great fun if you are bored at a conference or meeting!

I guess I soon will be able to stand outside your window and start-up and control your bluetooth-enabled Mac with my own keyboard and mouse.