Yeah. Misread it as Macs that support Yosemite.
I wonder if a bt 4 USB dongle would enable the functionality? I'll have t try it.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Yosemite 'Handoff' Feature Likely Limited to Macs with Bluetooth LE
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah. Misread it as Macs that support Yosemite.
I wonder if a bt 4 USB dongle would enable the functionality? I'll have t try it.
Stop it. Don't you know you're not supposed to make sense, you're supposed to have a reaction that Apple's implementation is purely about screwing customers with older devices in an effort to force them to upgrade.
It's the size of the CHARACTERS on the screen that count. I can't see them if they're too small. I suppose I could just replace them with iBalls, but as Apple don't make them I'm stuck with these deficient fleshy ones.
A 17" screen is easier to read as I can get more text of a given size on the screen - 17" is bigger than 15" m'kay.
Why would they use BT instead of Wi-fi?
IS it only because bluetooth is more energy efficient ?
IS it only because bluetooth is more energy efficient ?
Last edited:
Why would they use BT instead of Wi-fi?
IS it only because bluetooth is more energy efficient ?
Yeeah, sounds like: It's not a bug, it's a feature !
You can replace the SSD in new Macs.
http://www.everymac.com/systems/app...etina-display-how-to-upgrade-ssd-storage.html
"over the weekend"? June 3? This was posted June 17, TWO WEEKS after.
Just checked my Bluetooth File Exchange and see that it is version 4.2.4. Is this not BT 4.0?
Just checked my Bluetooth File Exchange and see that it is version 4.2.4. Is this not BT 4.0?
Same... My 17" 2010 MacBookPro gets no love... I am willing to upgrade it... IF they re introduce the 17"...
Yes, both devices must have BT LE. But the iPhone 4 isn't compatible with iOS8 regardless.
----------
Why would they use BT instead of Wi-fi?
IS it only because bluetooth is more energy efficient ?
To make sure compatibility across the current line of OSX and iOS devices, including something like the "iWatch," which likely would have BT but not WiFi.
Yosemite 'Handoff' Feature Likely Limited to Macs with Bluetooth LE
WAY more
Also has benefit of proximity.
Why would they use BT instead of Wi-fi?
IS it only because bluetooth is more energy efficient ?
WAY more
Also has benefit of proximity.
Last edited:
I think you've got that backwards. Handoff is what requires BT4. Continuity as I understand it is an umbrella term for features including Handoff, the remainder of which do not require BT4.
Considering Handoff functionality requires integration at the hardware and software level on both devices, how will Google copy this considering a) Android's fragmentation and b) Google's lack of control over Windows and OS X ?
----------
That's the Bluetooth software version. No relation to Bluetooth 2.1 vs. 4.0, which is a hardware spec.
----------
Whether or not you choose to take them at their word, Apple generally has a good reason (other than revenue generation) for not supporting new features on older hardware. It usually boils down to some sort of performance or security issue. No matter what they do, they always get criticized for it.
Example: Critics expressed outrage that Apple did not allow iOS 7 on the iPhone 3GS while expressing equal outrage that iOS7 ran slow as balls on the iPhone 4. Had Apple tried to cave in to both of these complaints by ensuring iOS7 was both compatible with the 3GS and that it performed as well as iOS6 on the same devices, the result would have been a lackluster OS update and they'd been criticized for failing to innovate.
re: wi-fi
I would suspect BT 4.0 was chosen over wi-fi for ease of use reasons?
Not everyone has wi-fi enabled on their device, for starters. Some people still use wired ethernet connections in environments where there is no wireless connection.
With wi-fi, you generally have to have an "infrastructure" in place. (At minimum, some sort of wireless router handing out IP addresses to wireless clients that are configured to connect with it.)
Bluetooth 4 will work without the "middle man" of a router necessary. Devices just pair with each other and it works.
* EDIT: I just read one of the messages posted above where AirDrop technology was explained, and obviously it manages to establish a second direct wi-fi connection between two devices, for the purpose of transferring a file between them, regardless of the normal wireless configuration. I didn't realize that's how it was doing things, and that could theoretically be used here too. But that's a complicated enough of a thing so it only works when the Mac has supported hardware in it -- meaning it would limit you to it only working on newer Macs anyway, just like the Bluetooth 4 support requirement does. I still think BT 4 is the more straightforward way to get two devices talking directly with each other.
I would suspect BT 4.0 was chosen over wi-fi for ease of use reasons?
Not everyone has wi-fi enabled on their device, for starters. Some people still use wired ethernet connections in environments where there is no wireless connection.
With wi-fi, you generally have to have an "infrastructure" in place. (At minimum, some sort of wireless router handing out IP addresses to wireless clients that are configured to connect with it.)
Bluetooth 4 will work without the "middle man" of a router necessary. Devices just pair with each other and it works.
* EDIT: I just read one of the messages posted above where AirDrop technology was explained, and obviously it manages to establish a second direct wi-fi connection between two devices, for the purpose of transferring a file between them, regardless of the normal wireless configuration. I didn't realize that's how it was doing things, and that could theoretically be used here too. But that's a complicated enough of a thing so it only works when the Mac has supported hardware in it -- meaning it would limit you to it only working on newer Macs anyway, just like the Bluetooth 4 support requirement does. I still think BT 4 is the more straightforward way to get two devices talking directly with each other.
Anyone else struggle to see the logic in using BT 4.0 over WiFi?
I don't even have BT turned on much, unless I'm in the car but WiFi is always on.
Last edited:
