Arne Hess

Editor in Chief

Website

Maybe one of the most discussed technologies in the past years is/was Bluetooth and its value. Bluetooth seems to polarize - either you like it or you dislike it and while a lot of people (and even fellow MVPs) doesn't see a value in Bluetooth I continue to like it since my first Bluetooth experiences with an
Ericsson R520.

To make it clearer why I enjoy Bluetooth that much here a short retrospection why I bought my first Windows CE device (a Sharp Mobilon HC 4600 H/PC) in 1998. These days I was looking for something smaller than my Notebook, with more stand-by time but also for something which was able to connect me to my E-Mail server. When I found the Mobilon I imported it straight ahead from the U.S. and
it was great to use because the U.S. version included a fixed line modem. However, these days I was already working as a product manager in the GSM industry and responsible for value added services which also included mobile data. The Ericsson phone I had these days, the GF 788, was able to communicate with PCs through its pluggable infrared dongle and that was my start into
working with Windows CE and GSM. These days you had to tweak the Registry because you wasn't able to use the IrDA port as a modem by default - and the
rest is history.

[Read More]

Arne Hess

Editor in Chief

Website

@Thomas O.: We will test it next User Group meeting again and it have to work than! At least on my device (not the MDA II but the i-mate Phone Edition) it works as you know so it should work on your device also.

@Thomas O. & jayson: Regarding "not usable, pairing, etc" - this depends always on how Bluetooth is integrated. In my Windows XP SP2 /AVM BlueFritz example above I've just started the services and while it connected it asked me to enter the pairing keys. It was absolute hassle free and the only time it asked me. On a Compaq iPAQ with Widcomm Bluetooth or even on PCs with Widcomm Bluetooth it works different and I find it not that convenient (which shouldn't be read as I don't enjoy Widcomm's work. They just go another way of how to pair devices).

BTW: Bluetooth is a standard but unfortunately, like with most standards you can interpret the specs different and this happens from time to time. Therefore the Bluetooth SIG should concentrate more and more in interoperability tests.

@SHoTTa35: You are right IR isn't equal to IrDA since the IR SIG also defines different cases for IR usage. However nobody blamed for that but everybody is blaming Bluetooth... Unfortunately... :-( I don't say it's perfect (today) but all I say there are so many great cases out there where Bluetooth makes so much sense that it makes me wonder from time to time that it's still not accepted...

Arne Hess

Editor in Chief

Website

I agree with you totally.  I guess we Filipinos share the same enthusioasm over new technology and try to make the most of it too.

I remember very much when BT came in with the old Ericsson phones including the HBH-15 and the Socket BT CF card.

Although I never owned any BT device until late 2002, I was able to test the early devices and found them very promising.

With the newer Windows Mobile 2003 devices, newer phones, and more or less wide variety of BT devices available now, I would say there is a great improvement and I strongly feel that Bluetooth has become very indispensible and may as well be a very good replacement for IR today.

I see Bluetooth as a substitute for the USB cable.  While many are easily mislead by the "wireless communication attributes" of Bluetooth, there are those who fully understand the advantages of Bluetooth and the real hardware it really replaces.

It doesn;t mean that because you can run a network using Bluetooth, it is was meant to be used that way.  Just the same as the idea of using a Pocket PC as an FTP server... while it is possible, the Pocket PC was not particularly designed to run as an FTP server...

I like the idea of having a PAN or Personal Area Network where all my devices are connected using Bluetooth technology.  I like being able to lug around a Bluetooth printer, a Pocket PC, a mobile phone, and a BT hands-free kit and have them all wirelessly connected and functioning without the hassle of a wired setup.

Bluetooth was designed for specific tasks... today it works well for these tasks, and as time passes by, improvments will be made to Bluetooth and more features will be supported by a wider range of vendors, with more profiles, etc., etc., etc.

Mabuhay! ~ Carlo

Thomas O.

I'm too lazy to register

Hi Arne, interesting thoughts, BUT:

irda is more usable and it really wors every time you need it (no pairing is needed, and all irda equipped Devices simply work together)

My MDAII e.g. is NOT able to receive through BT, sending is no problem, but that´s it.

Maybe I´m a nerd in this, but via irda I was always able to make it, so BT is cool if it works, e.g. with my headset, but not with other devices (on my mda).

Maybe you can bring light (the blue) to my darkness the next meeting in Munich...

;-)

Thomas

jayson

I'm too lazy to register

Bluetooth is not yet a standard (even if it claims to be one).  There are a lot of instances when bluetooth devices fail to communicate with each other, making the feature useless.  IR is more reliable, therefore indispensable.  Imagine having a bluetooth only device only to find out that it cannot pair with another one...

jayson

I'm too lazy to register

Just to add, (at least as a theory)...  The programmer of the bluetooth driver sould be aware of all the bluetooth devices available in the market.  If not, there might be a chance of a failure in pairing becuase of an unknown device.  This task is imposible because new products are being released everytime.

SHoTTa35

I'm too lazy to register

BT works just as well as IR. IR on some devices don't work with others believe it or not (NEC 515/525 but that's crippled)