Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Cheap Wireless for Accessories

michael posted more than 11 years ago | from the wires-are-so-last-century dept.

Wireless Networking 120

morcheeba writes "Yet another wireless protocol for personal computers! In addition to existing 802.11 variants, bluetooth, and ultra-low-power newcomer zigbee, Cypress semiconductor is releasing a simple low latency, low cost (<$2), medium speed (200kbit/sec) protocol with USB human interface devices (HID) compatibility. Partners include Saitek (game controllers) and NMB (keyboards & mice). EETimes has an informative article."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

fp (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6673444)

you suck and so does linux

Yet Another (2, Interesting)

Derg (557233) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673452)

Nail in the coffin of Bluetooth. *shrug* I'll believe it when I see it.. *cough*vapor*cough*

Re:Yet Another (5, Insightful)

WARM3CH (662028) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673505)

I don't think so. Those mentioned protocols address different needs than Bluetooth. For example, Zigbee is targeted to those sensory applications that need to transfer data with a very low duty cycle. WirelessUSB tries to do what it's name suggests, replacing the cables in a USB connection. On the other hand, Bluetooth supports multiple transfer profiles. For many applications, it's serial profile excells as many developers are quite familiar with it and have used serial ports in PC or micros for years. Using it does not need you to write a complex software protocol stack like that of USB. You just get a sigle chip bluetooth solution, connect it to your micro's serial port and that's it!

Re:Yet Another (2, Interesting)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673896)

connect it to your micro's serial port and that's it!

If you are lucky enough to still have one. Haven't you heard? System board people seem to think RS232 is depricated!

Re:Yet Another (3, Informative)

WARM3CH (662028) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673962)

RS232 is not equal to serial port! All micro-controllers that I know and most of DSP chips have at least one serial port. Now, it maybe a SPI interface, classical UART or USART or any other form but besides the wiring and hardware protocol, they are all serial ports! And from software point of view usually they are similar. RS232 was never used on the system board (who level shifts the TTL to RS232 and then after 2 centimeters again shifts it back to TTL?!). Bluetooth chipsets actually don't support RS232, but usually they have a SPI connection. Yet, isn't it all a bit going too much into detials?

Re:Yet Another (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 11 years ago | (#6674071)

If you are lucky enough to still have one. Haven't you heard? System board people seem to think RS232 is depricated!

For 99% of people, it is (and has been for years).

Let's continue.. (4, Informative)

Chexum (1498) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673453)

In other "news" [slashdot.org] .

Re:Let's continue.. (-1, Troll)

Komarosu (538875) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673488)

In other news, a slashdot moderator accidently moderates a comment Redundant, even though the artical is just that.

nope (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6673454)

It will die.

the markets flooded already.

fp (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6673455)

the fp is for failed post! yup, I failed it!

But... They use IPV6! :-( (-1, Offtopic)

Michael's a Jerk! (668185) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673456)

While IPv6 fixes many problems in IPv4, the developed world will not
embrace IPv6 until many shortcomings in the protocol are addressed.

1. Cisco routers suck at IPv6. Many of cisco's routers use the
router's CPU to process IPv6 packets instead of the fast-path. The
reasons for this are explained in the next few points. While Juniper's
routers are substantially better at IPv6 than cisco's, IT managers are
often restrained by insane corporate policy that dictactes the use of
cisco.

2. There are too many addresses. There are 16.7 million addresses per
square metre of the earth's surface, including the oceans. This is
overkill. The world does not need more than the 4 billion addresses
available with IPv4, and I challenge you to come up with an
application that requires that many. Assuming that you can actually
come up with one, it could easily be solved with Network Address
Translation, or NAT as it is commonly known.

3. IPv6 addresses are too large. An IPv6 address is 128 bits in size -
64 bits of which are reserved for addressing hosts, and 64 bits of
which are reserved for routing. One thing that is cool with IPv6 is
address autoconfiguration. Take your 56-bit MAC address on your
ethernet card, ask for 64-bits of network prefix, bang it together
with EUI-64 and you are set. The problem with a 64-bit network prefix
is that routing tables become massive. Just do the math and you'll see
that extreme amounts of memory are required to hold routing tables.

4. The IPv6 header is too large. An IPv4 header compact at 20 bytes in
length, while the IPv6 is bloated at 40 bytes. That's right people,
each one of your IP packets has twice as much overhead as before.
While this may not sound much, IP networks have a requirement that the
minimum MTU supported must be 576 bytes. That means that where you
might have got 556 bytes of data in your IP packets, you now get 536
bytes. This means that downloading stuff will take 3.4% longer.

Sure, IPv6 allows for nice hacks like those described in this article,
but is it really ready for prime time?

3 Free Asia Carrera movies (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6673458)

Re:3 Free Asia Carrera movies (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6673480)

What the hell does this have to do with anything, moron? Mod parent off-topic!

Re:3 Free Asia Carrera movies (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6673500)

Are you saying you'd rather "read Slashdot" than watch free porn?

Fucking weirdo. Mod the original poster, I say!

Re:3 Free Asia Carrera movies (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6673493)

Great! Thanks.

I still don't get why in every fucking porn movie the guy has to blow his load on the girls face. I mean when I'm watching porn, I don't want to see some guy cumming all over the place.

Re:3 Free Asia Carrera movies (-1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6673526)

Speaking of porn.

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH AUTOPR0N.COM AGAIN??

Has it gone down again like a $2 whore or what?

wifi home (4, Funny)

SKPhoton (683703) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673487)

So you finish browsing slashdot, go to the bathroom and do your business. Your leave your wifi toiletseat up which makes your wifi alarm clock go off which wakes up your wife who gets angry at you and makes you go put the seat down.

Your neighbor aims his pringles can at your home, starts up your electric toothbrush, turns on your living room tv, and starts printing random junk on your printer.

Let's hope alarm system remotes don't include wifi as well!

Re:wifi home (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6673504)

What's this toiletseat-thing? I mean I've never had a girlfriend not to mention a wife, but every one of my friends who do joke about the same thing?

Why would your GF/Wife get mad at you for leaving the toiletseat up?

Re:wifi home (1, Informative)

tankdilla (652987) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673598)

Because girls don't check the toilet seat when they go to use it, they close their eyes and back into the toilet ass first. If the toilet seat is up, they end up splashing down into the water. It gets messier if someone forgot to flush.

p.s. jk

Re:wifi home (3, Insightful)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673634)

Yeah, I never bought this argument from my ex. I sit on the toilet all the time, and I never fall in. Somehow, I always manage to check first. Your laziness is not my problem, but if you want to insist, we can be fair, and I demand that you help me not pee on the seat by raising it after every flush, or I can't guarantee the results.

Re:wifi home (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6673732)

Your laziness is not my problem

How hard would it be for you guys to pee sitting down? If you did that, we would not have this silly problem in the first place. So who's really being lazy here?

Re:wifi home (1)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673745)

My point was that it is an incredibly selfish argument, similar in character to a two year old's. Just check the seat before you sit down, like I check the seat before I either sit down or pee standing up, because if I don't check, there's hell to pay either way.

Re:wifi home (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6673802)

Oh here we go. Only male logic would see a perfectly good compromise that requires the least amount of effort from all involved parties as selfish.

If the lid is kept down at all times, there is no need to check anything. Go in, sit down, do whatever you have to do, flush and get out.

Re:wifi home (1)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673886)

No. Keeping the lid down allows you to be lazy and change nothing about the way you do things, while I have to change the way that I have been peeing since I was two years old. Why don't we eliminate the lid, and make a catheter for it, so that you can pee standing up, too? That's not fair? On a more serious note, an example of a good compromise would be to check before you poo or pee, just like I do, and change the configuration accordingly. Do exactly what I have to do every time, anyway. You don't change the way you do things significantly, and neither do I. Neither of us demands that the other be our toilet servant
It isn't only me, my girlfriend thinks 1) you're a princess, 2) you probably want me to wipe for you, too, and 3) you need a stupid sign. Her words, not mine. Quit expecting compromise to come mostly from the other side, and you'd do better.
As an aside, I always put the seat down when I was married, because I wanted to coexist with her, but it is a symptom of severe selfishness to demand it.

Re:wifi home (1)

Urkki (668283) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673758)

Actually, I often do. Especially at work. But it's 'cos I am lazy, as it takes more time... Allows me to spend much more time in the toilet reading magazines than behind my desk ;). I mean, let me tell you, trying to pee into a toilet standing up while reading a paper can get messy...

However, I still don't see how the toilet seat being up when somebody wants to sit on the toilet (whatever the reason) can be a problem. Do men teally have better eye-spine-hand coordination and don't need to think about putting it down before sitting, while women do have problems with this? ;-)

Re:wifi home (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6673873)

Sometimes its difficult for us to pee sitting down. You don't really want your frank and beans to touch the bottom of the toilet

Re:wifi home (-1)

akpcep (659230) | more than 11 years ago | (#6674140)

You'd think they'd get pissed off if we left the lid DOWN, because then we would inevitable pee all over the seat.

Re:wifi home (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6673562)

Your leave your wifi toiletseat up which makes your wifi alarm clock go off which wakes up your wife who gets angry at you and makes you go put the seat down.

well /.ers need not worry.

Re:wifi home (2, Funny)

Phroggy (441) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673686)

Your neighbor aims his pringles can at your home, starts up your electric toothbrush, turns on your living room tv, and starts printing random junk on your printer.

This is why you need a thick concrete firewall.

Wireless (0)

martingunnarsson (590268) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673490)

Wires suck, wireless rocks! Anything that will reduce the number of wires around computers and such is great. I just hope that there won't be too many standards, then the whole "standard" concept is lost in a way.

Re:Wireless (1)

Eric Ass Raymond (662593) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673514)

Wires suck, wireless rocks!

Wireless rocks in particular if you want to have your little box 0wn3d. Or does wireless come with proper encryption/authentication these days? I tried building a wireless network at work one day, but it never worked because the goddamn WLAN cards wouldn't talk to each other with the "encryption" on.

Re:Wireless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6673530)

Wireless rocks when you don't care too much about security.

You use Windows, don't you?

Re:Wireless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6673689)

I don't see how wireless rocks will reduce the number of wires around your computer...

Re:Wireless (1)

kietscia (149772) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673841)

I disagree, the wonderful thing about standards is that there are so many of them ;-)

Re:Wireless (1)

bmongar (230600) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673867)

wireless rocks Wireless rocks they have had those for years. My driveway was filled with wireless rocks.

Low cost? (3, Insightful)

Jacco de Leeuw (4646) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673492)

low cost (<$2)

That's what they said about Bluetooth too.

And how much does a Bluetooth cost nowadays? $100? $200? That's absurd.

Re:Low cost? (1)

Jacco de Leeuw (4646) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673498)

A Bluetooth headset for mobile phones, I meant.

Re:Low cost? (4, Interesting)

mccalli (323026) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673508)

And how much does a Bluetooth cost nowadays? $100? $200? That's absurd.

If you're talking about buying some PC dongle at retail, then perhaps. But not the Bluetooth chipset.

I use Bluetooth every day - I send SMS messages via my bluetooth-equipped Nokia 3650 by selecting a contact's name on my Powerbook and typing the message there. I also send pictures that I've taken with the phone over to the laptop, and synchronise address book changes. It works very well, and my phone certainly didn't cost me $200.

Buying add-ons is always expensive. As the functionality makes its way into the chipset of standard boards then you'll see the computer side of things come down in cost. I know that all Apple laptops have bluetooth - I think that the new Centrino sets do too, don't they? Confirmation from a Centrino owner please?

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Low cost? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6673621)

Huh-huh-huh... you said 'dongle'.

Dingo ate your dongle!!!!

Re:Low cost? (2, Informative)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673650)

3650 costs +300-400 without operator tie in/bundling(which is illegal here.). But still, worth the money, writing from one right now.

Re:Low cost? (1)

mccalli (323026) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673838)

3650 costs +300-400 without operator tie in/bundling(which is illegal here.)

A fair point. However, the full cost of that phone isn't due to the bluetooth capability alone. For example, Microsoft make a bluetooth mouse [microsoft.com] which costs about 50 GBP, and that compares favourably to the non-bluetooth version which is 35 GBP.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Low cost? (2, Informative)

Phroggy (441) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673700)

I know that all Apple laptops have bluetooth

Only the 12" and 17" PowerBook.

The optional BlueTooth adapter Apple offers (for $50) with the 15" PowerBook is a D-Link USB adapter. Funny that they don't offer it as an option for the iBooks.

An updated 15" PowerBook with built-in BlueTooth should be announced Real Soon Now(TM).

Re:Low cost? (1)

Mr_Silver (213637) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673781)

If you're talking about buying some PC dongle at retail, then perhaps. But not the Bluetooth chipset.

Which is all very fine and well, but the retail price is the one that we all have to pay.

If the retail price is high (which it is) then it's considered expensive. The price of the actual chipset to manufacturers means nothing to the man on the street - and in the case of bluetooth, has no bearing on the amount he/she pays to get it.

It may be dirt cheap, but the manufacturers are fleecing us for the privilidge of having it.

You are still paying for your phone (1)

muyuubyou (621373) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673794)

You can't compare a phone with a computer, until they start bundling them with connection contracts and gouging money from you monthly as a standard.

Do you really think the price of your Nokia 3650 was that in the price tag?

Boy that's really basic. I thought nobody with a brain swallowed that one.

Re:Low cost? (1)

lmfr (567586) | more than 11 years ago | (#6674657)

Centrino refers to a Pentium M processor, Intel approved wi-fi board and 855 chipset (optionally with a graphics controller).

Bluetooth isn't part of the specification, though most brands include it in the higher models.

Regards.

Re:Low cost? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673531)

Usb dongles are around 40e at cheapest around here, while the main application seems to be phones. Just walk home and sync it..

Re:Low cost? (1)

EnglishTim (9662) | more than 11 years ago | (#6674433)

I bought a Bluetooth USB dongle for something like 14 recently ($22), which includes VAT @ 17.5%. The cost of bluetooth parts was meant to be (IIRC) less than $5, so it seems to me that they must have pretty much hit that target.

Founding member of AV3 revealed! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6673494)

Registrant:
Grant Hayes
4800 Kaw Drive
Kansas City, Kansas 66102-4165
United States

Registered through: GoDaddy.com
Domain Name: TROLLAXOR.COM
Created on: 23-Jan-02
Expires on: 23-Jan-06
Last Updated on: 30-Oct-02

Administrative Contact:
Hayes, Grant webmaster@trollaxor.com
4800 Kaw Drive
Kansas City, Kansas 66102-4165
United States
913-287-2711 Fax --
Technical Contact:
Hayes, Grant webmaster@trollaxor.com
4800 Kaw Drive
Kansas City, Kansas 66102-4165
United States
913-287-2711 Fax --

802.11 vs. Bluetooth vs. newcomers (1, Interesting)

femto (459605) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673509)

The goal all along for 802.11 has been to be the 'universal' wireless protocol. It aims to provide a mid level service at a low end price, using its ubiquity to achieve economies of scale and come in at a lower price than competitors with lower specifications.

Bluetooth has recently been killed by 802.11. (Insert images of John Cleese banging a parrot on a counter here.) The chips which make up an 802.11 device have always had a higher 'spec' than Bluetooth so Bluetooth was supposed to compete on price. Recently Moore's Law coupled with economies of scale means 802.11 chipsets are cheaper than Bluetooth. There is no longer any reason to buy Bluetooth, an inferior product at a higher price.

Chances are 802.11 will soon kill off any newcomer, with lower specifications, in the same way. It's a risky game to compete with 802.11 based on price.

Re:802.11 vs. Bluetooth vs. newcomers (1)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673560)

But, the question is, can I finally afford to put wireless on my thin clients? Until now, any wireless solution cost four times what my clients cost.

Re:802.11 vs. Bluetooth vs. newcomers (0)

H8X55 (650339) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673594)

I thought Moore's law was only applied to processor speed.

Re:802.11 vs. Bluetooth vs. newcomers (1)

femto (459605) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673652)

No, it applies to integrated circuit complexity, of which processor speed is a consequence. Here [intel.com] is the original paper by Moore.

Re:802.11 vs. Bluetooth vs. newcomers (3, Insightful)

evilviper (135110) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673597)

Bluetooth has recently been killed by 802.11.

What a troll, and you actually managed to get moded up for it.

No, bluetooth has not been kiiled off by 802.11... I don't know of 802.11 being used in a single product where bluetooth would otherwise be used.

I have never seen an 802.11 keyboard, mouse, headphones/headset, cellphone, etc. There is plenty of room for bluetooth. It may not be taking off just yet, but it isn't dying, and it remains to be seen IF something else will killi it off eventually.

Re:802.11 vs. Bluetooth vs. newcomers (3, Informative)

femto (459605) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673734)

No, it is not a troll.

It is fact that 802.11 chipsets are now cheaper than Bluetooth chipsets (and this event is recent).

802.11 is targeted towards exactly the area which Bluetoth now occupies. All that was holding it back was the price of the chipset. Now that barrier is gone you will see 802.11 replacing Bluetooth in the next generation of products. I'm talking chipsets here, so it will take a short time to flow onto the consumer market.

I've had pretty extensive discussions with one of the guys that invented [uspto.gov] 802 style WLANs. His vision as always been world domination for 802.11: LANs, headsets, remote controls, TVs, light switches, toasters, ... Everything Bluetooth does (and more) is in the sights of 802.11

Re:802.11 vs. Bluetooth vs. newcomers (1)

Urkki (668283) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673788)

Does 802.11 yet do the stuff BT does in a standard way:

- hidden node removal problem

- convenient authentication (ie connect 2 devices once, use the connection securely after that)

- encryption (ie, is there improved standard WEP yet?) - standard way to make HID devices (eg WLAN headsets for a mobile phones)

For networking, 802.11 beats BT hands down. But for IR/cable replacment, WLAN has still a long way to go... But my info may not be up to date, feel free to correct me.

Re:802.11 vs. Bluetooth vs. newcomers (1)

radish (98371) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673914)

That is so much crap. 802.11 is NOT targetted towards the same space as BT. Show me a 802 keyboard, or mouse, or headset, or phone, etc. The power consumption is way too high, the session/discovery stuff isn't as good, and the range is too high (BT is made for PANs, if it reaches much more than a metre or so it's TOO FAR).

It is fact that 802.11 chipsets are now cheaper than Bluetooth chipsets (and this event is recent).


So what? A P4 costs more than an embedded dragonball, but how much sense does that comparison make?

I've had pretty extensive discussions with one of the guys that invented802 style WLANs. His vision as always been world domination for 802.11: LANs, headsets, remote controls, TVs, light switches, toasters, ... Everything Bluetooth does (and more) is in the sights of 802.11


It really doesn't matter what the inventor wanted 802 to be, that's not what the manufacturers are pushing it for and if the products don't exist...

Both are fine technologies, and do their respective jobs. 802 has had massive pickup in the space it is good for (i.e. medium distance, high bandwidth, high power), whereas BT is still picking up pace (although the number of BT devices I see for sale and in use daily indicates to me it's far from dead) in the low power, low bandwidth, short distance category.

Re:802.11 vs. Bluetooth vs. newcomers (1)

femto (459605) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673965)

> power consumption is way too high

See my comments about power consumption in response to another poster (same thread).

> the session/discovery stuff isn't as good,

Just means that stuff has to live in the application layer.

> if it reaches much more than a metre or so it's TOO FAR

Then reduce the transmitted output power. There's nothing to say that 802.11 has to transmit with an output power of the order of 100mW.

> It really doesn't matter what the inventor wanted 802

Unless the inventor is now a senior executive in one of the largest (the largest?) WLAN players.

Okay my original post was in fairly 'in your face', but trust me, 802.11 is suited to low power applications. I agree it currently sees little application in thsi area, but I really do think this is changing, just that the changes haven't propagated (no pun intended) to the consumer marketplace yet.

Re:802.11 vs. Bluetooth vs. newcomers (3, Insightful)

carndearg (696084) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673603)

I don't think this technology will be seen off by 802.11 because it is pitching at a fundamentally different application and marketplace to that of Bluetooth.

Reading some of the stuff on the site as I understand it thay are aiming it as much at industrial applications as the kind of wireless netwiorking applications we'd think of. In that context I'd say it would be more analagous to an I2C serial bus for low speed communications than the ethernet you'd use 802.11 for.

You wouldnt use ZigBee(where on earth did they dream that name up?) for a WLAN roll-out but would you use 802.11 for a mouse or an RF keyfob for your car?

Re:802.11 vs. Bluetooth vs. newcomers (1)

femto (459605) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673773)

> would you use 802.11 for a mouse or an RF keyfob for your car?

That's where it is going in the future. Most people think of chipsets and WLANs when they think of 802.11, but among other things the future for it is 'embedded', where an 802.11 block is just a block in a larger on chip system.

Re:802.11 vs. Bluetooth vs. newcomers (1)

carndearg (696084) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673904)

You are dead right, 802.11 will become ubiquitous and thus will provide stiff competition for technologies like bluetooth.

What sets this technology apart from the bluetooth/802.11 arena though is that it is not a technology quite like bluetooth so it isn't competing in quite the same marketplace. Instead it seems to offer a low data rate and duty cycle, likely to be targeted at rather lower tech applications.

The chances are most of the devices that have it installed wont even say so on the pack. If you buy a cheap wireless device, say a wireless thermometer, nowadays it will have a pretty dumb 418(?)MHz wireless link. That's the kind of application they are likely to aim at, not the fancy stuff.

What's this hook with a worm on it that seems to have caught in my mouth?

Re:802.11 vs. Bluetooth vs. newcomers (2, Interesting)

CausticWindow (632215) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673687)

The parent is an obvious troll, but for the clueless: power consumption is the big difference between 802.11 and Bluetooth. Low power 802.11 has been promised, but not yet delivered.

Re:802.11 vs. Bluetooth vs. newcomers (1)

carabela (688886) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673741)

Yes, power consumption differs
- as do security (bt frequency hops) and general topology (PAN vs. WAN) although that latter difference has decreased.

Re:802.11 vs. Bluetooth vs. newcomers (1)

femto (459605) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673793)

Are you talking about complete cards, or the core logic when you compare power consumption? The power consumption of the signal processing logic is small compared to the power consumed by the transmitter power amplifier. Consequently the power consumption doesn't really depend on whether the system is Bluetooth or 802.11.

If a Bluetooth system has a lower power consumption, it's because it has a smaller power amplifier. Reduce the transmitted power of an 802.11 system nearer to that of a Bluetooth system, and the system power consumption becomes comparable to Bluetooth.

Range??? (2, Interesting)

dr.Flake (601029) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673517)

Skimming the links i didn't see anything concerning the range of this technology.

If, as the story indicates, this is to connect pc's range is everything!

But all i see is "common" peripherials nowadays connected by USB to be connected by USB without the wire thingy. (thus: add battery)

Will it make a simple network connection to my friend 6 doors away or not? If not, it doesn't add anything to the things available now.

Re:Range??? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6673536)

Why are other peoples sig's alway more witty ???

Why do other people know how to use correct spelling and punctuation?

Re:Range??? (3, Funny)

evilviper (135110) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673604)

If not, it doesn't add anything to the things available now.

You heard him guys... SHUT IT ALL DOWN, RIGHT NOW! A single slashdotter doesn't have a use for the product, so it must be immediately be winked out of existance. Thank you for your cooperation.

Re:Range??? (1)

Mattsson (105422) | more than 11 years ago | (#6674181)

Why would you need that range in this protocoll?
It isn't there to compete with 802.11a/b/g.
It's there to connect devices with low bandwith requirements, let's say a mouse, to your computer. Do you usually use your mouse at the other end of the building?
If you want a network connection, use a communication standard that's ment to be used as a network connector.
If you want to connect your headset to your mobile phone, use something appropriate for that
If you want to connect 5 thermometers spread out across your house wirelessly to your automated windowopener, use something appropriate for that.
Different devices have different applications. All wireless devices does not require high bandwith or great range. And quite a lot of them are low powered, low memory stuff that can't use chips that burns several milliwatts of power, cost several dollars and needs a large ip-stack to function.

That said, if it doesn't have a range of at least 5 - 10 meters, it would be rather useless...

Hah! (3, Funny)

FrostedWheat (172733) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673522)

You see folks, this is the great thing about standards. There are so many to choose from!

Re:Hah! (1)

mothrathegreat (542532) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673748)

This reminds me of that IBM advert with the 'universal business adapter' Maybe they'll have to build one after all!

Now multiply by 1000 (3, Interesting)

gremlins (588904) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673537)

This is all just another way to screw us all. Think about it everything is going to get a computer chip so it can talk with everything else. Look at action figures, they used to be $6 now they got chips in them and cost $10. Soon your new clock costs $5 more and your lamp costs $3 more and your ipod costs $20 more and your toaster costs $10 more and etc. etc. etc. By the end of the year we shelling out thousands of dollars so my electric blanket can know my toast is done.

2.4GHz!!! (0)

H8X55 (650339) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673540)

2.4GHz?!?

Nooooo!!!!

it's going to screw up everytime i pick up the phone!

Isn't it ironic (2, Funny)

Zog The Undeniable (632031) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673570)

Even a two-dollar protocol like this works at several hundred Kbps, when I have a network of computers at home, with enough MIPS to simulate El Nino, connected to the outside world through a 64k bit of electrical string. When it's dialled up. But that's telcos for you!

Sad News... Filthy Critic dead at 54 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6673623)

I just heard some sad news on talk radio - movie review writer The Filthy Critic [bigempire.com] was found dead outside the Arvada Tavern last Thursday. He died the way he lived--wobbling aimlessly in the slow lane. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.

Re:Sad News... Filthy Critic dead at 54 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6673627)

Is this like when Stile hung himself?

Re:Sad News... Filthy Critic dead at 54 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6673646)

Wait. When/why did he hang himself?

Re:Sad News... Filthy Critic dead at 54 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6673743)

He didn't.

It was a hoax. The fucked up jerk staged a suicide on his webcam.

Possibly a solution for me! (1)

Sparr0 (451780) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673675)

This looks like it could actually be a possible solution to my problem of wirelessly networking two PCs that are about 10 feet apart without using a wire. So far the cheapest solution I have found is to put two 802.11 NICs in ad-hoc mode, and thats just a tad too expensive (by about a factor of 10) for my tastes for such a simple problem

Re:Possibly a solution for me! (1)

CausticWindow (632215) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673694)

And there's also a difference in speed by a factor greater than 10 (depending on what 802.11 you go with).

I obviously good enough for you, but I think 200 kbit/s is a tad slow for a lan.

Re:Possibly a solution for me! (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673814)

Buy two cheap bluetooth dongles,30-40$/piece. Dongles for this wont be much cheaper than that anyways. Of course wifi isn't that much more expensive, but you can think of other uses for that bt too, like wireless kb/mice.

Re:Possibly a solution for me! (1)

CrazyWingman (683127) | more than 11 years ago | (#6674062)

What's the nessecity for lack of wire? I mean, when you can buy two Ethernet cards that operate at 100Mbit/sec and 10 ft. of cable, all for $30 or less, why worry about wireless? Are they separated by a wall that you can't make a hole through? Why not just use more wire?

Finally... (4, Funny)

faldore (221970) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673677)

With dirt cheap wireless commo, now they can start coming out with nifty devices like:

Automobile Instant Messaging so I can tell the guy in front of me to get off my road.

PDA Instant Messaging so I can pass notes in class and (anonymously) tell fellow bus riders that they smell like a rotten fish.

Wireless Spam that jumps from device to device. (lovely!)

Watches that receive text messages (like "Your flight is now boarding at gate B24, you have 2:13 minutes until takeoff") and perhaps can send back messages like "I'm running as fast as I can!!"

These are the times that I wish I'd gotten an EE degree instead of CS.

Re:Finally... (1)

cybermace5 (446439) | more than 11 years ago | (#6674587)

Getting an EE degree won't solve all of your problems, shockingly.

Does "CS" stand for "Computer Science" anymore? It seems a lot of kids have essentially graduated with "CounterStrike" degrees.

morons still noting abusive/excessive use.. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6673693)

of va lairIE/robbIE's infactdead patentdead PostBlock(tm) devise, whilst avoiding reference to anything that really matters, in these times of crisis.

just keep yOUR little heads in the sillysand, & your cc #'s at the ready. how cute/disgusting.

even when we cheered for/agreed to send money to the hobbyists,, mynuts won again. sheesh. fauxking greed/fear based corepirate nazi puppets/cowards they are.

this fauxking avoidance of the planet/population rescue project (previously unknown as the oil for babies program), & failing to fess up on the stock markup swindles, is disheartening, to say the leased, y'all sure spouted off A LOT before you became won of those phonIE Godless payper liesense stock markup billyonerrors. same with va lairIE, & his whoreabull patentdead PostBlock(tm)/SourceForgerIE kode stealing/censoring devices. that's ok dough, as it's not yOUR worst problem.

no matter. back on task.

as to the free unlimited energy plan, as the lights come up, more&more folks will stop being misled into sucking up more&more of the infant killing barrolls of crudeness, & learn that it's more than ok to use newclear power generated by natural (hydro, solar, etc...). of course more information about not wasting anything/behaving less frivolously is bound to show up, here&there.

cyphering how many babies it costs for a barroll of crudeness, we've decided to cut back, a lot, on wasteful things like giving monIE to felons, to help them destroy the planet/population.

no matter. the #1 task is planet/population rescue. the lights are coming up. we're in crisis mode. you can help.

the unlimited power (such as has never been seen before) is freely available to all, with the possible exception of the aforementioned walking dead.

consult with/trust in yOUR creator. more breathing. vote with yOUR wallet. seek others of non-aggressive intentions/behaviours. that's the spirit, moving you.

pay no heed/monIE to the greed/fear based walking dead.

each harmed innocent carries with it a bad toll. it will be repaid by you/us. the Godless felons will not be available to make reparations.

pay attention. that's definitely affordable, plus you might develop skills which could prevent you from being misled any further by phonIE ?pr? ?firm? generated misinformation.

good work so far. there's still much to be done. see you there. tell 'em robbIE.

the rest of the wwworld is laughing/crying at/for US in sympathy/disgust, as we fall/jump into the daze of the georgewellian corepirate nazi life0cide, whilst criticizing their ip gangsters, which are also members of the walking dead.

Re:morons still noting abusive/excessive use.. (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6673769)


your ideas are intriguing and i would like to subscribe to your newsletter

morons chuckling along with robbIE et AL (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6673852)

nothing to buy. no switches or leds. must be nothing?

consider yourselves 'funnIE'. we sure do, in between times of being concerned for your survival.

cyphering how many babies it costs for a barroll of crudeness, we've decided to cut back, a lot, on wasteful things like giving monIE to felons, to help them destroy the planet/population.

no matter. the #1 task is planet/population rescue. the lights are coming up. we're in crisis mode. you can help.

the unlimited power (such as has never been seen before) is freely available to all, with the possible exception of the aforementioned walking dead.

consult with/trust in yOUR creator. more breathing. vote with yOUR wallet. seek others of non-aggressive intentions/behaviours. that's the spirit, moving you.

pay no heed/monIE to the greed/fear based walking dead.

each harmed innocent carries with it a bad toll. it will be repaid by you/us. the Godless felons will not be available to make reparations.

pay attention. that's definitely affordable, plus you might develop skills which could prevent you from being misled any further by phonIE ?pr? ?firm? generated misinformation.

good work so far. there's still much to be done. see you there. tell 'em robbIE.

the rest of the wwworld is laughing/crying at/for US in sympathy/disgust, as we fall/jump into the daze of the georgewellian corepirate nazi life0cide, whilst criticizing their ip gangsters, which are also members of the walking dead.

morons noting increasing similaritIEs between.. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6673892)

the felonious kingdumb upon the pacific crest, & robbIE/va lairIE's illusions/payper scams.

you, as fuddles does, seem to have an ability to pretend that there isn't anything happening outside of your phonIE boundarIEs. treating the public as if they do not exist. that's ok, for now.

we think it's some kind of corepirate nazi ?pr? puppet training. it's not hard to spot, by anybody. because most folks have nothing to say, does not mean that they are not paying attention (previously descibed).

the result is: as everywon sees your .asp falling off, you must pretend that you remain in charge of something. a lot of phonIE machinations to end up as a pawn/dupe for the walking dead. y'all do this for monIE? that's scarIE. lookout bullow. run for your options, should you have any left.

Great (1)

lotawilly (696306) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673696)

Another device that runs in 2.4 GHz to cause more interference with my cordless phone, WAP, and Xcam...

WirelessUSB's niche (5, Informative)

Ryanwoodings (60314) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673755)

I am one of the main designers of WirelessUSB LS at Cypress and have been involved with in WirelessUSB R&D for almost a year. Let me clear up a few misconceptions about WirelessUSB LS (LS is the low speed version with data rates maxing at 64 kbps).
It's main competition is 27 MHz proprietary technologies. It only overlaps Bluetooth in areas that Bluetooth is weak in the first place such as HID devices where Bluetooth has power management and latency issues.
Currently WirelessUSB LS will be used in point-to-point connections that do not require standards-based protocols such as wireless mice, keyboards, gamepads, remote controls, garage door openers, etc. Does anyone care if their garage door opener uses an IEEE standard? :-)
If your devices need to interoperate with one another or you need high data rates go with another technology, but if you just need a cheap, easy-to-use low speed, short range (sub 100m), point-to-point reliable wireless connection that will not interfere with Wi-Fi traffic and can handle co-location of hundreds of devices than WirelessUSB LS is the clear winner.

Re:WirelessUSB's niche (1)

leipold (103074) | more than 11 years ago | (#6674084)

> Does anyone care if their garage door opener
> uses an IEEE standard? :-)

Well, yes, if it means (a) that I can buy a generic replacement transmitter from more than one company and (b) that I can control/monitor the door from other devices (PDA, cell phone, etc).

Re:WirelessUSB's niche (2, Informative)

slim (1652) | more than 11 years ago | (#6674113)

Currently WirelessUSB LS will be used in point-to-point connections that do not require standards-based protocols such as wireless mice, keyboards, gamepads, remote controls, garage door openers, etc. Does anyone care if their garage door opener uses an IEEE standard? :-)

s/IEEE/open/ and the answer becomes "yes". An open standard would be great for the consumer. It would mean, that any car manufacturer could build a wireless opener into the dash, which would work on any brand of door. Or maybe my mobile phone could have built-in WirelessUSB and, thanks to a standard, be able to open my garage door and change channels on my TV.

Don't really understand why you say wireless mice wouldn't need a standards based protocol. I remember the headaches setting up X when several mouse protocols were prevalent.

MOD PARENT UP (1)

dodell (83471) | more than 11 years ago | (#6674296)

This is very true. People who build these sort of devices will almost certainly demand compliance with open standards. People who "couldn't care less" will care when the standard affects their privacy or security in some way. Standars make things easier. Mod parent up.

Re:WirelessUSB's niche (1)

ssclift (97988) | more than 11 years ago | (#6674290)

What's not clear to me is whether the sessions are encrypted, which would seem fairly essential.

I was, BTW, trying to get exactly this a few months ago. I wanted a USB sound card attached to my stereo in the living room (I though the SliMP3 was a bit pricy) but didn't want to put cables or a computer there just for audio. Nobody seemed to sell the wireless equivalent of a USB hub.

Shame the developer kits are $495.00... I'd be first in line.

Re:WirelessUSB's niche (2, Informative)

ssclift (97988) | more than 11 years ago | (#6674319)

Found the answer in the product brief. The chip set supports 128 bit encryption.

Now I really want this... :-)

Re:WirelessUSB's niche (1)

Chelloveck (14643) | more than 11 years ago | (#6674339)

I'm developing embedded systems for retail/industrial environments. What we really need is a radio system that can support several hundred nodes per base station, with a solid 100m actual range in an indoor environment fill with metal shelving. (Ie., retail stores or warehouses.) 32-64 kbps is about right for this app. The kicker is that we need to get 1-2 years battery life out of the equivalent of 8 alkaline C-cells. Any ideas?

Wireless audio standard please (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6673771)

I just want to buy something like an iPod that transmits digital audio... and for car stereos to have wireless audio receivers as STANDARD. So I can bung the MP3 player on the seat, drive off and listen over the speakers... not too much to ask is it?!

We're not allowed FM micro transmitters in the UK, and digital has got to be better, right?

Anything that plays audio should be able to send and receive wireless audio. Wake me up when the commercial world has caught up with my wishes. There just aren't ANY more gadgets I want to buy, yet.

+AndyJ+

Babelfish (3, Funny)

filipvh (193450) | more than 11 years ago | (#6673801)

Soon, the development of our ultimate wireless accessory will be complete!

The new Wireless Mate (tm), patent pending, a compact brick-sized device with a 10-pound battery and 1-foot antenna, will support Zigbee, WiFi (a, b and g), Bluetooth and Accessory wireless. Eight expansion slots will enable future wireless standards to be added for seamless integration.

Enable your cellphone, PC and PDA to communicate seamlessly with Wireless Mate (tm), patent pending!

Imagine the possibilities!

Visit to www.products-you-never-knew-you'd-want.com and order now!

A new standard? (1)

RMH101 (636144) | more than 11 years ago | (#6674128)

Cool! That's just what we need! What happened to wifi standards 0 to 810, anyway?

Wireless (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6674616)

Now, if I could only get wireless power (tm).

Yep. Another new 'standard' (2, Informative)

crwulff (588491) | more than 11 years ago | (#6674785)

Ok, so Cypress is pushing this thing pretty hard. The FAE was here the other day handing out data sheets for this part when he was in for a different reason. But the deal is that the first version is really only 10 meter out of the box, or 100 meter if you add in an amplifier. Data rates on the first series are up to 250 kbit. And so far, this is not actually part of the USB standard, though they are trying to get it included in a future version of the standard. So do we really need another wireless protocol? I don't know. But the main drawback I see here is that the FAE was also talking about putting batteries in these devices. Personally, I'll just stick with the cord until that is not the case. I mean, how many of you want to have to stop using your computer to go find batteries for your keyboard or mouse? Granted some vendors could come up with a decent solution with rechargeables, like some mat you just have to leave things on that I remember seeing an article about a while back here. What would be really nice of course is things like the Wacom mouse that comes with their tablet. No cord and no batteries (but the tablet still has a cord.)

Satellites... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6674786)

Arrest you BEFORE you commit the crime. I don't know about anyone else, but i'm sick of all the "scientific" satellites orbiting the globe. Now that they are putting cameras in cities to watch citizens, this is a natural extension.

FUCK BUSH and all his cronies that want to turn this country into a fascist police state. Let's put a camera on Bush and arrest him when picking his nose!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?