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!

USB To Go Wireless

Zonk posted about 8 years ago | from the realizing-the-bluetooth-dream dept.


Troy Samuel writes "The WiMedia Alliance is planning to make the technology known as 'ultrawideband,' or UWB, work among a wide variety of consumer electronics devices. Various organizations, including the Bluetooth SIG, have chosen the WiMedia Alliance's version of UWB technology as the foundation for a next-generation short-range networking technology." From the article: "UWB technology can deliver data rates at up to 480 megabits per second at around 3 meters, with speeds dropping off as the range grows to a limit of about 10 meters. Real-world speeds will probably be a little slower, but this is as fast as the wired version of USB 2.0 and much faster than current Wi-Fi networks are capable of transmitting data. 'This stuff is plumbing,' Roger Kay, an analyst with Endpoint Technologies Associates, said of the newer-generation wireless technology. 'It's important that it be there, it's going to be handy for getting rid of cables hanging around your desk.'"

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

yay... (1)

sxtxixtxcxh (757736) | about 8 years ago | (#16492465)

maybe my notebook will finally be mobile again.

HA HA, i can see josh's penis!!! (-1, Troll)

Fruity McGayGay (1005769) | about 8 years ago | (#16492467)



During my years as a councilor at a Boy Scout camp, I have had the chance of many experiences. The chance to see naked boys in the community showers and the sight of sexy bodies going for a dip in the lake but one memory comes back clearer than ever.

First let me introduce myself. My name is Joshua, but friends call me Josh for short, I am 17 years old and about 5 foot 11 with a really toned body. I run 2 mile each morning right after I wake up to keep myself in shape. I had always loved the outdoors and I have plans to be a teacher when I got older so I thought teaching kids is going to be a great experience for me and that's how I became involved in the scouting program.

It was my second year at scout camp being a councilor and that comes with some major seniority, and that was the ability to have the over 21 staff buy me alcohol. One night after a stressful day of working with a bunch of crying whiny little kids I decided its time to crack open my 1/5 of jack. I sit back in my tent relaxed just slowly drinking the night away when Caleb popped his head into my tent. He was 16 years old with a body to die for, he was center for his High School football team and had a six
pack any guy would give his left nut for.

"Hey josh," Caleb muttered, I could tell he had been drinking, " come over to my tent, I cant find my flash light." So I stand to the best of my ability and stumble following him over to his tent, and fall in, shining my light around till he finds his. Then I take the last drink of my jack and lay the bottle down why I lay there looking up into the dark tent ceiling. All of a sudden my dick began to get rock hard as a thought of a plan. I pulled my 8 inch dick out and started jacking off and said "Caleb I am going to masturbate in your tent." "Na you wouldn't dare do anything like that" he replied as he shined his flashlight on my hand as I slowly pumped my cock. He looked at my cock with wide eyes as I began to pump a little faster. I saw him reach over and take off his boxers and began to play with his 5-1/2 inch cock. I laughed at him and said "Wow you really do have a small cock why don't you jack me off and see how it is to hold a real cock on this boy hands."

He looked at me and shook his head no, I reach over and forced his hand away from his cock and began to jack him off he followed suit and began to do the same with me. It feel good because he was going at a fairly fast pace and I began to moan softly. Then he did something I didn't expect he move his mouth over my dick and began to softly suck it. His bobbed his head up and down making sure to please my dick equally with his tongue. He moved his dick over my mouth and I began to suck it, taking it in inch by inch till I hit his pubes then I began to take it in and out slowly. I took my mouth off his dick and used my tongue to pleasure the left ball then the right, then taking them both into my mouth being careful. As we continued to 69 it up, I thought I heard a noise outside so I moved slightly and apparently he took this as a sigh to stop and got off, I was pissed so I grabbed his hand and placed it back on my cock as he began to jerk me off again he got up took off his boxers and said to me Fuck me josh, Fuck me hard"

I couldn't resist this little hot stud so I placed him on the floor and put my cock to his virgin hole and began to softly push inward. I heard him grunt softly as in pain and I stopped; keeping my cock still it was about half way in. Keep going I heard him mutter and I began to put more pressure till my pubes touched his ass. I said here we go as I began to slowly fuck this tight virgin man hole enjoying each pleasure able in and out I took. I began to pump faster and faster letting my balls made contact with his ass.

i am Cumming I muttered as I released 5 huge squirts of my man juice inside his virgin hole. I quickly drew out and turned him over and began to give him a blow job leaving nothing in question and within 30 seconds my mouth was filled full of this studs seed as I drank each gulp that he so graciously gave me. I gave him a firm kiss on the lips and said Good night my Caleb as I walked back to my tent and fell asleep at 2:09.

Re:HA HA, i can see josh's penis!!! (1, Funny)

heauxmeaux (869966) | about 8 years ago | (#16492491)

I find your comments intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Wireless Digital Monitor (3, Interesting)

MankyD (567984) | about 8 years ago | (#16492495)

I'm curious - how much bandwidth is required to make a wireless monitor? Let's say its running at 1600x1200 with 24bit color. Anyone have any ideas?

Re:Wireless Digital Monitor (4, Informative)

b-l4ke (997876) | about 8 years ago | (#16492511)

1600 x 1200 x 32bpp per pixel x 30 fps = 1.85 Gbps

Re:Wireless Digital Monitor (2, Informative)

Name Anonymous (850635) | about 8 years ago | (#16492531)

Double that at least as computer displays run at 60+ fps

Re:Wireless Digital Monitor (1)

rucs_hack (784150) | about 8 years ago | (#16493083)

are there not also control instructions to add to the mix? Surely it isn't just a case of transfering the bitmap from the buffer.

I know crap all about monitors though...

Re:Wireless Digital Monitor (1)

MankyD (567984) | about 8 years ago | (#16492595)

I guess I was hoping someone could also offer some insight into lossless compression techniques and their average compression ratio. As long as one is not doing FMV, you wouldn't, in theory, need to refresh the whole screen. Maybe that's getting too fancy for a simple question though.

Re:Wireless Digital Monitor (1)

Ant P. (974313) | about 8 years ago | (#16492749)

But is the added price of onboard decompression hardware and a wireless transmitter/reciever really worth it for just having one less cable?

Re:Wireless Digital Monitor (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 8 years ago | (#16493075)

But is the added price of onboard decompression hardware and a wireless transmitter/reciever really worth it for just having one less cable?

Of course it would be worth it! Consider the copper alone. Do you have any idea how much copper is in a two metre video cable?

[What? About enough to make 7 or 8 pennies? Are you sure? ... Crap!]

Um... Nevermind.

Except... (2, Informative)

Junta (36770) | about 8 years ago | (#16493457)

Copper pennies aren't made anymore, because, you guessed it, the amount of copper required to make a penny is worth more than 1c, so if they made copper pennies you'd be theoretically better off melting them down and selling the raw material...

Re:Wireless Digital Monitor (1)

darth_MALL (657218) | about 8 years ago | (#16492517)

Let's see...
1600x1200 plus 24Bit colour...
carry the seven...

About $6,000 US

Re:Wireless Digital Monitor (2, Informative)

Dunbal (464142) | about 8 years ago | (#16492535)

how much bandwidth is required to make a wireless monitor? Let's say its running at 1600x1200 with 24bit color.

      The answer is right there. 1600 x 1200 x 24 = 46,080,000 bits per frame (46Mb) - not including any overhead for packing/unpacking all this info. Now how many frames per second did you want?

Re:Wireless Digital Monitor (4, Informative)

56ker (566853) | about 8 years ago | (#16492537)

24 bits = 3 bytes
3 bytes * 1200 * 1600 = 5.76 Megabytes

Assuming a refresh rate of 50fps that's 288 Megabyte/second or 2.25 Gigabits/second A monitor's a rather pointless one though as it requires a cable for the power.

Re:Wireless Digital Monitor (2, Interesting)

illegalcortex (1007791) | about 8 years ago | (#16492599)

A monitor's a rather pointless one though as it requires a cable for the power.

Actually, no. Imagine having your CPU in the closet and only your monitor and peripherals at your desk. Or imagine having a monitor/peripherals in a totally different room of the house/office.

Even if it's only two feet away, wireless is nice for... well, for removing wires. Systems can be such a cabling mess. I'm much rather bath in the invisible waves than have to deal with that rat's nest.

Re:Wireless Digital Monitor (2, Funny)

Dunbal (464142) | about 8 years ago | (#16492679)

Imagine having your CPU in the closet

      That goes against the fashion nowadays, I mean, everyone is coming OUT of the closet and you want to put the computer back in...

Re:Wireless Digital Monitor (4, Funny)

kfg (145172) | about 8 years ago | (#16492659)

A monitor's a rather pointless one though as it requires a cable for the power.

So that's why my laptop keeps going dark whenever I move more than six feet away from my desk.


Re:Wireless Digital Monitor (1)

d3Facto (620333) | about 8 years ago | (#16492691)

Perhaps you could get away with a lot less than 2.25 Gbit/s if you used an LCD monitor? With such a display the bandwidth only needs to account for the info sent from the graphics card to the monitor about which pixels that need to change color, or am I thinking completely wrong here? With an old-fashion CRT the bandwidth needs to be able to account for all the info that is needed for redrawing the picture at the appropriate frame rate.

Re:Wireless Digital Monitor (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about 8 years ago | (#16492963)

not really, but there's no reason why image compression wouldn't work with a CRT monitor too. think of things like VNC or RDP - these are display-over-network technologies that would be used with a wireless monitor, you're effectively viewing the monitor over a network instead of directly connected with a cable.

Re:Wireless Digital Monitor (2, Interesting)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 8 years ago | (#16493135)

A monitor's a rather pointless one though as it requires a cable for the power.

It seems to me that most of this wireless craze is pointless for the exact same reason. Just how hard is it to plug your USB key into your computer anyway? And what exactly is the point of a wireless keyboard?

Re:Wireless Digital Monitor (1)

IcePop456 (575711) | about 8 years ago | (#16493415)

How many things in life would we not have if we always had to justify things ahead of time? I for one would like a wireless USB connection so that I could do time-lapse webcam shots from my deck. I can plug it in for power, but I'm not running a line (ethernet or USB) for that. In addition, wireless cameras seem over priced.

I could come up with numerous connections. Cablebox to PC for extra data storage from my PVR (assume HDTV bandwidth could be sustained). Wireless memory card readers, iPod/MP3/PDA sync'ing.

As other pointed out, wireless video to the monitor when MPEG-like quality is sufficient. Have a decoder built into the display.

And yes, I'm not sure about wireless keyboards for desktops, but my HTPC (home theater pc) was wireless as I don't want to sit near the 100in screen. Oh and now the PC is in a different room...

These are uses I have right now. Just wait until we get more resources...

Re:Wireless Digital Monitor (3, Interesting)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 8 years ago | (#16493667)

It still seems like a solution in search of a problem.

I for one would like a wireless USB connection so that I could do time-lapse webcam shots from my deck.

Why not have a webcam with 802.11? Instead of inventing a whole new technology and protocol, you'd just have to slap a 802.11 chip and transceiver onto a webcam, and make some software to allow it to be accessed over the network. Plus we already have WEP and WPA to handle security.

Cablebox to PC for extra data storage from my PVR (assume HDTV bandwidth could be sustained).

This is a perfect application for Wifi (or even wired ethernet for those that already have their homes wired with Cat5). The higher speed of this UWB only works if your computer is very close to your device; most people don't keep their TVs in the same room as their computer with lots of storage.

Wireless memory card readers,

What's so hard about plugging your memory card into a slot on your computer? Or having a wired reader plugged in all the time if you use it that much?

iPod/MP3/PDA sync'ing.

This sounds handy, if a bit lazy (again, how hard is it to plug in if you're already sitting there?). But isn't this what Bluetooth was invented for? Or is UWB really supposed to be the higher-speed replacement for BT?

As other pointed out, wireless video to the monitor when MPEG-like quality is sufficient. Have a decoder built into the display.

So you'd basically need a small computer inside your monitor to decode the signal, just so you can save the trouble of a single cord? Somehow I don't think there's that many people out there who will want to pay the premium price for this "feature" to make this a mainstream thing.

And yes, I'm not sure about wireless keyboards for desktops, but my HTPC (home theater pc) was wireless as I don't want to sit near the 100in screen.

Yes, wireless keyboards make sense here, but it seems the vast majority are sold to people who use them at their desk.

Re:Wireless Digital Monitor (1)

eonlabs (921625) | about 8 years ago | (#16493505)

However, that's still almost a realistic project. What happens if you instead of direct-routing to the monitor via the wireless connection, first pass through a JPEG2000 codec. Then on the wireless monitor side re-decode in realtime. If there's a chance of that, MAYBE there's a better chance of actually getting the system to work. You might try a better codec for lossless high speed compression.

what if: Graphics Board on Monitor? (1)

jfig (135047) | about 8 years ago | (#16493553)

And info to the board goes wireless instead of its output

Re:Wireless Digital Monitor (1)

Ant P. (974313) | about 8 years ago | (#16493771)

That's an interesting point actually. Most of us have LCD monitors that can run off 12V, so why hasn't anyone made a standard like Firewire but for DVI outputs?

Re:Wireless Digital Monitor (1)

ampathee (682788) | about 8 years ago | (#16492613)

About 330MB/s from my calculation (that's 60 fps uncompressed).
It's likely that could be cut down via lossless compression and of course, only sending areas that have changed.. however then the monitor needs a cpu to decompress the stuff, so we might as well just use a small form-factor pc running VNC over a wireless LAN :P

Re:Wireless Digital Monitor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16492975)

I think that's called an iMac.

Depends on what you use it for (1)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | about 8 years ago | (#16493039)

I use "remote" (but not "wireless") monitors all the time - Remote Desktop, pcAnywhere, VNC, etc.

I know, that is not what you meant, but many of the solutions imply a "server" for your "client" screen, so there are some current examples.

But it doesn't work for "fast" stuff like video or games.

The big quesion, as someone else pointed out - how long is your "wireless" monitor going to run on batteries?

Re:Wireless Digital Monitor (2, Interesting)

jdray (645332) | about 8 years ago | (#16493053)

The first thing I thought of when reading the blurb was "video glasses arriving soon." I'd rather have 800x600, 16 bpp per lens at 24 fps, or 368.64 Mb/s, and get reasonable immersive 3D than I would a single stream of 1600x1200 at 24 bpp.

Re:Wireless Digital Monitor (1)

AmericanGladiator (848223) | about 8 years ago | (#16493111)

Oh My! Can you imagine trying to play UT2004 on a wireless monitor? It's not longer the LCD pixel refresh rate that will be the problem... Even if you had the throughput, the latency would suck as it usually does with wireless.

Re:Wireless Digital Monitor (1)

Amouth (879122) | about 8 years ago | (#16493213)

humm on a correctly configured AP the latency is no worse than a normal wire connection.

Re:Wireless Digital Monitor (2, Insightful)

dinther (738910) | about 8 years ago | (#16493377)

Uhm, in my case four WXGA LCD monitors runing at 60 hz of one PC...

1440 x 900 x 32 x 4 x 60 = 7879680000 bps or 7.88 gbps

certified wireless USB (1)

56ker (566853) | about 8 years ago | (#16492505)

As far as I knew this technology was already in use - for example wireless USB webcams. However I can't think of many real life applications that would use the bandwidth this technology provides other than video. Any suggestions?

Re:certified wireless USB (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16492519)

Portable, wireless harddrives perhaps? the ability to update your ipod just by putting it down on the desk is another option

Re:certified wireless USB--power anyone? (5, Interesting)

bbernard (930130) | about 8 years ago | (#16492561)

For that matter, one of the benefits of USB is that power is delivered along with the data--how often do you change the batteries on your thumb-drive, or plug in your 2.5" external hard drive? So, directly compared to USB I still need the same number of cables, unless they're delivering power wirelessly too? Hmm...

The problem with wireless devices... (3, Interesting)

Name Anonymous (850635) | about 8 years ago | (#16492509)

  1. Data security...
  2. wirelss interference from another computer
  3. wireless interference from other electronics and wireless devices
I am all for wireless devices that make sense. I sitll however use a wired keyboard and mouse on my desktop computer. On my laptop I use a bluetooth mouse to avoud the hassles of dealing with plugging and unplugging the mouse from the laptop.

Re:The problem with wireless devices... (1)

macklin01 (760841) | about 8 years ago | (#16492601)

On my laptop I use a bluetooth mouse to avoud the hassles of dealing with plugging and unplugging the mouse from the laptop.

And you can solve this problem by leaving your USB mouse and keyboard plugged into a hub on your desktop, so you only have one thing to plug in. As a bonus, you could get a USB-powered laptop cooler with a built-in hub (like this one [] ), so you're not only cleaning up cable clutter, but also reducing heat-related stress on your hard drive. -- Paul

Re:The problem with wireless devices... (1)

Name Anonymous (850635) | about 8 years ago | (#16492705)

And you can solve this problem by leaving your USB mouse and keyboard plugged into a hub on your desktop, so you only have one thing to plug in.

This makes the presumption that I use the laptop at home and at a desk. The laptop gets used in all sorts of places. Sometimes I use the trackpad and sometimes I pull out the mouse.

The situation you describe is for someone who is using a laptop as a desktop replacement system.

Re:The problem with wireless devices... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16492765)

Good point. ;) On the road, I've generally given up on external keyboards and mice, so I guess I forgot to think outside of the laptop at work scenario. Thanks. -- Paul

Re:The problem with wireless devices... (1)

kfg (145172) | about 8 years ago | (#16492733)

And you can solve this problem by leaving your USB mouse . . . plugged into a hub on your desktop

Cool! Now all I need to do is find a mouse with a 25 mile long cable.


Re:The problem with wireless devices... (1)

gregmac (629064) | about 8 years ago | (#16492671)

4. Power

Re:The problem with wireless devices... (1)

BiggyP (466507) | about 8 years ago | (#16492919)

Indeed, the idea of replacing a device which has one small cable running to a PC or hub with a device which produces increased interference and still has a cable, only this time it's attached to a chunky transformer plugged into the mains, is just plain silly.

Re:The problem with wireless devices... (2, Insightful)

vertinox (846076) | about 8 years ago | (#16493073)

4. Power

*coughs* []

And []

There used to be a cool Wireless transfer microwave kit on but I can't find it anymore...

My room mate has one of those tooth brushes that charges wirelessly which it pretty cool.

Re:The problem with wireless devices... (2, Insightful)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 8 years ago | (#16493241)

My room mate has one of those tooth brushes that charges wirelessly which it pretty cool.

That's not wireless. The toothbrush must sit in a base that's connected to an electrical outlet. The only thing "cool" about this is that there's no exposed electrical contacts on either the base or the toothbrush. This isn't wireless power transmission technology; it's a variation of a simple transformer, it's two inductors that are situated next to each other (when the toothbrush is in the holder), so that current is transferred by mutual inductance. The plastic casings provide safety from outside elements, but electrically don't affect performance much. This is the exact same method GM used for the "paddle" chargers in its EV-1 electric cars, so that there would be no danger of electrocution to users.

Re:The problem with wireless devices... (1)

vertinox (846076) | about 8 years ago | (#16493523)

They don't put the toothbrush in a hold, but just put it on a outcropping part that leaves the tooth brush freestanding.

I don't see why you couldn't have a doc for your mouse and keyboard like this. Heck... Just make a mouse pad that is a recharging station.

Re:The problem with wireless devices... (1)

Eternauta3k (680157) | about 8 years ago | (#16493655)

This isn't wireless power transmission technology; it's a variation of a simple transformer
It's both. Although not as practical as the usual wireless, there are no wires, therefore it's wireless.

As long as it's not blasting out data... (1)

Jabrwock (985861) | about 8 years ago | (#16492521)

on the same frequency as all my other "wireless" devices. I've already got a joystick I can't use in proximity to my phone, my wireless A/V catches interference from my bluetooth mouse and the phone, and my wireless mouse craps out if the microwave's on at the other end of the house. Will this add to my troubles?

Re:As long as it's not blasting out data... (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 8 years ago | (#16493287)

Probably. After all, look at what a great job the electronics manufacturers did with 2.4GHz wireless devices (cordless phones, Wi-Fi, etc.). They tested out their devices all by themselves, and didn't bother to see what would happen if other devices, using the same spectrum, were in the area. After all, it's not their problem if there's interference.

What the heck do you need a wireless mouse for, anyway?

A good fit? (1)

wiredlogic (135348) | about 8 years ago | (#16492523)

Is USB relly a good fit for this? USB is based around a strictly controlled hierarchy of devices with a single master at the top of the tree. Wireless applications are more in need of symmetric peer-to-peer interfaces like that provided by Firewire.

Re:A good fit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16492757)

USB has nothing to do with this. It's just more brain fungus as spread by slashdot and its editors that don't actually edit.

Re:A good fit? (5, Informative)

Animats (122034) | about 8 years ago | (#16493143)

symmetric peer-to-peer interfaces like that provided by Firewire.

Firewire actually has rather strong master/slave relationships; there's a tree, and a tree root, and a master node. But there's a negotiation process during hot-plugging which establishes the master/slave relationships.

One big problem with Firewire is that it doesn't have a notion of device ownership. You can plug two computers together with FireWire, and that will work if both machines support IP or Ethernet over FireWire. But plug a peripheral into the same bus, and there's no mechanism to allocate it to a unique host computer. You'll get a control clash.

Underneath, FireWire isn't really a "bus". It's actually a local area network, and its controllers work more like Ethernet controllers, with packets and buffer chains, than bus adapters.

The "bus" aspect is that there are defined packet formats for loading and storing 32-bit data items in a 64 bit address space. In practice, though, what usually happens is that at the host end, some code formats such a packet, saying "set bit 22 of register 0x2490 at node 3", and when that packet gets to node 3, some little CPU in the peripheral decodes the packet, acknowledges receipt of the packet, a switch statement decodes the "register" address, and code notes that bit 22 means "turn camera on". No status for this event comes back; the host has to send a packet to "read" some other device register to find out what happened.

Giving FireWire a "device register" model turned out, in the end, to be kind of silly. Something more like SCSI, with function codes and statuses, would have made more sense. (And, in fact, there's SCSI over FireWire.) You'd get back better status info, and devices which don't implement some functions would have a simple way to report that. This makes it easier to implement generic drivers, reducing the temptation to have to have a special driver for every manufacturer's device. And we all know where that leads.

So if you're designing something like this, don't go with a device register model. Anything smart enough to talk it will have a CPU, so use it.

Power (1)

gid13 (620803) | about 8 years ago | (#16492533)

I can see SOME uses of this, but there are a large number of people out there that would rather have a mouse connected with a cable than have to deal with batteries. And as the number of devices you want to connect grows, this effect will only become more pronounced. My verdict: useful, but not revolutionary.

Re:Power (1)

From A Far Away Land (930780) | about 8 years ago | (#16492939)

Another downside may be the increased exposure to EM radiation. There's a whole lot of industry built on electricity, and the benefits probably outweigh any health effects, but I think we hardly know the full effect EM radiation has on our bodies and minds.

Wireless video/speakers? (4, Interesting)

truesaer (135079) | about 8 years ago | (#16492583)

One thing I've always wanted is to get rid of the cables for my LCD displays and my speakers. That would be 4 fewer cables cluttering my desk (2 LCDs, 1 cable between left and right speakers, 1 cable to speaker out jack). I'm not sure what the real time and data throughput requirements would be. This looks like its primarily intended to replace wired USB devices but what additional complexity would there be in getting rid of some of the other wires?

It would be nice if the only cables on my desk were power cables.

Re:Wireless video/speakers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16492805)

Pah! We should be clamoring to get rid of those power cables too. And fans, have to get rid of fans. Noise is the mindkiller.

Computers as furniture! Wave of the future! Ride the Walrus!

Re:Wireless video/speakers? (1)

P3NIS_CLEAVER (860022) | about 8 years ago | (#16492947)

Well to most devices, USB is a power cable. Seems like the wrong solution to the problem.

Re:Wireless video/speakers? (1)

crabpeople (720852) | about 8 years ago | (#16493117)

"It would be nice if the only cables on my desk were power cables."

Um why? One cable is fine but two is.... inconceivable?

Re:Wireless video/speakers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16493331)

There are USB speakers, such as Harman/Kardon SoundSticks, that would remove the need for the audio out cable from the PC. I would be interested to see if these systems operate properly on UWB; if so, that would eliminate at least one more cable from your computer.

Re:Wireless video/speakers? (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 8 years ago | (#16493349)

It would be nice if the only cables on my desk were power cables.

On my desk, there's three speakers: right, left, and a subwoofer (on the floor). I suspect many people have similar setups. The subwoofer has the amplifier in it, and is connected with special wires to the two speakers.

So you want to replace these wires from the amplifier with a wireless connection, and then put separate amplifiers in the speakers, and then add individual power cables to the speakers. Now I'll need three spaces on my power strip for audio, instead of just one. How exactly is this helping things?

This makes no sense at all.

Not impressed. (1)

Noxal (816780) | about 8 years ago | (#16492585)

I'll be excited about this when battery technology improves such that you don't have to spend assloads of money for the convenience of not having to buy AA batteries every week.

Re:Not impressed. (1)

doti (966971) | about 8 years ago | (#16492781)

I have a wireless keyboard/mouse combo from Logitech for at least two years now.
The keyboard uses two AA batteries (which can be rechargable) that last for many months of intensive use.
The mouse came with a rechargable battery. The receiver doubles as a recharging craddle for the mouse, I put it there when I go to sleep, or I'm leaving home. But even if I forgot to do it now and then, it's no problem, the mouse battery lasts for some days (it's optical, I imagine a analog mouse would consume less).

Re:Not impressed. (1)

Noxal (816780) | about 8 years ago | (#16492895)

The keyboard life is impressive, but the mouse, with the dock...that seems to at least partially defeat the purpose of going wireless.

Re:Not impressed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16493269)

I used the first logitech wireless desktop set for a few years. It was a standard non-optical mouse with 2x AA batteries which lasted for about 4-6 months of frequent use. Keyboard was even less consuming, using 2x AAA batteries and lasting for about 6-7 months.

For these reasons I never bought any rechargeable batteries to the set.

Power? (1)

Ninwa (583633) | about 8 years ago | (#16492629)

What about power? One of the most notable benefits of a wired connection is that you can not only transfer information but power the device as well. I don't know about you, but I hate wireless mice/keyboards for the very reason that it's just too inconvenient to keep replacing batteries.

Re:Power? (1)

sweetooth (21075) | about 8 years ago | (#16493089)

I agree, or worse, mice that contain embedded rechargable batteries that require you to place the mouse on a charging station. I had the Logitech MX1000 and loved it except for the charging issue as I would often forget to place it on the charger at the end of the day leaving me with a useless mouse at some point.

There is however a mouse that doesn't have this problem. The Logitech G7 Laser Cordless Mouse is perfect. It comes with two small Li-ion battery packs and a charging station. So while you are using one the other is charging. They don't last terribly long, but it takes about 10 seconds to swap them out. I can't understand why Logitech continues to put out new mice without this type of a battery pack/charging solution and keep using the embedded Li-ion batteries. /US/EN,CRID=2135,CONTENTID=10716 []

Logitech lists it at $99.99 but it can be had for around $60 at many vendors.

Re:Power? (1)

eln (21727) | about 8 years ago | (#16493197)

Kensington makes several wireless mice that charge with a cable hooked up to the USB port. So, if you run out of juice, you can just plug the mouse into the cable and continue using it as a wired mouse while it charges.

Re:Power? (1)

sweetooth (21075) | about 8 years ago | (#16493521)

That is another good solution to the charging issue. The other issue is of course the fact that the batteries are not user replaceable in these devices which means you either send them in for repair or get a new mouse when the battery dies. I did not know that Kensington had those available as I typically avoid their mice as the designs they use tend to not fit well in my hand, good to know some manufacturers are thinking of these issues.

Sweet, I just lost connectivity with my printer! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16492641)

No, wait! It's back up with an annoying alert that it's connected again!

Wait, no, it dropped again.

I love this game.

New Security Question (3, Interesting)

frosty_tsm (933163) | about 8 years ago | (#16492681)

Does this mean that all I would need to do to spy on someone's pen drive is get within 10 meters and peek over UWB?

I assume there would be some encryption and passwords, but it's yet another security question to discuss.

powering USB devices (1)

e**(i pi)-1 (462311) | about 8 years ago | (#16492687)

What I like about USB is the possibility to have the devices powered. This is handy for portable HD's for a laptop for example. I doubt that wireless USB will be able to power external devices. Having used wireless mice and keyboards in the past, I got rid of all them because the battery power always fails in a critical moment (Murphys law). An other issue with wireless keyboards and mice is data security. Will these wireless USB devices have encrypted data streams?

So, with some forward thinking... (1)

Wilson_6500 (896824) | about 8 years ago | (#16492743)

Combine this technology operating in a very low-power mode with something like this thing [] I read about earlier on /., and do we get smart DVD drives that can detect if they're authorized to play a given disc securely and over air? I mean, you could stick an RFID on each DVD and then a reader somewhere in the drive, but is this a more off-the-shelf type of combination?

Or am I full of crap?

Re:So, with some forward thinking... (1)

straponego (521991) | about 8 years ago | (#16492905)

That's a great idea! I hate that all my DVDs play whenever I tell them to. If only some random cokehead executive, or hacker, or bug, or network problem could occasionally stop my DVDs from playing. And if it adds cost to the system, so much the better! Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to give myself a nice hard cockpunch.

Recharging (1)

roger6106 (847020) | about 8 years ago | (#16492751)

Now I'll finally be able to recharge my digital camera wirelessly while transferring my pictures.

Re:Recharging (1)

Arathon (1002016) | about 8 years ago | (#16492921)

And if they make a UWB version of these USB rechargeable batteries [] ...that would be so so so so coooool!

Printing... (1)

Craptastic Weasel (770572) | about 8 years ago | (#16492813)

I can tell you from my past experiences, I would *love* to have a wireless USB device for setting up printers. Not saying that wireless networking isn't fine for the more expensive printers, nor am I saying a good print server isn't a viable option. I just have had one too many times where the printer(s) I have setup could have benfited from a wireless USB dongle & some kind of Wireless USB to four port hub to ease installation options.
Just my .02, had to say it, been thinking it for years...

Yuck. (1)

L4m3rthanyou (1015323) | about 8 years ago | (#16492881)

What is this nonsense? It seems as if everything is trying to move to wireless... the only question is, WHY? Obviously, desktop systems don't tend to move much, so there's not really a valid reason to. For laptops, who really carries a bunch of peripherals around (aside from a mouse)? is it really that much trouble to plug in a USB hub when you sit down at your desk?

Some of the wireless stuff is neat, but most of it is becoming ridculous. I don't need wireless speakers or a wireless printer. It's a nice novelty, but not worth the headache that wireless devices tend to cause.

...And don't even get me started on wireless networking.

Power Cables? (1)

djKing (1970) | about 8 years ago | (#16492889)

Most of the wires on my desk do double duty as data & power (key board, mouse, PDA, iPod) so what's the point of getting rid of all the cables just to replace them with charging stations?

- Peace

Re:Power Cables? (1)

wjsroot (732775) | about 8 years ago | (#16493065)

Re:Power Cables? (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 8 years ago | (#16493399)

That's still a charging station. It just doesn't have any special sockets or connectors. Big deal.

sounds nice, but (1)

Zashi (992673) | about 8 years ago | (#16492969)

Half the reason I like USB (and I think this is true for many others) is that it is also a power source. Without wireless power, won't we be plagued with forever-dying batteries or continuing ratnests of power cables? Or did I miss somethign?

Tubes (1)

wjsroot (732775) | about 8 years ago | (#16493013)

This stuff is plumbing

So we have some plumbing to go along with the tubes that make up the internet?

What's the data rate of a kitchen sink?

3ft needs wireless? (1)

spleenhead (633571) | about 8 years ago | (#16493077)

I'm 3ft from a USB port and dont need to plug in a wire? how much can I pay for that? Any mobile device that close to a USB port may as well plug in to get the best bandwidth, security, and recharge its battery.... now, mobile to mobile xmission would be its best feature, I'd say

Moo (1)

Chacham (981) | about 8 years ago | (#16493097)

Major issues here would be interference, privacy, and lockdown.

Having numerous objects in the same small area (such as a "wireless" computer) would throw many waves in the same small area, possibly causing inteference, especially in a data center or cube farm.

Privacy is imsply that, i could sit outside and scan for a signal.

Lockdown is knowing exactly which device is attached to which, and nothing beats a cable during troubleshooting a complex problem.

Overall, wireless is *very* nice, and is obviously the wave of the future. Let's just handle mass usage issues from the beginnign.

New Fangled Terms (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16493113)

480 megabits per second? Why do we have to keep inventing new terms. It is much easier to just say 480,000,000 baud. (Or am I totally clueless on this?)

Yes, you're clueless (1)

shadow_slicer (607649) | about 8 years ago | (#16493217)

Reference Wikipedia []
Note: Baud should not be confused with data rate in "bits per second" (or bytes per second, etc.). Each symbol transmitted can carry one or more bits (for example, 8 bits in 256-QAM modulation) of information. When each symbol is binary it carries just one bit, so baud and bit rate are equal. This is a cheap, simple encoding. However, it's common to make better use of channel bandwidth by encoding multiple bits per symbol.

Over My Cold Hard Mouse Talons (1)

Flwyd (607088) | about 8 years ago | (#16493161)

I don't understand the "my desk must be wire free" mentality. Wireless networking is nice because it's like a lamp: you can move around and use it equally; new people can walk into the room and use it without extra technology, etc. But I don't see the point of wireless mice, hard drives, etc. With a range of 3-10m, in order to move your computer very far, you have to carry the same number of objects whether or not they have wires. Normal human orientation is toward the computer/monitor, so the cords leading from user input devices all lead away from the user.

If it's for aesthetic reasons, I suggest finding a way to make wires look niftier. It's probably cheaper than adding wireless chips.

Holy Duc[kt] Tape! (1)

Inmatarian (814090) | about 8 years ago | (#16493177)

Nifty idea, but it'd probably be more useful to just invest in an all-in-one cable that has several connectors for everything. One wire going from the desk down to the floor, and branching on each end to the various things. In fact, Duc[kt] Tape can probably do this with ease.

Wires...why did it have to be wires? (1)

Driving Vertigo (904993) | about 8 years ago | (#16493249)

I like my wires. Hell, I have wires that aren't connected to anything strung about. And there is a method to my madness. At any moment, I expect an elite platoon of ninjas to converge on my position to ransack my colllection of porn, carefully concealed as scanned page of the holy bible, and neutralize me before I can say "what the smeg!" I need them to craft my own murder orchesta of Indiana Jones brand whoop ass. What have your RF signals done for you lately?

Re:Wires...why did it have to be wires? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16493407)

when them ninjas move in on a wireless porn stash, every one of those black bastards will walk away from the raid with a tumor.


but, hey, revenge served cold and all...

Never seen the point (4, Insightful)

tehcrazybob (850194) | about 8 years ago | (#16493271)

I've never seen the point in the recent uptake in wireless technology. I have a wireless network, but it's just so I don't have to run network cords around my apartment. I hate my wireless network - it's unreliable and slow, despite being all alone on its channel and usually running at 54 Mbps. However, despite my own issues with it, I understand the point of wireless networking. It's great for public access or situations like my apartment where running cables cleanly is difficult. I can also see the point of a bluetooth mouse for a laptop, or a bluetooth keyboard for your PDA. It makes things faster and more portable, and gives you more freedom.

However, I draw the limit there. My keyboard, mouse, monitor, printer, external storage, and occasional other things are all wired. I don't have to keep track of batteries, and I don't get poor performance near the end of my battery life. It's all sitting on my desk not moving anyway, and there are only a few cords present on my desk - the rest are hidden behind the desk. I also like the tactile effort cords provide. When I plug my graphing calculator into my computer, when I stick a USB thumb drive in, when I connect my camera, when I plug in my headphones, or when I hook up a USB card reader, there's tactile feedback. I know I have just achieved something. I also don't find it terribly inconvenient to stick my flash drive into a front USB port.

There's more than just reliability and feedback, though. When I unplug my flash drive or external hard drive, I know that the devices are powered down and safe from snooping eyes, and not experiencing wear and tear. I also know that when I sit down at the computer lab with my flash drive in my pocket, the guy next to me isn't stealing my files. I understand that the connection between the computer and device will probably be encrypted automatically, so that's fine. But what about the connection process? If I have to go through a lengthly process to associate the device before I can use it (bluetooth), then I'm not really any better off than I was with wired USB. If I don't have to go through that process, what's stopping the guy next to me from doing it? And in the same computer lab, with USB my mouse isn't going to suddenly decide to associate itself with the computer across the way. Now, we could password protect the flash drive. However, and perhaps I'm alone on this, I'd rather not have a password on my mouse. And what if I replace 'mouse' with 'keyboard?' You can't password protect a keyboard.

All you need to know... (1)

lelitsch (31136) | about 8 years ago | (#16493361)

FTFA: "Certified Wireless USB setups are still going to involve a lot of cables"

Actually, in the first iteration, it's going to involve twice as many cables as wired USB. ;)

Some current implementations are nice (1)

Demonspunk (832469) | about 8 years ago | (#16493375)

I agree that not everything should be wireless for all the reasons posted already. But I must add my vote in favor of ease of use items like wireless keyboard and mouse. Yes you do have to give them power somehow, sometime but its not inconvenient at all and unlike an early post its rarely "gone dead at a bad time" and then its because of my neglect in changing batteries I knew were dead for days and hadn't changed. I like to avoid carpal tunnel issues by typing with my keyboard flat in my lap on my couch. With a wired keyboard this would be all but impossible or at the least involve alot of cable to tangle in. Just my bit.

Can this succeed in what Bluetooth is failing? (1)

snitmo (901312) | about 8 years ago | (#16493387)

A new technology is fine and nice, but can this fix the Bluetooth mess (different vendors' devices don't talk to each other, no standard API, etc.)? I have an application I want to write that requires wireless communication between a PC and a handset, but the ineffectiveness of Bluetooth devices keeps holding me back. If UWB fixes the problems, I'll use it. If not, wake me up when it does.

Feh. just what we need. (1)

porkchop_d_clown (39923) | about 8 years ago | (#16493413)

Another way to waste power by pouring it into the air.

Another reason to leave all our electronics on, all the time.

Another reason why it's too inconvenient to do anything about gross over consumption and it's effect on our environment.

probably a dumb question... (4, Funny)

1trickymicky (924393) | about 8 years ago | (#16493489)

but... if i've got one of these devices in my backpack and i walk past a whole heap of computers, lets say in an office for example... is it going to try and install it automatically?

"Windows has recognised your UWB vibrator and is installing it now......"

secure LANs hurray... (1)

recharged95 (782975) | about 8 years ago | (#16493565)

With stuff like Bluetooth capability, I'm waiting for battery powered routers and stuff. Less interference and smaller LAN range i.e. more secure [physically].

No Threat to WiFI (1)

fwr (69372) | about 8 years ago | (#16493659)

This isn't plumbing, and it isn't a threat to WiFi. At 10 meters as the maximum distance, and 3 meters the desired distance, you'd have to have an AP every few feet just to get proper roaming and coverage. It would fit in better as a replacement for Bluetooth and "personal" devices, such as cell phone connectivity to laptops, wireless mice, headsets, etc. Of course I haven't RTFA, but with a summary that lists the distances indicated anyone can pretty much tell this isn't a WiFi replacement.

Why go wireless? (1)

Gerzel (240421) | about 8 years ago | (#16493671)

The way I see it there is a trend to go wireless even when wires are the better/simpler option. Now lets brake this problem down into its parts.

What wires provide:
A. Power from an outside source.
B. Information to/from an outside source.

The major problem with wires is that they create clutter and can get caught on things if moved around a lot. Otherwise they are a time tested and relativly cheep way of providing A & B to devices. Now clutter can also be dealt with by simple organization for devices that don't move around a lot. Ethernet cables can be run through walls, power cables can be tied together and tucked out of the way etc.

A further problem to consider is that the more "wireless" applications you have around the more volume of trafic is being carried about in the aether. So it is essential to take a moment and think of what is best done wirelessly and what is best to go ahead and wire.

So now (1)

mgmatrix (539969) | about 8 years ago | (#16493749)

My data can be stolen with much greater speed and convenience.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?