Death Knell for Bluetooth?
01-05-2006, 05:01 AM
#1
Contributors
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2006 530i Sport
Silver Gray - Black Leather - Anthracite Maple
Manual Transmission
Premium Audio
Cold Weather Package
Rear sunshade
Sirius Radio
Autobahnd Roadblock (3M) film kit
01-09-2006, 11:03 AM
#2
Members
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: '04 545i, Premium & Sports Pkgs., Logic 7, Bluetooth, aux soon!
Maybe Not!
The raw speed improvement in Bluetooth 2.0+EDR is significant, but passing more data isn?t as important as preserving battery life. Because a device like a telephone headset can transmit the same information faster, Foley says, it will use less energy since the radio is on for shorter periods of time. Newer Bluetooth devices are efficient at using extremely small amounts of power when not actively transmitting.
?Because the headset is able to burst two to three times more data in a transmission, it is able to sleep longer between transmissions,? Foley says. He expects that existing headsets will be updated to 2.0 to last longer between charges, while there will also be headsets with smaller batteries and new form factors that take advantage of this power conservation. For instance, a headset that might last 90 minutes between charges with Bluetooth 1.2 could last more then four hours when upgraded to 2.0+EDR.
The newer 2.0+EDR standard is backward-compatible with 1.0 through 1.2 devices. Using older Bluetooth devices with a 2.0+EDR-compatible computer allows each device to operate at its fastest speed, but does drag the overall network speed down. The slower devices transmit one third as fast, thus taking up three times as much wireless time?during which no other Bluetooth devices on the local network can transmit?as 2.0+EDR.
The raw speed improvement in Bluetooth 2.0+EDR is significant, but passing more data isn?t as important as preserving battery life. Because a device like a telephone headset can transmit the same information faster, Foley says, it will use less energy since the radio is on for shorter periods of time. Newer Bluetooth devices are efficient at using extremely small amounts of power when not actively transmitting.
?Because the headset is able to burst two to three times more data in a transmission, it is able to sleep longer between transmissions,? Foley says. He expects that existing headsets will be updated to 2.0 to last longer between charges, while there will also be headsets with smaller batteries and new form factors that take advantage of this power conservation. For instance, a headset that might last 90 minutes between charges with Bluetooth 1.2 could last more then four hours when upgraded to 2.0+EDR.
The newer 2.0+EDR standard is backward-compatible with 1.0 through 1.2 devices. Using older Bluetooth devices with a 2.0+EDR-compatible computer allows each device to operate at its fastest speed, but does drag the overall network speed down. The slower devices transmit one third as fast, thus taking up three times as much wireless time?during which no other Bluetooth devices on the local network can transmit?as 2.0+EDR.
01-10-2006, 04:10 PM
#3
Contributors
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2006 530i Sport
Silver Gray - Black Leather - Anthracite Maple
Manual Transmission
Premium Audio
Cold Weather Package
Rear sunshade
Sirius Radio
Autobahnd Roadblock (3M) film kit
Originally Posted by billyc' post='221611' date='Jan 9 2006, 03:03 PM
Maybe Not!
The raw speed improvement in Bluetooth 2.0+EDR is significant, but passing more data isn?t as important as preserving battery life. Because a device like a telephone headset can transmit the same information faster, Foley says, it will use less energy since the radio is on for shorter periods of time. Newer Bluetooth devices are efficient at using extremely small amounts of power when not actively transmitting.
?Because the headset is able to burst two to three times more data in a transmission, it is able to sleep longer between transmissions,? Foley says. He expects that existing headsets will be updated to 2.0 to last longer between charges, while there will also be headsets with smaller batteries and new form factors that take advantage of this power conservation. For instance, a headset that might last 90 minutes between charges with Bluetooth 1.2 could last more then four hours when upgraded to 2.0+EDR.
The newer 2.0+EDR standard is backward-compatible with 1.0 through 1.2 devices. Using older Bluetooth devices with a 2.0+EDR-compatible computer allows each device to operate at its fastest speed, but does drag the overall network speed down. The slower devices transmit one third as fast, thus taking up three times as much wireless time?during which no other Bluetooth devices on the local network can transmit?as 2.0+EDR.
The raw speed improvement in Bluetooth 2.0+EDR is significant, but passing more data isn?t as important as preserving battery life. Because a device like a telephone headset can transmit the same information faster, Foley says, it will use less energy since the radio is on for shorter periods of time. Newer Bluetooth devices are efficient at using extremely small amounts of power when not actively transmitting.
?Because the headset is able to burst two to three times more data in a transmission, it is able to sleep longer between transmissions,? Foley says. He expects that existing headsets will be updated to 2.0 to last longer between charges, while there will also be headsets with smaller batteries and new form factors that take advantage of this power conservation. For instance, a headset that might last 90 minutes between charges with Bluetooth 1.2 could last more then four hours when upgraded to 2.0+EDR.
The newer 2.0+EDR standard is backward-compatible with 1.0 through 1.2 devices. Using older Bluetooth devices with a 2.0+EDR-compatible computer allows each device to operate at its fastest speed, but does drag the overall network speed down. The slower devices transmit one third as fast, thus taking up three times as much wireless time?during which no other Bluetooth devices on the local network can transmit?as 2.0+EDR.
It's not just speed, but backing and adoption. I have seen Bluetooth in action since the late 90s, but it took 5+ years to break out of the lab and into the marketplace where it has gained the rather tenuous hold it currently enjoys. Security is rather abysmal, and the useful and sexy profiles we all want are emerging at a snail's pace. With the likes of Intel and Microsoft behind wireless USB, bluetooth could be in for some serious competition.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
boozooface
Bluetooth & Cell Phone Forum
2
07-29-2015 06:56 AM