Rick Stevens wrote: > On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 19:15 -0400, Matthew Flaschen wrote: >> Andy Green wrote: >>> Somebody in the thread at some point said: >>> >>>> So, is bluetooth supposed to be much slower than USB connection? >>> Yeah, it tops out at 2.1Mbps vs USB 480Mbps. >> In other words, BlueTooth is like USB, but slower, or like WiFi, but >> slower and shorter range. I still can't figure out why it's popular. > > If you use it for what it was intended for, it's great (cordless > headsets, quick syncs of your Palm Pilot, feeding your iPod through > your car stereo, etc.) It's a low-speed, short range, wireless > connection and always was. Problems crop up when people try to use it > for things it was never meant to do (like a replacement for USB or > WiFi). Okay, but I think it's the BlueTooth marketers who have encouraged it as a one-size fits all data transfer. Worse, this results in incompatibility. So, you have cordless Bluetooth headsets that only work with certain Bluetooth devices, defeating the whole purpose of the standard. Matt Flaschen
