Connecting Android to Windows 10 by adding bluetooth

[Dan Jenkins]

Can you get me started on how to connect Android 4.3 to Bluetooth on
Windows 10 because I don't have bluetooth yet.

I looked up how to tell if my Windows 10 desktop has bluetooth and it
doesn't seem to have a bluetooth card based on doing these device tests.
http://blog.drivethelife.com/bluetooth/tell-computer-bluetooth-built.html
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/instantanswers/1b9c215b-c5cd-4da9-b163-14f0b82a491a/how-to-find-bluetooth-settings-in-windows-10

So I need to add bluetooth hardware to the desktop PC.

Am I aware that bluetooth is slower than WiFi or USB cable?
Yes.

Then why do I want bluetooth?

I want bluetooth for only two things (but you can suggest more).
(1) To transfer files back & forth without having to join a local LAN
(2) To play songs from Android onto the more powerful computer speakers

Since I don't have bluetooth on the desktop, what hardware is best to add?

[nospam]

In article <ok1e0t$k2g$1...@news.albasani.net>, Dan Jenkins

<djenki...@plusnet.uk> wrote:

> So I need to add bluetooth hardware to the desktop PC.
>
> Am I aware that bluetooth is slower than WiFi or USB cable?
> Yes.
>
> Then why do I want bluetooth?
>
> I want bluetooth for only two things (but you can suggest more).
> (1) To transfer files back & forth without having to join a local LAN

apparently you aren't aware that it's slower than wifi or usb,
otherwise you wouldn't be asking for that.

use wifi for file transfer, not bluetooth.

> (2) To play songs from Android onto the more powerful computer speakers

since you claim to have a desktop computer, just connect the speakers
directly.

> Since I don't have bluetooth on the desktop, what hardware is best to add?

bluetooth dongle if you want bluetooth, but nothing you've listed needs
it.

[Dan Jenkins]

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 22:59:43 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>> I want bluetooth for only two things (but you can suggest more).
>> (1) To transfer files back & forth without having to join a local LAN
>
> apparently you aren't aware that it's slower than wifi or usb,
> otherwise you wouldn't be asking for that.

Thank you for trying to help but please don't try to help if you're going
to completely ignore the original post by suggesting everything I already
know and which has nothing whatsoever to do with the original question.

Powerful Bluetooth hardware is the correct answer to the question.

WiFi is impossible for a PC that is not even on a LAN.
USB cable is inconvenient when going from floor to floor.
Same with speaker cables.

Powerful Bluetooth hardware is the correct answer to the question.

This question is just asking advice about which powerful Bluetooth hardware
(make and model) people actually use and like best to connect an Android
device to a Windows PC.

[Char Jackson]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 05:39:51 +0000 (UTC), Dan Jenkins
<djenki...@plusnet.uk> wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 22:59:43 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> I want bluetooth for only two things (but you can suggest more).
>>> (1) To transfer files back & forth without having to join a local LAN
>>
>> apparently you aren't aware that it's slower than wifi or usb,
>> otherwise you wouldn't be asking for that.
>
>Thank you for trying to help but please don't try to help if you're going
>to completely ignore the original post by suggesting everything I already
>know and which has nothing whatsoever to do with the original question.
>
>Powerful Bluetooth hardware is the correct answer to the question.
>
>WiFi is impossible for a PC that is not even on a LAN.

Ad hoc WiFi mode might be a possibility. No LAN required.

<https://www.howtogeek.com/180649/htg-explains-whats-the-difference-between-ad-hoc-and-infrastructure-mode/>

<quote>
Infrastructure and Ad-Hoc Modes Explained

Most Wi-Fi networks function in infrastructure mode. Devices on the
network all communicate through a single access point, which is
generally the wireless router. For example, let’s say you have two
laptops sitting next to each other, each connected to the same wireless
network. Even when sitting right next to each other, they’re not
communicating directly. Instead, they’re communicating indirectly
through the wireless access point. They send packets to the access point
— probably a wireless router — and it sends the packets back to the
other laptop. Infrastructure mode requires a central access point that
all devices connect to.

Ad-hoc mode is also known as “peer-to-peer” mode. Ad-hoc networks don’t
require a centralized access point. Instead, devices on the wireless
network connect directly to each other. If you set up the two laptops in
ad-hoc wireless mode, they’d connect directly to each other without the
need for a centralized access point.

Ad-hoc mode can be easier to set up if you just want to connect two
devices to each other without requiring a centralized access point. For
example, let’s say you have two laptops and you’re sitting in a hotel
room without Wi-Fi. You can connect them directly with ad-hoc mode to
form a temporary Wi-Fi network without needing a router.
<unquote>

[Poutnik]

Dne 11/07/2017 v 04:59 nospam napsal(a):

> In article <ok1e0t$k2g$1...@news.albasani.net>, Dan Jenkins
> <djenki...@plusnet.uk> wrote:
>
>> So I need to add bluetooth hardware to the desktop PC.
>>
>> Am I aware that bluetooth is slower than WiFi or USB cable?
>> Yes.
>>
>> Then why do I want bluetooth?
>>
>> I want bluetooth for only two things (but you can suggest more).
>> (1) To transfer files back & forth without having to join a local LAN
>
> apparently you aren't aware that it's slower than wifi or usb,
> otherwise you wouldn't be asking for that.

He was not asking for that..
He can have a legitimate reason why not to connect to a LAN.

But for the significant file transfer,
I would use either an indirect way of the cloud storage,
either USB cable, if there are high privacy concerns.



--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

[Poutnik]

Dne 11/07/2017 v 07:39 Dan Jenkins napsal(a):

>
> WiFi is impossible for a PC that is not even on a LAN. USB cable is
> inconvenient when going from floor to floor.

It was not obvious from the original post the PC is not on LAN.

I got in my other post an impression
you just do not want/are not allowed to connect your Android to LAN.

A good scenario description helps to prevent irrelevant replies.

[nospam]

In article <ok1ob6$60b$1...@news.albasani.net>, Dan Jenkins

<djenki...@plusnet.uk> wrote:

> >> I want bluetooth for only two things (but you can suggest more).
> >> (1) To transfer files back & forth without having to join a local LAN
> >
> > apparently you aren't aware that it's slower than wifi or usb,
> > otherwise you wouldn't be asking for that.
>
> Thank you for trying to help but please don't try to help if you're going
> to completely ignore the original post by suggesting everything I already
> know and which has nothing whatsoever to do with the original question.
>
> Powerful Bluetooth hardware is the correct answer to the question.

no it isn't.

> WiFi is impossible for a PC that is not even on a LAN.

yes it is, and since it's in your house, why wouldn't it be on a lan?

> USB cable is inconvenient when going from floor to floor.

that's what wifi is for.

> Same with speaker cables.

wifi can replace that too.

> Powerful Bluetooth hardware is the correct answer to the question.

no it isn't.

[nospam]

In article <ok1pub$il6$1...@dont-email.me>, Poutnik

<poutni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> So I need to add bluetooth hardware to the desktop PC.
> >>
> >> Am I aware that bluetooth is slower than WiFi or USB cable?
> >> Yes.
> >>
> >> Then why do I want bluetooth?
> >>
> >> I want bluetooth for only two things (but you can suggest more).
> >> (1) To transfer files back & forth without having to join a local LAN
> >
> > apparently you aren't aware that it's slower than wifi or usb,
> > otherwise you wouldn't be asking for that.
>
> He was not asking for that..

he asked about file transfer. bluetooth is much too slow for file
transfer. wifi is several orders of magnitude faster.

> He can have a legitimate reason why not to connect to a LAN.

i didn't say anything about connecting to lan.

[Poutnik]

Dne 11/07/2017 v 08:16 Poutnik napsal(a):

> Dne 11/07/2017 v 07:39 Dan Jenkins napsal(a):
>>
>> WiFi is impossible for a PC that is not even on a LAN. USB cable is
>> inconvenient when going from floor to floor.
>

As said in other post, if PC has wifi adapter,
ad-hoc Wifi can be a way to go,
similarly as ad-hoc LAN between 2 off-line PCs is often used.

[Poutnik]

Dne 11/07/2017 v 07:39 Dan Jenkins napsal(a):
>

> Powerful Bluetooth hardware is the correct answer to the question.

Not necessarily.

You do not want BT.
You want to connect your Android to PC.

BT may, or may not be an optimal way to achieve that.

Providing incomplete scenario may receive suboptimal advices.

[Poutnik]

Dne 11/07/2017 v 08:23 nospam napsal(a):

> In article <ok1pub$il6$1...@dont-email.me>, Poutnik
> <poutni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> So I need to add bluetooth hardware to the desktop PC.
>>>>
>>>> Am I aware that bluetooth is slower than WiFi or USB cable?
>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>> Then why do I want bluetooth?
>>>>
>>>> I want bluetooth for only two things (but you can suggest more).
>>>> (1) To transfer files back & forth without having to join a local LAN
>>>
>>> apparently you aren't aware that it's slower than wifi or usb,
>>> otherwise you wouldn't be asking for that.
>>
>> He was not asking for that..
>
> he asked about file transfer. bluetooth is much too slow for file
> transfer. wifi is several orders of magnitude faster.

That is well known and he knows it.
It was not clear from the original post why he cannot /does not want to
connect other way.

>
>> He can have a legitimate reason why not to connect to a LAN.
>
> i didn't say anything about connecting to lan.
>

He did. One of obvious ways is accessing LAN via Wifi router,
as it was not in the first post PC is not on LAN.

Helping others is rarely useful
while being confrontative toward other opinions.
Even good advices can be then rejected
because of the way they are presented.

[nospam]

In article <ok1s0u$o9n$1...@dont-email.me>, Poutnik

<poutni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>>> So I need to add bluetooth hardware to the desktop PC.
> >>>>
> >>>> Am I aware that bluetooth is slower than WiFi or USB cable?
> >>>> Yes.
> >>>>
> >>>> Then why do I want bluetooth?
> >>>>
> >>>> I want bluetooth for only two things (but you can suggest more).
> >>>> (1) To transfer files back & forth without having to join a local LAN
> >>>
> >>> apparently you aren't aware that it's slower than wifi or usb,
> >>> otherwise you wouldn't be asking for that.
> >>
> >> He was not asking for that..
> >
> > he asked about file transfer. bluetooth is much too slow for file
> > transfer. wifi is several orders of magnitude faster.
>
> That is well known and he knows it.

there's no evidence of that.

> It was not clear from the original post why he cannot /does not want to
> connect other way.

it is to those who have seen his posts under other nyms.

> >> He can have a legitimate reason why not to connect to a LAN.
> >
> > i didn't say anything about connecting to lan.
>
> He did. One of obvious ways is accessing LAN via Wifi router,
> as it was not in the first post PC is not on LAN.

wifi does not need a lan or an access point. it can go direct between
two devices.

<https://developer.android.com/preview/features/wifi-aware.html>
<https://developer.android.com/guide/topics/connectivity/wifip2p.html>

[Tim]

>
> WiFi is impossible for a PC that is not even on a LAN.
> USB cable is inconvenient when going from floor to floor.
> Same with speaker cables.
>

Actually, there is a version of WiFi called WIFI Direct, which will allow
to WIFI devices that support it to talk to each other without a router in
between. You would have to add a WIFI dongle that supports Direct to a USB
port on your desktop.

Alternatively, get a regular WIFI dongle for your desktop, and a regular
router that supports WIFI. You don't have to have a LAN in this case. WIFI
dongle to router WIFI to Android WIFi.

Or, get a WIFI enabled router, and plug it into your desktop with a short
LAN cable, then Android to the router.

Granted, this would not support your expressed desire to Bluetooth to the
desktop speakers, but you could stream via WIFI and get the same result. Or
do what I did and get an Oontz Plus portable speaker to use with your
Android. Works great and sounds wonderful.

[Poutnik]

Dne 11/07/2017 v 08:53 nospam napsal(a):

> In article <ok1s0u$o9n$1...@dont-email.me>, Poutnik
> <poutni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> So I need to add bluetooth hardware to the desktop PC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am I aware that bluetooth is slower than WiFi or USB cable?
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then why do I want bluetooth?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I want bluetooth for only two things (but you can suggest more).
>>>>>> (1) To transfer files back & forth without having to join a local LAN
>>>>>
>>>>> apparently you aren't aware that it's slower than wifi or usb,
>>>>> otherwise you wouldn't be asking for that.
>>>>
>>>> He was not asking for that..
>>>
>>> he asked about file transfer. bluetooth is much too slow for file
>>> transfer. wifi is several orders of magnitude faster.
>>
>> That is well known and he knows it.
>
> there's no evidence of that.

Not for blinds, or if one is closing eyes.

>
>>>> He can have a legitimate reason why not to connect to a LAN.
>>>
>>> i didn't say anything about connecting to lan.
>>
>> He did. One of obvious ways is accessing LAN via Wifi router,
>> as it was not in the first post PC is not on LAN.
>
> wifi does not need a lan or an access point. it can go direct between
> two devices.

It is well known.

As you have cut away the confrontation note,
it seems you have a real problem in that.

And as far as I can remember you, you really have.

[nospam]

In article <ok1u1t$ssm$2...@dont-email.me>, Poutnik

<poutni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> > wifi does not need a lan or an access point. it can go direct between
> > two devices.
>
> It is well known.

it's not well known, as it's a fairly recent addition to the spec and
only recent wifi radios support it.

[Poutnik]

Dne 11/07/2017 v 09:08 Tim napsal(a):

>
> Alternatively, get a regular WIFI dongle for your desktop, and a regular
> router that supports WIFI. You don't have to have a LAN in this case. WIFI
> dongle to router WIFI to Android WIFi.

> ..

WLAN..... Behaviour of LAN, but through wifi signal, not ethernet cable.
I have Android sync application working in this way, but PC is on wire.

[Dan Jenkins]

For alt.comp.os.windows-10,comp.mobile.android,alt.cellular.bluetooth

Poutnik wrote:


> It was not obvious from the original post the PC is not on LAN.
>
> I got in my other post an impression
> you just do not want/are not allowed to connect your Android to LAN.
>
> A good scenario description helps to prevent irrelevant replies.

I apologize if I didn't make it clear when I said in the original post

"To transfer files back & forth without having to join a local LAN"

that the question was not going to be solved by joining a LAN.

Allow me to clarify that the question is specific to creating a device to
PC network without joining a LAN and without cabling a wire through floors
(either a speaker cable or a USB cable).

I didn't know about the "Ad-Hoc Mode" of a Wi-Fi card so that gives me two
good answers that should work.

Are these my options?
(1) Add a Wi-Fi card to the desktop and put it in "Ad-Hoc Mode"
(2) Add a Bluetooth card to the desktop that can go through floors

Do you know which of these hardware choices goes best through floors?

[Dan Jenkins]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 01:02:13 -0500, Char Jackson <no...@none.invalid>
wrote:

> Ad hoc WiFi mode might be a possibility. No LAN required.
>
> <https://www.howtogeek.com/180649/htg-explains-whats-the-difference-between-ad-hoc-and-infrastructure-mode/>

Thank you for suggesting a Wi-Fi option because currently there is no
bluetooth or Wi-Fi card in the desktop so either would be an option.

Would either type of hardware satisfy the requirements of transferring
small (megabyte-sized) files and playing songs between Android & Windows?

(1) Add a Wi-Fi card to the desktop and put it in "Ad-Hoc Mode"
(2) Add a Bluetooth card to the desktop that can go through floors

Which do you think would penetrate floors best?

[micky]

In comp.mobile.android, on Tue, 11 Jul 2017 02:43:42 +0000 (UTC), Dan

Jenkins <djenki...@plusnet.uk> wrote:

>Can you get me started on how to connect Android 4.3 to Bluetooth on
>Windows 10 because I don't have bluetooth yet.

YOu can get a USB Bluetooth dongle for $2 on Amazon or ebay, including
shipping. I think they were only 1 dollar a few years ago. I bought
two kinds and one worked and one didn't. One came with a mini-CD but
you don't need that with win10.

How powerful it is, I don't know. It's half the size of a 3 pennies
and plugs into a USB jack.

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=bluetooh+card&_in_kw=1&_ex_kw=&_sacat=See-All-Categories&_okw=bluetooh+card&_oexkw=&_udlo=&_udhi=&LH_BIN=1&LH_IncludeSIF=1&_ftrt=901&_ftrv=1&_sabdlo=&_sabdhi=&_samilow=&_samihi=&_sadis=200&_fpos=Zip+code&_fsct=&LH_SALE_CURRENCY=0&_sop=3&_dmd=1&_ipg=200
But I don't know if these fit a PC and I don't have any specs to know if
a card is more powerful than a dongle, or how much.

>I looked up how to tell if my Windows 10 desktop has bluetooth and it
>doesn't seem to have a bluetooth card based on doing these device tests.

I don't think any deskptops come with bluetooth, unless you have the
thing built to spec, but I could be wrong.

Wikip: Bluetooth is a wireless technology standard for exchanging data
over short distances (using short-wavelength UHF radio waves in the ISM
band from 2.4 to 2.485 GHz. Don't cordless phones use similar freq.
and my 5.8GHzcordless phone transmitter goes from the second floor to
the basement and 80 feet out to the yard.

Class Max. permitted power Typ. range[3]
(mW) dBm) (m)
1 100 20 ~100
2 2.5 4 ~10
3 1 0 ~1
4 0.5 -3 ~0.5

So I guess that means yhou need class 1.

You intend to use a battery powered bluetooth speaker?? And carry it
with you?

>http://blog.drivethelife.com/bluetooth/tell-computer-bluetooth-built.html
>https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/instantanswers/1b9c215b-c5cd-4da9-b163-14f0b82a491a/how-to-find-bluetooth-settings-in-windows-10
>
>So I need to add bluetooth hardware to the desktop PC.
>
>Am I aware that bluetooth is slower than WiFi or USB cable?
>Yes.

I saw that you said this. I don't know why nospam thought you didn't
know this.

>
>Then why do I want bluetooth?
>
>I want bluetooth for only two things (but you can suggest more).
>(1) To transfer files back & forth without having to join a local LAN

Back and forth from your phone to the PC? Yeah, it's slow. Why not buy
a used wireless router on ebay. Then you can use MyPhoneExplorer to
transfer files, and even to add contacts, send and receive texts usilng
a full size keyboard and monitor.

>(2) To play songs from Android onto the more powerful computer speakers

Surely this stays put even while you move, so if you're too far away to
hear it, your bluetooth doesn't have to go that far either. ;-)

Not at all what you asked but I get my music on the PC using the many
channels on RadioMaximus (free) Pandora (free iirc) Tunein (free last I
looked) and I bought wireless speakers. I'll admit that the ones they
sell now are maybe 5 times the price from 5 or 10 years ago, and I
bought mine either surplus or second hand, so I got by cheaply. But I
don't care about stereo and I have a speaker in the bathroom, my
bedroom, the kitchen, and hte workshop/laundry room. And a spare for
outdoors which I haven't used because I just play the radio instead. .

You might still find them used, or you can buy the new version of
wireless speakers.

[Lucifer Morningstar]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 08:46:30 +0200, Poutnik <poutni...@gmail.com>
wrote:

You and the OP are hard to understand due to your
poor command of English.

[Lucifer Morningstar]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 05:39:51 +0000 (UTC), Dan Jenkins
<djenki...@plusnet.uk> wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 22:59:43 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> I want bluetooth for only two things (but you can suggest more).
>>> (1) To transfer files back & forth without having to join a local LAN
>>
>> apparently you aren't aware that it's slower than wifi or usb,
>> otherwise you wouldn't be asking for that.
>
>Thank you for trying to help but please don't try to help if you're going
>to completely ignore the original post by suggesting everything I already
>know and which has nothing whatsoever to do with the original question.

You wrote your question in a confusing manner.

>Powerful Bluetooth hardware is the correct answer to the question.

You did not mention powerful before.

>WiFi is impossible for a PC that is not even on a LAN.

Not so. Wifi is faster and has better range.

>USB cable is inconvenient when going from floor to floor.
>Same with speaker cables.
>
>Powerful Bluetooth hardware is the correct answer to the question.

If you knew the answer why ask?

>This question is just asking advice about which powerful Bluetooth hardware
>(make and model) people actually use and like best to connect an Android
>device to a Windows PC.

As others have said best use Wi-Fi.

[Lucifer Morningstar]

Where are you going to find a desktop that can go through floors?

[Lucifer Morningstar]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 03:29:37 -0400, micky <NONONO...@bigfoot.com>
wrote:

>In comp.mobile.android, on Tue, 11 Jul 2017 02:43:42 +0000 (UTC), Dan
>Jenkins <djenki...@plusnet.uk> wrote:
>
>>Can you get me started on how to connect Android 4.3 to Bluetooth on
>>Windows 10 because I don't have bluetooth yet.
>
>YOu can get a USB Bluetooth dongle for $2 on Amazon or ebay, including
>shipping. I think they were only 1 dollar a few years ago. I bought
>two kinds and one worked and one didn't. One came with a mini-CD but
>you don't need that with win10.

So easy to use audio streaming over Bluetooth with Windows 10.

>How powerful it is, I don't know.

Not enough for the OP. Only goes a few metres. Some Bluetooth goes
much further.

>It's half the size of a 3 pennies and plugs into a USB jack.

Hard to find pennies these days.

The OP said he wanted to transfer very small files.

[Poutnik]

Dne 11.7.2017 v 09:29 Dan Jenkins napsal(a):

For both, wifi and BT, there are usable USB dongles serving well.
I would go for the wifi one, as it is more universal,
especially if there is change in future to have a wifi router.

Also, wifi penetration is much better then of BT,
that is intended just for very local devices within few meters.

My phone can locate my home wifi router
in the 7th floor in the block of flats, myself standing outside.
Within the block, it is about 2-3 floors below to see it ( more walls ).

[Poutnik]

Dne 11.7.2017 v 09:41 Lucifer Morningstar napsal(a):

What particularly ?
I can always learn.

[Poutnik]

Dne 11.7.2017 v 09:29 Dan Jenkins napsal(a):
>

> I apologize if I didn't make it clear when I said in the original post
> "To transfer files back & forth without having to join a local LAN"
> that the question was not going to be solved by joining a LAN.
>
> Allow me to clarify that the question is specific to creating a device to
> PC network without joining a LAN and without cabling a wire through floors
> (either a speaker cable or a USB cable).
>
> I didn't know about the "Ad-Hoc Mode" of a Wi-Fi card so that gives me two
> good answers that should work.
>
> Are these my options?
> (1) Add a Wi-Fi card to the desktop and put it in "Ad-Hoc Mode"
> (2) Add a Bluetooth card to the desktop that can go through floors
>
> Do you know which of these hardware choices goes best through floors?

BT is not intended to go through floors.
It is rather for the direct visibility within few meters
for devices about on the same , or the next table in the room.
Even if you were successfull, the signal could be poor
and the transfer,slow even in ideal conditions,
could suffer due unreliability.

Both wifi and LAN cards ( or external adapters )
are just various hardware and software implementations
of a network at hardware and link layer.

For the both is defined the IP network protocal on the network layer.

In the IP configuration of the desktop,
you switch off the automatic DHCP and DNS
and set manually its IP address, e.g. 192.168.0.1.

Then you can set some dedicated folders of the desktop as shared
and use some android application for exchanging the files.

[Patrick]

On 11/07/2017 03:43, Dan Jenkins wrote:
> Can you get me started on how to connect Android 4.3 to Bluetooth on
> Windows 10 because I don't have bluetooth yet.
>

> I looked up how to tell if my Windows 10 desktop has bluetooth and it
> doesn't seem to have a bluetooth card based on doing these device tests.

> http://blog.drivethelife.com/bluetooth/tell-computer-bluetooth-built.html
> https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/instantanswers/1b9c215b-c5cd-4da9-b163-14f0b82a491a/how-to-find-bluetooth-settings-in-windows-10
>
>
> So I need to add bluetooth hardware to the desktop PC.
>
> Am I aware that bluetooth is slower than WiFi or USB cable?
> Yes.
>

> Then why do I want bluetooth?
>
> I want bluetooth for only two things (but you can suggest more).

> (1) To transfer files back & forth without having to join a local LAN

> (2) To play songs from Android onto the more powerful computer speakers
>

> Since I don't have bluetooth on the desktop, what hardware is best to add?

Bluetooth V2 USB_Dongle
https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?LH_BIN=1&_from=R40&_sacat=0&_nkw=Bluetooth+Dongle+V2&_sop=12

http://tinyurl.com/y84meb4x


Bluetooth V4 USB_Dongle (V4is less power hungry).
https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_odkw=bluetooth+dongle+V4.0&_sop=15&LH_BIN=1&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=p2045573.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.XBluetooth+Dongle+V4.0.TRS0&_nkw=Bluetooth+Dongle+V4.0&_sacat=0

http://tinyurl.com/ycfrqpuo


Maybe this is of interest!!
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Wireless-Bluetooth-V2-1-A2DP-Stereo-3-5mm-Audio-Transmitter-Dongle-for-PS3-PC/122533569114?_trksid=p2045573.c100508.m3226&_trkparms=aid%3D555017%26algo%3DPL.CASSINI%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20160706105120%26meid%3D30df4a7778d146ad8136755710efff54%26pid%3D100508%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D1%26

http://tinyurl.com/yd48no8f

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2017-07-11 08:23, nospam wrote:
> In article <ok1ob6$60b$1...@news.albasani.net>, Dan Jenkins
> <djenki...@plusnet.uk> wrote:
>
>>>> I want bluetooth for only two things (but you can suggest more).
>>>> (1) To transfer files back & forth without having to join a local LAN
>>>
>>> apparently you aren't aware that it's slower than wifi or usb,
>>> otherwise you wouldn't be asking for that.
>>
>> Thank you for trying to help but please don't try to help if you're going
>> to completely ignore the original post by suggesting everything I already
>> know and which has nothing whatsoever to do with the original question.
>>
>> Powerful Bluetooth hardware is the correct answer to the question.
>
> no it isn't.

It would be if such a thing existed :-p

>> WiFi is impossible for a PC that is not even on a LAN.
>
> yes it is, and since it's in your house, why wouldn't it be on a lan?

Because there is no LAN in the house? :-)

Always jumping to the kill, aren't you?

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2017-07-11 08:23, nospam wrote:

> In article <ok1pub$il6$1...@dont-email.me>, Poutnik
> <poutni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> So I need to add bluetooth hardware to the desktop PC.
>>>>
>>>> Am I aware that bluetooth is slower than WiFi or USB cable?
>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>> Then why do I want bluetooth?
>>>>
>>>> I want bluetooth for only two things (but you can suggest more).
>>>> (1) To transfer files back & forth without having to join a local LAN
>>>
>>> apparently you aren't aware that it's slower than wifi or usb,
>>> otherwise you wouldn't be asking for that.
>>
>> He was not asking for that..
>
> he asked about file transfer. bluetooth is much too slow for file
> transfer. wifi is several orders of magnitude faster.

He is aware of that. In the first post he said so.

>> He can have a legitimate reason why not to connect to a LAN.
>
> i didn't say anything about connecting to lan.

Yes, you did, on another post:

>> WiFi is impossible for a PC that is not even on a LAN.
>
> yes it is, and since it's in your house, why wouldn't it be on a lan?

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2017-07-11 04:43, Dan Jenkins wrote:
> Can you get me started on how to connect Android 4.3 to Bluetooth on
> Windows 10 because I don't have bluetooth yet.
>
> I looked up how to tell if my Windows 10 desktop has bluetooth and it
> doesn't seem to have a bluetooth card based on doing these device tests.
> http://blog.drivethelife.com/bluetooth/tell-computer-bluetooth-built.html
> https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/instantanswers/1b9c215b-c5cd-4da9-b163-14f0b82a491a/how-to-find-bluetooth-settings-in-windows-10
>
>

> So I need to add bluetooth hardware to the desktop PC.
>
> Am I aware that bluetooth is slower than WiFi or USB cable?
> Yes.
>
> Then why do I want bluetooth?
>
> I want bluetooth for only two things (but you can suggest more).
> (1) To transfer files back & forth without having to join a local LAN

> (2) To play songs from Android onto the more powerful computer speakers
>
> Since I don't have bluetooth on the desktop, what hardware is best to add?

Unfortunately for you, there is no such thing as "powerful bluetooth"
hardware. Even if you find it, you need the phone transmitter to be
powerful, and I'm 99% sure it will not be.

BT comes as fingernail sized dongles that you plug to an USB port. I got
a few, at about 1 or 2 euros, and worked plug and play.

Similarly, there are WiFi dongles of the same size, but I have not been
lucky with them. Even so, they are cheap, so you can try your luck with one.

You need WiFi. Peer to peer, adhoc... or add a WiFi router to your home.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Frank Slootweg]

FSVSVO "recent", unless you consider 5 years to be "recent".

[Keith Nuttle]

On 7/11/2017 8:44 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> Can you get me started on how to connect Android 4.3 to Bluetooth on
> Windows 10 because I don't have bluetooth yet.

This thread has devolved into a comparison of Bluetooth and LAN transfers.

I find there are times that a bluetooth transfer is faster than a LAN
transfer, especially when you have to get a passcode, etc.

This is the basic procedure to set up a Bluetooth connection. First make
sure that both units are set up in the discovery mode. (For convenience
set the Bluetooth Icon to appear on taskbar) On the Window 10 Computer
(earlier versions are similar) go to the Bluetooth settings. Then add a
Bluetooth device.

Select the device you wish to add and enter the any series of numbers
when requested. When it shows up on the other device enter the exact
same series of number. You are now connected

To recieve a file on the Computer you must set the computer to Recieve
the file. Right Click on the Bluetooth Icon and check recieve.

The procedure on your android device should be similar.


--
2017: The year we lean to play the great game of Euchre

[Char Jackson]

Given an otherwise equal choice between WiFi and BT, I would lean
strongly toward WiFi.

[nospam]

In article <89u8mcdtcj7d9mi0f...@4ax.com>, micky

<NONONO...@bigfoot.com> wrote:

>
> >I looked up how to tell if my Windows 10 desktop has bluetooth and it
> >doesn't seem to have a bluetooth card based on doing these device tests.
>
> I don't think any deskptops come with bluetooth, unless you have the
> thing built to spec, but I could be wrong.

you're definitely wrong.

[nospam]

In article <eate3e-...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.

<robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:

> >>>> I want bluetooth for only two things (but you can suggest more).
> >>>> (1) To transfer files back & forth without having to join a local LAN
> >>>
> >>> apparently you aren't aware that it's slower than wifi or usb,
> >>> otherwise you wouldn't be asking for that.
> >>
> >> Thank you for trying to help but please don't try to help if you're going
> >> to completely ignore the original post by suggesting everything I already
> >> know and which has nothing whatsoever to do with the original question.
> >>
> >> Powerful Bluetooth hardware is the correct answer to the question.
> >
> > no it isn't.
>
> It would be if such a thing existed :-p

it wouldn't, because bluetooth is much too slow for file transfer, no
matter how powerful may be.

> >> WiFi is impossible for a PC that is not even on a LAN.
> >
> > yes it is, and since it's in your house, why wouldn't it be on a lan?
>
> Because there is no LAN in the house? :-)

why wouldn't there be a lan in the house?

and as i said, it's possible to use wifi without a lan.

in fact, all the cool kids are doing it.

[nospam]

In article <ok2s2o...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg

<th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > > >
> > > > wifi does not need a lan or an access point. it can go direct between
> > > > two devices.
> > >
> > > It is well known.
>
> > it's not well known, as it's a fairly recent addition to the spec and
> > only recent wifi radios support it.
>
> FSVSVO "recent", unless you consider 5 years to be "recent".

wifi is ~20 years old, so yes, and its still not widely adopted yet
including android, which will be in 'o', a system that doesn't even
have an official name.

<https://developer.android.com/preview/features/wifi-aware.html>

[nospam]

In article <1ete3e-...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.

<robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:

> >>>> So I need to add bluetooth hardware to the desktop PC.
> >>>>
> >>>> Am I aware that bluetooth is slower than WiFi or USB cable?
> >>>> Yes.
> >>>>
> >>>> Then why do I want bluetooth?
> >>>>
> >>>> I want bluetooth for only two things (but you can suggest more).
> >>>> (1) To transfer files back & forth without having to join a local LAN
> >>>
> >>> apparently you aren't aware that it's slower than wifi or usb,
> >>> otherwise you wouldn't be asking for that.
> >>
> >> He was not asking for that..
> >
> > he asked about file transfer. bluetooth is much too slow for file
> > transfer. wifi is several orders of magnitude faster.
>
> He is aware of that. In the first post he said so.

apparently not, because he still insists on using bluetooth, so clearly
he's not aware of just how slow it actually is.

> >> He can have a legitimate reason why not to connect to a LAN.
> >
> > i didn't say anything about connecting to lan.
>
> Yes, you did, on another post:

nope.

i said to use wifi.

i did not mention a lan at all.

In article <100720172259438443%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam
<nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> use wifi for file transfer, not bluetooth.

[Frank Slootweg]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <ok2s2o...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > > >
> > > > > wifi does not need a lan or an access point. it can go direct between
> > > > > two devices.
> > > >
> > > > It is well known.
> >
> > > it's not well known, as it's a fairly recent addition to the spec and
> > > only recent wifi radios support it.
> >
> > FSVSVO "recent", unless you consider 5 years to be "recent".
>
> wifi is ~20 years old, so yes,

In this context - mobile devices - 5 years is a long time, i.e. *not*
"recent", period.

> so yes, and its still not widely adopted yet
> including android, which will be in 'o', a system that doesn't even
> have an official name.

We're talking about Wi-Fi Direct, not some future networking facility.
Wi-Fi Direct exists in Android (4.1) for *five years*, period.

EOD.

> <https://developer.android.com/preview/features/wifi-aware.html>

[nospam]

In article <ok339n...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg

<th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > > > > > wifi does not need a lan or an access point. it can go direct
> > > > > > between
> > > > > > two devices.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is well known.
> > >
> > > > it's not well known, as it's a fairly recent addition to the spec and
> > > > only recent wifi radios support it.
> > >
> > > FSVSVO "recent", unless you consider 5 years to be "recent".
> >
> > wifi is ~20 years old, so yes,
>
> In this context - mobile devices - 5 years is a long time, i.e. *not*
> "recent", period.

the context is *wifi*.

mobile devices are not the only devices to use wifi. far from it.

> > so yes, and its still not widely adopted yet
> > including android, which will be in 'o', a system that doesn't even
> > have an official name.
>
> We're talking about Wi-Fi Direct, not some future networking facility.
> Wi-Fi Direct exists in Android (4.1) for *five years*, period.

but not wifi aware, which is newer:
<https://developer.android.com/preview/features/wifi-aware.html>

[Char Jackson]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 02:53:26 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <ok1s0u$o9n$1...@dont-email.me>, Poutnik

><poutni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >>>> So I need to add bluetooth hardware to the desktop PC.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Am I aware that bluetooth is slower than WiFi or USB cable?
>> >>>> Yes.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Then why do I want bluetooth?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I want bluetooth for only two things (but you can suggest more).
>> >>>> (1) To transfer files back & forth without having to join a local LAN
>> >>>
>> >>> apparently you aren't aware that it's slower than wifi or usb,
>> >>> otherwise you wouldn't be asking for that.
>> >>
>> >> He was not asking for that..
>> >
>> > he asked about file transfer. bluetooth is much too slow for file
>> > transfer. wifi is several orders of magnitude faster.
>>

>> That is well known and he knows it.
>

>there's no evidence of that.

Unless you count the following, copied from the original post, above:

[nospam]

In article <1q2amc5471m620n9k...@4ax.com>, Char Jackson

<no...@none.invalid> wrote:

> >> >>>> So I need to add bluetooth hardware to the desktop PC.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Am I aware that bluetooth is slower than WiFi or USB cable?
> >> >>>> Yes.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Then why do I want bluetooth?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I want bluetooth for only two things (but you can suggest more).
> >> >>>> (1) To transfer files back & forth without having to join a local LAN
> >> >>>
> >> >>> apparently you aren't aware that it's slower than wifi or usb,
> >> >>> otherwise you wouldn't be asking for that.
> >> >>
> >> >> He was not asking for that..
> >> >
> >> > he asked about file transfer. bluetooth is much too slow for file
> >> > transfer. wifi is several orders of magnitude faster.
> >>
> >> That is well known and he knows it.
> >
> >there's no evidence of that.
>
> Unless you count the following, copied from the original post, above:
>
> >> >>>> Am I aware that bluetooth is slower than WiFi or USB cable?
> >> >>>> Yes.

and then goes on to insist on using bluetooth for file transfer.

> >> >>>> (1) To transfer files back & forth without having to join a local LAN

the answer is wifi.

[Frank Slootweg]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <ok339n...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > wifi does not need a lan or an access point. it can go direct
> > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > two devices.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is well known.
> > > >
> > > > > it's not well known, as it's a fairly recent addition to the spec and
> > > > > only recent wifi radios support it.
> > > >
> > > > FSVSVO "recent", unless you consider 5 years to be "recent".
> > >
> > > wifi is ~20 years old, so yes,
> >
> > In this context - mobile devices - 5 years is a long time, i.e. *not*
> > "recent", period.
>
> the context is *wifi*.

Nope! *YOU* wrote (see above):

> > > > > it's not well known, as it's a fairly recent addition to the spec and
> > > > > only recent wifi radios support it.

You're not seriously claiming that WiFi is "not well known", are you!?

> mobile devices are not the only devices to use wifi. far from it.

Duh! I.e. red-herring.

> > > so yes, and its still not widely adopted yet
> > > including android, which will be in 'o', a system that doesn't even
> > > have an official name.
> >
> > We're talking about Wi-Fi Direct, not some future networking facility.
> > Wi-Fi Direct exists in Android (4.1) for *five years*, period.
>
> but not wifi aware, which is newer:

And is yet another one of your red-herrings!

Who gives a toss about some *future* networking facility, which is
*not* under discussion!?

> <https://developer.android.com/preview/features/wifi-aware.html>

EOD.

[Char Jackson]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 03:23:27 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <ok1u1t$ssm$2...@dont-email.me>, Poutnik

><poutni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > wifi does not need a lan or an access point. it can go direct between
>> > two devices.
>>
>> It is well known.
>
>it's not well known, as it's a fairly recent addition to the spec and
>only recent wifi radios support it.

I've been aware of, and have made limited use of, ad hoc WiFi networks
since the early to mid 90's. I don't know if I'd call that recent.

[nospam]

In article <ok39m0...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg

<th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > > > > > > > wifi does not need a lan or an access point. it can go direct
> > > > > > > > between two devices.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It is well known.
> > > > >
> > > > > > it's not well known, as it's a fairly recent addition to the spec
> > > > > > and only recent wifi radios support it.
> > > > >
> > > > > FSVSVO "recent", unless you consider 5 years to be "recent".
> > > >
> > > > wifi is ~20 years old, so yes,
> > >
> > > In this context - mobile devices - 5 years is a long time, i.e. *not*
> > > "recent", period.
> >
> > the context is *wifi*.
>
> Nope! *YOU* wrote (see above):
>
> > > > > > it's not well known, as it's a fairly recent addition to the spec
> > > > > > and only recent wifi radios support it.

which is *clearly* about wifi ,not mobile devices.

> You're not seriously claiming that WiFi is "not well known", are you!?

point to point wifi is not well known. do try to keep up.

> > mobile devices are not the only devices to use wifi. far from it.
>
> Duh! I.e. red-herring.

no.

>
> > > > so yes, and its still not widely adopted yet
> > > > including android, which will be in 'o', a system that doesn't even
> > > > have an official name.
> > >
> > > We're talking about Wi-Fi Direct, not some future networking facility.
> > > Wi-Fi Direct exists in Android (4.1) for *five years*, period.
> >
> > but not wifi aware, which is newer:
>
> And is yet another one of your red-herrings!
>
> Who gives a toss about some *future* networking facility, which is
> *not* under discussion!?

it's not the future.

ios devices have done it for a while.

[nospam]

In article <k73amctgd8use2n8p...@4ax.com>, Char Jackson

<no...@none.invalid> wrote:

> >> >
> >> > wifi does not need a lan or an access point. it can go direct between
> >> > two devices.
> >>
> >> It is well known.
> >
> >it's not well known, as it's a fairly recent addition to the spec and
> >only recent wifi radios support it.
>
> I've been aware of, and have made limited use of, ad hoc WiFi networks
> since the early to mid 90's. I don't know if I'd call that recent.

i'm not talking about ad hoc, which are at best a pain in the ass.

[M.L.]

>Powerful Bluetooth hardware is the correct answer to the question.
>

>This question is just asking advice about which powerful Bluetooth hardware
>(make and model) people actually use and like best to connect an Android
>device to a Windows PC.

Another option is a bluetooth speaker. They can be just as loud as
desktop speakers and can power from batteries and be used while
recharging.

I use a $20 Aukey SK-M8 waterproof bluetooth speaker that lasts 16
hours per charge, but it appears to no longer be offered on Amazon.

[Char Jackson]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 13:47:09 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

I started the discussion about Ad Hoc mode, so that's definitely what
I'm talking about. There's nothing PITA about it, is there? It has
always worked fine for me when I've wanted to use it.

[Char Jackson]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 13:47:10 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <ok39m0...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
><th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
>> > > > > > > > wifi does not need a lan or an access point. it can go direct
>> > > > > > > > between two devices.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > It is well known.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > it's not well known, as it's a fairly recent addition to the spec
>> > > > > > and only recent wifi radios support it.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > FSVSVO "recent", unless you consider 5 years to be "recent".
>> > > >
>> > > > wifi is ~20 years old, so yes,
>> > >
>> > > In this context - mobile devices - 5 years is a long time, i.e. *not*
>> > > "recent", period.
>> >
>> > the context is *wifi*.
>>
>> Nope! *YOU* wrote (see above):
>>
>> > > > > > it's not well known, as it's a fairly recent addition to the spec
>> > > > > > and only recent wifi radios support it.
>
>which is *clearly* about wifi ,not mobile devices.
>
>> You're not seriously claiming that WiFi is "not well known", are you!?
>
>point to point wifi is not well known. do try to keep up.

~25 years should be long enough to be well known, IMHO.

>> > mobile devices are not the only devices to use wifi. far from it.
>>
>> Duh! I.e. red-herring.
>
>no.
>
>>
>> > > > so yes, and its still not widely adopted yet
>> > > > including android, which will be in 'o', a system that doesn't even
>> > > > have an official name.
>> > >
>> > > We're talking about Wi-Fi Direct, not some future networking facility.
>> > > Wi-Fi Direct exists in Android (4.1) for *five years*, period.
>> >
>> > but not wifi aware, which is newer:
>>
>> And is yet another one of your red-herrings!
>>
>> Who gives a toss about some *future* networking facility, which is
>> *not* under discussion!?
>
>it's not the future.
>
>ios devices have done it for a while.

Oh no, I'm getting the sinking feeling that your claim that Ad Hoc mode
is "recent" has something to do with ios support. I sure hope not.

[M.L.]

>BT is not intended to go through floors.
>It is rather for the direct visibility within few meters
>for devices about on the same , or the next table in the room.

While that info is technically correct, I've walked upstairs with
my Android phone and turned 90° into a bedroom while still
being able to hear music playing from our Aukey SK-M8
bluetooth speaker downstairs. Of course, there's no PC or file
transfers involved here.

[Dan Jenkins]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 09:54:42 -0400, Keith Nuttle
<Keith_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> This thread has devolved into a comparison of Bluetooth and LAN transfers.

I think much of the confusion in this thread is because I thought only
Bluetooth could do both streaming and file transfer.

If Wi-Fi in Ad Hoc Mode can do both streaming and file transfer, then I'm
fine with getting Wi-Fi hardware.

While I knew that Wi-Fi would be faster than Bluetooth, I also did not
realize at the start of this thread that a Wi-Fi card, if added to the
desktop and used in "Ad Hoc Mode" would be more powerful than the Bluetooth
card which people all said won't penetrate floors as well as Wi-Fi does.

The main thing I did not know at the start was that a Wi-Fi card in Ad Hoc
Mode could be used to stream music from the Android tablet to the desktop
computer (I had originally thought only Bluetooth could stream music).

So if Wi-Fi in "Ad Hoc Mode" is the answer, that is what I will do.
* It will be faster than Bluetooth for both file transfer
* It will penetrate better than BT for both streaming & file transfer
* It will be more versatile than Bluetooth (as long as it can stream music)

Since the question is about what hardware to get, I only need to nail down
which standards are being suggested that I get in the Wi-Fi card.
Ad Hoc Mode (required)
Wi-Fi Direct (required?)
Wi-Fi Aware, Neighbor Awareness Networking (required?)
Wi-Fi peer-to-peer (required?)

In summary, which standards above should I aim for in a Wi-Fi card if my
goal is to stream music and transfer small files between an Android tablet
and a desktop computer that are separated by a floor and neither is on a
LAN.

[nospam]

In article <gb4amclubtar2jbv6...@4ax.com>, Char Jackson

<no...@none.invalid> wrote:

> >> >> > wifi does not need a lan or an access point. it can go direct between
> >> >> > two devices.
> >> >>
> >> >> It is well known.
> >> >
> >> >it's not well known, as it's a fairly recent addition to the spec and
> >> >only recent wifi radios support it.
> >>
> >> I've been aware of, and have made limited use of, ad hoc WiFi networks
> >> since the early to mid 90's. I don't know if I'd call that recent.
> >
> >i'm not talking about ad hoc, which are at best a pain in the ass.
>
> I started the discussion about Ad Hoc mode, so that's definitely what
> I'm talking about.

others aren't.

> There's nothing PITA about it, is there? It has
> always worked fine for me when I've wanted to use it.

ad hoc is a huge pain in the ass, and you weren't using wifi in the
early 90s either.

[nospam]

In article <un4amcli34ckumbb1...@4ax.com>, Char Jackson

<no...@none.invalid> wrote:

> >> > > > > > > > wifi does not need a lan or an access point. it can go direct
> >> > > > > > > > between two devices.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > It is well known.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > it's not well known, as it's a fairly recent addition to the spec
> >> > > > > > and only recent wifi radios support it.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > FSVSVO "recent", unless you consider 5 years to be "recent".
> >> > > >
> >> > > > wifi is ~20 years old, so yes,
> >> > >
> >> > > In this context - mobile devices - 5 years is a long time, i.e. *not*
> >> > > "recent", period.
> >> >
> >> > the context is *wifi*.
> >>
> >> Nope! *YOU* wrote (see above):
> >>
> >> > > > > > it's not well known, as it's a fairly recent addition to the spec
> >> > > > > > and only recent wifi radios support it.
> >
> >which is *clearly* about wifi ,not mobile devices.
> >
> >> You're not seriously claiming that WiFi is "not well known", are you!?
> >
> >point to point wifi is not well known. do try to keep up.
>
> ~25 years should be long enough to be well known, IMHO.

wifi direct is about 5 years old and requires an updated wifi chipset
and software support, so if you don't have the latest radio you can't
do it (and even if you do, not always). using bluetooth to
auto-configure the link is even more recent than that, which is
*coming* in android 'o'.

wifi itself is ~20 years, so you're wrong on that too.

> >> > >
> >> > > We're talking about Wi-Fi Direct, not some future networking
> >> > > facility.
> >> > > Wi-Fi Direct exists in Android (4.1) for *five years*, period.
> >> >
> >> > but not wifi aware, which is newer:
> >>
> >> And is yet another one of your red-herrings!
> >>
> >> Who gives a toss about some *future* networking facility, which is
> >> *not* under discussion!?
> >
> >it's not the future.
> >
> >ios devices have done it for a while.
>
> Oh no, I'm getting the sinking feeling that your claim that Ad Hoc mode
> is "recent" has something to do with ios support. I sure hope not.

i'm not talking about ad hoc mode.

ad hoc mode is a huge pain in the ass for all sorts of reasons.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2017-07-11 17:26, nospam wrote:
> In article <eate3e-...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
> <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>>> I want bluetooth for only two things (but you can suggest more).
>>>>>> (1) To transfer files back & forth without having to join a local LAN
>>>>>
>>>>> apparently you aren't aware that it's slower than wifi or usb,
>>>>> otherwise you wouldn't be asking for that.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for trying to help but please don't try to help if you're going
>>>> to completely ignore the original post by suggesting everything I already
>>>> know and which has nothing whatsoever to do with the original question.
>>>>
>>>> Powerful Bluetooth hardware is the correct answer to the question.
>>>
>>> no it isn't.
>>
>> It would be if such a thing existed :-p
>
> it wouldn't, because bluetooth is much too slow for file transfer, no
> matter how powerful may be.

But he is aware that it is slow, right from the first post. So, not an
issue. :-)

I have used BT for file transfer, worked fine.

>>>> WiFi is impossible for a PC that is not even on a LAN.
>>>
>>> yes it is, and since it's in your house, why wouldn't it be on a lan?
>>
>> Because there is no LAN in the house? :-)
>
> why wouldn't there be a lan in the house?

Again, because there is no LAN in the house? He said so, several times.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Paul]

Your speakers are Bluetooth 4, and just maybe, so is your Android.
That could actually extend the range (a bit).

And the chances of you finding a technical explanation are pretty slim.
Why does it do better ?

Virtually everything, even the Wikipedia article, are written
in marketing-speak. And even the Wikipedia article, wouldn't
help consumers, or grease the wheels in the sales department.
I don't care how many Bluetooth specs come out, the damage
is already done. Just look at what is for sale on the market,
to see why this is so. Even if somebody sold you on "whizzy
feature X", you probably can't buy one and add it to a PC.
Maybe it's your "$$$ this" and "$$$ that" which have it.
In this case, you got "accidentally lucky" on your two purchase.
It's like a lottery.

One reason for not suggesting "a miracle will happen" for the
average user, is usually one end of their link is a legacy
piece of equipment that sucks donkey balls. And then it's easier
to take the "safe bet" in terms of technology choices.

For example, Wifi Direct is a kind of Adhoc mode, but because
the Wifi Direct spec was finished relatively recently, you
probably would not suggest it as a solution, because, what
are the odds.

Having four power levels and more than five specs for
Bluetooth, isn't helping anyone. Just as the cesspool of
connectors for USB, isn't helping anyone. It's some kind
of technology horror movie.

Paul

[nospam]

In article <t2jf3e-...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.

<robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:

>
> I have used BT for file transfer, worked fine.

that must have been very tiny files.

good luck transferring a video taken on a smartphone over bluetooth, or
even just a bunch of photos.

> >>>> WiFi is impossible for a PC that is not even on a LAN.
> >>>
> >>> yes it is, and since it's in your house, why wouldn't it be on a lan?
> >>
> >> Because there is no LAN in the house? :-)
> >
> > why wouldn't there be a lan in the house?
>
> Again, because there is no LAN in the house? He said so, several times.

again, *why* not?

this is 2017, not 1985.

*new* wifi routers sell for under $20, or get an older used one for a
buck or two, maybe even for free.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2017-07-11 17:26, nospam wrote:

> In article <1ete3e-...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
> <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>>> So I need to add bluetooth hardware to the desktop PC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am I aware that bluetooth is slower than WiFi or USB cable?
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then why do I want bluetooth?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I want bluetooth for only two things (but you can suggest more).
>>>>>> (1) To transfer files back & forth without having to join a local LAN
>>>>>
>>>>> apparently you aren't aware that it's slower than wifi or usb,
>>>>> otherwise you wouldn't be asking for that.
>>>>
>>>> He was not asking for that..
>>>
>>> he asked about file transfer. bluetooth is much too slow for file
>>> transfer. wifi is several orders of magnitude faster.
>>
>> He is aware of that. In the first post he said so.
>
> apparently not, because he still insists on using bluetooth, so clearly
> he's not aware of just how slow it actually is.

Ah, that you do not know. You make that up.

>>>> He can have a legitimate reason why not to connect to a LAN.
>>>
>>> i didn't say anything about connecting to lan.
>>
>> Yes, you did, on another post:
>
> nope.
>
> i said to use wifi.
>
> i did not mention a lan at all.
>
> In article <100720172259438443%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam
> <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> use wifi for file transfer, not bluetooth.

And in another article (Message-ID:
<110720170223130361%nos...@nospam.invalid>), you specifically said LAN,
but you deleted that part from the post - typical nospam move:

> WiFi is impossible for a PC that is not even on a LAN.

yes it is, and since it's in your house, why wouldn't it be on a lan?

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2017-07-11 21:00, nospam wrote:
> In article <t2jf3e-...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
> <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>> I have used BT for file transfer, worked fine.
>
> that must have been very tiny files.

Several photos and videos.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth

Bluetooth version Maximum speed Maximum range
3.0 25 Mbit/s 10 meters (33 ft)
4.0 25 Mbit/s 60 meters (200 ft)
5 50 Mbit/s 240 meters (800 ft)


I get 25 Mbit/s out of WiFi in a busy apartment building, so the speed
is the comparable.

>>>>>> WiFi is impossible for a PC that is not even on a LAN.
>>>>>
>>>>> yes it is, and since it's in your house, why wouldn't it be on a lan?
>>>>
>>>> Because there is no LAN in the house? :-)
>>>
>>> why wouldn't there be a lan in the house?
>>
>> Again, because there is no LAN in the house? He said so, several times.
>
> again, *why* not?
>
> this is 2017, not 1985.

Again. Currently there is no LAN in that house.
Yes, of course he can create one. But there is none at the time.


Why do you make stuff up?

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[nospam]

In article <dmkf3e-...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.

my initial statement was to use wifi. i did not say *anything* about a
lan because a lan is not required.

*he* mentioned a lan, not me, saying that it's impossible without a
lan, which is bullshit. a lan is not required, which is what i said.

now stop avoiding the question and answer it: why wouldn't there be a
lan?

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2017-07-11 20:13, Dan Jenkins wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 09:54:42 -0400, Keith Nuttle
> <Keith_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> This thread has devolved into a comparison of Bluetooth and LAN
>> transfers.
>
> I think much of the confusion in this thread is because I thought only
> Bluetooth could do both streaming and file transfer.
>
> If Wi-Fi in Ad Hoc Mode can do both streaming and file transfer, then I'm
> fine with getting Wi-Fi hardware.

You can do anything as long as you find software that does it :-)

I almost do not use Windows, so I can't guide you there.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Frank Slootweg]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <un4amcli34ckumbb1...@4ax.com>, Char Jackson
> <no...@none.invalid> wrote:
>
> > >> > > > > > > > wifi does not need a lan or an access point. it can
> > >> > > > > > > > go direct between two devices.
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > It is well known.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > it's not well known, as it's a fairly recent addition
> > >> > > > > > to the spec and only recent wifi radios support it.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > FSVSVO "recent", unless you consider 5 years to be "recent".
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > wifi is ~20 years old, so yes,
> > >> > >
> > >> > > In this context - mobile devices - 5 years is a long time,
> > >> > > i.e. *not* "recent", period.
> > >> >
> > >> > the context is *wifi*.
> > >>
> > >> Nope! *YOU* wrote (see above):
> > >>
> > >> > > > > > it's not well known, as it's a fairly recent addition
> > >> > > > > > to the spec and only recent wifi radios support it.
> > >
> > >which is *clearly* about wifi ,not mobile devices.
> > >
> > >> You're not seriously claiming that WiFi is "not well known",
> > >> are you!?
> > >
> > >point to point wifi is not well known. do try to keep up.
> >
> > ~25 years should be long enough to be well known, IMHO.
>
> wifi direct is about 5 years old and requires an updated wifi chipset

The Intel Centrino 2 chipset already had Wi-Fi Direct in 2008, so
*NINE* years ago! *Try* to keep up!

[Frank Slootweg]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <ok39m0...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > wifi does not need a lan or an access point. it can go direct
> > > > > > > > > between two devices.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It is well known.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > it's not well known, as it's a fairly recent addition to the spec
> > > > > > > and only recent wifi radios support it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > FSVSVO "recent", unless you consider 5 years to be "recent".
> > > > >
> > > > > wifi is ~20 years old, so yes,
> > > >
> > > > In this context - mobile devices - 5 years is a long time, i.e. *not*
> > > > "recent", period.
> > >
> > > the context is *wifi*.
> >
> > Nope! *YOU* wrote (see above):
> >
> > > > > > > it's not well known, as it's a fairly recent addition to the spec
> > > > > > > and only recent wifi radios support it.
>
> which is *clearly* about wifi ,not mobile devices.

Yes, about WiFi *Direct*, *not* WiFi in general.

> > You're not seriously claiming that WiFi is "not well known", are you!?
>
> point to point wifi is not well known. do try to keep up.

*I* have been talking Wifi Direct - i.e. point-to-point WiFi - from
the get go, because *you* were talking about WiFi Direct, that is until
you changed the goalposts to WiFi in general and now are changing them
back again.

So *you* should try to keep up. But your track record shows that you
are *unable* to keep up, even with what you wrote yourself.

> > > mobile devices are not the only devices to use wifi. far from it.
> >
> > Duh! I.e. red-herring.
>
> no.

Yes. Your Duh!-comment is irrelevant to the issue being discussed, so
it *is* a red-herring.

> > > > > so yes, and its still not widely adopted yet
> > > > > including android, which will be in 'o', a system that doesn't even
> > > > > have an official name.
> > > >
> > > > We're talking about Wi-Fi Direct, not some future networking facility.
> > > > Wi-Fi Direct exists in Android (4.1) for *five years*, period.
> > >
> > > but not wifi aware, which is newer:
> >
> > And is yet another one of your red-herrings!
> >
> > Who gives a toss about some *future* networking facility, which is
> > *not* under discussion!?
>
> it's not the future.

It's *your* reference and Wi-Fi Aware/NAN on Android *is* future, you
said so *yourself* (Hint: Try to keep up.) and *your* reference says so
too.

> ios devices have done it for a while.

Who gives a toss!? This thread is *not* about iOS/Apple,

<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/world/asia/india-assam-state-rhinos.html>

[Carlos E.R.]

Yes, you used the word "lan". We have written proof. :-P

>
> now stop avoiding the question and answer it: why wouldn't there be a
> lan?

Because there is none. There is no more to it, he doesn't have a LAN, so
end of discussion. :-)



--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Poutnik]

Dne 11/07/2017 v 20:13 Dan Jenkins napsal(a):

>
>
> The main thing I did not know at the start was that a Wi-Fi card in Ad Hoc
> Mode could be used to stream music from the Android tablet to the desktop
> computer (I had originally thought only Bluetooth could stream music).

It is not that Wifi nor BT can stream alone.
The streaming is realized by applications or OS
over BT/Wifi transfer protocols.

VLC Direct
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.vlcforandroid.vlcdirectprofree

* Remote control your desktop VLC™ from your Phone/Tablet (play, pause,
stop, volume, fullscreen, change video/song, dvd menu control, change
audio tracks, change subtitle tracks, etc.)
* Streaming from Android to Computer (Video, music and photos)
* Its internal video player allows streaming content from the Computer
to Android (Video, music and photos)
........

>
> Since the question is about what hardware to get, I only need to nail down
> which standards are being suggested that I get in the Wi-Fi card.
> Ad Hoc Mode (required)
> Wi-Fi Direct (required?)
> Wi-Fi Aware, Neighbor Awareness Networking (required?)
> Wi-Fi peer-to-peer (required?)
>
> In summary, which standards above should I aim for in a Wi-Fi card if my
> goal is to stream music and transfer small files between an Android tablet
> and a desktop computer that are separated by a floor and neither is on a
> LAN.

Near all Wifi can serve well.
There is a stardard timeline serie IEEE 802.11a/b/g/n/ac
Look for at least n, ac is even better.

https://www.lifewire.com/wireless-standards-802-11a-802-11b-g-n-and-802-11ac-816553

The above is not what the card/dongles support,
but what the OS or software over them offers.

--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

[nospam]

In article <n2lf3e-...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.

<robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:

> >>
> >> I have used BT for file transfer, worked fine.
> >
> > that must have been very tiny files.
>
> Several photos and videos.

that must have taken a long time.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth
>
> Bluetooth version Maximum speed Maximum range
> 3.0 25 Mbit/s 10 meters (33 ft)
> 4.0 25 Mbit/s 60 meters (200 ft)
> 5 50 Mbit/s 240 meters (800 ft)

bluetooth 5 doesn't count and those speeds are theoretical anyway.
actual throughput is worse.

<https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2017/5/26/15687670/bluetooth-5-
anker-incipio-griffin-iphone-samsung-coming-soon>
HOW LONG WILL YOU HAVE TO WAIT FOR BLUETOOTH 5 GADGETS?
Likely until early 2018. Companies havenąt started building devices
that support Bluetooth 5 yet, because the Galaxy S8 is the only phone
that currently supports the standard. But that will begin to change
over the next few months.

<http://www.androidauthority.com/bluetooth-5-samsung-galaxy-s8-774560/>
Most notably I was able to clear up the huge confusion around the
ideas that Bluetooth 5 offers 4 times the range and twice the speed.
In fact it turns out that Bluetooth 5 does offer (almost) twice the
throughput when the two communicating devices are close to each
other, but towards the edge of the possible range I demonstrated that
Bluetooth 5 has the same throughput as Bluetooth 4.

meanwhile, 802.11ac has a theoretical maximum of 7 *gigabit*, which is
over two orders of magnitude faster.

real world speeds will be less (especially without wave 2) but it's
still way the hell faster than bluetooth ever will be.

<https://www.extremetech.com/computing/160837-what-is-802-11ac-and-how-m
uch-faster-than-802-11n-is-it>
802.11ac will only get faster, too. As we mentioned earlier, the
theoretical max speed of 802.11ac is just shy of 7Gbps ‹ and while
youąll never hit that in a real-world scenario, we wouldnąt be
surprised to see link speeds of 2Gbps or more in the next few years.
At 2Gbps, youąll get a transfer rate of 256MB/sec, and suddenly
Ethernet serves less and less purpose if that happens. To reach such
speeds, chipset and device makers will need to implement four or more
802.11ac streams, both in terms of software and hardware.

what takes a few seconds over wifi would take *minutes* over bluetooth.

> I get 25 Mbit/s out of WiFi in a busy apartment building, so the speed
> is the comparable.

only because you're using an obsolete 802.11g wifi router, and/or
something is *horribly* misconfigured.

don't assume that your super-shitty wifi is how it is for everyone else.

i get roughly gigabit speeds over wifi (just under 900 mbit).

> >>>>>> WiFi is impossible for a PC that is not even on a LAN.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> yes it is, and since it's in your house, why wouldn't it be on a lan?
> >>>>
> >>>> Because there is no LAN in the house? :-)
> >>>
> >>> why wouldn't there be a lan in the house?
> >>
> >> Again, because there is no LAN in the house? He said so, several times.
> >
> > again, *why* not?
> >
> > this is 2017, not 1985.
>
> Again. Currently there is no LAN in that house.
> Yes, of course he can create one. But there is none at the time.

again, *why* is there no lan???

it's been established that there isn't a lan. i want to know *why*
there isn't one.

>
> Why do you make stuff up?

i'm not making anything up.

why do you argue?

[nospam]

In article <ok3g8b...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg

<th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> >
> > wifi direct is about 5 years old and requires an updated wifi chipset
>
> The Intel Centrino 2 chipset already had Wi-Fi Direct in 2008, so
> *NINE* years ago! *Try* to keep up!

windows didn't support it, so that doesn't matter.

[nospam]

In article <ok3frs...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg

<th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > > You're not seriously claiming that WiFi is "not well known", are you!?
> >
> > point to point wifi is not well known. do try to keep up.
>
> *I* have been talking Wifi Direct - i.e. point-to-point WiFi - from
> the get go, because *you* were talking about WiFi Direct, that is until
> you changed the goalposts to WiFi in general and now are changing them
> back again.

i was *always* talking about wifi direct.

[nospam]

In article <gulf3e-...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.

<robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:


>
> >> And in another article (Message-ID:
> >> <110720170223130361%nos...@nospam.invalid>), you specifically said LAN,
> >> but you deleted that part from the post - typical nospam move:
> >>
> >>> WiFi is impossible for a PC that is not even on a LAN.
> >>
> >> yes it is, and since it's in your house, why wouldn't it be on a lan?
> >
> >
> > my initial statement was to use wifi. i did not say *anything* about a
> > lan because a lan is not required.
> >
> > *he* mentioned a lan, not me, saying that it's impossible without a
> > lan, which is bullshit. a lan is not required, which is what i said.
>
> Yes, you used the word "lan". We have written proof. :-P

in *response* to someone *else* mentioning lan and who ignorantly
assumed that a lan was required for wifi, which it is not.

> > now stop avoiding the question and answer it: why wouldn't there be a
> > lan?
>
> Because there is none. There is no more to it, he doesn't have a LAN, so
> end of discussion. :-)

*why* isn't there a lan?

there must be a reason. what is it?

not having a lan in a house makes *no* sense. simply having a broadband
router creates a lan, even if only one device connects to it.

since this person claims to have a phone and a desktop computer *and*
is on the internet (given that he trolls the newsgroups), he has a lan.

but perhaps there's a reason. that's why i want to know why.

[Frank Slootweg]

Ah, I *see*! *I* am *not* allowed to limit it to mobile devices, which
*is* the context of the thread, but *you* *are* allowed to limit it to
Windows, which is also the contect of the thread!

Hypocritical much!?

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2017-07-11 21:53, nospam wrote:
> In article <gulf3e-...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
> <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:



>>> now stop avoiding the question and answer it: why wouldn't there be a
>>> lan?
>>
>> Because there is none. There is no more to it, he doesn't have a LAN, so
>> end of discussion. :-)
>
> *why* isn't there a lan?
>
> there must be a reason. what is it?

I don't care, not my business :-P

> not having a lan in a house makes *no* sense. simply having a broadband
> router creates a lan, even if only one device connects to it.
>
> since this person claims to have a phone and a desktop computer *and*
> is on the internet (given that he trolls the newsgroups), he has a lan.
>
> but perhaps there's a reason. that's why i want to know why.

Well, maybe he goes to a library to use Internet and doesn't have it at
home. Or maybe his computer connects directly to an Internet modem and
there is no WiFi AP. Maybe he doesn't live at his home, so he can not
contract Internet. Maybe he connects via mobile and USB.

Ask him. Maybe he will tell, maybe not. :-)

It does not matter to me.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2017-07-11 21:53, nospam wrote:

> In article <n2lf3e-...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
> <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:

...

> what takes a few seconds over wifi would take *minutes* over bluetooth.

Not always in reality.

>
>> I get 25 Mbit/s out of WiFi in a busy apartment building, so the speed
>> is the comparable.
>
> only because you're using an obsolete 802.11g wifi router, and/or
> something is *horribly* misconfigured.

I'm using whatever the ISP there supplies.
Simply there are about 50 AP in view, so the BW goes down.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[nospam]

In article <ok3i0e...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg

<th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > > > wifi direct is about 5 years old and requires an updated wifi chipset
> > >
> > > The Intel Centrino 2 chipset already had Wi-Fi Direct in 2008, so
> > > *NINE* years ago! *Try* to keep up!
> >
> > windows didn't support it, so that doesn't matter.
>
> Ah, I *see*! *I* am *not* allowed to limit it to mobile devices, which
> *is* the context of the thread,

nope. the context is a mobile device connecting to a desktop device.

> but *you* *are* allowed to limit it to
> Windows, which is also the contect of the thread!

*you* brought up centrino, not me.

which mobile devices had a centrino chip in 2008? none. did anyone even
*use* wifi direct in 2008? nope.

earlier today, you said wifi direct is 5 years old, now you're trying
to claim it's 9 years old.

> Hypocritical much!?

you certainly are.

[nospam]

In article <mvnf3e-...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.

<robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:

>
> > what takes a few seconds over wifi would take *minutes* over bluetooth.
>
> Not always in reality.

yes always in reality, unless the user fucks it up somehow or uses
horribly obsolete (and grossly insecure) equipment.

> >> I get 25 Mbit/s out of WiFi in a busy apartment building, so the speed
> >> is the comparable.
> >
> > only because you're using an obsolete 802.11g wifi router, and/or
> > something is *horribly* misconfigured.
>
> I'm using whatever the ISP there supplies.

they gave you outdated junk and it's not secure either.

buy something better.

others aren't stuck with those slow speeds.

> Simply there are about 50 AP in view, so the BW goes down.

switch to 5 ghz, which is nowhere near as crowded, and if everyone else
continues to use obsolete 802.11g, you'll be the only one there.

[nospam]

In article <vmnf3e-...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.

<robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:

> > not having a lan in a house makes *no* sense. simply having a broadband
> > router creates a lan, even if only one device connects to it.
> >
> > since this person claims to have a phone and a desktop computer *and*
> > is on the internet (given that he trolls the newsgroups), he has a lan.
> >
> > but perhaps there's a reason. that's why i want to know why.
>
> Well, maybe he goes to a library to use Internet and doesn't have it at
> home.

libraries have lans for public use.

> Or maybe his computer connects directly to an Internet modem and
> there is no WiFi AP.

highly unlikely since broadband modems have wifi built in.

> Maybe he doesn't live at his home, so he can not

> contract Internet.Maybe he connects via mobile and USB.

the other home probably has internet.

> Ask him. Maybe he will tell, maybe not. :-)

i did.

> It does not matter to me.

obviously.

[Frank Slootweg]

Then *why* the fsck are you arguing!?

You disputed my

<quote>

In this context - mobile devices - 5 years is a long time, i.e. *not*
"recent", period.

</quote>

by

<quote>

the context is *wifi*.

</quote>

I.e. saying the context was *not* limited to mobile devices.

BUT just now, you tried to score a point by saying that Windows did not
support Wi-Fi Direct 5-9 years back. (Which is wrong, as I mentioned in
my response to that claim of yours.)

*So in the context of this thread*, you *were* talking about (Wi-Fi
Direct) on mobile devices, because in this thread, there's only a mobile
device and a Windows PC.

So your counter "the context is *wifi*." is just a non-argument which
only caused the (non-)discussion to derail even further.

Glad we sorted that one out.

Bottom line: *Try* to keep your story straight.

EOD.

[Frank Slootweg]

Wrong again. Intel provided Wi-Fi Direct support on Windows Vista.
Vista is pre-2008.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2017-07-11 22:21, nospam wrote:
> In article <mvnf3e-...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
> <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>>> what takes a few seconds over wifi would take *minutes* over bluetooth.
>>
>> Not always in reality.
>
> yes always in reality, unless the user fucks it up somehow or uses
> horribly obsolete (and grossly insecure) equipment.
>
>>>> I get 25 Mbit/s out of WiFi in a busy apartment building, so the speed
>>>> is the comparable.
>>>
>>> only because you're using an obsolete 802.11g wifi router, and/or
>>> something is *horribly* misconfigured.
>>
>> I'm using whatever the ISP there supplies.
>
> they gave you outdated junk and it's not secure either.

How do you know that it is not secure? Have you tested it?

> buy something better.
>
> others aren't stuck with those slow speeds.
>
>> Simply there are about 50 AP in view, so the BW goes down.
>
> switch to 5 ghz, which is nowhere near as crowded, and if everyone else
> continues to use obsolete 802.11g, you'll be the only one there.

Ah, nice! Surely you will fund me buying a new laptop? I would
appreciate that. And don't forget the other room mates: laptops, phones,
etc. We will all appreciate your generosity.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2017-07-11 22:21, nospam wrote:

> In article <vmnf3e-...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
> <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> not having a lan in a house makes *no* sense. simply having a broadband
>>> router creates a lan, even if only one device connects to it.
>>>
>>> since this person claims to have a phone and a desktop computer *and*
>>> is on the internet (given that he trolls the newsgroups), he has a lan.
>>>
>>> but perhaps there's a reason. that's why i want to know why.
>>
>> Well, maybe he goes to a library to use Internet and doesn't have it at
>> home.
>
> libraries have lans for public use.

But his home is not in the library.

>
>> Or maybe his computer connects directly to an Internet modem and
>> there is no WiFi AP.
>
> highly unlikely since broadband modems have wifi built in.

Not all.
Broadband routers do have WiFi almost always.
Modems, which connect to a single computer, do not.

There are cities where you get a (single) RJ11 socket to connect your
computer to the wall in the flat. But no WiFi.

>> Maybe he doesn't live at his home, so he can not
>> contract Internet.Maybe he connects via mobile and USB.
>
> the other home probably has internet.

What other home?

>> Ask him. Maybe he will tell, maybe not. :-)
>
> i did.
>
>> It does not matter to me.
>
> obviously.

Good!

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Frank Slootweg]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <ok3i0e...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > > > wifi direct is about 5 years old and requires an updated wifi chipset
> > > >
> > > > The Intel Centrino 2 chipset already had Wi-Fi Direct in 2008, so
> > > > *NINE* years ago! *Try* to keep up!
> > >
> > > windows didn't support it, so that doesn't matter.
> >
> > Ah, I *see*! *I* am *not* allowed to limit it to mobile devices, which
> > *is* the context of the thread,
>
> nope. the context is a mobile device connecting to a desktop device.

Exactly! *Finally* you got it!

> > but *you* *are* allowed to limit it to
> > Windows, which is also the contect of the thread!
>
> *you* brought up centrino, not me.

I brought that up as a counter to your *5* years.

> which mobile devices had a centrino chip in 2008? none.

You're joking right!? The Centrino notebook line starts in *2003*!

> did anyone even
> *use* wifi direct in 2008? nope.

Intel begs to differ.

> earlier today, you said wifi direct is 5 years old, now you're trying
> to claim it's 9 years old.

Try to keep up!

That 5 years was in the context of mobile devices, i.e. in the context
of this thread, Android devices.

> > Hypocritical much!?
>
> you certainly are.

Nope. That you can't read for comprehension and can't even remember
what you wrote yourself, does not mean I'm hypocritical.

[nospam]

In article <ok3jjb...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg

<th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > > > > You're not seriously claiming that WiFi is "not well known", are
> > > > > you!?
> > > >
> > > > point to point wifi is not well known. do try to keep up.
> > >
> > > *I* have been talking Wifi Direct - i.e. point-to-point WiFi - from
> > > the get go, because *you* were talking about WiFi Direct, that is until
> > > you changed the goalposts to WiFi in general and now are changing them
> > > back again.
> >
> > i was *always* talking about wifi direct.
>
> Then *why* the fsck are you arguing!?

ain't me who is arguing.

[nospam]

In article <ok3je4...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg

<th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > > > wifi direct is about 5 years old and requires an updated wifi chipset
> > >
> > > The Intel Centrino 2 chipset already had Wi-Fi Direct in 2008, so
> > > *NINE* years ago! *Try* to keep up!
> >
> > windows didn't support it, so that doesn't matter.
>
> Wrong again. Intel provided Wi-Fi Direct support on Windows Vista.
> Vista is pre-2008.

which didn't work particularly well and vista was a market failure
anyway.

from 2009:
<http://pcunleashed.com/what-is-wi-fi-direct/>
At the moment, Wi-Fi Direct only works well on devices that are
specifically intended to connect to one another ‹ like Rokus and
their remotes. If you have a phone and a laptop that are both Wi-Fi
Direct-enabled, they will usually not connect to each other. The
protocol doesnąt yet allow effortless connections on all equipped
devices. Over the next couple of years, Wi-Fi Direct should evolve to
allow such connections.

it might have 'existed' but it wasn't widely used because it didn't
actually work all that well until recently, something which you even
agree with.

[nospam]

In article <hhpf3e-...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.

<robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:

> >>>> I get 25 Mbit/s out of WiFi in a busy apartment building, so the speed
> >>>> is the comparable.
> >>>
> >>> only because you're using an obsolete 802.11g wifi router, and/or
> >>> something is *horribly* misconfigured.
> >>
> >> I'm using whatever the ISP there supplies.
> >
> > they gave you outdated junk and it's not secure either.
>
> How do you know that it is not secure? Have you tested it?

a 15 year old router is not getting security updates anymore and hasn't
for a long, long time.

even many routers that are just 5 years old aren't getting updates
anymore.

if it's not getting updates, it's not secure and if it's connected to
the internet, you're asking for trouble.

the exploits have not been patched, just waiting for someone to pwn you.

> > buy something better.
> >
> > others aren't stuck with those slow speeds.
> >
> >> Simply there are about 50 AP in view, so the BW goes down.
> >
> > switch to 5 ghz, which is nowhere near as crowded, and if everyone else
> > continues to use obsolete 802.11g, you'll be the only one there.
>
> Ah, nice! Surely you will fund me buying a new laptop? I would
> appreciate that. And don't forget the other room mates: laptops, phones,
> etc. We will all appreciate your generosity.

nearly all laptops made in the last 10 years or so have 802.11n, most
android phones in the last several years do as well, and an 802.11n
router is less than us$20.

surely you can afford that.

split it among your roommates, and it'll be less than $10 each.

[nospam]

In article <rspf3e-...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.

<robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:

> >> Or maybe his computer connects directly to an Internet modem and
> >> there is no WiFi AP.
> >
> > highly unlikely since broadband modems have wifi built in.
>
> Not all.
> Broadband routers do have WiFi almost always.

that's what i said.

> Modems, which connect to a single computer, do not.

modems are obsolete.

> There are cities where you get a (single) RJ11 socket to connect your
> computer to the wall in the flat. But no WiFi.

almost none.

and if someone has a phone, they aren't going to be using a modem with
an rj11 jack, so we know this is *not* what he has.

>
> >> Maybe he doesn't live at his home, so he can not
> >> contract Internet.Maybe he connects via mobile and USB.
> >
> > the other home probably has internet.
>
> What other home?

the one he lives at. you said it, not me.

[nospam]

In article <ok3kf5...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg

<th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

>
> > which mobile devices had a centrino chip in 2008? none.
>
> You're joking right!?

nope.

> The Centrino notebook line starts in *2003*!

that's a laptop, not a mobile device.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_device>
A mobile device (or handheld computer) is a computing device small
enough to hold and operate in the hand.

<http://www.dictionary.com/browse/mobile-device>
mobile device
noun, Digital Technology.
1. a portable, wireless computing device that is small enough to be
used while held in the hand; a handheld:
a large selection of smartphones, PDAs, and other mobile devices.

[Frank Slootweg]

Carlos E.R. <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2017-07-11 22:21, nospam wrote:

[...]

> > highly unlikely since broadband modems have wifi built in.
>
> Not all.

Indeed.

> Broadband routers do have WiFi almost always.

Recent ones probably do. I've had (cable) broadband modems since 2003
and only the current - late 2014 - one has Wi-Fi.

[...]

[Char Jackson]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 14:39:49 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <gb4amclubtar2jbv6...@4ax.com>, Char Jackson

><no...@none.invalid> wrote:
>
>> >> >> > wifi does not need a lan or an access point. it can go direct between
>> >> >> > two devices.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It is well known.
>> >> >
>> >> >it's not well known, as it's a fairly recent addition to the spec and
>> >> >only recent wifi radios support it.
>> >>

>> >> I've been aware of, and have made limited use of, ad hoc WiFi networks
>> >> since the early to mid 90's. I don't know if I'd call that recent.
>> >
>> >i'm not talking about ad hoc, which are at best a pain in the ass.
>>
>> I started the discussion about Ad Hoc mode, so that's definitely what
>> I'm talking about.
>
>others aren't.
>
>> There's nothing PITA about it, is there? It has
>> always worked fine for me when I've wanted to use it.
>
>ad hoc is a huge pain in the ass, and you weren't using wifi in the
>early 90s either.

I wasn't? :-)

Your hard-earned tax dollars were at work, providing me and the rest of
the folks in my military unit, with equipment that you claim I wasn't
using.

We didn't find it to be a pain, but YMMV.

[Char Jackson]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 14:39:50 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <un4amcli34ckumbb1...@4ax.com>, Char Jackson

><no...@none.invalid> wrote:
>
>> >> > > > > > > > wifi does not need a lan or an access point. it can go direct
>> >> > > > > > > > between two devices.
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > It is well known.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > > it's not well known, as it's a fairly recent addition to the spec
>> >> > > > > > and only recent wifi radios support it.
>> >> > > > >

>> >> > > > > FSVSVO "recent", unless you consider 5 years to be "recent".
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > wifi is ~20 years old, so yes,
>> >> > >

>> >> > > In this context - mobile devices - 5 years is a long time, i.e. *not*
>> >> > > "recent", period.
>> >> >

>> >> > the context is *wifi*.
>> >>
>> >> Nope! *YOU* wrote (see above):
>> >>

>> >> > > > > > it's not well known, as it's a fairly recent addition to the spec
>> >> > > > > > and only recent wifi radios support it.
>> >

>> >which is *clearly* about wifi ,not mobile devices.
>> >

>> >> You're not seriously claiming that WiFi is "not well known", are you!?
>> >
>> >point to point wifi is not well known. do try to keep up.
>>

>> ~25 years should be long enough to be well known, IMHO.

>
>wifi direct is about 5 years old and requires an updated wifi chipset

>and software support, so if you don't have the latest radio you can't
>do it (and even if you do, not always). using bluetooth to
>auto-configure the link is even more recent than that, which is
>*coming* in android 'o'.

Why change the conversation to WiFi Direct? I didn't say anything about
that. I simply said WiFi in Ad Hoc mode. Let's just leave the goalposts
where they were.

>wifi itself is ~20 years, so you're wrong on that too.

>
>
>> >> > >
>> >> > > We're talking about Wi-Fi Direct, not some future networking
>> >> > > facility.
>> >> > > Wi-Fi Direct exists in Android (4.1) for *five years*, period.
>> >> >
>> >> > but not wifi aware, which is newer:
>> >>
>> >> And is yet another one of your red-herrings!
>> >>
>> >> Who gives a toss about some *future* networking facility, which is
>> >> *not* under discussion!?
>> >
>> >it's not the future.
>> >

>> >ios devices have done it for a while.
>>

>> Oh no, I'm getting the sinking feeling that your claim that Ad Hoc mode
>> is "recent" has something to do with ios support. I sure hope not.
>
>i'm not talking about ad hoc mode.

The topic is WiFi in Ad Hoc mode. If you want to discuss something else,
you should make it clear that you've changed topics.

>ad hoc mode is a huge pain in the ass for all sorts of reasons.

From an Apple perspective, perhaps. I had no significant issues with it,
going back farther than you say it even existed.

[Char Jackson]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 15:00:56 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>*new* wifi routers sell for under $20, or get an older used one for a
>buck or two, maybe even for free.

Which "under $20" WiFi routers are on your recommended list? There are
none on mine, so I'm happy to sync up with you.

[Char Jackson]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 15:53:56 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

That's with your "under $20" WiFi router? What's the make and model
number? I may want one for myself.

[Char Jackson]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 16:59:44 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <rspf3e-...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
><robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>> >> Or maybe his computer connects directly to an Internet modem and
>> >> there is no WiFi AP.
>> >
>> > highly unlikely since broadband modems have wifi built in.
>>
>> Not all.
>> Broadband routers do have WiFi almost always.
>
>that's what i said.
>
>> Modems, which connect to a single computer, do not.
>
>modems are obsolete.

That will come as a great surprise to the modem manufacturers and the
millions of people who currently use them to get Internet access via
cable or DSL. What took their place?

[Carlos E.R.]

yeah, sure. ROTFL!

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2017-07-11 22:59, nospam wrote:

> In article <rspf3e-...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
> <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>> Or maybe his computer connects directly to an Internet modem and
>>>> there is no WiFi AP.
>>>
>>> highly unlikely since broadband modems have wifi built in.
>>
>> Not all.
>> Broadband routers do have WiFi almost always.
>
> that's what i said.
>
>> Modems, which connect to a single computer, do not.
>
> modems are obsolete.

Maybe in the USA, but many people are using them.

Hint: a modem doesn't necessarily mean a POTS thing. Rather, a fibre or
cable thing, doing perhaps 100 Mbps.

>> There are cities where you get a (single) RJ11 socket to connect your
>> computer to the wall in the flat. But no WiFi.
>
> almost none.

To your knowledge :-P

>
> and if someone has a phone, they aren't going to be using a modem with
> an rj11 jack, so we know this is *not* what he has.

I'm not talking of those "modems".

>>
>>>> Maybe he doesn't live at his home, so he can not
>>>> contract Internet.Maybe he connects via mobile and USB.
>>>
>>> the other home probably has internet.
>>
>> What other home?
>
> the one he lives at. you said it, not me.

No, I said that perhaps he lives somewhere that is not HIS home, he
doesn't own it. I did not say anything about another home.


--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Carlos E.R.]

Right :-)

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2017-07-12 00:07, Char Jackson wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 15:53:56 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> In article <n2lf3e-...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
>> <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have used BT for file transfer, worked fine.
>>>>
>>>> that must have been very tiny files.
>>>
>>> Several photos and videos.
>>
>> that must have taken a long time.
>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth
>>>
>>> Bluetooth version Maximum speed Maximum range
>>> 3.0 25 Mbit/s 10 meters (33 ft)
>>> 4.0 25 Mbit/s 60 meters (200 ft)
>>> 5 50 Mbit/s 240 meters (800 ft)
>>
>> bluetooth 5 doesn't count and those speeds are theoretical anyway.
>> actual throughput is worse.
>>
>> <https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2017/5/26/15687670/bluetooth-5-
>> anker-incipio-griffin-iphone-samsung-coming-soon>
>> HOW LONG WILL YOU HAVE TO WAIT FOR BLUETOOTH 5 GADGETS?

>> Likely until early 2018. Companies haven¹t started building devices

>> that support Bluetooth 5 yet, because the Galaxy S8 is the only phone
>> that currently supports the standard. But that will begin to change
>> over the next few months.
>>
>> <http://www.androidauthority.com/bluetooth-5-samsung-galaxy-s8-774560/>
>> Most notably I was able to clear up the huge confusion around the
>> ideas that Bluetooth 5 offers 4 times the range and twice the speed.
>> In fact it turns out that Bluetooth 5 does offer (almost) twice the
>> throughput when the two communicating devices are close to each
>> other, but towards the edge of the possible range I demonstrated that
>> Bluetooth 5 has the same throughput as Bluetooth 4.
>>
>> meanwhile, 802.11ac has a theoretical maximum of 7 *gigabit*, which is
>> over two orders of magnitude faster.
>>
>> real world speeds will be less (especially without wave 2) but it's
>> still way the hell faster than bluetooth ever will be.
>>
>> <https://www.extremetech.com/computing/160837-what-is-802-11ac-and-how-m
>> uch-faster-than-802-11n-is-it>
>> 802.11ac will only get faster, too. As we mentioned earlier, the
>> theoretical max speed of 802.11ac is just shy of 7Gbps ‹ and while

>> you¹ll never hit that in a real-world scenario, we wouldn¹t be

>> surprised to see link speeds of 2Gbps or more in the next few years.

>> At 2Gbps, you¹ll get a transfer rate of 256MB/sec, and suddenly

>> Ethernet serves less and less purpose if that happens. To reach such
>> speeds, chipset and device makers will need to implement four or more
>> 802.11ac streams, both in terms of software and hardware.
>>
>> what takes a few seconds over wifi would take *minutes* over bluetooth.
>>
>>> I get 25 Mbit/s out of WiFi in a busy apartment building, so the speed
>>> is the comparable.
>>
>> only because you're using an obsolete 802.11g wifi router, and/or
>> something is *horribly* misconfigured.
>>
>> don't assume that your super-shitty wifi is how it is for everyone else.
>>
>> i get roughly gigabit speeds over wifi (just under 900 mbit).
>
> That's with your "under $20" WiFi router? What's the make and model
> number? I may want one for myself.

LOL. Good catch. Me too wants one. Or a bunch.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2017-07-11 22:59, nospam wrote:

> In article <hhpf3e-...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
> <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>>> I get 25 Mbit/s out of WiFi in a busy apartment building, so the speed
>>>>>> is the comparable.
>>>>>
>>>>> only because you're using an obsolete 802.11g wifi router, and/or
>>>>> something is *horribly* misconfigured.
>>>>
>>>> I'm using whatever the ISP there supplies.
>>>
>>> they gave you outdated junk and it's not secure either.
>>
>> How do you know that it is not secure? Have you tested it?
>
> a 15 year old router is not getting security updates anymore and hasn't
> for a long, long time.

And you know it is 15 years old, how exactly?
Because it ain't.

> even many routers that are just 5 years old aren't getting updates
> anymore.

Maybe I use openwrt.

> if it's not getting updates, it's not secure and if it's connected to
> the internet, you're asking for trouble.
>
> the exploits have not been patched, just waiting for someone to pwn you.
>
>>> buy something better.
>>>
>>> others aren't stuck with those slow speeds.
>>>
>>>> Simply there are about 50 AP in view, so the BW goes down.
>>>
>>> switch to 5 ghz, which is nowhere near as crowded, and if everyone else
>>> continues to use obsolete 802.11g, you'll be the only one there.
>>
>> Ah, nice! Surely you will fund me buying a new laptop? I would
>> appreciate that. And don't forget the other room mates: laptops, phones,
>> etc. We will all appreciate your generosity.
>
> nearly all laptops made in the last 10 years or so have 802.11n, most
> android phones in the last several years do as well, and an 802.11n
> router is less than us$20.
>
> surely you can afford that.
>
> split it among your roommates, and it'll be less than $10 each.

No split. Each one wants a new laptop 5G capable. You provide it, be
generous.


--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Lucifer Morningstar]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 11:26:01 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <ok2s2o...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg

><th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
>> > > >
>> > > > wifi does not need a lan or an access point. it can go direct between
>> > > > two devices.
>> > >
>> > > It is well known.
>>
>> > it's not well known, as it's a fairly recent addition to the spec and
>> > only recent wifi radios support it.
>>
>> FSVSVO "recent", unless you consider 5 years to be "recent".
>

>wifi is ~20 years old, so yes, and its still not widely adopted yet
>including android, which will be in 'o', a system that doesn't even
>have an official name.
>
><https://developer.android.com/preview/features/wifi-aware.html>

Totally unnecessary as wi-fi already implements ad-hoc.

[Lucifer Morningstar]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 12:50:35 -0500, M.L. <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:

>
>
>>Powerful Bluetooth hardware is the correct answer to the question.
>>
>>This question is just asking advice about which powerful Bluetooth hardware
>>(make and model) people actually use and like best to connect an Android
>>device to a Windows PC.
>
>Another option is a bluetooth speaker. They can be just as loud as
>desktop speakers and can power from batteries and be used while
>recharging.

Not useful for file transfers.

[Dave Doe]

In article <ok1ob6$60b$1...@news.albasani.net>, djenki...@plusnet.uk,
Dan Jenkins says...
>
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 22:59:43 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> I want bluetooth for only two things (but you can suggest more).
> >> (1) To transfer files back & forth without having to join a local LAN
> >
> > apparently you aren't aware that it's slower than wifi or usb,
> > otherwise you wouldn't be asking for that.
>
> Thank you for trying to help but please don't try to help if you're going
> to completely ignore the original post by suggesting everything I already
> know and which has nothing whatsoever to do with the original question.

>
> Powerful Bluetooth hardware is the correct answer to the question.
>

> WiFi is impossible for a PC that is not even on a LAN.
> USB cable is inconvenient when going from floor to floor.
> Same with speaker cables.

>
> Powerful Bluetooth hardware is the correct answer to the question.
>
> This question is just asking advice about which powerful Bluetooth hardware
> (make and model) people actually use and like best to connect an Android
> device to a Windows PC.

You would still be better, IMO, to use WiFi. It's so much faster, and
probably cheap as chips to purchase a WiFi USB stick vs Bluetooth (OK,
maybe about the same $).

And just do peer-to-peer - phone to PC - on WiFi. *Much* faster - than
Bluetooth.

--
Duncan.

[nospam]

In article <MPG.33d0236ce...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Dave Doe <ha...@work.ok> wrote:

> > >> I want bluetooth for only two things (but you can suggest more).
> > >> (1) To transfer files back & forth without having to join a local LAN
> > >
> > > apparently you aren't aware that it's slower than wifi or usb,
> > > otherwise you wouldn't be asking for that.
> >
> > Thank you for trying to help but please don't try to help if you're going
> > to completely ignore the original post by suggesting everything I already
> > know and which has nothing whatsoever to do with the original question.
> >
> > Powerful Bluetooth hardware is the correct answer to the question.
> >
> > WiFi is impossible for a PC that is not even on a LAN.
> > USB cable is inconvenient when going from floor to floor.
> > Same with speaker cables.
> >
> > Powerful Bluetooth hardware is the correct answer to the question.
> >
> > This question is just asking advice about which powerful Bluetooth hardware
> > (make and model) people actually use and like best to connect an Android
> > device to a Windows PC.
>
> You would still be better, IMO, to use WiFi. It's so much faster, and
> probably cheap as chips to purchase a WiFi USB stick vs Bluetooth (OK,
> maybe about the same $).
>
> And just do peer-to-peer - phone to PC - on WiFi. *Much* faster - than
> Bluetooth.

yep.

[nospam]

In article <h4iamclg05038aott...@4ax.com>, Char Jackson

<no...@none.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> >> >> > wifi does not need a lan or an access point. it can go direct
> >> >> >> > between two devices.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> It is well known.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >it's not well known, as it's a fairly recent addition to the spec and
> >> >> >only recent wifi radios support it.
> >> >>
> >> >> I've been aware of, and have made limited use of, ad hoc WiFi networks
> >> >> since the early to mid 90's. I don't know if I'd call that recent.
> >> >
> >> >i'm not talking about ad hoc, which are at best a pain in the ass.
> >>
> >> I started the discussion about Ad Hoc mode, so that's definitely what
> >> I'm talking about.
> >
> >others aren't.
> >
> >> There's nothing PITA about it, is there? It has
> >> always worked fine for me when I've wanted to use it.
> >
> >ad hoc is a huge pain in the ass, and you weren't using wifi in the
> >early 90s either.
>
> I wasn't? :-)

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11#802.11-1997_.28802.11_legacy.
29>
The original version of the standard IEEE 802.11 was released in 1997
and clarified in 1999, but is now obsolete.

whatever you were using was not (yet) wifi and could not interoperate
with anything else.

> Your hard-earned tax dollars were at work, providing me and the rest of
> the folks in my military unit, with equipment that you claim I wasn't
> using.

not public, so not relevant.

> We didn't find it to be a pain, but YMMV.

it was and still is.

[nospam]

In article <vaiamclraalmbbe5c...@4ax.com>, Char Jackson

<no...@none.invalid> wrote:

> >> >> > > > > > > > wifi does not need a lan or an access point. it can go
> >> >> > > > > > > > direct between two devices.
> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > It is well known.
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > it's not well known, as it's a fairly recent addition to the
> >> >> > > > > > spec and only recent wifi radios support it.
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > FSVSVO "recent", unless you consider 5 years to be "recent".
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > wifi is ~20 years old, so yes,
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > In this context - mobile devices - 5 years is a long time, i.e.

> >> >> > > *not* *recent", period.

> >> >> >
> >> >> > the context is *wifi*.
> >> >>
> >> >> Nope! *YOU* wrote (see above):
> >> >>
> >> >> > > > > > it's not well known, as it's a fairly recent addition to the
> >> >> > > > > > spec and only recent wifi radios support it.
> >> >
> >> >which is *clearly* about wifi ,not mobile devices.
> >> >
> >> >> You're not seriously claiming that WiFi is "not well known", are you!?
> >> >
> >> >point to point wifi is not well known. do try to keep up.
> >>
> >> ~25 years should be long enough to be well known, IMHO.
> >
> >wifi direct is about 5 years old and requires an updated wifi chipset
> >and software support, so if you don't have the latest radio you can't
> >do it (and even if you do, not always). using bluetooth to
> >auto-configure the link is even more recent than that, which is
> >*coming* in android 'o'.
>
> Why change the conversation to WiFi Direct? I didn't say anything about
> that. I simply said WiFi in Ad Hoc mode. Let's just leave the goalposts
> where they were.

i never mentioned ad hoc mode.

i said:
> >> >> > > > > > > > wifi does not need a lan or an access point. it can go
> >> >> > > > > > > > direct between two devices.

do you see ad hoc? nope.

that means you're the one moving the goalposts.

> >> >> > > We're talking about Wi-Fi Direct, not some future networking
> >> >> > > facility.
> >> >> > > Wi-Fi Direct exists in Android (4.1) for *five years*, period.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > but not wifi aware, which is newer:
> >> >>
> >> >> And is yet another one of your red-herrings!
> >> >>
> >> >> Who gives a toss about some *future* networking facility, which is
> >> >> *not* under discussion!?
> >> >
> >> >it's not the future.
> >> >
> >> >ios devices have done it for a while.
> >>
> >> Oh no, I'm getting the sinking feeling that your claim that Ad Hoc mode
> >> is "recent" has something to do with ios support. I sure hope not.
> >
> >i'm not talking about ad hoc mode.
>
> The topic is WiFi in Ad Hoc mode. If you want to discuss something else,
> you should make it clear that you've changed topics.

i haven't changed anything.

the topic has never been ad hoc mode. i never mentioned ad hoc mode.

i said:
> >> >> > > > > > > > wifi does not need a lan or an access point. it can go
> >> >> > > > > > > > direct between two devices.

do you see ad hoc? nope.

you mistakenly assumed ad hoc because that's all you know.

> >ad hoc mode is a huge pain in the ass for all sorts of reasons.
>
> From an Apple perspective, perhaps. I had no significant issues with it,
> going back farther than you say it even existed.

ad hoc is no different on apple than anything else. it's a pain in the
ass from any perspective.

nothing is as easy or as convenient as automatically setting up and
tearing down a wifi link, without even disconnecting from whatever wifi
network the devices are currently associated with.