| Author |
is bluetooth better than infra red |
zuhib
Joined: Apr 20, 2003
Posts: 69
From: z_zaffar@hotmail.com
PM |
i just wanna know the comparison that if blutooth was better than infra red for data transfer. |
|
|
ctota
Joined: Apr 25, 2003
Posts: 6
From: India
PM, WWW
|
HI ZUHIB...
am definitely no rocket scientist... but sure know that blue tooth is faster.. and less complicated...!! the devices need not be in front of each other for bluetooth operations...for starters...
cherish |
davio
Joined: May 23, 2003
Posts: 135
PM, WWW
|
but someone said that they got 6kb rate data transfer!! was that right? |
jangelo
Joined: Nov 23, 2002
Posts: 23
From: Philippines
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2003-05-29 14:07:57, zuhib wrote:
.. blutooth was better than infra red for data transfer.
|
|
generally, better, yes. no need for line-of-sight to communicate between two devices. IR is better, though, in terms of compatibility. i mean, if i were to choose between buying an infrared bridge or bluetooth key for my PC, i'd get the IR, so i can also use it with my other devices (i.e. other non-BT phones, pda, etc).
at any rate, these are two different protocols/means of communication with their own respective uses. BT is great for non-LOS type of applications, i.e. using a headset, bluejacking (hehehe), or connecting to your PC while your phone is in your pocket. IR on the other hand will suffice if you don't need the abovementioned, and would just like to connect wirelessly. |
C3P800
Joined: Mar 10, 2003
Posts: 11
From: EARTH
PM, WWW
|
i think it's much better; BT transfers files faster and removes compatibility issue. Like if i try sending wave files from my P8 to my sisters 7650, her unit sometimes hang, but if i send it thru BT, it transfers the files w/o any glitch.
www.c34x4.com 
PUT THE F#@$#! PHONE ON! |
pachy
Joined: Nov 05, 2002
Posts: > 500
PM |
BT has security issues but you wouldnt catch me bothering with IR & having to line up the devices for ages on long downloads like transfering your entire phonebook or similar. |
Footstep
Joined: May 08, 2003
Posts: 39
PM |
Technical Bluetooth isn't faster than IRDA:
IRDA: 4 Mbps
Bluetooth: < 1 Mbps
[ This Message was edited by: Footstep on 2003-05-30 12:06 ] |
wrath000
Joined: May 14, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Norway
PM |
I have never seen IRDA function at 4mbps. It's just like when serial port reports connection speed at 10mbps. Bluetooth is much faster, and much more reliable, but also more expensive. However it's becoming more and more common, so I'd go for bluetooth |
dlfretz
Joined: May 17, 2003
Posts: 35
From: Houston, TX USA
PM, WWW
|
I have seen IR transfer somewhere around 2Mbps in the real world and Bluetooth average ~1MBpm. The Bluetooth test file transfer was a 30 MB MP3 between a Mac G4 and an IBM Thinkpad without Encryption. It did take approximately slightly longer than 30 minutes.
[ This Message was edited by: dlfretz on 2003-06-02 06:31 ] |
Footstep
Joined: May 08, 2003
Posts: 39
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2003-05-30 13:20:33, wrath000 wrote:
I have never seen IRDA function at 4mbps. It's just like when serial port reports connection speed at 10mbps. Bluetooth is much faster, and much more reliable, but also more expensive. However it's becoming more and more common, so I'd go for bluetooth
|
|
Look at this product: IRMate IR410U
Don't wait for the first bug-free Nokia phone; life's too short! |
JohnDoe
Joined: Jun 03, 2003
Posts: 13
PM |
Bluetooth is definitely better than ifra red - much faster and more reliable. |
mmsman
Joined: Dec 14, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: slovenia
PM |
Bluetooth is much faster than ir (try sending a 6MB song from p800 via Bluetooth and then vi ir and you will see the difference)
Bluetooth
Ir  |
Jonw
Joined: Jun 03, 2003
Posts: 7
PM |
I used to use IR with my Psion - it was so slow |
binoblaine05
Joined: Mar 30, 2003
Posts: 480
From: HOGWARTZ
PM |
the blue tooth has got the edge... |
|
|
Posted: 2003-05-29 14:07
