Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 58
  1.    #1  
    FIRST OFF!!! Don't crap this thread with morality and politics 'cause this isn't the place

    Second: the article on Engadget that said 650 won't support the new Wi-Fi card has been taken down

    Bleh

    and double bleh
    La Vie En Diaspora: Enfin, une émission qui raconte votre vie aux Etats-Unis

    Treo 600 in December '03, Treo 650 in February '05, HTC TyTN Pro in August '06, and back to Treo 750 in January '07, find me at MyTreo.net

    About me: story of the 100thMonkey
  2. #2  
    bt 1.1 equals no wi-fi
  3. #3  
    eh? How do bluetooth and 802.11 inter/relate?
    "The danger from computers is not that they will eventually get as smart as men, but that we will agree to meet them halfway." -Bernard Avishai
    "Computers are a lot like air conditioners - they both work great until you open windows." -Anonymous

  4.    #4  
    BT 1.2 was made to not interfere and co-exist with Wi-Fi

    less than 1.2, i.e. 1.1, everything gets garbeled
    La Vie En Diaspora: Enfin, une émission qui raconte votre vie aux Etats-Unis

    Treo 600 in December '03, Treo 650 in February '05, HTC TyTN Pro in August '06, and back to Treo 750 in January '07, find me at MyTreo.net

    About me: story of the 100thMonkey
  5. #5  
    ah I see, thanks for the info. . . huh, makes me wonder about the bluetooth in my laptap. . . any way to check?
    "The danger from computers is not that they will eventually get as smart as men, but that we will agree to meet them halfway." -Bernard Avishai
    "Computers are a lot like air conditioners - they both work great until you open windows." -Anonymous

  6. chankla's Avatar
    Posts
    136 Posts
    Global Posts
    137 Global Posts
    #6  
    With the Treo 650's software getting a make-over to become more aligned with the T3 built-in firmware, any chance that the new WiFi card would work in the Treo 650?

    Any of the people who are "in the know" pick up on this piece of information yet?
    (My apologies if it has already been posted - but on a site as dynamic as this one, it is hard to keep track of all the threads!)
  7. #7  
    Engadget is a very unreliable source imo... so I wouldn't completely trust everything they post...

    Fyi, I recall reading that there was a possibility that the SD wifi card may work on the Ace with the wireless mode off which would give it enough power. However, I doubt P1 would release the drivers to make it work...
    _________________
    aka Gfunkmagic

    Current device: Palm Pre
    Device graveyard: Palm Vx, Cassiopeia E100, LG Phenom HPC, Palm M515, Treo 300, Treo 600, Treo 650, Treo 700p, Axim X50v, Treo 800w



    Please don't PM me about my avatar. For more info go here.

    Restore your Pre to factory settings using webos doctor and follow these instructions
  8. #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikec
    bt 1.1 equals no wi-fi

    That's assuming BT and wifi are on at the same time. Assuming the Ace uses the 1.1 ver and the SD wifi card works, that doesn't preclude that you could use wifi card on the Treo...just that you probably couldn't use both wifi and BT at the same time...
    _________________
    aka Gfunkmagic

    Current device: Palm Pre
    Device graveyard: Palm Vx, Cassiopeia E100, LG Phenom HPC, Palm M515, Treo 300, Treo 600, Treo 650, Treo 700p, Axim X50v, Treo 800w



    Please don't PM me about my avatar. For more info go here.

    Restore your Pre to factory settings using webos doctor and follow these instructions
  9.    #9  
    yup
    La Vie En Diaspora: Enfin, une émission qui raconte votre vie aux Etats-Unis

    Treo 600 in December '03, Treo 650 in February '05, HTC TyTN Pro in August '06, and back to Treo 750 in January '07, find me at MyTreo.net

    About me: story of the 100thMonkey
  10. #10  
    Let's be perfectly clear. Bluetooth and WiFi can, and do, exist on the same platform with minimal issues presently. My Apple PowerBook has both WiFi and Bluetooth 1.1 (specs here) and I have used both at the same time. GPRS data connection to T-Mobile over a Nokia 6310i with network sharing to an ad-hoc wireless network.

    It works.

    Now, let's talk about the engineering aspects of what seems to have everybody up in arms right at the moment. Both Bluetooth and WiFi use spread-spectrum technologies to transmit and receive data. WiFi uses Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum (DSSS), meaning that it occupies one channel that is 22Mhz wide (11 channels total in the 2.4 Ghz ISM band for WiFi, only three of those [1, 6, 11] do not overlap) and that the carrier energy is spread through a PN (Pseudo-Noise) code across the width of that channel. Bluetooth uses Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS), meaning that the carrier frequency is shifted on a rotating basis with 79 channels to hop through, each channel occupying an instantaneous 1 Mhz of spectrum. What people normally think of as interference does not really apply to spread-spectrum techniques. When you think interference you probably are thinking about hearing one station on top of another on your radio, and to some extent it works this way, but its only a metaphor with which to build an understanding. Spread spectrum technologies are very robust and highly immune to interference, that's one reason the military loves them. Interference when it comes to SS technologies is more about the "noise" on the channel when the signal is de-spread. In the de-spreading process any inteference on the "channel" becomes spread out (noise or interference does not match "spread code" and therefore gets spread out in the de-spreading process) and raises the apparent noise-floor at the next stage in the receiver. So up to a point, where the noise floor becomes high enough to cover the de-spread signal into the next stage of the receiver, SS is fairly immune to interference. Probably not the best explanation, I'm sure there are people who can better explain the technical details, but that's a start at tilting the windmill.

    Lastly, both Bluetooth and WiFi have interference robustness built into them. If BT loses data on a channel, depending which mode the device is in, it will be re-transmitted through ARQ (Automatic Repeat Request). Or that data may just be gone and it may not matter (voice connection) that a few bits are missing (ain't the human mind a wonderful error-correcting device?!?). Likewise, in the case of interference to WiFi the devices will back down their speeds until they can get the data through (backing down on the speed increases the bit time and allows the receiver more time for recovery of each bit). So both technologies have methods of handling interference over and above what is available through their use of spread-spectrum. In the end will WiFi and BT interfere with each other? Yes. Will you notice it? In most cases I would suggest probably not. And if you do, it will be a matter of one or both technologies "slowing down" and not a complete failure of both.
  11. #11  
    meta, that was a nice explanation, but in practice, it doesn't bear out.

    apple employs a proprietary power modulation scheme to reduce (but not eliminate) bt and wi-fi interference.

    define interference any way you want, but when people can't understand you on a bt headset because the wi-fi connection (11b/g), it is a problem.

    I have tested extensively and the results are the same.

    bt 1.2 was made to address this.

    no bt 1.2 means users doing both are *** out.
  12. #12  
    So if Wi-Fi is turned off, will BT be fully functional and vice versa?
    Ed
    Visor Deluxe, Prism, Visorphone, Treo 270, Treo 600, Treo 650, and am eagerly waiting for the next generation Treo...but wait...is that the iPhone????
  13. #13  
    if the only conflict is that there radio signals interfere with eachother thon that would be how it is.
    "The danger from computers is not that they will eventually get as smart as men, but that we will agree to meet them halfway." -Bernard Avishai
    "Computers are a lot like air conditioners - they both work great until you open windows." -Anonymous

  14. #14  
    So does that mean if you walk into a building and the building is using wifi and you have a bt 1.1 headset that you are trying to talk on (your phone doesn't even have wifi) that you will lose connection? or do you have to be right next to the transmitter?

    I'm just curiousity. Maybe that's why people were so staticy when this whole bt thing started.
  15. #15  
    Guys, you are both right. Bluetooth 1.2 was designed to be more WiFi freindly. Ironically, Bluetooth 1.1 was billed that way too, but after implementations started comming out, they realized they had more work to do.

    That all being said, you can always turn off the Bluetooth radio. But that ain't gonna be the issue either.

    The issue is going to come down to two things: Battery power / SDIO power, and PalmOne.

    The SDIO port has to support enough power to support it.

    And Palm has been releasing drivers (as I understand it) as ROM updates. This limits the ability for hackers to try and mess with it to provide support for an unsupported platform.

    End result, speculation is useles. We need to wait. It is no use to get all worked up yet.
  16. #16  
    I don't see why it would be something that PalmOne doesn't want to provide though. WiFi isn't a thing like bluetooth where all the carriers are scared of it. I think carriers would be happy to see wifi, because it gives them more options and PalmOne would be happy to sell some wifi sd cards. It's just a huge power sucker. I just want wifi for printing and wireless syncing or file transfer. I don't think I'd bother with the sd card.
  17. #17  
    Your cannot "upgrade" from BT 1.1 to 1.2 via software/rom flash.

    it is a hard chipset spec.

    it your device has 1.1, you are stuck.

    and to answer a question posted above, yes, if you are using a BT 1.1 headset and you go somewhere with wi-fi (home, hotspot, office, etc.), you will get distortion. since BT is low power, and wi-fi is high power, wi-fi clobbers BT.

    as was mentioned, BT 1.2 was made to address this. The spec is a year old. To release a device with 1.1 now is as retarded as putting non-saftey glass in a new car.
  18. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikec
    meta, that was a nice explanation, but in practice, it doesn't bear out.

    apple employs a proprietary power modulation scheme to reduce (but not eliminate) bt and wi-fi interference.

    define interference any way you want, but when people can't understand you on a bt headset because the wi-fi connection (11b/g), it is a problem.

    I have tested extensively and the results are the same.

    bt 1.2 was made to address this.

    no bt 1.2 means users doing both are *** out.
    Mike,

    Please point me to an article, white paper, engineering schematics, code snippet... anything that shows that Apple is employing some form of "power modulation scheme" to resolve interference issues on their hardware. An admittedly cursory check of both Google and Apple's knowledge bases turns up nothing. Note that I admitted to only a cursory check. (Although, I did find this article in Apple's KB)

    I did not redefine interference. I simply stated that interference, as it is thought of in common (analog) terms, is not the same when dealing with spread spectrum technologies or other digital radio technologies. A good explanation of how spread spectrum works can be found at Spread Spectrum Scene. Here is a little more in-depth explanation from Virginia Polytechnic Institute. The interesting thing to note about almost all descriptions of SS is that to a narrow-band reciver SS appears to be noise. Conversely, when an SS signal is de-spread, all the other signals that are in the SS receiver's passband are spread out and look more noise-like, thereby raising the noise floor in the next stage of the receiver.

    That said (with links), it should be noted that I did not state that interference would not be an issue. It is. But in my experience it is not as "painful" as we would be led to believe. As I stated previously, I have used both technologies at the same time to provide data connectivity (BT link to a GPRS phone, shared to an ad-hoc 802.11b/g network), and I have used BT headsets in environments very close to (installing and configuring) WiFi gear. Yes, I have encountered interference on the headset, but it was not intolerable (no worse than some cell connections. To which, I am sure, we are all accustomed). Even Ericcson's whitepaper on Bluetooth Advanced Frequency Hopping acknowledges that voice quality would suffer... "Coexistence in the unlicensed 2.4 GHz band however, comes with a price. Unlicensed means that competing, or complementary, technologies are free to operate in this frequency band, which has in turn given rise to interference that impinges on the quality of communication. To most users, deterioration of quality may be more apparent in voice centric applications than in data centric applications. (emphasis mine) For example, one is more likely to be aware of poor sound quality while using a Bluetooth headset than of the extent to which data packets must be retransmitted between one's notebook PC and a network access point."

    I agree that Bluetooth 1.2 will go further towards resolving interference issues with AFH. We are beginning to see the advent of "smart radio".

    My personal experience is that, even with Bluetooth version less-than 1.2, things generally work. I guess that we both need to agree to disagree and that individual user's mileage may vary!
  19. #19  
    You guys can continue with your 1.1 vs. 1.2 discussion, but I just wanted to say that when you use the palmOne WiFi card, you need to turn off BT. It's a requirement.

    You can now continue with your discussion .
    Current setup: myTouch 4G Slide (main), hp Pre2 and Veer 4G (backups)
  20. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by MetaTreo
    Mike,

    Please point me to an article, white paper, engineering schematics, code snippet... anything that shows that Apple is employing some form of "power modulation scheme" to resolve interference issues on their hardware. An admittedly cursory check of both Google and Apple's knowledge bases turns up nothing. Note that I admitted to only a cursory check. (Although, I did find this article in Apple's KB)

    I did not redefine interference. I simply stated that interference, as it is thought of in common (analog) terms, is not the same when dealing with spread spectrum technologies or other digital radio technologies. A good explanation of how spread spectrum works can be found at Spread Spectrum Scene. Here is a little more in-depth explanation from Virginia Polytechnic Institute. The interesting thing to note about almost all descriptions of SS is that to a narrow-band reciver SS appears to be noise. Conversely, when an SS signal is de-spread, all the other signals that are in the SS receiver's passband are spread out and look more noise-like, thereby raising the noise floor in the next stage of the receiver.

    That said (with links), it should be noted that I did not state that interference would not be an issue. It is. But in my experience it is not as "painful" as we would be led to believe. As I stated previously, I have used both technologies at the same time to provide data connectivity (BT link to a GPRS phone, shared to an ad-hoc 802.11b/g network), and I have used BT headsets in environments very close to (installing and configuring) WiFi gear. Yes, I have encountered interference on the headset, but it was not intolerable (no worse than some cell connections. To which, I am sure, we are all accustomed). Even Ericcson's whitepaper on Bluetooth Advanced Frequency Hopping acknowledges that voice quality would suffer... "Coexistence in the unlicensed 2.4 GHz band however, comes with a price. Unlicensed means that competing, or complementary, technologies are free to operate in this frequency band, which has in turn given rise to interference that impinges on the quality of communication. To most users, deterioration of quality may be more apparent in voice centric applications than in data centric applications. (emphasis mine) For example, one is more likely to be aware of poor sound quality while using a Bluetooth headset than of the extent to which data packets must be retransmitted between one's notebook PC and a network access point."

    I agree that Bluetooth 1.2 will go further towards resolving interference issues with AFH. We are beginning to see the advent of "smart radio".

    My personal experience is that, even with Bluetooth version less-than 1.2, things generally work. I guess that we both need to agree to disagree and that individual user's mileage may vary!
    Power modulation is maybe the wrong term; I was recalling from hatoncat, who had mentioned something to that effect. It may be frequency modulation instead; but I also think there is something power related to it.

    As evidence, note this Apple link; the firmware makes the adapter non-usable with any non-mac equipment. Sounds pretty non-standard to me.

    http://www.apple.com/downloads/macos...reupdater.html

    A few more links that talk about Apple and "dynamic avoidance", which was what I am referring to.

    http://macslash.org/article.pl?sid=0...mode=nocomment

    http://www.virtualomni.com/archives/...6_archive.html

    And of course, a nice article about BT and 802.11b not being compatible:

    http://josephdamiano.com/Articles/Damiano-Wireless.htm

    Now, I am not saying it will not work together. I am just saying that generally, you will have interference issues.

    Apple is doing something non-standard, so you cannot
    count that as "working". The other 90% of people using PCs with 802.11b and BT 1.1 are going to have issues.

    Bottom line: PalmOne is making a HUGE MISTAKE not using BT 1.2.
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions