|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cingular cell phone service > August 2006 > USB Bluetooth Adapter Question
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
USB Bluetooth Adapter Question
|
|
|
| We've got a Samsung SGH-d807 and Nokia Nokia 6102i. Can they each connect
to a single USB Bluetooth adapter separately connected to my PC? Also, is
there a specific USB Bluetooth adapter I need to obtain? I'd like to use
the same USB Bluetooth for each phones to transfer files. TIA.
Regards,
Joe
| |
| John Navas 2006-08-17, 10:33 pm |
| On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:06:57 GMT, Joe <nobody@home.now> wrote in
< Xns98224869196EEnosp
amforme@216.77.188.18>:
>We've got a Samsung SGH-d807 and Nokia Nokia 6102i. Can they each connect
>to a single USB Bluetooth adapter separately connected to my PC?
Yes.
>Also, is
>there a specific USB Bluetooth adapter I need to obtain?
Get a good one that's Bluetooth 1.2 spec. Newegg.com is a good online
source.
>I'd like to use
>the same USB Bluetooth for each phones to transfer files. TIA.
Of course.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| St. John Smythe 2006-08-17, 10:33 pm |
| John Navas wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:06:57 GMT, Joe <nobody@home.now> wrote in
> < Xns98224869196EEnosp
amforme@216.77.188.18>:
>
> Get a good one that's Bluetooth 1.2 spec.
Why not accommodate the faster capability, i.e., the 6102i's Bluetooth
2.0? The 2.0 devices are backward compatible, after all.
--
St. John
We secure our friends not by accepting favors but by doing them.
-Thucydides
| |
| John Navas 2006-08-17, 10:33 pm |
| On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 18:28:04 -0400, "St. John Smythe" <sinjen@n4vu.com>
wrote in <ec2qhk$43i$5@n4vu2.n4vu.com>:
>John Navas wrote:
>
>Why not accommodate the faster capability, i.e., the 6102i's Bluetooth
>2.0? The 2.0 devices are backward compatible, after all.
* A lot more expensive.
* Not as mature and stable.
* Probably won't actually deliver noticeably better performance.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
news:i0s9e210bpuqr55
1l3t3cdd0rrhpqeom7e@
4ax.com:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 18:28:04 -0400, "St. John Smythe"
> <sinjen@n4vu.com> wrote in <ec2qhk$43i$5@n4vu2.n4vu.com>:
>
>
> * A lot more expensive.
> * Not as mature and stable.
> * Probably won't actually deliver noticeably better performance.
Thanks very much for the input, guys.
Regards,
Joe
| |
| St. John Smythe 2006-08-18, 7:33 am |
| John Navas wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 18:28:04 -0400, "St. John Smythe"
> <sinjen@n4vu.com> wrote in <ec2qhk$43i$5@n4vu2.n4vu.com>:
>
> * A lot more expensive.
A Froogle check shows the prices to be identical -- well no, actually
2.0 dongles are a few pennies cheaper, starting at $7.49 as opposed to
$7.99 for 1.2 devices. 1.2 devices seem to be more expensive at the
high end, as well.
> * Not as mature and stable.
Subjective and unsupported. 2.0 devices have been in use for, what,
more than a year, now, which is an eon in high tech evolution.
> * Probably won't actually deliver noticeably better performance.
"Probably?" Has to be consider as speculation, unless you support it. If
true, it'd be a limitation of the phone handset, not Bluetooth. 2.0
itself is capable of up to 10x the speed, using less battery power in
the process.
A Bluetooth information starting point for the OP:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth
--
St. John
| |
| John Navas 2006-08-18, 12:33 pm |
| On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 07:41:20 -0400, "St. John Smythe" <sinjen@n4vu.com>
wrote in <ec4910$43i$6@n4vu2.n4vu.com>:
>John Navas wrote:
>A Froogle check shows the prices to be identical -- well no, actually
>2.0 dongles are a few pennies cheaper, starting at $7.49 as opposed to
>$7.99 for 1.2 devices. 1.2 devices seem to be more expensive at the
>high end, as well.
In comparing like quality to like quality from a given retailer, I've
personally found 2.0 to be harder to get and more expensive than 1.2.
>Subjective and unsupported. 2.0 devices have been in use for, what,
>more than a year, now, which is an eon in high tech evolution.
I respectfully disagree.
>"Probably?" Has to be consider as speculation, unless you support it. If
>true, it'd be a limitation of the phone handset, not Bluetooth. 2.0
>itself is capable of up to 10x the speed, using less battery power in
>the process.
Actual experience, not speculation. I said "probably" because it's hard
to generalize accurately. And Nokia devices are notorious for often not
actually delivering full speed, as in the case of GPRS and EGPRS.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
|
|
|
|
|