Talk:Bluetooth/Archive 2006

Nintendo Wii Remote (Wiimote)

The Wii remote is a huge success that will grow in popularity and find uses away from the console. Need a section added about the Wii remote along with the version it uses (could not find it readily, and there is a cost difference for USB adapters). Apps such as Glovepie http://carl.kenner.googlepages.com/glovepie now support the Wii remote with its revolutionary tracking systems and Bluetooth technology. Lexor1969 23:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Harold Bluetooth

With two distinct meanings for bluetooth (the wireless comms technology, and the King of Norway and Denmark, Conqueror of Normandy), should we be considering a disambiguation page, as normally used where a word refers to subjects in different areas? It's somewhat strange to see Bluetooth mentioned only as "someone who this technology is named after"

I don't think there is a need for disambiguation. The introduction of this article links to Harold Bluetooth that redirects to the article regarding the King Harold I of Denmark (aka Harold Bluetooth Gormson). -- sabre23t 01:30, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We need to decide what section we are going to talk about Harold Bluetooth as there are two sections in this Bluetooth article and it is redundant. Additionally, there is a link in the See Also section that refers to the Origins of Bluetooth. Seems also redundant. 198.151.12.8 14:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Power Classes

• Class 2 power rating 2.5mW? there is no class for devices with 10mW output? my headset is rated 10mW im pretty sure it is class 2 and i remember seeing something that stated class 2 devices were 10mw?

Pls anyone give information about the difference between class 1 and 2?

I am surprised that there is no clarification for terms "Class I" and "Class II" in context of Bluetooth. While "class 2 Bluetooth radios" is mentioned in the article.

fixed talkie_tim 15:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Power Class info checked against 1.1 Spec and made into a table for easier readability -- Warpedshadow 22:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• I think the table should be changed slightly. Since the units are given in the column headers, they don't really need to be next to the values as well. To make it a bit more "uniform", the unit for the range should also be put in the column header and then removed from the other rows. Nylex 16:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Too Technical?

The section "Setting up connections" is a bit technical and I feel unnecesary for the present article. Also the two "dumps" are from applications within the [[1]] packaage and no refernece to that is given. -- Warpedshadow 23:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Opinionated Point?

"A number of unscrupulous advertising firms in the greater Los Angeles area debuted Bluetooth-enabled billboards along roads and highways, broadcasting advertisements to passing motorists' Bluetooth-enabled cellular phones or PDAs, much to the motorists' annoyance"

Similar systems have also been used in the UK by more legitimate companies, partciularly in train stations although with minor success. Perhaps the point should be re-written, stating that it has been used around the world for advertising, and with limited success. yet another Matt 12:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's impossible that EVERY motorist dislikes. I'm not sure you can even say that it has had limited success without some verification of this. Maybe say "This form of advertising has been viewed as invasive by some motorists" and link to a news article/source discussing the technology (I'm pretty sure I saw something on CNN about it before). Just a suggestion. --Marchanlon 00:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Got too tired of seeing that bias there so I've removed it. I'm not sure of Wikipedia's policy on linking to news articles (an opinion piece no less), so I've left that there for the moment. --83.70.249.41 00:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Future

There are two future of bluetooth sections, please merge them together. 70.111.225.103 03:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The two futures seem to be looking from differing view points (the first is a technical view, the second is from an applications viewpoint), merging them together doesn't seem a good idea to me. Maybe rename the second section to "Future Applications of Bluetooth"? --Marchanlon 00:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

In the section "Future of Bluetooth" there are no references and I have not been able to find any document suporting the "Lisbon" release new additions to the protocol. After some more research I found a podcast from Mike Foley describing the new additions. How can one reference a podcast? Theups 17:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Interoperability of various power classes

I think something must be added on interoperability of various power classes. If I have a Class 2 and Class 1 devices, what is the distance they could talk to each other? Would it be somewhere in the middle between 10m and 100m? Is there a way to guess the value here? MureninC 11:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

How do I know if my PC has Bluetooth?

How do I know if my Windows XP PC has Bluetooth? Is there a simple test?

A: In Windows XP - right click on file, and select > "Send to" >> "Bluetooth device". If this option doesn't appear, your bluetooth device isn't correctly configured or there is no such device in your computer.

Start button -> run -> DEVMGMT.MSC. Look for a node called "Bluetooth Devices." This would indicate if the operating system is configured with a BT device (internal, or USB-connected). David Spalding ^{Talk, Contribs} 16:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Etymology vs Origin of the name

• I can't help but notice that the Etymology section and origin of the name have overlapping information. Anyone know why? Funnyfarmofdoom 21:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Cleaned up by putting both sets of info under the same heading down the end. Obviously, diverging interpretations of events happening centuries ago have relative importance for people looking minimal info on the technology.

Dilane 17:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Slight reorg

All the PAN/LAN wireless standards gain by having a kind a similar "look and feel". Which is going from the user down to most technical building blocks. Then, follows elements which can be perceived as peripherals (social concerns). Then standard items (trivia, references, external link, etc...). So, I reorganised (slightly) Bluetooth: use, 2 technical sections, and created social concerns. If some authors think that health concern is a major issue, they are welcome to create a page. Dilane 17:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Before I RV two of your changes, I'm curious -- Why did you remove the PDA references, and the IEEE reference?

... personal area networks (PANs), also known as IEEE 802.15.1...

...between devices such as personal digital assistants (PDAs),...

I think they were pertinent, and not "too much information" for a main entry for the topic. PDA applications are not trivial, most mid-range PDAs come with BT -- in fact, I think the Dell Axims come with BT standard now, and only the top of the line add WiFi. Social concerns sounds okay, I wonder if this is the place to mention that short-lived phenomenon where kids would send "secret" notes to others' phones or pdas via BT, e.g. "Hey, cute, I like your phone," blah blah blah nevermind, it was a hoax. David Spalding ^{Talk, Contribs} 20:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

"Yellow-band?"

I'm removing the Yellow-band addition (as soon as the database is unlocked) by 84.19.35.82 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log), as I can find NO references to anything yellow related to BT on the Bluetooth.com site or on the Internet. Until citations are provided, I suspect it's "rubbish," violation of WP standards. Preserving the quote here for reference. --^~DBS ^Talk/_Contribs 15:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yellow band is the latest in Bluetooth technology . It is a much more powerful version of Bluetooth . It has an approximate range of 50M, but it's range depends on walls. Yellow-band technology has been in development since the success of Bluetooth was recognized around the world.

—Uncited, 84.19.35.82

How stuff works link - evaluated

I've read the page on "How Stuff Links" that appears on External Links. This link has been on-again, off-again, on this article. As per WP:EL, it offers something that the article doesn't: a layman's explanation of how Bluetooth ... works. WP's article as written is a technical overview, with specifics on developments and such, but not in such a way that I think John or Josephine Doe will read and "get." I suggest the link stays. The linked-to site satisfies the guideline, I don't see undue advertising on the external site, and no discernible conflict of interest. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 02:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)