Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Settle a dispute, we need your help.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Settle a dispute, we need your help.

    Me and some friends were arguing over which was better/worse:

    Regular infrared wireless for stuff like cameras VS bluetooth


    Which is faster? My one friend says Bluetooth, but I am inclined to disagree. I personally dont know a lot about wireless tech, but the Bluetooth stuff I have seen, sucked.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Windblows User
    Me and some friends were arguing over which was better/worse:

    Regular infrared wireless for stuff like cameras VS bluetooth


    Which is faster? My one friend says Bluetooth, but I am inclined to disagree. I personally dont know a lot about wireless tech, but the Bluetooth stuff I have seen, sucked.

    Did you ask Google?

    Cause, when I said to google: Infrared vs Bluetooth . He gave me a lot of good results.

    Comment


    • #3
      Oh right! Sorry. Forgot about the whole 'Google first' rule.

      Comment


      • #4
        This is from the first google response to "infrared vs. bluetooth":

        # Data Transfers

        * IrDA up to 4Mbps; 16Mbps(under development)
        * Bluetooth 1Mbps(max) 721Kbps(average)
        "\x74\x68\x65\x70\x72\x65\x7a\x39\x38";

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by theprez98
          This is from the first google response to "infrared vs. bluetooth":

          # Data Transfers

          * IrDA up to 4Mbps; 16Mbps(under development)
          * Bluetooth 1Mbps(max) 721Kbps(average)
          So infrared is teh winnar?

          :)
          Last edited by Second; March 7, 2005, 10:13. Reason: forgot my smiley
          Answering easy questions since 1987
          Si Dieu est pour moi, qui peut ĂȘtre contre moi?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Second
            So infrared is teh winnar?

            :)
            I thought about replying with "Microsoft 133t5p33k" but I figured that might not go over so well...

            hehe
            "\x74\x68\x65\x70\x72\x65\x7a\x39\x38";

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Windblows User
              Which is faster?
              [smartass="+7"]
              They are both the same speed since the speed of light is measured in meters per second and length of a meter is based on the distance light can travel in a specific time, though there are exceptions.
              [/smartass]
              Of course, throughput has been addressed elsewhere in this thread. ]:>

              [can of worms]
              What about bandwidth?
              [/can of worms]

              Comment


              • #8
                security-wise? it depends I guess, I'd say infrared off the bat, because of the short distance, which makes it really hard for someone to capture anything, they'd have to be close.

                Bluetooth, its hard to control the range precisely. It adds very damn good security, but anything can be cracked, over time. Since certain products use a certain bluetooth "version" or even state of time, so its not like the customers "update" to the latest secure bluetooth version. So we come to, bluetooth can be cracked.
                Delicious Poison:

                The difference between a nerd and a geek? Well a nerd does not wear Spider Man butt huggers.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by TheCotMan
                  [smartass="+7"]
                  They are both the same speed since the speed of light is measured in meters per second and length of a meter is based on the distance light can travel in a specific time, though there are exceptions.
                  [/smartass]
                  In addition, light pulses traveling through a cesium atomic chamber would emit quicker than a vacuum chamber. (Approximately 310 times as fast)

                  So we may safely deduce that IRDA would be much, *much* faster if passing through a cesium chamber.
                  -

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Well, as I said, this was a dispute between two friends of mine, that I just happened to be involved in. With all the wap hacking and the like I just stick to plain old wires. Sure, they have to be really long sometimes, but no one is going to wireless hack my wire. ;p

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Windblows User
                      Well, as I said, this was a dispute between two friends of mine, that I just happened to be involved in.
                      In my smartass response, I pointed out that speed in networking is associated with different things. Technically speed is used to refer to signal propagation (which goes to latency), not throughput of data. People will also use bandwidth to refer to their throughput when it is not always correct to do so.

                      In short, I was being a troublemaker.

                      With all the wap hacking and the like I just stick to plain old wires. Sure, they have to be really long sometimes, but no one is going to wireless hack my wire. ;p
                      Yeah. It is a good thing that electrons pulsing through wires of specific length don't generate electromagnetic/RF waves that can be intercepted with the correct equipment.
                      Yep, I am still being a troublemaker. ]:>

                      [added content:]
                      [1],[2],[3],[4]
                      Last edited by TheCotMan; March 9, 2005, 09:39. Reason: added links

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X