Connecting Android to Windows 10 by adding bluetooth

On 2017-07-11 22:59, nospam wrote:
In article , Frank Slootweg
wrote:

You're not seriously claiming that WiFi is "not well known", are
you!?

point to point wifi is not well known. do try to keep up.

*I* have been talking Wifi Direct - i.e. point-to-point WiFi - from
the get go, because *you* were talking about WiFi Direct, that is until
you changed the goalposts to WiFi in general and now are changing them
back again.

i was *always* talking about wifi direct.

Then *why* the fsck are you arguing!?

ain't me who is arguing.

yeah, sure. ROTFL!

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 16:59:44 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

Or maybe his computer connects directly to an Internet modem and
there is no WiFi AP.

highly unlikely since broadband modems have wifi built in.

Not all.
Broadband routers do have WiFi almost always.

that's what i said.

Modems, which connect to a single computer, do not.

modems are obsolete.

That will come as a great surprise to the modem manufacturers and the
millions of people who currently use them to get Internet access via
cable or DSL. What took their place?

On 2017-07-11 22:59, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

Or maybe his computer connects directly to an Internet modem and
there is no WiFi AP.

highly unlikely since broadband modems have wifi built in.

Not all.
Broadband routers do have WiFi almost always.

that's what i said.

Modems, which connect to a single computer, do not.

modems are obsolete.

Maybe in the USA, but many people are using them.

Hint: a modem doesn't necessarily mean a POTS thing. Rather, a fibre or
cable thing, doing perhaps 100 Mbps.


There are cities where you get a (single) RJ11 socket to connect your
computer to the wall in the flat. But no WiFi.

almost none.

To your knowledge :-P


and if someone has a phone, they aren't going to be using a modem with
an rj11 jack, so we know this is *not* what he has.

I'm not talking of those "modems".


Maybe he doesn't live at his home, so he can not
contract Internet.Maybe he connects via mobile and USB.

the other home probably has internet.

What other home?

the one he lives at. you said it, not me.

No, I said that perhaps he lives somewhere that is not HIS home, he
doesn't own it. I did not say anything about another home.


--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2017-07-11 23:02, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2017-07-11 22:21, nospam wrote:
[...]
highly unlikely since broadband modems have wifi built in.

Not all.

Indeed.

Broadband routers do have WiFi almost always.

Recent ones probably do. I've had (cable) broadband modems since 2003
and only the current - late 2014 - one has Wi-Fi.

[...]

Right :-)

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2017-07-12 00:07, Char Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 15:53:56 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:


I have used BT for file transfer, worked fine.

that must have been very tiny files.

Several photos and videos.

that must have taken a long time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth

Bluetooth version Maximum speed Maximum range
3.0 25 Mbit/s 10 meters (33 ft)
4.0 25 Mbit/s 60 meters (200 ft)
5 50 Mbit/s 240 meters (800 ft)

bluetooth 5 doesn't count and those speeds are theoretical anyway.
actual throughput is worse.

https://www.theverge.com/circuitbrea...0/bluetooth-5-
anker-incipio-griffin-iphone-samsung-coming-soon
HOW LONG WILL YOU HAVE TO WAIT FOR BLUETOOTH 5 GADGETS?
Likely until early 2018. Companies haven¹t started building devices
that support Bluetooth 5 yet, because the Galaxy S8 is the only phone
that currently supports the standard. But that will begin to change
over the next few months.

http://www.androidauthority.com/bluetooth-5-samsung-galaxy-s8-774560/
Most notably I was able to clear up the huge confusion around the
ideas that Bluetooth 5 offers 4 times the range and twice the speed.
In fact it turns out that Bluetooth 5 does offer (almost) twice the
throughput when the two communicating devices are close to each
other, but towards the edge of the possible range I demonstrated that
Bluetooth 5 has the same throughput as Bluetooth 4.

meanwhile, 802.11ac has a theoretical maximum of 7 *gigabit*, which is
over two orders of magnitude faster.

real world speeds will be less (especially without wave 2) but it's
still way the hell faster than bluetooth ever will be.

https://www.extremetech.com/computin...11ac-and-how-m
uch-faster-than-802-11n-is-it
802.11ac will only get faster, too. As we mentioned earlier, the
theoretical max speed of 802.11ac is just shy of 7Gbps ‹ and while
you¹ll never hit that in a real-world scenario, we wouldn¹t be
surprised to see link speeds of 2Gbps or more in the next few years.
At 2Gbps, you¹ll get a transfer rate of 256MB/sec, and suddenly
Ethernet serves less and less purpose if that happens. To reach such
speeds, chipset and device makers will need to implement four or more
802.11ac streams, both in terms of software and hardware.

what takes a few seconds over wifi would take *minutes* over bluetooth.

I get 25 Mbit/s out of WiFi in a busy apartment building, so the speed
is the comparable.

only because you're using an obsolete 802.11g wifi router, and/or
something is *horribly* misconfigured.

don't assume that your super-****ty wifi is how it is for everyone else.

i get roughly gigabit speeds over wifi (just under 900 mbit).

That's with your "under $20" WiFi router? What's the make and model
number? I may want one for myself.

LOL. Good catch. Me too wants one. Or a bunch.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2017-07-11 22:59, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

I get 25 Mbit/s out of WiFi in a busy apartment building, so the speed
is the comparable.

only because you're using an obsolete 802.11g wifi router, and/or
something is *horribly* misconfigured.

I'm using whatever the ISP there supplies.

they gave you outdated junk and it's not secure either.

How do you know that it is not secure? Have you tested it?

a 15 year old router is not getting security updates anymore and hasn't
for a long, long time.

And you know it is 15 years old, how exactly?
Because it ain't.

even many routers that are just 5 years old aren't getting updates
anymore.

Maybe I use openwrt.


if it's not getting updates, it's not secure and if it's connected to
the internet, you're asking for trouble.

the exploits have not been patched, just waiting for someone to pwn you.

buy something better.

others aren't stuck with those slow speeds.

Simply there are about 50 AP in view, so the BW goes down.

switch to 5 ghz, which is nowhere near as crowded, and if everyone else
continues to use obsolete 802.11g, you'll be the only one there.

Ah, nice! Surely you will fund me buying a new laptop? I would
appreciate that. And don't forget the other room mates: laptops, phones,
etc. We will all appreciate your generosity.

nearly all laptops made in the last 10 years or so have 802.11n, most
android phones in the last several years do as well, and an 802.11n
router is less than us$20.

surely you can afford that.

split it among your roommates, and it'll be less than $10 each.

No split. Each one wants a new laptop 5G capable. You provide it, be
generous.


--
Cheers, Carlos.

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 11:26:01 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Frank Slootweg
wrote:


wifi does not need a lan or an access point. it can go direct between
two devices.

It is well known.

it's not well known, as it's a fairly recent addition to the spec and
only recent wifi radios support it.

FSVSVO "recent", unless you consider 5 years to be "recent".

wifi is ~20 years old, so yes, and its still not widely adopted yet
including android, which will be in 'o', a system that doesn't even
have an official name.

https://developer.android.com/preview/features/wifi-aware.html

Totally unnecessary as wi-fi already implements ad-hoc.

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 12:50:35 -0500, M.L. wrote:



Powerful Bluetooth hardware is the correct answer to the question.

This question is just asking advice about which powerful Bluetooth hardware
(make and model) people actually use and like best to connect an Android
device to a Windows PC.

Another option is a bluetooth speaker. They can be just as loud as
desktop speakers and can power from batteries and be used while
recharging.

Not useful for file transfers.

In article , ,
Dan Jenkins says...

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 22:59:43 -0400, nospam wrote:

I want bluetooth for only two things (but you can suggest more).
(1) To transfer files back & forth without having to join a local LAN

apparently you aren't aware that it's slower than wifi or usb,
otherwise you wouldn't be asking for that.

Thank you for trying to help but please don't try to help if you're going
to completely ignore the original post by suggesting everything I already
know and which has nothing whatsoever to do with the original question.

Powerful Bluetooth hardware is the correct answer to the question.

WiFi is impossible for a PC that is not even on a LAN.
USB cable is inconvenient when going from floor to floor.
Same with speaker cables.

Powerful Bluetooth hardware is the correct answer to the question.

This question is just asking advice about which powerful Bluetooth hardware
(make and model) people actually use and like best to connect an Android
device to a Windows PC.

You would still be better, IMO, to use WiFi. It's so much faster, and
probably cheap as chips to purchase a WiFi USB stick vs Bluetooth (OK,
maybe about the same $).

And just do peer-to-peer - phone to PC - on WiFi. *Much* faster - than
Bluetooth.

--
Duncan.

In article ,
Dave Doe wrote:

I want bluetooth for only two things (but you can suggest more).
(1) To transfer files back & forth without having to join a local LAN

apparently you aren't aware that it's slower than wifi or usb,
otherwise you wouldn't be asking for that.

Thank you for trying to help but please don't try to help if you're going
to completely ignore the original post by suggesting everything I already
know and which has nothing whatsoever to do with the original question.

Powerful Bluetooth hardware is the correct answer to the question.

WiFi is impossible for a PC that is not even on a LAN.
USB cable is inconvenient when going from floor to floor.
Same with speaker cables.

Powerful Bluetooth hardware is the correct answer to the question.

This question is just asking advice about which powerful Bluetooth hardware
(make and model) people actually use and like best to connect an Android
device to a Windows PC.

You would still be better, IMO, to use WiFi. It's so much faster, and
probably cheap as chips to purchase a WiFi USB stick vs Bluetooth (OK,
maybe about the same $).

And just do peer-to-peer - phone to PC - on WiFi. *Much* faster - than
Bluetooth.

yep.

In article , Char Jackson
wrote:

wifi does not need a lan or an access point. it can go direct
between two devices.

It is well known.

it's not well known, as it's a fairly recent addition to the spec and
only recent wifi radios support it.

I've been aware of, and have made limited use of, ad hoc WiFi networks
since the early to mid 90's. I don't know if I'd call that recent.

i'm not talking about ad hoc, which are at best a pain in the ass.

I started the discussion about Ad Hoc mode, so that's definitely what
I'm talking about.

others aren't.

There's nothing PITA about it, is there? It has
always worked fine for me when I've wanted to use it.

ad hoc is a huge pain in the ass, and you weren't using wifi in the
early 90s either.

I wasn't? :-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_8...8802.11_legacy.
29
The original version of the standard IEEE 802.11 was released in 1997
and clarified in 1999, but is now obsolete.

whatever you were using was not (yet) wifi and could not interoperate
with anything else.

Your hard-earned tax dollars were at work, providing me and the rest of
the folks in my military unit, with equipment that you claim I wasn't
using.

not public, so not relevant.

We didn't find it to be a pain, but YMMV.

it was and still is.

In article , Char Jackson
wrote:

wifi does not need a lan or an access point. it can go
direct between two devices.

It is well known.

it's not well known, as it's a fairly recent addition to the
spec and only recent wifi radios support it.

FSVSVO "recent", unless you consider 5 years to be "recent".

wifi is ~20 years old, so yes,

In this context - mobile devices - 5 years is a long time, i.e.
*not* *recent", period.

the context is *wifi*.

Nope! *YOU* wrote (see above):

it's not well known, as it's a fairly recent addition to the
spec and only recent wifi radios support it.

which is *clearly* about wifi ,not mobile devices.

You're not seriously claiming that WiFi is "not well known", are you!?

point to point wifi is not well known. do try to keep up.

~25 years should be long enough to be well known, IMHO.

wifi direct is about 5 years old and requires an updated wifi chipset
and software support, so if you don't have the latest radio you can't
do it (and even if you do, not always). using bluetooth to
auto-configure the link is even more recent than that, which is
*coming* in android 'o'.

Why change the conversation to WiFi Direct? I didn't say anything about
that. I simply said WiFi in Ad Hoc mode. Let's just leave the goalposts
where they were.

i never mentioned ad hoc mode.

i said:
wifi does not need a lan or an access point. it can go
direct between two devices.

do you see ad hoc? nope.

that means you're the one moving the goalposts.


We're talking about Wi-Fi Direct, not some future networking
facility.
Wi-Fi Direct exists in Android (4.1) for *five years*, period.

but not wifi aware, which is newer:

And is yet another one of your red-herrings!

Who gives a toss about some *future* networking facility, which is
*not* under discussion!?

it's not the future.

ios devices have done it for a while.

Oh no, I'm getting the sinking feeling that your claim that Ad Hoc mode
is "recent" has something to do with ios support. I sure hope not.

i'm not talking about ad hoc mode.

The topic is WiFi in Ad Hoc mode. If you want to discuss something else,
you should make it clear that you've changed topics.

i haven't changed anything.

the topic has never been ad hoc mode. i never mentioned ad hoc mode.

i said:
wifi does not need a lan or an access point. it can go
direct between two devices.

do you see ad hoc? nope.

you mistakenly assumed ad hoc because that's all you know.

ad hoc mode is a huge pain in the ass for all sorts of reasons.

From an Apple perspective, perhaps. I had no significant issues with it,
going back farther than you say it even existed.

ad hoc is no different on apple than anything else. it's a pain in the
ass from any perspective.

nothing is as easy or as convenient as automatically setting up and
tearing down a wifi link, without even disconnecting from whatever wifi
network the devices are currently associated with.

In article , Char Jackson
wrote:

Or maybe his computer connects directly to an Internet modem and
there is no WiFi AP.

highly unlikely since broadband modems have wifi built in.

Not all.
Broadband routers do have WiFi almost always.

that's what i said.

Modems, which connect to a single computer, do not.

modems are obsolete.

That will come as a great surprise to the modem manufacturers and the
millions of people who currently use them to get Internet access via
cable or DSL. What took their place?

what part of 'modems, which connect to a single computer' is not clear?

that clearly means old obsolete dial-up modems, *not* broadband,
particularly since he singled out broadband one line prior.

not only that, but broadband modems aren't actually modems. they're
network bridges/routers.

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

Or maybe his computer connects directly to an Internet modem and
there is no WiFi AP.

highly unlikely since broadband modems have wifi built in.

Not all.
Broadband routers do have WiFi almost always.

that's what i said.

Modems, which connect to a single computer, do not.

modems are obsolete.

Maybe in the USA, but many people are using them.

it doesn't matter how many people use them. it's obsolete technology.

there will always be laggards who use obsolete technology and it
appears that spain is full of such people.

plus, the original poster is in the usa, so that's all that matters.

you're arguing just to argue, as usual.

Hint: a modem doesn't necessarily mean a POTS thing. Rather, a fibre or
cable thing, doing perhaps 100 Mbps.

those aren't modems. they're actually network bridges/routers, and 100
mbit is relatively slow. verizon recently launched gigabit for $70/mo.

There are cities where you get a (single) RJ11 socket to connect your
computer to the wall in the flat. But no WiFi.

almost none.

To your knowledge :-P


and if someone has a phone, they aren't going to be using a modem with
an rj11 jack, so we know this is *not* what he has.

I'm not talking of those "modems".

then why did you say rj11 socket? that's a phone.

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

I get 25 Mbit/s out of WiFi in a busy apartment building, so the speed
is the comparable.

only because you're using an obsolete 802.11g wifi router, and/or
something is *horribly* misconfigured.

I'm using whatever the ISP there supplies.

they gave you outdated junk and it's not secure either.

How do you know that it is not secure? Have you tested it?

a 15 year old router is not getting security updates anymore and hasn't
for a long, long time.

And you know it is 15 years old, how exactly?
Because it ain't.

it doesn't matter how old it is. it's 802.11g and obsolete. 802.11n
replaced it a decade ago, so even if your router was one of the last
802.11g routers to be released, it's still obsolete.

even many routers that are just 5 years old aren't getting updates
anymore.

Maybe I use openwrt.

on a router supplied by an isp, that you don't own?

what do they have to say about that?



Simply there are about 50 AP in view, so the BW goes down.

switch to 5 ghz, which is nowhere near as crowded, and if everyone else
continues to use obsolete 802.11g, you'll be the only one there.

Ah, nice! Surely you will fund me buying a new laptop? I would
appreciate that. And don't forget the other room mates: laptops, phones,
etc. We will all appreciate your generosity.

nearly all laptops made in the last 10 years or so have 802.11n, most
android phones in the last several years do as well, and an 802.11n
router is less than us$20.

surely you can afford that.

split it among your roommates, and it'll be less than $10 each.

No split. Each one wants a new laptop 5G capable. You provide it, be
generous.

as i said, most laptops made in the past 10 years and certainly the
last 5 years have 5 ghz 802.11n (possibly 802.11ac).

unless you're using a laptop that's as old as your router, you already
have 5 ghz radios.