Connecting Android to Windows 10 by adding bluetooth

In article , Lucifer
Morningstar 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.

it's not ad hoc and is *way* easier than ad hoc can ever hope to be. ad
hoc is a pain in the ass.

In article , Char Jackson
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.

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.

i didn't say mine was under $20.

i said an 802.11n router could be had for under $20, especially for
someone who has to beg for money to pay for it, and that's going to be
an order of magnitude faster.

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.

No need for file transfer if OP just wanted to listen to multimedia
files from his Android while using a more powerful speaker.

In comp.mobile.android, on Tue, 11 Jul 2017 07:29:30 +0000 (UTC), Dan
Jenkins wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 01:02:13 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

Ad hoc WiFi mode might be a possibility. No LAN required.

https://www.howtogeek.com/180649/htg-explains-whats-the-difference-between-ad-hoc-and-infrastructure-mode/

Thank you for suggesting a Wi-Fi option because currently there is no
bluetooth or Wi-Fi card in the desktop so either would be an option.

Would either type of hardware satisfy the requirements of transferring
small (megabyte-sized) files and playing songs between Android & Windows?
(1) Add a Wi-Fi card to the desktop and put it in "Ad-Hoc Mode"
(2) Add a Bluetooth card to the desktop that can go through floors

You keep saying card, but i wanted to point out that one that plugs into
a USB port, a dongle I guess it is called, can easily be transferred to
another computer. Sometimes cards can't be transferred at all because
the slots change, PCI, etc. etc.

Which do you think would penetrate floors best?

Wow, I see that wifi dongles are now almost no bigger than BT dongles.
I bought a couple at a hamfest a few years ago and they were as big as
bic lighters.

I also see some have 5 or 6" antennas and some have no visible antenna.
I presume a bigger antenna is better??

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 19:50:15 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Char Jackson
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.

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.

i didn't say mine was under $20.

i said an 802.11n router could be had for under $20, especially for
someone who has to beg for money to pay for it, and that's going to be
an order of magnitude faster.

You can get a working keyboard for free and then you can
type like a grown up.

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 19:50:14 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Lucifer
Morningstar 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.

it's not ad hoc and is *way* easier than ad hoc can ever hope to be. ad
hoc is a pain in the ass.

Like pushing a shift key sometimes?

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 11:16:15 +1200, Dave Doe wrote:

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.

Bluetooth is very slow at 1 Mb/s but is adequate for small files.

In comp.mobile.android, on Tue, 11 Jul 2017 20:47:25 +0200, "Carlos
E.R." wrote:

On 2017-07-11 17:26, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R.
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.

no it isn't.

It would be if such a thing existed :-p

it wouldn't, because bluetooth is much too slow for file transfer, no
matter how powerful may be.

But he is aware that it is slow, right from the first post. So, not an
issue. :-)

I have used BT for file transfer, worked fine.


WiFi is impossible for a PC that is not even on a LAN.

yes it is, and since it's in your house, why wouldn't it be on a lan?

Because there is no LAN in the house? :-)

why wouldn't there be a lan in the house?

Again, because there is no LAN in the house? He said so, several times.

He lives in LAN-free zone. LANs were banned by the anti-lanites, who
hold 62 seats out of 105 in the Assembly. They have passed many antilan
laws, which the anti-lan prime minister eagerly signs and enforces, and
most lans who have not left are keeping a low profile.

In comp.mobile.android, on Tue, 11 Jul 2017 21:36:16 +0200, "Carlos
E.R." wrote:

On 2017-07-11 21:24, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:



And in another article (Message-ID:
), you specifically said LAN,
but you deleted that part from the post - typical nospam move:

WiFi is impossible for a PC that is not even on a LAN.

yes it is, and since it's in your house, why wouldn't it be on a lan?


my initial statement was to use wifi. i did not say *anything* about a
lan because a lan is not required.

*he* mentioned a lan, not me, saying that it's impossible without a
lan, which is bull****. a lan is not required, which is what i said.

Yes, you used the word "lan". We have written proof. :-P


now stop avoiding the question and answer it: why wouldn't there be a
lan?

Didn't the International World Legisature vote that there must be a lan
everywhere? Yes it did, bu that law was overturned by the
SuperNational World Court, so it's no longer required and that why it's
okay that there isn't one. In fact many untra-moderates who were forced
to put in lans before the law was overturned destroyed those lans and
many others, including those of the IWL legislators.

Because there is none. There is no more to it, he doesn't have a LAN, so
end of discussion. :-)

I think I set him straight.

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 19:50:14 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Lucifer
Morningstar 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.

it's not ad hoc and is *way* easier than ad hoc can ever hope to be. ad
hoc is a pain in the ass.

Yes, so you keep saying. I wonder what you found so painful or difficult
about it. I always considered it to be very straightforward. I guess
some people just aren't very technical.

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 19:50:15 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Char Jackson
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.

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.

i didn't say mine was under $20.

i said an 802.11n router could be had for under $20, especially for
someone who has to beg for money to pay for it, and that's going to be
an order of magnitude faster.

I'm sorry, but I still don't see a make and model there. Not for the
"under $20" router, and not for whatever you were bragging about.

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 19:50:11 -0400, nospam
wrote:

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?

All parts. Cable modems and DSL modems still mostly have a single RJ-45
Ethernet port on the LAN side. Combo units obviously include a router,
an access point, and a switch, so they have more LAN ports, but the
majority of cable/DSL modems have a single port which, if desired, can
be connected to a single computer.

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

Oh, ok, you meant dial-up modems, which also aren't obsolete since in
many parts of the USA they are all that's available. It's pretty hard to
claim something is obsolete when it's the only game in town.
Fortunately, not my town and presumably not yours, but the country is
bigger than our two towns.

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

Actually, they are closer to bridges, (not routers), but you know
perfectly well that they are universally referred to as modems.

In article , Char Jackson
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.

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.

i didn't say mine was under $20.

i said an 802.11n router could be had for under $20, especially for
someone who has to beg for money to pay for it, and that's going to be
an order of magnitude faster.

I'm sorry, but I still don't see a make and model there. Not for the
"under $20" router, and not for whatever you were bragging about.

there's this thing called google, perhaps you've heard of it.

it turns out 802.11n routers are actually much cheaper than i thought,
as little as $10, most of which are well known brands. $10 is cheap
enough that if stops working in 6 months, toss it and buy another.

here's just a small sample of the *many* hits:

http://www.microcenter.com/product/4..._Wireless_Rout
er
http://www.microcenter.com/product/468303/F3_N300_Wireless_Router
http://www.microcenter.com/product/3...bps_Wireless_N
_Home_Router
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=0E6-002T-00001R
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833156466
https://www.amazon.com/ZyXEL-NBG416n...nna/dp/B004UBW
3SW/
https://www.amazon.com/Belkin-F9K100...r/dp/B00QVJ0PD
Q/
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001FWYGJS/

802.11ac are as low as $30, unless you wait for the $20 deal to come
around again.
https://dealnews.com/Refurb-Linksys-...Router-for-20-
free-shipping/2014688.html
http://www.linksys.com/us/p/P-EA6400-RM/
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833555073

In article , Char Jackson
wrote:


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

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

it's not ad hoc and is *way* easier than ad hoc can ever hope to be. ad
hoc is a pain in the ass.

Yes, so you keep saying. I wonder what you found so painful or difficult
about it. I always considered it to be very straightforward.

because one tap will automatically set up the link, transfer the
file(s) and then tear down the link, while both devices remain
connected to the existing wifi network and ongoing downloads or
whatever continue without interruption.

it doesn't get any easier than that.

I guess
some people just aren't very technical.

it has nothing to do with technical acumen and everything to do with
making the process as fast and efficient as possible.

i guess some people are just stubborn and stuck in their ways.

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?

All parts. Cable modems and DSL modems still mostly have a single RJ-45
Ethernet port on the LAN side. Combo units obviously include a router,
an access point, and a switch, so they have more LAN ports, but the
majority of cable/DSL modems have a single port which, if desired, can
be connected to a single computer.

*very* few people have only one device, so if there is only one port,
it'll be connected to a switch or a wifi router.

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

Oh, ok, you meant dial-up modems, which also aren't obsolete since in
many parts of the USA they are all that's available. It's pretty hard to
claim something is obsolete when it's the only game in town.
Fortunately, not my town and presumably not yours, but the country is
bigger than our two towns.

the technology is obsolete, regardless of how many people use it.

unless someone lives in the middle of nowhere without any cellular
service, it won't be the only game in town. cellular data is going to
be faster than a dial-up modem (even hspa, but definitely lte).

t-mobile has an unlimited plan for $30/mo, although it throttles after
5 gig, which if someone isn't streaming video non-stop, is more than
enough. that's probably the best bang for the buck, but there are
cheaper options for more casual use and more expensive options that
don't throttle as quickly.

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

Actually, they are closer to bridges, (not routers),

some are both.

but you know
perfectly well that they are universally referred to as modems.

true, but it's technically wrong.