Connecting Android to Windows 10 by adding bluetooth

On 12 Jul 2017 19:15:49 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

... So can we put this sillyness to rest?

"Oh, Daddy, don't be such a spoil-sport: it's such fun!" (Cheers, -- tlvp)
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 03:49:16 -0400, nospam wrote:

a dial-up modem doesn't preclude having a lan.

At least equally true -- and rather more relevant -- if you replace
"preclude" with "assure". Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

nospam wrote:
In article , tlvp
wrote:

might be music files.
I wouldn't call them small (for Bluetooth transfer). Indeed they'd
likely take minutes - each. On WiFi, a handful of seconds.

So who (other than maybe nospam) needs to be done listening to an hour-long
piano concerto in "a handful of seconds" ? Cheers, -- tlvp

file *transfer* is not the same as listening to it.

Moot point, because he's *streaming* music.

OP

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
(2) To play songs from Android onto the more powerful computer speakers

/OP

In article , Frank Slootweg
wrote:

might be music files.
I wouldn't call them small (for Bluetooth transfer). Indeed they'd
likely take minutes - each. On WiFi, a handful of seconds.

So who (other than maybe nospam) needs to be done listening to an
hour-long piano concerto in "a handful of seconds" ? Cheers, -- tlvp

file *transfer* is not the same as listening to it.

Moot point, because he's *streaming* music.

reread #1

OP

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
(2) To play songs from Android onto the more powerful computer speakers

/OP

nospam wrote:
In article , Frank Slootweg
wrote:

might be music files.
I wouldn't call them small (for Bluetooth transfer). Indeed they'd
likely take minutes - each. On WiFi, a handful of seconds.

So who (other than maybe nospam) needs to be done listening to an
hour-long piano concerto in "a handful of seconds" ? Cheers, -- tlvp

file *transfer* is not the same as listening to it.

Moot point, because he's *streaming* music.

reread #1

I don't have to, because I already read it and it's irrelevant.

Dave Doe, tlvp and you were talking about music files. As shown by
my quote, there's no evidence of any *music* *files*, so your (plural
'you') point is moot.

I realize that it's hard to impossible for you to accept that you're
'discussing' is moot, but it's moot nonetheless.

BTW, how's that 'a broadband modem isn't one' egg and pie tasting!?

EOD.

OP

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
(2) To play songs from Android onto the more powerful computer speakers

/OP

In comp.mobile.android, on Tue, 11 Jul 2017 13:21:34 +0100, Patrick
wrote:

On 11/07/2017 03:43, Dan Jenkins wrote:
Can you get me started on how to connect Android 4.3 to Bluetooth on
Windows 10 because I don't have bluetooth yet.

I looked up how to tell if my Windows 10 desktop has bluetooth and it
doesn't seem to have a bluetooth card based on doing these device tests.
http://blog.drivethelife.com/bluetoo...oth-built.html
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/...-in-windows-10


So I need to add bluetooth hardware to the desktop PC.

Am I aware that bluetooth is slower than WiFi or USB cable?
Yes.

Then why do I want bluetooth?

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
(2) To play songs from Android onto the more powerful computer speakers

Since I don't have bluetooth on the desktop, what hardware is best to add?


Bluetooth V2 USB_Dongle
https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?LH...gle+V2&_sop=12

I got one of these but it only works with British music.

micky wrote:
[...]

I got one of these but it only works with British music.

Serves you right for calling a modem a modem!

In article , Frank Slootweg
wrote:

might be music files.
I wouldn't call them small (for Bluetooth transfer). Indeed they'd
likely take minutes - each. On WiFi, a handful of seconds.

So who (other than maybe nospam) needs to be done listening to an
hour-long piano concerto in "a handful of seconds" ? Cheers, -- tlvp

file *transfer* is not the same as listening to it.

Moot point, because he's *streaming* music.

reread #1

I don't have to, because I already read it and it's irrelevant.

then you didn't understand it. go read it again.

Dave Doe, tlvp and you were talking about music files. As shown by
my quote, there's no evidence of any *music* *files*, so your (plural
'you') point is moot.

someone else said they 'might be music files', but it doesn't matter
whether they are or not.

what matters is the *size* of the files, not their contents.

someone could be transferring music files to their phone so they can
listen to them while out, or they could be photos, videos, pdfs or
something else. it does not matter what's *in* the file, but how much
big they are.

as someone said above, what would take minutes to transfer over
bluetooth would take just seconds over wifi.

I realize that it's hard to impossible for you to accept that you're
'discussing' is moot, but it's moot nonetheless.

it's not moot.

BTW, how's that 'a broadband modem isn't one' egg and pie tasting!?

just because people call it a modem doesn't make it a modem.

EOD.

keep it that way.

OP

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
(2) To play songs from Android onto the more powerful computer speakers

/OP

On 2017-07-12 16:54, 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.

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.

How do you know it is 802.11g? I didn't say.

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

do yo see the and/or? what do you think that means?

your avoidance and evasion indicate that i was exactly correct.

It happens that is not the reason. The thing is configured for much more
bandwidth, but it automatically decides it can't and gives us far less.

Funny how you avoid your task of being generous and donate us new router
and tablets and phones for us all in the flat.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2017-07-12 21:34, Lionel Muller wrote:
For alt.comp.os.windows-10,comp.mobile.android,alt.cellular.bluetooth Wolf
K wrote:


But for most people, a "modem" is what connects you to the internet,
no matter how. Function is more important than operation. That's why
we still talk about the "shift lever" even though it no longer shifts
the gears in an automatic transmission.

Just to throw another word into the mix, I'm on WISP which means I don't
have a "modem", per se.
I have a transceiver!

I've learned never to tall that to any customer support people for routers,
or Ooma, or Vonage, etc.
I just tell them I have a "modem" and then they're happy.

Exactly :-)

Yes, I'm aware of the exact meaning of "modem". I choose not to use it,
and use a more general meaning. And the Wikipedia seems to agree ;-)

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2017-07-12 20:03, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote:
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.

Carlos, Carlos, Carlos! When will you ever learn! If nospam doesn't
use something, it's obsolete!

Previous example: If nospam says IEEE 802.11g is obsolete, you should
dump any 'g' stuff you have and buy 'n' stuff, even if it doesn't make
your WAN go any faster. Got it!?

Yessir! :-)


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

Or 300 Mbps or 1 Gbps or ...

But I'm afraid this is my last post, because spam says "modems are
obsolete", so I'll have to shut mine down.

Bye.

[...]

ROTFL!

--
Cheers, Carlos.

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:



How do you know it is 802.11g? I didn't say.

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

do yo see the and/or? what do you think that means?

your avoidance and evasion indicate that i was exactly correct.

It happens that is not the reason. The thing is configured for much more
bandwidth, but it automatically decides it can't and gives us far less.

you should resolve whatever issues are causing it to 'decide it can't'
so that you get all of the bandwidth for which it's supposedly capable.

On 2017-07-12 23:27, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:



How do you know it is 802.11g? I didn't say.

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

do yo see the and/or? what do you think that means?

your avoidance and evasion indicate that i was exactly correct.

It happens that is not the reason. The thing is configured for much more
bandwidth, but it automatically decides it can't and gives us far less.

you should resolve whatever issues are causing it to 'decide it can't'
so that you get all of the bandwidth for which it's supposedly capable.

Oh, I know what those issues are, and no, they are not under my control.
Specially as you skip donating hardware to us. :-P

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 16:38:01 -0400, nospam
wrote:

just because people call it a modem doesn't make it a modem.

Good luck with that.

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 17:24:46 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 16:38:01 -0400, nospam
wrote:

just because people call it a modem doesn't make it a modem.

Good luck with that.


What, nospam said something I agree with? That's a first!

And yes, I know that when usage gravitates toward something that is
incorrect, the error becomes established after a while. That's part of
the nature of the history of all languages. There are many such
example in English. But I'm an old fuddy-duddy, and I object to such
changes. I know that sooner or later, I'm going to lose on almost all
such issues, but that doesn't mean I have to like them.