Connecting Android to Windows 10 by adding bluetooth

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!?

You disputed my

quote

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

/quote

by

quote

the context is *wifi*.

/quote

I.e. saying the context was *not* limited to mobile devices.

BUT just now, you tried to score a point by saying that Windows did not
support Wi-Fi Direct 5-9 years back. (Which is wrong, as I mentioned in
my response to that claim of yours.)

*So in the context of this thread*, you *were* talking about (Wi-Fi
Direct) on mobile devices, because in this thread, there's only a mobile
device and a Windows PC.

So your counter "the context is *wifi*." is just a non-argument which
only caused the (non-)discussion to derail even further.

Glad we sorted that one out.

Bottom line: *Try* to keep your story straight.

EOD.

nospam wrote:
In article , Frank Slootweg
wrote:

wifi direct is about 5 years old and requires an updated wifi chipset

The Intel Centrino 2 chipset already had Wi-Fi Direct in 2008, so
*NINE* years ago! *Try* to keep up!

windows didn't support it, so that doesn't matter.

Wrong again. Intel provided Wi-Fi Direct support on Windows Vista.
Vista is pre-2008.

On 2017-07-11 22:21, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:


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

Not always in reality.

yes always in reality, unless the user ****s it up somehow or uses
horribly obsolete (and grossly insecure) equipment.

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they gave you outdated junk and it's not secure either.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


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.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2017-07-11 22:21, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

not having a lan in a house makes *no* sense. simply having a broadband
router creates a lan, even if only one device connects to it.

since this person claims to have a phone and a desktop computer *and*
is on the internet (given that he trolls the newsgroups), he has a lan.

but perhaps there's a reason. that's why i want to know why.

Well, maybe he goes to a library to use Internet and doesn't have it at
home.

libraries have lans for public use.

But his home is not in the library.


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

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


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?


Ask him. Maybe he will tell, maybe not. :-)

i did.

It does not matter to me.

obviously.

Good!

--
Cheers, Carlos.

nospam wrote:
In article , Frank Slootweg
wrote:

wifi direct is about 5 years old and requires an updated wifi chipset

The Intel Centrino 2 chipset already had Wi-Fi Direct in 2008, so
*NINE* years ago! *Try* to keep up!

windows didn't support it, so that doesn't matter.

Ah, I *see*! *I* am *not* allowed to limit it to mobile devices, which
*is* the context of the thread,

nope. the context is a mobile device connecting to a desktop device.

Exactly! *Finally* you got it!

but *you* *are* allowed to limit it to
Windows, which is also the contect of the thread!

*you* brought up centrino, not me.

I brought that up as a counter to your *5* years.

which mobile devices had a centrino chip in 2008? none.

You're joking right!? The Centrino notebook line starts in *2003*!

did anyone even
*use* wifi direct in 2008? nope.

Intel begs to differ.

earlier today, you said wifi direct is 5 years old, now you're trying
to claim it's 9 years old.

Try to keep up!

That 5 years was in the context of mobile devices, i.e. in the context
of this thread, Android devices.

Hypocritical much!?

you certainly are.

Nope. That you can't read for comprehension and can't even remember
what you wrote yourself, does not mean I'm hypocritical.

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.

In article , Frank Slootweg
wrote:

wifi direct is about 5 years old and requires an updated wifi chipset

The Intel Centrino 2 chipset already had Wi-Fi Direct in 2008, so
*NINE* years ago! *Try* to keep up!

windows didn't support it, so that doesn't matter.

Wrong again. Intel provided Wi-Fi Direct support on Windows Vista.
Vista is pre-2008.

which didn't work particularly well and vista was a market failure
anyway.

from 2009:
http://pcunleashed.com/what-is-wi-fi-direct/
At the moment, Wi-Fi Direct only works well on devices that are
specifically intended to connect to one another ‹ like Rokus and
their remotes. If you have a phone and a laptop that are both Wi-Fi
Direct-enabled,*they will usually not connect to each other. The
protocol doesn¹t yet allow effortless connections on all equipped
devices. Over the next couple of years, Wi-Fi Direct should evolve to
allow such connections.

it might have 'existed' but it wasn't widely used because it didn't
actually work all that well until recently, something which you even
agree with.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

In article , Frank Slootweg
wrote:


which mobile devices had a centrino chip in 2008? none.

You're joking right!?

nope.

The Centrino notebook line starts in *2003*!

that's a laptop, not a mobile device.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_device
A mobile device (or handheld computer) is a computing device small
enough to hold and operate in the hand.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/mobile-device
mobile device
noun, Digital Technology.
1. a portable, wireless computing device that is small enough to be
used while held in the hand; a handheld:
a large selection of smartphones, PDAs, and other mobile devices.

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.

[...]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 14:39:49 -0400, nospam
wrote:

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? :-)

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.

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

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 14:39:50 -0400, nospam
wrote:

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.

wifi itself is ~20 years, so you're wrong on that too.



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.

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.

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 15:00:56 -0400, nospam
wrote:

*new* wifi routers sell for under $20, or get an older used one for a
buck or two, maybe even for free.

Which "under $20" WiFi routers are on your recommended list? There are
none on mine, so I'm happy to sync up with you.

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.