Connecting Android to Windows 10 by adding bluetooth

On 2017-07-11 20:13, Dan Jenkins wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 09:54:42 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

This thread has devolved into a comparison of Bluetooth and LAN
transfers.

I think much of the confusion in this thread is because I thought only
Bluetooth could do both streaming and file transfer.

If Wi-Fi in Ad Hoc Mode can do both streaming and file transfer, then I'm
fine with getting Wi-Fi hardware.

You can do anything as long as you find software that does it :-)

I almost do not use Windows, so I can't guide you there.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

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

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

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,

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.

Yes, about WiFi *Direct*, *not* WiFi in general.

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.

So *you* should try to keep up. But your track record shows that you
are *unable* to keep up, even with what you wrote yourself.

mobile devices are not the only devices to use wifi. far from it.

Duh! I.e. red-herring.

no.

Yes. Your Duh!-comment is irrelevant to the issue being discussed, so
it *is* a red-herring.

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.

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.

It's *your* reference and Wi-Fi Aware/NAN on Android *is* future, you
said so *yourself* (Hint: Try to keep up.) and *your* reference says so
too.

ios devices have done it for a while.

Who gives a toss!? This thread is *not* about iOS/Apple,

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/world/asia/india-assam-state-rhinos.html

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?

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



--
Cheers, Carlos.

Dne 11/07/2017 v 20:13 Dan Jenkins napsal(a):


The main thing I did not know at the start was that a Wi-Fi card in Ad Hoc
Mode could be used to stream music from the Android tablet to the desktop
computer (I had originally thought only Bluetooth could stream music).

It is not that Wifi nor BT can stream alone.
The streaming is realized by applications or OS
over BT/Wifi transfer protocols.

VLC Direct
https://play.google.com/store/apps/d...cdirectprofree

* Remote control your desktop VLCâ„¢ from your Phone/Tablet (play, pause,
stop, volume, fullscreen, change video/song, dvd menu control, change
audio tracks, change subtitle tracks, etc.)
* Streaming from Android to Computer (Video, music and photos)
* Its internal video player allows streaming content from the Computer
to Android (Video, music and photos)
.........



Since the question is about what hardware to get, I only need to nail down
which standards are being suggested that I get in the Wi-Fi card.
Ad Hoc Mode (required)
Wi-Fi Direct (required?)
Wi-Fi Aware, Neighbor Awareness Networking (required?)
Wi-Fi peer-to-peer (required?)

In summary, which standards above should I aim for in a Wi-Fi card if my
goal is to stream music and transfer small files between an Android tablet
and a desktop computer that are separated by a floor and neither is on a
LAN.

Near all Wifi can serve well.
There is a stardard timeline serie IEEE 802.11a/b/g/n/ac
Look for at least n, ac is even better.

https://www.lifewire.com/wireless-st...02-11ac-816553

The above is not what the card/dongles support,
but what the OS or software over them offers.

--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

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).

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.

again, *why* not?

this is 2017, not 1985.

Again. Currently there is no LAN in that house.
Yes, of course he can create one. But there is none at the time.

again, *why* is there no lan???

it's been established that there isn't a lan. i want to know *why*
there isn't one.


Why do you make stuff up?

i'm not making anything up.

why do you argue?

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.

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.

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

in *response* to someone *else* mentioning lan and who ignorantly
assumed that a lan was required for wifi, which it is not.


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

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

*why* isn't there a lan?

there must be a reason. what is it?

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.

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

Hypocritical much!?

On 2017-07-11 21:53, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:



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

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

*why* isn't there a lan?

there must be a reason. what is it?

I don't care, not my business :-P


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. Or maybe his computer connects directly to an Internet modem and
there is no WiFi AP. Maybe he doesn't live at his home, so he can not
contract Internet. Maybe he connects via mobile and USB.

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

It does not matter to me.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2017-07-11 21:53, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

....

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

Not always in reality.


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

--
Cheers, Carlos.

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.

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

*you* brought up centrino, not me.

which mobile devices had a centrino chip in 2008? none. did anyone even
*use* wifi direct in 2008? nope.

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

Hypocritical much!?

you certainly are.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

i did.

It does not matter to me.

obviously.