Connecting Android to Windows 10 by adding bluetooth

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.

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.

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.

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

Duh! I.e. red-herring.

no.


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.

ios devices have done it for a while.

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.

I use a $20 Aukey SK-M8 waterproof bluetooth speaker that lasts 16
hours per charge, but it appears to no longer be offered on Amazon.

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 13:47:09 -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. There's nothing PITA about it, is there? It has
always worked fine for me when I've wanted to use it.

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 13:47:10 -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,

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.

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

Duh! I.e. red-herring.

no.


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.

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.

BT is not intended to go through floors.
It is rather for the direct visibility within few meters
for devices about on the same , or the next table in the room.

While that info is technically correct, I've walked upstairs with
my Android phone and turned 90° into a bedroom while still
being able to hear music playing from our Aukey SK-M8
bluetooth speaker downstairs. Of course, there's no PC or file
transfers involved here.

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.

While I knew that Wi-Fi would be faster than Bluetooth, I also did not
realize at the start of this thread that a Wi-Fi card, if added to the
desktop and used in "Ad Hoc Mode" would be more powerful than the Bluetooth
card which people all said won't penetrate floors as well as Wi-Fi does.

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).

So if Wi-Fi in "Ad Hoc Mode" is the answer, that is what I will do.
* It will be faster than Bluetooth for both file transfer
* It will penetrate better than BT for both streaming & file transfer
* It will be more versatile than Bluetooth (as long as it can stream music)

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.

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.

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'.

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.

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

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.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

M.L. wrote:

BT is not intended to go through floors.
It is rather for the direct visibility within few meters
for devices about on the same , or the next table in the room.

While that info is technically correct, I've walked upstairs with
my Android phone and turned 90° into a bedroom while still
being able to hear music playing from our Aukey SK-M8
bluetooth speaker downstairs. Of course, there's no PC or file
transfers involved here.

Your speakers are Bluetooth 4, and just maybe, so is your Android.
That could actually extend the range (a bit).

And the chances of you finding a technical explanation are pretty slim.
Why does it do better ?

Virtually everything, even the Wikipedia article, are written
in marketing-speak. And even the Wikipedia article, wouldn't
help consumers, or grease the wheels in the sales department.
I don't care how many Bluetooth specs come out, the damage
is already done. Just look at what is for sale on the market,
to see why this is so. Even if somebody sold you on "whizzy
feature X", you probably can't buy one and add it to a PC.
Maybe it's your "$$$ this" and "$$$ that" which have it.
In this case, you got "accidentally lucky" on your two purchase.
It's like a lottery.

One reason for not suggesting "a miracle will happen" for the
average user, is usually one end of their link is a legacy
piece of equipment that sucks donkey balls. And then it's easier
to take the "safe bet" in terms of technology choices.

For example, Wifi Direct is a kind of Adhoc mode, but because
the Wifi Direct spec was finished relatively recently, you
probably would not suggest it as a solution, because, what
are the odds.

Having four power levels and more than five specs for
Bluetooth, isn't helping anyone. Just as the cesspool of
connectors for USB, isn't helping anyone. It's some kind
of technology horror movie.

Paul

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:


I have used BT for file transfer, worked fine.

that must have been very tiny files.

good luck transferring a video taken on a smartphone over bluetooth, or
even just a bunch of photos.

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.

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

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

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

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

He was not asking for that..

he asked about file transfer. bluetooth is much too slow for file
transfer. wifi is several orders of magnitude faster.

He is aware of that. In the first post he said so.

apparently not, because he still insists on using bluetooth, so clearly
he's not aware of just how slow it actually is.

Ah, that you do not know. You make that up.


He can have a legitimate reason why not to connect to a LAN.

i didn't say anything about connecting to lan.

Yes, you did, on another post:

nope.

i said to use wifi.

i did not mention a lan at all.

In article , nospam
wrote:
use wifi for file transfer, not bluetooth.

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?


--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2017-07-11 21:00, 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.

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)


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


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.


Why do you make stuff up?

--
Cheers, Carlos.

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

He can have a legitimate reason why not to connect to a LAN.

i didn't say anything about connecting to lan.

Yes, you did, on another post:

nope.

i said to use wifi.

i did not mention a lan at all.

In article , nospam
wrote:
use wifi for file transfer, not bluetooth.

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.

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