On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 19:15 -0400, Matthew Flaschen wrote: > Andy Green wrote: > > Somebody in the thread at some point said: > > > >> So, is bluetooth supposed to be much slower than USB connection? > > > > Yeah, it tops out at 2.1Mbps vs USB 480Mbps. > > In other words, BlueTooth is like USB, but slower, or like WiFi, but > slower and shorter range. I still can't figure out why it's popular. If you use it for what it was intended for, it's great (cordless headsets, quick syncs of your Palm Pilot, feeding your iPod through your car stereo, etc.) It's a low-speed, short range, wireless connection and always was. Problems crop up when people try to use it for things it was never meant to do (like a replacement for USB or WiFi). Analogy: the old Volkswagen Beetle could float in water, but would you want to cross the Pacific in one? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Rick Stevens, Principal Engineer rstevens@xxxxxxxxxxxx - - CDN Systems, Internap, Inc. http://www.internap.com - - - - If Windows isn't a virus, then it sure as hell is a carrier! - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
