Will 802.11 Kill Bluetooth?

joshwa writes "NYTimes (free reg. required) has an article about the struggles of the Bluetooth folks to fine-tune their technology and get the costs down far enough. The most interesting part is that analysts seem to think that 802.11's (what is this new 'Wi-Fi' moniker?) growing popularity will overshadow Bluetooth's entrance into the marketplace, and will beat Bluetooth into the small devices market. Can 802.11 actually work in a Palm or a cell phone?" The article, IMHO, misses the difference in uses - if you've got a small device that you want to conserve power on, and only communicate small distances, Bluetooth's ideal. If you've got a lot of power, a la a notebook computer, and want to communicate 150 ft., then 802.11 is what you want. Imagine that: Different uses! Different standards! Amazing!

Someone forgot to watch the Evil Dead

[sllort]

Watch Evil Dead.

You can't kill something if it's already dead.

What if..

[alexjohns]

if you've got a small device that you want to conserve power on, and only communicate small distances, Bluetooth's ideal. If you've got a lot of power, a la a notebook computer, and want to communicate 150 ft., then 802.11 is what you want. Imagine that: Different uses! Different standards! Amazing!

Which one do I use if I have a medium sized device with a middlin' amount of power and want to communicate a moderate distance. Do I need both?

802.11 is more than you think

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the "802.11" that you are speaking of is really called 802.11b (yes the 'b' is important). 802.11b is the standard that most everyone thinks of when they here wireless LAN, the 11Mbps transfer rate distance of 100 or 300 meters or something like that. But there are several other 802.11 specs out there, for instance the 54Mbps standard that will make use of the 5GHz ISM band, or the 802.11a standard (I believe it is a, might be g) which is in fact a direct competetor for Bluetooth. That is it is a low power short range wireless networking system designed to link things like handhelds and whatever else. It is not that far from release and probably will over shadow Bluetooth (mostly because BT sucks, I have been doing some extensive testing and it has the stability of a MS operating system). Anyway, just a few notes, thought that I might correct the guy on the Slashdot payroll who flaps his lips about things that he is obviously not educated about.

Re:Why so much fuss about wireless access ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Surprisingly enough, I asked the developers of wireless and they said it was only developed to piss you off. Looks like their mission is accomplished.

It's not dead...

[jmcneill]

It's not dead, it's pining... for the fjords...

Re:Bluetooth will fail just like infrared did

[GordonMcGregor]

Bluetooth doesn't need line of sight. The main failing with irDA is that it needs line of sight to be maintained between communicating devices. Bluetooth can talk to devices within your snazzy Dockers 'mobile pants' while happily irradiating your groin.