Slashdot Mirror
USB Going Wireless
NathanJ writes "Device Forge is running a technical whitepaper on wireless USB. The article states that 'Already there has been some progress with the definition of a WUSB specification with a targeted bandwidth of 480 Mbps. This specification maintains the same usage and architecture as wired USB with a high-speed host-to-device connection.' And that 'the WUSB host can logically connect 127 WUSB devices.' So what am I going to do with my Bluetooth desktop?"
Update Holy Deja vu batman... here is an earlier Slashdot article that I missed from 3 weeks ago. Oops.
Whats a "bluetooth desktop"? I've got a desktop with a bluetooth adaptor in it. Even should it magicly stop working when wireless USB comes out the adaptor only cost me 14$, so its not that big a loss.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Were one step closer to Cartmans Trapper Keeper!
This specification maintains the same usage and architecture as wired USB
Well unless they've been reading a ton of Tesla, I would call it the same usage or architecture as wired USB. Because USB is not only data but power, and AFAIK, wireless power distribution is neither a commodity technology nor tested to be safe in close quarters with humans...
The impact is that now I will have to turn devices on and off, worry about batteries, and power cords. Best case is everything gets (expensive) AAAs. Worst case is everything gets a power cord. If I'm using wireless USB, why would I want a power cord? I mean I'm not too keen on trading plugging in one thing for plugging in another.
And I've used wireless mice. They become erratic way before the batteries die. I like my HIDs to be precise and reliable, thank you very much...
I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
in compairison to standard wired USB.
Bluetooth is only useful for a very limited number of applications on a desktop computer (or even a laptop). A mouse, keyboard, and maybe a bluetooth cell phone or PDA (which very little people have). It's not worth the cost of having to buy a bluetooth setup or for manufacturers to include it on the motherboard.
If it had higher bandwidth then it could be useful for printers, scanners, mp3 players, hard drives, etc.
If wireless usb does provide the speeds they claim then it will be a huge success. The U in USB does infact standard for Universal, and that's what bluetooth needed to be really successful.
Oh and not to mention bluetooth support is awful in windows.
Does USB still have the limitation of dividing the bus' time evenly between all devices regardless of how much bandwidth they're using? I remember that that was one of the arguments in the USB 2.0 / Firewire flamewars.
If so, I'd keep my keyboard and mouse off the bus. Besides, there's no reason to throw away working hardware.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
So what am I going to do with my Bluetooth desktop?
Put it there in the corner, next to the Cordless Desktop, the Logitech one that used proprietary radio. Yeah, right there, next to the infrared keyboard.
why do i keep burning coasters?
<Tech> what connection you using?
<Dumbass> wusb
<Tech> stop talking on your cordless phone while writing to CD
I don't see it that way. Bluetooth is a great technology. It's slow speed do limit it's applications, but for you mouse and your keyboard and syncing up your cell phone and such, it works great and there is no reason to replace it. It is also low power, isn't it?
WUSB on the other hand is FAST. It seems like a waste to use it for a keyboard or mouse. That said, it will work great in those areas where BT is too slow. Wouldn't it be great to set your iPod next to your laptop and have it sync up all the songs in a few seconds? Or to print wirelessly (BT does this, but if you wanted to print a photo it would be slooooooowwwwww). Want a new hard drive? Set it next to your computer and it works. Same thing with that new camera you got that has WUSB. Just keep it near your PC and you can get your pictures with no wires. How about a wireless soundcard? Or even a (he he he) wireless USB wireless network adaptor! The idea of having a flash key thing built into your watch is nice, but imagine if it was WUSB! Just walk up to any computer and thanks to WUSB you have access to the files that are on your wrist without any cables or anything else (after a password for security or something, of course).
And because WUSB supports limited P2P stuff (IIRC), you could move your iPod next to your WUSB hard drive and have them sync without the computer (after all, all the data is in the iTunes database files) or have your camera download the pictures to your hard drive, or print your pictures without a computer or wires. For things needing high bandwidth, WUSB is the way to go. For many other things, BT is still great.
Now you can find many of those things I listed above with BT right now. There are BT printers, a BT camera,, and more. But while BT works for low bandwidth things, trying to move pictures from a camera to your PC through BT is supposed to be agonizingly slow. I wouldn't want to print 5MP photos over BT either.
I think there is room for both. It's if BT speeds up fast enough in time that we could be in for a fight. Otherwise I think they serve different enough markets that things will be OK.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Go wireless USB! Now, with only a mere pringles can, I can "borrow" my neighbors printer, turn his keyboard satanic, and upload the latest Simpsons theme to his PDA!
:)
Joy
Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
More than my PC. Really, there aren't many external devices I have for my PC that don't require power and a rather easily managed cable thanks to convenient hubs.
What I *do* need is an easier time with my A/V setup. Swapping out components is bad but adding anything new is nightmarish. Deciding which devices should be analog, S-Video, optical, or digital coax is mind numbing. I'd hoped I could firewire everything together but that hasn't happened either, darn it.
Give me a receiver, DVD player, Tivo, consoles, TVs and speakers with WUSB and I'll be happy. Plug the buggers into a power strip and watch as magic happens and everything chats. Sure, It'll probably need a PAN ID of somesort to limit bleed between setups but dang, it'd make it so much easier to drop a DVD changer and another console or 3 into the setup.
I've been on slashdot so long I'm starting to get out of touch with the cool stuff if it ain't on slashdot.
Don't worry about it. I'm sure it's your first time, and it won't happen again.
Low range, high speed. It's damn irritating having cable spaghetti for all my current USB devices, locating the appropriate connector for device X, Y or Z when I need to attach it and then realising that I need to unplug device A to make space for whatever I just located the cable for.
Bluetooth is too slow for many USB applications. Keyboard and mouse, yes, but even synching my PDA over BT is irritating especially if I want to backup the 128MB memory card. WiFi in my digital camera is unneccesary and if I had a decent cam (which I will probably purchase when I actually have some cash) I don't want to have to transfer 1GB+ of high resolution images over a 54Mbit connection.
WUSB is not an essentia protocol I admit, but it sounds like it will be damn convenient.
Bluetooth is well established in Europe so I don't see it disappearing all that soon.
I'm writing this on my laptop using WiFi to connect to my broadband net connection. Last weekend I stayed with my parents and used the same laptop via a bluetooth dongle and GPRS on my mobile phone.
I use bluetooth to sync that phone with the laptop and to transfer photos from the phone to the laptop.
On the drive home I noted many other drivers with bluetooth headsets on their ears. If I meet someone we exchange contact details via bluetooth. My housemate controls the MP3 player on her iBook from her phone using Bluetooth. I sync my phone to my PDA via Bluetooth.
I can see the usefulness of a high speed Bluetooth like system but there are applications that just don't need a faster connection and for them Bluetooth works just fine. Also, I'm not sure about the US, but in Europe it seems that Joe/Josephine Public have picked it up just fine and it's not restricted to geeks.
I can see
OK, I've got a (hypothetical) PC with WUSB printer, external hard drive, MP3 player, MIDI controller, and mouse. The only thing is, so does my roommate, and his is 2 feet from mine. So, it seems like either there must be some sort of setup involved (like telling the device which PC it's looking for) in which case the just-plug-it-in-and-it-works aspect of USB is negated, or else you're in for lots of high-speed device conflicts.
.5 seconds and then you're done. With the above multiple-device/multiple-PC scenario, it seems like it might be considerably more trouble to configure the devices themselves then to just plug 'em in and not worry about it. Are we really that lazy? Do we really need wireless *everything*?
And on the tinfoil-hat tip, what's to keep Uncle Sam from driving by on the street with a WUSB equipped laptop and scanning all my files on that WUSB external drive? If my cable modem is WUSB, what's to keep the govt from just watching
everything I do online ever?
And why, if I might ask, is this necessary? Is the 2 seconds you spend pluggin the cord into the device really that important? Is it really that hard to plug the thumbdrive into an actual USB slot? I mean, we don't complain about plugging our headphones into our walkmans. You plug them in, it takes
They will never stop until somebody makes the
I don't see it that way. Bluetooth is a great technology. It's slow speed do limit it's applications, but for you mouse and your keyboard and syncing up your cell phone and such, it works great and there is no reason to replace it. It is also low power, isn't it?
Bluetooth is heavily targeted toward telephony applications.
One thing that "IP guys" are constantly missing the importance of is the need to deal with timing in streaming applications. (The telephone people missed it too, when they initially went digital, and spent decades fixing it up after the fact. Their latest generation - SONET - is orgznized around clocking. "Synchronous" is even the first word in the acronym.)
Basic idea is that, when you're sending a real-time stream at a constant sample rate, if you have a common timing reference at the transmitter and receiver things are a LOT simpler than if you have to infer the timing of the transmitter at the receiver. Doesn't matter if you propagate it with the signal or both ends get it from a common source by some complicated path - just get them clocked alike to make the endpoints' jobs enormously easier.
Voice signals, for instance, play out fine if the clocks at the two ends are synchronized, but have annoying clicks if not. These clicks can be cleaned up by adding heavy processing - which trashes FAX and high-speed modem signals. But that means adding a DSP (or equivalent computation) for uncompressed signals, or extra DSP work if you already having one doing compression. This takes power, at a premium in portable applications, and extra (or faster) silicon, which can raise costs. And even then the result is usually not as good as if the clocks were synchronized in the first place.
Phone companies synchronize nearly everything in their networks to a common clock, especially the 8,000/second sample rate of the A-to-D conversion of the voice signals, and distribute digitized voice (when uncompressed) as 64 kbit signals (8,000 8-bit samples per second.)
Bluetooth is organized around this. Time is broken up into 16,000 slots per second, with the master and the slaves taking turns - 8,000/second each. (What a conincidence that it's the voice sampling rate, eh?) The master sets the timing. The number of active slaves is limited, but a slave can extend the net to more active devices by becoming the master of a subnet. This makes little sense for net organization, but perfect sense if the slave is propagating timing from the master. Channel allocation within the net includes a fat general-purpose data channel plus three constant-rate bidirectional 64Kbit channels. (I.e. three phone calls.) A slave can participate in two separate nets - and can terminate all three 64K channels if in one net, or two of 'em if one is from each.
What this means is bluetooth is perfect for things like wireless headsets for cellphones. The cellphone provides a clock to the headset to set its sample rate, and the headset sends and plays out uncompressed audio. So the headset requires no DSP, little silicon, and little power. (The Bluetooth modulation scheme also makes for a simple, low-power, DSP-free radio.) The cellphone already has a DSP for compressing audio on its way to/from the net. It can in principle propagate network clocking to the handset, making things better end-to-end. Or it can just use its local clocking to make headset/DSP communication easier.
So Bluetooth makes design of cellphone audio peripherals nice. Cheaper, lower power, longer battery life, lighter weight, compared to any of the other schemes which don't propagate a phone-network or piconet-local timebase accessable beyond the network stack and/or require heavy DSP processing to work at all. Thus it's unlikely cellphones will be moving away from it any time soon - and when they do they'll probably move to something else that also propagates clocking. Since bluetooth can also handle a moderately-fast data link for WAN traffic, you get wireless internet connection throu
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way