Slashdot Mirror
New IrDA Spec Shoots for 100Mbit/s Data Rate
An anonymous reader writes "According to an article at DeviceForge, the Infrared Data Association has adopted a new high speed IR communications protocol. This new protocol promises to deliver possible speed up to 100Mbit/s transfer rates. From the article: 'Of note, existing IrDA-enabled devices can be upgraded to the new protocol, thus offering the opportunity to accelerate the IrDA data transfer rates of devices in the field via a software update.'"
Although it's quite fast it's still line-of-sight, and very short range. So, what can I do with this, transfer 12.5 MB/sec off my mobile phone? To connect my PCs I have wifi or LAN, I wouldn't use IrDA anyway for that.
Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
Now, although the editor may feel that the submitter knows more about a subject field than he (or she), just a cursory glance through the linked main article to see how well it jives with the write-up should be in order. I'm just saying'.
Money for nothing, pix for free
Nice speed, this is handy for people that need to connect their mobile phone with their computer or something like that. Since bluetooth isn't that fast...
Now I can stream Video from my remote control ! Take that TV !
Yeah, given that 99% of PC implementations are bound to the serial port, they're slave to how fast the UART works, which would limit to a theoretical 230Kbps. Plus, the data transfer rate really doesn't make it that much better than Bluetooth, which has the same range, but without LOS issues.
A great theory, but not bloody likely.
anyone know the current speed for IrDa and bluetooth transfer???
Now I can talk to my tv at 100mpbs I can change channels much quicker and theoretically watch more channels at once.
(for all those people who flick backwards and forewards between 2 channels watching both programs - TV watching for the multitasking generation)
liqbase
Um, doesnt sound even remotely possible. All the IR links I've seen use a simple IR detector with intrinsically very limited bandwidth. Even with aggressive feedback it's hard to get over 100K BPS.
I miss line of sight communications. Now I can see that when the range is measured in miles or 10s of yards line of site is probably a real issue, but when its measured in feetor inches its actually really neat.
Bluetooth is cool, I wouldn't want a LOS headset, or xbox controller and it is cool being able to sync or connect to your phone whilst its still in your pocket. But handshaking is a PITA. Say a friend of mine wants to send me a photo from his groovy new phone to my apple. I can do it with bluetooth, but I have to pair it first (grrrr). In the bad old days of ir, all he had to do was point his phone at my laptop press send, then I accepted the transmission and it magically appeared on my desktop. Sweet.
For fast, one time transmission, this technology could really make life easier. You don't have to know what WLAN to connect to, you don't have pair, you don't have to worry about firewalls or connection settings or network contention. You just fire and forget. Its not replacement for bluetooth, its complimentary.
Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!
Mods, if you consider up-modding this, read the text carefully first.
You mean perhaps USB? That seems to be on a lot if not all of the devices mention.
This comment was thought up very late at night and does not necessarily reflect my views at a more reasonable hour.
I'll be able to change tv channel faster than ever!
"and very short range..."
IrDA sniper rifle anyone?
FRA: STFU GTFO
bluetooth and irda have the same range
bluetooth is more convenient since irda requires line of sight
well, we always talk about a trade off between convenience and security, and there is the tradeoff right there
so i think broadband irda has a blockbuster future
because security concerns are nothing to sniff at in a marketplace full of it departments spooked by security scares
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Probably a strictly hypothetical max bandwidth. 108mb/s 802.11n struggles to exceed 40mb/s in real-life.
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
I recently completed my individual project for University, which consisted of a cheap device that could store and distribute media to mobile devices (for use in shops, etc). I had huge problems with this project, not because of the protocols, which are actually very well written and offer high transfer rates, but in fact with the lack of utilisation in industry. I was unable to find any mobile phones for example that support FIR or VFIR, meaning they could only transmit at 0.1Mbps. This combined with the low throughput of bluetooth, makes mobile devices terrible for media exchange (i.e. movies, pictures, music, etc).
What I would like to see is more support from manufacturers, so we can provide better applications and uses for this technology.
Most devices made now adays don't even have IR ports. Apple stopped equiping their devices with IRda ages again (the titamium PowerBook G4 700MHz I think was the laste one), and it's very rare when I see a laptop with it. IR on cell phones is even rarer - I think Nokia is the only company that still really sells phones with IRda, and Palm is the only company still really pushing behind IRda. What was the point of updating a protocal that has be replaced in the computer world?
This signature was left intentionally blank.
IR devices are kinda neat. I've never used one personally, and the drivers for my laptop IR port stopped working when I went up to the 2.6 kernel way back when, but I have seen people at my old roommates work just plot their laptop or palm down next to an HP printer and instantly be able to connect and print via IR.
I like the fact that this new speed increase doesn't involve buying new hardware, which will help it a lot considering IR is starting to fade out.
IR has its limitations, such as line of sight and whatnot, but with 100Mbit speeds, its worth another look now.
IIRC, IR uses a fraction of the power WiFi requires-- I've left it active on my handheld by accident and didn't notice any significant battery drain difference at all.
Luke-Jr
I write software for the PocketPC (like iPAQs, etc.) We do printing and communications via either Compact Flash connections, bluetooth, or IrDA. By far the easiest to configure is IrDA. In fact, there is almost no configuration required. Just point the unit at the printer and hit 'Go'. No plugging in cables, no partnering devices. I can walk into a customer's office for the first time, spot an Infrared port on their printer, and print from my iPAQ with one tap of the screen. I know of no other protocol that can do that.
At training sessions we sometimes have 10 or 15 users with bluetooth, iPAQs, mobile printers and mobile phones. That up to 45 Bluetooth devices in the room. Now you try to partner the correct iPAQ with the mobile and printer of the right user. It's a bloody circus. With Infrared, there is great simplicity.
I know that IrDA is going out of fashion with some manufacturers, but I hope it continues.
Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird -- Proverbs 1:17
Ok, long time reader, first time poster, great website love the topic....
Infra red communication holds a lot of promise for small portable devices. Yes, it is line of site, but that is an advantage for secure connections. So and so on the street can't hack your pda while it's in your pocket, for instance.
Another advantage is the low power consumption. The led's used for this convert >99% of the electricity put into them into usable light. (real world performance for the system might vary) I don't know what the efficiency is for blue tooth, but I would be surprised if it's that good for ANY rf based device.
I have used ir on my palm device and it works great (if slow thanks to the UART limit). Simple and efficient. Point and send. Wouldn't use it to surf the internet for any long period of time, but I wouldn't want to on a device that small anyway. (no screen real estate)
Actually, IrDA currently runs at 1Mbps, with a range of 1 meter or 100 centimeters. Sorry, I don't know what it is in feet or inches, or any similarly antiquated units of measurement...
Forgive me, it's 16Mbps currently.
Yeah, given that 99% of PC implementations are bound to the serial port, they're slave to how fast the UART works
So far. IrDA adapters following this new spec could connect to the USB 2.0 bus[1].
Plus, the data transfer rate really doesn't make it that much better than Bluetooth, which has the same range, but without LOS issues.
The optical band (IR and visible) is not regulated by the FCC. I'll take an educated guess that it's less illegal to hack IrDA equipment for better range than to hack 802.11* or Bluetooth equipment for better range. Besides, LOS issues can be good for privacy, as the security through proximity lets you make use of your existing physical security measures.
[1] Don't complain about "ATM machine" or "PIN number". Trademarks are always used as adjectives in polite company.
IR's biggest fault is always going to be line-of sight as it is somethimes difficult to balance two laptops on a desk pointing at one another.
Bluetooth is quite good but needs more bandwidth perhaps a good solution for w/l Personal Area Networks would be a form of 802.11g that only had a range of say 5 to 10 meters.
In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
It takes so long for my cable box to change channels.
If Chaos Theory has taught us anything, it's that we must kill all the butterflies.
Bluetooth requires you to know about a device, shake hands, meet it's parents, get to know its annoying friends etc etc.
IrDA you just stick it to it. Literally. Which device I want to talk to? *this* one.
Think vending machines... although I imagine the internet/server/machine round trip is ok for most people.
Downloading games from a game depot... the physicality of placing your device there and having the data pushed onto your device... there is something secure and tangible there.
It could all go horribly wrong though... erm.. somehow...
To confirm you're not a script,
please type the word in this image: horribly
random letters - if you are visually impaired, please email us at pater@slashdot.org
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
Some people say IrDA sucks, but in the short time that my notebooks had them I always had them work very well. Line of sight obviously required, but never once have I pointed one IrDA device at another one and had it NOT work.
..
Maybe I'm just too stupid to break IrDA
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
I can change channels on my new hidef tv quicker now!
FragHARD or don't frag at all
"This new protocol promises to deliver possible speed up to 100Mbit/s transfer rates."
Why don't you just say "doesn't"?