Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wireless USB hubs

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the now-thats-a-good-idea dept.

HaggiZ writes "Here is alternative to the clutter of USB cables and keys sitting on your desk. Now Belkin has announced their own wire-free USB setup. It's a wireless USB hub, allowing your to plug devices into the hub and have your PC/laptop elsewhere and not need to worry about running cables along the livingroom or study to reach. Very handy for laptop users, I can imagine some very handy uses for so HTPCs as well. Shipping in spring for a shave under $130."

163 of 204 comments (clear)

  1. Sounds good, but maybe not? by PlayCleverFully · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, yeah, it sounds great and will probably be great for lots of things.

    However, performance will drop on these items, even the fastest wireless gaming mouses have a semi-noticable lag when you use them. This lag in other items could create problems, like obfuscated code going to printers, etc.

    Also, a security issue if you live in close-quarters (apartments, office buildings) because people could sniff the "packets" between the hub and device. They could watch you on your webcam, when you have your webcam software off.

    Well, it will probably be good, the cons are not too bad, I will actually probably buy one myself.

    --
    Windows? I haven't used that since 1999. Fix the Slashdot Problems
    1. Re:Sounds good, but maybe not? by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      However, performance will drop on these items, even the fastest wireless gaming mouses have a semi-noticable lag when you use them. This lag in other items could create problems, like obfuscated code going to printers, etc.

      At over 100Mbps, I hardly think you're going to be noticing lags with your mouse. The printer thing just makes no sense.

    2. Re:Sounds good, but maybe not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "even the fastest wireless gaming mouses have a semi-noticable lag when you use them"

      aka "i know it's wireless so i imagine lag that isn't there"?

    3. Re:Sounds good, but maybe not? by antifoidulus · · Score: 3, Informative

      High bandwidth DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN LOW LAG!!!!
      Even in ethernet the time to send the first byte dwarfs the per byte cost. The connection could still have a bit of latency even if the bandwidth is high...

      --
      Monstar L
    4. Re:Sounds good, but maybe not? by ergo98 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      High bandwidth DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN LOW LAG!!!!

      Point to point high bandwidth almost certainly does mean low lag. In this case even if it (ridiculously) had 100,000 byte packets (which is ridiculous), that's still only 8ms "lag", or faster than 125 frames per second.

      So thanks for the bit of pragmatic wisdom, but unfortunately in this case you're being an idiot.

    5. Re:Sounds good, but maybe not? by MaynardJanKeymeulen · · Score: 1

      He right tho..
      If I drive a truck with 100.000 iPod's to your house, in let's say an hour you get a total bandwith of 100.000*60GB*(8bits/byte)/60/60 = 13333,33.. gigabit. Which is huge.
      But so is the latency.

      --
      "The day Microsoft makes a product that doesn't suck is the day they make a vacuum cleaner."
    6. Re:Sounds good, but maybe not? by PlayCleverFully · · Score: 1

      I gurantee you that there is. You may not notice it for random web browsing, but ask someone who plays first person shooters which they prefer.

      Not one "professional" gaming team uses a wireless mouse.

      You think they would, no cords to mongle with, etc.

      However, they use wired because there IS lag. It may not be a big deal for common computing, but if you looked at specs.. there is lag

      Plus, does this product do power too? One of the most efficient features of USB is to let the utilities get the power they need to run too. Some utilities will still need to be plugged in somewhere (or battery packs) to work 100%.

      --
      Windows? I haven't used that since 1999. Fix the Slashdot Problems
    7. Re:Sounds good, but maybe not? by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      Are we talking about driving a truck with ipods? No, we're talking about point to point, short-hop wireless. There is negligible transmission latency, and even massive packet sizes would realize no credible latency. It's a non-starter.

    8. Re:Sounds good, but maybe not? by DeathFromSomewhere · · Score: 1

      there is lag

      You can tell yourself that all you want, that doesn't make it true. As to most gamers using wired mice, I suspect it would have something to do with the extra weight of the batteries.

      --
      -1 overrated isn't the same thing as "I disagree".
    9. Re:Sounds good, but maybe not? by Persol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is negligible transmission latency

      And you know that how? It's not just the aount of time the radio waves take. It's also the encoding and decoding. Theoretically they could have a 1 second buffer in there, giving you a second of lag. (Not that they would)

      The point is, there will be extra lag introduced because of this... and none of us can say how much unless we know exactly how this thing works.

    10. Re:Sounds good, but maybe not? by ergo98 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And you know that how? It's not just the aount of time the radio waves take. It's also the encoding and decoding. Theoretically they could have a 1 second buffer in there, giving you a second of lag. (Not that they would)

      I know it by simple logic. It's a high bandwidth, short hop device, point to point technology, which alone ensures low latency. Couple that with the fact that it's intended for devices that are intolerant of latency, and that pretty much seals the case. Arguing otherwise is just inane.

    11. Re:Sounds good, but maybe not? by v1 · · Score: 1

      and for those stupid enough to use a wireless keyboard, sniff passwords right out of the air. Goes right around any security that may exist on the computer - heck you don't even need to be in the same ROOM.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    12. Re:Sounds good, but maybe not? by clydemaxwell · · Score: 1

      high bandwidth, short hop, point to point technology does not ENSURE low latency. Not that I think the latency issues with this device will be bad, just thought I'd point out the error in your 'simple logic'.

      --
      Browsing with classic discussion, noscript, at -1 and nested
      no hidden comments and I only mod UP
    13. Re:Sounds good, but maybe not? by Lijemo · · Score: 1

      Obviouslly this wouldn't work for everything. As you note, high performence gaming and password security might be compromised. But I can see it being very handy for, for example, my scanner and printer. Both for my laptop (not having to hook it up each time I want to use them) and for my desktop (it gives me greater flexibility-- they would no longer need to be within cable's reach of the computer, I could set them up on the other side of the room rather than using prime realestate on my desk).

    14. Re:Sounds good, but maybe not? by Kagenin · · Score: 1

      I used to use a Wireless Optical mouse. I use a Razor Copperhead now.

      The difference in my DoD scores has been drastic. I can say, without a doubt, that upgrading my mouse to a wired laser mouse from a Wireless optical mouse that runs on batteries improved my stability, accuracy, and precision.

      You can think your wireless mouse is just as nice. You're wrong. You need to do the experiment for yourself instead of telling us we're wrong.

      Some gaming mice have weights you can add to improve the stability of a lighter mouse. The batteries, in this respect, do help in this regard, however the translation of the analog wireless signal to the USB-bus interface takes precious milliseconds. Not to mention that signal strength decreases with battery charge over time. When my old mouse needed its batteries changed, movement was sluggish, spotty... leaving me fragbait.

      When you're in the middle of a game, you don't want to have to take a time out to change the batteries on your mice either. That's why real gamers don't use wireless mice. This is one of those things that seperates the prentenders from the playmakers.

      --
      "All warfare is based on deception."
      Sun Tzu, "The Art of War"
    15. Re:Sounds good, but maybe not? by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      Wow, that's pretty clever. Pure gold.

    16. Re:Sounds good, but maybe not? by modecx · · Score: 1

      They're not idiots like some asperger syndrome candidates in discussion threads.

      Oh snap! Wet cleanup on my keyboard!

      Of course, you're right. I'm no USB expert, but IIRC, communication for USB HID (Human Input Devices--mice, keyboards, joysticks...anything you can grab onto to control the computer) is interrupt driven by the device at a certain rate. I believe this is 125 Hz for mice--which would give a latency of 8 milliseconds. I think you'd have to be one exceptional human to notice if the mouse polled more often.

      So In effect, if there is a latency problem, it's probably the mouse's' fault, or the OS's fault. In fact, there are programs for windows, which increase the polling of mice with the intent of reducing lag there. I see no reason this device wouldn't work with faster than default mouse polling... But I see no good reason to do that in the first place, because we just don't have the reaction times to take advantage of faster polling... And at any rate if you did do this, the OS is going to eat up more CPU cycles doing polling and an increased rate, so it's probably just as well to leave it alone.

      Of course, I hope anyone with more expertise in USB will correct me if I'm wrong.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    17. Re:Sounds good, but maybe not? by radish · · Score: 1

      Because, of course, the manufacturers would never think of that and, I dunno, maybe, encrypt the traffic? Sheesh.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    18. Re:Sounds good, but maybe not? by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      Oh snap!

      Heh. Just out of curiousity were you thinking of Jon Stewart when you wrote that?

    19. Re:Sounds good, but maybe not? by modecx · · Score: 1

      Well, to be honest, I was in a sort of zen state, practicing Yoga. I was currently in the wheel pose when suddenly... Well, yeah... So I was thinking of Jon Stewart :)

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    20. Re:Sounds good, but maybe not? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      "even the fastest wireless gaming mouses have a semi-noticable lag when you use them"

      aka "i know it's wireless so i imagine lag that isn't there"?

      Yes. The same imaginary lag that happens when I ping my laptop connected via wireless compared to a server connected by CAT5. Not to mention that many wireless mice in the past have had issues with lag. Granted, it is now very minor compared to the whole reaction cycle (percieve, process, respond = 150-200ms at best) but for really high end gaming it could be an issue. The weight of batteries is also an issue, more inertia requires more force which could be interpreted as lag. Same goes for frame rates, when you're competing at the top details matter. That said, 90%+ of the FPS gamers blame the equipment instead of their own inferiority. Unless you're in one of the top 10 players in one of the top 100 clans/teams/guilds of your FPS world-wide, it does not matter.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    21. Re:Sounds good, but maybe not? by Plaid+Phantom · · Score: 1

      the translation of the analog wireless signal to the USB-bus interface takes precious milliseconds.

      And you think wired mice don't translate analog to digital? A wired mouse has to translate the signal to a USB-friendly format as well. Unless you're meaning the through-the-air travel time. I'm not going to say that it's comparable (I really don't know either way. Or care, for that matter.), but there's still a lag in a 3- or 4-foot wire. (As my last wired mouse had). In my setup, the mouse is only about a foot away from the wireless reciever. I don't know the math involved off the top of my head, but if I had to guess, I'd gain at least a little back from the loss of signal travel time going from wired to wireless.

      --
      All comments are properties and trademarks of the voices in my head. Not like I'm gonna claim them.
    22. Re:Sounds good, but maybe not? by DeathFromSomewhere · · Score: 1

      Knowing you were using a wireless mouse could have caused you to alter the results to meet the outcome you expected. See here. Your anecdotal evidence is not valid.

      --
      -1 overrated isn't the same thing as "I disagree".
    23. Re:Sounds good, but maybe not? by anethema · · Score: 1

      Not all wireless mice are equal. Take a look at the later logitech mice, from the MX-700 upwards including the G series.

      There is no possible way to percieve lag since the updating is done synchronously with the USB refresh, just like it would in a wire.

      If you use some bluetooth microsoft mouse or any cheaper wireless mouse, then yes, there will be VERY percievable lag. But like i said, try a mx700, mx1000, or G7. Unless your brain is helping you percieve lag because you know it is wireless...its just not there.

      There is of course a price for the frequent updates. The batteries last on the order of days instead of weeks or months. This is why they make them rechargable like cordless telephones. They are also a bit heavier because of the batteries. But lag is no longer an issue with wireless gaming mice and hasnt been for years.

      --


      It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
    24. Re:Sounds good, but maybe not? by ZenShadow · · Score: 1

      The weight of batteries is also an issue, more inertia requires more force which could be interpreted as lag.


      Wow. That is the most impressive argument that I have ever seen for lag in wireless devices.

      Do you do geek stand-up?

      --S
      --
      -- sigs cause cancer.
    25. Re:Sounds good, but maybe not? by dslbrian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know it by simple logic. It's a high bandwidth, short hop device, point to point technology, which alone ensures low latency.

      This is not true, I know having designed ICs in this area that the other posters are correct in that high bandwidth is not equal to low latency. In fact this is a real design challenge in things such as wireless controllers for game consoles, where latency is everything. You are correct that many USB devices can tolerate latency (printers and such), but not keyboards and mice.

      Personally one thing I always liked about USB - and I think this is its best feature - is the 5V supply line. Designing USB peripherals is nice when you can just tap power off of it. Unfortunately wireless breaks that, so all those devices will need either wall plugs or batteries...

    26. Re:Sounds good, but maybe not? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Bugger security.

      There is no wireless Model M, so I don't use wireless. ;)

    27. Re:Sounds good, but maybe not? by cciRRus · · Score: 1

      An example would be to pass someone a DVD instead of sending the ~4GB data through a broadband connection. By passing him the DVD you'll get "high bandwidth" but then the latency will be greater, since the other party would take a longer time to reply (acknowledge). He has to bring the DVD to his PC, copy (read) the data, check that its right, then notify (acknowledge) you through phone that the data is ok, and go ahead to meet up for the next DVD.

      --
      w00t
    28. Re:Sounds good, but maybe not? by AaronLawrence · · Score: 1

      What if the device has powered down it's transmitter to save power? Power is a big concern in wireless devices and they have to be aggressive about turning things off to get decent battery life.

      What if there is some interference at the time of transmission and it has to retry?

      What if there is connection establishment to go through maybe involving timeouts (e.g. collision checks)?

      Just some thoughts ...

      --
      For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
    29. Re:Sounds good, but maybe not? by Urchlay · · Score: 1
      There is no wireless Model M, so I don't use wireless. ;)

      The very first thing I thought when I saw this article about a wireless USB hub was "Hey, now I can have a wireless Model M!" :)

      Of course it isn't really wireless (would have wire going from keyboard to PS/2 => USB adaptor, then to wireless hub), but it does mean I can use a model M on the HTPC in the living room without trailing 20' of extension cable across the floor.

      However, a full-sized model M has a decent amount of empty space inside it... from the pics in TFA, it looks like it might be possible to squeeze this thing into a model M case (might have to be the large-sized model M 3270 version, the one with all the extra function keys). You'd have a wireless real keyboard!

    30. Re:Sounds good, but maybe not? by radish · · Score: 1

      I think you'd be surprised. All the logitech wireless keyboards I've used recently (even the cheapy $30 ones) have encrypted communications. That, coupled with a range of only a few feet, make me feel pretty secure.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    31. Re:Sounds good, but maybe not? by N_Piper · · Score: 1

      And If I sneek into your apartment and replace that ferite filter on your cable with a transmiter I can "sniff" all the "packets" I want. Unless you live in a faraday cage your computer is brodcasting everything you do a good distance.

    32. Re:Sounds good, but maybe not? by Kagenin · · Score: 1

      You'd also be guessing wrong. Believe it or not, it's faster to send information on a cable than over a radio wave. Razors also use gold-plated connectors, etc...

      You even ignored the more important point of what happens when batteries run out.

      Your wireless mouse doesn't have a 1000Hz Polling rate (or even a 500Hz polling rate). It doesn't read at 2000 DPI. Your wireless mouse will run out of juice, and leave you fragbait.

      My Razor Copperhead does.

      You can pretend you know about wired vs. wireless transmission technology all you want, but clearly you're talking out your ass.

      --
      "All warfare is based on deception."
      Sun Tzu, "The Art of War"
    33. Re:Sounds good, but maybe not? by Kagenin · · Score: 1

      I'm not clicking on your link, and you can go fuck yourself for adding nothing to the discourse.

      --
      "All warfare is based on deception."
      Sun Tzu, "The Art of War"
    34. Re:Sounds good, but maybe not? by Plaid+Phantom · · Score: 1

      You can pretend you know about wired vs. wireless transmission technology all you want, but clearly you're talking out your ass.

      Of course. I said as much. I really don't know either way. Or care, for that matter.

      --
      All comments are properties and trademarks of the voices in my head. Not like I'm gonna claim them.
  2. Re:Bluetooth by marcello_dl · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Well but you would have to scrap your usb devices for bluetooth ones, when (if) available.

    --
    ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
  3. Re:Bluetooth by EvilMonkeySlayer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have a PVR, the Humax 9200T. It allows me to record etc from digital tv/radio.
    I can transfer those recordings from it to a pc via a USB connection, unfortunately whenever I want to transfer those it means connecting my laptop upto it. Because of the PVR's location in a cabinet it is a bit of hassle.

    With a wireless usb adapter it essentially means I can transfer those recordings to my laptop/desktop pc with the minimum of hassle.

    Not everything uses or supports bluetooth.

  4. Re:Bluetooth by kalleguld · · Score: 5, Informative

    Wireless USB is a lot faster, according to specs it has 480 Mbit/s, whereas Bluetooth is only 721 kbit/s.

    --
    Sigs are bad for your health
  5. Re:Bluetooth by ergo98 · · Score: 1

    Isnt this what bluetooth was all about?

    Why keep re-inventing the wheel?

    The wheel has been "reinvented" in a million different forms based upon requirements and goals. In this case they say (from TFA) At rates 100 times faster than Bluetooth(TM) technology and with wire-like quality, UWB brings a new wireless option to auto, consumer electronics, and PC/peripheral manufacturers. Using UWB, for example, an MPEG2 movie or HDTV stream can be broadcast in real time wirelessly. This allows consumers new freedom in the use of multimedia-centric products, as they no longer need to be connected with wires.. Seems like they answered the question pretty handily.

    Coincidentally enough just last night I put MAME on the media center PC, and had to string a USB hub to the middle of the room so we could be at a reasonable distance with the two USB joysticks.

  6. Re:Bluetooth by Jdodge99 · · Score: 1

    Different market actually -- bluetooth is slow -- and designed for easy mating (send business card via bluetooth connection) My understanding is that this will carry either the full bandwidth - or close to it of USB 2.0 Hi-Speed -- 480Mbs -- which puts it almost 10 times faster (theoretically) than 802.11g or 802.11a - we'll see what this turns into in reality. Bluetooth is at 721Kbs -- approx 3/4 of a megabit. Will work for simple streams -- but sending full motion video while simultaneously using it for your keyboard, mouse, and gps connectivity -- probably not. I think there's a higher speed version of bluetooth in the works -- but it's nowhere close to hi-speed.

  7. Noo to belkin! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Ooh, Slashdot short memory! Don't forget we're not buying Belkin after the fiasco with their routers redirecting occasional DNS requests to the Belkin website to show an advert.

    Happened a little over a year ago and Slashdot was up in arms about it!

    1. Re:Noo to belkin! by svanstrom · · Score: 3, Informative

      It was more than 2 years ago...

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/11/07/help_my_be lkin_router/

      --
      perl -e'print$_{$_} for sort%_=`lynx -dump svanstrom.com/t`'
    2. Re:Noo to belkin! by Jozer99 · · Score: 1

      Looks cool. Too bad UWB uses such a huge swath of bandwidth. In a couple years, we are going to look back and realize there are no more free frequencies, and that we should have figured out more EFFICIENT ways of sending data, not taken the easy road.

  8. I'll take one. by imboboage0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    THIS, is a great idea that I can guaruntee will make money.

    Personally, i expect to see one of these im my home. There have always been USB hubs, then there have been the wireless adapters (labelled for printers and such), but never a wireless hub (to my knowledge). WE have a couple digital cameras, a scanner, an external hard drive, and a mouse hooked up through USB. All but the mouse go through a USB 2.0 hub. When we move the laptop, usually we just disconnect the hub. now, it will be possible to just... well... go. =D

    --
    Honesty may be the best policy, but by process of elimination, dishonesty is the second best policy.
  9. Re:Bluetooth by bheer · · Score: 1

    Man -- reading stream-of-consicousness -- can be difficult.

    --
    Go somewhere random
  10. Re:Bluetooth by jchawk · · Score: 1

    Have you used bluetooth for anything other then a wireless headset for your telephone, or some simple quick transfers between devices?

    Doesn't sound like you have because bluetooth absolutely sucks otherwise. It's overly complicated to setup and don't even get me started about the goofy licensing...

  11. Not the wire to the hub by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't know how useful this will be to me. Its not the wire, one, running to the usb hub, but the wires, four, running from the hub to the devices. Now if I could just plug in a wireless dongle to each device that would be cool.

    --

    Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    1. Re:Not the wire to the hub by timeOday · · Score: 1
      I'm thinking maybe it's for putting a keyboard and mouse by the couch... or something?

      At the price, though, you could just buy wireless peripherials and be done with it.

    2. Re:Not the wire to the hub by lolocaust · · Score: 1

      I'd imagine that there'd be wireless dongles available when W-USB is out. The dongle would plug into the usb port of a device, and would instantly make it compatible with the wusb chipset inside your pc. Should be out by the end of the year, as another poster stated.

      --
      Why does my post history abruptly stop? I want to laugh at the stupid things I posted as a kid.
    3. Re:Not the wire to the hub by plumby · · Score: 1

      Assuming I've understood it correctly, I'll be getting one of these. 90% of my computer usage at home is on my laptop, sat on my sofa. I've got various USB devices, such as an external drive, an iPod and a digital camera that I have plugged in. It's a real pain to have the cable from the drive trailing across my lap, and whatever other device I'm using crammed in somewhere on the sofa.

      It would be so much move convenient if I could put the device on a table nearby, plug my devices into that and just have dongle attached at the side of my laptop.

    4. Re:Not the wire to the hub by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      That is what I have a wireless keyboard for that goes to the Media PC. I suppose this device would be use could be used for laptops to some people. I have all the devices that I would use on the laptop shared from the main computer. I just use them over my Wifi link.

      Still even though I don't see much of a use for it now in my set up devices like this have a habit of becoming useful when you least expect it. I imagine that in 6 months to a year I will have one and could swear I didn't know how I lived with out it.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    5. Re:Not the wire to the hub by joNDoty · · Score: 1

      A wireless dongle for each device isn't very practical because our devices need power. It's not possible unless every dongle has its own battery.

  12. Speed by nurb432 · · Score: 3, Funny

    700k/s is good enough for anyone.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Speed by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      I guess humor is beyond you. Be careful who you call idiot..

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    2. Re:Speed by frdmfghtr · · Score: 1

      Sort of like how 640K RAM was more than anybody would ever need or how 10 MB hard drives were ENORMOUS. :)

      (Methink it's time to upgrade to the 20 MB drive)

      --
      Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
    3. Re:Speed by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      All kidding aside for a moment, 'need' and 'want' *are* 2 different things.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  13. Now we just need wireless power! by acadiel · · Score: 4, Funny

    All we need now is wireless power! Heh.

    1. Re:Now we just need wireless power! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Clearly Tesla coils are the solution.

    2. Re:Now we just need wireless power! by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      What is induction

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    3. Re:Now we just need wireless power! by Travis+Mansbridge · · Score: 1

      Solar power?

    4. Re:Now we just need wireless power! by vwjeff · · Score: 5, Funny

      All we need now is wireless power! Heh. Perhaps you should investigate a new device called the battery.

    5. Re:Now we just need wireless power! by nsaneinside · · Score: 1

      Jeopardot, is it?

  14. Most welcome.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Dunno about others, but I have found USB as very useful for me.

    Since last 20 years I have been looking at all those fscking interfaces and 'Plug and Prey' and so on. (no offence intended). USB offers fast reliable and clean interface, that really brings the device up and running in minutes.

    Now this addition of wireless hub will make me more than happy.

    1. Re:Most welcome.. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Actually, so far as Microsoft's implementation is concerned I believe it's called "Shrug and Pray".

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:Most welcome.. by ZenShadow · · Score: 1

      Wow. It's off topic to talk about who invented USB in a discussion about an article regarding... USB peripherals.

      I love Slashdot.

      --S

      --
      -- sigs cause cancer.
  15. Re:slashvertisment? by markdavis · · Score: 1

    No, it seems you need to do better research. There are no other wireless USB hubs on the market.

  16. The advantage of this hub by hellfire · · Score: 3, Interesting

    For those who don't get it, the point of the hub is to provide a place where you can plug in your scanner, printer, and other external peripherals, providing them all with wireless functionality, without the scanner and printer actually having the wireless capability built in. Makes sense for those of us with lots of USB peripherals who also have a wireless laptop.

    What's a little odd is that they aren't using bluetooth, but the article claims its 100x faster than bluetooth. Perhaps this opens up the idea of plugging in hard drives into a USB hub like this, either for backup, for extra workspace, or just a great way to store your extensive mp3/movie/pr0n collection.

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

    1. Re:The advantage of this hub by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      No that is not the advantage of this hub. The advantage is that most consumer items are now usb that travel with the person daily. So I can plug in my Ipod shuffle and my treo when I get home at night and the next morning these items are not only charged for the next day but the shuffle is filled with the new podcasts and the treo is synched and has any new apps on it I might have downloaded and sent to it. One convienent place near my keys and shoes so I can grab and go in the morning.

      This will replace the 100 foot USB extension cable I built that attaches to a powered USB hub to accomplish the same thing. (Yes kids you can send USB signals for 100 feet with the right gear)

      The future is convience for devices that travel with you. if my USB memory stick is on my keychain I can plug it in when I get home with the other items and it will be available on my machine if needed. No looking for the keys to get data on or off the device. (Granted, I dream of a Bluetooth thumb drive, but they will never exist.)

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  17. Beware? by The+Step+Child · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Interesting that Belkin doesn't give an approximate range.

    1. Re:Beware? by 12+inch+pianist · · Score: 1, Interesting

      TFA claims you can use your USB devices "anywhere in the room". Looks like it might only be short range.

    2. Re:Beware? by Jozer99 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Can't answer definitively, but so far, most manufaturers of early UWB devices are quoting ~30ft usable range.

  18. Good idea... BUT! by immorak · · Score: 1

    I think it's a great idea. Wireless isn't always the way to go though.

  19. wonder what the range is? by Clover_Kicker · · Score: 4, Funny

    This might be more convenient than daisy-chaining USB hubs for that long run to the webcam in my bondage dungeon.

    1. Re:wonder what the range is? by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

      With the proper NEMA watertight enclosure (a 4A rating, IIRC), you could put the computer IN the dungeon. Much easier to do a wireless link to the PC there, than long cables from the PCs to the dungeon cameras.

      --
      I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    2. Re:wonder what the range is? by Provocateur · · Score: 1

      Ahem* ...links, please? Or do we have to wait for an AskSlashdot 'How do I upgrade my basement to bondage dungeon?'

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    3. Re:wonder what the range is? by typical · · Score: 1

      This might be more convenient than daisy-chaining USB hubs for that long run to the webcam in my bondage dungeon.

      Even with the maximum number of USB hubs in a chain (5) and maximum cable length between each (5 meters), you still only have a 25 meter span.

      --
      Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
    4. Re:wonder what the range is? by OldManAndTheC++ · · Score: 2, Funny
      my bondage dungeon.

      Is that where you keep your slave drives?

      --
      Soylent Green is peoplicious!
    5. Re:wonder what the range is? by DMoylan · · Score: 1

      and use all those cables for a cat5 of 802.11 tails?

    6. Re:wonder what the range is? by Ryz0r · · Score: 1

      lol, this is why we need the (+1, GROAN) moderation option!

      --
      Peace, Love, Unity, Respect
    7. Re:wonder what the range is? by Clover_Kicker · · Score: 1

      http://web.archive.org/web/20050331091607/http://w ww.roadkill.net/madmins/CAT509pro.html

    8. Re:wonder what the range is? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Bah, screw that.

      Get a TCP/IP aware camera with audio capture. Better quality image, and lots of them come with thier own webservers. ;)

  20. Re:Bluetooth by Deadstick · · Score: 5, Funny
    Why keep re-inventing the wheel?

    Because we figured out that stone is not the best wheel material.

    rj

  21. Great News by charliebear · · Score: 1

    I have an HP Scanner, and if I extend the USB cables past about 20', it doesn't work properly. Unfortunately, since I want to place the scanner on the other side of the office, I either need to run more than 20' or have the cable strung over the top of my desk. This sounds great.

    1. Re:Great News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Look here:

      http://www.usb.org/about/faq/ans5#q4

      It describes the maximum length of cable and the next question describes what to do to extend the range.

  22. Re:Bluetooth by MBCook · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Bluetooth 2.0+EDR (which is on Macs, I don't know about other computers) is 3.0 Mbps. Faster, but still not there.

    But like the grandparent post said, the real point is that most things aren't available in Bluetooth. You want to plug in your external hard drive by Bluetooth? You can't buy one that would let you do that. Is your digital camera designed to use Bluetooth to connect to your computer? Your drawing tablet? Your PDA? Your cell phone? Your printer? Your DVD-RW drive?

    Some of these things may be available in Bluetooth, but if they were and if your computer supported Bluetooth you probably would be using it already. This is a solution for things that must be USB (or you don't want to fork out to buy the Bluetooth version), and I can see it being quite handy. It would be nice to have a little collection of USB stuff that I could plug into my laptop with one little adapter so I'm still cordless instead of the wire running over to the hub. And with a HTPC (as someone else mentioned) you could use this to plug USB stuff in by the couch where you are (game pads, memory sticks, etc) instead of having to reach behind your collection of AV equiptment where the PC is.

    --
    Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
  23. "Plug and prey"? by xusr · · Score: 1

    is that the malicious act of plugging SCSI devices into a co-workers computer on the sly? ;-)

  24. Why not 802.11 by slim · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It looks very handy, but why should the PC need yet another wireless interface?

    Surely with a clever enough driver, you could tunnel USB traffic over 802.11 (or even over TCP/IP). Make a USB hub that provides the server for this tunnelling client, and you'd wouldn't need a dongle.

    1. Re:Why not 802.11 by slim · · Score: 1

      I don't think this is very interesting for your mouse or keyboard. Think printers, storage devices etc. instead.

    2. Re:Why not 802.11 by siwelwerd · · Score: 1

      Or at the very least, build one of these type hubs into a 802.11 WAP so it's only one box sitting on the desk instead of 2

    3. Re:Why not 802.11 by Clover_Kicker · · Score: 1

      > Surely with a clever enough driver, you could tunnel USB
      > traffic over 802.11 (or even over TCP/IP)

      Too much latency.

    4. Re:Why not 802.11 by shmlco · · Score: 2, Informative

      So true. And yet another dongle eating up a port...

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    5. Re:Why not 802.11 by slim · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that the USB spec requires latency lower than 802.11 can provide, or are you simply suggesting that, for example, using a USB mouse tunnelled over 802.11 would feel unacceptably sluggish due to latency?

      If the former, fine. If the latter, then just don't use this for applications where latency matters. If I'm streaming audio from a USB hard drive then I don't mind about latency.

    6. Re:Why not 802.11 by Clover_Kicker · · Score: 1

      I'm no expert, but the max length of a USB cable is 5 meters. I always assumed that's because of signal propagation times and not voltage losses etc.

    7. Re:Why not 802.11 by Geoff-with-a-G · · Score: 1

      Because UWB is better and higher-bandwidth than 802.11a/b/g.

  25. not really... by xusr · · Score: 1

    Only if you are concerned with spending more money for slower technology for the sake of bragging rights....or just simply can't stand any wires at all.

    1. Re:not really... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      It depends on what is desired. A bluetooth keyboard and mouse set would be cheaper than this wireless USB hub.

      For storage and printing, I would think that puting them on the wireless network would be a better way to go.

  26. New excuse? by Stan+Vassilev · · Score: 4, Funny

    RIAA: Hey. WTF is this, you got 30 gigs of pirated mp3s! You're so sued!

    Gollegeboy: Dude I swear one asshole sits in front of the building and beams his iPod contents to everyone with wireless USB!

  27. Re:Bluetooth by frdmfghtr · · Score: 1

    With a wireless usb adapter it essentially means I can transfer those recordings to my laptop/desktop pc with the minimum of hassle.

    Will it?

    I couldn't find any product info at the Belkin site, only the linked press release. It appear that the only wireless portion is between the hub and the computer. The press release itself eludes to this, as it says "Laptop users gain the freedom to roam wirelessly with their laptop around the room while still maintaining access to their stationary USB devices." (Emphasis mine) Presumably the devices as well as the hub, as they are stationary, still use cables to get to the hub.

    You are correct in that it would do as you describe, provided that you put the hub in the cabinet as well.

    --
    Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
  28. Re:Wait For Real Wireless USB by lolocaust · · Score: 1

    I personally can't wait for wusb. I can keep my ipod in my pocket while itunes syncs my libary.

    --
    Why does my post history abruptly stop? I want to laugh at the stupid things I posted as a kid.
  29. security by ArbitraryConstant · · Score: 1

    "Also, a security issue if you live in close-quarters (apartments, office buildings) because people could sniff the "packets" between the hub and device. They could watch you on your webcam, when you have your webcam software off."

    Even if there's strong encryption, this is an issue. There are attacks that can figure out what you're typing from the timing of the keystrokes alone, and wireless USB would provide very accurate timing information to any attackers.

    --
    I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
    1. Re:security by ArbitraryConstant · · Score: 1

      lucky != okay

      --
      I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
  30. Similar to Keyspan product by atlauren · · Score: 2, Informative

    Sounds like Belkin is competing with this (and I assume other similar) product:
    http://www.keyspan.com/products/usb/server/

    Haven't used it, but I'm intrigued by the idea.

    1. Re:Similar to Keyspan product by mhollis · · Score: 1

      According to the article: USB audio / video products are not supported at this time.

      The Ultra Wideband Technology of the Belkin/Freescale product would appear to include this kind of media.
      --
      Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
    2. Re:Similar to Keyspan product by dvdsmith · · Score: 1

      Personally, I like the keyspan device better. All you need is the one device connecting the usb devices to the network. You don't have to have a dongle for each laptop or desktop trying to access it. With the Belkin device the current unknown factor is just how secure the wireless connection is. For the Keyspan device, its as secure as you make your wifi connection. You also don't have ANOTHER dongle hanging off the backup of your laptop, waiting to be snapped off by accident. Last but not least, it is NOT made by Belkin :) Just my opinion.

      --
      "Build something idiot proof, and someone will build a better idiot" - Samuel Clemens
  31. Re:Bluetooth by Daengbo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While what I'm going to say may seem slightly off-topic at first, keep reading, please. On my last trip into Seoul, I went looking in the computer malls for a DivX player for several hours. These are easy to find and play movies or music of most formats through your TV with 5.1 sound. While I could build one myself, these are smaller (about the size of a cable modem or wireless router) and/or cheaper (about US$125) than a home-built solution. Oddly, they all worked off of a USB cable. You disconnect the DivX player from the A/V setup, carry it over to your computer, load the movie that you want to watch onto the flash RAM, reattach the player to the A/V setup, and play the movie. This seemed rather like a lot of work.

    So, I asked for what I thought was an obvious feature -- to access a Samba share across a wireless (or even physical) network to play movies. After hours of talking to virtually every vendor and them making many phone calls to their suppliers, I found no DivX players with this faeture. One shop promised that it would be in the "next model."

    It would be pretty easy for me to set up Geexbox to do this, but I really wanted the small form-factor at the small price. I expected that a network-aware player would cost more, but never suspected that one did not exist. It's not really important enough for me to spend over US$200 on, and I certainly want a setup that's small enough to take back home with me when I'm finished in Korea, so I guess that I'll pass on building my own and wait for that "next model."

    --
    Put identity in the browser.
  32. Problem with their implementation by sqrammi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The problem with their implementation is that the USB dongle that comes with the hub will not enable you for future Wireless USB devices, i.e. all you get is a hub, and that's it. So if you buy one of these, you'll also have to buy another Wireless Host Controller or Host Wired Adapter a few months down the road to give you full wireless USB capabilities. I'm holding out for one of those, personally.

  33. All comes down to compatibility by eberta · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have seen attempts to do this before and even bought one (albeit it was just point-to-point and designed specifically for printers). I would not buy it until some independent testing was done it (Tom's hardware style). Basically my HP printer would work for a week or two and then it would just return with communication error until I power cycled everything. I remember a movement to make an official WUSB (wireless USB) protocol, but it did not seem to go anywhere. If Belkin finally made a version that actually works on most hardware without glitches, hurray to them. It is a very difficult task because of the way USB works.

  34. Are the Analogy Police Lurking? USB |= wheel by postbigbang · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Take a look at the USB specs, and the number of vendors deploying them. USB devices are 'trusted' where BT devices are 'paired'. BT in its first incarnation had an operation radius of 8m. With WiFi, the operational radius, given Defcon successes, might be nearly 200km (line of sight, no sun spots, nearby Schwarzchild radius, etc). So far, 8m vs 200km. Speed in payload is about 52x, USB 2.0 vs BT 1.1 spec.

    BT is really designed as a paired communications medium (with dedicated voice channel) as a PAN setup utilizing OBEX (object exchange) and a few other interesting inter-device tricks. USB is a perhipheral connector and virtualizing the electrical part through wireless is a godsend. USB is more layer 1 & 2, where BT is a full stack.

    --
    ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
  35. How about a wireless router with USB? by SpzToid · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Consider the Asus 500g Deluxe router. You can install Linux on it, in the form of openwrt(.org), or dd-wrt(google-it!); so long as your peripherals are all Linux peripherals. It has *2*, USB 2.0 ports in the back, and costs less, about 90 euros including tax. I imagine you can even daisy-chain extra USB peripherals using that old USB hub you discarded awhile ago. Besides USB ports, what's a (wireless!)dumb hub gonna do for you? Why not enjoy a full-on wireless Linux NAS file server/router/printer server/ ... and in the future web cam... (?)

    --
    You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
    1. Re:How about a wireless router with USB? by m50d · · Score: 1

      Webcam on linux works fine for me, though I'm not sure how you'd get it off the router. Is there enough space to install the X client libraries?

      --
      I am trolling
    2. Re:How about a wireless router with USB? by SpzToid · · Score: 2, Informative

      I dunno. The specs. are the same as the Linksys WRT54GS, only with 2 USB ports. I think that's 8Mb of flash RAM in total; but I'm fuzzy on all that.

      Have a look over at OpenWRT.org, and check out the list of packages & requirements available in their distro. Their distro is quite nice, in that installation is absolutely minimal to what is required, saving the remaining space to install, oh, let's say the Asterisk PBX package for example. Even pptp is 'optional'.

      OpenWRT has a great chart of which routers are supported, plus their specs.

      The asterisk possibility got me really excited, but I haven't had the time to play further. Still I kinda think that while it is a great router plus NAS, the CPU is a wee bit underpowered for full Asterisk, for example. But so what?! Its still a heckuva little server for a neat price. If it can run Asterisk, it must be able to run your libraries, but I dunno.

      Here's some related info too.

      What Linux package supports a webcam? The Asus stock firmware supports the webcam, but those bright purple gui colors just scream "void my warranty and flash me properly with a real Linux distro!"

      --
      You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
    3. Re:How about a wireless router with USB? by m50d · · Score: 1

      I use the qc-usb module for my particular webcam, which allows it to appear as a V4L device, then you can use any V4L program to post snapshots on your webserver, chat with netmeeting, or whatever you want to do with it.

      --
      I am trolling
  36. Re:Bluetooth by DaveRexel · · Score: 2, Informative

    This article
    http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/05/09/uwbbluetoo th/index.php

    Dicusses the use of Bluetooth as a mediator between the different UWB implementations.

    Will the Belkin/Freescale units interoperate with future products using Intel Wimedia? Or is the proposal in the MacWorld article just what is needed for speedier and wireless USB connections?

    Any info on the security implications of carrying your precious "data" around on a high-speed wireless usb key?

    Other than that I'd be very pleased to diminish the rats nest of cables and be able to place things like scanners independent of the computers location.

    --
    # ~: no sigs today
  37. actually by xusr · · Score: 1
    the article says that the technology is "100 times faster than Bluetooth". 721Kbps x 100=72Mbps. Not as fast as a full-blown hi-speed wireless USB, but a good deal better than Bluetooth, even (the currently available) Bluetooth 2.0 Enhanced Data Rate, which is 3Mbps.

    Apple has included Bluetooth 2.0+EDR in their laptops for some time now.

  38. How quickly we forget by jet_silver · · Score: 1

    http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/11/07/17 40205

    Belkin? No matter how good their plans, what they deliver can be self-serving crap. I'll wait until Linksys brings out one of these.

  39. ExpressCard/34 and PCMCIA Edition by moo083 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Most laptop users don't want things sticking out of their computers. I think it would be great if they made a reciever that went in ExpressCard/34 and PCMCIA slots. That way, people could always leave it in. And eventually have laptop manufacturers build it in to their hardware.

  40. Re:Bluetooth by heinousjay · · Score: 1

    In what way? Is there some universal bitbank that's being depleted?

    --
    Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
  41. use a powered hub by bigbensheldo · · Score: 1

    Have you tried placing a powered hub in the middle of two cables? I've successfully run 2 15' usb (and firewire as well) cables with a hub in the middle to peripherals like printers (and a DV tape deck with firewire) across the room.

    1. Re:use a powered hub by charliebear · · Score: 1

      Tried that. Should have worked, Didn't work. There is a difference between real world applications, and theory. I think a USB printer would work fine, but the scanner is touchy.

  42. Re:Bluetooth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I've used it for keyboards and mice, as well as PDA sync and such. It's great for what it is - cable replacement for peripherals. Bluetooth is NOT a wireless networking solution.

  43. Charging? by Henk+Poley · · Score: 1

    You think this is powered USB? My bet is that the dongles should recieve power from the apparatus you plug them into.

    This means you won't be able to charge your Treo and iPod Shuffle using wireless USB.

    1. Re:Charging? by makomk · · Score: 1

      I don't think there's any way to draw power from a USB peripheral. My bet is that this'll have its own mains adapter which plugs into the hub and powers it and the attached USB devices. The PC end could (and probably will) draw power from the USB port, though.

    2. Re:Charging? by Henk+Poley · · Score: 1

      Ah, then I've got the picture upside down in my head. I was thinking the dongle was for the devices and the big 'switch' needed power for the transmission.

      Thanks for clearing that up.

  44. What about sharing? by JediTrainer · · Score: 1

    They mention that you can make the devices wireless. That sounds great. But can they be shared with multiple PCs?

    Case in point - I have a multifunction printer that I'd like to use from the 4 machines in the house. Setting the printer up as a network printer is fine - that part works no problem.

    It's very difficult, however, to find a way to use its scanning capabilities over the network. Is there any way to accomplish this? This is my main beef with products like the Linksys print servers and the like. They work, but only with the print function and nothing else.

    I'd love to have a way to share all of my USB devices on the network from one device, and have them behave as if they were locally connected (or have some way to click a button to take ownership of a particular device if auto-sharing isn't possible). I don't even care if it's wireless - a 10/100 RJ45 port on it would be just fine. Oh - and it'd be nice if it works on more than just Windows. I usually like to have the option of supporting Linux directly.

    --

    You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
    1. Re:What about sharing? by Stickney · · Score: 1

      I have one of a belikin usb periphrial switch: http://catalog.belkin.com/IWCatProductPage.process ?Merchant_Id=1&Section_Id=&pcount=&Product_Id=1332 78 that I use for sharing my printer, digital camera, keyboard, and mouse among my 3 computers (linux/linux/windows) and it works great; no software is required.

      --
      ...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
    2. Re:What about sharing? by barthrh2 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the max speed of this switch (and all others I've seen) is USB 1.1 speeds (12 Mbps). That's a far cry from USB 2.0 480Mbps speeds. I started using one with my film scanner and flash card readers and couldn't figure out why scans where taking minutes instead of seconds (high res scans). Only after carefully checking the package did I notice the lousy speeds.

    3. Re:What about sharing? by JediTrainer · · Score: 1

      Cool idea, but that wouldn't quite meet my needs. The 4 computers in my house aren't necessarily in the same room. I have cat5 in every room, though, so networking is a possibility, and two notebooks with wireless.

      The ideal solution would be some sort of USB "server" (like a standalone print server) that supports all of the functionality of the devices (ie, instead of acting as an SMB print server it would just make the USB devices available more or less natively). Basically behave as a USB bridge or something, and list/use the devices connected to the remote server.

      --

      You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
    4. Re:What about sharing? by Stickney · · Score: 1

      For sharing a keyboard and mouse, it doesn't make that much difference; that's all I use it for. Certainly for transfer-heavy periphrials (media players, cameras, etc) you're right, USB 1.1 is way too slow.

      --
      ...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
  45. Re:Wait For Real Wireless USB by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    And I can keep my Pocket PC in my pocket, while it erases the drive on your iPod.

    Kewl!

  46. Re:Bluetooth by jchawk · · Score: 1

    AGREED!

  47. Belkin? by ElephanTS · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I, for one (to use the standard /. form), wouldn't touch Belkin drivers if you paid me. This sounds like a good idea but in practise? You know there'll be big headaches.

    --
    spoonerize "magic trackpad"
  48. Now, drive-by hacking by Animats · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And exactly how does security on this thing work? Can you drive by and connect to the USB hub? Now that's a good way to completely take over most machines.

    1. Re:Now, drive-by hacking by ro_coyote · · Score: 1

      Sorta what I was thinking, except it was moreso along the lines of "now that's a device I'll be keeping my USB Drive/JumpDrive/ThumbDrive/whatever away from...". Not that I myself would like to (I feel very uncomfortable transmitting my work out to everyone in close proximity, secure or not), but I just wonder about the users that aren't so tech savy that wouldn't even think about it.

  49. Or a spare pc... by donstenk72 · · Score: 1

    It seemed quite nice, but I allready connect wireless to scanners, printers etc through an old and silent(p500) in the corner of my office. It also gives me a windows terminal when needed. Don't really see the added value for a small office.

  50. Electrical Isolation by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 1
    I occasionally do cellphone transfers using a special purpose USB hub. However, I'm worried that some of these phones (one customer said his old phone was regularly exposed to metal dust: this after it caused my computer to reboot repeatedly until I yanked the USB card. gee thanks) can cause permanent damage to my equipment.

    It would still hurt to lose a $130 item, but it's better than blowing the whole computer.

    --

    They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
  51. Still no by dazedNconfuzed · · Score: 1

    Yup. 2 years, and still every time I see a Belkin product I think "no". They crossed the line, and there are other manufacturers to buy from.

    --
    Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
    1. Re:Still no by typical · · Score: 1

      You too?

      Yeah, Linksys pretty much makes a nice alternative to anything Belkin.

      --
      Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
    2. Re:Still no by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Linksys pretty much makes a nice alternative to anything Belkin.

      *laughs bitterly as he reboots his Linksys WAP again...*

      Both are on my no-buy list now.

  52. Claimed Vs Actual Throughput by uncleroot · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If UWB is like 802.11x then the actual throughput will at best only be about half the claimed speed since the protocol will eat up the other half. Because wireless is half-duplex and has to use the much less efficient Carrier Sense Avoidence instead of Carrier Sense Detection to avoid collusions, your 54 mbps 802.11g router will give you maybe 30 megs tops under ideal conditions. And the more devices talking at the same time the slower it goes as they all try to contend for the medium like a bunch of truckers all trying to talk on the same CB channel at the same time. I'm guessing that a UWB wireless USB hub that claimed 480 mbps on the box when you bought it will actually run a lot slower in the real world. Sadly, vendors usually feel free to use the highest numbers available to them to market the products even if the customers will never achieve those numbers in actual use.

  53. Re:Wireless and the power ? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    The devices will still need to plug into the wireless hub itself. Why not use an adapter? the idea is you can put the hub somewhere else and only have the transmitter hooked to the computer.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  54. WTF are you crazy? by Heembo · · Score: 1

    What is it about wirelessly broadcasting your backup drive transfers, mouse movements and keyboard use without encryption to everyone within 30 feet that appeals to you? I could sit a mile away with a directional antenna, sniff all your keystrokes and have a simple packet analizer looking for "slashdot" and could be posting in your name about how you CAN'T WAIT FOR VISTA and are tossing all your Linux boxes! Careful man!

    --
    Horns are really just a broken halo.
    1. Re:WTF are you crazy? by rts008 · · Score: 1

      LOL!

      "...posting in your name about how you CAN'T WAIT FOR VISTA and are tossing all your Linux boxes! "

      That's cold, crude, and too funny.:)

      But I also am not sure about the security involved. Nothing was mentioned in either link about security. I guess we'll have to wait til someone gets their hands on one and does some testing.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  55. Re:Bluetooth? by CreateWindowEx · · Score: 1
    I have noticed that often you can get non-bluetooth wireless keyboards and mice complete with USB receiver for less than just a bluetooth mouse or keyboard without a dongle!

    I looked up Bluetooth licensing, and as far as I can tell, there's an annual "membership" fee of US$7,500 for companies with annual revenue under US$100M that allows companies to use the Bluetooth specs "royalty free". Since $7.5K would be chump change for any "real" manufacturer, plus it would be a fixed cost not tied to any particular device, I would guess it's mostly the complexity of the implementation that makes Bluetooth wireless devices more expensive then their proprietary wireless counterparts.

    I guess it doesn't surprise me too much, just because I have become aware how embedded devices really use the lamest possible CPU they can get away with to shave a few pennies; often devices that cost hundreds of dollars are hobbled by incredibly wimpy microcontrollers, as well as, of course, generally shoddy firmware and UI design...

  56. Re:Wireless and the power ? by redalien · · Score: 1

    The device will, of course, need to process USB requests for power. Will it provide more than 500mA? Excellent idea if you ask me, although I do agree with the first poster that this should be implemented in bluetooth (N.B.: Some future, very fast bluetooth, 2.0 can't hack it).

  57. No thanks by ShaneThePain · · Score: 1

    I still use my ps/2 ports. they are less finicky, at least thats how it feels to me.

    --
    Fascism is the greatest political ideology ever conceived. Sorry.
  58. Re:Bluetooth by Gadzinka · · Score: 1

    Bluetooth 2.0+EDR (which is on Macs, I don't know about other computers) is 3.0 Mbps. Faster, but still not there.

    You fell victim to marketing babling. It was going something like that:

    With current Bluetooth connections you get only 1Mbps speeds and Bluetooth 2.0 is three times faster.

    But since Bluetooth 1.x is only 768kbps, three times this is only ~2.3Mbps.

    Robert

    --
    Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
  59. Re:Bluetooth? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    You left out slow. 1Mb/s (3 for EDR) is fine for keyboards and mice but it sucks a LOT for hard drives, video cameras, still cameras and iPods.

    I always thought Bluetooth was a very strange idea. I mean, aside from wireless keyboards and mice I can't really think of anything it's good for. Really low resolution still cameras, maybe.

  60. Re:Bluetooth by timthorn · · Score: 1

    No, they mean 480mbps over wireless. It's ultrawideband (UWB) technology - the data signal is spread out over a vast chunk of radio spectrum, but at low power levels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_wideband The dream is to be able to connect your DVD player with your TV wirelessly, and at that kind of proximity it's very plausible.

  61. eBay time by phaetonic · · Score: 1

    Might as well sell your wireless USB printer servers before they become worthless.

  62. Finally! by Bushido+Hacks · · Score: 1

    I don't really give a damn what you FUD-monger are saying about this. If anything, I buy the thing and take it a part just to prove all you nay-sayers wrong about this technology.

    I really would like to get this device when it comes out. However, I'll wait for Cisco or Linksys to release their version of the device first. I really would like to see this device come to market.

    --
    The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
  63. Re:Wireless and the power ? by Fengpost · · Score: 1

    More wirless transmission module = higher cost. The hub approach is really the best. 1 wireless module for 4 devices, instead 1 wireless module for 1 devices.

    --
    The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity....Calvin
  64. Take it a step further... by xaoslaad · · Score: 1

    I RTFA but didn't LFTFP (look for the f'in picture); I'm assuming that even though the hub communicates to the PC wirelessly, the devices still need to be plugged into the hub. I'd pay more than $130 to be able to plug a USB dongle into my printer so that it communicated wirelessly to the hub as well. I have several computers (different architectures); admittedly for purely hobbyist reasons. Other than satisfying my curiosity and self education they don't to too much; nonetheless I do have wires for peripherals splayed everywhere behind my desk; and whenever possible I use wireless technologies (wireless networking, bluetooth mice and keyboards, etc.) to neaten things up; this would reduce several more wires that I can think of; printer, scanner, and joystick to name three. Anything to reduce the clutter; it would be nice to have the rear of the desk as neat as the front.

    1. Re:Take it a step further... by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

      I've got to agree fully with that; even further; I'd like to see USB over WIFI for certain devices like a camera, keyboard, printer, anything that doesn't need a lot of traffic.

      --
      --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  65. Belkin and Interoperability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
    Not to poo-poo this particular product, but I saw this at CES this year. Let me point out only a few things that will make it hard for Belkin to sell only a few of these.

    1. It doesn't exist yet. At the Belkin booth at CES they showed the plastics but nothing inside. Instead they took me over to these two huge boxes that were performing the USB function. When I laid my hands on the box I think I left no less than 3-layers of skin. (it's hot, really hot). This product is not going to be ready for prime-time in March.

    2. It isn't interoperable with any other UWB technology that is going to be introduced in the market place during 2nd half of 06'. This product is using Freescales proprietary UWB chipset. WiMedia, the clear winner of the UWB standards issues has much more market traction and pull behind it. Companies like Intel, Microsoft, Samsung, Toshiba, and Dell are behind WiMedia. With these gorillas behind this solution its only a matter of time before Freescale and its DS technology go obsolete or they buy a WiMedia company. UWB is going to be a revolutionary point to point wireless technology, but it has to be done properly, with interoperability events and multiple chip vendors. Proprietary solutions in this day and age do not work for the end consumer because the consumer want to have a choice in what they are buying.

    Take my advice and wait on a product that will truly meet market needs.

    Regards,
    UWB-Guru

  66. Re:Bluetooth by psm321 · · Score: 1

    http://www.hauppauge.com/html/mediamvp_datasheet.h tm

  67. Re:Bluetooth by psm321 · · Score: 1

    Whoops sorry, didn't realize it was MPEG only.

  68. never let the facts get in the way of being right. by poptones · · Score: 1

    "They" seem to know all about it but have never even read Motorola's own literature. In their own docs for the evaluation kit Motorola points out one of the main uses:

    The zero install wireless USB2 evaluation kit allows users to operate on a UWB communications channel and evaluate USB devices performance when the timing and delay environment is different from a short wire...

  69. Re:Bluetooth by dascandy · · Score: 1

    During later testing, we found out that using two metal rings with a rubber bit in between wasn't the best idea either.

    (ICE disaster, Eschede, Germany)

  70. Re:Bluetooth by Lord+Kestrel · · Score: 1

    I stream video from a server to my HTPC. That way I can have a silent PC in the living room, while the noisy hard drives are in the computer room.

    If I could do it wireless I would, but Gigabit Ethernet is needed, and isn't available in a wireless solution.

  71. Reminds me of Big Blue... by cnerd2025 · · Score: 1

    Boss: What is it?
    IT: The Universal Business Adapter
    Boss: What does it do?
    IT: It connects anything and everything, completely integrated
    Boss: ::points at various ports::
    IT: ::quickly, following the Boss:: Ethernet, Linux Servers, Windows Servers, Print Servers, File Servers, USB...
    VO: Unfortunately, there is no "Universal Business Adapter." IBM can provide your organization with technology integration services second to none. IBM...On-demand business.

    Maybe we have the "Universal Business Adapter" now? Nah, its not all integrated. It just cuts the cords. :-)

  72. Lag is inherent in wireless mice by baka_vic · · Score: 1
    even the fastest wireless gaming mouses have a semi-noticable lag when you use them.

    Most wireless mice have this lag as they go into some sort of power-saving mode when the mouse isn't moving. So when you suddenly move the mouse, it takes some time for it to return to full-power mode.

  73. Re:never let the facts get in the way of being rig by ergo98 · · Score: 1

    SLAM! Whoa, you really set things straight there.

    No, wait, we're talking about a 100Mbps+ transport emulating a 480Mpbs connection. Of course there's going to be some differences for a device that expects a 480Mbps connection, or the ultra-speed of a wire. Nonetheless this thread was postulating that there would be lag for a mouse user. Do you have any comprehension of the scale of difference between mouse pointer lag in an FPS, and 100Mps? Do you realize how ridiculous that becomes even comparing?

  74. Thanks for proving my point by poptones · · Score: 1

    Even when the facts are right in front of them some people still won't bother reading them.

    Do you even know the difference between transport speed and transport latency? It doesn't appear so from your comments. You can have a point to point fiber connection that can sustain 100gbps but that means nothing in terms of responsiveness. If it takes 10mS to establish the upstream link (which it most likely does) and then 10mS to acknowledge a packet you could have infinite bandwidth but you're still dealing with at least a 20mS response time for every change of state. These devices are not duplex and you do not get "instant on" communications - every packet has to be broadcast and then the acknowledge broadcast and collisions (that further jack up latency several milliseconds at a time) are inevitable... even if you were blessed with a purely theoretical "noise free" environment.