Peter Pan wrote:
> Spacey Spade wrote:
> > 
> > Why do you think the Wi-Fi Ad Hoc with WinXP ICS is a better solution
> > than a Bluetooth Piconet?
> 
> For what it's worth, actually I didn't/don't.. I have BOTH a wifi and a
> Bluetooth network set up here (a linksys wrt54g for wifi, and an anycom
> ap-2002 bluetooth access point plugged into the router part of the linksys,
> gives me both.. The wifi part is way faster than the BT part (handy since I
> have several TERAbytes of network storage for audio and video), even the
> cable (next week dsl) connections are way faster than BT..

BT 2.0 is 2.1Mbit/s, which will match standard 1.5Mbit/s DSL.  I don't
have lots of network storage.  If on occasion I have to transfer a
large file within my network, I don't mind waiting.  Waiting for
websites for an extra second drives me crazy, but the cause of that has
less to do with bandwidth than it does with ping time and waiting for a
server response.

> I only use BT cuz
> I have two PDA's (and one laptop with a dead wifi card, but a USB BT Dongle)
> that only support BT. When traveling (in my RV) I used to just go to ad-hoc
> on the laptops and share my tethered cell phone between them. (now I have a
> Kyocera kr1 router that takes a cell/data card, and give me an AP whereever
> I am in a pocket sized device).

Don't you have to pay extra for having a data card?  I hear it has its
own tel number.
Also, what are ping times like?  Comparing to DSL, 3G is slow not
because of bandwidth, but because ping times are 5 to 10 times greater
(on order of 500ms to a website, which I tested on a friend's laptop
connected at 114kbps via T-Mobile).  What are the ping times to google
within your RV, compared to your DSL or Cable?

> That first way sounded similar to what you
> were originally asking (sharing one connection with multiple machines).. To
> answer your q, and why I don't just use BT at home, it's a matter of
> speed... When using the cable/dsl or the network storage to transfer
> music/video, the wifi connection is a LOT faster than BT can handle (like
> over 50 times faster).

Bluetooth 1.x, or 2.0?  You notice this surfing the web, or downloading
a large file?

> Seems to me that if you ever want to consider getting a high speed
> connection and share it, you would end up with WiFi instead of BT, why not
> look into doing it before you need it?

I already have WiFi.  Guess I'll be trying things out for myself as
well.  I will overlap a couple of months having both Cable internet and
3G, but hope to move to just 3G to save money without losing mobility.
I work at home mostly.  I thought it would be an experience to work in
public places.  It's an effort for me to fight complacency and give
this a try... I really like all the conveniences of being in my own
place (refridgerator with snacks, cooking, shower, bed, resident cat,
printer, multiple computers, changes of clothes, etc).  Say, is there a
limit on the size of RV that can park downtown at a meter (or two) or a
parking lot?   Spacey