I'll second this. I use bluetooth to keep my phone synchronized with my
Palm. Set up was trivial, and synching has been perfect every time.
There are absolutely no configuration issues or problems - if you use a
Mac.
As for the protocol itself; actually, the telephone based protocols are
usually much better than protocols from data people. Since telecom
people are used to designing life critical systems they tend to
actually consider error cases when designing protocols. How many
posters here have ever actually checked the status value returned from
say, printf, in their code?
Eric
On Jun 2, 2004, at 1:33 AM, Petri Ojala wrote:
>
>> Adding Bluetooth may only cost a few hundred
>> yen extra in hardware, but in support costs is
>> significant. In Europe, most people only seem to use
>> it for wireless headphone/microphone gizmos, which I
>> am guessing is somewhat less challenging than using it
>> for connectivity, where you have two devices with far
>> too many setting options (three if you count whatever
>> remote server you are accessing).
>
> While Bluetooth protocol isn't exactly the most elegant in design (too
> much telco-people behind), I would suggest that anyone who things that
> Bluetooth is difficult to configure and use would try to use BT with
> Apple's MacOS X. That's how things should be done.
>
> I've yet to have a single BT problem with the Mac. Transferring
> address book entries, pictures/audio in and out, etc. have worked out
> smoothly (Nokia 6230). I also have a Jabra BT headset but I've
> actually used it more with the Mac (phone client) than with the mobile
> phone. The problems are mostly on the phone, configuring Internet
> access through GPRS and BT isn't made easy and there are some stupid
> things, like when you already have the BT connection up, it wants to
> disconnect and reconnect to transfer an address book entry.
>
> Windows users are such a winners..
Received on Wed Jun 2 17:45:19 2004