Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

USB To Go Wireless 212

Posted by Zonk
from the realizing-the-bluetooth-dream dept.
Troy Samuel writes "The WiMedia Alliance is planning to make the technology known as 'ultrawideband,' or UWB, work among a wide variety of consumer electronics devices. Various organizations, including the Bluetooth SIG, have chosen the WiMedia Alliance's version of UWB technology as the foundation for a next-generation short-range networking technology." From the article: "UWB technology can deliver data rates at up to 480 megabits per second at around 3 meters, with speeds dropping off as the range grows to a limit of about 10 meters. Real-world speeds will probably be a little slower, but this is as fast as the wired version of USB 2.0 and much faster than current Wi-Fi networks are capable of transmitting data. 'This stuff is plumbing,' Roger Kay, an analyst with Endpoint Technologies Associates, said of the newer-generation wireless technology. 'It's important that it be there, it's going to be handy for getting rid of cables hanging around your desk.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

USB To Go Wireless

Comments Filter:
  • by MankyD (567984) on Wednesday October 18, 2006 @05:26PM (#16492495) Homepage
    I'm curious - how much bandwidth is required to make a wireless monitor? Let's say its running at 1600x1200 with 24bit color. Anyone have any ideas?
    • by b-l4ke (997876) on Wednesday October 18, 2006 @05:28PM (#16492511) Homepage
      1600 x 1200 x 32bpp per pixel x 30 fps = 1.85 Gbps
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        Double that at least as computer displays run at 60+ fps
        • by rucs_hack (784150)
          are there not also control instructions to add to the mix? Surely it isn't just a case of transfering the bitmap from the buffer.

          I know crap all about monitors though...
        • My 100Hz TV doesn't have 100FPS. It has 24 or 25 (PAL/NTSC). The extra Hz just make the image much more stable and comfortable to look at.
          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by monsted (6709)
            In the case of computer monitors with a variable input signal, it does actually show 60/85/whatever distinct pictures per second (although some may be the same if your app isn't fast enough to update the frame buffer).
      • by MankyD (567984)
        I guess I was hoping someone could also offer some insight into lossless compression techniques and their average compression ratio. As long as one is not doing FMV, you wouldn't, in theory, need to refresh the whole screen. Maybe that's getting too fancy for a simple question though.
        • by Ant P. (974313)
          But is the added price of onboard decompression hardware and a wireless transmitter/reciever really worth it for just having one less cable?
          • But is the added price of onboard decompression hardware and a wireless transmitter/reciever really worth it for just having one less cable?

            Of course it would be worth it! Consider the copper alone. Do you have any idea how much copper is in a two metre video cable?

            [What? About enough to make 7 or 8 pennies? Are you sure? ... Crap!]

            Um... Nevermind.
            • Except... (Score:3, Informative)

              by Junta (36770)
              Copper pennies aren't made anymore, because, you guessed it, the amount of copper required to make a penny is worth more than 1c, so if they made copper pennies you'd be theoretically better off melting them down and selling the raw material...
              • by FooAtWFU (699187)
                Copper pennies aren't made anymore, because, you guessed it, the amount of copper required to make a penny is worth more than 1c,

                Pennies are made of over 95% zinc. But the price of zinc has risen to more than 1c per penny as well (blame the Chinese economy). But that's only the beginning of why pennies ought to be eliminated [usatoday.com].

                • by Eivind (15695)
                  It's just silly. Pennies are just a nuisance and have enormous negative value. The time and effort needed to deal with them much outweigh any "advantages".

                  In Norway, for example, the smallest coin is the 50 øre, with a value of about 10 pennies, and frankly, we could even do nicely without and stick with the krone. (1 krone is 100 øre, so the 50-øre could just aswell be thougth of as the 1/2 krone)

                  There are still prices given more accurately than that, but it's rounded to nearest 50

                  • It's fair now. Look, there are 25 values from 0 to 24, and 25 values from 25 to 49. So, 0-24 round down, 25-49 round up. Similarly 50-74, and 75-99 are also evenly split. If you round down at 25, then you are making things statistically unbalanced.
                    • by Eivind (15695)
                      Nonsense. Your math is wrong.

                      Imagine you buy 100 products, with prices from 1.00 to 1.99. The mathemathically correct price for all these transactions would be the sum of the series, or 149.50 (do it on your pocket-calculator if you don't trust me) This is also what you'd pay in norway if you bougth all these products in one transaction. (rather than as discrete purchases)

                      Now, with norwegian rounding-rules, you will pay 1.00 for 25 products, 1.50 for 50 products, and 2.00 for 25 products, in total 150.

                • But that's only the beginning of why pennies ought to be eliminated.

                  Oh, how I long for the day that a penny could buy something meaningful... [mises.org]

                  Rather than focusing on waging war against the poor humble penny, why not focus your attention on the federal policies that have made it nearly worthless? I'm talking about perpetual deficits and the federal reserve printing 'dollars' like there's no tomorrow.

                  If we had a rational monetary system in the U.S., there couldn't have been a housing bubble [dailyreckoning.com], nor a tech bubble
        • What's the point of doing a wireless monitor if it can't do FMV? This is the age of online video.

          This UWB technology is about half way there for a semi-practical wireless monitor.
      • by koko775 (617640)
        As far as I know, 32bits is RGBA. Monitors don't need the extra eight bits for alpha -- it's the graphics card that benefits.

        1600*1200 pixels/frame * 24 bits/pixel * 60 frames/second * 1 second = 2764800000 bits per second
        divided by 1024^2 = 2636 megabits/s.

        How about a low-end monitor?
        1024x768 pixels/frame * 16 bits/pixel * 30 frames/second * 1 second = 377487360 bits per second
        divided by 1024^2 = 360 megabits/s. Seems reasonable, but even by today's standards...sorta crappy.
        • Yes, wireless is crappy for high-bandwidth needs. The fact is we can't get rid of the wires without sacrificing something. With wireless USB, you could have high performance, but it would come at the cost of power or spectrum, neither of which is easy to come by.

          DVI is convenient (even though it is wired) because it has 3 data lines using TMDS. What this buys you is a single 24-bit pixel transferred per clock. With an upper limit of 165 Million pixels per second (3.7 Gbps), or double that for dual-link,
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Dunbal (464142)
      how much bandwidth is required to make a wireless monitor? Let's say its running at 1600x1200 with 24bit color.

            The answer is right there. 1600 x 1200 x 24 = 46,080,000 bits per frame (46Mb) - not including any overhead for packing/unpacking all this info. Now how many frames per second did you want?
    • by 56ker (566853) on Wednesday October 18, 2006 @05:30PM (#16492537) Homepage Journal
      24 bits = 3 bytes
      3 bytes * 1200 * 1600 = 5.76 Megabytes

      Assuming a refresh rate of 50fps that's 288 Megabyte/second or 2.25 Gigabits/second A monitor's a rather pointless one though as it requires a cable for the power.
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        A monitor's a rather pointless one though as it requires a cable for the power.

        Actually, no. Imagine having your CPU in the closet and only your monitor and peripherals at your desk. Or imagine having a monitor/peripherals in a totally different room of the house/office.

        Even if it's only two feet away, wireless is nice for... well, for removing wires. Systems can be such a cabling mess. I'm much rather bath in the invisible waves than have to deal with that rat's nest.
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Dunbal (464142)
          Imagine having your CPU in the closet

                That goes against the fashion nowadays, I mean, everyone is coming OUT of the closet and you want to put the computer back in...
      • by kfg (145172) on Wednesday October 18, 2006 @05:39PM (#16492659)
        A monitor's a rather pointless one though as it requires a cable for the power.

        So that's why my laptop keeps going dark whenever I move more than six feet away from my desk.

        KFG
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Grishnakh (216268)
        A monitor's a rather pointless one though as it requires a cable for the power.

        It seems to me that most of this wireless craze is pointless for the exact same reason. Just how hard is it to plug your USB key into your computer anyway? And what exactly is the point of a wireless keyboard?
        • by burndive (855848)
          And what exactly is the point of a wireless keyboard?

          My linux box serves (among other things) as the media machine, with its display hooked up to a projector in the living room. I'm not going to sit on the couch with the keyboard in my lap tethered to a box. The cable wouldn't be long enough to reach, and it would always be in the way no matter how long it was.

          Does that justify the need for wireless keyboards/mice?

          • by Grishnakh (216268)
            I suppose so, but it seems like the vast majority of people with wireless keyboards have them on a regular desktop computer, not with a media center and projector.
        • There are two real killer applications for me:
          • Wireless docking
          • Reassigning peripherals in software

          On the first it'd be really nice to just sit my laptop down and be able to just start using my real mouse keyboard and everything without plugging and unplugging. With as many USB things as I use (camera, external hard disk, MIDI keyboard, mouse, external sound card, keyboard, flash drive) it'd be cool to just move my laptop over to my desk and poof, everything works. This can naturally be done with a hub, whi

      • by eonlabs (921625)
        However, that's still almost a realistic project. What happens if you instead of direct-routing to the monitor via the wireless connection, first pass through a JPEG2000 codec. Then on the wireless monitor side re-decode in realtime. If there's a chance of that, MAYBE there's a better chance of actually getting the system to work. You might try a better codec for lossless high speed compression.
      • by Ant P. (974313)
        That's an interesting point actually. Most of us have LCD monitors that can run off 12V, so why hasn't anyone made a standard like Firewire but for DVI outputs?
      • All you have to do is bond several channels together and there's your wireless monitor.
        Wifi has, what, 11 channels? How many does wireless USB have?

        Since the range on this is relatively tiny, you can probbably aggregate, say, 5 or 6 WUB channels into a single 2+Gbit channel to talk to your monitor. Sure, you'll be barred from putting more than 1 or 2 in close proximity, and yet... For the price of 5-6 transmitter chips at each end and a bit more core logic, a manufacturer can probbably piece this together t
        • by Rimbo (139781)
          On the topic of range, I know that Kiyon [kiyon.com] in San Diego has already prototyped a UWB mesh system, so the range won't be a problem forever.
      • They'd come out with battery powered wireless USB devices (not monitors of course). Your wireless USB card reader will be next to the missing TV remote under the couch.
    • by ampathee (682788)
      About 330MB/s from my calculation (that's 60 fps uncompressed).
      It's likely that could be cut down via lossless compression and of course, only sending areas that have changed.. however then the monitor needs a cpu to decompress the stuff, so we might as well just use a small form-factor pc running VNC over a wireless LAN :P
    • I use "remote" (but not "wireless") monitors all the time - Remote Desktop, pcAnywhere, VNC, etc.

      I know, that is not what you meant, but many of the solutions imply a "server" for your "client" screen, so there are some current examples.

      But it doesn't work for "fast" stuff like video or games.

      The big quesion, as someone else pointed out - how long is your "wireless" monitor going to run on batteries?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jdray (645332)
      The first thing I thought of when reading the blurb was "video glasses arriving soon." I'd rather have 800x600, 16 bpp per lens at 24 fps, or 368.64 Mb/s, and get reasonable immersive 3D than I would a single stream of 1600x1200 at 24 bpp.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by dinther (738910)
      Uhm, in my case four WXGA LCD monitors runing at 60 hz of one PC...

      1440 x 900 x 32 x 4 x 60 = 7879680000 bps or 7.88 gbps
    • by Ravatar (891374)
      One would think latency would be the much bigger issue when it comes to wireless monitors...
      • by MankyD (567984)
        Latency shouldn't be an issue since it would be almost entirely one way communication. Electricity through wires moves just as fast as RF through the air (for all intents and purposes.) The monitor also won't have to send ACK signals of any form - the video card would broadcast the signal and the monitor picks it up and decodes it. It's really no different than using the copper wires we have now.
  • As far as I knew this technology was already in use - for example wireless USB webcams. However I can't think of many real life applications that would use the bandwidth this technology provides other than video. Any suggestions?
  • by Name Anonymous (850635) on Wednesday October 18, 2006 @05:28PM (#16492509)
    1. Data security...
    2. wirelss interference from another computer
    3. wireless interference from other electronics and wireless devices
    I am all for wireless devices that make sense. I sitll however use a wired keyboard and mouse on my desktop computer. On my laptop I use a bluetooth mouse to avoud the hassles of dealing with plugging and unplugging the mouse from the laptop.
    • by macklin01 (760841)

      On my laptop I use a bluetooth mouse to avoud the hassles of dealing with plugging and unplugging the mouse from the laptop.

      And you can solve this problem by leaving your USB mouse and keyboard plugged into a hub on your desktop, so you only have one thing to plug in. As a bonus, you could get a USB-powered laptop cooler with a built-in hub (like this one [newegg.com]), so you're not only cleaning up cable clutter, but also reducing heat-related stress on your hard drive. -- Paul

    • by gregmac (629064)
      4. Power
      • by BiggyP (466507)
        Indeed, the idea of replacing a device which has one small cable running to a PC or hub with a device which produces increased interference and still has a cable, only this time it's attached to a chunky transformer plugged into the mains, is just plain silly.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by vertinox (846076)
        4. Power

        *coughs*

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_power [wikipedia.org]

        And

        http://www.splashpower.com/ [splashpower.com]

        There used to be a cool Wireless transfer microwave kit on ThinkGeek.com but I can't find it anymore...

        My room mate has one of those tooth brushes that charges wirelessly which it pretty cool.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Grishnakh (216268)
          My room mate has one of those tooth brushes that charges wirelessly which it pretty cool.

          That's not wireless. The toothbrush must sit in a base that's connected to an electrical outlet. The only thing "cool" about this is that there's no exposed electrical contacts on either the base or the toothbrush. This isn't wireless power transmission technology; it's a variation of a simple transformer, it's two inductors that are situated next to each other (when the toothbrush is in the holder), so that current
          • by vertinox (846076)
            They don't put the toothbrush in a hold, but just put it on a outcropping part that leaves the tooth brush freestanding.

            I don't see why you couldn't have a doc for your mouse and keyboard like this. Heck... Just make a mouse pad that is a recharging station.
    • by bilbravo (763359)
      Yes, exactly... I like most of my peripheals to be physically connected. I'm also still a fan of wired networking. Now, I like my "wifi" when I go out and with the laptop. However, for my desktop... give me wires!

      Clutter, who cares? It all works!
  • on the same frequency as all my other "wireless" devices. I've already got a joystick I can't use in proximity to my phone, my wireless A/V catches interference from my bluetooth mouse and the phone, and my wireless mouse craps out if the microwave's on at the other end of the house. Will this add to my troubles?
    • by Grishnakh (216268)
      Probably. After all, look at what a great job the electronics manufacturers did with 2.4GHz wireless devices (cordless phones, Wi-Fi, etc.). They tested out their devices all by themselves, and didn't bother to see what would happen if other devices, using the same spectrum, were in the area. After all, it's not their problem if there's interference.

      What the heck do you need a wireless mouse for, anyway?
  • Is USB relly a good fit for this? USB is based around a strictly controlled hierarchy of devices with a single master at the top of the tree. Wireless applications are more in need of symmetric peer-to-peer interfaces like that provided by Firewire.
    • Re:A good fit? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Animats (122034) on Wednesday October 18, 2006 @06:15PM (#16493143) Homepage

      symmetric peer-to-peer interfaces like that provided by Firewire.

      Firewire actually has rather strong master/slave relationships; there's a tree, and a tree root, and a master node. But there's a negotiation process during hot-plugging which establishes the master/slave relationships.

      One big problem with Firewire is that it doesn't have a notion of device ownership. You can plug two computers together with FireWire, and that will work if both machines support IP or Ethernet over FireWire. But plug a peripheral into the same bus, and there's no mechanism to allocate it to a unique host computer. You'll get a control clash.

      Underneath, FireWire isn't really a "bus". It's actually a local area network, and its controllers work more like Ethernet controllers, with packets and buffer chains, than bus adapters.

      The "bus" aspect is that there are defined packet formats for loading and storing 32-bit data items in a 64 bit address space. In practice, though, what usually happens is that at the host end, some code formats such a packet, saying "set bit 22 of register 0x2490 at node 3", and when that packet gets to node 3, some little CPU in the peripheral decodes the packet, acknowledges receipt of the packet, a switch statement decodes the "register" address, and code notes that bit 22 means "turn camera on". No status for this event comes back; the host has to send a packet to "read" some other device register to find out what happened.

      Giving FireWire a "device register" model turned out, in the end, to be kind of silly. Something more like SCSI, with function codes and statuses, would have made more sense. (And, in fact, there's SCSI over FireWire.) You'd get back better status info, and devices which don't implement some functions would have a simple way to report that. This makes it easier to implement generic drivers, reducing the temptation to have to have a special driver for every manufacturer's device. And we all know where that leads.

      So if you're designing something like this, don't go with a device register model. Anything smart enough to talk it will have a CPU, so use it.

  • by gid13 (620803)
    I can see SOME uses of this, but there are a large number of people out there that would rather have a mouse connected with a cable than have to deal with batteries. And as the number of devices you want to connect grows, this effect will only become more pronounced. My verdict: useful, but not revolutionary.
  • by truesaer (135079) on Wednesday October 18, 2006 @05:34PM (#16492583) Homepage
    One thing I've always wanted is to get rid of the cables for my LCD displays and my speakers. That would be 4 fewer cables cluttering my desk (2 LCDs, 1 cable between left and right speakers, 1 cable to speaker out jack). I'm not sure what the real time and data throughput requirements would be. This looks like its primarily intended to replace wired USB devices but what additional complexity would there be in getting rid of some of the other wires?


    It would be nice if the only cables on my desk were power cables.

    • "It would be nice if the only cables on my desk were power cables."

      Um why? One cable is fine but two is.... inconceivable?

    • by Grishnakh (216268)
      It would be nice if the only cables on my desk were power cables.

      On my desk, there's three speakers: right, left, and a subwoofer (on the floor). I suspect many people have similar setups. The subwoofer has the amplifier in it, and is connected with special wires to the two speakers.

      So you want to replace these wires from the amplifier with a wireless connection, and then put separate amplifiers in the speakers, and then add individual power cables to the speakers. Now I'll need three spaces on my power
    • by evilviper (135110)
      It would be nice if the only cables on my desk were power cables.

      No, no it wouldn't. Just combine power with the data cable, and you get fewer cables, without making all your devices ridiculously expensive, power hungry, and complex.
  • by Ninwa (583633) *
    What about power? One of the most notable benefits of a wired connection is that you can not only transfer information but power the device as well. I don't know about you, but I hate wireless mice/keyboards for the very reason that it's just too inconvenient to keep replacing batteries.
    • by sweetooth (21075)
      I agree, or worse, mice that contain embedded rechargable batteries that require you to place the mouse on a charging station. I had the Logitech MX1000 and loved it except for the charging issue as I would often forget to place it on the charger at the end of the day leaving me with a useless mouse at some point.

      There is however a mouse that doesn't have this problem. The Logitech G7 Laser Cordless Mouse is perfect. It comes with two small Li-ion battery packs and a charging station. So while you are using
      • by eln (21727) *
        Kensington makes several wireless mice that charge with a cable hooked up to the USB port. So, if you run out of juice, you can just plug the mouse into the cable and continue using it as a wired mouse while it charges.
        • by sweetooth (21075)
          That is another good solution to the charging issue. The other issue is of course the fact that the batteries are not user replaceable in these devices which means you either send them in for repair or get a new mouse when the battery dies. I did not know that Kensington had those available as I typically avoid their mice as the designs they use tend to not fit well in my hand, good to know some manufacturers are thinking of these issues.
      • by Grishnakh (216268)
        Is a cable on your mouse really that much trouble?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18, 2006 @05:38PM (#16492641)
    No, wait! It's back up with an annoying alert that it's connected again!

    Wait, no, it dropped again.

    I love this game.
  • by frosty_tsm (933163) on Wednesday October 18, 2006 @05:40PM (#16492681)
    Does this mean that all I would need to do to spy on someone's pen drive is get within 10 meters and peek over UWB?

    I assume there would be some encryption and passwords, but it's yet another security question to discuss.
  • What I like about USB is the possibility to have the devices powered. This is handy for portable HD's for a laptop for example. I doubt that wireless USB will be able to power external devices. Having used wireless mice and keyboards in the past, I got rid of all them because the battery power always fails in a critical moment (Murphys law). An other issue with wireless keyboards and mice is data security. Will these wireless USB devices have encrypted data streams?
  • Combine this technology operating in a very low-power mode with something like this thing [newscientisttech.com] I read about earlier on /., and do we get smart DVD drives that can detect if they're authorized to play a given disc securely and over air? I mean, you could stick an RFID on each DVD and then a reader somewhere in the drive, but is this a more off-the-shelf type of combination?

    Or am I full of crap?
  • Most of the wires on my desk do double duty as data & power (key board, mouse, PDA, iPod) so what's the point of getting rid of all the cables just to replace them with charging stations?

    - Peace
  • I don't understand the "my desk must be wire free" mentality. Wireless networking is nice because it's like a lamp: you can move around and use it equally; new people can walk into the room and use it without extra technology, etc. But I don't see the point of wireless mice, hard drives, etc. With a range of 3-10m, in order to move your computer very far, you have to carry the same number of objects whether or not they have wires. Normal human orientation is toward the computer/monitor, so the cords lea
  • by tehcrazybob (850194) <ben DOT geek AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday October 18, 2006 @06:24PM (#16493271)
    I've never seen the point in the recent uptake in wireless technology. I have a wireless network, but it's just so I don't have to run network cords around my apartment. I hate my wireless network - it's unreliable and slow, despite being all alone on its channel and usually running at 54 Mbps. However, despite my own issues with it, I understand the point of wireless networking. It's great for public access or situations like my apartment where running cables cleanly is difficult. I can also see the point of a bluetooth mouse for a laptop, or a bluetooth keyboard for your PDA. It makes things faster and more portable, and gives you more freedom.

    However, I draw the limit there. My keyboard, mouse, monitor, printer, external storage, and occasional other things are all wired. I don't have to keep track of batteries, and I don't get poor performance near the end of my battery life. It's all sitting on my desk not moving anyway, and there are only a few cords present on my desk - the rest are hidden behind the desk. I also like the tactile effort cords provide. When I plug my graphing calculator into my computer, when I stick a USB thumb drive in, when I connect my camera, when I plug in my headphones, or when I hook up a USB card reader, there's tactile feedback. I know I have just achieved something. I also don't find it terribly inconvenient to stick my flash drive into a front USB port.

    There's more than just reliability and feedback, though. When I unplug my flash drive or external hard drive, I know that the devices are powered down and safe from snooping eyes, and not experiencing wear and tear. I also know that when I sit down at the computer lab with my flash drive in my pocket, the guy next to me isn't stealing my files. I understand that the connection between the computer and device will probably be encrypted automatically, so that's fine. But what about the connection process? If I have to go through a lengthly process to associate the device before I can use it (bluetooth), then I'm not really any better off than I was with wired USB. If I don't have to go through that process, what's stopping the guy next to me from doing it? And in the same computer lab, with USB my mouse isn't going to suddenly decide to associate itself with the computer across the way. Now, we could password protect the flash drive. However, and perhaps I'm alone on this, I'd rather not have a password on my mouse. And what if I replace 'mouse' with 'keyboard?' You can't password protect a keyboard.
  • FTFA: "Certified Wireless USB setups are still going to involve a lot of cables"

    Actually, in the first iteration, it's going to involve twice as many cables as wired USB. ;)
  • Another way to waste power by pouring it into the air.

    Another reason to leave all our electronics on, all the time.

    Another reason why it's too inconvenient to do anything about gross over consumption and it's effect on our environment.
  • by 1trickymicky (924393) on Wednesday October 18, 2006 @06:42PM (#16493489)
    but... if i've got one of these devices in my backpack and i walk past a whole heap of computers, lets say in an office for example... is it going to try and install it automatically?

    "Windows has recognised your UWB vibrator and is installing it now......"
  • This isn't plumbing, and it isn't a threat to WiFi. At 10 meters as the maximum distance, and 3 meters the desired distance, you'd have to have an AP every few feet just to get proper roaming and coverage. It would fit in better as a replacement for Bluetooth and "personal" devices, such as cell phone connectivity to laptops, wireless mice, headsets, etc. Of course I haven't RTFA, but with a summary that lists the distances indicated anyone can pretty much tell this isn't a WiFi replacement.
  • Does that mean these devices will flood the spectrum???

    I don't want to get rid of my cables if it means everything interfeers with everything else. Sounds like wireless hell. However it's the first I'm hearing of this technology so I'd be very happy to be corrected.
  • So whomever first observed that the benefit of USB was that you could power the damn things too was spot on. Take the NeXT cube, sure it was wired but it was ONLY ONE wire. So this has some of the same feel. I read this as a response to the completely messed up world that is Bluetooth (and Zigbee) because nobody can create a wireless standard that you and I can program without joining some $100,000 up front consortium and with $50,000 per annum bulk patent licensing rights. The first wireless proposal that
  • Hmmm..

    Cables:
    - Require no additional power
    - Difficult to intercept communication
    - Finite distance
    - Clutter

    UWB/ Wireless in General:
    - Requiers power for transmitter/ receiver resulting in reduced battery life or increased power consumption
    - Interception/ eavesdropping much easier
    - Tempest Emissions/ Interceptions?
    - Finite distance
    - Much more susceptible to interference

    I'm sure there's more but I'll stick with copper, thank you.
  • How many technologies do they think they are going to cram into the 2.4GHz range? It's ridiculus. Bluetooth, 802.11, ZigBee, Microwave ovens, cordless phones, game controllers, and now USB? Why can't the FCC open up more frequencies to the public instead of selling them of to the cellphone corporations?
  • What I'd really like to see is some sort of open intermediate language that the "drivers" could be written in. What I imagine is you switch on your device (or plug it in if it's wired), the computer sees it and "pairs up", they do a little handshake, then the device sends it's "driver" to the computer, the computer loads it and then it magically works... no more scavaging the internet for drivers. The reason I see it as an intermediate language is so that it could work with any type of machine (PC, Mac, nix
  • Keyboard
    1
    Mouse
    2
    Phone
    4
    Network
    4
    Power
    10

    So where's my wireless power!? Though I'm not sure if I want the level of radiation necessary to power all these devices wirelessly in my study.

    Back to the topic. UWB is old news, but I was recently reading some old news about it's use in localised RADAR [wired.com] applications. I'd like a "digital compas" that tells me, my wife and kids wh

: is not an identifier

Working...