>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
Sony Ericsson / Sony >
General
> Bluetooth all over the new SE phones
Bookmark topic
A phone in our days must have Bluetooth
--
Posted: 2006-03-02 00:33:12
Edit :
Quote
@wolf, things that cost more, cost more 'cause eventually we save more. you prefer saving money, i prefer saving time. to each his own.
--
Posted: 2006-03-02 05:43:00
Edit :
Quote
@dj_wolfinstein: BT allows me to do more then IR ever could, if it was simply about sending files back and forth I could probably talk in defence of IR. With BT you can browse for files on several devices and transfer them between the same devices. BT wins hands down and those who are still using IR need to realise it's 2006 and life is much less complicated.
This message was posted from a P910
--
Posted: 2006-03-04 06:22:12
Edit :
Quote
I'm just glad that backward-compatibility as regards connectivity is a priority in higher-end SE phones. Sure, BT is better than IR and wi-fi is faster than BT. But you never know what old device you may have to connect to out there. Once i had an IR cable only so i couldn't transfer files from a pc to a nokia 6630, to the disappointment of my friend who owned it.
--
Posted: 2006-03-04 06:56:00
Edit :
Quote
with BT trying to kill IR, i hope we'll see a new feature with BT that could let us receive internet data from another device and use it! hehe...
like wifi
--
Posted: 2006-03-05 01:54:26
Edit :
Quote
Brix, Smart Phone...Guys you have a very Valid Point....However there is really not much The BT has yet to offer from an Ir-Perpective..Cept the Speed and SMS transfer fucntion...I'm not saying this because I'm partial to IR...But I still think when phones come out with faster BT clients installed..Then will BT rule..Right now I rate them just the same...Date Transfer Device...!
Although I happen to have an Ir-Da and BT both....!
--
Posted: 2006-03-05 08:49:17
Edit :
Quote
I can see why IrDA might still be in use by some people, but the cost argument is pretty poor. A BT adapter is DIRT cheap these days, and even though it might be five times more than an IrDA adapter, we're still talking about a few pounds/dollars difference overall.
If you wanted to use mobile data, Bluetooth is so much more convenient that if I couldn't justify spending £15, I probably wouldn't have a genuine need to use data at all! IrDA is also slow, which isn't a lot of use for moving files/data anyway.
As long as an infrared port takes up little room, and can be kept off, then it's not a problem - but I doubt it has much life left. Nokia has dropped it on almost everything already.
--
Posted: 2006-03-06 00:18:12
Edit :
Quote
Some of the older IPAQ devices whilst they had Blue tooth would not allow you to transfer files using BT so you had to use IR so I hope IR remains for just a bit longer!!
--
Posted: 2006-03-06 13:57:33
Edit :
Quote
Ever since I bought the SE T68i I haven't even considered buying a phone w/o bluetooth. Sure IR can be used but its a pain sometimes aligning the ir and the choose yes on the phone to acceps transfer etc. on many notebooks the ir is on the backside to the screen. With bluetooth I also can walk around with the phone during a transfer w/o problems. I often share files with friends and instead of having to stand still aligning ir we can have the phones in the pockets and move around. So for me theres no competition bluetooth rocks even though I wish it was faster.
--
Posted: 2006-03-06 14:06:45
Edit :
Quote
if ur talking wireless then I go with BT. but even USB is more important than IR.
--
Posted: 2006-03-07 11:31:29
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
