Re: NEWS: Sony Develops New Close Proximity Wireless Transfer Technology "TransferJet"

01-16-2008, 06:45 PM

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:52:13 -0800, "Joel Koltner"
<zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote in
<13ot65dke7rgre5@corp.supernews.com>:

>"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message
>news:9Xvjj.80$1U4.8@fe117.usenetserver.com...
>> (Although FAA approval for use on aircraft might be a big help! The
>> ability to high-speed wirelessly transfer data between devices without
>> bringing the "right" cables on a plane would be a "killer app" for TJ.)
>
>JetBlue already has WiFi on their flights, and several other carriers will
>sometime this year.
>
>To the average user, as soon as they're told that "wireless networking devices
>can now be turned on" from the flight attendant, you can bet they're going to
>be using BlueTooth and any other wireless peripherals they have, regardless of
>the particular standard used.

Bluetooth is the same frequency and lower power than Wi-Fi, so where
Wi-Fi is OK, Bluetooth is no problem either. Other forms of wireless
could be a totally different matter.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

01-16-2008, 07:31 PM

At 17 Jan 2008 01:42:01 +0000 John Navas wrote:

> You're much more of a glutton for punishment than I am -- I would never
> have bought one of those clunkers (even though I had lots of VHS stuff)!

Compared the U-Matics that came before them, they were a comparitive joy to
lug around! ;-)

> >Perhaps, but few people use BT for actual "networking", so those WiFi
> >arguments were, in effect, mostly correct- BT found it's niche in audio
> >(headsets/AD2P) and file transfers. TJ seems to be pushing file transfer
> >as it's forte, which BT already does quite well.
>
> Had me fooled. I think Bluetooth stacks, profiles, pairing and devices
> are a near nightmare. I'd love to sweep all that crap away for
> something simple, reliable, and effective.

That's the fault of bad software, however. Just like WiFi was a pain in
the butt before the days of "zero config." On a modern device, BT is as
easy as selecting a file, selecting "send via BT" and entering a passcode.
No profiles to fool with, or pairing ahead of time. TJ might make it easier,
if you're willing to accept proximity as a subsitute for encryption, but I
suspect some form of "pairing" authentication would still be required, else
anyone could siphon of your files as long as they can get within 3cm of
your stuff! ;-)

01-16-2008, 08:13 PM

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:31:35 -0700, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in
<emzjj.17$qD5.12@fe127.usenetserver.com>:

>At 17 Jan 2008 01:42:01 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>> You're much more of a glutton for punishment than I am -- I would never
>> have bought one of those clunkers (even though I had lots of VHS stuff)!
>
>Compared the U-Matics that came before them, they were a comparitive joy to
>lug around! ;-)

True enough. LOL

>> Had me fooled. I think Bluetooth stacks, profiles, pairing and devices
>> are a near nightmare. I'd love to sweep all that crap away for
>> something simple, reliable, and effective.
>
>That's the fault of bad software, however.

I see it as actually part of the overly ambitious and complex objectives
for Bluetooth, part of the reason I'm in favor of a much simpler
protocol.

>Just like WiFi was a pain in
>the butt before the days of "zero config."

Bluetooth is way worse than Wi-Fi ever was, even worse than USB in its
painful infancy.

>On a modern device, BT is as
>easy as selecting a file, selecting "send via BT" and entering a passcode.

Under ideal conditions, if the device supports it, and if installation
has been debugged. I get calls all the time from people that can't get
it to work.

>No profiles to fool with, or pairing ahead of time. TJ might make it easier,
>if you're willing to accept proximity as a subsitute for encryption, but I
>suspect some form of "pairing" authentication would still be required, else
>anyone could siphon of your files as long as they can get within 3cm of
>your stuff! ;-)

From what I understand, setting approved devices is much, much simpler.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

01-16-2008, 11:02 PM

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:6mhto391cqv3uid697ljblea0ahk77flrk@4ax.com:

>>Compared the U-Matics that came before them, they were a comparitive
>>joy to lug around! ;-)
>
> True enough. LOL
>

HEY! Y'all don't make fun of mah VIDEO DECK!

01-17-2008, 11:18 AM

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 17 Jan 2008 01:42:01 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>> You're much more of a glutton for punishment than I am -- I would never
>> have bought one of those clunkers (even though I had lots of VHS stuff)!
>
> Compared the U-Matics that came before them, they were a comparitive joy to
> lug around! ;-)

Given the far better video of a U-Matic, I'd settle. Some like the pre-A
VO-2850 could go two or three generations and still have decent quality.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

01-17-2008, 12:43 PM

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 16 Jan 2008 18:22:54 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>
>>> As I'd
>>> said, I'd already decided, due to my investment (at the time) in CF
>>> card readers and cards to only buy a camera with CF support. That
>>> left Sony out of contention.
>>
>> I see that as a matter of personal choice, not lack of options.
>
> Fair enough. Either way, Sony has never sold me a digicam or an MP3
> player.
>

Nor I, and all due to MemoryStick, and all its variants. It wasn't smaller,
better, or even cheaper than other formats. And I usually owned media in the
other formats. No way would I choose Sony.

Sure, memory is cheaper now, but it hasn't always been that way. And now
that memory is cheaper I am not about to reward Sony for it.

Heck, if Sony weren't attached to Blu-Ray it probably would have completely
finished off HD-DVD by now. Fortunately they aren't in control of it, so I
will reluctantly support it (via a PS3).

--
Mike

01-17-2008, 01:45 PM

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:18:06 -0600, clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote in
<vni465-ig9.ln1@remote.clifto.com>:

>Todd Allcock wrote:
>> At 17 Jan 2008 01:42:01 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>>
>>> You're much more of a glutton for punishment than I am -- I would never
>>> have bought one of those clunkers (even though I had lots of VHS stuff)!
>>
>> Compared the U-Matics that came before them, they were a comparitive joy to
>> lug around! ;-)
>
>Given the far better video of a U-Matic, I'd settle. Some like the pre-A
>VO-2850 could go two or three generations and still have decent quality.

I'd settle for a 3-chip miniDV camcorder, which would blow it away on
both handling ease and image quality. For legacy I'd go with Betacam.

I'd digitize U-Matic video before messing with it at all -- I can
clearly see the quality loss in even 2nd generation.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

01-17-2008, 03:24 PM

John Navas wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:18:06 -0600, clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote in
> <vni465-ig9.ln1@remote.clifto.com>:
>>Todd Allcock wrote:
>>> At 17 Jan 2008 01:42:01 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>>>
>>>> You're much more of a glutton for punishment than I am -- I would never
>>>> have bought one of those clunkers (even though I had lots of VHS stuff)!
>>>
>>> Compared the U-Matics that came before them, they were a comparitive joy to
>>> lug around! ;-)
>>
>>Given the far better video of a U-Matic, I'd settle. Some like the pre-A
>>VO-2850 could go two or three generations and still have decent quality.
>
> I'd settle for a 3-chip miniDV camcorder, which would blow it away on
> both handling ease and image quality. For legacy I'd go with Betacam.
>
> I'd digitize U-Matic video before messing with it at all -- I can
> clearly see the quality loss in even 2nd generation.

No question with today's equipment that would be better. And what I said
naturally doesn't apply to most other U-Matic machines, which showed
notable degradation on 2nd gen copies. Haven't seen miniDV video up close
and personal yet so I'll defer judgment, but it sounds worth seeing.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

01-18-2008, 05:31 PM

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> [shrug] That used to be a significant factor, but memory is not dirt
>> cheap, and old memory can be sold in any event. The same issue exists
>> with batteries and accessories. I don't see that as limiting consumer
>> options, just a factor in the purchase decision.
>>
>
> Sony and its practice of vendor lock-in are one of the main reasons that the
> Blu-Ray HDDVD wars has not been settled. I think few argue that BluRay is a
> better technology, but it may not be worth the cost. (Personally, I believe
> the way things are going, Blu-Ray will be the ultimate winner and HDDVD will
> go the way of Betamax).

You mean it'll be adapted for use in TV studios? I was just in a TV
studio in San Jose today, with digital betacam cassettes everywhere.

01-18-2008, 07:27 PM

SMS wrote:
> Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>> In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>> [shrug] That used to be a significant factor, but memory is not dirt
>>> cheap, and old memory can be sold in any event. The same issue exists
>>> with batteries and accessories. I don't see that as limiting consumer
>>> options, just a factor in the purchase decision.
>>>
>>
>> Sony and its practice of vendor lock-in are one of the main reasons that the
>> Blu-Ray HDDVD wars has not been settled. I think few argue that BluRay is a
>> better technology, but it may not be worth the cost. (Personally, I believe
>> the way things are going, Blu-Ray will be the ultimate winner and HDDVD will
>> go the way of Betamax).
>
> You mean it'll be adapted for use in TV studios? I was just in a TV
> studio in San Jose today, with digital betacam cassettes everywhere.

Digital BetaCam : Betamax :: band : rubber band

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

Re: NEWS: Sony Develops New Close Proximity Wireless Transfer Technology "TransferJet"