Talk:Bluetooth/Archive 2012

Channels, 79 or 87
In one section it says 79, in another 87. 188.58.21.168 (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Dunno where 87 comes from. Might be a typo. Anyway, the answer is 79. If you include the guard bands, the full band might be 87 MHz wide William M. Connolley (talk) 09:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It was just vandalism William M. Connolley (talk) 09:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Which pseudorandom sequence
I have been reading about FHSS in general. So in a session two communicating devices must agree which pseudorandom sequence of carriers they will use. How do they do that? I am thinking that there must be some control channel (no FHSS stuff) where devices can advertise themselves and their pseudorandom sequences. And is there like a standard set of pseudorandom sequences to pick from, or is it just generated on the fly? And if so, does the sequence then leave out frequencies that seem full of traffic? 188.57.139.172 (talk) 09:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no control channel. The sequence is based on the BT addresses (or just the masters? I forget) and the masters BT clock. And maybe some other stuff thrown in William M. Connolley (talk) 10:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

GA?
I'm not going to do a GA review myself, but the article feels far too bitty and mashed together to be a GA to me. E.g. Bluetooth is more just a list of stuff that a proper history, and peters out into the sand William M. Connolley (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, no chance for GA. Nominator should have tried PR instead. The organization of the article is a mess, in large part. The first half of the Uses section should go to the Implementation section, where it is more relevant. Listing in the Implementation section applications of Bluetooth and then providing a lengthy list in the Uses section is redundant (and I'm not too sure a lengthy list is appropriate). Move the Bluetooth vs. WiFi section behind the Devices subsections, improves the flow. Much of the technical information is pretty sketchy, without providing context. There is technical information (physical-layer details) at the start of the article (section Implementation), which are then continued further below (base-band frame coding), with sketchy protocol information in between. I second William M. Connolley's assessment on the Security section. Source it out into its own article, and provide a summary of security flaws instead, explaining the important ones rather than just referencing each one of them. The Health concerns lists maximum signal power for the various device classes but does not put these technical facts into context of the section. Referencing is very poor. Nageh (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for Mention of Apple Products Using Bluetooth
Firstly, i would suggest the readers/users to read these two pages - http://www.bluetooth.com/Pages/Bluetooth-Smart-Devices.aspx and http://www.bluetooth.com/Pages/History-of-Bluetooth.aspx.

I think there should be a special mention of the Apple's iPod Touch 5th gen and the Macbook Air as well as the Mac Mini that use Bluetooth 4.0.

Comments are welcome. Thank You for reading this! Compfreak7 (talk) 10:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Untitled
no resources for software develops? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.110.199 (talk) 02:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)