Talk:Wireless USB

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Networking (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Networking task force (marked as Mid-importance).

Why USB?[edit]

Can anyone explain why "USB" is used in the name of this standard? Does it have anything to do with wired USB other than conceptually? Can wireless USB adapters be plugged into a USB port, say? --Jfruh 19:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wireless usb uses much of the same technologies in USB but wirelessly, such as speed modes. Wireless USB would have a similar method used in WiFi, that it will not have wires and detect hubs wirelessly. I'd say there will be USB to Wireless USB adapters, pcimcia and the like.--x1987x June 30, 2005 16:05 (UTC)


I was looking for information on USB, when I stumbled upon this article. While good for a first edit as can be seen by this talk page, this article needs some work, it is not comprehensive enough. Dessydes

Dead technology ?[edit]

WiQuest was an early player in Wireless USB.
Wisair chipset looked promising, but products are near-impossible to find at the end of 2011.
Google Shopping finds 3 items from Q-Waves, but only in brokers probably not stocked.
Cables Unlimited was taken over by Cables To Go who still list WiMedia VGA/HDMI links, but their USB-USB link is 2.4GHz - not this standard.
Wimedia also seems to have been overshadowed by 2.4GHz for audio - many wireless headphones, microphones , E-mu Pipeline etc.
-- (talk) 04:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Just spotted Warpia ConnectHD - a new product announced yesterday ! Perhaps it's the start of a deluge ?
Wireless USB FAQ is intesting - not sure it's a Reliable Source (blog).
"The first such flavor was released by Cypress Semiconductor in 2003 and is technically the only version that can be called WirelessUSB [tm] because it is trademarked. It is a very low-speed, limited "variant" of USB that was primarily targeted as a replacement for Bluetooth. Its key application lies in the wireless connections of human interface devices (HIDs) such as mice and keyboards. It uses a proprietary 2.4 GHz radio with a datarate of only 62.5 kbps."
-- (talk) 05:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)-- (talk) 05:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Found another - a wireless USB webcam ! -- (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, as far as I can see it doesn't seem to have been adopted very much, with Bluetooth generally successfully occupying the niche Wireless USB was intended for in low-bandwidth devices such as keyboards and mice: the USB-IF appears to be having another go at defining another, newer, and much faster version of Wireless USB at the moment: see Media Agnostic USB for the latest developments. -- The Anome (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Merge or not?[edit]

So we really do need to work on this merge effort, or at least reach a consensus of some kind. This seems a complicated history, so will take some untangling. It does seem that if, as the lead implies (any source??) Certified Wireless USB refers to this one, then it sure sounds like there should be two articles for two names of the same thing? That one has almost no citations and some questionable language (especially if it is now effectively defunct?) On the other hand, it seems the Media Agnostic USB says it "should not be confused" with the certified one. Does not say how they differ. If that is an entirely new protocol, the question is if this one is only to describe a specific protocol, or the concept of all wireless USB protocols in general. Usually I prefer having one properly sourced article first, and only splitting when it gets too long. Media Agnostic clearly is not too long yet. But help is needed, please. W Nowicki (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)