Talk:Wireless USB/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

WirelessUSB™

It took me a while (nearly 2 days on and off!) to track down that Cypress's stuff is not the same as the "real" Wireless USB so I included some stuff. See also here RevRagnarok 03:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

WUSB2

I can't find any additional information on WUSB2. Is this another spec? Does the rest of the article apply to WUSB2 as well as WUSB?

I haven't heard of it and don't see it on http://www.usb.org/developers/wusb/ either. Removing, for now. Text was:
WUSB2 offers 880 Mbit/s at eight meters and 220 Mbit/s at 20 meters.

-- RevRagnarok 00:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

What is the challenge/barrier to comercialize Wireless USB(WUSB)?

1.How can we overcome these challenges?

2.What can we do to avoid the barriers?

3.Can you list similar products now on the market?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwckoala (talk • contribs) 07:00, Mar 27, 2006

See above Nil Einne 15:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Can Wireless USB supply power over the air?

If it can not supply power to the devices , I can not see it going any further than Bluetooth or can it?

Wireless Power Transmission is snake oil (sounds like a great idea, but never really works), and the distance a signal can travel through the air is related to the power put behind the signal (amplitude of the output waveform; as long as the signal is distinguishable from surrounding noise radiation, the connection will work) so depending on what the spec says for its power output, it could fall well short of Bluetooth, or exceed it by quite a bit. I think in America, there are laws saying that devices can't output over a certain amount of power, though, and from the description of its datarate falloff, it probably uses around the same amount of power as Bluetooth (at the cost of a much more complex computer needed to drive it).

Put quite simply, Wireless USB is great for devices that need the bandwidth (Wireless disks), but not much else.70.35.227.160 14:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

While I'm always somewhat skeptical of wireless stuff and personally I still don't expect wireless to ever truly take over I think your missing the point. There are a lot of devices which can use the bandwidth and which people might be interested in making wireless. E.g. printers, scanners, DCs, MP3 players etc. All these will still need power of course. For stuff like printers and scanners, you'll always needs a power supply of course (ignoring crappy CIS and other such USB powered devices). But it'll be easier to not have the USB cable I guess. From the sound of it, it should make device to device connection easier to so you may be able to scan directly to your printer. Or alternatively, you could easily print from your laptop without a print server and/or running computer. Stuff like DCs and MP3 players will need batteries or to be recharged in some way of course but I guess it'll be easier if you can just bring your camera with you and straight away transfer stuff. Similar with MP3 players. People don't always want to recharge when they want to transfer and if your device (especially DC) uses seperate batteries it's irrelevant anyway. Also, this will make it easier to take your device to another comp. No need to remember to bring the cable. Of course, good devices either have standard ports (miniUSB or whatever) or even have a hidden plug but it'll still be easier with wireless. For stuff like mice, keyboards and game controllers I guess some might feel bluetooth is better. But again, it all depends on how ubiquitious WUSB and bluetooth become. One of the key reasons for the success of USB is because it's ubiquituous. A lot of the advantages above also need WUSB to become ubiquitious. If it does, I think it's safe to say it'll have a lot more uses then you might think, especially if bluetooth doesn't. Nil Einne 16:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The other wireless USB

I don't have an opinion on which is better (I don't understand why people feel so strongly about these things, and it is unlikely that I will use either one in the foreseeable future), but I think that the article should include both version of wireless USB, Cable-Free USB (supported by Freescale) and Certified Wireless USB (supported by Intel). The article currently only covers the latter. While Cable-Free USB is not approved by the USB Sig or the IEEE, it is still referred to as "wireless USB", which is why they added "certified" to the name of the other version. The article seems somewhat dismissive of Cable-Free USB and gives the impression that it is not real wireless USB. It also calls Certified USB's protocol "correct". From what I have read, Cable-Free USB is an extension to USB while Certified USB is a completely different protocol (not that that is bad). Also, Cable-Free USB is scheduled to ship this summer, while Certified USB's protocol is not finished and it missed its late 2005 deadline and is now forecasted to come out in late 2006 or perhaps in 2007. These things do not necessarily make Cable-Free a better choice, but it appears to be a serious competitor, despite its lack of certification. For these reasons, I think that the article should either cover both or be renamed to Certified Wireless USB. At first, Wireless USB would redirect to Certified Wireless USB, but once, or if, an article is written on Cable-Free, it would be a disambiguation page. I favor covering both in a single article. -- Kjkolb 20:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Certified wireless USB is supported by the USB Implementers Forum not just Intel. Also could you provide some info or a link to support your assertation that Certified Wireless USB is a completely different protocol? As far as I can tell from this talk page, the article and quick look at the UIF page, it is as extension. For example "Certified Wireless USB is the new wireless extension to USB that combines the speed and security of wired technology with the ease-of-use of wireless technology". They also talk of backwards compatability etc. Perhaps this is just marketing speak but I get the impression that the UIF is branding it as an extension.
Also, could you provide examples were Cable-Free USB is called wireless USB? As far as I can tell, the primary reasons certified is called certified is because of WirelessUSB(tm). In any case, I think we need to make clear that this is an article about Wireless USB not wireless USB. IMHO, it's fine to mention other techs but Cable-Free USB should go in to a seperate article. As for WirelessUSB (tm), IMHO that should similar be in a seperate article. Of course, 1-2 years from now things might be different but IMHO at the moment, we should keep this article about Certified Wireless USB Nil Einne 16:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I got here from reading information elsewhere that raises doubt that "Certified Wireless USB" is even entitled to be regarded as an "official" or IEEE certified protocol. Article http://www.techworld.com/mobility/features/index.cfm?featureid=2190 appears to say there is no IEEE standard, and also no "Certified Wireless USB" products (back in Jan 2006) - although it does seem that the "Certified" protocol is more sophisticated than the products which merely piggy-back radio onto the existing USB protocol so that boxes with actual or virtual USB interface do not need to be connected together.

I agree that "USB" as currently understood is ultimately meaningless when applied to this stuff - I think it's used because users think they know what it means, and in the same spirit as Microsoft's "Windows CE", which led you to believe that a pocket computer could run ordinary Windows applications, which in fact is only possible now in 2006 with UMPC and only if you wear the WinSuit(TM) dungarees with the tummy-pouch.  ;-) On sale now are kits to wirelessize your USB hardware.

We have had this with "USB High Speed" and "USB Full Speed" and all, which would you prefer to buy, and as far as I know that was inside -one- set of standards! No one did a "USB Well It's Cheap Anyhow".

I like standards, but I propose that your Wikipedia editorial neutrality should step back from advocacy and enthusiasm for the "Certified" wireless USB or even for the entire category of UWB peripherals. The benefit over Bluetooth, for instance, remains unclear, unless you're in the UWB business and therefore not in the Bluetooth business, so it matters to -you-. Conversely, wireless access cries out for shared peering of devices - or whatever it would be called - a wireless printer should be accessible directly to any authorised device in the room or the building or the town, depending on range, with as much or as little management as is wished. I'm getting into advocacy myself here, but a view can be taken that one technological delivery is more or less useful than another.

A balanced article should represent all alternatives equally according to their respective merits.

And Wikipedia should not carry unqualified statements that products "will" be released by a given date. In the general case, it's quite likely that they won't, and Wikipedia loses authority. The claim should be attributed and qualified. "Technology kibitzer Robert Carnegie has said 'this could be in stores mid-2007 if people, they know who they are, get off their hindparts, but don't hold your breath.'"

Robert Carnegie rja.carnegie@excite.com 194.83.173.134 13:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"I think we need to make clear that this is an article about Wireless USB not wireless USB."
I certainly agree that an article should be clear on what it is about.
However, I think NPOV requires a "wireless USB" article to discuss all kinds of technologies that are typically called "wireless USB", especially if there is a conflict between one group of people saying "this is wireless USB", and another group saying "No it isn't. This other stuff is the *real* wireless USB". Confused people, such as myself, are going to come to Wikipedia trying to understand this stuff. We can't expect them to already know the difference between "wireless USB" and Capital-W "Wireless USB".
(If the article gets really long, then I don't mind splitting it up into seperate articles on each type. But each article must mention all the other types, and what the difference is.)
--68.0.120.35 15:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
It'd be fine with me either way, I added the whole (TM) stuff due to a personal discovery as I noted. It really peeved me that I attended a seminar claiming to be USB when it had nothing to with the Implementer's Forum. I do have a problem with a company taking a standard name and then "tweaking" it into a proprietary system (see RAMBUS). — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 01:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


WUSB vs. Bluetooth?

Can anyone explain the core differences between wusb and bluetooth and should it be posted on the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.94.158 (talk • contribs)

The "core" difference is that they're two incredibly different protocols trying to accomplish two entirely different goals. Wireless USB is a high bandwidth wireless protocol with a smaller range than WiFi (and smaller bandwidth, and a much reduced power profile), but with higher transfer rates than Bluetooth (though both share a similar range and may be able to use the same PHY/Transceiver hardware much like combo Bluetooth+WiFi devices). (In theory anyway, you could build a single 2.4GHz radio device and have it work with all three protocols seamlessly with the decoding done in software, and it's likely we'll see this in practice in future devices).
Really, so you're 2.4Ghz radio device could work seamlessly with UWB using 3.1–10.6 GHz? Surely you'd at least need a radio device capable of working 2.4Ghz-10.6Ghz not a 2.4Ghz radio device? Nil Einne 15:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I don't see the "core" difference. It seems to be 2 evolutionary branches with the same end result, protocol specific frequency modulation aside - wireless digital communication. I have added it to the artcie..--Procrastinating@talk2me 13:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree, the article says that they try to "accomplish two entirely different goals", but I don't see the difference in goals (the protocols are very different though, and have advantages and drawbacks). They are both about short-range wireless communication between devices. They can be used in the same circumstances, and has roughly the same speed. They will be competing in the marketplace. The "entirely different" statement needs to be substantiated. 80.217.172.91 (talk) 11:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

2008 complaint

I think this line contains a grammatical error as I cannot understand it very well... And I don't have time to change it. "Bluetooth has long experience with connection establishment so a connection can be established from any device."Mgamerz (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wireless USB 2.0

what about wireles usb 2.0 adpators? do they fit in this section or should a page be written for it? 125.239.51.157 (talk) 09:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wireless USB versions have nothing to do with USB versions, Wireless USB 1.1 is supposed to be finalized around the end of 2009. Ofer.Affias (talk) 12:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Power consumption

Power consumption matters were not discussed. Battery use, etc... For example in the wireless technologies comparison table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.50.253 (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

How could people comercialize Wireless USB ?

Based on the benefits offered by this technology, how in your opinion can we commercialize this product?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwckoala (talk • contribs) 06:57, Mar 27, 2006

Sorry but the talkpage is not the place to get people to do your homework for you Nil Einne 15:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Neither is it a place to be rude. At least direct users to the appropriate forum, and don't assume bad faith by saying they are only wanting to get their homework done for them. It's not even a reasonable assumption, as homework rarely asks for other people's opinion.
If you are even still around, Wwckoala, try directing your question to the WP:RD Reference Desk Unfortunately, this does not have a link in the side bar as it should. It would deflect more questions and comments of this type. -- trlkly 10:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
If you are going to complain about others not being helpful, you should make sure you are actually helpful yourself. The WP:RD is NOT a place for getting contributor's opinions on subjects nor for homework questions. And as a regular at the RD I can say the question is likely to be ignored nowadays and in 2008, and probably in 2006 too. And many, many homework questions do ask for your opinion, usually based on informed analysis (as is apparent in this case was requested by both this and the proceeding question). (If you've never had a homework question which asks for your opinion, I guess you went/are going to a crap school.) But of course it's not easy to check if it's your opinion or someone elses opinion (and few are going to bother) so plenty of people do ask others to answer such questions for them even if technically they're not answering the question since they're actually giving someone else's opinion not theirs (although they likely don't have an opinion since they've never bothered to think about it and as evidenced by their getting someone else to answer it for them aren't likely to). And yes, looking at it 5 years later, I'm still fairly confident by looking at both the OPs posts that these were homework questions of some sort. BTW, it's not rude to point out a question is not appropriate here, nor is it necessary to point people to external forums where they can get their homework questions answered for them or seek opinions when pointing out neither of which are suitable for wikipedia. In fact, it makes far more sense to actually tell someone why their question isn't being answered and isn't going to be answered so they can of their own volition find somewhere else to get the question answered, then expecting them to wait 2 years for a supposed to be better (but actually worse because it still directed them to somewhere their question isn't going to be answered and the link itself was broken) answer. Nil Einne (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Certified Wireless USB vs. Wireless USB

I don't want to stir up any controversy, but I want to explain what little I know on the topic of the use of "Certified" by the USB Implementers' Forum. I worked on this protocol some for a major IP implementation firm as a technical editor. I checked up on this matter by calling the USB Implementers' Forum, and they advised that they had dropped the term "Certified" from their materials. As they explained it to me, some companies had introduced dongles that plugged into a USB port and could communicate wirelessly with other proprietary dongles using closed, proprietary protocols. The USB-IF wanted to avoid confusion and introduced "Certified" to prevent confusion and customer dissatisfaction over "wireless USB" devices that could not communicate with each other. For whatever reason, they felt that the problem had taken care of itself, and they had deprecated the "Certified" mark. Wabernat 15:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wabernat (talk • contribs)

Another good reason to merge Certified Wireless USB into this article. One well-sourced coherent article can have the full narrative instead of oddly forking the two. W Nowicki (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Ambiguous name

I came to this problem a couple of years ago when first heard about WUSB, and still see that nothing have changed since then, — it seems to be virtually impossible to find WUSB products with search engines:

  • “Wireless USB” results in tons of links to Wi-Fi adapters that plug into wired USB port;
  • “WUSB” gives similar results, because Linksys offers WUSBxxx series of Wi-Fi adapters;
  • “WUSB not containing word Linksys” provides very small number of relevant links, mostly to official bodies such as USB-IF, Intel, etc.;
  • “Wireless USB not containing word WiFi” is perhaps the most fruitful, but still abounds with outdated technology previews and Wi-Fi adapters;
  • “Certified Wireless USB” is solely dedicated to technology previews.

Moreover, advanced search methods (word exclusion) are not available inside online shops.

So the question is: does USB-IF provide some “searching tips” for quickly finding WUSB products amidst thousands of “wireless USB adapters”? 213.234.235.82 (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I've come across a few pages that 'helpfully' say 'Nothing to do with WiFi'. Of course, that makes it even harder to find them - “Wireless USB not containing word WiFi” fails! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 05:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
So? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a search engine. W Nowicki (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Dead technology ?

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.
--195.137.93.171 (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."
Interesting!
--195.137.93.171 (talk) 05:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)--195.137.93.171 (talk) 05:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Found another - a wireless USB webcam ! --195.137.93.171 (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?

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)

I have now done this. Hungryce (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wireless USB. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Abandoned standard?

Wireless USB appears to be largely forgotten and the relevant pages don't seem to exist on usb.org anymore.

Should that be noted in the article?

SopaXorzTaker (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree - Wireless USB is an abandoned standard. this should be pointed out — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris9594 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wireless_USB/Archive_1&oldid=1137327989"