I see that there are some really cheap combo cards that do 802.11 B/G (not N) and also do Bluetooth. I've read where those cards are CPU-intensive (they have a DSP and make the computer's CPU do all the work - ??). They also don't use (or are not compatible with) Microsoft's Bluetooth stack (what-ever implications or consequences that has - I don't know).
I was wondering if there was a good (high-performance, long-range) bluetooth-only PCI card?
A card that is compatible with an external, high-gain antenna?
And if I have to get a combo PCI card just to get bluetooth, is there at least a card that will do 802.11 N as well as bluetooth?
note:-"The Microsoft Windows Bluetooth stack only supports external or integrated Bluetooth dongles attached through USB. It does not support Bluetooth radio connections over PCI, I²C, serial, PC Card or other interfaces."
Class 1 BT PCI cards are available but not cheap.
Larger picture here but their English Translation is not working very well.
You haven't said which OS you wish to use the device with.
Or is the bluetooth stack something different than the TCP/IP stack?
And what, exactly, are the consequences of a PCI bluetooth card that can't run using Microsoft's bluetooth stack?
Yea, I came across that exact item before I posted my original question here. I was wondering if there weren't more of those, perhaps with availability showing at some US retailers.
I have to wonder, why BT via a pci card? (i have a BT usb dongle on the end of a usb extension cable/so it can be up higher than my pc, and a metal pie plate to block the signal so my next door neighbor can't glom on)
in another post you mentioned you had win 98, don't think that had a bt stack anyway, so you may be stuck with plain old drivers... consider an el cheapo usb/pci card, usb exstension cables, and both BT and Wifi dongles...
Because I want a long-range solution. I mentioned I wanted to use an external antenna to maximize the range. Are there any bluetooth usb dongles or transceivers that have external antenna jacks?
I want to see how far I can receive signals from one (or more) very small bluetooth-capable GPS loggers.
Yes, there are (or were) bluetooth drivers for win-98 for the bluetooth hardware that came in some laptops in 2004 (and probably for other years).
The German-made PCI bluetooth card mention in the previous post has win-98 drivers (according to the specs).
thats what doesn't make any sense, bt has limited range 30 or 100 meters) no matter what antenna you use (timing in the electronics limits how far a signal can travel before it's ignored, switches between xmit and receive), so if you want a long range solution why even consider bt in the first place?
yes, bt stacks and drivers are two different things.... needed drivers for earlier windows, now the bt stack is built in, but some devices still have/use drivers...
there are some long range blutooth devices out there
formatting link
but they are not cheap (strike 1), don't have win 98 drivers (strike 2), and are usb devices/not pci cards(strike
3)...
It's not uncommon for a device to state that it's not compatible with win-9x, but burried deep somewhere on it's driver CD will be a win-9x directory. But ok, maybe no win-98 driver.
In this case, because it's larger than the tip of your thumb, and because it's designed to act like a long-range base station using a large external antenna, the fact that it's usb doesn't matter.
But answer this. If Bluetooth is designed to *not* have a range exceeding 100 meters, then how can the above-mentioned device exist and function as advertized - with a range of at least a mile?
it (bt) isn't a computer thing only.... bt ON/IN a computer is limited, not standalone bt stuff... as far as I can tell, it's actually a separate thing, the older model had a serial interface to bt, and the newer a usb to serial to bt.... at any rate, not a computer card/device, but a standalone device and not subject to limitations of computer cards (standard computer/personal stuff is designed/limited to 10 or 100 meters, designed for pan/headsets/speakers/etc ie personal things so doesn't need long range)
you had asked about pci cards (see subject), that means they are (usually) internal, and subject to limitations for internal computer cards, once you get external boxes, the skys the limit
Blue tooth is a digital radio communication protocal. It doesn't matter if the electronics that is performing the radio communication is embedded in an external box, or on a PCI card, a thumb-sized USB stick, a pair of wireless headphones or a cell phone.
It also doesn't matter how the radio transciever part of the device receives data, be it serial port, usb port, or PCI motherboard interface.
If I had two walkie-talkies, and they both had the same small antenna and the same low-power transmit circuit, then they'd have a short range.
But if I took one of them and boosted the transmit power, AND gave it a huge antenna, then in theory I'd be able to extend the range even if one of them still had it's small antenna and weak transmitter.
Same applies here to this bluetooth situation. If the PC's bluetooth radio had a strong transmit circuit, and if it had a large, high gain antenna, then it's transmit range and it's receive sensitivity would enable the communication range to be extended to typical, standard low-range bluetooth devices.
I only specified PCI because I didn't believe there was a USB solution that had an external antenna capability.
But clearly since Microsoft's BT stack only supports USB, then that creates a preference for a USB solution over PCI from a software POV. Given that preference, one result is the high-power, long-range BT transceiver mentioned in the previous post
formatting link
$129 isin't so expensive if it means extending BT range from an anemic few dozen feet to potentially a few thousand feet.
The only long-range (10 km-class) Bluetooth® USB "Dongle"
The AIRcable Host XR, equipped with an extremely-powerful, highly-sensitive Bluetooth transmitter, can achieve an unparalleled range of up to 30 km! With a 9 dBi omni-directional antenna, the extended range is up to 2 km, and with the 18 dBi directional antenna, it is up to 10 km.
Additionally, given its high sensitivity, it can extend the range of weaker Bluetooth devices like cell phones and headsets by hundreds of meters. With most other devices only capable of obtaining a range of 10 meters or less, no other Bluetooth device comes even close. Plus, this long-range Bluetooth transmitter connects to any computer with a Bluetooth connection and can handle virtually any Bluetooth profile available.
Uses include standard data, streaming data, headsets communication (like Skype calls), and stereo headphone communication, amongst others.
With the AIRcable Host XR you can extend the range of communication from your PC to other Bluetooth devices.
The AIRcable Host XR's Bluetooth radio receiver is many times more sensitive than the average Bluetooth device. You can expect about a 10 times more range than with other standard Bluetooth dongles.
You. You aren't going to get two orders of magnitude improvement in signal strength [or distance covered] by merely changing your Bluetooth dongle and antenna.
So you are disputing the engineering concept that the size and placement of an antenna can affect radiated signal strength, pattern and transmission / reception range?
You are basically saying that the antenna that's built into the small USB dongles are just as effective as large, externally-mounted antennas.
You are also disputing the concept that when given the luxury of more PC-board real estate for a device, that you can frequently build a device with more features or better performance if you aren't restricted by the size of the device envelope.
It's clear that either you don't understand basic engineering principles, or you're also dreaming.
You seem to be saying that the extended-range bluetooth tranceiver being sold AIRcable is a complete fabrication - that it's range specifications are completely bogus.
Perhaps you can tell us what your credentials are, what your argument is, that enables you to put forward a convincing argument to support your statement above?
Careful there. They use a single chip that can do either BT or Wi-Fi, but not simultaneously. If you're trying to use one to talk on a BT headset, while using Skype over a Wi-Fi connection, you might have problems.
Nope. Most chipsets do all their own processing. I'm not too familiar with the current offerings but can find them with Google. Need references or direction?
Some companies don't want to spend the money to obtain Microsoft hardware and driver WHQL approval.
For new products that were recently released, Microsoft no longer approves hardware and drivers for XP (only Vista and Windoze 9).
Nope. One way is to take the available PCMCIA card and cram it into a PCMCIA/CardBus to PCI adapter card such as:
Another way is to use a combo BT/Wi-Fi card in Mini-PCI format, and just insert it into a PCI adapter card:
What's really nice about this arrangement is that the software interface from Mini-PCI and PCI are identical, so you don't have to deal with the PCMCIA/CardBus drivers.
All Mini-PCI cards have MAIN and AUX connectors, usually using U.FL connectors. You can buy adapter cables to RP-SMA. The above Mini-PCI to PCI adapter includes solder pads for adding your own right angle RP-SMA connector.
Dunno. Why would you want 802.11n? All it does is provide more speed, not range. At extreme range, it falls back to 802.11g speeds and protocols. 802.11g is good enough for most applications (except perhaps video).
You should probably read more recent posts in a thread before responding to an early post. There are PCI bluetooth cards (at least one) as mentioned in a later post. See here:
I should, but I'm lazy. I'll just write some more, and maybe later see how close I guessed.
Good find. Digging deeper... Data sheet and user manual in English:
BT 1.1 only (not 2.0). The Windoze driver emulates a dialup modem (PICO Modem) at 144Kbits/sec. Good selection of BT profiles (see user manual). Two versions (class 2 and class 1 power levels). $92 and $130 respectively.
As for long range, I tried to find the current holder of the distance record.
1.08 miles for Bluejacking to a cell phone:
There was some BT distance testing done at various Defcon events in the past, but I couldn't find any results.
Instead of PCI, why not use a common USB Bluetooth dongle?
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.