Intel is backing the 128-bit AES encryption protocol for securing Wireless USB connections, which it hopes will replace cables for connections over very short distances . . . Intel wants Wireless USB networks to interface with the Ultra Wideband (UWB) standard to make networks that cover whole households.
What’s the difference between this and Bluetooth? Looks like they have simlar (if not the same) goals.
They are quite similar, just like USB and FireWire are. Wireless USB may benefit from being backwards-compatiable-ish (Just get a wireless hub and connect it to the normal usb?) with USB which almost every home computer now has, wheras relatively few have bluetooth. Also, if it’s the same speed as wired 1.x usb that will make it twice as fast as Bluetooth, which will be better for playing video on your pda although I don’t see any other real use for it.
With an adapter interface (you know someone’s going to build one, its too much of a market not to), every USB device you own can become wireless.
Not that there’s anything wrong with Bluetooth… just that any Bluetooth enabled device I’d buy (mouse, keyboard, accessories, etc) costs too damn much. Its like 30 bucks for a wireless optical mouse, but a Bluetooth mouse? Good luck finding one under 70 bucks (not including a bluetooth station if you don’t already have one).
What about devices that get their power over USB….like my cheapo scanner?
Will this fix the current problem with wireless encryption? IE. even if 64 or 128 bit the headers are all the same so it remains a fairly easy proposition to crack.
From the looks of it I would say yes, but I’m no encryption expert.
not even close to the same. bluetooth has about 10mbps transfer rate. wireless usb is supposed to be about as fast as usb2 (480mbps). that’s a huge difference. wireless usb should allow you to have wireless hard drives for example, if you wanted.
what about wireless firewire (approved but not yet arrived) isn’t that like the same thing?
a wireless Hard drive would still need power for the parts. I guess what you would have in essence then is a OSless server since it could sit and have multiple connections at one time, though the controller would have to be smarter and there would have to be more cache for request Queuing.
what ever happened to wireless Firewire that was suppose to be on its way back about 2 years ago?
> if you wanted.
Well, people already have windows boxes without firewall…
Maybe if you live in a cardboard box. The sweet-spot distance for UWB devices is measured in *FEET*. Come on OSNews, at least do a little research — Google could have told you that one.
The point is its got 128but AES encryption whereas bluetooth encryption is inadequate
i know wifi has encryption and you can enable additional stronger encrypton. but how many joe public do? right know i have access to 2 unsecured wifis… not my own. and one with weak wep only.
i can just see it… hijacking of wireless keyboards and mice…
“What about devices that get their power over USB….like my cheapo scanner?”
Well seeing that this isn’t a conversion kit you scanner will work as it always has, with a cable. And things that want to use power through usb will keap using cables.
Far as bluetooth, this is differant. Bluetooth is built into the chips of bluetooth devices, it’s a chunk of silicon you put in with your chip, and has a big approval process. Where this would be just like using USB as is, but no cable. Not much change in making the device. Also this would be much faster.
It is possible to get a Logitech bluetooth mouse for $80 with base station… I’m using one right now. Moreover, it does much more than my non-ergonomic 2-button+scrollwheel Logitech RF wireless mouse which cost me $40
The majority of wireless mice have nowhere near the sophistication which would be required in a wireless-usb mouse. Adding AES encryption capabilities to your mouse as well as the ability to support the more complex protocol will undoubtedly put the price above the $20-$50 for a plain RF wireless mouse.
Please someone invent Wireless Power other than batteries or fuel cells. That would be the invention of the century I think.
it would be the invention that defines the human race because in order to get the power to the device, the device must extract it from the air with out having an electric current flowing through people.
in essence, the device would have to produce its own power some how… since you have outlawed the use of Fuel cells, the only alternative is Zero Point energy which , to date, eludes our best efforts to figure out how to access its massive amounts of energy.
Currently, all of my USB devices except for the printer gets its power from USB (heck, some devices ONLY uses USB power, and doesn’t transfer any data), so unless we can get wireless power too, it won’t be much use, except for a PDA or something.
get the book Tesla by Margrete Cheney, it’s a Barnes and noble book on Tesla, it covers his work on wireless power transmission. Pretty much hits all you need to know why we don’t have it. He was transmitting power wirelessly 100 years ago, and thank goodness we don’t today.
I don’t understand why people want everything to be wireless. E.g. they want wireless headphones for their iPods because of the “inconvenience” of having a 2 foot wire traveling from their ears to their pocket. Now wireless USB devices when it would be just as easy to plug in from so short a distance anyway. The expense and the complexity involved are not trivial.
I ask the same thing to, but you example of the headphones is one of the things I would like wireless. Thats a case for wireless, less tangle and such since your moving it around constantly and such.
What I don’t get is people who want wireless scanners, printers, put wireless cards in their desktops (granted sometimes it’s an issue of no way to get a cat 5 to it). If something is stationary on my desk and not going anywheres, why bother with wireless which is slower, most likely insecure, adds cost, still have power cables, less reliable etc… I think wireless things peaked with phones and mice. If it’s something you are constantly moving, wireless is good, otherwise its just silly. It’s one thing if we get to a point where we have the wireless tech where it is 100% equal to wired stuff in everyway, then sure, but that will probably never happen.
Wires arn’t the problem when it comes to clutter, it’s bad layout by user or the maker. Apple has done a good job of this with grafting things into single cables and such. They also do real good in ads where they completely airbrush them away, but thats a differant issue. Aside from my mouse, I have nothing wireless and I don’t see my wires. And you can’t avoid power cables. And for that we really need a universal DC system in houses a 24/12/5 system with some sort of universal plug. It’s the DC rectifies on all our cords which cause the problem with wires.
bring the camera within range of the pc and you can download the images on it without haveing to dig out the cable and hook it into the box (alltho haveing usb interfaces buildt into the screen would be nice, was that not a plan along with useing usb rather then the good old crt cable?). same thing with a pda or phone, just bring it within range and sync
why i know this? i have a bluetooth enabled phone and do this often.
for scanners and similar that is to bulky to put in a pocket then we will still have cables. anything else will be silly.
still i wonder, will the wusb system be device to device, like i can do with bluetooth today? or will i need the computer to act as a kind of hub?
if yes on device to device then we will most likley see the death of bluetooth as usb is a established technology and if you allready have a usb chip or port you most likely only need a small addon that you plug into the usb port of the device to have it work (as long as it does not suck to much power). then its just a matter of haveing the devices understand eachother.
in fact that is one of the positive points of bluetooth, the protocols for file transfer and similar is embeded in the chips. alltho i have had a problem getting a freinds nokia to communicate with my pc (my sonyericsson however didnt have a problem with communicateing with either of them. i blame nokia).
wireless headsets a nice. why? unlimited freedom of movement. and no chance of getting that wire hooked on something…
>>
still i wonder, will the wusb system be device to device, like i can do with bluetooth today? or will i need the computer to act as a kind of hub? <<
It’s this that I wonder about as well, Since USB isn’t an automatic transfer, it requires some software inbetween to activate.
A Wireless digital camera should be placed near(3-4) feet away from a computer, and the camera mounted on the machine with an option to transfer files.
Bluetooth is to slow for large file transfers but wouldn’t it be easier to bump up the speed of bluetooth, rather than create a spec that may be faster, but is less sophisticated.
Bluetooth is perfect for what it’s designed for.(And you don’t need 128 bit encryption for your mouse, just the keyboard)
The USB forum’s already working on devices communicating without PC, it’s called USB On-The-Go.
http://www.usb.org/developers/onthego/
“What about devices that get their power over USB….like my cheapo scanner?”
I believe Nikola Tesla perfected the transmission of power over radio waves…
Maybe you can cook your lunch with it too without getting up to go to the microwave in the kitchen… Unless he of course used the ever so mysterious scalar EM waves!
You can’t do pc-less with current usb, it’s always host/slave. But a few PDAs have started being USB masters, which would mean you could have your camera transfer to your pda, and then your pda transfer to your portable hard drive, which would be nice.
Something like this:
http://www.engadget.com/entry/9301742439774842/ ?
Solar power is wireless. Calculators work pretty good with it. Maybe we should start plugging pda’s into us. Afer alll we all learned that humans are the perfect source of electricity from the Matrix.