actually, i do consider line-of-sight technology inferior to any alternative that allows for simple proximity based recognition and transmission. i think lots of folks did, which is why irda is dead. market penetration, or heck, actual use of irda has been very very low. but if, as you say, bluetooth, which i have no experience with whatsoever, has a sucky range, then it's just not ready. i've always been skeptical of bluetooth - only recently did i start thinking it might be useful if it were like wireless usb in a 3-5 (us foot) range. this would be cool. no more logitech cordless crap - bluetooth mice, keyboards, printers and scanners would be very cool. guess it's not there yet. but generally, i do consider irda sucky because of it's speed, and line-of-sight only capabilities. if bluetooth were faster, and devices didn't have to point directly at each other, that would rock. as an aside: the other day, working from home, i put my (win2k, intel) laptop on my desk, and it perks up, and says printer now in range. i'm like, wow, it just noticed my printer being nearby. that's very cool, until you consider the speed, and that as soon as i put my arm in the way of the irda port on the laptop, the connection between the laptop and printer went away. line of sight sucks. be cool if bluetooth took care of this. guess not. --alan On Sunday, January 26, 2003, at 12:19 PM, Riba wrote: > On Sunday, January 26, 2003, at 08:36 PM, a l a n t h o m p s o n > wrote: > >> the advantage of bluetooth is that it doesn't work by line of sight. >> irda devices pretty much have to point at each other to work... > > Do you really consider it such a big minus? Considering the range of > bluetooth, they might as well be pointed at each other...