"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message
news:lnlCj.4436$Cq2.3662@fe127.usenetserver.com...
>
> "Roger 2008" <rwpcs@att.net> wrote in message
> news:O7adnWGArqBnIUTanZ2dnUVZ_q2hnZ2d@giganews.com ...
>
> >> The disadvantages of PAN are, a) most other mobile devices can't use
it,
> >> so you can't hook up a PPC to a WM6 phone, for example, and b) the PC
> >> connecting to the device must have Activesync or WMDC installed
(because
> >> the drivers are integrated into the sync software.)
> >>
> >> The joys of Windows Mobile upgrades- two steps forward, one step back.
> >> ;-)
> >
> > Exactly and I especially agree with your "disadvantages" paragraph since
> > I'm
> > thinking of getting an HP IPAQ 211 without it's own internet.
> >
> > BTW I just looked up "BT DUN" on the internet and found: "Why did we
> > remove
> > Bluetooth DUN?".
> >
http://blogs.msdn.com/windowsmobile/...tooth-dun.aspx
> >
> > It makes it look like they are trying to blame the OEMs for removing BT
> > DUN.
> > Either way, it is not very fun trying to work around things that have
> > changed.
>
> I almost added "PAN is easier for wireless carriers to disable" under
> "advantages" (with tongue planted firmly in cheek!) Any carrier that
wants
> to disallow tethering external devices now simply has to remove the
Internet
> Sharing applet, rather than try to cripple the bluetooth stack or
functions,
> so it has major advantages over BT DUN for wireless OEMs. (Ironically, IR
> DUN generally still works fine, however, if you can leave both devices
> aligned on a desk.)

I used to use the IR port for transfering small files until I found out just
recently I could use BT for the same thing.

BTW you wouldn't want the Sprint "Touch" because it doesn't have an IR port
or WiFi for that matter.