A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » Hardware and Windows XP
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Why most new PCs have USB 2.0 but not Firewire builtin?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #76  
Old December 10th 03, 09:49 PM
Howard McCollister
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why most new PCs have USB 2.0 but not Firewire builtin?


"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
"Bill Van Dyk" wrote ...


As a hardware designer, I can assure you that where IEEE
1394 is great for a few bus devices running high rates, USB
is much better for multiple low- to moderate-rate devices.

If IEEE 1394 were the ultimate all-purpose bus, why was
Apple, inventor of Firewire (IEEE 1394) one of the very
first to use USB for keyboards and mice? (Even before
"Wintel" IIRC)


I don't have the technical expertise to address your first statement. You
may well be right - I defer to your self-stated credentials.

As to the second statement, one answer can certainly be found in the
marketing power of the Intel conglomerate. Apple certainly must have
recognized that to implement firewire as a keyboard / mouse bus connection
would have excluded a huge number of hardware developers from the Macintosh
platform. Who was going divert engineering resources to a firewire keyboard
or mouse in lieu of the hugely more marketable PC input device arena? Apple
wanted to get lean, and they had already shed a number of less viable
hardware venues such as laserprinters and monitors. I'm sure they wanted to
step away from Mac-only keyboards and mice and get out of that low-margin
hardware arena as well. They knew they were going to be unable to convince a
broad range of manufacturers to implement firewire-only peripherals so went
with USB to provide Mac users with a much broader range of those low-level
doodads which were sure to be developed for the upcoming Intel USB flood of
devices.

Makes sense to me. To have gone against the tide and persisited in trying to
force a particular hardware peripheral line down Mac users' throats would
have been a big marketing mistake (one that they had made several times in
the past).

HMc



Ads
  #78  
Old December 10th 03, 09:49 PM
Supreme Enchanter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why most new PCs have USB 2.0 but not Firewire builtin?

NO. Atari Sts or Commodore Amigas would be the standard. They had larger
screens, more applications and were in COLOR.



"DK" wrote in message
...
"y_p_w" wrote in message
om...
"Richard Crowley" wrote in message

...

Apple has always had a more "coherent" plan. That - and
there aren't a half-dozen motherboard manufacturers who
are competing on price.


Which is one of the main reasons that PC's have such a large market share.
If Apple had licensed its technology, instead of keeping it for

themselves,
I think Macs would be the standard. And Steve Jobs would be in the

position
Bill Gates is in today.




  #79  
Old December 10th 03, 09:50 PM
Keith Clark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why most new PCs have USB 2.0 but not Firewire builtin?



Jon Harris wrote:

"y_p_w" wrote in message
om...
"Richard Crowley" wrote in message

...
"Bill Van Dyk" wrote ...
Firewire worked fabulously for many years before USB
finally became at all functional. The only reason USB
even remained in the market is because of the dominant
position of Wintel, which is able to shove deficient and
defective technologies down our throats. Now, users say,
what's the problem-- USB works fine! Yes, now it finally
does.

As a hardware designer, I can assure you that where IEEE
1394 is great for a few bus devices running high rates, USB
is much better for multiple low- to moderate-rate devices.


FireWire (AKA IEEE 1394a or Sony iLink) was never meant to
serve low-speed devices such as a keyboard or mouse. It's
also a more expensive technology to implement.


Right. The price difference isn't all that significant on a $1000
camcorder, but it sure is on a $10 mouse (where also the speed is totally
overkill)! A low-cost serial bus technology will always have a place as
long as their are cheap peripherals that need to be connected to the PC
(e.g. mice, keyboards, even those really cheap memory card readers). We've
almost always had at least 2 different connections available, a "cheap slow"
one and a "expensive fast" one. It used to be serial and SCSI. Now it is
USB and 1394.


But nobody in their right mind would or should lobby for Firewire on a mouse in
the first place. It's stupid, even on $100 mouse - it simply doesn't need the
bandwidth. Usb 1.1 is perfect for mice, keyboards, etc.

The answer is NOT to have a "winner" and a "loser" but to have both technologies
co-exist.

As to serial vs SCSI that was never even remotely an issue. The real battle was
"SCSI vs IDE" and SCSI still outperforms IDE by a considerable margin in heavily
loaded multitasking environments even though an IDE system may "boot faster" the
proof of the pudding is doing multiple simultaneous file searches and trying to
get work done at the same time. But I digress...

--Keith

  #80  
Old December 10th 03, 09:50 PM
Keith Clark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why most new PCs have USB 2.0 but not Firewire builtin?



Chris Phillipo wrote:

In article ,
says...

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
"Bill Van Dyk" wrote ...


As a hardware designer, I can assure you that where IEEE
1394 is great for a few bus devices running high rates, USB
is much better for multiple low- to moderate-rate devices.

If IEEE 1394 were the ultimate all-purpose bus, why was
Apple, inventor of Firewire (IEEE 1394) one of the very
first to use USB for keyboards and mice? (Even before
"Wintel" IIRC)


By the way, what is the power output of firewire, if any? I mean could
I power my USB toothbrush off a firewire port?
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
http://www.ramsays-online.com


Who cares!

It's a meaningless question.

You have the spec, and you design products to meet the spec. End of
discussion.

If you want to see the spec, go to http://www.1394ta.org/

Look there's no reason for a "winner/loser" situation. Some devices benefit
from Firewire, others simply don't need them. Scanners for example since
they're basically a slow mechanical device limited by the speed of the
mechanism don't benefit a lot from Firewire, and CPU cycles aren't that
much of an issue, so it makes sense to use high-speed USB for that.. On the
other hand, 10 megapixel cameras, digital camcorders, external hard drives,
and the like clearly benefit from Firewire.

Your toothbrush benefits from neither.

  #81  
Old December 10th 03, 09:56 PM
Roger Halstead
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why most new PCs have USB 2.0 but not Firewire builtin?

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 04:08:55 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:

Supreme Enchanter wrote:

I have 6 USB ports and 2 firewire on XP. No problems. However, as I said
earlier, win XP screws up if you have more than 2 firewire ports on a PCI
card.


Mine works fine. I'm using most of the USB ports and that includes
scanners (two) and a memory card reader for photography which gets
unplugged and moved from machine to machine while things are running.

whole bunch of snip

there's a problem with your computer and not a problem with the design of
the USB system. Countless thousands of "USB on PC" users plug in, unplug,
turn on, turn off, etc., on the fly with USB with perfect results. Alas,


I

have no specific suggestions, but maybe somebody will.





That might be because of limits to the PCI interface as regards transfer
rates. Too much data to send through the buss.


No problem with that. I transfer data from HDs across the PCI buss
and it's far faster than the USB-2. My network *seems* to be faster
than the USB-2.

You'll have to fix the return add due to dumb virus checkers
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com
  #82  
Old December 10th 03, 09:58 PM
Howard Brazee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why most new PCs have USB 2.0 but not Firewire builtin?


On 5-Dec-2003, Keith Clark wrote:

But nobody in their right mind would or should lobby for Firewire on a mouse
in
the first place. It's stupid, even on $100 mouse - it simply doesn't need the
bandwidth. Usb 1.1 is perfect for mice, keyboards, etc.


If there is reason for having a Firewire port, and it doesn't cost more to use
it to run a mouse as well as the fast stuff - then why would someone have to be
out of his mind to utilize what was there?

I use a car capable of freeway speeds to drive around my neighborhood - because
it would be stupid to buy a slower car just because I don't need the speed to
pick up groceries.

The answer is NOT to have a "winner" and a "loser" but to have both
technologies co-exist.


Unless having both technologies costs sufficiently more and that one technology
did everything I need.

As to serial vs SCSI that was never even remotely an issue. The real battle
was
"SCSI vs IDE" and SCSI still outperforms IDE by a considerable margin in
heavily
loaded multitasking environments even though an IDE system may "boot faster"
the
proof of the pudding is doing multiple simultaneous file searches and trying
to
get work done at the same time. But I digress...


How does serial IDE do at this?
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.