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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|