> -----Original Message-----
> From: pic microcontroller discussion list
> [mailto:PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU]On Behalf Of Robert Rolf
> Sent: January 9, 2004 19:59
> To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject: Re: [EE:] USB cable length. Evolution
>
>
> Herbert Graf wrote:
>
> > > How long before we see ethernet mice/keyboards and cameras?
> > > Looks to me like a market opportunity, particularly for cameras.
> > > If I can get a 100BT card for under $10, putting the chip IN
> > > the camera can't be THAT expensive.
> >
> >         Not necessary. Necessity is the mother of all
> invention. Lack of need means
> > something won't catch on. It seems you don't understand what USB was
> > originally meant for and expect more from it then you should. TTYL
>
> My sarcasm was obviously too well hidden.
>
> If USB was meant to 'simplify' connectivity for slow speed
> devices, whey did they come out with USB 2.0?

        Simple, firewire and high bandwidth devices came on the scene. Remember,
when USB was first thought of the highest speed devices that used it were
scanners, and for those USB was fine. Then digital video came big on the
scene (due to very cheap digital camcorders) and firewire started to look
very promising. So, USB2.0 was created.

> And why do I have to add a separate and distinct 'device driver'
> for EVERY new device, unlike RS232 or firewire, where the
> application talks to ONE STANDARDIZED API?

        You don't. For example many storage devices use the "mass storage" driver,
most modern OS's have the driver and therefore you don't need to install
anything. Devices can also be "HID" which also don't require new drivers.

> And if one has used a few dozen different devices over time,
> one is stuck with ALL those drivers being loaded by Winblows,
> even if the device is now in the dumpster.

        Any device worse a dollar has drivers with an uninstall feature, you get
what you pay for.

> Oh, right, Firewire (tm) was doing too well in the marketplace
> they needed to add some confusion.
> But if you've ever tried USB 2.0, you'll discover it is nearly *useless*
> for *multiple* high speed streams, unlike Firewire(tm) AKA IEEE 1394.

        Perhaps, but USB2.0 is backwards compatible with USB1, making it FAR more
attractive then firewire, which many people don't even own a device that's
capable of.

> And of course USB works every time, and is EASY to implement
> on embedded processors like the PIC (NOT!).

        And firewire is? I don't think there is a PIC with firewire, there is a PIC
with USB.

> There is much good to be said for 'legacy ports'
> (serial and parallel). They WORK! and are easy
> to connect to simple PIC hardware.

        True, which is why my systems will have one for a while, however, with the
USB-serial devices out there it's just a matter of time before working with
USB is easier then with the legacy ports.

> Robert
>
> Who has been burned so many times by crap USB drivers/devices that
> he has sworn off USB. (Must have been designed by Microsloth).
> P&P stands for Plug and PRAY, remember?

        I used to be like you, I think you should give USB a try again, today's
devices and drivers are approaching flawless. TTYL

----------------------------------
Herbert's PIC Stuff:
http://repatch.dyndns.org:8383/pic_stuff/

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.