> >         Which is what USB was NOT meant for, I don't know why
> you STILL don't get
> > that. For most users a webcam WILL be near to PC, for the
> others there is
> > ethernet, which is more expensive, or other means (such as WiFi which is
> > even more expensive).
>
> Didn't this particular thread start out as someone wanting to extend
> USB cabling to way beyond the spec'd length?

        Yes, and they were told what the consequenses were.

> If USB is NOT meant to be extended, then why the ready availability of
> extension cables and repeaters and USB to fibre/ethernet links,
> etc. devices?
> What is is MEANT for, and what people try to USE if for are of course two
> divergent things.

        That is irrelevant. You're saying just because a car is MEANT to drive on a
road doesn't mean I have to keep it there. People will always try to stretch
what things are meant for (look at email), they do so at their own peril.
However this has no bearing on the technology and what the spec is.

> I totally agree that putting a USB camera at the end of a 100' cable is
> not in the spec, but when the camera only costs $50 (thanks to
> USB)

        So, because USB made it possible to lower the cost of certain items, and
because people are trying to use these items out of spec, means it's USB's
fault???? You're saying getting things for less is a BAD thing? I think you
are now simply confused as to what you are complaining about.

> people will
> spend $100 trying to extend it, rather than pay $400 for an ethernet
> camera which may not be compatible with their motion sensing software
> anyway.

        And what is wrong with that, if it works you've saved a good amount of
money, why is that bad?

> I went down this path several years ago when we were trying to
> come up with a very low cost way to put up bolid (bright meteors) cameras
> into an observing network. A web camera with suitable sensitivity was
> 1/10th the cost of CCTV camera feeding coax to a digitizing card, but the
> USB cabling just couldn't handle the distance to the roof (120' or so).
> The result was a lot fewer observing stations for the same budget.
> Journal of The Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, Dec 2003 has an
> article on this camera network. It is not available on line.

        Ok, so let me get this straight, you were trying to do something OUT OF
SPEC, and you blame the spec??? Listen, if you want to do something out of
spec there is NOTHING stopping you, but blaming the technology is simply
ridiculous.

> People are also using web cameras on telescopes (QCUIAG@yahoogroups.com)
> so again, they -want- cabling longer than specs allow (remotely controlled
> goto scopes).

        And your POINT?

> So Herbert, I long ago 'GOT IT', but people like me will still -try- to
> bend the specs to make it work because of it's low cost.
> That doesn't change the fact that I hate the poor quality of USB drivers
> and the way they stack up in a Winblows box.

        The fact people are trying to do things out of spec and the fact that you
don't "like" USB are two completely separate issues and have no relation to
each other. So what exactly is your point?

        USB, when used for what it was meant for, works VERY well. If people try to
do things USB was never meant for they have NO RIGHT to complain.

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

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body