> > > Only if the camera is near a PC.
> > > If you need a 150' cable run, it gets awfully expensive,
> > > Or you're not -really- running USB on the long path.
> > >
> > > Robert
>
> >         Which is what USB was NOT meant for, I don't know why you
> > STILL don't get that.
>
>    Because he is talking about "market opportunity". Look at the top
> of this post. Is he allowed to talk a bit about that?

        What does that have to do with complaining about a technology that doesn't
work because it's being used out of spec?

> > 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).
>
> Who are you to forecast future?

        Not the future. Look at today: what percentage of users of webcams want
them more then say 10 meters from their PC?

>There is an essential difference
> between potential webcam usage  and usage of keyboard,  mouse,
> monitor and similar I/O devices. These devices are needed to
> operate a computer, But webcam is/will be used to gather video
> data under or not computer control.

        Yes, which is why there are other options. What point are you trying to
make?

> Linux and Linux-based web servers are open source -
> Boa (http://www.boa.org/) and thttpd for example. SOCs are
> getting cheaper and cheaper. It's a thankless business to
> forecast what "most users" will prefer in the future.
>
> Best Wishes,
> Mike.

        What point are you making? Or are you back to your old habits?

----------------------------------
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