Herbert Graf wrote:
Mike Singer wrote:
> > 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?

What percentage of webcams would be put more than 10 meters from the PC
if the spec easily allowed for it? LOTS. The availability of repeaters
proves that there is a demand for this, notwithstanding the spec.
Surely the spec writers could have anticipated this? Of course not.

>         So, because USB made it possible to lower the cost of certain items, and

No, the mass production of products lowered the cost. Having turn-key USB
chips/software stacks, etc. made it easier to get into the marketplace.
Having big, well funded players push the technology also helped.

On the other hand, we have all three items for Bluetooth, yet where is it?

> 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.

No. I simply acknowledged the validity of many of the points you've made,
AND complained about the problem of having to load so many different drivers BECAUSE
of the USB spec. I don't have a problem with different drivers for different
classes of device, but I DO expect that the spec would require all of a particular
class to use a 'standard' driver. e.g. Storage devices, mouse device, etc.

>         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

I didn't blame the spec. I gave the example to explain why people TRY to go
beyond spec.

> spec there is NOTHING stopping you, but blaming the technology is simply
> ridiculous.

I did nothing of the sort. I know that there are intrinsic limitations to
all specs. What I object to is the silliness of having to load a different
driver for nearly every USB device. I have 4 different web cams on my security
box. I had to load 4 DIFFERENT drivers to get them to work.  Why did the
USB spec not just define a 'standard' protocol for cameras, like the ATA spec
for hard drives? Or SCSI, or SATA or...?  It is this lack of common drivers
that I am bitching about. But that's the "USB way" so I'll shut up now.

>         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.

So how exactly, is my ATTEMPT to use USB MP3 players 'not what USB was meant for'?
If they looked like a storage device, then they would work without any 'extra'
drivers, wouldn't they? But they don't.

The fact remains that USB MP3 players require unique drivers for EACH device,
rather than using a common 'storage class' driver. This is just plain stupid, RIAA
notwithstanding. The 'custom' device driver does nothing to improve the customer
experience, and -this- customer has been really turned off by the experience.

Thanks for the critique Herbert.

Robert

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