USB On-the-Go Go Go Go

abhikhurana writes " There is an interesting article on CNET about a new USB standard called USB On-the-Go. Apparently this new technology is an offshoot of USB2 and it can remove the limitation of the master slave operation of normal USB devices, where you need a Host PC (the Master) to talk with the peripherals (the slaves). So using this, theoretically you can print using your digital camera directly on your printer or maybe connect two PDAs together to exchange some files. One thing that the article doesn't mention though is the speed one can expect from such a connection. If its as fast as USB2 then I think it can also act as the replacement for NICs for interconnecting two PCs. But considering that many wireless technologies like bluetooth offer similar opertational capabilities,albeit they are much slower, can USB On-the-Go really be a success? "

Comments

Not a chance..

[Loki_1929]

Nothing can compete with the power of this new and exciting technology that's about to take off, called... infrared !

FireWire already Goes Goes Goes

[Anonymous Coward]

FireWire works in a peer-to-peer fashion. You can hook up components without a computer to mediate.

Re:FireWire already Goes Goes Goes

[HakuMage]

yes, very good feature, but why nobody use it ? :(

it's like firewire network. if i remember well, there is only one company which made available necessary softwares ...

It will be great if for example, home users can made all their computer or domotic stuff with only one or two interfaces. (not really the case in enterprise :)

Re:FireWire already Goes Goes Goes

[PainKilleR-CE]

It's like firewire network. if i remember well, there is only one company which made available necessary softwares ...

Last I heard you don't need extra software to network computers together with firewire, both Windows and Mac OS support it (as long as the firewire interface is supported).

Re:FireWire already Goes Goes Goes

[terminal.dk]

Yes, it is yet another playing catchup on Firewire. I winder what the big fuzz is all about. Old technology re-implemented, and sold as new.

Windows XP even includes TCP/IP drivers for Firewire, and will allow you to network machines using FireWire. It finds both the FW interface on my SB Audigy Soundcard as well as my stand-alone FW card.

People should skip that USB crap, and go to the source, where it is proven technology with years behind it.

Re:FireWire already Goes Goes Goes

[Anonymous Coward]

What happens if you link a Firewire device to itself?

Re:FireWire already Goes Goes Goes

[Zathrus]

People should skip that USB crap, and go to the source, where it is proven technology with years behind it

Sure, except that my printer, my scanner, and my camera already speak USB. I suppose I should just throw them out and buy new stuff.

Hrm... where are those cheap firewire ink jets? Or scanners? And, ya know, I just bought this Nikon 770 a year ago. I think it's still good.

People buy the interface that works with their components. Frankly, every PC shipped in the past 4 years has at least USB 1.0 on it. Relatively few have Firewire/IEEE1394. And since Firewire is more expensive to implement than USB, you can count on the vast majority of devices to continue implementing USB and ignoring Firewire.

Does Firewire have its place? Sure. But it's not on most consumer devices. Up until USB 2.0 it was the only choice for devices that needed high speed digital data ports (like video cameras), but USB 2.0 is still cheaper to implement.

Firewire isn't going to die off by any means - it's solidly entrenched in the video market, and HDTV is likely to make this even more true. But lay off the "USB sucks, Firewire r0x0rs" - USB does very well for a very broad selection of products and at a fraction of the cost.

As for the people whining about USB sucking CPU cycles - uh... and you're telling me that you max out a 1 GHz+ CPU constantly? Gimme a break.

Re:FireWire already Goes Goes Goes

[Anonymous Coward]

It becomes a BenzeneWire device.

Re:FireWire already Goes Goes Goes

[bogado]

I don't think the people that he talked about was the consumers, but the hardware vendors, why there is no motherboard with firewire? Why all the consumer eletronics are USB, since firewire is much better?

Re:FireWire already Goes Goes Goes

[JebusIsLord]

Nah, in Windows XP at least the firewire port on my soundblaster audigy automatically showed up in network connections with tcp/ip enabled. nothing proprietary. And lots of devices use that feature, like digital video cameras that can wire pictures directly to a firewire-enabled printer without the use of an intermediary PC.

Re:FireWire already Goes Goes Goes

[Drakonian]

And since Firewire is more expensive to implement than USB, you can count on the vast majority of devices to continue implementing USB and ignoring Firewire. And do you know why this is? Because USB is a "Host is Master" bus. Put all the smarts in the host, then the devices can be cheap. And that's exactly why this USB On-the-Go is a stupid idea. If you want something like that, get FireWire.

Re:FireWire already Goes Goes Goes

[Cinematique]

Yeah, but FireWire isn't USB. *cough*

Personally, I think someone should come out with a standard called WhiteJaw. I envision it as having the capability of wirelessly communicating with various accessories such as cell phones and PDAs. I see a potentially HUGE market for it.

Someone needs to get on the ball and make something that'll help computers and printers communicate back and forth, too.

Re:FireWire already Goes Goes Goes

[Otterley]

The answer is easy: USB functionality is built into the south bridge of many chipsets, starting with Intel's back in 1997. Intel is the primary backer of USB.

Firewire is fairly easy to add -- however, because few if any south bridges have it, it requires a separate chip to be added to the motherboard, and the chip adds $5-$10 to the cost of production. This corresponds to a $20-$25 increase to the retail price -- and if your competitors aren't doing it, it's understandably difficult to justify doing it yourself.

Re:FireWire already Goes Goes Goes

[StichCoder]

Yes it is like another firewire in that it is peer to peer but it is sans the license fee to Apple and can interface to keyboards and printers and plethora of other usb devices. These two issues will probably the deciding factors cost sensitive consumer items that can only have one port like a pda, digital camera, hostenabled photoprinter (sucks images off of camera and prints) etc., and then also be able to connect to a pc.

Re:FireWire already Goes Goes Goes

[mortis_aeturnus]

Now there are at least two groups making necessary software for firewire networking.

If you would look at the firewire options in the newer linux-2.5 kernel configuration you will clearly see a networking driver.

Imagine cheaply building a beowulf ring with 400mbps of unshared bandwidth (ie no hub).

Re:FireWire already Goes Goes Goes

[gsfprez]

Peripheral Deivce Maker A: "But FireWire is a proprietary standard....and as we all know, Apple is all about proprietary standards and high-priced hardware.. not about interoperability.

And now, finally, here in 1996, Apple computer is about to reap what they sew because they are on the verge of goin... (shut up.. i'm talking).... going out of business... Beleagured App... (what do you want?)

Oh... i was in a coma? What year is it? 2002!? Jobs came back!!!? Macs now use the same memory, hard drives, PCI slots, VGA monitors and USB devices that are in PC's?

And most PCs now have USB and Firewire built in? Oh.

shit."

i think that many peripheral device manufacturers still don't get the fscking clue... that's why they went along with Intel and USB 2.0 - and now, there's a bunch of cables and hubs and devices that just confound "Your Mom" when she wants to buy something in the store... the plugs look the same, but now, this will be a 3rd standard on the same plug - so it will be even MORE confusing to "your mom" as to what cable can go where.

USB 2.0 has no purpose - other than to save face for Intel and to give Apple a cold shoulder for their perfectly good FireWire.

Re:FireWire already Goes Goes Goes

[Zathrus]

You mean like the Asus A78VX, Abit AT7-MAX2, Aopen AX4BMAX, Gigabyte GA-8IEXP, Soyo SY-P4I Fire Dragon, or Asus P4B533-E?

These are all new motherboards, and most of them are on the high end of pricing.

Firewire is more expensive to implement, period. And the number of devices that can substantially benefit from the faster speed of Firewire are very few (basically digital video... high end digital audio as well, but that's so stratospheric as to be irrelevant in the consumer market).

Re:FireWire already Goes Goes Goes

[TheToon]

> but USB 2.0 is still cheaper to implement.

True, and for most low end stuff USB (esp. 2.0) works very well.

But isn't firewire still better for media streams due to built in sound and picture sync? Maybe FireWire is still a cheaper option for digital video cameras as the sync has to be implemented on top of an USB link. Unless USB2.0 can sync "good enough"...

Anyone seen USB2.0 video cameras and the quality of the transfer?

I would prefer a single protocol, cable and electric, maybe with optional stuff on top, much like TCP/IP does it -- or SCSI. Then we would have standard connectors for all gadgets, just different interface chips if the gadged needed high-speed, datastream sync, high latency or whatever.

They we will still be able to connect that new camera to the new PC we buys in 2014...

hah! dreamer....

Re:FireWire already Goes Goes Goes

[Zathrus]

You forgot UD: Cancer Research which is what I run.

And, frankly, if you have so many spare cycles to run a distributed agent, you have the cycles to spare for USB. It's below the noise level.

Re:FireWire already Goes Goes Goes

[TheToon]

>I think someone should come out with a standard called WhiteJaw

No no... not WhiteJaw. It's a bit racist to imply that only white people can use it. And Jaws was a terrifying movie that will scare the kids.

BlueTooth is a much more PC name...

Re:FireWire already Goes Goes Goes

[utexaspunk]

Sure, except that my printer, my scanner, and my camera already speak USB. I suppose I should just throw them out and buy new stuff.

*News Flash* - your printer, scanner, etc. may speak USB, but they don't speak USB 2.0, or USB-on-the-go. So they're not going to be able to take advantage of this. Why invest in an interface that has to keep coming out with new standards just to keep up with one that already supports all the functionality you want?

Besides, consumer devices ARE moving to firewire. Look at the iPod, or a lot of new digital cameras. Everyone's eventually going to have FW because eventually everyone's gonna want to play with DV. Apple was smart enough to recognize this. Apparently you aren't.

Re:FireWire already Goes Goes Goes

[zsmooth]

reap what they sew

I believe you'll find the expression is "reap what they sow".

Re:FireWire already Goes Goes Goes

[gpinzone]

Does each firewire device get assigned a unique TCP/IP address? What if you don't have DHCP installed?

Re:FireWire already Goes Goes Goes

[gpinzone]

They probably would have if someone would have simply made a Firewire - USB hub. How else are you gonna plug that Intellimouse Explorer or USB keyboard into the firewire port? Sad. Yet another superior technology getting burned because of a lake of proper marketing.

Re:FireWire already Goes Goes Goes

[efatapo]

While your point is well and good, I think you should at least look at the article. They're talking about a NEW STANDARD. USB on-the-go is not USB 1.0 which your Nikon 775 is and your printer and is included on most computers. So, what the poster was saying is Firewire is OUT and on some computers and is proven. Why make a NEW standard to do what Firewire does and has done. I think you missed the point, just 'cause it's still called USB doesn't mean your 775 is going to be able to print directly on your current printer. Either way, you'll need new stuff.

Re:FireWire already Goes Goes Goes

[Ruis]

Not only that, but I can hookup my laptop with firewire directly to my desktop with firewire and (using WinXP) have a high speed tcp/ip network to copy large files.

Re:FireWire already Goes Goes Goes

[Mike Hicks]

Well, I don't know how many of these "USB On-the-go"-capable devices you'll need to get in order to use it. I suppose you'll only need one thing (could be a hub, maybe even a "smart" cable), but you need something there to be a master device.

Re:FireWire already Goes Goes Goes

[Hobophile]

This is wildly off-topic, but so it goes. I have a question about the various distributed computing Cancer Research projects. How is the intellectual property (new cancer fighting molecule blueprints, or what not) handled?

With distributed.net there weren't really any such concerns, and they were very clear about the breakdown of prize money. United Devices seems far less open about their plans for the IP generated. Don't get me wrong -- I'm not looking for a cut of the profits or anything so crass, and I concede that it's nearly certain that I or someone I know will get cancer at some point, meaning an argument could be made that participating is in my own best interest.

And yet the question still bothers me. If the government wanted to raise my taxes by $50 a year so they could give the money to a private company who claimed it could produce a cure for cancer eventually, I would frown upon that. Sure, the government sticks me for larger amounts going to less important causes.

The fact remains that the company (United Devices) or university (Stanford) stands to make quite a lot of money if the project is successful. Yet, if their success owes everything to millions of people willing to donate CPU cycles in the hopes of finding a cure, why should that cure then become their sole property? Because they took a few risks? Setting up a website, getting the word out, and writing a simple client is surely not enough to overshadow and minimize the importance of the contributions others made.

Basically, I would be eager to participate, but I would want some form of written, public assurance that if a cure is found, it will be made available at cost to the millions of people who need it, not encumbered with patents that drive the price to stratospheric levels. United Devices mentions that $37 billion is spent on cancer-fighting drugs; I'd like to know that they plan on substantially reducing that figure, rather than trying to simply get in on a piece of the action with the cancer-fighting molecules crafted for them by millions of unpaid volunteers.

Would I donate CPU cycles to help the makers of Tylenol come up with an improved painkiller? Hardly. I doubt you would find many takers. So, their goals are different. What if they told you it was to be an improved painkiller that also prevented cancer? And that the effort might produce several lucrative painkiller-only drugs along the way to a painkiller-cancer-fighter drug?

My point is that if both United Devices and Tylenol intend to reap all the profits from the labor of others, there is no real difference between the two.

Re:FireWire already Goes Goes Goes

[shking]

Does Firewire have its place? Sure. But it's not on most consumer devices.

I think you've confused "computer peripherals" with "consumer devices". The first is a subset of the second.

Re:FireWire already Goes Goes Goes

[ergo98]

People should skip that USB crap, and go to the source, where it is proven technology with years behind it.

Hehe, this is the whole SCSI versus IDE debate playing out (with almost all of the same point/counterpoints!). You might as well have said

People should skip that EIDE crap, and go with SCSI, a proven technology with years behind it.

Re:FireWire already Goes Goes Goes

[ncc74656]

I don't think the people that he talked about was the consumers, but the hardware vendors, why there is no motherboard with firewire?

We've got an Asus P4S8X on order at work that includes onboard FireWire (and USB 2.0 and Serial ATA, as well). Other SiS 648 motherboards ought to have it as well, since FireWire is built into the chipset.

Re:FireWire already Goes Goes Goes

[Rader]

I would be happy with the cure to cancer no matter what the cost. A cure is a cure, and the information will dissiminate.

Besides, chemo can't be very cheap. And dying isn't very profitable.

However, your points are very valid. It would be NICE if they spent some front-time on their goals and methods like SETI so clearly did back in the beginning.

Re:FireWire already Goes Goes Goes

[machine of god]

Jeez man, good thing I'm not firewire. After that I might want to kill myself.

Re:FireWire already Goes Goes Goes

[Octal]

Actually, it's in 2.4.19, too. I played around with it a bit, but I couldn't get bing to measure a bandwidth over about 175Mbit.

Re:FireWire already Goes Goes Goes

[CableModemSniper]

Yeah but usb 2.0 is perfectly capable of connecting to usb 1.x devices. It's just slower that way.

Re:FireWire already Goes Goes Goes

[Octal]

Because Intel's been pushing the more processor-intensive USB over firewire. Firewire does most of its work on the firewire host chip, rather than on the processor (Which is part of the reason it does peer to peer natively).

Bottom line: Intel supports anything that slows down the CPU, because then people will go out and buy newer, faster ones.

Re:FireWire already Goes Goes Goes

[sketerpot]

There was an article in Scientific American about an Internet Scale Operating System, which would have as an important part the ability to sell CPU cycles, donate them, and keep track of who owes you what. This is still offtopic, but I agree that under such a setup, I would be more likely to donate CPU cycles to someone who didn't want to patent the result or something similar.

Re:FireWire already Goes Goes Goes

[t]

You wouldn't happen to know of what the status with linux support for those MB's is would you?

I'm going to be getting another linux box and it would be nice to do network bonding with firewire to boost my throughput.

Re:FireWire already Goes Goes Goes

[ogre2112]

Sure, tell me where I can get a firewire printer. Or a palm cradle. Or an optical mouse.

"People" buy what is on the market. It's not people's fault, blame motherboard manufacturers.

I have an Audigy soundcard, and look forward to using the Firewire port, unfortunately I have nothing that uses it yet. Although DLink makes a really nice looking FW webcam.. May check into it.

Re:FireWire already Goes Goes Goes

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand why this mindless moron "TheToon" got the mod point. He just pointed out Cinematique's joke -- which all humor-enabled readers already understood -- for anyone else stupid enough to miss it. Pretty sad.

I guess that's because Slashdot UIDs are up to 600k by now, so even newbie scum like TheToon are getting mod points. I mean, three years ago you still saw retards like Russ Nelson posting, but at least the mods weren't dumb enough to mod him up. Maybe dumb enough to use Linux and read Slashdot, but not dumb enough to mod him up.

Re:FireWire already Goes Goes Goes

[JebusIsLord]

Just like any network adapter in XP, you can select/deselect TCP/IP, NETBIOS etc. from each adapter independently. Since the only thing I use my firewire for is my Nomad Jukebox (which uses proprietary communication protocols) i just unchecked everything for that adapter. In TCP/IP settings you can specify addresses or use DHCP.

Re:FireWire already Goes Goes Goes

[bogado]

The only problem for them is that people will someday realise that AMD is faster and cheaper. :-)

Re:FireWire already Goes Goes Goes

[Ryan Amos]

Yeah, but firewire wasn't designed to run things like mice and keyboards, which USB was. I also doubt there are many firewire printers out there (at least in the low price inkjet category.) Don't get me wrong, firewire is great, but it's not the end-all solution to everything. Also, Apple has firewire because they helped develop it :) Apple gets royalties from every firewire device sold, and as such, it's in their best interest to push it. Granted, FireWire is the superior technical standard for high bandwidth situations, but USB is cheaper and more than adequate for say, a printer, a Palm, an input device, etc.

Re:FireWire already Goes Goes Goes

[panZ]

You and many others are missing the point in this USB OTG Vs. Firewire debate. OTG is meant for small/portable devices that you might want to act as a host at some point. It basically uses a USB 1.1 (OHCI) host controller to act as a host (e.g. a PDA or camera acting as a host to a printer or mp3 player to another mp3 player). USB 1.1 runs at a much lower frequency and thus uses less power. When the OTG product is a device/slave running 2.0 (EHCI), it is bus powered and can utilize the higher frequency USB 2.0 speeds. Simply put, OTG does have similar functionality to Firewire but its target platform is low power/battery powered devices where Firewire would suck it batteries dry in no time! I hope this helps kill this debate.
Disclaimer: I'm an engineer at SoftConnex which is owned by TransDimension, a company in the article, I do not represent TransDimension with my comments... blah blah blah.

Master-slave?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why that camera can't be master for printer?

Hard drives

[Yohahn]

A good place for this would be hard drives for audio/
video equipment. Start going after the places that firewire has been, only on a cheaper consumer level.

Re:Hard drives

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? real audio pros use firewire and avoid USB crap.

It's been a standard in pro Audio and video for over 3 years now..... so why to you want it again?

USB = wannabe firewire.. and it will never meet what firewire already does.

Re:Hard drives

[Yohahn]

It already meets it, and because there aren't incumbering patents, it is cheaper to implement.

Re:Hard drives

[Anonymous Coward]

nope. usb2 is a much slower protocol than firewire, and doesnt approach the sustained transfer rates possible with firewire.

and how is usb cheaper to implement, when the audio/visual market is already standardized on firewire? good luck plugging your DV cam into USB.

Re:Hard drives

[Yohahn]

You are full of FUD.

How do you support your claim that audio/video is standardized on firewire? The DV cam is the only bit that is very prevalent. These things can change with 1 generation of purchasing.

You haven't supported your claim about the protocol speed either. Show me the numbers.

Re:Hard drives

[DeadSeaTrolls]

Indeed, full of FUD.

Frankly it's been my general observation that the bottlenecks are usually at either end of the cable. While we can argue the merits on each means of connection, at the end of the day the one which will win will be the one which is cheapest and most prevalent. It's that classic VHS vs BETA battle.

Sure USB2 is going to suck if you try moving data on to a 2.5" laptop hard drive, they are designed for low heat, low power and small form factor, not performance. But if you'd pump it into a 7200/10000/12000 rpm hard drive it's going to fly. If we were to compare truly comparable hard drives, with USB2 and Firewire interfaces plugged into the back they'd perform damn near the same.

The current generation of USB2 PCI implementation can't saturate the bus, but those built on to the chipset start to get a lot faster (ICH4/nForce2).

Firewire

[davidstrauss]

This seems like just an attempt to add the abilities of firewire's P2P model to USB.

what about IEEE1394x

[radoni]

isn't this a perversion of what USB was designed for... keyboards and mice? ;)

USB for mice, IEEE1394x for men.

Re:what about IEEE1394x

[Anonymous Coward]

you can stop calling it IEEE1394, they've licensed the term firewire from apple.

now even Sony can stop calling it "i.link" and call it what it should be called.

Re:what about IEEE1394x

[Anonymous Coward]

>IEEE1394x for men

Where is my firewire plug then? Oh... nm.

Re:what about IEEE1394x

[colonelteddy]

IEEE1394x for men

AT LAST! Now we can finally figure out how we're meant to connect cowboy neal to our box for all those poll options!

Yeah, but isn't bluetooth insecure?

[PhysicsGenius]

That's pretty much right out.

As for USB, there's a problem. Recall your electronics. A rapidly oscillating charge creates electromagnetic waves, i.e. radio. For normal computer devices this is no big deal. But for high speed USB, conducted over an unshielded cable, this means that all your data is going to be transmitted out to the world, just like it would be over 802.11b.

I think I'll stick with null-modem cables.

Re:Yeah, but isn't bluetooth insecure?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bluetooth incorporates encryption up to 128 bits using the SAFER+ stream cipher. Profiles used for sensitive data (personal contact information, remote keyboard, etc) typically mandate the use of this encryption.

Re:Yeah, but isn't bluetooth insecure?

[jmauro]

Just buy sheilded USB cables if your that worried about it.

Re:Yeah, but isn't bluetooth insecure?

[Zathrus]

Yes, and your data is also going to be "transmitted out to the world" over a null modem cable. And ethernet. And your monitor.

You ARE fully tempest shielded, right?

What a load of crap. If you're concerned about someone intercepting the data during transfer then it's up to you to encrypt it appropriately.

And, frankly, nobody could give a crap about your precious pr0n collection anyway. Far too many people are far too concerned about stuff that nobody else wants to see in the first place.

Re:Yeah, but isn't bluetooth insecure?

[oracle_ed]

If your woried about security, then you should be using fibre-optic anyway

NIC

[Metaldsa]

I remember my friend and I would hook up our computers over our serial ports. It was much easier than installing network cards and configuring a network for just a quick game. However, this was during a time that NIC cards weren't already in everyone's computer and hubs everywhere.

I think I wouldn't mind this feature and would definitely use it over bluetooth for small and quick transfers.

29

[Anonymous Coward]

Where does power come from, and is software available to take advantage of this without a computer?

Developer Info

[MountainLogic]

More On The Go details can be found at the USB association's web site

Re:Developer Info

[__aasmho4525]

another location i found a good bit of information:

http://www.semiconductors.philips.com/buses/usb/pr oducts/otg/index.html

Too Little Too Late

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoopee, a wired communication standard. The problem isn't getting the electronics in place for, say, connecting a camera to a printer. The problem is in negotiating exactly what the camera needs to say once it's connected. By the time all the various manufacturers hammer out all the protocols and software to make this work, wired USB connections will be rapidly disappearing.

Fireware already does this...

[DLWormwood]

It looks like Intel, et al, is really taking the Sony/Apple rival standard seriously as a source of ideas. With Apple still shipping systems that use only the 400-speed version (despite promises of eventual support for 800 and 1600-spped), FireWire may lose any chance of further market penetration.

<GRIPE>
FW devices are rare enough as it is. My Mac has two open FW ports, but has about 5-6 USB 1.1 devices competing for ports on the computer and hubs...
</GRIPE>

Re:Fireware already does this...

[SlamMan]

I think there's a firewire-usb bridge you can add on to use up a firewire channel and take some of the load off your usb ports.

But I hear you. It took iomega way to long for to make thier stuff firewire. Disk dirve's usb, most of our burners are usb, palm connector, serial adaptor.

The thing is, everything on that list except the burner is fine for USB. Usb (even USB2) isn't designed for long sustained data transfer (i.e. burning); it works in bursts. Keep the little stuff on USB, and get the better stuff on firewire.

Re:Fireware already does this...

[galaxy300]

I've done lots of burning on my USB 2.0 24X CD-RW and now on my USB 2.0 2.4X DVD+RW. Very rarely have I gotten coasters -- seems like a fine solution to me.

How many more USB do we need?

[euxneks]

next up:
USB3
USBSEEME
RUSB (Are USB?)
USBT (U Suck Big Time)
USBX! (for X-box!)
USBPS2 (for the mouse!)

I thought that USB was so we wouldn't have this many connections??

Re:How many more USB do we need?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since USB is cheap and inferior, people aren't just happy with it the way it is. There is so much it can't do, or can't do well.

Notice that Firewire keeps it simple, and is extremely versatile.

Bluetooth

[Anonymous Coward]

got mentioned too much too early, was vapourware, then expensive.
Everyone has USB nowadays - its all every MOBO made in the last 2 or 3 years, and its cheap.
Why would I want Bluetooth again?

pics from my camera straight to my printer?

[garcia]

what if your camera makes insanely large photos and you would prefer to have them at 1024x768 or smaller?

I print out, maybe, 10 pictures a year. The rest are for going on the web.

I have no real desire to immediately print out a picture. But I suppose if you were going to have a stereo component that was MP3 capable, plugging your iPod (or whatever) directly in and having it transfer would be nice.

Re:pics from my camera straight to my printer?

[Anonymous Coward]

what if your camera makes insanely large photos and you would prefer to have them at 1024x768 or smaller?

1024 x 768 is not a printer size. It is a picture resolution. You can print 1024 x 768 at 600 dpi and have a nice little postage stamp or you can print it at 300 dpi and have a wallet size. I assume that the camera would have to dictate how big (in inches not dots) you want the picture.

Re:pics from my camera straight to my printer?

[outsider007]

what if your camera makes insanely large photos and you would prefer to have them at 1024x768 or smaller?


just change your dpi. 1800x1200 at 300 dpi is a standard size photo. odds are your camera won't have enough MP to print a full sized 8.5x11 sheet of paper (without interpolation).

Re:pics from my camera straight to my printer?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be nice to save your pictures from your camera onto the portable MP3 player that has a 20GB+ hard drive though...

Re:pics from my camera straight to my printer?

[Anonymous Coward]

What am I missing? I bought a camera earlier this year that did this (a 4 MP Canon) and my boss just got a 4MP Olympus that does the same thing. And the Minolta I use during product shit and oh yeah another Olumpus I have access to...

I can do this now... not sure all of the printers it supports, but I would bet it supposrts the printers most used for color photo reproduction.

Re:pics from my camera straight to my printer?

[ericmc42]

Yeah...

That already exists. On my Canon S110, I can select which pics I want to print, and at what size. I then pop the CF card into my printer's CF drive and hit print.

Re:pics from my camera straight to my printer?

[ncc74656]

what if your camera makes insanely large photos and you would prefer to have them at 1024x768 or smaller?

just change your dpi. 1800x1200 at 300 dpi is a standard size photo. odds are your camera won't have enough MP to print a full sized 8.5x11 sheet of paper (without interpolation).

Unless you have a dye-sublimation printer, you're not printing your photos at 300 dpi anyway...odds are you're closer to 100-150 dpi. Since most printers can only squirt ink or not squirt ink (there's no software-based control of how muck ink is squirted), you need to use dithering to get 4 (or maybe 6) colors to look like 24-bit color.

can USB On-the-Go really be a success?

[stratjakt]

Absolutely.

There are lots of advantages over bluetooth, etc.

No batteries, you can power stuff off the USB inteface.

Wireless (in)security.

Interference.

Cheaper.

Sometimes wireless stuff is just a pain in the ass.

It'd be nice to be able to just buy a digital camera and a photo printer, and be able to bypass a computer altogether. Not every electronic device in your home need be linked together somehow.

The 'interface' aspect of just plugging something in to 'connect' it is easier for the layman to grasp than having devices announcing themselves to each other over the air, etc.

Re:can USB On-the-Go really be a success?

[letxa2000]

Hmmm, I don't know why you'd say wireless stuff is just a pain in the ass.

I recently upgraded my network to be wireless so that my wife's and my laptops can move around the house. It works perfectly and the freedom is great.

I believe the future is wireless everything. The idea of just being in the same room and being able to sync my Palm, or out on the porch getting the latest data from the Internet is just too nice to go back to wires.

Re:can USB On-the-Go really be a success?

[halftrack]

Agreed(ish), but ...

No batteries, you can power stuff off the USB inteface.

When it's a direct connection, does the electricity magically materialize in the wire.

(Sorry for the trollish formulation.)

Re:can USB On-the-Go really be a success?

[Locutus]

Remember that there are companies which HATE Bluetooth with a passion. A light-weight wireless protocol is a boon to device manufacturers but one particularly large software company finds that enabling the world is a very bad thing.

Jumping on a new wired standard now and with a savings of POSSIBLY only a couple of bucks is silly. This could be Intel realizing that USB is going away and Bluetooth taking over it's role( with FireWire for the high end ) but that's life. That's progress. I would still look to see if Microosft isn't mixed up in this somehow since this seems to be a shot at Bluetooth and they don't want to see Bluetooth do things like enable Palms and or enable other non-bloated non-WinCE based handhelds. Enabling these non-WinCE devices pushs Windows aside and that's not what innovation at Microsoft is about. IMHO.

LoB

Re:can USB On-the-Go really be a success?

[PainKilleR-CE]

I believe the future is wireless everything. The idea of just being in the same room and being able to sync my Palm, or out on the porch getting the latest data from the Internet is just too nice to go back to wires.

For you, that might work fine. Personally, I'd rather have all of my immobile equipment wired, including mouse & keyboard (everyone seems to be moving to wireless mouse & keyboard, yet I still have not seen one that's as responsive as USB), with wireless access for things like palmtops & notebooks. Besides, if you have more than one computer in your home, the speed for file transfers doesn't even compare between wired & wireless.

Re:can USB On-the-Go really be a success?

[foobar104]

Sometimes wireless stuff is just a pain in the ass.

Only if you're not using the right operating system. With OS X, wireless ethernet and Bluetooth both work pretty darned near perfectly. Wireless ethernet requires no set-up at all, and Bluetooth only requires "pairing" your devices (or whatever it's called; I don't have my Bluetooth gear in front of me right now).

Wireless stuff is not a pain in the ass. Some wireless implementations are a pain in the ass. Don't confuse the two.

Re:can USB On-the-Go really be a success?

[stratjakt]

OSX? this is about device to device connections, without the host master (your computer).

I don't see any wireless printers that automatically know when a wireless camera is close, and start printing. It'd be easier and cheaper to just plug 'em in.

Re:can USB On-the-Go really be a success?

[letxa2000]

Personally, I'd rather have all of my immobile equipment wired, including mouse & keyboard

Oh, I agree. My keyboard and mouse are wired, although the main reason I don't use wireless is because I don't want to have to spend money on batteries for my mouse and keyboard.

I was talking more about networking of computing devices (PCs, laptops, Palms, etc.). Although printers is a good example of a non-CPU device that makes sense to be wireless.

with wireless access for things like palmtops & notebooks.

Again, I agree. My desktop, non-mobile server is connected to my LAN via a wired connection because there is no nenefit in a wireless connection. My two laptops, however, are wireless. I hope to someday get my Palm connected wirelessly... Is there an 802.11b adapter for the Palm yet?

if you have more than one computer in your home, the speed for file transfers doesn't even compare between wired & wireless.

I guess it depends on how often you transfer files between them. My LAN is mostly so that all the computers can access the Internet, and the DSL is still the bottleneck there, not the wireless link.

Re:can USB On-the-Go really be a success?

[stratjakt]

> When it's a direct connection, does the electricity magically materialize in the wire

http://www.allegromicro.com/techpub2/usb/power.h tm

So the printer maybe need be plugged in, the camera/device need not be. Depends if the portable need more than 100mA or not. (Maybe a camera would to take photos, but not to dump its contents out).

Re:can USB On-the-Go really be a success?

[foobar104]

Well, let's see. I can print to my Bluetooth HP printer from my Bluetooth Palm. They just see each other and start printing, basically. (For obvious reasons of security, you have to explicitly pair the two devices as part of a one-time setup.)

What else? My laptop automatically sees my Bluetooth T68, and makes it available to me for lots of things, not the least of which is dialing out to the Internet over the T68 like you would a modem.

And, while I don't own this gear myself, my friend from Australia has a Sony video camera with Bluetooth, and he says he can print stills from it on his Bluetooth-equipped printer. Again, I don't own that stuff, so I won't swear to it. But he says it's neat.

It'd be easier and cheaper to just plug 'em in.

Cheaper, definitely. Bluetooth-equipped stuff is expensive, at least right now. But easier? No way. I haven't carried a cable with me, except the FireWire cable for my iPod and the power adapter for my laptop, in months. No more USB cables for printers or my Palm or my digital camera or any of that crap. It all just works.

Re:can USB On-the-Go really be a success?

[russellh]

It'd be nice to be able to just buy a digital camera and a photo printer, and be able to bypass a computer altogether. Not every electronic device in your home need be linked together somehow.

You can, it's called CompactFlash/memorystick/ etc. Walk up to the printer at Ritz Camera and plug in your CF card. A few home printers have the card readers as well. No big deal, right?

The one thing I would like to do is transfer pictures from my camera to an iPod - then I could take the digital camera on a long trip without a computer. And it doesn't matter how they connect. Plugging a CF card into it would be fine, or with FireWire, USB, wireless, or anything, as long as I don't need a computer (and battery use is minimized).

Strange

[Jobe_br]

I was under the impression that Intel had purposefully designed the USB protocol to be processor bound. This type of connectivity is already provided by Firewire, so I don't particularly see why this would be beneficial, unless devices somehow don't need to be explicitly USB On-the-go compatible or (more likely), the chipset/firmware for USB On-the-go is cheaper to produce/license than Firewire is.

In any case, my chips are still on Firewire - its a solid, fast and proven interconnect technology. With transfer speeds in excess of 38MB per sec. (76% of theoretical max of 50MB/sec) - I'd say they're doing quite decent. I'm not sure what USB2 is up to these days, but last I heard, they were still a far cry from their goal of even being faster than Firewire, in real world applications.

Incidentally - I don't mean to start a flame war on the benefits of Firewire v. USB - so don't get started. The transfer speed I threw out above is a valid benchmark for a external RAID array (that has drives fast enough to support that transfer rate and a equivalent RAID configuration to boot). I don't follow USB2 developments closely, so if I'm mistaken on its real-world speeds, forgive me and don't waste /. bandwidth by flaming me :).

Cheers.

Re:Strange

[Hadlock]

I don't mean to start a flame war on the benefits of Firewire v. USB - so don't get started

i don't see how one could start a flame war, as the only 2 advantages USB (in any form) has over firewire is initial cost & greater abundance of prehiprials.

Re:Strange

[PainKilleR-CE]

Incidentally - I don't mean to start a flame war on the benefits of Firewire v. USB - so don't get started. The transfer speed I threw out above is a valid benchmark for a external RAID array (that has drives fast enough to support that transfer rate and a equivalent RAID configuration to boot).

Unfortunately most firewire cards (or the ports built into most computers) don't support those speeds yet, and a fast IDE drive can saturate that in bursts.

I don't follow USB2 developments closely, so if I'm mistaken on its real-world speeds, forgive me and don't waste /. bandwidth by flaming me :)

I don't know what it's real-world speeds are myself, much like you I don't follow it closely, but probably for a different reason: USB is for mice and keyboards, I don't WANT to hook everything in the world to my USB hub. I will be very reluctant to ever pull my printer off of the parallel port (especially since I'll have to buy a parallel-USB adapter to do it), and I'm not a fan of external drives of any type (if I want removable storage, I use a removable hard drive bay or CD-R).

Then again, my current home PC has front-panel USB ports and spaces for front-panel Firewire. Currently the USB ports are used by the mouse & keyboard (omg, I can get an extra 2 feet away from my computer without going through a USB hub). If I somehow did a sudden reversal and started going gadget-crazy, the ideal would be to throw a firewire card in the system and connect it to the front panel so I wouldn't have to disturb my mouse & keyboard or use my USB hub.

Re:Strange

[Yohahn]

The USB PCI controler cards can directly access memory, like many other PCI cards
The PCI interface in practice (not theory) is a bottle neck here. USB2/Firewire on the motherboard chipset is always going to be faster than on the PCI bus.

Where did the USB is processor bound rumor come from?

If I'm wrong, will somebody please supply a source so I can correct myself?

Re:Strange

[Yohahn]

Here's an article to back up my claims that the speeds are similar. This is not a conclusive comparison, but it will show that USB 2.0 is comparible in speed to Firewire IN PRACTICE.

Re:Strange

[TheSunborn]

The problem is that usb don't have any support of interrupt, so it might be needed by some drivers to a busy wait which will take 100% cpu time nomatter how fast your cpu is. Ofcause if this *#$&*$& PC hardware had some better timer chips, busy waiting would newer be needed by a driver.

Martin Tilsted

Re:Strange

[Yohahn]

I'm pretty sure you are wrong.

I'm pretty sure interrupts are part of USB.

Try doing a grep for "interrupt" in the "drivers/usb" directory of the linux source.

Can you cite your claim?

Re:Strange

[Anonymous Coward]

That article is an embarrassment. USB 2.0 may be ten times faster or slower than Firewire, but this "test" is hilarious. Every bad "internet benchmark" technique rears its ugly head, and the author doesn't even have the discipline to not gloat that the end result is what he has been saying all along.

Please don't link to articles like this in the future. Use critical analysis and promote basic adherence to the scientific method in your endeavors. Thank You.

Re:Strange

[scm]

USB2/Firewire on the motherboard chipset is always going to be faster than on the PCI bus.

Umm, how do you think the USB/FireWire onboard controller talks to the CPU? The PCI bus maybe? Just because you don't see a PCI connector, doesn't mean the PCI bus isn't being used.

My system has USB and FireWire built in to the motherboard and lspci shows them all on the main PCI bus.

I'm not saying I know for a fact that it's not any faster having it built in, but I can't see how it would be...

Re:Strange

[Yohahn]

Newer chipsets are building it into the chipset, not having to go through a bridge. You're probably looking at a motherboard using the NCR host adaptor

As put by the poster "DeadSeaTrolls" here.

"The current generation of USB2 PCI implementation can't saturate the bus, but those built on to the chipset start to get a lot faster (ICH4/nForce2)."

Re:Strange

[Yohahn]

As I said it wasn't conclusive.
But the ultimate authority in the end is what really happens. Copying large files really happens, and sometimes, it's good to just time it.

That said, I'd like to see a more worthwhile test, anybody seen one?

Re:Strange

[Anonymous Coward]

That article is a joke. It does not help your position whatever that position may be.

Re:Strange

[Anonymous Coward]

Provide support for an opposing position, or you are trolling.

Re:Strange

[Anonymous Coward]

Bollocks, Firewire does support those speeds on cards now.

Re:Strange

[Anonymous Coward]

USB2 Mass storage devices can't match Firewire for speed because no USB2 host chipset makes full utilization of the bus. Come back and reply when you get a clue.

Re:Strange

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the most cluefull thing you've said, but you need to provide an example of something that makes full utilization of the firewire bus and beats USB2.

I'll bow, if you back up your statements.

You can already do this

[SexyKellyOsbourne]

Though it requires a bit of know-how, as it's an undocumented feature, USB cables can be put into crosslink mode.

All you have to do is take a USB cable, cut off the small (non-USB) connector end, and attach another USB cable connector in its place with the wires connecting backwards. Next, take the other original end of the USB cable, cut it off, and put it on backwards.

Voila.

Firewire : Same Price, Twice the Speed

[shking]

By the time this ships, Firewire will be twice as fast. Firewire has always had this capability & is about to double its speed. To quote the article:

The debut of USB On-the-Go helps USB 2.0 draw closer in functionality to rival IEEE 1394, also known as FireWire. The 1394 specification, which is used widely in consumer-electronics devices such as digital videos, also has so-called host capabilities. Analysts say it would cost about the same to implement 1394 and USB On-the-Go in devices.

Re:Firewire : Same Price, Twice the Speed

[Evro]

By the time this ships, Firewire will be twice as fast.

You realize that people have been saying this since USB 2.0 was announced, right? USB 2.0 is here; you can go to any store and buy a PCI card for it, and it comes standard on many PCs. Where's FireWire 2.0?

Re:Firewire : Same Price, Twice the Speed

[cdrudge]

You can go to the same store and buy a Firewire card for about the same price. And for that price, you can get the ability to sustain 400 Mbit transfers where USB 2.0 can only burst to those speeds. FireWire has also been around longer and I think is more mature then USB 2.0. Firewire 2.0 will come eventually, but right now, I think that it still beats USB 2.0 as a technology

Re:Firewire : Same Price, Twice the Speed

[Evro]

Just as some references for my previous post:

• http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0004/26.usb.sh tml April 26, 2000 - "FireWire already operates at 400 Mbps and is expected to reach 800 Mbps and 1600 Mbps later this year."
• http://www.macworld.com/2000/08/news/usb_vs_firewi re.html August 2000
• http://www.mackido.com/Hardware/USB2.html Undated, but apparently soon after USB 2.0 was announced:"FireWire will go to 800 Mbps this year or next, and 1.6 Gbps probably in another year or so after that. USB 2.0 is not born yet... in fact, it isn't even yet fully conceived -- it is more a dirty thought in someone's mind. "

Re:Firewire : Same Price, Twice the Speed

[windex]

My TiBook, my new Gateway Laptop, my Desktop, and my digital camera equipment.

Anything else?

FireWire am > USB 2.0.

Re:Firewire : Same Price, Twice the Speed

[Evro]

I was not trying to compare the price or availability of USB 2.0 vs Firewire. I was saying that the original poster's comment that "By the time USB ___ ships, firewire will be twice as fast" has been said for about 2 or 3 years now, and Firewire 2.0 is still not here. People said Firewire 2.0 would be out by the time USB 2.0 shipped, and here we are and Firewire 2.0 is nowhere in sight. I am sure it will come out eventually, but at this point I think USB 3.0 will probably come out first. I'm not debating the technological merits of either protocol, but if history has taught us anything it's that people buy computer equipment based on meaningless numbers such as MHz. If you tell some joe on the street all the benefits of each protocol and then say "Firewire is 400 Mbps, USB 2 is 480 Mbps" he's going to pick USB2, especially since his home PC has a USB connection anyway. It's a shame, because I personally think firewire is superior, but Firewire 2.0 has been vaporware for about 3 years now.

Re:Firewire : Same Price, Twice the Speed

[Evro]

Please point me to anything that indicates that your TiBook, Gateway, or any of your other equipment runs on 800 Mbps Firewire.

You really need to go back to school and work on your reading comprehension skills.

Re:Firewire : Same Price, Twice the Speed

[Elwood P Dowd]

Firewire has been about to double its speed since it was invented.

The more relevant point is that 400mbit firewire already transfers much faster than 480mbit USB 2.0, simply because it stays closer to its capacity longer.

The reason that USB On-the-Go will be more desireable than firewire is that manufacturers can be sure that their customers will be able to use the USB On-the-Go devices. With firewire they will not. For the near term at least, I'm sure this will trump any speed concerns.

Re:Firewire : Same Price, Twice the Speed

[windex]

I did NOT SAY Firewire 2.0, I said *Firewire*. No USB 2.0 implimentation I have ever seen can match Firewire's throughput. End of story. People use whats better, not what claims to be better. If they didn't, everyone would run Windows for everything. :)

Re:Firewire : Same Price, Twice the Speed

[Evro]

Well then I don't understand what your post was for. I was disputing someone's claim that Firewire 2.0 would be out "real soon now," since people have been saying that for 3 years. Specifically, since USB 2.0 was announced, I've been hearing "by the time USB 2.0 is out, Firewire will be at 800 Mbps." Well, USB 2.0 is here, and Firewire 2.0 is not. Now this person is saying "by the time USB On-the-Go is here, Firewire will be at 800 Mbps." I was disputing that suggestion, and that was the point of my post.

Maybe you can help me understand what the point of your post was, since all you did was list some devices, and say "Firewire > USB 2.0", which is possibly the worst argument for a specific technology that I've ever seen. As I implied in my original reply to you, you should brush up on your reading comprehension and re-read my post, which asked, "Where's Firewire 2.0?" now that USB 2.0 is here.

And I didn't mean for this to get into a "USB SUXOR/FIREWIRE ROXOR" flame war, but regarding your statement: No USB 2.0 implimentation I have ever seen can match Firewire's throughput. How many USB 2.0 implementations have you evaluated? I mean personally. Are you an engineer, or somebody who just reads MacKiDo and regurgitates that info as gospel?

And as for people using what's better, that's just plain wrong. You disproved that yourself by mentioning Windows, which is used by 95% of the world as their desktop operating system despite obvious benefits in Mac OS. Firewire vs USB is another area that disproves that theory, as is MP3 vs Ogg. In all of these situations, the better technology is losing out for various reasons.

Re:Firewire : Same Price, Twice the Speed

[swb]

I think this is an excellent argument for shipping something functional but not perfect in volume and fixing it over time versus spending a long time developing a more perfect version of it.

How hard would it have been for Intel to have done USB2 the first time? Probably not that hard. How long? A lot longer. USB support would probably be a "new" thing in Windows *XP* or Win2k SP2 add-on if we had to wait for them to make what USB2 delivers in a USB1 release.

By the time USB3 is out, it will probably be exceed Firewire 2 in every respect because they've had time to iterate over it instead of trying to make it perfect the first time.

Don't get me wrong, I hate to see non-functional systems released but sometimes doing *something* part-way is better than doing nothing while you try to make it perfect.

Re:Firewire : Same Price, Twice the Speed

[Octal]

I would like to point out that there is no such thing as "Firewire 2.0". The Firewire protocol is designed to operate at a variety of speeds in a way similar to (but not the same as) the way USB 1.1 supports high and low speed devices. The Firewire protocol supports (I believe) 100, 200, 400, 800, and 1600 Mbit. Obviously higher speeds are harder to implement than the lower speeds, and most Firewire devices are pegged at 400 right now. Of course, when 800 Mbit firewire comes out, your still going to have to buy a new controller.

Anyway, I don't think anybody should really worry about saturating a USB 2.0 or a Firewire connection any time soon.

Re:Firewire : Same Price, Twice the Speed

[forgotmypassword]

Are you sure that a Firewire PCI card is going to be faster than USB2 built into the motherboard?

Re:Firewire : Same Price, Twice the Speed

[GlassUser]

I would say it, having something that works right now is better than having everything that works much later.

Re:Firewire : Same Price, Twice the Speed

[cdrudge]

The specs for USB 2.0 specify 480 Mbits/sec. Firewire specs are 400 MBits. The difference is that the USB can not substain the high transfer rate. I believe the reason was that USB is a slow protocol. It wasn't designed originaly to transfer large amounts of data quickly.

If a USB 1.x device is present, then the transfer rate is further reduced. USB also has the whole master/slave thing. The master device (usually the computer) has to control the flow of data. This is what the USB On-The-Go will help with.

The PCI bus wouldn't be the bottleneck anymore then what an on-board chipset would do. Most likely the on-board would just be hardwired into the PCI bus. , much like sound/video cards are these days. The slowest PCI busses have about 80-90 MBytes of available bandwidth after accounting for system overhead.

There usually isn't anything that is truely magical about having something built in on the motherboard. The main reason for doing this is cost. The chipset manufacturer can incorperate all the different interfaces (USB, IR, IDE, etc) into one chip cheaper then what it would cost to produce individual chips for all the above, the board space, connectors, etc.

This is one reason why USB has taken off a lot quicker then Firewire. Intel supported USB initially, so it included it in it's chipsets. Firewire wasn't "theirs" so they don't include it. Guess what chipset is used for many motherboards.

Re:Firewire : Same Price, Twice the Speed

[Anonymous Coward]

By the time this ships, Firewire will be twice as fast.

I'll believe it when I see it. I'm not much of a fan of vapor.

Re:Firewire : Same Price, Twice the Speed

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be due later this year or ealy next year (subject to TI getting working 1394b Phy).

Jini

[Jeff Fohl]

Whatever happened to Sun's Jini? Wasn't Jini supposed to provide this kind of capability? Or am I remembering incorrectly...

Re:Jini

[elmegil]

I had exactly the same question. JINI was touted as the ability for devices to self-register and interoperate. I suspect it was intended to be medium agnostic (USB/Firewire/bluetooth), but why don't we see any implementations?

Re:Jini

[slide-rule]

JINI is a programmatic API based on Java. It, in and of itself, doesn't understand hardware. This discussion is in regards to (to put it crudely) hardware connector types/protocols. Now, putting/embedding JINI code and a micro JVM inside a physical device (as you may be remembering a write-up about) may be neat, but it is still working in a different realm since, from what I'm gathering of the discussions here, the current USB can't talk directly peripheral-to-peripheral w/out your system's processor to intermediate.

Wow

[Sloppy]

This just goes to show, when you put PhysicsGenious on your foes list and he gets enough positive moderation to get through the filter anyway, it tends to really be a high quality troll. Moderation is working as expected: my god, that is some good bullshit.

One problem

[chainrust]

There is no "master", which limits speed. It should be somewhere between USB 1 and 2.

opertational

[Anonymous Coward]

Yay! We can have opertational devices now :).

NIC usb...

[Steveftoth]

there is already a usb system for connecting 2 pcs together, and it works fine. The major limitation of usb is the cable length. Ethernet goes 100m while usb only goes like 20 feet. So it would work for like a pc to laptop or 2 pcs in the same room.

DUH!

[JanusFury]

That's why they invented tinfoil! It's not just for making hats - wrap some around your USB cables and you're secure. As a bonus, it's nice and shiny - be the envy of your neighbors and of the CIA!

and its based on ethernet...

[simpl3x]

i am not sure what usb is up to, but it sounds like it is adding an ethernet like layer. any networking experts care to comment on this?

USBUSB networking

[jachim69]

There's already support in the Linux kernel for the specialized USB-to-USB networking cables that (I assume) only let you connect two computers together. Hopefully this would allow more than 2 devices.

Now if I could only figure out which USB-USB cables are supported by the drivers in the kernel, so I could buy one.

Re:USBUSB networking

[cheezedawg]

In order to network computers together with USB, you need to go through a USB bridge (which can support more than 2 computers). If you plugged a USB cable directly between 2 computers, it would short out the power supply and likely damage the system. That is why the type-A to type-A cables are illegal in the USB spec.

Re:USBUSB networking

[PainKilleR-CE]

Normally if you wanted to connect multiple computers via USB you'd just get a standard ethernet hub/switch and USB->ethernet converters. Obviously at this point it's only really useful if you don't already have NICs in the computers, and USB.org doesn't recommend connecting large numbers of computers together with USB due to some vague safety hazards.
http://www.usb.org/faq/ans5.html#q9

Re:USBUSB networking

[jachim69]

To quote the Configure.help file:

Host-to-Host USB networking
CONFIG_USB_USBNET
This driver supports network links over USB with USB "Network" or "data transfer" cables, often used to network laptops to PCs. Such cables have chips from suppliers such as Belkin/eTEK, GeneSys (GeneLink), NetChip and Prolific. Intelligent USB devices could also use this approach to provide Internet access, using standard USB cabling. You can find these chips also on some motherboards with USB PC2PC support.

These links will have names like "usb0", "usb1", etc. They act like two-node Ethernets, so you can use 802.1d Ethernet Bridging (CONFIG_BRIDGE) to simplify your network routing.

Re:USBUSB networking

[cheezedawg]

I wasnt trying to say that it can't be done. The "specialized cables" that you were talking about just put a bridge in the middle of the cable, but there are bridges that can connect more than 2 computers. I was just saying that you can already connect more than 2 computers even without USB OTG.

http://www.linux-usb.org/usbnet/

Re:USBUSB networking

[jachim69]

Ah. Now I see.

Thanks for the pointer.

Driver issues

[phorm]

This may be a dumb question, but how does the USB device handle the drivers for a particular printer in a direct-connection scenario? Or are drivers not required for USB in general printing functions. It'd be a pain to have to acquire print drivers for my digital camera.

What everyone is dying to know...

[JanusFury]

Is it fast enough to network a beowulf cluster of cowboyneals?

Use for storage

[chaidawg]

Too bad I cant update the electronics I already have. I would love to jack my camera into my Archos jukebox to store pictures. That would be more useful to me than plugging it into the printer. Where there is a printer there is a computer. But for a longish trip (2 wks-1 month) using the mp3 player for picture storage would be great.

Re:Use for storage

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly in the same boat here... This doesn't stop someone from making a gameboy sized machine that bridges the 2. Too bad my camera is pre-USB 2.0 and my Archos uses a slave only ATAPI bridge.

also,

[simpl3x]

will the upstream bandwidth affect the downstream bandwidth, and what is the overhead compared to firewire/1394?

USB becoming more like FireWire?

[ryochiji]

With USB2 they both have similar transfer speeds, and now, with USB On-The-Gon, USB has hostless communication capabilities. Sounds like the line between USB and FireWire's getting blurred... (of course, with FireWire2 will be ahead in terms of transfer speeds again though.)

So, just because you don't do it...

[cnelzie]

...means that nobody else would want to do it?

That would be like saying, why do people even sell tires for automobiles, I own a car, it just sits on my front lawn as a place to put flowers. It doesn't have tires. Therefor, nobody else should be using tires either.

I suppose you could make a large number of analogies about this... Anyone else have a suggestion or two?

-.-

Where is USB going?

[mustangdavis]

If they keep trying to replace firewire .... then:

Ans: USB On-the-Go Go Go Go ..... Gone!

P2P Cameras

[MRYSDORP]

As already stated, Firewire has this ability, but...
what firewire devices cn take advantage of P2P connections.

For example, are there any firewire cameras which could save pictures or movies to a FW harddrive like the ipod without using a master computer.

IDIOTS...

[Eric_Cartman_South_P]

Why not just make the connection wireless? Come up with a standard that has short range wireless. Call it BlueTooth or something stupid like that.

Oh... wait...

I'm sick of wires. It's the fscking year 2002 and everything has wires pouring out of it. Apart from electricity, I don't want any wires anyware on the outside to sync, hook-up, etc.

Re:IDIOTS...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apart from electricity, I don't want any wires anyware on the outside to sync, hook-up, etc.

Speak for yourself. We should have wireless electricity by now.

Re:IDIOTS...

[Locutus]

That's right but remember how Java worked on Windows? Microsoft didn't want REAL Java to work so they hacked there own to keep Java from spreading. Microsoft does of 90% of the desktop market after all. Well, they don't like Bluetooth either and most of the FUD about Bluetooth over the last 2 years was most likely funded by that company in Redmond. Devices are popping up with WinCE on it and that's bad but when you add the fact that these devices could get more useful with a lightweight wireless system that spells trouble for WinCE and that means trouble for spreading/controlling the application APIs owned and wielded by Microsoft.

Why do you think they are now doing 802.11 hardware? Very soon they will release Win-Fi and pay hardware manufacturers to include it in the MoBo over Bluetooth....

Wires are silly alright but innovation is constantly throttled by very large companies with an agenda for protecting their monopolies. Be it Microsoft or Intel. USB will die soon but not as fast as we like.... Vote with your wallet and purchase Bluetooth product ASAP. IMHO.

LoB

1394 already does this

[Mr.roboto]

it's only slightly slower then USB 2, and it's cheap as can be. I need to get a card for my desktops so I can network em all, try here for a benchmark:
http://www.homenethelp.com/web/review/ Firewire-InH ome-Networks.asp

networking is easier to get cabling for as well, becuse of the wide avalibilty of double ended cables as a standard item.

who cares if its a success or not?

[redhotchil]

who cares if its a success of not? its not going to have linux drivers so no one on slashdot will use it other than connecting stuff together.

Re:who cares if its a success or not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Already has Linux support... even for embedded
devices.

http://www.arcturusnetworks.com/News/2002/200209 10 -Transdimension.shtml

Still Not There

[Salamander]

USB OTG is still not really symmetric. It's just a way for devices to negotiate over who gets to be master; that master then takes over all the polling that the computer would be doing in traditional USB. It's still a fundamentally crappy way to do things, it wastes resources (which the consumer does pay for), and it only works for two devices instead of N. Firewire is still way better technically, and here today.

it's wired! So it requires a common HW interface..

[Locutus]

Sorry but wireless is the way to go for what is projected as the use for the USB-to-go. Think about it, how many PDAs and handheld devices have a common connector? That's one very large pile to have to move all in one direction and I don't think it's going to happen.

This is a pretty obvious problem and so I would think that this bit of PR is more of another way to stall Bluetooth. Find out who is behind this and not just the front-man and you'll probably find a hidden agenda.

Seriously, this is a stupid idea given the realities of how devices are connected today. IMHO.

LoB

Potential for excellent side-effects

[Chastitina]

While having periphials talk directly to each other is a nice idea in theory, getting equipment manufacturers to settle on communications and driver standards to make it happen will be extremely difficult.

If a standard does grow out of this innovation, it will make life a *lot* easier for all the kind folks writing Linux drivers for obscure devices.

Good luck to them!

Misuse of terminology - not exciting technology

[ngoy]

I fail to see what the effect of this will be. In reality, there is no such thing as a "peer-to-peer" network. Regardless of what communication device you are using, one of them HAS to ask for SOMETHING. That is the whole basis of communication. Question and answer. This role may be reversed many times during the communication, but it still exists. So you don't need a pc. Wow. A limitation born out of the technology they decided to implement it with.

Maybe someone will come up with the telephone next.

Shango

power slave

[shibut]

The master-slave now is not just for drivers but also for power. Under the USB gogo you'd still have to specify a device that will supply the power to the other USB device (one of nice features of USB is that the devices don't need to be plugged into a power supply) so connecting 2 "power slaves" to transfer files would not work.

Cost

[phriedom]

"I don't particularly see why this would be beneficial,unless...the chipset/firmware for USB On-the-go is cheaper to produce/license than Firewire is."

The article says it isn't even cheaper than Firewire, so I'm not seeing any advantages."

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Master and Servant

[_Sambo]

USB on the go is not Peer to Peer. The cable connecting the devices will determine which device is the Host (read Master) and which is the Peripheral (read Slave). They've also got two new connecting protocols. Each device must be a Dual Role Device. (DRD is my new TLA for the day). I understood the documentation on USB On the Go to say that each device that is compliant will have the drivers of the other devices that it will work with. Does this mean that they will be severely limited in what devices they will work with. (e.g. only HP cameras will work with HP printers, PDA's etc.) I found more info at: http://www.usb.org/developers/onthego/ The PDF presentations regarding On-The-Go are somewhat annoyingly colorful, but they may be trying to yak in marketingspeak.

I'm offended!!

[goldspider]

"Apparently this new technology is an offshoot of USB2 and it can remove the limitation of the master slave operation of normal USB devices, where you need a Host PC (the Master) to talk with the peripherals (the slaves)."

Comon people, this is the 21st century for Christ's sake! As progressive, technologically savvy people, we should be horrified that the institution of slavery is still a common practice in the computer industry.

On a more serious note, I wonder when the PC (politically-correct, not personal computer) crowd will take exception to the technological "master/slave" terminology.

Re:I'm offended!!

[DLWormwood]

I wonder when the PC (politically-correct, not personal computer) crowd will take exception to the technological "master/slave" terminology.

Around about the time they finally wise up to our use of "male" and "female" for connector cables and plugs...

Re:I'm offended!!

[Anonymous Coward]

At the company I work for there was an attempt (seemed to come from the HR folk) to forbid use of the "master/slave" and cable gender terminology because it was so politically incorrect. If it were not for the huge cost of changing all of the documentation already using this terminology, we'd have been forced to change.

Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.

Re:It's Troll Tuesday

[Anonymous Coward]

8% sales tax? What state is that? 6% here is bad enough!

Not anytime soon...

[dodongo]

I'm not sure I see the potential for this anywhere on a practical level. Gee, we can link our PDAs with a cable instead of IR. How convenient!

And besides, I have a USB cradle for my PDA, and it's so fast I often wonder if the little man inside there is out for a smoke or something. PDA-PDA transfer would still be slower than all-get-out even with a physical connection because that's just how fast the damn things move data.

Yeah, maybe it could replace NICs. But NICs have been integrated hardware on a mobo for a long time, and everybody's got one, and you can get things for $10 as it is. Hell, I have three in the room here!

Oh! I got it! We could make USB PRINTERS! Like, printers that print through USB!

What's that? We already have those too?

Shoot.

Re:it's wired! So it requires a common HW interfac

[aron_wallaker]

I would think that this bit of PR is more of another way to stall Bluetooth

No one has to do anything to 'stall' Bluetooth - they've done that all on their own.

(Speaking as someone who was working on a Bluetooth project 4 years ago and still hasn't seen anything decent come to market)

But at least I'm not bitter.....:)

A lot of my stuff is domotic...

[Steve Franklin]

Except the OS, which is demonic.

The big hurdle, I would surmise, is figuring out a good reason for attaching your toaster to your digital camera. Now if the camera had AI, it could look at the toaster and then send an infrared signal to your smart alarm clock that would synthesize a real loud Kachung! sound like the old toasters make and give you an incentive for getting up.

Your bathroom scale could be linked to the refrigerator door lock to help you lose weight.

Your reading lamp could be linked to the kid's stereo--one one, one off.

Seriously, it would be nice to hook things together easily, but as someone already pointed out, you still need drivers. Of course you turn the mobile OS in say your PDA into bloatware like Windows by including every driver under the sun, it might work, after somebody invents the super battery. Maybe just add a USB port to all electrical outlets. That way you could just plug the hardware into the main power supply.

There is such a thing as taking modular too far.

IP over usb on the go

[PourYourselfSomeTea]

Man. If I could get IP working over USB, my Beowulf cluster would scream! 480MB a second, here I come!

OK People, Pay attention!

[handorf]

USB:
Low speed peripherals (Keyboards, mice)
Low price peripherals, medium bandwidth (scanners, CDRW, small hard drives, mp3 players)
Firmly entrenched, all new PCs have USB 1.1 at least
Cheaper to implement.

Firewire:
High speed devices (Hard drives, video cameras, etc)
More expensive to implement
NOT FIRMLY ENTRENCHED!

USB is here to stay, people. A Firewire mouse just isn't going to happen. A Firewire scanner is a waste of $25 to implement the firewire on the scanner and the motherboard to support it.

Please stop with the "Who cares? Firewire is better!" If you have a PDA with a firewire chip on it, I'd like to see it! (A real PDA, not a very small PC).

This does matter, if you don't care, go back to the "Why buy a Toyota? An F-18 is faster!" threads.

Re:OK People, Pay attention!

[NineNine]

PS2 ports:

Low speed peripherals (Keyboards, mice)

Available in ever computer built in last 6-7(?) years.

Very cheap.

Serial & Parallel ports:

Available in every computer built in last 15 years.

Very cheap.

Fast enough for almost every application.

That's great that all you college kids have the money to buy new computers, but for us in the real world, using computers *gasp* more than a year old *gasp*, serial & parallel and the PS2 ports work just fine. They're cheap, and they always work.

USB & Firewire are both completely irrelevant to me.

Re:OK People, Pay attention!

[tuffy]

That's great that all you college kids have the money to buy new computers, but for us in the real world, using computers *gasp* more than a year old *gasp*, serial & parallel and the PS2 ports work just fine. They're cheap, and they always work.

Serial, parallel and PS/2 ports are nice, as long as you don't have a lot of peripherals and plan on using the IBM-PC platform forever. Personally, I was glad to switch over all my crap to USB if only to avoid juggling four different types of connectors (if you count the joystick port) that all need to be hooked onto the back of the box rather than a nice accessible hub.

USB may not be a great standard. But it is a standard, it's here now, and it works on Linux.

Re:OK People, Pay attention!

[NineNine]

Serial & Parallel & PS2 ports don't work in Linux? That's news to me.

I don't know about you, but I plug my stuff into my computer, and it stays there until it or the computer dies. Right now, I have 2 things off of a printer port, 3 off of a keyboard port, and a plain old mouse. I'm not touching USB for several more years.

Re:OK People, Pay attention!

[rakerman]

Firewire is also the interface for the new pro digital cameras (10+ megapixels). A FireWire card only costs like 50 bucks. It's no big deal.

USB on the go for networking?

[greymond]

As nice as USB2 speed is, I don't see the "on the go" version coming and dominating the networking field. Maybe similar (not really) to comparing serial connections to 10/100mb ethernet, with the 1ghz ethernet cards/hubs/etc.. already at frys and "insert comp store name here" I think most people will start going the 1ghz route and save the USB "on the go" for rare emergency occassions.

However thats not to say that if USB "on the go" comes out as DIRT CHEEP I wouldn't use it. I personally am swayed by cost and time.

UWB makes USB irrelevant

[ites]

Ultra-wideband makes USB (and BlueTooth) irrelevant.
Check out XtremeSpectrum
and Time Domain.
The FCC approved unlicensed use of the UWB spectrum (3.1 to 10.6 Ghz) earlier this year.
This allows wireless connections of up to 500Mbps between devices (less, maybe 100Mbps for battery-powered devices).
Both companies have chipsets almost ready. They were only waiting for FCC approval.

One hack leads to another

[Midnight Thunder]

I am starting to get the feeling that Intel is trying to hack USB into a direction that it was never designed for. What we are likely to get as a result is a standard that will not be fully implemented by all manufacturers due to the growing variety of extensions. The x86 and the BIOS are already two Intel based technologies that have been hacked to bits. They work, but they are showing age and a replacement is long over-due. If Intel hasn't learnt with their chips, why should they learn with anything else?

Bah

[Cinematique]

Call me crazy, but I've never seen the point in dueling standards. Shouldn't the whole point of a standard to get everyone in the same industry involved in its creation, and in the end, simplify a problem?

one standard = harmony
two (or more) standards = proprietary mess

USB v. USB2 v. USB-LMNOP v. FireWire
NTSC v. PAL v. SECAM
Beta v. VHS
DVD v. DVD-R v. DVD-RW v. DVD+RW v. DVD-LMNOP v. DVD+LMNOP
OpenGL v. DirectX v. Glide
Java [Microsoft] v. Java [Sun Microsystems]

and the one that really ticks me off...

HTML/CSS [IE Windows] v. HTML/CSS [IE Macintosh] v. HTML/CSS [Mozilla/Netscape] v. HTML/CSS [Everyone else]

bla bla bla bla bla...

ENOUGH ALREADY.

Re:Bah

[Anonymous Coward]

> Call me crazy, but I've never seen the point in dueling standards. Shouldn't the whole point of a standard to get everyone in the same industry involved in its creation, and in the end, simplify a problem?

The company that creates, and then patents, the "standard" gets to make lots 'o money via licensing, or "only mine!" hardware, etc. Few companies really want a 'standard' standard if they can have a mine-only version instead.

Re:it's wired! So it requires a common HW interfac

[Locutus]

So YOUR Bluetooth project never worked? I've not designed anything with Bluetooth but it was pretty obvious Microsoft didn't want it to work. Because there aren't many products out today isn't always an indication of it's abilities. I'll be Intel paid out a pretty penny to get USB on all those system boards out there and to keep Firewire off those boards. Not to unlike how Microsoft paid ISPs to not use Netscapes browser and gave them theirs for free at a time when Netscape had the better product.

So, can you tell us more about YOUR Bluetooth project?

Replace ethernet!?

[ericmc42]

WTF!!??

Ummm.... USB is limited to some small ass cable length (20ft) and ethernet can go hundreds...

Whats with this new fad?

[Anonymous Coward]

How come all of a sudden everyone is using the word albeit these days? Is it the latest message board fad?

A while back it was replacing "except" with "save".

Cmon people, this is english.

Re:it's wired! So it requires a common HW interfac

[aron_wallaker]

The biggest problem with Bluetooth has never been whether 'a' project works, it's been whether umpteenth vendors can all write their own software stacks of a very complicated (and, back then, very "1.0") communications protocol and then all show up at Comdex expecting their widgets to talk to each other. I saw that problem coming from miles back - the Bluetooth 1.0 intervendor 'interop' was nothing short of a disaster and it shouldn't have surprised anyone. Now it's almost 2003, shipping Bluetooth implementations are out there...but they're relatively rare and the average person on the street has never heard of it, doesn't know what it is and exerts absolutely zero market pressure for it. They created an incredibly complicated solution for a simple problem (cable replacement) which, it turns out, few people want. It reminds me sooooo much of IrDA...which I also worked with. (My career in device drivers was a little checkered, to put it nicely.)

As for Intel 'paying' to not have Firewire on the motherboards.....who were they paying ? At the time of USB1 vs 1394 the majority of motherboards were using Intel chipsets. You can accuse them of being biased against firewire, but it didn't take any payola - it was their market to steer. We have more competition now, but most of the other motherboard chipset vendors are trying to undercut Intel on price, they're not going to worry about Firewire.

Re:It's Troll Tuesday

[Anonymous Coward]

New York. It's bad enough we have punk kids that don't go to school and sit around and deal drugs all day outside your apartment, but couple that with high sales tax and I want to move to mexico

USB and Firewire potentially go going

[DracoVerdi]

What would be nice would be to connect a digital Camera (or camcorder) directly to an iPOD. Any of the iPODs would be a vast improvement in space, portability and price over the currently availeble store devices. Of course iPODS are firewire and digital cameras are USB mostly.

Cure for cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

Hint:

STOP POLLUTING THE ENVIRONTMENT!

They just want new marketable drugs to sell you.

Bursts?

[Johannes]

I have no idea what you're talking about, but USB has no bursting.

The only problem I can see is that USB is a shared bus and bulk transfers (what USB CDROM burners use) aren't guaranteed bandwidth.

You could overload the bus and end up with a coaster.

I burn CD's exclusively with my USB 1.1/2.0 burner and haven't had a coaster yet.

I think there's a foot in your mouth

[Johannes]

There's 3 main host controllers for USB: OHCI (1.1), UHCI (1.1) and EHCI (2.0). There are some other HC's, but they are solely for embedded systems and rare.

ALL three of those are Interrupt (IRQ) driven.
ALL three of those have a schedule which is INDEPENDENTELY executed.

There is NEVER busy waiting in USB drivers during normal operation (some HC's will require a busy wait on a register to reset it when you first startup the system, big deal).

It's amazing how wrong you are.

Careful

[Johannes]

You'll find 2 different things called "Interrupts" if you do that.

There are IRQ's (request_interrupt) and USB Interrupt transfers. They are completely different, but you'll see references to both.

Re:Careful

[Yohahn]

so, ok, grep for irq.

I believe you'll still find a interrupt for things like short packets and the like.

OT: Distributed computing

[Zathrus]

As I understand it the current program running on the UD: Cancer project (LigandFitII says my install) will not be used for for-profit purposes. Future projects utilizing the clients could be used for for-profit ventures, but UD has stated that you'll be able to opt out of those when the time comes.

I did do some checking on this prior to installing the software, and was adequately pleased with what I found. I know too many people who have died or suffered from cancer, and I worked on an oncology ward in high school. Frankly, helping cure cancer is a hell of a lot more important to me than finding an encryption key, and to some extent I don't mind if a company does profit off my CPU cycles in this case.

In all reality, if a drug company found an actual cure for one of the more common forms of cancer (and not just another chemo drug), then they wouldn't be able to pull Viagra-like profits from it. Drug patents have been assumed by governments before (most recent cases involved various HIV drug regimens and some South American countries) when it was deemed in the public interest. The actual cost to manufacture pills is in the pennies and usually does not require multi billion dollar infrastructures (merely tens of millions), so it's pretty hard for a drug company to stop someone from manufacturing a drug regardless of who technically owns the patent.

Re:OT: Distributed computing

[Saeger]

Drug patents have been assumed by governments before

That's the main reason I continue running the UD client (on all my 'puters). I know that even if they wanted to hold the cancer cure/treatment for ransom, the world (minus pharma shareholders) wouldn't let them get away with it.

--

Re:OT: Distributed computing

[Abreu]

Sorry to be pessimistic, but it seems that you forget the golden rule: He who's got the gold, makes the rules

I dont think anybody (short of a goverment, such as South Africa did) would be able to fling the finger at Big Pharma

USB stands for...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Unnecessary Standards Base"?

Why Oh Why Oh Why could they not have just made multicast/ethernet attached mouses, keyboards,
etc. instead? The ASICs were readily availible
at that time and it would have had tons of applications for running over buuilding networks.

(A security nightmare, to be sure, but thats what the bells and whistles on better ethernet switches are for. :-)

Apples and Oranges

[Andy Dodd]

If USB-to-go-go-go-go-whatever were based on USB 1.1, you'd have a valid point.

Comparing USB 1.1 and Firewire is like comparing apples and oranges. They have totally different targets, costs, etc.

But USB-to-go-whatever is based on USB 2.0, which is no cheaper than Firewire. Therefore, why not go with Firewire, which is more mature?

USB 2.0 is going to have a long fight ahead of it. Firewire is a better protocol, is more mature, and firmly entrenched in the video market, which is one of the "killer apps" for high-speed serial. And it isn't any more expensive.

USB 1.1 is here to stay and will be around for a long time. For low-bandwidth devices, it's perfect.

Re:Apples and Oranges

[handorf]

I won't disagree with your points on Firewire being better/more mature/etc than USB 2.0.

Personally I haven't been overly impressed with USB 2.0 myself.

But given that USB 2.0 is backward compatible w/USB 1.X, putting a USB 2.0 choice on a PDA and then implementing USB-to-Go-Go-Gadget-Interconnectivity will probably wind up being the choice most manufacturers implement. It lets all of us who have no firewire OR USB 2.0 ports still communicate with the latest & greatest PDA and still get kewl features like inter-device-connectivity if we happen to have more than one USB 2.0 device.

RIAA will kill it...:)

[Kernel Corndog]

Hmmm... sure sounds like a P2P product to me...and we all know that anyone who touches P2P is a criminal. It's only a matter of time before the RIAA swoops down and levies the "everyone is guilty until...er...well forever" tax.

Great...

[mmol_6453]

Just when I thought that the USB architecture had it right.

First, a story about how a new biometric device is more secure...except that it could be disconnected from the computer. Then there were several comments about the ease of access to the PS/2 port's hardware address, for trojans to sniff. (1, 2, 3)

Now USB is looking at going P2P. That's not a good idea, since even switched networks can be confused by ARP cache poisoning. (Which there surely would be an analog to in any switched P2P network)

Close, but not quite

[SWPadnos]

Actually, USB on-the-go isn't really a part of USB 2. It's a second layer protocol that allows devices to act as either a master or a slave, depending on the task at hand. Although the on-the-go spec is an addendum to USB 2, there is nothing in it that requires 2.0 functionality to work.

An example: a digital camera that can act as a master when connected to a printer (pretending to be a computer), and as a slave when connected to a computer (pretending to be a storage device).

There is still a master and a slave, and the cable determines which unit starts out as the master. This is done with a new type of USB connector - the mini-AB. (the old ones were type A, the flat ones, and type B, the square-ish ones).

The Mini-AB jack can accept either a mini-A or a mini-B plug. The device that the mini-A is plugged into acts as master, and the device that gets the mini-B is the slave. (The protocol allows the master to pass control to another device) There are other cables for connecting these devices to "legacy" USB ports - mini-AB to A or B cables. These cables are wired so that the OTG device knows whether it should be master or slave.

As for the devices only working with one manufacturer's peripherals (someone mentioned an HP camera only printing to an HP printer), that may happen. Although the "class" drivers are more likely to be implemented in embedded devices, there are probably features that won't work when mixing and matching devices from different manufacturers.

strikes me as pointless

[g4dget]

I don't see this as a big deal. It's easy to create a little "active cable" that has all the intelligence necessary for, say, a digital camera to talk to all the devices it might want to talk to. And by putting the intelligence into the cable, I can upgrade it without having to get a new camera. In particular, if my camera doesn't work with my printer because of some quirk or new feature in my printer, I can just buy a new cable.

Or, if you do want to put the intelligence into the devices, you could create a device-to-device networking cable, analogous to the host-to-host networking cables, allowing any device to talk to any other without any changes to its hardware (the software, of course, would need to be upgraded).

I have never seen this as a big advantage of Firewire and actually think the feature would be best left out of any standard. It's more important to get standard profiles for things like serial ports and other devices so that people can figure out how to build gadgets that do connect them.

Apple was also smart enough to include SCSI...

[orichter]

I love Ad Hominem attacks. Consumer devices are clearly moving to SCSI. Everyone's eventually going to want SCSI because everyones going to want a faster hard drive. Apple was smart enough to recognize this, but I'm betting the dufus you were responding to probably wasn't. I still can't wait until people come around on the whole Amiga thing...

Re:Apple was also smart enough to include SCSI...

[utexaspunk]

that's totally different- consumer devices never even BEGAN to move to SCSI, and SCSI was run out by cheaper standards that were fast enough for most people's needs. FW is already an uncontested standard for DV, and I seriously doubt someone's gonna introduce some NEW standard that will replace FW for DV anytime soon. In any case, it sure as hell won't be any variant of USB.

USB is great for what it was originally designed for. I believe what everyone is complaining about here are the constant attempts to expand USB to do what FW is already perfect for by adding new standards. The more standards there are out there, the more the market gets diluted, consumers get confused, and hardware and software engineers get headaches.

Re:Apple was also smart enough to include SCSI...

[orichter]

I'll grant you that it's different, but not totally different. Granted Firewire currently has a strong foothold in the DV market, but it has almost zero penetration in the PC market where you might want to hook up your DV recorder. DV is currently a niche market where higher costs are tollerated. USB simply wasn't an option for DV, but USB 2.0 is an option (albiet a shoddy, inferior "fast enough for most people's needs." option), but then again, that summarizes the entire history of the PC market. Taking a shoddy, inferior, lowest common denominator product, adding kludge, after, kludge, improvement, after improvement, until the shoddy inferior solution becomes the defacto, economy of scale, superior solution. I loved my Amiga. It took years for MS to catch up, and finally surpass it, and it still lacks much of the elegance of the Amiga, but unfortunately that is a mute point. I'm not saying Firewire is going to die, but saying USB 2.0 or 3.0 or 4.0 "sure as hell won't" replace, or largely displace Firewire is not nearly as certain as you you make it seem. I think Apple's real genius is realizing that they were never going to beat microsoft at their own game, but rather that there is a sizable niche market that will still pay for an elegant solution. When I see the vast majority of motherboards carrying Firewire and USB, the demise of USB may be more assured, but how likely is that to happen. (by the way, it is my understanding that SCSI/IDE has several technical similarities to Firewire/USB. Peer-Peer/Master-Slave, Smart Device/Dumb Device, Cost, Theoretical Speed, etc...) Based on superior technology, you're right, but by that arguement, Apple should be dominating the market by now. No one ever said MS had superior technology.

Might have been posted already

[strictnein]

but plenty of digital cameras and printers already support communicating via the USB port, without a computer (HP DJ7150,7350,7550,P130, etc).

whatever though... i'm sure this standard is better for that sort of thing...

For the thousandth time, repeat after me:

[Catbeller]

but it is sans the license fee to Apple

I hear this canard so many times I wonder if Intel assigns munchkins to spread it on message boards.

For the thousandth time, repeat after me:

Apple does not charge a licensing fee for Firewire.

The article submitter is a complete fucktard

[Anonymous Coward]

If its as fast as USB2 then I think it can also act as the replacement for NICs for interconnecting two PCs.

Um, this is been possible for some time now. I've used a direct USB connection to move files between Win95/b and Win98 PCs. I've done the same thing with Macs and PCs running GNU/Linux. Just because your lame Red Hat software didn't come with an RPM enabling comparable functionality doesn't mean that those of us who live in the real computer world -- Windows and Mac users -- can't do it.

And, duh, it will only be as fast as USB2 if it uses USB2. Then, it will be as fast as USBS2, because it is USB2. What kind of a moron are you?

You should have stopped after the first sentence -- your lame attempt to write intro text failed miserably.

And while I'm injecting some sanity into this shithole website, I'd like to mention that the story submitter also misunderstood the cnet article that he submitted. This "standard" has nothing to do with USB, it's just an industry movement to add additional processing power to more devices. The "master slave operation" (as the submitted so stupidly phrased it) is not changed -- the difference is that USB On-the-Go devices will all be "masters". The difference is that instead of requiring a PC to transfer data between devices, the devices themselves will contain hardware and software (such as Phillips' single-chip solution mentioned in the article) necessary to transfer the data. So USB On-the-Go is not a USB standard, it's a set of standard operating procotols for USB devices with self-contained data transfer ability. You could do the same thing with devices that use parallel or serial ports -- the important point is that the devices have standards-based integrated hardware/software that make the usual host personal computer unnecessary for data transfer.

I'd also like to point out that the cnet article was misleading and very poorly written. So it's understandable why the idiot submitter, being without concrete knowledge of or experience in the computing industry, got his tiny little brain confused. Besides, no one reads cnet except for wannabes like Robby Malda, so... oh, right. Nevermind. Sorry, for a second I was overcome with my own intelligence and forgot that this is Slashdot, the Internet meeting place of Linux poseurs.

-- The_Messenger , one of the 1% of Slashdot readers who knows what he's talking about. Go back to reading User Friendly and ordering "hacker" t-shirts from ThinkGeek, you worthless retards. And don't worry, you use Lunix, so you have to be l337, right? Heh...

Didn't know that...

[Eric_Cartman_South_P]

most of the FUD about Bluetooth over the last 2 years was most likely funded by that company in Redmond

I didn't know that! Having worked for a Java developer for 4 years (doing something different now) your example of what M$ did to Java made it crystal clear, and now a lot of things I read make sence. MS keeps Bluetooth down and their own crap comes to power. Look at Sony and their new palm 5 device. has a Comfact Flash slot except for the fact that its HACKED so only a sony wireless WiFi product will work. No other CF mini-hard-drives or any other product. Heck, with the build in video camera, and a 3rd party wireless phone/data CF card, you could have a hand held VIDEO PHONE in a few weeks! But because of SONY and their restriction to, as you said, protect their monoloplies, we'll have to wait until 2020 for such a prodcut.

Now I feel sad. Maybe I'll d/l some .ogg music :)

Re:Didn't know that...

[Locutus]

When you see ANY news related to Microsoft, just ask yourself, "How does this protect the Windows monopoly?" and you'll recognize what's up. It helps seeing the bigger picture in the market like who is doing what in game consoles and who's doing what in the PDA sector.

BTW:
I just read that Microsoft is lobbying Washington for more broadband for the masses. They don't do squat for anything but to protect Windows so this must be about getting their bloated systems connected in the homes. The pressure is on them to do this quickly before someone else's standard picks up and beats 802.11 into the home market.

They really need broadband or nobody will want their DRM based OS's because there won't be much to protect. Surely not enough to sustain the whole company.....

I'm all for more broadband but if it means Microsoft fails again.... go 56K dialup! ;)

LoB

sure it could work

[hahnar]

From briefly reading the article, it could definately work. It would be great if you could have P2P kinda with usb. For example with my TI-83+ grraphingn calc, i ca connectt to another one and transfer programs, games and the sort. Another great example of ttis sorrt of thing is the GameBoy. For years a linkn cable has existed and it's done amazingly well. But the major obstacle in both of this is support. There would need to be some sort of common protocol which would make it easy to connect one device to another. with multimple protocols, the whole thing would simply be a mess. The idea itself is awesome. I would love for it to be implemented.

Re:it's wired! So it requires a common HW interfac

[Locutus]

That's too bad. Sounds like there needed to be a few Bluetooth compatibility labs so people could play with other in a lab and figure what's going on. Kinda like IBM's labs they setup for things like Linux, Java, etc. too often standards bodies leave too many doors open because of commitee member pressure and the standard has to hash it out on the street for a few years. Companies like Palm, Handspring, etc sould have replaced IRDA with Bluetooth years ago since they only needed to work with themselves anyway.....

Regarding Intel, you are probably right. Intel killed the chipset competition with the SLOT-A CPU and took the MoBo market to themselves for a number of years. Many had to license their chips just to stay in business because of the proprietary slot interface. Probably why USB came out then since Intel is used to planning 5+ years out.
IMHO

LoB

Re: nobody uses it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who has attached a DV camcorder to a DV deck has used the peer-to-peer functionality of FireWire.

Print Directly From Camera

[Pooua]

So using this, theoretically you can print using your digital camera directly on your printer

Couldn't the camera simply act as the host?

My USB-base Olympus C-3040 already allows for this (though I've never used it).

I'd _LIKE_ a motherboard inbetween, thanks

[colonelteddy]

Are there many motherboards with USB 1 & 2 ports, and firewire ports?
I currently have 2 USB 1 ports, and 3 devices. (Scanner, digital still camera, Printer) No daisy chaining.
The scanner supports USB 2, and I'm sick of swapping cables around to fit it on. And I'm about to buy a digital video camera with firewire connectivity.
I'm looking at putting together a new pc soon anyway, so rather than buy hubs and cards, is there any MB that support all three standards out of the box?

Last Post!

[alpg]

In the course of reading Hadamard's "The Psychology of Invention in the
Mathematical Field", I have come across evidence supporting a fact
which we coffee achievers have long appreciated: no really creative,
intelligent thought is possible without a good cup of coffee. On page
14, Hadamard is discussing Poincare's theory of fuchsian groups and
fuchsian functions, which he describes as "... one of his greatest
discoveries, the first which consecrated his glory ..." Hadamard refers
to Poincare having had a "... sleepless night which initiated all that
memorable work ..." and gives the following, very revealing quote:

"One evening, contrary to my custom, I drank black coffee and
could not sleep. Ideas rose in crowds; I felt them collide
until pairs interlocked, so to speak, making a stable
combination."

Too bad drinking black coffee was contrary to his custom. Maybe he
could really have amounted to something as a coffee achiever.

- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...