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

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

[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

[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

[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.

Developer Info

[MountainLogic]

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

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: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.

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.

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.

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.

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: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.