Slashdot Mirror
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?
"
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.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
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.
/. bandwidth by flaming me :).
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
Cheers.
There is no "master", which limits speed. It should be somewhere between USB 1 and 2.
If you don't know what Zoo Blacklisting is, click here.
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.
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
--ngoy
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
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.
-- IANAEG - I am not an elder god.