USB vs. 1394 (was Re: Using Windbg without serial port)

USB and Firewire (1394) are different animals and were designed for MUCH
different uses. USB is geared more towards mice, keyboards, etc. Firewire
was designed for high-speed, high-volume traffic. Besides, 1394 is still
much more expensive in terms of HW and cabling. You can’t afford $10 for
the cable to connect a $5 mouse to the computer. USB is much less stringent
on cabling requirements and therefore is much lower cost.

TI screwed themselves on general acceptance of firewire until it was almost
too late. Had TI not tried to force their outrageous royalties on every
1394 port sold in the word, it would have caught on much faster. Instead,
they delayed it’s acceptance almost a year. That is usually a death-nail
for computer technology.

Just my US$ 0.02 worth.

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com]On Behalf Of PeterB
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 10:00 AM
To: NT Developers Interest List
Subject: [ntdev] Re: Using Windbg without serial port

On Wed, 8 May 2002, Bill McKenzie wrote:

Why anyone would use this when 1394 is available is beyond me.
Why not?

USB devices likely outnumber 1394 devices, USB2 devices likely outnumber
S800 devices. Of the two interfaces, USB seems to be the one with greater
real-world backing. A USB2 card will work with my existing devices, a
1394 card will not, a 1394b card will not. A 1394b card isn’t even
guaranteed to work with 1394 devices (if it has beta-only ports, it won’t
work with them, it may require new cables).

USB2 has greater utility than 1394 presently does, and will likely gain
greater penetration; it makes perfect sense to support it.

Out of curiosity, what 1394b devices can one buy at the moment? I can
walk into my local HW shop and pick up USB2 devices, 1394b is nowhere to
be seen.

Of course I
am sure Intel is going to make sure that every PC on the planet has a USB
2.0 controller even though 1394 is intrinsicly peer-to-peer, already
faster
today, and already has plans to jump to 1600Mb/s at some future date.
But,
I digress.


Bill McKenzie

“Maxim S. Shatskih” wrote in message
> news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> >
> > > If you know any way to use Windbg with USB port, please
> > > help.
> >
> > No ways. KD can only use the UART hardware or - on XP only - the 1394
bus.
> >
> > Max
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> —
> You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@inkvine.fluff.org
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%%
>


Peter xxxxx@inkvine.fluff.org
http://www.inkvine.fluff.org/~peter/

logic kicks ass:
(1) Horses have an even number of legs.
(2) They have two legs in back and fore legs in front.
(3) This makes a total of six legs, which certainly is an odd number of
legs for a horse.
(4) But the only number that is both odd and even is infinity.
(5) Therefore, horses must have an infinite number of legs.


You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@pdq.net
To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%%

“Gregory G. Dyess” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>
> USB and Firewire (1394) are different animals and were designed for MUCH
> different uses. USB is geared more towards mice, keyboards, etc.
> Firewire
> was designed for high-speed, high-volume traffic.

Exactly my point which makes USB 2.0 soooo not make sense to me.

> Besides, 1394 is still
> much more expensive in terms of HW and cabling.
> You can’t afford $10 for
> the cable to connect a $5 mouse to the computer. USB is much less
stringent
> on cabling requirements and therefore is much lower cost.

Well, I agree and disagree. I see USB 2.0 cables being sold which are a
good bit higher in price. And, I would never suggest using 1394 for slow
devices like mice. My point is USB 2.0 makes no sense compared to 1394 for
things like peer-to-peer applications or high speed.

And in fact Intel did a great thing with USB for mice and such, so let me
ammend my chastising of them.

> TI screwed themselves on general acceptance of firewire until it was
almost
> too late. Had TI not tried to force their outrageous royalties on every
> 1394 port sold in the word, it would have caught on much faster. Instead,
> they delayed it’s acceptance almost a year. That is usually a death-nail
> for computer technology.
>

I thought this was an Apple problem not a TI problem?

The fact is today though, that the costs are very close and if 1394 was
thrown on the motherboard and gained volume it would be a wash.

> Just my US$ 0.02 worth.
>
> Greg
>

Mine too :slight_smile:


Bill McKenzie