| [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] |
<x-flowed>USB 2.0 (at 400 MBS, late 2000) is not expected to compete directly with IEEE 1394 "Firewire". USB V1.1 I think - might be higher now - is about 12 MBs. Firewire is currently 400 MBS, will go to 800 MBS 2001, and >1GHz the year after. USB controllers are cheaper than those of 1394, but are expected to be used on a different class of devices, and therefore USB is expected to be complimentary, not competitive. Firewire is an Apple trademark. Some think this is a competitive battle between Apple (1394) and Intel (USB), which it is not. Firewire 1394 was really designed for multimedia data transfer at extremely high data rates without latency issues sometimes associated with SCSI; e.g. dropped data, and is now the technology of choice (adoptions) for this industry. Firewire 1394 data length is now 400 meters. It is very important that each Firewire port have its own controller, on the motherboard in order to achieve the specified data transfer rates. Ditto for USB 2.0. Otherwise (unless you have a 64 or 128 bit PCI slot) you will saturate the bus at 400 MBS. If two USB devices share the same controller (very common today), the data rates are severely degraded. You won't know that unless you really research your computer. Apple uses individual controllers for each port - on current release Macs. The whole idea of both 1394 and USB was to create what the industry called the "device bay interface". The PC is thus expandable and yet the system box can remain sealed. No more fiddling with expansion cards. No more screws disappearing under the power supply. Because both 1394 and USB serial technologies are plug and play and hot pluggable, no more messing with interrupts and DMA channels. It will mean the end of serial and parallel port technologies, and a slower end to SCSI. It will also mean a dramatic upgrading of PCI slot bandwidth - to 64, and then 128 bit blocks. >USB 2.0 is going to be 480 Megabytes per second. This will >compete directly with firewire, not to mention that it will >be included on all Windows computers and iMacs. And it is plug and >play. >I agree totally about SCSI, it deserves to be retired. >James > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-epson-inkjet@leben.com >> [mailto:owner-epson-inkjet@leben.com]On Behalf Of Sutjahjo Ngaserin >> Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2000 6:18 PM >> To: epson-inkjet@leben.com >> Subject: Re: 1600 firewire >> >> >> If we see how firewire video capture card able to capture dv >> cameras at full >> screen, mostly without dropping frame (if you have enough RAM and cpu >> speed), you know the future is in the firewire >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "david stock" <ddstock@gte.net> >> To: <epson-inkjet@leben.com> >> Sent: 21 February, 2000 04:26 >> Subject: Re: 1600 firewire >> >> >> > on 2/19/00 7:19 PM, Gary L. Hunt at glh@srv.net wrote: >> > >> > > It's a high speed bus being promoted for things >> > > like video. It's use for a scanner is probably >> > > overkill, since it is doubtful that the scanner >> > > can generate output faster than a SCSI interface >> > > would be able to handle. I just went back and >> > > looked at the specs, and the rated scanning >> > > speed of 9.2 ms per line (even at the maximum >> > > rated width of 13,600 pixels for an 8.5 inch line >> > > and 36 bits per pixel) requires a throughput >> > > of less than 7 MB per second. Hard to imagine >> > > very many people are going to scan subjects >> > > 8.5 inches wide in 1600 dpi mode, especially >> > > in 36 bit mode. (This would give about a 1.5 GB >> > > file for an 8.5x11 page.) So even a SCSI-II >> > > interface is probably fast enough to keep up for >> > > any practical use. But I suppose if you already >> > > had a computer with a 1394 interface, you might >> > > want to use it for something. >> > >> > >> > Firewire is still evolving. Current firewire software limits >> its speed, so >> > that it really isn't faster than fast SCSI for most >> applications. One test >> I >> > saw of the Epson scanner showed that it was faster with the > > SCSI interface >> > than with firewire. On the other hand, I will probably insist >> on firewire >> > for my next scanner. I can't wait to get away from SCSI, which can cause >> all >> > kinds of stability problems. And I like the fact that firewire is >> > hot-pluggable and allows easy chaining of devices. But most of all, once >> > firewire reaches its full potential (standards and drivers are being >> > constantly upgraded), it will definitely speed up scanners, drives, etc. >> > >> > --David Stock >> > >> > - >> > Please turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use >> > accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for instructions. >> >> - >> Please turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use >> accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for instructions. >> > >- >Please turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use >accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for instructions. - Please turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for instructions. </x-flowed>
[Photo] [Yosemite News] [Yosemite Photos] [Scanner] [Gimp] [Gimp] Users
|