Re: [OT] USB2 on Laptops?

["Mark McCall" <mark@xxxxxxx>]

OK....

Yellow card time!!

Gerard - this is a good natured list!!

You have been quite argumentative in the short time since you have joined.
I
feel your last post has over-stepped the mark now. We don't want this list
dragged down to the level of the News Groups - in fact I will ensure that
doesn't happen.

I hope you don't take this personally - I hope you calm down and stay with
us.

Thank you.

Mark A McCall
UKHA_D Moderator


----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerard McGovern" <stuff@xxxxxxx>
To: <ukha_d@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 3:49 PM
Subject: RE: [ukha_d] [OT] USB2 on Laptops?


> > > > No, not built-in. Why bother with USB2 when we already
have
> > > Firewire?
> > >
> > > The huge quantity of USB 1.x peripherals may have something
to do
> > > with it...
> >
> > Well it's lucky that all laptops have USB 1.x then!!!
>
> It certainly is ... And all those people lucky enough to have
> USB 2.0 ports will have lots and lots of USB peripherals
> already there to plug in to them without having to wait for a
> few devices to connect to them...

Number of USB 2.0 devices, marginal. Number of Firewire devices = 100's.
Why bother reinventing the wheel?

> > Firewire has been around for years and does the job well.
>
> Agreed but other than camcorders and a couple of scanners and
> hard discs there really is sweet FA out there in the way of
> firewire peripherals and what there is are at a premium price.

And how many USB 2.0 devices are there?

> > What do we need USB 2.0 for?
>
> Actually I'm with you ... And at the same time what did we
> need ATA33, ATA66, ATA100 and ATA133 for? Why did we get SCSI
> 2, Wide SCSI and Ultra 160 SCSI? Yep ... Lets ban progress
> and stick with exactly what we've got - incompatible niche
> market interfaces rather than something that has widespread
> acceptance.

Did I say that? No.

> Thankfully not everyone shares your shortsightedness ... If
> they did then computers would have never progressed beyond
> the original IBM XT.

Shortsightedness? I don't believe in reinventing the friggin' wheel. USB
2.0 is almost exactly the same as Firewire. Why didn't they devote the
time they spent improving USB to some other project?

> Why do we need a different keyboard connector?
>
> Why do we need a different mouse connector? Serial is fine.
>
> Why do we need this IDE stuff? ST506 interfaces have been
> around for years and do the job well.

God you do talk crap.

G

--

º . º . º . º . º . º . º . º .
Gerard McGovern
Webmonkey to the stars

gerard@xxxxxxx
http://www.inkiboo.com

º . º . º . º . º . º . º . º .




For more information: http://www.automatedhome.co.uk
Post message: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
Subscribe:  ukha_d-subscribe@xxxxxxx
Unsubscribe:  ukha_d-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx
List owner:  ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/