|
|
Posted by Roy L. Fuchs on 09/29/19 11:49
>On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 18:52:10 -0500, "Jay G." <Jay@tmbg.org> Gave us:
>On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 12:41:40 GMT, Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 05:43:12 -0500, "Jay G." <Jay@tmbg.org> Gave us:
>>
>>>It's only proprietary if it doesn't become the new standard.
>>
>> Wrong. IBM fully intended to reap license fees throughout the
>> lifespan of the micro-channel bus.
>
>My bad, I misunderstood the word proprietary. I was thinking in terms of
>limited use, not in terms of private ownership.
>
>>> There are
>>>almost always competing formats.
>>
>> That is not why it went under. It was the fastest, best
>> implementation yet. It still died, however.
>
>It was a competing format to ISA, and eventually PCI.
No. It was a competing standard to EISA, and beat it due to the
fact that EISA was locked at 7MHz bus speeds. It was around long
before PCI ever even came out, and even died before PCI hit the
markets.
> Its advantages over
>ISA were not enough for most people to switch initially,
It was well over twice as fast, being a 32 bit bus, and ISA being a
mere 16 bit bus. The reason it died is because IBM wanted money from
peripheral device makers. It wouldn't surprise me if they didn't want
money for drivers (from driver authors) as well.
> especially since
>it wasn't backwards compatable with ISA.
It was never meant to be. It was yet another attempt by IBM of
controlling an entire market.
> Later, when something more
>powerful than ISA was needed, PCI was a much more attractive format.
You seem to always forget that EISA came out long before PCI did.
PCI was also a tertiary bus and had direct access to the cpu, and ALL
peripherals and other busses were subordinate to it.
> 3
>formats, all performing basically the same function at variable
>capabilities and costs.
It is far more complicated than that PCI was an entire paradigm
shift. The others were tail end busses... entirely.
>
>>> See USB vs. Firewire,
>>
>> Apples and oranges. Firewire was a Sony design meant to be capable
>> of passing a stream wide enough for high resolution A/V.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usb
> "USB was originally seen as a complement to FireWire, which was
> designed as a high-speed serial bus which could efficiently
> interconnect peripherals such as hard disks, audio interfaces,
> and video equipment.
The author of that diatribe wasn't there when it hit the streets.
USB entered the market before Firewire was ever even incorporated on
PC motherboards, and you didn't see it until Creative labs started
adding it to their sound cards.
> USB originally operated at a far lower data
> rate and used much simpler hardware, and was suitable for small
> peripherals such as keyboards and mice."
The key selling point of USB was not the bus speed, but was the
number of devices that could be hung on a single feed.
>> USB was a computer interface designed to allow a string of devices to
>> exist on the same bus without individual interrupt assignments.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FireWire
>
> "FireWire can connect together up to 63 peripherals in an acyclic
> network structure (hubs, as opposed to SCSI's linear structure).
Proves my point.
> It
> allows peer-to-peer device communication, such as communication
> between a scanner and a printer, to take place without using system
> memory or the CPU.
I didn't say it wasn't better. I said that it was designed with
different purposes in mind. That is regardless of how it ended up
getting utilized by PC consumers.
> FireWire also supports multiple hosts per bus.
Whoopie doo. This discussion is not about what these busses do, it
was about their timeline and intended purpose by their makers.
> USB requires a special chipset to perform the same function,
> effectively resulting in the need for a unique and expensive cable,
> whereas FireWire requires only a cable with the correct number of
> pins on either end (normally 6)."
>
>>
>>> DVD-R vs DVD+R,
>>
>> Not even a competition. Two different formats,
>
>Duh.
>
>> two different technologies,
>
>http://www.osta.org/technology/dvdqa/dvdqa2.htm
> "DVD-R and DVD+R discs are write-once incorporating a dye recording
> layer to which information is irreversibly written by means of a laser
> heating and altering it to create a pattern of marks mimicking the pits
> of a prerecorded (pressed/molded) DVD. DVD-RW and DVD+RW, on the other
> hand, closely resemble CD-ReWritable (CD-RW) by employing a phase-change
> recording layer that can be repeatedly changed and restored by the
> writing laser (approximately 1000 times). "
>
>Also, their technologies seem close enough that PC DVD recorders are often
>capable of recording on both formats.
The technology differences was not in how one would write to either
(a simple laser), but in how they are manufactured.
>> two different purposes.
>
>And what, pray tell, are the different purposes between DVD-R and DVD+R?
>
>>> DAT
>>>vs DCC,
>>
>> You probably stepped on that timeline as well.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Compact_Cassette
> "Pitched as a successor to the standard analog cassette; and competitor
> to MiniDisc (MD) and Digital Audio Tape (DAT),"
>
>DAT still existed as a format when DCC came out.
Yes, but DCC had no hope of beating it. DAT was used a lot for PC
backups of data, regardless of what the initial design was about,
whereas the DCC was specifically meant to be a new audiophile device,
and never made it into the data storage realm IIRC.
> The introdution of the
>formats was as follows:
>Digital audio tape (1987)
>MiniDisc (1991)
>Digital Compact Cassette (1992)
>
>MiniDisc was also considered a competetor to DAT and DCC, but since it is
>much more dislike the two tape formats than like them, I didn't include it
>in my initial comparison.
>
>>> VHS vs. Beta,
>>
>> The only one you've gotten right so far.
>>
>>> Laserdisc vs CED.
>>
>> There was never any such competition. Laser Disc displaced the nil
>> sized CED market immediately.
>
>I never said there was a lengthy competition, I said there were competing
>formats. That the competition didn't last long doesn't disprove my point.
>
>>> DVD was an exception in the format
>>>war.
>>
>> Bullshit. DVD is what replaced/displaced the Laser Disc market.
>
>I meant that DVD was the exception because there wasn't a competing digital
>video format of comparable quality that came out around the same time. It
>was also the exception in that a number of different manufacturers came
>together to create one proprietary format, instead of releasing competing
>formats and letting the consumer decide.
They saw that consorting would lead to lower cost of manufacture, and
quicker time to market cycles.
>
>Although technically there have been competitors. VCD came out 3 years
>before DVD, but never caught on in the US.
VCD is lame on quality. far poorer than even Laser Disc.
> Meanwhile in China, they
>devloped a competing format to DVD called EVD (Enhanced Versatile Disc),
>although it hasn't caught on.
Has anything that China has developed "caught on" besides the bird
flu?
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_Versatile_Disc
>
>DVD also replaced/displaced the VHS format, and in a way, VHS, LD, VCD, and
>DVD are all competing formats.
>
>> HD DVD will replace/displace DVD because as he def monitors
>> proliferate, DVDs will be notably grainier looking.
>
>DVDs won't suddenly look "grainier" than they do today.
I never said that it would be sudden. What is meant by what I said is
that PEOPLE will begin to notice more and more.
> However, when HDTV
>catches on, people will want their home videos in the higher quality format
>that they can receive over the air, or from their satellite/cable provider.
Too late. Already happening.
>So a home HD video format will prevail. It just may not be HD-DVD, or even
>Blu-Ray for that matter.
It is already happening, and is easily evidenced by the fact that
the digitization folks are gearing up to give us libraries of HD DVD
titles. That's enough of a clue for me.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|