|
|
Posted by Justin on 10/07/47 11:49
Roy L Fuchs wrote on [Mon, 05 Jun 2006 07:35:16 GMT]:
> On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 21:54:56 -0500, Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> Gave
> us:
>
>>Roy L Fuchs wrote on [Mon, 05 Jun 2006 01:50:19 GMT]:
>>>>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.
>>
>>VLB was also in there.
>
> VLB died because it cost more for a manufacturer to implement. It
> took an extra connector, and cost more gold to plate the fingers on
> PCB card edges. That adds up in M+ piece manufacture quantities.
>
> It was also a fairly poor version of an early 32 bit schema.
> Destined to die out before it even got started.
It didn't die out before it got started, it was mainstream. The two
choices for video cards at the time were EISA or VLB.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|