Posted by Jay G. on 01/17/30 11:49

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. Its advantages over
ISA were not enough for most people to switch initially, especially since
it wasn't backwards compatable with ISA. Later, when something more
powerful than ISA was needed, PCI was a much more attractive format. 3
formats, all performing basically the same function at variable
capabilities and costs.

>> 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. 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."

> 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). 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. FireWire also supports multiple hosts per bus.
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.

> 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. 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.

Although technically there have been competitors. VCD came out 3 years
before DVD, but never caught on in the US. Meanwhile in China, they
devloped a competing format to DVD called EVD (Enhanced Versatile Disc),
although it hasn't caught on.
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. 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.
So a home HD video format will prevail. It just may not be HD-DVD, or even
Blu-Ray for that matter.

-Jay

[Back to original message]