Posted by Jay G. on 01/17/43 11:49

On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 01:50:19 GMT, Roy L. Fuchs wrote:

>>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:
>>>> There are
>>>>almost always competing formats.
>>>
>>> That is not why it went under. [MCA] 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....

I'll have to defer to you about the details. Suffice to say that it did
have competitors, and according to you it even defeated its competitor
despite having licensing fees.

> It was around long
> before PCI ever even came out, and even died before PCI hit the
> markets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Channel_architecture#Why_MCA_was_not_widely_adopted
"MCA disappeard within a few years after the introduction of PCI which
provided very similar functionality."

>> 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.

http://www.pcguide.com/ref/mbsys/buses/types/olderMCA-c.html
"IBM decided to make the MCA bus proprietary. It in fact did this with
ISA as well..."

So it can't be just because it was proprietary, because ISA was
proprietary, and it succeeded. Likewise, CD, DVD, and HD DVD are all
proprietary, and CD and DVD managed to become the new standards in their
respective fields.

>>>> 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.

Both formats were announced in 1995. Maybe by "initially," he was talking
in terms of before either format hit the streets. In either case, USB 1.0
and 1.1 were low-bandwidth formats, so the idea that it complimented the
higher yield Firewire could've prevailed even before Firewire was released.

http://www.everythingusb.com/timeline.html
http://www.1394ta.org/Technology/
http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.aspx?id=104527&catId=100533&tid=100008&p=2&title=FireWire+vs+Hi-Speed+USB

>> 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.

I thought the key selling point was the "Universal" part of the name,
eliminating the need for different types of ports for different devices,
like PS/2, Parallel, Serial, and joystick ports.

> 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.

USB 2.0 was clearly designed with the intention of moving in on Firewire's
established turf at the time, that of high-speed connectivity. Also, All
the articles about the creation of Firewire state that it was always
intended for PC use, in addition to uses in other devices.


>>>> DVD-R vs DVD+R,
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> The technology differences was not in how one would write to either
> (a simple laser), but in how they are manufactured.

Isn't the technology difference between Blu-Ray and HD DVD primarily in how
they are manufactured? After all, they use the same video and audio
codecs, same copy protections schemes, show the same resolution video. It's
primarily the way the discs are manufactured that makes the difference.

So, by your logic, comparing Blu-Ray and HD DVD is "total apples and
oranges."

>>> two different purposes.
>>
>>And what, pray tell, are the different purposes between DVD-R and DVD+R?

Well?


>>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,

Wait, weren't you just talking about how initial design is important,
"regardless of how it ended up getting utilized"? You cant just disregard
the eventual implementation in favor of initial design one moment, then
disregard initial design in favor of eventual implementation the next.

In regards to home audio, calling Digital *Audio* Tape, and Digital Compact
Cassette competing formats is perfectly applicable.

Even in terms of PC storage, DAT has competition in the form of QIC,
Exabyte, DLT and LTO.


>>
>>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.

As soon as people have an HDTV they will. However, HDTV will take a while
to become as pervasive as DVD is today. Even after the FCC shuts off
analog transmissions in 2009, many people will hold onto their existing
TVs, choosing instead to get a converter box or sticking with their cable
or satellite provider.

>>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.

The "digitization folks" are gearing up to give us libraries of HD material
in a variety of formats, including Blu-Ray and HD DVD. In fact, they've
been "gearing up" for several years now; most DVDs for the past few years
were created from a HD master.

In fact, if just looking at the number of "digitization folks" releasing or
planning to release titles in the two formats, Blu-Ray has more folks
backing it than HD-DVD does.

-Jay

[Back to original message]