USB 2.0 or Firewire? Neither (for now).

[Jason Dunn]

I have an opinion piece brewing in my head about Pocket PC performance in general, but I wonder how long it will be before we see the first USB 2.0-based Pocket PC? Firewire would be an awesome choice for speed and peer to peer functionality, but it won't happen for years to come (if ever). Why? As much as I like Firewire, and I really do, there simply aren't enough PCs out there with Firewire ports yet. PCs have been shipping with USB ports as standard fare for years, but today it's possible to buy a PC without a Firewire port (they're usually only found on laptops and high-end systems). Until <b><i>every new PC sold</i></b> has a Firewire port on it, we'll never see a Firewire-based Pocket PC.<br /><br />So that leaves us with USB 2.0. It's certainly fast enough for pretty much anything we could throw at a Pocket PC, but guess what? I'm willing to bet that we won't see USB 2.0-based Pocket PCs until at least 2004. Why? The same reason I mentioned above - USB 2.0 needs a higher market penetration before the OEMs will consider it worthwhile to include it. Although perhaps in late 2003 we'll see a high-end Pocket PC offering USB 2.0 as a differntiating factor.<br /><br />Microsoft also needs to radically redesign ActiveSync to support real transfer speeds - right now the USB functionality is actually a hybrid driver sitting atop the serial port driver...hence you'll never see true USB speeds. Strangely enough, when I did some tests with my Pocket PC connected to a USB 2.0 hub, I clocked a 10% speed increase. Strange? Definitely.<br /><br />At any rate, as frustrating as it is for all of us, USB 1.x will be with us for a while longer on the Pocket PC.

[guinness]

Aren't USB 2.0 devices backwards compatible with USB 1.0/1.1? You wouldn't have the true speed of the 2.0 device, but it would still work on just about every computer. I'd even buy a USB 2.0 cradle if Dell would even offer one, even with USB 1.1, syncing is slow.

[icatar]

No need to decide, just get both:

Adaptec DuoConnect Card (http://www.adaptec.com/worldwide/product/proddetail.html?sess=no&language=English+US&prodkey=AUA-3121&cat=%2fTechnology%2fFireWire-1394%2fUSB+%26+FireWire+Combo+Cards)

USB 2.0 needs a higher market penetration before the OEMs will consider it worthwhile to include it

I think USB 2.0 will certainly see an easier time of being built into every desktop than firewire. OEMs have certainly seen the number of devices that support USB, so I think they'll just clear out any existing inventory, then begin moving to USB 2.0 - I'd assume that the additional cost of installing USB 2.0 instead of 1.1 would be relatively small.

Firewire, on the other hand, has the disadvantage of having the stigma of being for high end users only (particularly digital video). In Firewire's case, OEMs will certainly need that higher market penetration.

[daninnj]

My PC has a firewire port standard, but it is not high end (HP Pavilion).

DanInNJ

[frax]

If the desktop is missing USB2 or FW, an adapter-card is not that expensive.

[PPCRules]

... an adapter-card is not that expensive.
True, but adapter card slots can be.

My desktop PC (HP Pavilion) has one open slot, which I am guarding jealously (actually have in mind the Firewire/USB2.0 combo), and the Compaq model offered retail at the time of my purchase would have had one less (i.e., none). Why these manufacturers have to skimp so on expansion slots is beyond me. But it makes getting a PC with motherboard USB2.0 a pretty good idea.

I think the incremental cost to go to USB2.0 on a PDA would be minimal, but it wouldn't happen until the next chipset revisions. And with stagnant sales volumes, those revs don't come quickly.

[sponge]

$15 to be exact. People are doing it for the Windows iPod, why won't they do it for PPCs?

[RavenSBNC]

All I have as a laptop so I can't add USB2 but I do have Firewire built in and would love to have a PPC that supported that.

[johncj]

What's wrong with Ethernet and TCP/IP? It has far wider deployment than either Firewire or USB 2.0. It has more than enough speed. The only drawback heretofore has been configuration, but I would argue that that is a thing of the past. A simple router with DHCP will soon be cheaper than a USB 2.0 cable.

[alandashby]

I have never heard what you mentioned about USB drivers for the Pocket Pc, do you know if Microsoft is using something different with their Sync and Go program. I have been amazed at how fast it transfors data, video and audio. I have banned my normal pratice of putting WMA files on my handheld because Sync and go is fast. If you have any details let us know.

Alan

[Gary Garland, Esq.]

This may have been covered before, but here goes: The iPAQ's usb sync was actually considered quick a couple of years ago, although i do find myself counting grey hairs while going through a sync. Why the paq takes many minutes to install an app is beyond me - and the worst is an activesync based backup - i think my fairly empty bad boy took something like 5 hours - versus a much quicker backup to a card and then copy that file to the desktop - well, that's my rant - i doubt usb 2.0 would make much of a difference. :?:

[klinux]

I cannot disagree with Jason's conclusion but in theory - firewire is the way to go. It makes even more sense in a portable device like PocketPC.

For example, FW carries more power - imagine if all PPCs come with one single sync cable/stand that syncs and charges the PPC at the same time just like the iPod! Also, FW is peer-to-peer and do need to a PC intermediate like USB. I guess this is for the rare case that you need to sync or connect to another PPC (at 400 megabits per second no less)?. :) Oh, and imagine if one can connect a PPC to an iPod?

Lastly, although USB 2.0 is in theory 20% faster than FW, real world test have shown them to be about the same in transfer speed.

FW2 - the 800 mbps standard - is already available on some Macs! I for one love to download MP3 and upload photos using my FAST Lexar Firewire card reader on both my Sony PC and iBook. [All Sony desktops comes with the standard 6 Pin FW port; all Sony laptops has the 4-pin unpowered port.]

[bdegroodt]

One other thing to consider with Firewire is FW 800 (IEEE 1394b). Apple is already deploying devices with this spec and the ports are of a different physical configuration than IEEE 1394.

[bitbank]

Jason,
From my experimentation I have found that USB is not the limiting factor, but it is the I/O and interrupt design of CE. ActiveSync adds more delays, but so far, the Pocket PC cannot run any high speed interface at rated speed. USB is not running "on top" of a serial driver; USB is a serial device. It uses a UART similar to RS232. The maximum data rate of USB 1.0 is 12 megabits per second. When coding directly to the USB serial driver on the Pocket PC (no ActiveSync), I am able to get about 400K bytes per second upload and download (StrongARM machine). This equates to about 4 megabits per second. This is about 1/3 the max speed that USB 1.0 is capable of. If you try the same test on a MIPS or SH3 Pocket PC, the rate drops to about 1/2 that. This indicates that the software is the limiting factor. Until Microsoft fixes the latencies and inefficiencies in Windows CE I/O architecture, there is no point in connecting high speed anything because the machines will not be able to keep up. You can get a slightly higher data rate with ethernet, but the difference is minimal.

L.B.

[paulv]

Hi Jason

Nice dream buddy but while the internal bus is significantly slower than either Firewire or USB 2.0 then we're not going to get either. When we see 400MHz Pocket PC's with a 400MBps internal bus then USB 2 will make lots of sense.

Now all we have to do is convince the lazy manufacturers to up the internal bus speed :D

[Rirath]

From my experimentation I have found that USB is not the limiting factor, but it is the I/O and interrupt design of CE. ActiveSync adds more delays, but so far, the Pocket PC cannot run any high speed interface at rated speed. USB is not running "on top" of a serial driver; USB is a serial device.

Seems to me this is about future, fixed devices. Personally I'm A-ok with FW or usb 2.0, I've got both. :)
Wouldn't mind putting that FW slot to some use.

[Chris Spera]

eeewwwwww! I hate hybrid drivers!

One of the things I think I read into what Jason said was that if TRUE USB 1.x speeds were used, it would be a welcomed and noticed enhancement.

I'd love to see a rework of ActiveSync. It might clean up a lot of trouble that many of us have been experiencing, as well as provide the speed increase that everyone would love to see in USB 1.x.

I also agree with Jason that it will probably be a while before we see either USB 2.x or FW connections to any PocketPC.


Kind Regards,



Christopher Spera

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

I think USB 2.0 will certainly see an easier time of being built into every desktop than firewire. OEMs have certainly seen the number of devices that support USB, so I think they'll just clear out any existing inventory, then begin moving to USB 2.0 - I'd assume that the additional cost of installing USB 2.0 instead of 1.1 would be relatively small.

USB 2.0 is gaining a lot of momentum IMO. It's backwards compatibility will make the transition much easier and every device that supports the 2.0 spec seems to have this advertised in huge block letters on the box itself.

While it may be a year or two before we see complete adoption, I wouldn't be surprised to see USB2.0 supported on higher end PPCs at the least.

Of course BitBank's point about OS inefficiencies would still need to be addressed.

[schergr]

:idea: How about Bluetooth 2.0? If the radios are cheap enough, I have no doubt that we'll start to them embedded in even the lower end machines over the next two years.

If Microsoft didn't believe in desktop embedded bluetooth, why would they be selling a BT Keyboard/Mouse combo? Anyone?

[klinux]

BT is good for cable replacement like mouse and keyboards. Syncing is a significant I/O transaction that is better handled through a protocol like USB, FW, TCP/IP etc, IMHO.

[Jason Dunn]

Aren't USB 2.0 devices backwards compatible with USB 1.0/1.1? You wouldn't have the true speed of the 2.0 device, but it would still work on just about every computer. I'd even buy a USB 2.0 cradle if Dell would even offer one, even with USB 1.1, syncing is slow.

True. But my point was that the major OEMs won't include the more expensive USB 2.0 chips (I assume they're more expensive) until the majority of people can take advantage of the extra speed.

[schergr]

Maybe so in BT 1.1. But with BT 2.0 it's supposedly capable of supporting up to 10MB transfer speeds which is sufficient for streaming home A/V, so why not PPC sync? Ever tried syncing your PPC over 802.11b? It's not that bad. Actually it's quite good IMO.

BT is good for cable replacement like mouse and keyboards. Syncing is a significant I/O transaction that is better handled through a protocol like USB, FW, TCP/IP etc, IMHO.

[Jason Dunn]

I cannot disagree with Jason's conclusion but in theory - firewire is the way to go. It makes even more sense in a portable device like PocketPC. For example, FW carries more power - imagine if all PPCs come with one single sync cable/stand that syncs and charges the PPC at the same time just like the iPod! Also, FW is peer-to-peer and do need to a PC intermediate like USB. I guess this is for the rare case that you need to sync or connect to another PPC (at 400 megabits per second no less)?. :) Oh, and imagine if one can connect a PPC to an iPod?

Lastly, although USB 2.0 is in theory 20% faster than FW, real world test have shown them to be about the same in transfer speed.

I'm totally with you in spirit, but the market just won't go that way IMO. :(

I prefer Firewire external hard drives over USB 2.0 - Firewire tested faster for data transfers in my case, but the market is behind USB.

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

BT is good for cable replacement like mouse and keyboards. Syncing is a significant I/O transaction that is better handled through a protocol like USB, FW, TCP/IP etc, IMHO.
I'd actually disagree. I see BT as a replacement for serial communications previously used by RS232, IR, and even USB. If USB is not considered a serial interface, then it's at least a much better alternative to the previously "serial" cabled choices we had in the past. Of course as a biproduct, that also means mice and keyboard become benefactors of BT, but its capabilities definitely stretch beyond that.

I currently get the most use with BT between my laptop, PPC, and cellphone whereas the traditional methods would have been to rely on a combination of serial and/or USB cables and/or IR technology.

I think BT is a very viable alternative.

TCP/IP is in a completely different category from the other technologies.

[Jason Dunn]

From my experimentation I have found that USB is not the limiting factor, but it is the I/O and interrupt design of CE. ActiveSync adds more delays, but so far, the Pocket PC cannot run any high speed interface at rated speed. USB is not running "on top" of a serial driver; USB is a serial device.

Interesting - thanks for sharing Larry. Always good to have a real technie explain things the RIGHT way. :-)

[Jason Dunn]

:idea: How about Bluetooth 2.0? If the radios are cheap enough, I have no doubt that we'll start to them embedded in even the lower end machines over the next two years.

I think Bluetooth will become more common in all Pocket PCs, but there's two important factors why I don't think it's a valid solution:

1) Power. Until we get fuel cells, you'll still need to plug in to get power. That's the nice part about the cradles - you sync and power at the same time.

2) Speed. Bluetooth 1.x doesn't have it. Bluetooth 2.0 is still a ways down the road, and even it only offers 10 mb/s. That would be better than what we have now, but in the world of 512 MB memory cards, we need next generation speeds like 400 mb/s.

Just my opinion though. :D

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

Maybe so in BT 1.1. But with BT 2.0 it's supposedly capable of supporting up to 10MB transfer speeds which is sufficient for streaming home A/V, so why not PPC sync? Ever tried syncing your PPC over 802.11b? It's not that bad. Actually it's quite good IMO.

Yup, I sync all the time using WiFi. It's absolutely excellent, but remember we're talking about networking technology as opposed to serial communication. Having PPCs rely on WiFi for syncing is overkill for many as it requires that the user has networking and WiFi equipment set-up. That's too much to expect from many, especially for those travelling on the road with nothing more than their PPC and laptop. BT on the other hand is much more reasonable as it requires nothing more than BT receivers at each end.

[seanturner]

isn't usb 2 processor controlled so wouldn't it be quite taxing s taxing on a mobile processor?

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

I think Bluetooth will become more common in all Pocket PCs, but there's two important factors why I don't think it's a valid solution:

1) Power. Until we get fuel cells, you'll still need to plug in to get power. That's the nice part about the cradles - you sync and power at the same time.

2) Speed. Bluetooth 1.x doesn't have it. Bluetooth 2.0 is still a ways down the road, and even it only offers 10 mb/s. That would be better than what we have now, but in the world of 512 MB memory cards, we need next generation speeds like 400 mb/s.

Ah. I keep forgetting people rely on cradles (all of mine have done nothing but collect dust). I guess b/c I travel so much (and thus try to reduce amount of cables), I've only relied on IR in the past for syncing (VERY SLOW) and now rely on BT. I have never sync'd and charge'd at the same time and compared to IR, BT is quite acceptable in terms of speed.

[bdegroodt]

...Having PPCs rely on WiFi for syncing is overkill for many as it requires that the user has networking and WiFi equipment set-up. That's too much to expect from many, especially for those travelling on the road with nothing more than their PPC and laptop...

It is? :P Seriously though, BT requires radios on both end just the same as WiFi does. Wouldn't P2P WiFi be just as acceptable an option?

[seanturner]

...Having PPCs rely on WiFi for syncing is overkill for many as it requires that the user has networking and WiFi equipment set-up. That's too much to expect from many, especially for those travelling on the road with nothing more than their PPC and laptop...

It is? :P Seriously though, BT requires radios on both end just the same as WiFi does. Wouldn't P2P WiFi be just as acceptable an option?

But bluetooth is thought of more as a peer to peer type technology where as wifi is typically used in a setup with basestations. So when the user travels the user would ahve to switch to an adhoc network, forcing him to do manual reconfigging...

[iPaqDude]

For what it's worth, I have been syncing my iPaq 3650 with my PC using Activesync over my WiFi network for several months now - and it "seems" much faster than when I use the USB cradle. Definately so when ever I add or update software.

Haven't timed it to see what the difference is, but overall I "know" it syncs faster. Well, I am pretty sure it does. Ok, feels like it is, anyway.

Anyone else seen a difference?

[seanturner]

Haven't timed it to see what the difference is, but overall I "know" it syncs faster. Well, I am pretty sure it does. Ok, feels like it is, anyway.

Anyone else seen a difference?

Well, I did do some wifi speed testing and here are the results I got:

http://www.pdajunkie.net/wirelessinetspeedtest.htm

This was using an iPaq 5455.

I haven't done any USB tests yet though.

[bdegroodt]

For what it's worth, I have been syncing my iPaq 3650 with my PC using Activesync over my WiFi network for several months now - and it "seems" much faster than when I use the USB cradle. Definately so when ever I add or update software.

Haven't timed it to see what the difference is, but overall I "know" it syncs faster. Well, I am pretty sure it does. Ok, feels like it is, anyway.

Anyone else seen a difference?

Me too. Only for a couple of weeks, but I would absolutely say it's quicker than the cradle. It's also less susceptible to "Unresolved Items" than it is on the cradle.

Haven't pulled out the stop watch, but I can say I am very happy with it's performance versus the cradle.

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

It is? :P Seriously though, BT requires radios on both end just the same as WiFi does. Wouldn't P2P WiFi be just as acceptable an option?
I do ad-hoc WiFi myself when on the road but peer-to-peer networking is always a bit of a pain regardless of whether your using laplink cables, crossover cables, or ad-hoc WiFi.

My experience has always been that in order to establish P2P connection, both machines need to be recycled and then once connection is established, it must be maintained. If the connection is EVER broken (devices get out of range, you turn off your PPC, you take out one or both cards to save battery, etc.) you've lost the connection and again need to recycle if you want to re-establish. There's probably a way around this but I haven't found it.

What is unavoidable is that an active WiFi receiver takes a LOT more battery power from your devices compared to active BT radio. Of course, you could always remove the cards, but that's extra equipment you then need to keep track of and as mentioned before, re-establishing connectivity means another recycle.

Finally, I haven't yet found a way to leverage an ad-hoc WiFi activesync connection into internet access for my PPC (it's real easy in infrastructure mode). I'm limited to ActiveSync'ing and file sharing using WiFi. Since BT is just supporting wireless serial communications (instead of wireless networking communcation), all those functions are available in the same way you use a USB/Serial/IR connection.

[bdegroodt]

Well, I did do some wifi speed testing and here are the results I got:

http://www.pdajunkie.net/wirelessinetspeedtest.htm

This was using an iPaq 5455.


This is kind of OT so I'll give my mea culpa in advance, but I read your transfer rates and was particularly surprised by the Resco v File Explorer rates. Why is Resco so much quicker at the transfers?

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

This is kind of OT so I'll give my mea culpa in advance, but I read your transfer rates and was particularly surprised by the Resco v File Explorer rates. Why is Resco so much quicker at the transfers?

Another reason to go with Resco File Explorer. I don't know the reason myself but I have observed the speed improvement using it. It is a VERY dramatic difference too!

[bdegroodt]

Lots said...

It sounds to me more like a software issue with the devices than a limitation of the standard (Which is what the original thought was about.).

I just personally feel that any cable based concept moving forward is a bit of a dead end sooner or later. The market is speaking and wireless is the place the dollars are being made.

I agree with you that there are serious limitations on the ability to get things done on the road wirelessly (Although it's much better than years gone by.).

I travel extensively and have BT for only 2 devices (Phone and Ipaq) and have no plans at all for connecting the laptop via BT, because I have WiFi taking care of those needs today.

That said, give me both choices and I'd be all over the BT connection if for no other reason than the battery issue.

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

It sounds to me more like a software issue with the devices than a limitation of the standard (Which is what the original thought was about.).
I would certainly hope that's the case, but I used to do peer2peer networking using a laplink cable between Windows 95 machines and later I started using crossover networking cables between Win95 and Win98. I've always observed the same characteristics. Once the connection is dead or removed, you need to recycle if you want to reestablish connection.

Ad-hoc WiFi is no different conceptually. If you have the WiFi equipment though, give it a try. Disable your WAP and observe the characteristics of ad-hoc.

I just personally feel that any cable based concept moving forward is a bit of a dead end sooner or later. The market is speaking and wireless is the place the dollars are being made.
100% agreed

[seanturner]

Well, I did do some wifi speed testing and here are the results I got:

http://www.pdajunkie.net/wirelessinetspeedtest.htm

This was using an iPaq 5455.


This is kind of OT so I'll give my mea culpa in advance, but I read your transfer rates and was particularly surprised by the Resco v File Explorer rates. Why is Resco so much quicker at the transfers?

You don't know, I don't know, the folks at Resco say its because their software is much more efficient than File Explorer. Although they don't seem to advertise it much. And the gap does seem to close with power saving on... But, I'd love a good answer to that...

[klinux]

Maybe so in BT 1.1. But with BT 2.0 it's supposedly capable of supporting up to 10MB transfer speeds which is sufficient for streaming home A/V, so why not PPC sync? Ever tried syncing your PPC over 802.11b? It's not that bad. Actually it's quite good IMO.



[ OT! ]

The A/V market is still too fragmented now with its myriad of connectors. However, more and more manufacturers (e.g. Mitsubishi) are using Firewire as its connector because it can carry a HDTV signal and then some. A slow radio signal that can potentially be intefered will never make it in the AV market.

In any case, BT 2.0 is still non-existent at this point while current methods of syncing: USB 1.1 (11 mbps), 802.11b (11 mbps), and cat-5 ethernet (10/100 mbps) are all mature and just as fast. I do not see BT catching on as a way of syncing for PPC.

Like Jason, I do not see the connector changing in the near future. :(

[Will T Smith]

I have an opinion piece brewing in my head about Pocket PC performance in general, but I wonder how long it will be before we see the first USB 2.0-based Pocket PC? Firewire would be an awesome choice for speed and peer to peer functionality, but it won't happen for years to come (if ever). Why? As much as I like Firewire, and I really do, there simply aren't enough PCs out there with Firewire ports yet. PCs have been shipping with USB ports as standard fare for years, but today it's possible to buy a PC without a Firewire port (they're usually only found on laptops and high-end systems). Until every new PC sold has a Firewire port on it, we'll never see a Firewire-based Pocket PC.

So that leaves us with USB 2.0. It's certainly fast enough for pretty much anything we could throw at a Pocket PC, but guess what? I'm willing to bet that we won't see USB 2.0-based Pocket PCs until at least 2004. Why? The same reason I mentioned above - USB 2.0 needs a higher market penetration before the OEMs will consider it worthwhile to include it. Although perhaps in late 2003 we'll see a high-end Pocket PC offering USB 2.0 as a differntiating factor.

Microsoft also needs to radically redesign ActiveSync to support real transfer speeds - right now the USB functionality is actually a hybrid driver sitting atop the serial port driver...hence you'll never see true USB speeds. Strangely enough, when I did some tests with my Pocket PC connected to a USB 2.0 hub, I clocked a 10% speed increase. Strange? Definitely.

At any rate, as frustrating as it is for all of us, USB 1.x will be with us for a while longer on the Pocket PC.

I'm not sure that this is necessarily the case.

First, I think you have to consider WHO the audience for a Firewire or USB2.0 connected PocketPC is. USB speeds are plenty fast more most folk. Remember, the speed of your sync is proportional to the size of your data. If you have a 64MB device, your not likely to have a very long wait.

Those who really want and/or need high speed PDA connection speeds are "power users". Power users don't carry around powerful PDAs and hook them up to wimpy computers.

Most high-end computers shipping today come with firewire standard. Certainly, any modern notebook worth it's salt has included firewire for the last two years. As noted before, the addition of a firewire card is somewhat trivial and even comes free with any Audigy card. Certainly, anyone who has done digital video is Firewire enabled.

Having said that, I still believe that microsoft would consider this a low priority item. I do believe however, that USB2.0 is more likely since no PocketPC will ship without USB1.0 support. A USB2.0 implementation is a bit more economical since a vendor only need include one chipset for device interconnect.

I believe that USB2.0 support is VERY likely for upcoming WinCE versions. That doesn't mean that all the PocketPC vendors have to implement it. However, it would be there as an option to a high end device like the iPaq 54xx series.

If firewire IS implemented on PocketPC. I hope the hardware vendors use the IEEE1394b mini-6 plug. The four pin plug that is now ubiquitous on PC laptops provides NO POWER. This would make a four pin socket useless as a "charge and sync" option. Of course one could always map those for wires to a pin connection on the bottom of the device and then provide an adapter with the larger 6-pin socket.

I believe a firewire interface would sidestep the ActiveSync/USB speed limits. How, the same way that 10BT Enet and 802.11b sidesteps it. It appears as a networking device as opposed to a device interconnect. Did you know you can create an super high speed point-to-point network by plugging to computers together with firewire? A similar configuration could be implemented by a vendor provided they implement the correct protocols. No native OS support required, its just a 400Mbps point-to-point plug (though I seriously doubt that a PocketPC device could actually utilize 400Mbp/s, it could communicate as fast as the IO channels would allow).

[seanturner]

I believe if either were to be implemented on the PPC they would, it would probably use its own propriatary connecter on the PPC end. Furthermore, as HP has started supporting USB charging, I would think they and other manufacturers wouldn't take a step back in future products...

[JonnoB]

But bluetooth is thought of more as a peer to peer type technology where as wifi is typically used in a setup with basestations. So when the user travels the user would ahve to switch to an adhoc network, forcing him to do manual reconfigging...

No, with the current and future desktop OS (WinXP), adhoc to infrastructure WiFi is automatic. There is no configuration required unless security paramaters prevent it... but the same is true for BT as well.

I have read somewhere recently about a low power WiFi chipset that has a better memory footprint than current BT chipsets.. and still a wider range and higher speed.... albeit, a much reduced range from the current crop. There is also an initiative to include PAN type functionality on top of the IP stack.

This all points to a potential scenario where WiFi technologies eventually make BT moot.... but that remains to be seen. For now, each wireless technology has its uses and the debate is really one of wireless vs wired and less wired protocols (USB vs FireWare) and wireless protocols (BT vs .11)

[seanturner]

Yeah, but, if you put in low power chipsets you piss of the people who want range and vice versa.... But, I wonder if it would be possible to adjust the power to performance ration (going a little farther than just power save options)

As for the adhoc thing, yeah, Windows will do that if you tell it to. But you'll need to go through the process of setting up another network config. But, I guess if you do that its practicle. (I mean, you'd also have to config bluetooth.) And if there is a basestation in the area I don't see why you coulnd'tj ust connect to that and use it (although you might want some encryption in which case you'd need to manually specify....

[Bob Anderson]

Jason,
From my experimentation I have found that USB is not the limiting factor, but it is the I/O and interrupt design of CE. ActiveSync adds more delays, but so far, the Pocket PC cannot run any high speed interface at rated speed. USB is not running "on top" of a serial driver; USB is a serial device. It uses a UART similar to RS232. The maximum data rate of USB 1.0 is 12 megabits per second. When coding directly to the USB serial driver on the Pocket PC (no ActiveSync), I am able to get about 400K bytes per second upload and download (StrongARM machine). This equates to about 4 megabits per second. This is about 1/3 the max speed that USB 1.0 is capable of. If you try the same test on a MIPS or SH3 Pocket PC, the rate drops to about 1/2 that. This indicates that the software is the limiting factor. Until Microsoft fixes the latencies and inefficiencies in Windows CE I/O architecture, there is no point in connecting high speed anything because the machines will not be able to keep up. You can get a slightly higher data rate with ethernet, but the difference is minimal.

L.B.

I'm not sure I follow this... when I use my 802.11b card in my iPaq 3635 (with PC Card Sleeve) I can synch at lightning speed - whereas with the USB cable it's noticeably slower... and then infrared is slower yet!

So when you say MSFT needs to fix the latency and inefficiencies in Windows CE architecture, I've got to ask, why can 802.11 be so fast? Obviously the processor and memory can keep up with a network connection.

Even when I'm doing a AvantGo Synch, the 802.11 is waaayyy faster than USB, even though both devices hook up to the same cable modem, through the same router!

Something just seems fishy with the USB implementation in Pocket PCs. Who knows, maybe the next version will address this.

[seanturner]

What i think Jason was saying that the USB driver is what needs fixing because it is basically emulating serial or something like that...

[fulltilt]

A little off thread - when the hardware reference design for 'Made for XP' was released for XP some years ago, I could have sworn Firewire was required to display the logo. I was about to order another box from Dell the other day and couldn't confirm if firewire was included by default. So I did a little digging looking up the reference site that microsoft runs with requirements and reference hardware design.
It would seem I was wrong, or that the next revision removed the requirement. FW is not required to be included on Made for XP machines.

This would be the easiset way to adapt and bring the price down.....
It's only .25 USD per machine for FW licencing....

So back to the Dell box, *seems* that you have to select for the lame video Editing software to have the port included....It doesn't specify otherwise...

[seanturner]

This would be the easiset way to adapt and bring the price down.....
It's only .25 USD per machine for FW licencing....



.25 is quite a bit though. As Michael Dell once said, his job is to knock the last 2 cents off of the cost of a component (I can't remember the exact quote at hte moment).

But, this doesn't include hardware and I think it is pretty risky considering it doesn't have backwards compatibility with the current USB standard and that 1394 is also fighting 1394b. But, as I understand it the firewire controller card does all the processing so it comes as less of a hit to the CPU. In a desktop I'd definately say this is a good thing. In a PDA, i'm not sure...

[dean_shan]

I use wifi for file transfers. It is a lot faster and you don't drop the connection as the USB cradle tends to do sometimes.

[seanturner]

you don't drop the connection as the USB cradle tends to do sometimes.

What do you mean by dropt he connection?

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

you don't drop the connection as the USB cradle tends to do sometimes.

What do you mean by dropt he connection?
I get the same problem sometimes where when connected via USB, suddenly the ActiveSync connection will suddenly drop. I also don't get nearly has many "Guest" login issues with WiFi as I do with USB.

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

Even when I'm doing a AvantGo Synch, the 802.11 is waaayyy faster than USB, even though both devices hook up to the same cable modem, through the same router!
DEFINITELY notice the same thing. ActiveSync connections blaze like nothing else over WiFi... especially noticeable when doing the AvantGo synch.

[rlobrecht]

Wouldn't P2P WiFi be just as acceptable an option?

Our company has instituted a ban on WiFi devices, and an employee that connects one to the network can be fired. I use WiFi at home, but it won't be an option for me at work.

[Pony99CA]

All I have as a laptop so I can't add USB2 but I do have Firewire built in and would love to have a PPC that supported that.
I've long been a proponent of supporting Firewire in Pocket PCs. Of course, my laptop has Firewire. :-) I love my 80 GB Firewire hard disk, too.

Steve (#1000!)

[Pony99CA]

Ever tried syncing your PPC over 802.11b? It's not that bad. Actually it's quite good IMO.
Yup, I sync all the time using WiFi. It's absolutely excellent, but remember we're talking about networking technology as opposed to serial communication. Having PPCs rely on WiFi for syncing is overkill for many as it requires that the user has networking and WiFi equipment set-up. That's too much to expect from many, especially for those travelling on the road with nothing more than their PPC and laptop.
I thought I was pretty good at getting things running, having installed and configured my WiFi network at home and gotten my Pocket PC to run on it.

However, after trying many things, I still can't sync over WiFi. I can browse the Web, get my E-mail, do instant messaging, sync AvantGo, access files on my laptop, but I can't sync with Outlook. :-(

Given my lack of success, I'd gladly welcome the ability to sync over Firewire.

Steve

[seanturner]

[However, after trying many things, I still can't sync over WiFi.

Steve

What happens when you try to sync over wifi? What PDA are you using? I had a wierd problem with my iPaq 5455 that when I tried to sync over Wi-Fi it would give me an error saying ti couldn't connect to the outlook database on my computer or something of that nature. After spending two hours on the phone with HP tech support they finally gave up and said hard reset. Now its working again. I've reinstalled all the same programs as I had and restored the same data but I can't reproduce the problem...

[Will T Smith]

[ OT! ]

The A/V market is still too fragmented now with its myriad of connectors. However, more and more manufacturers (e.g. Mitsubishi) are using Firewire as its connector because it can carry a HDTV signal and then some. A slow radio signal that can potentially be intefered will never make it in the AV market.

:(

ALL A/V equipment will eventually have firewire connectors to carry digital signals. It is the only currently available technology that has been blessed for content protection (something that hollywood is VERY paranoid about).

I predict that LCD monitors will also eventually transition from the 20-pin DVI connector to the 4 or 6 pin firewire connector. Reason ... simplicity and compatibility between A/V devices and monitor hardware. Remember that Firewire carries both Audio and Video so no additional wires are required for a stereo monitor beyond firewire. For small, special application LCD monitors, it is conceivable that a 6-pin firewire interface could also power the device.

Regarding bluetooth and A/V. It think it is inevitable that remotes will eventually move from IR to RF. It is conceivable that when Bluetooth becomes more mass market that trancievers will be very cheap and a bluetooth will enable not only remote control, but also intercommunication between different devices. So for instance, your recording device could automatically tell the TV and Cable/DSS tuner what it's settings should be.

My personal vision is a PVR/DVD recorder that takes care of recording but also manages other components with an on screen menu so that instead of an expensive, difficult to program remote like Pronto or the more advanced Sony's, you would have a dumb remote driving a "smart" box that would tell all the other boxes what to do on cure via bluetooth, other RF or VIA IR repeater. Of course it would all be programmable via "wizards" with an on-screen library / including testing/debugging stages :-).

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

However, after trying many things, I still can't sync over WiFi. I can browse the Web, get my E-mail, do instant messaging, sync AvantGo, access files on my laptop, but I can't sync with Outlook. :-(

Given my lack of success, I'd gladly welcome the ability to sync over Firewire.
Steve! I remember you mentioning this in Jason's Connection Mangler thread. I actually just had this problem myself for a short amount of time recently and it had NOTHING to do with my connection settings. Not sure if I experienced the same thing you're experiencing, but I'll give this a shot.

In my root PPC directory, there are a set of files titled:
-CMMapG
-CMMapP
-GCounterFile.mmf
-mdmlog10.txt
-mdmlog4.txt
-mdmlog6.txt

I didn't recognize what these files were initially and wanted to delete them. I decided to move them to a temporary directory and wait for a week to see if everything continued to function correctly.

Everything worked fine except that I could no longer could ActiveSync over WiFi!! I could still connect using IR, USB, whatever. And I could still do everything else with WiFi but ActiveSync wouldn't work. At first I couldn't understand why. I tweaked my settings left and right / to and fro but to no avail.

Finally, I went back to the root directory remembering those files and found that while the mdmlogxx.txt files had been recreated the others files that I removed hadn't. Once I restored those files, everything worked again. Looking back, I'm pretty positive that the CMMapX files are connection mangler files. I'm not positive about GCounterFile.mmf. The text files definitely have to do with connectivity, but I didn't look at them long enough to decipher if they're log files or some sort of script.

So check your root and tell me what you see... it's possible that you may have done what I almost did myself and that's delete those files or move them somewhere.

Ekkie

BTW, congrats on your 1K post... I think you might be the first non-admin to reach this mark...

[Will T Smith]

This would be the easiset way to adapt and bring the price down.....
It's only .25 USD per machine for FW licencing....



.25 is quite a bit though. As Michael Dell once said, his job is to knock the last 2 cents off of the cost of a component (I can't remember the exact quote at hte moment).

But, this doesn't include hardware and I think it is pretty risky considering it doesn't have backwards compatibility with the current USB standard and that 1394 is also fighting 1394b. But, as I understand it the firewire controller card does all the processing so it comes as less of a hit to the CPU. In a desktop I'd definately say this is a good thing. In a PDA, i'm not sure...

If you are referring to the Firewire "trademark" licensincing i.e. vs i.Link, IEEE1394 or SB1394, Apple dropped the licensing fee. Anyone can now use the Firewire logo on IEEE1394 equipment without paying Apple anything.

IEEE1394 is an industry STANDARD. No one has to pay a licensing fee to use IEEE1394. You only have to buy the chipsets and integrate it into your product.

1394 is NOT fighting 1394b, any more than USB2.0 is fighting USB1.1. They are complementary AND 1394b IS backwards compatible. Why it would relevant to a PocketPC discussion is beyond me because I PocketPC simply couldn't process all the bandwidth available to a firewire 400Mbs connection.

Regarding compatibility, there is something called OHCI in the Firewire world. As long as you implement that you have access to any mass storage device or video stream from any OHCI compliant device (video cameras, camcorders, etc...). So for instance, you could plug your PocketPC into someones iPod or other OHCI compliant hard-drive/jukebox and transfer MP3 or video files to-from your PocketPC.

BTW, I did a little survey and Dell appears to include Firewire connectors on all it's laptops above $1200. This is really a trend as the mobo guys are now starting to integrated both Firewire and UBS2.0 into their chipsets. Next year, I doubt you'll be able to buy any piece of new equipment WITHOUT firewire.

It's really too bad that Intel pre-empted universal Firewire (in PCs)adoption with USB2.0. The mobo guys were about to start integrating Firewire into their chipsets and then got the shakes when Intel announced a competing standard.

Ulimately, USB2.0 and Firewire will coexist in the same way that serial and parrallell did for many years to come. The major difference is that USB2.0 will NEVER be a staple in consumer electronics beyond still cameras.

[Will T Smith]

All I have as a laptop so I can't add USB2 but I do have Firewire built in and would love to have a PPC that supported that.
I've long been a proponent of supporting Firewire in Pocket PCs. Of course, my laptop has Firewire. :-) I love my 80 GB Firewire hard disk, too.

Steve (#1000!)

You can add USB2.0 through a PC-card. The zinger is that expansion in this way does NOT include power over the connection. You have to plug in an internal power source. Though if you have a free PS/2 connector you can re-route it's power from to the PC card if it has a "power injector" plug. BTW, this goes for Firewire as well.

It's actually a curse that Firewire has the small (power free connector). ALL the laptop vendors use this connector because it's smaller. It's cumbersome for using portable devices because anything sans battery or independent power must be plugged into a wall using your traditional inverter-brick. Integrated USB2.0, by contrast, on laptop is typically implemented using the full size, powered connector. This actually makes it more convenient to plug portable hard drives into a USB2.0 connection than the 4-pin (unpowered) firewire plug. It's very unfortunate since the Firewire connection steals less CPU cycles and is STILL faster overall despite the deceptive speed ratings (USB never gets close to it's theoretical peak bandwidth).

1394b defines a 6-pin connector thats only slightly larger than the 4-pin. I sincerely hope that laptop vendors adopt this so that I can use one power plug. This would be the ideal "independent" connector on a pocketPC to interface with a mobile computer or a mass storage device.

[seanturner]

What would putting firewire as your primary connector on the pocketpc do for accessories like keyboards... Would that be more expensive to produce or are all you need a couple of wires and a good driver?

[Janak Parekh]

What would putting firewire as your primary connector on the pocketpc do for accessories like keyboards... Would that be more expensive to produce or are all you need a couple of wires and a good driver?
Less, because 1394 is a peer-to-peer protocol as opposed to the master-slave nature of USB. USB-to-Go fixes this, but it's a late start.

--janak

[Pony99CA]

However, after trying many things, I still can't sync over WiFi. I can browse the Web, get my E-mail, do instant messaging, sync AvantGo, access files on my laptop, but I can't sync with Outlook. :-(

Given my lack of success, I'd gladly welcome the ability to sync over Firewire.
Steve! I remember you mentioning this in Jason's Connection Mangler thread. I actually just had this problem myself for a short amount of time recently and it had NOTHING to do with my connection settings. Not sure if I experienced the same thing you're experiencing, but I'll give this a shot.

In my root PPC directory, there are a set of files titled:
-CMMapG
-CMMapP
-GCounterFile.mmf
-mdmlog10.txt
-mdmlog4.txt
-mdmlog6.txt

I didn't recognize what these files were initially and wanted to delete them. I decided to move them to a temporary directory and wait for a week to see if everything continued to function correctly.

Everything worked fine except that I could no longer could ActiveSync over WiFi!! I could still connect using IR, USB, whatever. And I could still do everything else with WiFi but ActiveSync wouldn't work. At first I couldn't understand why. I tweaked my settings left and right / to and fro but to no avail.

Finally, I went back to the root directory remembering those files and found that while the mdmlogxx.txt files had been recreated the others files that I removed hadn't. Once I restored those files, everything worked again. Looking back, I'm pretty positive that the CMMapX files are connection mangler files. I'm not positive about GCounterFile.mmf. The text files definitely have to do with connectivity, but I didn't look at them long enough to decipher if they're log files or some sort of script.

So check your root and tell me what you see... it's possible that you may have done what I almost did myself and that's delete those files or move them somewhere.

Those files have been discussed in a few other threads. Check out what kind of file is this? (http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4753) for the first place I heard about this. If you do a search on GCounterFile, you'll find a few other threads where this was brought up.

I think the mdmlog&lt;nn>.txt files are just log files, and not really necessary. However, if you delete one or more of the CMMagpG, CMMapP and GCounterFile.mmf files, Pocket IE will break (at least for some things). If you run welcome.exe in your \Windows directory, those files will get recreated.

I don't know what the CMMagpG, CMMapP and GCounterFile.mmf files do, but your guess about the CM files being Connection Manager files makes sense. I did a Google search on the Web and the newsgroups, and there was no explanation of these. As I've asked before, why didn't Microsoft put them in the \Windows directory if they're so important?

However, I have those files in my root directory, so I don't think that's why I can't sync over WiFi.


BTW, congrats on your 1K post... I think you might be the first non-admin to reach this mark...

I am; click on MemberList near the top of the screen and sort on Totals Posts, Descending. Janak probably would have been the first, but he got promoted before he got to 800, I think. :lol:

Steve

[Janak Parekh]

However, after trying many things, I still can't sync over WiFi. I can browse the Web, get my E-mail, do instant messaging, sync AvantGo, access files on my laptop, but I can't sync with Outlook. :-(
So, I've managed to get all my friends to sync. I assume you tried the Pocket Hosts tricks? And that you can ping the exact hostname with vxUtil, etc. etc.?

One interesting problem that I encountered twice is that somehow, the name got entered with a space at the end in Pocket Hosts. You wouldn't notice unless you try to ActiveSync or do ping-by-name.

I am; click on MemberList near the top of the screen and sort on Totals Posts, Descending. Janak probably would have been the first, but he got promoted before he got to 800, I think. :lol:
Grr, I never got to be an Oracle, or what you're about to become. :evil: ;)

--janak

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

I am; click on MemberList near the top of the screen and sort on Totals Posts, Descending. Janak probably would have been the first, but he got promoted before he got to 800, I think. :lol:
Grr, I never got to be an Oracle, or what you're about to become. :evil: ;)

PPC CIRCUS FREAK?!?! :o

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

I don't know what the CMMagpG, CMMapP and GCounterFile.mmf files do, but your guess about the CM files being Connection Manager files makes sense. I did a Google search on the Web and the newsgroups, and there was no explanation of these. As I've asked before, why didn't Microsoft put them in the \Windows directory if they're so important?
That was my first thought when I restored those files, "Why the heck did MS place them here?!?" Those are more-or-less undocumented files... and the only way to restore them is through an obscure welcome.exe hidden in the windows directory?

Anyway, I can't help but to think that your issues is due to some deeply hidden software glitch somewhere (I wouldn't be surprised if that glitch was somewhere on your desktop/laptop). It's obviously not connectivity-settings-related.

[Janak Parekh]

PPC CIRCUS FREAK?!?! :o
No, Jason's already queued up quite a few ranks. We won't have to worry about absolute freakiness(TM) for quite a while. ;)

Anyway, I can't help but to think that your issues is due to some deeply hidden software glitch somewhere (I wouldn't be surprised if that glitch was somewhere on your desktop/laptop). It's obviously not connectivity-settings-related.
Often, though, it's the simple obvious thing that everyone overlooks...

--janak

[Pony99CA]

However, after trying many things, I still can't sync over WiFi. I can browse the Web, get my E-mail, do instant messaging, sync AvantGo, access files on my laptop, but I can't sync with Outlook. :-(
So, I've managed to get all my friends to sync. I assume you tried the Pocket Hosts tricks? And that you can ping the exact hostname with vxUtil, etc. etc.?

One interesting problem that I encountered twice is that somehow, the name got entered with a space at the end in Pocket Hosts. You wouldn't notice unless you try to ActiveSync or do ping-by-name.

I don't have PocketHosts. What tricks are there?

As for pinging by name, when I tried that, I got some other IP address. I detailed that in Setting Up a Wireless LAN, Part 2 (http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2785&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=shmlaptop&start=40), so I'll just refer you there. As this doesn't really have much to do with Firewire or USB 2.0, I'll suggest continuing this discussion there. :-)

If you have anything that could help me get syncing via WiFi, I'd appreciate seeing it.

Steve

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

Anyway, I can't help but to think that your issues is due to some deeply hidden software glitch somewhere (I wouldn't be surprised if that glitch was somewhere on your desktop/laptop). It's obviously not connectivity-settings-related.
Often, though, it's the simple obvious thing that everyone overlooks...

Maybe he's been using a Palm all this time!!! :o

Imagine our number one poster...

[Janak Parekh]

Maybe he's been using a Palm all this time!!! :o

Imagine our number one poster...
:D I've moved the discussion to the other thread, but let me congratulate Steve on his Pontification.

--janak

[Pony99CA]

Maybe he's been using a Palm all this time!!! :o

Imagine our number one poster...
:lol:

Don't worry, my entire experience with Palms consists of seeing one that my boss had back in 1996 or so and playing with the newer Sony Clies, the Handspring Treos and the Palm Tungsten T in stores for a few minutes.

I've never owned any PDAs that weren't Windows CE-based. I hope my street cred is restored. :-)

Steve

[Pony99CA]

I've moved the discussion to the other thread, but let me congratulate Steve on his Pontification.

Thanks. :-) I may now be a Pontificator, but Jason is still the Pocket PC Pontiff. :werenotworthy:

Steve

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

Don't worry, my entire experience with Palms consists of seeing one that my boss had back in 1996 or so and playing with the newer Sony Clies, the Handspring Treos and the Palm Tungsten T in stores for a few minutes.

I've never owned any PDAs that weren't Windows CE-based. I hope my street cred is restored. :-)
** HUGE SIGH OF RELIEF **

Sometimes my paranoia gets the best of me!! :o

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

Thanks. :-) I may now be a Pontificator, but Jason is still the Pocket PC Pontiff. :werenotworthy:
How's this for a nickname: the Pontificating Pony!!

[Janak Parekh]

but Jason is still the Pocket PC Pontiff.
Keep on working on those posts.... :D

How's this for a nickname: the Pontificating Pony!!
Brilliant... simply brilliant.

--janak