01-14-2003, 08:59 PM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29,160
|
|
USB 2.0 or Firewire? Neither (for now).
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
01-14-2003, 09:04 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 238
|
|
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
01-14-2003, 09:10 PM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 88
|
|
No need to decide, just get both:
Adaptec DuoConnect Card
Quote:
|
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
01-14-2003, 09:26 PM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 78
|
|
My PC has a firewire port standard, but it is not high end (HP Pavilion).
DanInNJ
|
| |
|
|
|
01-14-2003, 09:27 PM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 15
|
|
If the desktop is missing USB2 or FW, an adapter-card is not that expensive.
|
| |
|
|
|
01-14-2003, 09:44 PM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 481
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by frax
... 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.
|
| |
|
|
|
01-14-2003, 09:46 PM
|
|
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 541
|
|
$15 to be exact. People are doing it for the Windows iPod, why won't they do it for PPCs?
|
| |
|
|
|
01-14-2003, 09:50 PM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 19
|
|
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
01-14-2003, 09:53 PM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 94
|
|
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
01-14-2003, 10:01 PM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 51
|
|
Jason do you know if Sync and Go is different
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
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
