21 Jul
2010
21 Jul
'10
11:56 p.m.
On 20 July 2010 21:06, Tony Duell <ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Correct.
I'm not saying it's superior /per se/; it's from a totally different
technology generation. I'm merely saying that I like USB and find it a
pleasure to work with, whereas I always found RS232 to be a PITA. No
more.
--
Liam Proven ? Profile & links: http://www.google.com/profiles/lproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AIM/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven ? MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? ICQ: 73187508
All fair
points, but then, who ever used serial ports to connect mass
storage? (I know there was a serial port hard disk for the first ever
This is classicmp...
Assuming by 'serial port' you mean somethign RS232-like (as opposed to
USB, firewire (which are serial interfaces), HPIL, etc) then off th rtop
of my head, Epson did (the RS232-interfacd drive units for the HX20/PX
series of laptops). Resarch Machines did (disk unit for the 480Z,
although that was a synchonous RS232 interface). Tandy/Radio Shcack
(portable disk drive for the M100 etc). DEC did (TU58 tape cartridge
drive). There must be many others.
Remarkable. I never knew. Thanks for the education.
Was I correct at least inasmuch as the Mac being the only hard disk interface?
Mac, but that
was from complete lack of any alternative.)
The equivalents to USB for this sort of thing were SCSI, Firewire,
eSATA and the like - or, arguably, ST-506, ESDI and PATA/ATAPI.
Frankly, USB has caused me less trouble than any of them, considering
the relative volumes. No ID setting, no jumpers, no termination,
generic cables and it even works pretty smoothly across hubs, even
multiple ones. It's a wonder.
I am having problems following this. It appears you're saying that USB is
superior to RS232 for all applications because USB is easier to use than,
say, SCSI for linking up mass sotroage devices (but RS232 was not
commonly used for this).