On Apr 30, 2012, at 4:06 PM, Richard wrote:
None of this is making sense to me.
Please clarify what you mean by these terms in this context:
"polled nature"
"asymmetric"
"half-duplex"
...and it would help that instead of just rephrasing in another
euphamism, you would say exactly what it is about USB that matters
here.
Sure. To be clear, what I meant initially by "one way" is that USB
transfers occur when the host requests them (i.e. a device cannot
say "Here, host, have some data!", but rather the host has to poll
the particular device looking for data). That's what I meant by
"asymmetric" (it's not a bus where all devices have equal standing
as targets or initiators, like SCSI or PCI or Ethernet or 1394),
and what someone else (Cameron?) meant by its "polled nature".
Half-duplex is generally true of USB, but it's not what I was
talking about. There's only one (differential) data line in the
USB bus, so communication is necessarily half-duplex, but that's
not really material to the problem I was getting at. USB 3.0
may have extra lines in its socket (I haven't really looked) to
enable full-duplex communication, but I don't know what that
entails since I've never looked into USB 3.0.
There are "host to host" USB cables available (probably the same
devices that Glen Slick was talking about), but they require an
active device in the middle to store and forward the data from
both hosts as if they were devices on the other end. They were
used for file transfer a long time ago when the serial port was
going away and people were bemoaning the loss of the null-modem
cable transfer; I recall someone made a homebrew PlayStation2
app which could use that to load homebrew code over USB instead
of burning lots of discs (this was before the Ethernet
attachment for the PS2 was popular; the "slim" ones have it
built in, so now Ethernet is the medium of choice).
- Dave