---

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,844061,00.asp

--
Peter - http://titancity.com/ , http://haxor.dk/islamnyt/
BLOOD OF LUCIFER - KLIP DIT HÅR OG FÅ ET ARBEJDE!!!

---

Peter Bjørn Perlsø wrote:

> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,844061,00.asp

Et lille klip med skjult reklame:

"Though USB 2.0 is rated at a higher througHPut speed, FireWire
delivered faster performance on external hard drives when
connected to a desktop."

Sådan kan man jo også anbefale en hardware- og pc-producent :)

--
MVH/Thomas A. Frederiksen
Registered Linux user #168164, http://counter.li.org
http://www.usenet.dk/netikette - på forhånd tak.
Nu ét totalt systemnedbrud siden 1997...

---

Hej Thomas

Det kan du da have ret i, men efter hvad jeg har fået at vide, så er det
rent faktisk kun på de nye HP maskiner med integreret USB 2, at det
virker ordentlig - og ikke mindst stabilt. Og det er lige så korrekt, at
FW både er mere pålidelig og hurtigere - højere ydelse - højere
datamængde pr/sek. - end USB 2, - og ikke mindst nu, hvor FW2 / FW 800
bliver standard på de nye Mac.

mvh. Erik Richard

Thomas Alexander Frederiksen wrote:

> > http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,844061,00.asp
>
> Et lille klip med skjult reklame:
>
> "Though USB 2.0 is rated at a higher througHPut speed, FireWire
> delivered faster performance on external hard drives when
> connected to a desktop."
>
> Sådan kan man jo også anbefale en hardware- og pc-producent :)

--
K.M.L. Denmark by Erik Richard Sørensen, Member of ADC
E-mail: <kml.ers@mail1.stofanet.dk> <KMLDenmark@netscape.net>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*Music Recording, Editing & Publishing - Also Smaller Quantities
*Software - For Theological Education - And For Physically Impaired
*Nisus - The Future In Text & Mail Processing <http://www.nisus.com>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---

In article <1fpvhz8.w2ho6q7lmktsN%no_spam@invalid_email.com>, Peter Bjørn
Perlsø wrote:
> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,844061,00.asp

I'd hardly call being slightly slower at hard disks, and slightly *faster* at
CDs getting one's "ass kicked".

--
Evidence Eliminator is worthless: "www.evidence-eliminator-sucks.com"
--Tim Smith

---

In article <slrnb40b47.vd9.reply_in_group@tzs.net>,
Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

> In article <1fpvhz8.w2ho6q7lmktsN%no_spam@invalid_email.com>, Peter Bjørn
> Perlsø wrote:
> > http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,844061,00.asp
>
> I'd hardly call being slightly slower at hard disks, and slightly *faster* at
> CDs getting one's "ass kicked".

This was with Firewire 400 it doesn't take a genius ti figure out what
Firewire 800 does to USB 2.0. Pound into ground.

---

"Bruce Grubb" <bgrubb@zianet.com> wrote in message
news:bgrubb-38C5EB.19574204022003@news.zianet.com...
> In article <slrnb40b47.vd9.reply_in_group@tzs.net>,
> Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1fpvhz8.w2ho6q7lmktsN%no_spam@invalid_email.com>, Peter
Bjørn
> > Perlsø wrote:
> > > http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,844061,00.asp
> >
> > I'd hardly call being slightly slower at hard disks, and slightly
*faster* at
> > CDs getting one's "ass kicked".
>
> This was with Firewire 400 it doesn't take a genius ti figure out what
> Firewire 800 does to USB 2.0. Pound into ground.

I'm familiar with the basic argument. "Just wait until XXX comes to market.
It will pound into ground product YYY that is now selling in high volume"

You fill in the blanks.

btw, one of the points made in the article was that the reason that the
results were so similar was that I/O transfers were gated by the peripherals
themselves. Both buses were oversized for most uses. Where does that leave
Firewire 800?

James

---

"James" <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:1920a.13767$tq5.498660@news1.west.cox.net...
>
> "Bruce Grubb" <bgrubb@zianet.com> wrote in message
> news:bgrubb-38C5EB.19574204022003@news.zianet.com...
> > In article <slrnb40b47.vd9.reply_in_group@tzs.net>,
> > Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <1fpvhz8.w2ho6q7lmktsN%no_spam@invalid_email.com>, Peter
> Bjørn
> > > Perlsø wrote:
> > > > http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,844061,00.asp
> > >
> > > I'd hardly call being slightly slower at hard disks, and slightly
> *faster* at
> > > CDs getting one's "ass kicked".
> >
> > This was with Firewire 400 it doesn't take a genius ti figure out what
> > Firewire 800 does to USB 2.0. Pound into ground.
>
> I'm familiar with the basic argument. "Just wait until XXX comes to
market.
> It will pound into ground product YYY that is now selling in high volume"

Make me wonder what will be the difference when SATA external devices start
shipping.

>
> You fill in the blanks.
>
> btw, one of the points made in the article was that the reason that the
> results were so similar was that I/O transfers were gated by the
peripherals
> themselves. Both buses were oversized for most uses. Where does that leave
> Firewire 800?
>
> James
>
>

---

"Johnny Lee" <johnlee666@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:AJ20a.170315$VU6.158766@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
>
> Make me wonder what will be the difference when SATA external devices
start
> shipping.

my understanding is that Serial ATA is an internal PC bus.

James

---

In article <1920a.13767$tq5.498660@news1.west.cox.net>,
"James" <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote:

> "Bruce Grubb" <bgrubb@zianet.com> wrote in message
> news:bgrubb-38C5EB.19574204022003@news.zianet.com...
> > In article <slrnb40b47.vd9.reply_in_group@tzs.net>,
> > Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <1fpvhz8.w2ho6q7lmktsN%no_spam@invalid_email.com>, Peter
> Bjørn
> > > Perlsø wrote:
> > > > http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,844061,00.asp
> > >
> > > I'd hardly call being slightly slower at hard disks, and slightly
> *faster* at
> > > CDs getting one's "ass kicked".
> >
> > This was with Firewire 400 it doesn't take a genius ti figure out what
> > Firewire 800 does to USB 2.0. Pound into ground.
>
> I'm familiar with the basic argument. "Just wait until XXX comes to market.
> It will pound into ground product YYY that is now selling in high volume"
>
> You fill in the blanks.

That's not quite fair. Computers with FireWire 800 are already shipping,
benchmarks have already been done[1], and peripherals will be shipping
this month or next. USB isn't going to be getting significantly faster
in the next four to eight weeks, is it? In fact, I haven't heard any
talk at all about a USB 3, and usually these things are announced a year
or two ahead of time.

> btw, one of the points made in the article was that the reason that the
> results were so similar was that I/O transfers were gated by the peripherals
> themselves. Both buses were oversized for most uses. Where does that leave
> Firewire 800?

Hard drives seem to benefit nicely.

[1] http://www.barefeats.com/fire34.html

--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you
can't get fooled again."
-George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

---

In article <znu-402E43.05000205022003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:

> In article <1920a.13767$tq5.498660@news1.west.cox.net>,
> "James" <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> > "Bruce Grubb" <bgrubb@zianet.com> wrote in message
> > news:bgrubb-38C5EB.19574204022003@news.zianet.com...
> > > In article <slrnb40b47.vd9.reply_in_group@tzs.net>,
> > > Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <1fpvhz8.w2ho6q7lmktsN%no_spam@invalid_email.com>, Peter
> > Bjørn
> > > > Perlsø wrote:
> > > > > http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,844061,00.asp
> > > >
> > > > I'd hardly call being slightly slower at hard disks, and slightly
> > *faster* at
> > > > CDs getting one's "ass kicked".
> > >
> > > This was with Firewire 400 it doesn't take a genius ti figure out what
> > > Firewire 800 does to USB 2.0. Pound into ground.
> >
> > I'm familiar with the basic argument. "Just wait until XXX comes to market.
> > It will pound into ground product YYY that is now selling in high volume"
> >
> > You fill in the blanks.
>
> That's not quite fair. Computers with FireWire 800 are already shipping,
> benchmarks have already been done[1], and peripherals will be shipping
> this month or next. USB isn't going to be getting significantly faster
> in the next four to eight weeks, is it? In fact, I haven't heard any
> talk at all about a USB 3, and usually these things are announced a year
> or two ahead of time.
>
> > btw, one of the points made in the article was that the reason that the
> > results were so similar was that I/O transfers were gated by the peripherals
> > themselves. Both buses were oversized for most uses. Where does that leave
> > Firewire 800?
>
> Hard drives seem to benefit nicely.
>
> [1] http://www.barefeats.com/fire34.html

That's the issue. When you're measuring CD drives, you're going to reach
the drive's limit sooner than the interface's limit. For an average CD
drive, it doesn't really matter much. The only way to test the interface
is to test something that's faster than the interface. Such as a very
fast hard drive or video feed.

---

"ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote in message
news:znu-402E43.05000205022003@news.fu-berlin.de...
> In article <1920a.13767$tq5.498660@news1.west.cox.net>,
> "James" <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> > "Bruce Grubb" <bgrubb@zianet.com> wrote in message
> > news:bgrubb-38C5EB.19574204022003@news.zianet.com...
> > > In article <slrnb40b47.vd9.reply_in_group@tzs.net>,
> > > Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <1fpvhz8.w2ho6q7lmktsN%no_spam@invalid_email.com>, Peter
> > Bjørn
> > > > Perlsø wrote:
> > > > > http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,844061,00.asp
> > > >
> > > > I'd hardly call being slightly slower at hard disks, and slightly
> > *faster* at
> > > > CDs getting one's "ass kicked".
> > >
> > > This was with Firewire 400 it doesn't take a genius ti figure out what
> > > Firewire 800 does to USB 2.0. Pound into ground.
> >
> > I'm familiar with the basic argument. "Just wait until XXX comes to
market.
> > It will pound into ground product YYY that is now selling in high
volume"
> >
> > You fill in the blanks.
>
> That's not quite fair. Computers with FireWire 800 are already shipping,
> benchmarks have already been done[1], and peripherals will be shipping
> this month or next.

Nobody is using Firewire 800 today. You claim a month or two. Why not wait
until there are actually systems to compare?

USB isn't going to be getting significantly faster
> in the next four to eight weeks, is it? In fact, I haven't heard any
> talk at all about a USB 3, and usually these things are announced a year
> or two ahead of time.
>
> > btw, one of the points made in the article was that the reason that the
> > results were so similar was that I/O transfers were gated by the
peripherals
> > themselves. Both buses were oversized for most uses. Where does that
leave
> > Firewire 800?
>
> Hard drives seem to benefit nicely.
>
> [1] http://www.barefeats.com/fire34.html

Why use Firewire 800 rather than ata? So that you can install yet another
bus?

The phrase comes to mind "A solution looking for a problem to solve".

Meanwhile next year 100M systems will be shipped with USB2.

James

---

In article <s9I0a.642$LW1.173009@news1.west.cox.net>,
"James" <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote:

> "ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote in message
> news:znu-402E43.05000205022003@news.fu-berlin.de...

> > That's not quite fair. Computers with FireWire 800 are already
> > shipping, benchmarks have already been done[1], and peripherals
> > will be shipping this month or next.
>
> Nobody is using Firewire 800 today.

This isn't true. I'm sure there's some rich guy out there who's hooked
his shiny new 17" PowerBook up to shiny new dual 1.42 GHz Power Mac in
FireWire Disk mode ;-P

> You claim a month or two.

As I said, systems are out now. It seems unlikely that multiple
peripheral vendors will *all* miss their ship dates, so saying that
peripherals will follow in a month or two is a very safe prediction.

> Why not wait until there are actually systems to compare?

There already are. Or do you suppose that release versions of the
products that have been benchmarked will be slower than the pre-release
versions?

> > USB isn't going to be getting significantly faster in the next four
> > to eight weeks, is it? In fact, I haven't heard any talk at all
> > about a USB 3, and usually these things are announced a year or two
> > ahead of time.
> >
> > > btw, one of the points made in the article was that the reason
> > > that the results were so similar was that I/O transfers were
> > > gated by the peripherals themselves. Both buses were oversized
> > > for most uses. Where does that leave Firewire 800?
> >
> > Hard drives seem to benefit nicely.
> >
> > [1] http://www.barefeats.com/fire34.html
>
> Why use Firewire 800 rather than ata? So that you can install yet
> another bus?
>
> The phrase comes to mind "A solution looking for a problem to solve".

Are you actually claiming you see absolutely no use for external hard
drives?

> Meanwhile next year 100M systems will be shipped with USB2.

You keep arguing that USB 2 will be a success. That's nice. I'm not
claiming it won't be. What I'm claiming that there was no particularly
good reason for it to have been created in the first place, which is
something entirely different. And so far, nobody has managed to
decently refute that claim.

--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you
can't get fooled again."
-George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

---

"ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote in message
news:znu-77EBC5.03260307022003@news.fu-berlin.de...
> > > Hard drives seem to benefit nicely.
> > >
> > > [1] http://www.barefeats.com/fire34.html
> >
> > Why use Firewire 800 rather than ata? So that you can install yet
> > another bus?
> >
> > The phrase comes to mind "A solution looking for a problem to solve".
>
> Are you actually claiming you see absolutely no use for external hard
> drives?

I didn't mean to get sucked into a rat hole about Firewire 800. It may well
be a useful technology with many applications.
>
> > Meanwhile next year 100M systems will be shipped with USB2.
>
> You keep arguing that USB 2 will be a success. That's nice. I'm not
> claiming it won't be. What I'm claiming that there was no particularly
> good reason for it to have been created in the first place, which is
> something entirely different. And so far, nobody has managed to
> decently refute that claim.

Only indecently. Another link to a 1999 article on the situation that Apple
created illustrates the problem that Firewire had at that time.
http://news.com.com/2100-1040-220209.html?legacy=cnet
That was the environment that lead to the formation of the USB2 effort.

James
>
> --
> "There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in
> Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me --
you
> can't get fooled again."
> -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17,
2002

---

In article <11R0a.1695$LW1.248156@news1.west.cox.net>,
"James" <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote:

> "ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote in message
> news:znu-77EBC5.03260307022003@news.fu-berlin.de...
> > > > Hard drives seem to benefit nicely.
> > > >
> > > > [1] http://www.barefeats.com/fire34.html
> > >
> > > Why use Firewire 800 rather than ata? So that you can install yet
> > > another bus?
> > >
> > > The phrase comes to mind "A solution looking for a problem to solve".
> >
> > Are you actually claiming you see absolutely no use for external hard
> > drives?
>
> I didn't mean to get sucked into a rat hole about Firewire 800. It may well
> be a useful technology with many applications.
>
> > > Meanwhile next year 100M systems will be shipped with USB2.
> >
> > You keep arguing that USB 2 will be a success. That's nice. I'm not
> > claiming it won't be. What I'm claiming that there was no particularly
> > good reason for it to have been created in the first place, which is
> > something entirely different. And so far, nobody has managed to
> > decently refute that claim.
>
> Only indecently. Another link to a 1999 article on the situation that Apple
> created illustrates the problem that Firewire had at that time.
> http://news.com.com/2100-1040-220209.html?legacy=cnet
> That was the environment that lead to the formation of the USB2 effort.

We've been through this before. If USB 2 hadn't existed, drive makers
could have simply passed the (very slightly) higher costs off to
consumers. None of them would have been at a competitive disadvantage,
since all would have had the same FireWire-related expenses. The
introduction of USB 2 has led to a situation that's really no different.
Everyone has the same USB-related expenses. Those expenses are $5-10
less in absolute terms, but price cuts on that scale are not enough
increase sales volume, so I fail to see how that benefits manufacturers.

--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you
can't get fooled again."
-George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

---

"ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote in message
news:znu-41957A.16321707022003@news.fu-berlin.de...
>
> We've been through this before. If USB 2 hadn't existed, drive makers
> could have simply passed the (very slightly) higher costs off to
> consumers. None of them would have been at a competitive disadvantage,
> since all would have had the same FireWire-related expenses. The
> introduction of USB 2 has led to a situation that's really no different.
> Everyone has the same USB-related expenses. Those expenses are $5-10
> less in absolute terms, but price cuts on that scale are not enough
> increase sales volume, so I fail to see how that benefits manufacturers.
>

You apparently live in an alternate universe from mine. In my universe
manufacturers worry about the cost of the screws used to assemble their
consumer products. The prices they charge are determined by the consumer's
willingness to pay amd any advantage they can get, individually or
collectively, ends up on the bottom line. Your perspective that $5-10
doesn't matter is entirely unrealistic. It is similar to that of another
poster who recommended that somebody who couldn't afford to pay the extra
$60 for a Firewire card ought to get another job. To 50% of the people that
buy a PC that is about 10% of the purchase price.

The facts are that Apple attempted to extort about $100M/yr from the PC
business. The PC manufacturers decided not to put up with the extortion so
they bypassed Apple. Now Firewire supporters such as yourself ask why they
don't go back and fork over $25M/yr to the same extortionist.

James

---

In article <En%0a.7573$LW1.389103@news1.west.cox.net>,
"James" <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote:

> "ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote in message
> news:znu-41957A.16321707022003@news.fu-berlin.de...
> >
> > We've been through this before. If USB 2 hadn't existed, drive
> > makers could have simply passed the (very slightly) higher costs
> > off to consumers. None of them would have been at a competitive
> > disadvantage, since all would have had the same FireWire-related
> > expenses. The introduction of USB 2 has led to a situation that's
> > really no different. Everyone has the same USB-related expenses.
> > Those expenses are $5-10 less in absolute terms, but price cuts on
> > that scale are not enough increase sales volume, so I fail to see
> > how that benefits manufacturers.
> >
>
> You apparently live in an alternate universe from mine. In my
> universe manufacturers worry about the cost of the screws used to
> assemble their consumer products. The prices they charge are
> determined by the consumer's willingness to pay amd any advantage
> they can get, individually or collectively, ends up on the bottom
> line.

What we're dealing with here, however, to use your screws as an analogy,
is a situation where everyone has to use the same screws (there aren't
any others), so nobody can get a competitive advantage over anyone else
by switching screws. You're saying that in such a situation it makes
sense for several companies to get together and spend millions of
dollars developing a cheaper screw, which they then give away to
everyone else, undermining any competitive advantage that lower cost
might have bought them.

You have no addressed the above point. You just keep dodging it and
restating the same argument that it clearly refutes.

> Your perspective that $5-10 doesn't matter is entirely unrealistic.
> It is similar to that of another poster who recommended that somebody
> who couldn't afford to pay the extra $60 for a Firewire card ought to
> get another job. To 50% of the people that buy a PC that is about 10%
> of the purchase price.

That was really beautiful. "Arguing that some small amount of money
doesn't matter is obviously flawed because it's not qualitatively
different from arguing that some much larger amount of money doesn't
matter, and we all know that large amounts of money matter."

Who can dispute logic like that?

> The facts are that Apple attempted to extort about $100M/yr from the
> PC business. The PC manufacturers decided not to put up with the extortion so they
> bypassed Apple.

This is a very revealing paragraph. You liken technology licensing (of a
sort that goes on constantly, with everything from video formats to
plastics manufacturing processes) to "extortion", and then you try to
pin this "crime" entirely on Apple (despite the fact that FireWire
licensing is controlled by a consortium of which Apple is just a single
member). It's now exceedingly clear (as if it wasn't already) that
you're not really pushing any sensible position in this thread, you're
just pushing anti-Apple FUD.

Of course, a serious case of NIH is probably the real reason Intel
didn't decide to embrace FireWire in the first place, so I suppose I
shouldn't be surprised seeing the same behavior from Wintel apologists.

> Now Firewire supporters such as yourself ask why they don't go back
> and fork over $25M/yr to the same extortionist.

No, you're telling lies again. I've already made it very clear that I
understand the pressures driving USB 2 adoption in a market in which USB
2 already exists to be adopted.

--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you
can't get fooled again."
-George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

---

"ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote in message
news:znu-C26FC9.00414308022003@news.fu-berlin.de...
> In article <En%0a.7573$LW1.389103@news1.west.cox.net>,
> "James" <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> > "ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote in message
> > news:znu-41957A.16321707022003@news.fu-berlin.de...
> > >
> > > We've been through this before. If USB 2 hadn't existed, drive
> > > makers could have simply passed the (very slightly) higher costs
> > > off to consumers. None of them would have been at a competitive
> > > disadvantage, since all would have had the same FireWire-related
> > > expenses. The introduction of USB 2 has led to a situation that's
> > > really no different. Everyone has the same USB-related expenses.
> > > Those expenses are $5-10 less in absolute terms, but price cuts on
> > > that scale are not enough increase sales volume, so I fail to see
> > > how that benefits manufacturers.
> > >
> >
> > You apparently live in an alternate universe from mine. In my
> > universe manufacturers worry about the cost of the screws used to
> > assemble their consumer products. The prices they charge are
> > determined by the consumer's willingness to pay amd any advantage
> > they can get, individually or collectively, ends up on the bottom
> > line.
>
> What we're dealing with here, however, to use your screws as an analogy,
> is a situation where everyone has to use the same screws (there aren't
> any others), so nobody can get a competitive advantage over anyone else
> by switching screws. You're saying that in such a situation it makes
> sense for several companies to get together and spend millions of
> dollars developing a cheaper screw, which they then give away to
> everyone else, undermining any competitive advantage that lower cost
> might have bought them.

They spent millions of dollars to avoid paying Apple hundreds of millions of
dollars. It was a damned good investment. Now, even if they use Firewire,
they only have to pay tens of millions of dollars.
>
> You have no addressed the above point. You just keep dodging it and
> restating the same argument that it clearly refutes.

A net flow of money to a licencee is a loss of that money. If they could
raise their prices $10 to recover the license fee they sent to Apple, why
couldn't they just as easily raise their prices $10 and keep ther money as a
profit?
>
> > Your perspective that $5-10 doesn't matter is entirely unrealistic.
> > It is similar to that of another poster who recommended that somebody
> > who couldn't afford to pay the extra $60 for a Firewire card ought to
> > get another job. To 50% of the people that buy a PC that is about 10%
> > of the purchase price.
>
> That was really beautiful. "Arguing that some small amount of money
> doesn't matter is obviously flawed because it's not qualitatively
> different from arguing that some much larger amount of money doesn't
> matter, and we all know that large amounts of money matter."
>
> Who can dispute logic like that?

You are avoiding the point. It wasn't about the amount of money. it was
about a common mentality that you and the other poster exhibit. Whether it
is $6 or $60, it still matters. The BOM of a PC is made up of hundreds of
items, most of which cost less than $6. If the PC manufacturers use the
thinking you exhibit, he would still have a $1500 BOM and a break-even sales
price of $3K. Sort of like Apple. And the volumes would still be similar to
Apple. Those prices would eliminate 90% of the world market.

>
> > The facts are that Apple attempted to extort about $100M/yr from the
> > PC business. The PC manufacturers decided not to put up with the
extortion so they
> > bypassed Apple.
>
> This is a very revealing paragraph. You liken technology licensing (of a
> sort that goes on constantly, with everything from video formats to
> plastics manufacturing processes) to "extortion", and then you try to
> pin this "crime" entirely on Apple (despite the fact that FireWire
> licensing is controlled by a consortium of which Apple is just a single
> member). It's now exceedingly clear (as if it wasn't already) that
> you're not really pushing any sensible position in this thread, you're
> just pushing anti-Apple FUD.

You mis-state what I said. I did not state that licensing is extortion. I
personally have negotiated multimillion dollar license deals. I stated that
the $1 fee demanded by Apple (not the consortium) was extortion. The demands
were made after MS and Intel announced support for Firewire and after Sony
(with their free license) had introduced products to the market. After all
of the uproar, Apple (not the consortium) caved in and cut their fee to a
reasonable (non-extortion) level - one fourth the original demand. This has
been discussed ad nausium and several links provided to news items that
covered the controversy and Apple's role in it.

>
> Of course, a serious case of NIH is probably the real reason Intel
> didn't decide to embrace FireWire in the first place, so I suppose I
> shouldn't be surprised seeing the same behavior from Wintel apologists.

And just why would Intel care whether Firewire or USB were used? They were
perfectly happy to endorse it prior to the Apple extortion demand.

>
> > Now Firewire supporters such as yourself ask why they don't go back
> > and fork over $25M/yr to the same extortionist.
>
> No, you're telling lies again. I've already made it very clear that I
> understand the pressures driving USB 2 adoption in a market in which USB
> 2 already exists to be adopted.

OK. Other Firewire supporters.

Firewire is a great technology. Apple did a service by developing it. But
they screwed up and USB2 is the result. Live with it, and quit apologizing
for their mistake.

One could substitute "Mac OS" for Firewire and get a very similar outcome.
Do you see a trend here?

James

---

In article <9T11a.7667$LW1.436930@news1.west.cox.net>,
"James" <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote:

> "ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote in message
> news:znu-C26FC9.00414308022003@news.fu-berlin.de...

> > What we're dealing with here, however, to use your screws as an analogy,
> > is a situation where everyone has to use the same screws (there aren't
> > any others), so nobody can get a competitive advantage over anyone else
> > by switching screws. You're saying that in such a situation it makes
> > sense for several companies to get together and spend millions of
> > dollars developing a cheaper screw, which they then give away to
> > everyone else, undermining any competitive advantage that lower cost
> > might have bought them.
>
> They spent millions of dollars to avoid paying Apple hundreds of millions of
> dollars. It was a damned good investment. Now, even if they use Firewire,
> they only have to pay tens of millions of dollars.

They can pass the cost along. See below.

> > You have no addressed the above point. You just keep dodging it and
> > restating the same argument that it clearly refutes.
>
> A net flow of money to a licencee is a loss of that money. If they could
> raise their prices $10 to recover the license fee they sent to Apple, why
> couldn't they just as easily raise their prices $10 and keep ther money as a
> profit?

Isn't that obvious? If one company raises prices and keeps the money,
its prices will be undercut by companies that didn't do that. On the
other hand, if all companies must raise prices to cover some specific
cost, nobody is put at a competitive disadvantage.

> > > Your perspective that $5-10 doesn't matter is entirely unrealistic.
> > > It is similar to that of another poster who recommended that somebody
> > > who couldn't afford to pay the extra $60 for a Firewire card ought to
> > > get another job. To 50% of the people that buy a PC that is about 10%
> > > of the purchase price.
> >
> > That was really beautiful. "Arguing that some small amount of money
> > doesn't matter is obviously flawed because it's not qualitatively
> > different from arguing that some much larger amount of money doesn't
> > matter, and we all know that large amounts of money matter."
> >
> > Who can dispute logic like that?
>
> You are avoiding the point. It wasn't about the amount of money. it was
> about a common mentality that you and the other poster exhibit. Whether it
> is $6 or $60, it still matters. The BOM of a PC is made up of hundreds of
> items, most of which cost less than $6. If the PC manufacturers use the
> thinking you exhibit, he would still have a $1500 BOM and a break-even sales
> price of $3K. Sort of like Apple. And the volumes would still be similar to
> Apple. Those prices would eliminate 90% of the world market.

This is the most absurd slippery-slope argument I've ever heard. It
doesn't even deserve a reply.

> > > The facts are that Apple attempted to extort about $100M/yr from the
> > > PC business. The PC manufacturers decided not to put up with the
> extortion so they
> > > bypassed Apple.
> >
> > This is a very revealing paragraph. You liken technology licensing (of a
> > sort that goes on constantly, with everything from video formats to
> > plastics manufacturing processes) to "extortion", and then you try to
> > pin this "crime" entirely on Apple (despite the fact that FireWire
> > licensing is controlled by a consortium of which Apple is just a single
> > member). It's now exceedingly clear (as if it wasn't already) that
> > you're not really pushing any sensible position in this thread, you're
> > just pushing anti-Apple FUD.
>
> You mis-state what I said. I did not state that licensing is extortion. I
> personally have negotiated multimillion dollar license deals. I stated that
> the $1 fee demanded by Apple (not the consortium) was extortion.

What do you base this on? What other similar licensing terms are you
comparing with? $1 on devices that are almost all going to sell for
upwards of $100 doesn't seem too unreasonable.

[snip]

> > Of course, a serious case of NIH is probably the real reason Intel
> > didn't decide to embrace FireWire in the first place, so I suppose I
> > shouldn't be surprised seeing the same behavior from Wintel apologists.
>
> And just why would Intel care whether Firewire or USB were used? They were
> perfectly happy to endorse it prior to the Apple extortion demand.

I don't think Intel is too comfortable with the idea of digital devices
being very functional without a computer in the loop somewhere.

[snip]

--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you
can't get fooled again."
-George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

---

"James" <jarveson@nospam.net> writes:

> You mis-state what I said. I did not state that licensing is
> extortion. I personally have negotiated multimillion dollar license
> deals. I stated that the $1 fee demanded by Apple (not the
> consortium) was extortion. The demands were made after MS and Intel
> announced support for Firewire and after Sony (with their free
> license) had introduced products to the market. After all of the
> uproar, Apple (not the consortium) caved in and cut their fee to a
> reasonable (non-extortion) level - one fourth the original
> demand. This has been discussed ad nausium and several links
> provided to news items that covered the controversy and Apple's role
> in it.

Holy Shit! A dollar? A dollar? I wonder what they are going to do
about Intel's multi-hundred dollar microprocessors? In fact, all
Intel systems cost *quite a few more dollars* than comparable AMD
systems... so how is it Intel isn't "extorting" everybody?

The dollar is only for the Anointed Kings of the PC Industry... not
for Pauper Pariah Outsiders like Apple. This was all NIH... the
money wasn't the issue... that's just a smokescreen.

--


Edward Dodge
/Independent Digital Consultant/

---

"Edward Dodge" <someone@g3.com> wrote in message
news:m23cmyvw9k.fsf@g3.com...
> "James" <jarveson@nospam.net> writes:
>
> > You mis-state what I said. I did not state that licensing is
> > extortion. I personally have negotiated multimillion dollar license
> > deals. I stated that the $1 fee demanded by Apple (not the
> > consortium) was extortion. The demands were made after MS and Intel
> > announced support for Firewire and after Sony (with their free
> > license) had introduced products to the market. After all of the
> > uproar, Apple (not the consortium) caved in and cut their fee to a
> > reasonable (non-extortion) level - one fourth the original
> > demand. This has been discussed ad nausium and several links
> > provided to news items that covered the controversy and Apple's role
> > in it.
>
> Holy Shit! A dollar? A dollar? I wonder what they are going to do
> about Intel's multi-hundred dollar microprocessors? In fact, all
> Intel systems cost *quite a few more dollars* than comparable AMD
> systems... so how is it Intel isn't "extorting" everybody?

That was probably the case before there were alternatives. However, now you
can buy X86 processors from several sources, just as you can buy a high
speed external bus from more than one source. In both cases competition has
helped the consumer.

Intel pricing is something to consider, however. Why didn't Apple follow the
Intel model and maintain a high license fee for their superior product?

James

---

In article <m23cmyvw9k.fsf@g3.com>, Edward Dodge <someone@g3.com>
wrote:

> "James" <jarveson@nospam.net> writes:
>
> > You mis-state what I said. I did not state that licensing is
> > extortion. I personally have negotiated multimillion dollar license
> > deals. I stated that the $1 fee demanded by Apple (not the
> > consortium) was extortion. The demands were made after MS and Intel
> > announced support for Firewire and after Sony (with their free
> > license) had introduced products to the market. After all of the
> > uproar, Apple (not the consortium) caved in and cut their fee to a
> > reasonable (non-extortion) level - one fourth the original
> > demand. This has been discussed ad nausium and several links
> > provided to news items that covered the controversy and Apple's role
> > in it.
>
> Holy Shit! A dollar? A dollar? I wonder what they are going to do
> about Intel's multi-hundred dollar microprocessors? In fact, all
> Intel systems cost *quite a few more dollars* than comparable AMD
> systems... so how is it Intel isn't "extorting" everybody?
>
> The dollar is only for the Anointed Kings of the PC Industry... not
> for Pauper Pariah Outsiders like Apple. This was all NIH... the
> money wasn't the issue... that's just a smokescreen.

Intel charges over $600 for a P4/3.0. No one would ever buy that chip.
No way. If $0.25 is too much (or even $1), then it's absolutely
impossible that anyone would ever pay Intel $600 for a processor.

---

flip <flippo@mac.com> writes:

> In article <m23cmyvw9k.fsf@g3.com>, Edward Dodge <someone@g3.com>
> wrote:
>
> > "James" <jarveson@nospam.net> writes:
> >
> > > You mis-state what I said. I did not state that licensing is
> > > extortion. I personally have negotiated multimillion dollar license
> > > deals. I stated that the $1 fee demanded by Apple (not the
> > > consortium) was extortion. The demands were made after MS and Intel
> > > announced support for Firewire and after Sony (with their free
> > > license) had introduced products to the market. After all of the
> > > uproar, Apple (not the consortium) caved in and cut their fee to a
> > > reasonable (non-extortion) level - one fourth the original
> > > demand. This has been discussed ad nausium and several links
> > > provided to news items that covered the controversy and Apple's role
> > > in it.
> >
> > Holy Shit! A dollar? A dollar? I wonder what they are going to do
> > about Intel's multi-hundred dollar microprocessors? In fact, all
> > Intel systems cost *quite a few more dollars* than comparable AMD
> > systems... so how is it Intel isn't "extorting" everybody?
> >
> > The dollar is only for the Anointed Kings of the PC Industry... not
> > for Pauper Pariah Outsiders like Apple. This was all NIH... the
> > money wasn't the issue... that's just a smokescreen.
>
> Intel charges over $600 for a P4/3.0. No one would ever buy that chip.
> No way. If $0.25 is too much (or even $1), then it's absolutely
> impossible that anyone would ever pay Intel $600 for a processor.

Probably they could sell a lot more of them if they would only bring
the price down to $0.25! What the industry needs to do is start an
x86 processor consortium to develop a cheaper chip than the Intel
Pentium 4, so everyone can participate in the *savings* and avoid
being *extorted*!

I wonder if Intel would spearhead this initiative?

;)

--


Edward Dodge
/Independent Digital Consultant/

---

"Edward Dodge" <someone@g3.com> wrote in message
news:m2lm0pnvtz.fsf@g3.com...
> flip <flippo@mac.com> writes:
>
> > In article <m23cmyvw9k.fsf@g3.com>, Edward Dodge <someone@g3.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > "James" <jarveson@nospam.net> writes:
> > >
> > > > You mis-state what I said. I did not state that licensing is
> > > > extortion. I personally have negotiated multimillion dollar license
> > > > deals. I stated that the $1 fee demanded by Apple (not the
> > > > consortium) was extortion. The demands were made after MS and Intel
> > > > announced support for Firewire and after Sony (with their free
> > > > license) had introduced products to the market. After all of the
> > > > uproar, Apple (not the consortium) caved in and cut their fee to a
> > > > reasonable (non-extortion) level - one fourth the original
> > > > demand. This has been discussed ad nausium and several links
> > > > provided to news items that covered the controversy and Apple's role
> > > > in it.
> > >
> > > Holy Shit! A dollar? A dollar? I wonder what they are going to do
> > > about Intel's multi-hundred dollar microprocessors? In fact, all
> > > Intel systems cost *quite a few more dollars* than comparable AMD
> > > systems... so how is it Intel isn't "extorting" everybody?
> > >
> > > The dollar is only for the Anointed Kings of the PC Industry... not
> > > for Pauper Pariah Outsiders like Apple. This was all NIH... the
> > > money wasn't the issue... that's just a smokescreen.
> >
> > Intel charges over $600 for a P4/3.0. No one would ever buy that chip.
> > No way. If $0.25 is too much (or even $1), then it's absolutely
> > impossible that anyone would ever pay Intel $600 for a processor.
>
> Probably they could sell a lot more of them if they would only bring
> the price down to $0.25! What the industry needs to do is start an
> x86 processor consortium to develop a cheaper chip than the Intel
> Pentium 4, so everyone can participate in the *savings* and avoid
> being *extorted*!

Actually, this has already happened. AMD is, to some extent, the result of
investments by the computer industry. And, as a consequence, processor
prices are down by ratios similar to the price cut that Apple had to make on
their license fee. Now if Apple or Intel can produce a unique product that
has sufficient customer attraction to warrent a premium price (Firewire 800
or Pentium 4) then perhaps they can get away charging a higher price. But
keep in mind that there are competitors out there who are only too willing
to take advantage of unreasonable pricing disparities. That was the mistake
that Apple made. They set the price high enough to encourage the industry
(not just Intel) to develop an alternative.

James


>
> I wonder if Intel would spearhead this initiative?
>
> ;)
>
> --
>
>
> Edward Dodge
> /Independent Digital Consultant/

---

James wrote in <Jjy1a.18970$LW1.890253@news1.west.cox.net>:

>
>"Edward Dodge" <someone@g3.com> wrote in message
>news:m2lm0pnvtz.fsf@g3.com...
>> flip <flippo@mac.com> writes:
>>
>> > In article <m23cmyvw9k.fsf@g3.com>, Edward Dodge <someone@g3.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > "James" <jarveson@nospam.net> writes:
>> > >
>> > > > You mis-state what I said. I did not state that licensing is
>> > > > extortion. I personally have negotiated multimillion dollar license
>> > > > deals. I stated that the $1 fee demanded by Apple (not the
>> > > > consortium) was extortion. The demands were made after MS and Intel
>> > > > announced support for Firewire and after Sony (with their free
>> > > > license) had introduced products to the market. After all of the
>> > > > uproar, Apple (not the consortium) caved in and cut their fee to a
>> > > > reasonable (non-extortion) level - one fourth the original
>> > > > demand. This has been discussed ad nausium and several links
>> > > > provided to news items that covered the controversy and Apple's role
>> > > > in it.
>> > >
>> > > Holy Shit! A dollar? A dollar? I wonder what they are going to do
>> > > about Intel's multi-hundred dollar microprocessors? In fact, all
>> > > Intel systems cost *quite a few more dollars* than comparable AMD
>> > > systems... so how is it Intel isn't "extorting" everybody?
>> > >
>> > > The dollar is only for the Anointed Kings of the PC Industry... not
>> > > for Pauper Pariah Outsiders like Apple. This was all NIH... the
>> > > money wasn't the issue... that's just a smokescreen.
>> >
>> > Intel charges over $600 for a P4/3.0. No one would ever buy that chip.
>> > No way. If $0.25 is too much (or even $1), then it's absolutely
>> > impossible that anyone would ever pay Intel $600 for a processor.
>>
>> Probably they could sell a lot more of them if they would only bring
>> the price down to $0.25! What the industry needs to do is start an
>> x86 processor consortium to develop a cheaper chip than the Intel
>> Pentium 4, so everyone can participate in the *savings* and avoid
>> being *extorted*!
>
>Actually, this has already happened. AMD is, to some extent, the result of
>investments by the computer industry. And, as a consequence, processor
>prices are down by ratios similar to the price cut that Apple had to make on
>their license fee. Now if Apple or Intel can produce a unique product that
>has sufficient customer attraction to warrent a premium price (Firewire 800
>or Pentium 4) then perhaps they can get away charging a higher price. But
>keep in mind that there are competitors out there who are only too willing
>to take advantage of unreasonable pricing disparities. That was the mistake
>that Apple made. They set the price high enough to encourage the industry
>(not just Intel) to develop an alternative.

To tie this back in to Dodge's dodgy rhetoric, USB2 just proves that
people are willing to pay more for Firewire. I'm joking, of course.
But that is how their minds work.

---

Steve Hanson <SteveHanson591@aol.com> writes:

> James wrote in <Jjy1a.18970$LW1.890253@news1.west.cox.net>:
>
> >
> >"Edward Dodge" <someone@g3.com> wrote in message
> >news:m2lm0pnvtz.fsf@g3.com...
> >> flip <flippo@mac.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > In article <m23cmyvw9k.fsf@g3.com>, Edward Dodge
> >> > <someone@g3.com>
> >> >
> >> Probably they could sell a lot more of them if they would only
> >> bring the price down to $0.25! What the industry needs to do is
> >> start an x86 processor consortium to develop a cheaper chip than
> >> the Intel Pentium 4, so everyone can participate in the *savings*
> >> and avoid being *extorted*!
> >
> >Actually, this has already happened. AMD is, to some extent, the
> >result of investments by the computer industry. And, as a
> >consequence, processor prices are down by ratios similar to the
> >price cut that Apple had to make on their license fee.

Yeah... but that hasn't stopped Intel from gouging and growing
market. Additionally, if it worked for Firewire, why couldn't the
same process work for processors? And why isn't Intel spearheading
the initiative? ;)

> >Now if Apple or Intel can produce a unique product that has
> >sufficient customer attraction to warrent a premium price (Firewire
> >800 or Pentium 4) then perhaps they can get away charging a higher
> >price.

Hmmm... 4 years of having a technology that has absolutely no
comparable technology isn't "unique?" DV isn't an attractive
technology? Uh-huh.

> >But keep in mind that there are competitors out there who are only
> >too willing to take advantage of unreasonable pricing
> >disparities. That was the mistake that Apple made. They set the
> >price high enough to encourage the industry (not just Intel) to
> >develop an alternative.

Like I said... there are *several* dollars of "price desparity"
between Intel and equivalent Athlon systems. By your previous logic
("1 dollah too much!"), they Intel are gouging the public to a
degree unheard of even by Apple Firewire licensing standards.

> To tie this back in to Dodge's dodgy rhetoric, USB2 just proves that
> people are willing to pay more for Firewire. I'm joking, of course.
> But that is how their minds work.

The "people" had nothing to do with it. It was industry collusion at
the behest of Intel's NIH crusade. And who's *not* going to follow
Intel on a NIH crusade? Dell perhaps?

I stand by my satire: Intel should do something about the processor
extortion surrounding P4 technology and start a multi-company x86
development effort to shave dollars off the current x86 extortion. ;)

--


Edward Dodge
/Independent Digital Consultant/

---

"Edward Dodge" <someone@g3.com> wrote in message
news:m2fzqu65xt.fsf@g3.com...
> Steve Hanson <SteveHanson591@aol.com> writes:
>
> > James wrote in <Jjy1a.18970$LW1.890253@news1.west.cox.net>:
> >
> > >
> > >"Edward Dodge" <someone@g3.com> wrote in message
> > >news:m2lm0pnvtz.fsf@g3.com...
> > >> flip <flippo@mac.com> writes:
> > >>
> > >> > In article <m23cmyvw9k.fsf@g3.com>, Edward Dodge
> > >> > <someone@g3.com>
> > >> >
> > >> Probably they could sell a lot more of them if they would only
> > >> bring the price down to $0.25! What the industry needs to do is
> > >> start an x86 processor consortium to develop a cheaper chip than
> > >> the Intel Pentium 4, so everyone can participate in the *savings*
> > >> and avoid being *extorted*!
> > >
> > >Actually, this has already happened. AMD is, to some extent, the
> > >result of investments by the computer industry. And, as a
> > >consequence, processor prices are down by ratios similar to the
> > >price cut that Apple had to make on their license fee.
>
> Yeah... but that hasn't stopped Intel from gouging and growing
> market.

That's a contradiction. Intel's market growth is directly related to their
price cutting. There are over a 100M customers out there who have a choice
as to which processor to use. They can freely choose AMD, and save some
money or Intel, for whatever reason they have. Is it your contention that if
they choose to buy an intel-based computer, intel is gouging them? Then is
Apple gouging customers by charging a premium for their product? Those apple
customers can make a free choice.

Additionally, if it worked for Firewire, why couldn't the
> same process work for processors? And why isn't Intel spearheading
> the initiative? ;)

?????? Didn't we cover this????
It did work. AMD sells processors at a loss thereby pushing the price down
on Intel processors.




>
> > >Now if Apple or Intel can produce a unique product that has
> > >sufficient customer attraction to warrent a premium price (Firewire
> > >800 or Pentium 4) then perhaps they can get away charging a higher
> > >price.
>
> Hmmm... 4 years of having a technology that has absolutely no
> comparable technology isn't "unique?" DV isn't an attractive
> technology? Uh-huh.

Fine. let then charge a higher price now, if they can get away with it.

>
> > >But keep in mind that there are competitors out there who are only
> > >too willing to take advantage of unreasonable pricing
> > >disparities. That was the mistake that Apple made. They set the
> > >price high enough to encourage the industry (not just Intel) to
> > >develop an alternative.
>
> Like I said... there are *several* dollars of "price desparity"
> between Intel and equivalent Athlon systems. By your previous logic
> ("1 dollah too much!"), they Intel are gouging the public to a
> degree unheard of even by Apple Firewire licensing standards.

But there is a choice in the case of Intel/AMD. and now there is a choice in
the case of Firewire/USB2. They can charge $100 per device for their
license, and nobody will complain now.


>
> > To tie this back in to Dodge's dodgy rhetoric, USB2 just proves that
> > people are willing to pay more for Firewire. I'm joking, of course.
> > But that is how their minds work.
>
> The "people" had nothing to do with it. It was industry collusion at
> the behest of Intel's NIH crusade. And who's *not* going to follow
> Intel on a NIH crusade? Dell perhaps?

You are avoiding the obvious. This "crusade" saved the industry $100M per
year. with a relatively modest investment.

In parallel another PC industry crusade, not led by Intel, saved the
industry an even larger amount of money by propping up AMD with cash
infusions.

There is a common theme in these two events and it has nothing to do with
your paranoid ramblings.

>
> I stand by my satire: Intel should do something about the processor
> extortion surrounding P4 technology and start a multi-company x86
> development effort to shave dollars off the current x86 extortion. ;)

Why bother? They can direct people who want a lower cost processor down the
street.

James

---

"James" <jarveson@nospam.net> writes:

> "Edward Dodge" <someone@g3.com> wrote in message
> news:m2fzqu65xt.fsf@g3.com...
> > Steve Hanson <SteveHanson591@aol.com> writes:
> >
> > > James wrote in <Jjy1a.18970$LW1.890253@news1.west.cox.net>:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >"Edward Dodge" <someone@g3.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:m2lm0pnvtz.fsf@g3.com...
> > > >
> > > >Actually, this has already happened. AMD is, to some extent, the
> > > >result of investments by the computer industry. And, as a
> > > >consequence, processor prices are down by ratios similar to the
> > > >price cut that Apple had to make on their license fee.
> >
> > Yeah... but that hasn't stopped Intel from gouging and growing
> > market.
>
> That's a contradiction. Intel's market growth is directly related to their
> price cutting. There are over a 100M customers out there who have a choice
> as to which processor to use.

But that doesn't change the fact that those who choose Intel pay a
multi-dollar difference in price based on a multi-dollar difference in
OEM cost, Invel parts vs. AMD parts. And it has already been
established that:

1) "1 dollah too much!" and,
2) "1 dollah == gouging."

So regardless of total cost going down, Intel is STILL gouging
customers.

> They can freely choose AMD, and save some money or Intel, for
> whatever reason they have. Is it your contention that if they choose
> to buy an intel-based computer, intel is gouging them?

See above.

> Then is Apple gouging customers by charging a premium for their
> product? Those apple customers can make a free choice.

Like those people who wanted Firewire built into their OEM PC had a
"free choice?"

> > Additionally, if it worked for Firewire, why couldn't the
> > same process work for processors? And why isn't Intel spearheading
> > the initiative? ;)
>
> ?????? Didn't we cover this????
> It did work. AMD sells processors at a loss thereby pushing the price down
> on Intel processors.

And there is still a multi-dollar differential between Intel and AMD
parts. And as we all know (from Firewire licensing woes) that "1
dollah too much!" and constitutes "gouging." Therefore, if Intel is
*any* number of dollars more expensive than AMD, they are gouging
their customers.

Additionally, to remedy this situation, Intel needs to spearhead a
group of investor companies to help develop and produce a new x86
processor for $0.25/unit so the consumers don't continue to get
"ripped off."

> > > >Now if Apple or Intel can produce a unique product that has
> > > >sufficient customer attraction to warrent a premium price
> > > >(Firewire 800 or Pentium 4) then perhaps they can get away
> > > >charging a higher price.
> >
> > Hmmm... 4 years of having a technology that has absolutely no
> > comparable technology isn't "unique?" DV isn't an attractive
> > technology? Uh-huh.
>
> Fine. let then charge a higher price now, if they can get away with it.

Especially since their development costs have been hard to recoup
while Intel and its buddies spread FUD for 4 years about their great
new "me-too" technology just around the corner.

Firewire costs not recouped == Apple and its group suffers.
Intel's USB2 costs not recouped == grab another billion from
processor-sales/extortion and re-fill the pot.

> > > >But keep in mind that there are competitors out there who are only
> > > >too willing to take advantage of unreasonable pricing
> > > >disparities. That was the mistake that Apple made. They set the
> > > >price high enough to encourage the industry (not just Intel) to
> > > >develop an alternative.
> >
> > Like I said... there are *several* dollars of "price desparity"
> > between Intel and equivalent Athlon systems. By your previous logic
> > ("1 dollah too much!"), they Intel are gouging the public to a
> > degree unheard of even by Apple Firewire licensing standards.
>
> But there is a choice in the case of Intel/AMD. and now there is a
> choice in the case of Firewire/USB2. They can charge $100 per device
> for their license, and nobody will complain now.

Yeah... but that still assumes: "$1 too much!"
Therefore, any price differential greater than $1 between Intel and
AMD is obvious price gouging by Intel.

Tsk tsk tsk.

> > > To tie this back in to Dodge's dodgy rhetoric, USB2 just proves that
> > > people are willing to pay more for Firewire. I'm joking, of course.
> > > But that is how their minds work.
> >
> > The "people" had nothing to do with it. It was industry collusion at
> > the behest of Intel's NIH crusade. And who's *not* going to follow
> > Intel on a NIH crusade? Dell perhaps?
>
> You are avoiding the obvious. This "crusade" saved the industry
> $100M per year. with a relatively modest investment.

And the consumers "won" by having pre-installed me-too technology 4
years later than it was available to them. All over "$1 too much!"

It saved someone that precious $1 somewhere down the line on their
system -- and created 4 years of opportunity-lost-cost for the DV and
PC industry. Way to go, Intel!

> In parallel another PC industry crusade, not led by Intel, saved the
> industry an even larger amount of money by propping up AMD with cash
> infusions.

Less than 1-in-5 systems in the market are AMD. That means 4/5 are
still getting gouged! So there is very little "savings" in the big
picture here. If there are $4000 Yugos on a car lot, and 9/10 of
everyone on that lot buys something else that is a lot more
expensive, there is very little actual "savings."

> There is a common theme in these two events and it has nothing to do with
> your paranoid ramblings.

It's the fact that you have yet to address the "1 dollah too much"
mentality that justifies leaving Firewire out in the cold while a
massive FUD campaign keeps the image of vaporware afloat for 4 years
while people could have been developing new apps, new peripherals, and
whole new industries to increase the VALUE of the PC users everywhere.

All for Intel's NIH and "1 dollah too much!"

> > I stand by my satire: Intel should do something about the processor
> > extortion surrounding P4 technology and start a multi-company x86
> > development effort to shave dollars off the current x86 extortion. ;)
>
> Why bother? They can direct people who want a lower cost processor
> down the street.

Irrelevant, that doesn't stop Intel from "gouging" people anyway.
You seem to be laboring under the faulty belief that if there is
anything cheaper available, a customer *cannot* be gouged by buying
the more expensive product.

And in this case (you have been following the thread, haven't you?)
it has been established that "1 dollah too much!," so obviously
anyone who buys Intel parts instead of AMD is getting "gouged."

And I continue to say that if Intel is going to be serious about this
"protecting the consumer and industry" from being gouged crusade,
they need to start a consortium to design and develop a super-duper
x86 chip that has the same specs as the ones today. Then they must
wait 4 years while encouraging people to not use "gouge-inducing"
products like Intel's current x86 line. In a meantime, P.C.'s
should ship with no processor and no other Intel parts that might
"gouge" these poor OEM's and consumers. ;)

--


Edward Dodge
/Independent Digital Consultant/

---

Edward Dodge <someone@g3.com> wrote:

Cut...

Please remove the crossposting to dk.edb.mac


--
Preben Bødker Nielsen . preben@ravnekrogen.dk
www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/pea-roer.html

---

"Edward Dodge" <someone@g3.com> wrote in message
news:m2r8adxsth.fsf@g3.com...
> > > Yeah... but that hasn't stopped Intel from gouging and growing
> > > market.
> >
> > That's a contradiction. Intel's market growth is directly related to
their
> > price cutting. There are over a 100M customers out there who have a
choice
> > as to which processor to use.
>
> But that doesn't change the fact that those who choose Intel pay a
> multi-dollar difference in price based on a multi-dollar difference in
> OEM cost, Invel parts vs. AMD parts. And it has already been
> established that:
>
> 1) "1 dollah too much!" and,
> 2) "1 dollah == gouging."

When there is no alternative.
>
> So regardless of total cost going down, Intel is STILL gouging
> customers.
>
> > They can freely choose AMD, and save some money or Intel, for
> > whatever reason they have. Is it your contention that if they choose
> > to buy an intel-based computer, intel is gouging them?
>
> See above.

Customers who freely choose Intel over alternatives aren't being gouged.
They have a choice to make and decide to by Intel over the cheaper product.

>
> > Then is Apple gouging customers by charging a premium for their
> > product? Those apple customers can make a free choice.
>
> Like those people who wanted Firewire built into their OEM PC had a
> "free choice?"

There are OEM PCs with Firewire. Not many. There aren't many with AMD
processors either.

>
> > > Additionally, if it worked for Firewire, why couldn't the
> > > same process work for processors? And why isn't Intel spearheading
> > > the initiative? ;)
> >
> > ?????? Didn't we cover this????
> > It did work. AMD sells processors at a loss thereby pushing the price
down
> > on Intel processors.
>
> And there is still a multi-dollar differential between Intel and AMD
> parts. And as we all know (from Firewire licensing woes) that "1
> dollah too much!" and constitutes "gouging." Therefore, if Intel is
> *any* number of dollars more expensive than AMD, they are gouging
> their customers.
>
> Additionally, to remedy this situation, Intel needs to spearhead a
> group of investor companies to help develop and produce a new x86
> processor for $0.25/unit so the consumers don't continue to get
> "ripped off."
>
> > > > >Now if Apple or Intel can produce a unique product that has
> > > > >sufficient customer attraction to warrent a premium price
> > > > >(Firewire 800 or Pentium 4) then perhaps they can get away
> > > > >charging a higher price.
> > >
> > > Hmmm... 4 years of having a technology that has absolutely no
> > > comparable technology isn't "unique?" DV isn't an attractive
> > > technology? Uh-huh.
> >
> > Fine. let then charge a higher price now, if they can get away with it.
>
> Especially since their development costs have been hard to recoup
> while Intel and its buddies spread FUD for 4 years about their great
> new "me-too" technology just around the corner.

A product of your limited imagination. There was no discussion of USB2 until
the Firewire licensing fiasco.

>
> Firewire costs not recouped == Apple and its group suffers.

That's their problem to deal with.

> Intel's USB2 costs not recouped == grab another billion from
> processor-sales/extortion and re-fill the pot.

I thought we agreed that the costs were easily recouped.
>
> > > > >But keep in mind that there are competitors out there who are only
> > > > >too willing to take advantage of unreasonable pricing
> > > > >disparities. That was the mistake that Apple made. They set the
> > > > >price high enough to encourage the industry (not just Intel) to
> > > > >develop an alternative.
> > >
> > > Like I said... there are *several* dollars of "price desparity"
> > > between Intel and equivalent Athlon systems. By your previous logic
> > > ("1 dollah too much!"), they Intel are gouging the public to a
> > > degree unheard of even by Apple Firewire licensing standards.
> >
> > But there is a choice in the case of Intel/AMD. and now there is a
> > choice in the case of Firewire/USB2. They can charge $100 per device
> > for their license, and nobody will complain now.
>
> Yeah... but that still assumes: "$1 too much!"
> Therefore, any price differential greater than $1 between Intel and
> AMD is obvious price gouging by Intel.
>
> Tsk tsk tsk.

By your definition anybody whyo buys a premium product when a cheaper one is
available is being "gouged". To make such a statement, you assume that you
know better than the purchaser what the value to him is. Do you know why
someone buys a Rolex, a BMW, a Mac? It is presumptuous for you to imagine
that you can decide for somebody else whether they are getting their value
for the additional price.

Gouging occurs when there is no choice.

>
> > > > To tie this back in to Dodge's dodgy rhetoric, USB2 just proves that
> > > > people are willing to pay more for Firewire. I'm joking, of course.
> > > > But that is how their minds work.
> > >
> > > The "people" had nothing to do with it. It was industry collusion at
> > > the behest of Intel's NIH crusade. And who's *not* going to follow
> > > Intel on a NIH crusade? Dell perhaps?
> >
> > You are avoiding the obvious. This "crusade" saved the industry
> > $100M per year. with a relatively modest investment.
>
> And the consumers "won" by having pre-installed me-too technology 4
> years later than it was available to them. All over "$1 too much!"

It was always available. it still is. many choose to use it.

Try to keep up with the times.

!
>
> > In parallel another PC industry crusade, not led by Intel, saved the
> > industry an even larger amount of money by propping up AMD with cash
> > infusions.
>
> Less than 1-in-5 systems in the market are AMD. That means 4/5 are
> still getting gouged! So there is very little "savings" in the big
> picture here. If there are $4000 Yugos on a car lot, and 9/10 of
> everyone on that lot buys something else that is a lot more
> expensive, there is very little actual "savings."

And are the customers of non-Yugo cars being gouged?
>
> > There is a common theme in these two events and it has nothing to do
with
> > your paranoid ramblings.
>
> It's the fact that you have yet to address the "1 dollah too much"
> mentality that justifies leaving Firewire out in the cold while a
> massive FUD campaign keeps the image of vaporware afloat for 4 years
> while people could have been developing new apps, new peripherals, and
> whole new industries to increase the VALUE of the PC users everywhere.
>
> All for Intel's NIH and "1 dollah too much!"
>
> > > I stand by my satire: Intel should do something about the processor
> > > extortion surrounding P4 technology and start a multi-company x86
> > > development effort to shave dollars off the current x86 extortion. ;)
> >
> > Why bother? They can direct people who want a lower cost processor
> > down the street.
>
> Irrelevant, that doesn't stop Intel from "gouging" people anyway.
> You seem to be laboring under the faulty belief that if there is
> anything cheaper available, a customer *cannot* be gouged by buying
> the more expensive product.

That's your belief. Most people who choose to by something besides the
cheapest product differ with you.

James

---

Edward Dodge wrote in <m2fzqu65xt.fsf@g3.com>:

>> To tie this back in to Dodge's dodgy rhetoric, USB2 just proves that
>> people are willing to pay more for Firewire. I'm joking, of course.
>> But that is how their minds work.
>
>The "people" had nothing to do with it. It was industry collusion at
>the behest of Intel's NIH crusade. And who's *not* going to follow
>Intel on a NIH crusade? Dell perhaps?

Industry collusion! Your drinking water is at risk! Reds under the
bed! Anthrax in the sugar bowl!

---

In article <En%0a.7573$LW1.389103@news1.west.cox.net>, James
<jarveson@nospam.net> wrote:

> The facts are that Apple attempted to extort about $100M/yr from the PC
> business.

Well, aside from the fact that Apple isn't the 1394 consortium. And the
fact that wanting to be paid for the use of your patents generally
isn't considered "extortion."

--
"A billion's a nice round number." -- Ted Turner
--------------------------------------------------
Andy Walton * http://atticus.home.mindspring.com/

---

"Andy Walton" <atticus@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:080220031157241948%atticus@mindspring.com...
> In article <En%0a.7573$LW1.389103@news1.west.cox.net>, James
> <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> > The facts are that Apple attempted to extort about $100M/yr from the PC
> > business.
>
> Well, aside from the fact that Apple isn't the 1394 consortium. And the
> fact that wanting to be paid for the use of your patents generally
> isn't considered "extortion."

read the accounts of the day for another view.

It seems convenient that Apple, who was once the sole inventor of Firewire
is now merely a member of a large group and only has collective
responsibility. Well, that's not the way it works. Apple does indeed hold
the key IP for firewire and has the final say on the licensing practices for
that IP. I would say that if $0.25 is a reasonable license fee, then four
times that is an unreasonable fee.

james

---

"James" <jarveson@nospam.net> writes:

> The facts are that Apple attempted to extort about $100M/yr from the
> PC business. The PC manufacturers decided not to put up with the
> extortion so they bypassed Apple. Now Firewire supporters such as
> yourself ask why they don't go back and fork over $25M/yr to the
> same extortionist.

Wow. Not being willing to pass on Firewire goodness for four years
and having to over-haul the sorry USB protocol was a stroke of
genius. I'm sure it cost much less than $100M to develop a new
crappy technology.


--


Edward Dodge
/Independent Digital Consultant/

---

"Edward Dodge" <someone@g3.com> wrote in message
news:m27kcavwo5.fsf@g3.com...
> "James" <jarveson@nospam.net> writes:
>
> > The facts are that Apple attempted to extort about $100M/yr from the
> > PC business. The PC manufacturers decided not to put up with the
> > extortion so they bypassed Apple. Now Firewire supporters such as
> > yourself ask why they don't go back and fork over $25M/yr to the
> > same extortionist.
>
> Wow. Not being willing to pass on Firewire goodness for four years
> and having to over-haul the sorry USB protocol was a stroke of
> genius. I'm sure it cost much less than $100M to develop a new
> crappy technology.

I agree. It was a stroke of genius. It probably cost much less than the
$100M. And a look at the article that started this string reveals that the
difference between the two is negligible. Now 90% of the PC users can get
by just fine with the embedded USB bus and the remaining that want/need
Firewire capability can by a discounted card.
>
>
> --
>
>
> Edward Dodge
> /Independent Digital Consultant

---

"James" <jarveson@nospam.net> writes:

> "Edward Dodge" <someone@g3.com> wrote in message
> news:m27kcavwo5.fsf@g3.com...
> > "James" <jarveson@nospam.net> writes:
> >
> > Wow. Not being willing to pass on Firewire goodness for four
> > years and having to over-haul the sorry USB protocol was a stroke
> > of genius. I'm sure it cost much less than $100M to develop a new
> > crappy technology.
>
> I agree. It was a stroke of genius. It probably cost much less than
> the $100M. And a look at the article that started this string
> reveals that the difference between the two is negligible. Now 90%
> of the PC users can get by just fine with the embedded USB bus and
> the remaining that want/need Firewire capability can by a discounted
> card.

4 years of opportunity-lost cost to the consumers. For a case of NIH
syndrome. Tsk tsk tsk. Have fun with the wide array of DV camcorders
that will readily plug into your USB-2 slot! Oh wait... DV is way
too much trouble for the PC industry (and far too expensive)... the
users can wait another 4 years while Intel et al re-invent the wheel
again. No bad!

--


Edward Dodge
/Independent Digital Consultant/

---

"Edward Dodge" <someone@g3.com> wrote in message
news:m2hebdnvjc.fsf@g3.com...
> "James" <jarveson@nospam.net> writes:
>
> > "Edward Dodge" <someone@g3.com> wrote in message
> > news:m27kcavwo5.fsf@g3.com...
> > > "James" <jarveson@nospam.net> writes:
> > >
> > > Wow. Not being willing to pass on Firewire goodness for four
> > > years and having to over-haul the sorry USB protocol was a stroke
> > > of genius. I'm sure it cost much less than $100M to develop a new
> > > crappy technology.
> >
> > I agree. It was a stroke of genius. It probably cost much less than
> > the $100M. And a look at the article that started this string
> > reveals that the difference between the two is negligible. Now 90%
> > of the PC users can get by just fine with the embedded USB bus and
> > the remaining that want/need Firewire capability can by a discounted
> > card.
>
> 4 years of opportunity-lost cost to the consumers. For a case of NIH
> syndrome. Tsk tsk tsk. Have fun with the wide array of DV camcorders
> that will readily plug into your USB-2 slot! Oh wait... DV is way
> too much trouble for the PC industry (and far too expensive)... the
> users can wait another 4 years while Intel et al re-invent the wheel
> again. No bad!

I don't understand the argument about lost opportunity. One can easily
purchase a firewire card for about $60. The use of DV today is such that it
doesn't make sense for the majority of computer users. And tomorrow? Let's
wait and see. It's difficult to predict the trends of the consumer
electronics business.

James
>
> --
>
>
> Edward Dodge
> /Independent Digital Consultant/

---

On Sun, 09 Feb 2003 19:42:53 GMT, "James" <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote:

>"Edward Dodge" <someone@g3.com> wrote in message
>news:m2hebdnvjc.fsf@g3.com...
>> "James" <jarveson@nospam.net> writes:
>>
>> > "Edward Dodge" <someone@g3.com> wrote in message
>> > news:m27kcavwo5.fsf@g3.com...
>> > > "James" <jarveson@nospam.net> writes:
>> > >
>> > > Wow. Not being willing to pass on Firewire goodness for four
>> > > years and having to over-haul the sorry USB protocol was a stroke
>> > > of genius. I'm sure it cost much less than $100M to develop a new
>> > > crappy technology.
>> >
>> > I agree. It was a stroke of genius. It probably cost much less than
>> > the $100M. And a look at the article that started this string
>> > reveals that the difference between the two is negligible. Now 90%
>> > of the PC users can get by just fine with the embedded USB bus and
>> > the remaining that want/need Firewire capability can by a discounted
>> > card.
>>
>> 4 years of opportunity-lost cost to the consumers. For a case of NIH
>> syndrome. Tsk tsk tsk. Have fun with the wide array of DV camcorders
>> that will readily plug into your USB-2 slot! Oh wait... DV is way
>> too much trouble for the PC industry (and far too expensive)... the
>> users can wait another 4 years while Intel et al re-invent the wheel
>> again. No bad!
>
>I don't understand the argument about lost opportunity. One can easily
>purchase a firewire card for about $60.

Or $15, for that matter.

>The use of DV today is such that it
>doesn't make sense for the majority of computer users.

Why not?

>And tomorrow? Let's
>wait and see. It's difficult to predict the trends of the consumer
>electronics business.
>
>James
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Edward Dodge
>> /Independent Digital Consultant/
>

---

"dc" <dc@foo.bar> wrote in message
news:6scd4vc31aoag2s94fla7q3lk8lavhc67a@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 09 Feb 2003 19:42:53 GMT, "James" <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> >
> >I don't understand the argument about lost opportunity. One can easily
> >purchase a firewire card for about $60.
>
> Or $15, for that matter.
>
> >The use of DV today is such that it
> >doesn't make sense for the majority of computer users.
>
> Why not?

They don't have DV cameras yet.

James
>
> >And tomorrow? Let's
> >wait and see. It's difficult to predict the trends of the consumer
> >electronics business.

---

James wrote:

>> >I don't understand the argument about lost opportunity. One can easily
>> >purchase a firewire card for about $60.
>>
>> Or $15, for that matter.
>>
>> >The use of DV today is such that it
>> >doesn't make sense for the majority of computer users.
>>
>> Why not?
>
> They don't have DV cameras yet.

Most new cameras out there do have Firewire built in. A lot of new HDTV's
are also coming out with Firewire. My TRV730 has firewire (or as Sony as
dubbed it iLink) and I've used it extensively, to make movies and then burn
them to DVD (just recently bought and internal DVD Writer for about $169).

If you think the PC platform lacks Movie Creation software, you haven't
looked around. There are several packages out there, with varying prices
from the $100 Pinnacle Studio DV (can be found for $49) to the more
expensive Adobe Premiere (~$600). Of course you can use the Movie Creator
that MS puts out, but I think it's a dog. I'ld rather spend the $49 for
Studio 8.


--
R. Oukaki

---

Edward Dodge wrote in <m27kcavwo5.fsf@g3.com>:

>"James" <jarveson@nospam.net> writes:
>
>> The facts are that Apple attempted to extort about $100M/yr from the
>> PC business. The PC manufacturers decided not to put up with the
>> extortion so they bypassed Apple. Now Firewire supporters such as
>> yourself ask why they don't go back and fork over $25M/yr to the
>> same extortionist.
>
>Wow. Not being willing to pass on Firewire goodness for four years
>and having to over-haul the sorry USB protocol was a stroke of
>genius. I'm sure it cost much less than $100M to develop a new
>crappy technology.

Notice that only in Mac-land is the humble USB standard "sorry" (even
though all Macs use it) and "crappy", but they were able to go for
years with the brain dead Appletalk protocol for data transfers, one
of the most embarrassing non-achievements in the computer industry.
But hey they have Firewire now so this makes them 733+ d00dz. And
USB2 is "crap", everyone knows it, that's why it's showing up all
sorts of places you used to see only Firewire. Because Seagate and
Western Digital and HP and Sony and all those other companies only
make crap, except when it's for Apple then it magically becomes "not
crap" by a transmutive process known as "drinking the kool-aide".

Gee, Apple always seems to get around to implementing all that PC
"crap"--months or years after everyone else. And then, magically, it
becomes "not crap". Thank God--it's so important to have Steve Jobs
chime in and validate a proven technology and pretend his company
still innovates anything other than cases and user interfaces for
ADD-afflicted retards.

I'll be charitable and assume that Edward is stoned or drunk.

---

Steve Hanson <SteveHanson591@aol.com> wrote:

> Notice that only in Mac-land is the humble USB standard "sorry" (even
> though all Macs use it) and "crappy", but they were able to go for
> years with the brain dead Appletalk protocol for data transfers, one
> of the most embarrassing non-achievements in the computer industry.

Braindead?

Oh, that must be why we were networking using serial porst when morons
like yourself were an itch in your daddy's pants.

--
Peter - http://titancity.com/
http://haxor.dk/islamnyt/ - fordelene ved indvandringen
Hvad er der galt i Danmark? :
http://haxor.dk/artikler/galtidanmark.html

---

no_spam@invalid_email.com (Peter Bjørn Perlsø) writes:

> Steve Hanson <SteveHanson591@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Notice that only in Mac-land is the humble USB standard "sorry" (even
> > though all Macs use it) and "crappy", but they were able to go for
> > years with the brain dead Appletalk protocol for data transfers, one
> > of the most embarrassing non-achievements in the computer industry.
>
> Braindead?
>
> Oh, that must be why we were networking using serial porst when morons
> like yourself were an itch in your daddy's pants.

AppleTalk er en rigtig grissemikkel på et netværk, selvom det sikkert
fungerer fint på en seriel linie.

Hvor gammel skulle Steve iøvrigt være for at ovenstående passer?
--
Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen "... plus ... Tubular Bells!"
http://bigfoot.com/~thunderbear

---

Steve Hanson <SteveHanson591@aol.com> writes:

> Edward Dodge wrote in <m27kcavwo5.fsf@g3.com>:
>
> >"James" <jarveson@nospam.net> writes:
> >
> >> The facts are that Apple attempted to extort about $100M/yr from
> >> the PC business. The PC manufacturers decided not to put up with
> >> the extortion so they bypassed Apple. Now Firewire supporters
> >> such as yourself ask why they don't go back and fork over $25M/yr
> >> to the same extortionist.
> >
> >Wow. Not being willing to pass on Firewire goodness for four years
> >and having to over-haul the sorry USB protocol was a stroke of
> >genius. I'm sure it cost much less than $100M to develop a new
> >crappy technology.
>
> Notice that only in Mac-land is the humble USB standard "sorry"
> (even though all Macs use it) and "crappy", but they were able to go
> for years with the brain dead Appletalk protocol for data transfers,
> one of the most embarrassing non-achievements in the computer
> industry.

"Sorry" and "crappy" are relative terms. When you design something
high speed, and it works well high-speed, that's a good move. When
you design something slow, and then decide to kludge it so it works
fast, that's the beginning of "crap-on-a-stick." It's not truly the
best solution for high-speed, but put a stick on it and market it.

> But hey they have Firewire now so this makes them 733+ d00dz. And
> USB2 is "crap", everyone knows it, that's why it's showing up all
> sorts of places you used to see only Firewire.

We've had Firewire for 4 years. USB2 is showing up everywhere because
of Intel. Ironically USB1 started to show up everywhere largely
because of the original Apple iMac. Legacy ports were fine for most
PC makers 4 years ago... and would probably still be fine if Apple
hadn't broken the market by innovating and adopting Intel's wonderful
*slow-speed* serial bus.

> Because Seagate and Western Digital and HP and Sony and all those
> other companies only make crap, except when it's for Apple then it
> magically becomes "not crap" by a transmutive process known as
> "drinking the kool-aide".

I know for a fact Steve Jobs sprinkles magic Apple dust on every
Seagate drive that goes into an apple. Oh and... Western Digital is
crap in any computer you put it in.

> Gee, Apple always seems to get around to implementing all that PC
> "crap"--months or years after everyone else.

Like USB1?

> And then, magically, it becomes "not crap". Thank God--it's so
> important to have Steve Jobs chime in and validate a proven
> technology and pretend his company still innovates anything other
> than cases and user interfaces for ADD-afflicted retards.

In its day, NuBus and ADB kicked the crap out of the comparable
technologies on the PC of that era. When Intel finally got its stuff
together and started pushing the Pentium *as a platform*, it developed
similar, yet 10-years newer and cheaper technologies like PCI and AGP
and later, USB1. At this point, it became more expensive to
maintain the older (no economies-of-scale) NuBus and ADB standards.

True, Apple has NIH syndrome is when all the alternatives are crap.
But Intel has NIH syndrome any time it's dominance on the Pentium
Platform is challenged in any way. Especially when the competition
has something they hadn't even thought of.

> I'll be charitable and assume that Edward is stoned or drunk.

Keep your change, Knowledge Beggar. People are more likely to throw
you something if you already have a few coins in your cup.

--


Edward Dodge
/Independent Digital Consultant/

---

Edward Dodge <someone@g3.com> wrote:

> Like USB1?

A technology that was asleep until Apple picked it up.

USB2 is there, too, but it's adpotion is, like its predecessor -
limited.

--
Peter - http://titancity.com/
http://haxor.dk/islamnyt/ - fordelene ved indvandringen
Hvad er der galt i Danmark? :
http://haxor.dk/artikler/galtidanmark.html

---

"Peter Bjørn Perlsø" <no_spam@invalid_email.com> wrote in message
news:1fq8enj.1qjmchmx8aqihN%no_spam@invalid_email.com...
> Edward Dodge <someone@g3.com> wrote:
>
> > Like USB1?
>
> A technology that was asleep until Apple picked it up.

Oh, and how many PC motherboards with USB1 installed were shipped by the
time iMac came out. The ratio was about 10:1.
>
> USB2 is there, too, but it's adpotion is, like its predecessor -
> limited.

Virtually every desktop shipped today has USB2. That's a ration of 20-30:1,
compared to Firewire-equipped computer PC shipments.

james

---

"James" <jarveson@nospam.net> writes:

> "Peter Bjørn Perlsø" <no_spam@invalid_email.com> wrote in message
> news:1fq8enj.1qjmchmx8aqihN%no_spam@invalid_email.com...
> > Edward Dodge <someone@g3.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Like USB1?
> >
> > A technology that was asleep until Apple picked it up.
>
> Oh, and how many PC motherboards with USB1 installed were shipped by the
> time iMac came out. The ratio was about 10:1.

Heh... I guess it was probably the same ratio as number of Macs
shipping without a floppy versus number of PC's shipping without a
floppy drive today. Oh wait... that's not 10:1 yet either! ;)

--


Edward Dodge
/Independent Digital Consultant/

---

"Edward Dodge" <someone@g3.com> wrote in message
news:m24r7a3vgc.fsf@g3.com...
> "James" <jarveson@nospam.net> writes:
>
> > "Peter Bjørn Perlsø" <no_spam@invalid_email.com> wrote in message
> > news:1fq8enj.1qjmchmx8aqihN%no_spam@invalid_email.com...
> > > Edward Dodge <someone@g3.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Like USB1?
> > >
> > > A technology that was asleep until Apple picked it up.
> >
> > Oh, and how many PC motherboards with USB1 installed were shipped by the
> > time iMac came out. The ratio was about 10:1.
>
> Heh... I guess it was probably the same ratio as number of Macs
> shipping without a floppy versus number of PC's shipping without a
> floppy drive today. Oh wait... that's not 10:1 yet either! ;)

??? Another Mac Innovation?

Let's see now. Dodge makes the claim that Mac invented the following:

1. use of USB

2. colored peripherals

3. No floppy drives.

Quite a record

James
>
> --
>
>
> Edward Dodge
> /Independent Digital Consultant/

---

"James" <jarveson@nospam.net> writes:


> Let's see now. Dodge makes the claim that Mac invented the following:
>
> 1. use of USB
>
> 2. colored peripherals
>
> 3. No floppy drives.
>
> Quite a record
>
> James

By George, I think he's got it!

--


Edward Dodge
/Independent Digital Consultant/

---

Peter Bjørn Perlsø <no_spam@invalid_email.com> wrote:
> A technology

KLIP

Hvorfor f..... fjerner du ikke den irriterende krydspostning.

Skal vi alle sammen begynde at krydsposte til en comp-gruppe, som vi
finder belejlig.

--
Preben Bødker Nielsen . preben@ravnekrogen.dk
www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/pea-roer.html

---

Preben Bødker Nielsen <spam-01@tdcadsl.dk> wrote:

> Hvorfor f..... fjerner du ikke den irriterende krydspostning.
>

Beklager, det var en forglemelse.

--
Peter - http://titancity.com/
http://haxor.dk/islamnyt/ - fordelene ved indvandringen
Hvad er der galt i Danmark? :
http://haxor.dk/artikler/galtidanmark.html

---

"Edward Dodge" <someone@g3.com> wrote in message
news:m27kc664zn.fsf@g3.com...
> Steve Hanson <SteveHanson591@aol.com> writes:
>

>
> > Gee, Apple always seems to get around to implementing all that PC
> > "crap"--months or years after everyone else.
>
> Like USB1?

This is another urban myth that Dodge loves to repeat. The continual
repeating of the mantra doesn't make it true. The number of USB1 computers
shipped far exceeded the market provided by iMac. I was using a
USB1-equipped computer with a digital camera, mouse and videocam, shipped by
Dell as a standard before iMac. But keep repeating these delusions to each
other, if it gives you some comfort. It's just another circle jerk.

James

---

In article <d8c2a.39432$LW1.1499499@news1.west.cox.net>,
"James" <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote:

> "Edward Dodge" <someone@g3.com> wrote in message
> news:m27kc664zn.fsf@g3.com...
> > Steve Hanson <SteveHanson591@aol.com> writes:
> >
>
> >
> > > Gee, Apple always seems to get around to implementing all that PC
> > > "crap"--months or years after everyone else.
> >
> > Like USB1?
>
> This is another urban myth that Dodge loves to repeat. The continual
> repeating of the mantra doesn't make it true. The number of USB1 computers
> shipped far exceeded the market provided by iMac. I was using a
> USB1-equipped computer with a digital camera, mouse and videocam, shipped by
> Dell as a standard before iMac. But keep repeating these delusions to each
> other, if it gives you some comfort. It's just another circle jerk.
>

Really? What specifically were the digital camera and videocam?

---

"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-B370E4.15053611022003@news.telus.net...
> In article <d8c2a.39432$LW1.1499499@news1.west.cox.net>,
> "James" <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> > "Edward Dodge" <someone@g3.com> wrote in message
> > news:m27kc664zn.fsf@g3.com...
> > > Steve Hanson <SteveHanson591@aol.com> writes:
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > > Gee, Apple always seems to get around to implementing all that PC
> > > > "crap"--months or years after everyone else.
> > >
> > > Like USB1?
> >
> > This is another urban myth that Dodge loves to repeat. The continual
> > repeating of the mantra doesn't make it true. The number of USB1
computers
> > shipped far exceeded the market provided by iMac. I was using a
> > USB1-equipped computer with a digital camera, mouse and videocam,
shipped by
> > Dell as a standard before iMac. But keep repeating these delusions to
each
> > other, if it gives you some comfort. It's just another circle jerk.
> >
>
> Really? What specifically were the digital camera and videocam?

Kodak digital camera (long since replaced). The video cam is a PC camera
with a USB bus (still in use).

James

James

---

---

"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-5ABB27.17104611022003@news.telus.net...
> In article <CMg2a.43484$LW1.1555328@news1.west.cox.net>,
> "James" <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> > "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> > news:alangbaker-B370E4.15053611022003@news.telus.net...
> > > In article <d8c2a.39432$LW1.1499499@news1.west.cox.net>,
> > > "James" <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Edward Dodge" <someone@g3.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:m27kc664zn.fsf@g3.com...
> > > > > Steve Hanson <SteveHanson591@aol.com> writes:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Gee, Apple always seems to get around to implementing all that
PC
> > > > > > "crap"--months or years after everyone else.
> > > > >
> > > > > Like USB1?
> > > >
> > > > This is another urban myth that Dodge loves to repeat. The continual
> > > > repeating of the mantra doesn't make it true. The number of USB1
> > computers
> > > > shipped far exceeded the market provided by iMac. I was using a
> > > > USB1-equipped computer with a digital camera, mouse and videocam,
> > shipped by
> > > > Dell as a standard before iMac. But keep repeating these delusions
to
> > each
> > > > other, if it gives you some comfort. It's just another circle jerk.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Really? What specifically were the digital camera and videocam?
> >
> > Kodak digital camera (long since replaced).
>
> What model?
>
> >The video cam is a PC camera
> > with a USB bus (still in use).
>
> What kind?

Why? I already gave the camera away to my brother-in-law and I'm still using
the PC camera. They're not for sale.

James

---

In article <m2k2a.45699$LW1.1637699@news1.west.cox.net>,
"James" <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote:

> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:alangbaker-5ABB27.17104611022003@news.telus.net...
> > In article <CMg2a.43484$LW1.1555328@news1.west.cox.net>,
> > "James" <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote:
> >
> > > "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> > > news:alangbaker-B370E4.15053611022003@news.telus.net...
> > > > In article <d8c2a.39432$LW1.1499499@news1.west.cox.net>,
> > > > "James" <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Edward Dodge" <someone@g3.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:m27kc664zn.fsf@g3.com...
> > > > > > Steve Hanson <SteveHanson591@aol.com> writes:
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Gee, Apple always seems to get around to implementing all that
> PC
> > > > > > > "crap"--months or years after everyone else.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Like USB1?
> > > > >
> > > > > This is another urban myth that Dodge loves to repeat. The continual
> > > > > repeating of the mantra doesn't make it true. The number of USB1
> > > computers
> > > > > shipped far exceeded the market provided by iMac. I was using a
> > > > > USB1-equipped computer with a digital camera, mouse and videocam,
> > > shipped by
> > > > > Dell as a standard before iMac. But keep repeating these delusions
> to
> > > each
> > > > > other, if it gives you some comfort. It's just another circle jerk.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Really? What specifically were the digital camera and videocam?
> > >
> > > Kodak digital camera (long since replaced).
> >
> > What model?
> >
> > >The video cam is a PC camera
> > > with a USB bus (still in use).
> >
> > What kind?
>
> Why? I already gave the camera away to my brother-in-law and I'm still using
> the PC camera. They're not for sale.

I'd like to check the veracity of your account. I thought that would
have been obvious.

---

"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-CD8EFF.01272912022003@news.telus.net...
> In article <m2k2a.45699$LW1.1637699@news1.west.cox.net>,
> "James" <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> > "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> > news:alangbaker-5ABB27.17104611022003@news.telus.net...
> > > In article <CMg2a.43484$LW1.1555328@news1.west.cox.net>,
> > > "James" <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:alangbaker-B370E4.15053611022003@news.telus.net...
> > > > > In article <d8c2a.39432$LW1.1499499@news1.west.cox.net>,
> > > > > "James" <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "Edward Dodge" <someone@g3.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:m27kc664zn.fsf@g3.com...
> > > > > > > Steve Hanson <SteveHanson591@aol.com> writes:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Gee, Apple always seems to get around to implementing all
that
> > PC
> > > > > > > > "crap"--months or years after everyone else.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Like USB1?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is another urban myth that Dodge loves to repeat. The
continual
> > > > > > repeating of the mantra doesn't make it true. The number of USB1
> > > > computers
> > > > > > shipped far exceeded the market provided by iMac. I was using a
> > > > > > USB1-equipped computer with a digital camera, mouse and
videocam,
> > > > shipped by
> > > > > > Dell as a standard before iMac. But keep repeating these
delusions
> > to
> > > > each
> > > > > > other, if it gives you some comfort. It's just another circle
jerk.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Really? What specifically were the digital camera and videocam?
> > > >
> > > > Kodak digital camera (long since replaced).
> > >
> > > What model?
> > >
> > > >The video cam is a PC camera
> > > > with a USB bus (still in use).
> > >
> > > What kind?
> >
> > Why? I already gave the camera away to my brother-in-law and I'm still
using
> > the PC camera. They're not for sale.
>
> I'd like to check the veracity of your account. I thought that would
> have been obvious.

You already checked up and found that there were more than one Kodak camera
available. That's adequate. There were several PC cameras on the market at
the time. You can check on that and assume I own one of them.

James

---

In article <jzu2a.53402$LW1.1775694@news1.west.cox.net>,
"James" <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote:

> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:alangbaker-CD8EFF.01272912022003@news.telus.net...
> > In article <m2k2a.45699$LW1.1637699@news1.west.cox.net>,
> > "James" <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote:
> >
> > > "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> > > news:alangbaker-5ABB27.17104611022003@news.telus.net...
> > > > In article <CMg2a.43484$LW1.1555328@news1.west.cox.net>,
> > > > "James" <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:alangbaker-B370E4.15053611022003@news.telus.net...
> > > > > > In article <d8c2a.39432$LW1.1499499@news1.west.cox.net>,
> > > > > > "James" <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Edward Dodge" <someone@g3.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:m27kc664zn.fsf@g3.com...
> > > > > > > > Steve Hanson <SteveHanson591@aol.com> writes:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Gee, Apple always seems to get around to implementing all
> that
> > > PC
> > > > > > > > > "crap"--months or years after everyone else.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Like USB1?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is another urban myth that Dodge loves to repeat. The
> continual
> > > > > > > repeating of the mantra doesn't make it true. The number of USB1
> > > > > computers
> > > > > > > shipped far exceeded the market provided by iMac. I was using a
> > > > > > > USB1-equipped computer with a digital camera, mouse and
> videocam,
> > > > > shipped by
> > > > > > > Dell as a standard before iMac. But keep repeating these
> delusions
> > > to
> > > > > each
> > > > > > > other, if it gives you some comfort. It's just another circle
> jerk.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Really? What specifically were the digital camera and videocam?
> > > > >
> > > > > Kodak digital camera (long since replaced).
> > > >
> > > > What model?
> > > >
> > > > >The video cam is a PC camera
> > > > > with a USB bus (still in use).
> > > >
> > > > What kind?
> > >
> > > Why? I already gave the camera away to my brother-in-law and I'm still
> using
> > > the PC camera. They're not for sale.
> >
> > I'd like to check the veracity of your account. I thought that would
> > have been obvious.
>
> You already checked up and found that there were more than one Kodak camera
> available. That's adequate. There were several PC cameras on the market at
> the time. You can check on that and assume I own one of them.

IOW you can't find a model of either a digital camera or videocam that
was introduced before the iMac made USB popular. Thanks for clearing
that up for us.


>
> James
>
>

---

"Tim Adams" <teadams@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:teadams-CE43FD.12192512022003@netnews.attbi.com...
of your account. I thought that would
> > > have been obvious.
> >
> > You already checked up and found that there were more than one Kodak
camera
> > available. That's adequate. There were several PC cameras on the market
at
> > the time. You can check on that and assume I own one of them.
>
> IOW you can't find a model of either a digital camera or videocam that
> was introduced before the iMac made USB popular. Thanks for clearing
> that up for us.

Alan baker already identified two Kodak cameras. I wasn't talking about
"videocams".

try to keep up.

James

---

In article <Cdw2a.55174$LW1.1797952@news1.west.cox.net>,
"James" <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote:

> "Tim Adams" <teadams@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:teadams-CE43FD.12192512022003@netnews.attbi.com...
> of your account. I thought that would
> > > > have been obvious.
> > >
> > > You already checked up and found that there were more than one Kodak
> camera
> > > available. That's adequate. There were several PC cameras on the market
> at
> > > the time. You can check on that and assume I own one of them.
> >
> > IOW you can't find a model of either a digital camera or videocam that
> > was introduced before the iMac made USB popular. Thanks for clearing
> > that up for us.
>
> Alan baker already identified two Kodak cameras. I wasn't talking about
> "videocams".

But you can't tell us what camera you had...

Convenient.

And you were also talking about a videocam, which you said you still
have.

Why won't you tell us what kind it is?


>
> try to keep up.
>
> James
>
>

---

Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
Cut...

Please remove the crossposting to dk.edb.mac



--
Preben Bødker Nielsen . preben@ravnekrogen.dk
www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/pea-roer.html

---

In article <1fqae01.ass4eg50qv38N%spam-01@tdcadsl.dk>,
spam-01@tdcadsl.dk (Preben Bødker Nielsen) wrote:

> Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> Cut...
>
> Please remove the crossposting to dk.edb.mac

OK...

But why didn't you remove it in your reply?

---

In article <Cdw2a.55174$LW1.1797952@news1.west.cox.net>,
"James" <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote:

> "Tim Adams" <teadams@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:teadams-CE43FD.12192512022003@netnews.attbi.com...
> of your account. I thought that would
> > > > have been obvious.
> > >
> > > You already checked up and found that there were more than one Kodak
> camera
> > > available. That's adequate. There were several PC cameras on the market
> at
> > > the time. You can check on that and assume I own one of them.
> >
> > IOW you can't find a model of either a digital camera or videocam that
> > was introduced before the iMac made USB popular. Thanks for clearing
> > that up for us.
>
> Alan baker already identified two Kodak cameras.

Nice snip.

You have NEVER defined which Kodak camer you owned. IFAICT, Kodak USB
camers were introduced AFTER the iMac. Since you can't (conviently)
remember the model, I guess I'm right in that.

> I wasn't talking about "videocams".

You were indeed talking about a videocams. Again, nice sniping as your
comments about it were in my original reply. You claim to still have it,
but again you can't tell Alan the manufacturer and model number in order
to prove your claim.


>
>
> try to keep up.

You really shoud do just that.

>
> James
>
>

---

In article <teadams-68B143.15142112022003@netnews.attbi.com>,
Tim Adams <teadams@attbi.com> wrote:

> In article <Cdw2a.55174$LW1.1797952@news1.west.cox.net>,
> "James" <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> > "Tim Adams" <teadams@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > news:teadams-CE43FD.12192512022003@netnews.attbi.com...
> > of your account. I thought that would
> > > > > have been obvious.
> > > >
> > > > You already checked up and found that there were more than one Kodak
> > camera
> > > > available. That's adequate. There were several PC cameras on the market
> > at
> > > > the time. You can check on that and assume I own one of them.
> > >
> > > IOW you can't find a model of either a digital camera or videocam that
> > > was introduced before the iMac made USB popular. Thanks for clearing
> > > that up for us.
> >
> > Alan baker already identified two Kodak cameras.
>
> Nice snip.
>
> You have NEVER defined which Kodak camer you owned. IFAICT, Kodak USB
> camers were introduced AFTER the iMac. Since you can't (conviently)
> remember the model, I guess I'm right in that.

To be fair, there *were* to Kodak cameras with USB that were introduced
a couple of months before the iMac.

>
> > I wasn't talking about "videocams".
>
> You were indeed talking about a videocams. Again, nice sniping as your
> comments about it were in my original reply. You claim to still have it,
> but again you can't tell Alan the manufacturer and model number in order
> to prove your claim.

Yeah. Wierd, huh? <g>

>
>
> >
> >
> > try to keep up.
>
> You really shoud do just that.
>
> >
> > James
> >
> >

---

In article <alangbaker-F690FF.12200512022003@news.telus.net>,
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:

> In article <teadams-68B143.15142112022003@netnews.attbi.com>,
> Tim Adams <teadams@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <Cdw2a.55174$LW1.1797952@news1.west.cox.net>,
> > "James" <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote:
> >
> > > "Tim Adams" <teadams@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > > news:teadams-CE43FD.12192512022003@netnews.attbi.com...
> > > of your account. I thought that would
> > > > > > have been obvious.
> > > > >
> > > > > You already checked up and found that there were more than one Kodak
> > > camera
> > > > > available. That's adequate. There were several PC cameras on the
> > > > > market
> > > at
> > > > > the time. You can check on that and assume I own one of them.
> > > >
> > > > IOW you can't find a model of either a digital camera or videocam that
> > > > was introduced before the iMac made USB popular. Thanks for clearing
> > > > that up for us.
> > >
> > > Alan baker already identified two Kodak cameras.
> >
> > Nice snip.
> >
> > You have NEVER defined which Kodak camer you owned. IFAICT, Kodak USB
> > camers were introduced AFTER the iMac. Since you can't (conviently)
> > remember the model, I guess I'm right in that.
>
> To be fair, there *were* to Kodak cameras with USB that were introduced
> a couple of months before the iMac.

Thanks. I did quick look and didn't find any.

>
> >
> > > I wasn't talking about "videocams".
> >
> > You were indeed talking about a videocams. Again, nice sniping as your
> > comments about it were in my original reply. You claim to still have it,
> > but again you can't tell Alan the manufacturer and model number in order
> > to prove your claim.
>
> Yeah. Wierd, huh? <g>

Not really. Sort of reminds me of ediot.

>
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > try to keep up.
> >
> > You really shoud do just that.
> >
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> > >

---

"Tim Adams" <teadams@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:teadams-748454.22470312022003@netnews.attbi.com...
> In article <alangbaker-F690FF.12200512022003@news.telus.net>,
> Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <teadams-68B143.15142112022003@netnews.attbi.com>,
> > Tim Adams <teadams@attbi.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <Cdw2a.55174$LW1.1797952@news1.west.cox.net>,
> > > "James" <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Tim Adams" <teadams@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:teadams-CE43FD.12192512022003@netnews.attbi.com...
> > > > of your account. I thought that would
> > > > > > > have been obvious.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You already checked up and found that there were more than one
Kodak
> > > > camera
> > > > > > available. That's adequate. There were several PC cameras on the
> > > > > > market
> > > > at
> > > > > > the time. You can check on that and assume I own one of them.
> > > > >
> > > > > IOW you can't find a model of either a digital camera or videocam
that
> > > > > was introduced before the iMac made USB popular. Thanks for
clearing
> > > > > that up for us.
> > > >
> > > > Alan baker already identified two Kodak cameras.
> > >
> > > Nice snip.
> > >
> > > You have NEVER defined which Kodak camer you owned. IFAICT, Kodak USB
> > > camers were introduced AFTER the iMac. Since you can't (conviently)
> > > remember the model, I guess I'm right in that.
> >
> > To be fair, there *were* to Kodak cameras with USB that were introduced
> > a couple of months before the iMac.
>
> Thanks. I did quick look and didn't find any.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > I wasn't talking about "videocams".
> > >
> > > You were indeed talking about a videocams. Again, nice sniping as your
> > > comments about it were in my original reply. You claim to still have
it,
> > > but again you can't tell Alan the manufacturer and model number in
order
> > > to prove your claim.
> >
> > Yeah. Wierd, huh? <g>
>
> Not really. Sort of reminds me of ediot.
>
>
As I said, a circle jerk

James

---

James <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote:

> "Tim Adams" <teadams@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:teadams-748454.22470312022003@netnews.attbi.com...
> > In article <alangbaker-F690FF.12200512022003@news.telus.net>,
> > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <teadams-68B143.15142112022003@netnews.attbi.com>,
> > > Tim Adams <teadams@attbi.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <Cdw2a.55174$LW1.1797952@news1.west.cox.net>,
> > > > "James" <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Tim Adams" <teadams@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:teadams-CE43FD.12192512022003@netnews.attbi.com...
> > > > > of your account. I thought that would
> > > > > > > > have been obvious.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You already checked up and found that there were more than one
> Kodak
> > > > > camera
> > > > > > > available. That's adequate. There were several PC cameras on the
> > > > > > > market
> > > > > at
> > > > > > > the time. You can check on that and assume I own one of them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > IOW you can't find a model of either a digital camera or videocam
> that
> > > > > > was introduced before the iMac made USB popular. Thanks for
> clearing
> > > > > > that up for us.
> > > > >
> > > > > Alan baker already identified two Kodak cameras.
> > > >
> > > > Nice snip.
> > > >
> > > > You have NEVER defined which Kodak camer you owned. IFAICT, Kodak USB
> > > > camers were introduced AFTER the iMac. Since you can't (conviently)
> > > > remember the model, I guess I'm right in that.
> > >
> > > To be fair, there *were* to Kodak cameras with USB that were introduced
> > > a couple of months before the iMac.
> >
> > Thanks. I did quick look and didn't find any.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > I wasn't talking about "videocams".
> > > >
> > > > You were indeed talking about a videocams. Again, nice sniping as your
> > > > comments about it were in my original reply. You claim to still have
> it,
> > > > but again you can't tell Alan the manufacturer and model number in
> order
> > > > to prove your claim.
> > >
> > > Yeah. Wierd, huh? <g>
> >
> > Not really. Sort of reminds me of ediot.
> >
> >
> As I said, a circle jerk
>
> James

Tell me, is there any reason why your bickering and churlish squabbling
should be sent out to a Danish newsgroup? Would it be too much to ask
that you limit your undoubtedly brilliant insights to your own group and
leave ours alone?

--
MVH, Bob
To reply by email, substitute maribob for merrybob.

---

"Robert J. Widenmann" <merrybob@tdcadsl.dk> wrote in message >
> Tell me, is there any reason why your bickering and churlish squabbling
> should be sent out to a Danish newsgroup? Would it be too much to ask
> that you limit your undoubtedly brilliant insights to your own group and
> leave ours alone?
>
> --
> MVH, Bob
> To reply by email, substitute maribob for merrybob.

Mr. Widenmann,
There is a rogue Dane out there who crossposts to both newsgroups. I have no
interest in editing the newsgroup lists that he posts to. That is his and
your problem. Deal with it.

Fondly,
James

---

James <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote:

> "Robert J. Widenmann" <merrybob@tdcadsl.dk> wrote in message >
> > Tell me, is there any reason why your bickering and churlish squabbling
> > should be sent out to a Danish newsgroup? Would it be too much to ask
> > that you limit your undoubtedly brilliant insights to your own group and
> > leave ours alone?
>
> Mr. Widenmann,
> There is a rogue Dane out there who crossposts to both newsgroups. I have no
> interest in editing the newsgroup lists that he posts to. That is his and
> your problem. Deal with it.

Man bør være påpasselig med at poste i denne tråd men jeg vover
alligevel, for ovenstående er noget af det mest morsomme jeg har læst i
lang tid.
--
Michael Tysk-Andersen
iChat://mta@mac.com

---

Michael Tysk-Andersen <mta@mac.com> wrote:

> James <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> > "Robert J. Widenmann" <merrybob@tdcadsl.dk> wrote in message >
> > > Tell me, is there any reason why your bickering and churlish squabbling
> > > should be sent out to a Danish newsgroup? Would it be too much to ask
> > > that you limit your undoubtedly brilliant insights to your own group and
> > > leave ours alone?
> >
> > Mr. Widenmann,
> > There is a rogue Dane out there who crossposts to both newsgroups. I have no
> > interest in editing the newsgroup lists that he posts to. That is his and
> > your problem. Deal with it.
>
> Man bør være påpasselig med at poste i denne tråd men jeg vover
> alligevel, for ovenstående er noget af det mest morsomme jeg har læst i
> lang tid.

*LOL*...*LOL*....Er det Peter, der er "rogue"? hæ, hæ.......

I. rogue sb kæltring, slyngel;
(især spøg) skurk, skælm;
(om elefant) ronkedor (dvs vild hanelefant, der lever adskilt fra
flokken);
(glds) landstryger.
II. rogue adj løsgående, uregerlig, løbsk; fejlbehæftet, defekt;
[rogue car] "mandagsvogn";
[rogue elephant] ronkedor (se I. rogue);
[rogue politician] enegænger.
Hej fra
Morten
--
¨"Dit mod er blot din evne til at undertrykke din angst"(ML)
http://www.belzebub.biz
[2000]

---

Morten Lind <mortenlind@mac.com> wrote:

> > > Mr. Widenmann, There is a rogue Dane out there who crossposts to both
> > > newsgroups. I have no interest in editing the newsgroup lists that he
> > > posts to. That is his and your problem. Deal with it.
> >
> > Man bør være påpasselig med at poste i denne tråd men jeg vover
> > alligevel, for ovenstående er noget af det mest morsomme jeg har læst i
> > lang tid.
>
> *LOL*...*LOL*....Er det Peter, der er "rogue"? hæ, hæ.......

Ja!
--
Michael Tysk-Andersen
iChat://mta@mac.com

---

In article <jzu2a.53402$LW1.1775694@news1.west.cox.net>,
"James" <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote:

> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:alangbaker-CD8EFF.01272912022003@news.telus.net...
> > In article <m2k2a.45699$LW1.1637699@news1.west.cox.net>,
> > "James" <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote:
> >
> > > "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> > > news:alangbaker-5ABB27.17104611022003@news.telus.net...
> > > > In article <CMg2a.43484$LW1.1555328@news1.west.cox.net>,
> > > > "James" <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:alangbaker-B370E4.15053611022003@news.telus.net...
> > > > > > In article <d8c2a.39432$LW1.1499499@news1.west.cox.net>,
> > > > > > "James" <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Edward Dodge" <someone@g3.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:m27kc664zn.fsf@g3.com...
> > > > > > > > Steve Hanson <SteveHanson591@aol.com> writes:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Gee, Apple always seems to get around to implementing all
> that
> > > PC
> > > > > > > > > "crap"--months or years after everyone else.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Like USB1?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is another urban myth that Dodge loves to repeat. The
> continual
> > > > > > > repeating of the mantra doesn't make it true. The number of USB1
> > > > > computers
> > > > > > > shipped far exceeded the market provided by iMac. I was using a
> > > > > > > USB1-equipped computer with a digital camera, mouse and
> videocam,
> > > > > shipped by
> > > > > > > Dell as a standard before iMac. But keep repeating these
> delusions
> > > to
> > > > > each
> > > > > > > other, if it gives you some comfort. It's just another circle
> jerk.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Really? What specifically were the digital camera and videocam?
> > > > >
> > > > > Kodak digital camera (long since replaced).
> > > >
> > > > What model?
> > > >
> > > > >The video cam is a PC camera
> > > > > with a USB bus (still in use).
> > > >
> > > > What kind?
> > >
> > > Why? I already gave the camera away to my brother-in-law and I'm still
> using
> > > the PC camera. They're not for sale.
> >
> > I'd like to check the veracity of your account. I thought that would
> > have been obvious.
>
> You already checked up and found that there were more than one Kodak camera
> available. That's adequate. There were several PC cameras on the market at
> the time. You can check on that and assume I own one of them.

Just as I thought.

---

"James" <jarveson@nospam.net> writes:

> "Edward Dodge" <someone@g3.com> wrote in message
> news:m27kc664zn.fsf@g3.com...
> > Steve Hanson <SteveHanson591@aol.com> writes:
> >
>
> >
> > > Gee, Apple always seems to get around to implementing all that PC
> > > "crap"--months or years after everyone else.
> >
> > Like USB1?
>
> This is another urban myth that Dodge loves to repeat. The continual
> repeating of the mantra doesn't make it true. The number of USB1 computers
> shipped far exceeded the market provided by iMac. I was using a
> USB1-equipped computer with a digital camera, mouse and videocam, shipped by
> Dell as a standard before iMac. But keep repeating these delusions to each
> other, if it gives you some comfort. It's just another circle jerk.
>
> James

Yes... soooo deluded that almost all the early USB devices had bright
colors similar to the iMacs. That's some *massive* delusion, pal.


--


Edward Dodge
/Independent Digital Consultant/

---

"Edward Dodge" <someone@g3.com> wrote in message
news:m28ywm3vkn.fsf@g3.com...
> "James" <jarveson@nospam.net> writes:
>
> > "Edward Dodge" <someone@g3.com> wrote in message
> > news:m27kc664zn.fsf@g3.com...
> > > Steve Hanson <SteveHanson591@aol.com> writes:
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > > Gee, Apple always seems to get around to implementing all that PC
> > > > "crap"--months or years after everyone else.
> > >
> > > Like USB1?
> >
> > This is another urban myth that Dodge loves to repeat. The continual
> > repeating of the mantra doesn't make it true. The number of USB1
computers
> > shipped far exceeded the market provided by iMac. I was using a
> > USB1-equipped computer with a digital camera, mouse and videocam,
shipped by
> > Dell as a standard before iMac. But keep repeating these delusions to
each
> > other, if it gives you some comfort. It's just another circle jerk.
> >
> > James
>
> Yes... soooo deluded that almost all the early USB devices had bright
> colors similar to the iMacs. That's some *massive* delusion, pal.

Yes. There was that Mac innovation. Colored USB hubs. Meanwhile most of the
world went out and began using USB when Win98 provided support for the bus,
without any knowledge or interest as to what a 4% niche market was doing.

James


>
>
> --
>
>
> Edward Dodge
> /Independent Digital Consultant/

---

"James" <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote in
news:hsu2a.53328$LW1.1773646@news1.west.cox.net:

> Yes. There was that Mac innovation. Colored USB hubs. Meanwhile most
> of the world went out and began using USB when Win98 provided support
> for the bus, without any knowledge or interest as to what a 4% niche
> market was doing.
   
   Too bad 95b supported basic USB functionality and the ports had been
on PC's for a year or so before that....

---

"D. Icktop" <michael_dell@dell.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9320743CAF9A5michaeldelldell@66.134.198.18...
> "James" <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote in
> news:hsu2a.53328$LW1.1773646@news1.west.cox.net:
>
> > Yes. There was that Mac innovation. Colored USB hubs. Meanwhile most
> > of the world went out and began using USB when Win98 provided support
> > for the bus, without any knowledge or interest as to what a 4% niche
> > market was doing.
>
> Too bad 95b supported basic USB functionality and the ports had been
> on PC's for a year or so before that....

True - but not well.

James

---

"James" <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote in news:lRu2a.53662$LW1.1778691
@news1.west.cox.net:

>> Too bad 95b supported basic USB functionality and the ports had been
>> on PC's for a year or so before that....
>
> True - but not well.

   Been a while, but, IIRC it supported mice, keyboards, webcams, and
scanners...

---

"James" <jarveson@nospam.net> writes:

> Yes. There was that Mac innovation. Colored USB hubs.

And printers and scanners and etc.

> Meanwhile most of the world went out and began using USB when Win98
> provided support for the bus, without any knowledge or interest as
> to what a 4% niche market was doing.

Yeah... but according to PC-makers and distributors at the time, most
of the world was happy with legacy ports too. So which *most* of the
world was going for USB? Must have been a different "most" or maybe
this "most" came about a couple of years later... well after the iMac
had popularized the standard.



--


Edward Dodge
/Independent Digital Consultant/

---

"Edward Dodge" <someone@g3.com> wrote in message
news:m2vfzpxu96.fsf@g3.com...
> "James" <jarveson@nospam.net> writes:
>
> > Yes. There was that Mac innovation. Colored USB hubs.
>
> And printers and scanners and etc.
>
> > Meanwhile most of the world went out and began using USB when Win98
> > provided support for the bus, without any knowledge or interest as
> > to what a 4% niche market was doing.
>
> Yeah... but according to PC-makers and distributors at the time, most
> of the world was happy with legacy ports too. So which *most* of the
> world was going for USB? Must have been a different "most" or maybe
> this "most" came about a couple of years later... well after the iMac
> had popularized the standard.

Popularized the standard for whom? The tiny fraction of the computer market
that bought iMacs that year? You have the tail wagging the dog. Dell, for
example, provided a USB mouse with my computers in '98. They also sold PC
cams as options - I bought one for each of the six I purchased. I expect
that Compaq, HP and others did the same thing.

James

>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Edward Dodge
> /Independent Digital Consultant/

---

Edward Dodge wrote in <m28ywm3vkn.fsf@g3.com>:

>"James" <jarveson@nospam.net> writes:
>
>> "Edward Dodge" <someone@g3.com> wrote in message
>> news:m27kc664zn.fsf@g3.com...
>> > Steve Hanson <SteveHanson591@aol.com> writes:
>> >
>>
>> >
>> > > Gee, Apple always seems to get around to implementing all that PC
>> > > "crap"--months or years after everyone else.
>> >
>> > Like USB1?
>>
>> This is another urban myth that Dodge loves to repeat. The continual
>> repeating of the mantra doesn't make it true. The number of USB1 computers
>> shipped far exceeded the market provided by iMac. I was using a
>> USB1-equipped computer with a digital camera, mouse and videocam, shipped by
>> Dell as a standard before iMac. But keep repeating these delusions to each
>> other, if it gives you some comfort. It's just another circle jerk.
>>
>> James
>
>Yes... soooo deluded that almost all the early USB devices had bright
>colors similar to the iMacs. That's some *massive* delusion, pal.

Can you be any more revealing as to the retarded mentality of Mac
lovers? "Bright colors"?!? Yeah, USB go fast, brightly colored, keep
evil spirits away. Very few USB devices ever used the Mac's gaudy
color scheme. You appear to be incapable of spotting anything that
isn't pimped out like a peacock.

---

Edward Dodge wrote in <m27kc664zn.fsf@g3.com>:

>Steve Hanson <SteveHanson591@aol.com> writes:
>
>> Edward Dodge wrote in <m27kcavwo5.fsf@g3.com>:
>>
>> >"James" <jarveson@nospam.net> writes:
>> >
>> >> The facts are that Apple attempted to extort about $100M/yr from
>> >> the PC business. The PC manufacturers decided not to put up with
>> >> the extortion so they bypassed Apple. Now Firewire supporters
>> >> such as yourself ask why they don't go back and fork over $25M/yr
>> >> to the same extortionist.
>> >
>> >Wow. Not being willing to pass on Firewire goodness for four years
>> >and having to over-haul the sorry USB protocol was a stroke of
>> >genius. I'm sure it cost much less than $100M to develop a new
>> >crappy technology.
>>
>> Notice that only in Mac-land is the humble USB standard "sorry"
>> (even though all Macs use it) and "crappy", but they were able to go
>> for years with the brain dead Appletalk protocol for data transfers,
>> one of the most embarrassing non-achievements in the computer
>> industry.
>
>"Sorry" and "crappy" are relative terms. When you design something
>high speed, and it works well high-speed, that's a good move. When
>you design something slow, and then decide to kludge it so it works
>fast, that's the beginning of "crap-on-a-stick." It's not truly the
>best solution for high-speed, but put a stick on it and market it.

Works well is entirely contingent on what you are trying to do.
Strangely, Firewire and USB2 performance on things like external hard
drives seem to be a trade-off--USB2 benchmarking better on some
operations, Firewire on other. If USB2 is such a kludge, it's
interesting how it sometimes beats Firewire's pants off.

Just because you've polarized the performance characteristics of
either interface doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. But
then Mac users were FUDing USB2 before the spec was even complete. I
guess it made them nervous.

>> But hey they have Firewire now so this makes them 733+ d00dz. And
>> USB2 is "crap", everyone knows it, that's why it's showing up all
>> sorts of places you used to see only Firewire.
>
>We've had Firewire for 4 years. USB2 is showing up everywhere because
>of Intel. Ironically USB1 started to show up everywhere largely
>because of the original Apple iMac. Legacy ports were fine for most
>PC makers 4 years ago... and would probably still be fine if Apple
>hadn't broken the market by innovating and adopting Intel's wonderful
>*slow-speed* serial bus.

ROTFLMAO!!! This is what I mean by kool-aide drinkers. Apple
"innovated" USB. Pull the other one. The spec was developed by
Intel. By the way, explain how they both innovated *and* adopted it.
Because that sounds, you know, like a *direct contradiction*.

>> Because Seagate and Western Digital and HP and Sony and all those
>> other companies only make crap, except when it's for Apple then it
>> magically becomes "not crap" by a transmutive process known as
>> "drinking the kool-aide".
>
>I know for a fact Steve Jobs sprinkles magic Apple dust on every
>Seagate drive that goes into an apple. Oh and... Western Digital is
>crap in any computer you put it in.
>
>> Gee, Apple always seems to get around to implementing all that PC
>> "crap"--months or years after everyone else.
>
>Like USB1?

It certainly didn't show up on Macs first. Let me guess, in a year or
two from now, or whenever Apple gets around to implementing it, you'll
be here telling us all how Serial ATA first showed up on some
overpriced Apple hardware. Meanwhile I'm specing a PC motherboard
right now and they almost all have it. I can't wait.

>> And then, magically, it becomes "not crap". Thank God--it's so
>> important to have Steve Jobs chime in and validate a proven
>> technology and pretend his company still innovates anything other
>> than cases and user interfaces for ADD-afflicted retards.
>
>In its day, NuBus and ADB kicked the crap out of the comparable
>technologies on the PC of that era. When Intel finally got its stuff
>together and started pushing the Pentium *as a platform*, it developed
>similar, yet 10-years newer and cheaper technologies like PCI and AGP
>and later, USB1. At this point, it became more expensive to
>maintain the older (no economies-of-scale) NuBus and ADB standards.
>
>True, Apple has NIH syndrome is when all the alternatives are crap.
>But Intel has NIH syndrome any time it's dominance on the Pentium
>Platform is challenged in any way. Especially when the competition
>has something they hadn't even thought of.

The difference here between Apple and Intel is that when Intel has NIH
syndrome it actually has the brainpower and resources to come up with
an alternative. Lately, all Apple has done is me-too their way into a
(declining) niche market. They've even me-too'ed their entire OS.
I'd say of the two, only one can afford any kind of NIH thinking. And
it ain't Apple.

NuBus was only superior until the bus speed actually started to
matter. Then, lo and behold, the PC solution ran roughshod over it
and Apple quietly dropped their own solution. How come they couldn't
"innovate" a better NuBus? Because using PCI meant they had a cheap
solution and could squeeze even more money out of their userbase.

>> I'll be charitable and assume that Edward is stoned or drunk.
>
>Keep your change, Knowledge Beggar. People are more likely to throw
>you something if you already have a few coins in your cup.

---

In article <mlkj4vgbm1jcqq6j420u0771lvnndi557u@4ax.com>,
Steve Hanson <SteveHanson591@aol.com> wrote:

> NuBus was only superior until the bus speed actually started to
> matter. Then, lo and behold, the PC solution ran roughshod over it
> and Apple quietly dropped their own solution.

Actually NuBus was not that good an interface even by the old EISA bus
standards. It was anything but easy to design or program for and if you look
at the spec it looks like a close brother of MCA.

> How come they couldn't
> "innovate" a better NuBus? Because using PCI meant they had a cheap
> solution and could squeeze even more money out of their userbase.

Actually NuBus simply had nowhere to go - the design had reached its limits
and Apple's own ideas were not making the grate in terms of cost
effectiveness.

---

I <6scd4vc31aoag2s94fla7q3lk8lavhc67a@4ax.com> dc ytrede:
>>The use of DV today is such that it
>>doesn't make sense for the majority of computer users.
>
> Why not?

IMovie doesn't run on their OS.

---

James <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote:

> Nobody is using Firewire 800 today. You claim a month or two. Why not wait
> until there are actually systems to compare?

www.lacie.com

--
Peter - http://titancity.com/

Hvad er der galt i Danmark?
http://haxor.dk/artikler/galtidanmark.html

---

In article <s9I0a.642$LW1.173009@news1.west.cox.net>,
"James" <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote:

> "ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote in message
> news:znu-402E43.05000205022003@news.fu-berlin.de...

> >
> > Hard drives seem to benefit nicely.
> >
> > [1] http://www.barefeats.com/fire34.html
>
> Why use Firewire 800 rather than ata? So that you can install yet another
> bus?

Because ATA won't allow you to connect external devices? It has a huge
cable?

>
> The phrase comes to mind "A solution looking for a problem to solve".

That's exactlly my view about USB2.

Firewire already existed and worked well. There were already a number of
Firewire products on the market, including nearly all new video cameras.
Firewire's license fee was $0.25 to $0.50 (depending on whether you used
one or two ports on your PC) and all PC vendors would have paid it, so
no one was at a disadvantage.

Yet, for some reason, the industry spent the time and money developing
an inferior technology.

Why?

>
> Meanwhile next year 100M systems will be shipped with USB2.

So? That merely proves the willingness of the PC industry to adopt
inferior technologies.

---

In article <1920a.13767$tq5.498660@news1.west.cox.net>,
"James" <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote:

> "Bruce Grubb" <bgrubb@zianet.com> wrote in message
> news:bgrubb-38C5EB.19574204022003@news.zianet.com...
> > In article <slrnb40b47.vd9.reply_in_group@tzs.net>,
> > Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <1fpvhz8.w2ho6q7lmktsN%no_spam@invalid_email.com>, Peter
> Bjørn
> > > Perlsø wrote:
> > > > http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,844061,00.asp
> > >
> > > I'd hardly call being slightly slower at hard disks, and slightly
> *faster* at
> > > CDs getting one's "ass kicked".
> >
> > This was with Firewire 400 it doesn't take a genius ti figure out what
> > Firewire 800 does to USB 2.0. Pound into ground.
>
> I'm familiar with the basic argument. "Just wait until XXX comes to market.
> It will pound into ground product YYY that is now selling in high volume"
>
> You fill in the blanks.

Except Firewire 800 is no longer "coming to market" its hear. Please read
what happened as MacWorld before posting more foolishness.

---

Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote in
news:slrnb40b47.vd9.reply_in_group@tzs.net:

> I'd hardly call being slightly slower at hard disks, and slightly
> *faster* at CDs getting one's "ass kicked".

   Using the exact same CD mechanisms, it can't be faster than the data
is written to the disk, which is a fixed #....

---

Peter Bjørn Perlsø wrote:
> Totalt liegyldigt.

Peter, jeg har i din tråd "(eng)Microsoft vittigheder" på en pæn måde
spurt dig, om du ikke ville være venlig at markere når du X-poste. På
http://www.usenet.dk/ord/lokal.html#crosspost kan du læse omkring XFUT,
bemærk at dette emne befinder sig under Essentiel Netikette !!!!!

--

Mvh.

Henrik Lindskou

---

"Peter Bjørn Perlsø" <no_spam@invalid_email.com> wrote in message
news:1fpvhz8.w2ho6q7lmktsN%no_spam@invalid_email.com...
> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,844061,00.asp
>
> --
> Peter - http://titancity.com/ , http://haxor.dk/islamnyt/
> BLOOD OF LUCIFER - KLIP DIT HÅR OG FÅ ET ARBEJDE!!!

Apparently typical Danish overexuberance has clouded Mr. Perslo's judgement.

Look at the test data in the article.

Performance of the two buses are essentially equal with the best USB2
performance almost identical to the best Firewire performance. But you get
the USB2 bus integrated with all new (PC) motherboards. And, the best USB2
performance is provided by that integrated bus, while you have to buy a PCI
card to get the best Firewire performance.

If you use a PC, USB2 will provide functionality equivalent to Firewire. The
only reason to use Firewire would be if you had a specific peripheral with a
Firewire-only bus. But that will work itself out in short order. Nobody is
going to ship PC-compatible peripherals w/o USB2 a year from now.

James

---

"James" <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:dGX%9.12252$tq5.359551@news1.west.cox.net...
>
> "Peter Bjørn Perlsø" <no_spam@invalid_email.com> wrote in message
> news:1fpvhz8.w2ho6q7lmktsN%no_spam@invalid_email.com...
> > http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,844061,00.asp
> >
> > --
> > Peter - http://titancity.com/ , http://haxor.dk/islamnyt/
> > BLOOD OF LUCIFER - KLIP DIT HÅR OG FÅ ET ARBEJDE!!!
>
> Apparently typical Danish overexuberance has clouded Mr. Perslo's
judgement.
>
> Look at the test data in the article.
>
> Performance of the two buses are essentially equal with the best USB2
> performance almost identical to the best Firewire performance. But you get
> the USB2 bus integrated with all new (PC) motherboards. And, the best USB2
> performance is provided by that integrated bus, while you have to buy a
PCI
> card to get the best Firewire performance.
>
> If you use a PC, USB2 will provide functionality equivalent to Firewire.
The
> only reason to use Firewire would be if you had a specific peripheral with
a
> Firewire-only bus. But that will work itself out in short order. Nobody is
> going to ship PC-compatible peripherals w/o USB2 a year from now.

I didn't read the review, but another possible reason to choose FireWire is
that it's QoS is supposed to be better, making it more suitable for things
like video. That's the theory; I don't know how USB 2.0 compares to FireWire
in actual use when QoS is important.

-- Mike --

---

"Mike" <mike@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:5V20a.11783$Xz4.492799@news2.west.cox.net...
>
>(snip)

> I didn't read the review, but another possible reason to choose FireWire
is
> that it's QoS is supposed to be better, making it more suitable for things
> like video. That's the theory; I don't know how USB 2.0 compares to
FireWire
> in actual use when QoS is important.

An interesting topic for another quantitative study - hopefully with
conclusions more objective than those presented by the exuberant Dane.

James

---

James <jarveson@nospam.net> wrote:

> Apparently typical Danish overexuberance has clouded Mr. Perslo's judgement.
>

Personal attacks speak for themselves.

> Look at the test data in the article.
>

Lets look at some of the test conclusions:

"For CD-RWs, test results were a mixed bag, though USB 2.0 showed a
slight edge. For printing and most scanning work, USB 1.1 is fast enough
for most users. We also compared the performance of USB 1.1 against USB
2.0 peripherals. Our tests showed that USB 2.0 was generally only 2 to
13 times as fast as USB 1.1—not the promised 40 times as fast. But even
a doubling in performance is obviously significant."

note: "Our tests showed that USB 2.0 was generally only 2 to 13 times as
fast as USB 1.1—not the promised 40 times as fast."

That, speaks for itself. USB is still half-baked for anything other than
input devices.

> Performance of the two buses are essentially equal with the best USB2
> performance almost identical to the best Firewire performance. But you get
> the USB2 bus integrated with all new (PC) motherboards. And, the best USB2
> performance is provided by that integrated bus, while you have to buy a PCI
> card to get the best Firewire performance.

A month back or so, a couple of peripherals, notably HDs and CD burners
were tested against ditto for FireWire.

The USB-2 based periph's lost big, with lousy transer rates.

Anything to add to that, James? Or are you reduced to childish behavior?

--
Peter - http://titancity.com/ , http://haxor.dk/islamnyt/
BLOOD OF LUCIFER - KLIP DIT HÃ…R OG FÃ… ET ARBEJDE!!!

---

no_spam@invalid_email.com (Peter Bjørn Perlsø) writes:

> > Apparently typical Danish overexuberance has clouded Mr. Perslo's judgement.
> >
>
> Personal attacks speak for themselves.

[klippelip]

> Anything to add to that, James? Or are you reduced to childish behavior?

Sandelig gør de det.

Er det til for meget ulejlighed at anmode om at du holder op med at
krydspostere den slags ting?

--
Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen "... plus ... Tubular Bells!"
http://bigfoot.com/~thunderbear

---

Hej Peter

Kan du ikke gå ind og få fjernet de crosspostings. Det er irrelevant her i
gruppen, da det ikke er alle servere, der kan tage comp.sys grupperne!

mvh. Erik Richard

Peter Bjørn Perlsø wrote:

> > Apparently typical Danish overexuberance has clouded Mr. Perslo's judgement.
>
> Personal attacks speak for themselves.
>
> > Look at the test data in the article.
>
> Lets look at some of the test conclusions:
>
> "For CD-RWs, test results were a mixed bag, though USB 2.0 showed a
> slight edge. For printing and most scanning work, USB 1.1 is fast enough
> for most users. We also compared the performance of USB 1.1 against USB
> 2.0 peripherals. Our tests showed that USB 2.0 was generally only 2 to
> 13 times as fast as USB 1.1—not the promised 40 times as fast. But even
> a doubling in performance is obviously significant."
>
> note: "Our tests showed that USB 2.0 was generally only 2 to 13 times as
> fast as USB 1.1—not the promised 40 times as fast."
>
> That, speaks for itself. USB is still half-baked for anything other than
> input devices.
>
> > Performance of the two buses are essentially equal with the best USB2
> > performance almost identical to the best Firewire performance. But you get
> > the USB2 bus integrated with all new (PC) motherboards. And, the best USB2
> > performance is provided by that integrated bus, while you have to buy a PCI
> > card to get the best Firewire performance.
>
> A month back or so, a couple of peripherals, notably HDs and CD burners
> were tested against ditto for FireWire.
>
> The USB-2 based periph's lost big, with lousy transer rates.
>
> Anything to add to that, James? Or are you reduced to childish behavior?

--
K.M.L. Denmark by Erik Richard Sørensen, Member of ADC
E-mail: <kml.ers@mail1.stofanet.dk> <KMLDenmark@netscape.net>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*Music Recording, Editing & Publishing - Also Smaller Quantities
*Software - For Theological Education - And For Physically Impaired
*Nisus - The Future In Text & Mail Processing <http://www.nisus.com>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~