From: Marcus Andree S. Magalhaes (marcus.magalhaes_at_vlinfo.com.br)
Date: Mon Mar 08 2004 - 09:56:02 PST
<snip>
> The problem is that USB is a very processor intensive subsystem - the
> majority of control and arbitration of USB is handled by the system
> processor, not in a standalone chipset like firewire.
>
That's interesting. A long time ago, I read some docs describing USB
connections as something I could shorten as "serial on steroids". The
only difference was related to connector wiring and (obviously) data
speed.
In fact, we (at the time) were looking forward to reuse some code we
write to serial ports to control USB stuff. Then I left college...
Is the "processor intensive" part of USB related to things like on-the-fly
detection and recognition or transmitting data also requires processor
power (it's a weird thing, but who knows?)
> I doubt that any newton but the mp2x00 line could handle it, and even
> then performance of other programs than that driving the usb bus would
> suffer.
>
<snip>
Maybe a simple Serial to USB converter could be the best answer in this
cenario.
-- This is the NewtonTalk list - http://www.newtontalk.net/ for all inquiries Official Newton FAQ: http://www.chuma.org/newton/faq/ WikiWikiNewt for all kinds of articles: http://tools.unna.org/wikiwikinewt/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 08 2004 - 10:30:00 PST