The move to Serial

[BCinSC]

The theory is that Serial is more scalable than parallel, so why are those goals rarely achieved? Take RDRAM. It was said to be the final word in memory performance, but as time went on, the high latencies, problems achieving higher clocks, not to mention the proprietary nature (think BetaMax vs VHS) sealed it's doom. DDR ate it's lunch. Then comes SATA. While it claims 150MB/s transfer, no drives are able to take advantage of it, and if they could, we would see latency issues again. So what if the next iteration doubles speed to 300MB/s if it's never utilized. Now there's DDR2, which has to date proven not to be as fast as DDR1. Maybe if it gets to 1066MHz, but at 533 and even 667, the latter so prohibitively expensive, forget it. USB is perhaps the only one that succeeded, but it is far from perfect. I'ev read that good old parallel printer port can be faster.

 

[Malladine]

Agreed. It's just a race to find the next jackpot technology.

 

[quakefiend420]

Originally posted by: Malladine
Agreed. It's just a race to find the next jackpot technology.

thats true...but if we didnt do this...where would we be now...still on pentium I's with edo memory?

 

[Malladine]

Originally posted by: quakefiend420

Originally posted by: Malladine
Agreed. It's just a race to find the next jackpot technology.

thats true...but if we didnt do this...where would we be now...still on pentium I's with edo memory?

Hey i'm not complaining

 

[LTC8K6]

1066 Rdram would still be some of the fastest ram around, wouldn't it? 4.2Gb/sec. It got a lot better the faster it ran with latency. It just priced itself out of the market, I think.

SATA is getting popular at least partly because of the small cables.

A parallel port is competitive with USB1, but 1.1 is faster and it can't hold a candle to 2 of course.

 

[Regs]

SATA will allow other hardware performance increases in the future. Like faster hard drives, CPU's, and ROM drives. Is it needed now? No. It's just like PCI-Express.

Right now it's just acts as a cleaner way of transfering data from one IDE channel to another, or from the IDE channel to the RAM.

 

[BCinSC]

Oh, yeah. Forgot PCIe. Do I understand correctly that AGP is still faster, not to mention dedicated? Granted, you can't do nVidia's new SLI with AGP (I bet some brainy engineer to come up with something), but I think I've read about dual GPU cards? And of course with dual-core CPUs mean dual-core GPUs may follow.

Where's my complete PC on a Chip!

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: BCinSC
Oh, yeah. Forgot PCIe. Do I understand correctly that AGP is still faster, not to mention dedicated? Granted, you can't do nVidia's new SLI with AGP (I bet some brainy engineer to come up with something), but I think I've read about dual GPU cards? And of course with dual-core CPUs mean dual-core GPUs may follow.

Where's my complete PC on a Chip!

The fact that AGP is dedicated is irrelevant comparing it to PCIe. PCIe is a complete make over of the computers sub system. Each device has its own point to point connection to the motherboards controllers. It does not matter anymore if AGP is dedicated or not. AGP is not faster, however, neither is PCIe. Performance, if it varys, is the byproduct made by the graphics card.

These are viable advances that hopefully opened the window to other new advances in hardware in the future. You have to know the fundamentals of each hardware component in the computer to know how these devices allow less limitations on future advances.

 

[BCinSC]

So with all these various serial buses, why can't a generic one cover all?

 

[jterrell]

Pci express vs AGP: PCI-express allows for a faster bus on many components and ultimately allows 16x for video cards if they ever get there. AGP is essentially dead on mobo's going forward. If you have a high end AGP card I'd sell it and move to a s939 platform while it has resale value unless you plan to try and ride it out for 2 more years minimum with your pc in tact.

Sata va pata: This is simple. SATA is simply the cheap mans SCSI. It is built to be faster but right now it offers better raid options and smaller cables.

The rush for new technology is always going on but truth is only a few things actually make the cut. And when they do they become necessary.

 

[BCinSC]

SATAis Cheap Mans SCSI. So SCSI still reigns supreme?

 

[Pariah]

RDRAM died because RAMBUS ended up in court with practically the whole industry and because it was more expensive to produce. The latency issues did not kill off RAMBUS.

SATA has no latency issues. Not sure what you mean there. Again, for the 1000th time, SATA II will allow more than one drive to connect to a port, so the increased bandwidth will not automatically all be wasted. You seem to expect everyone to migrate to a new technology overnight. It doesn't happen that way. Compared to a year ago, there are a whole lot more people buying computers today that come with SATA drives. Eventually everyone will be using SATA, but it isn't going to happen by 5PM today.

DDR2 has not seen it's final iteration. Most technologies don't shine on the first attempt. Most of us could probably list dozens of technologies that didn't really fulfill their promise until the 2nd or 3rd release. Just because the first generation of DDR2 didn't set the world on fire, doesn't mean it won't be significantly better down the line. The original DDR systems were not any faster than the SDRAM systems they were replacing. Anyone want to go back to SDRAM today?

 

[jterrell]

Originally posted by: BCinSC
SATAis Cheap Mans SCSI. So SCSI still reigns supreme?

Alot of folks will certianly argue it does.

15k and 6 striped drives with redundancy is tough to beat.

 

[PascalT]

I think the focus in computer hardware is heading more towards the non-performance aspects of it. We've seen a huge burst in speed/raw numbers in the past years, and now i see manufacturers focusing more on things like silent/cool products, quality over quantity, etc.. altho the pure speed will always increase, i think they understood that the market doesn't just want speed beasts anymore. maybe i'm wrong.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: BCinSC
So with all these various serial buses, why can't a generic one cover all?

Well... it's tough to make a single interface (of any kind) that works perfectly for everything. You probably don't need all the overhead of Ethernet to talk between your CPU and northbridge (where, for instance, AMD uses HyperTransport) -- but you wouldn't want to use HyperTransport to network your computers together, because it's a very primitive, low-level interface without many frills, and to run it fast, you need to run it over very short distances.

PCI Express is a good step forwards, though, as every expansion card in your PC can now be on the same interface (at least once more PCIe expansion cards are available).

 

[dullard]

They both have their advantages and disadvantages. I think you are ignoring the advantages of serial and focussing only on the disadvantages.

Take RDRAM for example. At the debut of 1066 MHz RDRAM it had higher bandwidth AND lower latency than the best DDR at the time. RDRAM get lower latency as it scales in speed, DDR doesn't. RDRAM failed simply because DDR was illegally governmentally subsidized and illegally produced without paying royalties. So RDRAM couldn't compete pricewise. Performance was all there.

SATA isn't really about performance. It was meant to have about the same performance as ATA and it does have about the same performance. Instead you get better connectivity, nicer cables, less restrictive cable lengths, etc. There are a lot of nice features. Drives aren't fast enough to take advantage of either SATA or ATA, so of course performance couldn't be boosted.

I do love parallel ports though. In ECP mode it is significantly faster than USB 1.1 (contrary to what was said above). Worked with all programs and any OS. I'm sad to see those go. It is just nice to have a dedicated port for everything. The printer goes in one location and only one location, no possible hardware or software conflicts. I have USB devices that will require ~1 hour software reinstallation followed by manual recalibration if I move the USB cord from one USB port to any other USB port. It really sucks when I move the computer and forget which USB port to connect to. That is just one of many reasons NOT to have a universal connection.

 

[Matthias99]

I have USB devices that will require ~1 hour software reinstallation followed by manual recalibration if I move the USB cord from one USB port to any other USB port. It really sucks when I move the computer and forget which USB port to connect to. That is just one of many reasons NOT to have a universal connection.

I'm sorry to hear that -- but this is an example of EXTREMELY poorly coded drivers and/or software, not a problem with USB itself (and you could have the same issues with multiple parallel ports if you had more than one in your system). My printer, scanner, digital camera, Palm Pilot, etc. don't seem to care at all about which port they are plugged into, even if I hot-swap them while my system is on.

From a high-level point of view (ie, someone writing non-OS software or building something like a printer, scanner, etc.), whether an interface is serial or parallel is basically irrelevant -- some low-level driver or controller chip is going to handle moving the data across the interface. The advantage of a serial interface is basically that it requires fewer wires (which makes it cheaper, and makes board-level routing a LOT easier), and the controllers tend to be simpler (which also makes it cheaper). The connectors are also smaller, which is nice for portable devices. Also, in recent years it's gotten a LOT easier/cheaper to build very fast serial interface chips (up in the Ghz range; see USB2.0/FireWire/SATA/PCIe), whereas high-speed parallel connections are much tougher (because of crosstalk, etc. between the wires). So to get a lot of bandwidth in a parallel interface, you have to make it VERY wide (like AGP), which drives up costs.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Matthias99
I'm sorry to hear that -- but this is an example of EXTREMELY poorly coded drivers and/or software, not a problem with USB itself (and you could have the same issues with multiple parallel ports if you had more than one in your system). My printer, scanner, digital camera, Palm Pilot, etc. don't seem to care at all about which port they are plugged into, even if I hot-swap them while my system is on.

Yes the drivers suck, but my point is the same. Each USB port is different, the computer treats them as different, and complex software must be made to correct for this (in my case, unfortunately, this hasn't been done). My case isn't that extreme. I know of a whole department at my local university that refuses to take the effort to install WinXP SP2 since it won't recognize the USB mouse until you do a lengthy manual software fix without the mouse. In an ideal world, software would be perfect, but sadly it isn't.

There is something quite nice about having dedicated ports for each device. Why do we have to plug the keyboard, mouse, printer, camera, scanner, flash memory, etc into the same port? They all have different requirements, and none are ideal when forced into the same port. I know people here hate legacy ports. But there are some really good reasons to keep them.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: dullard
There is something quite nice about having dedicated ports for each device. Why do we have to plug the keyboard, mouse, printer, camera, scanner, flash memory, etc into the same port? They all have different requirements, and none are ideal when forced into the same port. I know people here hate legacy ports. But there are some really good reasons to keep them.

Actually, I couldn't possibly imagine anything WORSE than having separate ports for each of these devices. Now you've got to have each of these on every motherboard -- or else you make people go out and buy (and install) expansion cards (presumably in their limited PCI slots) every time they want a printer, or scanner, or flash memory card, or whatever. All of them just need a way to communicate with the PC, and none of them have particularly stringent communication requirements. With something like USB, your motherboard can just include a number of USB ports instead of having to support different combinations of hardware ports for everything. And if you're smart about designing the protocols (and they were pretty smart with USB), everything can use standardized controllers, and the OS should be able to correctly recognize what a new device is when it is connected (driving down costs and making it plug-and-play).

Seriously, this mystery hardware you have (it screws up your USB mouse when you install SP2? WTF?) is a POS. Every regular USB device I have ever seen knows how to deal with multiple USB ports properly; it's more reasonable to put this small demand on the software/driver writers than to put a HUGE demand on the hardware manufacturers just to make the software a tiny bit simpler. Again, you could be having the same exact problem with multiple parallel ports if you plugged your device into the wrong one -- I'm not seeing why you think USB is at fault here.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Matthias99
Actually, I couldn't possibly imagine anything WORSE than having separate ports for each of these devices. Now you've got to have each of these on every motherboard -- or else you make people go out and buy (and install) expansion cards (presumably in their limited PCI slots) every time they want a printer, or scanner, or flash memory card, or whatever.

Those slots add maybe 10 cents to the cost of a motherboard. $1 for firewire due to royalties. The cost is minimal compared to the benefits of having separate ports. Computers used to do this all the time, it isn't like I'm proposing some mysterious difficult task. Having connections that are specifically optimized for each application is a very valuable thing for some users and it doesn't harm the others in any serious way (other than adding <$2 to their motherboard purchase).

Take firewire as an example. I feel many PC users would be better off with them. Too many devices are underpowered with USB. External hard drives are the best example. Scanners too. Most have separate power connections since USB just doesn't cut it (especially when you have 5 other devices sharing the limited power). With firewire, you have the power you need. One less connection and full speed operation is nice to have. But without the port, you get inferior or more cumbersome products.

 

[Pariah]

Actually, I couldn't possibly imagine anything WORSE than having separate ports for each of these devices. Now you've got to have each of these on every motherboard -- or else you make people go out and buy (and install) expansion cards (presumably in their limited PCI slots) every time they want a printer, or scanner, or flash memory card, or whatever. All of them just need a way to communicate with the PC, and none of them have particularly stringent communication requirements. With something like USB, your motherboard can just include a number of USB ports instead of having to support different combinations of hardware ports for everything. And if you're smart about designing the protocols (and they were pretty smart with USB), everything can use standardized controllers, and the OS should be able to correctly recognize what a new device is when it is connected (driving down costs and making it plug-and-play).

For once, I couldn't agree more. I don't see any good reason to have a different incompatible port for everything, when one universal will work. I never want to go back to the days when you had to try and connect multiple parallel port devices to a computer. The nightmares of trying to use one of those pass-through dongles that came with scanners and other devices that half the parallel port devices didn't work with when connected to them. USB with hubs is one of the best convenience factors that has come to computers in recent years.

The reason firewire is not more universal today can squarely be blamed on Apple for originally charging ridiculous fees per port. It's also not true that firewire can power external drives. The spec is only 12W, I believe, and very few ports actually provide even that much, which is not enough power to spin up a standard 3.5" HD.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Pariah
I don't see any good reason to have a different incompatible port for everything, when one universal will work. I never want to go back to the days when you had to try and connect multiple parallel port devices to a computer.

There you go backing me up. Instead of one port trying to do everything (which lead to your problems), it is often nicer to have multiple ports available. One for the scanner, one for the printer.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Matthias99
Actually, I couldn't possibly imagine anything WORSE than having separate ports for each of these devices. Now you've got to have each of these on every motherboard -- or else you make people go out and buy (and install) expansion cards (presumably in their limited PCI slots) every time they want a printer, or scanner, or flash memory card, or whatever.

Those slots add maybe 10 cents to the cost of a motherboard. $1 for firewire due to royalties. The cost is minimal compared to the benefits of having separate ports. Computers used to do this all the time, it isn't like I'm proposing some mysterious difficult task. Having connections that are specifically optimized for each application is a very valuable thing for some users and it doesn't harm the others in any serious way (other than adding <$2 to their motherboard purchase).

I still don't get it. It costs more (I think you're drastically understating the cost of having extra MB traces, etc. for lots of different ports), and I'm not seeing any great need for specialized connections for most normal peripherals. How are you going to "optimize" for a digital camera as opposed to a scanner or memory card? Unless you get EVERY brand of digital camera to sign on to your new interface standard (and implement it perfectly), you'll still need custom software for each one. And it still doesn't make dealing with multiple ports any easier, since you could easily have more than one "camera" or "scanner" or "printer" port.

And what happens when, next year, a new kind of peripheral comes out that uses a new kind of port? Now you either have to add a new port to your existing computer (which, at least in the past, required losing a PCI slot), or you need a new motherboard with the new kind of port. As opposed to just having the new gizmo know how to use a standard USB port properly (which also means the peripheral manufacturer can leverage existing hardware and software for interfacing with USB, and nobody needs to design or buy anything new).

What generally happened anyway is that 'normal' peripherals just plugged into a standard RS-232 or parallel port, since they could count on most users having one of those. The only things that didn't were devices that had been around so long that they had already developed a 'standard' port (keyboard/mouse, printer), or that were specialized enough to actually need something different than just RS-232 (like a joystick or MIDI device). Designing one kind of port that can service 90+% of devices without a problem, and can be standardized across all computers, is a big win for everyone.

 

[Pariah]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Pariah
I don't see any good reason to have a different incompatible port for everything, when one universal will work. I never want to go back to the days when you had to try and connect multiple parallel port devices to a computer.

There you go backing me up. Instead of one port trying to do everything (which lead to your problems), it is often nicer to have multiple ports available. One for the scanner, one for the printer.

No, you're not understanding. What if I had 2 printers? I only have one parallel port. How many computers came with more than one parallel port? That's the problem with dedicated ports. If you have any more than one of that device you're screwed. 4 universal ports is much more flexible than 4 dedicated ports that can only be used for one purpose.

 

[dullard]

There is a huge difference between:

Originally posted by: BCinSC
why can't a generic one cover all?

and

Originally posted by: Matthias99
Designing one kind of port that can service 90+% of devices without a problem.

One port split 20 ways to attach every possible device is rediculous, inefficient, unoptimal, etc. I'm not saying that we need a completely different port for every possible device ever made. However, I think having a few DIFFERENT port types (with sufficient numbers of each) is the better way to go.

Your keyboard needs very little resources, while your external hard drive needs quite a bit. Thus the most efficient use of resources is to have different ports. Have one port for low power, low transmission rates like keyboards, mice, joysticks, etc. Have another port for high power, high transmission rates like hard drives, printers, scanners, etc. Then put sufficient numbers of each on the computer (so you aren't trying to share one parallel port with your printer, scanner, etc).