The move to Serial

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Pariah
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.

I don't think you are understanding me at all. I don't want 20 different ports for 20 different devices. I don't want one copy of each port so you run into the trouble of connecting multiple devices and only one slot. I want a limited number of types of ports, and a large number of each of those (not 20x1 - twenty different ports with one of each, but maybe 3x7 - three different ports with seven of each, or even 3x6+2x2).

 

[Pariah]

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.

When computers today typically come with 6 or even 8 USB 2.0 ports, why would you plug all your peripherals into 1 port? If you're a retard maybe that would be a good idea. I don't think too many people have the issue of plugging 20 peripherals into their computer. And for those that do, I doubt that they need all of them plugged in at once. That's where the convience of front mounted hot pluggable USB ports come in. Try doing that with a PS/2 mouse or parallel port printer.

 

[Jeff7]

Serial is easy - one bit follows another. Parallel needs to be kept synchronized, and that's tough.

I theorize that it's like this:
Serial comes out, and it's ok. Someone then finds a way of making it parallel. Then the parallel method is pushed until it can't be kept in sync. By that time, advances in serial tech are good enough to exceed the speeds of parallel interfaces. So serial presides for awhile, during which time better ways of keeping parallel data streams in sync are developed, and it starts over again.
Make sense?

 

[dullard]

Ok, Pariah, we are getting no where. Lets try switching the focus. Explain to me why I would be better off plugging my CRT and my LCD into USB ports instead of into my video card.

 

[Pariah]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Pariah
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.

I don't think you are understanding me at all. I don't want 20 different ports for 20 different devices. I don't want one copy of each port so you run into the trouble of connecting multiple devices and only one slot. I want a limited number of types of ports, and a large number of each of those (not 20x1 - twenty different ports with one of each, but maybe 3x7 - three different ports with seven of each, or even 3x6+2x2).

That still doesn't make any sense. The more you specialize the ports, the more you limit your options and increase the odds of wasted ports on your computer. 21 ports? What on earth are you connecting to your computer? Does your computer look like this? When one port can capably handle all peripheral connections, there is no logical reason to try and complicate the issue and create new ports.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Pariah
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.

I don't think you are understanding me at all. I don't want 20 different ports for 20 different devices. I don't want one copy of each port so you run into the trouble of connecting multiple devices and only one slot. I want a limited number of types of ports, and a large number of each of those (not 20x1 - twenty different ports with one of each, but maybe 3x7 - three different ports with seven of each, or even 3x6+2x2).

Okay, but we already *did* this (we had serial, parallel, PS/2, MIDI/joystick, etc.), and everyone found it to be a huge PITA. The industry didn't move towards standardized plug-and-play ports just because they felt like changing stuff for no reason.

Why not have everything use just one kind of standardized port? I could see MAYBE having a low-speed and high-speed one, if there was a big price difference between them (but note that USB2.0 is dirt cheap now, and FW doesn't cost much more). About the only effective difference between USB2.0 and FireWire (at a high level; there are some low-level technical differences) is that FW supplies a somewhat larger amount of power to the attached devices. This is useful for external hard drives (at least relatively low-power ones), but you're still not going to be able to drive a power-hungry device like a scanner, printer, 15KRPM hard drive, etc. without external power.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: dullard
Ok, Pariah, we are getting no where. Lets try switching the focus. Explain to me why I would be better off plugging my CRT and my LCD into USB ports instead of into my video card.

Video display devices need an EXTREMELY high (and one-way) data throughput -- thousands of times higher than something like a printer would ever need or be able to use. VGA is also (for ease of monitor design 20 years ago) an analog standard, which makes no sense to use with digital devices. DVI is (relatively) expensive, and would be massive overkill for anything but transmitting uncompressed video feeds over short distances.

Basically, monitors are one of those devices that has very unusual data transfer needs (VERY high throughput, very low latency, very low overhead, essentially one-way transfer), and would not be served well by a general-purpose I/O port. This is, however, the exception rather than the rule.

 

[Pariah]

Originally posted by: dullard
Ok, Pariah, we are getting no where. Lets try switching the focus. Explain to me why I would be better off plugging my CRT and my LCD into USB ports instead of into my video card.

Because those are not compatible devices. You're not typically going to plug anything into your video card except a monitor, so to avoid any confusion you make the port on the video card unique. You do not want an identical connector for incompatible devices. That would could lead to some huge problems.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Pariah
21 ports? What on earth are you connecting to your computer?

The computer I'm using right now is similar to this. I have 22 ports on the back (I won't mention the ports on the front).
[*]1x120 VAC power connection.
[*]1xserial
[*]1xparallel
[*]1xCRT (what the heck is this connection called?).
[*]2xPS2
[*]5xaudio (various inlets, outlets, etc)
[*]6xUSB
[*]1xethernet
[*]2xphone
[*]2xIEEE 1284-1994 (you probably have never seen this).
My ~20 number I used in the post above is based in reality. I just don't think it is practical, efficient, or optimal to make all of these the same.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Pariah
Because those are not compatible devices. You're not typically going to plug anything into your video card except a monitor, so to avoid any confusion you make the port on the video card unique. You do not want an identical connector for incompatible devices. That would could lead to some huge problems.

Finally you have seen my side. Its nice to win a Anandtech debate (especially against someone as knowledgable as you Pariah). That is why we respond to this:

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

with that answer. You DON'T want one port type to cover all connections.

 

[Pariah]

Either I don't agree with you, or I don't understand, I don't know which, but I don't see your side. For devices that can be made compatible (keyboards, mouse, joysticks, cameras, printer, scanners, mp3 players, external storage, and on and on), there should only be ONE connector. I don't want 3 PS/2 ports, 2 parallel ports, 2 game ports, 4 serial ports and whatever else, when one universal port can replace them all. For devices that cannot be made compatible (analog video/audio for example), obviously you should have a different connector for those. That was never the point. You don't want incompatible devices to have the same connector.

 

[Pariah]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Pariah
21 ports? What on earth are you connecting to your computer?

The computer I'm using right now is similar to this. I have 22 ports on the back (I won't mention the ports on the front).
[*]1x120 VAC power connection.
[*]1xserial
[*]1xparallel
[*]1xCRT (what the heck is this connection called?).
[*]2xPS2
[*]5xaudio (various inlets, outlets, etc)
[*]6xUSB
[*]1xethernet
[*]2xphone
[*]2xIEEE 1284-1994 (you probably have never seen this).
My ~20 number I used in the post above is based in reality. I just don't think it is practical, efficient, or optimal to make all of these the same.

1 serial, 1 parallel, 2 ps2, 6 usb, 2 firewire. That's 12 by my count. How many of them are you actually using?

 

[LTC8K6]

Yes, an ECP/EPP parallel port is theoretically twice as fast as the old USB 1.1, and I should have mentioned that.

Would anyone notice the difference, though?

What devices are so picky about the USB ports, dullard? I have never run into that problem. It has never mattered what USB port I used with various devices.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Pariah
1 serial, 1 parallel, 2 ps2, 6 usb, 2 firewire. That's 12 by my count. How many of them are you actually using?

You forgot the 120 VAC, audio, phone, CRT, etc. These are ports too. I am using 10 at the moment.

Originally posted by: Pariah
For devices that can be made compatible (keyboards, mouse, joysticks, cameras, printer, scanners, mp3 players, external storage, and on and on), there should only be ONE connector.

Mostly agree. These should all be the same connection (if you give it enough power). But no there shouldn't be just one copy of this (we don't want to have to buy external splitters). There should be multiple copies of this one connection.

I don't want 3 PS/2 ports, 2 parallel ports, 2 game ports, 4 serial ports and whatever else, when one universal port can replace them all.

I never said that. I said that the PS/2 port shouldn't be the same as the DVI port. They have different uses and thus should be different. The ones that are similar enough (mice, keyboard, etc) should share the same type.

For devices that cannot be made compatible (analog video/audio for example), obviously you should have a different connector for those.

Why did you argue against this before? "I don't see any good reason to have a different incompatible port for everything, when one universal will work". There is a good reason to have an incompatable DVI and USB port. One universal port WON'T work for these two completely different uses. And yes, this is the point of my posts. I'm referring to this: "why can't a generic one cover all". They have different uses, different requirements, and thus you can't have one connection to cover every use in the PC world.

 

[dullard]

Here you go.

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
What devices are so picky about the USB ports, dullard? I have never run into that problem. It has never mattered what USB port I used with various devices.

 

[Pariah]

Why did you argue against this before? "I don't see any good reason to have a different incompatible port for everything, when one universal will work". There is a good reason to have an incompatable DVI and USB port. One universal port WON'T work.

I wasn't arguing against it. I think you've been having a different conversation than everyone else in this thread. The rest of us were using common sense when using the term universal. I don't think anyone here (if someone was feel free to speak up), was claiming that one port could work for everything. Anyone with half a brain knows, that would not work. We were limiting our discussion to peripheral device connections, not every cable you connect to a computer. The argument is that for every device that can be made to function with a universal port, it should. There should not be more than one connector for devices that have the potential to function on the same one.

The power supply socket is a peripheral connector? Come on man. That's completely retarded. If you ask someone what they have connected to their computer, absolutely no one will say a wall socket.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Pariah

Why did you argue against this before? "I don't see any good reason to have a different incompatible port for everything, when one universal will work". There is a good reason to have an incompatable DVI and USB port. One universal port WON'T work.

I wasn't arguing against it. I think you've been having a different conversation than everyone else in this thread. The rest of us were using common sense when using the term universal. I don't think anyone here (if someone was feel free to speak up), was claiming that one port could work for everything. Anyone with half a brain knows, that would not work. We were limiting our discussion to peripheral device connections, not every cable you connect to a computer. The argument is that for every device that can be made to function with a universal port, it should. There should not be more than one connector for devices that have the potential to function on the same one.

The power supply socket is a peripheral connector? Come on man. That's completely retarded. If you ask someone what they have connected to their computer, absolutely no one will say a wall socket.

No one ever said limit this discussion to peripheral connectors. In fact the thread started with discussion of memory and internal hard drives and why those have different connections. Are you now calling RDRAM and DDR peripherals? I didn't even want to get into the internals, but ok I will. Why don't we use USB to connect the memory, video card, and processor together? Since one connector isn't sufficient. I think you prematurely limited the discussion to only low powered, low data rate, external peripherals.

Yes the keyboard and mouse should share the same hot-swapable connector. No one is arguing against that. But the memory and CPU shouldn't use that same connection. Similar things should share similar connections. Modem and NIC should both be the same PCI (or equivalent) connection. But that connection is cheaper and easier to make if it is different from the video card. The trend is there, yes. However, at the moment it is cheaper to have them different. Different is good. Not everything should be universal.

 

[Pariah]

quote:

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


with that answer. You DON'T want one port type to cover all connections.

You're taking BCinSC's question out of context which is why no one can figure out what you're talking about. He specifically mentions serial ports. As in SATA, SAS, USB, Firewire, etc. He is asking why we need all these, why can't we have just one to cover everything. The power cable, VGA cable, analog audio, etc, are NOT serial buses, so they should never have entered the conversation.

SATA and SAS in fact will have the same connector and be compatible (one way anyway). We really don't need both USB 2 and firewire. USB 2 would work fine on it's own, but since firewire has such a strong foothold in the video industry with basically monopolistic control over the home video market with DV cameras, it can't go anywhere at this point.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Pariah
21 ports? What on earth are you connecting to your computer?

The computer I'm using right now is similar to this. I have 22 ports on the back (I won't mention the ports on the front).
[*]1x120 VAC power connection.

Probably not going anywhere. Without drastic changes to the way computers are designed (or an order-of-magnitude drop in power usage), we're going to have a dedicated power feed.

[*]1xCRT (what the heck is this connection called?).

That would be a "VGA" or "15-pin D-SUB" connector. Again, monitors have unique requirements that make them VERY different than devices doing more or less regular I/O (see my post above). You could make a 'universal' connector with enough bandwidth for a monitor feed, but this would be massive overkill for anything else you might try to connect to it today, and it would probably be quite expensive.

[*]5xaudio (various inlets, outlets, etc)

Well, the outputs could all be replaced by a single digital coax or optical TOSLINK connector (although they usually are not, for legacy reasons). The inputs basically have to stay as-is if you want to be able to make analog recordings. Computers sort of have their hands tied in this regard, since they have to conform to existing audio equipment if you want to be able to work with normal speakers, microphones, etc.

[*]2xphone

Probably unneeded as a built-in port these days. You can get an external (or internal PCI) modem if needed. Whatever part actually does the interfacing with the phone system HAS to have an RJ-11 phone jack, but that's because, again, of an externally imposed interface.

[*]1xethernet

Networking standards are more or less externally imposed. Note that you CAN network computers with USB or FireWire, but since the vast majority of computer networks use Ethernet (and I've never seen a USB/FW router, unless you built a PC specifically to do this), your computer has to be able to talk Ethernet at some level if you want to network it.

Computer networking generally has special needs relative to other peripherals. For instance, the cables must be able to run fairly long distances (~30m/100ft., generally), in order to be useful for general application. This requires either shielded cables or noise correction at a hardware level (or both), and would be overkill for most peripherals.

[*]2xIEEE 1284-1994 (you probably have never seen this).

NOTE: IEEE 1284-1994 appears to be a high-speed parallel port of some sort.

This could be serialized on both ends to make it conform to a standardized serial port (as long as it had high enough bandwidth). If that is not feasable, devices using this are probably unusual enough to warrant an extra expansion card.

[*]1xserial
[*]1xparallel
[*]2xPS2
[*]6xUSB

These could all be a single type of port, and I'm not seeing a good reason to keep them separate.

I see a couple of categories here:

1) Power feed(s).
2) Connections with very specialized needs (monitor output, maybe IEEE 1284-1994)
3) Connections that must conform to an (existing) externally-imposed interface standard (networking, phone jacks, audio jacks)
4) Everything else.

"Everything else" can be serviced by a standardized I/O port, as long as it has a nontrivial amount of bandwidth (USB1.0 was pushing it, but USB2.0/FW should handle just about anything a normal person would want to use). I'm just not seeing the counterargument to this. The existence of a handful of things that cannot be served in this way does not mean you shouldn't create one and make everything that can possibly use it do so.

 

[dullard]

When limiting the discussion to external connections, this is a good start:

Originally posted by: Matthias99
1) Power feed(s).
2) Connections with very specialized needs (monitor output, maybe IEEE 1284-1994)
3) Connections that must conform to an (existing) externally-imposed interface standard (networking, phone jacks, audio jacks)
4) Everything else.

I'd personally split 4 into two categories:
4a) Low power, low bandwidth devices.
4b) High power, high bandwidth devices.
One universal connector just won't cut it for all of #1-#4.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Pariah
You're taking BCinSC's question out of context which is why no one can figure out what you're talking about.

I think you are severely limiting the question. Thread up to that point:
[*]Serial vs parallel,
[*]RDRAM vs DDR,
[*]SATA vs ATA,
[*]USB vs parallel port,
[*]PCIe vs dedicated AGP vs somehow dual core CPUs
[*]One chip to cover it all
You convert all that into: external serial peripheral connections. In that limited case, yes things should be as universal as possible (although a couple different universal connectors may be cheaper and better). In the general case, no universal fails.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: dullard
When limiting the discussion to external connections, this is a good start:

Originally posted by: Matthias99
1) Power feed(s).
2) Connections with very specialized needs (monitor output, maybe IEEE 1284-1994)
3) Connections that must conform to an (existing) externally-imposed interface standard (networking, phone jacks, audio jacks)
4) Everything else.

I'd personally split 4 into two categories:
4a) Low power, low bandwidth devices.
4b) High power, high bandwidth devices.
One universal connector just won't cut it for all of #1-#4.

Well, low-power, low-bandwidth devices can use a high-power, high-bandwidth connection without a problem. If there was a huge price discrepancy between providing a low-bandwidth and high-bandwidth connection, this distinction might make sense. But there's really not -- USB2.0 is hardly more expensive than USB1.0 now, and even FW isn't much more than that. Devices that need more than ~400-500Mbps of bandwidth (which is faster than ANY connection you could get to a PC 10 years ago) are beyond the scope of a 'peripheral', and would fall into category #2.

Your main bone to pick with USB2.0 seems to be that it doesn't supply enough power for your liking. But basically the only thing you can power with FW that you can't power with USB2.0 is an external hard drive. An interface that can provide more than 10-20W of power is basically unfeasable with today's technology, without adding significantly to the cost and complexity of the interface.

 

[Pariah]

BCinSC's original question was why everything is moving to serial from parallel, when, in his opinion, only USB has proved a successful migration so far. He then gave specific examples. The thread long ago adequately explained why each example didn't succeed (RDRAM), or hasn't yet succeeded but eventually will (SATA).

When BCinSC later asked about a universal serial connection, I somehow doubt he was asking why we don't plug RDRAM and our keyboard into the same port. I could be wrong here, and if BCinSC wants to chime in here and say that what he meant, then fine. Sometimes common sense needs to take over to make a conversation halfway intelligent.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Matthias99
Well, low-power, low-bandwidth devices can use a high-power, high-bandwidth connection without a problem. If there was a huge price discrepancy between providing a low-bandwidth and high-bandwidth connection, this distinction might make sense.

The reason to separate them is to keep things inside the computer more simple. Most computers now have 4-5 connectors that fit into #4 with several versions of each (USB, firewire, serial, parallel, and PS/2). I say in the ideal world, I'd make just 2 instead of 5. That would simplify the traces and reduce cost over what we have now. Yes, two is more complex than one, but it is better than what we have now.

The reason to use two is to keep power supply as simple as possible. There are many devices that use power and are 100% USB powered (mice, some scanners, some rare printers, etc). Plug too many in and you get serious problems (there have been threads of this around here).

Lets make up numbers here. Suppose this new universal connection had devices that use up to 20W each. Lets say we have 8 connections (about typical with USB now). Thus that connector needs to be able to provide 160W of power. That isn't going to happen. What do they do now? Provide less power (say 50W for a nice number) and hope the user doesn't plug in too much. What if the user overloads? Who knows it probably leads to a bunch of problems. Scanner uses too much power, and mouse stops working for example.

Splitting it into two categories would help. Instead of providing 8x20W, provide 6x5W and 2x20W. Or mix the numbers however you want. Then when the scanner and printer take up too much power, the user still has control over the mouse and keyboard to shut things down in the software.

Repeat with bandwidth. If one device or combination of devices was hogging too much bandwidth, it'll be nice if the mice/keyboard still function so you can pause one program until the bandwidth logjam is fixed.

Do it right, and possibly much of your #2 could be eliminated.

 

[Matthias99]

WRT internal connections (like for your RAM, CPU, expansion cards, hard drives, etc.), these are normally not treated the same as external connections as far as computer design is (or at least was) concerned.

Could you use USB2.0 to connect to your RAM? Sure, with appropriate hardware, but this would bottleneck the RAM considerably. You need a connection that is VERY high speed, with VERY low overhead -- but you can also place severe constraints on, for instance, the maximum run length, and you don't need a lot of the 'stuff' (link negotiation, etc.) that an external connection (which could get plugged into many different kinds of devices) needs. It also doesn't need to be as dirt-cheap as possible; a $10 dual-channel DRAM controller is acceptable -- needing a $10 chip to run mouse that costs $5 to produce is not. The needs of high-speed chip-to-chip interfaces are VERY different than external peripherals.

Now, you could, theoretically, use something like USB2.0 or FW to replace PCI and IDE and SATA, since the bandwidth is comparable and they also take lots of different kinds of expansion cards. Graphics cards, though, need a little more oomph (which is why AGP was developed in the first place). So various manufacturers got together and decided that one scalable, super-fast interface designed for internal use (PCI Express) was the best plan for expansion cards (so that, even if they were different than the external connectors, all the internal ones would be the same), and they would go with a single serial interface for hard drives and optical drives (SATA, later adding in SAS to hopefully get rid of SCSI as well).