Re: USB vs. FireWire
Re: USB vs. FireWire
- Subject: Re: USB vs. FireWire
- From: Markus Medau <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 00:58:45 +0200
Hi Lubor,
> I think the problem of USB is deeper than the bit flow (we can move
> to USB 2) and the transfer mode (USB is even capable of isochronous
> transfer). The problem is in its architecture. USB needs much more
> CPU attention, while FW works "on its own". We experienced, that
> even for systems loaded to slightly over 50% USB isn't reliable, drop
> outs may occur, while FW works up to more than 80%. That is similar
> for XP and OS X.
That's not true for what we (and probably other companies) do on Windows,
actually with most FireWire units we checked it's less latency we get on USB1.1
compared. No problem to put 80% and more load on the CPU.
I think you know that we're working hard (and got alot done meanwhile)
to do the same thing on Mac OS X.
Markus
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Coreaudio-api mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden