Except that I doubt whether UHCI will survive USB2.0.
Nick
On Wed, 5 Jan 2000, Peter Wemm wrote:
> Nick Hibma wrote:
>
> > By the way, at the moment it is better to have a UHCI controller on
> > your motherboard. Allthough the OHCI controller is much smarter and more
> > efficient, support fo
Nick Hibma wrote:
> By the way, at the moment it is better to have a UHCI controller on
> your motherboard. Allthough the OHCI controller is much smarter and more
> efficient, support for it is not as stable as the support for UHCI
> controllers.
Sounds like UHCI => IDE, OHCI => SCSI ? (only 1/
Whether or not the system is loaded or not depends mainly on what
hardware you have. OHCI tends to load the system a lot less than UHCI
(Intel).
But compared to serial and parallel ports, USB is a lot better. Most of
the transaction is done per DMA and with large quantities it outperforms
both o
> A co-worker is looking into buying a printer, and was wondering which
> kind would be better, USB and/or parallel. (There are also some that do
> both).
>
> Parallel printers tend to load down the system when busy, but serial
> devices tend to load them down even more, although USB is a whole
A co-worker is looking into buying a printer, and was wondering which
kind would be better, USB and/or parallel. (There are also some that do
both).
Parallel printers tend to load down the system when busy, but serial
devices tend to load them down even more, although USB is a whole
different an
5 matches
Mail list logo
