Hi If they had done USB instead of HPIB / GPIB, a lot of the drivers would have been "out of service" by the time Windows 95 came along. No chance at all of them working under Windows 7.
For the complexity, it'd have been better if they used something more like Ethernet. Except in 1968, you would have set up for something other than TCP-IP. Anybody running a Token Ring network in the basement? No easy solution. Serial com is still with us because it's a lowest common denominator. I'm sitting here coding it into a new product right now (once the uber super compiler finishes a build). It's supported on just about every chip set in the universe. I suspect it will outlive the cockroaches. Bob -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 10:54 AM To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement Subject: Re: [time-nuts] 57600 baud rate with Basic etc What aspects of USB would HP have used? Just the complexity of a USB OHCI/UHCI would have been economically prohibitive compared to an asynchronous serial UART. An OHCI/UHCI is more like an ethernet controller and those took up the space of entire expansion boards initially. What they did come up with was HP-IB although I would have preferred it to be serial and galvanically isolated. On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:28:46 -0400, paul swed <[email protected]> wrote: >I have never figured out why HP did not develop USB in 1969? Not very far >sighted. ;-) >Regards >Paul >WB8TSL _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
