Main > Main Forum

Ipac Usb Vs, Ps/2

Pages: << < (12/21) > >>

Tiger-Heli:


--- Quote from: patrickl on June 17, 2004, 07:08:41 am ---I didn't mean that as a literal translation of what you said. It's more like a combination of ideas:

--- End quote ---
I will accept that explanation - the main problem is I don't buy into the fact that PS/2 is rapidly going to vanish, although I don't see that as beyond the realm of possibilities.

--- Quote ---- users who need USB support need to get an I-PAC (taken from your message, again not literally, but that is one of the points I read in there)

--- End quote ---
Well, if we are limiting this to I-PAC vs. KeyWiz and USB support is required, KeyWiz doesn't have it, so this is pretty much a no-brainer.

--- Quote ---- PS/2 will go away in something like 2 to 5 years

--- End quote ---
This is the part I see as a possibility but not a certainty.

--- Quote ---Put these together and some people might get the idea they better buy an I-PAC and be prepared for the future.

--- End quote ---
Perhaps, but I don't think PS/2 will vanish, just be more difficult to find.  For example, I can still find motherboards with gameports, but not for the latest generation of processors, and I have to pick and choose on the current low-level processors.  That doesn't mean that I can't find gameport supporting motherboards on E-bay, etc.  The same will be true for PS/2, but if I don't plan to upgrade, this doesn't matter.

--- Quote ---It's a problem discussing on a forum. When I write long messages people start picking on details that don't matter to the bigger issue and when I write a short message people can find interpretations in the message I never intended there :P

--- End quote ---
Fair enough.

Tiger-Heli:


--- Quote from: patrickl on June 17, 2004, 07:14:14 am ---
--- Quote from: Minwah on June 17, 2004, 06:45:30 am ---And why the f*ck did they make the USB connector simetrical, its always the wrong way round!!

--- End quote ---
Hehe, yeah that USB connector is probably the worst ever.

--- End quote ---
Actually, you're right again, PS/2 was more of a pain than USB, with USB it's just test, flip, insert.  With PS/2 I was always rotating the connector and hoping I wasn't bending pins trying to get it to line up.

How many times have you plugged in a monitor HDB15 or telephone RJ-45 plug in upside-down?  (Probably never).

RandyT:


--- Quote from: patrickl on June 17, 2004, 03:51:52 am ---But I understand Tiger-Heli's explanation. Of course KeyWiz would loose customers if people would understand they will have trouble finding PS/2 connectors in the near future.

--- End quote ---

Hehe 5+ years = near future.......what are you, a redwood tree?   :D

5 years in the world of computers is a virtual eternity.  By then, even USB could be on the outs for something better.  But you've got the crystal ball.

BTW, you are still homing in on small meaningless portions of the discussion, and  your tactic of attempting to discredit me personally rather than address the points I make in my posts, is transparent at best.  How about taking on that issue of how you get people to buy into technology that 90% of average consumers don't need, rather than dancing around trying to save face?  Your entire argument hinges on this question.

Up to now, you added very little substantive information to this discussion, just a lot of unsubstantiated predictions / rhetoric.

RandyT



microwrx:

Mini-PAC works in PS2 mode as long as you are not using it with a trackball or spinner.  I'm using mine in PS2 for players 3&4 on my 4 player cab daisy chained to my J-PAC and still have a PS2 keyboard plugged into the Mini-PAC as well.

Tiger-Heli:

Ok, I'm going to play Devil's Advocate and go off the deep end a little here, so if I make any obvious errors, someone feel free to drag me back to reality.

First off, I would like to question how much of an issue this could possibly be?

For example, I doubt I could mash a button more than 4 or 5 times a second, but lets give me the benefit of the doubt and say that I can hit 10 presses per second.  Theoretically, if the encoder processes the data faster than 0.1 sec per keypress everything should be fine.  Alright, I remember from a previous thread another thing, but lets say the game displays at 60Hz, that means that each frame takes 1/60th (0.0166) seconds.  But I would think the slowest encoder in the slowest mode would be faster than this, meaning that I can be assured that my input is recorded during the same frame that I press the button, so how could speed be an issue here?

NOTE: My motorcycle example may be more accurate than I realized.

--- Quote from: AndyWarne on June 14, 2004, 09:00:01 am ---The proof of the pudding: download the Passmark keyboard test from www.passmark.com. This test has a box called "Lag". (I requested this as a new feature, and they added it). Wire two inputs together on an I-PAC, and check this box when you press the button. You will never see a slower figure in the timer display with USB than with PS/2.

--- End quote ---
I considered using the Passmark test with and without my QVS USB adapter, but I see at least 4 problems with this test:

1)  As RandyT pointed out, 2 inputs shouldn't tax any encoder, but it should be no problem to wire 10 or 12 inputs to a button and try the test that way.

INTRO: What we are concerned with is the time between when I depress a key, and when that keypress is output to the application.  Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe there are two parts to this equation.  I see no way for the software to know when I actually depress the key, only when the keydown signal is received at the PS/2 or USB port.

2)  So we are losing the time required for the encoder to process the signal and convert it to the proper format and send it to the PC.  In other words, if the PC can handle a USB signal in 0.1 seconds and a PS/2 signal in 0.2 seconds, the software will show the USB interface as faster.  But in fact, if the I-PAC takes 0.3 seconds to process a PS/2 output, and 0.5 seconds to process a USB output, the total time is actually as much slower in USB mode as the software indicated it was faster (0.5 seconds total for PS/2 and 0.6 seconds total for USB).  (NOTE: I just made those figures up and have no idea on total processing time required).

3)  Based on previous discussions, I would expect the actual time measured by Passmark (the CPU processing time) to vary in USB based on other activity on the USB and PCI bus.  In other words, perhaps the PS/2 delay is 0.5 seconds and the USB delay is 0.4 or 0.1 or 0.2, etc. based on system activity.  USB is faster, but this variable delay might be worse in terms of gameplay than a fixed delay.

4)  I have never heard of Passmark before this thread.  For all I know, this could be software that Andy Warne wrote himself offered on a website that his brother-in-law hosts that does nothing but display a ramdomly generated lower lag figure for USB vs. PS/2.  NOTE: Before anyone flames me for accusing Andy of anything fishy, I can say the same things about the performance claims and software tests on the GroovyGameGear site.  In both cases, I am taking the information to be accurate, and I assume it to be so, but I am relying on the word of the developer who has a vested stake in the product.  What I am getting at here, is if I read a magazine review of a new Ford car, I feel fairly confident if the magazine says "We ran the car through our own dyno, like all our test cars, and it generated a solid 305 Hp."  I feel less confident if they say "We took the car to Joe's dyno, a respected independent shop, and it generated a solid 310 Hp."  Still less "Ford recommended we take the car to Tim's Performance, and they dyno'd it at a whopping 450 Hp." And much less "Ford told us that they had hit 500 Hp with this car on THEIR dyno in Dearborn."

FWIW!

Pages: << < (12/21) > >>

Go to full version