1 |
>>>> Sounds like it's a 1.1 device to me. |
2 |
>>> |
3 |
>>> Yep, that's what it sounds like to me too. |
4 |
>>> |
5 |
>>> Dale |
6 |
>> |
7 |
>> But that's OK isn't it? I don't need 2.0 speeds between each webcam |
8 |
>> and the controller, I just need the increased overall bandwidth of a |
9 |
>> 2.0 controller so one of the 1.1 webcams doesn't use all of it. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> The 2.0 controller doesn't _have_ increased bandwith if it's |
12 |
> talking to 1.1 devices. In that case, the 2.0 controller is |
13 |
> transferring data at the same speed as a 1.1 controller. |
14 |
|
15 |
I thought the total bandwidth available for a controller was different |
16 |
than the bandwidth at which it communicates with one device. You're |
17 |
saying any 1.1 device that uses 12 mbit/s will 100% monopolize a 2.0 |
18 |
controller so no other devices can function? |
19 |
|
20 |
Taking a different approach, since I have 2 USB controllers (EHCIx1, |
21 |
OHCIx1) why can't I operate one webcam on one controller and one |
22 |
webcam on the other controller so they can both function? |
23 |
|
24 |
- Grant |
25 |
|
26 |
>> I get the feeling I have a misconception somewhere along the |
27 |
>> line here. Could someone straighten me out? |
28 |
> |
29 |
> A Corvette going 3MPH will get to the finish line at exactly |
30 |
> the same time as a 4-year-old kid on a tricycle going 3MPH. It |
31 |
> doesn't matter what the controller is capable of -- it matters |
32 |
> what speed it's actually talking. |
33 |
> |
34 |
> -- |
35 |
> Grant |