3 ms·

I can't really decide if Bluetooth or USB should be listed at the most disastrous success story in modern history. Both are an absolute mess, but so widely adop

I can't really decide if Bluetooth or USB should be listed at the most disastrous success story in modern history. Both are an absolute mess, but so widely adopted that they couldn't possibly be viewed as failures.

hyperman1 5y ago
They've done some stupid things in USB3 but the first 2 versions were an absolute success. Consider my 386, the last PC I owned without USB. There were separate ports for: * Keyboard (big DIN, not ps/2) * Mouse (serial) * Joystick (On sound card) * Printer (LPT1) * Scanner (SCSI) * Zip drive (Also LPT1, passtrough, sometimes unstable) All of these have been replaced by USB1. Maybe changing the floppys for USB sticks should be added to this list. The main problem was it was designed for slow small peripherals. Its a miracle they managed to add this much speed and power while being completely backwards compatible. I bought a desk lamp. It turns out to reuse an USB charger as transformer. Using a standard this far ouside its original intended domain, is the ultimate kind of succesfull.
- ciupicri 5y ago
  Zip drives and other storage devices could have been connected using SCSI. Heck, even printers like Xerox Phaser 740 [1]. [1]: http://www.office.xerox.com/userdoc/P740/P740man/740.45.html http://www.office.xerox.com/userdoc/P740/P740man/740.45.html
xxpor 5y ago
USB is orders of magnitude more reliable, so I'd really have to go with bt. Granted, it's job is much harder but still.
- senectus1 5y ago
  I guess both are victims of their own success.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    Bluetooth didn't get around to adding a standardized low latency audio codec until 2020, so I think they have some more severe management issues than USB.
xnx 5y ago
There are technologies people complain about, and technologies people don't use.
KerrAvon 5y ago
I don’t understand this viewpoint. USB is a massive success and the modern versions are pretty decent technically. I get the issues with cable compatibility et cetra, but connectivity used to be so much worse. USB-C is a miracle even with its flaws.
theamk 5y ago
Don't know about BT, but why do you say USB is a mess? I have implemented USB device from scratch long time ago, and the protocol was pretty pleasant. It satisfied its main goal: being simple to implement with minimal resources. Sure, there are things that could be improved, I'd say 512 mA power limit is the worst. And some sort of auto-poll mechanism on hubs wold be nice. And maybe IRQ-like bus state to save power? But those are pretty minor things. (Of course the software part is a mess - a lot of drivers have no error recovery whatsoever. But this is not protocol's fault)
ksec 5y ago
I can understand Bluetooth, but which part of USB was disastrous? If you mean modern USB as in profile and marketing segmentation? That has nothing to do with the USB success story. The Initial USB 1.0 was if I remember correctly was only about 100 pages long if you ignore hub and electrical part. Way more complicated than Serial or Parallel port, but 100 page was manageable. And comprehensible. And well worth the effort, at the time we were severely I/O limited. ( But Parallel Port was fun :D ) I think USB 3.2 is already a 2000 page spec... and I didn't even look at USB 4.

hyperman1 5y ago

They've done some stupid things in USB3 but the first 2 versions were an absolute success. Consider my 386, the last PC I owned without USB. There were separate ports for: * Keyboard (big DIN, not ps/2) * Mouse (serial) * Joystick (On sound card) * Printer (LPT1) * Scanner (SCSI) * Zip drive (Also LPT1, passtrough, sometimes unstable) All of these have been replaced by USB1. Maybe changing the floppys for USB sticks should be added to this list. The main problem was it was designed for slow small peripherals. Its a miracle they managed to add this much speed and power while being completely backwards compatible. I bought a desk lamp. It turns out to reuse an USB charger as transformer. Using a standard this far ouside its original intended domain, is the ultimate kind of succesfull.

ciupicri 5y ago
Zip drives and other storage devices could have been connected using SCSI. Heck, even printers like Xerox Phaser 740 [1]. [1]: http://www.office.xerox.com/userdoc/P740/P740man/740.45.html http://www.office.xerox.com/userdoc/P740/P740man/740.45.html

xxpor 5y ago

USB is orders of magnitude more reliable, so I'd really have to go with bt. Granted, it's job is much harder but still.

senectus1 5y ago
I guess both are victims of their own success.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  Bluetooth didn't get around to adding a standardized low latency audio codec until 2020, so I think they have some more severe management issues than USB.

xnx 5y ago

There are technologies people complain about, and technologies people don't use.

KerrAvon 5y ago

I don’t understand this viewpoint. USB is a massive success and the modern versions are pretty decent technically. I get the issues with cable compatibility et cetra, but connectivity used to be so much worse. USB-C is a miracle even with its flaws.

theamk 5y ago

Don't know about BT, but why do you say USB is a mess? I have implemented USB device from scratch long time ago, and the protocol was pretty pleasant. It satisfied its main goal: being simple to implement with minimal resources. Sure, there are things that could be improved, I'd say 512 mA power limit is the worst. And some sort of auto-poll mechanism on hubs wold be nice. And maybe IRQ-like bus state to save power? But those are pretty minor things. (Of course the software part is a mess - a lot of drivers have no error recovery whatsoever. But this is not protocol's fault)

ksec 5y ago

I can understand Bluetooth, but which part of USB was disastrous? If you mean modern USB as in profile and marketing segmentation? That has nothing to do with the USB success story. The Initial USB 1.0 was if I remember correctly was only about 100 pages long if you ignore hub and electrical part. Way more complicated than Serial or Parallel port, but 100 page was manageable. And comprehensible. And well worth the effort, at the time we were severely I/O limited. ( But Parallel Port was fun :D ) I think USB 3.2 is already a 2000 page spec... and I didn't even look at USB 4.