First Post! Annoying Debate at Work.

Sun Feb 29 12:55:00 UTC 2004

>          USB in this scenario would be synonymous with PCI, in regards
>to the type of technology that interfaces with the cpu.

Yes.

>3)       Just because a device has two physical mediums of
>connectivity, dosent make it a ?converter?. My coworkers argue that a
>USB Ethernet adapter is an ?Ethernet to USB Converter?.

Perhaps they are being confused by the existence of things like 
USB/Serial and USB/Parallel "converters" (I have one of the former here, 
for when I need to plug my GPS receiver into my laptop), but in fact 
these are "adapters", just like the PCI/Serial and PCI/Parallel cards 
you might buy to fit in a PCI slot [although most PCs have this 
functionality on the motherboard, so extra cards are unnecessary].

Another way of telling that they are adapters (even the USB/Serial one) 
rather than converters, is that that they need Windows Drivers, which 
are added by the standard plug-n-pray system when you first attach that 
device to the PC. A genuine converter (like 9-25 pin serial) doesn't 
need a driver.

> If this is
>true, then the following could be said:
> 
>          a.       A PCI Ethernet Adapter is a ?converter? because it
>?converts? Ethernet to PCI.

You are on the right track here - both the PCI and USB items are 
"adapters". Neither are "converters".

>          c.       Lastly ( I love this one ), An integrated Ethernet
>adapter on a motherboard is a ?converter? because it ?converts?
>ethernet to uhh ??  processor? Riiiiight?

It's a few years since I designed a PC, but I think you'll find that 
motherboard adapters like are actually connected to the PCI bus, but 
internally across the PCB, rather than via a separable connector (and at 
early stages in their evolution using the exact same chip soldered to 
the motherboard as would have been on the plug-in card).

-- 
Roland Perry