Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 17th Sep 2012 16:56 UTC, submitted by Andy McLaughlin
Permalink for comment 535598
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 14:35 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/11/13 17:07 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/10/13 23:13 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/08/13 14:57 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/07/13 11:40 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/04/13 12:45 UTC
Linked by nfeske on 05/31/13 10:12 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/29/13 16:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
But total world domination of UVC is not what I had in mind when writing "Webcams are already more or less covered, by USB video class" - for there to be no outliers, you'd have to force everybody to use UVC, and how do you propose doing that? (other than... MS becoming much more aggressive - and not only about the logo, but outright banning all non-compliant devices from Windows; I can bet you'd grumble much more about such scenario :p ).
So yes, webcams following their USB class are out there and quite numerous, no need for "if" - salesmen not advertising it, and consumers seemingly not caring much, is another issue.
Because it's good to have built-in drivers, or even such device class. Makes hardware more likely usable, down the line (that decade+ old QuickCam Express that I mentioned, still recognized & working flawlessly; no such luck with one similarly old and much nicer - but also rarer - Philips webcam; plus, OS-included drivers of chipsets and such often tended to be more trouble-free, in my experience)