Can someone explain why the "adapter" method works better than straight USB?
1. Either type of logger works fine, when it works. That's most of the time.
2. Some people with some computers have reported problems getting the USB logger to work. When those few problems have occurred, they have been difficult to diagnose and difficult to fix.
3. As far as I know, nobody has ever reported a problem with the serial logger that was really a problem with the logger - and it has been easy to diagnose and "fix" the problem either with their computer or with their software setup. (One reason is that the serial logger comes with a "loopback plug" to test the serial port, without connecting to the logger).
4 With a serial-to-USB adapter in the picture, it's fairly easy to determine that the adapter
(or adapter drivers) are at fault.
Now, with that in mind:
A. If you have a serial port on your computer, I recommend using it. That is better
than using an adapter, if you have a serial port. *
B. If you don't have a serial port, then I recommend using the serial logger with a serial-to-USB adapter.
C. * Footnote: If you're using a serial port, and it goes TU (i.e., dies), then you can still go get an adapter and plug into USB.