Slashdot Mirror
USB 1.1 Renumbered To USB 2?
Teese writes "According to this Bangkok Post article, in December the USB Forum renamed USB 1.1 to USB 2, and USB 2 stayed as USB 2. They did this because consumers were demanding that the computers they buy have USB2 on board. The story also claims that both Sony & toshiba have released laptops with the USB2 that is really USB1.1. This was the first I had heard of this and the article said the change took place in December, has the USB Forum really been able to pull a fast one on us?"
I think the subject says it all... wouldn't a more reliable source to ask be the organisation that made the change, rather than the population of /., who'll all have a different opinion on what's happened?
Well, the article states:
"To help the public grasp this subtle distinction USB 2, which was the old USB 1.1, would have ``Full Speed'' added to its title and USB 2, which was USB 2, would have ``Hi-Speed'' added."
Still, that's really, really wrong. It is most likely to upset even more people that ended up buying a computer with "slow" USB as the salesperson will probably not know this subtle text difference.
I though they should include the speed numerical value in the name, like USB-12 and USB-480.
Ugh, let's hope there's another announcement in a few week revoking this.
-m
http://www.invisik.com
Reminds me of fast food joints where you have your choice of Medium, Large or Super-sized.
Sort of like saying a Geo Metro is Corvette-compatible because they both can ride the same public highways.
What next - black and white laser printers that are color-image compatible (sure, they can handle color, they just print it in black and white).
Okay, so when I started maintaining my first opensource project many years ago, I pull that one too : I released something one day, version 0.8.0, put it up for download on my web page, announced it and, a day or two later, I figured it was so great that I just changed the version number to 1.0.0 and re-released it. Then later again, I discovered a small typo, so I corrected it, repackaged, and re-released as version 1.0.0 because the change was so small.
Net result ? the last 1.0.0 tarball was broken, and people would send me bug reports regarding 0.8.0 and 1.0.0 and I wouldn't know which was which. There were several different tarballs of the thing with the same version number, or identical tarballs with different version numbers out there on the net and I looked like a bloody idiot. That's when I learned the hard way that when something is released, it's frozen and that's it, and if something changes, it'll be in the next version and too bad if the version I just released sucks.
So USB 1.1 != USB 2 ? well, too bad if some lusers are confused, USB 1.1 is USB 1.1, not USB 2. Even if marketing or support considerations come into play, it's still USB 1.1 feature-wise, not USB 2. Renaming USB 1.1 to USB 2 to con people isn't just a cheap trick, it most importantly shows a complete lack of professionalism, and it's the support people who will have a hard time answering calls about non-working USB 2 devices.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
USB 1.1 = "full speed"
USB 2 = "high speed"
I hear "high speed" as "very fast", and "full speed" as "fast as possible." But then again what do I know, clearly the group that made the change is more sensible. ;)
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Involved, but not necessarily responsible. Why single them out, when are are others on the board? Like I mentioned in another post, I wouldn't be surprised if this change was pushed by the hardware vendors on the board more than by MS.
~Berj
Just because you've heard that USB 1.1 has a max speed of 12Mbps, don't assume that all USB 1.1 devices are built to use that speed!
So, the rule of thumb is, don't equate USB 2 with high speed transfers. No big deal, if you ask me. USB 2 is the name of a technical standard, not a data rate!
No, but I expect the *computer* to go at 12Mbps, if the device can. And I expect USB2 to go at 480Mbps, if the device can. Actually, if the device could use that speed, I expect it to be 480Mbps too. The ads have been citing those numbers all the time, so customers expect it.
This is about as deceptive as selling a shiny blank disc as an audio CD, because you know the consumers will believe it is despite having no logo or being compliant. That is somewhere between deceptive marketing and fraud, and personally I'm tending to fraud. To rephrase the usual disclaimer, I'd rather be Jackass' stuntman than a lawyer.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
To your point, "I really don't see what the big deal is if people realize that USB 2.0 != high speed (480 MBit/sec)," it's the entire point of the argument. People DON'T realize that because it's simply not true. The phrase USB 2.0 has already come to mean high speed through usage; usage both defined and fostered by the very same usb.org. Doubt me? Here's what the usb.org has on the first page of "A Technical Introduction to USB 2.0" describing USB 2.0 [formatting from the original, emphasis mine ]:
"USB 2.0 Executive Summary
A core team from Compaq, Hewlett Packard, Intel, Lucent, Microsoft, NEC and Philips is leading the development of the USB Specification, version 2.0, that will increase data throughput by a factor of 40. This backwards-compatible extension of the USB 1.1 specification uses the same cables, connectors and software interfaces so the user will see no change in the usage model. They will, however, benefit from an additional range of higher performance peripherals, such as video-conferencing cameras, next-generation scanners and printers, and fast storage devices, with the same ease-of-use features as todayâ(TM)s USB peripherals.
Impact to User
From a userâ(TM)s perspective, USB 2.0 is just like USB, but with much higher bandwidth. It will look the same and behave the same, but with a larger choice of more interesting, higher performance devices available. Also, all of the USB peripherals the user has already purchased will work in a USB 2.0-capable system."
Contrast that statement with this quote from the USB Naming and Packaging page:
"Inconsistent use of terminology in combination with the existing general misconception that USB 2.0 is synonymous with Hi-Speed USB ... creates confusion in the marketplace."
So you can now see why we've our little tempest in the proverbial teapot. Even the USB organization themselves used the specific words "USB 2.0" to precisely mean the exact same thing they now call "Hi-Speed USB" -- 480MB/s USB. And then they tell us that we, the marketplace, suffer confusion from a misconception. If they aren't fostering that confusion, who else is?
My biggest complaint is that their packaging page permits manufacturers to label their "Low-Speed USB" or "Full-Speed USB" products with these statements:
- 1. Compatible with the USB 2.0 Specification
- 2. Works with USB and Hi-Speed USB systems, peripherals and cables.
The emphasis is mine, just to point out that they used the word "compatible" and not "compliant". A subtle distinction probably lost on the average buyer, since we're quibbling about it here onThis is the stuff of "truth in advertising" lawsuits. IANAL, because if I were I wouldn't be ranting on /., I'd be cranking up a lawsuit.
And just to keep going, if your other statement were true, "A USB 1.1 compliant device can meet the specification even if it only supports low speed operation (1.5 MBit/sec)," then I should be able to claim my 300 baud acoustically-coupled modem made in 1978 is "V_fast" compliant just because the V_fast spec says a V_fast modem must accept connections from 300 baud modems. Receiving an honorable mention in the spec does not mean it meets the spec.
John