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?"
Un-USB'n believable (!)
:)
Bait -n- switch anyone?
At least when I sell my Mac (QuickSilver flavor) to upgrade
I'll be able to sell it listed as "USB 2 - Full Speed" to the poor
E-Bay'er.
I'll even list it with "Firewire - HIGH Speed".
All so I can go buy a new G5 (if they REALLY are coming out
with it's "Firewire - UltraHIGH Speed" and "USB 2" connections.
And Microsoft wonders why so many DO NOT trust them?
Duh.
fp
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.
It sounds like whomever came up with this idea was possibly "on speed".
Mike
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
This seems destined to confuse everyone...
The computer industry needs trust on both sides. Trust, so that the Business Software Association knows that the public is not making naughty copies of software. Trust, so that the consumer knows that everything is as described.
The BSA uses the law to descend on small businesses and make them settle for substantial funds if they have too many copies of some software. Thus proving once again to all small businesses that they are safer to go with Linux. There may be better ways of building up mutual trust.
On the other side of the equation, industry associations make sure the consumer is not confused by the emerging technology.
Regard, then, with amazement, the peculiar case of the USB Implementation Forum.
USB was agreed to as a standard by Microsoft, Compaq and the usual suspects back in the 90s and a standard was issued in 1998. This was called USB 1.0 and then modified to USB 1.1.
It was excellent but slow, especially when compared with Firewire, the competition provided by Apple. So slow that at 12 Mbps it would not easily allow the downloading of video images from a camcorder to a PC. But fast enough so that all computers sold after 1999 pretty much were sold with USB 1.1 ports and most peripherals could be connected in that way.
But speed was a problem and so a faster standard was agreed and this was called _ pretty logical this _ USB 2.0. It was nearly as fast as Firewire at 480Mbps, and it was the way forward.
In fact, it will be a rare PC that goes on sale after the end of this year without USB 2.0. It is backwards compatible so no USB device is rendered out-of-date.
Good. Indeed, excellent.
At the end of last year the USB Implementation Forum met _ Microsoft is on the board of directors while the chairman/president is Jason Ziller of Intel _ and decided that the matter was perhaps too clear, too transparent to the customer. Rotten customers were asking what version USB was installed on a machine and if it was USB 1.1 they thought it inferior to USB 2.
The Forum came up with a clever way of dealing with this.
In December it announced that henceforth USB 1.1 would be called USB 2 and USB 2 would continue to be called USB 2.
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.
Not only did the consumers not get the subtle beauty and usefulness of this change. Neither did the retailers.
They, unstudied clods that they are, thought that if a device said USB 2 they could sell it as being to the old USB 2 standard. In their ignorance they did not realise that USB 2 could be USB 1.1 or USB 2 depending.
Even the manufacturers were fooled at some levels.
Sony and Toshiba issued laptops with USB 2 on them when they were the USB 2 that was the USB 1.1. Many peripherals were sold in the same way. The help desks did not understand the difference.
The USB Implementation Forum refuses to comment in any way on this contentious matter. But someone has plainly pointed out to them that these actions are possibly illegal and they could be charged with misrepresentation. This is certainly true under the laws of the European Union.
Now USB has put on its web site _ www.usb.org _ a statement that states: ``The correct nomenclature for high-speed USB products is ``Hi-Speed USB.'' The correct nomenclature for low or Full-speed USB products is simply ``USB''. And in the FAQ section it states: ``High speed USB products have a design data rate of 480 Mb/s. Full speed USB devices signal at 12Mb/s.''
Lust. It is a lovely thing when you get it in the ass.
In related news, Webster's Dictionary has altered the spelling of "Fraud," to be more in line with its common use as "Advertising". The two entries have been merged under this same name despite maintaining two distinct definitions under the hood.
Any spoon would be too big.
It's out and out fraud. USB1.1 is not USB2, USB2 is. To label a product as USB2 when it's really USB1.1 and conforming to the IEEE specifications for USB1.1 is fraudulent.
They did it because their customers wanted USB2.0 on board? So put USB2.0 on board then! This is ludicrous. But I'm not surprised at the lack of ethics in the Asian Consumer market, it's an ugly business world over there.
It's just easier to get modded up on /. if you bash MS once or twice, regardless of what you're talking about. Microsoft sucks.
~Berj
A simple, easy-to-follow guide to the changes.
USB 1.1 is now USB 2. USB 2 is now USB 2.
For some odd reason, they thought that people might have difficulty understanding this, and therefore created the "High Speed" and "Full Speed" designators, to make things even easier to understand.
Wait...
________________________________________________
suwain_2
Pi redefined as 3,
1 redefined as 0,
and
10 redefined as 27.
Sigh....
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
Why do I get the feeling somewhere there's a dark, smoky room with Mr. Burns, Dr. Hibbert, & Count Chocula all giggling like madmen over this?
I bought a sony mini-disk player, on the system requirments it says it needs:
USB port (supports 2.0 Full Speed (prevously USB 1.1))
!!
IAALS.
At the end of last year the USB Implementation Forum met _ Microsoft is on the board of directors while the chairman/president is Jason Ziller of Intel _ and decided that the matter was perhaps too clear, too transparent to the customer.
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
but this way, we have something to pass the time on, at work =)
~Berj
After all, every geek knows clock speed isn't the be all end all of performance
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
The article ends with "Trust. It is a lovely thing when you get it on both sides."
More like "It is a lovely thing when you get it from both ends."
I can't believe that the computer industry actually pulled this off.
Oh, wait...who's on the council? MS and Intel? I stand corrected. I totally believe it.
Maybe we can be done with the whining about FireWire licensing. At least with that, you actually get what you pay for...
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Upto 11Mbit/s (theoretical)
Also known as USB 1.1
Also known as Original USB
Also known as Slow mode
or old mode
or whatever
Upto 480Mbit/s (theoratical max)
Also known as USB 2.0
The fast mode
Yes, Very good, you are a winner.... Now get back on the short bus.
USB was agreed to as a standard by Microsoft, Compaq and the usual suspects back in the 90s and a standard was issued in 1998.
MS are a member of the standards body.
The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
anyone else see the parallels?
In a related story, the National Inquisitortilla unearthed proof that Microsoft has renumbered Windows 95 into Windows 2003. Apparently this has been an on-going practice for several iterations of the Redmond-based product, roughly since Ballmer decried Adobe's Illustrator 88 naming scheme as being "ambiguous" and "prone to immediate obsolescence."
The horror...
Once the standard is released to the world, the standards body cannot expect consumers to accept USB 1.1 as USB 2.0.
If your product fails to meet the USB 2.0 standard (as we know it), it will be returned as defective and the consumer will go buy something else that meets his/her needs.
Now maybe USB will dies and Firewire(1394) can become the standard. IEEE 1394 is my choice!
Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
I have a good question!!!
How do I know which one is on my computer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Would someone care to tell me a quick method to know for
sure!!
...and then those who proposed this farce will get a big fat raise, as this was the purpose I think.
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
This is a side note, but I got my Toshiba laptop with CD-RW and it quoted 16x burn speeds. The software shows x16, but it certainly does not burn at that speed, more like 12x. I wasn't too thrilled about it, but the laptop wasn't bought for that purpose so I let it slide.
Bel, the mostly sane.. "Of course I can't see anything! I'm standing on the shoulders of idiots." -- Me
it's just Big Brother, 2+2=5 and all that.
I believe I'll have a Victory Gin and Tonic. . .
Now I can't trust Apple either.
Linus -- SAVE US (!)
In other news, my Powerbook G4 with USB 1.1 now has USB 2! Imagine that. :^)
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
USB 2.0 "Hi-Speed" ports will be painted bright yellow, come with custom rims, and include VTEC stickers. They may not quite put out 480Mbps, but they sure will look like they do.
The USB standards documentation has made this clear for a long time - years. USB 2 does add some new requirements to the spec for transfers at full and low speeds. So, to ship a USB 2 product, your hardware has to support some slightly different features, even if it can't do high speed transfers.
The same can be said about USB 1.1, which defines a low speed mode with a max speed of 1.5 Mbps. Your mice, keyboards, and other devices quite possibily use this mode, as it's cheaper to build. 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!
Perhaps I can renumber my CPU from 2.0Ghz to 2.2Ghz?
or hard disk from 80Gb to 90Gb?
or...
heck, why dont I just renumber my good old faithful 486 to a 786?
'Just cause they got 4 legs don't make a cat and dog the same thing'
**FREE** Track and view your phone's via CellID and/or WIFI and/or GPS
I remember when Microsoft renamed Windows 4 to Windows 95. Mass upgrading occurred as people thought they were 91 sequential versions outdated.
-- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
Here's a website that describes the differences between USB 1.1, USB 2.0 and also Firewire.
I like people.
Version 1.2 of the java platform is based on version 2 of the java language.
Advanced users are users too!
Here's some info on the USB Forum... there's more than just Intel and MS involved in these decisions.
~Berj
Well, guess who isn't going to buy that USB memory stick after all! Guess I'll be using floppies for a while longer then, at least they don't try to rip me off claiming a 5,25" is a "Full Speed" floppy while 3,5" are considered to be "Hi-speed". Ah well, thank god we still got PS/2 and the trusty serial and parallel ports. They suck, but at least we won't get ripped of with them. Who said legacy connections are dying?
Hate me!
5 1/2 inches is renamed to 9 inches.
My fave is that USB 1.1 tops out at "Full" speed, while faster USB 2.0 is "High" speed. Shouldn't full speed be the fastest? These guys didn't think to forward proof themselves?
I pay for the renamed USB laptop with $1 bills that I "renamed" to $100 bills?
It all makes sense now. I was looking for a USB cable at the local computer superstore the other day... and everything was labeled "USB 2". My hardware is a bit older, so I thought it was probable that I had USB 1.1 or something. Not being sure, I swallowed my pride and asked they guy why everything was labeled "USB 2" and what the difference was between USB 2 and USB 1.x.
His repsonse: "Uhhhhh...."
I thought his head was going to explode.
And if I presented you with a choice of two otherwise identical devices, one of which was labelled "Hi-speed" (sic) and one of which was labelled "Full-speed", you (or the salesman, or Joe Sixpack) would immediately be able to tell which was faster, wouldn't you? What do you mean, you wouldn't?
Whoever decided this constituted a reasonable distincation was definitely high on something and full of something else...
I guess that means I can just change my first name to "President" and become the leader of my own country. Makes perfect sense. Now all I need to do is find a personal assistant whose last name is "of State" and I can broker my own peace deal in the Middle East.
How do these people sleep at night?
Not really. Anything after 1.2 is Java 2. As of today there is nothing else considered Java 2. Now if Sun released a Java 2.0 tomorrow (aka Java 1.5), then it would be a parallel example
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Full Speed = 12 Mbps
Hi Speed = 480 Mbps
Shouldn't "Full Speed" be more than "Hi-speed"?
Intel has decided to rename their Celteron CPU to Intel Xeon, the old Xeon will further on be labeled Xeon Hi-Speed.
Microsoft isn't the only member of the USB Forum. Isn't it more likely that this idea was backed by hardware vendors, so they could move their old hardware, instead of by Microsoft.
~Berj
... 1800 MHz processors marketed as 2200's. Oh Wait! AMD has already been doing that for some time.
Don'tcha just love it when marketing people make engineering decisions?
Java 1.1...Java 1.2.. *NO* wait, that'll never work! Lets call it "Java 2"! That will clear everything up!
Jesus..
Bowie J. Poag
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
If you're doing anything heavy-duty externally, use firewire. USB, whatever flavor, is a bad choice because is host intensive (CPU heavy) and relies on a communication method that is inferior to firewire. Think Carouseling around between devices, versus a direct connection in the case of firewire.
Use USB for your mouse and scanner, for anything heavier use firewire whenever possible.
If it's slow it's Old Slow USB!!
if it's really slow it's probably a Null Modem Cable on your Serial Port, or maybe ADB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HTH!! HAND!!!
All who agree, mod parent up !
I have always hated USB anyway.
Im not here now... Im out KILLING pepperoni
USB 1.1 is now called 2.0
That's only hyping it by a factor 1.81
I know a company who the called the 4.0 version of its main product Windows 95
That was multiplying the version number by a factor 23.75
Try to beat that!
(In fact, it has beaten itself. There's even a version 2000)
You bastards!
Oh yeah, now I remember...
n gtheBedSketch.htm )
Lambert: Excuse me, sir, but before I go, I ought to have told you that Mr Verity does tend to exaggerate. Every figure he gives you will be ten times too high.
Husband: I see.
Verity: Mr Lambert, what is the length of the Comfidown Majorette?
Lambert: Ah. Two foot long.
Husband: Two foot long?
Verity: Yes, remembering of course that you have to multiply everything Mr Lambert says by three... when he says a bed is two foot long, it is in fact sixty foot long, all right?
(Thanks, http://www.humorlinks.com/python/sketches/TheBuyi
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
As a happy owner of a sparkling new Tosihba laptop, it would be nice to see what kind of USB2 support I actually got with my machine. Does anyone have any ideas on how to find what version of USB2 your hardware is on either Linux or WindowsXP?
501 Not Implemented
It annoys me when people name standards with names like "High" and "Super", etc. For cars, we have LEV, ULEV, and SULEV. "Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicle" sounds like something a 3rd grader would come up with.
By 2006 we'll have "Mega Happy Ludicrous Speed USB".
"People that quote themselves in their signatures bother me" - athakur999
"Oh, Java(tm) version 2.0 is out?"
"Er, well, no, it's really 1.2"
I think we're up to Java(tm) 4 or 5 now, right?
Java is the blue pill
Choose the red pill
Well, my ASUS P4C800 seems OK. Its USB 2.0 states "480 mbps" in the manual. I don't actually have USB 2.0 devices so I can't test that...
Man though, what a slimey thing to do. Why do I think some class-action lawyers are going to get rich over this?
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Perhaps we should start relabeling all of society like that. A regular dam would be full-capacity. One overflowing with water would be high-capacity. I declare bullshit
Try again. Now it says 404 Full Speed
......my first USB capable PC. It was around 1997(?) and it was almost as quick as the access to the hard drive in the same system. I remember there being precisely no devices enabled for it and I wondered what the hell it was for. Now I know, marketing FUD!
Ya know, at times I wonder why people say that computers make no sense. However, it's really moments like these that truly show just how the computer industry on a whole got it's reputation for being baffling to the average Joe and Jane User.
They renamed usb 1.1 to "USB2 Full Speed." Even the name is confusing. "USB2 Full Speed" itself _implies_ that it would run at the FULL SPEED of the USB2 protocol, which would imply the origional standard of 480mbps. Yet it's "high speed" that means this and not "full speed." They could have called it "USB2 Low Speed" and there would be less confusion...
And I'm sure it's been said numerous times already, but this reflects poorly on the tech community on a whole. Consumers aren't going to sit back and blame the one standards commission that approved the name change, they're going to say it's yet another way that the "stupid computer people are making things overly difficult."
----- I want my LART.
2x Full / /
Full | Low
Empty | High
\ _ |
\ \\ |
Ready to go - full tank of gas!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Is it true that when you plug in a USB 1.1 device to a USB 2.0 bus, the whole bus drops to USB 1.1 speeds?
And is it possible that the USB 2.0 "Full speed," while not as fast as USB 2.0 "High speed," will not sabotage the bus in that way?
In other words, could I plug in a slower USB 2.0 "full speed" printer into my bus with a hard drive and DVD-R running at USB 2.0 "high speed" and not expect the whole bus to drop down to patheticly inadequate speeds?
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
Any of you confused? I think I will just stick to my policy of not having any USB devices at all and simply ignore it. If it's not PS/2, serial, or parallel, it wasn't meant to be connected. Oh, except for my trusty Gravis gamepad attached to my still working, yet ancient SB16. LOL!
"FireWire... it's the honest choice"
A1: High speed USB products have a design data rate of 480 Mb/s. Full speed USB devices signal at 12Mb/s, while low speed devices use a 1.5Mb/s subchannel.
From the USB FAQ, seems they just dropped the 1.1 and 2 designation, there's no mention of them on their website. My guess is the mfg's are pulling the fast one, although the High speed/full speed naming convention should be clearer.
I agree that the naming is total garbage, but at least they didn't change the older one to "XP 2000+" and make the new one sumptin like "XP 2000!"
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.
Two words for ya, stumpy: "Sticky Keys"
Nigel: This is a top to aâ"you know, what we use on stage, but it's very, very special because if you can see... ..and most of these amps go up to ten.... ...all the way up. You're on ten on your guitar.. where can you go from there? Where?
Marty: Yeah...
Nigel: The numbers all go to eleven. Look...right across the board.
Marty: Ahh...oh, I see....
Nigel: Eleven...eleven...eleven....
Marty:
Nigel: Exactly.
Marty: Does that mean it's...louder? Is it any louder?
Nigel: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here...all the way up...all the way up....
Marty: Yeah....
Nigel:
Marty: I don't know....
Nigel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Marty: Put it up to eleven.
Nigel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder.
Marty: Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?
[pause] Nigel: These go to eleven.
Sony equipment is over-priced junk. You're buying a name and nothing else. I recommend that people buy any other Japanese knock-off brand. You'll be happier and have more dollars left in your pocket.
I've always bought Sony. The few times I bought other lesser brands, I've been disappointed with the lack of quality, and missed the top-notch fit and finish I've come to expect from Sony.
Don't get me wrong, just because it says "Sony" doesn't mean it is the best thing in the world - but it certainly means that it isn't junk. I personlly prefer Blaupunkt for their superior car audio products.
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
USB 2.0 is not a renamed version of USB 1.1. Although 2.0 inherited nearly all features of USB 1.1, it added quite some features, most notably it added a high-speed transfer mode.
So USB 2.0 specification still supports the 'full speed' and 'low speed' transfer modes. Wise decision; did anyone expect a mouse running at 480Mbps?
Well, what is the 'USB 2.0' sticker good for then , if the device doesn't support the high-speed mode you may think. It simply says that the device is certified to work properly with other USB 2.0 equipment. I know about some popular silicon that is certified for USB 1.1, but will not work with a USB 2.0 host controller because of a design flaw.
So when you buy a USB 2.0 device and expect it to do real 480Mbps watch for the 'hi-speed' sticker. Otherwise it will only guarantee compatibility with other USB 2.0 devices.
-- www.linux-laser.org - Open Source Laser Show Software for Linux
I have a disc, formerly known as a cd, containing music by an artist formerly known as Prince, and it won't play thru my USB port, formerly known as 1.1.
This sounds like some really bad reporting, like the reporter went to buy a computer and believed what the salesman told him.
Facts: USB 1.0 and 1.1 had "Low Speed" and "Full Speed" modes, way before USB 2.0 came out. USB 2.0 was developed, Full Speed was taken so we had to call it "Hi-Speed." That's not new, though the article presents it as such.
I have heard absolutely no news about calling all USB 1.1 products 2.0. No press releases or other articles on the USB Implementors Forum show this change. I am an applications engineer for a major USB silicon manufacturer, and I'm sure I'd have heard about this.
A move like that would be outright fraud, but it is pure fiction. The USB-IF has no interest in doing something like that. There may be a certain disreputable motherboard manufacturer faking it, but it certainly isn't part of the USB spec.
When asked for comment, Steve Jobs said "Our next-generation OS is now based on UNIX Extremeâ©, an emerging standard."
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Analysts say that this should fully eliminate any mix-ups
...
Speak for yourself, I'm sure hi-full-speed cocktails would be a blast at trendy parties. Shaken, not stirred of course
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
It wasn't that confusing, and was warranted by the pretty substantial changes. Java 1.2 was more than a minor release different.
Personally, I think they should do the same with 1.5 (call it Java 3)since the language itself is altering a bit.
Also, we do not have a "Full" Java and "Hi-Speed" Java.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Which has a higher data capacity?
High density or double density disks?
Slashdot Beta should die a painful death.
No, this is not exactly a parallel example. A much better example would be Sun renaming Java 1.2 and greater "Java 2 Good" and renaming Java 1.1 "Java 2 Super". Having multiple standards with the same name can be deceptive, but it isn't necesarily illegal. Changing your old spec name to practically the same thing as your new spec for the sole purpose of selling old stuff as new stuff is illegal (IANAL, so don't quote me on it).
How can they have two standards with the same version number? Especialy when one is like 50 times faster.
On the other hand, now that I think about it, I really could care less. No high performance devices use USB anyway, always Firewire.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
USB 1.1 to USB 2? This looks like the work of "an underground organization with unlimited resources, no government ties and a commitment to undermining the status quo through the proliferation of chaos" the UCB.
I feel for your arm being blown off but there always the Alt and Ctrl located on the right side of the keyboard
I had been cursing the slow speed of my USB1.1 connections for some time and had seriously been considering upgrading to 2.0, but on my tight budget I had been putting it off. Then, suddenly, last December I was given the upgrade I wanted and I didn't have to do a thing! Wow! Not only that, the upgrade was totally FREE!! Incredible! I see this new upgrade strategy as just the thing for the budget conscious consumer.
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
Bullshit.
What is deliberately confusing is marking the product with the clock rate. For different families of microprocessor, that number means jack squat.
If the processor can't keep up with an Intel of that speed, then you actually have a point. Otherwise, you have no real clue.
Next you'll be whining that car companies advertise Horsepower over RPMs.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Talking about confidence, I bought a "certified" USB 2 pcmcia card for my laptop for my external usb 2 certified hard drive. now, the thing is I notice the difference in speed with the native usb 1.1 in the laptop was very small. 480??? JA JA JAAAAAA Ditto for my creative jukebox. So I went to google and looked for a USB transfer speed meter... Anyone has seen one of these?? The notmad, a piece of software for the creative, has an "arena" where you can "compete" in transfer speeds, and usb 2 fails miserably with respect to firewire. anyone know about some speed measurement software??? thanks
All USB 2.0 devices work with USB 1.1, and NOT with USB 1.0. If I am looking at a USB 2.0 camera, but my PC is only USB 1.1, it looks to me that the camera will not work with the PC. This is inaccurate...it'll work, I just won't get a speedup. It won't work at all with my USB 1.0 machine.
Which is easier to remember...1.1 vs 1.0, or 1 vs 2?
When a "version" makes something incompatible with a previous version, you're supposed to bump up the major release. 1.1 should have been 2 from the start for marketting purposes -- sort of like the jump from Java JDK 1.1x (Java 1) to 1.2x (Java 2).
This is probably why they changed it...the only difference between USB 1.1 and 2.0 is speed. USB 1.0 is a different, deprecated format.
I'm not saying they didn't make it even more complex -- especially since it seems to me the easiest thing to do would be to put "COMPATIBLE with USB 1.1+" on the side of a box. I'm not saying it isn't partially sleazy. I'm just saying that until companies like Apple see fit to put TWO expensive high speed device connections in their PCs, it's better to let consumers know that their devices will AT LEAST work -- even if they're 1/40 the speed.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Umm...no.
At least AMD is consistent. They never put out a 1700+ and suddenly renamed it to be a 3200+...
Look here http://www.usb.org/developers/packaging/, and I quote:
"Low or Full-speed Product Packaging Recommendations:
"Products that operate at only low or full-speed can qualify to use only the Basic Version of the logo (i.e. without the special Hi-Speed identifier). The old USB logo is obsolete and should not be used. The USB-IF recommends vendors simply use "USB" as has always been done, on packaging and in marketing materials for low or full-speed USB products. Avoid using terminology such as USB 2.0 Full Speed, Full Speed USB or USB 2.0 which can be confusing for consumers whose expectation is that a USB 2.0 product is by definition high-speed."
In other words, - There are 3 speeds; low (1.5Mb/s), full (12Mb/s) and high (480Mb/s). - All 3 speeds can be described as "Compatible with the USB 2.0 Specification" - ONLY the high speed should be labels as "USB 2.0"
If they made the claimed change back in December and still haven't updated the web site, they are idiots twice! Otherwise, the article is blowing hot air.
Yeah, but if I buy a computer with USB 2 ports and they're really only USB 1.1, I'm gonna have problems with real USB 2 peripherals, even if they don't run at "high-speed".
Remember "my hero zero"
"a zero is just nothing isn't it?"
"Just place a zero after any number, and you multiply that number by ten, see how easy that is?"
Well in the case of usb adding a zero multiplies 40times (inflation)
And school house rocky was dead on back in the 70's/80's
Chicago2600.net more than a lifestyle, its a survival trait.
The article in the Bangkok Post contains so much nonsense I don't know where to start!
/.) would have failed to notice. His claim remains entirely unsubstantiated.
1) First of all, there's absolutely no reason to mention Linux in the article. Skip all the stuff about the BSA as well, and you're already down to paragraph #4.
2) It goes on about USB's history, which may enlighten some of you out there. Then, it opposes USB and FireWire. While the FireWire concept had been around for years before the year 1999 when USB 1.1 took hold according to the author, they never actually competed. FireWire was quickly adopted by Sony (iLink they renamed it IIRC) and others, and its high bandwidth was used to transfer digital video to mainly Apple machines. USB was adopted radically in the same year 1999 to replace all manual input device interfaces Apple had been using for years, not for transferring large volumes of data, until image scanners with USB came around. Can anyone name a FireWire keyboard or mouse? No, so why did the Bangkok author mention some illusory rivalry between the two?
3) It goes on to say that USB 2.0 is "nearly as fast as FireWire at 480Mbps", which is debatable at the least. FireWire has had years to ripen and mature, while USB 2.0 has years of development, rethinking and improvement to come. The average user whom the author claims is being misled wouldn't know the difference between the two until a USB 2.0 scanner and a FireWire-connected digicam hit him squarely in the face at the same instant. Oh, and Why was FireWire even part of this piece? Right, there's no reason. The author is simply building up to something, and does some namedropping on his way.
4) Then he finally comes up with something substantial (that USB 1.1 has been renamed USB 2.0), but fails to give the slightest shred of evidence, not even a link to a press release noone (certainly not anyone regularly reading
5) Now we get to the good bit: the author clearly shows he has been confused by some of the buzzwords the marketing people (indeed, probably those at the USB Forum) have concocted to still be able to market USB 1.1 while USB 2.0 is out and while the USB 1.1 parts and peripherals haven't been sold out. The buzzwords Full Speed USB and High Speed USB (however you like to spell those; the marketing people at the local computer store will probably get them wrong anyway) quite literally point to different USB standards. What the author finally tries to achieve is to substitute the wrong buzzwords for the USB standards versions and vice versa.
6) Finally he claims he didn't substitute them wrongly, but some manufacturers did, and allegedly they did it unwittingly. They just went and built computers with some components some bloke handed to them, and whey-ho, they turned out to be the USB 1.1 ones, so they had to ask the USB Forum to fiddle with the definitions a bit in order to still be able to sell them slow machines as faster ones.
JeR
The whole purpose of standards is to STANDARDIZE the product. This allows manufacturers and software writers to create products with confidence that they will be compatible with other brands. The creation of standards is not a task to be taken lightly. When allowed to perform such a task, businesses and, more importantly, consumers are giving the standards group a lot of trust that they will perform faithfully and not in opposition to that trust.
This breach of faith on the part of The USB Forum undermines the industry as a whole. Serious steps should be taken to complain and lobby the group and the industry to reform before more ground is lost. This example should not be allowed to proliferate.
Now my TiBook has Firewire AND USB 2.0!
Somewhere in the Bible I think a round pillar is described to be 30 [ancient unit] around and 10 across. That may be where they got it from.
:-)
I believe that some Christian fundamentalists to this day still insist that pi=3. Of course, if they had studied mathematics, they would have realized that God probably decided that one significant digit was sufficient to describe the proportions of this particular monument
Tor
wouldn't that then cause problems if you bought something that was usb2 and then tried to use it on you computer that was actually usb1.1? Sounds like a class action lawsuit in the making.
I think this will all be worth it when all the companies who signed on to this bright idea get flooded with calls from irate customers complaining that their USB 2 device (which is really USB 2) isn't compatable with the USB 2 ports on their computer (which is really USB 1.1), and they wind up having to explain to the general public that they were defrauding us of the technology we've been demanding.
Anything you might ever need to say about anything has already been said better by Penny Arcade.
The big deal is first off they were trying to be devious and not include full speed parts but have people think they were getting full speed parts. The second problem is this isn't a device, its the host. If you buy a USB 2.0 device but it really runs at 12mbps no big deal if thats enough bandwidth to do the job. If you buy a USB 2.0 host expecting it to handle 480mbps and it doesn't you will be very upset when you hook up that high speed device (or more likely a couple slower speed devices) and it runs like crap.
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
Ok, troll, the problem is that if I use my DV camera with usb 2.0 HIGH SPEED and plug it into my brand new computer advertised as having USB2, I would be shocked to find out that it doesn't work any faster than my 1997 gateway p1-233. I wouldn't expect my mouse to work any faster.
0xfeedface
If you are buying a motherboard or a addon card make sure it has an EHCI controller which is proper USB2, or look for an NEC chip.
Wait until they change it again later
USB 2.0 Top Speed
USB 2.0 Full Speed
USB 2.0 Top Speed Ultra Wide
USB 2.0 Top Speed Wide Ultra
USB 2.0 Full Speed Ultra Wide
USB 2.0 Full Speed Wide Ultra
USB 2.0 Mega Ultra Fricken Wide Full Top Speed
Sounds like a good chance to market a USB speed-sensing device. Spread a little FUD about USB speeds and then market your gadget.
I'm guessing 15 bucks could get you a dongle with LED's that light for each speed - red for 12Mb/s, green for 480Mb/s.
Then it's just a case of plugging it into every unit you check out at the store, and you can ignore the sales guy's rants.
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
This USB CD Writer that I have checks for the USB speed. So imagine this scenario:
Customer buys a new computer with "USB 2" and a USB CD Writer. Customer goes home happy and smug. Customer proceeds to burn a CD. Customer sees the following message:
"USB 1.1 detected, limiting burn speed to x4..."
Who does the customer sue? The CD writer manufacturer? The burner software manufacturer? The dealer he bought his computer? The OEM? There is real criminal fraud here, but the odds are that the LAST person to be sued will be the actual people responsible.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
USB 1.1 renamed. USB 2.0 renamed to...
Firewire light
I think the next USB device I buy will be Firewire, and screw USB.
Why slashdot? Why not?
Just add a committee!
My personality is like a coupon, it's 10% off.
I read it, I have a correction:
Firewire is 400Mb/s not 400 MB/s
Also does anyone besides me think full speed sounds quicker then high speed?
Lastly USB 1.1 ports can support USB 2 devices according to the thing on Iomega.
This means that most people will probably just think that external drives in general suck, and will not blame it on the manufacturer changing the name.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
At least 1394b has a different physical connector, so it would more difficult to pass off a 1394 as 1394b.
I'm renaming my $1.00 version paper money to $20.00 as we speak...
If you don't have something nice to sig, then don't sig anything at all.
It's the "Secure Logon sequence" - C-A-D can't be faked since it causes a hardware interrupt.
IIRC, you can turn it off so it's not needed.
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
Now I get the lyrics... (this is the "chicks on speed" song)
I was going to post these all on a seperate line, but slashdot came up with this totaly resonable error: Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 18.5).
Okay, now I got Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.
Fuck slashdot and it's insipid lameness filter.
anyway, the list is here. There are hundreds of members. I recognize lots of american companies and see lots of asian looking ones. Who knows.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Sony equipment is over-priced junk. You're buying a name and nothing else. I recommend that people buy any other Japanese knock-off brand. You'll be happier and have more dollars left in your pocket.
In terms of camcorders, this could not be more wrong.
I'm a freefall videographer. This means I jump from not-so-perfectly good airplanes with a camera bolted to my helmet. Because of weight issues, we use consumer grade "camcorders" almost exclusively. We never use "profesional" cameras, they're just too damn heavy. I'm currently using a Sony DRC-PC120BT.
Skydiving is clearly a harsh environment. Cameras get put into 200MPH winds, intense vibrations and g-forces as the parachute opens.
I've never seen a Panasonic, JVC, Sharp or Canon survive more then a few monthes.
I've never seen a Sony survive less then a few years.
Everytime I see someone show up with a brand new non-sony camera, I shake my head. Usually within 3 monthes it's tossed into the bin, and that person is buying a Sony - which will usually last for years.
There's a rule in skydiving videography: Always buy Sony, there IS a difference.
_Am
So how does USB compare to IEEE-1394)?
While the two serial buses seem similar, they are intended to fulfill different bandwidth and cost needs. 1394 can move more data in a given amount of time, but is considerably more expensive than USB due to its more complex protocol and signaling rate. Applications that are best suited for 1394 are disk drives, high quality video streams and other high bandwidth applications; all higher end consumer devices. USB is appropriate for middle and low bandwidth applications such as audio, scanners, printers, keyboards, and mice.
USB and 1394 are complementary technologies. 1394 is for devices where high performance is a priority and price is not, while USB is for devices where price is a priority and high performance is not.
Error encountered in IAWebSig.clsSig.Create: Last Procedure: sPrc_Ins_tblSig
1394...iLink...Firewire for now. Al least I'm getting apples and Apples'.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
And this is even better: follow the link to the Hi-Speed FAQ where they answer questions like this:
1: What maximum speed was finally chosen for the USB 2.0 spec?
A: The USB 2.0 specification has a design data rate of 480 mega bits per second.
Of course, if if this gives you a general misconception, you should head to the USB packaging page where you will be enlightened by this paragraph:
Inconsistent use of terminology in combination with the existing general misconception that USB 2.0 is synonymous with Hi-Speed USB and/or failure to display the Certified USB logo on qualified products creates confusion in the marketplace. The correct nomenclature for high-speed USB products is "Hi-Speed USB." The correct nomenclature for low or full-speed USB products is simply "USB." This should be taken into consideration for product naming.
So, now they are saying we have a misconception that USB 2.0 is Hi-Speed. But it's our misconception, not theirs.
Of course, Gareth Powell, the original author of the story, might have gotten his facts wrong or confused, and has simply started a flamefest with ignorance. USB 2.0 is merely a specification that encompasses ALL THREE SPEEDS. However, if a device is USB 2.0 compliant, it, too, had better support ALL THREE SPEEDS (and not just by dumbing down to the lowest speed supported.) But nowhere in his article does he say that a full-speed only connection is now being referred to as USB 2.0. He just says Toshiba is selling USB 1.1 laptops as USB 2.0 laptops, but does not say if they do or do not support Hi-Speed USB.
John
Good Evening, Mr. Talking Goat,
I am writing to let you know that I moderated upward the parent of my parent with a +1 moderation of "Funny," as per your request.
Good Day Sir,
Beer wants to be free
The USB group has about 900 members. I don't really know how they decide things, but you can't really blame intel and Microsoft for this.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
No big deal, except that motherboards that support USB 2.0 have come to mean it supports the 480 Mb/sec data rate in the eyes of the consumer. Maybe because it actually DID mean that before December (if this article is correct).
.5 mb/sec as it'll never send data at anything approaching those rates. However, If I buy a new computer that says it supports USB2, I expect to be able to buy an external CD-RW that supports USB2 and burn a CD-R at the full rated 16x or 32x. If I can't do this, I'm going to return the damn computer and claim there's something wrong with it.
I don't really care if my mouse or keyboard talks at 1.5 mb/sec, 12 mb/sec, or even
I'm still a little skeptical though as the source is the Bangkok Post, and not a more reliable form of tech news. Journalists are notoriously bad at understanding technology, so I'd feel a little more comfortable in believing this if it came from something like Toms Hardware or The Register.
AccountKiller
So what? Microsoft renamed Windows 2000 to XP and released it as a separate product :D
- shazow
All USBs are equal, only some are more equal than others.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Now we have java 2, SDK 1.4, with a beta download of 1.5. Ironicaly, 1.5 introduces new language features, and 1.2 did not...
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
The author must have been smoking something. I just drilled down a bit into USB home and I see no reference to renaming USB 1.1 to USB 2.0. They have renamed USB 1.1 to USB Full-Speed and USB 2.0 to USB Hi-Speed and use those new names consistantly throughout their web pages. Though the renaming was hardly necessary, it is unambiguous and isn't really any different than the periodic product renaming done in most industries for 'marketing reasons'.
If this is true, I think the main problem is that these standards were either a bit unclear or that manufacturers did not correctly identify their products. Consumers don't need to know the intricacies of protocols and data rates. They just need to know if a device will work with their computer. The easiest way it to indentify with a name.
When USB 1.1 was released, it was easy to tell if a certain mouse and board would work together. Now that they have redefined things, it makes things more confusing to your average consumer.
Consumer: "I have an XYZ motherboard with USB 2.0, will a USB 1.1 scanner work with it?"
Salesperson: "Well, is your motherboard a USB 2.0 Full Speed or High Speed."
Consumer: "I don't know. Is that a problem?"
Salesperson: "Well you see they changed the name. USB 1.1 is now USB 2.0 Full Speed"
Consumer: "What do they call USB 2.0 now?"
Salesperson: "USB 2.0 High Speed"
Consumer: "Shouldn't Full be faster than High?"
Salesperson: "You would think so, but no."
Consumer: "Okay, from the top, will this work with my computer?"
Salesperson: "Oh yes, but it may be a bit slow. How slow, I couldn't tell you." Consumer(confused): "Okay, I'll take it, I think."
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
You damn technies
Umm, don't lump us all together please. Geez, you vets are all the same...
That's a really sensable explanation, although USB 2 has always been marketed as being 480 mbps, not 'up-to' 480 but probably only 12. The author was probably upset to learn that USB 2 devices might only be 12 mbps.
Although certanly, I would expect "Full Speed" to be faster then "Hi-Speed." just like "true color" is more then "hi-color".
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
There's a rule in skydiving videography: Always buy Sony, there IS a difference.
... ahhh crap.
There's another rule also: If at first you don't succeed
No, you miss the point. Calling a USB port USB2 that can only do full speed USB2 is misleading. To say that a USB2 port is capable of connecting to full speed device or that a high speed device can connect to a full speed device is not the issue.
0xfeedface
You can hit the Ctrl-Alt-Del sequence easily with one hand if you use the keys on the right side of the spacebar. And yeah you can just disable that to begin with (on your own computer at least).
And who says Bill decides what key-strokes make up every command?
Just "re-name" your preferred high speed interface to FireWire/IEEE1394. With FireWire on the motherboard getting more and more common, and it coming on common stuff like soundcards, shit like this USB fiasco just makes the USB board look like a bunch of amaturs. I know what I am going to want my future high speed devices supporting, and it doesnt start with "U".
That's because GHz is not really a measure of speed. It may work with the same CPU family but that's about it. MHz based comparison between Intel and AMD, or AMD and Sun are completely useless.
IMHO the real benchmark is work done per $. I don't care if the machine has 1 CPU, 2, or 64. I don't care either if each works at 500Mhz or at 20Ghz. If one of them gets the work done and has a low cost, that's the one I want.
Perhaps the USB consortium has attempted to be more specific, its obvious the vendors have not. I just bought a Dell notebook and it states that it has 2 USB 2.0 ports in its the technical specifications. I thought that meant it is capable of HI-SPEED. Now how can I be sure? It didn't say Hi-Speed specifically, so are you telling me it only does full-speed?
0xfeedface
According to the article:
Let's see. 12/480 is 1/40th. A very interesting definition of "full".
Having promoted USB 2 as a 480 Mb/s, the appropriate label strikes me as "fraudulent" and "deliberately misleading".
Forthcoming: the automotive industry will improve car mileage and durability by clarifying that a mile is actually only 1000 feet.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Now FireWire proponents can say that the standard FireWire is 35x faster than USB 2 Full Speed. Also, FireWire-800 already available is about 75x faster than USB 2 and FireWire-3200 to be available soon would be about 300x faster than USB 2 Full Speed.
Who keeps the metric system down? Weeee dooo! WEEEEE DOOOOOOOOOOO!
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
You are proof by existance that they were correct.
It does? Where do the keycodes from the keyboard get turned into a hardware interrupt?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Actually, it can be sent and faked just fine. It can't be RECEIVED by any program that's not the operating system, in windows.
Apple put USB 2 (Full Speed) in their Powermacs, but instead called, and supported it as USB 1 (as the faster chipset, being more common is cheaper).
Consider me confused.
That's the last time I ever use another USB devi
Now *that's* humour!
We should be able to meta-moderate as 'funny'. Funny moderations - they're the best.
Consumer: "I have an XYZ motherboard with USB 2.0, will a USB 1.1 scanner work with it?"
The answer in either case is yes, it will work.
The problem question is: "I have an XYZ mb w/USB 2.0, will a USB 2.0 scanner be using Full-Speed or High-Speed transfer?"
Answer: "Yes, it will use one or the other."
0xfeedface
Absolutely... Full is more than High, naturally. It's the difference between a Full glass of water, and a glass that has High water--perhaps more than 50%, less than 75%?
This is idiocy.
Still, aren't low bandwith USB2 devices backwards compatible to USB1 anyway? I'm using an external laptop drive interface that is Real USB2 capable on a USB1 machine. Sure, it's slow. 12 Megabits. It works fine for what I use it for.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Kind of reminds me of when the Fast Food / Convenience store industry switched.
OLD:
12oz Small
20oz Medium
32oz Large
NEW:
12oz Large
20oz Xtra-Large
32oz Super-Large
Soon to come:
12oz Super-Duper-Large
20oz Massive-Xtra-Biggie-Large
32oz Gargantua-Ultra-Insane-Jumbo-Large
Reality:
12oz
20oz
32oz
It wouldn't be this Gareth Powell would it? :)
What is the inverse of the Matrix?
Bullcrap. USB2.0 = 480MB/s. I dare you to show me documentation otherwise, dumass.
Challenge Accepted
High Speed USB is 480Mb/s or 60 MB/s.
Since about a year ago, they tore all the USB cables off the shelves, repackaged them as "USB 2.0!" and doubled the price of the same bloody wires.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Yeesh, reminds me of when a lot of computers had mysteriously half-assed support for USB, and there was a lot of "works only with Windows 98 or more recent 'cause th Win95 drivers suck" caveats. It was really hit or miss for a while, looks like they standards and reliability weren't in the best interests of shipping out old 1.1 gear.
SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
Well, that clarifies the issue for me.
I'll just wait for USB 3.0...
It's truly a shame that no one bothers to read past the first 20 posts, and that no one reads at -1. The few that do get to see gems like this. I salute you, sir.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
... if you call the tail a leg?
Four. Calling the tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."
- Abraham Lincoln
Nuff said.
get a job hippy!
Lincoln: "How many legs would a dog have if you called the tail a leg?"
Some Flack: "Well, Mr. President, it would be five."
Lincoln: "No, it would still be four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."
And here's a text-ad at the top of my slashdot page right now:
2 Port USB 2.0 PCMCIA $24
Ultra Fast High Speed USB 2.0 Hot-Swappable Card Bus Adapter!
www.MyDigitalDiscount.com
What the hell is Ultra Fast High Speed? At least with a number, you can't really embellish it -- New Super Extra 2.0! It's twice the 2.0! No, 2.0 is 2.0, or at least it was at one time. Now 2.0 ain't even 2.0 anymore.
This is true, but it's not because of any functionality of the USB 1.1 port, but rather, of the USB 2 device. USB 2 devices are (all?) backwards-compatible with USB 1.1. You will not get USB 2.0 speeds with a USB 2.0 device on a USB 1.1 bus.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"Full speed should be enough for anyone!"
Think of "high" as comparative. It has to be higher than something else, so it must be the real 2.0.
Think of "full" as full of shit, like the USB forum. Since it's full of shit, it must be 1.1.
Nothing to it.
I'm not saying that FireWire is any better, but yeah, I agree that USB2 a standard, and not really a speed. A lot of "USB 2.0 compliant" hardware is really capable of its full speed.
Though there is less hardware for IEEE1394 (firewire), I still like it better because it has been personal expierence that the hardware that is designed for it are quite fast.
so turn off the ctrl-alt-del requirment. It can be done under all the M$ OS's that have it, just as you can do away with the login requirments. I am using a 100$ fingerprint sensor for all my login needs these days, lazy but it works nicely.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Oh yes it does! When your company president uses it as the company Slogan of the Year, and means it seriously. (I think the "go to 11" part meant that we had to work to 11pm.)
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Obviously, you've never dealt with a semi-competent sales person. Your answer is correct but how many sales people will give a correct answer and a direct answer.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
mod parent up as informative
605413? Yes, it's a prime.
Yes, I know USB is fully backwards compatible, but my point was that most consumers identify things by name. Even then half of computer buyers can't tell the difference between a Pentium and an Athlon. Throw in a sales person who sorta knows what they're taling about and then you have mass confusion.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I had bought a Thinkpad but the USB was slower when transfering files then when I used my desktop. Both were supposedly USB 2.0, I shrugged it off because it wasn't a big enough issue for me (transfer files that wer 100megs tops) - but that does really suck for those who really needed it I guess.
Ave Molech Setting
Most people will never find out. They happily mix USB 1.1 with USB 2 devices reducing the speed of all devices in the change to that of USB 1.1...
Think Firewire... USB sucks.
USB sucks anyhow, always has, always will. sata, firewire, and i2c/smbus are much better anyhow. i'll make it a point not to buy anything usb ever again. in addition, usb uses polling of interrupts and is very inefficient in design because it is marketed to be as low-cost and cheaply done as possible. I mean look at the connectors, bent pieces of sheet-metal encased in some crappy plastic w/ 4 little ghetto wires (gnd data+ data- +5V). Usb is good in that it is a serial bus w/ an embedded clock, eliminating parallel clock skew; but, it lacks grant and request lines that would make for a truely efficient bus. The other limitation is that usb hub support sucks ass, the drivers have to poll every device on a hub, and currently, nothing works when attached to my USB real 2.0 4-port hub in linux (kernel 2.4.20 gentoo rc5) A better protocol, such as firewire has switch products available, and can be shared simultaneously between computers. in fact, winxp and linux support IP over firewire, for 480Mbps networking OTTB!!!! usb just plain sux.
The biggest trick the devil pulled was letting lawyers become politicians so they can write the laws.
Cashier: We don't have small only regular, large, and extra-large?
Also does anyone besides me think full speed sounds quicker then high speed?
Does a "40x" CD-ROM drive sound faster than a "full speed" CD-ROM drive?
Will I retire or break 10K?
MS is in Washington state. Us Yankees are from the North East United States.
I take offense at MS being called Yank. You're a racist.
CitrusTV (http://www.citrustv.net): the Nation's Oldest & Largest Entirely Student-Run Television Station
It's called FireWire 800. Too bad USB doesn't name things that way.
"Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
If someone bought a computer and the ports read USB 2.0 but are only 1.1, that is either fraud or at the very least, misrepresentation? Where are the trial lawyers (so they can earn millions and we can get a settlement check for $0.50) when you need them?
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
Bluetooth.org has also decided to rename Bluetooth 1.1 to BlueIncisors and Bluetooth 1.0 to BlueMolars. They are now part of the BlueTeeth family.
Since branding 802.11b to WiFi, IEEE is now contemplating brand 802.11a to WiFa and 802.11g to WiFiG.
SCO does not know what to make of all this and sues everyone for using Linux/Unix somewhere within those companies.
Maybe we should have a weird symbol for it too.
gcc: no input sig
Why stop at Hi Speed verses Full Speed? Why not go back to AMD's Performance Ratings, or Intel's iComp value? Wouldn't that obfuscate things even better?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I can personally attest to that. My Sony has been on roller coasters, set on fire, submerged, dropped from a moving vehicle, etc. Not kidding.
:)
Although my favorite footage to this day was at an amusement park when I stood on one of those "wave bridges" (you know, with the boat that comes down the ramp and makes the big wave?) and filmed the incoming tidal wave at point blank. Took a couple hours to resuscitate the thing, but in the end it was worth it
The protocol version number does not indicate the maximum data transfer rate supported by a device, only the maximum supported by that protocol version. To rephraze, a USB device (or host) can support USB 2.0 features without necessarily supporting the "High-Speed" data rates that the 2.0 spec allows for. The 2.0 spec does not require that it be a High-Speed device.
The "Full-Speed" and "High-Speed" designations have been there all along. Only recently did companies (or their marketing departments) realize they can claim "USB 2.0", by merely adding the minimum features required by the 2.0 spec (likely all via firmware upgrades, as opposed to requiring faster, more expensive hardware), in order to do better sales.
The idea is that the majority of users do not need 480 MB/s USB to run their mice/keyboards/printers. Companies are losing customers because the customers think "High-Speed" USB would be beneficial, and they think that 1.1 == Slower. Just like AMD was (potentially) losing customers because of the "1.8 GHz > 1.533 GHz" mentality.
I hate when companies assume they know better than their own customers, and pull shit like this in hopes most people will never know/care. I didn't know this was being done until today. I even had to check to make sure my new motherboard did in fact support High-Speed USB 2.0 (luckily it does, or I'd be complaining to someone)...
The article's wording could have been better (rather, the USB Forum could have used better wording), but it's still a very sneaky thing in any case, and one more thing I know (now) to watch for when buying USB devices/controllers...
NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
I guess it's a good way for them to get rid of the remaining USB 1.1 devices on the market right now by making them look like the current technology. Consumers are going to notice though, and they are going to be upset. As soon as someone plugs in a USB 1.1 (full-speed) mass storage device into a machine and realizes that it's going to take an hour to copy a small file, they will think that all USB 2 devices are no good.
Given the low quality of everything else Sony makes, from their laptops to their ES-lineup of audio equipment, I find your statements exceedingly hard to believe.
Now, maybe this experience isn't similar, but a few months ago I knocked Sony DV camcorder (no, I don't know the model) off an 3'-high end table and onto a carpetted floor, along with some other electronics stuff - a crappy HP digital camera, a discman and an iPaq while helping my brother move.
Guess which piece of equipment didn't survive the fall?
-- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
Quick little nitpick for anyone interested in the camera the parent poster just mentioned.
I'm currently using a Sony DRC-PC120BT.
I just tried to google for that string. It was not found. DCR-PC120BT was however.
That does it! Henceforth, I shall demand support for USB 3!
On the other hand, every single Sony stereo I have purchased has gone out. As a matter of fact, the right speaker always stops working.
This problem also occurs with every single pair of Sony headphones I have owned. I take care of my equipment better than most people and it still happens every time. Needless to say, I don't buy Sony anymore, and I've been a happy customer since.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Freedom is the freedom to say that USB1.1 + USB1.1 is not USB2.
If that is granted, all else follows
If you go against the USB Forum's wishes, their thought police will get you. Big brother is watching you.
Ask me about repetitive DNA
Yeah - you're absolutely right. I write firmware for usb devices, so reading this article, I came at it from the wrong direction entirely. This does seem pretty bogus!
Its a Jewel USB2-IDE casing in which you can mount a 2.5" IDE laptop drive. hooking this one up to a USB2 controller will give you the raw diskspeed your laptop drive can offer.
Robert
Alright, here is a summary:
Old USB 1.1 devices aren't renamed. New devices that support the USB 2.0 signalling (even if they do not support the 480Mb/s speed,) are USB 2.0 devices. 2Mb/s is 'Low Speed', 12Mb/s (the USB 1.1 maximum) is 'Full Speed', and 480Mb/s is 'High Speed'.
Long form:
DEVICES that were USB 1.1 devices are still 'USB 1.1' devices. They operate at either 2 Megabits per second (Low Speed,) or 12 Megabits per second (Full Speed.)
Devices that are designed around the USB 2.0 specification (which includes more than just raw data rate,) are 'USB 2.0' devices, and may operate at 2 Megabits per second (Low Speed,) 12 Megabits per second (Full Speed,) or 480 Megabits per second (High Speed.) So, even though they can be just as slow as 'USB 1.1' devices, if they are 'compatible' with high speed devices (as in, they won't cause your new CD-RW drive to drop to 4x just because they're on the same chain,) then they are USB 2.0 devices. Yes, that means your new keyboard can be a USB 2.0 device. Note that USB 2.0 devices MUST be USB 1.1 compatible. That means that your USB 2.0 mouse will be a USB 2.0 device when connected to a USB 2.0 controller (even though it may only use 2 Megabits per second of bandwidth,) and will be a USB 1.1 device when connected to a USB 1.1 controller. Some devices will be pointless in USB 1.1 mode, such as a DVD-RW drive, where even 1x is too fast for 12 Mb/s. But it will still function, albeit as a 4x CD-RW drive.
Controllers that were USB 1.1 controllers are still USB 1.1 controllers, they allow devices to connect using USB 1.1 signalling, at 2 or 12 Megabits per second.
Controllers that support the USB 2.0 standard are 'USB 2.0' controllers. From what I have gleaned, in order to be a 'USB 2.0' controller, it must support the 480 Mb/s speed. Of course, it also supports 2Mb/s and 12Mb/s at both USB 1.1 and USB 2.0 signalling.
In short, yes, devices that are slower than 480Mb/s *CAN* be USB 2.0 devices. That doesn't mean that *ALL* slower devices are now called USB 2.0.
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
The version numbers were nice ways to understand the evolution of USB. However, changing how you represent your versioning to the public is not a good thing. They (USB Forum) should have thought more carefully about the consequences of their decision to represent USB to the public using version numbers. In the end, USB as a protocol will suffer. Consumers will find it easier to purchase IEEE 1394 (firewire) devices instead of trying to "discover" which version of USB 2.0 they have. USB 1.1 (cleverly renamed "Full-Speed", which to me, "Full Speed" indicates that is the max limit that USB can go) or Hi-Speed (which is really "Full Speed" of the latest rendition of the protocol). Additionally, I thought the protocols only provided "speed limits". The hardware didn't have to transmit data at the highest throughput allowed if it couldn't, it just had to comply with the protocol stipulations. The new names imply to me that "Full Speed" will always transmit at the maximum rate, and "Hi-Speed" will......well, transmit at a high (???) rate of speed. At the very least, this is confusing and misrepresentative to the consumer.
To know is to have knowledge....to understand is to be enlightened.
so what if stupid consumers are led to think that usb hard drives and cd drives suck?
that just means 1394 will become much more common.
Here is the text...
5 21 0&mode=thread&tid=137/ Database/18Jun2003_data col61.html
"Just wanted to mention you guys are a bunch of jerks for renaming USB 1.1 to USB 2.0. I hope you guys get sued by the European Union and many others for your flagrant violation of computer buyers trust. Computing standards are hard enough to keep track of without you guys renaming things. How very dishonest of your organization and your constituents.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/18/202
http://www.bangkokpost.com
- John Peterson"
I encourage you guys to do the same.
JOhn
Campaign for Liberty
But you have to be real careful as its not obvious and it really is in fine print on the back.
All things in life can be appropriately referenced by a humorous Simpsons quote.
Does this mean that Fox won't air another season?
Because if they did, then they'd start repeating themselves. The shark has already been jumped; they don't need to jump it again.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Although I'm not so completely sure about the author of this article (he's an Aussie journalist who's got a reputation for cluelessness at times), this naming situation looks pretty suckful. When I was looking at motherboard ads the other day, they all said "USB2.0" and nothing else. I noticed, buried deep in my digital camera manual (Canon A70) words to the effect of "not guaranteed to work with USB 2.0 connections". Doesn't really inspire confidence in the whole thing, really. Thank goodness for flash card readers...
unless the program is vmware, which will respond to c+a+d as if pressed on the virtual machine (although the OS will respond too which is why your supposed to use c+a+insert instead).
What kind of computer and what kind of operating system are you using!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Because it makes a difference!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Don't use too many exclaimation marks; it's like yelling!!!!!!!
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
...you insensitive clod.
Mostly because we never owned a full until I was much older, hence my confusion. But once I saw that it was wider than the twin, suddenly I began to see the size hierarchy.
(and there's another head-scratcher, how does twin make sense either? You'd have to understand the size is suitable for use in master bedrooms that would normally fit two twins side by side where a king might have been. Blargh)
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
It's based on kernel 2.4.x, so it's got to be 2.x, yet it's 9.0.
SunOS 5.X is the core OS. Sort of like a linux kernel version, glibc, and sysv core stuff.
Solaris X is SunOS 5.X plus a bunch of other stuff with differeing version numbers that all come on one CD (CDE, management framework, etc.).
This is like releases of RedHat or Slackware.
They started calling it 2.X when SunOS went from 4->5 . Then marketing decided that the 2.X part was useless once no one cared about Solaris 1.x, so they just focused on the X. Also note that they probably intend to catch up to MacOS's and RedHat's release numbers for marketing reasons.
OTH, Sun holds the reins, so they make sure all the numbers have a logical mapping (whereas knowing what versions of glibc and the kernel come with RedHat XYZ requires the use of google)
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
I'm confused. Do they limit all USB designations now at 2.0? What about the next standard? Do we go to USB 3.0 but really call it 2.0, or wait for 4.0 to come along and then call 3.0 4.0? It must be that new math because I don't get it. Wait, are we talking about Grade Point Averages or about USB again...
------ Will of Iron, Knees of Jello.
LOL. Good one.
Are you tired of being teased about your inferior "equipment"? Do the other guys have wider (throughput) cables than you? Does it feel like high school gym class all over again?
Well, we can't change school, but we can help you stack up now.
Introducing USB 2.0 Full Speed stickers. Yes, for the low, low price of $49.95 we can upgrade your "equipment" to USB 2.0. Just install our special, and patented stickers on a prominent place of your case, and enjoy all* the benefits that USB 2.0 offers.
* All does not include most of the features of USB 2.0, including higher though put.
Customer: I want a mouse.
Salesclerk: How about this Logitech optical mouse... blah... excellent... blah... USB...
Customer: Did you say USB? I have a USB at home, I'll take it!
Customer takes box and turns it over to see USB 1.1 and not USB 2
Customer: What? This won't work with my USB 2 drive!
Salesclerk takes package and turns his back to the customer while he writes a two in permanent marker next to the USB symbol.
Salesclerk: There.
Wherever you go, there you are!
Close to three years ago, I carefully researched and evaluated my choices of laptops. I settled on a PCG-F430. To date, it has served me extremely well, runs every O/S I have thrown at it, even Plan 9, and has served me reliably. The only service I have performed on it was to replace the HD after 2+ years. Given the abuse I had given this machine, that was not unexpected. I have been tempted looking at newer machines, but, to date, the damn thing just works.
Sadly, in today's market, you can count on the brand names less and less, but if you do the research, you can still find great products. If you don't do the research, you can end up with a turkey.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
Slashdot would have truncated the comment with a "read more" link at the end, you wouldn't have seen more then a few dozon lines in your browser.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
In other news, Duke Nukem 3D has been renamed Duke Nukem Forever and will be re-released. In order to preserve a distinction between the two, the previous Duke Nukem Forever will never be released.
I haven't heard any news about this, and I have several gripes with this story:
First off, the article mentioned that USB1.1 had been changed to USB2, while leaving USB2 the same. Referencing the USB Implementers Forum website referenced by the article at http://www.usb.org, I couldn't find a single reference to USB 2.0. Seems USB 1.1 has been renamed "Original USB" where USB 2.0 is "Hi-Speed USB." (Check the FAQ under the question "How fast is USB?") This is an awfully big difference from what the article purports.
Secondly, I think most reputable manufacturers of hardware components to those who build their own PCs, such as motherboard chipsets, add-in USB2 (ha!) cards, etc. would maintain the older numbering scheme so as not to confuse their target market.
I think the source of this article's confusion comes from devices marked "Hi-Speed USB 2.0." Apparently this labeling scheme is supposed to combine the "USB 2.0" that older enthusiasts are familiar with, with the "Hi-Speed USB" that the USB Implementers Forum is pushing now.
Doing your own research is nicer than relying on a poorly-researched article.
a new computer company has been started...
...
they've renamed their 286 line to pentium 4,
and kept the old name for existing pentium 4s...
cuz apparently.. this is legal?
step 1: rename all your products to the same name so no one call tell the difference...
step 2:
step 3: profit!
-judging another only defines yourself
Remind me of the official sizes of olives:
1. Super Mammouth
2. Mammouth
3. Super Colossal
4. Colossal
5. Giants
6. Extra Jumbo
7. Jumbo
8. Extra Large
9. Large
10. Superior
11. Brilliant
12. Fine
13. Bullets
But it half works. When I plug it in I get
but when I try to do anything toAny idea if this can be made to work? (It's a PQI Travelflash USB 2.0 CompactFlash Reader.)
Danny.
I have written over 900 book reviews
It's too bad you AC'd out, I almost got stomach cramps from laughing so hard...
Super Maxi ?
Is that the one with wings ?
Mmm... Wings...
Time travel is possible. We are quickly heading for 1984.
As I write this, there is an Ad for USB stuff in
the banner ad. Products are:
1) USB Firewire Card
2) USB 2.0 PCI Card
3) USB 2.0 PCMCIA
4) 2 Port USB 2.0 PCMCIA
Only one mentions the actual speed (no. 4 "Ultra Fast High Speed USB 2.0", you guess what that means)
The point is the Hardware Manufacturers/Retail companies are taking advantage of the confusion to
mislead consumers. This is wrong.
Live by the fraud, die by the fraud.
Ack - pardon my lack of physics.... I stand corrected. (Guess I was stuck on the idea that the inner tracks are smaller circles, which means it takes less time for the laser to navigate around it. Of course, that "logic" neglects the fact that less data is contained on them as well!)
That was the point of the statement.
Nobody is going to lose from confusion except for the USB people.
oops I guess.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Hardly, he sold the company out to a competitor for many many millions. The competitor waited a couple years and then erased it. (The fact that our largest client was Worldcom/MCI probably had nothing to do with it. :^)
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
They should have simplified it by saying...
"All the USB specs are going to be called USB 2.0 from now on. So, you should choose USB 2.0 and for anything even remotely important, please choose Firewire. Thank you. I now go off to shoot myself."
[applause]
the C-A-D sequence can be received by software without thte underlying os noticing it.
We are running LanDesk remote control at work and we sure as hell can press C-A-D without my windows noticing it.
It just needs to have a hook into the keyboard routine in windows and there ya go.
Also does anyone besides me think full speed sounds quicker then high speed?
YES... It reminds me of "Double Density" vs. "High Density" on floppy disks. This one threw me the first time I bought floppies. Wow, that's been a while.
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
This page specifically recommends against calling USB 1.1 devices "USB 2.0" as it "can be confusing for consumers whose expectation is that a USB 2.0 product is by definition high-speed."
Of course, they do say it's OK to call USB 1.1 "USB Full Speed" (which is historically valid but misleading these days), or to describe them as "USB 2.0 compatible" (not "compliant", but nonetheless clearly misleading), but I still don't see where, as the article claims, the USB Forum announced that "henceforth USB 1.1 would be called USB 2".
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Also, if you are running Windows XP, you need Service Pack 1 or you're only running Full-Speed USB regardless of what hardware you own. USB 2.0 is not supported in the out-of-the-box XP installation.
John
True. But now that Firewire 800Mb/s is out, the answer to all of this is: if you care about USB-480 (or USB Hi Speed, etc.) you should be using Firewire instead.
I recently purchased an ABit NS7-S motherboard. The manual specifically shows 6 USB-2 ports, 2 built into the board, 2 as a bracket that comes with the motherboard, and 2 more for the front of the case.
However, in reality, what you get under Windows is 2 USB-2 ports and 4 USB-1.1 ports. Only the bracketed ports are actually USB-2.
I agree that full-speed sounds faster. The nomenclature is moronic.
:)
The important question is, if there's full-speed and high-speed, where is the half-speed and slow-speed? I sense a vacuum here...
Oh, it's just the naming committee. Nevermind.
"Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
The way I see it, it looks as if they whan to go away from the numbering of USB standards, and instead introduce a speed label, i.e. 'low speed', 'full speed' or 'hi-speed'. So in stead of going out shopping for a laptop with USB 2.0, they want you to look for one with Hi-Speed USB.
I think it's pretty obvious when you look at the logos on the USB Packaging page.
The problem with this naming scheme is of course, that they have to come up with new and more impressive names for each new version of USB. I expect that the standard computer in 2015 will support USB eXtra Fast Super Ludicrous Hi-Speed.
Supose you have a 1.1 hub. If you connect a 2.0 device to it it will slow down to 1.1 speeds.
But it gets more difficult...
Suppose you have 2.0 (hi speed) HUB. You connect a 1.1 webcam , a 1.0 keyboard and a 2.0 usb disk. The hub connect to a real 2.0 USB port n the PC.
The disk probablly will only have 160 Mb/s bandwith available. The total capity of this connection is 0.5 + 4 + 160 Mbs/s = a lot less then the 480 you think you will get.
It gets worse if you use multiple hubs
So If you use a HUB you have to be aware what the speeds are of the HUB and the hardware you connect to it are.
Yes, USB is not a simple as it started out. But hte plug and pray is great!
The new wording of changing all USB 1.1 to 2 implies that it will work at the high speed so if anyone here in the UK Buys a USB 2 compatible product and it doesnâ(TM)t work at USB 2 speeds complain to trading standards and see if it is. I don't know if other countries have similer laws i hope so.
Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
...My customers are convinced that USB 2.0 cables are better than USB 1.1 cables. They don't appreciate it when I tell them that USB 2.0 cables have to be compatible with USB 1.1 and are just the same cable with jazzier packaging and a higher price tag.
You sure you want to do that? USB has tiny little connectors, and they are made of sharp sheet-metal. Ouch!
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
I posted this in reply to an AC, but decided it probably wouldn't get seen so have posted it again directly...
Ok, with USB1.1 you could have two modes:
Low Speed (1.5Mb/s)
Full Speed (12Mb/s)
What mode is used depends on the device.
If you have a USB2 controller (i.e. the bit at the computer) and you plug in a USB1.1 device, the bus will be downgraded to USB1.1 speeds - this means that a USB2 device also connected at the same time wouldn't be able to use the 480Mb/s of USB2.
With USB2, there are three modes available:
Low Speed (1.5Mb/s)
Full Speed (12Mb/s)
High Speed (480Mb/s)
All USB2 devices must support Low and Full speed (so they can be connected to USB1.1 controllers) but they don't have to use High speed. This means that you can connect a USB2 keyboard to a USB2 controller and not degrade the performance of your USB2 DVD-RW for instance.
So, in conclusion, a device that is advertised as "USB2 compatible" or "USB2 Full speed" is a device that will only go at 12Mb/s at most but will play nicely with High speed USB2 devices. It is in effect a USB1.1 device that is compatible with USB2. I presume that this is where the confusion comes in - it looks as though the device has simply been repackaged as USB2 even though there are no speed improvements.
A device advertised as "USB2 compliant" or "USB2 High speed" should run at up to 480Mb/s.
I see no way in which it is reasonable to call a USB controller "USB2 compatible" because by definition all USB1.1 controllers are compatible with USB2 devices, the devices just won't run at High speed.
It is possible that this has been ignored in marketing though to shift the old USB1.1 motherboards/IO cards. This is my only gripe other than the fact that the whole situation is damned confusing.
Cheers,
Roger
Do you have any better hostages?
Lets say I'm going to buy a computer today. Just for the sake of getting the best available technology, I want a computer with the real USB 2 (as in, not USB 1.1). What should I ask the salesperson?
Obviously I can't ask for USB 2 as he'll just hand me a USB 1.1 machine.
Well I guess I stand corrected. I thought the whole reason for it was that it couldn't be received by any programs other than windows, and thus the logon box couldn't be faked by any user space application (such as a keylogger). I was also pretty sure that even if you COULD fake it, it couldn't be intercepted and KEPT from windows. Thus, like the post above this, vmware will catch it, but so will windows, so you get a rebooted vmachine and the task manager (if XP. the other box w/ change password, lock screen, etc. if 2k).
:)
Shows how little I program for windows I guess.
Now if only there were an easy way to change the status of one of the keyboard lights (Without using SendInput to simulate keypresses)..
But 4 of them use UHCI controlers(usb 1.1) and the other two EHCI (usb 2).
It was handy since Linux doesn't work to well with USB2.
The USB implementation in the 2.5 kernel is buggy, if you want it fixed give greg on the linux usb mailing list some grief until he accepts patches.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
It's wonderful! The 1.1 works like 2.0! The 2.0 works like 2.0! The schnazberries taste like schnazzberries!
Sig not found.
Improves your internet experiance.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
They have pushed a slow one.
Customer: We insist on having USB 2 controllers!
MFR 1: It costs us $0.25 cents more, we'll have to raise the price of your laptop $25.
Customer: Whatever, we want USB 2.0
MFR 2: psst -- why not just pay the standards committee to rename USB 1.1?
MFR 1: Hey, there's an idea... What say you USB Gods?
USB: Hmmm, that would be unethical and confusing and... how much? Ok!
MFR 1: Ok, PRESTO! You now have USB 2 in your laptops!
I guess this will finally convince people that Firewire really *IS* the better choice?
Sony stuff is a cut above most other brands, and here's how I know: I used to work for an electrical retailer in the UK, at their head office, where they also had a service department doing repairs. The one brand the engineers all hated working on was Sony, but that's because Sony equipment was far more sophisticated that the other manufacturers' kit, and just too damned difficult to understand and fix. A bit like how a modern Audi is more difficult for Joe Public to work on than some old Ford or Peugeot. Some of those Japanese are just too clever for their own good :)
Oh, how convenient: a theory about God that doesn't involve looking through a telescope.
It does mislead. There isn't any usb1.1 devices are there?
A blog I run for the wealth
'Fraid I have to agree with the skydiver there - I have the same camera & I've beaten the sh*t out of it on over 200 jumps - it's lost all the little covers over the firewire ports etc - still she keeps on truckin. I'm not a Sony-head either, most of my kit is cheaper brand stuff (and better than Sony i reckon). I once paid a lot for a Sony laptop that turned out to be a big pile of crap in the end :(
BUT, their camcorders are top-notch indeed.
While the gist of your post is accurate, I gotta nit-pick. Your description of two behaviors is accurate, but the criteria is not. When you hit CTRL+ALT+DEL, you get a task manager if the computer is not on a domain, or the windows security box if the computer is on a domain. I believe the version of windows is irrelevant, as long as it's 5.0 or greater.
funny munging
I wish I hadn't used all my mod points... but it looks like somebody actually did some fact checking.
Pleas, somebody mod the parent post up.
- sig? who is this sig of which you speak?
The terminology issue comes from the terms used in 1.1 which were Low speed and Full speed. USB 2.0 added High speed but didn't change Full to anything more relatively meaningful. A High speed device connected to a High speed port will (should) transmit at something higher than 12 Mb/s. I never looked at how the actual data rate is managed with a High speed device.
Sony stuff is a cut above most other brands, and here's how I know:
The one brand the engineers all hated working on was Sony, but that's because Sony equipment was far more sophisticated that the other manufacturers' kit, and just too damned difficult to understand and fix
Yeah, that's how I measure quality. Technicians don't like to fix it because it is too complex for them to understand.
No offense to the poster, but complex is not better. Better is better.
JWall: GUI client for IPTables
Well, given that there was lots of documentation available that referred to "Low" and "Full" speed, it's not surprising that they didn't change those terms.
If'n they'd got manufacturers and vendors to use the "High" speed designation exclusively instead of starting out using the "USB 2" nomenclature, this wouldn't be such an issue. Once the "USB 2" was the commonly used description, they shouldn't have tried to change it. Either the terms of use on the standard didn't clearly spell out how to handle this, the USBIF didn't enforce them enough or they changed what how they wanted to handle it. Whichever happened was clearly a mistake (amazing how clear things are when they're behind you!).
A High speed device starts out the same as a Full or Low speed device and then sends a "chirp" to indicate that it has Full speed capablilities. A High speed port recognizes the chirp and switches to High speed. Other ports don't recognize the chirp and thus ignore it. (Specs are available for download at the USBIF.)
I once had a manual, in swedish (Yes you got printed manuals back then. Translated printed manuals.), for an Intel 286 system, that said something along the lines of:
"You could argue that an 80286 is really an Ultra fast 8086"
(Man kan sÃga att en 80286 i princip Ãr en Ultrasnabb 8086)
It makes you wonder how fast the modern chips is in these terms.
High-Speed in English means that it's very fast. But what can be faster than Full-Speed? Anyone see Speed 2.0? Ships's fastest speed is Full-Speed! So, in a way, USB 2.0 Full-Speed is a lot like the movie Speed 2.0 in that it'll ram into a dock at Full-Speed!
-=- Many seek good nights and lose good days.
Hi-Speed I'd expect to be somewhere nice and high on the speed spectrum.
Full-Speed sounds like it's the maximum speed possible, like it's a full-on thing.
So people are still going to probably be buying "Full Speed" USB because it implies that it's faster when compared to "Hi Speed". I agree with the parent, USB-12 and USB-480 are better names.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
Yeah, aparently "Hi-Speed" is even more full than "Full-Speed" !
I'm seeing some people saying "USB 2" and others saying "USB 2.0"; some are saying both.
IS THERE A DIFFERENCE?
Kind of like the difference between Class 1 and Class 1.0 fax machines? Yes, there is a difference.
If I had to guess, I'd say that "USB 2" means the device supports "USB 2" signalling even though its speed is 12 Mbps or less and won't cause the speed of 480 Mbps devices on the same bus to step down (whereas a USB 1.1 device would) and a "USB 2.0" device is capable of speeds greater than 12 Mbps. I could be wrong.
Give me my freedom, and I'll take care of my own security, thank you.
Was anyone else reminded of Monty Python while reading the article?
When I read the article, I could have sworn I heard John Cleese reading it as if it were one of the old Python skits...
Just shows how much double talke was in the article...
isn't the jump from USB 1 to USB 2 a "double speed" jump ( 1-> 2)?
however, i like their intuitive system, it's as elegant as the floppy density naming scheme... it's either double density, or high density. you win in either case!
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
thanks
because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre