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?"
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
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?
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.
After all, every geek knows clock speed isn't the be all end all of performance
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
Well, I know of an easy way to tell which USB you have, but I only reply to posts containing more than 36 exclamation points. I'm sorry, but if you can't be bothered to press Shift+1 a few more times, then I can't be bothered to help you.
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
Try again. Now it says 404 Full Speed
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
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.
Q: How fast is USB
A: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.
Real Answer: Not as fast as the members of the USB consortium.
Notice that their answer doesn't clear up the difference between the two types of USB 2.0, slick bastards.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
Let me emphasise that NEC EHCI chips are currently the only ones that work full-speed (er, I mean, hi-speed) with the Linux kernel. They're the ones that come on USB 2.0 "hi-speed" addon cards.
The newer controller chips are under development and currently won't work.
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'.
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
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.
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.
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
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.'"
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
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.
Not at all true. Though you're strongly encouraged to be careful if you have a VT6202 (funky chip timings make for more than its fair share of trouble), and to use the very latest driver versions. Some bugs have taken a while to exterminate.
The 2.4.21-ac1 tree should be pretty good, though you should likely add a small "micro-patch" (with a few one-liner fixes). As should the very latest Linus tree, 2.5.72-bk2 (includes that "micro patch"); your next sync with Linus' tree may have that.
Most any current EHCI hardware should work fine under Linux, with drivers dated 2003-June (instead of 2003-January).
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.
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]