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 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.
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.
Given that the USB forum made the decision, blaming asians for it is nothing less than unveiled racism - Of course, no Yank company would ever indulge in such fraudulent behaviour.
"God, root, what is difference?" - Pitr, userfriendly
Sort of like saying a Geo Metro is Corvette-compatible because they both can ride the same public highways.
What next - black and white laser printers that are color-image compatible (sure, they can handle color, they just print it in black and white).
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
To your point, "I really don't see what the big deal is if people realize that USB 2.0 != high speed (480 MBit/sec)," it's the entire point of the argument. People DON'T realize that because it's simply not true. The phrase USB 2.0 has already come to mean high speed through usage; usage both defined and fostered by the very same usb.org. Doubt me? Here's what the usb.org has on the first page of "A Technical Introduction to USB 2.0" describing USB 2.0 [formatting from the original, emphasis mine ]:
"USB 2.0 Executive Summary
A core team from Compaq, Hewlett Packard, Intel, Lucent, Microsoft, NEC and Philips is leading the development of the USB Specification, version 2.0, that will increase data throughput by a factor of 40. This backwards-compatible extension of the USB 1.1 specification uses the same cables, connectors and software interfaces so the user will see no change in the usage model. They will, however, benefit from an additional range of higher performance peripherals, such as video-conferencing cameras, next-generation scanners and printers, and fast storage devices, with the same ease-of-use features as todayâ(TM)s USB peripherals.
Impact to User
From a userâ(TM)s perspective, USB 2.0 is just like USB, but with much higher bandwidth. It will look the same and behave the same, but with a larger choice of more interesting, higher performance devices available. Also, all of the USB peripherals the user has already purchased will work in a USB 2.0-capable system."
Contrast that statement with this quote from the USB Naming and Packaging page:
"Inconsistent use of terminology in combination with the existing general misconception that USB 2.0 is synonymous with Hi-Speed USB ... creates confusion in the marketplace."
So you can now see why we've our little tempest in the proverbial teapot. Even the USB organization themselves used the specific words "USB 2.0" to precisely mean the exact same thing they now call "Hi-Speed USB" -- 480MB/s USB. And then they tell us that we, the marketplace, suffer confusion from a misconception. If they aren't fostering that confusion, who else is?
My biggest complaint is that their packaging page permits manufacturers to label their "Low-Speed USB" or "Full-Speed USB" products with these statements:
- 1. Compatible with the USB 2.0 Specification
- 2. Works with USB and Hi-Speed USB systems, peripherals and cables.
The emphasis is mine, just to point out that they used the word "compatible" and not "compliant". A subtle distinction probably lost on the average buyer, since we're quibbling about it here onThis is the stuff of "truth in advertising" lawsuits. IANAL, because if I were I wouldn't be ranting on /., I'd be cranking up a lawsuit.
And just to keep going, if your other statement were true, "A USB 1.1 compliant device can meet the specification even if it only supports low speed operation (1.5 MBit/sec)," then I should be able to claim my 300 baud acoustically-coupled modem made in 1978 is "V_fast" compliant just because the V_fast spec says a V_fast modem must accept connections from 300 baud modems. Receiving an honorable mention in the spec does not mean it meets the spec.
John