USB 3.0's New Jacks and Sockets

Is it burst speed? by danomac · 2008-01-09 10:51 · Score: 5, Interesting

I wonder about the new speed specification... in my experience even with no other devices on the USB bus getting 480mbit was impossible. I always had to resort to firewire for my drive caddy because I got consistent results with it.

I sure hope they've addressed this issue. The OS caching helped, unless you wanted to unplug the damn thing right away - then you had to wait 5 minutes for the cache to flush out.

Re:Is it burst speed? by gillbates · 2008-01-09 11:19 · Score: 5, Informative

Yes, and no.

You see, 480 Mbs is the electrical interface speed. As in, 480 Million bits go across the wire every second. Not all of those bits are used for traffic.

However, some of those bits are used by the overhead of the transfer protocol. You've got USB packets in the stream which do nothing but reserve space for some psuedo-realtime device which might be connected to the bus at any second. Whether or not the OS/USB Controller allocates these blank packets even in cases where they aren't needed is a matter of programming.

As an aside, I've noticed that on the same computer, with the same flash drive, Linux does a much faster job with file transfers than Windows. I suspect Windows is just under-utilizing the bus, to make it easier for their engineers. But I could be wrong, as I haven't looked into it in detail.

--
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Re:Is it burst speed? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-09 11:32 · Score: 0

> you had to wait 5 minutes for the cache to flush out

see sync(1).
Re:Is it burst speed? by jubei · 2008-01-09 12:03 · Score: 5, Informative

Your windows file copy slowness could be because Windows does not use write caching for removable drives. This allows clueless users to just yank out the disk without unmounting properly. If you are getting slow reads, that is a different story.
Re:Is it burst speed? by danomac · 2008-01-09 12:15 · Score: 1

see sync(1).

sync forces the cache to disk, I know. The problem: *writing* to the disk takes 5 minutes. Constant disk activity for 5 minutes. The command doesn't help there at all.
Re:Is it burst speed? by danomac · 2008-01-09 12:24 · Score: 1

Yep, I haven't used Windows at home since 2003 (ish?). Linux definitely does use the device better, but the umount command can stall for up to 5 minutes while it writes out the cache.

I still use firewire for it, it's just more consistent with speeds. My read/write speeds were always all over the place. Drive caddies are so damn useful when you need more than a 4GB USB stick. I just wish it weren't so unpredictable.
Re:Is it burst speed? by mindwhip · 2008-01-09 12:29 · Score: 1

I'm more interested in what the allowable power drain will be... USB 2 is limited with what it can run without having to have additional wall-warts etc. for the device... an interface that can supply (12v) and more current would be really nice.

(Yes I know there is currently PoweredUSB but this is not part of the core standard and only used in specialist devices.)

--
[The Universe] has gone offline.
Re:Is it burst speed? by letxa2000 · 2008-01-09 13:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

In case a "clueless user" yanks it "without unmounting properly?" Excuse me, but I don't think that's a matter of the user being clueless. If I have a removable drive, I don't think it's unreasonable to be able to remove it at any time--the OS should expect that. If the OS is still writing data to the drive and there's some kind of window open to that effect, then I'm stupid for disconnecting it in the middle of the process. If I "finished" copying three minutes ago, I don't think it's unreasonable for me to be able to disconnect the drive.

This is why Linux is a great OS for a server but not so hot for the desktop. Write-caching for a USB drive might make sense on a server, but not so much on the desktop.
Re:Is it burst speed? by jimdread · 2008-01-09 14:46 · Score: 2, Informative

Yep, I haven't used Windows at home since 2003 (ish?). Linux definitely does use the device better, but the umount command can stall for up to 5 minutes while it writes out the cache.
You can use the "sync" command to flush the file system buffers, instead of waiting for umount to do it for you. It's going to take some amount of time to write large files, the real issue is when that writing occurs. So instead of doing "cp file /usb" and then later unmounting the usb and having to wait, you can "cp file /usb; sync" and the writing will be done immediately. When you later decide to unmount the usb stick, it should happen immediately.
Re:Is it burst speed? by DaleGlass · 2008-01-09 14:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

You can disable caching on Linux with -o sync.

However, neither that, nor what Windows does will prevent damage on a FAT32 formatted device, because the filesystem isn't made to deal with that. And even for a filesystem like ext3, reiserfs or ntfs that will not corrupt itself in this case, you'll still lose data if you yank the drive while a file is being written. Windows will warn you if you yank the drive without telling it to disconnect the drive precisely for this reason.

Really the only way of dealing with this perfectly is making the media impossible to disconnect until the filesystem is dismounted orderly. This can be done with CD and tape drives, but isn't going to work with anything connected to an USB port.
Re:Is it burst speed? by crispin_bollocks · 2008-01-09 15:28 · Score: 0

Unless you've got a third-generation connector where the contacts that count disconnect a couple milliseconds after the legacy ones, which could trigger a warning.
Re:Is it burst speed? by funkdancer · 2008-01-09 15:59 · Score: 1

I always CBF to unmount my flash drive when transferring files, say a 1gb file from my torrent PC to transport to my HTPC which has a much slower connection.

I transfer the file from my linux PC on my Vista workstation in the same room, wait 5 seconds, pull it out then plug it in downstairs.

Never missed a beat. But I guess I'm still a clueless user? :shrugs:

--
ISO certified == THX certified
Re:Is it burst speed? by Fred+Ferrigno · 2008-01-09 16:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

You can disable caching on Linux with -o sync. There ought to be a safe middle ground between no cache at all and a cache that expects the drive will always be there. Something that keeps IO from blocking, but doesn't spread out writes so far that the user has a chance to conclude the drive is idle and safe to pull.
Re:Is it burst speed? by Plaid+Phantom · 2008-01-09 16:15 · Score: 1

Windows has almost never given me this message. And if I was to pull my drive while the little light is blinking, that's my own fault.

--
All comments are properties and trademarks of the voices in my head. Not like I'm gonna claim them.
Re:Is it burst speed? by zobier · 2008-01-09 17:13 · Score: 3, Interesting

Really the only way of dealing with this perfectly is making the media impossible to disconnect until the filesystem is dismounted orderly. This can be done with CD and tape drives, but isn't going to work with anything connected to an USB port. It could do if you wanted it to, there's these two little holes on the USB connector that a latch could engage during transfer.

--
Me lost me cookie at the disco.
Re:Is it burst speed? by dabraun · 2008-01-09 17:21 · Score: 1

The IOs don't block if you call them async. But then you are responsible for checking the results (or waiting for the async callback) and not closing the copy window until you get confirmation that the operation completed. blocking/non-blocking is a seperate issue from caching.
Re:Is it burst speed? by dabraun · 2008-01-09 17:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

Windows will warn you if you yank the drive without telling it to disconnect the drive precisely for this reason.

I've used USB drives on Windows for years and I've never seen such a warning. It might warn you if you pulled it during a file copy (I've never done that, obviously it sounds like a bad idea) but certainly not if you wait for the copy to complete.

In fact, it would be really cool if it popped up an alert if you pulled the drive while it was still writing to the effect of "oh no! plug it back in and I'll finish the operation so you'll have a coherent filesystem" (hopefully something worded more professional and less techy)
Re:Is it burst speed? by DaleGlass · 2008-01-09 18:00 · Score: 1

I've used USB drives on Windows for years and I've never seen such a warning. It might warn you if you pulled it during a file copy (I've never done that, obviously it sounds like a bad idea) but certainly not if you wait for the copy to complete.

I remember getting it on Win2K, not sure if the later versions do it
In fact, it would be really cool if it popped up an alert if you pulled the drive while it was still writing to the effect of "oh no! plug it back in and I'll finish the operation so you'll have a coherent filesystem" (hopefully something worded more professional and less techy)

That would be nice, if it could tell that you didn't change the FS since it was removed. Otherwise that could result in some nasty corruption.
Re:Is it burst speed? by DaleGlass · 2008-01-09 18:08 · Score: 1

The problem isn't so much that (journalling filesystems can deal with it) as with the data inside the file.

If you're using a program that writes over parts of the file it's working on, at unpredictable intervals (a database, say), it may postpone writing crucial information until the program is shut down. Or it may decide to start writing over some critical part right when you're extracting the drive. Waiting until nothing is being written won't make extraction safe in that case.

For a less contrived example, people run firefox from flash drives. I imagine some might run thunderbird as well. If you remove the drive right when a message is being written to disk you can lose that message, or the whole store, depending on how thunderbird stores it.

Other programs store data in complicated ways. For example, file A might contain an offset at which data can be found in file B. That's another nasty case.
Re:Is it burst speed? by Hal_Porter · 2008-01-09 18:14 · Score: 1

The first versions of smartdrive on Dos used write back caching which meant that the drive could be corrupted if you flicked the power switch immediately after copying a file. It would write cached data back when the system was idle, and could hook Ctrl Alt Delete and flush the cache before a reboot.

Later versions worked in a write through cache mode where the cache was guaranteed to have been written back by the time the Dos prompt came back. So it could be done, even in a tiny OS written mostly assembly language with no background processes.

As far as I know Windows 2000 does write caching on removable drives and relies on the user to stop them to flush the cache by clicking on an icon in the taskbar. Most users and a fair minority of programmers can't handle this concept properly - I've worked with people who've copied a zip file to a USB stick and then immediately disconnected it, ignoring the "Unsafe Removal" warning and my comment that this was a stupid thing to do. Later I rebooted a laptop with the stick plugged in and watched in total horror as chkdsk removed vital file.

XP and later only read cache on removable disks and lets you yank them whenever you want. Since there is no write caching, once a file has been copied it's really there on disk, not sitting in a cache. So USB sticks are slow but work for people who are dumb enough to ignore warnings about data loss. You can still override this though, right click on the drive, select properties and deselect the "Optimize for quick removal" checkbox. Then you have write caching enabled and you need to stop them using the taskbar icon or you'll get the warning and occasional data loss.

--
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Re:Is it burst speed? by Joe+U · 2008-01-09 18:22 · Score: 1

I remember getting it on Win2K, not sure if the later versions do it Not since Windows ME. XP/Vista are very conservative when it comes to removable drives.
Re:Is it burst speed? by ravenlock · 2008-01-09 19:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

So you have a couple of milliseconds to stop the yanking motion and stick it back? I'm sure that's going to help a lot of people. :P
Re:Is it burst speed? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-09 20:57 · Score: 0

Maybe, but I've never understood why the OS can't ask you to reconnect the device and continue writing to it. There are some problems with connecting the device to an other computer in the meantime etc. but it might be possible to solve these with a small sanity check before continuing the write.
Re:Is it burst speed? by driddle · 2008-01-09 21:46 · Score: 1

Last time I used windows their was an unmount option for all removable media in the system tray. As far as I understand you are not guaranteed that all your data has been written until you properly unmount as is the case in Linux.
Re:Is it burst speed? by lpq · 2008-01-09 22:14 · Score: 1

Yeah...bingo. Firewire 400 was 30-50% faster than 480 for 7200rpm 2.5" hard disks off a laptop. One can't use the excuse that USB doesn't achieve it's rated speed due to protocol overhead, since even with 20% more raw bandwidth USB2 is still slower than FW400.

For desktop/side computers using 7200RPM disks FW800 can keep up with IDE on single drives. Supposedly
FW1600 is in the works? Interesting that they aren't announcing the speed of USB3.0. Hopefully they'll go for a 10x speed boost, at least.
Re:Is it burst speed? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-09 22:28 · Score: 0

Eh, just what are you talking about? Both Linux and Windows XP needs to unmount the media before unplugging. the wording for windows is just a bit diffrent with "Safely remove media" (or something like that).

I have yet to just unplug a usb-device without messing up the filessytem in any way, this is especially true for FAT{,32} devices where the file allocation table on disk sometime does not get updated until you unmount/safely remove the media resulting in changed files not showing up at all at reconnect.

In linux you can do add 'sync' to the mount option and it is afaict still faster then windows, and when a fileoperation is done it IS done (i.e. unplug without umount).
In windows you can (and I think it is set by default) choose to not use caches to be able to just unplug the device. Still I have sometimes done that with my 2GB flashbased mp3-player only to find out that the files I added are not to be found on the device.
Re:Is it burst speed? by Phroggy · 2008-01-09 23:22 · Score: 1

In case a "clueless user" yanks it "without unmounting properly?" Excuse me, but I don't think that's a matter of the user being clueless. If I have a removable drive, I don't think it's unreasonable to be able to remove it at any time--the OS should expect that. If the OS is still writing data to the drive and there's some kind of window open to that effect, then I'm stupid for disconnecting it in the middle of the process. If I "finished" copying three minutes ago, I don't think it's unreasonable for me to be able to disconnect the drive. Yes, you're a clueless user. You don't feel clueless, because so many other users are similarly clueless; your expectation seems reasonable to you because most other users share it. It's much more efficient for operating systems to cache disk access; when I'm working on typing a document and hit "save", I want to be able to continue working immediately, not sit there waiting while my word processor finishes writing every byte of the file. With caching, I don't have to wait. In fact, I only have to wait once: when I unmount the filesystem, I wait for the OS to tell me that it's finished with whatever it was doing before I eject or unplug. It's worked this way for DECADES on just about every OS except Microsoft's.
This is why Linux is a great OS for a server but not so hot for the desktop. Write-caching for a USB drive might make sense on a server, but not so much on the desktop. Write-caching for a USB drive makes perfect sense when users understand that they always need to unmount a filesystem when they're finished using it.

However, for other removable media, I've always been a big fan of software eject buttons. Most Macs since about 1999 or so have an eject button on the keyboard that unmounts and ejects the internal CD-ROM. I've heard that the Apple Lisa had a software eject button on the floppy drive. Windows, I think, intercepts the eject button on CD-ROM drives and won't let the drive eject if it's in the middle of reading something (sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't, maybe it's just my imagination). The eject button on Zip drives worked similarly. Linux doesn't use the eject button on CD-ROM and Zip drives the way I think it should, which is to unmount the filesystem and then eject the disk (please correct me if this functionality is available as an option; the default behavior is to lock it so pressing the button does nothing until the filesystem is unmounted manually). Of course Macs were long criticized for not having an eject button on their floppy drives at all; while I think a Lisa-style software eject button would have been nice, the only real problem was a few Mac models that put the power button near where people expected an eject button to be. Bad.

Sorry for rambling a bit there, it's late. None of that pertains to USB or FireWire devices that can be unplugged. Still, just because you may be in the majority doesn't make you any less clueless! I don't want my computer to do things slower just because I might be as incompetent as you are.

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Re:Is it burst speed? by 1u3hr · 2008-01-09 23:36 · Score: 1

you'll still lose data if you yank the drive while a file is being written. Windows will warn you if you yank the drive without telling it to disconnect the drive precisely for this reason.
It's not a "warning" if it's too late to do anything about it when it tells you.
Re:Is it burst speed? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-09 23:42 · Score: 0

There is, it is the "flush" option, at least if you are using a FAT filesystem on Linux.
Re:Is it burst speed? by squiggleslash · 2008-01-10 00:00 · Score: 1

In fact, it would be really cool if it popped up an alert if you pulled the drive while it was still writing to the effect of "oh no! plug it back in and I'll finish the operation so you'll have a coherent filesystem"

Everything old is new again. If you ejected a disk on the Amiga when it was in the middle of trying to write to it, it popped up with a dialog saying "You MUST insert the disk labeled "..."" and wouldn't let up until you did. If you ejected a disk when a file was open for writing, but not actually being written to, then later when the program tried to write to the open file, the Amiga would prompt you to insert the disk more politely "Please insert the disk labeled...", and if you canceled, would give the app an I/O error. In the mean time, the disk would be left in a state between writes that essentially left it recoverable in the event the user decided to be an ass about things (well, ok, or had some legitimate reason not to give the Amiga the disk.)
Here's a clue for OS developers: removable media is removable. That's what makes it, er, removable. If your operating system can't handle the media being removed, your operating system is the thing with the bugs, not the user. It's one thing to treat an internal drive that can only be accessed with a screwdriver as fixed in place and under the control of the OS, it's another to treat a removable USB stick the same way. Especially when 99% of the time, you can't get it right anyway. I mean, what idiot designed the Mac OS X and GNOME systems (two I'm familiar with, I can't comment on KDE or Windows) for dealing with removable storage? I unmount the drive, and before I get a chance to pull the thing out, 99% of the time the operating system has unmounted the drive, and then gone "Woah! An unmounted USB drive is connected. Let's mount it and see what's on it!" So I get the same fucking patronizing "Dude, you're an idiot, next time unmount the drive first!" message when I do the process correctly.
At some point, everyone at Microsoft, Apple, and the disparate group of people who make up KDE and GNOME, need to be bought Amigas. The Unix slogan is wrong: It really should be that those who don't know AmigaOS are doomed to re-invent it - badly.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:Is it burst speed? by xtracto · 2008-01-10 00:33 · Score: 1

I've noticed that on the same computer, with the same flash drive, Linux does a much faster job with file transfers than Windows

I would be interested in knowing what linux do you use because with the one I use (Ubuntu) I usually have problems after copying some files (about say 1.5MB) to a flash thumb drive because it takes a loooong time to write it and even when I have waited more than 10 minutes and click the "unmount" option it just throws and error saying that the device is in use and can not be unmounted (after it, the device seems mounted in the user interface but is inaccessible via terminal) and if I remove the drive, the information is lost.

Whereas in windows I lick "remove hardware safetly" and after about one minute it tells me that I can remove it safe and everything works fine...

--
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Re:Is it burst speed? by ewanm89 · 2008-01-10 00:37 · Score: 1

I've had to rescue several memory sticks now, where the clueless reader corrupted the FAT fs by just yanking the stick out. Also I have no problems with umount speed on my 250GB external, but then I am using a sane filesystem on it (ext3).
Re:Is it burst speed? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-10 00:40 · Score: 0

I'd like to disable write-caching for _every_ drive on Linux.

So in this respect, Windows is ahead of Linux.
Re:Is it burst speed? by xtracto · 2008-01-10 00:40 · Score: 1

So instead of doing "cp file /usb" and then later unmounting the usb and having to wait, you can "cp file /usb; sync" and the writing will be done immediately. When you later decide to unmount the usb stick, it should happen immediately.

And what happens to the people using Ubuntu or other graphical operating system which do not know (or care) how to "cp file;sync" in a terminal? this is something that should be automatic for the desktop. And, another asked how is a program suppose to guess if the flash is a usb drive, I think it is pretty safe to assume that, if suddenly a new USB flash drive is found in the system and the user starts copying files, then that IS a removable drive.

--
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Re:Is it burst speed? by Nurgled · 2008-01-10 00:48 · Score: 1

This reminds me of the way the AmigaOS treated floppy disks. Each disk had a label, and if an app tried to do any I/O operation on a label that was not present, the system would pop up a dialog saying something like "Please insert volume DOCUMENTS in any drive". The I/O operation would block until either the disk was inserted, in which case it'd carry out the operation, or the Cancel button was pressed, in which case it'd fail with an error code.

To bring that forward to modern tech, I guess you'd use the UUID of the partition instead of the label, and you'd have to do some sanity checking to make sure that the filesystem hasn't been tampered with by something else before it was re-inserted.
Re:Is it burst speed? by Sockatume · 2008-01-10 00:55 · Score: 1

Note that Vista defaults to (and in some cases forces, I believe) write caching on USB mass storage.

--
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Re:Is it burst speed? by Fri13 · 2008-01-10 00:58 · Score: 1

Windows file copy ain't always synced, i have many times copied files to usb stick and removed when meter hits 100% and gets closed. Then moved stick to other OS and noticed that files are corrupt because i didnt unmount it first.

I have done same thing with GNU/Linux and it has done same thing.

What is difference? It is almost 2x faster to copy files on same PC from HDD > USB on GNU/LInux than on windows. But, when i umount USB, it's gets umounted without delay and all files on stick is as should be. On windows side, it just takes few clicks more to umount and it takes few seconds. I have seen few GNU/Linux machines where it toke few seconds too but then were transferred about 200Gb data and it was much faster than on windows (backups).

Windows does check something on that transferr what GNU/Linux does not or does just much faster.
Re:Is it burst speed? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-10 01:13 · Score: 0

Especially when 99% of the time, you can't get it right anyway. I mean, what idiot designed the Mac OS X and GNOME systems (two I'm familiar with, I can't comment on KDE or Windows) for dealing with removable storage? I unmount the drive, and before I get a chance to pull the thing out, 99% of the time the operating system has unmounted the drive, and then gone "Woah! An unmounted USB drive is connected. Let's mount it and see what's on it!" So I get the same fucking patronizing "Dude, you're an idiot, next time unmount the drive first!" message when I do the process correctly.
what the fuck are you talking about? you've singled out my OS of choice and the 2nd in command, and you seem to be making stuff up about both of them. I'm constantly using usb memory sticks and usb hard drives (often to transfer data between the two systems), and yet I've _NEVER_ seen the behavior you describe. in fact, I'd be willing to bet I could leave a usb stick plugged into each machine, unmounted, on a friday afternoon, come back into work monday morning and they'd still be unmounted (power failure not withstanding). go troll somewhere else you cockmuncher
Re:Is it burst speed? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-10 01:27 · Score: 0

Your experience does not match mine. Sorry, but this is happening to me all the time. And there's no need for the insults - do you think I just pointlessly made up what I said above? What possible reason would I have for doing so?
Re:Is it burst speed? by ewanm89 · 2008-01-10 01:27 · Score: 1

Linux has always locked the cdrom drive while reading (in the last 5 years), and there is a software eject, (right click on it in kde/gnome or see man eject).
Re:Is it burst speed? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-10 01:30 · Score: 0

You have proven again that you are extremely ignorant. (Hint, your posts on ID don't help you either. Yeah, I take time to read histories before posting this stuff.) As has been pointed out, yanking a drive in Windows is BAD. Hell, your last statement sort of proves the point. The reason for a USB drive is to have removable media, whether server or a desktop. Based on the PURPOSE of the MEDIA, write-caching would either be GOOD or BAD no matter whether or not it was used on a desktop or a server.

Seriously, you sound more like a nice shill for MS. Linux is bad for the desktop because I say so...WAH! Go cry somewhere else.
Re:Is it burst speed? by SpinyManiac · 2008-01-10 01:32 · Score: 1

XP doesn't use write caching for removable drives but 2000 does and there's no way to turn it off. You can only flush the cache by using the "Safely Remove Hardware" applet. What were they thinking?

If any of you are stuck with flash drives on 2000, you really need to get Sync 2.0.

--
It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
Re:Is it burst speed? by astralbat · 2008-01-10 01:57 · Score: 1

On modern Linux distros like Ubuntu, inserting a CD-ROM will auto-mount and pressing the eject button will auto-unmount and eject which I think is similar to the Windows' behaviour you was describing.
Re:Is it burst speed? by DaleGlass · 2008-01-10 02:08 · Score: 1

Later versions worked in a write through cache mode where the cache was guaranteed to have been written back by the time the Dos prompt came back. So it could be done, even in a tiny OS written mostly assembly language with no background processes.

And that last part is precisely why it could be done on DOS. With no multitasking this is trivial. On a modern multitasking OS, there are things that access the disk for reasons of their own, at unknown intervals.

Back when DOS was used, experts knew how their computer worked so well that they could know the purpose of every executable file, and knew when the computer was supposed to be writing to disk. You could figure out whether the computer was infected with a virus when the floppy drive or hard disk made a noise at a moment it shouldn't.

This no longer works in the modern world, especially on Windows (Linux is open and can be cut down enough that you can figure out what's going on). With the current virus scanners, file indexers, programs attempting to optimize by doing their own caching, the OS' own caching, usage of complex file formats, etc, it's no longer possible to predict when the disk is going to be accessed.

Yes, it's doable if you only use your removable storage to copy files to it, and then from it, but if you actually open some types of files on the removable drive, access patterns stop being predictable.
Re:Is it burst speed? by asuffield · 2008-01-10 02:26 · Score: 1

I wonder about the new speed specification... in my experience even with no other devices on the USB bus getting 480mbit was impossible. I always had to resort to firewire for my drive caddy because I got consistent results with it.

480Mbit is the maximum permissible speed. There is no requirement for a device or host controller to actually support running at that speed. It's the same thing that you get with Ethernet - 100Mbit is the speed limit, not the speed requirement, and most equipment that you can buy will not actually work anywhere near that fast.

This is before considering the overheads in the protocol.
Re:Is it burst speed? by coolGuyZak · 2008-01-10 02:57 · Score: 1

Really the only way of dealing with this perfectly is making the media impossible to disconnect until the filesystem is dismounted orderly.

Another option is to assign GUIDs to USB devices, preserve the write cache on the OS, and add logic on the USB side to manage opening and closing the filesystem safely. When a user disconnects the drive, the USB device preserves filesystem consistency. Meanwhile, the OS alerts the user that the device may be inconsistent and preserves its cache. If the user plugs the device back in to the computer (as can be determined by GUID), the OS and USB device synchronize appropriately, and the write resumes.
Re:Is it burst speed? by Hawke · 2008-01-10 02:59 · Score: 1

My solution to this problem: http://code.google.com/p/hal-autofs/. I wrote it for Fedora, and use it under Fedora and CentOS. It might work elsewhere, but I make no promises.
Basically I set up the automounter with a 1 second idle timeout, and edit the automount config as devices get added and removed. (And also add .desktop files to my desktop when devices get added and removed, pointing to the automounter mount point for the device)
Re:Is it burst speed? by danomac · 2008-01-10 03:47 · Score: 1

Interesting that they aren't announcing the speed of USB3.0. Hopefully they'll go for a 10x speed boost, at least.

From the article: Dubbed SuperSpeed USB, the third major incarnation of the serial bus standard is set to deliver data transfer speeds of around 4.7Gb/s - ten times today's 480Mb/s limit.
Re:Is it burst speed? by Lord_Sy · 2008-01-10 03:54 · Score: 1

"Windows does not use write caching for removable drives", by default. You can enable it if you want.

--
--- "pero toda poesía es hostil al capitalismo"
Re:Is it burst speed? by Hal_Porter · 2008-01-10 04:04 · Score: 1

And that last part is precisely why it could be done on DOS. With no multitasking this is trivial. On a modern multitasking OS, there are things that access the disk for reasons of their own, at unknown intervals.

Back when DOS was used, experts knew how their computer worked so well that they could know the purpose of every executable file, and knew when the computer was supposed to be writing to disk. You could figure out whether the computer was infected with a virus when the floppy drive or hard disk made a noise at a moment it shouldn't.

This no longer works in the modern world, especially on Windows (Linux is open and can be cut down enough that you can figure out what's going on). With the current virus scanners, file indexers, programs attempting to optimize by doing their own caching, the OS' own caching, usage of complex file formats, etc, it's no longer possible to predict when the disk is going to be accessed.

Yes, it's doable if you only use your removable storage to copy files to it, and then from it, but if you actually open some types of files on the removable drive, access patterns stop being predictable. Wow.

Write through caching can be done on any OS. It's a subset of write back caching. It doesn't have anything to do with the 'access patterns stopping being predictable' though - it's a cache policy. You check if the drive is removable and set the policy to write through, if not you allow write back - that's the change in Windows XP compared to 2000. Write through means you write blocks to disk before you return from the file write call, write back means you keep them in memory and then write them back at some later time.

So on a removable disk, once the write operation has finished the drive can be yanked. On a non removable one you can keep a list of dirty blocks in memory and then use some algorithm to write them back in an optimal order. So the non removable drives are as fast as possible and the removable ones are as safe as possible. If you yank the removable drive in the middle of write though, data will still be lost. But there's not much you can do about that.

--
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Re:Is it burst speed? by TooMuchToDo · 2008-01-10 04:11 · Score: 1

You could always have the OS continue to cache the data if the USB key has been pulled and pop up a dialog saying "HEY! I haven't finished writing all the data yet! Stick the key back in if you want your data back!". Once the key was reinserted, the write would continue in the same fashion an FTP client can resume a broken file transfer.
Re:Is it burst speed? by Phroggy · 2008-01-10 04:47 · Score: 1

Sorry if I wasn't clear: I was looking for a software eject button, not just an option to eject through software. What I want is for pressing the eject button on the drive to make the OS unmount it.

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Re:Is it burst speed? by Phroggy · 2008-01-10 04:49 · Score: 1

Good, that's exactly the behavior I was looking for. Any idea what specific bit of software makes that work?

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Re:Is it burst speed? by nahdude812 · 2008-01-10 05:13 · Score: 1

I'm certainly not a Linux filesystem guru, but I believe the way that ext3 and other journaling filesystems do their writes (even updates in the middle of a file) is that if you change 1 byte in the middle of an inode (or the entire inode) (file data is stored in chunks of a fixed size called inodes; same idea as Windows block size option; and this size is predetermined at time of formatting and stored as part of the filesystem headers... w/ 4096 byte inode size, a 1 byte file consumes as much disk space as a 4096 byte file... exactly 1 inode), it copies the entire chunk of data in that inode, plus your modifications, to a free inode, then updates the node map for that file, and finally marks the old inode as unused (or more accurately decrements its use counter, which accounts for times when a single inode is used by multiple files (hard links)).

Actually that's what ext2 does. Ext3, being journaled, creates the new inode, then creates a journal of what it is about to do (a pointer to the file in question, and the number of the old and the new inode, and the expected use counts for each), before updating the inode and usage counts and finally removing the journal. If the process gets interrupted during the writing of the new inode, the whole write fails (with the old file unmodified), and the new inode is still marked as unused. If the process gets interrupted during the journal write, the whole write fails (again with the old file unmodified). Once the journal has successfully been written, it can be guaranteed to succeed, any remaining work can be recovered. On startup of an uncleanly unmounted volume, the OS looks for complete (not completed) journal entries (if they exist, they are not yet complete), and does the work of the journal write again (even if the journal entry had completely succeeded, but had been interrupted before it was cleaned up, re-writing that data doesn't hurt anything).

So any interruption up to the point that the journal was completely written results in the entire write failing, and no loss of original data. Any interruption at that point or past results in the entire write succeeding (being finished once the OS mounts the partition).

From what I understand, ext3 actually is ext2, with the journal being handled as hidden files by the ext2 subsystem.

Now like I said, take all that with a grain of salt, it's mostly cobbled together understanding from incidental exposure to these things over time.

--
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
Re:Is it burst speed? by nahdude812 · 2008-01-10 05:25 · Score: 1

Mac OS 9 and under used to do this for both writes and reads. But sometimes you'd end up with two programs wanting different disks in the same drive. You ended up with the OS automatically ejecting disk A and asking for disk B. When you put in disk B, it'd automatically eject and ask for disk A. Because OS 9 was shared and not truly multi-process, when this happened you basically had to cut your losses and reboot.

Of course in a multi-processing OS, when you put in the requested disk A, it could do the work it needs to do for disk A while the dialog for disk B is still on the screen.

--
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
Re:Is it burst speed? by somersault · 2008-01-10 05:57 · Score: 1

Excerpt from the storyboard for Mission Impossible Four:
Ethan *thinks* he has copied all the super secret files from the standalone server placed under heavy guard, in a room ventilated with a handy man-sized ventilation shaft, but then after 3 hours of ctrl-clicks and drag and dropping, and yanking his USB drive out just before a guard appears, he gets this warning! *cue deadly ass-kicking scene of sysadmins in Tuxedos*

--
which is totally what she said
Re:Is it burst speed? by DaleGlass · 2008-01-10 07:04 · Score: 1

Journalling is nice and all, but not perfect. There are several versions of it.

For example, ReiserFS only does filesystem data journalling by default. This means the filesystem's integrity is preserved, the data inside files isn't. It was quite famous for leaving random junk in files that were open at the time of an unclean shutdown.

There's a "data journalling" mode that solves the above problem, but it still isn't a perfect solution.

Example scenario: Program when saving a file opens it, truncates, then rewrites from the beginning. At that moment you yank the drive. The journalling FS recovers, you have no filesystem damage, and the data that got written is correct. But it only managed to write 1/3 of the file, so it's all hosed anyway. Journalling can't save you from that.

The only solution here is to have a transactional filesystem (reiserfs4 does this I think), where the application can tell the OS that a sequence of writes is supposed to be done all at once, or not at all. But this needs filesystem (only reiserfs4 does this AFAIK) and application support.
Re:Is it burst speed? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-10 07:25 · Score: 0

Online Forum:
Andy: I can't remove my USB drive, WHYNOT???? THIS IS REALLY STUPID.
Chris: (someone attempting to educate but will be ignored)
Bob: Just yank harder, then you don't have to worry about it again.
Andy: NOW MY USB DRIVE DOESN'T WORK! I YANKED IT OUT, AND ITS BROKEN!
Re:Is it burst speed? by lpq · 2008-01-10 07:27 · Score: 1

I *did* glaze^Wgraze over the original article -- guess I glazed more than grazed. :-)
Re:Is it burst speed? by DaleGlass · 2008-01-10 07:46 · Score: 1

Write through caching won't save you from a background process deciding to create thumbnails, or MS Word trying to autosave right when you're about to disconnect the drive.

Things like that don't happen under DOS because there's no multitasking, but they're perfectly possible on systems like Windows that are full of automated services working without the user's intervention.
Re:Is it burst speed? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-10 09:52 · Score: 0

Your experience does not match mine. Sorry, but this is happening to me all the time.

I haven't ever seen this, and I've been using MacOS X as my main OS for over 5 years now.

And there's no need for the insults - do you think I just pointlessly made up what I said above? What possible reason would I have for doing so?

Trolling (duh!).

Assuming you're not trolling, you probably have broken-by-design drives. If I recall correctly, an operating system can (and should) send a freshly-unmounted USB mass storage device a command which translates to "you're gone now, prepare for removal". The device should then shut down, cease responding to commands, and wait for the user to yank it. It's entirely possible that some drives, when sent this command, instead reset and reappear on the bus as if they were new devices, triggering the usual probing process which results in mounting the drive.

As with many things, such egregious bugs appearing in mass market products can often be explained by Windows-centrism. Many Windows users expect to be able to just yank a USB memory stick without explicitly unmounting it, so the command never gets sent in normal operation, so the cheapass manufacturers of the world never get around to testing it, so they ship with a bug.

This is all hypothetical of course, but this sort of thing really does happen. Most hardware, especially cheap USB doohickeys, only gets tested against Windows, and if it happens to work on other operating systems, it's like a windfall to the manufacturer.
Re:Is it burst speed? by jgrahn · 2008-01-10 10:34 · Score: 1

file data is stored in chunks of a fixed size called inodes; same idea as Windows block size option; and this size is predetermined at time of formatting and stored as part of the filesystem headers... w/ 4096 byte inode size, a 1 byte file consumes as much disk space as a 4096 byte file... exactly 1 inode

You use the term "inode" incorrectly. An inode is the unnamed, but numbered, file which a file name (or several file names, if there are hard links) refers to. There's probably a decent Wikipedia article which explains this.
I suppose what you are talking about is called a "block" or something.
Re:Is it burst speed? by astralbat · 2008-01-11 02:03 · Score: 1

On my Ubuntu desktop, gnome-volume-manager takes care of everything. It calls gnome-mount to mount/unmount/eject by listening to D-BUS events from HAL. Also there's the basic 'eject' command if you're interested in something more manual.

shades of future past by pilgrim23 · 2008-01-09 10:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

-Little fingers inside existing fingers to work with legacy USB devices... Does anyone rememeber the EISA slot standard designed to allow inserting a ISA card?
Now all we need is a MCA driver and we are in busienss for the new world of 1992.

--
- Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.

Re:shades of future past by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-09 11:26 · Score: 0

As far as I recall EISA just extended the physical length of the interface. It didn't use contacts within contacts.

MCA was a completely different bus interface and had nothing to do with ISA or EISA.
Re:shades of future past by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-09 12:02 · Score: 0

You don't have to go that far back. DVDs and CDs.
Re:shades of future past by Amouth · 2008-01-09 12:16 · Score: 1

you are right.. but there has always been scary looking cards.. (this is a modern example)

http://scottstuff.net/blog/articles/2005/05/12/broadcom-pci-e-pci-x-combo-sas-card

where you have 1 card and multiple board interfaces

--
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
Re:shades of future past by Agripa · 2008-01-09 14:43 · Score: 2, Informative

The EISA connector is the same length as the 16 bit ISA connector and has an extra row of pins on each side at a different height. The same double pin height design was used for the AGP connector.
Re:shades of future past by pndmnm · 2008-01-09 16:06 · Score: 1

I've got a couple of those -- an MCA/ISA 8514/A (mentioned in the link), and a CatWeasel MK3 with PCI on one side and an Amiga Zorro slot on the other. Never been dumb enough to hook two motherboards to them at once...
Re:shades of future past by zlogic · 2008-01-10 03:01 · Score: 1

This reminds me of Apple's Fat Binaries. And at least that's better than 1990-era Wacom tablets that used two ports, COM for data transfer and a pass-through PS2 connector for power.

Will it work on Linux? by Marcion · 2008-01-09 10:54 · Score: 4, Interesting

Is the software side of USB an open specification or some members only, pass the royalty thing that the open source world will have to take the next ten years reverse engineering?

--
My little Linux and tech blog

Re:Will it work on Linux? by Kjella · 2008-01-09 12:17 · Score: 1

Is the software side of USB an open specification or some members only, pass the royalty thing that the open source world will have to take the next ten years reverse engineering? I figure it'll be like the current USB support - reading and writing from USB as such work, but the userland drivers needed to actually make any device work will be equally lacking as today. That said, things are improving so if ATI keeps up their promises and selective purchase of hardware, you can hopefully have a gizmofied high-end PC with only open source drivers. With commercial Linux offerings, you can bet Linux drivers is now on the checklist with many bigshot manufacturers. That's got to count for something.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:Will it work on Linux? by ClamIAm · 2008-01-09 12:56 · Score: 2, Informative

Where do I get the spec for USB, EHCI or a device class?

P.S. These things aren't that hard to find for yourself. You can almost always use Google and/or Wikipedia to find the Web site of the company or consortium that defines a specification, or a page that explains the licensing.
Re:Will it work on Linux? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-10 07:21 · Score: 0

Googling is easy, but making you find it for us is even easier.

Other Fixes by MBCook · 2008-01-09 10:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

Oooh. It's faster. Wow. Didn't see that happening.

Did they fix the CPU overhead? Did they make a P2P version so that I don't need a computer to connect a camera to a hard drive and have it work? Basically, did they do anything to improve it for high-bandwidth applications (which is obviously what they're targeting) compared to FireWire?

The cable worries me some. I understand the drive for backwards compatibility, but it seems like they should make the cable more obviously different. It just looks like it will be too easy to accidentally use a USB 2 cable, not realize it, and then wonder why the device is running so slow. Just a little nub on the bottom of the connector would do it.

--
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.

Re:Other Fixes by Marcion · 2008-01-09 10:58 · Score: 1

Did they make a P2P version so that I don't need a computer to connect a camera to a hard drive and have it work?

Well as you know the Firewire had this feature in like 1990. I also agree it is very important to free USB from the PC. I also hate it when embedded devices only have unpowered USB so you have to always drag the device back to the PC.

--
My little Linux and tech blog
Re:Other Fixes by Svet-Am · 2008-01-09 11:06 · Score: 3, Informative

Did they make a P2P version so that I don't need a computer to connect a camera to a hard drive and have it work?

Yes, they did. Several years ago, in fact. It's called USB On the Go

--
[move .sig! for great justice, take off every .sig!]
Re:Other Fixes by Annymouse+Cowherd · 2008-01-09 11:30 · Score: 1

Did they fix the CPU overhead? Part of the point of USB is that there is no controller in the devices, making them cheaper.
Re:Other Fixes by tlhIngan · 2008-01-09 11:42 · Score: 2, Informative

Did they make a P2P version so that I don't need a computer to connect a camera to a hard drive and have it work?

Yes, they did. Several years ago, in fact. It's called USB On the Go

Actually, it's not strictly P2P using USB OTG. One device is still the host, the other the client. It's just there's a complex protocol they can go through (Host Negotiation Protocol) to switch roles if necessary. Of course, both sides have to support OTG.

Also, there aren't many devices out there that are actually OTG complaint. Most just have an USB host port. Or an illegal USB Mini-AB connector (reserved for OTG-logo'd devices), but they don't support OTG.
Re:Other Fixes by dfn_deux · 2008-01-09 12:40 · Score: 2, Informative

Nothing complicated about it, ground out one of the wires and the port acts as host, let it float and it acts as a device. Only limitation it has that doesn't exist as part of the regular USB standard is the available current is only half (IIRC) of the regular usb standard. Some usb chipsets allow the switching to be down with software instead of using special cables even, something like 'echo "host" >/proc/usb/0' or somesuch, check the internet tablet forums to see how the Nokia IT users are already making good use of both methods.

--
-*The above statement is printed entirely on recycled electrons*-
Re:Other Fixes by tlhIngan · 2008-01-09 16:55 · Score: 1

Nothing complicated about it, ground out one of the wires and the port acts as host, let it float and it acts as a device. Only limitation it has that doesn't exist as part of the regular USB standard is the available current is only half (IIRC) of the regular usb standard. Some usb chipsets allow the switching to be down with software instead of using special cables even, something like 'echo "host" >/proc/usb/0' or somesuch, check the internet tablet forums to see how the Nokia IT users are already making good use of both methods.

You didn't describe OTG. You described a port that could be host or client, but is NOT OTG compliant. In fact, if you're using a mini-AB port for that, the device isn't USB certified.

To be OTG compliant, the controller must support Session Request Protocol (which is how a client notifies a host, in case Vbus is gone (yes, OTG allows the host to turn OFF Vbus, and in the meantime, a device can be plugged in). If you plug the host end of the cable, the host may power up Vbus for a few seconds, fail to find any device, then turn off Vbus to save power. When you plug the client end of the cable in, the client will use SRP to tell the host "Hey, I'm here! Enumerate me!" if Vbus is off. It's a slightly convoluted protocol because D+ is supposed to be pulled by a pullup resistor to Vbus, which isn't there.

Also, OTG devices should support Host Negotiation Protocol. This is because you can hook two OTG devices "backwards" (i.e., you plug the host end of the cable on the wrong device). HNP allows for the devices to switch roles (device becomes host, host becomes device) without swapping the cable ends.

FInally, OTG devices must have a "Targeted Peripherals List" - a list of devices that the OTG compliant device supports (really, a subset since the spec does not call for what happens when unapproved devices are connected). HNP is often used in this way - if the device isn't on the list, or can't be driven, the host enables HNP on the client (SET_FEATURE command), then suspends the bus. The device, if it wants to be host, then becomes the host.

To support this, the OTG spec describes a state machine - interesting states likes A_Peripheral and B_Host exist because HNP may switch the roles of the device electrially. Also, all OTG devices draw a minimum of 8mA to power the OTG circuitry. And they are only required to supply 100mA of power (this can be problematic).

OTG isn't embedded USB host. OTG is a complex spec, which is why there are practically ZERO OTG certified devices out there. MOst "OTG" devices are really devices that can be host or client, but they don't support the full OTG spec.

It's such a hack that people who spec "USB OTG" really often mean "Supports USB Host" when they learn of the complexities of the OTG specification. And people really want USB Host, hot this hacky OTG protocol, so they can plug in their thumbdrives and cameras. Most devices do this, they don't support OTG. Supporting USB Host via a mini-AB plug != USB OTG.

PS: The mini-AB and mini-A plugs are officially deprecated because of devices using them when they don't support OTG, just USB host. The new spec is micro-AB and micro-A.
Re:Other Fixes by spacefrog · 2008-01-09 18:01 · Score: 1

Of course, both sides have to support OTG.

Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.

Only the devices that need to be able to operate in both roles need to be aware of it. A host is still a host, a client is still a client. In OTG, a client that doesn't find a host can try to act as a host itself.

If you plug a thumbdrive into an OTG printer, the printer will become host and the thumbdrive client. Plug a PC into the OTG printer and the PC (which isn't even OTG) is host and the printer submits, like a good little boy, as client.

It isn't perfect, and far too few devices (outside of occasional printers) are OTG (hint: Nokia and Archos...I'm looking at both of you), but where it's available, it's a good thing.
Re:Other Fixes by sjames · 2008-01-10 02:39 · Score: 1

The cable worries me some. I understand the drive for backwards compatibility, but it seems like they should make the cable more obviously different. It just looks like it will be too easy to accidentally use a USB 2 cable, not realize it, and then wonder why the device is running so slow. Just a little nub on the bottom of the connector would do it.

The physical spec is very tightly controlled to make sure there will be no problems. If any cable will fit in the space provided, all will. The LAST thing we need is a 'little nub' that won't allow the spiffy new device to be plugged in where it's needed. Perhaps mandate that the cables be electric blue with dayglo orange connectors or some other clear visual clue. A distinctive logo that feels different but fits in the same space on the plugs would also be needed for blind users.

All things considered, USB has been a big success, mostly because it specifies physical, electrical, protocol and device logical interfaces tightly. The big exception seems to be scanners. The big improvement I would like to see is a standardized scanner interface and a requirement that any device that uses a vendor specific interface when a standard one would do be required to prominantly display a new 'USB mark of shame'.
Re:Other Fixes by tylernt · 2008-01-10 15:01 · Score: 1

but it seems like they should make the cable more obviously different.
I agree, but for a different reason. The user has a 50/50 chance of trying to plug in upside down (or in my case, a 99% chance). Even a marking dimple on the top of the cable wouldn't help when the USB port is sideways (as on the back of a tower PC).

A U shaped connector with clear visual and tactile orientation feedback -- or even better, a round barrel that can be used in any orientation -- would be superior to the user-unfriendliness of the USB connectors we have today.

--
DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'

Just goes to show... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-09 10:55 · Score: 5, Funny

... that longer male connectors are better.

Re:Just goes to show... by 4D6963 · 2008-01-09 11:11 · Score: 5, Funny

longer male connectors are better.
Nooo it's not how long they are but what they do. Besides if female connectors like long male connectors bigger that's because they themselves are *too* deep. A short male connector fits a "shallow" female connector as nicely as a long male connector fits a deep female connector.
So girls, quit complaining and laughing and get it worked out! Oh wait, oops..

--
You just got troll'd!
Re:Just goes to show... by 4D6963 · 2008-01-09 11:18 · Score: 1

if female connectors like long male connectors bigger
Err crap, I'm afraid I meant better. Quite a slip of the tongue indeed.. :-S

--
You just got troll'd!
Re:Just goes to show... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-09 12:36 · Score: 0

Yeah but sometimes you get a long male connector, and a shallow female connector and it keeps hitting the back wall. And then there's bruising and complaints... Er what were we talking about again?
Re:Just goes to show... by sound+vision · 2008-01-09 13:07 · Score: 0

Girth is more important than length, yo. Unless you're so deficient on length that it becomes a chode.
Re:Just goes to show... by stewbacca · 2008-01-09 14:58 · Score: 1

Call me weird, but I prefer female-to-female connectors for some strange reason ;-)
Re:Just goes to show... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-09 17:10 · Score: 0

Just goes to show... that longer male connectors are better.

No, they just finish much more quickly ;-).

Then what's the point of SATAII? by Kickboy12 · 2008-01-09 11:01 · Score: 4, Interesting

Funny how I just upgraded to a new computer that uses SATA 3.0Gb/s. If USB3 is faster than SATAII, then why not just use that for drives? Not that anyone ever really maxes out SATAII to begin with. So it's all kind of useless in the end.

--
google.slashdot

Re:Then what's the point of SATAII? by Midnight+Thunder · 2008-01-09 11:10 · Score: 3, Informative

Funny how I just upgraded to a new computer that uses SATA 3.0Gb/s. If USB3 is faster than SATAII, then why not just use that for drives? Not that anyone ever really maxes out SATAII to begin with. So it's all kind of useless in the end.

The problem with SATA, IMHO, is that makes a shoddy external connector. There is no notion of hubs or even daisy-chaining. USB and Firewire both support hubs, whereas Firewire supports daisy-chaining. With SATA you need as many external SATA sockets on your computer as you have external SATA drives. If your main computer is a portable, then this is a poor solution.

--
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Re:Then what's the point of SATAII? by Compholio · 2008-01-09 11:13 · Score: 1

If USB3 is faster than SATAII, then why not just use that for drives? Not that anyone ever really maxes out SATAII to begin with. So it's all kind of useless in the end.
Significant (unnecessary) computational overhead.
Re:Then what's the point of SATAII? by 4D6963 · 2008-01-09 11:14 · Score: 1

I'm fairly confident SATA is easier on the CPU than USB. Besides as I heard (in some previous comment), USB isn't too good at high speed continuous transfers, more at bursting.

--
You just got troll'd!
Re:Then what's the point of SATAII? by RobFlynn · 2008-01-09 11:15 · Score: 5, Informative

I've seen SATAII hubs before.

Here's one that I found with a couple seconds of googling: http://www.cooldrives.com/sahub5muussi.html

--

---
Rob Flynn
Pidgin
Re:Then what's the point of SATAII? by dmsuperman · 2008-01-09 11:17 · Score: 0

Well USB 2.0 is faster than IDE. I'm honestly not sure, I thought about this before but I'm sure it makes sense. I figured why not make hard drives use USB as well. I was thinking that USB should be use for all sorts of connections, basically everything in the computer but the LAN.

--
:(){ :|:& };: Go!
Re:Then what's the point of SATAII? by Joe+The+Dragon · 2008-01-09 11:47 · Score: 1

it's up to the sata chipset some put more load on the cpu.

Also there are high end SAS / SATA RAID cards with there own ram and cpus.
Re:Then what's the point of SATAII? by crabpeople · 2008-01-09 11:48 · Score: 1

"With SATA you need as many external SATA sockets on your computer as you have external SATA drives"
When I was looking into building a san like device I did some research on this. If you google "Port Multiplier SATA", you will find plenty of different options.

--
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
Re:Then what's the point of SATAII? by Jesus_666 · 2008-01-09 13:54 · Score: 1

If USB3 is faster than SATAII, then why not just use that for drives?
Probably because if they didn't make major changes to how the USB chipset works, USB 3.0 will still rely on the CPU to do its work. Additional CPU overhead on every HDD access is not something you want.

--
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Re:Then what's the point of SATAII? by Jeff+DeMaagd · 2008-01-09 14:41 · Score: 1

SATA is a native connection for the drives, with all the benefits you get from that, no latency, and without a port multiplier, a dedicated link to the computer. With USB, you add another protocol and another control chip in the way.
Re:Then what's the point of SATAII? by Nikker · 2008-01-09 14:47 · Score: 1

Check out TCP / UDP

--
A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
Re:Then what's the point of SATAII? by smilindog2000 · 2008-01-09 17:36 · Score: 1

I checked your sig link... ssh tunneling is cool, which is what I assume you mean? I spent a couple days last week installing Windows for the first time in years... it was weird, like one of those movies where you go back to high school. Anyway, I installed VirtualBox on a Fedora7 box, and copied over the Windows virtual drive, and booted it up. To control it, I ssh tunneled VNC (which is otherwise very insecure) to my Ubuntu laptop at home. Then, remotely, I installed Cygwin in the virtualized Windows machine so I could essentially run Linux, and port a Linux application to Windows.

It was soooo strange... Using Linux to ssh-tunnel a remote VNC port to view VirtualBox running Windows running Cygwin, all so I could run gcc... and the funny thing is that the virtual XP machine running over all that crud still ran faster than Vista :-)

--
Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
Re:Then what's the point of SATAII? by dave420 · 2008-01-09 22:54 · Score: 1

The CPU overhead of USB?
Re:Then what's the point of SATAII? by ivan256 · 2008-01-10 07:42 · Score: 1

That's not true.

The SATA protocol has multiplexing bits so you can attach multiple drives through the same host port and software can understand which device it is talking to. There are a variety of SATA "hubs" on the market (usually built into JBOD or SCSI enclosures) that allow you to connect many devices to the same SATA or eSATA port. (Search for "SATA port multiplier") SATA also supports longer cable lengths than USB. However a big advantage of USB for non-storage peripherals is that USB can provide power, and SATA cannot.

Why USB 3.0 when there's IEEE 1394 b/S3200 by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-09 11:03 · Score: 0

Why go to all this trouble to make USB faster when IEEE 1394b/S3200 already seems to fit the bill so well? Might someone educate me?

Re:Why USB 3.0 when there's IEEE 1394 b/S3200 by amliebsch · 2008-01-09 11:12 · Score: 1

Because USB will probably still be cheaper to license and implement.

--
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
Re:Why USB 3.0 when there's IEEE 1394 b/S3200 by Libertarian001 · 2008-01-09 13:11 · Score: 1

It's a pissing contest. Firewire is designed for high-speed devices like (video) cameras, USB is designed for low-speed peripherals like keyboard/mouse. They're each very good at what they're designed to do. But Apple owns the TM on Firewire and charges more for royalties than some companies, like Intel, are happy with. So Intel pushed USB 2.0 to supplant Firewire. And now they're doing it again vs. Firewire s3200.

Basically, somebody made a good toy, and the monopoly/incumbent doesn't think they need to play nicely so is forcing some other pile of shit down people's throats. That's not to say that USB 2.0 was bad or that 3.0 will be, just that we really don't need another device raising our consumer electronic costs.

And yes, I'm throwing Firewire around when it's more accurate to say IEEE 1394.
Re:Why USB 3.0 when there's IEEE 1394 b/S3200 by dingleberrie · 2008-01-09 13:19 · Score: 1

Basically because 1394b is not backwards compatible with USB 2.0 and 1.1.

Many embedded chips are available with build in logic for USB peripherals, hosts, or On-The-Go, which is really both in one.
Most Firewire options require an extra logical chip. It is simply less expensive to implement USB when it is good enough for what you need, and you have the extra security knowing that many PCs out there are natively compatible if you implement one of the common protocols such as HID or Mass Storage.

Naming by teslatug · 2008-01-09 11:06 · Score: 5, Funny

So they're going with a 3.0 instead of some crazy More Full Speed (TM) name this time?

Re:Naming by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-09 11:24 · Score: 0

you must have missed this: "SuperSpeed USB"

-kevin
Re:Naming by Brobock · 2008-01-09 11:24 · Score: 5, Informative

So they're going with a 3.0 instead of some crazy More Full Speed (TM) name this time?

FTA:
Dubbed SuperSpeed USB, the third major incarnation of the serial bus standard is set to deliver data transfer speeds of around 4.7Gb/s - ten times today's 480Mb/s limit.

They haven't TM'd it yet though.
Re:Naming by ozbird · 2008-01-09 11:44 · Score: 1

Does that mean USB 4.0 will be SuperDooperSpeed USB?
Re:Naming by 172pilot · 2008-01-09 11:54 · Score: 1

Maybe they should just call it "Full High Speed" to add to the confusion, and imply that perhaps with this version you may get the "full" advertised speed.. ;-)

--
-Steve Tired of voting for the "lesser of two evils?" Come talk about it on www.bothsidesarewrong.com
Re:Naming by Anonymous+Freak · 2008-01-09 12:30 · Score: 1

If you RTFA, you'll see that it's "SuperSpeed".

--
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
Re:Naming by ClamIAm · 2008-01-09 13:04 · Score: 1

Actually, I had the same question as the OP, and I did read the article. While it makes sense that USB 3.0 will be branded like this, the article doesn't actually say "the USB Forum (or whoever) will introduce a new logo with 'Superspeed'".

I can't say I read news at full mental capacity all the time :)
Re:Naming by jollyreaper · 2008-01-09 16:21 · Score: 1

Dubbed SuperSpeed USB, the third major incarnation of the serial bus standard is set to deliver data transfer speeds of around 4.7Gb/s - ten times today's 480Mb/s limit. SSUSB. Damn, that rolls off the tongue with all the grace of a technicolor yawn.

--
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Re:Naming by MrNemesis · 2008-01-10 00:29 · Score: 1

Just calling it SuperSpeed USB is far too simple. In order to bring it to compliance, we'll need SuperHighSpeed USB (USB 1.1), SuperFastSpeed USB (USB 2.0) and SuperMegaSpeed USB eXtreeeeeem (USB 3.0). To make matters simpler, Firewire should also be renamed to SuperFastSpeed Un-universal Serial Bus (UUSB for short).

--
Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
Re:Naming by szobatudos · 2008-01-10 01:31 · Score: 1

No, you're wrong, they coined a buzzword for 3.0:
Dubbed SuperSpeed USB, the third major incarnation of the serial bus standard is set to deliver data transfer speeds of around 4.7Gb/s - ten times today's 480Mb/s limit.
Re:Naming by Anonymous+Freak · 2008-01-10 17:07 · Score: 1

Here you go. Straight from the horse's mouth. It is to be called "SuperSpeed USB".

And, if they do like they did with USB 2.0, they will make a point of separating out the USB version from the speed. i.e. When referring to the standard, you call it "USB 1.1" or "USB 2.0", no matter what speed. And when referring to the speed, you call it "USB Low Speed", "USB Full Speed", or "USB Hi-Speed". I imagine this will continue to hold true, and it will be "USB 3.0" when referring to USB 3.0-compliant hardware, and "SuperSpeed USB" when referring to the new speed.

--
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
Re:Naming by sys_mast · 2008-01-11 06:41 · Score: 1

Yes, but will USB 2.0 devices be allowed to labeled USB 3.0 Full speed? While actual faster(better?) devices are to be called USB 3.0 Hi-Speed?

--
Those who can, do.

its like DB9 all over again... by johnrpenner · 2008-01-09 11:08 · Score: 3, Interesting

the more things change, the more they stay the same -- now
they're back to using 9 pins to implement the spec -- other than
making the connectors physically different so people don't end up
plugging in old RS-422 cables into it -- from the number of actual
pins needed to implement a spec -- we're physically back to using
9 pins that were available in the DB9 form factor, only this connector
is considerably more difficult to manufacture. :-^

Re:its like DB9 all over again... by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · 2008-01-09 11:13 · Score: 1

No doubt. Then there should be like a usb3.5 that has 25 pins, for connecting an external DSL / Cable Modem and cool 9 pin to 25 pin adapters lying around everywhere.

--
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Re:its like DB9 all over again... by that+this+is+not+und · 2008-01-09 13:25 · Score: 1

Also, the software/firmware overhead will continue to get more complex. The design goal, I think, is to make it so that only Large Companies can design any hardware peripherals.
Re:its like DB9 all over again... by merreborn · 2008-01-09 13:26 · Score: 1

we're physically back to using
9 pins that were available in the DB9 form factor, only this connector
is considerably more difficult to manufacture.
With devices getting smaller and smaller all the time, USB's small connector size works in its favor.

Imagine for a moment, trying to use a DB9 connector with an iPod Nano, an iPod Shuffle, an asus EEE PC, or just about any digital camera. DB9 connectors on any of these would necessarily increase the size of the devices themselves dramatically.
Re:its like DB9 all over again... by Jesus_666 · 2008-01-09 14:13 · Score: 1

Then IEEE comes up with a smaller 9-pin FireWire connector and everyone will go FireWire. Most peripherals will be happy with S400's bandwidth, external hard drives will stick with S800 as that's already faster than the drive itself and S3200 will be reserved for really fast stuff like solid state disks, professional A/V equipment or networking.

And yeah, unless they'd somehow make the new jack very expensive, it'd make sense for an S400 device to have a 9-pin port so you can just daisy-chain a faster device behind it.

Seriously, if USB hardware became more expensive then FireWire hardware, USB's only remaining advantage would be its ubiquity.

Of course it remains to be seen where the big market for such speeds is. Unless external SSDs become really popular, anything beyong FireWire S800 will be of zero use to most consumers. Of course people would see USB 3.0 as an improvement over USB 2.0, but thats because USB 2.0 is pretty slow. If USB 3.0 hardware became noticably more expensive than FireWire 800, FireWire might take over the external storage market for the same reason USB beat it out before: Cheaper hardware.

--
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Re:its like DB9 all over again... by zippthorne · 2008-01-09 15:15 · Score: 1

Just try and imagine the lance that would compose UPP (universal parallel port) if constructed in the same way....

--
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Re:its like DB9 all over again... by Achra · 2008-01-09 15:38 · Score: 1

Just curious.. Did you compose that on a Commodore 64? The 40 columns and lack of capitalization are a dead giveaway.

--
Each processor would proceed sequentially as if it had been better for them not to rise against Saul.
Re:its like DB9 all over again... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-09 16:42 · Score: 0

It's also a lot easier to bend a pin on a DB9 connector. Considering all the ways I could step on or wrongly insert a USB connector, it probably would survive and still work. At least you can't snap a pin off like with DB9 or other such styles of connection. That's progress of sorts, even if it is more difficult to manufacture.

We are going to and have already seen this cycle over and over. At some point, it seems logical to increase the number of conductors in a copper bus, and make it more parallel. Then we come up with more intelligent serialized protocols, and it doesn't seem so logical to run in parallel. Then again somebody realizes that we can run a serial protocol over a wider parallel bus and then we go back the other direction.

Hey, it is called Universal Serial Bus...it ought to work a lot like any serial bus. So we have new cables and sockets, so what?

-Ben
Re:its like DB9 all over again... by petermgreen · 2008-01-09 23:03 · Score: 1

Also, the software/firmware overhead will continue to get more complex. The design goal, I think, is to make it so that only Large Companies can design any hardware peripherals.
If you don't need high performance then you can do USB full speed with a single not too expensive microcontroller that is availible in a DIP package and for which the firmware is freely downloadable from the manufacturers website. Hell you can even get free samples of this chip.

If you need high speed then things do get harder simply because dealing with 480 megabits per second is not trivial but it certainly isn't large companies only either.

--
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Re:its like DB9 all over again... by gauauu · 2008-01-10 03:10 · Score: 1

[i]If you don't need high performance then you can do USB full speed with a single not too expensive microcontroller that is availible in a DIP package and for which the firmware is freely downloadable from the manufacturers website. Hell you can even get free samples of this chip.[/i]

Can I get a link?
Re:its like DB9 all over again... by petermgreen · 2008-01-10 03:24 · Score: 1

http://www.microchip.com/stellent/idcplg?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&nodeId=1335&dDocName=en010280 for 28 pin
http://www.microchip.com/stellent/idcplg?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&nodeId=1335&dDocName=en010300 for 40 pin

All your circuit needs to contain for USB to work is the pic, a crystal and a handfull of passives.

You will need a suitable programmer but they aren't too expensive either. e.g. the pickit 2 is less than £20 http://www.microchipdirect.com/productsearch.aspx?Keywords=PICkit+2+Microcontroller+.

You will need microchip C18 but the "student edition/demo" version of that is perfectly adequate even when it has gone into feature limited mode.

The firmware is a little trickier to find as it is grouped under the stuff for the demo board at http://www.microchip.com/stellent/idcplg?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&nodeId=1406&dDocName=en021940

--
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Re:its like DB9 all over again... by KevReedUK · 2008-01-10 09:56 · Score: 1

Unless external SSDs become really popular How popular do you want the damn things to become? Most ppl I know own at least one such device in the ever-popular "thumb-drive" form-factor...

--
Just my $0.03 (At current exchange rates, my £0.02 is worth more than your $0.02)
Re:its like DB9 all over again... by KevReedUK · 2008-01-10 10:05 · Score: 1

Considering all the ways I could step on or wrongly insert a USB connector, it probably would survive and still work. Dunno about you, but I've lost count of the number of people who have asked me to look into why their USB attached peripheral isn't working, only for me to find they've somehow (and the how always remains something of a mystery to me) managed to fold back one or more of the contacts in the USB connector.

Is is just me, or is the use of thinner, almost foil-like, contacts becoming more and more prevalent in a drive (no pun intended) to keep costs, and possibly also weight, down?

--
Just my $0.03 (At current exchange rates, my £0.02 is worth more than your $0.02)
Re:its like DB9 all over again... by Jesus_666 · 2008-01-10 10:43 · Score: 1

Actually, I was talking about those mythical "significantly faster than hard drives"-SSDs. Thumb drives hardly fit into that category. They're nice, but neither are they a hard drive replacement, nor are they fast enough to saturate even a USB 2.0 connection.

I'd really like a thumb drive capable of read/write speeds beyond 800 MBit/s, though.

--
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Re:its like DB9 all over again... by gauauu · 2008-01-14 09:16 · Score: 1

Thanks.

You can't insert a quote in a sentence like that by edittard · 2008-01-09 11:10 · Score: 1

of "USB 3.0, the upcoming version of the universal add-on standard re-engineered for the HD era, made a small appearance at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES)."

Nope.

[...] of USB 3.0, the upcoming version of the universal add-on standard re-engineered for the HD era, which made a small appearance at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES)...

or maybe

[...] of USB 3.0. The upcoming version of the universal add-on standard re-engineered for the HD era, made a small appearance at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES)...

Or, if the part in quotes really is the title of the other article (shame on whoever wrote it), then refer to it as such:

In the article titled "USB 3.0, the upcoming version of the universal add-on standard re-engineered for the HD era, made a small appearance at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES)," someone said ...

--
At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.

The point of difference busses by l2718 · 2008-01-09 11:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

Because there's more to a bus than the bandwidth. USB has a lot of overhead (it can be branched, hook many devices etc). SATA is dedicated for controlling storage. That's why we put cameras on the USB, hard-drives on a SATA bus, the network card on the PCI bus, video card on the VESA bus ...

Re:The point of difference busses by sconeu · 2008-01-09 11:46 · Score: 1

video card on the VESA bus ...

1993 called. They want their bus back.

Video goes on either AGP bus (for older systems) or the PCI-E bus.

--
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Re:The point of difference busses by evilviper · 2008-01-09 13:11 · Score: 1

That's why we put cameras on the USB, hard-drives on a SATA bus, the network card on the PCI bus, video card on the VESA bus ...

By that logic, USB should never have taken off...

There's a reason we put printers on the Parallel ports, and Modems on the Serial/RS-232 ports.

And how about PCI and ISA? There's plenty of reason to put devices on the ISA bus, instead of the PCI bus.

And with PCI-E, you do put your video card and network card on the same bus (yeah, yeah: more or less).

Not to mention that a great many people do indeed put external hard drives on their USB2 bus.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:The point of difference busses by that+this+is+not+und · 2008-01-09 13:22 · Score: 1

I have some SCSI ethernet adapters. I've heard of SCSI printers.

More Contacts! by jessiej · 2008-01-09 11:14 · Score: 1

USB 3.0, now with as many contacts as serial ports!

Re:More Contacts! by Colourspace · 2008-01-09 13:15 · Score: 1

Whats your point? It's still a lot less connectors than the traditional parallel port style in a smaller form factor and offering higher data rates.
Re:More Contacts! by Jesus_666 · 2008-01-09 13:50 · Score: 1

When I think about what I'd want from a new USB standard I immediately think that it should become like FireWire. Having a true bus is very nice. Also, a scenario I've encountered a few times is that I'm plugged into my external HDD and someone wants to copy over a large file to my laptop. Since we both have FW 800 ports, he just plugs his laptop into my hard drive and we instantly have a really fast network going - daisy chaining and network capability are an awesome combination. Also, there's the whole 'enough amperes to reliably power a 2.5" hard drive' thing and the fact that FireWire controllers are self-contained.

Even though I know I'm going to have USB 3.0 before I'll encounter a FW 3200 capable machine, I do think that we'd be better off if either FireWire replaced USB or USB started emulating FireWire. FireWire is just better at pretty much anything except HID.

--
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Re:More Contacts! by Hal_Porter · 2008-01-09 18:32 · Score: 1

Actually USB does have a strange mode called USB On the Go. The idea is that the bus mastership can be passed around on the bus. It's not general though and PCs don't implement it as far as I know. It's designed so that PDAs and printers can act as device when a PC is present and a master when it isn't.

But yeah, Firewire was in retrospect a much better design that USB. The power supply issue is just another example of this.

--
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Re:More Contacts! by petermgreen · 2008-01-09 22:21 · Score: 1

passed arround the bus is a bit of an exaggeration. If you have only two devices and both are otg capable they can swap between being master and slave but as soon as you introduce a hub into the system the master can no longer move.

--
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register

Probably not by XanC · 2008-01-09 11:15 · Score: 2, Informative

They'll come up with that later. USB 1 had two data rates: "low speed", 1.5Mbits/s, and "full speed", 12Mbits/s. USB 2.0 added "high speed" at 480Mbits/s. No idea what superlative they'll reach for this time.

Re:Probably not by RobFlynn · 2008-01-09 11:18 · Score: 4, Funny

Super Mega Ultra USB Supreme Ranger... CONNECT!

--

---
Rob Flynn
Pidgin
Re:Probably not by Oktober+Sunset · 2008-01-09 11:21 · Score: 1

Ubz0r Speed.

--
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
Re:Probably not by phallstrom · 2008-01-09 11:30 · Score: 5, Funny

Ludicrous speed!

There's really no other option...
Re:Probably not by sconeu · 2008-01-09 11:43 · Score: 5, Funny

But then they'd have to make all the connectors plaid.

--
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Re:Probably not by SimonTheSoundMan · 2008-01-09 11:45 · Score: 1

Vista Speed.

I'll get my coat.
Re:Probably not by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-09 12:00 · Score: 0

Ludicrous Speed, of course.
Re:Probably not by albeit+unknown · 2008-01-09 12:20 · Score: 0, Redundant

It's obvious.

Ludicrous Speed
Re:Probably not by Anonymous+Freak · 2008-01-09 12:33 · Score: 1

Bwahaha!!!

That was my exact though (minus the "Supreme Ranger" part.) I was searching the thread to make sure nobody else had made fun of the name, and came on your post.

I swear I was going to post "Super Mega Ultra Speed USB"... (Of course, now I would look like a copycat.)

--
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
Re:Probably not by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-09 12:33 · Score: 4, Funny

Super Mega Ultra USB Supreme Ranger... CONNECT!

Private: Captain EHCI, unknown device in range!
Captain: Run level 9 enumeration protocol, stat!
Private: Error -123: device is not accepting our address!
Captain: Arm the compatibility layer and reset the host controller!
Private: Device is a Super Mega Ultra class AHCI master!
Captain: Increase port voltage to 480V and reenumerate!
*ZZAP*
Private: Reporting overcurrent condition on port 5, and Super Mega Ultra device running in low-speed compatibility mode!
Captain: Roger that, commence loading driver modules.
Re:Probably not by stewbacca · 2008-01-09 14:55 · Score: 1

And here I thought "plaid" was fast enough.
Re:Probably not by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-09 17:08 · Score: 0

That reminds me of when Nintendo was going to release the N64. I really wanted them to call it the "Super Duper Nintendo".
Re:Probably not by vlad30 · 2008-01-09 17:26 · Score: 1

They'll come up with that later. USB 1 had two data rates: "low speed", 1.5Mbits/s, and "full speed", 12Mbits/s. USB 2.0 added "high speed" at 480Mbits/s. No idea what superlative they'll reach for this time.

USB plaid !!

--
Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
Re:Probably not by dilipm · 2008-01-09 21:51 · Score: 1

Duh! Its called "Super Speed". Copy/Paste from Wiki:- * A Low Speed (1.1, 2.0) rate of 1.5 Mbit/s (187 kB/s) that is mostly used for Human Interface Devices (HID) such as keyboards, mice, and joysticks. * A Full Speed (1.1, 2.0) rate of 12 Mbit/s (1.5 MB/s). Full Speed was the fastest rate before the USB 2.0 specification and many devices fall back to Full Speed. Full Speed devices divide the USB bandwidth between them in a first-come first-served basis and it is not uncommon to run out of bandwidth with several isochronous devices. All USB Hubs support Full Speed. * A Hi-Speed (2.0) rate of 480 Mbit/s (60 MB/s). Experimental data rate: * A Super-Speed (3.0) rate of 4.8 Gbit/s (600 MB/s). The USB 3.0 specification will be released by Intel and its partners in mid 2008 according to early reports from CNET news. According to Intel, bus speeds will be 10 times faster than USB 2.0 due to the inclusion of a fiber optic link that works with traditional copper connectors. Products using the 3.0 specification are likely to arrive in 2009 or 2010.
Re:Probably not by jim9000 · 2008-01-10 02:27 · Score: 1

Ludicrous speed, of course.
Re:Probably not by Oktober+Sunset · 2008-01-11 07:16 · Score: 1

Super Ubzor mega McAwesome speed.

--
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?

Still using rectangular connectors, I see. by croddy · 2008-01-09 11:15 · Score: 5, Funny

p>Whatever they come up with, in the end, I have only one wish for the USB3 hardware developers: that they be made to plug 1000 of them in upside down in the dark.

Re:Still using rectangular connectors, I see. by Loibisch · 2008-01-09 20:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

This should have been modded insightful, not funny...because there's nothing less funny than to connect an USB cable when you can just barely reach (but not see) the connectors. You never know if you just didn't hit the USB-port straight or if you're trying it 180 degrees reversed and have no chance whatsoever.

It's a tragedy, really...
Re:Still using rectangular connectors, I see. by quenda · 2008-01-10 14:15 · Score: 1

You never know if you just didn't hit the USB-port straight or if you're trying it 180 degrees reversed and have no chance whatsoever. And if it does feel like it went in neatly, it still might have been the spare ethernet socket, which is exactly the same width.
Re:Still using rectangular connectors, I see. by dotancohen · 2008-01-10 21:42 · Score: 1

At least that won't get her pregnant.

--
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Re:Still using rectangular connectors, I see. by ewanm89 · 2008-01-11 00:29 · Score: 1

/me can't count the number of times when he tried to plug a usb device into side of laptop, and find he found the ethernet port next to them...

A serious question by moosesocks · 2008-01-09 11:17 · Score: 5, Interesting

What happened to firewire? All signs point to it going extinct in the very near future....

Wasn't it vastly superior to USB? It had a higher maximum throughput that could almost be realistically achieved, delivered useful amounts of power over the bus, and allowed devices to talk to each other. The audio/video features are pretty nice as well....

Both firewire and usb were well-supported on all platforms, so *that*'s not the issue. It's also robust, to the point of being found in many modern aircraft designs and the space shuttle.

IEEE1394c is even cooler, and uses CAT5e/RJ45 for wiring, allowing for automatic negotiation between other 1394 devices, and normal ethernet devices. Max speed is 800mbps, and it very nicely bridges the gap between "traditional" peripherals, and network-attached devices.

So what happened? Did I miss something? Who killed Firewire?

--
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose

Re:A serious question by Lumpy · 2008-01-09 11:36 · Score: 4, Interesting

Going extinct? huh?? I dont see any pro cameras ditching firewire for usb.

I see sata taking over for external hard drives. I converted all my firewire 800 external drives on my powermac tower to SATA 3 drives last year and gained a crapload of performance at 1/3rd the price. but every HD camcorder that is more than a toy for the masses has firewire on it and will be there forever. Even the hard drive based cameras from panasonic that cost more than most guys' houses still have firewire on them.

Problem is SATA has a failure point. I can have 20 foot firewire cables.. good luck making sata work over 3 feet.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:A serious question by Dan+East · 2008-01-09 11:37 · Score: 1

What happened to firewire? All signs point to it going extinct in the very near future....

Really? The last several computers I've purchased all had integrated Firewire ports. We're purchasing a couple new digital video cameras (at a few thousand dollars each), and it is Firewire all the way. I think Firewire is doing just fine in the arena it was designed for. To me USB is a bloated mess (ever try to do any low-level USB programming? It's a joke!) that ended up pretty much being mediocre all around.

Dan East

--
Better known as 318230.
Re:A serious question by appleguru · 2008-01-09 11:37 · Score: 5, Informative

Nobody... The problem with firewire is its cost-- USB is, on the device side, dirt cheap to implement. This comes at the cost of needing a host controller (your computer) to do anything and that comes with CPU use overhead. Firewire requires these 'controllers' in every device, making it far more useful (allowing things such as communication without a computer!), robust, and fast without the overhead. But it costs more! And, as we know, price is what drives the marketplace. As a 'normal' uniformed consumer, would you buy a firewire 400 widget for $100 if the usb version cost $50 and both "did the same thing" and ran at a theoretical "480 mbps" (And we all (by all, I mean us on slashdot) know how well usb2 does that...). As a 'normal' consumer, of course not!

Firewire is far from dead, however... Nearly all consumer/prosumer mini dv cameras use it (including hdv cameras), many set top boxes and HDTVs have 1394 links on them for connecting devices (DVHS decks, HDTVs, and cable boxes... this transport MPEG-2 transport streams), and every mac since the iMac debuted has shipped with firewire ports on it (Many, many external hard drives have firewire ports on them.. the good ones anyways ;))... Sony has been shipping 1394 on its vaio computers for ages (in the form of i.link), and all modern computer manufactures have followed suit.

So, to answer your question, consumers "killed" firewire by being... well... price conscious consumers. But in reality it's not going anywhere, and with any luck and all the cool networking capabilities the firewire spec has these days it will eventually catch on with the majority of consumers as a convenient way to interconnect devices and stick around for good.

--
appleguru.org
Re:A serious question by Pecisk · 2008-01-09 11:38 · Score: 2

No one. Simply Firewire is in pro market, so it gets less attention of mainstream press. Still, FW rules over Apple world (Hard disks, scanners, cameras), and is taking serious inroads on Windows and Linux platforms. Still, USB3 can deliver some blow to posibility that Firewire will come into casual computer user.

Many say that USB consorium is more organised and actually delivers. While Firewire has been promising, it's market has been difficulty to deliver actual results. And also there is simple reason why USB is popular, because there USB is supported EVERYWHERE. Firewire don't have such marketshare.

--
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
Re:A serious question by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-09 11:38 · Score: 0

Apple killed firewire when Jobs decided to increase royalties, naturally, the hardware makes switched over to USB, and normal people never heard about it, but instead got riddled with USB gadgets. Firewire might be superior to USB in almost every one, but its just so expensive the hardware makers have decided on USB, and blame any lack of promised performance on your computer (which is true, technically).
Re: A serious question by Conley+Index · 2008-01-09 11:43 · Score: 1

> What happened to firewire? All signs point to it going extinct in the very near future....

Since for everyone else it is IEEE 1394, which simply does not sound very sexy, I have an idea who is in the position to let FireWire die. Anyhow, I will refrain from naming it here, since it would be all too unpopular...
Re:A serious question by Aluvus · 2008-01-09 11:43 · Score: 1

The answer to your question lies in the false assumption that IEEE 1394 was "well-supported on all platforms". Apple adopted it enthusiastically, but others did not. That is what killed it, in a nutshell.

There are a few reasons for this. Apple initially wanted royalties for Firewire devices, which of course made them more expensive and less attractive to make. For peripheral makers, this was on top of the higher cost of implementation vs. USB on pure hardware costs. USB is dead simple and dead cheap to implement; take any serial (RS-232) device, slap an interpreter chip on it (less than $1 these days) and you're done. This is obviously not a high-performance solution, but if you have an existing device (mouse etc.) it is cheap and gets you to market quickly.

IEEE 1394 is technologically a very good standard (or set of standards, now), and has always been more advanced than USB. But USB has always been cheaper and easier, and "good enough" for most applications. And those things turn out to matter a great deal more in the marketplace.

--
Never mistake "can" for "should".
Re:A serious question by rhizome · 2008-01-09 11:45 · Score: 1

I see sata taking over for external hard drives.

If you're talking about eSATA, I wouldn't be posting that prediction in this thread. It's got a long way to go.

good luck making sata work over 3 feet.

The eSATA spec is 2m max cable length.

--
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
Re:A serious question by rho · 2008-01-09 11:48 · Score: 1

Firewire chips are more expensive.
Apple used to charge a licensing fee for Firewire. It wasn't much, a buck or two, but that annoys people. Dunno if they still do.
USB is really useful for keyboards and mice, very convenient for little flash drives that don't need the full meal deal of Firewire. Ubiquity made USB more popular. Firewire is still popular on higher-end machines, and still cheap to add via expansion slots.

--
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
Re:A serious question by alx5000 · 2008-01-09 11:49 · Score: 1

I used you first in my laptop in '92
Getting my new cd-recorder plugged through you
If I was young, it didn't stop you coming through

Aww, awwa...

They started making peripherals for USB
with much more simple and slower technology
and now I understand the problems you can see

Aww, awwa...

USB killed the firewire stack
USB killed the firewire stack
For my Win and in my Mac
I can't find any peripheral

Aww, awww awww awww awwww...

--
My 0.02 cents
Re:A serious question by bgeerdes · 2008-01-09 11:53 · Score: 2, Informative

every mac since the iMac debuted has shipped with firewire ports on it

Wrong. The original iMacs just had 2 USB ports. Firewire didn't appear until the iMac DV/SE.
Re:A serious question by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-09 11:57 · Score: 0

Who killed Firewire?

Intel, by including USB 2.0 on their motherboards.
Re:A serious question by jas203 · 2008-01-09 11:59 · Score: 1

Firewire (or IEEE 1394) is a more expensive protocol to implement due to the p2p nature of it. IEEE 1394 devices have to be able to determine how to talk/respond to other devices all sharing the same bus. USB has a single host driving everything, as such devices can be a lot more "dumb". The result is that it is much cheaper to implement USB devices (such as flash disks) than it is with IEEE 1394.

With Microsoft throwing it's weight behind USB too, Firewire has all but disappeared. It's a shame really as IEEE 1394 is a much nicer interface - USB is very clunky, especially the "real world" USB implementations.
Re:A serious question by jubei · 2008-01-09 12:11 · Score: 1

Nearly all laptops come with a mini-firewire port. I believe this is an unpowered port, so it is only really good for things like disk drives that you don't mind plugging into a wall or camcorders with their own batteries.

The popularity of the unpowered plug makes firewire infeasible for things like webcams, mice, keyboards, thumbdrives, game controllers, and for most other things we currently use USB. So, one could venture to say that firewire is dead for certain classes of devices.
Re:A serious question by DECS · 2008-01-09 12:33 · Score: 5, Informative

Microsoft actually supported Firewire before getting USB complete, particularly USB 2.0, where the two standards overlap in certain areas. While Firewire was invented by Apple, Microsoft also actually delivered support for IP over Firewire first (several years first), although I doubt many people used it on Windows because most PCs that have Firewire only have the 4-pin, non-powered version like Sony's iLink. Mini-to-mini Firewire cables are not too common.

Apple didn't support IP over Firewire networking until around 10.3.5 IIRC. Now that it's there, it is actually quite useful on Macs as a secondary network interface, since all modern Macs have FW400 and many now have FW800 too. Macs also have smart enough firmware to use Firewire in Target Mode, which is a significant feature other PCs won't match anytime soon.

The new FW3200 uses the same connector as FW800, an advantage over the different and more complex USB 3.0 connector.

Another advantage of Firewire is that it provides higher voltage for charging, so it can power more significant devices and can recharge devices faster. It's noticiably faster to charge iPods/iPhone over Firewire. The 30-pin Dock Connector has Firewire compatible pins for charging, even though modern iPods don't support Firewire for data exchange.

There's really no reason for Apple to drop Firewire, and it will be difficult for PC makers to match the features of Macs even when including Firewire ports on their PCs. Not only do BIOS PCs lack any firmware support for target mode use, but Microsoft dropped IP over Firewire in Vista (!). USB 3.0 might bump the speed for new devices, but it doesn't match the Firewire-related features that exist now, and doesn't match the throughput of FW3200, which is also in the pipeline.

Ten Big Predictions for Apple in 2008
What's Apple going to be up to in 2008? The previous article looked at clues from the Newton MessagePad to the iPhone. Here's a look at the potential future of the rest of Apple's businesses, from hardware to software to services.
Re:A serious question by BuishMeister · 2008-01-09 12:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

besides firewire stack being slightly more expensive, the firewire hardware doesn't provide the power to the slave devices. So for simple things like mice / keyboards / thumb drives / card readers it is a killer. Personally, I'd take a slower speed over inconvenience of having to fumble with multiple cords, and lugging another wall cube around. USB even sprung up a whole market segment that uses the bus just for power ( lights, fans, aquariums, ash-trays, etc).
Re:A serious question by LWATCDR · 2008-01-09 12:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

Well part of it is Firewire isn't a replacement for USB. I haven't seen a Firewire keyboard, mouse, printer, or joystick. Yes it is mediocre all the way around but it works well for some devices that Firewire doesn't work at all for. And works well just okay for many devices that Firewire works well for. Firewire will always be an port you have to get in addition to USB. so it will alway be less popular. But I would agree with you that it isn't dead.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:A serious question by Jeffrey+Baker · 2008-01-09 12:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

This is the stupidest and most-wrong, and also the most commonly believed, reason for FireWire's relative obscurity. Sure, there was a royalty for the FireWire name, but that hardly mattered in the great scheme of things. Early FireWire ASICs cost $50. Even today, a FireWire interface will set you back $20. USB interfaces are in the vicinity of $1. On top of that, your device must implement a complicated peer-to-peer software protocol. This costs even more. So the $1 royalty was only a tiny part of FireWire's overall higher cost.

If you want to find out exactly how complicated the FireWire protocol is, just look in the Linux kernel. The 1394 subsystem is a huge piece of code, and it's also by far the lowest quality of all the major subsystems. Compare to the USB subsystem, which works perfectly.
Re:A serious question by jeremycole · 2008-01-09 12:56 · Score: 1

My firewire hard drive would tend to disagree, as does Wikipedia: "Its six-wire cable is more flexible than most Parallel SCSI cables and can supply up to 45 watts of power per port at up to 30 volts, allowing moderate-consumption devices to operate without a separate power supply."
Re:A serious question by macs4all · 2008-01-09 13:05 · Score: 1

It's more like $20 to add Firewire to a fairly high-volume product.
Fry's (outpost.com) lists the Seagate ST305004FPB1E3-RK 500GB external, with eSATA, Firewire (400) and USB 2.0 for $199.99, and the ST305004FPB1E2-RK, which is the same drive (and I'm sure the same PCB less the FW chip, connector, and a few "passive" components) for only $20 less, which is a far lower price difference, percentage-wise, than the parent postulated.
IMHO, A $20 adder seems fair, considering the cost differential and the lower volumes.
Qute frankly, I think that price differential would shrink to nearly nothing, if they'd just put FW on every external. The USB protocol is simply not suited to streaming large chunks of data. But that's what Firewire lives for.
Re:A serious question by fm6 · 2008-01-09 13:26 · Score: 1

Firewire is hardly dead. (firewire stuff.) I know people who rely on it for serious media work. But for most consumer applications, where you don't need a lot of sustained throughput, USB is just as fast, a lot cheaper, and easier to integrate into things like cameras and MP3 players.

Did somebody say "DVRs"? Those work best with eSATA.
Re:A serious question by that+this+is+not+und · 2008-01-09 13:27 · Score: 1

Firewire(tm) is a registered Apple trademark. That in part should explain what happened to it.
Re:A serious question by that+this+is+not+und · 2008-01-09 13:33 · Score: 1

Quite frankly, I think that price differential would shrink to nearly nothing, if they'd just put FW on every external.

Unfortunately, that would mean every peripheral sold would include a royalty to Apple. And I don't think everybody is that enthusiastic about kissing Jobs' ring. Yes, I know that there's an IEE standard. There's a Java standard, too.
Re:A serious question by that+this+is+not+und · 2008-01-09 13:38 · Score: 1

One hint is that Apple took the word 'computer' out of the company name.

It becomes easier all the time to believe that Jobs actually took Scully up on the dare and intends to sell sugar water to kids for the rest of his life. I remember the headsmacking point when I noticed all the iTunes promotions on the labeling of soda bottles...
Re:A serious question by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-09 13:46 · Score: 0

The point is that not all Firewire ports provide power, whereas all USB ports provide power. Granted, there is some confusion over powered vs. unpowered USB hubs, which provide different amounts of power, but the difference is not a matter of zero vs. nonzero as it is with Firewire.
Re:A serious question by professorfalcon · 2008-01-09 13:46 · Score: 1

Maybe if Sony pushed it as Blue-raywire, it would catch on.
Re:A serious question by moosesocks · 2008-01-09 13:59 · Score: 1

While Firewire was invented by Apple, Microsoft also actually delivered support for IP over Firewire first (several years first), although I doubt many people used it on Windows because most PCs that have Firewire only have the 4-pin, non-powered version like Sony's iLink. Mini-to-mini Firewire cables are not too common.

Although I love Firewire, and will agree you on all of the points you made, I have one small objection:

The 4-pin socket seems to have only made it onto PC-based laptops and Sony PCs. Every PC desktop I've used had a 'normal' 6-pin socket, although I've admittedly been building my own over the past few years, and many mainstream desktops tend to omit the ports altogether, so my experience isn't all that vast.

That all said, I don't think the failure of IP via 1394 was due to the connectors. It's just not that useful. Ethernet is generally 'good enough' for transfers between machines. On the other hand, Apple's target disk mode is a fantastic combination of speed and simplicity, and is an absolute godsend for IT folks (especially if you've ever had to pry a hard drive from the iron grip of a powerbook)

--
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
Re:A serious question by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-09 14:09 · Score: 0

Firewire is to USB what SCSI is to IDE.

One uses complex hardware and has more "interesting" features while the other is dead simple and cheap.
Re:A serious question by Jesus_666 · 2008-01-09 14:15 · Score: 1

Seeing as I'm migrating my external storage from USB to FireWire (and people getting Macs tending to do the same): Nobody, it's quite healthy. Just not as ubiquitous as USB is.

--
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Re:A serious question by arse+maker · 2008-01-09 14:43 · Score: 1

Microsoft!!! Oh, sorry, reflex. Actually, every motherboard ive bought in the past few years has firewire.
Re:A serious question by Jeff+DeMaagd · 2008-01-09 14:53 · Score: 1

I'm pretty sure that's outdated information, I can't believe you'd remember it that way. That's as dumb as saying you'd have to kiss the CEO of AOLTW to use the DVD standard and pay WB royalties. It's not like that. WB is part of the DVD group, and the amount of money going to them isn't very much.

A Firewire device maker doesn't pay royalties directly to Apple, but to the Firewire organization, which distributes the royalties to Apple, Sony and others. The total per-port royalties are $0.25, Apple only gets a small portion of that.
Re:A serious question by stewbacca · 2008-01-09 14:53 · Score: 1

Wrong.
That's some serious people skills.
Re:A serious question by Jeff+DeMaagd · 2008-01-09 14:59 · Score: 1

The number of non-computer devices supporting Firewire seems to be declining. There aren't that many TVs that use it that I've seen. miniDV and HDV is falling out of favor compared to USB-linked solid state or drive based cameras, in part because of the slow tape system, but many computers not having 1394 is a detriment to miniDV and HDV. Apple and Sony are the primary proponents of 1394, other most other computer brands did not standardize on it.
Re:A serious question by armanox · 2008-01-09 17:55 · Score: 1

The reason that there are no IEEE 1394 keyboards, mice, or joysticks is that THAT'S NOT WHAT FIREWIRE WAS MEANT FOR! Firewire was designed to replace external SCSI connectors that were used for devices such as HDD's and whatnot. USB on the other hand was meant to handle low bandwith devices such as keyboards and mice, and as such does not perform well on high bandwith devices such as HDD's and the like. So, you could say Firewire replaces external SCSI and some serial and parallel devices, while USB was to replace PS2 and MIDI ports.

--
I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
Re:A serious question by dangitman · 2008-01-09 18:38 · Score: 1

As a 'normal' uniformed consumer, would you buy a firewire 400 widget for $100 if the usb version cost $50 and both "did the same thing" and ran at a theoretical "480 mbps"
Well, if I were a uniformed consumer, I'd buy whatever my commander orders me to buy!

--
... and then they built the supercollider.
Re:A serious question by Hal_Porter · 2008-01-09 18:59 · Score: 1

If you want people skills go post on kuro5hin.

--
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Re:A serious question by zakezuke · 2008-01-09 19:03 · Score: 1

Well part of it is Firewire isn't a replacement for USB. I haven't seen a Firewire keyboard, mouse, printer, or joystick. I have seen at least one Firewire printer. The Epson r800 has a firewire port, as i'm sure the higher end models do.

I'll agree I've not seen firewire for most letter/a4 printers, but it's often an option for wide models like the canon i9900. I'm shocked it doesn't seem to be offered on the Epson 1400.

--
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Re:A serious question by Hal_Porter · 2008-01-09 19:18 · Score: 1

Actually for peripheral manufacturers it's even more stark choice. If you have cheap microcontroller with a USB interface, and there is a very wide choice of them, writing the embedded software is absolutely trivial and there are loads of resources on the net if you get stuck. It's one of those things that's become very widely understood amongst engineers like all the other PC standards. I don't think Firewire is anything like that.

--
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Re:A serious question by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · 2008-01-09 20:04 · Score: 1

FireWire is hardly expensive at all. It's just that in a market full of people trying to make the cheapest product possible, small expenses go out the door.
Re: A serious question by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · 2008-01-09 20:14 · Score: 1

Apple? Apple would never let it die, because a large portion of their pro users rely on FireWire, and I doubt USB 3 is going to change that. I got into an argument a while ago about FireWire, and what some people don't realise is that niche markets can be profitable, and Apple knows that. FireWire isn't dying because it was never "alive" in the same market as USB in the first place. It was never design only to compete with USB. Unfortunately, many people don't realise this, and hence FireWire is "dying" just as much as Apple is.
Re:A serious question by imsabbel · 2008-01-09 21:10 · Score: 1

That might have been true 5 years ago, but nothing ever followed up.
No "serious inroads" ever manifested.

In fact, FW IS on the decline.
The ratio of Laptops and Camcorders being fitted out with them has been dropping for at least two years now.
They days when you could expect one are more or less over even with video.

--
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
Re:A serious question by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-09 22:52 · Score: 0

I'm shocked it doesn't seem to be offered on the Epson 1400.

Shocked. And stunned. Very stunned.

http://skyjude.users.btopenworld.com/rutles.htm
Re:A serious question by petermgreen · 2008-01-09 23:08 · Score: 1

but how much kit is REALLY esata compliant rather than just being ordinary sata devices with ESATA plug adaptors built into it's case.

--
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Re:A serious question by petermgreen · 2008-01-09 23:11 · Score: 1

In the consumer market usbs low price and intels market pressure won out over firewires better performance and host independence.

In other markets such as proffessional AV firewire is still strong.

--
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Re:A serious question by petermgreen · 2008-01-09 23:19 · Score: 1

I have to say I think using the 4 pin connector for the computer end (which is pracitally ubiguous on laptops though as you say far less common on desktops) was a bad thing for firewire. It means that either device manufacturers have to ship two cables one of which can't be used or consumers have to buy the cable seperately.

Firewire 800 makes things even worse by requiring yet more cable types.

--
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Re:A serious question by bhiestand · 2008-01-09 23:37 · Score: 1

From my understanding, Apple owns Firewire. It's proprietary and manufacturers have to pay a royalty to Apple. Supposedly, this is the reason I can't find a decent motherboard with IEEE 1394b.

Although it is a superior technology, restricting its use in PCs gives Apple a competitive advantage in the video editing/imaging markets.

--
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
Re:A serious question by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-09 23:54 · Score: 0

to SATA 3 drives Seems you're living in the future...
Re:A serious question by RedBear · 2008-01-10 00:55 · Score: 1

I don't know where this idea comes from that FireWire is somehow going to die out sometime next week. Just because your typical pee-cee and other consumer level hardware still doesn't include a usable FireWire port doesn't mean it isn't being used and appreciated in other circles. High-end DV cameras, scanners and many other pieces of equipment that actually need reliable data transfer rates that won't use up a third of your CPU cycles all use FireWire almost exclusively. FireWire and combo USB/FireWire external drives are readily available as they have been for years.

That's all without even mentioning a certain "fruity" computer company that is well on its way to grabbing 10% of the consumer computer market sometime in 2009, if they keep growing at their current rate. Every computer they've sold in the last 8 years has had at least a FireWire 400 port. For at least half that time the higher end models have also had FireWire 800 ports, and FireWire 800 ports are even starting to appear on the lower end consumer models. These are the powered 6-pin and 9-pin ports too, none of that 4-pin i.Link crap, so external devices don't need separate power in many cases. Thus a lot of the owners of these fruity computers have come to appreciate FireWire for various reasons.

As for how it will compare to USB 3.0, I believe the new FireWire 3200 spec (3.2Gbps) was finalized a few months ago and will probably be appearing later this year in new computers and devices. The best part is that the new spec uses the same connectors as FireWire 800 so it's backwards compatible. I think they managed to increase the maximum cable length in the new spec too.

No, FireWire isn't going anywhere, and I doubt that USB 3.0 will be able to outperform the new FireWire 3200 spec despite being once again technically "faster". If they didn't somehow get rid of the CPU load issues with USB any machine attempting to get close to that theoretical 4.7Gbps transfer speed will be brought to its knees. God help you if you mix a USB 2.0 or 1.1 device in with your USB 3.0 devices on the same bus. Unless they're making it so you can use the USB 3.0 contacts independently of the USB 2.0/1.1 contacts, which I doubt very much. Mixing the old USB devices will zap the top speed down to as little as 50% of the theoretical maximum, just like USB 1.1 does to a USB 2.0 bus. I'll be impressed if they've actually found a way to fix that niggling little problem.

The two technologies really aren't direct competitors like most people think. They have different things they're each good at, and I don't think that's going to change overnight. I have to second a comment another poster made about "USB On-the-Go" devices. I got one that was supposed to let you transfer data between two USB storage devices and after trying it with several flash drives and card readers I was thoroughly unimpressed, not least of all because it was only capable of USB 1.1 speeds. It only worked about one out of four times and I'm not even sure about that. FireWire, on the other hand, has been doing hostless (i.e. "computerless") device-to-device transfers since day one, because it was designed to allow that.

When you get above the level of, "I need a port to plug in my flash drive and keyboard," FireWire has always been far superior to USB in getting the job done. It's not expiring anytime soon.
Re:A serious question by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-10 01:54 · Score: 0

USB3 probably includes those extensions to the protocol that supports charging via USB by feeding more amperage than the standard USB amperage by the way.

That's the reason most major mobile phone manufactures promised to standardize the microUSB connection in their phones (instead of proprietary connections? I hope so, because then, costumer wins!).
Re:A serious question by maxume · 2008-01-10 01:59 · Score: 1

The market for stupid existed long before usb.

--
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Re:A serious question by LWATCDR · 2008-01-10 03:17 · Score: 1

ummm... So the point is that a specialized connection will always be less popular than a more general purpose connection...

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:A serious question by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-10 06:18 · Score: 0

Firewire is only "dying" in that it's no longer on the iPod.

I'm pissed. My old "click-wheel" iPod can transfer 17GB of music in around 10 minutes over Firewire. The fancy-ass new iPhone is USB only, and can transfer just under 8GB of music in around 45 minutes. Hoo-fucking-ray for progress.

Well, that's one lost sale for new iPods... probably the only one on this issue...
Re:A serious question by punkinhead97223 · 2008-01-10 07:03 · Score: 1

I have heard once or twice that Steve Jobs is called "The Father of USB" in that requiring a license to use firewire caused the open USB standard to be embraced by others.

--jason
Re:A serious question by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-10 07:42 · Score: 0

besides firewire stack being slightly more expensive, the firewire hardware doesn't provide the power to the slave devices.

Not true, the full-sized firewire connectors do provide power. (And possibly the miniature ones as well.)
Re:A serious question by macs4all · 2008-01-10 08:17 · Score: 1

Um, I said every EXTERNAL [Hard Drive]. That is a far cry from every PERIPHERAL. Having said that, I think that Scanners and video tuners/capture-ers and some printers would also benefit GREATLY by a little Firewire-love.

Yes, I know there are SOME scanners and video tuners/capture-ers that support FW; but not ALL, by any stretch of the imagination.

And, assuming the other Reply-er (Replicant?) stated that the FW "royalty" is about a U.S. Quarter (25 cents), that amounts to the inclusion of about one more glue logic package, or one more Op Amp. In other words, relatively insignificant on any device that sells for more than $50 retail.
Re:A serious question by bill_mcgonigle · 2008-01-10 10:27 · Score: 1

Even today, a FireWire interface will set you back $20.

There seems to be a $5-10 per port cost at retail, the ASIC+connector can't be $20.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:A serious question by Jeffrey+Baker · 2008-01-10 11:24 · Score: 1

Well you're right, I was looking at an older TI catalog, but they still list budgetary pricing for this dual-phy peripheral interface at $10 in quantity.

http://focus.ti.com/docs/prod/folders/print/tsb43aa82a.html

If you're looking at an expansion card with multiple ports it probably has only 1 ASCI (if it has 4 ports or fewer).
Re:A serious question by bill_mcgonigle · 2008-01-10 12:58 · Score: 1

Hmm, I'm not in a position to crack open a case at the moment to pull a part #, but several mobos I've received recently have had firewire ports on them and I doubt they'd throw them in at $10. Maybe one of the bridge chip manufacturers has built it in...

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:A serious question by Kral_Blbec · 2008-01-10 14:02 · Score: 0

I dont think ive ever owned or known somebody that owned a firewire device. I have the port of course (its disabled actually) but there just arent many devices that use it thus nobody cares to upgrade it. Come to think about it, i cant think of ever seeing a firewire device.
Re:A serious question by that+this+is+not+und · 2008-01-10 20:46 · Score: 1

Op-amps cost in the range of $0.01 in production quantities.

So you're talking about twenty five op-amps there. A quarter is NOT a trivial amount in today's market.
Re:A serious question by Altus · 2008-01-11 05:33 · Score: 1

I suppose on desktops there really isn't much of a reason to include firewire. Most people don't need it. Heck, most people dont have external hard drives at all, but if you do need firewire its trival to add a PCI card to get it. On a laptop its more valuable built in.

I agree with you on target disk mode, that has been so good to me over the years. Its not the sort of thing you use often but when you need it its fantastic.

--
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Re:A serious question by Altus · 2008-01-11 05:39 · Score: 1

Steve Jobs was the "Father of USB" because before the iMac came out there were not very many USB devices. When the iMac hit there was a big spike in USB devices like keyboards and mice and even *shudder* floppy drives.

--
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Re:A serious question by rhizome · 2008-01-12 05:36 · Score: 1

but how much kit is REALLY esata compliant rather than just being ordinary sata devices with ESATA plug adaptors built into it's case.

You are, of course, right! However, you're merely putting an even sharper point on the stick that the original poster was using to clean their ears. USB and FW are going to be here for quite awhile, and frankly I'd prefer the one to survive that uses the least amount of CPU.

--
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
Re:A serious question by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-13 18:30 · Score: 0

You are a total idiot.

USB's biggest shortcoming - cable length by pyite69 · 2008-01-09 11:18 · Score: 1

Will the new spec allow for super long USB cables?

Ideally, I would like to have long DVI and long USB cables, then I could put my computer in the other room altogether. The noise improvement would be HUGE.

Re:USB's biggest shortcoming - cable length by ClamIAm · 2008-01-09 13:17 · Score: 1

I realize that the only equivalent (noise-wise) to moving a computer out of the room is something totally silent. However, one can reduce noise quite a bit with a better case and cooling setup.

Of course if you have a Prescott P4 and "gaming" graphics card, you might not see that much of an improvement...
Re:USB's biggest shortcoming - cable length by Hal_Porter · 2008-01-09 19:29 · Score: 1

Will the new spec allow for super long USB cables? I doubt it. It's a marketing nightmare to sell someone a 10m cable and have them bring it back because it doesn't work with the USB 2.0 PC, or a USB 3.0 PC connected to a USB 2.0 device. Not that they're likely to know that they have USB 2.0, they'll just know that the "USB 3.0 only 10m cable" doesn't work.

But it doesn't really matter. Just get a bunch of 5m cables and hubs and string them together.

--
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;

Hopefully, it'll be New Jack CITY and not ... by davidsyes · 2008-01-09 11:19 · Score: 1

... new jack SHITTY...

(assuming there'll be technical impositions alluded to elsewhere...)

--
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"

Re:Hopefully, it'll be New Jack CITY and not ... by Stringer+Bell · 2008-01-09 11:58 · Score: 1

That was funny!

Sincerely,
1994

I hate USB connectors by Epistax · 2008-01-09 11:21 · Score: 1

I break them easily. When reaching behind a computer it's damn near impossible to tell which way they go in. Sometimes, they DO go in the wrong way. This usually ends up breaking the port, not the cord, which is probably a lot worse.

Maybe I suck at USB cables, but it's the only kind of cable I have to double check for fear of destroying hardware. Cases are never on properly so it's not like it just slides in easily the right way either.

Re:I hate USB connectors by provigilman · 2008-01-09 11:30 · Score: 1

Ummm...get a hub? Then you can plug them in from anywhere!
http://catalog.belkin.com/IWCatProductPage.process?Product_Id=357371/

--
"Life's short and hard, like a body building elf." -- The Bloodhound Gang
Re:I hate USB connectors by Epistax · 2008-01-09 11:49 · Score: 1

At work I use dozens of computers, depending on what I'm doing. I don't think I can convince IT to even buy $5 hubs.
Re:I hate USB connectors by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-09 11:50 · Score: 0

Put a bit hair around it, then you'll get it in first time...

One suggestion by edwardpickman · 2008-01-09 11:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

Can they start color coding USB cable types? Some of us old timers have been around since 1.0 was popular. I've got a box full and it's always fun trying to find the 2.0 cable hiding among the 1.0 cables.I hate to toss them but I really haven't any use for 1.0 cables. I'd just love to see some kind of coding system since they all use the same connectors. At least with hard drives every time they change them we get new connectors. It may make them backwardly compatible but it does cause confusion.

Re:One suggestion by Zaffle · 2008-01-09 11:36 · Score: 1

I've got a box full and it's always fun trying to find the 2.0 cable hiding among the 1.0 cables

Here's a tip..... USB 1 CABLES - THROW THEM OUT. Serious. Under what possible circumstance could you ever say, "oh bugger, I need a USB cable, and all I have is these stupid 2.0 cables?" (ok, ok, the exception is when you need a USB3.0 cable).

Repeat after me; throw out old cables.

--

I use to have a funny sig, but slash cut it off, and I forgot what the punchline was.
Re:One suggestion by Teilo · 2008-01-09 11:40 · Score: 4, Informative

Umm, you do realize that USB 1.0 and 2.0 use the exact same cables and connectors, don't you?

Just asking, because you sound too serious to be joking.

--
Mir tut es leid, Menschen daß Einfältigfehlersuchenbaumfolgendenaffen sind.
Re:One suggestion by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-09 12:13 · Score: 0

Typically USB 2.0 requires shielded cables I think. This drove me nuts one day.
Re:One suggestion by ffflala · 2008-01-09 12:17 · Score: 5, Funny

That's not true! USB 2.0 requires gold-plated contacts for maximum bus fidelity. Monster makes a good USB 2.0 cable, and it goes for a steal at $79.99 per cable.

If you put the 2.0 cables in the freezer to align the molecules before you use them you get even better bus response. All of my devices have this warmer, more human feel when I'm using properly-designed cables.
Re:One suggestion by Feanturi · 2008-01-09 12:21 · Score: 3, Funny

They use the same connectors, but USB 2.0-rated cables are better shielded. A cable made when USB 1.1 was all there was did not have to be capable of carrying as much data. USB 2.0 is 40 times faster than "full speed" USB 1.1, so if you want to ensure you're getting the most out of your device, you want a higher grade of cable.
Re:One suggestion by glitch23 · 2008-01-09 12:46 · Score: 0

I've got a box full and it's always fun trying to find the 2.0 cable hiding among the 1.0 cables.I hate to toss them but I really haven't any use for 1.0 cables.
I have an extra box if you are too hard up to buy something that comes in a box (to eventually use the empty box) or if you are too lazy to find an empty one. With the extra box you can place all your 2.0 cables in one and the 1.0 cables in another. It might be difficult overcoming the quantum superposition of the cables though since someone else said that the same USB cable can do both 2.0 and 1.0. Maybe you can tape/glue the 2 boxes together and cut away the inner walls and then you can have all cables in both boxes at once?

--
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
Re:One suggestion by Jesus_666 · 2008-01-09 14:20 · Score: 2, Funny

Yeah, but you only get a really warm feeing if your USB controller uses vacuum tubes. Seriously, after using vacuum tube-driven USB once, I'm not going back to that silicone crap.

--
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Re:One suggestion by toddestan · 2008-01-09 15:26 · Score: 1

Here's a better tip, USB2 cables are exactly the same as USB1 cables. Best Buy and Monster want to convince you otherwise, so you have to repurchase your $29.99 gold plated printer cable, don't fall for it.
Re:One suggestion by jollyreaper · 2008-01-09 16:28 · Score: 2, Funny

Umm, you do realize that USB 1.0 and 2.0 use the exact same cables and connectors, don't you?

Just asking, because you sound too serious to be joking. But the thing with going to USB2 is that you have to loop the cable at the device side. See, the datastream is coming with such force, if you don't put the loop in the line it will be coming with too much pressure to be written properly. The loop helps slow the data flow to a writable rate.

With the high-speed hard drives these days, defag is more important than ever. At lower speeds, you could get away with having your data spread unevenly over the platters. With the rpm's the drives are doing now, that kind of imbalance can cause the platters to wobble and the bearings can go out. Defragging the drives spreads the data evenly and you get a nice, smooth operation.

--
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Re:One suggestion by Hal_Porter · 2008-01-09 19:39 · Score: 1

I dunno, I find the colors on my expensive dye sublimation printer are much more saturated and full bodied when I use a mid range $99.99 isotopically pure solid gold cable than a cheap $29.99 gold plated one. I don't think the the $299 solid platinum USB cables are worth the price though.

--
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Re:One suggestion by olman · 2008-01-09 21:14 · Score: 1

Has to be better constructed with tighter specifications all around. It's big difference running stuff at 480Mbps vs 12Mbps even if the superficial cable pinout/construction is similar.

Technically speaking it comes down to transmission line impedance, line capacitance and such factors. "shielding" as such is not enough, the distance between the shield and the data wires has to be controlled and so on.

I mean, honestly. You don't expect CAT4/5/6 cables to be interchangeable even if they look similar. Do you?
Re:One suggestion by Teilo · 2008-01-10 03:46 · Score: 1

Well, if y'all can show me a single documented form of proof that the USB spec for 2.0 requires a cable in any way different that the spec for 1.0, then I will gladly issue a mea culpa.

Otherwise, I think y'all are just trying to justify all that extra money you spent on new cables.

--
Mir tut es leid, Menschen daß Einfältigfehlersuchenbaumfolgendenaffen sind.
Re:One suggestion by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-10 04:34 · Score: 0

Maybe they got USB A/B confused?
Re:One suggestion by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-10 06:54 · Score: 0

For that extra degree of quality, I suggest you use a wooden plug. It reduces the vibration of the electrons and increases the quality of the harmonics immensely (as proved by the Weelie-Smalldix test in the Feb '04 issue of Amplitude Magazine).

And of course, don't let the cords actually lay on the ground, they will capacitatively couple with the floor and introduce distortion. Get the Monster Erector series tube carries for best results. You can try to make them yourself by reading the legendary article "putting holes in cardboard" in highlights magazine, but you will get better results with the precision holecutters that Monster's factories have.
Re:One suggestion by CityZen · 2008-01-10 07:43 · Score: 1

I've come across several cables made for USB 1.1 that definitely do not work with USB 2.0.
Some were just ribbon cables, essentially. USB 2.0 requires twisted pairs for the data lines
and shielding around the whole cable.

It's likely that the bad 1.1 cables were not designed to spec, but worked okay with 1.1.
They are definitely not designed to the USB 2.0 spec (which you can download from usb.org).

Btw, there is a different spec for low-speed USB cabling vs. full/high-speed (section 6.6).
Re:One suggestion by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-10 10:18 · Score: 0

I've come across several cables made for USB 1.1 that definitely do not work with USB 2.0. Some were just ribbon cables, essentially. USB 2.0 requires twisted pairs for the data lines and shielding around the whole cable. So did USB 1.1. The whole idea of 2.0 was "let's see how fast we can make the massively overspecified USB 1.1 cables and connectors go!". Or at least that's what I recall from the early press when they began work on it, and reading the relevant documents after it was released, but it's been a while. I could be wrong.

I do have distinct memories of reading something downloaded from the standards website which amounted to "hey, you cable manufacturers, you can't get away with murder anymore and you're actually going to have to meet signal integrity requirements now".

They by Kamineko · 2008-01-09 11:22 · Score: 1

They'd better come up with some very distinct symbol for this, else my USB 3 cables are all going to be mixed up with my other USB cables.

Still half vertically symmetric by Trogre · 2008-01-09 11:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

Aargh, this connector is *still* symmetrical vertically in form factor but not electrically. Which means you'll have people fumbling behind computers/laptops turning the connectors upside-down until the cable is twisted trying to plug in their camera/mouse/hdd/coffee maker.

Either change the shape of the connector (something like RJ11 would be fine) or make the pins such that it can be inserted right-way up or upside down (figure-eight power cable connectors for example).

--
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife

Re:Still half vertically symmetric by MattHawk · 2008-01-09 11:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

One good example is the Apple Macbook power connectors. They're palindromic, so even though they're a plain rectangle, they plug in either way (and have a power LED on both top and bottom to accommodate such). They need either that, or a nub to indicate alignment - I HATE fumbling around with USB cables to get them plugged in.

Of course, this would require abandoning backwards compatibility... but seriously, by the time that there are only USB3 ports on a device, I'm pretty sure we'll be past needing to plug 2.0 devices into it, and if we need to use an old device that badly, it would be easy enough to make them electrically compatible such that a simple dumb cable adapter can fit it. Old device standards are passed by for new ones all the time, and clinging to backwards compatibility at the costs of advancement can be a serious mistake - clinging to backwards compatibility at all costs is a significant amount of what's hampering Windows right now, for example.
Re:Still half vertically symmetric by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-09 13:53 · Score: 0

Either change the shape of the connector (something like RJ11 would be fine)

No, it would *not* be fine! Never mind the plastic break-off piece -- I still have to fumble around trying to figure out whether to plug in my ethernet cable this way or that way, because I've owned laptops that do it both ways. And on a tower computer, "up" is "sideways", and it's not at all obvious which way "up" should be, even if there was a standard "up" for RJ-11/45.

Cables should be either symmetric in-and-out (like some power connectors, as you note, or headphone jacks), or ridiculously asymmetric (even Firewire is a bit too symmetric for me, in most cases).
or make the pins such that it can be inserted right-way up or upside down (figure-eight power cable connectors for example).

That would be a good start. I still think they should go all the way and make most cables fully hermaphroditic so we don't even have to worry about which end we're plugging in (though I know the USB folks really want to make it impossible for device enumeration to fail due to "too many extension cables" so they just forbid extension cables altogether).
Re:Still half vertically symmetric by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · 2008-01-09 20:20 · Score: 1

Yeah, I still find this a problem when the ports are vertical, since it's never obvious which way the connector goes even if you look at the little symbol on the plug before you begin your fumbling around.
Re:Still half vertically symmetric by imsabbel · 2008-01-09 21:13 · Score: 1

I guess there will _never_ be a time when only usb3 devices will be around.

Why would one want to put the electronics neccessary to interface at gbit speeds into a mouse, or a keyboard?

--
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
Re:Still half vertically symmetric by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-09 22:48 · Score: 0

Have you never seen a serious programmer typing really fast?
Re:Still half vertically symmetric by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-10 00:49 · Score: 0

Actually...they could make the ports backward compatible, but not the plugs.

[---]
\___/

You can plug USB 2.0/1.0 devices at the top, but USB 3.0 plugs have an angled bottom that makes it only fit one-way. You don't even need to change the device spec to USE the bottom angular part, just put it there as a requirement so we can actually plug these damn things in.

more pins: yuck by nguy · 2008-01-09 11:23 · Score: 2, Funny

This seems like a step backwards. Four pins and shielding was a good number; more makes the cables big and requires more connections on the circuit board.

Socket? by Schemat1c · 2008-01-09 11:23 · Score: 1

USB 3.0's New Jacks and Sockets It says sprocket, not socket!

Er, were those plumbers supposed to be here this show?

--

"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown

Re:Socket? by KevReedUK · 2008-01-10 11:04 · Score: 1

Plumbers?

Didn't know Nintendo was part of the USB consortium!?!

--
Just my $0.03 (At current exchange rates, my £0.02 is worth more than your $0.02)

And it doesn't work by SuperKendall · 2008-01-09 11:24 · Score: 5, Interesting

I bought a USB OTG external hard drive that is supposed to be able to copy files off a slave device, and a box that is supposed to support two master devices and initiate copies between them - neither work at all with any USB storage I have tried.

USB OTG is a farce.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:And it doesn't work by intangible · 2008-01-09 11:27 · Score: 1

Works with the N800 running OS2008, but YMMV.
Re:And it doesn't work by Xamindar · 2008-01-09 11:40 · Score: 2, Informative

Did you remember to use the proper cable to switch it to host? Might want to look into that. USB on the go works great on my Sharp Zaurus 3100. I can plug it into a computer with the regular cable and it becomes an external hard drive. Or I can use the host cable (in the same port) and turn it into the host and connect any usb device I can find a driver for to it (flash drives, mice, keyboard, bluetooth). It is very usefull.
Re:And it doesn't work by jubei · 2008-01-09 12:25 · Score: 1

If I remember correctly, the N800 didn't have the correct connector for OTG and the kernel didn't support it. I assume OS2008 supports it? What did you do for the cabling?
Re:And it doesn't work by corsec67 · 2008-01-09 13:50 · Score: 1

You mean a cable that is like a null modem cable?

--
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
Re:And it doesn't work by petermgreen · 2008-01-09 22:40 · Score: 2, Informative

No it is not like a null modem cable. Afaict USB is always wired D+ to D+ and D- to D-.

There are two types of full size USB plugs, A and B. A always goes at the host end B always goes at the perhipheral end.

There are also two types of mini plugs mini A and mini B. But unlike with the full size connectors there is also a socket called mini AB that takes both. The same applies to the micro connectors.

Mini plugs have five pins. The extra pin is used to indicate to a device with a mini AB socket whether it should be acting as a host or as a perhiperal. (I think in a mini B plug it is open circuit in a mini A plug it is connected to ground but i'm not positive and the information seems to have dissapeared from wikipedia).

If everyone followed the rules it would be easy as you would not be able to create an out of whack network. Sadly a wide variety of noncompliant cables and adaptors are commonly availible, the difference between mini-A and mini-B is not that obvious to the untrained eye and many people are unaware that mini-A even exists.

--
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Re:And it doesn't work by intangible · 2008-01-14 03:56 · Score: 1

I heard there's cables out there that will work, but I had to make my own. Not very complex, the instructions are all over the place. You can use a regular cable with a gender-changer adapter as well, but it won't auto-switch to host mode with that cable, you'd have to run a couple commands from the console in that scenario to switch it to host mode. The onboard USB port only provides 100-150mA though, unlike the 500mA of a true usb host port, so for some devices you'll need to go through a powered USB hub.

Oh it'll go at full capacity by SuperKendall · 2008-01-09 11:26 · Score: 4, Funny

You'll just need to dedicate six of your eight cores in the 3GHz Intel chip for the process overhead.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:Oh it'll go at full capacity by danomac · 2008-01-09 12:19 · Score: 1

I'm surprised nobody has manufactured an add-in card with it's own processor for USB. Video cards do, why not USB? Of course, there's always the driver issue...
Re:Oh it'll go at full capacity by Kadin2048 · 2008-01-09 12:50 · Score: 1

If you're going to get an addon card, you just get Firewire. That's basically it's big differentiator from USB -- more of the processing is offloaded to the controller, so there's less load on the CPU.

--
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Re:Oh it'll go at full capacity by Beale · 2008-01-09 13:07 · Score: 1

And the DMA, of course.
Re:Oh it'll go at full capacity by merreborn · 2008-01-09 13:20 · Score: 1

You'll just need to dedicate six of your eight cores in the 3GHz Intel chip for the process overhead.
That's more true than you might think... Some /.'ers may already be aware of how much overhead gigabit communications consumes, but I know I wasn't. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCP_Offload_Engine :
Gigabit TCP communication using software processing alone is enough to fully load a 2.4 GHz Pentium 4 processor
Granted, USB's isn't the same as IP's, but gigabit protocol overhead is pretty substantial.
Re:Oh it'll go at full capacity by kellyb9 · 2008-01-10 02:19 · Score: 1

You'll just need to dedicate six of your eight cores in the 3GHz Intel chip for the process overhead. Well looks like I have to switch back to XP then.

Why not 10GigE? by nokiator · 2008-01-09 11:27 · Score: 1

Now that 10GigE runs over cheap copper cables (not the yet expensive and power hungry 10GBase-T but cheap and already widely available 10G serial over twin-axial cable), why not run all the PC peripherals on 10GigE interfaces instead of adding more kludges to the already overburdened USB standard? If the motherboard has an 10G Ethernet hub, peripherals that do not need so much bandwidth can easily auto negotiate down to 1Gb/s or 100Mb/s...

Yes, backward compatibility would be a problem, but I am sure computer and electronic manufacturers won't be disappointed by a mass upgrade cycle driven by a new (and higher performance) peripheral interconnect standard.

Re:Why not 10GigE? by YrWrstNtmr · 2008-01-09 15:43 · Score: 1

but I am sure computer and electronic manufacturers won't be disappointed by a mass upgrade cycle driven by a new (and higher performance) peripheral interconnect standard.

Mass upgrade? Because of a 'faster' speed for peripherals? NOT. None of my current USB peripherals would be replaced simply because a new one would talk to the pc faster. Scanner, mouse/keyboard, secondary printer, graphics tablet...will be replaced if/when they break, not because of USB 3.0.
Re:Why not 10GigE? by petermgreen · 2008-01-09 22:18 · Score: 1

The main issue with ethernet is what you run on top. TCP/IP is a very nice protocol but requires all devices to be using a matching setup, you can use your own protocol of course but that isn't free of issues either. Having perhiperal devices on the network you also use for connectivity between your PCs also raises some major security considerations. Yes you could have two seperate ethernet networks but then you have to make sure people plug thier devices into the right one.

Also the normal variants of ethernet are rather power hungry because they are designed to support long runs and by using a specialist variant you just lost most of the advantages of using ethernet.

--
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Re:Why not 10GigE? by commanderfoxtrot · 2008-01-09 22:27 · Score: 1

Ethernet is so simple and cheap - why aren't peripherals using this? It would make the "connected world" much more connected.

Imagine having your screens accessible on ethernet (ie like X), your CPUs, your keyboards... So simple.

Having one standard would be great, as any improvements e.g. gigabit, 10G, wifi, routing can be used without the user noticing.

--
http://blog.grcm.net/

SuperSpeed USB by mick129 · 2008-01-09 11:28 · Score: 1

FTFA:

Dubbed SuperSpeed USB, the third major incarnation of the serial bus standard is set to deliver data transfer speeds of around 4.7Gb/s - ten times today's 480Mb/s limit.

--
Move along, no sig to see here.

But... by hackerjoe · 2008-01-09 11:29 · Score: 2, Informative

Jacks are sockets. It's always been a great mystery of tech jargon to me that female connectors are referred to as jacks.

Re:But... by f1r3f0g · 2008-01-09 13:40 · Score: 1

Hence forth, we should refer to female "Jacks" as "Jackies".
Re:But... by somersault · 2008-01-10 05:44 · Score: 1

When you get into the realm of 'guessing' the intent of the user implicitly, things get hairy. I'm guessing that's a reference to the phrase "separating the men from the boys".

--
which is totally what she said

I can't wait for this to take off by CagedKiller360 · 2008-01-09 11:31 · Score: 2, Funny

This will be great for the people with portable music players, obviously because of the lightning speed. If the USB2 can do 480Mbps and syncing 2 hours of videos to my iPod takes just over minute then I'd really like to see it transfer so much data in about 7 seconds, maybe?

Universal asynchronous parallel port by heroine · 2008-01-09 11:35 · Score: 1

With the return of more data lines and asynchronous receive trasmit, it should be called universal asynchronous parallel port UASPRT. Guess they got tired of timeouts.

isochronous transfer... by jddj · 2008-01-09 11:39 · Score: 1

Firewire has a method of reserving bandwidth on the line for isochronous transfers - i.e. when data MUST arrive on-time to make the application work, things like video frames for editing.

Bus speed alone won't do everything we'd like USB to do...

Re:isochronous transfer... by flappinbooger · 2008-01-09 16:15 · Score: 1

Firewire is STILL the standard for dumping video from tape. I frankly don't know what could replace it, (tape) cameras just don't operate any other way.

The local computer shop was showing me some "new" laptop a while ago and were trying to tell me that Firewire was "outdated" and no laptops were going to have it any more, and this one didn't either. "USB 2.0 is faster than Firewire". Baloney! I turned around the laptop to the other side and pointed to the 4 pin firewire port. "What's this, then?"

Firewire isn't going anywhere. Even the "cheapie" Everex laptops have firewire. I don't know if USB 3 will replace it, but the intertia of the entire A/V industry will be pretty hard to move away from firewire IMO.

--
Flappinbooger isn't my real name
Re:isochronous transfer... by Hal_Porter · 2008-01-09 18:25 · Score: 1

USB has isochronous transfers too. The USB hub driver dedicates some of the frame time to isochronous transfers and some to interrupt transfers for polling mice and keyboards. Whatever is left is used for bulk transfers for things like USB storage devices.

From my experience USB is significantly (IIRC 20MB/sec 30MB/sec for reads) slower than Firewire for storage devices though even when each bus had only one device on it, so there must be some inefficiency in the USB mass storage specification. Then again maybe the USB/Firewire 2.5" drive I tested just had a more optimised Firewire implementation.

--
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;

Re:Your mom by lena_10326 · 2008-01-09 11:47 · Score: 1

Your mom's receptacle is deeper than the current ones.

Sucks for you don't it? Heh heh, as you need a larger connector for deeper receptacles.

--
Camping on quad since 1996.

With you on the break-from-the-past by Besna · 2008-01-09 11:53 · Score: 1

Ethernet has a much different usage scenario, though. USB could break from the past to all-optical, or even multi-lane. Too many kludges around, but I don't see ethernet and USB coming from the same port.

Wow! they demonstrated the connectors! by mevets · 2008-01-09 11:57 · Score: 1

Next CES I'm going to demonstrate my transporter connectors, to(o) much drooling.

Validation by Besna · 2008-01-09 11:59 · Score: 1

Tolerances will be an issue. I vaguely remember hearing about some problems using an older cable. I could even imagine the factories binning out to USB 1 cables that didn't pan out.

nice reference by BitterAndDrunk · 2008-01-09 12:02 · Score: 2, Funny

Comedy isn't pretty.

--
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .

Firewire = Betamax version by symbolset · 2008-01-09 12:04 · Score: 1

Stupid blackberry. Click the betamax theory link in my comment history for an explanation.

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.

More pins, huh by markov_chain · 2008-01-09 12:13 · Score: 1

Maybe I shouldn't throw out my DB25 cables just yet :)

--
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!

Too bad by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-09 12:18 · Score: 1, Insightful

God, it's still that worst of connectors, visibly symmetric but not functionally symmetric.

How friggin hard would it have been to make the connector work the same no matter which way it was plugged in? It seems to be a trivial ME problem.

The USB connector blows.

Patents killed it by lennier · 2008-01-09 12:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

"So what happened? Did I miss something? Who killed Firewire?"

Patent royalties, I believe, or at least that's the popular impression: this guy seems to be saying that Steve Jobs attempted to hike the royalty price and though he wasn't ultimately successful, perhaps the mere suggestion that he could was enough to sour third party implementors and move them to USB.

Like with Token Ring vs Ethernet and Objective-C vs C++, the answer seems to be that if there's a nearly-almost-good-enough open technology and a way-cool but closed/expensive technology fighting for the same market with no network effects yet in place, the open (at least in terms of free-to-implement) one wins.

--
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC

Re:Patents killed it by dirtyhippie · 2008-01-09 14:19 · Score: 1

Uh, did you just claim that Token Ring lost because of its price, and that it is somehow superior to ethernet?

You obviously never had the joy of working with it.
Re:Patents killed it by xtracto · 2008-01-10 00:54 · Score: 1

Lol I immediatly thought the same. Deffinitely this guy's hell punishment should be looking for the cause of a network failure due to one of the computers failing over a 100 clients ring.

This guy just babbled techspeak without knowing what he is talking about...

--
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'

(o-o-omfg ponies) EXTRA PINS??!?!? by vectra14 · 2008-01-09 12:41 · Score: 4, Interesting

Too bad they're adding the 5 new pins (given, 1 of them is in theory good old GND but still). As an EE, the one thing I liked about USB over Firewire is its physical simplicity... power, ground, and a differential bus. With 1394c heading towards RJ45 it's like USB and 1394 have traded places in terms of physical convenience (I'm sure a number of people have had the pleasure of dealing with ultra-over-engineered (and consequently overpriced) 1394a/b cables and repeaters.. oh the repeaters).

..Not like the host-heavy USB stack made it a much-liked protocol for me in the first place.

Re:(o-o-omfg ponies) EXTRA PINS??!?!? by QuoteMstr · 2008-01-09 12:48 · Score: 1

WHY are the extra pins necessary for USB 3.0?
Re:(o-o-omfg ponies) EXTRA PINS??!?!? by vectra14 · 2008-01-09 16:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

I haven't seen the 3.0 spec but from the diagrams in TFA it seems that the 5 new pins do the following:

1 pin (middle) - ground (I suspect that with the higher bandwidth they're adding a signal ground separate from the already existing shared signal/power ground. this may be completely false).
2 pins (probably differential twisted pair) - "USB3_TX" - is USB3 departing from the shared-differential-bus setup?
2 pins (also probably a diff. TP) - "USB3_RX"

USB1/2 was somewhat special in contrast to Ethernet or IEEE1394 in that it used a single bus and everyone connected to it had to figure out how to share it (each device in turn takes control of the data lines when it needs to transmit). It looks like USB3 is changing this a bit (makes sense for higher bandwidth - the taking control of/releasing the data lines wasted precious data line cycles and makes the interface hardware/firmware/software do extra work). From the RX/TX markings it would seem that for two devices sharing a cable, one TP will always be driven by one device and the other by the other device. However from the little I know about the USB1/2 spec this doesn't make too much sense (currently the USB host has to poll a peripheral for it to transmit any data back the the host), so I'll be looking forward to hearing the details.

If the above guess is right then I'd expect to see a much more advanced family of USB controllers than the current (quite straight-forward) iteration. Maybe USB3 will be significantly changing the USB topology and becoming more like Firewire.. it seems somewhat logical.. who knows.
Re:(o-o-omfg ponies) EXTRA PINS??!?!? by CityZen · 2008-01-10 07:56 · Score: 1

USB 1.1/2.0 was bidirectional (ie, half duplex). The same wires were used to transmit and receive.
USB 3.0 looks to be unidirectional (ie, full duplex), in that different sets of wires are used to transmit vs. receive.
This avoids something known as "bus turn-around time", therefore allowing for faster communication.

Electrically, they appear to be implementing a whole new bus in parallel with the existing one.
I guess they want the savings in connector space and software infrastructure (vs. creating a
whole new separate bus).

The thing that stands out to me regarding the connector design is that the new socket has more exposed contacts.
I wonder if they're likely to be zapped by static electricity from fingers & such?
Re:(o-o-omfg ponies) EXTRA PINS??!?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-10 10:34 · Score: 0

Maybe USB3 will be significantly changing the USB topology and becoming more like Firewire.. it seems somewhat logical.. who knows. Doubtful. Firewire isn't full duplex to begin with, so USB3 is actually moving away from it by becoming full duplex. (Yes, 1394 has two signal pairs, but they're both used during transmission: one carries the data, the other carries a timing signal used by the receiver's clock recovery circuit.)

Bus topology and central vs. distributed control are really separate questions from whether the physical layer is full or half duplex, anyways.

Next version will be... by simtel · 2008-01-09 12:59 · Score: 2, Funny

Ludicrous speed!

Will they paint the connectors plaid?

What's with the flat connectors? by fm6 · 2008-01-09 13:11 · Score: 1

Why is it that USB A connectors are designed so you can't easily tell which side is "up"? With plugs you can at least look for the USB symbol, but jacks are often embedded in a computer or hub, and you end up having to memorize the upness of every one you own. Either that or do the this-way-or-that maneuver every time you plug something in. That gets old fast, especially for a clumsy person like me, who often doesn't get the connection right on the first try.

Jackets and Socks by richardoz · 2008-01-09 13:16 · Score: 1

Am I the only one who read the title as ... "Jackets and Socks"?

--
All the worlds indeed a .sig, and we are mearly players..

Re:Jackets and Socks by Buelldozer · 2008-01-09 13:26 · Score: 1

Nope, not at all. GMTA!

What about XP drivers? by PingXao · 2008-01-09 13:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

My gut tells me there will not be any MS-written USB 3.0 device drivers for Windows XP. Artificially making an OS "obsolete" by not providing drivers for new hardware is one way to accelerate the adoption of Vista. The code words that surround this new standard vis-a-vis Microsoft Windows reveal the inclusion of Vista-style DRM (e.g. "the HD era"). With that in mind I see MS declaring that USB 3.0 drivers for XP are technically "impossible" for reasons that will prove bogus. They may have legitimate business reasons for not providing drivers, but those won't be the reasons they trot out in public.

Re:What about XP drivers? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-09 15:06 · Score: 0

so the drivers will be written by someone else if the demand is there.
microsoft arent the sole provider of drivers on XP you know.
Re:What about XP drivers? by toddestan · 2008-01-09 15:33 · Score: 1

You must not remember usbsupp.exe and Windows 95. Sure, I bet they'll be a patch, and it'll be interesting to see how they break things this time around.

Yeah, it's always funny to see.. by Junta · 2008-01-09 13:31 · Score: 1

The default mount options where you cp, say, an iso file, and it returns in a couple of seconds. Then, you type umount, and the real wait begins.

One could make the argument that for certain capacities (say, 2G or smaller), sync as a default mount option might be a reasonable thing, seeing as how typical usage in that scenario is a couple of files written, then yank (i.e. umount process doesn't give a nice progress bar, but a mass file copy operation could), but in any event...

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.

Re:Yeah, it's always funny to see.. by MMC+Monster · 2008-01-09 13:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

Seriously annoying. Is it that difficult to have (name your distribution here) Linux do an automatic sync every couple seconds when a USB drive is connected.

Waiting 2 minutes to unmount without any progress meter is just broken UI design.

--
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
Re:Yeah, it's always funny to see.. by hitmark · 2008-01-09 15:20 · Score: 1

one problem there is that i think linux still interprets the sync option on a mount in a very pedantic way.

as in, on say a FAT filesystem, it will update the table every time a single cluster is altered instead of waiting for the whole file to be in place before updating.

i recall reading someone burning out the area of the flash that held the table of the filesystem on a cheap usb stick because of this.

and even with on-chip wear leveling, it will put needless wear on the chip overall, as a whole lot of sectors will get a write when its not really needed.

--
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
Re:Yeah, it's always funny to see.. by cheater512 · 2008-01-09 19:40 · Score: 1

You know it is actually copying while the cache gets filled.
The usb disk isnt sitting there idle.
Re:Yeah, it's always funny to see.. by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-09 23:03 · Score: 0

On my linux distro (Arch Linux) using KDE, removable media is now mounted with the "flush" option, which while it does use a cache it immediately flushes this cache, also KDE continues to show the file copy dialog until the copy is actually complete (i.e. the cache is flushed).

This does work better than using the sync option. though the file copy dialog tends to be waiting on 100% for a while, while the cache is actually flushing out to the disk.

Re:Your mom by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-09 13:34 · Score: 0

Uh, I'm sorry, did you just try to make fun of him by saying that he's plugging your mom?

Just like EISA by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2008-01-09 13:50 · Score: 1

Harder! Deeper!

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."

But... by Junta · 2008-01-09 14:09 · Score: 3, Interesting

syncing every few seconds isn't the good 'fix'. Using mount -o sync on obviously transient mounts would be the 'fix' to the problem described. If you sync ever so often, there *still* is no good way to track it/indicate it, while the fs being mounted with sync means the file write operation itself can be tracked more accurately.

Of course, the line to draw at what is 'obviously' transient may be hard, but I think 4GB and under and USB connected is a good rule of thumb today of transient sticks vs. persistantly attached usb storage. When you get into the realm of 'guessing' the intent of the user implicitly, things get hairy.

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.

Re:Your mom by cecil_turtle · 2008-01-09 14:13 · Score: 1

That's the show of a true your-mom joke artist. The OP already inferred he was plugging GP's mom, so the GP rolled with the joke and turned it back around on OP. That's skillz. Like your-mom judo - using the opponent's joke against him.

USB's plug design is horrible by TheBlunderbuss · 2008-01-09 14:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

Though this comment shall be absolutely buried by now, I must voice my opinion:
I absolutely HATE the A-series (the most common) USB plug. If you are going by feel alone, you have a 50% chance of orienting the plug correctly the first time.
So frustrating. (And so is the round DIN, but that's for another time)
A good design, like D-subminiature, CAT5, and headphone jack make blind insertion easy and near-foolproof (no sex jokes please, slashdotters).
USB B-series is a lot better, but sadly isn't as ubiquitous.

Also: I'm guessing that PCI expansion cards couldn't fully utilize USB3.0?

Re:USB's plug design is horrible by base3 · 2008-01-09 15:03 · Score: 1

Hear, hear. I would probably have another year of life if I could get the time back I spent reorienting USB cables when trying to insert them backward.

--
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
Re:USB's plug design is horrible by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-10 01:38 · Score: 0

What do you mean that B-series connectors aren't as ubiquitous as the A-series. The A connectors are to plug into host ports and the B connectors are to plug into devices. Since just about every host port is the same all cables have to have an A connector to be useful, but devices can have whatever ports the manufacturer want, which can be annoying sometimes, but in any case the mini-B covers most portable USB devices, with the larger B for the larger less portable ones. But, my point is it doesn't make sense to compare them since they are for different purposes and all cables need an A plug on them to be useful.
Re:USB's plug design is horrible by greed · 2008-01-10 04:27 · Score: 1

A lot of us have many widgets with an A plug or cable firmly bonded to the device; like keyboards, trackballs, mice, joysticks, gamepads, flash-card readers, flash drives, PS/2 converters, PlayStation 2 converters, audio capture/playback adapters, Bluetooth dongles, webcams, and so on. There's no B plug, the cable cannot be removed from the device, or there isn't any cable. (Damn, I've got a lot of USB crap.)
I've got a number of A-A extension cables in the 6" to 18" range for dealing with these things, because a CompactFlash reader covers about 3 ports on my hub. The PS/2 keyboard adapter connecting my Model M clicketymatic to a legacy-free PC covers a USB port above the one it's plugged into (and the recess around the cable area prevents me plugging it in to the top of a set of 4 USB sockets).
In fact, I think the original poster might have been understating the A vs. B experience ratio. Even when I do have a B-socketed-device, I generally unplug the A plug from the hub rather than the B plug from the device, because the next thing I want may have a bonded cable, or need a mini-B connector, or whatever. So few things have detachable B plugs (scanner, printer, RS-232 converter, external disks and Concept2 PM3 monitor) that you might as well leave the cable with the device.
Mini-B is slightly more useful, because it's used on little things that don't want a bulky cable connected all the time, like cameras and 2.5" external disks.

Re:great... by Nullav · 2008-01-09 14:29 · Score: 1

Right, and it would be so hard to grab a card for it. (Looks like a great use for a PCI-e 8x slot.)
Even so, I'm sure manufacturers will wait a year or two, until more motherboards ship with it and more OEMs use said boards. I also expect that things won't just use USB3 for the sake of it, at least not for a while; extra pins mean more copper used, which means more money wasted over time. ("Does that gamepad/mouse/keyboard really need 4.7Gb/s of bandwidth? How many people can use this if we do this?")
As for external hard drives, there are several with sockets for eSATA, USB and Firewire, and many more with some combination of the two. What's another socket for a few years?

--
I just read Slashdot for the articles.

usb or firewire by DigitalSkyline · 2008-01-09 14:30 · Score: 0

I charge my phone with USB, I control my camcorder with Firewire. But the thing is, the average Joe has heard the term USB upteem times more then they've heard Firewire. It comes down to name recognition, which I'm sure has as much to do with cost and marketshare factors. As my plumber friend would say "what the hell is firewire?"

--
Knowin' nothin' in life but to be legit' Don't quote me boy, cuz I ain't said shit

Re:great... by Nullav · 2008-01-09 14:36 · Score: 1

extra pins mean more copper used, which means more money wasted over time.

What's another socket for a few years?

Eww. Is that an incongruity? In my post?
Ah! It costs more money to include those extra pins, rather than adding 2.0 and 3.0 sockets (or just 2.0 sockets) by shrinking the target market to people with new motherboards. (Too bad I can't explain away the part about extra copper, since adding another slot involves more wires and pins.)

--
I just read Slashdot for the articles.

USB by iminplaya · 2008-01-09 14:43 · Score: 1

is starting to look a little less "universal" with every change. It's bad enough that you need a different cable for your camera, printer, hard drive, etc. Why can't we just use RJ11?

--
What?

Re:USB by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-09 20:31 · Score: 0

"universal"? Yeah why not, connect it everywhere,
but without drivers, its not like you are gonna use it anyway..

Case in point webcams,
very few webcams have drivers that work under Linux,
the following site was a good effort http://mxhaard.free.fr/ [mxhaard.free.fr],
sadly, it looks like a lost cause as most popular webcams go unsupported in Linux.

for example, support has been promised "soon" since mid 2006 for the microdia webcams
(usb id like 0c45:xxxx), but looking here https://groups.google.com/group/microdia [google.com]
shows that one and a half years the users have been waiting,
USB 3? HAH, I hope it never takes off
Re:USB by nonos · 2008-01-09 21:42 · Score: 1

Huh... In this case, the problem is not the USB connection, it is the webcam communication protocol, it would be the same if the camera were RJ11/45, firewire, serial, ata or sata connected...

RE: USB 3 by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-09 15:12 · Score: 0

USB 3, at 4.8 gigabits per second ? YEAH RIGHT!.

Maybe, in many years time when computers have hard drives that are CAPABLE of reading that fast, it might be true.

At the moment, however, what speed do you think our HDD's read at ? I can assure you i've never seen one of mine read at a rate higher than about 90mb/second, and thats using SATA II disks in a Raid 0 configuration. (thats not even 1gigabit).

I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say that not many, if any people (i'm talking about home consumers), can read data onto their hard drives at over 100mb a second.

My point in this ? Hard disk drives don't get anywhere near the required transfer rates to make use of 4.8gbit's of bandwidth. So for most people, at this point in time and anywere near in the future, USB 3 is hardly going to make a difference at all, and it most certainly won't be ten times as fast.

Anyway, thats just my 2 cents.

Betamax theory of CE by symbolset · 2008-01-09 15:54 · Score: 1

Many technologies come in two versions for much of their life cycle: A cheap and popular version and a marginally technically better but far more expensive version that takes an early lead and then fails. The better more expensive version always takes the lead early on because early adopters are willing to pay premium prices for quality products. Then the innovator behind it leverages the popularity to ramp the licensing cost at just the wrong inflection of the demand curve, driving consumers to the adequate and cheap competitor until economies of scale make the cheap version ubiquitous and continued sale of the premium version impractical. At that point Betamax version buyers lose all their investment in quality equipment and other products.

It's called the Betamax theory because Sony is often the innovator behind a technology that takes an early lead and then fails as was the case with the excellent (for the time) Betamax video cassette players, media and content. Examples prior to the Betamax technology era may exist but the triumph of the inferior VHS over the obviously better Beta format is definitive.

The Betamax theory demonstrates the criticality of timing and economies of scale in innovation and marketing by highlighting negative examples. When the innovator with the superior technology defers the high margins associated with platform ownership until later in the demand curve, the inferior product fails and ultimately high margins are realised. Essentially a Betamax Theory Product is a failed competitor in a narrow market that will sustain only one dominant technology because of high demand for compatibility.

Examples include Beta/VHS, Memory Stick/Secure Digital, Firewire/USB, SCSI/ATA, Rambus/DDR, Plasma/LCD, Fibre Channel/Ethernet, MiniDisc/MP3(Player), MicroChannel/PCI, BluRay/HD-DVD, AAC/MP3(content), UMD/Secure Digital, D8/DV, and so on.

Non-Betamax technologies include: iPod, Coax cable TV, wired telephone, IBM PC. In each case the innovator monopolized the market fully before exploiting the leverage of monopoly and realized significant monopoly benefits thereby.

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.

Re:Betamax theory of CE by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-10 04:48 · Score: 0

the triumph of the inferior VHS over the obviously better Beta format is definitive.

But Beta wasn't obviously better to the buyers -- VHS could win because it appeared to offer the same thing. I remember both being equally offered in stores (and Philips' "Video 2000" clearly in the minority) here in Finland, and it was first the somewhat cheaper cassettes and then the rentals going VHS which decided the battle -- people never saw practical difference between the two.

I understand your point, though, and quite agree. The theory or model applies to many things.

I once knew a girl named Jackie. by wilec · 2008-01-09 16:30 · Score: 1

I once knew a girl named Jackie. One dark night I plugged the wrong socket. I thought it was kinda funny at the time. Like I said, I once knew a girl named Jackie.

wabi-sabi
matthew

Re:Your mom by DeathElk · 2008-01-09 17:17 · Score: 1

Yeah? Well your mom's so dumb, it takes her a week to watch 60 minutes!

Like Bluetooth and Windows 2000, or USB and NT4... by argent · 2008-01-09 17:25 · Score: 1

I figure you're pretty much on the money there.

We had to upgrade to Windows 2000 from NT4 to get reliable USB support, and Microsoft never did come out with a Bluetooth stack for Windows 2000.

Re: USB 3 by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-09 17:29 · Score: 0

... did it ever occur to you that hard drives are notoriously SLOW devices?

Advanced Nintendo Technology by argent · 2008-01-09 17:32 · Score: 1

Both USB and Firewire connectors were based on the connectors in the Nintendo Gameboy. The Gameboy "gamelink" cables had proven so reliable and successful - literally childproof - that the physical design was adopted pretty much straight.

Re:Advanced Nintendo Technology by imsabbel · 2008-01-09 21:18 · Score: 1

Wow.
That just really suprised me. I havent seen my gameboy in over a decade, and _never_ considered the similarity.

--
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?

Re:Your mom by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-09 17:36 · Score: 0

You suck.

480 by scolbert · 2008-01-09 18:07 · Score: 0

I am not sure how they can get the speed advertised. Also who will support this. Has Apple signed on? Sure need a faster interface to sync crap to my iPhone especially with video.

backwards compatibility for old sockets? by abonstu · 2008-01-09 19:10 · Score: 1

one of the good things about USB2 was that you could take a USB2 device, plug it into a USB1 port and it would still work ok - just slower.

seems to me that with longer connectors its unlikely that you'll be able to use a USB3 device in anything other than a USB3 port?

Re:backwards compatibility for old sockets? by nonos · 2008-01-09 21:35 · Score: 1

RTFA: The longer connector is for backward compat: if the socket is too short, then it is an old USB1/2 socket and the device works in USB1/2 back compat mode.

What PC USB need by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-09 19:21 · Score: 0

DMA - can you SPELL D M A ?

Seems like PC USB are processor intensive - it use up an interrupt and fill a small buffer. Also the target USB need to support some decent streaming processor with DMA also

Re:What PC USB need by Hal_Porter · 2008-01-09 19:58 · Score: 2, Informative

Seems like PC USB are processor intensive - it use up an interrupt and fill a small buffer. Actually USB is quite system friendly. The CPU maintains a complicated tree structures of descriptors memory and then the host adapter parses it via bus master DMA and generates the appropriate bust transactions.

The CPU can request an interrupt when a transfer is complete or at the end of a frame to add new descriptors and remove ones that have completed. It's all pretty elegant really. Essentially when you want to send something you add a descriptor and then later you get an interrupt when the transfer is done, even if it took a few retries. It has to be like this, since Windows 95 had terrible worst case interrupt latency and that was where USB started off.

--
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Re:What PC USB need by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-09 22:50 · Score: 0

Whenever someone mention "elegant" - it is slow as hell !!!

Ever try those USB Hard drive? Open one window and run zip/rar compressing on one large file, open another window and extract a large compression file.

What USB need is bigger buffer, DMA and CRC hardware checking. So far, none of the
PC driver implementation support DMA of anysort.

Re:Whats the cost? by Zorque · 2008-01-09 19:43 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Could you stop spamming your stupidass website?

actually it is by samjam · 2008-01-09 21:13 · Score: 1

I copied a bunch of files to a USB stick with a built-in LED and the LED wasn't flashing until I tried to unmount, when I had a 2 minute wait.

I don't need a sync option to mount which would stop the writing program from finishing the write until it hit the usb disk, but I do want persistent flush till its all gone, starting from the oldest touched block.

Sam

--
blog.sam.liddicott.com

Re: USB 3 by nonos · 2008-01-09 21:39 · Score: 1

You don't read/write data only from hard drives, other peripherals exists: video cameras, (hd)tv screens, printers, network connections... Hard drives can be parallelised in arrays to gain datarates higher than a lone hard drive...

Re:Your mom by DeathElk · 2008-01-09 22:00 · Score: 1

Maybe, but at least I'm not a fucked up piece of shit AC

Intel is subsidising the licensing by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-09 22:01 · Score: 0

The USB requires a host. Which needs a CPU. And what does Intel make..?

Um by BeanThere · 2008-01-09 23:31 · Score: 1

You can't actually safely 'yank' that removable drive on Windows either. You also have to first "safely remove hardware" (I've seen people lose data after yanking a USB drive out even many minutes after the last writing had finished.) It may be less likely than on say Linux, but you still have to do it, so I guess Windows isn't ready for the desktop either ... unless you meant Mac is better? I don't know how Mac handles this.

No plugs? by fishtorte · 2008-01-09 23:57 · Score: 1

Jacks and sockets only, eh? I wonder what's going to go onto the ends of the cables.

offtopic by Ginger+Unicorn · 2008-01-10 00:53 · Score: 1

i assumed your sig was ROT13'd till i googled it :)

--
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons

Re:offtopic by zobier · 2008-01-10 10:57 · Score: 1

I'm kind of obsessed with Polish culture, it's quite a difficult tongue twister.

Cheers

PS: When is /. coming to the 21st century and accepting Unicode?

--
Me lost me cookie at the disco.

Wrong by gravis777 · 2008-01-10 03:26 · Score: 1

Windows will warn you if you yank the drive without telling it to disconnect the drive precisely for this reason. You have not messed with Windows in about 7 years, have you? Windows 2000 did indeed warn you if you yanked a USB drive without unmounting it first, XP and Vista do not.

On a side note, in a parent thread, someone stated that the slow read / write speeds were caused by Vista. It should be noted that Microsoft's technet states that the slow copy / move issue with tons of files in a folder is something that is fixed in SP1.

Pay attention please by fm6 · 2008-01-10 04:04 · Score: 1

Say what? Firewire connectors are not flat. I don't believe gamelink connectors are either. Perhaps you're thinking of the USB B connector. I'm talking about USB A.

I'm also a little skeptical about that funny-shaped plug being invented specifically for the Gameboy. Typically manufacturers use something off the shelf for a consumer item. It's possible that nobody in the U.S. saw these connectors before the Gameboy, just as nobody in the U.S. (except a few audio enthusiasts) ever saw a DIN connector before IBM started using them on PCs.

Re:Pay attention please by fm6 · 2008-01-10 04:06 · Score: 1

I accidentally posted the same graphic link twice above. Here's a USB A connector:

http://www.datapro.net/connectors/USB-A.gif
Re:Pay attention please by argent · 2008-01-10 06:16 · Score: 1

Say what? Firewire connectors are not flat. I don't believe gamelink connectors are either.

I didn't say they were. I said the mechanical design was based on the Gamelink connector. Of course the firewire and USB connectors (all three) have different cross sections (different "shape of the plug" if you like), but the robust physical design of the connector came from the Gameboy.
Re:Pay attention please by fm6 · 2008-01-10 07:23 · Score: 1

Say what? Firewire connectors are not flat. I don't believe gamelink connectors are either.

I didn't say they were. I said the mechanical design was based on the Gamelink connector
Did you even read the post you were replying to? It specifically asked, "Why are USB A connectors flat?"

Hey, Token Ring wasn't that bad overall. by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-10 04:35 · Score: 0

(I'm not that "babbling" poster.) The ring topology with peer to peer cabling made Token Ring vulnerable and hard to maintain, but there was no technical reason not to have multiport switches with the ring inside (and cabling in star topology). Had there been some more time, those switches would likely have appeared for Token Ring. Yes the original "P2P" Token Ring implementations were a PITA to service, but I don't have much love for coax Ethernet either, hassling with the T-pieces and terminators, and the same problems when a machine in the middle dropped out.

The token-based protocol itself was more efficient than Ethernet's "dumb" collision detection. It deserves a bit more respect than given here. I'd say it failed in the marketplace mostly because IBM had no clue how to push it there -- it was always viewed as proprietary Big Blue stuff, if you're a HW vendor you touch it only with a ten foot pole so the Nazgul don't bite you.

Re:Hey, Token Ring wasn't that bad overall. by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-13 12:24 · Score: 0

Let me help you out.

Token Ring --> FDDI

FDDI pure ring topology --> FDDI with concentrator (analogous to an ethernet hub)

FDDI with concentrator --> switched FDDI (DEC Gigaswitches were in many Internet Exchange Points in the mid 90s)

Switched FDDI --> Full duplex multi token switched FDDI (FDDI as a host to switch protocol only)

And this finally led to IEEE 802.17, which is deliberately like FDDI over SDH/SONET, only without the overhead of a token.

Peter Lothberg (whose mother has 40Gbps Internet connectivity into her home) is one of the co-inventors.

IEEE 802.17b will happen someday, perhaps before Lothberg manages to obliterate the overhead of SDH/SONET framing over arbitrary-haul/multiple-span-supplier point to point links (of which the connection from Stockholm to his mother's place in Karlstad was a demonstration).

Reminds me of... by TemporalBeing · 2008-01-10 04:49 · Score: 1

Kind of reminds me of the connector for the original NES...I had one, and the NES Cleaner kit pulled one of the pins around. It was $45 for the fix (replace the board), or $50 for the newer NES console (the 2nd gen form factor) at the time. We opted for the $50 instead of replacing it. (Good we did, as the 2nd gen form factor never required cleaning!)...any how...

I could see the same kind of thing happening on these USB3 connectors - some snags a pin, and now you have a bad connector and no way to fix it - replace the cable or the motherboard/hub/device (depending on where it happened). May be...just may be...they figured out a solution to that problem...here's hoping...

--
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)

As many contacts as SERIAL ports? by BancBoy · 2008-01-10 06:43 · Score: 1

You what?

I'm the S in USB.
Guess what I stand for?
Hint, it isn't sarcasm...

--
[UID-HeinzIntel]

Why an optical interface? by punkinhead97223 · 2008-01-10 07:00 · Score: 1

Hello,

There are two reasons in my mind for needing an optical interface: 1) long distance, and 2) Electromagnetic interference (EMI). The EMI is being handled by the twisted pair connectors. The distance too. I guess I wonder what distance they need to cover that they need optical?

I suppose there's a third reason: to have a data channel capable of being pushed WELL beyond the data rates of the copper. Does anyone else wonder about this?

--jason

The point is, they're foolproof. by argent · 2008-01-10 09:53 · Score: 1

They're flat because it doesn't matter if they're flat, because the physical design is foolproof.

It doesn't matter if you plug it in the wrong way around... you can't do it, and you won't damage it if you try. When you're plugging in a connector in the back of your computer, by feel, you can't tell if you're plugging it in the right way up or not by the shape... you can only tell by the fact that it won't go in the wrong way around. Try it with a firewire connector, which is both internally and externally keyed, and the USB-A connector, which is only internally keyed. You'll go through the same process: plug it in the right way, it goes in. Plug it in the wrong way, it won't go, you'll turn it around, and try again.

Contrast this to DB-n connectors, which are externally keyed, but far from foolproof. I've managed to accidentally plug in DB-9, DB-25, DB-15, and mini-DB-15 connectors the wrong way around despite the external keying... and wrecked a few in the process.

I've yet to trash a USB connector the same way. Though my kid has, for an MP3 player that plugged in directly until she dropped a textbook book on it and broke it right off... I don't think I would care to try and design a connector that would survive that.

Yes, it would probably be better to have them *also* externally keyed. It would save a few seconds of frustration now and then when plugging them in where you can see them, if you haven't figured out that the USB logo goes "up". But it's not important, because they're foolproof. They're even almost kidproof.

Re:The point is, they're foolproof. by Anonymous Coward · 2008-01-10 11:04 · Score: 0

It doesn't matter if you plug it in the wrong way around... you can't do it, and you won't damage it if you try. What the OPs are saying is that this is not universally true. Both Firewire (400) and USB connectors can sometimes be wedged in when flipped 180 degrees, resulting in permanent damage to the host port. This is more true of FW400 than USB A, but I've definitely heard of both happening, though I've never experienced either personally.

I suspect most incidents occur when plugging cheap crappy cables into cheap crappy host connectors, and especially when one side or the other has seen significant wear. For example, take a close look at a USB A plug and jack - if the plastic insert in the plug is poorly designed, thin, or gets worn down, it can easily act as a lever to allow backwards insertion, bending and probably breaking the 'tongue' inside the jack.

More recent variants of the same kind of connector design have improved quite a bit. FW800 connectors appear nigh impossible to insert backwards, and have eliminated the metal shell. Or take a look at what Nintendo's doing now; the connector used to attach a 'nunchuk' controller to the Wiimote is truly impossible to put in backwards. (It uses USB-style electrical contacts and a rectangular outline, but has a large keying tab -- the plug cross section is 'U' shaped.)

(It also has positive retention, something which is sorely lacking in USB and Firewire.)
Re:The point is, they're foolproof. by argent · 2008-01-10 12:55 · Score: 1

What the OPs are saying is that this is not universally true.

1. The OP didn't say any such thing. He said, and I quote, "Either that or do the this-way-or-that maneuver every time you plug something in." Which is true of pretty much any connector that you're inserting by feel, and a lot safer with these connectors than most.

2. Nothing is "universally true". I'm sure there's kids that have broken their Game Boys in all kinds of weird ways, too, even if they're kid-proof. Yes, you can break USB connectors. But even if they're flexible I really can't see it happening without some gormless blighter forcing it.

More recent variants of the same kind of connector design have improved quite a bit.

I'd bloody hope so, mate. My point isn't that this is the best possible design they could have come up with, it;s that compared to the other connectors around at the time they were a major step forward... flat or not.
Re:The point is, they're foolproof. by fm6 · 2008-01-11 07:33 · Score: 1

It doesn't matter if you plug it in the wrong way around... you can't do it, and you won't damage it if you try
You can't damage the plug. Your knuckles (from poking around behind your desk) and your sanity are another matter.
I've managed to accidentally plug in DB-9, DB-25, DB-15, and mini-DB-15 connectors the wrong way around... Good lord! Now that is a unique accomplishment. What did you use, a hammer?

Having an asymmetric that can't be plugged in the wrong way (except by fearsomely strong persons such as yourself) is not that hard. Nor is making a plug hard to damage. (Though I'm not that impressed with the damage-proofness of the flat USB-A plugs.) It's not even hard to design a plug so it's obvious which way it goes. So I ask again (not you, I'm tired of you): why didn't they do that with the USB-A plug

Re:Your mom by lena_10326 · 2008-01-10 11:40 · Score: 1

There are rules to your mom judo, which primarily is maintaining context. Anonymous got the context backwards ignoring the point that he couldn't "plug my mom" because his connector wasn't big enough, or that my mom's receptacle is huge (self deprecating/mom deprecating humor). His proper response (IMO) should have been to go the route of mom's huge receptacle. That would have been proper form.

However, in this case it probably works either way if you're going to overlook the details, although I do consider distortion of the context in order to force fit a comeback tantamount to cheating.

Oh well. Anything goes right?

--
Camping on quad since 1996.

Correction: USB's plug design has minor downside. by Drenaran · 2008-01-10 13:52 · Score: 1

Only 50% chance of plugging a USB device in wrong? Nah, much more like 75% (with the exception of memorized things like my flash drive - the led helps). I find that I commonly end up trying 3-4 times when plugging in USB devices when I can't see the port; though this is likely due to my own personal experiences with breaking USB jacks, one time I was even lucky enough to have the side of a case off so I actually saw something on the motherboard explode when inserting a 802.11B dongle improperly*. Hence I'm cautious. That said though I love USB devices on the whole, cheap, simple, reliable, and I don't care at all about the connector once the it is plugged in - I'm just happy my Flashdrive(s)/Hdd(s)/Keyboard/Mouse/IR-Receiver/Biometrics/Webcam/Phone/MP3 Player/Universal Card-reader/Microscope/Dancing Jesus/Midget/etc. all work.

* This incident is probably due to the manufacturer being cheap enough to use cardboard instead of plastic for the little tongue thing the wires are on, it had worn down over time till the connector just crumpled/reshaped itself and went in 2/3's the way, thereby crossing power/data lines. I haven't noticed anything quite so shoddy in years though, so it isn't really a major concern. Additionally, USB specification does state plastic, so it isn't the standards fault.

Lastly, I don't condone assault/homocide; so don't shoot that guy I mentioned earlier. However, if you want to rough him up a little that is entirely up to you. I recommend ice pick + knee cap: the trick is you go in from the back of the knee.

Re:Your mom by cecil_turtle · 2008-01-10 15:05 · Score: 1

Anything goes right? With your mom it does :-)

(That one was too easy, you didn't have to throw me a softball like that)

Hate? That's overkill by Drenaran · 2008-01-10 15:39 · Score: 1

Hey, USB might have the small downside that it rectangular in shape but not symmetrical in use - minor annoyance if you don't look/can't see the socket.

However it is unfair to say it is worse than things like CAT5, headphone jacks, and D-subminiature.
Cat5 Those little locking tabs are always cracking off ethernet male plugs (get caught on something, etc.). Once that happens they fall out constantly if brushed at all.
Headphone miniplugs Headphone jacks have multiple different purposes with identical connectors for all so are annoying to plug in correctly - i.e. Front L/R, Rear L/R, Center/Sub, Mic, Line in. This is further exacerbated by manufacturers such as Sound Blaster who thought it was a good idea to not use standard color coding (green/black/pink, etc.) on higher their end products (ex. Audigy 2 ZS Plat) and just make all the ports GOLD. Always takes me a couple tries before I figure out which one is the frackin mic port.
D-subminiature Asymmetrical design doesn't necessarily mean it's impossible to try and put it in wrong! You still have to stop, look, think, and then insert: sure it only goes in one way, but without looking or fumbling how do you know which way that is? Did you consider that before complaining?

The only reason you are annoyed by USB and not others (as much) is because its use is so damn pervasive. With most other connections you tend to stop and consider it more carefully before you go and rush to plug it in, so you tend to not do it wrong - that USB is so simple and omnipresent that you may utilize it a dozen times in day without raising an eyebrow, and yet you don't even bother to slow down and think before trying would seem to be a huge indication of a good practical design. Familiarity breeds contempt I suppose.

Re:Your mom by lena_10326 · 2008-01-11 07:10 · Score: 1

Anything goes right?
With your mom it does :-)

Now... that is funny. LOL.

--
Camping on quad since 1996.

Your hindsight is fearsome. by argent · 2008-01-11 12:07 · Score: 1

Your knuckles (from poking around behind your desk) and your sanity are another matter.

If you can't handle plugging USB connectors in without looking at them, you're no way going to have any better luck plugging in anything else by feel. You really think they're worse than mini-DB15, HD50, RJ11/RJ45, or DIN connectors?

What did you use, a hammer?

D-shell connectors frequently only have a few live pins actually inserted (for example, it was common for RS232 and EIA to only have 5 live pins, and it wasn't THAT rare to only have 3), so if the shell is even slightly flexible it didn't take much of a bad entry angle to trash them. Mini-D is even worse because the pin layout is rotationally symmetrical, and if the shell is loose or worn.

Having an asymmetric that can't be plugged in the wrong way is not that hard.

First, even the USB-A satisfies that. The only place it falls down is being *visually* distinct.

Second, I didn't even *imply* it was hard. I said it was uncommon to have one that you could tell the orientation by touch back in the early '90s. It still is. I just went around every computer in my house, and the only connector that I'd be confident orienting both plug and jack by touch is the AC power cord... and needless to say that's not one I'd recommend trying.

why didn't they do that with the USB-A plug

Because they didn't have your fearsome 15 years of hindsight.

Re:Your hindsight is fearsome. by fm6 · 2008-01-11 13:32 · Score: 1

I'll concede hindsight if you'll concede that you replied to my original post without reading it!
Re:Your hindsight is fearsome. by argent · 2008-01-11 14:23 · Score: 1

I don't have any inside information about why they decided to make the connector rotationally symmetrical from the outside, so I limited my comment to what I did know. I was mostly making the point that they were already a massive improvement over existing connectors, most of which used *circular* connectors that were only keyed by fragile, easily bent wires.

I plead guilty to excess brevity. If I've gone to far the other way, it's only in response to relentless interrogation.
Re:Your hindsight is fearsome. by fm6 · 2008-01-14 12:20 · Score: 1

You'll jump through any hoop I provide in order to admit that you made a simple impatient mistake. (One, I might as well admit, I often make myself.) That's very sad.

Re:great... just like Cat-5 (again) by aqk · 2008-01-11 19:19 · Score: 1

Huh! Phooey.
You sound just like a couple of the IT managers I worked for about 20 years ago.

When I suggested /recommended that a new office be wired with the "new" cat-5 ethernet cables, they sneered and basically questioned (with much wit and derision) who the hell would need some relatively expensive cable for (ha ha) 100 Megabit! per second transmissions?
Wasn't the 10 million enough? (sneer)
Luckily the executive director trusted me, not them.

But strangely, 10 years later, they still had their jobs, while I was outsourced and scrambling for one.
The less you knew, the better your chances of keeping your job...

A pox on all you Luddites.

--

.
- aqk
F U /. illiterates.

Re:great... just like Cat-5 (again) by Nullav · 2008-01-11 21:28 · Score: 1

Except that I'm talking about shutting out customers, not replacing a private network. Save USB3 for what needs it, at least until a decent portion of consumers have upgraded.

--
I just read Slashdot for the articles.

Slashdot Mirror

USB 3.0's New Jacks and Sockets

390 comments