Hands-on Look At USB 3.0, Spec Details Revealed

notdagreatbrain writes "Maximum PC dug up some new information about USB 3.0, got their hands on the new connectors, and even took a look inside the new cables. They learned several new details about the next-gen version of the ubiquitous interface. USB Superspeed will be backward compatible with USB 2.0. The maximum speed of the new spec is 4.8Gbps, which is ten times faster than hi-speed. Five new wires are bundled in the cable, four of them used for data transfer (bi-directional transfer is now supported). More power will also be funneled through the line, so you can charge more devices, faster. The wireless USB is also getting upgraded to version 1.1, and will include ultra-wide band frequency support and Near Field Communication for near-instant swipe-based syncing."

Comments

Full speed, high speed, superspeed

[martin-k]

After USB full speed and USB high speed, we now have USB superspeed. What comes next? Hyperspeed? FTL-speed?

Gotta love the marketing hyperbole...

Re:Full speed, high speed, superspeed

[dotancohen]

After USB full speed and USB high speed, we now have USB superspeed. What comes next? Hyperspeed? FTL-speed?

Ridiculous speed.

Re:Full speed, high speed, superspeed

[HungryHobo]

Unnecessary speed!

Re:Full speed, high speed, superspeed

[Anonymous Coward]

USB HOLY SHIT!

Re:Full speed, high speed, superspeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Lame attempt at karma whoring.

Re:Full speed, high speed, superspeed

[Saint Stephen]

ob Ren Stimpy...

"prepare to surge to sub-light speed!.... en.... gage!!!!!!!!!!!"

space............ madnesssssssss.......

Re:Full speed, high speed, superspeed

[moriya]

No no, Ridiculous speed is too slow. We're going... Ludicrous speed!

Re:Full speed, high speed, superspeed

[TheDarkMaster]

ship reactors will support USB 4.0? Damn, Scott is not here anymore to say :(

Re:Full speed, high speed, superspeed

[Anonymous Coward]

ex-SCSI-me speed!

Re:Full speed, high speed, superspeed

[antifoidulus]

Ludicrous speed is great, save for the gaudy plaid cables that are required.

Re:Full speed, high speed, superspeed

[Mishra100]

What? Nobody has said

WARP speed.

This is slashdot, this speed should be a given.

Re:Full speed, high speed, superspeed

[illumastorm]

They just don't have the power.

Re:Full speed, high speed, superspeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Ludicrous Speed

Re:Full speed, high speed, superspeed

[Mattsson]

After USB superspeed:
USB warp 1
USB warp 1.1
USB warp 1.2
etc. ^_^

Re:Full speed, high speed, superspeed

[Ramze]

Ludicrous speed!

Then they go the plaid!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HB7tc9pVvYg

(link to Spaceballs clip on YouTube)

Re:Full speed, high speed, superspeed

[Tenrosei]

Next one will be called ReverseUSB. "As if to defy common sense, they say, the backward-moving pulse of light travels faster than light." http://www.world-science.net/othernews/060512_lightfrm.htm

Re:Full speed, high speed, superspeed

[Joe The Dragon]

light speed

Re:Full speed, high speed, superspeed

[tobiasly]

Venti speed.

Re:Full speed, high speed, superspeed

[chunk08]

Weird...
But tnx for the link. Not sure how much credit I give it, but it was interesting.

Re:Full speed, high speed, superspeed

[Tweenk]

Lint Speed of course. But we'll need someone extremely scared to go this fast. Maybe each USB 4.0 device will incorporate a clone of Arthur.

Re:Full speed, high speed, superspeed

[Drathos]

Plaid

Re:Full speed, high speed, superspeed

[dotancohen]

What? Nobody has said

WARP speed.

This is slashdot, this speed should be a given.

Which is why it was not said.

Re:Full speed, high speed, superspeed

[funaho]

Argh, you beat me to it. :)

Re:Full speed, high speed, superspeed

[neokushan]

Flaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaakkkkkkkkk monkey speed!

...what were we talking about, again?

Re:Full speed, high speed, superspeed

[Dekker3D]

NEED FOR SPEED!!! mwahahaaaah!
whut? it's a good one.

Re:Full speed, high speed, superspeed

[pmbasehore]

Personally, I'm surprised no one has said

LUDICROUS SPEED!

Like Mishra100 said, this being slashdot, it should have been a given.

Re:Full speed, high speed, superspeed

[Zymergy]

Hummm...? A few marketing suggestions:
OMFG Speed, SuperSpeed GTX SE FTW, USB 3.11 FWG, Chubby Speed, Fat Pipe Speed, Sex Speed (means different things depending on the age of the male), and (of course) all the obligatory Rick Moranis Spaceballs quotes...

Re:Full speed, high speed, superspeed

[fractalVisionz]

Plaid speed.

Re:Full speed, high speed, superspeed

[Anonymous Coward]

And then.... Ludacris speed!!

Re:Full speed, high speed, superspeed

[luke923]

No, no! It's Ludacris speed! We's gotsta sells to that young, hip, urban, market... like to the dilly-yo, yo!

Re:Full speed, high speed, superspeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Plaid.

Re:Full speed, high speed, superspeed

[licious]

it will go plaid

Re:Full speed, high speed, superspeed

[MikeDirnt69]

No. At slashdot they should say, anonymously, first-speed!

Re:Full speed, high speed, superspeed

[StormReaver]

"What comes next? Hyperspeed? FTL-speed?"

Improbable Speed.

Re:Full speed, high speed, superspeed

[David Nabbit]

It's faster because it's blue...

...which must mean we're moving toward it, at superspeed no less.

Re:Full speed, high speed, superspeed

[hostyle]

That'll be a few versions away, the one where it goes up to 11.

Re:Full speed, high speed, superspeed

[ja]

Light Speed Plus

Re:Full speed, high speed, superspeed

[TeknoHog]

Only on OS/2.

Re:Full speed, high speed, superspeed

[humanifesto]

Thank you! Geez I was reading through all the comments waiting for this one. I can't believe Ludicrous speed wasn't the first one said! MAYBE warp, but Ludicrous is the funniest in my book.

Re:Full speed, high speed, superspeed

[Vexar]

Well, They've gone to plaid. Nothing's faster than Plaid.

Re:Full speed, high speed, superspeed

[nog_lorp]

No! That is the history eraser button you FOOL!

Re:Full speed, high speed, superspeed

[DaVince21]

Why anonymously? Or did you mean unanimously?

I'm just going to wait...

[bucklesl]

...for ludicrous speed.

Re:I'm just going to wait...

[Daimanta]

After that comes "holy shit". I'd love to see that one personally.

Re:I'm just going to wait...

[smoker2]

just follow the pope into the woods ...

Re:I'm just going to wait...

[N!k0N]

They've gone plaid!

Re:I'm just going to wait...

[Fumus]

USB speed names from UT. How cool is that?

Re:I'm just going to wait...

[snspdaarf]

Bears are Catholic?

Re:I'm just going to wait...

[Tsar]

Some bears are Catholic, but most are Lutheran, owing less to doctrinal agreement than to a species-wide appreciation for large padded pews and good lutefisk.

Armored bears are atheists, of course.

Re:I'm just going to wait...

[snspdaarf]

Some bears are Catholic, but most are Lutheran, owing less to doctrinal agreement than to a species-wide appreciation for large padded pews and good lutefisk. Armored bears are atheists, of course.

Hmm. That would mean that all bears are from, uh, Wisconsin......

Excluding the armored ones, of course.

Re:I'm just going to wait...

[Tetsujin]

After that comes "holy shit". I'd love to see that one personally.

Well I've heard there's this thing called "2 girls 1 cup"...

Re:I'm just going to wait...

[tyrione]

just follow the pope into the woods ...

I scrolled over that so fast I thought it read, ``Just follow the poop into the woods...''

Re:I'm just going to wait...

[nog_lorp]

Naw, armored bears aren't atheist. How can you be trying to kill god and be atheist? More like antitheist.

What I want to know

[HungryHobo]

Yes this is great but have any controls along the lines of "trusted computing" been slipped in to these devices. I ask only because it seems to be the fashion now days to try to put as many controls into new technology as possible.

Re:What I want to know

[dotancohen]

Yes this is great but have any controls along the lines of "trusted computing" been slipped in to these devices. I ask only because it seems to be the fashion now days to try to put as many controls into new technology as possible.

Why don't you write to the bodies involved with the development and ask them? If we as consumers don't display our wariness, then why shouldn't the engineers put the "controls" in?

Re:What I want to know

[HungryHobo]

I go the easier route. I just don't buy them.
Plus slashdot has so many engineers reading it that they're more likely to see it than if I email some companies customer care department.

Re:What I want to know

[dotancohen]

I go the easier route. I just don't buy them.

Really? I'd like to see you NOT buy then new 512GB Disk On Key when it comes out in three years because it uses the USB 3 spec, which may or may not contain content controls.

Seriously, stop relying on the engineers to come to you, and start writing to them. The same thing goes for Linux software support: if you want Solidworks to run on Linux, then write to the company and tell them that!

Re:What I want to know

[Anonymous Coward]

People on this site are the equivalent of computing cavemen, grunting and moaning in the darkness while pounding their PCI cards together, victims of magical superstitious thinking about the evils of closed source software and DRM.

So what if USB3 does have "content controls"? If it does, it will only be used in specific vertical applications (eg iPods), its not going to magically somehow DRM your goatporn.

Re:What I want to know

[Anonymous Coward]

These days, you have to meet marketing with marketing, or, in other words, you have to find a way to get many people to write the engineers and refuse to buy the devices. The volume of noise makes more difference to projected sales than a few letters or lot sales.

Re:What I want to know

[dotancohen]

So what if USB3 does have "content controls"? If it does, it will only be used in specific vertical applications (eg iPods), its not going to magically somehow DRM your goatporn.

So, it does want I don't want it to, and doesn't do what I do want. Sounds a lot like marriage.

Re:What I want to know

[dotancohen]

...you have to find a way to get many people to write the engineers and refuse to buy the devices.

Which is what I'm doing every time I suggest it on /..

Re:What I want to know

[tyrione]

Yes this is great but have any controls along the lines of "trusted computing" been slipped in to these devices. I ask only because it seems to be the fashion now days to try to put as many controls into new technology as possible.

Why don't you write to the bodies involved with the development and ask them? If we as consumers don't display our wariness, then why shouldn't the engineers put the "controls" in?

Don't blame the Engineers. They are just following their orders or they can find a new employer. If they are cool perhaps we can find lithographed etcha sketches for clues.

Re:What I want to know

[dotancohen]

Don't blame the Engineers. They are just following their orders or they can find a new employer. If they are cool perhaps we can find lithographed etcha sketches for clues.

Good point. In any case, be sure to write to the companies involved in any project that concerns you. This is how I do it:
http://dotancohen.com/eng/linux_compatibility.php
http://dotancohen.com/eng/firefox_compatibility.php

It's going to break.

[dotancohen]

I've seen too many people destroy USB 1 and 2 connectors by repeatedly wiggling the plug out of the sockets to the point where the sockets no longer hold the connector anymore. Now, USB 3 is going to be even deeper, providing even more leverage to ruin the socket with.

Tip: you can repair the USB 1 and 2 socktet by opening the case, placing a thin, flat object on the OUTSIDE on the socket, and giving the object a light tap. Just enough to bend it slightly inward again. Master this skill before USB 3 becomes mainstream.

Re:It's going to break.

[HungryHobo]

compared to old connecters USB sockets seem to deal pretty well with this kind of thing.
Any ideas for how they could make the sockets more durable?

Re:It's going to break.

[hey!]

This could be fixed if they simply specified the minimum mechanical strength of the sockets and plugs.

A lot of USB cables and devices have connectors you can bend with finger pressure. That's Ok for things like printers that are unplugged once in a blue moon, but it's not good for things like cameras that are frequently connected and disconnected.

Re:It's going to break.

[British]

When I play a game that uses my SOCOM headset, I have to plug it in otherwise ALL audio routes through it. In order to save wear & tear on the USB port on my case, I just use one of those 7-inch USB extension cables. If I wear that out, no big deal.

Just wish Windows would let ME turn off & on the headset in software.

Re:It's going to break.

[NormalVisual]

I've seen too many people destroy USB 1 and 2 connectors by repeatedly wiggling the plug out of the sockets to the point where the sockets no longer hold the connector anymore

IMO it's because the standard specifies a crappy connector with almost no redeeming values mechanically, other than being easy to plug/unplug. They're practically guaranteed to work themselves loose unless the connection is absolutely left alone. There really needs to be some kind of easy, cheap locking mechanism on par with the modular RJ-45 plugs to securely hold the connector in place and prevent the stresses you're talking about. I've had to deal with USB several times in an industrial automation context, and I just hate the connectors. The only decent implementation I've seen is on the cheapest Cognex vision-system cameras, which use a mini-USB connector within a screw-on fixture that locks the connector into place on the camera body and prevents any movement.

Re:It's going to break.

[Reece400]

For my desktop I always make a habit of using usb ports on a PCI card for devices that I plug in & out often so that when the connectors become damages I can cheaply & easily replace the card.

Re:It's going to break.

[PopeRatzo]

There really needs to be some kind of easy, cheap locking mechanism on par with the modular RJ-45 plugs to securely hold the connector in place

DING DING DING!

I do live performances using my digital audio workstation, and several of my controllers use USB because it does a nice job of carrying midi data. They do loosen up. On the other hand, when someone (usually me) trips over the cable, it doesn't bring all my hardware crashing down. I just reach down and plug the USB cable back in. I do go through a lot of USB cables though.

Now, if they could just make the power flow through USB hubs more reliably. There are too many gizmos that won't work unless they are plugged directly into the USB interface, so I have to use a desktop box instead of my laptop.

Re:It's going to break.

[Reece400]

Using an external USB hub would also work if the bandwidth bottleneck isn't an issue.

Re:It's going to break.

[dotancohen]

I do go through a lot of USB cables though.

The problem is that wiggling destroys the socket, not the replaceable cable.

Re:It's going to break.

[dotancohen]

RJ-* is great for "plug it in and leave it alone" situations, which it was designed for. However, it is terrible for connections that must be made and broken on a regular basis, which is what USB was designed for. In particular, the plastic locking mechanism is very fragile and prone to snapping off. I'd say that I've seen that more often than even loose USB sockets.

Re:It's going to break.

[dotancohen]

Any ideas for how they could make the sockets more durable?

Require the socket to be made of a thicker gauge of steel.

Re:It's going to break.

[Anonymous Coward]

First I'll have to find a broken USB socket...

Re:It's going to break.

[mdarksbane]

I've had much more of a problem with the plastic centers breaking off.

You can still use the plug, but you have to be really careful not to bend the wires or jiggle the connection. I've had that happen on several system, mostly laptops where it's easy for someone to bump the system and push the cables coming out the back into something.

While they're at it, I wish they could have made them a little easier to see which side is which while leaning upside down behind the back of a desk :) The firewire unbalanced hexagon is much easier to get right by feel.

Re:It's going to break.

[itsthebin]

you're using windows ME ? - and posting about it on Slashdot.

Does windows ME support USB ?

Re:It's going to break.

[British]

If we needed proof that there are way too many computer acronyms in the world.

I meant it in the fact I said ME as in "myself", not Millennium Edition.

Re:It's going to break.

[gad_zuki!]

Im not sure what you mean, but i can change the default sound device in Windows easily. This is nice if you have a soundcard and a usb sound device. Its under the audio tab in Sounds and Audio devices in the control panel.

I can also mute my mic when Im not using it.

Re:It's going to break.

[dotancohen]

For my desktop I always make a habit of using usb ports on a PCI card for devices that I plug in & out often so that when the connectors become damages I can cheaply & easily replace the card.

That is smart. Too bad for us the PCI slots are on the wrong side of the case for frequently-used devices.

You can also repair them like I mentioned.

Re:It's going to break.

[dotancohen]

At least they did better than ps/2. Just yesterday I watched as a postal clerk jammed the pc/2 connector into her keyboard (apparently they disconnect from both sides), and as it did not go in, she started twisting and applying lateral force. This, with a tech on the phone on her shoulder. I told her to tell the tech that the ps/2 port is destroyed and that the thing won't be running again today. Then I left for a different branch.

Re:It's going to break.

[tyrione]

Any ideas for how they could make the sockets more durable?

Require the socket to be made of a thicker gauge of steel.

There you go again, using your knowledge of materials engineering to deliberately show up a homeless person.

Re:It's going to break.

[tyrione]

For my desktop I always make a habit of using usb ports on a PCI card for devices that I plug in & out often so that when the connectors become damages I can cheaply & easily replace the card.

Tossing away a product which is cost effective due to the cheap price of the card isn't a solution, but a workaround a design flaw. It's also reflects today's disposable society. Can't make it work? Junk it.

Dotancohen is correct in requesting a higher quality connector. The cost for manufacturing this is negligible.

Re:It's going to break.

[dotancohen]

He asked for ideas, not solutions!

Re:It's going to break.

[MojoStan]

I always make a habit of using usb ports on a PCI card for devices that I plug in & out often

Note that legacy PCI (133MBps) doesn't have enough bandwidth to fully utilize USB 3.0, which was demoed at 369MBps at this week's IDF. (Someone said their goal is 425+, but I can't remember the link.) Even first-generation PCI Express x1 slots (250MBs) don't have enough bandwidth. You'll need at least first-gen PCIe x4 or second-gen PCIe x1 to continue your habit with USB 3.0.

USB "Superspeed"

[Apple Acolyte]

Did an Intel marketing manager get the name superspeed from his or her 4 year-old? Couple that with Core i7 and you've got. . . pretty crappy names. I guess Intel's naming schemes have historically stunk (mostly). Here are my suggestions for USB 4, 5 and 6:

USB Superduperspeed
USB Ubersuperduper
USB Ubersuperdupercalifragalisticexpialdocious

Re:USB "Superspeed"

[Andrzej Sawicki]

Did an Intel marketing manager get the name superspeed from his or her 4 year-old?

Well, they are also bringing back the Turbo button, so who knows.

Re:USB "Superspeed"

[Chabil Ha']

Mary Poppins, is that you?

Re:USB "Superspeed"

[Something Witty Here]

> Intel's naming schemes have historically stunk

That's nothing compared to their CPUs.

> USB Ubersuperdupercalifragalisticexpialdocious

USB Ubersuperdupercalifragalisticexpialdocious umpalumpahyperturbohifiantidisestablishmentarianism++ Mark IV Type 3 improved
( now with fake carbon fiber !!! )

Name split up due to:
"Filter error: That's an awful long string of letters there."

Even slashdot knows that we need white space.
Someone tell the FCC and google.

Re:USB "Superspeed"

[Anonymous Coward]

Bitches love boost, I miss my TURBO'S button :|, used to get all the ladies with a push o' that! Doubled my FPS in doom sucka!

and Yet...

[Lumpy]

It will still be slower for sustained transfers than Firewire 400.

The most important part, did they finally make it non CPU intensive?

I also really want to know what they are targeting with it. as Portable storage has esata which will kick it's butt, and USB2.0 is fine for everything else except video, and we have that standardized on firewire.

Re:and Yet...

[jimicus]

It will still be slower for sustained transfers than Firewire 400.

The most important part, did they finally make it non CPU intensive?

I doubt it. In order to do that, you'd have to move work out of drivers and into silicon, which is quite a bit more expensive.

Re:and Yet...

[MtViewGuy]

I see two uses of USB 3.0 connections:

1) Faster access to external storage devices (though I wonder how it compares against eSATA or IEEE-1394 connections).

2) Faster transfer of digital video to computer from an HDTV digital camcorder. Mind you, since many HDTV digital camcorders have IEEE-1394 connectors, we may not see new HDTV camcorders sport USB 3.0 connections soon.

Re:and Yet...

[sam0737]

Replacing the HDMI, DisplayPort...? Oh nevermind, they didn't enforce encryption on the wire, that's probably not what they are targetting.

Or else Intel would probably get sued by name-not-to-be-mentioned.

Re:and Yet...

[Anonymous Coward]

It will still be slower for sustained transfers than Firewire 400.

The most important part, did they finally make it non CPU intensive?

I also really want to know what they are targeting with it. as Portable storage has esata which will kick it's butt, and USB2.0 is fine for everything else except video, and we have that standardized on firewire.

Ever try to back up 30 gig of files on a USB 2.0 drive? I try to run my back up drives on firewire but in the PC world firewire never really caught on. My Macs have firewire 800 guys time to wake up and smell the new century. I'd like to see enough power running through firewire to run an external DVD or proper sized hard drive but for data rate USB will never equal firewire. USB is fine for dongles and thumb drives but for back up it really does suck. I've seen drives take hours doing what I could do in minutes on my firewires. Part of the problem is better hardware support. In the past I had really mixed luck getting machines to recognize firewire drives. All my current machines do pretty well. It's never been an issue with Macs.

Re:and Yet...

[Lumpy]

Yes I have and Firewire and eSATA work fantastically, eSATA kicking everything butt hard in speed.

so again, what are they targeting USB3.0 for? eSata will be the standard by the time they get around to releasing it. I even have a eSata port on my laptop and it's a year old!

Re:and Yet...

[Lumpy]

Actually HDTV camcorders dont have Firewire. HDV camcorders do.

real HDTV camcorders have too much bandwidth to use firewire 400 for transfer and record to a medium that can be read in the computer (Redone uses an array of CF cards, pro cameras use a different system)

The HDV camcorders record low grade Mpeg4 in the same bandwidth that a DV SDTV camcorder uses. It's by loose definition HD by resolution, but the artifacting and quality is so low it's only good for home use.

I use a Canon HD-G1 $5800 "HD" camcorder.. It's not HD by my definition even though it records 1440X1080i. (1/2 HD is what ALL of them record except for the jvc HD7... yes I have one of those as well)

Re:and Yet...

[poco153]

I use USB for tons of stuff: It charges my phone, my headset, and my mp3 players. At work, we use USB flash drives to kick off imaging for new computers.

As of right now, there is no power provided by the eSATA bus, so it can't be used for flash readers or drives. This also means that eSATA can't charge anything. Also, it is worth mentioning that the current eSATA standard is 'only' capable of transferring at 3Gbps where USB 3.0 is capable of 4.8Gbps.

Re:and Yet...

[Anonymous Coward]

At which point you might as well use Firewire.

Different tools for different jobs. USB shouldn't be expected to sustain high-speed transfers. I frankly don't see the point behind USB 3 (except that sometimes good-enough might be good-enough)

Re:and Yet...

[TheRaven64]

Uncompressed 720p only needs 79MB/s to transfer. FireWire 400 can get close to 50MB/s in real-world use, so it's certainly possible to stream lossless 720p over FireWire 400. FireWire 800 is fast enough for uncompressed video at this resolution.

I've only used SD cameras, but they tend to use a variant of MJPEG, so each frame is losslessly compressed but there is no interframe compression. Using something like MJPEG-2000, you can easily stream 1080p over FireWire 800.

Re:and Yet...

[Hoplite3]

They're targeting everyone with USB 2.0 ports now. People with laptops (which is becoming the largest segment of computer users) have USB ports. If they can buy their next external drive as USB 3.0, they can plug it into the computer they currently have, and when they upgrade to a new laptop with USB 3.0, they'll have an instant speed boost. The power-saving nature of 3.0 will also make it attractive to laptop manufacturers looking to boost battery time. Also, once USB 3.0 controllers end up in the major vendor stack of chips, it'll be hard NOT to get it, just like it's tough to buy a computer without sound (or even superIO).

USB isn't the fastest or least CPU-intensive, but it it by far the most pervasive hook-up on computers. The fact that the same port hooks up everything from humping dog toys to harddrives makes it difficult to knock out of the market.

I think there's probably going to be a bit of a fight between esata and firewire, though. Those seem to be in the same niche -- high-speed data transfer for video et al. Pros and hobbyists will determine the winner there. I still think firewire has more going for it (chaining and a nicer connector), but it's more expensive than esata (or so I heard).

But wireless USB ... yeah. I don't get that at all. USB is all about one connector with backwards compatibility. Take away the connector and ... what's left? I guess if it is cheaper than bluetooth, it might end up in the market.

Re:and Yet...

[JustKidding]

What makes USB to be so CPU intensive? I though USB supported DMA transfers, which means they can transfer data without the CPU entirely, after the transfer parameters have been set up.

Re:and Yet...

[A nonymous Coward]

The most important part, did they finally make it non CPU intensive?

Yes. It is interrupt driven rather than polled. Polling was one of the lamest decisions the original USB designers made. For those who don't know the difference, interrupt driven is similar to a phone ringing to get your attention. If it were a polling device, you'd have to pull it out of your pocket every few seconds to see if anyone was calling.

Re:and Yet...

[mactard]

Finally, something that I can use to max out my quad core!

Re:and Yet...

[Anonymous Coward]

USB2.0 is fine for everything else except video, and we have that standardized on firewire.

My Hard disk camera only have USB. Looking at the local electronics store it seems most are USB only. Not really what I would call "standardized" on firewire. I sure could use faster transfer speed though. My next camera will have it, and it will most probably be USB3. I don't know why any consumer would by a DV camera today except for price, since they are cheap.

Firewire might have some slight advantage over USB3 for pros, as a consumer I couldn't care less.

Good luck with your stoneage tapes.

Re:and Yet...

[nabsltd]

The HDV camcorders record low grade Mpeg4 in the same bandwidth that a DV SDTV camcorder uses.

Perhaps you meant to say "MPEG-4", which would still be wrong.

HDV is MPEG-2 at up to 25Mbps...I'd hardly call that "low grade". Although it might not do for fast motion, for a movie or TV production it's more than good enough. As a matter of fact, many TV shows use it, especially when portability is important.

Re:and Yet...

[Steve Max]

s/lossless/lossy/g. Or do you really believe JPEG is lossless?

Re:and Yet...

[TheRaven64]

See, this is what happens when I post before my first cup of coffee. Yes, lossless should be lossy in the second paragraph.

Re:and Yet...

[DurendalMac]

The only reason USB is catching on for cameras is because of digital compression on tapes. If it was a regular old digital signal on the tape like in the early days, USB would suck inordinately. Now that you're basically just streaming an MP4 file or some other codec instead of formatting it computer-side, it's not as big a deal, but FW is still faster.

Re:and Yet...

[Lumpy]

dude. they record 1440X1080i that is 3:4 HD stretched to 16:9, unacceptable in most pro's books plus the artifacting is horrid, take a shot of a tree blowing in the wind, they turn into blocky messes. HDV is how they do it by throwing away a large amount of the data and compressing the hell out of the video. 1920X1080i at full uncompressed HD WILL NOT work the way they do it with HDV.

Go pick up a redone camera and play with it, the best, most expensive HDV camera made is utter crap compared to the lowest end redone camera made. Hell go get a real pro 720p camera (Even a JVC with a fujinon lens). it kicks the crap out of any and all HDV cameras made.

Yes I know they shoot a lot on discovery with the HDV cameras, but it's because shows like deadliest catch and dirty jobs are very low budget/high camera death tv shows. It does not make them a good example of HD.

Re:and Yet...

[TheRaven64]

Not sure how that's even tangentially relevant to what I said. 1920x1080 at 24bpp is 6220800 bytes per frame. At 30fps, that's 186624000 bytes per second. That's 177MB/s. FireWire 800 can do 100MB/s, so you can't stream uncompressed data at this resolution across it, but you need less than a 2:1 compression ratio to be able to send it, and this is well within the realms of lossless compression for video. FireWire 400 would need less than a 4:1 compression ratio, which is probably stretching the capabilities of lossless CODECs, but not by much. FireWire 3200 wouldn't even notice a spike in load.

The bottleneck with lossless HD video is the physical disk speed - interfaces have been fast enough for it for a very long time. Your assertion that FireWire 400 is not fast enough for HDTV is entirely wrong. It is fast enough for uncompressed 720p, and you wouldn't need much compression to squeeze 1080p through it - only a 4:1 ratio, while DV25 gets a 5:1 ratio on SD (compressing HD is easier because there is more redundant information) using archaic compression algorithms.

Re:and Yet...

[IntlHarvester]

Camcorders on both the high- and the low-ends are moving to flash storage. This is treated like a conventional 'drive' on the computer so the sustained streaming FW provides isn't required.

So it's quite possible that consumer camcorders will just skip FW800/3200 and go with USB3.

Re:and Yet...

[Jorophose]

HDV [wikipedia.org] is MPEG-2 at up to 25Mbps...I'd hardly call that "low grade"

Compared to h.264 at 25mbps it's definately low grade.

Given enough bitrate any shitty codec will look ok.

Re:and Yet...

[Jorophose]

it's more expensive than esata (or so I heard

eSATA ports are very cheap to make, especially on external enclosures, which is why they often come with eSATA and USB and no firewire; FireWire would require an actual controller, USB just requires a change of plugs, and eSATA is SATA with a different connector.

Re:and Yet...

[Belial6]

"you'd have to pull it out of your pocket"

I find this comment funny. It is an indication of how telephones have changed at least for some demographics. I was expecting the comment to be "pick it up every few seconds".

Re:and Yet...

[Ilgaz]

As USB was designed by Intel, a CPU manufacturer, I don't see that horrible mistake as some co-incidence.

The designer of USB comes from Atari 8bit ages, he should know about performance way of doing things.

Right now, I can't run any P2P software on a Mac Mini 1.42 Ghz because poor thing dies because of kernel_task overhead (as much as 40%!) of USB2 wireless adapter. I thank Intel for it! Same mini does 40MB/sec while reading from its external firewire 400 drive with 2% CPU load.
 

Re:and Yet...

[default luser]

It will still be slower for sustained transfers than Firewire 400.

The most important part, did they finally make it non CPU intensive?

The article says that USB 3.0 is finally bi-directional (dedicated send and receive lines), and finally is interrupt driven instead of polled. Given that, then yes, I do believe it will out-class Firewire, even at faster speed grades (800, 1600, perhaps even 3200).

USB 2.0 is so slow because of the polling, and the half-duplex data transfer. USB 3.0 should be similar to PCIe, with the bi-directional signaling and interrupt-driven interface.

I also really want to know what they are targeting with it. as Portable storage has esata which will kick it's butt, and USB2.0 is fine for everything else except video, and we have that standardized on firewire.

I believe they want to get this out and into the public eye before eSATA catches on. USB has an advantage over eSATA: smaller devices really only have room for one connector, and larger devices like drive enclosures still add cost when you add more interfaces. But that advantage will only buy them so much time.

If the USB group continued dragging ass and didn't upgrade speeds, consumers would eventually switch to eSATA for external storage. But if they get a compatible product out before eSATA gains momentum, they will kill off their competition.

I personally like the idea, because I hate having multiple different cables. USB was supposed to fix this probblem, but in order to do this they have to improve performance continuously.
 

Re:and Yet...

[default luser]

Why don't you people read the article?

The USB 1/2 bus polls devices for data, and it has a half-duplex shared data bus. USB 3.0 will fix both of these problems, with a structure very similar to PCIe: bi-directional serial busses with interrupt-driven transfers.

They can make this change because they bolted an entirely new set of conductors on-top of the old bus. The only thing "old" about USB 3.0 will be the connector housing.

Re:and Yet...

[dotgain]

You mean like they do with Ethernet NICs and TCP/IP Checksum offload, SCSI/FC HBAs, etc.?

I'll happily pay more for better silicon that relieves my CPU of cycles. That's why (in the dialup ages) I continued to use an external modem rather than a reverse-engineered driver with a PCI WinModem. I do realise I'm in the minority - most consumers would settle for the cheaper controllers (and probably don't tax their CPU like I do sometimes). Hell, imagine if the controller was smart enough to mirror / stripe block access (providing RAID), or handling block-level copies between devices under supervision of the CPU. OK, I'm probably dreaming now - there might be very few people who would like that and also several reasons why it's not possible, but you can see what I'm saying, right? Anything that lets the hardware leave the CPU alone for longer has got to be good.

Re:and Yet...

[tyrione]

It will still be slower for sustained transfers than Firewire 400.

The most important part, did they finally make it non CPU intensive?

The article says that USB 3.0 is finally bi-directional (dedicated send and receive lines), and finally is interrupt driven instead of polled. Given that, then yes, I do believe it will out-class Firewire, even at faster speed grades (800, 1600, perhaps even 3200).

USB 2.0 is so slow because of the polling, and the half-duplex data transfer. USB 3.0 should be similar to PCIe, with the bi-directional signaling and interrupt-driven interface.

I also really want to know what they are targeting with it. as Portable storage has esata which will kick it's butt, and USB2.0 is fine for everything else except video, and we have that standardized on firewire.

I believe they want to get this out and into the public eye before eSATA catches on. USB has an advantage over eSATA: smaller devices really only have room for one connector, and larger devices like drive enclosures still add cost when you add more interfaces. But that advantage will only buy them so much time.

If the USB group continued dragging ass and didn't upgrade speeds, consumers would eventually switch to eSATA for external storage. But if they get a compatible product out before eSATA gains momentum, they will kill off their competition.

I personally like the idea, because I hate having multiple different cables. USB was supposed to fix this probblem, but in order to do this they have to improve performance continuously.

You're dreaming.

Re:and Yet...

[A nonymous Coward]

It IS funny how things are changing so fast. I got out of the Navy to find modular phone jacks had become widespread in just four years. "What are these new fangled things?" Heck, I was used to opening up the "borrowed" ATT phone to silence the mechanical bell so ATT couldn't tell you had an extension in the house by calling and seeing how much power was drawn, and now you could get your own phones?

It is also funny to watch movies around the time cell phones started to become available but were not yet common, so the movie uses one but they have to insert careful dialog to explain it to the audience. "This is my portable phone number." "Is that your cellular phone ringing?"

Then try to explain to some kid why Sergeant Pepper ends the way it does on the flip side, because it made sense on vinyl LPs to take advantage of the final revolution of the spiral joining itself.

Re:and Yet...

[Micah]

> eSata will be the standard by the time they get around to releasing it. I even have a eSata port on my laptop and it's a year old!

I hope you're right, because I agree it rocks. But AFAIK ASUS is still the only laptop manufacturer that puts it in. Where are all the others?

Re:and Yet...

[toddestan]

I can see where you're coming from, but you can get a lot of CPU for the money nowadays. I would rather spend a bit extra and get a quad core CPU than to spend hundreds of extra dollars on specialized hardware to run my sound, network, disk, modem, etc. Besides, if a Pentium 75 was good enough to drive a software modem, I can't imagine it having any impact whatsoever on a Core 2 Quad.

Re:and Yet...

[toddestan]

Well, the original purpose of USB was to make the peripherals cheap by making them as simple as possible by unloading as much work as possible to the host device. This works great for things like keyboards and mice and the stuff that USB was originally intended for. This seems pretty obvious from the original specs, which was 12mbps (not very fast even by the standards of the day, except in comparison to the PS/2, serial, and parallel ports it intended to replace), and the fact you are only supposed to draw a max of 500mA at 5V from the port. Of course, people quickly started abusing USB to run disk drives and such, Intel responded with USB2, and that's where we are today.

I also find it amusing that you blame Intel for the poor performance of your non-Intel machine :)

Re:and Yet...

[dotgain]

Likewise I see your point, and agree you get more bang for buck out of CPUs. Going forward, it's probably going to be cost effective to have cheaper peripherals and more processes running on the CPU for all but the higher-end servers (whose CPUs spend enough time at 100% to REALLY justify offloading). CPU usage aside, WinModems were impossible to run until they were reverse-engineered. Yeah, I'm sure that was unintentional.

Re:and Yet...

[professorfalcon]

The most important part, did they finally make it non CPU intensive?

Not a problem. You just plug in your USB x64 quad-core chip.

(Will USB3 have enough power for a 140W AMD Phenom 9950?)

Re:and Yet...

[MojoStan]

and Yet...

It will still be slower for sustained transfers than Firewire 400.

USB 3.0, using an early implementation, was demoed at 369MBps at IDF. Firewire 400 is around 49MBps, right?

The most important part, did they finally make it non CPU intensive?

As other comments have noted (and TFA), yes. The Firewire vs. USB flamewars will need to change their arguments for the next generation.

Re:and Yet...

[Belial6]

Speaking of LPs, I was always disappointed that during the 80s when LPs were still viable, and there weren't enough devils to go around, that nobody produced an LP with concentric spirals so that depending on which spiral you landed, you would get a different audio track. If spaced properly, you could create a record that had something like a 1 in 100 chance of playing some kind of evil message. Heck, if you did it right, you could have made it so that it would only play the second track if you started at a particular point in the middle. This could make it so that there was something like 1 in a 10000 chance of hearing that Satan was coming for your soul. And without the internet, it could take a very long time for the joke to get out.

Linux and Mac already support USB 3.0?

[dotancohen]

From TFA:
Also, new Mass Storage Device drivers will have to be developed for Windows to take advantage of the spec.

Either Mac, Linux, Solaris, the BSDs and Symbian already support USB 3.0, or somebody at MaximumPC needs to pull their head out from under Ballmer's ballsack.

Re:Linux and Mac already support USB 3.0?

[RangerRick98]

[...] somebody at MaximumPC needs to pull their head out from under Ballmer's ballsack.

(Score:5, Informative)

Best. Moderation. Ever.

Wireless USB upgraded to 1.1?

[Mr2001]

What happened to 1.0? I've never seen any wireless USB devices for sale.

If there is such a thing, maybe that explains why it's so hard to find a name-brand Bluetooth mouse anymore...

Yes, but where are my snakes?

[Anonymous Coward]

I could swear they were in the basket like a second ago. What the FUCK?

Re:Yes, but where are my snakes?

[Anonymous Coward]

On a plane.

Wireless USB? Huh?

[Manip]

Could someone please explain the point of Wireless USB to me?

I mean we have WiFi (802.11) for the longer range stuff and Bluetooth for close proximity devices...

What niche does Wireless USB fit in that the existing technology doesn't?

Re:Wireless USB? Huh?

[HungryHobo]

It's for when you want to get something off your pen drive and don't want to bother plugging it in!
Or when someone standing beside you wants to get something off your pen drive without bothering to plug it in!

Re:Wireless USB? Huh?

[sam0737]

WiFi is a general networking thing, and USB remains to be a point to point between host and one devices thing. Use is also device protocol (use of system drivers allow much greater user experience easier), instead of being just a data transmission protocol as in Wifi.
The software (and the user interface design) is much simpler with that...

Like those nasty DHCP, DNS and related failure/exception cases are out of picture. Encryption is also much easier/cleaner to design because the data are never flow between devices.

WUSB is pretty much the same as Bluetooth, just much faster.

while there are not many type of devices that I can think of could make use of 480Mbps without a power adapter, but think of bluetooth which is dead slow, I would love to have my PDA and Camera sync to the desktop over WUSB.

Re:Wireless USB? Huh?

[hey!]

To make money for the vendor who controls the specification and owns key patents?

Seriously, Wireless USB seems to be pretty much a direct competitor to Bluetooth. It is faster than the current generation of Bluetooth but no faster than the next version of Bluetooth as planned. I get the impression it is intended to be simpler than Bluetooth. Bluetooth as service discovery and connection security features that are practical stumbling blocks for average users. Aside from weaknesses in its protocols, the biggest weakness in Bluetooth security that users find it inconvenient. They often leave their devices in insecure configurations and vendors often deliver devices with trivial passkeys like 1234.

WUSB claims to implement security in a simpler way, and intuition tells me that there must be a better way, but still I'll believe it when I see it.

WUSB apparently doesn't have service discovery or security. This clearly makes it more of a bona fide "cable replacement" and certainly simplifies managing the WUSB pairing. This will certainly make connecting devices like cameras simpler; on the other hand it will be up to device driver and operating system developers to figure out how to handle devices that offer an array of services, such as phones. So a lot of application interface standardization goes out the window. That's too bad, although it's questionable whether users currently benefit that much from that.

Although these are significant differences, I'm not sure that they'll be decisive in favor of one technology or the other. I'm betting that everything will depend on how cheap throwing a WUSB interface in a device is compared to throwing a Bluetooth interface in. If one interface costs a nickel and the other costs a dime, I'd bet on the nickel interface.

Re:Wireless USB? Huh?

[NormalVisual]

It can be quite handy when you need to use a USB device that's located physically close to the computer that's using it, but a cable run to the device would be longer than 16 feet.

Re:Wireless USB? Huh?

[wilder_card]

I'm just guessing here, but maybe it differs from Bluetooth by actually working.

Re:Wireless USB? Huh?

[Tetsujin]

I'm just guessing here, but maybe it differs from Bluetooth by actually working.

I haven't ever had any trouble with my Wii controllers, so I don't know what you're talking about...

Re:Wireless USB? Huh?

[tepples]

on the other hand it will be up to device driver and operating system developers to figure out how to handle devices that offer an array of services, such as phones.

USB already has specs for how to handle a "composite device", which presents multiple interfaces to the system. Windows has handled composite devices properly at least since Windows XP Service Pack 2. See WHQL: USB FAQ - Intermediate. If nothing else, a phone could act like an Xbox controller, presenting itself to the host as a USB hub with each of the "array of services" on a separate port.

Re:Wireless USB? Huh?

[woongbin]

But Bluetooth is slow as hell..
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth]

v1 = 1Mbps
v2+EDR = 3Mbps

I've tried a bluetooth v1 headphone and it was a nightmare..

Re:Wireless USB? Huh?

[bill_mcgonigle]

What niche does Wireless USB fit in that the existing technology doesn't?

Wireless USB and Bluetooth 3 are very similar at the radio and protocol layers - both are for high speed close-proximity use.

I'd opt for Bluetooth 3 personally because of its more complex profile layer support but Wireless USB may be easier to implement for USB vendors. Bluetooth already uses USB's protocols as a layer so it's darn close. I wish they'd just merge the things, but this probably has more to do with control than technology.

Re:Wireless USB? Huh?

[toddestan]

Wireless USB looks just like USB without the cables. You have hosts, and you have devices. The devices can't communicate with each other, as they don't have the logic onboard to do so. Your Wireless USB camera won't be able to communicate with your Wireless USB camera, you'll need to use a host (a computer) to transfer data between them. The advantages of this is the devices should be simplier and cheaper, both in design and in use. This is different than 802.11 and Bluetooth, where all the devices also have the logic onboard to be hosts too, so in theory your Bluetooth MP3 player can talk directly to your Bluetooth camera.

Re:Wireless USB? Huh?

[jas203]

Mod parent up. Spot on.
BTW. Bluetooth v2.1 has a brand new security model, and does away with the "fixed" PIN codes like 1234.

The other key thing to mention is (as I've said before on /.) that I wouldn't want to use the USB mass storage class over wireless. Going out of range while updating key allocation tables on the disk isn't going to make anyone happy. At least with wired USB you've got the cable to stop you going too far.

The only real use-case for wireless USB I can see is printers. Bluetooth has been very good with compatibility, which means that even if they move to UWB a device will still have the old radio. A UWB is bound to eat power, so it's only going to be "cheaper" for a printer where all the infra-structure is set-up for USB and it has a power supply. If I was building a wireless mouse I would use Bluetooth with the old radio (what sort of mouse would need UWB speeds?!).

I bet they've got a spiffy new name for USB 2.0

[dpbsmith]

Don't tell me, let me guess. They've figured out something they can call USB 2.0 to convince naÃve buyers to go ahead and buy the stale old stock that's on the retailer shelves.

A big dayglo orange sticker saying something like "Full Superspeed-compatible USB" or "100% USB 3.0 Ready" or "Works With USB 3.0."

Full speed

[slashqwerty]

The maximum speed of the new spec is 4.8Gbps, which is ten times faster than hi-speed.

In other news, USB full speed will still be 12Mbps.

Re:Full speed

[PrescriptionWarning]

sounds like marketing got ahold of their product USB specs and ran with it straight into the ocean and drowned.

Re:Full speed

[aztracker1]

I always found that kind of confusing in the bios, choosing "hi-speed" being faster than "full-speed" ...

Re:Full speed

[Ilgaz]

They sue Apple in all occasions even for ridiculous things like Advertisement shows iPhone faster but they don't sue Intel and USB gang for openly lying about speed. Why?

Everyone who used USB2 knows that 480Mbps is almost never achieved in real life and even Firewire 400 (not 800) delivers better speeds and yet nobody sues them.

Re:Full speed

[Anonymous Coward]

Firewire 400 and 800 don't deliver 400 and 800 Mbps in real life either. Did you know that they aren't even clocked at the rates suggested by '400' and '800'? IIRC Firewire clocks are multiples of 49.152 MHz, so FW400 really runs at 393.216 MHz and FW800 at 786.432 MHz. Fraud! Sue 'em! And while Firewire is generally more efficient than USB, it certainly isn't 100% efficient. For example, the best FW400 did was generally about 35 MB/s, far short of the theoretical 49.152 MB/s raw bus BW. FW800 improved efficiency a lot over FW400 but still falls considerably short of 100%. Off with their heads!

Your other comments about USB are just as ignorant and foolish. USB wasn't designed to make Intel more money by requiring a higher CPU load, it was designed to be cheap to implement. The reason for this was simple. USB was intended to replace at least three ultra-cheap interfaces on PCs: RS-232, the PC parallel port, and the PS/2 mouse/keyboard ports. In order to succeed in that role, USB had to be designed such that the amount of silicon required for a minimal USB implementation in a cheap device like a mouse was next to nothing. (ISTR Intel touting that USB added only $0.25 to the cost of building such devices, back when USB 1.0 was all there was.) One consequence of designing with implementation cost as a priority is that USB devices sometimes (not always) require more CPU load to support the same communications throughput. Same thing applies to efficiency.

Firewire demonstrates that it is possible to design a higher cost serial peripheral bus which is better for high performance peripherals, but you never saw anybody advocate building Firewire mice, now did you? It simply wasn't an appropriate design for that type of device.

You might argue that USB is inappropriate for devices like hard drives, and you'd be right to some extent. But after USB 2.0 got released, it became good enough in that application for most people. For better or for worse, the classic 'better is the enemy of good enough' battle was then replayed and, as usual, when 'good enough' is cheap and ubiquitous, it wins.

"For Windows"

[Lord Lode]

From the article: "Also, new Mass Storage Device drivers will have to be developed for Windows to take advantage of the spec.". What does being developed for Windows mean? Does it mean it will work ONLY in Windows? Are drivers for USB 3.0 not usable on other platforms?

Re:"For Windows"

[Lord Lode]

Aaaah! Please forget my question in the parent post! I misread is as "drives (instead of drivers) have to be developed for Windows only" instead of "windows has to be extended with new drivers". Obviously this will also count for other OSes? :)

Re:"For Windows"

[Bryansix]

The real question is will Microsoft RELEASE THE DRIVERS for XP?

Re:"For Windows"

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the F*CK would this be Microsoft's responsibility??

How about we leave that to the vendors of the add-in cards, mainboard, and laptops that produce the devices, eh???

Re:"For Windows"

[Bryansix]

I mean the Drivers for USB 3.0 not the drivers for the devices. If USB is a standard then it should be supported in Windows XP and Vista. Just like how they include drivers for USB 2.0 and USB 1.1 now.

Re:"For Windows"

[dotgain]

I don't think the G.P. understands that the OS itself will need code rewrites to support USB 3.0 and is probably of the impression the increases have come about simply from 'beefing things up', as it were.

I agree that since XP has always supported USB 1.1 & 2.0, it's a fair expectation for 3.0 to become supported. I think for MS not to do that would be an extremely risky move - sure they spew to the media that Vista has been an overwhelming success, but surely they don't actually believe that themselves. Do they? Because as long as XP users are the mainstay of their single-user workstation install, anything they do to antagonise them will only drive more people over to Apple / Linux etc. Then again, the emigration of users to those platforms could also be something they've deluded themselves about as well.

Re:It stands for

[gEvil (beta)]

USB stands for Universal Serial Bus. See Wikipedia

Thanks! Do you happen to have an explanation for that IBM thing that's confounded me all these years?

Who is this...

[I cant believe its n]

General Failure and why is he reading my USB drive?

If you haven't got anything good to say about it,

[Joseph_Daniel_Zukige]

iNTEL (wimedia) submarined the xStremeSpectrum/Freescale UWB, which was better tech, just so they could own the patents on all the pipes. That, even though Freescale offered theirs royalty-free.

Now, iNTEL insists on pushing their non-standard UWB into the USB spec.

USB is one of those "We spec our tech conservatively. Our specs are 100% better than you will obtain." technologies. Wireless USB will spill your data into the ether and USB 3, while bursting to n-gigabit, will barely be able to sustain half a gig continuous with only two devices on the line. And multiple bus controllers is an upgrade, still on the drawing board.

Save your money. If serial SCSI is overkill, and your device is not on a LAN, get Firewire. Buy printers with ethernet connectors.

Use USB for keyboards and mice and maybe scanners, like it was intended in the first place.

iNTEL bites.

USB1 and 2 (and now3) = bad connector design

[atari2600]

If I had a penny for each time I inserted an USB cable incorrectly, reversed it and probably managed to insert it correctly, I'd be able to afford one of those high end Mac notebooks.

Looks like the saga will continue with USB3 as the connectors are designed the same. Why can't the connector be designed in such a way that just inserting *would just work* without having to worry about alignment. Too much to ask?

On the flip side, Tannenbaum would be happy: Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of 1TB external drives with USB3 ports hurtling down the highway. Or Ritchie - whoever said that.

Re:USB1 and 2 (and now3) = bad connector design

[Fumus]

Every USB connector has the USB logo on it's top side. That's how you know which side is up.

Re:USB1 and 2 (and now3) = bad connector design

[atari2600]

Half my cables don't have the little USB logo on them :( - I guess I should replace them. Also what about laptops where USB ports (vertical) are on either side and are mirrored. I guess if I paid attention, it would be less of a problem but I just want to insert.

Re:USB1 and 2 (and now3) = bad connector design

[smoker2]

what you mean like ethernet, or DVI/HDMI, or svideo, or firewire, or serial, or parallel, or IDE, or sata, or even earthed mains ? Christ, even a simple CD needs to be put in the right way up.
Not everything can be practically wired to a "stereo" jack plug, and even if it were practical, how many times will you jam the wrong thing in the wrong socket, sending +5v the wrong way into an expensive bit of kit ?
Even nature uses specific "sockets" to ensure the correct usage. Sure you can stick food up your ass, but you won't be able to chew it, and it'll just drop out anyway. And as for sex, well there is only one socket that really works as intended.
BTW, you never "inserted a USB cable incorrectly" because, surprise surprise, it wouldn't go in, thereby ensuring that you got it right on the next attempt. You may have "tried" to insert it, but you can do that with any socket arrangement.
I'm interested to hear your alternatives for an idiot proof connector layout. One that doesn't involve "keying" the plug to the socket.

Re:USB1 and 2 (and now3) = bad connector design

[Kelbear]

Which side is up on the slot though?

It can be vertical/horizontal and can oftentimes be out of line of sight when reaching behind PCs, or in the dark under a desk.

Re:USB1 and 2 (and now3) = bad connector design

[PrescriptionWarning]

sometimes the logo is the same color as the cable and can be hard to see, and then there's the apple macs who decide to flip the port directions around just for kicks.

Re:USB1 and 2 (and now3) = bad connector design

[atari2600]

You are missing the point. Off all the connectors you mentioned (Ethernet, HDMI, Svideo, blah blah blah), most if not all are plug once and forget for most part or keep plugging 100 times in 5minutes till it works and forget it for most part.

USB devices on the other hand are numerous and most people (cannot cite a source since this is captain obvious territory) plug in and remove their USB devices frequently (many times a day?) - they not only use this for data transfer but also to charge their devices. Often the ports are vertical (Thinkpad laptops) and to the side (Dell monitors). If i had a better alternative for an idiot proof connector layout (not that I have given thought to it), I'd be patenting it right now.

Obviously the smart guys are paid to that job and imo, they aren't doing it that well. You would be bitching about a stereo jack or power charger connector if it wasn't just round and "insertable" as that's a connector you use a lot (way more frequently than a VGA). As for the CD, it doesn't take a lot of brains to put in a CD the right way. Stop arguing just for the sake of argument eh?

Re:USB1 and 2 (and now3) = bad connector design

[Fumus]

I concur. I forgot about the back of the PC. Though I usually turn the cable clockwise (I think..) and it fits.

Re:USB1 and 2 (and now3) = bad connector design

[chaim79]

I think he is refering to 'keying' the plug/socket, all those you reference are keyed plugs (RJ45 (ethernet), DVI, svideo, firewire, etc) are all keyed plugs where the key is visible and easy to distinguish, you don't have to be looking directly at one of those plugs to figure out where the key is, and usually you can see the keying for the socket.

USB decides to be keyed as well, but internally keyed (the key is the shape of the inside of the plug) so you are forced to put the USB logo on one side so people know which side's up. For those who have cables that don't have that label or sockets that are on their side, and you don't know which side is up, this becomes a problem.

I'm seeing people trying to explain that USB is not keyed, but then say it won't go in the wrong way, but that means it's keyed, so you contradict yourself.

Because USB IS KEYED, and it is keyed internally, it's an annoying spec, personally I like firewire better and try and use it more then USB, it's easier for me to see the keying.

Re:USB1 and 2 (and now3) = bad connector design

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for the 4 pin Firewire connector. That is visibly keyed, but not self-seating. The connector edges are not rounded, so inserting it blindly is fiendishly difficult.

Re:USB1 and 2 (and now3) = bad connector design

[TheRaven64]

S-video is a bad design. Serial and parallel presumably refer to D-type connectors (although both come in DIN and Centronics connectors too). FireWire and D-type connectors can have their orientation easily distinguished by glancing at the connector. So can Ethernet. I can't remember what earthed mains looks like in the USA, but I've never seen someone try to plug in a UK mains cable upside down.

With USB, you can only tell which way up it should go by either inspecting both ends closely, or by trying both ways. It also seems very easy to have a USB connector the right way up but not have it slide in easily, not push too hard because you don't want to damage the socket, and just turn it around and try the other way. USB is the only socket I've ever seen where it's common for people to take 3-4 tries to get it right.

Not everything can be practically wired to a "stereo" jack plug

Stereo audio jacks need a left channel, a right channel, and a return. Some use separate returns for each channel to reduce noise. USB connectors have four wires. There is no reason why you couldn't use a 3.5mm four-wire stereo connector for USB, although you'd probably want to use something slightly bigger so you didn't plug it into an audio jack by mistake. There are large numbers of superior connector designs. Raskin devotes an entire chapter to them in The Humane Interface.

Re:USB1 and 2 (and now3) = bad connector design

[Bryansix]

That doesn't matter if you can tell which way the slot is because the little plastic tab in the slot is black and your computer is in a shadow under your desk.

Re:USB1 and 2 (and now3) = bad connector design

[Bryansix]

Dude, with DVI for instance you can tell because the connector is shaped differently (smaller on one side of the trapezoid). However with USB its a rectangle and only looking at the end (or the logo) and then into the end of the slot will allow you to see which way it goes. That is IF you can even fit your head into the area you need to look at.

Re:USB1 and 2 (and now3) = bad connector design

[Fallingcow]

I don't know why they didn't just key the fscking things. Like, in a way that you can see at a glance or easily feel on the back of that computer crammed under the desk.

Re:USB1 and 2 (and now3) = bad connector design

[aztracker1]

simple...
1234
4321
wire the jack with a make/female, similar to now, but have the key in the computer exposed on both sides, one reversed of the other... this could be done in such a way that the size is the same, but the socket is slightly bigger to allow for a new jack that is reversible, while still allowing legacy devices, though there would be more wiggle-room, and potential for breakage using old devices in the new socket.

It would be trivial to expose the same pin-outs on either side in reverse order. At least so long as the number of pins is relatively low, in the case of typical usb 4... though usb3 seems to add more to the mix..

Re:USB1 and 2 (and now3) = bad connector design

[uglyduckling]

I think this is how the Apple MagSafe connector works - the pins are set-up so that it can be connected either way round.

Re:USB1 and 2 (and now3) = bad connector design

[FrozenFrog]

And as for sex, well there is only one socket that really works as intended.

I read Slashdot... can you go into more detail on the correct socket for the above noted activity?

Re:USB1 and 2 (and now3) = bad connector design

[dotgain]

That was one of the first things I notice about USB cables, the logo on one side. I was still shuddering from the ease of use, can't-go-wrong aspect of it all, so imagine my joy when I learned they'd even gone and standardised which side of the plug the logo goes on so that the (apparently uncommon) people like you and me that pick up on details like this can actually use it to save time.

...

Then imagine my dismay when the inevitable cheap knock-offs hit the market, with the logo on both sides, or neither, cables with male 'A' connectors at both ends, etc. Just when you start to rely on something, it becomes unreliable.

Re:USB1 and 2 (and now3) = bad connector design

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree why on earth would you make a connector that is symmetrical on the outside but only goes in one way on the inside?

Re:USB1 and 2 (and now3) = bad connector design

[amRadioHed]

As for the CD, it doesn't take a lot of brains to put in a CD the right way

Are you trying to argue that USB plugs, OTOH, require a lot of brains to plug in correctly? Maybe I'm just extraordinarily gifted, but it's never given me the slightest bit of trouble.

Re:USB1 and 2 (and now3) = bad connector design

[amRadioHed]

I'm pretty sure the socket he's referring to is the fist.

Re:USB1 and 2 (and now3) = bad connector design

[Anonymous Coward]

USB has power running though it, audio connectors such as 3.5mm ones when being inserted can touch other areas (like hear the left channel on the right side). It would be too dangerous to use.

Re:USB1 and 2 (and now3) = bad connector design

[TheRaven64]

The power running through USB is very low - 5V at up to 500mA, giving 2.5W. It wouldn't be hard to put a switch in the bottom of the socket though, so the power wouldn't flow unless the plug was fully inserted. Some amplifiers already do this so they don't damage headphones on insertion.

Re:USB1 and 2 (and now3) = bad connector design

[badkarmadayaccount]

Better question: why dont they but the damn ports on the front or side?

Re:It stands for

[gbjbaanb]

lol. but - read the summary: Five new wires are bundled in the cable, four of them used for data transfer (bi-directional transfer is now supported)

So its really a UPB now :)

4.8 Gbps is fast?

[kungfuj35u5]

Firewire 800 is how old, and is how fast? About 6.25 Gbps? Seriously, get with the program IEEE, don't bastardize your fast standards while allowing the market to lovingly adopt your slow child.

Re:4.8 Gbps is fast?

[Hal_Porter]

Firewire 800 is how old, and is how fast? About 6.25 Gbps?

If only they named Firewire standards in a way that let users tell how fast it was just from the name.

Re:4.8 Gbps is fast?

[kungfuj35u5]

errr, now I feel stupid, the given speed is in Mbps, not MBps like I thought I remembered it being. Ah well.

Re:4.8 Gbps is fast?

[Joseph_Daniel_Zukige]

Not so stupid, just a little early. Check wikipedia on it (looking down a bit further to future enhancements).

Firewire over RJ45!?!

Not such a hot article...

[ckthorp]

That article isn't so hot. It says things like: "Bi-directional data transfer will be very useful for syncing up information on PDAs and storage backup." The data flow on a PDA sync is way too small (and non-interactive) to be helped by full duplex communications. It also says "bumped the power output from about 100miliamps to 900 milliamps." The current limit is 500 mA. Bumping to 900 mA is pretty worthless.

Re:It stands for

[Reece400]

Very True! now if they just called it that, they could cut off the ridiculous 'super speed' suffix and start fresh.

Yogurt brand cables

[Count_Froggy]

Don't forget the Yogurt brand cables and other devices.

May the Schwartz be with you!

Re:Yogurt brand cables

[Tetsujin]

Don't forget the Yogurt brand cables and other devices.

May the Schwartz be with you!

Spaceballs: the polling host adaptor
Spaceballs: the high speed serial cable
Spaceballs: the inter-device communications hub
Spaceballs: the high-throughput mass-storage device

Wireless USB? Isn't that Bluetooth?

[argent]

(yes, I know it's a different standard)

I haven't ever seen a "wireless USB" product in stores, so why should I care about "Wireless USB" when Bluetooth already provides a wireless equivalent of USB?

Re:Wireless USB? Isn't that Bluetooth?

[Amamdouh]

For speed I guess. Bluetooth is painfully slow to make any serious transfers.

Re:Wireless USB? Isn't that Bluetooth?

[argent]

Given the speed of adoption of Wireless USB... if it takes another year for Bluetooth 3.0 (or whatever they call the higher speed post-2.1 version) you'd still be better off waiting than having to start shuffling two incompatible short-range wireless standards.

Re:Wireless USB? Isn't that Bluetooth?

[Ant P.]

All those shitty keyboards that come with proprietary 2.4GHz dongles? Sounds like this is going to force them to conform to one standard via peer pressure and complaints from misled customers.

Re:Wireless USB? Isn't that Bluetooth?

[argent]

If they're not willing to make Bluetooth keyboards, why would they make Wireless USB keyboards? And if they do, that will just mean you'll have Bluetooth keyboards, Wireless USB keyboards, and shitty dongles.

Duh

[A nonymous Coward]

I do go through a lot of USB cables though.

The problem is that wiggling destroys the socket, not the replaceable cable.

The solution is to put the extension cable into the socket so it ends with a socket, and if that socket end is destroyed by too many cable changes, you replace it. If you get 100 changes per destroyed socket, you can replace the extension cable 100 times, and if you take more care with that than regular changes, you will get more than 100 changes there.

Re:Duh

[dotancohen]

The solution is to put the extension cable into the socket so it ends with a socket, and if that socket end is destroyed by too many cable changes, you replace it. If you get 100 changes per destroyed socket, you can replace the extension cable 100 times, and if you take more care with that than regular changes, you will get more than 100 changes there.

Be sure to use a USB 2 extension cable. I've seen USB 2 devices run at USB 1 speeds even though the PCI card supported USB 2, because a USB 1 extension was used.

In fact, extension cables are not really USB cables! They are USB-compatible, but they do not meet the USB spec.

Re:Duh

[PopeRatzo]

In fact, extension cables are not really USB cables!

I've wondered about this. I've got some digital audio gear that works perfectly when plugged into the back of the computer, but misbehaves when plugged into an extension, which is plugged into the computer. This has even happened using extension cables certified USB 2.0.

Woosh

[Anonymous Coward]

There is more to scifi than star trek. This is one of those times...

If you want real data transfer rates...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why hasn't anyone implemented external PCI Express? One of the coolest things about PCIe is that you can put it on a cable with no extra work, due to its serialized and point-to-point nature.

PCIe external connectors have been spec'd for over a year now, in widths from x1 to x16. The x1 connector has 18 conductors in about a DSub-9 size, with the usual screw-locking features.

And we know PCIe works at high, sustained data rates. And it's an Intel-backed standard, so no motive for them to "forget" to put it in their chipsets like they did with FireWire. Also, it would be trivial to make a PCIe board that took its x1 port and just wired it straight to the back panel.

So what's stopping people?

Re:If you want real data transfer rates...

[Joe The Dragon]

I did read about video card docks that would sit under the monitor so what happened?

Faster version of "horrible"

[Migraineman]

If you haven't looked at the USB spec, please do. It's one of those well-intentioned structures that's suffering from design-by-committee. Unfortunately, the design committee was wearing blinders, and completely missed the requirements of any device that requires decent real-time response. Yes Virginia, your USB gamepad requires a very different interface structure than your USB hard drive. So there are exceptions ... and the exceptions out number the spec requirements. That's generally a "bad thing," and indicates a fundamental problem with the specification. Similarly, there's no way to distribute any kind of timing marker via USB to support coordinated operation of peripherals.

Distributing power via the USB connector is a redeeming quality, but that's about it. The protocol overhead is insane. I can achieve better than 12MBps throughput with bone-stock RS-485 drivers. I can only assume that the corporate interests had to create a "new" interface spec so they could control it ... can't really control RS-485, can you?

Firewire seems much better suited to doing ... just about anything. The 8kHz timing bins are a bit restrictive, but that stands a chance of being rectified in future upgrades. The architecture makes explicit mention of real-time device support, which seems to be a healthy portion of the peripheral market. A live video feed over Firewire is possible because of the timeslot allocation structure. USB doesn't have one, and can only compensate by increasing the line rate and buffering the hell out of both ends to make up for the lack-of-timing-support. The USB guys are totally short-sighted, but have better Marketing people.

Re:Faster version of "horrible"

[coryking]

Distributing power via the USB connector is a redeeming quality, but that's about it.

I'm gonna design my new motherboard without USB because I think the technical specs suck. Yeah, the business weenies keep saying "nobody will buy it because it doesn't have USB", but they are just clueless newbies who dont understand my l33t hardware design skills. Who cares if no device will be able to plug in to my motherboard? Who cares if their cameras won't plug in, they should have been using Firewire. Who cares if their mouse doesn't work with my motherboard, that is what PS2 is for. Who cares if the billions of USB devices dont work with my motherboard--I dont want their money anway.

I stand for principle, not money. USB stinks technically, and dammit, somebody needs to take a stand! After all, can USB work with RMS's printer? No! Does USB replace perfectly good standards like RS232? Yes! That is evil! USB is evil!

Am I getting close here?

(I dont know what I find more amusing... that there are passionate firewire fanboys, or that people cannot appreciate that USB is probably the most successful computing standard every)

Re:Faster version of "horrible"

[TheRaven64]

USB had one distinct advantage over FireWire - cheaper licensing. FireWire was costing around $1 per chip in licensing costs (I think it's lower now), while USB was free. This meant you could put a USB controller in your south bridge chip, and if no one wanted to wire up USB ports then it wasn't costing them anything. If you added FireWire, you added $1 to the chip cost even if it wasn't used. This meant that FireWire controllers stayed on separate chips, which meant that they only made it into expensive motherboards (extra chip, extra wiring, extra port, all drive up the cost), which meant that the same economies of scale never kicked in.

USB controllers are also much simpler, since they do a lot more in software. Intel backed USB for exactly this reason - anything that drives up CPU needs is good for Intel. With USB being supported everywhere, there was a bigger market for USB devices (USB devices are also cheaper to make, since the devices are dumb while FireWire devices are peers). With more USB devices, there was more reason to add USB controllers.

USB had much better marketing, but not just in the sense of better advertising. The USB backers got an inferior spec more widely adopted by making supporting it good economic sense for the people who needed to.

Re:Faster version of "horrible"

[Migraineman]

I don't consider myself a Firewire Fanboy, but I did have to choose one interface for a recent development. We needed periodic and deterministic response for servicing an external hardware device. USB is completely useless in that respect, even at 480Mbps. It is fundamentally impossible to schedule a timeslot with the spec as written. If you look at the spec, you'll see that they're bending over backwards to support real-time devices like gamepads (low latency requirements) and webcams (deterministic device-timed data transfers.) There's a thread on the Linux EMC forum indicating, in great detail, why USB is totally unsuitable for *any* type of real-time service.

Firewire is only marginally better. They do support scheduled data transfers, but unless you've got an 8kHz block-transfer basis, you're going to be SOL. The video apps can DMA burst on the 8kHz block basis and be fine with some buffering on each end. However, if you want to support something that has a 50kHz scheduled interval, that won't happen on Firewire either. Better, but still unsuitable.

The Firewire guys shot themselves in the collective foot by being greedy bastards. They could have beaten USB into insignificance, but they insisted on large license fees and peering structures, the latter forcing vendors to place an extra "smart" component on the device, raising costs. In all, Firewire was doomed by the economics. Apple buoyed it's existence by creating computers and peripherals that used the port, creating a not-market-driven basis for it's existence. Many PCs include Firewire now, but it's certainly outnumbered by the USB adoption.

There's absolutely nothing fancy about the USB interface - it's almost exactly the RS-485 PHY with some pull-up resistors and the ability to send a SE0 (Single Ended Zero). The problem is with the software behind the physical interface. It's already a root-controlled heirarchical structure, so they *could* coordinate the timing. They chose not to, and they didn't fix that deficiency from 1.0 to 1.1 to 2.0. The half-duplex nature of the medium makes device-driven interrupt events difficult, but not impossible. Again, this "problem" has been solved before in networks like Thicknet backbone ethernet (yes, old school shared-medium coax as thick as your index finger, viper taps, AUIs, 10base2 ... god I feel old now.)

Re:Faster version of "horrible"

[Migraineman]

You've hit the nail on the head as to why USB beat the pants off Firewire. It boiled down to economics. Still, the lack of real-time support is a software issue, and it should've been dealt with back in the 1.0 to 1.1 transition. Granted, getting good real-time support out of a non-real-time OS is difficult, but the interface spec shouldn't preclude such operation explicitly.

Ability to power device.

[jessedorland]

What I would like most is ability to power my usb hard-drive with USB so I don't need extra cable. That would be fun. I wonder if eSata does that?

Re:Ability to power device.

[Raseri]

Seagate makes one, called FreeAgent Go. The cord is split at the end, with one plug for data + power, the other is data only. Mine is 160GB, cost about $80. There are others as well (such as Western Digital's My Passport), you just need to look around. And no, eSATA connectors don't supply power: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESATA#External_SATA

Wireless USB is for charging!

[DarthStrydre]

The only LOGICAL use for wireless USB is so that you can charge all your devices without plugging them in... oh, wait... it doesn't charge them...

Could someone please explain the point of Wireless USB to me?

Will it have better latency for CNC machines

[BrendaEM]

Almost no one is using USB for CNC machines calming that the negotiation and latency are much too high for real-time application such as CNC machines. Will the new USB fix that?

Re:Will it have better latency for CNC machines

[Areyoukiddingme]

What are they using instead? We use RS-232 to control a real time external device and under Windows latency is a minimum of 80ms. RS-232 is about as barebones as you can get, so I'm curious as to what else they could be using that's any better?

Re:Will it have better latency for CNC machines

[dotgain]

Many Japanese Automotive ECUs are unreliable/unworkable to communicate with using the USB to RS232 adapters as well. In addition, some particular adapters seem better than others, but so far I haven't found one as reliable as an onboard controller.

Re:Will it have better latency for CNC machines

[Areyoukiddingme]

We've seen some variation in USB to RS232 adapters as well. In particular, the Radio Shack adapters are unusable for our purposes. They fail to transmit data at odd times. But as long as we don't use one of those, we're fine.

Oddly enough, using USB and an adapter substantially reduces the CPU load of our application vs using the standard Microsoft serial API. Either that or calling into the USB driver has substantially lower latency than the Microsoft serial API. One of the two. Whichever the case, if we use USB, our application can successfully run on a substantially slower processor than it can using RS232.

Re:It stands for

[PapaBoojum]

Bidirectional != parallel

Re:It stands for

[Anonymous Coward]

great, if they add a few more wires, it might finally catch up with parallel port..

Odd number version

[chibiace]

wait for 4.0-Stable, 3.0 is a devel release.

Re:If you haven't got anything good to say about i

[Ant P.]

How do you pronounce "iNTEL"? "eye-en-tell"?

They need to also fix ...

[Skapare]

... the problem of having 2 different kinds of connectors, the A and the B. It looks like the B side is NOT compatible in this case. That is, the B side of a 3.0 cable cannot be used for a 2.0 device, so you have to keep an inventory of 2 different kinds of cables.

They should have simply used the same connector type on both ends, with the variation limited to size for tiny devices (and only one smaller size, not two smaller sizes). In addition, it would have been nice to have an androgynous connector that could plug directly into itself (easy to extend a cable).

Re:If you haven't got anything good to say about i

[ColdWetDog]

Hello! What's with the 'little i' business? Caps Lock stuck again. Or did Apple just go out and buy Intel.?

Tell me you're Caps Lock is stuck....

Author not qualified to write about this topic.

[victim]

The article is wrong about the power delivered on existing USB, it is 500mA, not 100mA. 100mA is just the base starting value.

The section on wireless USB shows a complete ignorance of the difference between frequency band and bandwidth.

I haven't read the USB 3.0 press release so I don't know what else he managed to destroy in the regurgitation process.

Re:It stands for

[Anonymous Coward]

Italian Business Men.

Didn't you ever see that movie with Whoopie Goldberg was a thief...

CARRIER LOST
Reason: Lame Reference

USB not built for high speed when it came out.

[Joe The Dragon]

USB not built for high speed when it came out. It was low speed stuff like keyboards / mouses / printers / scanners. And it is a better setup the chained Parallel port setups for stuff and game ports for joysticks and other aux input it also had low power for things like that not high power for Hard disks like firewire had.

E-sata is faster then firewire. works with most new sata chip sets / sata is on most new systems. Where are the e-sata key drives?

I asked you (not?) to tell me that!

[Tetsujin]

Tell me you're Caps Lock is stuck....

I'm Caps Lock is stuck...

Re:I asked you (not?) to tell me that!

[dotgain]

Fail for not actually creating that UID and using it to reply.

;-) no offence.

Re:I asked you (not?) to tell me that!

[Tetsujin]

Hm, yeah, that would have been good...

We need an all new standard

[Skapare]

We need an all new standard. It will probably borrow more from Firewire than USB.

One of the things I would like to see in this new standard is fixed addressing. That is, each port has a number, and the fixed address of the device has that number in an address chain. When you connect devices through a hub, you use a longer address chain. This should be allowed up to at least 8 address units long (as many as 7 hubs to reach a device). Devices will still also have a unique device ID so if a device is moved to a different port it can announce itself there and be found. There is no need to assign addresses to devices at the hardware level. If the OS wants to alias devices, that's fine.

I think having different connector types at each end of the cable is silly. It should be a completely symmetric system where either end can send messages to the other. Then you can connect two computers to each other without needing special hardware in between. Cabling will be simpler (except for tiny devices that need special tiny connectors). An androgynous connector would also be a plus (connect two cables together) and this can be done while keeping bi-directional data paths correctly connected.

Re:We need an all new standard

[Migraineman]

I want to know why we can't just make a super embeddable module with 100Mbps or 1Gbps ethernet. That meets most of your criteria, and I'm pretty sure I can make my real-time interface work over it (especially if I create a private physical segment.) The Lantronix device comes close, but it's not meant for high-bandwidth apps.

But then, the whole point of creating a "new" standard interface is to control the market. As I pointed out, the original USB was tweaked RS-485. The cable spec is a nightmare, but the marketing is superlative!

Re:We need an all new standard

[Anonymous Coward]

Congrats, you just invented USB devices with serial numbers.

OT: they SHOULD bring back the turbo button

[Anonymous Coward]

Being able to switch to a lower speed while the computer is running could be useful for saving energy. Laptops usually have this feature but desktops could benefit too I think. I don't need a 2GHz 50W CPU to read the comments on /. for instance, it would be a good time to disengage the turbo button and switch to 500MHz perhaps.

Re:OT: they SHOULD bring back the turbo button

[toddestan]

Well, you could take it one step further, and allow the computer automatically regulate its clock speed and adjust things on the fly depending on the demand instead of having a physical switch. In which case, you would have just invented Intel's Speedstep technology and AMD's Cool 'n Quiet technology.

No IP over FireWire in Vista

[dalmiroy2k]

Some of you are saying that Firewire 800 it's fast enough.
Remember that for some marketing reason there is no IP over FireWire in Vista, so forget about sharing data using your trusty firewire cable with a Vista PC.

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/archive/IP_1394.mspx

Re:No IP over FireWire in Vista

[ToasterMonkey]

Some of you are saying that Firewire 800 it's fast enough.
Remember that for some marketing reason there is no IP over FireWire in Vista

I thought it was mostly used to sync data to a new computer.

I mean, why the hell would anyone use FW800 networking for anything other than an quick/easy point to point transfer when they have a gig ethernet port? Who would have the first one but not the second?
But if you plan on networking two PCs with USB3 for the long haul, good luck with that.

Re:No IP over FireWire in Vista

[dalmiroy2k]

There are a lot of laptops with firewire 800 port and no GigabitEthernet, just FastEthernet.
I know I'm screwed with my Vista loaded Sony Vaio anytime I have to copy dozens of gigabytes to my desktop.

The maximum speed of the new spec is 4.8Gbps

[Ilgaz]

Is it the same way that USB2 is 480mbps which nobody saw in their life? As they reference the fake 480mbps, I am afraid so.

Re:It stands for

[Anonymous Coward]

Itsy Bitsy Machines !

We had this discussion last time

[tepples]

It can be vertical/horizontal and can oftentimes be out of line of sight when reaching behind PCs, or in the dark under a desk.

We had this discussion last time. "Up" on a tower is away from the motherboard, and "up" on the plug is the side that you haven't sanded smooth. If you routinely plug USB devices in and out, use a hub whose ports face you.

Mooooove bits, get out the way!

[Markos]

Get out the way bits, get out the way!

Re:Mooooove bits, get out the way!

[nog_lorp]

No, you're thinking of Ludacris speed, which is actually really slow and smells like skunk.

MOD PARENT DOWN

[Anonymous Coward]

Links are redirects to Youtube Rickroll video

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[dotancohen]

Links are redirects to Youtube Rickroll video

Er, no, they are not. Mod AC idiot.

What is the maximum power available on USB3

[Anonymous Coward]

I RTFA and it seems they couldn't get the max power figure right for USB2.

Does anyone know what the max power for USB3 will be?

Current USB2 drives require 2 USB cables to provide enough power for a 2.5" drive.

I hope USB3 provides a maximum of 6 Watts (5 Volts x 1200mA). This should easily be enough to cover the 2.5" drive plus USB-ATA chipset, led, etc.
 

Re:It stands for

[treeves]

IIRC, they took the initials HAL, as in the company that made the HAL9000 computer series, and just advanced all the letters by one, to make it seem like they were better, or one step ahead, or something like that. Not sure what HAL stood for in the first place.

UWB

[Joseph_Daniel_Zukige]

Wireless USB is iNTEL's chance to flog their brain damaged Wimedia UWB. It was also iNTEL's final blow to the good stuff from xStremeSpectrum and Freescale.

Trying to work around iNTEL's tactics and tantrums, Motorola tried putting their UWB into USB controllers and calling it wireless USB or something like that.

So, of course, iNTEL had to define the "real" wireless USB in the USB spec.

(You used to be able to find some of the story on wikipedia, but iNTEL has managed to scrub most of that. You may still be able to see some minor references in the Wimedia article, but that's about it. Oh, and, just in case you're curious, all that hype about Apple"s switch and all the talk of roadmaps and chipsets and junk was actually due to iNTEL lobbying Apple. Motorola and iNTEL were in talks to put the xStremeSpectrum UWB in the iPod and in their notebooks, but Apple just couldn't wait, what with all the iNTEL lobbying, bribes, promises which are now broken, etc. iNTEL rightly saw wireless as the new infrastructure, and in their anxiety to own it they have destroyed it.)

iNTEL knows one thing well, and that's how to kill good hardware.

up is down

[Joseph_Daniel_Zukige]

On a lot of notebooks here in Japan, you have to plug the thing in with the logo down.

Re:If you haven't got anything good to say about i

[Joseph_Daniel_Zukige]

One of their old logos that you never see any more. (8080 days.)

Apple buying iNTEL?

[Joseph_Daniel_Zukige]

Hyuck. and yuck.

Way back from the days of the 8080 and 6800, I still remember the Motorola batwings logo and the iNTEL inverted caps logos. You still see the batwings, but I guess you don't see the inverted caps.

There was something appropriate about those inverted caps. Maybe that's why they eventually dropped that logo.