Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

USB 3.0 Is Ten Times Faster; Get It In 2010

Posted by timothy on from the slow-boat-to-the-racetrack dept.

thefickler writes "Seagate and Symwave are jointly demonstrating the first consumer applications of USB 3.0 at CES, showing a Seagate FreeAgent drive running through a Symwave USB 3.0-compatible storage controller device. According to Symwave, this will result in 'speeds previously unattainable with legacy USB technology.' Which means, if you understand PR-write, it will be much faster."

52 of 280 comments (clear)

  1. What about the rest of us? by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 4, Funny

    Which means, if you understand PR-write, it will be much faster.

    What does it mean if you don't know PR-write?

    1. Re:What about the rest of us? by lorenzino · · Score: 4, Funny

      What does it mean if you don't know PR-write?

      Clearly much slower

    2. Re:What about the rest of us? by zippthorne · · Score: 4, Funny

      You're going to have a lot of trouble writing drivers for it?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    3. Re:What about the rest of us? by omeomi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It means Firewire and External SATA will still be faster, but everything will come with USB connections anyway for no apparent reason...

      --
      ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
    4. Re:What about the rest of us? by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Uhh....there is a very good reason why even though Firewire and ESATA are faster that everything will be USB- Because it is cheap and it is the one connector that you KNOW that your customer will have. I tried carrying a Firewire external drive a few years back. I ended up selling it because I almost never got a chance to use it. Every PC I came across, unless it was truly ancient, had at least a USB 1.1 port. If Apple would have given away the Firewire patents for free as Intel did with USB we would all have Firewire ports. But IIRC they wanted $1.00 a port for Firewire compared to $0.0 for USB, and in the cutthroat world of computers it simply wasn't worth it for the manufacturers.

      So while it would have been nice if ESATA or Firewire 800 was everywhere, I just don't see that happening. From what I understand USB 3.0 will be backwards compatible with 2.0 which is backwards compatible with 1.1. So that is over a decade that you can be assured that your device will be able to connect with their machine. And that kind of mass penetration is simply worth more to the customers and manufacturers than a speed boost.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    5. Re:What about the rest of us? by necro81 · · Score: 5, Informative

      One other problem Firewire had in becoming widespread was that it required a more beefy, dedicated chip. As far as I understand it, Firewire is implemented mostly in the chip, cutting out the CPU, and creates a more-or-less guaranteed bandwidth. This is why it was popular with camcorders - you could always be sure that you could transfer video in realtime. Same for high-end sound equipment.

      USB, on the other hand, while it has its own controller chip, is moderated largely by the CPU and memory bus. If the computer is under heavy load, the USB throughput suffers. Peripheral devices are at the mercy of the host to control things. This is fine for things like mice and keyboards, which transfer relatively little data semi-asynchronously. You don't need such a robust high speed bus for such lightweight peripherals. But for hard drives and other devices, USB has some catching up to do.

      Royalties aside, the Firewire chipset that could implement a high-speed bus robustly cost more than the more lightweight USB controller. In the particular case of the iPod, a portable device, having the Firewire controller eventually took more board space than Apple was willing to provide. While every computer had a mouse and keyboard, not every computer was made with the ability for connecting external drives. So there, too, the economics played in USB's favor.

    6. Re:What about the rest of us? by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Since another reply covered the problems with Firewire. I'll also add another problem with eSATA besides large swaths of incompatibility with a diverse range of computers. The connector for eSATA is garbage. It is incredibly weak and unreliable. Using an eSATA plug in a mobile environment is just asking for a disconnection. It can't take any abuse. A USB plug on the other hand will stay connected through a hurricane without any disconnects.

    7. Re:What about the rest of us? by Yvan256 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Given that USB 3.0 cables will have fiber optic cable(s) inside them, I don't think Hoi's comment is much of a joke. Be prepared for very expensive super-speed USB 3.0 cables.

  2. That speed comes at a cost by stokessd · · Score: 4, Informative

    Given that USB is PIO and not DMA, the faster the bus runs the more processor intervention is needed. Given how cheap and fast our processors are, that's not a huge deal, but it's not like a DMA based transfer just got faster, it means that the processor is going to be more busy too.

    PR-write or not, it will be a PITA just like USB2.0 until it's built in and common.

    Sheldon

    1. Re:That speed comes at a cost by beakerMeep · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I'm not very knowledgeable about USB flavors but I think I'm like most people in hoping they just settle on a standard. The Marketriod Speak of the USB people is exactly what's been wrong with all of this. First there was Hi-Speed USB, then USB 2.0, then Hi-Speed USB 2.0, Then Ultra-Titanium Jet-Powered-Turbo USB, then something where they claimed you'd get 76 virgins for using USB.

      Honestly, I think even some of the geekiest computer users start to not care when bombarded with all this nonsense. Ultimately it's a cable -- we want it to be universal, and fast. Nothing complicated there. Sadly the USB standard seemed to gain the most traction in the market despite it's fractured flavors/versions.

      So if it ends up being eSATA, Firewire, or USB 3.0 or something else, I hope they just make it simple and fast. It's a cable - it shouldn't have compatibility problems or be used to confuse users with marketroid speak.

      --
      meep
    2. Re:That speed comes at a cost by Vihai · · Score: 5, Informative

      USB is PIO and not DMA? You understand that PIO/DMA transfer modes only meaningful for Parallel ATA devices?

      That's because the ATA interface was originally THE 16-bit system bus (AT bus) and the disk controller was onboard on the disks (thus the name IDE - Integrated Drive Electronics).

      So, the CPU accessed the disk controller through the AT bus which was originally programmed I/O and then started using DMA.

      Of course, the system bus quicky become different and faster (FSB + PCI) thus the ATA interface became a disk attachment interface instead of the system bus and an additional controller was put between the system and the disk.

      USB is a completely different beast. The "bus" actually transfer packets (URBs) and all USB controllers use DMA to transfer URBs to the main memory... So, no PIO/DMA stuff is involved....

    3. Re:That speed comes at a cost by Surt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      USB has basically zero compatibility problems that i've ever seen. There are 3 port varieties (for small, medium, large devices), and you have to match that properly (or be really strong). There are 3 protocols (1.0, 2.0 low speed, 2.0 high speed), and you get the fastest that both sides of the cable support.

      The disastrous mistake the USB forum made was to allow 2.0 low speed to exist. They should have just bitten the bullet and said that 2.0 labeling is for high-speed only. But they had too much 2.0 low speed product in the channel that didn't want to be labeled 1.0, waaah waaah i want to put a 2.0 label on my product!

      But still, in spite of the poor labeling, there has been zero incompatibility that I or anyone I know has experienced. Some 2.0 devices work slower than you would expect (because they are low-speed), but they WORK.

      Hopefully with 3.0 they won't make the same mistake, and will only allow labeling with 3.0 for devices that use the full speed link.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    4. Re:That speed comes at a cost by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Funny

      >>>then something where they claimed you'd get 76 virgins for using USB.

      I have 76 *movies* of virgins on my USB hard drive. Does that count?

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    5. Re:That speed comes at a cost by frehe · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ultimately it's a cable -- we want it to be universal, and fast.

      It's not just a cable, but a obvious male created penis metaphor for the patriarchical oppression of women worldwide during all ages, created just to mentally abuse us women even more by reminding us of "our place" every time we use a computer. And of course you want it to be "universal" and "fast", just like all men want women to be generic models of the unrealistic Barbie stereotype, instantly ready for some quick sex with the only goal being selfish gratification for the male. All men are pigs! Snivel... sob... where's my chocolate...

    6. Re:That speed comes at a cost by barzok · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, you have 76 movies of "virgins" on your USB hard drive.

    7. Re:That speed comes at a cost by Xaoswolf · · Score: 2, Interesting
      missed the point...

      All we see as an end user is a cable. We plug one end into the peripheral, and the other into the PC.

      Doesn't matter what happens inside the case, we just want a cable

      --
      Xaotik Designs
    8. Re:That speed comes at a cost by 228e2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If I had mod points, I would rate this insightful.

      --
      Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
    9. Re:That speed comes at a cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The speed terminology of USB is indeed pretty confusing, so let's be clear:

      - "Low-speed" (1.5 Mbit/s) is the lower of the original USB 1.0 and 1.1 speeds. This is used for devices that transfer very little data, such as mice and keyboards. Also a USB 2.0 peripheral can choose to support only this speed.

      - "Full-speed" (12 Mbit/s) is the higher of the original USB 1.0 and 1.1 speeds. Also a USB 2.0 peripheral can choose to support only this speed.

      - "High-speed" (480 Mbit/s) is the new speed added in USB 2.0. Any USB 2.0 host is required to support this speed, but for peripheral it is optional (peripheral can choose Full-speed instead). That optionality is what allows the USB 2.0 peripherals that are still as slow as in USB 1.x days. The "low speed" 2.0 devices that you refer to are actually Full-speed devices in the USB terminology.

      - "SuperSpeed" (5 Gbit/s) is the new speed added in USB 3.0.

  3. And how much cpu power is needed at that speed? by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And how much cpu power is needed at that speed? firewire 1600 and 3200 seems better same cables and ports as firewire 800 unlike usb 3.0 that needs new cables and ports for usb 3.0 speed.

    1. Re:And how much cpu power is needed at that speed? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Informative

      I hate to say this, but Firewire's dead. Apple invented it and they've been the main ones pushing it; now that they're pretty clearly planning to get rid of it, there are no major industry players with an interest in its survival. I agree that it's a far superior standard for pushing any meaningful amount of data around, so I'm not at all happy about this state of affairs, but so it goes.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    2. Re:And how much cpu power is needed at that speed? by CarpetShark · · Score: 4, Funny

      And how much cpu power is needed at that speed?

      CPU usage is fixed in all USB standards. It's 140%.

    3. Re:And how much cpu power is needed at that speed? by lysergic.acid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      USB is cheaper, and not everyone needs FireWire's level of performance, so USB is more prevalent and dominates the casual computing market; that's only natural. but most motherboards sold these days still come with at least 1 FireWire port.

      and while FireWire can technically replace USB, USB will never be able to replace FireWire. even though the average user doesn't need sustained 100MB/sec transfer speeds to transfer their MP3s onto their iPod or text documents onto their thumbdrive, there are a lot of professions where USB just won't cut it. if you're in multimedia production or otherwise need to transfer large amounts of data regularly, then the extra cost of FireWire is more than worth it.

      high-end external hard drives, cameras, professional audio equipment, etc. will all continue to use FireWire for this reason. heck, IEEE 1394b is even used by NASA for monitoring launch debris and by the U.S. military in jets like the F-22 and the F-35. so FireWire is far from dead. it's just found its niche. at the very worse, users will have to buy expansion cards to add FireWire S1600/S3200 controllers to their computers. but FireWire will continue to be available for a long, long time.

      Apple's decision to remove FireWire from their low-end systems is just a sign that they're no longer catering exclusively to the prosumer/media-production crowd. they're still selling systems with FireWire, but they're also recognize that the Mac-using demographic has changed over the years, and there are a lot of Mac users that will never need FireWire.

    4. Re:And how much cpu power is needed at that speed? by lysergic.acid · · Score: 2, Informative

      USB 3 will do at least 200mb/s sustained. And home users will love it when external harddrives gets faster. Professionals may need firewire for other stuff but the measly 100mb/s will not be an argument for firewire.

      when USB 3.0 can do 200MB/s (not sustained), FireWire S3200 will have sustained speeds of 400MB/s. and it's not faster external hard drives that will push consumers to upgrade from USB 2.0 to 3.0--current UDMA133 hard drives are already far outstripping the 33MB/s transfer speed USB 2.0 is capable of providing. it's the ever increasing disk sizes, especially in portable media players, along with the proliferation of HD video, hi-res cameras, lossless audio, and other applications exposing consumers to ever-larger file transfers, that will increase demand for faster bus interfaces.

      And every computer at NASA uses USB for the mouse, it doesn't mean shit. 1394b is an interconnect system. It can't track launch debris.

      i know you're just trolling, but if every computer at NASA uses USB--whether it's for mouse/keyboard/printer/scanner/whatever--then that clearly means USB isn't going anywhere. i mean, FireWire is a high speed serial bus. of course it's being used as an interconnect--in this case to connect debris-monitoring equipment. what did you expect them to use it as? a CPU? NASA and the military use IEEE 1394b for high-speed interconnects because it's the best solution. IEEE 1394b has been standardized by SAE AS5643 as a data bus network for use in future military & aerospace projects (such as the Orion crew exploration vehicle) that require a high throughput data bus. USB doesn't even come close to the same performance.

      Face it, firewire is dead. It's only been used for DV by consumers. Now DV is gone and firewire will soon follow as far as consumers are concerned.

      yea, you can repeat that as many times as you want, but that won't make it true. FireWire's current applications extend far beyond the DV format. as long as most consumer laptops and computers still support FireWire, it's not considered dead, especially as there are no viable alternatives to FireWire for sustained high speed data transfers.

      clueless armchair analysts have been predicting the death of FireWire since USB 2.0 came out. but anyone who's actually worked with both interfaces or is media production (or understands the difference between PIO and DMA) knows that USB's real-world performance doesn't even compare to that of FireWire.

    5. Re:And how much cpu power is needed at that speed? by martinX · · Score: 2, Informative

      You may like to wait, but FW is deader than a dead thing.

      Two things FW gave you that USB didn't when it came to DV. Control of the camera's mechanism (so you could seek for the spot on the tape you wanted to capture from) and isochronous capture so you could be assured of capturing the audio in sync with the video.

      Video cameras now are going to card-based storage and video files are just that: files. This means you can access the storage via USB just like it's another external drive and you don't need to be able to control the camera. The ability to grab at file at random means you just copy all the data over, not stream it.

      A lot of pro equipment still relies on firewire, but that, too, is changing. It won't change for a while because professionals tend not to change their equipment just because they read about something really cool on Engadget. For the pros, there's FW cards. Audio guys may still need the low latency that FW provides, but that may change with USB3.

      Apple was a bit late to the (USB camera interface) party but the release of iMovie 8 (crappy though it was) was a sign - the future is AVCHD files grabbed over USB.

      FWIW, I have a FW camera at home, two at work (just bought one 6 months ago), a FW deck at work (the 3 cams and the deck are Sony) and an analog -> digital converter with a FW interface.

      I'll keep using FW at work for the foreseeable future because it's solid. And I have all that equipment. My next camera at home, though, will be AVCHD stored on SD cards with a USB interface.

      I will lament the passing of FW like I lamented the passing of ADB, SCSI and parallel ports: part "meh" and part "damn, I have to buy new stuff to go with my new stuff".

      --
      When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
  4. eSATA is here already by camperslo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    With many chipsets/motherboards already supporting SATA and the drives being widespread as well, many of US could enjoy much (about 6x ?) better than USB 2 port speeds for external drives by simply having the external ("e" in eSATA) connectors available.

    1. Re:eSATA is here already by martinw89 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, I don't need a faster USB for my keyboard and mouse. Even my flash drive probably won't benefit without faster memory. eSATA seems like a better solution for the widespread use of external HDs. Plus, it doesn't have to go from USB-SATA in the external HDs controller.

    2. Re:eSATA is here already by Strange+Ranger · · Score: 3, Interesting

      eSATA is great for external drives that stay connected and turned on. But for removable (i.e. flash) drives they can be a pain. Every time you pop a card in or out and then reboot the BIOS makes you redefine Boot Order, eSATA drives are just like regular SATA drives, not a "removable device".

      As a photographer who unloads about 20-30GB of raw files every week from CF cards in multiple readers, I'm pretty excited about USB 3.0.

      --

      Operator, give me the number for 911!
    3. Re:eSATA is here already by neokushan · · Score: 2, Informative

      I can confirm it definitely does, but Windows (not sure about other OS's) is a little picky about when it decides to detect if that device has been connected or not.
      It's not a major issue, a quick device manager refresh is all you need to do, but it's still an extra step current USB drives don't have.
      Of course, it's probably windows' fault more than anything, but still.

      --
      +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    4. Re:eSATA is here already by upuv · · Score: 2, Informative

      Like others have mentioned. eSATA is the annoying spec.

      1. eSATA is just like SATA. The OS does like to treat devices as removable. Often resulting is a manual reboot of OS to free drive.
      2. The eSATA spec didn't have power on the connector! What were they thinking?
      3. The physical connector format is not as robust as the usb. Highly prone to just plain wearing out.

      When I first heard about eSATA I was very excited. As firewire already had it's gravestone made. Finally a method of transferring huge files fast from a portal device. Only to find out that it was a pointless useless spec.

    5. Re:eSATA is here already by petermgreen · · Score: 2, Informative

      Esata has two main advantages over interfaces like USB and firewire.

      * Fast
      * No bridge board needed at the drive end

      And several major disadvantages

      * Doesn't carry power
      * less common than either USB or firewire (and not backwards compatible with either)
      * Only one level of port multipliers allowed and some controllers don't even support that.
      * While in theory it should be possible to make a wide variety of eSATA devices the only devices on the market seem to be hard drives and optical drives
      * Neither eSATA ports nor anything they are backwards compatible with are very common (I think i've seen them once or twice on a desktop and never on a laptop). You can add them easilly enough to a desktop with an adaptor bracket but that means getting permission to open the case and using an adaptor bracket rather than a port intended to be eSATA may cause hotplugging issues.

      So I think it's destined to remain a niche interface.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  5. Re:Speed by eln · · Score: 4, Funny

    USB 3.0 is known as "ludicrous speed".

  6. USB3 whitepaper by whyde · · Score: 5, Informative

    Most of the replies so far show a glaring lack of knowledge of what USB3 really is. Honestly, it only bears a passing resemblance to its predecessors, and is a closer relative to PCIe. If you want more technical information, Denali has a good whitepaper (registration required):

    http://www.denali.com/en/events/usb3_whitepaper/?EB20090105

    1. Re:USB3 whitepaper by legirons · · Score: 3, Informative

      Most of the replies so far show a glaring lack of knowledge of what USB3 really is. Honestly, it only bears a passing resemblance to its predecessors, and is a closer relative to PCIe. If you want more technical information, Denali has a good whitepaper (registration required):

      And the real info can of course be found at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Usb3#USB_3.0

      weirdly, wikipedia doesn't seem to include any of that stuff about upgrade to our standard or your company will die - you might need to turn to an industry-funded news source for the full story ;)

    2. Re:USB3 whitepaper by LordMyren · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Fantastic link, thanks.

      Given that ExpressCard already has both PCIe and USB connectors, and that the spec you linked states,

      Both the SuperSpeed USB and the PCIe specifications, therefore, are derived from the basic
      OSI layered architecture. Both protocols look very similar in terms of layer architecture, and their physical layers share many common functions,
      as well as similar concepts for other layers.

      it'll be interesting to see if the confluence comes to a head and the two specs gain some kind of genuine interoperability. Afaik the current ExpressCard implementation works by having two sets of connectors; if USB 3.0 really is PCIe dervied, it would be great to collapse it to using the same PCIe interfaces.

      The other two outstanding questions I have are:
      1) how much the new architecture will alleviate latency?
      2) is the time quantization better than the old 1ms standard?

      Both of these prevent USB from being usable in real time contexts, contrary to evidence of the massive number of craptacular web cams sold.

  7. Faster data is great, but... by exploder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...does it have any greater power capacity?

    --
    Yo dawg, I heard you like the Ackermann function, so OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD
    1. Re:Faster data is great, but... by neokushan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You'll be glad to know that it does, but I'm not sure if it's enough to run a 3.5" Magnetic Hard drive.

      "Maximum bus power is increased to 150mA per unit load (+50% over USB 2.0)."

      A solid State drive, on the other hand...

      --
      +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    2. Re:Faster data is great, but... by pchan- · · Score: 4, Informative

      You'll be glad to know that it does, but I'm not sure if it's enough to run a 3.5" Magnetic Hard drive.

      "Maximum bus power is increased to 150mA per unit load (+50% over USB 2.0)."

      A solid State drive, on the other hand...

      Power is measured in Watts, not Amps. USB3 is still at 5V, but now lets you negotiate up to 1 Amp of current (USB2 limits at 500 mA). So, that's 5 Watts of power. the 150mA draw is the maximum current you are allowed to draw in before negotiating up to verify the host supports more.

  8. Faster speed? Really? by maugle · · Score: 4, Funny

    According to Symwave, this will result in 'speeds previously unattainable with legacy USB technology.'

    New technology will be faster than old technology? Impossible!

  9. Yeah, but we all know that... by denzacar · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... The Ultimate speed is 88 mph.
    Once a device hits that the Flux Capacitor kicks in and it goes back in time.

    There is probably a huge prehistoric dump of USB sticks from the future somewhere in California.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Yeah, but we all know that... by Laser_iCE · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just make sure it doesn't drop below 50 or we're all FUCKED!

  10. Re:Crap by neokushan · · Score: 4, Funny

    I didn't know computers could have sexual preferences. So THAT'S why I only seem to get lesbian porn popups...

    --
    +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
  11. Re:Don't touch type? by martinw89 · · Score: 3, Funny

    True, and as an extreme gamer, I need the extra bandwidth for my 37 megapixel sensor blue-laser mouse. Red lasers just never felt accurate.

  12. PIO vs. DMA by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 5, Informative

    You understand that PIO/DMA transfer modes only meaningful for Parallel ATA devices?

    That's the meaning in traditional sense. But you can also use this distinction in a wider sense:

    • PIO: The CPU has to manage / monitor / do every little step in the process.
    • DMA: The CPU sets parameters, give a start signal, and then just waits (ehm, can do something else in the meanwhile), while dedicated hardware does all the boring work, like tranfer individual bytes / words of data to main memory. When ready, the CPU gets a signal (for example: an interrupt) that the transfer is complete. This may be used to describe many hardware-supported tasks, not just IDE harddisk controllers.

    How much of an advantage this is, depends on how complex the initial parameter setup is, how much of the work is done by hardware vs. CPU, transfer speed, how large transferred blocks are, how often transfer occur, etc. etc. Besides overall speed, a big advantage is that the CPU can do other things (like decode a video stream, respond to keyboard / mouse input) while a tranfer continues in the background. This allows a system to feel much more responsive.

    You state that USB controllers use DMA, parents says not. I don't know which is true. Perhaps there is DMA support for USB controllers, but the packets are small enough and flowing at a high enough rate that it feels like the CPU is doing all the work?

    1. Re:PIO vs. DMA by Agripa · · Score: 3, Informative

      That was the impression I got from the various sources I have read. I also think I remember reading that they are planning to fix this with USB 3.

      I read through Intel's EHCI specifications and from what I understood, while DMA is supported it still requires double buffering because of alignment issues. The interrupt rate and required CPU supervision were probably not a problem until the 480 Mbits/sec transfer rate was implemented.

  13. Re:Considering what a processor hog USB2 is... by aksansai · · Score: 2, Insightful

    With USB2, copying from one flash drive to another takes my CPU utilization to 100%.

    Please upgrade from Pentium era processor.

    --
    Ayup
  14. Now we need to find a way to loop the video feed s by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now we need to find a way to loop the video feed so we can get the people off of the usb bus.

  15. Firewire isn't dea by trolltalk.com · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Gee, don't say that to the aviation industry - they've standardized on Firewire because it saves weight in cabling.

    The F-22 Raptor, the A380 Airbus, etc use firewire and gigabit ethernet to save weight. With over 300 miles of wiring an each A380, cutting the weight even in half makes a big difference with an A380.

    http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:L96bOxSv3V8J:www.critical-embedded-systems.com/meecc/2005/presentations/Keller.pdf+army+tank+firewire+combat+electronics&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=ca&client=firefox-a " JSF Avionics snapshot

    Distributed avionics: display- management computers, integrated core processing, and flight subsystems

    IEEE 1394 FireWire network links core processor and display processors

    Fibre Channel links core processor modules and sensor subsystems "

    The military will be saying "You can have my Firewire when you pry it from my cold, dead hands." They have the bigger guns, so I think they'll win any argument.

    --
    Kevin Smith on Prince
  16. Chinese mandate USB charging for mobile phones by AlXtreme · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A more interesting bit from TFA:

    Not connected with CES but related is the fact the Chinese government has declared its intention to force all digital phone makers to use a standard USB connector from the charger. That would mean that a single charger would do for all of your devices and would save an immense amount of wastage and frustration.

    Good call, I hope to finally ditch those dozens of different chargers in a couple of years.

    --
    This sig is intentionally left blank
  17. Re:76 Virgins!?!?!? by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 4, Informative

    There has to be at LEAST 76 virgins on slashdot.

    --
    This space available.
  18. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  19. That's fine by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    But just because the military uses it doesn't mean anyone else will. Computers may well get rid of it before long (Apple certainly seems to be doing that). I mean the military also likes Ada, but you don't see it being used to develop desktop apps often (or at all really).

    By "dead" I don't think the grandparent means "Gone form the world," they just mean "Has no future in desktop PCs."

  20. I'm becoming a sexist pig in my old age. by reiisi · · Score: 2, Informative

    When I was young and innocent, I wanted a wife like Marie Curie.

    The longer I live, the more I am convinced that most woman demonstrate an almost allergy to technical reasons for things being other than they think they should.

    By the way, there was once, about six or seven years ago, an opportunity for the industry to do away with the wires almost entirely for most consumer grade devices.

    You probably wouldn't have wanted to use Freescale's UWB for mounting the drive containing your /usr and /home, but it would have been fast enough for watching video in real-time, for moving files between your camera and your laptop, all of that. And it would have been about as secure as wire, as well.

    intel and their group have done their best at erasing the history from wikipedia, so, no, you'll never read most of the lurid details.

    --
    Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.