USB 1.1 Renumbered To USB 2? 880
Teese writes "According to this Bangkok Post article, in December the USB Forum renamed USB 1.1 to USB 2, and USB 2 stayed as USB 2. They did this because consumers were demanding that the computers they buy have USB2 on board. The story also claims that both Sony & toshiba have released laptops with the USB2 that is really USB1.1. This was the first I had heard of this and the article said the change took place in December, has the USB Forum really been able to pull a fast one on us?"
slashdotted: karmaless reprint (Score:5, Informative)
The BSA uses the law to descend on small businesses and make them settle for substantial funds if they have too many copies of some software. Thus proving once again to all small businesses that they are safer to go with Linux. There may be better ways of building up mutual trust.
On the other side of the equation, industry associations make sure the consumer is not confused by the emerging technology.
Regard, then, with amazement, the peculiar case of the USB Implementation Forum.
USB was agreed to as a standard by Microsoft, Compaq and the usual suspects back in the 90s and a standard was issued in 1998. This was called USB 1.0 and then modified to USB 1.1.
It was excellent but slow, especially when compared with Firewire, the competition provided by Apple. So slow that at 12 Mbps it would not easily allow the downloading of video images from a camcorder to a PC. But fast enough so that all computers sold after 1999 pretty much were sold with USB 1.1 ports and most peripherals could be connected in that way.
But speed was a problem and so a faster standard was agreed and this was called _ pretty logical this _ USB 2.0. It was nearly as fast as Firewire at 480Mbps, and it was the way forward.
In fact, it will be a rare PC that goes on sale after the end of this year without USB 2.0. It is backwards compatible so no USB device is rendered out-of-date.
Good. Indeed, excellent.
At the end of last year the USB Implementation Forum met _ Microsoft is on the board of directors while the chairman/president is Jason Ziller of Intel _ and decided that the matter was perhaps too clear, too transparent to the customer. Rotten customers were asking what version USB was installed on a machine and if it was USB 1.1 they thought it inferior to USB 2.
The Forum came up with a clever way of dealing with this.
In December it announced that henceforth USB 1.1 would be called USB 2 and USB 2 would continue to be called USB 2.
To help the public grasp this subtle distinction USB 2, which was the old USB 1.1, would have ``Full Speed'' added to its title and USB 2, which was USB 2, would have ``Hi-Speed'' added.
Not only did the consumers not get the subtle beauty and usefulness of this change. Neither did the retailers.
They, unstudied clods that they are, thought that if a device said USB 2 they could sell it as being to the old USB 2 standard. In their ignorance they did not realise that USB 2 could be USB 1.1 or USB 2 depending.
Even the manufacturers were fooled at some levels.
Sony and Toshiba issued laptops with USB 2 on them when they were the USB 2 that was the USB 1.1. Many peripherals were sold in the same way. The help desks did not understand the difference.
The USB Implementation Forum refuses to comment in any way on this contentious matter. But someone has plainly pointed out to them that these actions are possibly illegal and they could be charged with misrepresentation. This is certainly true under the laws of the European Union.
Now USB has put on its web site _ www.usb.org _ a statement that states: ``The correct nomenclature for high-speed USB products is ``Hi-Speed USB.'' The correct nomenclature for low or Full-speed USB products is simply ``USB''. And in the FAQ section it states: ``High speed USB products have a design data rate of 480 Mb/s. Full speed USB devices signal at 12Mb/s.''
Lust. It is a lovely thing when you get it in the ass.
MS Connection (Score:5, Informative)
At the end of last year the USB Implementation Forum met _ Microsoft is on the board of directors while the chairman/president is Jason Ziller of Intel _ and decided that the matter was perhaps too clear, too transparent to the customer.
Hi-Speed USB and Original USB (Score:3, Informative)
Upto 11Mbit/s (theoretical)
Also known as USB 1.1
Also known as Original USB
Also known as Slow mode
or old mode
or whatever
Upto 480Mbit/s (theoratical max)
Also known as USB 2.0
The fast mode
Read The Article (Score:3, Informative)
USB was agreed to as a standard by Microsoft, Compaq and the usual suspects back in the 90s and a standard was issued in 1998.
MS are a member of the standards body.
Re:not bait and switch (Score:5, Informative)
Given that the USB forum made the decision, blaming asians for it is nothing less than unveiled racism - Of course, no Yank company would ever indulge in such fraudulent behaviour.
This isn't new information, just misinformation! (Score:5, Informative)
The same can be said about USB 1.1, which defines a low speed mode with a max speed of 1.5 Mbps. Your mice, keyboards, and other devices quite possibily use this mode, as it's cheaper to build. Just because you've heard that USB 1.1 has a max speed of 12Mbps, don't assume that all USB 1.1 devices are built to use that speed!
So, the rule of thumb is, don't equate USB 2 with high speed transfers. No big deal, if you ask me. USB 2 is the name of a technical standard, not a data rate!
Re:Slight wording difference (more info) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Huh? (Score:2, Informative)
Going to the FAQ there, specifically here [usb.org], and you see this:
Q1: How fast is USB?
A1: High speed USB products have a design data rate of 480 Mb/s. Full speed USB devices signal at 12Mb/s, while low speed devices use a 1.5Mb/s subchannel.
However, I can't find out anything where they say to refer to "USB 1.1" as "USB 2". It's chock-full of Hi-Speed/Full-Speed marketspeak, though. This is very confusing nomenclature.
Firewire (Score:5, Informative)
Use USB for your mouse and scanner, for anything heavier use firewire whenever possible.
Re:not bait and switch (Score:2, Informative)
So Microsoft and Intel are Asian companies now, are they ?
not renamed (Score:2, Informative)
So USB 2.0 specification still supports the 'full speed' and 'low speed' transfer modes. Wise decision; did anyone expect a mouse running at 480Mbps?
Well, what is the 'USB 2.0' sticker good for then , if the device doesn't support the high-speed mode you may think. It simply says that the device is certified to work properly with other USB 2.0 equipment. I know about some popular silicon that is certified for USB 1.1, but will not work with a USB 2.0 host controller because of a design flaw.
So when you buy a USB 2.0 device and expect it to do real 480Mbps watch for the 'hi-speed' sticker. Otherwise it will only guarantee compatibility with other USB 2.0 devices.
BS detector maxing out (Score:5, Informative)
Facts: USB 1.0 and 1.1 had "Low Speed" and "Full Speed" modes, way before USB 2.0 came out. USB 2.0 was developed, Full Speed was taken so we had to call it "Hi-Speed." That's not new, though the article presents it as such.
I have heard absolutely no news about calling all USB 1.1 products 2.0. No press releases or other articles on the USB Implementors Forum show this change. I am an applications engineer for a major USB silicon manufacturer, and I'm sure I'd have heard about this.
A move like that would be outright fraud, but it is pure fiction. The USB-IF has no interest in doing something like that. There may be a certain disreputable motherboard manufacturer faking it, but it certainly isn't part of the USB spec.
Well, I think this is the issue... (Score:5, Informative)
Which is easier to remember...1.1 vs 1.0, or 1 vs 2?
When a "version" makes something incompatible with a previous version, you're supposed to bump up the major release. 1.1 should have been 2 from the start for marketting purposes -- sort of like the jump from Java JDK 1.1x (Java 1) to 1.2x (Java 2).
This is probably why they changed it...the only difference between USB 1.1 and 2.0 is speed. USB 1.0 is a different, deprecated format.
I'm not saying they didn't make it even more complex -- especially since it seems to me the easiest thing to do would be to put "COMPATIBLE with USB 1.1+" on the side of a box. I'm not saying it isn't partially sleazy. I'm just saying that until companies like Apple see fit to put TWO expensive high speed device connections in their PCs, it's better to let consumers know that their devices will AT LEAST work -- even if they're 1/40 the speed.
Article is bunk or USB Forum site is wrong (Score:2, Informative)
Look here http://www.usb.org/developers/packaging/ [usb.org], and I quote:
"Low or Full-speed Product Packaging Recommendations:
"Products that operate at only low or full-speed can qualify to use only the Basic Version of the logo (i.e. without the special Hi-Speed identifier). The old USB logo is obsolete and should not be used. The USB-IF recommends vendors simply use "USB" as has always been done, on packaging and in marketing materials for low or full-speed USB products. Avoid using terminology such as USB 2.0 Full Speed, Full Speed USB or USB 2.0 which can be confusing for consumers whose expectation is that a USB 2.0 product is by definition high-speed."
In other words, - There are 3 speeds; low (1.5Mb/s), full (12Mb/s) and high (480Mb/s). - All 3 speeds can be described as "Compatible with the USB 2.0 Specification" - ONLY the high speed should be labels as "USB 2.0"
If they made the claimed change back in December and still haven't updated the web site, they are idiots twice! Otherwise, the article is blowing hot air.
EHCI (Score:1, Informative)
Re:not bait and switch (Score:5, Informative)
The fact is, many asian countries (especially Japan) have a HUGE market for consumer electronics, and some realy nastiness is inevitable.
Had the poster made a reference to an intrinsic quality of the asian people (whatever that means, lots of cultures over there), you'd be right.
Re:In other news.... (Score:5, Informative)
In 1879 the Indiana House of Representatives unanimously passed a bill that redefined the area of a circle and the value of Pi. Luckily the bill died in the State Senate, or y'all might have real problems with things like highway interchanges.
This is part urban legend, part true. The "History of Pi" book by Petr Beckman actually shows the bill and gives more information. However, the pi==3 aspect is false. And, the bill never got anywhere.
Michael
Re:and I ain't talk about the movie with the bus. (Score:5, Informative)
This is hilarious! (Score:5, Informative)
And this is even better: follow the link to the Hi-Speed FAQ [usb.org] where they answer questions like this:
1: What maximum speed was finally chosen for the USB 2.0 spec?
A: The USB 2.0 specification has a design data rate of 480 mega bits per second.
Of course, if if this gives you a general misconception, you should head to the USB packaging [usb.org] page where you will be enlightened by this paragraph:
Inconsistent use of terminology in combination with the existing general misconception that USB 2.0 is synonymous with Hi-Speed USB and/or failure to display the Certified USB logo on qualified products creates confusion in the marketplace. The correct nomenclature for high-speed USB products is "Hi-Speed USB." The correct nomenclature for low or full-speed USB products is simply "USB." This should be taken into consideration for product naming.
So, now they are saying we have a misconception that USB 2.0 is Hi-Speed. But it's our misconception, not theirs.
Of course, Gareth Powell, the original author of the story, might have gotten his facts wrong or confused, and has simply started a flamefest with ignorance. USB 2.0 is merely a specification that encompasses ALL THREE SPEEDS. However, if a device is USB 2.0 compliant, it, too, had better support ALL THREE SPEEDS (and not just by dumbing down to the lowest speed supported.) But nowhere in his article does he say that a full-speed only connection is now being referred to as USB 2.0. He just says Toshiba is selling USB 1.1 laptops as USB 2.0 laptops, but does not say if they do or do not support Hi-Speed USB.
Re:EHCI (Score:4, Informative)
Let me emphasise that NEC EHCI chips are currently the only ones that work full-speed (er, I mean, hi-speed) with the Linux kernel. They're the ones that come on USB 2.0 "hi-speed" addon cards.
The newer controller chips are under development and currently won't work.
They did NOT renames USB 1.1 to USB 2.0 (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Nothing (Score:5, Informative)
Their claim is that USB 2.0 is a spec that supports three speeds. "Hi-Speed" is just one of the three that goes at 480 MB. Any USB 2.0 device will play on a USB 1.1 or USB 1.0 wire, but only at the slower supported speeds.
However, a full-speed (not hi-speed) device shouldn't be allowed to be labeled "USB 2.0 compliant" since it cannot use the whole USB 2.0 spec. That claim would be equivalent to saying a 300 baud modem is V_fast compliant just because a V_fast modem has to be able to slow down to talk to it.
Because of the inability of marketroids to be able to grasp these facts, USB is trying to get away from the 2.0 vs 1.1 naming game altogether. Packaging is supposed to say only "USB" or "Hi-Speed USB", and not label it with a version number.
Of course, then I find this crap on the USB packaging [usb.org] page referring to "Low or Full-speed Product Packaging Recommendations:"
Avoid using terminology such as USB 2.0 Full Speed, Full Speed USB or USB 2.0 which can be confusing for consumers whose expectation is that a USB 2.0 product is by definition high-speed.
Side or Back of Packaging Key Messages (Detailed Information)
1. Compatible with the USB 2.0 Specification
2. Works with USB and Hi-Speed USB systems, peripherals and cables.
So manufacturers can claim a full-speed device is USB 2.0 "compatible." That's really, really shady. The correct answer is that USB 2.0 devices can claim compatibility with USB 1.1, not the other way around.
Yep, that's pretty dishonest labeling. And from a computer industry group! I'm amazed!
Re:Slight wording difference (more info) (Score:5, Informative)
This is true, but it's not because of any functionality of the USB 1.1 port, but rather, of the USB 2 device. USB 2 devices are (all?) backwards-compatible with USB 1.1. You will not get USB 2.0 speeds with a USB 2.0 device on a USB 1.1 bus.
The facts.. (Score:5, Informative)
Old USB 1.1 devices aren't renamed. New devices that support the USB 2.0 signalling (even if they do not support the 480Mb/s speed,) are USB 2.0 devices. 2Mb/s is 'Low Speed', 12Mb/s (the USB 1.1 maximum) is 'Full Speed', and 480Mb/s is 'High Speed'.
Long form:
DEVICES that were USB 1.1 devices are still 'USB 1.1' devices. They operate at either 2 Megabits per second (Low Speed,) or 12 Megabits per second (Full Speed.)
Devices that are designed around the USB 2.0 specification (which includes more than just raw data rate,) are 'USB 2.0' devices, and may operate at 2 Megabits per second (Low Speed,) 12 Megabits per second (Full Speed,) or 480 Megabits per second (High Speed.) So, even though they can be just as slow as 'USB 1.1' devices, if they are 'compatible' with high speed devices (as in, they won't cause your new CD-RW drive to drop to 4x just because they're on the same chain,) then they are USB 2.0 devices. Yes, that means your new keyboard can be a USB 2.0 device. Note that USB 2.0 devices MUST be USB 1.1 compatible. That means that your USB 2.0 mouse will be a USB 2.0 device when connected to a USB 2.0 controller (even though it may only use 2 Megabits per second of bandwidth,) and will be a USB 1.1 device when connected to a USB 1.1 controller. Some devices will be pointless in USB 1.1 mode, such as a DVD-RW drive, where even 1x is too fast for 12 Mb/s. But it will still function, albeit as a 4x CD-RW drive.
Controllers that were USB 1.1 controllers are still USB 1.1 controllers, they allow devices to connect using USB 1.1 signalling, at 2 or 12 Megabits per second.
Controllers that support the USB 2.0 standard are 'USB 2.0' controllers. From what I have gleaned, in order to be a 'USB 2.0' controller, it must support the 480 Mb/s speed. Of course, it also supports 2Mb/s and 12Mb/s at both USB 1.1 and USB 2.0 signalling.
In short, yes, devices that are slower than 480Mb/s *CAN* be USB 2.0 devices. That doesn't mean that *ALL* slower devices are now called USB 2.0.
Re:and I ain't talk about the movie with the bus. (Score:4, Informative)
I'm disgusted they would go and change something like this. It's just a way to get rid of old merchandise. I'm reminded of the way they used to sell that crappy ECC memory that wasn't ecc. Fake parity.
Re:EHCI (Score:4, Informative)
Not at all true. Though you're strongly encouraged to be careful if you have a VT6202 (funky chip timings make for more than its fair share of trouble), and to use the very latest driver versions. Some bugs have taken a while to exterminate.
The 2.4.21-ac1 tree should be pretty good, though you should likely add a small "micro-patch" (with a few one-liner fixes). As should the very latest Linus tree, 2.5.72-bk2 (includes that "micro patch"); your next sync with Linus' tree may have that.
Most any current EHCI hardware should work fine under Linux, with drivers dated 2003-June (instead of 2003-January).
Re:and I ain't talk about the movie with the bus. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:these go to eleven... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:slashdotted: karmaless reprint (Score:1, Informative)
Canon also sells LiDE-50 which is basically the same scanner but with USB2.0 Hi-Speed, 480 Mbit. Which was the scanner I was looking for.
Bad marketing from Canon. Next scanner will not be from Canon, and hopefully with Firewire interface instead...
Re:and I ain't talk about the movie with the bus. (Score:5, Informative)
1. OHCI controller (Open Host controller), this is a USB controller that follows the same interface spec as a Firewire controller.
2. UHCI controller (Universal Host Controller). EHCI (Enhanced Host Controller, aka USB2.0 aka Hi-Speed USB) controllers have an integrated UHCI controller for low speed devices to attach to. UHCI is always USB 1.1, but may just be the USB1.1 interface to a USB2.0 controller (For which you will see an EHCI controller too)
Yup...fast one... (Score:1, Informative)
However, in reality, what you get under Windows is 2 USB-2 ports and 4 USB-1.1 ports. Only the bracketed ports are actually USB-2.
I have 6 usb2 ports (Score:2, Informative)
It was handy since Linux doesn't work to well with USB2.
The USB implementation in the 2.5 kernel is buggy, if you want it fixed give greg on the linux usb mailing list some grief until he accepts patches.
Re:Slight wording difference (Score:3, Informative)
Dude, the word you're looking for is "word". How many bits in a word? Depends on the CPU. But a byte is 8 bits on everything I've ever seen. Even the old clunky mainframes use "word" to mean the basic unit of storage, and don't use "byte" at all if 8-bit quantities aren't relevant.
(Gotta love the old Sperry-1100 with its 36-bit word...)
Now, for bonus points... In C, how big is a 'char'? How about a 'short' or a 'long'?