USB 1.1 Renumbered To USB 2?

Teese writes "According to this Bangkok Post article, in December the USB Forum renamed USB 1.1 to USB 2, and USB 2 stayed as USB 2. They did this because consumers were demanding that the computers they buy have USB2 on board. The story also claims that both Sony & toshiba have released laptops with the USB2 that is really USB1.1. This was the first I had heard of this and the article said the change took place in December, has the USB Forum really been able to pull a fast one on us?"

Anybody?

[krray]

Un-USB'n believable (!)

Bait -n- switch anyone?

At least when I sell my Mac (QuickSilver flavor) to upgrade
I'll be able to sell it listed as "USB 2 - Full Speed" to the poor
E-Bay'er.

I'll even list it with "Firewire - HIGH Speed".

All so I can go buy a new G5 (if they REALLY are coming out :)
with it's "Firewire - UltraHIGH Speed" and "USB 2" connections.

And Microsoft wonders why so many DO NOT trust them?

Duh.

fp

Huh?

[Jellybob]

I think the subject says it all... wouldn't a more reliable source to ask be the organisation that made the change, rather than the population of /., who'll all have a different opinion on what's happened?

Slight wording difference

[invisik]

Well, the article states:

"To help the public grasp this subtle distinction USB 2, which was the old USB 1.1, would have ``Full Speed'' added to its title and USB 2, which was USB 2, would have ``Hi-Speed'' added."

Still, that's really, really wrong. It is most likely to upset even more people that ended up buying a computer with "slow" USB as the salesperson will probably not know this subtle text difference.

I though they should include the speed numerical value in the name, like USB-12 and USB-480.

Ugh, let's hope there's another announcement in a few week revoking this.

-m

Re:Anybody?

[jpmkm]

What does microsoft have to do with it?

not bait and switch

[curtlewis]

It's out and out fraud. USB1.1 is not USB2, USB2 is. To label a product as USB2 when it's really USB1.1 and conforming to the IEEE specifications for USB1.1 is fraudulent.

They did it because their customers wanted USB2.0 on board? So put USB2.0 on board then! This is ludicrous. But I'm not surprised at the lack of ethics in the Asian Consumer market, it's an ugly business world over there.

Re:and I ain't talk about the movie with the bus.

[archen]

Reminds me of fast food joints where you have your choice of Medium, Large or Super-sized.

Re:not bait and switch

[tomhudson]

Yep, a lot of manufacturers have been doing this. They say it's "USB 2.0 compatible", which means fuck-all.

Sort of like saying a Geo Metro is Corvette-compatible because they both can ride the same public highways.

What next - black and white laser printers that are color-image compatible (sure, they can handle color, they just print it in black and white).

Re:Slight wording difference

[TrekkieGod]

the salesperson will probably not know this subtle text difference.

Well...if this is to be believed, they don't want the salesperson to know the difference. They made the change because people were demanding USB 2.0 with their computers, and they (apparently) want to sell more USB 1.1's

Why they would actually want to sell more 1.1's is beyond me though.

Adding insult to injury

[N7DR]

And if I presented you with a choice of two otherwise identical devices, one of which was labelled "Hi-speed" (sic) and one of which was labelled "Full-speed", you (or the salesman, or Joe Sixpack) would immediately be able to tell which was faster, wouldn't you? What do you mean, you wouldn't?

The next thing we'll see is...

[Anonymous Coward]

... 1800 MHz processors marketed as 2200's. Oh Wait! AMD has already been doing that for some time.

Un-professional

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Okay, so when I started maintaining my first opensource project many years ago, I pull that one too : I released something one day, version 0.8.0, put it up for download on my web page, announced it and, a day or two later, I figured it was so great that I just changed the version number to 1.0.0 and re-released it. Then later again, I discovered a small typo, so I corrected it, repackaged, and re-released as version 1.0.0 because the change was so small.

Net result ? the last 1.0.0 tarball was broken, and people would send me bug reports regarding 0.8.0 and 1.0.0 and I wouldn't know which was which. There were several different tarballs of the thing with the same version number, or identical tarballs with different version numbers out there on the net and I looked like a bloody idiot. That's when I learned the hard way that when something is released, it's frozen and that's it, and if something changes, it'll be in the next version and too bad if the version I just released sucks.

So USB 1.1 != USB 2 ? well, too bad if some lusers are confused, USB 1.1 is USB 1.1, not USB 2. Even if marketing or support considerations come into play, it's still USB 1.1 feature-wise, not USB 2. Renaming USB 1.1 to USB 2 to con people isn't just a cheap trick, it most importantly shows a complete lack of professionalism, and it's the support people who will have a hard time answering calls about non-working USB 2 devices.

Re:hmmm

[Tumbleweed]

Gosh, you're mean.

Nomenclature

[thatguywhoiam]

Considering that they want us to believe the following:

USB 1.1 = "full speed"
USB 2 = "high speed"

.. would it not follow that USB 2 is 'slower', by (new) definition?

I hear "high speed" as "very fast", and "full speed" as "fast as possible." But then again what do I know, clearly the group that made the change is more sensible. ;)

Re:What's the justification?

[DustMagnet]

There's no requirement that companies sell "USB 1.1" products as "USB 2 Full Speed". I say pay close attention to which companies think that confusing customers is acceptable. My quick search [google.com] finds a number of scanner makers using this trick.

Re:Nothing

[Andorion]

Involved, but not necessarily responsible. Why single them out, when are are others on the board? Like I mentioned in another post, I wouldn't be surprised if this change was pushed by the hardware vendors on the board more than by MS.

~Berj

Re:and I ain't talk about the movie with the bus.

[Anonvmous Coward]

"It sounds like whomever came up with this idea was possibly "on speed"."

The Slashteam decided that Funny and Overrated were causing too much of a distinction. People want to read the Funny posts and not the Overrated ones. As a result, they changed Overrated to +5, Funny. In order to alert the users to the difference between the two moderations, you have to read the content and figure out if it's Funny or Overrated.

Re:Slight wording difference

[chunkwhite86]

Why they would actually want to sell more 1.1's is beyond me though.

Probably so that "demand" catches up to supply. There's probably a taiwanese warehouse with a mountain of USB 1.1 chips that they are trying to get rid of.

According to Bible, pi=3

[f97tosc]

Somewhere in the Bible I think a round pillar is described to be 30 [ancient unit] around and 10 across. That may be where they got it from.

I believe that some Christian fundamentalists to this day still insist that pi=3. Of course, if they had studied mathematics, they would have realized that God probably decided that one significant digit was sufficient to describe the proportions of this particular monument :-)

Tor

The consumers believe USB2 = 480Mbps, ad says so.

[Kjella]

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!

No, but I expect the *computer* to go at 12Mbps, if the device can. And I expect USB2 to go at 480Mbps, if the device can. Actually, if the device could use that speed, I expect it to be 480Mbps too. The ads have been citing those numbers all the time, so customers expect it.

This is about as deceptive as selling a shiny blank disc as an audio CD, because you know the consumers will believe it is despite having no logo or being compliant. That is somewhere between deceptive marketing and fraud, and personally I'm tending to fraud. To rephrase the usual disclaimer, I'd rather be Jackass' stuntman than a lawyer.

Kjella

Re:Nothing

[JabberWokky]

A couple of years ago, Slashdot had a story titled "Microsoft throws Sony out of CeBit".

Provacative, it catches the reader... nice headline.

But wait, a few people read the story.

Uh, yeah. Did you just come here for the headlines?

--
Evan

Love that new math

[cait56]

According to the article:

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.''

Let's see. 12/480 is 1/40th. A very interesting definition of "full".

Having promoted USB 2 as a 480 Mb/s, the appropriate label strikes me as "fraudulent" and "deliberately misleading".

Forthcoming: the automotive industry will improve car mileage and durability by clarifying that a mile is actually only 1000 feet.

Fuck this, screw usb

[SkewlD00d]

USB sucks anyhow, always has, always will. sata, firewire, and i2c/smbus are much better anyhow. i'll make it a point not to buy anything usb ever again. in addition, usb uses polling of interrupts and is very inefficient in design because it is marketed to be as low-cost and cheaply done as possible. I mean look at the connectors, bent pieces of sheet-metal encased in some crappy plastic w/ 4 little ghetto wires (gnd data+ data- +5V). Usb is good in that it is a serial bus w/ an embedded clock, eliminating parallel clock skew; but, it lacks grant and request lines that would make for a truely efficient bus. The other limitation is that usb hub support sucks ass, the drivers have to poll every device on a hub, and currently, nothing works when attached to my USB real 2.0 4-port hub in linux (kernel 2.4.20 gentoo rc5) A better protocol, such as firewire has switch products available, and can be shared simultaneously between computers. in fact, winxp and linux support IP over firewire, for 480Mbps networking OTTB!!!! usb just plain sux.

It's not about speed...

[sfe_software]

The protocol version number does not indicate the maximum data transfer rate supported by a device, only the maximum supported by that protocol version. To rephraze, a USB device (or host) can support USB 2.0 features without necessarily supporting the "High-Speed" data rates that the 2.0 spec allows for. The 2.0 spec does not require that it be a High-Speed device.

The "Full-Speed" and "High-Speed" designations have been there all along. Only recently did companies (or their marketing departments) realize they can claim "USB 2.0", by merely adding the minimum features required by the 2.0 spec (likely all via firmware upgrades, as opposed to requiring faster, more expensive hardware), in order to do better sales.

The idea is that the majority of users do not need 480 MB/s USB to run their mice/keyboards/printers. Companies are losing customers because the customers think "High-Speed" USB would be beneficial, and they think that 1.1 == Slower. Just like AMD was (potentially) losing customers because of the "1.8 GHz > 1.533 GHz" mentality.

I hate when companies assume they know better than their own customers, and pull shit like this in hopes most people will never know/care. I didn't know this was being done until today. I even had to check to make sure my new motherboard did in fact support High-Speed USB 2.0 (luckily it does, or I'd be complaining to someone)...

The article's wording could have been better (rather, the USB Forum could have used better wording), but it's still a very sneaky thing in any case, and one more thing I know (now) to watch for when buying USB devices/controllers...

Re:Nothing

[Anonvmous Coward]

"...A couple of years ago, Slashdot had a story titled "Microsoft throws Sony out of CeBit".

Provacative, it catches the reader... nice headline.

'...But wait, a few people read the story. '

Uh, yeah. Did you just come here for the headlines?"

I don't see what's so insightful about this post. It's okay to use a deceptive headline as long as it catches the reader? It's okay to fill the Slashdot article with lies and just expect the readers to read the linked article and discover the truth?

I wouldn't be as bothered by this sentiment if the servers that Slashdot links to didn't routinely go down.

Re:Slight wording difference

[42.5]

How is this different from the approach taken with Small Computer Systems Interface (SCSI)?

SCSI, Fast SCSI, differential SCSI, SCSI-2, SCSI-3, Narrow SCSI2, WIDE SCSI3, SCSI LVD, etc.

Well at least the manufactures didn't relabel SCSI as SCSI2 "full speed".

Re:slashdotted: karmaless reprint

[WNight]

Does a USB 1.1 device communicate at 480mbps? If not it's not fully compliant.

But, you USB people seem to have a problem with full. Full means maximum, the most, as much as it could be, and so forth. Making "Full Speed" slower than "Hi Speed" is remarkably stupid. It's only reasonable in the USB1.1 context, where 12mbps is full USB1.1 speed. Thus further destroys your position.

Shill.

Re:It's not about speed...

[Anonymous Coward]

To rephraze, a USB device (or host) can support USB 2.0 features without necessarily supporting the "High-Speed" data rates that the 2.0 spec allows for.

Page 119 of the USB 2.0 specification states that the USB host must support High Speed in order to be 2.0 compliant. You are correct about the devices, though.

Re:This is hilarious!

[plover]

I fail to understand your argument.

To your point, "I really don't see what the big deal is if people realize that USB 2.0 != high speed (480 MBit/sec)," it's the entire point of the argument. People DON'T realize that because it's simply not true. The phrase USB 2.0 has already come to mean high speed through usage; usage both defined and fostered by the very same usb.org. Doubt me? Here's what the usb.org has on the first page of "A Technical Introduction to USB 2.0 [usb.org]" describing USB 2.0 [formatting from the original, emphasis mine ]:

"USB 2.0 Executive Summary
A core team from Compaq, Hewlett Packard, Intel, Lucent, Microsoft, NEC and Philips is leading the development of the USB Specification, version 2.0, that will increase data throughput by a factor of 40. This backwards-compatible extension of the USB 1.1 specification uses the same cables, connectors and software interfaces so the user will see no change in the usage model. They will, however, benefit from an additional range of higher performance peripherals, such as video-conferencing cameras, next-generation scanners and printers, and fast storage devices, with the same ease-of-use features as todayâ(TM)s USB peripherals.

Impact to User
From a userâ(TM)s perspective, USB 2.0 is just like USB, but with much higher bandwidth. It will look the same and behave the same, but with a larger choice of more interesting, higher performance devices available. Also, all of the USB peripherals the user has already purchased will work in a USB 2.0-capable system."

Contrast that statement with this quote from the USB Naming and Packaging [usb.org] page:

"Inconsistent use of terminology in combination with the existing general misconception that USB 2.0 is synonymous with Hi-Speed USB ... creates confusion in the marketplace."

So you can now see why we've our little tempest in the proverbial teapot. Even the USB organization themselves used the specific words "USB 2.0" to precisely mean the exact same thing they now call "Hi-Speed USB" -- 480MB/s USB. And then they tell us that we, the marketplace, suffer confusion from a misconception. If they aren't fostering that confusion, who else is?

My biggest complaint is that their packaging page permits manufacturers to label their "Low-Speed USB" or "Full-Speed USB" products with these statements:

• 1. Compatible with the USB 2.0 Specification
• 2. Works with USB and Hi-Speed USB systems, peripherals and cables.

The emphasis is mine, just to point out that they used the word "compatible" and not "compliant". A subtle distinction probably lost on the average buyer, since we're quibbling about it here on /. Also note that the only speed mentioned in these statements is "Hi-Speed". This is the marketing they encourage vendors to put on their "Low-" and "Full-" speed USB devices, but nowhere on the package is it required to state "Low-Speed" or "Full-Speed".

This is the stuff of "truth in advertising" lawsuits. IANAL, because if I were I wouldn't be ranting on /., I'd be cranking up a lawsuit.

And just to keep going, if your other statement were true, "A USB 1.1 compliant device can meet the specification even if it only supports low speed operation (1.5 MBit/sec)," then I should be able to claim my 300 baud acoustically-coupled modem made in 1978 is "V_fast" compliant just because the V_fast spec says a V_fast modem must accept connections from 300 baud modems. Receiving an honorable mention in the spec does not mean it meets the spec.

They're renaming

[janaagaard]

The way I see it, it looks as if they whan to go away from the numbering of USB standards, and instead introduce a speed label, i.e. 'low speed', 'full speed' or 'hi-speed'. So in stead of going out shopping for a laptop with USB 2.0, they want you to look for one with Hi-Speed USB.

I think it's pretty obvious when you look at the logos on the USB Packaging [usb.org] page.

The problem with this naming scheme is of course, that they have to come up with new and more impressive names for each new version of USB. I expect that the standard computer in 2015 will support USB eXtra Fast Super Ludicrous Hi-Speed.

Re:and I ain't talk about the movie with the bus.

[JayTeeUK]

Great, so I need to buy the machine and install Windows on it to find out if what I bought was what I wanted. Face it, it's another case of the industry trying to pull the wool over our eyes and making it easier for vendors to do so. Can you imagine the conversation in PC World:

"Does this PC have USB 2 onboard?"

"Yes sir, it does."

"Is that USB 2 as was USB 1.1, or USB 2 as was USB 2?"

"It's USB 2 sir, there is no USB 1.1."

"No, not any more there isn't. But is this USB 2 Full Speed or High Speed?"

"Full High Speed, sir. USB is very fast."

"Yes, I know that, but what version of USB is it?"

"USB 2, sir."

Need I continue?

Re:Slight wording difference

[Rogerborg]

How many bits in a byte?

If you say 8, I will beat you with a cluestick until you are within an inch of your life. Then I will beat another foot out of you.

The answer is, of course "It depends". It depends on whether you mean the smallest integral value that a machine can handle, or the size of a character in a given compiler (which isn't always the same thing), or you *might* mean 8 bits. But how would I know? If you think this isn't an issue, try working on code that has to work on everything (hardware and compilers) made between 1989 and 2020 or so.

If you mean 8 bits, say octet.