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?"
What the?? (Score:2, Interesting)
USB port (supports 2.0 Full Speed (prevously USB 1.1))
!!
standards should not change (Score:5, Interesting)
Once the standard is released to the world, the standards body cannot expect consumers to accept USB 1.1 as USB 2.0.
If your product fails to meet the USB 2.0 standard (as we know it), it will be returned as defective and the consumer will go buy something else that meets his/her needs.
A question for you! (Score:1, Interesting)
How do I know which one is on my computer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Would someone care to tell me a quick method to know for
sure!!
Re:Anybody? (Score:2, Interesting)
-Chas
USB naming has always been goofy (Score:5, Interesting)
[TROLL] Sort of reminds me ... (Score:3, Interesting)
"Oh, Java(tm) version 2.0 is out?"
"Er, well, no, it's really 1.2"
I think we're up to Java(tm) 4 or 5 now, right?
Re:The next thing we'll see is... (Score:3, Interesting)
Based on your logic, we should require Firewire vendors to mark their product with the clock speed of their controller chipset.
A confused author, or a biased author? (Score:2, Interesting)
1) First of all, there's absolutely no reason to mention Linux in the article. Skip all the stuff about the BSA as well, and you're already down to paragraph #4.
2) It goes on about USB's history, which may enlighten some of you out there. Then, it opposes USB and FireWire. While the FireWire concept had been around for years before the year 1999 when USB 1.1 took hold according to the author, they never actually competed. FireWire was quickly adopted by Sony (iLink they renamed it IIRC) and others, and its high bandwidth was used to transfer digital video to mainly Apple machines. USB was adopted radically in the same year 1999 to replace all manual input device interfaces Apple had been using for years, not for transferring large volumes of data, until image scanners with USB came around. Can anyone name a FireWire keyboard or mouse? No, so why did the Bangkok author mention some illusory rivalry between the two?
3) It goes on to say that USB 2.0 is "nearly as fast as FireWire at 480Mbps", which is debatable at the least. FireWire has had years to ripen and mature, while USB 2.0 has years of development, rethinking and improvement to come. The average user whom the author claims is being misled wouldn't know the difference between the two until a USB 2.0 scanner and a FireWire-connected digicam hit him squarely in the face at the same instant. Oh, and Why was FireWire even part of this piece? Right, there's no reason. The author is simply building up to something, and does some namedropping on his way.
4) Then he finally comes up with something substantial (that USB 1.1 has been renamed USB 2.0), but fails to give the slightest shred of evidence, not even a link to a press release noone (certainly not anyone regularly reading
5) Now we get to the good bit: the author clearly shows he has been confused by some of the buzzwords the marketing people (indeed, probably those at the USB Forum) have concocted to still be able to market USB 1.1 while USB 2.0 is out and while the USB 1.1 parts and peripherals haven't been sold out. The buzzwords Full Speed USB and High Speed USB (however you like to spell those; the marketing people at the local computer store will probably get them wrong anyway) quite literally point to different USB standards. What the author finally tries to achieve is to substitute the wrong buzzwords for the USB standards versions and vice versa.
6) Finally he claims he didn't substitute them wrongly, but some manufacturers did, and allegedly they did it unwittingly. They just went and built computers with some components some bloke handed to them, and whey-ho, they turned out to be the USB 1.1 ones, so they had to ask the USB Forum to fiddle with the definitions a bit in order to still be able to sell them slow machines as faster ones.
Hmmm (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm guessing 15 bucks could get you a dongle with LED's that light for each speed - red for 12Mb/s, green for 480Mb/s.
Then it's just a case of plugging it into every unit you check out at the store, and you can ignore the sales guy's rants.
My poor CD Writer! (Score:3, Interesting)
Customer buys a new computer with "USB 2" and a USB CD Writer. Customer goes home happy and smug. Customer proceeds to burn a CD. Customer sees the following message:
"USB 1.1 detected, limiting burn speed to x4..."
Who does the customer sue? The CD writer manufacturer? The burner software manufacturer? The dealer he bought his computer? The OEM? There is real criminal fraud here, but the odds are that the LAST person to be sued will be the actual people responsible.
Re:Slight wording difference (more info) (Score:5, Interesting)
Firewire is 400Mb/s not 400 MB/s
Also does anyone besides me think full speed sounds quicker then high speed?
Lastly USB 1.1 ports can support USB 2 devices according to the thing on Iomega.
This means that most people will probably just think that external drives in general suck, and will not blame it on the manufacturer changing the name.
Re:Argh....Yet another reason not to buy Sony (Score:5, Interesting)
In terms of camcorders, this could not be more wrong.
I'm a freefall videographer. This means I jump from not-so-perfectly good airplanes with a camera bolted to my helmet. Because of weight issues, we use consumer grade "camcorders" almost exclusively. We never use "profesional" cameras, they're just too damn heavy. I'm currently using a Sony DRC-PC120BT.
Skydiving is clearly a harsh environment. Cameras get put into 200MPH winds, intense vibrations and g-forces as the parachute opens.
I've never seen a Panasonic, JVC, Sharp or Canon survive more then a few monthes.
I've never seen a Sony survive less then a few years.
Everytime I see someone show up with a brand new non-sony camera, I shake my head. Usually within 3 monthes it's tossed into the bin, and that person is buying a Sony - which will usually last for years.
There's a rule in skydiving videography: Always buy Sony, there IS a difference.
_Am
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
This is from their marketing page:
Re:Anybody? (Score:3, Interesting)
advantage FireWire (Score:4, Interesting)
Gareth Powell, Flamewar? (Score:2, Interesting)
It wouldn't be this Gareth Powell [google.com.au] would it? :)
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)
Wow,
Microsoft was not innovating here! Steve, you guys were just stealing from Apple again!
They've been using those types of phrases for years now!
turbocharged
full-throttle
scorchingly fast
phenomenal speeds
superior I/O performance
unbelievably affordable
tremendous value
rejoice in the fact that there are no controls to adjust
faster than ever
new technologies
massively enhanced
dramatically increases
way faster than USB 2.0
Off-the-charts
fearsomely fast
the ultra fast realm
lightning fast processor speeds
ultra fast
an even faster level
push the digital video envelope beyond its known limits
record time (and I thought it was only Quick time!)
convenient second optical bay at the front
Thrives in a Windows environment (makes you wonder why you would buy one if it's gonna be all alone in a yucky, non-fearsomely fast Windows environment?)
Apples legendary SuperDrive (and all this time I thought it was manufactured elsewhere, I guess Apple must have invented it after all... I mean, if it were invented by Philips, it'd be called 2x or 4x DVD-RW... but since Apple invented it, it's a SuperDrive! Yeah baaaa-by!!!),
also, MacOSX is, according to Apple, the most advanced operating system on the planet (featuring: Mac OS X Jaguar gives you advantages like preemptive multitasking, symmetric multiprocessing and multithreading to take your productivity to new levels!!! Wow, I sure wish there were other OS's out there like that!)
Heck, all those yummy marketing terms are on just one web page [apple.com]!!! Imagine what the rest of the site or an Apple Store has to offer. Of course, after your diligent work, Microsoft's site is also catching up, I think you'll be proud to know!
Re:This is hilarious! (Score:4, Interesting)
Not the one who had aus.flame.gareth-powell created to celebrate his incredible incompetence as a tech writer?
If it's him then you can safely ignore this entire article.
Real marketing... (Score:3, Interesting)
First off, the article mentioned that USB1.1 had been changed to USB2, while leaving USB2 the same. Referencing the USB Implementers Forum website referenced by the article at http://www.usb.org [usb.org], I couldn't find a single reference to USB 2.0. Seems USB 1.1 has been renamed "Original USB" where USB 2.0 is "Hi-Speed USB." (Check the FAQ under the question "How fast is USB?") This is an awfully big difference from what the article purports.
Secondly, I think most reputable manufacturers of hardware components to those who build their own PCs, such as motherboard chipsets, add-in USB2 (ha!) cards, etc. would maintain the older numbering scheme so as not to confuse their target market.
I think the source of this article's confusion comes from devices marked "Hi-Speed USB 2.0." Apparently this labeling scheme is supposed to combine the "USB 2.0" that older enthusiasts are familiar with, with the "Hi-Speed USB" that the USB Implementers Forum is pushing now.
Doing your own research is nicer than relying on a poorly-researched article.
Re:and I ain't talk about the movie with the bus. (Score:4, Interesting)
IANAL but it appears to me that if USB 1.1 was renamed in the way suggested for the purpose of confusing customers a company that took advantage of the change could well be breaking the law.
The point is that users have been led to expect a certain set of capabilities from USB 2.0 which cannot be changed retrospectively by fudging the spec.
This is a pretty elementary point of contract law, if a confusion is created by one side the confusion is ruled against them, particularly if they deliberately created the confusion.
This being so I very much doubt that the standards group did any such thing that is being suggested here. It just makes no sense from a legal perspective, it is false advertising.
Re:and I ain't talk about the movie with the bus. (Score:2, Interesting)
Summary- the USB 1.1 spec was completley replaced by the USB 2.0 spec. There is no such thing as USB 1.1 anymore because it is included in the USB 2.0 spec.
Ok, that sounds great and all, but when hardware is still being manufactured to the 1.1 spec, it is USB 1.1 and operates at 12MBit. When hardware is manufactured to the 2.0 spec, it is USB 2.0 and operates at 480Mbit.
If hardware is manufactured to the 1.1 spec, then by definition it is 2.0 compliant because the 2.0 spec is backwards compatible.
In 1999, the USB 1.1 spec was released. It defined 2 transfer speeds- Low Speed (1.5 Mbps) and Full Speed (12 Mbps). USB 1.1 defines both speeds, therefore saying USB 1.1 does not specify a transfer speed.
Skip a few years- USB spec is updated, and a new High Speed transfer speed is added. The new version is 2.0. USB 2.0 now includes Low Speed, Full Speed, and High Speed. Saying USB 2.0 does not specify the transfer speed either.
To distinguish between the transfer speeds, the USBIF named them (Low, Full, and High). In the case of High Speed, they also let you use a fancy new logo.
There is no deceit here.
Re:In other news.... (Score:3, Interesting)
The quack mathematician presented this algorithm to the Indiana legislature, saying that he was going to license it to other states, and Indiana would be getting a major discount. Unfortunately for him, a real mathematician happened to be visiting and got wind of what was going on. He managed to expose the algorithm for what it was, and the bill immediately lost any momentum it might have had.
In their own brand of humor, the legislature passed the bill to the "Committee on Temperance".
I'm only remembering this from a few years back; I went to school in Indiana and we discovered this little tidbit one evening.
Nothing (much) to see... (Score:2, Interesting)
Ok, with USB1.1 you could have two modes:
Low Speed (1.5Mb/s)
Full Speed (12Mb/s)
What mode is used depends on the device.
If you have a USB2 controller (i.e. the bit at the computer) and you plug in a USB1.1 device, the bus will be downgraded to USB1.1 speeds - this means that a USB2 device also connected at the same time wouldn't be able to use the 480Mb/s of USB2.
With USB2, there are three modes available:
Low Speed (1.5Mb/s)
Full Speed (12Mb/s)
High Speed (480Mb/s)
All USB2 devices must support Low and Full speed (so they can be connected to USB1.1 controllers) but they don't have to use High speed. This means that you can connect a USB2 keyboard to a USB2 controller and not degrade the performance of your USB2 DVD-RW for instance.
So, in conclusion, a device that is advertised as "USB2 compatible" or "USB2 Full speed" is a device that will only go at 12Mb/s at most but will play nicely with High speed USB2 devices. It is in effect a USB1.1 device that is compatible with USB2. I presume that this is where the confusion comes in - it looks as though the device has simply been repackaged as USB2 even though there are no speed improvements.
A device advertised as "USB2 compliant" or "USB2 High speed" should run at up to 480Mb/s.
I see no way in which it is reasonable to call a USB controller "USB2 compatible" because by definition all USB1.1 controllers are compatible with USB2 devices, the devices just won't run at High speed.
It is possible that this has been ignored in marketing though to shift the old USB1.1 motherboards/IO cards. This is my only gripe other than the fact that the whole situation is damned confusing.
Cheers,
Roger