Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Networking Hardware

Everything You Need To Know About USB 3.0 322

Posted by timothy
from the it-goes-one-louder dept.
Esther Schindler writes "After a lengthy gestation period, the third generation of the Universal Serial Bus is making its way to the market. USB 3.0, also known as SuperSpeed USB, has throughput of up to 5 gigabits per second. That's even faster than the 3Gb/sec of SATA hard drives and 1Gb/sec of high-end networking in the home. USB 3.0: Everything You Need to Know goes into plenty of the techie details. But is it already obsolete — will LightPeak make USB 3.0 irrelevant?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Everything You Need To Know About USB 3.0

Comments Filter:
  • by GuerillaRadio (818889) on Friday August 27, 2010 @06:58AM (#33390792)

    ...seriously? Will USB 6.0 be super-hyper-megaspeed USB?

    • by Zerak-Tul (1654309) on Friday August 27, 2010 @07:01AM (#33390812)
      Ludicrous Speed USB...
      • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohnNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday August 27, 2010 @07:10AM (#33390870) Journal
        ... fuck everything, we're going to plaid.
        • by Tejin (818001) on Friday August 27, 2010 @10:49AM (#33393436)
          Would someone tell me how this happened? We were the fucking vanguard of data transfer in this country. The USB 1.1 was the cable to own. Then the other guy came out with Firewire. Were we scared? Hell, no. Because we hit back with a little thing called the USB 2.0. That's 480Mbps and a compatible connector. For backwards compatibility. But you know what happened next? Shut up, I'm telling you what happened—the bastards went to optical connections. Now we're standing around with our cocks in our hands, selling 480Mbps and back compat. Compatibility or no, suddenly we're the chumps. Well, fuck it. We're going to USB3.

          Sure, we could go to optical connections next, like the competition. That seems like the logical thing to do. After all, electrons worked out pretty well, and photons are the next particles after electrons. So let's play it safe. Let's make an optical cable and call it the USBOpticon. Why innovate when we can follow? Oh, I know why: Because we're a business, that's why!

          You think it's crazy? It is crazy. But I don't give a shit. From now on, we're the ones who have the edge in the data speed game. Are they the best a man can get? Fuck, no. USB is the best a man can get.

          What part of this don't you understand? If 12Mbps is good, and 480Mbps is better, obviously 4.8Gbps would make us the best fucking cable that ever existed. Comprende? We didn't claw our way to the top of the cable game by clinging to the parallel industry standard. We got here by taking chances. Well, USB3 is the biggest chance of all.

          Here's the report from Engineering. Someone put it in the bathroom: I want to wipe my ass with it. They don't tell me what to invent—I tell them. And I'm telling them to stick four more gigabits in there. I don't care how. Make the wires so thin they're invisible. Put some on the outside. I don't care if they have to cram the extra electrons in perpendicular to the other ones, just do it!

          You're taking the "Universal" part of "universal Serial Bus" too literally, grandma. Cut the strings and soar. Let's hit it. Let's roll. This is our chance to make computer history. Let's dream big. All you have to do is say that 4.8Gbps can happen, and it will happen. If you aren't on board, then fuck you. And if you're on the board, then fuck you and your father. Hey, if I'm the only one who'll take risks, I'm sure as hell happy to hog all the glory when USB3 becomes the computer cable for the U.S. of "this is how we connect now" A.

          People said we couldn't go to 480Mbps. It'll cost a fortune to manufacture, they said. Well, we did it. Now some egghead in a lab is screaming "4.8Gbps crazy?" Well, perhaps he'd be more comfortable in the labs at Sony, working on fucking discs. Rotary storage, my white ass!

          Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we should just ride in Intel's wake and make chipsets. Ha! Not on your fucking life! The day I shadow a penny-ante outfit like Intel is the day I leave the computing game for good, and that won't happen until the day I die!

          The market? Listen, we make the market. All we have to do is put her out there with a little jingle. It's as easy as, "Hey, connecting with anything less than 4.8Gbps is like carrying your data in a rusty bucket." Or "Your connection will be so smooth, I could snort lines off of your transfer rate graph." Try "Your computer's gonna be so friggin' fast, you'll get a speeding ticket."

          I know what you're thinking now: What'll people say? Mew mew mew. Oh, no, what will people say?! Grow the fuck up. When you're on top, people talk. That's the price you pay for being on top. Which USB is, always has been, and forever shall be, Amen, 4.8Gbps, sweet Jesus in heaven.

          Stop. I just had a stroke of genius. Are you ready? Open your mouth, baby birds, cause Mama's about to drop you one sweet, fat nightcrawler. Here she comes: Make that fucker backwards compatible, too. That's right. 4.8Gbps, fully backwards compatible cables, and make the connectors out of gold. You heard me—gold connectors. It's a whole new way to think about downloading. Don't question it. Don't say a word. Just key the music, and call the chorus girls, because we're on the edge—the razor's edge—and I feel like dancing.

    • I never see my hard disk data rate maxing out my connection speed, so I con't understand why all this emphasis on faster connections.

      • Re:hard disk speed (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Tynin (634655) on Friday August 27, 2010 @07:25AM (#33390974)
        The only reason I can see would be if you had an external USB enclosure that housed multiple drives that you plan on RAIDing. With the speeds of SSD drives still ramping up, it is possible you could saturate even USB 3 with just 2 drives.
        • by Lumpy (12016)

          And the WHY use USB? eStata is great and perfect for external drive use and is far more common than USB3.0 AND has a higher sustained transfer rate.

          USB3.0 is interesting, but useless for external drives. eStata is the right direction for that.

          • by drinkypoo (153816)

            Useless? Most disks out there can't saturate the 3.0Gbps SATA yet. eSATA requires a separate power connector. USB3 devices are supposed to fall back to USB2. USB3 is going to be a great solution for external disks that are carted from place to place. Meanwhile most people who have any number of external disks would be better served by a bigger case with sleds in it, because they're not moving those disks around anyway, and it would be more efficient, catch less dust, make less noise, etc etc.

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by wolrahnaes (632574)

              eSATA does not always require separate power. Most eSATA-equipped laptops on the market right now use a port known as eSATAp which adds in both power and USB 2.0 compatibility. It's less common on desktops, but is gaining in popularity. Since an eSATA + USB enclosure is generally within a few dollars of a straight eSATA or USB model it's the best of both worlds. With the right hardware at both ends you get full SATA speeds on a one-cable power+data solution, but either end can fail back to USB 2 as nece

          • Re:hard disk speed (Score:5, Insightful)

            by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Friday August 27, 2010 @08:08AM (#33391392) Journal
            The one major eSATA issue(I don't know why they overlooked this the first time) is power. For 3.5inch drives, or multi drive external towers/shelves, this doesn't matter at all. An external PSU is a given. For the "single 2.5 inch or smaller in portable case" case, the fact that USB3 delivers the bandwidth(and is backwards compatible right back to the two-1.1-ports stuff that they were shipping in the mid 90s) and the power, while eSATA delivers only the bandwidth, requiring a seperate connector for power, pretty much ruins things. If eSATA had included power from the start, it might have been a much better contender.

            As a replacement for SCSI type use cases, of course, USB is a toy and eSATA or SAS is the natural replacement; but for the vast market for flash drives, 2.5 inch externals, and mass-market, works-with-anything 3.5 inch externals, eSATA is doomed compared to USB(especially since a USB port can be used for non storage purposes, while an eSATA port is pretty much storage only. In principle, a high speed serial interconnect like SATA could be used for other stuff; but I've never seen it actually done in practice.
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by derGoldstein (1494129)
            eSata doesn't hubs or daisy-chains, making it much more rigid. If you want that port to be "universal", then the space is better occupied by a USB3. (yes, I know that the eSata/USB [wikipedia.org] "solves" that, but I'd still rather have 1 format (to which I might be able to connect an HD video stream *or* an HD) than the hybrid port)
          • by S.O.B. (136083)

            I agree. Different external devices have different requirements and trying to come up with a single spec to satisfy them all is going to result in a spec that is either too bloated it will be a monster to evolve or too full of compromises to be useful or possibly both.

            I'd rather see one spec for high throughput devices like hard drives and raid arrays and a second spec for lower throughput devices like mice, keyboards and flash/portable drives.

            This is not Lord of the Rings. We don't need the one cable "to

      • by Pojut (1027544)

        USB 2.0-based hard drives are a bit slow, as are USB 2.0-based flash drives. With the bandwith of USB 3.0 far exceeding the max throughput of today's (and tomorrow's) storage, it ensures that the standard has a longer life.

        • Re:hard disk speed (Score:4, Interesting)

          by derGoldstein (1494129) on Friday August 27, 2010 @08:21AM (#33391552) Homepage
          They're more than just a "bit" slow, IMO. An external HD connected by USB 2 can only really be used for backup, and even then it lags. Firewire is better, but driver problems will occur more often than with USB. Then there's eSata, of which you need 1 per drive. I really hope USB 3 becomes the standard for external storage, possibly even more common than eSata (even though, technically, eSata is cheaper when looking at the overall system).
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by rufty_tufty (888596)

        What if you have 2 hard drives connected to a hub?
        Backing up from a pen drive to an external drive would I thought be a common use case of bulk data transfer.Or from video camera to my mass storage device.
        As soon as you allow hubs and caches and protocol overhead and software inefficiencies then a connection significantly faster than the media makes a lot of sense

      • by PopeRatzo (965947) *

        I never see my hard disk data rate maxing out my connection speed, so I con't understand why all this emphasis on faster connections.

        How about professional audio and video interfaces?

      • smoother webcams, better usb videocards, and I want a faster picoscope. Also you can run more things through it, as its got more power too. So several hard drives, and a couple sound cards along with your webcam.

    • Re:SuperSpeed USB... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by RevRagnarok (583910) on Friday August 27, 2010 @07:16AM (#33390914) Homepage Journal

      The problem is the original nomenclature from USB 1.0 - "full speed" is a whopping 12Mbit/s (vs. "low speed" at 1.5Mb/s). Of course, compared to serial ports that were starting to push 300kbit/s, it was nice. So then USB 2.0 was "high speed" and for 3.0 they needed something "higher" than "high." Pretty stupid, especially when somebody says a USB 2.0 device runs at "full speed" it could simply be MarketSpeak(TM) saying that it won't slow the bus down below 2.0 but the device itself only communicates at 1.1 speeds.

      ( Oh, BTW, I vote for PlaidSpeed(TM)! )

    • by sznupi (719324)

      Seing how we have now Schutzstaffel USB - what was above the SS?

      (seriously, it will get funny when buying USB gear in Germany - I might do it specifically for this effect after one too many beers in Berlin, some day ;) )

      And as for Lightpeak - imagine a Beowulf cluster using those!

    • ...seriously? Will USB 6.0 be super-hyper-meta-speed USB?

      There... fixed that for ya.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by akirapill (1137883)
      Reminds me of SCSI, Fast SCSI, Fast-Wide SCSI, Ultra SCSI, Ultra-Wide-Fast SCSI, etc
  • So, each USB iteration offers the smallest possible increments in speed?

    • by Sockatume (732728) on Friday August 27, 2010 @07:22AM (#33390954)

      That term's annoying because it's trivially true and means nothing. All technological changes are quantised. You don't get a continuous change from the iPod Classic to the iPod Touch, outside of a Cronenberg-and-cheese-sandwich-induced nightmare.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by oneiros27 (46144)

      No, no.

      It means that it has to take over for some other interface protocol, and then, once it's finished that, it can take over some other interface. The only problem is the random messages send to some device named 'Al' that's not actually on the network.

    • So, each USB iteration offers the smallest possible increments in speed?

      No fair! You changed the definition of the word by looking it up!

    • by asdf7890 (1518587)
      If you call the apparent transfer of state information between entangled partials (so one if affected by interactions with the other) the information leaping between the two, then a quantum leap could be quite some distance.
  • The Universal Serial Bus (USB) has done wonders for creating a standard interface on PCs. Prior to the USB port, PCs were a mishmash of various proprietary ports, often single-vendor efforts. There was no effective means for transferring files between two PCs. ... USB freed us from proprietary solutions, proprietary software, and perhaps best of all, bent pins.

    It really should be illegal to create proprietary connectors for anything. What a waste of time, resources, and technology.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by bogaboga (793279)

      It really should be illegal to create proprietary connectors for anything.

      I must say that I support your point of view but your suggestion would go against the "American free spirit" and stifle innovation at the same time. We should look for a better solution.

    • by PNutts (199112)

      The Universal Serial Bus (USB) has done wonders for creating a standard interface on PCs. Prior to the USB port, PCs were a mishmash of various proprietary ports, often single-vendor efforts. There was no effective means for transferring files between two PCs. ... USB freed us from proprietary solutions, proprietary software, and perhaps best of all, bent pins.

      It really should be illegal to create proprietary connectors for anything. What a waste of time, resources, and technology.

      Agreed. But back to the original quote, I've used PC's since the PCjr (actually before if you include a TRS-80 CoCo) and I remember serial, parallel, and SCSI. I was able to transfer files with no issues using flopppies (or the CoCo's cassette player). They were quite effective at transfering files, including, say installing programs. Perhaps I was just a mainstream user, but methinks someone is rewriting history.

      • There was also ethernet. When I think of USB, I don't think "great way to transfer files", I think "generic I/O connector". Though of course any input/output stream can be treated as a file, but I don't think that's what they meant..

      • The real issues were the configuration hassles lack of hot plugging of devices.

        RS-232/422 serial: always had the hassle of setting baud rate, stop bits, etc.

        Centronics/EPP/ECP Parallel port: Were an ugly hack job for true two way data (and devices other then printers) until ECP standards came into place. You also really couldn't reliably daisy chain more then one device+printer.

        SCSI (the parallel variety, not SAS): Was straight forward for the most part (just set a unique ID for each device). Termi
        • SCSI (the parallel variety, not SAS): Was straight forward for the most part (just set a unique ID for each device). Termination of the bus caused the most hassles, plus it wasn't hot pluggable.

          I use SCSI in a few of my PCs, but never had problems with termination. New internal cables come with a terminator already attached on one end and the host adapter terminated the other end. External cables are different, but I just attach a terminator at the end of the bus and that's all. Though I really do not like the VHDCI connector - it breaks connection too easily.

          PS/2 Keyboard/Mouse:

          Also, KVM switches. I am using PS/2 for keyboard/mouse because USB KVM switches are much more expensive than PS/2 ones. Even if I have to us

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Before USB

      RS232 - Open standard
      SCSI - Standard - No Pins
      PCI - Standard
      IEEE 1284/Parallel - Standard
      FireWire - When available - Standard - No Pins

      Where were all these non-standard proprietary connectors ...?

      And is it just me or are many of these still around because USB2 does not replace them ...and USB 3 won't either ?

      • Before USB

        RS232 - Open standard
        SCSI - Standard - No Pins
        PCI - Standard
        IEEE 1284/Parallel - Standard
        FireWire - When available - Standard - No Pins

        Where were all these non-standard proprietary connectors ...?

        And is it just me or are many of these still aro

        • So USB has reduced the connection types from 5 to 4 ....

                USB2
                PCIe
                SATA
                FireWire

          USB3 is only likely to replace FireWire .... maybe ?

          So 4 to 3 ....

      • by hedwards (940851)
        Most of them went out of fashion in the mid 90s. I remember having a lot of trouble with my first computer because very little of it was actually standardized. In those days you really had to be mindful that you got something that was 100% IBM compatible rather than just IBM compatible which probably meant that the interior workings required proprietary boards to work. But even then the exterior things like serial port, parallel port and such were standard as far as I can recall.
  • by antifoidulus (807088) on Friday August 27, 2010 @07:14AM (#33390900) Homepage Journal
    One detail missing from the article was the relative costs of the two technologies, with the popularity of net books and the like the cheaper technology will probably come out ahead in the long run.
    • LightPeak is a buzz word. That's it. It's light years away from actually showing up on devices in your local Best Buy. Far from making USB 3.0 obsolete.
      • by Anpheus (908711)

        Light Peak should be available by the second half of 2011 in higher end desktops from OEMs that have opted into it.

    • Marketing and Political connections also have to be superior in order to win the survival of the fittest contest between technologies. One only need to reflect on the price/performance of Superdisk vs. ZIPdisk, or BETA vs. VHS to see that the more technologically and economically fit can lose to a product with superior marketing and politics.

    • Backwards compatibility is the other big factor after cost. If USB3.0 is backwards compatible (which I assume it is) that's going to be a huge advantage. Why get something better but more expensive when I still have a camera, printer, external HDD etc. etc. that can't use it when I can get something almost as good that will work for all those (and my new USB3.0 versions of them as I replace them).
    • You bring up cost:
      Light peak requires a fibre optic connection - so you need multiple chips to do an interface, whereas with usb3 the same chip that is your usb logic can also be your usb phy, so it will be the technologically cheaper solution.
      So for use in mobile devices it will be cheaper to use usb3 because of the lower part count and smaller space requirements.
      This is ignoring licensing issues of course.

  • SATA is up to 6.0 Gb/s now, and networking is starting to hit 10Gb/s.
  • by adosch (1397357) on Friday August 27, 2010 @07:20AM (#33390936)
    Contrary to the lame doomsday message IFTA, USB isn't going away, people. I see all the millions of devices that use USB for data transfer, power charging, ect. not to mention cellular phone market is finally starting to standardize to micro-USB. On top of that, there's too many TTL 5v devices out there built and designed around USB that it would cause some serious chaos if it did go away. There's no way that something like LightPeak is going to come in and whisk it off of computer hardware manufacturer's list of "things to provide". It may be a high-speed fad like Firewire or something of the recent past, but USB is here to stay.
    • Micro-USB (Score:3, Informative)

      .. not to mention cellular phone market is finally starting to standardize to micro-USB.

      Finally? I hope all the companies that implemented that horrible plug will go back to mini-usb. It is as big, by far more robust, you can get cables for it and you are not afraid to plug it in. And plugging in is easier, as the plug will "find" its way in.

      There has never been a worse plug than micro-usb.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by drinkypoo (153816)

        Finally? I hope all the companies that implemented that horrible plug will go back to mini-usb. It is as big, by far more robust, you can get cables for it and you are not afraid to plug it in. And plugging in is easier, as the plug will "find" its way in.

        You can get a micro-USB cable at any halfway decent camera store. It is not that much more fragile than Mini-USB. They both "find" their way in; I find that most micro-USB connectors are more recessed into the plastic (possibly by specification?) and thus cheap connector edges are less likely to hang up, which IS a real problem (if an exceedingly minor one) with Mini-USB that you don't tend to see with any other variant.

        There has never been a worse plug than micro-usb.

        Clearly you don't remember PS/2 ports, even though you probably have some in your house.

        • My main complaint about DIN is that it's a bitch to solder, especially the smaller types. I suppose it also works itself loose rather easily because of the circular form factor.

          That said, I have a lot of affection for my IBM Model M, so I shall be sad when PS/2 ports are gone completely and I have to chance it with some inferior USB -> PS/2 converter that might not provide enough current, or doesn't have proper key rollover.

          • by drinkypoo (153816)

            My main complaint about DIN is that it's a bitch to solder, especially the smaller types. I suppose it also works itself loose rather easily because of the circular form factor.

            The inherent problem with Mini-DIN (and to a lesser but similar extent, DIN) is that it's not self-guiding enough. You have to be within just a few degrees or the connector won't self-align. All the other common round connectors are non-aligned, so it breaks the paradigm in a way that is confusing to the typical user. And you can't tell with your hands (unless you are a master of negative braille, and the connectors are not particularly recessed) which way the connector goes, so you have to look at what you

        • Re:Micro-USB (Score:5, Informative)

          by dave420 (699308) on Friday August 27, 2010 @08:33AM (#33391684)
          Micro-USB connectors are actually less fragile than Mini-USB. They are rated for far more connect/disconnect cycles (10,000) than Mini-USB.
    • by DrXym (126579)
      Light Peak is not just being touted for external devices but also to allow computers to replace their various internal databuses with a single bus. Everything from eSATA to PCI-Express could all be replaced by optical cables. I can't even imagine what such a motherboard would look like, but I assume it would have some multiple of Light Peak connectors running between HDD, USB, graphics module, video output etc. with optical modules on the endpoints. If that's the case, then there is no reason such a compute
    • by mozumder (178398)

      Light Peak will also include copper wiring for power.

      All it'll take for USB to go away is for Apple to remove it from their computers, and everyone else will follow.

    • by pizzach (1011925)
      USB is also a show of how devices that offload their work onto the CPU are here to stay. Integrated graphics is just going to become more and more common slashdotters. :-O
  • by Suki I (1546431) on Friday August 27, 2010 @07:24AM (#33390970) Homepage Journal
    Home network, let me introduce you to your new friend USB 3.0. He is really fast, so I expect the rest of you to keep up! Don't be the bottleneck and you get to stay right where you are instead of being tossed in the bin.
  • Design (Score:5, Funny)

    by Spad (470073) <slashdot@NOsPAM.spad.co.uk> on Friday August 27, 2010 @07:27AM (#33390996) Homepage

    But with USB 3.0, even though the plug looks the same, the cable has extra wires. Because of this, it will not work in a 2.0 port. The edge of a USB 3.0 plug is colored blue so you know it’s a 3.0.

    But it'll still take you 3 tries to get it plugged in the right way around.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Jeslijar (1412729)

      If you think plain USB is bad, try an eSATAp port. I feel like i'm going to break mine every single time I try to use it :\

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESATAp [wikipedia.org]

    • On the plus side, you will be able to plug USB 3.0 devices and cables into the USB 2.0 ports on your current computer, but you won’t get the speed advantage.

      So one place says it won't work in a 2.0 port, then it says it will .... gah! . . . . . I know they mean (at least, I hope they mean) that you won't get USB3 speeds, but contradictions like this doesn't help the article's credibility

      • No it's worse than that. A USB 3.0 device cannot use a USB 2.0 cable or port, and USB 2.0 devices cannot use USB 3.0 cables. Basically almost no backwards compatibility but they are keeping the plugs the same. The only difference is USB 3.0 plugs will have a blue edge. I think that's rather stupid not to differentiate further.
        • by Sockatume (732728)

          It's nuts. They've set it up so that the "B" plug is mechanically incompatible with the older system, but the "A" plug works fine. They should've made the "A" plug incompatible too. Then if you could connect two devices with a USB 3.0 cable, they would have to be USB 3.0 capable devices, which would be quite a good way of letting the user know whether they'll get the faster speeds.

      • by Dr_Barnowl (709838) on Friday August 27, 2010 @08:22AM (#33391568)

        They are referring to the "B" type connectors which per the standard are only used at the device end. The 3.0 B plugs are not compatible with the 2.0 B receptacle by dint of having an "extra bit" bolted on, whereas the 3.0 A plugs are compatible with the 2.0 A receptacle, which is typically used on the host PC.

        So essentially
            - you can connect any two devices with an old A-B cable and it will still work
            - you can't use the new cable with old devices

        Which seems very sensible - you won't have new cables unless you get new devices, and you can't waste your new cables connecting up old devices that can't use their extra wires, whereas in a pinch you can still use an old cable with a new device albeit at lower speed.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by dave420 (699308)
        There are two main types of USB connector - Type A (the rectangular one, like on a mouse or thumb drive) and the Type B (like the socket on the back of a printer). Male USB 3 Type A connectors will happily fit in female USB 1/2/3 Type A sockets (but will work at USB 1/2 speeds, depending on the host), and vice versa. You won't be able to plug a USB 3 Type B connector into a USB 1/2 device, however. You'd need to use the cable that came with that device. So you won't be able to take your new shiny blue U
  • Look, this is the way technology works. A standard is invented, it is faster than the old, peripherals are manufactured and sold to the standard. The standard becomes prevalent and widely used and after a while the standard becomes saturated or limitations that were previously viewed as acceptable become more and more unacceptable. During this entire time the standards committee works on replacing the very standard they themselves setup with a new and better one. The new and better one will make the old sta

  • by AC-x (735297) on Friday August 27, 2010 @08:03AM (#33391326)

    USB 2.0 was such a bottleneck that a stopgap was introduced called eSATA, which allowed for external drives that used a SATA hard drive interface. Well, USB 3.0 pretty much that out to pasture

    Sure USB 3 might be rated up to 5Gbits/sec, but in a real world test will it actually be faster than SATA? In file copy tets Firewire at 400mbits/sec is 15-50% faster than USB2 at 480mbits/sec

  • by bynary (827120) on Friday August 27, 2010 @08:09AM (#33391402) Homepage
    People have a hard enough time saying USB (I often hear UBS). I can imagine this conversation taking place:

    Computer sales guy: Hi! Welcome to (insert name of favorite electronics store). What brings you in?
    Customer: I need one of those "Leet Speak" things.
    CSG: You mean a gaming headset?
    Cust.: No...wait, maybe. No.
    CSG: What are you trying to do with your computer?
    Cust.: Oh! I remember...it's a Light Speed Drive!
    CSG: You're looking for a DVD-burner with LiteScribe?
    Cust.: I already have a DVD. What's LiteScribe?
    CSG: Nevermind.
  • Two words: Fire. Wire.

    Hows that working out for you?

  • Tell us the USB 3.0 definition (super speed usb, duh), but nothing on LightPeak? WTF?
  • One problem with our post-internet world is that people think writing like this, which spoon-feeds you tiny bits of information, is superior to condensed but slightly more complex writing:

    But with USB 3.0, even though the plug looks the same, the cable has extra wires. Because of this, it will not work in a 2.0 port. The edge of a USB 3.0 plug is colored blue so you know it's a 3.0. The USB 3.0 cable has nine wires, compared with the five in a USB 2.0 cable, even though it's the same thickness.

    Likewise, the

  • LightPeak is over kill for just about all hid devices and LightPeak will need be low cost and not be $20 cables + $30-$100 convert plugs / boxes.

  • ... Lightpeek will probably be an important technology for those seeking the best performance for a long time.
    The reason USB 3.0 will be dominant is that it will for certain be much cheaper than an advanced fiber-optical cable which is bendable. I for one am concerned still how bendable it is - my guess is that it will be nowhere as safe as USB, and it will likely be substantially more expensive. Lightpeek might replace all other cables, and Intel might push it in their devices, but will others who now will

Excessive login or logout messages are a sure sign of senility.

Working...