USB 3 in 2008, 10 Times as Fast 381
psychicsword writes "Intel and others plan to release a new version of the ubiquitous Universal Serial Bus technology in the first half of 2008, a revamp the chipmaker said will make data transfer rates more than 10 times as fast by adding fiber-optic links alongside the traditional copper wires." "The current USB 2.0 version has a top data-transfer rate of 480 megabits per second, so a tenfold increase would be 4.8 gigabits per second." This should make USB hard drives easier and faster to use."
Great. (Score:3, Interesting)
Cue the Media Copying Discussions.
(Someone fast on their math: How long would that take to copy a new 0.90 Terabyte drive?)
Re:Cable? (Score:2, Interesting)
Then again, it's all my early-morning speculation without RTFA.
Re:I'm more concerned with latency. (Score:5, Interesting)
Eat into SATA? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Cable? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Eat into firewire not likley (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I'm more concerned with latency. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Yeah, but.. (Score:5, Interesting)
When I was working on my Master's thesis, I had to splice optical fiber a few times. Believe me, it's not easy.
Glass fiber is very flexible. You can bend it in any way you want, it won't break. You can cut it, but that takes considerable force. If you break the fiber, you'll break the copper wires as well.
Personally, I think the weakest point in such a cable will be the connectors. Getting the light from one fiber to another requires careful alignment. Any deviation might causes loss of signal. Getting dirt into the connector is probably fatal.
So we should be able to boot from a USB flash (Score:3, Interesting)
Honest Question (Score:5, Interesting)
I've got a question that has been nagging at me for quite a while and was hoping someone here could phrase an answer in terms a mere mortal could understand.
We've got, off the top of my head, SCSI, USB, Ethernet, FireWire, and SATA to name a few. I do understand there are different protocols (all the way up from the physical to the application layers). Different applications of these technologies permit some optimizations that might not be applicable in other situations. But, at some point, the underlying technology is fast enough
Still, I can't help but think there should be some common denominator that ALL these communications standards can agree on, and through economies of scale, become universal standard(s). It just seems like people keep re-inventing the wheel with an eye toward THEIR favorite.
I thought we were getting close when they released gigabit Ethernet over UTP (unshielded twisted pair).
So, for the sake of argument, why not have all of our serial devices just support gigabit Ethernet? Sure, you'd need a hub or switch in your PC to talk to all of the devices, but you already need something similar for the other protocols (USB hub, SCSI controller, etc.). It's a well-known technology with many implementations and is widely available. I'd willingly pay a few more bucks for each device if I could ditch all of these incompatible formats and just standardize on one SET of ports and cables for hooking things to (and within) my PC. And in those cases where a different connector is desired (e.g. for small form-factor devices like a digital camera), let me just get an adapter cable/plug that I can plug into my Ethernet port.
Is there any good, technical reason that is keeping us from having truly UNIVERSAL serial communications?
Hope they do a better job on compatibility (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been seriously disappointed with the number of times I've interconnected USB 1.1 and USB 2.0 devices and had them almost work, only to encounter various strangeness and glitches. I don't know who's to blame... whether it's a fault in the standard or in vendors' faulty implementations... and life's too short to care, because know who's to blame wouldn't do much to help solve the problem.
On the whole, I blame the standard, because these days standards are so incredibly huge, bloated, and complex that it is extremely unlikely that anyone actually implements it fully correctly.
With today's sloppy practices of testing to the market ("Let's try it with the most popular devices, or the ones which are most important to our business") instead of testing to the standard, the result is all sorts of opportunities to build devices that comply with the standard but do things just a little differently than the most popular devices... and have them not work even though they "should."
A typical example was an IOmega external CD burner I bought once for a USB 1.1 Mac. (I chose it because it was $30 cheaper than a FireWire model, I wanted both PC and Mac present and future compatibility), and I didn't really care about speed. The drive actually burned perfect CDs, but it always claimed erroneously that an error had occurred. But how could a sane person rely on that? I returned it, bought a different USB 2.0 external CD burner from a different vendor... and encountered exactly the same problem.
I've also seen various glitches and strangenesses trying to use USB 1.1 thumb drives in USB 2.0 CPUs and vice versa.
Don't let the marketing guy name it this time. (Score:3, Interesting)
we're probably going to wind up with yet another ambiguous name like "Extreme Speed" or "Max Speed".
Just call it USB 3.0 and be done with it.
Re:Eat into SATA? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I'm more concerned with latency. (Score:5, Interesting)
Bonus points if you hook a 108mb/s wireless lan adapter via USB and throw some large data files over it, watch your data speeds closely, and monitor system performance even closer.
Firewire (1394, ilink, DV port, whatever) really was the shit, not only fast, low overheads AND its a peer-2-peer setup, in a pinch you could daisy chain PCs with it for an impromptu 400mb/s lan.
Why didn't they just hang USB out to dry and get power into the eSATA spec and use that? At least then no extra chips would be needed on a mobo, external HDD would hookup with no loss in performance and we might finally see thumb drives that work natively with ANY os as... drives.
Re:Cable? (Score:3, Interesting)
like if you plug a usb 1.X device onto a usb 2.0 bus, then everything slows to usb 1.X. IINM...
Re:Honest Question (Score:4, Interesting)
USB connectors are designed to be inserted and removed over and over. They're held in by pressure against the connector, so they can be removed without having to push a tab or twist the connector to remove it.
UTP cables are designed to be plugged in, and then generally left alone. The UTP cable in my computer bag is in terrible shape.. the RJ45 connector is coming loose, the plastic retaining tab is broken off (so the cable often pops out of the jack on its own), etc.
I have USB devices which I've removed and inserted hundreds of times, and the connectors still work reliably.
Re:Great. (Score:2, Interesting)
PCI-X maximum is as I said 4.3GB/s
But the real killer is maximum implemented storage transfer speed bus is Fibre Channel 4GFC (4.25 GHz) - 425 MB/s
Re:Honest Question (Score:5, Interesting)
Is there any good, technical reason that is keeping us from having truly UNIVERSAL serial communications?
Yes.
Let me explain:
So, the reason why we don't have a universal serial standard is because the different interfaces were designed with different goals in mind.