USB 3.0 Is Ten Times Faster; Get It In 2010 280
thefickler writes "Seagate and Symwave are jointly demonstrating the first consumer applications of USB 3.0 at CES, showing a Seagate FreeAgent drive running through a Symwave USB 3.0-compatible storage controller device. According to Symwave, this will result in 'speeds previously unattainable with legacy USB technology.' Which means, if you understand PR-write, it will be much faster."
What about the rest of us? (Score:5, Funny)
Which means, if you understand PR-write, it will be much faster.
What does it mean if you don't know PR-write?
Re:What about the rest of us? (Score:4, Funny)
What does it mean if you don't know PR-write?
Clearly much slower
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What about the rest of us? (Score:5, Informative)
USB, on the other hand, while it has its own controller chip, is moderated largely by the CPU and memory bus. If the computer is under heavy load, the USB throughput suffers. Peripheral devices are at the mercy of the host to control things. This is fine for things like mice and keyboards, which transfer relatively little data semi-asynchronously. You don't need such a robust high speed bus for such lightweight peripherals. But for hard drives and other devices, USB has some catching up to do.
Royalties aside, the Firewire chipset that could implement a high-speed bus robustly cost more than the more lightweight USB controller. In the particular case of the iPod, a portable device, having the Firewire controller eventually took more board space than Apple was willing to provide. While every computer had a mouse and keyboard, not every computer was made with the ability for connecting external drives. So there, too, the economics played in USB's favor.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Since another reply covered the problems with Firewire. I'll also add another problem with eSATA besides large swaths of incompatibility with a diverse range of computers. The connector for eSATA is garbage. It is incredibly weak and unreliable. Using an eSATA plug in a mobile environment is just asking for a disconnection. It can't take any abuse. A USB plug on the other hand will stay connected through a hurricane without any disconnects.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What about the rest of us? (Score:5, Funny)
You're going to have a lot of trouble writing drivers for it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Given that USB 3.0 cables will have fiber optic cable(s) inside them [cnet.com], I don't think Hoi's comment is much of a joke. Be prepared for very expensive super-speed USB 3.0 cables.
That speed comes at a cost (Score:4, Informative)
Given that USB is PIO and not DMA, the faster the bus runs the more processor intervention is needed. Given how cheap and fast our processors are, that's not a huge deal, but it's not like a DMA based transfer just got faster, it means that the processor is going to be more busy too.
PR-write or not, it will be a PITA just like USB2.0 until it's built in and common.
Sheldon
Re:That speed comes at a cost (Score:5, Interesting)
Honestly, I think even some of the geekiest computer users start to not care when bombarded with all this nonsense. Ultimately it's a cable -- we want it to be universal, and fast. Nothing complicated there. Sadly the USB standard seemed to gain the most traction in the market despite it's fractured flavors/versions.
So if it ends up being eSATA, Firewire, or USB 3.0 or something else, I hope they just make it simple and fast. It's a cable - it shouldn't have compatibility problems or be used to confuse users with marketroid speak.
Re:That speed comes at a cost (Score:5, Insightful)
USB has basically zero compatibility problems that i've ever seen. There are 3 port varieties (for small, medium, large devices), and you have to match that properly (or be really strong). There are 3 protocols (1.0, 2.0 low speed, 2.0 high speed), and you get the fastest that both sides of the cable support.
The disastrous mistake the USB forum made was to allow 2.0 low speed to exist. They should have just bitten the bullet and said that 2.0 labeling is for high-speed only. But they had too much 2.0 low speed product in the channel that didn't want to be labeled 1.0, waaah waaah i want to put a 2.0 label on my product!
But still, in spite of the poor labeling, there has been zero incompatibility that I or anyone I know has experienced. Some 2.0 devices work slower than you would expect (because they are low-speed), but they WORK.
Hopefully with 3.0 they won't make the same mistake, and will only allow labeling with 3.0 for devices that use the full speed link.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know the real cause of the problem, but I do recall that many high-speed USB devices, such as scanners and digital cameras, will only work from a root port, and not a hub.
Any technical input on this? It drives me nuts when people try to plug things into any brand of hub and the device often won't even be recognized, but plug it directly into the computer, and it will work just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure it's not a power thing? Unpowered hubs aren't capable of providing the full 500mA of power to attached devices. If a device requests more power than the port it is connect to says it can provide, the device won't come on. You may want to try some powered hubs with those devices.
Re:That speed comes at a cost (Score:5, Funny)
>>>then something where they claimed you'd get 76 virgins for using USB.
I have 76 *movies* of virgins on my USB hard drive. Does that count?
Re:That speed comes at a cost (Score:5, Funny)
No, you have 76 movies of "virgins" on your USB hard drive.
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately, thus far, all USB devices are backward compatible. Naturally, you get best performance if any hubs you use are at least as fast as your PCs USB ports, but even if not, the devices will work, they'll just go slower.
76 Virgins!?!?!? (Score:2)
then something where they claimed you'd get 76 virgins for using USB... ...I think even some of the geekiest computer users start to not care when bombarded with all this
You must be new here.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:That speed comes at a cost (Score:5, Funny)
Ultimately it's a cable -- we want it to be universal, and fast.
It's not just a cable, but a obvious male created penis metaphor for the patriarchical oppression of women worldwide during all ages, created just to mentally abuse us women even more by reminding us of "our place" every time we use a computer. And of course you want it to be "universal" and "fast", just like all men want women to be generic models of the unrealistic Barbie stereotype, instantly ready for some quick sex with the only goal being selfish gratification for the male. All men are pigs! Snivel... sob... where's my chocolate...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Ultimately it's a cable -- we want it to be universal, and fast. Nothing complicated there.
So if it ends up being eSATA, Firewire, or USB 3.0 or something else, I hope they just make it simple and fast.
I don't know about eSATA, but Firewire is more than a cable. It has its own cpu which handles the traffic. This makes Firewire 400 faster than USB 2.0 (480), because USB requires CPU time. And thus Firewire needs more space, and it's more expensive (which is probably not a big problem). The space is problematic in USB sticks, and even Apple dropped FW on the iPod for this reason.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
All we see as an end user is a cable. We plug one end into the peripheral, and the other into the PC.
Doesn't matter what happens inside the case, we just want a cable
I'm becoming a sexist pig in my old age. (Score:3, Informative)
When I was young and innocent, I wanted a wife like Marie Curie.
The longer I live, the more I am convinced that most woman demonstrate an almost allergy to technical reasons for things being other than they think they should.
By the way, there was once, about six or seven years ago, an opportunity for the industry to do away with the wires almost entirely for most consumer grade devices.
You probably wouldn't have wanted to use Freescale's UWB for mounting the drive containing your /usr and /home, but it woul
Re:That speed comes at a cost (Score:5, Informative)
USB is PIO and not DMA? You understand that PIO/DMA transfer modes only meaningful for Parallel ATA devices?
That's because the ATA interface was originally THE 16-bit system bus (AT bus) and the disk controller was onboard on the disks (thus the name IDE - Integrated Drive Electronics).
So, the CPU accessed the disk controller through the AT bus which was originally programmed I/O and then started using DMA.
Of course, the system bus quicky become different and faster (FSB + PCI) thus the ATA interface became a disk attachment interface instead of the system bus and an additional controller was put between the system and the disk.
USB is a completely different beast. The "bus" actually transfer packets (URBs) and all USB controllers use DMA to transfer URBs to the main memory... So, no PIO/DMA stuff is involved....
PIO vs. DMA (Score:5, Informative)
You understand that PIO/DMA transfer modes only meaningful for Parallel ATA devices?
That's the meaning in traditional sense. But you can also use this distinction in a wider sense:
How much of an advantage this is, depends on how complex the initial parameter setup is, how much of the work is done by hardware vs. CPU, transfer speed, how large transferred blocks are, how often transfer occur, etc. etc. Besides overall speed, a big advantage is that the CPU can do other things (like decode a video stream, respond to keyboard / mouse input) while a tranfer continues in the background. This allows a system to feel much more responsive.
You state that USB controllers use DMA, parents says not. I don't know which is true. Perhaps there is DMA support for USB controllers, but the packets are small enough and flowing at a high enough rate that it feels like the CPU is doing all the work?
Re: (Score:2)
You state that USB controllers use DMA, parents says not. I don't know which is true. Perhaps there is DMA support for USB controllers, but the packets are small enough and flowing at a high enough rate that it feels like the CPU is doing all the work?
That was the impression I got from the various sources I have read. I also think I remember reading that they are planning to fix this with USB 3.
Re:PIO vs. DMA (Score:4, Informative)
That was the impression I got from the various sources I have read. I also think I remember reading that they are planning to fix this with USB 3.
I read through Intel's EHCI [intel.com] specifications and from what I understood, while DMA is supported it still requires double buffering because of alignment issues. The interrupt rate and required CPU supervision were probably not a problem until the 480 Mbits/sec transfer rate was implemented.
A better reference (Score:2)
An excellent reference can be found at Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_memory_access [wikipedia.org]
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. I did a co-op during college involving real-time OS, highly parallel processing, etc; primarily on embedded systems. (boards w/ lots of 500-800mhz powerPC chips and ram) Still rather than try to communicate it or take my word for it, take a look at this except from wikipedia...
"Direct memory access (DMA) is a feature of modern computers and microprocess
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Direct memory access (DMA) is a feature of modern computers and microprocessors
Eh. DMA is nothing special. My Commodore Amiga 500 has been doing DMA since 1987. Old news.
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite. USB devices are polled. That is, they have no way of initiating a transaction with the host, they can only respond to a transaction.
The USB controller in the host does DMA and interrupts. There is nothing in the USB spec that precludes a controller automatically generating periodic device polls and firing an interrupt when the device returns the wanted status. Naturally, that would cost more.
For USB 3.0, it may become worthwhile to develop such a controller.
Correction (Score:2)
Now that I'm reading the actual spec, USB 3.0 DOES support async notification from device to host (that is, interrupts). So a 3.0 device on a 3.0 port may place less load on the CPU than a 2.0 device while transferring data much faster. The device and port auto-negotiate that when the device is plugged in.
And how much cpu power is needed at that speed? (Score:4, Insightful)
And how much cpu power is needed at that speed? firewire 1600 and 3200 seems better same cables and ports as firewire 800 unlike usb 3.0 that needs new cables and ports for usb 3.0 speed.
Re:And how much cpu power is needed at that speed? (Score:4, Informative)
I hate to say this, but Firewire's dead. Apple invented it and they've been the main ones pushing it; now that they're pretty clearly planning to get rid of it, there are no major industry players with an interest in its survival. I agree that it's a far superior standard for pushing any meaningful amount of data around, so I'm not at all happy about this state of affairs, but so it goes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Digital8 and DV camcorders are going to the same place as VHS - obsolete. So your "my camcorder uses firewire" is not really helping support it. All newer camcorders like the Hard Drive Everios are using USB.
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You may like to wait, but FW is deader than a dead thing.
Two things FW gave you that USB didn't when it came to DV. Control of the camera's mechanism (so you could seek for the spot on the tape you wanted to capture from) and isochronous capture so you could be assured of capturing the audio in sync with the video.
Video cameras now are going to card-based storage and video files are just that: files. This means you can access the storage via USB just like it's another external drive and you don't need to be
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to say this, but Firewire's dead.
Oh boy are you wrong about that. Firewire, unlike USB, does not suck up scads of CPU cycles, the more the faster the transfer. In our shop doing server backups (FreeBSD) to external drives there was significantly less impact on server responsiveness when using firewire drives.
And yes, there was a weird reason why we needed to do backups of live filesystems.
Re:And how much cpu power is needed at that speed? (Score:5, Insightful)
USB is cheaper, and not everyone needs FireWire's level of performance, so USB is more prevalent and dominates the casual computing market; that's only natural. but most motherboards sold these days still come with at least 1 FireWire port.
and while FireWire can technically replace USB, USB will never be able to replace FireWire. even though the average user doesn't need sustained 100MB/sec transfer speeds to transfer their MP3s onto their iPod or text documents onto their thumbdrive, there are a lot of professions where USB just won't cut it. if you're in multimedia production or otherwise need to transfer large amounts of data regularly, then the extra cost of FireWire is more than worth it.
high-end external hard drives, cameras, professional audio equipment, etc. will all continue to use FireWire for this reason. heck, IEEE 1394b is even used by NASA for monitoring launch debris and by the U.S. military in jets like the F-22 and the F-35. so FireWire is far from dead. it's just found its niche. at the very worse, users will have to buy expansion cards to add FireWire S1600/S3200 controllers to their computers. but FireWire will continue to be available for a long, long time.
Apple's decision to remove FireWire from their low-end systems is just a sign that they're no longer catering exclusively to the prosumer/media-production crowd. they're still selling systems with FireWire, but they're also recognize that the Mac-using demographic has changed over the years, and there are a lot of Mac users that will never need FireWire.
Re: (Score:2)
um if not everyone needs firewqire level performance why does USB try getting faster. why not simply use firewire for drives, and USB for simple things like keyboards, mice and monitors?
Re: (Score:2)
that's like asking why cars keep getting faster when not everyone needs a Ferrari.
faster transfer speeds are always better, and as technology moves forward faster and faster speeds will be available for lower and lower costs. but there will always be a disparity between each generation of FireWire and USB because USB is in a lower cost bracket.
so far all USB versions have continued to rely on the host processor to manage most low-level USB operations. the emphasis continues to be on lowering costs. that's w
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
when USB 3.0 can do 200MB/s (not sustained), FireWire S3200 will have sustained speeds of 400MB/s. and it's not faster external hard drives that will push consumers to upgrade from USB 2.0 to 3.0--current UDMA133 hard drives are already far outstripping the 33MB/s transfer speed USB 2.0 is capab
Firewire isn't dea (Score:4, Interesting)
Gee, don't say that to the aviation industry - they've standardized on Firewire because it saves weight in cabling.
The F-22 Raptor, the A380 Airbus, etc use firewire and gigabit ethernet to save weight. With over 300 miles of wiring an each A380, cutting the weight even in half makes a big difference with an A380.
http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:L96bOxSv3V8J:www.critical-embedded-systems.com/meecc/2005/presentations/Keller.pdf+army+tank+firewire+combat+electronics&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=ca&client=firefox-a [74.125.77.132] " JSF Avionics snapshot
Distributed avionics: display- management computers, integrated core processing, and flight subsystems
IEEE 1394 FireWire network links core processor and display processors
Fibre Channel links core processor modules and sensor subsystems "
The military will be saying "You can have my Firewire when you pry it from my cold, dead hands." They have the bigger guns, so I think they'll win any argument.
That's fine (Score:3, Interesting)
But just because the military uses it doesn't mean anyone else will. Computers may well get rid of it before long (Apple certainly seems to be doing that). I mean the military also likes Ada, but you don't see it being used to develop desktop apps often (or at all really).
By "dead" I don't think the grandparent means "Gone form the world," they just mean "Has no future in desktop PCs."
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying is that either:
The F-22, the F35, the A380, the 747-8 - they all use firewir
Re:And how much cpu power is needed at that speed? (Score:5, Funny)
CPU usage is fixed in all USB standards. It's 140%.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>firewire 1600 and 3200 seems better same cables and ports as firewire 800 unlike usb 3.0 that needs new cables and ports for usb 3.0 speed.
This argument is non-persuasive. Everything I own is USB, therefore to use Firewire 1600 or 3200 I'd have to not only get new cables, but new devices. Pass. I'd rather stick with USB thank you very much.
Crap (Score:2)
According to the summary USB 2.0 is already legacy tech. Excuse me while i go to the corner and cry for being horribly outdated.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh crap, I'm still using USB 1!!
(Actually my computer died, and I had to pull an old one out of the closet).
Re:Crap (Score:5, Funny)
I didn't know computers could have sexual preferences. So THAT'S why I only seem to get lesbian porn popups...
Re: (Score:2)
eSATA is here already (Score:5, Insightful)
With many chipsets/motherboards already supporting SATA and the drives being widespread as well, many of US could enjoy much (about 6x ?) better than USB 2 port speeds for external drives by simply having the external ("e" in eSATA) connectors available.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, I don't need a faster USB for my keyboard and mouse. Even my flash drive probably won't benefit without faster memory. eSATA seems like a better solution for the widespread use of external HDs. Plus, it doesn't have to go from USB-SATA in the external HDs controller.
Don't touch type? (Score:2)
Obviously you don't, but with my blazing touch typing speeds, I can take advantage of the new 3.0, and not have to worry about the lag any more.
Re:Don't touch type? (Score:4, Funny)
True, and as an extreme gamer, I need the extra bandwidth for my 37 megapixel sensor blue-laser mouse. Red lasers just never felt accurate.
Re:eSATA is here already (Score:4, Interesting)
As a photographer who unloads about 20-30GB of raw files every week from CF cards in multiple readers, I'm pretty excited about USB 3.0.
Re:eSATA is hot pluggable if you use AHCI drivers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you unable to install Intel's AHCI driver after the OS is installed?
Re: (Score:2)
if you're transferring that much data with a card reader, it might be worthwhile to get one that supports FireWire. even a FireWire 400 CompactFlash card reader in PIO mode beats out a USB 2.0 card reader in UDMA mode. but a FireWire 800 CF card reader in UDMA mode absolutely smokes USB 2.0 in UDMA mode.
Synchrotech has performed some FireWire vs. USB 2.0 UDMA CompactFlash benchmarks [synchrotech.com]. this is their conclusion:
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I can confirm it definitely does, but Windows (not sure about other OS's) is a little picky about when it decides to detect if that device has been connected or not.
It's not a major issue, a quick device manager refresh is all you need to do, but it's still an extra step current USB drives don't have.
Of course, it's probably windows' fault more than anything, but still.
Re: (Score:2)
Hot-swapping of SATA works just fine (at least for me).
There are some SATA controllers that specifically report the attached drives as being "removable", and these are easiest to work with, since any modern OS will optimize for removal.
I have a cheap add-in SATA card [newegg.com] where the drives don't show up as removable, and all I do is make sure I manually flush the disk buffers (using "sync" from SysInternals [microsoft.com]) before removing it. I have the drives for this card hooked up using this Kingwin hotswap bay [newegg.com] and have had
Re: (Score:2)
I was wondering the same thing. Why not just use eSATA? Can MP3-Players and Digital Cameras get this Chip? And why no eSATA flash memory modules?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Like others have mentioned. eSATA is the annoying spec.
1. eSATA is just like SATA. The OS does like to treat devices as removable. Often resulting is a manual reboot of OS to free drive.
2. The eSATA spec didn't have power on the connector! What were they thinking?
3. The physical connector format is not as robust as the usb. Highly prone to just plain wearing out.
When I first heard about eSATA I was very excited. As firewire already had it's gravestone made. Finally a method of transferring huge files fa
Re: (Score:2)
But faster USB = less holes, less chipsets, less price, less drivers, less trouble... for future machines.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Esata has two main advantages over interfaces like USB and firewire.
* Fast
* No bridge board needed at the drive end
And several major disadvantages
* Doesn't carry power
* less common than either USB or firewire (and not backwards compatible with either)
* Only one level of port multipliers allowed and some controllers don't even support that.
* While in theory it should be possible to make a wide variety of eSATA devices the only devices on the market seem to be hard drives and optical drives
* Neither eSATA por
USB3 whitepaper (Score:5, Informative)
Most of the replies so far show a glaring lack of knowledge of what USB3 really is. Honestly, it only bears a passing resemblance to its predecessors, and is a closer relative to PCIe. If you want more technical information, Denali has a good whitepaper (registration required):
http://www.denali.com/en/events/usb3_whitepaper/?EB20090105 [denali.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Most of the replies so far show a glaring lack of knowledge of what USB3 really is. Honestly, it only bears a passing resemblance to its predecessors, and is a closer relative to PCIe. If you want more technical information, Denali has a good whitepaper (registration required):
And the real info can of course be found at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Usb3#USB_3.0 [wikimedia.org]
weirdly, wikipedia doesn't seem to include any of that stuff about upgrade to our standard or your company will die - you might need to turn to an industry-funded news source for the full story ;)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Fantastic link, thanks.
Given that ExpressCard already has both PCIe and USB connectors, and that the spec you linked states,
Both the SuperSpeed USB and the PCIe specifications, therefore, are derived from the basic
OSI layered architecture. Both protocols look very similar in terms of layer architecture, and their physical layers share many common functions,
as well as similar concepts for other layers.
it'll be interesting to see if the confluence comes to a head and the two specs gain some kind of genuine interoperability. Afaik the current ExpressCard implementation works by having two sets of connectors; if USB 3.0 really is PCIe dervied, it would be great to collapse it to using the same PCIe interfaces.
The other two outstanding questions I have are:
1) how much the new archite
Faster data is great, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
...does it have any greater power capacity?
Re: (Score:2)
'exploder (196936)'
'...does it have any greater power capacity?'
Just what do you have planned?... :P
Re: (Score:2)
Afaict current USB can barely power a laptop HDD and has nowhere near enough power to supply a desktop HDD.
It seems USB 3 is increasing the max power but not by enough to run a desktop HDD.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You'll be glad to know that it does, but I'm not sure if it's enough to run a 3.5" Magnetic Hard drive.
"Maximum bus power is increased to 150mA per unit load (+50% over USB 2.0)."
A solid State drive, on the other hand...
Re:Faster data is great, but... (Score:5, Informative)
You'll be glad to know that it does, but I'm not sure if it's enough to run a 3.5" Magnetic Hard drive.
"Maximum bus power is increased to 150mA per unit load (+50% over USB 2.0)."
A solid State drive, on the other hand...
Power is measured in Watts, not Amps. USB3 is still at 5V, but now lets you negotiate up to 1 Amp of current (USB2 limits at 500 mA). So, that's 5 Watts of power. the 150mA draw is the maximum current you are allowed to draw in before negotiating up to verify the host supports more.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't blame me, if you'll notice that was a quote, taken from the wikimedia article linked above.
Re: (Score:2)
It's raised from 500mA to 900mA.
Faster speed? Really? (Score:5, Funny)
According to Symwave, this will result in 'speeds previously unattainable with legacy USB technology.'
New technology will be faster than old technology? Impossible!
Re: (Score:2)
Missing a tag in the summary... (Score:2)
..."Advertising".
Considering what a processor hog USB2 is... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
With USB2, copying from one flash drive to another takes my CPU utilization to 100%.
Please upgrade from Pentium era processor.
Re: (Score:2)
Strange, since my external USB connected hardrive uses 3% of the CPU. Not what I would call a processor hog.
Re: (Score:2)
The 100% is a little nuts (bad driver?), but USB is definitely a CPU hog. I can move files between a computer and an external drive about twice as fast most of the time using FireWire 400 than USB2. FW800 is even faster.
The annoying thing, though, is the CPU usage. On my Mac (2.4GHz Core2Duo) I can copy large files (such as video or 8MP RAW images) as fast as the disk can take them, no problem. With FW (either 400 or 800) it barely shows up on the little CPU graph I use. It's easily under 10%.
USB2? Usuall
Ten times the speed! (Score:2)
This means my USB Christmas tree [today.com] would flash ten times as fast!
Not to mention my USB chicken foot [slashgear.com] or USB mouse with a real scorpion [cecf.com.cn] in ...
Re: (Score:2)
There only use usb for power and don't even have the data lines linked to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thats only the minimum in-spec voltage, real voltages will most likely be much the same under the same load.
I suspect the lower minimum in-spec voltage is a result of higher volt drops at the higher currents they are using.
Ten Times Faster, Eh? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
USB Video? (Score:2)
Will i finally get a monitor that only needs USB? One less port to deal with.
Next, a wifi or bluetooth monitor.
Re: (Score:2)
If only such a thing existed. [newegg.com]
Chinese mandate USB charging for mobile phones (Score:5, Interesting)
A more interesting bit from TFA:
Good call, I hope to finally ditch those dozens of different chargers in a couple of years.
Re:Speed (Score:5, Funny)
USB 3.0 is known as "ludicrous speed".
Yeah, but we all know that... (Score:5, Funny)
... The Ultimate speed is 88 mph.
Once a device hits that the Flux Capacitor kicks in and it goes back in time.
There is probably a huge prehistoric dump of USB sticks from the future somewhere in California.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Now we need to find a way to loop the video feed s (Score:5, Funny)
Now we need to find a way to loop the video feed so we can get the people off of the usb bus.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The result will be that usb3 devices connected to usb3 hosts will attain speeds that are unattainable by usb2 devices connected to usb2 hosts. Is it not clear that was what they meant?