I remember seeing a USB 3.0 connector months, perhaps years ago, and it looked very different to the current USB plugs. Is this still the case, or have they reverted back to the old USB1/2 style?
No it's different. The actual USB wires are there for compatibility, basically, and different wires are used to actually carry data. They "should" be cross-compatible though.. that is, a USB3 peripheral can plug into USB2 (unless they shave a few pennies off, or the peripheral's too bandwidth-intensive, like the few USB2-only devices currently). And a USB3 socket should take USB2 (and USB1) peripherals.
I'm with Greg on this one, I figure it's simply inevitable that (USB version+1) will take over for (USB version). I'm actually surprised the figure's only 25% in 4 years, I expect more stuff will be USB3, whether it needs the extra speed or not.
You're right that lots of low end stuff will claim USB3 but the odds are it will be a repeat of the USB1->2 change, where USB1 devices magically became lo or hi speed USB2 overnight, no upgrade involved - just renamed.
Ain't backwards compatibility great, it allows so much lying about specs ;)
Give me Firewire any day over USB - it's faster, more reliable and more versatile. FireWire S1600/S3200, which should appear first, will absolutely crush USB 3.0.
Actually USB2 is completely incompatible to USB1. In fact you even have a completely different controller for both systems. If they had actually thought about the standard in the first place and consulted an electrical engeneer, they would have been able to come up with a working system in the first place.
The new controllers are not due to ship until the end of the year. If you need a new drive now then buy it now. If you can wait 6+ months then do that.
As others have said, why not stick with FireWire? USB was not designed with networking in mind, while FW networks work quite well. FW 800, 1600 and 3200 seem to work as designed insofar as transfer speeds are concerned. Unfortunately MicroSoft appears to no longer support FW, IIRC.
FW also doesn't need the CPU "overhead" that USB requires, it can stand on its own hardware-wise, another plus over any sort of USB.
If only FiberChannel and similar optical hardware wasn't so expensive, you'd have gobs of bandwidth to play with.
Intel Core i7 I7-920 Quad Core Processor (2.66GHz, 4x256kB, 4.8GT/s QPI, LGA 1336 Socket B)
AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition Quad Core Processor (3.4GHz, 6MB L3 Cache, 4x512KB L2 Cache, 2000 MHz Bus, Socket AM3)
Asus P7P55D Motherboard (Intel Socket H LGA1156, P55 Express, ATX, 16GB DDR3)
Intel Core i5 750 Qaud Core Processor (2.66GHz, 8MB L3 Cache, 2.5 GT/s Bus, Socket H LGA1156)
Asus M4A785TD-V EVO AMD 785G/SB710 Socket AM3 ATX Motherboard
SuperSpeed USB to be 'successful', enthuses analyst
Vitani
Quick question #
Posted Tuesday 30th June 2009 14:06 GMT
I remember seeing a USB 3.0 connector months, perhaps years ago, and it looked very different to the current USB plugs. Is this still the case, or have they reverted back to the old USB1/2 style?
Greg J Preece
Hehe #
Posted Tuesday 30th June 2009 14:06 GMT
I love the dripping sarcasm. You have to wonder who hires these idiots to state the obvious for cash.
Henry Wertz 1
Plugs & predictions #
Posted Tuesday 30th June 2009 14:47 GMT
No it's different. The actual USB wires are there for compatibility, basically, and different wires are used to actually carry data. They "should" be cross-compatible though.. that is, a USB3 peripheral can plug into USB2 (unless they shave a few pennies off, or the peripheral's too bandwidth-intensive, like the few USB2-only devices currently). And a USB3 socket should take USB2 (and USB1) peripherals.
I'm with Greg on this one, I figure it's simply inevitable that (USB version+1) will take over for (USB version). I'm actually surprised the figure's only 25% in 4 years, I expect more stuff will be USB3, whether it needs the extra speed or not.
Anonymous Coward
creeping like a weed #
Posted Tuesday 30th June 2009 15:30 GMT
Still trying to turn usb into a real network I see.
Chris - LG
4 years away?? #
Posted Tuesday 30th June 2009 17:01 GMT
That's too long :(
Paul Shirley
@Henry Wertz #
Posted Tuesday 30th June 2009 17:01 GMT
You're right that lots of low end stuff will claim USB3 but the odds are it will be a repeat of the USB1->2 change, where USB1 devices magically became lo or hi speed USB2 overnight, no upgrade involved - just renamed.
Ain't backwards compatibility great, it allows so much lying about specs ;)
Bad Beaver
Meh #
Posted Tuesday 30th June 2009 17:01 GMT
Why, oh why didn't I become an analyst...
Anonymous Coward
Was there something else I was going to be using? #
Posted Tuesday 30th June 2009 20:52 GMT
didn't think so...
Eric Hood
Throughput #
Posted Tuesday 30th June 2009 23:54 GMT
Throughput will be the issue, will it be piss poor like USB 2 or will it improve to be more like firewire.
Stuart Duel
Firewire is better #
Posted Tuesday 30th June 2009 23:54 GMT
Give me Firewire any day over USB - it's faster, more reliable and more versatile. FireWire S1600/S3200, which should appear first, will absolutely crush USB 3.0.
.
Christian Berger
@Paul Shirley #
Posted Wednesday 1st July 2009 05:18 GMT
Actually USB2 is completely incompatible to USB1. In fact you even have a completely different controller for both systems. If they had actually thought about the standard in the first place and consulted an electrical engeneer, they would have been able to come up with a working system in the first place.
Scott A. Brown
I want a new External HD #
Posted Wednesday 1st July 2009 12:32 GMT
But should I go for eSata now or wait for USB 3?
Eric Hood
External Drive #
Posted Wednesday 1st July 2009 22:36 GMT
@ Scott A. Brown
The new controllers are not due to ship until the end of the year. If you need a new drive now then buy it now. If you can wait 6+ months then do that.
T Norris
Reinventing The Wheel #
Posted Friday 3rd July 2009 19:01 GMT
Sounds like another re-invention of the wheel.
As others have said, why not stick with FireWire? USB was not designed with networking in mind, while FW networks work quite well. FW 800, 1600 and 3200 seem to work as designed insofar as transfer speeds are concerned. Unfortunately MicroSoft appears to no longer support FW, IIRC.
FW also doesn't need the CPU "overhead" that USB requires, it can stand on its own hardware-wise, another plus over any sort of USB.
If only FiberChannel and similar optical hardware wasn't so expensive, you'd have gobs of bandwidth to play with.