Advanced Micro Devices, Nvidia Corp. and Via Technologies have not yet started development of their own next-generation universal serial bus (USB) controller as they cannot get specifications of the bus from Intel Corp. The latter denies any wrongdoing or intention to affect competitive positions of AMD, Nvidia and others as well as claims that the spec is not finalized. “The challenge is that Intel is not... giving the specification to anybody that competes with CPUs and chipsets,” a source close to AMD who is familiar with the dispute between chipset developers and Intel is reported to have said by News.com web-site.While retaining full backward compatibility with USB 1.0 and USB 2.0, devices that feature USB 3.0 will be able to transfer data at up to 10 times higher speed compared to USB 2.0, or at 4.8Gb/s, meaning that a file as large as 600MB could be transferred in just a second in the best case scenario. In addition, the USB 3.0 specification will be optimized for low power and improved protocol efficiency. USB 3.0 ports and cabling will be designed to enable backward compatibility as well as future-proofing for optical capabilities.
View: The full story @ Xbit Labs
We'll probably just end up with the same situation we had previous: OHCI and UHCI.
I doubt aliens are using USB.
Unless you are talking MegaBIT.
M is for mega, m is for milli.
Unless you are talking MegaBIT.
So what is the point? 600MB/sec and the HD can't manage that speed? What kind of use that speed can have if the reciver can't copy at that speed?
USB uses 4 cables two for power one for TX and one for RX.
basically they should have made USB 2.0 with like 50MB/s (or something close to that) instead of getting faster then a few years down the road makes 3.0 then 4.0 etc etc as it's just messed up they need to make something faster enough to where it would last a easy 5-8 years+.
so unless cost was a issue back when 2.0 came out it just seemed stupid for them to make USB 2.0 as slow as it was.
Things take time. Everything is a progression
your right but it's just USB not a fricking processor.
i think you get the idea
Things take time. Everything is a progression
that's a little extreme with the commordore comment.... so in other words your saying it was probably a 'cost' issue then as to why we did not have super fast speeds on USB 2.0?
Things take time. Everything is a progression
that's a little extreme with the commordore comment.... so in other words your saying it was probably a 'cost' issue then as to why we did not have super fast speeds on USB 2.0?
Things take time. Everything is a progression
that's a little extreme with the commordore comment.... so in other words your saying it was probably a 'cost' issue then as to why we did not have super fast speeds on USB 2.0?
ok i see
p.s. it just sucks though as i hope at least once USB 3.0 comes along it will stay fast for many many years to come... i just hope that USB 3.0's speed will be more than enough to last for many years to come (i.e. something that can pump out like 100+MB/s as something like that wont likely become 'slow' anytime soon.
just some thoughts
They could have certainly designed the spec to accomidate rediculous speeds. But then no one would have been able to afford the chip that they designed which implemented the spec. It'd cost too much to ever work in the consumer market, and the standard would fail.
They could have certainly designed the spec to accomidate rediculous speeds. But then no one would have been able to afford the chip that they designed which implemented the spec. It'd cost too much to ever work in the consumer market, and the standard would fail.
Yep, costs is one issue. Also you have to consider what USB is intended for. USB is most commonly used for devices that don't necessarily need huge amounts of bandwith, hell even most phone syncs ect can get away with lower speed cables. It's only really multimedia I'd say that really is pushing the need for the bandwith. For this reason for external HD's I'd probably look for chasis that accept ethernet connections.
They could cater to these devices and make it incredibly fast but what happens then if the hardware requires a chip thats ten times larger to accommodate this? The devices still need to be portable and in many cases low powered as well. For a large number of devices portability will come well before bandwith in terms of needs.
I realise they could still use older USB revisions, but the point is that while devices stand to gain alot from the speed gains, you cant do so if it's going to mean the portable devices have to be larger or less power efficient to achieve those speeds. For phones, MP3 players ect size is as important as speed, if not more so.
Funniest comment I read all day.
never mind..
lol.
welcome to the humanity!
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.