Home » News » Peripheral News » USB 3.0 Spec Finalised » Comments

Comments for USB 3.0 Spec Finalised

Comments

Please wait while we process your request

Please wait while we retrieve the user's information

Bio

Your bio is currently empty. Now is a great time to fill in your profile.

This profile is private.

This profile is only shared with friends.

This profile is under review.

We were unable to request friendship with this user.

We were unable to request friendship with this user. Are you logged in?

Your friendship request has been sent to this user.

We were unable to terminate friendship with this user.

We were unable to terminate friendship with this user. Are you logged in?

You are no longer friends with this user.

We were unable to ignore this user.

We were unable to ignore this user. Are you logged in?

This user is now ignored.

We were unable to stop ignoring this user.

We were unable to stop ignoring this user. Are you logged in?

This user is no longer ignored.

pluck_user_mp-abuse_too_long_err

Name withheld

Hans Gruber

5:24 PM on 18 November, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Hans Gruber. Show Details Hide Details

Bits and bytes, buddy. Hugo would not have made such a fundamental miscalculation. ;) The 2.8 gigabit real world speed still translates as some 350 megabytes actual transfer, which is blazingly fast. So fast in fact, it leaves me wondering whether there are any storage devices fast enough to keep up.

So this is what you've been working on whilst replying to your Android vs iPhone write up comments section? I'll let you off then, seeing as how you've been busy and it's almost time for home/pub/off-license or where ever you hard working journos get your inspiration from. :P

Score:

Name withheld

Hans Gruber

5:26 PM on 18 November, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Hans Gruber. Show Details Hide Details

Oops! Hugo wrote the story. That changes things (he says, sheepishly). It was only when I'd submitted my off-kilter comment that I realised my fundamental error. Why I didn't check first? :/

Score:

Name withheld

ilovethemonkeyhead

6:33 PM on 18 November, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore ilovethemonkeyhead. Show Details Hide Details

... and the icing on the cake is those speeds can be enabled on a bog standard usb 2.0 motherboard through a simple bios update...?

please?

Score:

Name withheld

Ryan131

8:56 PM on 18 November, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Ryan131. Show Details Hide Details

@ ilovethemonkeyhead:

No, because USB 3.0 has extra conductors (five last time I checked) to enable that speed.

Also, not supporting this in Windows v7 shows how determined Microsoft are to not let *anything* go wrong (and possibly to curtail bloat).

Score:

Name withheld

Hugo

10:39 AM on 19 November, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Hugo. Show Details Hide Details

Azro: My calculation is simply 25 gigabytes x 8 = 200 gigabits ÷ 70 seconds = 2.8 gigabits per second transfer speed.

Where on earth did you pull 350MB from? I don't understand your point.

Ryan: More a case of not adding features *most* customers won't care about but might cause problems if you ask me. I doubt the average PC user actually knows about USB 3.0 and as such won't miss its omission but would probably notice if (for some weird reason) the use of USB 3.0 'caused problems with older devices.

Score:

Name withheld

StephenAllred

11:51 AM on 19 November, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore StephenAllred. Show Details Hide Details

8 bits in a byte.

So ((2.8x1000)x1000)x1000 = 2800000000 bits per second.

2800000000/8 = 350000000 bytes per second.

(350000000/1024)/1024 = 333.79 megabytes per second.

Score:

Name withheld

adulaisow

11:52 AM on 19 November, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore adulaisow. Show Details Hide Details

Azro has a point about transfer speeds. quote: "although quite how anyone could cope with the drop from gigabit to megabyte per second transfer rates is beyond me.". Mixing pear and apples in there; "gigabit" cannot be compare with "megabyte", after all usb 3 at its best 4.8Gb/s=600MB is a "megabyte" connection speed same a usb 2 480Mb/s=60MB/s.

Score:

Name withheld

StephenAllred

12:23 PM on 19 November, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore StephenAllred. Show Details Hide Details

Haha, just read Hugo's comment... So ignore my last comment.

Score:

Name withheld

Gordon394

5:44 PM on 19 November, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Gordon394. Show Details Hide Details

@Azro - think that was all me so Hugo has no excuse for, err... still being right!

Score:

Name withheld

Hans Gruber

10:23 PM on 19 November, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Hans Gruber. Show Details Hide Details

Hugo, I was not challenging the accuracy of your gigabit calculation rate (which you've fully explained above), merely the apparent oxymoron (for want of a better word since I can't think of anything else, I'm not a literary genius like Gordon) in the article's statement (quoted) that people not using USB 3 would have mere megabytes per second data transfer rates than gigabits. By suggesting they wouldn't cope with the drop of speed, you appeared to be implying that somehow data transfer rates at gigabits were better than megabytes, which is obviously absurd (yes you were referring to users of USB2 but my point is exactly the same). 8 binary bits equals a byte. I know you know this but perhaps your statement was misleading. This was my original point. I didn't think it needed further (painful) dissection.

Both Stephen Allred and adulaisow who clearly did correctly comprehend my initial point have explained my own calculation and what I meant (as I've reiterated above). It's nice to have the support of the (smarter) readership. ;) I thought yet again I'd strayed into idiot territory there. Anyway, no need to be so terse. I'm being friendly in case it wasn't obvious.

@Gordon - read it back properly before you comment. Yes, Hugo is right but his statement is certainly misleading or downright wrong (depending on whether he'd confused bits and bytes which I've explained was very unlikely. It still reads that way though). Anyway, after reading this site quite a bit I got the impression Hugo was the more technical of the newscasters between you and he, so made a total idiot of myself by assuming it was Gordon the non-techy who wrote the piece and *apparently* slipped up. So, I'm still right. Hugo's sort of right and Gordon, well mate, you're um, er, hiding behind Hugo? :P

Score:

Please wait while we file your abuse report.

We're sorry. We were unable to report abuse at this time.

We limit the number of reactions an individual user can submit over a given period for quality reasons. You have currently reached that limit. Please try resubmitting your abuse report again later.

Comment is too long. Enter 500 characters or less.