USB 3.0 Spec Finalised Comments

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

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? :/

... 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?

@ 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).

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.

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.

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

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