What is Digg?173 Comments
- topgigmedia, on 08/19/2008, -18/+125But can USB 3.0 beat Michael Phelps?
- god613, on 08/19/2008, -5/+105USB 3.0 needs something that says THIS SIDE UP. I can never get the damn things plugged in. It always takes me like 4 tries. I know this seems stupid but I'm too lazy to look at the thing to figure out which way it goes I just start jamming it in hoping it fits....
(yes, that is what she said) - Jo9100, on 08/19/2008, -6/+1024 tries? How the hell can you miss 3 times with only 2 sides?
- Vich, on 08/19/2008, -1/+65Because sometimes you actually try the correct way and it doesn't seem to go in, so you flip it and try again until you fail so many times you inspect both the usb plug and the port closely so you can align the damn thing.
- DeWallen, on 08/19/2008, -7/+56Sounds good to me. Most main stream electronics don't support firewire, so getting USB 3.0 setup works.
- willski, on 08/18/2008, -2/+44I wonder what the CPU utilization will be like though. I don't think I'll be swapping my eSATA drives out anytime soon.
- rnawky, on 08/19/2008, -0/+41USB never reaches max transmission speed.
- inactive, on 08/18/2008, -16/+56Really nice post! I didn't know there will be USB 3.0 :) 4.8Gbps woow I won't need that speed soon
- norman, on 08/18/2008, -5/+40Firewire theoretically supports up to 3.2Gbps, with future specs supporting up to 6.4Gbps. The new eSata specs leaked today reveal support for up to 6Gbps.
- robbh66, on 08/19/2008, -9/+42Horrible, like always.
If USB really wanted to advance itself they'd make it more like firewire and have dedicated chips in the hardware itself. - inactive, on 08/19/2008, -0/+29practice
- erzhaosong2000, on 08/19/2008, -3/+30I see a new meme coming...
- davidrools, on 08/19/2008, -0/+24All I know is that they didn't fix that problem with the connector being symmetrical. Yeah I know they want backward compatibility, but it's so much easier to plug something in when it can only go one way.
- cyssero, on 04/18/2009, -2/+25I think I'll be able to spare a few CPU cycles for USB 3.0. With CPUs as fast as they are these days with multiple cores, if I have to let USB use even 20% while I'm transferring some behemoth files, I'll be happy. It's not like I'm trying to game at the same time as I transfer files. Another argument is that even though CPU utilisation might be higher with USB (compared to competing protocols), files are transferred quicker and the duration the CPU is utilised for isn't as long.
I mean, I like e-Sata, but until Power Over e-Sata becomes a reality, USB 3.0 will get my vote. Not to mention a single USB 3.0 port may connect to literally thousands of different peripherals, e-Sata can only connect to external hard-disks. - BillDoE, on 08/19/2008, -0/+22Does this mean that every time I plug my thumb drive into my old PC it will once again complain. "This can work faster." even though there is no driver for the board?
- nmanguy, on 08/19/2008, -4/+21Wow, this has more information than the Wikipedia article. Good work Norm, keep it up. But how did you manage to not be the one who submitted it?
- WELLDOITLIVE, on 08/19/2008, -1/+18Back to geometry class you go!
- inactive, on 08/19/2008, -3/+19I'd like to kill the person who designed the standard usb plug.
- cyssero, on 04/18/2009, -1/+16HDMI, Firewire, A/C cords (IEC), Toslink (Optical), PS2, VGA, DVI.. I really could go on.
- robbh66, on 08/19/2008, -1/+16Yes, because most people care about how far they can have a peripheral away from the main computer rather than how fast it is.
For the vast majority of consumers-- they'll never notice a difference between FW and USB.
For those of us that demand speed- there's no argument that FW is faster. - MacSuxWindozSux, on 08/19/2008, -1/+13The actual specs work out to:
USB1 1.5 Megabytes per second.
USB2 60 Megabytes per second.
USB3 600 Megabytes per second. - awhiteflame, on 08/19/2008, -1/+12.. Sorry, but -why-? Firewire is excellent for file transfers.
- MadHarvey, on 08/19/2008, -3/+13What if its Nazis? Would you be all for Nazis if they brought the end to Firewire?
- kevyn, on 08/19/2008, -1/+11I buried you, but only because you were on +4... I hope you stay on 0 really
- caracter2, on 08/19/2008, -1/+11No
- alexforcefive, on 08/19/2008, -0/+9and 480 divided by 8 is....?
- flashcat7777, on 08/19/2008, -0/+8That would be a trapezoid, sir.
- WELLDOITLIVE, on 08/19/2008, -1/+9Shhh don't give them any ideas
- th3heretic, on 08/19/2008, -1/+9Core 2 quad = $180... Come on people, that is a lot of power for a very low price.
- l33z3r, on 08/19/2008, -1/+9Its not a bug, its a feature. lol
- JamJosh, on 08/19/2008, -2/+9Wait a second...socks were made to prevent shoe babies.
- Vich, on 08/19/2008, -0/+7Yes... "backup".
- RadiatedAnt, on 08/19/2008, -3/+9you mean more expensive.
- mdmcgee, on 08/19/2008, -0/+6Great except it will never under any circumstances actually achieve that.
That value is nothing more than frequency*bandwidth which is a completely useless marketing value. USB2 in real world situations averages around 12-15MB/sec whereas FW averages around 20-22MB/sec. To "estimate" the performance of most busses you can take the advertised bandwidth and multiply it by .6 to get approximate burst speed. Sustained performance is often much lower. Of course that is only a guesstimate, nothing beats good old testing. - TheFinaleofSeem, on 08/19/2008, -1/+7And it will still offload to your CPU when doing transfers, and with faster transfers, that means more chewed up CPU time. USB is good for a lot of things, but for large data transfers, it pretty well sucks.
- god613, on 08/19/2008, -0/+5Since were getting technical here, there is actually 4 sides. You just have to be an idiot to try the other two.
- dandonia, on 08/19/2008, -2/+7It is said to be 10X faster, even if it is only 5 times faster I would be extremly happy. Just think in a years time, we will probably have a 1.5TB HDD at a decent price tag. Trasnfering all of my data to that would be painfully slow via USB 2.0
- LeviTheSmith, on 08/19/2008, -1/+6You make two good points
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 08/19/2008, -3/+8............................................________
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,
.........................,/...............................................”:,
.....................,?......................................................,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:”........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../
...,,,___.`~,......“~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”
............/.`~,......`-...................................../
.............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__
,,_..........}.>-._...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,__......`,.................................
...................`=~-,,.,...............................
................................`:,,...........................`..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_..........._,-%.......`
..................................., - birch25, on 08/19/2008, -0/+5no, he means better. firewire is far better for most data transfer situations (i work in tv, and i never use usb for anything except loading files onto my thumb drive). other people in this story have explained the benefits of firewire, so i won't be redundant, but suffice it to say that firewire does more than usb and that is why it is generally more expensive.
- dvslamont, on 08/19/2008, -0/+4the problem with that is every computer has thier usb ports in all different angles
left right up down
you would need like arrows that line up on both sides
or a non rectangular connector - MattBot5000, on 08/19/2008, -2/+6The extra speed may not do much help now due to relatively slow read/write speeds on hardware, but I'm sure it will by the time it comes out in a couple of years.
- iyatoni, on 08/19/2008, -1/+5The squiggly USB logo only appears on the top-side of the plug - a la http://blogs.s60.com/s60multimedia/usb%20002.jpg
But yeah, something more substational would be welcomed. Especially when you're crawling around under a desk in the dark trying to plug in a printer. - inactive, on 08/19/2008, -1/+5Diggernate is correct, USB bursts at 480MB/s but it doesn't keep that speed. Firewire sustains 400MB/s making it the faster format.
- Juaquin, on 08/19/2008, -1/+4I understand the arguments that FireWire and such is faster, but you have to remember that USB is largely used by mainstream consumers for things other than storage. Cheap flash drives, for instance. You can't put a firewire chip in there. Also, charging devices like my bluetooth headset - FW is overkill. USB is more about doing a wide assortment of things, not raw speed or the best transfer protocols or CPU usage.
- viper565, on 08/19/2008, -1/+4Stop ***** capitalizing every word to look smart. You're not.
- jaydoj, on 08/20/2008, -0/+3that's what she said.
- MrMoralee, on 08/19/2008, -1/+4Why dont you TRY and prove you are better than all diggers by submitting something of interest to us all, that will blow all our minds and getting dug UP...instead of leaving ***** like that.
- inactive, on 08/19/2008, -0/+3I hate wires!
- billbugger, on 08/19/2008, -1/+4He was at +1 so i got him to 0 for you.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 176 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 