digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

USB 3.0 coming, will increase transfer speeds tenfold

blog.scifi.com — USB 3.0 improves upon its successors by adding fiber-optic cable inside alongside the copper wiring, greatly increasing the speeds.

Who dugg this? Made popular Sep 19, 2007

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

169 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • fober, on 10/10/2007, -1/+126Well thank goodness my hard drives can read/write that fast...
  • norbiu, on 10/10/2007, -2/+120Too bad my FireWire port is still a virgin.
  • websyndicate, on 10/10/2007, -9/+90FireWire is still better less of a processor hog
  • Carsonauto, on 10/28/2007, -1/+75I remember when I saw the specs on USB 2.0
    64 times faster.
  • EBFoxbat, on 10/10/2007, -3/+44And it's not a uni-directional, I'll still be jamming it in upside-down only to roll my eyes and twist the cord between my thumb and index finger, prolonging the process just long enough for my sweat laden brow to converge and form a bead, dropping my electrically conductive sweat onto your dust covered beige... err black... err silver P4 box!!!!
  • UNL1M1T3D, on 10/10/2007, -2/+32Haha you bought a PSP.
  • Bipedal, on 10/10/2007, -2/+30predecessors*

    Unless of course, USB 4.0 is going to be 10x slower than 3.0.
  • vonskippy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+26***** USB - just put a Ethernet port into everything.
  • swordedge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+22years before we see it. For the first time since inception, it might actually outrun fire wire. (480Mb/s transfers data slower then IEEE1394 at 400Mb/s due to great overhead)
  • zcreem, on 10/10/2007, -2/+23Is there an echo in here?
  • LanceHardenburg, on 10/10/2007, -9/+30Why not just use eSATA?
  • noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -1/+21USB 7.0 Became Intelligent and stole my mind
  • HOOKSTER1231, on 10/10/2007, -0/+20how much is a freeking cable going to cost?!
  • glensvodka, on 10/10/2007, -0/+19Whoever is digging this comment down clearly has a very poor grasp of the English language.
    From the description: "USB 3.0 improves upon its successors"
  • kosmoX, on 10/10/2007, -0/+19I'm Ron Burgundy?

    On a serious note, I agree that putting fiber optics in USB is a bad idea. Modding USB devices will be hard as *****.
  • Serak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+19Backwards compatible? dammit. I'd be happy to have to live with an adapter if they'd redesigned the socket to get rid of the most annoying thing about USB: A rotationally symmetrical plug that only goes in one way. Say what you want about Firewire, but at least they got that right from the get-go.
  • OrangeTide, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19Because there are no eSATA cameras, network cards, etc. Nor does it currently support being placed on a hub (that's possible with SaS but eSATA is not SaS). And because there has been a lot of confusion between external SATA and eSATA in terms of connectors. The 1 meter cable length is somewhat limiting too.
  • stalefries, on 10/10/2007, -0/+18Because not all USB devices are drives. I imagine people who use USB audio would very much like the increased bandwidth. More bandwidth means more inputs available on any audio card.
  • musntSurfatWork, on 10/10/2007, -3/+21USB1.0 copied my cheapo mp3's ok, but i wanted something faster
    USB2.0 copied my FLAC's ok , but i wanted something faster
    USB3.0 copied my 17,280p res movies ok, but....
    USB4.0 GOSH WHEN IS ANYTHING GONNA BE FASTAR??
  • scabbers, on 10/10/2007, -0/+17USB 3.0 is backwards-compatible, so half of the mumble bumble ***** in that article is redundant.
  • Nitro187, on 10/10/2007, -4/+21http://www.digg.com/gadgets/USB_3_0_Brings_Optical_Connection_in_2008_3

    ? It's on the top 10 on the right.
  • mrmacky, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18USB 5.0 backed up my entire 2 TB hard drive in 30 seconds, but then I bought a bigger hard drive
  • acherion, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17I always thought that the main reason why USB is everywhere is because it is cheap to implement (cheaper than Firewire as well). Making it have fibre optics within the ports and cables makes it sound expensive. Sure the speed increase is pretty awesome, but if the price of such equipment is also increased tenfold then I don't think it is really worth it?
  • STARTSOMETHING, on 10/28/2007, -2/+18Fire what?
  • melonhedd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15You have to pay to label your devices "USB" or to get a PID/VID for your HID devices.
  • KompressorV12, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15burried for two reasons... one its a sci-fi article and two because they said hd-dvd/blu-ray is not possible over USB 2.0, they must not have heard of a small thing called the Xbox 360 HD-DVD addon drive (its even 1080p) :(
  • GawtMilk, on 10/10/2007, -4/+17A STICKER? JESUS CHRIST WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
  • norbiu, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14And it's because of ***** like you that people still need to use the /sarcasm tag.
  • obxjdt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Now if I could just get my ISP to up their speeds....
  • MeruFM, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10He meant that most of these kinds of announcements give a much too generous ETA. When they say 2008, and we have barely heard of 3.0 yet, it probably won't be completely finished until 2010 at the very earliest.
  • theone3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10As you've so... eloquently put it, the design is awful and they havent fixed it. But it's worse than that. They're desiging USB3! - you'd think they'd do something more than just add fiber to it. I mean, why not have it replace CAT6, SATA & HDMI, and have a truly universal cable already? Your PC could just consist of a CPU with a bunch of USB peripherals (USB monitor, usb speakers, usb HDDs, kb/mouse, USB connection to network, etc)
  • Vegiemaster, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13@echo off
  • stormbreaker, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14Yes! Now I can sync my iPod in UNDER three hours!
  • darkane, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Why does the writer make it sound like it's such a horrible inconvenience to have new technology? USB 2.0 came out in, what.. 2001? Five years after the original. That's extremely slow for any computer-related advancement. If you're going to bitch about how fast technology moves, you should limit it to processors and graphics cards, which grow by leaps and bounds every other day.
  • oldhick, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Yup, but you have to pay to license firewire so a lot of manufactures avoid it. I would love to see some computers come firewire 800, but still only 400...
  • Kicksilver, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10That's great news. Too bad my USB is still 1.0, hah.
  • k3vinmartian, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9I wonder if this means USB 3.0 will also provide more power to peripherals and bring an end for the need to have external power. That would be nice. No more tangled power cords!!
  • mhockey14221, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11USB 8.0 came after the nuclear fallout settled... it was just a shoestring.
  • Avor, on 10/10/2007, -11/+20Macbook Pros come with Firewire 800 :)
  • norbiu, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11It's coming in 2008, which is about ... 3 more years?
  • ChromaVita, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9USB 11.0 takes the joke too far.
  • Seifey, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8I'll never need more than a 4GB harddrive..
  • HanSolo69, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Maybe I'm living the future right now, a more technologically advanced time perhaps, but I have this button at the top of the page called "bury" and it even allows to me say that I am burying the story because it is a duplicate. I dunno, like I said, maybe I'm just living in some glorious, utopian future that you can only dream of.
  • PixelVision, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9that's because it transfers up to 480Mb/s in bursts and cannot sustain that speed.
  • Hosalabad, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Now your local electronics superstore can hit you for $50-100 for a cable, that'll be great.
  • nixfu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6USB SUCKS compared to Firewire.... Firewire has cpu offload processing on the devices... USB IS ALL DONE on the HOST CPU.

    Frankly, I don't see how USB 3.0 won't totally peg your CPU at 100%...USB2 can already be a total CPU pig, while firewire 800 is almost nill CPU impact.


    USB is like 'software raid' compared to firewire being a real raid controller.

  • oldhick, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6While most devices can't read that fast today, many many devices can read faster than USB 2.0. Also, its more bandwidth for multiple devices...
  • AndrewWiggin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I think USB was cheaper than FireWire because of royalties..
    Check that, I just conferred with Wikipedia and it is royalties as well as hardware.
  • Sharkee, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Yeah, what's the point if drives or flash memory can't read/write that fast? I guess if you were capturing video into ram or something?
  • aelfrice, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7USB 12.0 tried to go faster than the speed of light. All things are now one. We occupy all space and all time.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 170 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.