digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at engadget.com

USB 3.0 in the flesh [

engadget.com — Get ready, speed freaks. USB 3.0, the oft-rumored, much-discussed, rarely seen new standard heading our way has been spotted, sliced, chopped, and diced at CES 2008.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • sevenalive, on 01/10/2008, -70/+7Damn you beat me to it. Anyway, this should help with external hard drives and camcorders. With speeds of 4.8 Gbit/s (600 MB/s), and a powering system which intelligently cuts the juice when you're not using a device, we have a feeling you'll want. Too bad we all have to wait till 2010... the year we make contact... with USB 3.0.
  • jakv5, on 01/10/2008, -7/+157I can't wait... but I still wish the masses went with firewire, I hate the length restrictions of USB.
    • forcedfx, on 01/10/2008, -5/+11Same here.
    • DevinOlsen, on 01/10/2008, -10/+36I was to young when firewire came out, I vaguely remember it being something that I saw on Macs more then a PC?

      Just wondering, why would there be length restrictions with USB and not firewire?

      PS- Can't wait for USB 3.0. The difference between USB 1.0 and 2.0 is absolutely amazing, hard to believe their able to upgrade it again.
      • druakara, on 01/10/2008, -2/+22I'm not sure why your being dugg down, There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the post, and your question is valid. Especially considering that there are length restrictions on firewire - not nearly as tight as USB, but an electrical signal can still only go so far without being corrupted.
        • teh_techie, on 01/10/2008, -9/+18Maybe the mass misuse of their, there and they're... and the too vs. to in the beginning. Why is that so damn hard to get right.

          There (as in place), Their (as in something belonging to someone), They're (as in short word for They Are).
          • geekoid, on 01/11/2008, -6/+3All this from someone called "teh" techie... wonderful.
        • AmazingAndrex, on 01/11/2008, -4/+9Also "than" verses "then".
      • fr34k5h0w, on 01/10/2008, -0/+11Firewire (i.Link, IEEE 1394, etc) was developed by Apple, Texas Instruments, and Sony iirc. Hence the reason it was on all Macs (and maybe Sony computers, I haven't really looked at one).
      • samuelcotterall, on 01/10/2008, -1/+12FireWire has been available for both platforms, but Apple have shipped all their Macs with it for the last ten years (give or take), but I think the PC world have been adopting it too. I've only ever encountered it with DV cameras and audio interfaces.
      • Koookie, on 01/10/2008, -1/+3USB has length restrictions because of issues relating to the timing of the signals. I don't know exactly, but it's a time-out or something similar. The speed of light is too slow -- electrical signals in copper travel at some 80% of C.
        • Breepee, on 01/10/2008, -3/+3I though the speed of electrons in a wire was more like 10% of c, but OK. The speed of current (thus of a pulse, thus of a bit) however is more like 50m/s, hence the obvious problems with cables longer than a few meters.
          • Koookie, on 01/10/2008, -0/+7You are wrong in an order of multiple magnitudes -- perhaps confusing the speed of the electron around the nucleus to the speed of electrons going forward. The link below says electrons travel at the magnitude of 0.024 cm/sec (1,44 m or 4,7 feet per minute.)

            http://newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99092.h ...

            Then how can the signal go so fast?

            Think of it it in the sense of pool balls. You hit the first, it hits the second, that hits the third and so on. It's the electrical field that proceeds quickly, not the electrons. The speed of current can't be 50 m/s, Wikipedia (link below) says: "Propagation speed in a copper conductor is about 2/3 the speed of light[citation needed]." (Ok, not 80%, but about there...)

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_electricity
          • jterhune, on 01/11/2008, -1/+1The velocity an electric field travels is based on the velocity factor of the medium it travels in.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_propagati ...
      • asforme, on 01/11/2008, -0/+5The main difference, as I understand it, is that firewire is designed to provide bandwidth at a constant speed that does not change, while USB is more variable. This is why Camcorders are Firewire, so that no frames are dropped.
        • Jorg, on 01/11/2008, -0/+2The biggest difference from a cost/complexity point of view is that fireware is P2P and USB is client server.
          That means that all firewire devices have to have more complex electronics while with USB, hosts/servers (like the computer or a HUB) do most of the heavy lifting and guest/clients can be simpler and cheaper.
          Then again the cost of using the firewire name was more expensive than USB and explains why iLink and IEEE1394 are used. 3 names for the same tech... try and sell that to the mass market. Jorgie
      • InfiniteNothing, on 01/11/2008, -0/+3Firewire gets used alot in industrial settings. It even gets nifty screw terminals.
    • Sevzi, on 01/10/2008, -1/+9There are some real(non-patent, non-legacy) reasons to use USB. I haven't seen small connectors that give power (though this might be possible). The lack of hubs is a real issue as well. Of course, Firewire has some real advantages as well (although peer-to-peer USB may cover those).
    • qwertylicious, on 01/10/2008, -1/+21Length isn't everything.

      ... What? Why are you looking at me funny?
    • BryanTheCrow, on 01/10/2008, -1/+3Hate? Really? I've never found myself needling a longer USB cable...
      What devices are you using that you need to put so far away from your computer? Just curious...
      • Tenoq, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1Printers, usually. Often people come into our store and ask for a 5 or 10m USB cable. I ask them: "On what device are you planning to use a cable of that length?" "Printer?" "Well I can sell it to you, but odds are it won't work."
      • InfiniteNothing, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1I've had to string like 10 USB repeaters together before to put a webcam in another room.
      • samssf, on 01/11/2008, -3/+1I really hate it when people either won't answer a question, or think you're wrong, because they don't understand why you want to do something. Seriously, if I post a question on a message board, never respond only with "why do you want to do that?"

        And many times people will post the wrong solution to a problem because they cant fathom why you'd want to perform the specific task.
    • Hologram0110, on 01/11/2008, -0/+2I was always under the impression that one of the reasons was due to the cost associated with the patent owners of firewire. (I'm not sure about that)
      In relation to the length of the cable... The resistance of a wire is proportional to the length of the cable, the cables also have a capacitance that resist rapid changes in voltage. These increase with length so if you make the cable too long then you need to reduce the frequency of the communication or risk errors. So thats why you cant have a really long cable carrying a digital signal, even with lots of shielding.
      • MikeSD34, on 01/11/2008, -0/+2Then how is it that Cat5e works oh so well up to distances of 300 feet and at speeds reaching 1 gigabit per second? It can certainly be done, so one wonders why USB is so limited by comparison.
    • Ductapemaster, on 01/11/2008, -7/+1The major advantage I see that USB has over firewire is that it's hot-swappable. You can't just plug a firewire device into a computer while it's on and have it work. Thumb drives would be nonexistent if they went with firewire.
      • kingkael, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1um... yeah. i believe that you are wrong.
    • Fubeman, on 01/11/2008, -0/+3WTF? Have you even used a Firewire cable? Seriously, think before you post. Or at least do some research. Oh, and by the way, I just plugged in my Camcorder and Web Cam while they both were on and they worked just fine thank you. That IS one of the cool things you can do with Firewire (as well as USB) cable - plug it in without having to reboot or restart any device. Look up "Hot-Swapping" in Wikipedia and you'll see Firewire right there with USB. Please do some reading.
    • mthe0ry, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1For the life of me I couldn't figure out the reason why firewire has a longer range than USB. USB has a higher signaling voltage and one would expect it to have a longer range because of that. It might just be that the physical layer is straight up engineered better on FireWire.
    • Lane, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1length restrictions? what? I've used 3 adapters to plug in my copperhead before. It had to have been 20ft worth of cables and it didnt miss a beat. The copperheads no lightweight when it comes to usb power either. It's no portable hard drive but still.
      • Mike89, on 01/11/2008, -0/+2Length restrictions on data, not power. USB cables would have the same amount of voltage drop as other copper of the same spec.
  • BobCock, on 01/10/2008, -12/+10mmm... future cable...
  • PATSCRU, on 01/10/2008, -4/+95I currently use esata 3.0 Gb/s for all my external hd's, which is not quite 4.8 Gb/s, but i have it now instead of 2010
    • musicpyrite, on 01/10/2008, -32/+8LOOK AT ME I HAVE A 9" PENIS I NEED ATTENTION!!!
      • mydigga, on 01/10/2008, -10/+3I'm at 3", oh wait, someone just opened the warehouse door and let the cold air in... now I'm at -2"
        • Turambar, on 01/11/2008, -0/+13why is your penis out at a warehouse?
    • techbrute, on 01/10/2008, -2/+6ESATA is a great option, but lacks the benefit of hot-plugging. It also only supports drives right now, not peripherals (that I'm aware of).
      • julienbh, on 01/10/2008, -0/+15eSATA is hot pluggable through AHCI drivers ICH9 (with Linux/Vista it's easier I think)
    • ninjasquirrel, on 01/10/2008, -3/+27Even the fastest single desktop drives can't saturate a 1.5Gbps SATA bus... having anything faster for an external drive is pretty much useless.
      • Tenoq, on 01/11/2008, -1/+6Arg... stopping digging people down who actually KNOW what they're talking about.
      • InfiniteNothing, on 01/11/2008, -1/+4Drive buffer
    • julienbh, on 01/10/2008, -0/+3Maybe for Raid0 ?
  • owenkun, on 01/10/2008, -5/+133USB 3 is made of people!
  • andnever, on 01/10/2008, -6/+56or just use firewire 800 in 2007?
    • blackmage439, on 01/10/2008, -7/+2...What? I don't understand what you're comparing or trying to state.

      USB 3.0 isn't debuting until 2010. I wouldn't be surprised if they roll out FireWire 3 by then.

      Anyway, I still see the same problems. Various plugs and connectors make for confusing times. Not to mention various companies can't even charge an extra dollar per item anymore to include a freaking USB cable with their products (I'm looking at you, Canon & HP printers...). Don't look for USB 3.0 to make any changes to the tech world. Besides, how many people can actually get their USB 2.0 devices to perform at the marked speeds?
      • jabberwolf, on 01/11/2008, -2/+2Um who wants to pay so many royalties to a slower firewire? Sorry more devices will move to USB3, and though they say 2009, there will be devices out before then. It just wont be mainstream until 2008-2010.

        usb3 = 4.8Gbps transfer rate. In contrast, the current iteration of S3200 will top out at 3.2Gbps.
        Hmmm, sorry why waste money for more expense, for a short period of time on more expensive devices.

        In the meantime, most of us simply uses ESATA-II
    • musicpyrite, on 01/10/2008, -20/+10This is 2008 *****. Congratulations.
      • ninsei, on 01/10/2008, -4/+17I believe their point was that Firewire 800 was out last year ... "*****"
    • CATSCEO, on 01/10/2008, -0/+20FW3200* 2008*
  • naterpoke, on 01/10/2008, -9/+3its about time
  • kaidovak, on 01/10/2008, -0/+19I just wish a data port that functions similarly to a mag-safe connector would come out, instead of more of the same. I see too many dropped notebooks come into the shop with the USB tongues broken off by a cable/thumbdrive
    • Dinosaurus, on 01/10/2008, -1/+7Exactly. Also the standard USB connector is a rectangle and hard to orient without pluggin it in multiple times, unlike other forms of the USB connector and other connector styels.
    • awhiteflame, on 01/11/2008, -0/+2The problem is they have to make it USB 2.0, USB 1.1 compatible. The connector has to be generally the same.
      • geekoid, on 01/11/2008, -0/+2Why? Firewire 400 and Firewire 800 use different connectors, so why must USB 3 be backwards compatible?
        • DeathRay2K, on 01/11/2008, -0/+4Because normal people use USB, and they don't want to care about what version it is.
      • InfiniteNothing, on 01/11/2008, -0/+2You could always have an adaptor or something
    • codmate, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1I wish XLR was a standard across *all* connectors.
  • aries3161, on 01/10/2008, -12/+8ok 2010 usb 3.0.....2010 firewire 1600.
    • blackmage439, on 01/10/2008, -2/+21... You do realize that FireWire 1600 would translate to 1.6 Gbps? That's half the projected speed of USB 3.0...

      Epic fail.
      • musicpyrite, on 01/10/2008, -2/+18... You do realize the real world performance of FireWire (400mbps) is better than that of USB 2 (480mbps), right? So it is reasonable to assume the same thing for FireWire 1600/USB 3.
        • CATSCEO, on 01/10/2008, -0/+5FW1600 was skipped in favor of FW3200
        • teh_techie, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1Not necessarily. You see, the USB2 wires are UTP (unshielded twisted pair), and the USB3 wires are STP (shielded twisted pair).
          • Tenoq, on 01/11/2008, -0/+3The issue with USB2.0 wasn't in the shielding of the cable - it was in the protocol itself. :p
          • ThreeDee912, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1USB uses data bursts, white Firewire maintains a constant stream of data. You wouldn't want a car to go up to 48 MPH, then stop, then start again, then stop, etc... Or a car to travel a smooth 40 MPH nonstop?
      • Matteos, on 01/10/2008, -0/+11Sustained>Burst
  • BlueSkyfish, on 01/10/2008, -0/+73For a second, I thought the headline was talking about some way to surgically attach a USB drive in your arm or something... That would be cool.
    • anagoge, on 01/10/2008, -7/+2Isn't that called your brain?
      • nickbarber, on 01/11/2008, -0/+5I wasn't aware that my brain was located in my arm. I guess you learn something new everyday.
    • drunk3nrabbit, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1I think he meant plugging a usb into your brain
      • kingkael, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1why would you assume brain? the headline says "in the flesh". That could be any of my fleshy appendages.
  • dpowre, on 01/10/2008, -1/+44can someone explain why we have to wait untill 2010?
    • mterzano, on 01/10/2008, -8/+5They still have to market 2.0 for a another year or so. Then 3.0 and bwala.
      • hpfreak26, on 01/11/2008, -2/+3In case you never learned... it's viola!
        • denkc, on 01/11/2008, -0/+4Actually, "voila" ... a viola is an instrument.
    • coldfusion1970, on 01/10/2008, -3/+2I would guess its because Intel havent actually got it working yet.
    • InfiniteNothing, on 01/11/2008, -0/+4Bus speeds?
    • stackered, on 01/11/2008, -2/+1Because Ron Paul said so. Thats right, I went there.
  • redxninja, on 01/10/2008, -1/+152.4GHz? That is fast.
  • sbrown, on 01/10/2008, -11/+1Am I the only one who notices these plugs are butt ass ugly?
    • jmreid, on 01/10/2008, -0/+9lol, butt plugs
    • Berkana, on 01/10/2008, -1/+1Somebody here need to see some nicer asses. (  !  )
      (But I agree, the USB plug is ugly.)
    • Gzero, on 01/10/2008, -1/+1My ass is firm...like cheese.
    • DeathGod321, on 01/11/2008, -1/+2So is it butt-ass ugly or butt ass-ugly?
  • rupprupp29, on 01/10/2008, -11/+2USB 3.0!?!? Where will it end!?!??!!!!!!
    • sfh1182, on 01/10/2008, -3/+5Wow, you're really fired up about this.

      !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??!?!!
    • damnmonkey, on 01/10/2008, -0/+3why end it? isn't progress a good thing?????!!!???
    • AmazingAndrex, on 01/11/2008, -0/+2I don't know what we're yelling about!??!!?!?!?!??!!?!??!!??????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!??
    • specialK16, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1INTERROBANG!
  • Dokument, on 01/10/2008, -9/+3Does the new connector still work with usb 2.0? because they are going to be confusing if not.
    • whataboutdave, on 01/10/2008, -0/+6It will be backwards compatible.
      • teh_techie, on 01/10/2008, -1/+1But the plugs look like they're different sizes... (well... for now at least)
    • EXreaction, on 01/11/2008, -0/+2RTFA.
  • linksus, on 01/10/2008, -0/+121Why do i keep thinking 2010 is like years and years and years and years away..
    • h3lx, on 01/10/2008, -2/+32Hard to believe isn't it... apparently time flies whether you're having fun or not.
    • EricPeters, on 01/10/2008, -1/+77I keep thinking 2000 was like 2 years ago... Then I realize it was 8 years and I feel old.
    • DiggMasterJ, on 01/11/2008, -0/+2I thought I was the only one!
    • theonesteve, on 01/11/2008, -0/+2Possibly because 2010 has been the expected release date for flying cars, weather control, and TV implants. And none of that is even close to reality as of 2008.
  • Berkana, on 01/10/2008, -5/+170IMHO, the most idiotic thing about the design of USB is that the plugs are symmetrical on the outside, but not on the inside. I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds that half the time, the plug doesn't go into the port right because its upside down. Any plug you have to consciously look at to orient the logo in the right direction when plugging it in (especially when you're trying to plug it in on the back side of something, such as an iMac or Apple monitor) is badly designed. The USB's plug design has wasted untold hours of time on account of this idiotic design decision.
    • Linkin4, on 01/10/2008, -2/+29I agree completely, I don't know who dugg you down but that alone is one of the worst decisions in the history of computing, my boss and I, lacking more interesting topics have complained about this numerous times
    • iet2004, on 01/10/2008, -19/+10oh no!!!!!!! i had to flip the plug over to make it go in!!!!!!!! HOURS later, I was finally able to transfer my pics. and all was well within the universe.

      Seriously man?
      • kaidovak, on 01/10/2008, -1/+182 seconds multiplied by several times a day, multiplied by every computer user calculated over a year is huge amount of wasted time.
      • ubuwalker31, on 01/10/2008, -2/+6Jet, I have spent countless wasted minutes trying to plug into usb ports. I've also seen broken usb ports by people who jam the device in. So, seriously man...
      • Linkin4, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2How about where I work we have all these old optiplex boxes with the crappy flip lid design to hide usb ports where i need to fumble around and hope that it's flipped the right way, sure that's half dell sucking, but it would be a lot easier if the plugs were symmetrical, not to give apple too much props, their latest laptop power plugs would be perfect (minus the magnet)
        • kaidovak, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1We have those ***** too. Not only that, but the ports are actually oriented opposite of the standard, so you have to point the USB logo on cables down to get it to work.
        • Berkana, on 01/10/2008, -0/+3The problem with the Dells where you can plug in the USB flash drives or other devices from the front is that the port is angled at a strange angle upwards, rather than perpendicularly. I had to use one at Kinkos awhile back, and found it quite a waste of time to plug in my flash drive. What should have taken a second ended up requiring that I stoop down, feel around, and test the plug in several directions until I got it in. That's double suckage if there ever were such a thing for industrial design.
      • teh_techie, on 01/10/2008, -1/+2FAR MORE valuable time is wasted reading this comment thread than USB plug orientation issues...
        • samssf, on 01/11/2008, -0/+2Wrong. I will read this thread once. USB plugs plague me continuously.
    • frozenwookie, on 01/10/2008, -0/+4this sucks even more when you got all sorts of stuff in the way or are feeling lazy and dont wanna pull your rig out
    • nesune, on 01/11/2008, -1/+2i logged in just to digg u up.
      couldnt agree more.
    • travbrack, on 01/11/2008, -0/+3While true, you have that problem with virtually any connector including asymmetrical ones. If one side is longer than the other, it's hard to tell just by using your fingers. The only connector I don't have any trouble with is RJ45 because of the prong on top that's used to keep it in place, but RJ45 isn't without its pitfalls (prongs snapping off). Just my $0.02
    • Jerky1312, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1This is why I have a few USB extensions coming out from the back of the computer and sitting on my desk. It's so much easier and indeed saves lots of time.
    • jiveturkeyblues, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1it's better than those old school keyboard/mouse ones..had to match all the little bits up just right to plug it in.
      • Jorg, on 01/11/2008, -0/+0no kidding...

        remember SVGA? AAAAAAAAARRRRRGGGG!
  • jphicks, on 01/10/2008, -8/+33.0!! OMG! I need a cigarette.
  • EpidemiK, on 01/10/2008, -11/+3[
    • julienbh, on 01/10/2008, -0/+8]
      forgot to close your brackets dude.
      • WhatKindaBat, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2No he wanted to leave his brackets open. End of story. [
        • DeathGod321, on 01/11/2008, -0/+3Your compiler doesn't think it's the end of the story.
  • sholt, on 01/10/2008, -0/+24Ok, so... 4.8Gb/s.... uh-huh. Whats the real world sustained rate going to be like, and how much protocol and CPU overhead are we talking about here?
    • EricPeters, on 01/10/2008, -4/+2Article says 600MB/s
      • CATSCEO, on 01/10/2008, -2/+1...which is 4.8Gbits/s.

        A wild guess, but I'd put it at FW800 speeds.
        • agaudet, on 01/11/2008, -0/+2usb 2 is rated at 480mbps
          turns out I can sustain 250-300mbps depending on the length of the operation
          so I would wage that with a loss of 50% your still looking at 300MB/s
      • samssf, on 01/11/2008, -0/+14.8Gb = 600MB.

        Sustained speeds will probably be between 100MB/s and 200MB/s. So yes, closer to the speed of firewire.
  • livejamie, on 01/10/2008, -2/+48So that's where my left-bracket went.
  • SemiSarcastic, on 01/10/2008, -9/+1Can't I just use my 2.0 USB?
  • Bhatch514, on 01/10/2008, -2/+10So should i upgrade my computer with a USB 2.0 MOBO and core2 now or should i still keep my P4 Northwood processor with a x4 AGP port and ATA-100... :) (i kid, i kid!)
    • sobe86, on 01/10/2008, -2/+2Some people have a weird sense of humour
    • julienbh, on 01/10/2008, -0/+6OMG you has hyper toasting!
    • iats69, on 01/11/2008, -0/+0i still totally use my sony vaio with those specs thank you very much.
    • specialK16, on 01/11/2008, -0/+2I still use a pc with those specs :*(
    • agaudet, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1My athlon xp palomino with radeon 9200 and usb 1.0
      challenge you

      just because i use an xps m1710 for gaming doesnt mean that with a little linux love i still can be productive on my desktop with 27 inch monitor
  • Deejster, on 01/10/2008, -0/+45Whoever made the USB 1.0 plug a rectangle rather than obviously polarized (like HDMI) should be shot!

    I've wasted so much time feeling which way round the plug should go in - you have a 50% chance of getting it the wrong way round. If it's a polarized shape, at least you know which way up the plug goes. And now USB 3 is going to be backwards compatible with this stupid design.... sigh.
    • Firehed, on 01/10/2008, -3/+2Better than Firewire, where it's possible to jam the thing in backwards (it IS keyed, but not strongly enough) and fry your devices.
    • SLockhart, on 01/10/2008, -6/+1Yeah, 'cause it's such a hassle.
    • teh_techie, on 01/10/2008, -1/+2If you can't ***** see the back of the equipment anyways, you need to try plugging it in one way, then the other no matter if the plug is polarized or not..
      • drinklord, on 01/11/2008, -0/+4That's only true the very first time you plug it in. After that, you learn the orientation (not you per se, but someone less stupid).
    • Crisender111, on 01/11/2008, -0/+3Oh you are so very rite. I face this problem almost everyday. My PC has inverted USB ports, my laptop has them normal, my dvd player again has them inverted.

      50% chance...nice way of putting it. Its frustrating every time I have to flip the flash drive to push it in only cuz I had it turned the wrong way.
    • lelux, on 01/11/2008, -0/+0I've found with keyboards, mice, printers and ipod USB cables on one side of the plug there will be a USB symbol. Now if you have this facing upwards (or to the right hand side if it's vertical) when putting it into the port it is usually the right way.
  • fani, on 01/10/2008, -5/+60I am sick of all these wars.... format war ( dvd+r v/s dvd-r ), hidef war ( HD-DVD v/s BluRay ), mass storage wars ( firewire v/s usb ), memory storage wars ( compact flash, sd, microsd, memory stick etc. ), iraq war etc. etc.

    IS IT TOO MUCH TO ASK TO STICK TO ONE ***** STANDARD FOR ALL DEVICES.
    • musntSurfatWork, on 01/10/2008, -2/+2it is, how else are the Chinese emperors to get rich otherwise to focus on overthrowing the USA in the next year to come?
    • enclaved, on 01/10/2008, -0/+10Yes.
    • etandrib, on 01/10/2008, -0/+21Yes. Choose mine. And pay the license fee. Oh, and then in two years when everyone uses my standard I'll abuse my power and charge everyone a ridiculous amount of cash to keep using it (but not enough to make it seem like worth switching). Do I need to go on? This is a market system and competition is what drives innovation. Like it or not that is what you get.
    • Akraz, on 01/11/2008, -0/+2AMEN BROTHER
    • Zap2, on 01/11/2008, -0/+2Wait...so you want companies to not update standard?

      Forget that...I like my hardware FAST, and thats was USB 3 is....
    • drizzlelicious, on 01/11/2008, -1/+5I really hate that Iraq war format
    • tikidrummer928, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1there was a mobo i saw a while back that some company made. it had all the same ports on the back of it. it looked like a longer usb port. those ports worked with data, video, and sound. the mobo recognized what kind of device it was so you could plug it into any port. that was like a year or so ago when i saw that.
    • Kypt, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1Hrmmm relating to iraq...what standard would you like?
  • mterzano, on 01/10/2008, -13/+0Use a XNFTg36P47 - a part I just made up...kidding
  • musntSurfatWork, on 01/10/2008, -2/+6This is what I need, finally something faster to Transfer my 1080p porn from BlueRay to my USB3 Thumbdrive while I hand suspended over my wife's bed imitating Tom Cruise.
  • MadMalc, on 01/10/2008, -6/+1I hope it's worth the wait...at least it's likely to be finished and not still in Beta like Vista !
  • TeebZ, on 01/10/2008, -1/+17Surely you mean "USB 3.0 in the flash"?
    (pun oh so intended)
  • BLAM8, on 01/10/2008, -3/+1This is cool. Wonder if its bigger (looks so in photos). It should be smaller.
  • web2pointYo, on 01/10/2008, -3/+1This is actually Cottage Pie.
  • GodsTwin, on 01/10/2008, -3/+3Oh jeez... I think I just had a trigasm.
  • cwcentral, on 01/10/2008, -2/+4Everyone will be on Bluetooth3.0 UWB or Zigbee2.0 by then

    cables are a dinosaur...
  • Zippo, on 01/10/2008, -3/+2Nerd porn!
  • Jammerdelray, on 01/10/2008, -0/+4It may not be Firewire but the speed of usb 3.0 for ready boost is gonna be awesome
    • InfiniteNothing, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1Except that flash drives can do maybe 20MB/s (< USB 2 speeds)
  • 12340987, on 01/10/2008, -0/+7that doesn't look backwards compatible
  • MxM111, on 01/10/2008, -2/+3Was the last sentence "Too bad we all have to wait till 2010... the year we make contact... with USB 3.0." intended to pun "2010: Space Odyssey" and "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" and "Contact" at the same time?
    • tgunner, on 01/11/2008, -2/+1Since it was "2001: A Space Odyssey", I'd say not.
    • CrimsonBlur, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1No. The full title of the movie is, "2010: The Year We Make Contact", although the subtitle was only used on promotional stuff and isn't in the film. I think it might be on the DVD too.
  • zwaldowski, on 01/10/2008, -0/+27This USB device can perform faster if you connect it to a Hi-Speed USB 3.0 port.
  • revsd5, on 01/10/2008, -4/+14Firewire > USB
    • tikidrummer928, on 01/11/2008, -1/+1agreed but usb was cheaper. just like how windows outsells mac because of the cost difference.
  • Mutton, on 01/11/2008, -1/+5This is great [
  • Insanitation, on 01/11/2008, -1/+1YES!!! Now my fan will cool me even better!
  • UpperUpsilon, on 01/11/2008, -1/+1What will this mean for my USB powered lamp?
  • sgplayer69, on 01/11/2008, -1/+3great now i have to buy usb 3.0 ports
    • Zap2, on 01/11/2008, -1/+1In two years....at the soonest...most likely 3 or 4 years before it standard and support on all computers
  • Frostman3D, on 01/11/2008, -2/+32.0 works fine for me. I'm not in a rush to move to 3.0.
  • obxjdt, on 01/11/2008, -0/+6WTF was that?? A picture of a cable.... Big deal......
    I thought we would get a performance review.
  • nygrissplz, on 01/11/2008, -2/+1I'll tell you later...
  • angrycat, on 01/11/2008, -1/+3You would think after 3 revisions they would finally put some kind of marker that would tell you which way it goes in, I always have to flip it over because I put it in upside down.
  • gabrielg01, on 01/11/2008, -0/+22010? ***** that!
  • rnelsonee, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1Wait - why the hell are there still multiple form factors for the plugs? Look at this picture:
    http://www.engadget.com/photos/usb-3-0-in-the-fles ...
    They have 'A' and 'B' plugs again (the same size as current 'micro' plugs - neat), but they're both the same size and very similar to one another. I can see having different sized USB plugs - there's no reason for a PC to have a micro connector (with means increased cost), but A and B are the same size for USB 3.0. Is this just so printer manufacturers can charge an extra $25 for a new USB 3.0 cable? Blah.
  • Mike89, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1I have a question..
    "and a powering system which intelligently cuts the juice when you're not using a device, we have a feeling you'll want"
    Why? If the juice isn't being drawn, it isn't being wasted.. this wouldn't do anything, except add complexity and another level of possible failure?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
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.