Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 17th Nov 2008 19:18 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems Unveiled on Monday by the USB Implementers Forum, the USB 3.0 spec can theoretically support data-transfer speeds of up to 4.8Gbps - 10 times the speed provided by USB 2.0. The new standard, also known as SuperSpeed USB, is also expected to be more power-efficient than its predecessor. "SuperSpeed USB is the next advancement in ubiquitous technology," Jeff Ravencraft, the president of the USB Implementers Forum (USB-IF), the industry group that promotes USB technology, said in a statement on Monday. "Today's consumers are using rich media and large digital files that need to be easily and quickly transferred from PCs to devices and vice versa. SuperSpeed USB meets the needs of everyone, from the tech-savvy executive to the average home user."
Thread beginning with comment 337479
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by Macrat
by Kroc on Mon 17th Nov 2008 22:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Macrat"
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

Not when USB isn't a real bus and wastes CPU, is horrendously inefficient and can't do half of what FireWire can. USB will always be second fiddle, quality wise, when we have FireWire and eSATA.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[3]: Comment by Macrat
by poundsmack on Mon 17th Nov 2008 22:40 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Macrat"
poundsmack Member since:
2005-07-13

the new USB spec is actualy rather good (though i preffer the new FireWire spec hands down). as far as eSATA, it will only become awsome when the revision is finalized that will power the drives over the eSATA cable. but thats still a little ways off last i checked.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by Macrat
by Delgarde on Tue 18th Nov 2008 00:54 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Macrat"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

Not when USB isn't a real bus and wastes CPU, is horrendously inefficient and can't do half of what FireWire can. USB will always be second fiddle, quality wise, when we have FireWire and eSATA.


And yet there are many, many, more storage devices using USB than Firewire and eSATA combined. It might not be ideal (I use an eSATA external disk myself), but it's cheap, and it works well enough for most people.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by Macrat
by StaubSaugerNZ on Tue 18th Nov 2008 19:37 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Macrat"
StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13

Not when USB isn't a real bus and wastes CPU, is horrendously inefficient and can't do half of what FireWire can. USB will always be second fiddle, quality wise, when we have FireWire and eSATA.


True. USB consumes noticeably more CPU and requires a host computer (FireWire can communicate without a host). FireWire also has modes that USB does not. This makes FireWire more suited for real-time applications.

Note also that FireWire is an IEEE standard (IEEE1394, with various sub-versions). It is also a US military standard which has led FireWire to be used on the F-22 and F-35 fighters. IIRC, NASA also uses FireWire in equipment on the Space Shuttle. USB is an 'industry standard' maintained by a consortium of interests, which is why there are some dodgy implementations out there (and why it was possible for some USB 1.1 devices to be labelled "USB2" when they were not).

USB is far better than the mess of connectors that came before but technically it is not as good as FireWire, so don't believe the marketing bullsh!t. It was principally designed to be a "poor man's FireWire" mostly so that Intel and Microsoft wouldn't have to pay royalties to Apple for all the devices they envisaged.

Reply Parent Score: 4