Comments on: USB 3.0 Revealed

By: terry

terry — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 21:31:25 +0000

With e-sata found built in on many brands motherboards, I think USB3 will remain a favored step child with little REAL potential for me

By: PD

PD — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 06:21:52 +0000

As far as I know there is no optical, involved just 5 extra wires and USB 3.0 will utilize all 9 wires (2 grounds), 1 power line upted to 900mA, a dedicated transmit pair for the usb 3, a dedicated recieve pair for the usb 3, and the usb 2 data pair which can switch directions back and forth although in the usb 3 use I think it is single direction, which direction I am unclear on. The cable will be about the same thickness as an ethernet cable. the maximunPC article has a cutaway view of the cable.

By: Logan

Logan — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 20:52:12 +0000

Hey just wanted to throw it out there, I think USB 3.0 is going to take up 2 USB 2.0 ports on the computer to get the desired speed of 3.0, not 100 percent on that but I’ve read about that being the case a few times
- Also the only thing that competes with this at the moment is really eSata with speeds of 3 Gbps, we’ll see what happens

By: Gadget Venue 2008 Roundup Post

Gadget Venue 2008 Roundup Post — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:08:43 +0000

[...] in Disguise 2.)USB 3.0 Revealed 3.)10 Cool Office Desk Security Gadgets 4.)Mario Quilt 5.)Interesting Cube Clock 6.)Steampunk [...]

By: jiji

jiji — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 03:08:27 +0000

I want to know more detail info.

By: Don

Don — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 20:47:09 +0000

If you really LOOK at the picture, you can see it isnt the same as usb 1.2 or 2.
Did you just NOT NOTICE the 5 leads in towards the rear of the connector labeled USB_3?

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:27:47 +0000

It is a 10x jump in speed. USB 2.0 runs at 480 Mbps, not 480 MBps. 2.0 runs at 60 MBps.

By: Simon

Simon — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:14:12 +0000

There’s a big difference between GBps and Gbps, namely ‘bytes’ and ‘bits’. 4.8 Gbps is 4.8/8 (600 MBps), so really, it’s only just 1/4th faster than USB 2.0, not 10 times, artard.

By: Bransby

Bransby — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 11:31:46 +0000

Bust 4, read the article properly, you don’t have to upgrade anything, it quite clearly states it’s backwards compatible with usb 1 and 2. Dan, that’s a fair point, but with flash memory capacity increasing all the time, it’s probably a good idea to have a USB standard that can cope with those kind of speeds. I think this is great, USB works well and it’ll be good to see it stick around for a while into the future.

By: mehmet

mehmet — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:36:14 +0000

Amazing, gonna have to pick up a hub when they come out.

By: Randy

Randy — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 05:16:33 +0000

Dan, so you’re telling me a SATA Hard Drive wouldn’t benefit from USB 3.0?.. .only 30 mbps ?

By: A. Alaalas

A. Alaalas — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 01:30:50 +0000

Matilda is right; although the current standard has a imprint on one side, while reaching around the back of a case or even a laptop, which way is up is not always evident.

By: Colm

Colm — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 19:37:54 +0000

Excellent suggestion there, Matilda

By: Dan

Dan — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:27:24 +0000

This standard seems vaguely pointless right now, as most devices cannot read or write more than 30Mbps. USB2.0 is faster than necessary for these devices. I don’t see USB3.0 being necessary or widespread very soon.

By: TheManInTheShed

TheManInTheShed — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:08:45 +0000

Mr.Bill Gates (now retired), you are a moron. usb 2.0 looks just like 1.0 didn’t it? So Why would it not make sense for 3.0 to look like the others. The only real difference is that it uses fiber optics.