http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/ Engadget Comments for USB 3.0 in the flesh http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/Mar 7th 2008 2:26PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/Jan 10th 2008 1:51AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/Jan 10th 2008 2:52AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/Jan 10th 2008 4:01AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/Jan 10th 2008 4:29AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/Jan 10th 2008 5:35AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/Jan 12th 2008 12:37AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/
Don't get me wrong, USB is great for other things where speed isn't too much of an issue, like connecting devices, but when it comes to raw speed... Can't wait to see how USB 3.0 actually performs!]]>Jan 10th 2008 9:19PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/
>_>]]>Jan 10th 2008 1:59AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/Jan 10th 2008 2:03AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/
Oh Lord God in Heaven, not this B.S. again...

It's "with transfer speeds of _UP TO_ 600 million Bytes per second..."

If you use phrasing other than this, you're
* in marketing, or
* a liar, or
* you don't know what you're talking about, or
* all of the above.

-Lyberty

p.s. Have they worked out the "which *%&*# side is 'up' on this *$&#'ing USB Port?!?" problem yet?



]]>Jan 10th 2008 2:04AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/Jan 10th 2008 2:15AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/]]>Jan 10th 2008 7:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/Jan 10th 2008 8:55AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/Jan 10th 2008 10:44AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/
I think that most laptop female ports connect with the USB male end with logo face up.]]>Jan 10th 2008 6:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/
I wanted my next MBP in 2009.... when Nehalem comes out.]]>Jan 10th 2008 2:14AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/
USB 3.0 makes me hot. ]]>Jan 10th 2008 2:18AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/Jan 10th 2008 12:16PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/the new apple desktop has 8cores...
get up with the times]]>Jan 11th 2008 8:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/Jan 10th 2008 2:15AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/
Also, still the same fucking plug design? Goddamn it.]]>Jan 10th 2008 2:36AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/Jan 10th 2008 5:05AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/Jan 10th 2008 5:15AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/Jan 10th 2008 5:37AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/Jan 10th 2008 5:56AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/But then it would be less suited for some things, like firewire is great for a lot of stuff but does not 100% overlaps USB due to the protocol differences.
But they have ages the time to think about that part, and I don't think they can use the same protocols as standard USB and even dream of going 10x as fast, so I can't imagine they won't come up with something new and improved.]]>Jan 10th 2008 7:28AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/Jan 10th 2008 7:49AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://regmedia.co.uk/2007/09/19/usb_3_1.jpg
Was that fake?
]]>Jan 10th 2008 2:44AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/Jan 10th 2008 2:49AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/Jan 10th 2008 5:17AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/And this is what wikipedia mentions: USB 3.0 (Future version): On September 18, 2007, Pat Gelsinger demonstrated USB 3.0 at the fall Intel Developer Forum. USB 3.0 is targeted at ten times the current bandwidth, roughly 4.8 Gbit/s, utilizing a parallel optical cable.

So it's a bit strange this presentation mentions STP (Shielded Twisted Pair) and not optical, perhaps they changed their minds.

And usb.org has this cryptic remark:
"Targeting over 10x performance increase, the technology will draw from the same architecture of wired USB."

Draw from wired USB? What is that suppose to mean?]]>Jan 10th 2008 7:13AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/And this is what wikipedia mentions: USB 3.0 (Future version): On September 18, 2007, Pat Gelsinger demonstrated USB 3.0 at the fall Intel Developer Forum. USB 3.0 is targeted at ten times the current bandwidth, roughly 4.8 Gbit/s, utilizing a parallel optical cable.

So it's a bit strange this presentation mentions STP (Shielded Twisted Pair) and not optical, perhaps they changed their minds.

And usb.org has this cryptic remark:
"Targeting over 10x performance increase, the technology will draw from the same architecture of wired USB."

Draw from wired USB? What is that suppose to mean?]]>Jan 10th 2008 7:13AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/Jan 10th 2008 7:14AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/Jan 10th 2008 2:56AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/Jan 10th 2008 3:03AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh//sarcasm]]>Jan 10th 2008 5:49AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/Jan 10th 2008 3:16AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/Feb 6th 2008 9:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/
"Maximum theoretical data throughput will definitely be a point of contention between the two standards. Intel has stated that it expects USB 3.0 to be 10 times as fast as USB 2.0, which would give it a 4.8Gbps transfer rate. In contrast, the current iteration of S3200 will top out at 3.2Gbps. It's impossible to predict how much the throughput difference between the two standards will impact real-world device performance, but it's definitely a marketing edge that USB 3.0 proponents will lean on.

Of course, FireWire—up to and including S3200—has always offered certain advantages that USB lacks. Not only is it markedly less CPU-intensive due to its peer-to-peer nature (USB is master/slave), but FireWire is capable of delivering more power over a single cable. FireWire also allows for cable runs of up to 100 meters; USB 2 allows for a mere fraction of this, though USB 3.0 should increase cable lengths considerably."

As almost always, there's differentiation and choices based on a variety of factors. No need for anyone to bang the drum of "one size must fit all." Choice really is a good thing ... especially for consumers. ]]>Jan 10th 2008 3:27AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/I have endured days apon days of dark pictures......
Hell children know how to turn the freaking flash on....]]>Jan 10th 2008 3:34AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/Jan 10th 2008 3:35AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/Jan 10th 2008 4:15AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/Jan 10th 2008 4:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/
Also very nice to see they are paying attention to the power part. Off course USB was never meant as a power carrier but hey, it's foolish to neglect common practice I think.

]]>Jan 10th 2008 4:05AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/Jan 10th 2008 4:23AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/Jan 10th 2008 4:33AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/Jan 10th 2008 5:54AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/Jan 10th 2008 5:56AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/usb-3-0-in-the-flesh/
**** WILL YOU PLEASE MAKE THE USB3.0 CONNECTOR SYMMETRICAL PLEASE ****

I don't know how many times I have endlessly turned over a USB connector, tried again, turned it over, tried again, turned it over....
]]>Jan 10th 2008 8:27AM