Posted on 01/12/2010 8:02:47 AM PST by ShadowAce
You’ll be hearing a lot about USB 3.0 this year. And well you should, because its potential is vast. But will system vendors step up to the plate to deliver all of USB 3’s goodness?
Speeds und feeds
USB 2.0 has never delivered the advertised 480 mbits/sec because that number technically correct and operationally bogus. If you have data transferring in both directions at the same time it could happen - but for USB disks it never does.
That drops the theoretical transfer rate to 240 mbits/sec, but because of protocol overhead - for example, some signal redundancy to increase data integrity - the payload bandwidth is still lower.
Net net: you’re lucky to get a 20 MB/sec data rate off a disk - when the advertised rate suggests 60. But unless you use FireWire or eSATA that is the best you can get - until now.
Enter the 3
USB 3.0 is a different protocol - USB is a brand, not a technology - and while I haven’t done a deep dive it is a big improvement, while retaining backward compatibility with USB 1 & 2.
The biggest improvement is performance: it can move over 440 MBytes/sec.
The fine print
As noted in the video your mileage will vary. We’re dependent on the system vendors and their driver writers to develop robust support. That could take years.
Mac users face a bigger problem: it appears that Cupertino is doing nothing - zip, nada - with USB 3.0. With their smaller market share and tighter control, little is likely to happen unless Apple actively supports it.
The StorageMojo take
USB 3.0 is a Good Thing. Drives, even flash drives, are getting large enough USB 2 is like sipping the ocean through a straw. The rapid growth of file-based workflows needs more bandwidth - and USB 3.0 looks like a good answer.
Apple is risking their creative professional base if they ignore a fast new I/O bus. Light Peak, an optical interconnect Intel has been working on at Apple’s behest, may be their answer.
But as I noted in Light Peak: black hole
Light Peak is a great idea and doomed. Between obnoxious DRM, costly optical hubs and switches, Blu-ray style licensing fees, Intel over-engineering and Apple’s penchant for twee little I/O ports, Light Peak is almost certain to fail.
With Windows 7 momentum and a major I/O fail, Microsoft may be able to take back much of the creative professional market that gives Apple such a hip image.
Let the games begin!
Light Peak vs. USB:
Light Peak:
10 Gb/s simultaneous in each direction (100 Gb/s future)
Cable length 100 m
Can run video, audio and data at the same time on the same cable, in multiple protocols.
USB3:
4.8 Gb/s
Cable length 3m
Runs only data on the USB protocol
IMNSHO, USB3 is just evolutionary, taking the same thing we’ve been doing and going faster with it. Light Peak gives one thin cable than can saturate a hard drive’s platters and run multiple 1080p HDTV streams at the same time over the same cable. At least that’s if Intel can deliver.
And liberals like the one in charge of a lot of tech companies would be more likely to abuse data entrusted to them for political reasons. Thus, conservatives are at greater danger from that kind of exploitation. Plus, why would you want your fate to be in someone else’s hands in the first place?
Wasn't Apple late to the USB party to begin with preferring Firewire?
And if the DRM doesn't induce a bunch of latency.
My new favorite that I’ve been hearing at work is “critical path”, how about just asking if something is important??
Try http://209.157.64.200. It could be your DNS. (The thing that translates freerepublic.com into its real address.) It may also be that some folks insert their own IP for a popular one, especially Google (http://74.125.39.103) so they can gather search data they can sell. And then they pass the original request along. If a bunch of folks do this, things obviously can get pretty slow. I'm not sure what to do about it though.
ML/NJ
Don’t think it’s my DNS. About 7 seconds from text URL, 6 with numeric. For comparison www.msnbc.msn.com is about 3 seconds from text and 1.5 from numeric.
Course, comparing pmsnbc.com with FR is like comparing CNN with Fox, which has actual viewers.
To get USB 3 will require new hardware. But, unless you’re using a USB network adapter, you won’t see an increase in download speed. That is a function of your ISP, your connection bandwidth (dial-up, DSL, Cable, Fiber), the server you’re downloading from, your gateway/router (if you have one) and your network adapter. And then there’s your internal (to the computer) bus. The bus is how adapters, memory and CPU all talk to each other. It has a bandwidth and speed rating as well.
I will never put my personal data into the cloud.
Nah. Even USB 2.0 will keep up with broadband.
Anyone know offhand how this compares to Firewire’s (IEEE1394) speed?
Higher than current Firewire, lower than next gen of FW. (Kinda like USB 2)
The DRM is optional. I'm sure the studios required a DRM option before they'd get behind using it as a video cable, as they did with HDMI. Right now HDMI is at its limit with 1080p, so this gives much more headroom for later HD video standards, or multiple streams.
Fingernails across a chalkboard.
If the guy on NFL Network Radio uses that term, I change the channel immediately.
Even Mitch Rapp uses it in the latest Vince Flynn novel. Almost enough to make me root for his terrorist adversaries.
I store anything, any emails, on my own domain. Even though it is shared hosting, I do have an expectation to privacy on my little chunk of it. I actually asked the hosting service about it, and policy is that they don’t read anything (whether they do or not is irrelevant, it’s the policy and my expectations).
The issue of the 4th all hinges on the “expectation of privacy,” both subjective and objective.
That's a heav ily used word in project management circles.
Goes back to the minuteman days I think.
The spec for the hardware may have DRM optional, but commercial operating systems check for DRM on the video before allowing HD to be enabled.
This is currently true with HDMI, but HDMI isn't wireless. The concern is that actually using the wireless protocol with the added DRM will induce higher latency.
I think I'm missing something here. Wireless? This is optical.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.