By Jason TogneriPosted Tuesday 18th November 2008 09:45 GMT
Glad to hear it, and it's about bloody time we got a bandwidth upgrade for local devices, but what will Firewire be looking like by the time this is released? Will the battle for supremacy never end?
By ThomasPosted Tuesday 18th November 2008 10:29 GMT
i.e. can USB ports at last act for themselves with direct memory access or whatever, or are they still likely to be very limited in real-world speeds when compared to Firewire (even just mid-90s FW400 in my experience) and eSATA?
He didn't just say USB 3.0 v1.0!? I sincerely hope the USB tech group didn't come up with that double versioning thing and it was just the author.
Let us please not have the same old misnomer that afflicted the famous MP3 format! MP3, or MPEG3 is actually MPEG V1 layer 3.
Do you remember with the advent of DVDs and MPEG2, that MP3 didn't make much sense seeing as the audio format clearly pre-dated DVDs, and possibly the MPEG2 spec itself. The whole reason we now have MPEG4 because it was deemed too confusing to call it v3!
I understand fully that you are just emphasising the exiting of its beta status, but lets just call it USB 3.0 to avoid the catchphrasing? Then when theres a change, we can do the old 3.1 or 3.2 trick? Just like how we had USB 1.0 then USB 1.1 etc.
Just so long as we dont get USB27 prior to USB4 thats fine!
By h4rm0nyPosted Tuesday 18th November 2008 12:07 GMT
So what I want to know is will USB 3.0 still be the same CPU-munching interface that USB 1 & 2 were. If it is, I'll stick to the undervalued and technically superior Firewire. It's been faster than USB in the previous versions in sustained transfers. And come to think of it, that's another question: This vaunted 10x the speed of USB 2.0... is that sustained or a burst speed like with USB 2.0. Given that the speed of an externally connected USB device is normally only a factor when transferring large amounts of data, e.g. to an external hard drive, the sustained speed is much more important. More technical details, please.
By Chris CPosted Tuesday 18th November 2008 20:38 GMT
Nah, you "Super-Duper" guys are missing the obvious next implementation -- EXTREMEspeed (oh, sorry, XstreamSpeed). I'm surprised they didn't use the term for this implementation.
As for the question of whether it will have direct memory access... Didn't we already determine that giving an external device direct access to your memory, bypassing any security controls, is a bad thing?
By David GilliesPosted Tuesday 18th November 2008 23:23 GMT
Yeah, it's a bad idea to give external devices truly direct access to memory. So map it through virtual memory. Or you can disable the OHCI hardware mapping, albeit with an efficiency penalty. Of course if you're close enough to a machine to be plugging things into it, security is somewhat moot (unless someone cons you into hooking up a trojan device, but that's a bit too Mission Impossible to be plausible).
The real problem with USB vs 1394 is that USB is master/slave and 1394 is P2P. Unless that's going away, and I can't see how it would, real world 1394 performance is always going to exceed USB at a given nominal data rate. What does USB 2.0 really give you? Around 40-45% of nominal bandwidth in my experience. Firewire pledges to give you 97%. 45% of 4800 Mbits/s is less than 97% of 3200 Mbits/s.
Comments on: SuperSpeed USB 3.0 spec finalised
Yay! But 1394? #
By Jason Togneri Posted Tuesday 18th November 2008 09:45 GMT
Soooooooo yeah...... #
By Simon Posted Tuesday 18th November 2008 09:56 GMT
Any news on CPU usage? #
By Thomas Posted Tuesday 18th November 2008 10:29 GMT
Oh no he dit-unt. *waves finger* #
By Stu Posted Tuesday 18th November 2008 11:34 GMT
Firewire #
By h4rm0ny Posted Tuesday 18th November 2008 12:07 GMT
Power to the people #
By Richard Sloan Posted Tuesday 18th November 2008 12:12 GMT
Versions #
By Paul Stephenson Posted Tuesday 18th November 2008 12:24 GMT
What next? #
By Philip Cheeseman Posted Tuesday 18th November 2008 13:05 GMT
USB 4.0 #
By Graeme McKeague Posted Tuesday 18th November 2008 13:05 GMT
@Simon #
By Nic Posted Tuesday 18th November 2008 14:44 GMT
USB 3.0 - meh #
By Colin Millar Posted Tuesday 18th November 2008 15:22 GMT
Firewire #
By David Kelly Posted Tuesday 18th November 2008 16:31 GMT
USB networking #
By Robert Grant Posted Tuesday 18th November 2008 16:46 GMT
Sustained speeds? #
By Neil Alexander Posted Tuesday 18th November 2008 17:07 GMT
The next one will be ... #
By Anonymous Coward Posted Tuesday 18th November 2008 17:41 GMT
Next version #
By Chris C Posted Tuesday 18th November 2008 20:38 GMT
@Chris C #
By David Gillies Posted Tuesday 18th November 2008 23:23 GMT
What a bunch... #
By Stu Reeves Posted Wednesday 19th November 2008 12:13 GMT
@stu reeves #
By Anonymous Coward Posted Thursday 27th November 2008 13:46 GMT