|
Intel flags development of next generation USBs
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Fledz |
| quote: | LEADING computer chip manufacturer Intel has announced the formation of a promoter group to develop the next generation of the USB.
The group, headed by Intel, will include HP, Microsoft, NEC, NXP Semiconductors and Texas Instruments.
USB (Universal Service Bus) has in recent years become the most popular way of connecting peripheral devices such as printers, digital cameras and storage devices to a computer.
The next generation standard, USB 3.0 or SuperSpeed USB, is expected to provide transfer rates of 4.8 gigabits per second, 10 times faster than the current USB 2.0 standard.
This would dramatically reduce the time it takes for transferring large files, such as an HD movie, from 15 minutes (USB 2.0) to an estimated 70 seconds.
SuperSpeed USB will also provide an alternative to FireWire, currently used to connect digital video cameras, and could be used to connect DVD, Blu-ray and HD DVD players.
SuperSpeed USB ports will include fibre optic and copper wire connections.
However, the higher speed may result in a reduction in the maximum length of a USB cable from five metres down to two.
The group will release the SuperSpeed USB specification in the first half of 2008, and it is expected to become available for use in 2009. |
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22450499-2,00.html
So what does this mean for outboard USB audio cards? Will this result in a big uptake of next generation USB Audio Interfaces? Will this be the end of firewire or at least downturn?
Discuss. Whatever happens, I can only see this as a bonus :D |
|
|
| Zombie0729 |
| usb 2.0 was suppose to be the end of firewire so i'll believe it when i see it. i do hate that i can't hot plug firewire in windows xp(anyone know if you can in vista?) but firewire has yet to prove to be a problem(except when it pops out a shows *#*$(@#&(*) |
|
|
| DJFreaq |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zombie0729
usb 2.0 was suppose to be the end of firewire so i'll believe it when i see it. i do hate that i can't hot plug firewire in windows xp(anyone know if you can in vista?) but firewire has yet to prove to be a problem(except when it pops out a shows *#*$(@#&(*) |
Downgrade to Windows XP Pro SERVICE PACK 1
Service Pack 2 ed up firewire. Big time. |
|
|
| Ryan0751 |
| Keep in mind it'll be about 4-5 years before you start seeing products that are affordable with this kind of interface... They are stating 2010 in the release, add a few more years to get affordable and common... |
|
|
| DJFreaq |
| quote: | Originally posted by palm
i have no problems with firewire i use firewire 1394b or 800mb/s. works great i think |
A good chipset, (preferably Texas Instruments) in your 1394 card helps. |
|
|
| T-Soma |
Firewire vs USB is something that has been going on for a while and will continue.
Only difference is that people think e-sata has a chance.
Right now, if I'm ever looking for an external sound card I avoid USB because of my personal experiences hopefully this will change that. |
|
|
| DeZmA |
| Virus TI II with 16 audio channels over usb, here we come. |
|
|
| Ryan0751 |
Firewire 800 ports look different than Firewire 400 ports. There's the Firewire 400 6-pin and 4-pin, and Firewire 800. 800 looks like a square, not as small as the 400 4-pin.
| quote: | Originally posted by palm
it is when looking in device manager. i have never realy tested if it is 800mb/s tho how can i do that? |
|
|
|
| No Left Turn |
Don't USB and Firewire each have their pros and cons, making them better than the other under their ideal conditions? (This debate doesn't bother me at all as I prefer neither over the other.) Even though USB 2.0 has faster clock speeds, isn't Firewire supposed to transfer larger files faster, with USB 2.0 being more proficient with transferring lots of smaller files? This has always been my understanding, though, I've never put this to the test myself as the work I do wouldn't really benefit THAT much from confirming this.
I like Firewire interfaces better, anyway, since they seem to be more stable and, if applicable, have the ability to be daisy-chained (go go MOTU!!) to other like devices. But for hard drives and such, I don't really see the big deal. |
|
|
| Ryan0751 |
From wikipedia (don't ya love it?):
USB compared with FireWire
USB was originally seen as a complement to FireWire (IEEE 1394), which was designed as a high-speed serial bus which could efficiently interconnect peripherals such as hard disks, audio interfaces, and video equipment. USB originally operated at a far lower data rate and used much simpler hardware, and was suitable for small peripherals such as keyboards and mice.
The most significant technical differences between FireWire and USB include the following:
USB networks use a tiered-star topology, while FireWire networks use a repeater-based topology.
USB uses a "speak-when-spoken-to" protocol; peripherals cannot communicate with the host unless the host specifically requests communication. A FireWire device can communicate with any other node at any time, subject to network conditions.
A USB network relies on a single host at the top of the tree to control the network. In a FireWire network, any capable node can control the network.
These and other differences reflect the differing design goals of the two buses: USB was designed for simplicity and low cost, while FireWire was designed for high performance, particularly in time-sensitive applications such as audio and video. Although similar in theoretical maximum transfer rate, in real-world use, especially for high-bandwidth use such as external hard-drives, FireWire 400 generally has a significantly higher throughput than USB 2.0 Hi-Speed.[10][11][12][13] The newer FireWire 800 standard is twice as fast as FireWire 400 and outperforms USB 2.0 Hi-Speed both theoretically and practically.[14]
| quote: | Originally posted by No Left Turn
Don't USB and Firewire each have their pros and cons, making them better than the other under their ideal conditions? (This debate doesn't bother me at all as I prefer neither over the other.) Even though USB 2.0 has faster clock speeds, isn't Firewire supposed to transfer larger files faster, with USB 2.0 being more proficient with transferring lots of smaller files? This has always been my understanding, though, I've never put this to the test myself as the work I do wouldn't really benefit THAT much from confirming this.
I like Firewire interfaces better, anyway, since they seem to be more stable and, if applicable, have the ability to be daisy-chained (go go MOTU!!) to other like devices. But for hard drives and such, I don't really see the big deal. |
|
|
|
| daeus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fledz
SuperSpeed USB will also provide an alternative to FireWire, currently used to connect digital video cameras, and could be used to connect DVD, Blu-ray and HD DVD players. |
I thought USB was already an alternative? I just read in PC Specialist magazine about how firewire will be gone in a year or so's time, it didnt help when apple went usb with all of their products. |
|
|
| Ryan0751 |
Apple was one of the first computer manufacturers to use USB, ever... they were the first to ship USB keyboards and mice, etc. In the PC world, it took a long time before USB was stable in windows 95/98/ME/etc.
But that was when Firewire was the only other high speed alternative (USB 2.0 wasn't out).
Apple has since gone with only USB on things like the iPod because everybody has it, and it's cheaper to leave out the firewire interface.
| quote: | Originally posted by daeus
I thought USB was already an alternative? I just read in PC Specialist magazine about how firewire will be gone in a year or so's time, it didnt help when apple went usb with all of their products. |
|
|
|
|
|
