Note that if you have a USB chain with both USB 1 and USB 2 devices, the entire bus will drop down to USB 1 speeds to maintain compatability. So to address handy’s question, using a USB 2 device on a computer that only supports USB 1 would probably mean the device downgrades to USB 1 speeds.
USB 2 exists only because Intel wants more royalties, anyway. For high-bandwidth transfer needs, Firewire/IEEE 1394 offers the same speed, more functionality, and is already widespread.
rjung, please explain this a bit further; does this also mean that using a USB 1 device on a computer that supports USB 2 would bring down all the other USB 2 devices to USB 1 speed? I’m quessing it won’t, but I’m not that technically savvy, so I want to be sure…
so, to answer handy, OS’es that were developed without support for USB 2.0 can support USB 2.0 provided the correct hardware (add-in card or new m/b) and software drivers are installed.
i’m not supporting one over the other, but i’m saying that there will always be supporters for one standard over another. Once you understand the design philosophies of the different standards you would figure out which is better for which purposes.
so, while USB 2.0 devices will work at USB 2.0 speeds, if you plug a USB 1.1 device into the chain, the USB 2.0 devices will work at 1.1 speeds… so rjung was correct on this point.
but a USB 2.0 device will not work on a USB 1.1 system.
I’m sure that I’ll seem like a dense idiot for asking for further clarification, but some of the statements that were quoted seem ambiguous to me, so here goes:
Are they saying that the problem of USB 2 devices operating at USB 1 speeds only happens if you’re using a USB 1 hub plugged into a USB 2 port (or a similar daisychain setup)? That’s what it seems like it’s saying…if, on the other hand, you have a system that has 4 USB 2 ports built into the motherboard, , you shouldn’t experience a slowdown in ports 1-3 if you happen to plug a USB 1 device into port 4. Correct?
Cuckoorex, you should be able to get a cheap USB2.0 card to put in a slot on your PC. It’s pretty
easy. Then you automatically have usb2.0. Haven’t tried it myself but have seen the cards for sale.
I believe so – my understanding is that if you’ve got a chain from your PC to your farthest device, and there’s a USB 1.1 device somewhere along the chain, then the entire bus drops down to USB 1.1 speeds to accomodate it. To get USB 2.0 speeds, your entire chain must be USB 2.0. That’s my understanding, anyway.
And xash, remember that USB was originally conceived simply as a replacement for local desktop buses, like for keyboards and mice and low-bandwidth devices. The USB 2.0 standard was invented by Intel only in response to IEEE 1394/Firewire reaping big money in the high-bandwidth arena; it was never originally intended to handle such loads. That’s why Firewire continues to offer various advantages over USB, including a powered bus (no separate adaptor needed) and support for peer-to-peer transfers (no computer needed). While USB 2.0 is faster than Firewire 1.0, this speed advantage will disappear once the Firewire 2.0 standard is approved, which will double Firewire’s existing speeds to 800 Mbits/sec (vs. 480 Mbits/sec for USB 2.0).
I like these conspiricy theories as much as the next guy but I must disagree on this one.
USB is becoming the standard ports on a computer - firewire is just a niche market for certain devices and requires a add on card. The increase in speed it due to the overwhelming popularity of USB and increases preformance of devices like scanners and the like. The common consumer does not want to install a firewire card just to scan a page 10 seconds quicker.
here’s an excellent, comprehensive, and seemingly unbiased, article on the USB vs FireWire issue:
"
Did USB’s designers think high-speed peripherals weren’t important? Not at all, but there was already a technology to handle those: IEEE-1394, better known as FireWire. A note in Apple’s USB Developer Documentation summarizes the concept: “High-speed in the case of USB is not comparable to high-speed devices on a FireWire bus. USB is a complementary technology to FireWire, not a competing technology. USB enables the use of affordable higher-speed consumer grade peripherals on Macintosh computers.”
"
"
The “Application space taxonomy” in Chapter 3 of the specification describes “high-speed” devices as those that need high bandwidth, guaranteed latency, and ease of use, citing “video” and “disk” as examples. Those devices are specifically and deliberately excluded from USB’s design goals (section 3.2, page 12).
"
…which isn’t much to work with. By comparison, Firewire carries 8 to 40v, up to 1.5a, which is actually enough to power an external burner or drive.
I didn’t know digital video is a “niche market.”
Only if your PC vendor is using generic motherboards that don’t include IEEE 1394 as standard.
With the projected growth in consumer video and other high-bandwidth applications, there’s definitely a market for faster devices on the horizon. But while USB 2.0 is already reaching its peak performance, Firewire still has room to grow – the latest word is that there’s a proposal to piggyback IEEE 1394 on Wi-Fi networks, to give you wireless Firewire… just imagine piping your HDTV signal from the living room to your computer in the den, then capturing it to a home movie and burning it on a DVD. :eek:
I just bought a new P4 2.4 Dell and it did not come standard with firewire. It was an option that I could get dell to add a card though. I would think most consumers would bypass this option unless then knew they had a need for it. It did have USB though. I highly doubt it is standard equipment on most but would agree it is an option on most.
Really, how many users actually use DV? I’m not talking about playing a DVD or something off the harddrive here as that has nothing to do with firewire/usb (assuming no external drive). Yes there is a core user group but that’s why we call it a niche.
If USB was originally not designed to handle high-speed devices, because IEEE-1394 was already around and working well, why did they change their mind and design USB 2.0?
