Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci | Twitter
Sean Fallon | Twitter
Jack Loftus | Twitter
John Herrman | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Danny Allen | Twitter
Rosa Golijan | Twitter
Chris Jacob
@Peregrinvs: Like hell. My mouse cannot get any better.
Unless I find a mouse that can make nachos and pizza and get me a soda/whiskey/both, while I still use it to frag nOObs. Is that part of USB 3.0, or will I have to wait for 4.0? #usb30
@whiteknight89 still plays DiabloII: Then just give me your soul so I can convince Intel to give me a chipset with DDR5 ram and a couple of those fancy PCIE 2.0 SSDs.
I don't know... I don't think I would sacrifice a PCI-E slot just for a couple of USB 3 ports. Most motherboards are likely to have a surplus of SATA ports in which case it would be easier to just install some SATA to eSATA converters. The existing SATA standard already nets you 3Gbps which isn't too much slower than USB 3.0's 4.8Gbps.
@B-low: True, but you can't beat the plug-and-play convenience. Which would you rather trust granny to plug in: a USB device or an eSATA device? #usb30
@B-low: @B-low: I have to disagree a little here. 3Gbps vs 4.8Gbps is a transfer speed difference of more than 60%. That's pretty significant, I think.
I still agree generally...it's tough to sacrifice a PCI-E slot when you'll have lots of extra SATA ports. #usb30
@Counterglow: If you're already transferring at 3gbps, it's hard to imagine having a file large enough for the 4.8 gbps to make a big difference. Well, on a domestic computer, at least. I guess it's the difference between a 30 second transfer, and a 20 second transfer. But that's still not much. #usb30
@Pope John Peeps II: Most of the time you're probably going to be transferring data from an internal drive with an interface speed of 3.0Gbps to an external USB drive. So you're still capped at 3.0Gbps regardless of the fact the USB interface speed is 4.8Gbps.
Plus, I imagine there is some overhead anyway translating from SATA to USB 3.0.
SATA and eSATA are just two different physical interfaces. They both use SATA commands.
@Counterglow: Shouldn't we first determine how much of that 4.8 Gbps is available in the real world?
High speed USB 2.0 is rated at 480 Mbps = 60 MB/s...but in the real world, you're lucky to be able to get half of that. As I understand it, the real-world limit is due to overhead, extra processing, etc. in the spec. I've never seen any device that can actually transfer even 45 MB/s over USB 2.0.
Do we know if the 4.8 Gbps is going to actually be achievable? #usb30
@Counterglow: Seeing as only the most elite RAM-based "hard drive" devices can even think of touching 3Gbps currently, forget it. 4.8 isn't gonna happen for you. #usb30
@Sneaky0: Right now nothing that I'm aware of. Some NAS setups in RAID are well capable of write speeds in excess of 500MBps or over 4Gbps but I think at those thresholds you begin to see bottle necks all over the place. I'm not sure if many CPUs can handle data transfer at that rate. #usb30
@B-low: That's what I meant. Without a raid setup or similar, reaching those speeds are nearly impossible. Also the average users don't even know what a raid is. It's great having a connection that's capable of those speeds, but until manufacturers start making fast disks at consumer prices. These connections are somewhat useless in the real world. #usb30
@thebigcheese: Firewire is not widely adopted, but USB3 will be. I'd say it's sort of a no-brainer. Besides, who really cares about Firewire for a webcam except old Macheads still clutching to their old iSight cameras?
@Julien321: If Leopard taught us anything, it's that Apple can put out a commercial making fun of Windows delays, then announce that its own OS will be delayed, then make fun of Windows for needing periodic patches, and then release a service pack for its already delayed OS within 2 weeks of the late release.
@OMG! Ponies!: So I guess Snow Leopard won't be supporting USB 3.0, but Apple will release commercials poking fun at Windows 7 for not supporting it either?
@USB_Humping_Dog: If Dante Alighieri is to be believed, Apple's advertising department has an entire wing reserved for it in the Eighth Circle of Hell.
10/31/09
10/31/09
10/31/09
10/31/09
But maybe I'm misreading. Last night was a loooooong night. #usb30
11/01/09
Also, when you swap up to a better mouse, I get your old one. ;] #usb30
11/02/09
Unless I find a mouse that can make nachos and pizza and get me a soda/whiskey/both, while I still use it to frag nOObs. Is that part of USB 3.0, or will I have to wait for 4.0? #usb30
11/02/09
=D You've gotta be worth somethin', right? #usb30
10/31/09
10/31/09
10/31/09
10/31/09
I still agree generally...it's tough to sacrifice a PCI-E slot when you'll have lots of extra SATA ports. #usb30
10/31/09
10/31/09
Plus, I imagine there is some overhead anyway translating from SATA to USB 3.0.
SATA and eSATA are just two different physical interfaces. They both use SATA commands.
10/31/09
High speed USB 2.0 is rated at 480 Mbps = 60 MB/s...but in the real world, you're lucky to be able to get half of that. As I understand it, the real-world limit is due to overhead, extra processing, etc. in the spec. I've never seen any device that can actually transfer even 45 MB/s over USB 2.0.
Do we know if the 4.8 Gbps is going to actually be achievable? #usb30
10/31/09
10/31/09
10/31/09
10/31/09
10/31/09
10/31/09
10/31/09
10/31/09
10/31/09
10/31/09
10/31/09
[www.pcper.com] #usb30
09/21/09
You're going to need lots of space for that footage, though.
09/21/09
09/21/09
09/21/09
09/21/09
09/21/09
11/12/08
11/12/08
11/12/08
11/12/08
11/12/08
11/12/08
11/12/08
Honestly, that wouldn't surprise me much.
11/12/08
11/12/08
[www.theonion.com]
11/12/08
11/12/08