Re: Will USB 3.0 run on Windows 98 Second Edition
The purpose is to permit speeds of transfer that will fully support, for
example, high-quality video transfer from a video camera to a storage device
or computer, or from an external storage device to a playback
device(remember: video these days means High Definition video --- lots of
bytes), something which can't be accomplished these days except via eSATA
(and that has to be SATA II 3Gbps components throughout.) Future
improvements would allow higher-quality devices and no need to first
transfer to a local HD before using the file.
And, of course, any gamer worth his salt could tell you all about how faster
USB/Firewire could improve multi-player gaming sessions.
Nominally:
USB1.1 = 1.5 to 12 Mbps (that's mega-bits, not mega-bytes)
USB2 = 480 Mbps
Firewire 400 = 400 Mbps
Firewire 800 = 800 Mbps
eSATA (aka eSATA/150 = 1500 Mbps (1.5 Gbps)
eSATA II (aka eSATA/300) = 3000 Mbps (3 Gbps)
USB3 = 4800 Mbps (requires fiber-optic cable)
On the drawing boards are Firewire 1600 and 3200, and eSATA at 6 Gbps.
Note that real-world sustained throughput speeds for USB don't come close to
matching nominal throughput numbers, such that Firewire 400 is actually
quite a bit faster than USB2 in sustained throughput:
http://www.cwol.com/firewire/firewire-vs-usb.htm
As I understand it, eSATA is also more prone to degradation of signal. Which
is why you don't find eSATA cables longer than ~10' eSATA also does not
carry power, like USB and Firewire, and thus is limited in usage to external
HDs. (I don't *think* it has been developed for any other use, but I could
be wrong.) When choosing eSATA cables, choose the shortest one that will do
what you need (there are only three lengths that I've seen: 3', 6' and 9M.
Internal SATA cables are shorter, of course, but the same rule applies --
the longer the cable, the slower the throughput. (In short, Firewire has the
least signal degradation.)
Now, with regard to your experiment, if the card reader you have is only USB
1.1, then that's as fast as it's going to go, no matter what the speed of
the port you connected it to. Same goes for all the others. The real speed
of transfer depends on the slowest component in the chain. Another example
would be putting a SATA I or old-style ATA drive into an external enclosure
that is capable of eSATA/300, with the proper cable and SATA II support in
the computer itself. The drive is still only going to run at SATA I (1.5
Gbps).
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com
<letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:0okg84tefk5o16rnj60lcr5851bn729amk@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:04:58 -0600, "Bill in Co."
> <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>I didn't even know there was such a thing as USB 3.0. Is this a joke?
>
> I was thinking the same thing......
>
> I dont see why it would be needed either. I have USB 1.x built into
> my MB. It works fine. But several devices told me I need USB 2.0, so
> I bought a USB 2.0 add on card. They both work. I cant see any
> difference. The only good thing is that I have more ports now.
> I plugged my card reader from my digital camera into both the USB 1.x
> and the 2.0. The pictures loaded just as fast on both....
>
> If there is a USB 3, it's probably just another thing to empty our
> wallets! 
