Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

USB 1.1 Renumbered To USB 2? 880

Teese writes "According to this Bangkok Post article, in December the USB Forum renamed USB 1.1 to USB 2, and USB 2 stayed as USB 2. They did this because consumers were demanding that the computers they buy have USB2 on board. The story also claims that both Sony & toshiba have released laptops with the USB2 that is really USB1.1. This was the first I had heard of this and the article said the change took place in December, has the USB Forum really been able to pull a fast one on us?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

USB 1.1 Renumbered To USB 2?

Comments Filter:
  • To help the public grasp this subtle distinction USB 2, which was the old USB 1.1, would have ``Full Speed'' added to its title and USB 2, which was USB 2, would have ``Hi-Speed'' added.

    It sounds like whomever came up with this idea was possibly "on speed".

  • Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jellybob ( 597204 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @04:48PM (#6237263) Journal
    I think the subject says it all... wouldn't a more reliable source to ask be the organisation that made the change, rather than the population of /., who'll all have a different opinion on what's happened?
    • by Andorion ( 526481 )
      but this way, we have something to pass the time on, at work =)

    • Re:Huh? (Score:5, Funny)

      by bedouin ( 248624 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @05:11PM (#6237516)
      Hi, I'm the reliable source you're looking for.

      The reason we changed the name is because we believe the majority of computer consumers are morons. "Numbers" confuse most people; and decimals even more so! Instead, we want to use words more in tune with American psyche. Words like blazing-fast, high-speed, ultra absorbent, axis of evil, etc. Already, I think you feel the excitement. I know I do!

      Steve Ballmer
      • Re:Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by thx2001r ( 635969 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @07:17PM (#6238489) Homepage


        Microsoft was not innovating here! Steve, you guys were just stealing from Apple again!

        They've been using those types of phrases for years now!



        scorchingly fast

        phenomenal speeds

        superior I/O performance

        unbelievably affordable

        tremendous value

        rejoice in the fact that there are no controls to adjust

        faster than ever

        new technologies

        massively enhanced

        dramatically increases

        way faster than USB 2.0


        fearsomely fast

        the ultra fast realm

        lightning fast processor speeds

        ultra fast

        an even faster level

        push the digital video envelope beyond its known limits

        record time (and I thought it was only Quick time!)

        convenient second optical bay at the front

        Thrives in a Windows environment (makes you wonder why you would buy one if it's gonna be all alone in a yucky, non-fearsomely fast Windows environment?)

        Apples legendary SuperDrive (and all this time I thought it was manufactured elsewhere, I guess Apple must have invented it after all... I mean, if it were invented by Philips, it'd be called 2x or 4x DVD-RW... but since Apple invented it, it's a SuperDrive! Yeah baaaa-by!!!),

        also, MacOSX is, according to Apple, the most advanced operating system on the planet (featuring: Mac OS X Jaguar gives you advantages like preemptive multitasking, symmetric multiprocessing and multithreading to take your productivity to new levels!!! Wow, I sure wish there were other OS's out there like that!)

        Heck, all those yummy marketing terms are on just one web page [apple.com]!!! Imagine what the rest of the site or an Apple Store has to offer. Of course, after your diligent work, Microsoft's site is also catching up, I think you'll be proud to know!

      • Re:Huh? (Score:4, Funny)

        by gridbias ( 634786 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @07:41PM (#6238639)
        Why not USB Small, USB Medium, and USB Large?, That will leave room for the future allocation of USB Personal, USB Family Size, USB Super Maxi, and USB Industrial Size? (Not to mention USB Junior and USB petite....) Whasamatta with just identifying the data rate in either bits per second or bytes per fortnite and letting it go at that?????? Regards, Ray Minich
  • by invisik ( 227250 ) * on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @04:49PM (#6237273) Homepage
    Well, the article states:

    "To help the public grasp this subtle distinction USB 2, which was the old USB 1.1, would have ``Full Speed'' added to its title and USB 2, which was USB 2, would have ``Hi-Speed'' added."

    Still, that's really, really wrong. It is most likely to upset even more people that ended up buying a computer with "slow" USB as the salesperson will probably not know this subtle text difference.

    I though they should include the speed numerical value in the name, like USB-12 and USB-480.

    Ugh, let's hope there's another announcement in a few week revoking this.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @04:50PM (#6237282)
    The computer industry needs trust on both sides. Trust, so that the Business Software Association knows that the public is not making naughty copies of software. Trust, so that the consumer knows that everything is as described.

    The BSA uses the law to descend on small businesses and make them settle for substantial funds if they have too many copies of some software. Thus proving once again to all small businesses that they are safer to go with Linux. There may be better ways of building up mutual trust.

    On the other side of the equation, industry associations make sure the consumer is not confused by the emerging technology.

    Regard, then, with amazement, the peculiar case of the USB Implementation Forum.

    USB was agreed to as a standard by Microsoft, Compaq and the usual suspects back in the 90s and a standard was issued in 1998. This was called USB 1.0 and then modified to USB 1.1.

    It was excellent but slow, especially when compared with Firewire, the competition provided by Apple. So slow that at 12 Mbps it would not easily allow the downloading of video images from a camcorder to a PC. But fast enough so that all computers sold after 1999 pretty much were sold with USB 1.1 ports and most peripherals could be connected in that way.

    But speed was a problem and so a faster standard was agreed and this was called _ pretty logical this _ USB 2.0. It was nearly as fast as Firewire at 480Mbps, and it was the way forward.

    In fact, it will be a rare PC that goes on sale after the end of this year without USB 2.0. It is backwards compatible so no USB device is rendered out-of-date.

    Good. Indeed, excellent.

    At the end of last year the USB Implementation Forum met _ Microsoft is on the board of directors while the chairman/president is Jason Ziller of Intel _ and decided that the matter was perhaps too clear, too transparent to the customer. Rotten customers were asking what version USB was installed on a machine and if it was USB 1.1 they thought it inferior to USB 2.

    The Forum came up with a clever way of dealing with this.

    In December it announced that henceforth USB 1.1 would be called USB 2 and USB 2 would continue to be called USB 2.

    To help the public grasp this subtle distinction USB 2, which was the old USB 1.1, would have ``Full Speed'' added to its title and USB 2, which was USB 2, would have ``Hi-Speed'' added.

    Not only did the consumers not get the subtle beauty and usefulness of this change. Neither did the retailers.

    They, unstudied clods that they are, thought that if a device said USB 2 they could sell it as being to the old USB 2 standard. In their ignorance they did not realise that USB 2 could be USB 1.1 or USB 2 depending.

    Even the manufacturers were fooled at some levels.

    Sony and Toshiba issued laptops with USB 2 on them when they were the USB 2 that was the USB 1.1. Many peripherals were sold in the same way. The help desks did not understand the difference.

    The USB Implementation Forum refuses to comment in any way on this contentious matter. But someone has plainly pointed out to them that these actions are possibly illegal and they could be charged with misrepresentation. This is certainly true under the laws of the European Union.

    Now USB has put on its web site _ www.usb.org _ a statement that states: ``The correct nomenclature for high-speed USB products is ``Hi-Speed USB.'' The correct nomenclature for low or Full-speed USB products is simply ``USB''. And in the FAQ section it states: ``High speed USB products have a design data rate of 480 Mb/s. Full speed USB devices signal at 12Mb/s.''

    Lust. It is a lovely thing when you get it in the ass.
  • by Keighvin ( 166133 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @04:51PM (#6237286)
    In related news, Webster's Dictionary has altered the spelling of "Fraud," to be more in line with its common use as "Advertising". The two entries have been merged under this same name despite maintaining two distinct definitions under the hood.
    • There's no requirement that companies sell "USB 1.1" products as "USB 2 Full Speed". I say pay close attention to which companies think that confusing customers is acceptable. My quick search [google.com] finds a number of scanner makers using this trick.
  • by curtlewis ( 662976 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @04:51PM (#6237287)
    It's out and out fraud. USB1.1 is not USB2, USB2 is. To label a product as USB2 when it's really USB1.1 and conforming to the IEEE specifications for USB1.1 is fraudulent.

    They did it because their customers wanted USB2.0 on board? So put USB2.0 on board then! This is ludicrous. But I'm not surprised at the lack of ethics in the Asian Consumer market, it's an ugly business world over there.

    • by sn00ker ( 172521 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @04:58PM (#6237354) Homepage
      But I'm not surprised at the lack of ethics in the Asian Consumer market, it's an ugly business world over there.
      Gee, you wouldn't be a racist would you? Note that the chair of the USB forum is from Intel (Yank company) and Micro$oft (Yank company) is also on the forum.
      Given that the USB forum made the decision, blaming asians for it is nothing less than unveiled racism - Of course, no Yank company would ever indulge in such fraudulent behaviour.

      • by el-spectre ( 668104 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @05:31PM (#6237724) Journal
        Careful. This was not a racist statement. The poster was making reference to an extremely competitive market. This kind of thing makes folks do nasty things (in every country).

        The fact is, many asian countries (especially Japan) have a HUGE market for consumer electronics, and some realy nastiness is inevitable.

        Had the poster made a reference to an intrinsic quality of the asian people (whatever that means, lots of cultures over there), you'd be right.

      • by autopr0n ( 534291 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @05:35PM (#6237762) Homepage Journal
        I was going to post these all on a seperate line, but slashdot came up with this totaly resonable error: Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 18.5).

        Okay, now I got Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.

        Fuck slashdot and it's insipid lameness filter.

        anyway, the list is here [iastate.edu]. There are hundreds of members. I recognize lots of american companies and see lots of asian looking ones. Who knows.
    • by tomhudson ( 43916 ) <barbara...hudson@@@barbara-hudson...com> on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @04:58PM (#6237358) Journal
      Yep, a lot of manufacturers have been doing this. They say it's "USB 2.0 compatible", which means fuck-all.

      Sort of like saying a Geo Metro is Corvette-compatible because they both can ride the same public highways.

      What next - black and white laser printers that are color-image compatible (sure, they can handle color, they just print it in black and white).

  • It's Easy (Score:5, Funny)

    by suwain_2 ( 260792 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @04:52PM (#6237300) Journal
    A simple, easy-to-follow guide to the changes.

    USB 1.1 is now USB 2. USB 2 is now USB 2.

    For some odd reason, they thought that people might have difficulty understanding this, and therefore created the "High Speed" and "Full Speed" designators, to make things even easier to understand.

  • by The Iconoclast ( 24795 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @04:53PM (#6237304)
    Pi redefined as 3,
    1 redefined as 0,
    10 redefined as 27.


    • by sn00ker ( 172521 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @05:06PM (#6237440) Homepage
      Pi redefined as 3
      And you're only joking.
      In 1879 the Indiana House of Representatives unanimously passed a bill that redefined the area of a circle and the value of Pi. Luckily the bill died in the State Senate, or y'all might have real problems with things like highway interchanges

      • Somewhere in the Bible I think a round pillar is described to be 30 [ancient unit] around and 10 across. That may be where they got it from.

        I believe that some Christian fundamentalists to this day still insist that pi=3. Of course, if they had studied mathematics, they would have realized that God probably decided that one significant digit was sufficient to describe the proportions of this particular monument :-)

      • Re:In other news.... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Trailer Trash ( 60756 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @05:32PM (#6237732) Homepage

        In 1879 the Indiana House of Representatives unanimously passed a bill that redefined the area of a circle and the value of Pi. Luckily the bill died in the State Senate, or y'all might have real problems with things like highway interchanges.

        This is part urban legend, part true. The "History of Pi" book by Petr Beckman actually shows the bill and gives more information. However, the pi==3 aspect is false. And, the bill never got anywhere.


        • It actually was an algorithm for "squaring the circle" which was a real head-scratcher back in the day. In order for his algorithm to work, it would indirectly define Pi == 4.

          The quack mathematician presented this algorithm to the Indiana legislature, saying that he was going to license it to other states, and Indiana would be getting a major discount. Unfortunately for him, a real mathematician happened to be visiting and got wind of what was going on. He managed to expose the algorithm for what it was, a
  • hmmm (Score:5, Funny)

    by Tumbleweed ( 3706 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @04:53PM (#6237306)
    Why do I get the feeling somewhere there's a dark, smoky room with Mr. Burns, Dr. Hibbert, & Count Chocula all giggling like madmen over this?
  • by Lane.exe ( 672783 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @04:54PM (#6237312) Homepage
    We all know this was because SCO sent a letter to the USB Forum saying that they owned the intellectual property to USB 1.1...

  • by TrekkieGod ( 627867 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @04:55PM (#6237323) Homepage Journal
    Maybe I can get more money out of my old computer if I can sell it as a "Pentium 4 - full speed 200Mhz" on ebay...

    After all, every geek knows clock speed isn't the be all end all of performance

  • by Traa ( 158207 ) * on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @04:55PM (#6237326) Homepage Journal
    I thought that for a while the naming standard where:
    • USB

      Upto 11Mbit/s (theoretical)

      Also known as USB 1.1

      Also known as Original USB

      Also known as Slow mode

      or old mode

      or whatever

    • Hi-Speed USB

      Upto 480Mbit/s (theoratical max)

      Also known as USB 2.0

      The fast mode

  • by juan2074 ( 312848 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @04:56PM (#6237344)
    The USB 2.0 standard calls for data transfer speeds of 480Mbits/s (over 40 times faster than USB 1.1). If a product is released as USB 2.0 compliant, it had better be able to meet that requirement.

    Once the standard is released to the world, the standards body cannot expect consumers to accept USB 1.1 as USB 2.0.

    If your product fails to meet the USB 2.0 standard (as we know it), it will be returned as defective and the consumer will go buy something else that meets his/her needs.

  • by Jon Abbott ( 723 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @04:58PM (#6237360) Homepage
    In other news, my Powerbook G4 with USB 1.1 now has USB 2! Imagine that. :^)
  • by toddestan ( 632714 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @04:58PM (#6237363)
    USB 2.0 "Hi-Speed" ports will be painted bright yellow, come with custom rims, and include VTEC stickers. They may not quite put out 480Mbps, but they sure will look like they do.
  • by Burnon ( 19653 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @04:59PM (#6237365)
    The USB standards documentation has made this clear for a long time - years. USB 2 does add some new requirements to the spec for transfers at full and low speeds. So, to ship a USB 2 product, your hardware has to support some slightly different features, even if it can't do high speed transfers.

    The same can be said about USB 1.1, which defines a low speed mode with a max speed of 1.5 Mbps. Your mice, keyboards, and other devices quite possibily use this mode, as it's cheaper to build. Just because you've heard that USB 1.1 has a max speed of 12Mbps, don't assume that all USB 1.1 devices are built to use that speed!

    So, the rule of thumb is, don't equate USB 2 with high speed transfers. No big deal, if you ask me. USB 2 is the name of a technical standard, not a data rate!

    • by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @05:32PM (#6237738) Homepage
      Just because you've heard that USB 1.1 has a max speed of 12Mbps, don't assume that all USB 1.1 devices are built to use that speed!

      So, the rule of thumb is, don't equate USB 2 with high speed transfers. No big deal, if you ask me. USB 2 is the name of a technical standard, not a data rate!

      No, but I expect the *computer* to go at 12Mbps, if the device can. And I expect USB2 to go at 480Mbps, if the device can. Actually, if the device could use that speed, I expect it to be 480Mbps too. The ads have been citing those numbers all the time, so customers expect it.

      This is about as deceptive as selling a shiny blank disc as an audio CD, because you know the consumers will believe it is despite having no logo or being compliant. That is somewhere between deceptive marketing and fraud, and personally I'm tending to fraud. To rephrase the usual disclaimer, I'd rather be Jackass' stuntman than a lawyer.

  • by jared_hanson ( 514797 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @04:59PM (#6237373) Homepage Journal
    I remember when Microsoft renamed Windows 4 to Windows 95. Mass upgrading occurred as people thought they were 91 sequential versions outdated.
  • by cant_get_a_good_nick ( 172131 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @05:00PM (#6237386)
    My fave is that USB 1.1 tops out at "Full" speed, while faster USB 2.0 is "High" speed. Shouldn't full speed be the fastest? These guys didn't think to forward proof themselves?
    • by goondu ( 601667 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @05:13PM (#6237555) Homepage
      Nigel: This is a top to aâ"you know, what we use on stage, but it's very, very special because if you can see...
      Marty: Yeah...
      Nigel: The numbers all go to eleven. Look...right across the board.
      Marty: Ahh...oh, I see....
      Nigel: Eleven...eleven...eleven....
      Marty: ..and most of these amps go up to ten....
      Nigel: Exactly.
      Marty: Does that mean it's...louder? Is it any louder?
      Nigel: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here...all the way up...all the way up....
      Marty: Yeah....
      Nigel: ...all the way up. You're on ten on your guitar.. where can you go from there? Where?
      Marty: I don't know....
      Nigel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
      Marty: Put it up to eleven.
      Nigel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder.
      Marty: Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?
      [pause] Nigel: These go to eleven.
    • by CognitiveFusion ( 602570 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @05:21PM (#6237632) Homepage
      They still have some room to expand in the reality they live in. There is still USB2 - Lightspeed, USB2 - Ludicrous Speed, and USB2 - Plaid.
    • by ameoba ( 173803 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @05:30PM (#6237708)
      What'll we have in 5 years?

      Super USB 2.0 Alpha Ultra Turbo High Speed Mega Special Tournament Edition Plus Plus?
  • by mikeophile ( 647318 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @05:00PM (#6237389)
    I pay for the renamed USB laptop with $1 bills that I "renamed" to $100 bills?
  • Un-professional (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @05:04PM (#6237425)
    Okay, so when I started maintaining my first opensource project many years ago, I pull that one too : I released something one day, version 0.8.0, put it up for download on my web page, announced it and, a day or two later, I figured it was so great that I just changed the version number to 1.0.0 and re-released it. Then later again, I discovered a small typo, so I corrected it, repackaged, and re-released as version 1.0.0 because the change was so small.

    Net result ? the last 1.0.0 tarball was broken, and people would send me bug reports regarding 0.8.0 and 1.0.0 and I wouldn't know which was which. There were several different tarballs of the thing with the same version number, or identical tarballs with different version numbers out there on the net and I looked like a bloody idiot. That's when I learned the hard way that when something is released, it's frozen and that's it, and if something changes, it'll be in the next version and too bad if the version I just released sucks.

    So USB 1.1 != USB 2 ? well, too bad if some lusers are confused, USB 1.1 is USB 1.1, not USB 2. Even if marketing or support considerations come into play, it's still USB 1.1 feature-wise, not USB 2. Renaming USB 1.1 to USB 2 to con people isn't just a cheap trick, it most importantly shows a complete lack of professionalism, and it's the support people who will have a hard time answering calls about non-working USB 2 devices.
  • Firewire (Score:5, Informative)

    by blackmonday ( 607916 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @05:05PM (#6237431) Homepage
    If you're doing anything heavy-duty externally, use firewire. USB, whatever flavor, is a bad choice because is host intensive (CPU heavy) and relies on a communication method that is inferior to firewire. Think Carouseling around between devices, versus a direct connection in the case of firewire.

    Use USB for your mouse and scanner, for anything heavier use firewire whenever possible.

  • by JamesOfTheDesert ( 188356 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @05:07PM (#6237468) Journal

    ... of when Sun came out with Java(tm) 1.2 and called it Java(tm) 2.

    "Oh, Java(tm) version 2.0 is out?"

    "Er, well, no, it's really 1.2"

    I think we're up to Java(tm) 4 or 5 now, right?

  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) * on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @05:09PM (#6237501)
    2x Full
    Full | Low
    Empty | High
    \ _ | /
    \ \\ | /

    Ready to go - full tank of gas!
  • Nomenclature (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thatguywhoiam ( 524290 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @05:11PM (#6237519)
    Considering that they want us to believe the following:

    USB 1.1 = "full speed"
    USB 2 = "high speed"

    .. would it not follow that USB 2 is 'slower', by (new) definition?

    I hear "high speed" as "very fast", and "full speed" as "fast as possible." But then again what do I know, clearly the group that made the change is more sensible. ;)

  • by Dielectric ( 266217 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @05:16PM (#6237577)
    This sounds like some really bad reporting, like the reporter went to buy a computer and believed what the salesman told him.

    Facts: USB 1.0 and 1.1 had "Low Speed" and "Full Speed" modes, way before USB 2.0 came out. USB 2.0 was developed, Full Speed was taken so we had to call it "Hi-Speed." That's not new, though the article presents it as such.

    I have heard absolutely no news about calling all USB 1.1 products 2.0. No press releases or other articles on the USB Implementors Forum show this change. I am an applications engineer for a major USB silicon manufacturer, and I'm sure I'd have heard about this.

    A move like that would be outright fraud, but it is pure fiction. The USB-IF has no interest in doing something like that. There may be a certain disreputable motherboard manufacturer faking it, but it certainly isn't part of the USB spec.
  • All USB 2.0 devices work with USB 1.1, and NOT with USB 1.0. If I am looking at a USB 2.0 camera, but my PC is only USB 1.1, it looks to me that the camera will not work with the PC. This is inaccurate...it'll work, I just won't get a speedup. It won't work at all with my USB 1.0 machine.

    Which is easier to remember...1.1 vs 1.0, or 1 vs 2?

    When a "version" makes something incompatible with a previous version, you're supposed to bump up the major release. 1.1 should have been 2 from the start for marketting purposes -- sort of like the jump from Java JDK 1.1x (Java 1) to 1.2x (Java 2).

    This is probably why they changed it...the only difference between USB 1.1 and 2.0 is speed. USB 1.0 is a different, deprecated format.

    I'm not saying they didn't make it even more complex -- especially since it seems to me the easiest thing to do would be to put "COMPATIBLE with USB 1.1+" on the side of a box. I'm not saying it isn't partially sleazy. I'm just saying that until companies like Apple see fit to put TWO expensive high speed device connections in their PCs, it's better to let consumers know that their devices will AT LEAST work -- even if they're 1/40 the speed.
  • by appleLaserWriter ( 91994 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @05:24PM (#6237662)
    Now my TiBook has Firewire AND USB 2.0!

  • Hmmm (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ColaMan ( 37550 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @05:28PM (#6237687) Homepage Journal
    Sounds like a good chance to market a USB speed-sensing device. Spread a little FUD about USB speeds and then market your gadget.

    I'm guessing 15 bucks could get you a dongle with LED's that light for each speed - red for 12Mb/s, green for 480Mb/s.

    Then it's just a case of plugging it into every unit you check out at the store, and you can ignore the sales guy's rants.
  • My poor CD Writer! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Arandir ( 19206 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @05:28PM (#6237689) Homepage Journal
    This USB CD Writer that I have checks for the USB speed. So imagine this scenario:

    Customer buys a new computer with "USB 2" and a USB CD Writer. Customer goes home happy and smug. Customer proceeds to burn a CD. Customer sees the following message:

    "USB 1.1 detected, limiting burn speed to x4..."

    Who does the customer sue? The CD writer manufacturer? The burner software manufacturer? The dealer he bought his computer? The OEM? There is real criminal fraud here, but the odds are that the LAST person to be sued will be the actual people responsible.
  • by confused philosopher ( 666299 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @05:28PM (#6237692) Homepage Journal
    USB 1.1 renamed. USB 2.0 renamed to...

    Firewire light

    I think the next USB device I buy will be Firewire, and screw USB.
  • by jkorty ( 86242 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @05:49PM (#6237900) Homepage
    The author must have been smoking something. I just drilled down a bit into USB home [usb.org] and I see no reference to renaming USB 1.1 to USB 2.0. They have renamed USB 1.1 to USB Full-Speed and USB 2.0 to USB Hi-Speed and use those new names consistantly throughout their web pages. Though the renaming was hardly necessary, it is unambiguous and isn't really any different than the periodic product renaming done in most industries for 'marketing reasons'.
  • advantage FireWire (Score:4, Interesting)

    by u19925 ( 613350 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @06:03PM (#6238043)
    Now FireWire proponents can say that the standard FireWire is 35x faster than USB 2 Full Speed. Also, FireWire-800 already available is about 75x faster than USB 2 and FireWire-3200 to be available soon would be about 300x faster than USB 2 Full Speed.
  • That's it! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Cyno ( 85911 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @06:08PM (#6238079) Journal
    That's the last time I ever use another USB devi
  • Fast Food? (Score:5, Funny)

    by valkraider ( 611225 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @06:13PM (#6238102) Journal
    Kind of reminds me of when the Fast Food / Convenience store industry switched.

    12oz Small
    20oz Medium
    32oz Large

    12oz Large
    20oz Xtra-Large
    32oz Super-Large

    Soon to come:
    12oz Super-Duper-Large
    20oz Massive-Xtra-Biggie-Large
    32oz Gargantua-Ultra-Insane-Jumbo-Large

  • by SkewlD00d ( 314017 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @06:44PM (#6238293)
    USB sucks anyhow, always has, always will. sata, firewire, and i2c/smbus are much better anyhow. i'll make it a point not to buy anything usb ever again. in addition, usb uses polling of interrupts and is very inefficient in design because it is marketed to be as low-cost and cheaply done as possible. I mean look at the connectors, bent pieces of sheet-metal encased in some crappy plastic w/ 4 little ghetto wires (gnd data+ data- +5V). Usb is good in that it is a serial bus w/ an embedded clock, eliminating parallel clock skew; but, it lacks grant and request lines that would make for a truely efficient bus. The other limitation is that usb hub support sucks ass, the drivers have to poll every device on a hub, and currently, nothing works when attached to my USB real 2.0 4-port hub in linux (kernel 2.4.20 gentoo rc5) A better protocol, such as firewire has switch products available, and can be shared simultaneously between computers. in fact, winxp and linux support IP over firewire, for 480Mbps networking OTTB!!!! usb just plain sux.
  • by mrklin ( 608689 ) <ken,lin&gmail,com> on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @06:55PM (#6238348)
    to "Damn It's Hot" Wire 800+.

    Bluetooth.org has also decided to rename Bluetooth 1.1 to BlueIncisors and Bluetooth 1.0 to BlueMolars. They are now part of the BlueTeeth family.

    Since branding 802.11b to WiFi, IEEE is now contemplating brand 802.11a to WiFa and 802.11g to WiFiG.

    SCO does not know what to make of all this and sues everyone for using Linux/Unix somewhere within those companies.

  • by sfe_software ( 220870 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @07:00PM (#6238381) Homepage
    The protocol version number does not indicate the maximum data transfer rate supported by a device, only the maximum supported by that protocol version. To rephraze, a USB device (or host) can support USB 2.0 features without necessarily supporting the "High-Speed" data rates that the 2.0 spec allows for. The 2.0 spec does not require that it be a High-Speed device.

    The "Full-Speed" and "High-Speed" designations have been there all along. Only recently did companies (or their marketing departments) realize they can claim "USB 2.0", by merely adding the minimum features required by the 2.0 spec (likely all via firmware upgrades, as opposed to requiring faster, more expensive hardware), in order to do better sales.

    The idea is that the majority of users do not need 480 MB/s USB to run their mice/keyboards/printers. Companies are losing customers because the customers think "High-Speed" USB would be beneficial, and they think that 1.1 == Slower. Just like AMD was (potentially) losing customers because of the "1.8 GHz > 1.533 GHz" mentality.

    I hate when companies assume they know better than their own customers, and pull shit like this in hopes most people will never know/care. I didn't know this was being done until today. I even had to check to make sure my new motherboard did in fact support High-Speed USB 2.0 (luckily it does, or I'd be complaining to someone)...

    The article's wording could have been better (rather, the USB Forum could have used better wording), but it's still a very sneaky thing in any case, and one more thing I know (now) to watch for when buying USB devices/controllers...
  • The facts.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Freak ( 16973 ) <prius.driver@mac ... inus threevowels> on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @07:38PM (#6238625) Journal
    Alright, here is a summary:

    Old USB 1.1 devices aren't renamed. New devices that support the USB 2.0 signalling (even if they do not support the 480Mb/s speed,) are USB 2.0 devices. 2Mb/s is 'Low Speed', 12Mb/s (the USB 1.1 maximum) is 'Full Speed', and 480Mb/s is 'High Speed'.

    Long form:

    DEVICES that were USB 1.1 devices are still 'USB 1.1' devices. They operate at either 2 Megabits per second (Low Speed,) or 12 Megabits per second (Full Speed.)

    Devices that are designed around the USB 2.0 specification (which includes more than just raw data rate,) are 'USB 2.0' devices, and may operate at 2 Megabits per second (Low Speed,) 12 Megabits per second (Full Speed,) or 480 Megabits per second (High Speed.) So, even though they can be just as slow as 'USB 1.1' devices, if they are 'compatible' with high speed devices (as in, they won't cause your new CD-RW drive to drop to 4x just because they're on the same chain,) then they are USB 2.0 devices. Yes, that means your new keyboard can be a USB 2.0 device. Note that USB 2.0 devices MUST be USB 1.1 compatible. That means that your USB 2.0 mouse will be a USB 2.0 device when connected to a USB 2.0 controller (even though it may only use 2 Megabits per second of bandwidth,) and will be a USB 1.1 device when connected to a USB 1.1 controller. Some devices will be pointless in USB 1.1 mode, such as a DVD-RW drive, where even 1x is too fast for 12 Mb/s. But it will still function, albeit as a 4x CD-RW drive.

    Controllers that were USB 1.1 controllers are still USB 1.1 controllers, they allow devices to connect using USB 1.1 signalling, at 2 or 12 Megabits per second.

    Controllers that support the USB 2.0 standard are 'USB 2.0' controllers. From what I have gleaned, in order to be a 'USB 2.0' controller, it must support the 480 Mb/s speed. Of course, it also supports 2Mb/s and 12Mb/s at both USB 1.1 and USB 2.0 signalling.

    In short, yes, devices that are slower than 480Mb/s *CAN* be USB 2.0 devices. That doesn't mean that *ALL* slower devices are now called USB 2.0.
  • by rob2lehigh ( 682737 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @09:24PM (#6239286)
    In other news, Duke Nukem 3D has been renamed Duke Nukem Forever and will be re-released. In order to preserve a distinction between the two, the previous Duke Nukem Forever will never be released.
  • Real marketing... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by AntiOrganic ( 650691 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @09:25PM (#6239298) Homepage
    I haven't heard any news about this, and I have several gripes with this story:

    First off, the article mentioned that USB1.1 had been changed to USB2, while leaving USB2 the same. Referencing the USB Implementers Forum website referenced by the article at http://www.usb.org [usb.org], I couldn't find a single reference to USB 2.0. Seems USB 1.1 has been renamed "Original USB" where USB 2.0 is "Hi-Speed USB." (Check the FAQ under the question "How fast is USB?") This is an awfully big difference from what the article purports.

    Secondly, I think most reputable manufacturers of hardware components to those who build their own PCs, such as motherboard chipsets, add-in USB2 (ha!) cards, etc. would maintain the older numbering scheme so as not to confuse their target market.

    I think the source of this article's confusion comes from devices marked "Hi-Speed USB 2.0." Apparently this labeling scheme is supposed to combine the "USB 2.0" that older enthusiasts are familiar with, with the "Hi-Speed USB" that the USB Implementers Forum is pushing now.

    Doing your own research is nicer than relying on a poorly-researched article.

I've got a bad feeling about this.