Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 11, 2004, 6:11 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
Chako's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 301
Default

I wish more sites would use white on black.
Chako is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2004, 1:11 AM   #22
Senior Member
 
hedwards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 190
Default

JimC wrote:

Quote:
IMO, Manufacturers are taking advantage of USB 2.0 having 3 speeds in the specs (Hi-Speed, Full-Speed and Low-Speed) - just because they don't want consumers to know that the device is USB 1.1. Heck, I think the "Full Speed" wording in itself is misleading. Full implies Maximum.
In the real world yes, but it was the hardware architects that named it such. Originally there weren't any plans for a 2.0. Manufacturers are a slave to the engineers naming conventions(or lack). The only exception to being chained like that is with firewire/i-link/ieee 1394. All compatable, but firewire requires a fee to apple, i-link a fee to i believe sony. technically it should be ieee 1394.
I do agree that this whole naming bit is confusing, but hey if it weren't all of us geeks couldn't talk around the normies <chuckles> we might have to learn esperanto, or heaven forbid klingon :lol:
hedwards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2004, 7:59 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

I thought I knew what you were saying, but I read your post again and I'm not any more. Are you saing that USB got its three flavor of names because engineers named it? No, I'm sorry. But naming products is a marketing thing. Every engineering company I've worked for has used code names for unrelease products, knowing it will change.

If they really wanted to, they could have named it something that wasn't confusing. I do really believe that someone wanted a naming convention that allowed the USB 1.1 products to name their devices with USB 2 in it. On the surface it makes sense (If I take my usb 1.1 device and rename it "USB2 <whatever>" it suddently sounds more newer, faster, better. My competition is going to do that, and eventhough we have the same product their "USB 2" device will sell more because of how they named it!)

The use of "full speed" is not only badly named, its missleading. It isn't the "full speed" of USB2, it isn't even 10% of it!

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2004, 12:44 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
hedwards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 190
Default

This wouldn't be the only case, i don't know if you noticed the chaos with the battery chargers. rapid, quick and whatnot. I have a hard time believing that a marketing person would name something like pcmcia - people can't understand computer industry acronyms. or twain - technology without an interesting name. sounds a little to geeky.

Quote:
The use of "full speed" is not only badly named, its missleading. It isn't the "full speed" of USB2, it isn't even 10% of it!
It is full speed just not of usb 2.0. The name is from a couple of years ago when a device could be low speed (1.5 mbps) or full speed ( 12 mbps). high speed is the 480 mbps. If they do say a usb 3.0 they are going to have the same problems. perhaps they will add higher speed, then super duper ultra high speed etc.

One of the big misconception going is that usb 1.x device are usb 2.0 compatable. this is a marketing thing. They work in usb 2.0 ports because of a seperate usb 1.1 controller on each and every card.<sigh>
why can't they just do like firewire and rate things based on transfer speed and give it some number.

This whole thread kind of amuses me. When i started using a computer about 13 years ago things were a lot different. When you purchased your computer you got a tome that made the bible look a bit anorexic. Everything you could possibly need to know was in there, which was good, because if you didn't have it you had to really suck up to one of the computer users around you. The sneaker net was still in full force, and windows wasn't an operating system. People, myself included have been getting a little too used to market speak and colorful names for electronic gear.
just my 2 cents
hedwards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2004, 1:07 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
Mikefellh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 1,707
Default

The term "full speed" was in use before USB2.0 existed...there was only low and full speeds. The problem was in the naming of the term at that time...maybe they thought it could go no faster.

It's just like a full capacity CD is 650mb, but now it is 700mb, and who knows what tomorrow may bring!
Mikefellh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2004, 1:46 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
hedwards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 190
Default

Yep, thanks :-)
hedwards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2004, 3:38 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

And you can get cds that hold a lot more than 700MB now. I've seen upwards of 800MB, but not every drive can read them.

The problem with battery chargers is that there is no industry standarding body for them. You do know that "lite food" had no definition until the FDA stepped up, right? Exactly the same situation. The Marketing departments of most companies care very little for the consumer… if misleading us can make them more money, then they will do it (up to the point of being illegal.) There is a standarding body for USB. A group of people actually sat down and through of the naming convention and felt it was the best (and in my opinion the best for them not the consumer.)

My point is this. If the labels said:
USB1.1 full speed
or even
USB full speed

then it wouldn't be misleading. But they don't. They say:
USB2 Full Speed.
That is misleading because it isn't the full speed of USB2 (ignoring the fact that nothing max the bandwidth of USB2... and I bet that the 480Mb/s is only valid in the lab any ways.)

And I don't believe "full speed" is a term from before USB2 (I'm not sure if that is what you mean by "a couple of years ago".) I never had a USB1 device before USB2 came out, so I didn't pay very close attention to it. I don't remember any of these names existing before USB2 came out... and the need for marketing people to have something to call a USB 1 device that worked with USB2, but didn't sound crippled or limited (and how cares if it confuses the populace.)

Maybe they should have done what SCSI did. Don't change the names of the older products to make them sound new. Just make the names related (stick with USB2) and the next will be USB3.

At least give a more modern example. Pcmcia has been replaced by the name "PCCard". At least Twain is pronounceable… not a great name, but I've seen much worse (pcmica, for example!) I think most companies have learned that good names help. Not the wacky technical stuff that really doesn't hit main stream (net-burst, what is net-burst? Ok, if it's "burst" then it's faster, right?) but they most do try to pick better names for things to do become pervasive. BlueTooth, WiFi…things like that.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2004, 4:30 PM   #28
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

eric s wrote:
Quote:
That is misleading because it isn't the full speed of USB2 (ignoring the fact that nothing max the bandwidth of USB2... and I bet that the 480Mb/s is only valid in the lab any ways.)
The first few pages of the USB 2 specs indicates that this high-speed signaling is only available to Tier 2 devices, ie between Host and Hub!

Of course no one is told that as soon as someone plug in a full or slow-speed device onto a Tier 2, the 480Mb/s high-speed is no longer available for other devices. It's just a pure number game meant to make this bus "looks" as good as its competitor, the IEEE 1394, until you put it into practice...


BTW White on Black is easier on the eyes for us folks burning the midnight oil :idea:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:48 PM.