| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 103476 | 2009-09-24 22:15:00 | USB 3.00 Coming soon ! | Digby (677) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 813479 | 2009-09-25 07:06:00 | If USB 3 is supposed to be so fast, how come USB 1 got here 10 years earlier? ;) Now that is a good question,one I would like to hear the answer to. I have a feeling Sweep might know.:) |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 813480 | 2009-09-25 08:14:00 | 6Gb takes 2 hours? Then how did I copy 72Gb to a new 500Gb external drive in under an hour? Maybe 2 hours on USB 1.1, but not USB 2. If you re-read it "bog standard USB typically " he could be referring to USB 1.1 |
radium (8645) | ||
| 813481 | 2009-09-25 08:21:00 | As I understand it, USB 2 is really the de-facto standard now. You'd be hard-pressed to find anything like thumb drives, etc, for sale now that are USB 1.1. | ubergeek85 (131) | ||
| 813482 | 2009-09-25 08:42:00 | No, but there are still plenty of PCs around that only support 1.1 and well that's the only way he can claim the 2 hour transfer time also | radium (8645) | ||
| 813483 | 2009-09-25 08:43:00 | If you say so... | ubergeek85 (131) | ||
| 813484 | 2009-09-25 09:01:00 | Not to mention that 6GB at 5Gb/sec is actually only 9.6 seconds (6 * 8 / 5 = 9.6). Whichever way you look at it, the article's figures are rubbish. | Erayd (23) | ||
| 813485 | 2009-09-25 09:06:00 | Whichever way you look at it, the article's figures are rubbish. Agreed. This guy's a journo, not a geek. |
ubergeek85 (131) | ||
| 813486 | 2009-09-27 06:37:00 | Writes more like a Wino. ;) | R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 813487 | 2009-09-28 03:23:00 | Just to add to the mix. pcworld.co.nz |
Sweep (90) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||