According to a report from EETimes.com, Intel has pushed plans to support USB 3.0 in its chipsets back until 2011. Without Intel's support for the standard, motherboard and gadget makers will be forced to hold off due to the expense of using third party controllers.Also known as SuperSpeed USB and developed by the USB 3.0 Promoter Group - Hewlett Packard, Intel, Microsoft, NEC, NXP Semiconductors and Texas Instruments - USB 3.0 promises speeds of up to 4.8Gbit/s.
At the Intel Developers Forum 2009 last month, it was unofficially revealed that Intel planned to start offering support for USB 3.0 in early 2010, but then "shifted its plans out a year," according to the EETimes.com. The business technology news site goes on to say that Intel's PC technology manager confirmed the report, however a spokesperson for Intel told them that they had not heard of a delay and would not comment any further.
A representative for Intel told Gizmodo that he hadn't heard of a delay, but that it's possible as the company focuses its attention on its next-gen Nehalem chips.
So is it delayed? Neowin will keep you updated of any confirmation either way.
Co-incidence?
dewaaz mentions below that Intel are working on "Light Peak", which is another USB alternative with much higher capabilities, and my bet would be that this is why they're in no rush.
Anyways, when win7 went rtm the usb3 spec wasn't final so they didn't add it. It's a simple update/patch away though.
Co-incidence?
What's your point? Windows XP didn't have USB 2.0 support until service pack 1.
Co-incidence?
Windows 7 has no USB 3.0 support because the standard doesn't officially exist yet. Just like USB 2.0 in Windows XP, enabling USB 3.0 in Windows 7 is nothing more than a software update, and will probably be included in SP1. If not SP1, then SP2.
Speaking of which, USB 3.0 will probably NOT be supported in Windows XP, since general support has ended.
Co-incidence?
Windows 7 has no USB 3.0 support because the standard doesn't officially exist yet. Just like USB 2.0 in Windows XP, enabling USB 3.0 in Windows 7 is nothing more than a software update, and will probably be included in SP1. If not SP1, then SP2.
Speaking of which, USB 3.0 will probably NOT be supported in Windows XP, since general support has ended.
windows doesn't need to "SUPPORT" it. All, intel or any other major manufacterer has to do is to release a third party driver just like any other device.
Whenever USB3 hardware is available it will come with driver versions for all versions of Windows including Windows 7. Driver support is only ever an issue for unpopular operating systems.
Co-incidence?
Oh my GOD! It's a CONSPIRACY!
they need to get us something that will be semi-future proof and be done with it instead of getting new USB standards every few years or so.
i figure someone needs to make a standard like USB but have the sustained transfer speeds like up to 200MB/s and that should keep it fairly future proof for the foreseeable future.
"USB 3.0 promises speeds of up to 4.8Gbit/s."
they need to get us something that will be semi-future proof and be done with it instead of getting new USB standards every few years or so.
i figure someone needs to make a standard like USB but have the sustained transfer speeds like up to 200MB/s and that should keep it fairly future proof for the foreseeable future.
Did you even look at the max speed of USB 3.0? It makes your post rather... pointless
they need to get us something that will be semi-future proof and be done with it instead of getting new USB standards every few years or so.
i figure someone needs to make a standard like USB but have the sustained transfer speeds like up to 200MB/s and that should keep it fairly future proof for the foreseeable future.
So USB started in 1994, USB 2.0 in 2000 and USB three in 2011? Oh no!! That is way too fast. You go into a decade long coma and you miss it!
you make me laugh
USB 1.0: Released in January 1996.
USB 1.1: Released in September 1998.
USB 2.0: Released in April 2000.
USB 3.0: ??
there has been nearly a DECADE since the last USB spec.
And here's the clincher, in "x" amount of years, USB 4.0 will come about (unless of course it gets replaced by another technology) which will be EVEN FASTER and provide a higher bandwidth.
If what I said wasn't true, we wouldn't have had to wait until 2008 for Core i7, it would have just magically appeared in the 1940s when people started looking at computers. Get what I'm saying?
As computer science advanced, technology will change for the better, faster and stronger. Its pretty easy to understand.
And here's the clincher, in "x" amount of years, USB 4.0 will come about (unless of course it gets replaced by another technology) which will be EVEN FASTER and provide a higher bandwidth.
If what I said wasn't true, we wouldn't have had to wait until 2008 for Core i7, it would have just magically appeared in the 1940s when people started looking at computers. Get what I'm saying?
As computer science advanced, technology will change for the better, faster and stronger. Its pretty easy to understand.
majesticmerc I think seta-san meant to quote "thacrip" although I could be wrong but that would make more sense
USB 1.0: Released in January 1996.
USB 1.1: Released in September 1998.
USB 2.0: Released in April 2000.
USB 3.0: ??
there has been nearly a DECADE since the last USB spec.
Law of diminishing returns. USB2 is all most people would ever need. USB3 will only provide marginal (if any) actual usable difference in speeds.
Yes it is. You can use USB 1.0 and 2.0 devices on a 3.0 port. You can also use 3.0 devices on 1.0 and 2.0 ports, it's just that the transfer speed will be a lot slower.
USB 3 actually uses a different connector. You can plug old USB 1 and 2 devices into a USB 3 controller, but USB 3 devices will have two extra pins and a slightly different shaped connector so I don't see how you could plug a USB 3 device into an older controller the way you could with USB 2. So yes, USB 3 has backwards compatibility with older USB, but older USB does not have forward compatibility with USB 3 devices.
You could just say that USB 3.0 ports are backwards compatible, but not USB 3.0 plugs.
I could, but I like using a lot of words :-)
Serial networking options
External storage devices
Display screens
this: Freakin Massive Robot thing
External Graphics Cards
I could go on but cba.
I will always love these comments.
Just think, when I brought my first computer it had 5GB of storage space and 8MB of ram. The guy in the store was almost in tears when my dad asked if we would need to upgrade anything down the line...
"Seriously you would need you, your whole family and all of your friends and their families to be using this hard drive for years to actually fill it."
Then diablo 2 was released...
External hard drives, for one. It'd be a hell of a lot quicker to back up all your data with USB 3.0.
This.
HD Streaming doesn't require 4.8Gbit/s unless its uncompressed I suppose, but who would want that on a personal computer.
I just think that in practice, 99% of computer users don't need it.
Just think of this, at some point you could have a PC just be this small "core" box with the cpu and memory with some super fast ports, then you just run everything else external. It would sure make upgrading so easy for everyone. And hardware makers can then sell to those people who are the majority who never upgrade till 5 or so years later when they just buy a whole new PC.
HD Streaming doesn't require 4.8Gbit/s unless its uncompressed I suppose, but who would want that on a personal computer.
I just think that in practice, 99% of computer users don't need it.
Businesses need it all the time.
Serial networking options
External storage devices
Display screens
this: Freakin Massive Robot thing
External Graphics Cards
I could go on but cba.
I will always love these comments.
Just think, when I brought my first computer it had 5GB of storage space and 8MB of ram. The guy in the store was almost in tears when my dad asked if we would need to upgrade anything down the line...
"Seriously you would need you, your whole family and all of your friends and their families to be using this hard drive for years to actually fill it."
Then diablo 2 was released...
Sorry to burst your bubble but I think your memory is a little off (pun intended). A computer with a 5GB hard drive probably shipped with 32 or 64MB of RAM. My first computer had 4MB or RAM with a 100MB hard drive. That was back in the days when RAM was everything, anyone who paid for an upgrade was upgrading their memory, hard drive was almost a non-issue then.
Now you're just being stupid.
Consider that not everyone can afford for their first computer to come from a main high street vendor.
My first computer came from a random little shop called Silicon Alley and was put together from a random assortment of the working components from broken computers.
The case was from Comador and had a turbo button!!!
14" CRT monitor that hummed and went 'Bong' when you switched it on
x4 speed CD Drive
75 MHz Intel Processor
5GB Quantum Fireball HDD (it was actually a 10GB hdd which had corrupted sectors and had been partitioned to hide the dead section...this was fun)
8Mb of RAM which we eventually upgraded to 16mb
Ahh it was win...I wouldnt be where I am today if I hadn't tried to uninstall C&C by doing a search for any file with the word 'Command' in its name and then deleting it
HD Streaming doesn't require 4.8Gbit/s unless its uncompressed I suppose, but who would want that on a personal computer.
I just think that in practice, 99% of computer users don't need it.
I think there are many applications for it, increase in speed can only be a good thing, if you don't think so, you're in the wrong place, this is a tech news forum after all, the majority of the users here are likely to be power pc users and techs, all of which can think of ways they'd like to use 4.8Gbit/s transfer rates, networking, external drives, flash drives, printer communications etc etc etc, the more the better
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Peak
If there's going to be a new standard, and if that standard has the potential to be as pervasive as USB, then there's a fair bet Intel wants in - on the royalties, that is
It will be interesting to see if Light Peak is small/cheap enough that device manufacturers would be whiling to adopt it in place of USB 3.0.
You can already have this with eSATA which was actually designed for Hard Drives, where-as USB is designed for peripherals.
I'm curious to see when they will have eSATA Flash Drives...
I'm curious to see when they will have eSATA Flash Drives...
eSATA doesn't provide power so that would be an issue.
I bet that usb 3.0 will not be compatible with windows xp, hence forcing to most user to migrate to vista, windows 7 or windows 8.
Windows 95 launched without USB (1.0) support. It was just patched laters. Once USB 3.0 launches Vista/7 will get patched. If you're still using XP its you to blame.
Fair enough, but there's absolutely NOTHING to say that USB 3.0 support won't make it into XP and Vista. Probably not XP, given its age, but it will most likely go into Vista.
Windows 95 (the original) is not compatible with usb 1.0 but
Windows 95 osr2 (or windows 95b) is compatible with usb 1.0
Windows 98, while is compatible with USB, the support is broken, Windows 98 SE is full compatible with USB
Windows nt 3.51 and nt 4.0 is not compatible with usb, even when third party software found the way to do it (even when MS said that was impossible to achieve)
Instead Windows nt 5.0 (Windows 2000) is (full) compatible with usb.
"Engadget has learned -- thanks to an extremely reliable source -- that not only is Apple complicit in the development of Light Peak, but the company actually brought the concept to Intel and asked them to create it. More to the point, the new standard will play a hugely important role in upcoming products from Cupertino."
http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusi...intel-could-be/
http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusi...intel-could-be/
We've been working on optical for many years. Specifically, this technology the last couple of years," he said. "We've developed the technology, we've developed the specifications, documenting the technology, and we have prototype product," he said.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10363956-64.html
/sarcasm off
I'm not a big fan of that port myself but it'll do for now.
If you do wait for hardware, it might was well be something worth waiting for, like the 6 core i7. That's a good reason to wait, USB 3.0... not so much.
If you do wait for hardware, it might was well be something worth waiting for, like the 6 core i7. That's a good reason to wait, USB 3.0... not so much.
My computer is about 2 years old (Q6600) and I want USB 3.0 integrated on the motherboard. Not sure if you have ever messed with USB1 and USB2 PCI cards, but based on my pass experience I'll pass when it comes to a PCI card.
It is also a good thing to wait for if you want to upgrade to a Laptop. My aging work laptop is due for an upgrade, and I really hope this one lasts until USB 3.0 comes out because I'd hate to upgrade on the cusp of the new standard.
As for comparing i6 and i7 to USB3, i couldn't disagree with you more. USB standards span generations of processors. i6 and i7 will be outdated a year or two after they hit the shelf. You live under a rock or something?
Ever heard of Google, sphbecker? Yeah, google on "AMD" which stands for "Advanced Micro Devices." I had a relative that used to work for AMD and I've seen their headquarters up in Northern California.
I'm in no hurry for USB 3.0. I can wait a while. I'll get it with a brand new PC that actually supports it.
Ever heard of Google, sphbecker? Yeah, google on "AMD" which stands for "Advanced Micro Devices." I had a relative that used to work for AMD and I've seen their headquarters up in Northern California.
I'm in no hurry for USB 3.0. I can wait a while. I'll get it with a brand new PC that actually supports it.
Um..... Are you serious?
Ever heard of Google, sphbecker? Yeah, google on "AMD" which stands for "Advanced Micro Devices." I had a relative that used to work for AMD and I've seen their headquarters up in Northern California.
I'm in no hurry for USB 3.0. I can wait a while. I'll get it with a brand new PC that actually supports it.
I do believe he was being sarcastic...
Well, Intel's been scary for years...
would'nt USB 2.0 bottleneck USB Wireless-N ?
since the former can provide up to 50MB/s while the latter can go all the way to 75MB/s
http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/asus-ch...a-6gbps-mother/
ps :and i was wrong, its support xp, vista and windows7. Though, the mobo cost $330 (including expansion). Apparently Windows 2k is out. is usb 3.0 supported by linux?
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.