On Mon, 2008-01-21 at 15:23 +1030, Tim wrote: > Tim: > >> But I'd tend to challenge their assertion. > > [that any old cable will do] > > >> There's a huge increase in speed between the two, and that means a > >> very large bandwidth change. It's a much higher signal frequency in > >> use, and any crappy cable termination, or other cable > >> characteristics, will have a worse effect on it. > > Craig White: > > When I don't have knowledge of something, I actually cite the best > > source I have and relate that I haven't seen any information that > > disputes it. > > > > Here you have stated an argument without any evidence to substantiate > > your beliefs. > > Did you do any research? Do you know anything about the differences > between USB 1 and 2, the speed differences, at least: > > Slow USB 1: 12 Mb/s tops > Fastest USB 2: 480 MB/s tops > > Now, lets make a very simple conversion and say that the slower one can > put a 12 MHz signal through the cable, and the fastest 480 MHz. Anybody > who works with RF knows that cabling and connections at high frequencies > are a crucial part of getting an undamaged signal. They know that some > connectors are unsuitable for such a wide variance, and that's a very > wide one in this case. > > If you pull apart some USB cables, you'll find some are decently > screened, with a proper brade, like coax designed for transmission uses. > And others are just four piddly wires with a crummy spiral wrapped wire > shield. Never mind the quality of the terminations, or the lack of > decent strain relief against tugs on the cable. > > There's certainly PLENTY of reasons to believe that some cabling is just > not up to the task of the 480 Mb/s rate that USB 2.0 can manage. > > > Thanks for your theories...I would probably believe them if I hadn't > > caught you talking about things your didn't know in the past. > > Nice try at playing the straw man game. > > Which "Edge Technologies" were you talking about? If it's just some > computer vendor, then I'd be not the slightest bit surprised that they > have no technical electronics knowledge, let alone RF theory. > > It's clear you have no idea what you're talking about if you think that > a 480 MHz signal is going work fine through any bit of crappy wiring. ---- I admit that I have made absolutely no research on USB cables whatsoever. All of the trivia quoted above is absolutely pointless with the exception that you want to use pointless trivia to proffer your knowledge. If you actually knew of some commercial USB cable that was being sold that was incapable of handling USB 2.0, you might have actually offered information that was useful to someone. Craig
