On Mon, 2008-01-21 at 23:51 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote: > Craig White wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-01-21 at 16:16 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote: > > > >> Craig White wrote: > >> > >>> On Mon, 2008-01-21 at 16:02 +1030, Tim wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> Do you realise how stupid it is to even ask that? How many hundreds of > >>>> brands may be available for purchase? How many different brands in > >>>> different places that aren't available at the other places? How many > >>>> that are fine, but aren't mentioned by someone, so people won't buy > >>>> them? How many of the same product are sold by different labels? How > >>>> many of different products are sold under the same label? > >>>> > >>>> > >>> ---- > >>> I was hoping that you could name just one commercially available USB > >>> cable that was not usable for USB 2.0 > >>> > >>> Craig > >>> > >>> > >> Somehow I can't imagine how unimportant that question is.... But, if > >> you want me to pick you up a few of them from the cheap computer swap > >> shops here in Taipei I'll get a few and send them to you. While I'm at > >> it, I'll even get you some cheap CDs or DVDs that produce coasters 5-10% > >> of the time. > >> > > ---- > > I've made my share of coasters but that is an entirely separate topic. > > > No, it isn't. > > There are substandard products everywhere one looks. And there are > products that were built to satisfy a given standard but don't pass > muster when the standard is updated. You just seem bent on trying to > have Tim name a given product that will work on USB 1.0 but won't work > on USB 2.0. Frankly, it is boring. > > I don't doubt that there are cables out there that work perfectly well > with USB 1.0 and fail with USB 2.0. Just like I don't doubt that there > are 10BaseT cables that work just fine at 10Mbps and not so good at > 100Mbps....because I have experienced that end of the spectrum. But, I > don't have to see them and touch them to know they exist. > > They exist. And, frankly, having been on the hardware end of > manufacturing super computers, I could tell you some wonderful stories > about coaxial cables used in the Control Data Cyber 205. But, you > probably won't believe me either. > > Oh, that that "supervisor" that wasn't concerned or wouldn't even > consider a cable problem is just plan...well how can I put > it...ahhh....wrong. > > But, tell you what....you can go on believing what you will. > > But, it is truly unimportant why you are trying to "prove". So, > whatever..... ---- it seems that you are ignoring the reality that Cat 3 cables (10Base-T) are physically different than Cat 5 cables. Cat 3 cables needed only 4 wires and Cat 5 cables needed 8, thus expecting a Cat 3 cable to work properly at 100Base-T is not realistic at all. This of course ignores the different twisting requirements for shielding. Substandard products everywhere such as CD's are not relevant to the issue of USB cables and no amount of reaching is going to make it so. Coaxial cables indeed have been subjected to shifts in technology quite clearly, the bandwidths needs have caused adoption of newer types of cables. Clearly USB Hubs are labeled suitable for USB 1.1 or 2.0 standards but USB cables typically not identified. If the manufacturers of USB 2.0 hard drives were concerned with the cables that were used, they would clearly identify their products with something like - "USE ONLY WITH USB 2.0 CERTIFIED CABLES" but I've never seen that. I look at Western Digital's 'Interface Guide' http://westerndigital.com/en/library/2579-001151.pdf and see no such admonitions. Craig
