Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

antipode · Jul 14, 2008, 09:45 PM

Hi -- I'm trying to hook up an external HD by USB on my eMac 1Ghz, Power PC G4.

It's been SLOW SLOW SLOW! (.6 Mb/s rates)

The System profiler tells me I'm running USB 2.0 (with speeds of "Up to 12 Mb/sec"). But I've read elsewhere that Apple's "USB 2.0" may really be "USB 1.1."

Anyone know?

My girlfriend's Intel MacBook also says "USB 2.0" but claims speeds of up to "400 Mb/sec". The transfer rate for her USB was 1.7 Mb/s.

Thanks

idykenano · Jul 14, 2008, 10:15 PM

Not according to Mactracker, the speed is listed for the 1ghz eMac at 12Mb/sec (USB 1.1).

antipode · Jul 14, 2008, 10:16 PM

So why does Profiler tell me it's 2.0?

Gankdawg · Jul 14, 2008, 10:18 PM

Up to 12 Mb/s is USB 1.1. I don't know, but I don't think an eMac 1 Ghz came with 2.0.

mduell · Jul 14, 2008, 10:24 PM

When USB 2.0 was released, all USB became USB 2.0. The 12Mb/s data rate, formerly known as USB 1.x, is called "full speed", while the 480Mb/s data rate is known as "high speed." There's also USB 2.0 "low speed" at 1.5Mb/s (I think it was called "low speed" in the USB 1.x days too).

The eMac supports USB 2.0 full speed, while the MacBook supports USB 2.0 high speed.

Gankdawg · Jul 14, 2008, 10:26 PM

Originally Posted by mduell

USB 2.0 covers both the 12Mb/s and 480Mb/s speeds; the former is "full speed," the latter is "high speed."

The eMac supports USB 2.0 full speed, while the MacBook supports USB 2.0 high speed.

Good info.......so why the difference in nomenclature? Marketing? Sounds likes USB 2.0 Full speed is the same as USB 1.1.

mduell · Jul 14, 2008, 11:19 PM

I think the OP may be confusing MBps and Mbps, but his transfer rates are still pretty slow on both machines.

Originally Posted by Gankdawg

Good info.......so why the difference in nomenclature? Marketing? Sounds likes USB 2.0 Full speed is the same as USB 1.1.

The naming was so that "no one was left out of the USB 2.0 universe" or some similar marketing spin and to reinforce the idea that all USB peripherals are forward/backward compatible.

Gankdawg · Jul 14, 2008, 11:25 PM

antipode · Jul 14, 2008, 11:28 PM

Well, now I'm out $40 because I bought a HD enclosure for USB 2.0 even though I don't *have* a USB 2.0. (It technically *operates*, but it was so ridiculously slow, that to clone my computer would've taken 2 days.)

Do you think Apple will cut me a check?

Simon · Jul 14, 2008, 11:38 PM

You can try to return that enclosure or else sell it off. Get a FW400 enclosure and you'll see transfer rates increase by two orders of magnitude.

antipode · Jul 15, 2008, 08:28 PM

Originally Posted by Simon

You can try to return that enclosure or else sell it off. Get a FW400 enclosure and you'll see transfer rates increase by two orders of magnitude.

Thanks. Done.

This is why I post in these forums -- you folks know more than I do. I just wish I knew to ask *before* I bought.

As an aside, this USB nomenclature is what angers me about consumer computers. I am a *very* pedestrian user: internet, email, desktop apps, music, etc. Yet, much of what is needed (even for Mac) is difficult to decipher. Would it be too much to simply and prominently label each computer? eMac version 5? eMac version 6 etc.? (I've had this computer for 5 years and used its USB and never even knew that I was under the wrong specs.) Why can't Profiler simply tell me I have USB 2.0 or 1.1? It tells me I have "up to 12Mb/s." When I plug in the 2.0 external, it doesn't say "wrong speed" -- it just does what it does.. slowly.

I have never confused the batteries for my remote, nor the oil filter for my car, nor the blade for my circular saw.

These are consumer components. I don't need to find serial numbers for them, nor determine which model (if I even knew there *were* different models) in that year my computer was.

Sorry to rant, but --even Mac-- computer companies seem to think that regular consumers don't use their products.

mduell · Jul 15, 2008, 11:37 PM

Originally Posted by antipode

As an aside, this USB nomenclature is what angers me about consumer computers. I am a *very* pedestrian user: internet, email, desktop apps, music, etc. Yet, much of what is needed (even for Mac) is difficult to decipher. Would it be too much to simply and prominently label each computer? eMac version 5? eMac version 6 etc.? (I've had this computer for 5 years and used its USB and never even knew that I was under the wrong specs.) Why can't Profiler simply tell me I have USB 2.0 or 1.1? It tells me I have "up to 12Mb/s." When I plug in the 2.0 external, it doesn't say "wrong speed" -- it just does what it does.. slowly.

I think Apple is doing the right thing in the Profiler and the USB IF reasonable with its naming.
USB 2.0 supports 3 different speeds, so Apple tells you the maximum speed your USB *HCI supports; you have both USB 2.0 and USB 1.1 so it's not an "or" question; the external enclosure is not the "wrong speed" since a mutually compatible speed was successfully negotiated.
USB is fully forward and backward compatible; instead of trying to explain to the public that all USB versions work with each other, they just mark everything as the same version.

The problems are how long it took Apple to adopt USB 2.0 high speed across their product lines, how poor their USB drivers are, and that it's not always obvious which computer model someone has even after specifying clockrate and CPU (ex: dual 2Ghz G5).

Simon · Jul 16, 2008, 02:59 AM

Originally Posted by antipode

As an aside, this USB nomenclature is what angers me about consumer computers.

That's because Intel didn't think it through in the beginning. Changing the nomenclature after three speeds were already available was a bad idea. It has caused a lot of confusion already. Although their original intention (USB being upwards and downwards compatible, people not having to care about speeds) was good they marketed it very poorly for regular customers.

I am a *very* pedestrian user: internet, email, desktop apps, music, etc. Yet, much of what is needed (even for Mac) is difficult to decipher. Would it be too much to simply and prominently label each computer? eMac version 5? eMac version 6 etc.? (I've had this computer for 5 years and used its USB and never even knew that I was under the wrong specs.)

That has been a problem for quite a while already. Back in the early 90s it was a lot easier because we had model names and numbers like Performa 6116CD that clearly and unambiguously labeled a Mac and its generation. The flip side was that people were confused with all the "different" models. When Steve came back he chopped off a lot of products but also nomenclature when he went to the minimalist 2x2 product matrix. [Actually even before the matrix. How many PowerBook G3s were there?] At that point it started becoming more difficult to differentiate between different generations of Macs.

Nowadays it has become somewhat better though because Apple has started to use additional labels like "Early 2008" or "Mid 2006" along with the regular product name. In principle that would be a good thing. However, most customers aren't familiar with these names. Apple uses them in all their support documentation, but they don't use it in the store, on boxes, in user manuals, etc. And most importantly they don't include that label on the product stickers or in System Profiler where regular users would see which exact model Mac they have. Fortunately if you know when you bought your Mac you know which label pertains to your model.

You can read more about Mac nomenclature issues in this excellent article (it's old but still very valid).
http://db.tidbits.com/article/5436
There's a newer TidBITS that also talks about the issue
http://db.tidbits.com/article/9191

Eriamjh · Jul 16, 2008, 05:24 AM

Do you think Apple will cut me a check?

Oh, yeah. Maybe two.

antipode · Jul 17, 2008, 10:33 PM

Originally Posted by Simon

You can read more about Mac nomenclature issues in this excellent article (it's old but still very valid).
http://db.tidbits.com/article/5436

Yes! This is exactly what I'm talking about. I hope Apple is listening.

mduell · Jul 18, 2008, 06:58 AM

Originally Posted by Simon

That's because Intel didn't think it through in the beginning. Changing the nomenclature after three speeds were already available was a bad idea. It has caused a lot of confusion already. Although their original intention (USB being upwards and downwards compatible, people not having to care about speeds) was good they marketed it very poorly for regular customers.

I think you mean USB-IF, which includes Apple; Intel isn't the king who dictates what USB-IF does to the USB standard.

Simon · Jul 18, 2008, 07:22 AM

Who cares if Apple is part of the forum? Does that make changing nomenclature a better move? Of course not. It was not thought through properly.

imitchellg5 · Jul 19, 2008, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by Simon

Who cares if Apple is part of the forum? Does that make changing nomenclature a better move? Of course not. It was not thought through properly.

Oh yes. If Apple does it, it is perfect1!

Simon · Jul 19, 2008, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

Oh yes. If Apple does it, it is perfect1!

Yeah, riiiight.