f



Question: USB 1.1 vs. USB 2.0

I know that USB 2.0 is much faster than USB 1.1, but I'm wondering if
there is a way to distinguish between the cables for the two. The
connectors can look identical; is there some other way of determining if
the cable I have is 1.1. or 2.0? Or is there a difference?

Thanks for your help.
0
nono
8/6/2007 4:16:46 PM
comp.sys.mac.hardware 1561 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

21 Replies
384 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 43

On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 11:16:46 -0500, Preacher wrote
(in article <1i2f31u.1icj5no1utlq1cN%nono@way.com>):

> I know that USB 2.0 is much faster than USB 1.1, but I'm wondering if
> there is a way to distinguish between the cables for the two. The
> connectors can look identical; is there some other way of determining if
> the cable I have is 1.1. or 2.0? Or is there a difference?
> 
> Thanks for your help.

No difference in cables or connectors.

-- 

Tim
lance_1012@hotmail.com

0
Tim
8/6/2007 4:53:39 PM
> > I know that USB 2.0 is much faster than USB 1.1, but I'm wondering if
> > there is a way to distinguish between the cables for the two. The
> > connectors can look identical; is there some other way of determining if
> > the cable I have is 1.1. or 2.0? Or is there a difference?
> > 
> > Thanks for your help.
> 
> No difference in cables or connectors.

I've noticed that some USB 2.0 cables have "2.0" on the cable.  
And what about the ends? Is the small USB end that is usually used for 
transferring data from things like digital still cameras always USB 
2.0?
0
The
8/6/2007 5:08:10 PM
The New Guy <replytogroup@here.thanks> wrote:

> > > I know that USB 2.0 is much faster than USB 1.1, but I'm wondering if
> > > there is a way to distinguish between the cables for the two. The
> > > connectors can look identical; is there some other way of determining if
> > > the cable I have is 1.1. or 2.0? Or is there a difference?
> > > 
> > > Thanks for your help.
> > 
> > No difference in cables or connectors.
> 
> I've noticed that some USB 2.0 cables have "2.0" on the cable.  
> And what about the ends? Is the small USB end that is usually used for
> transferring data from things like digital still cameras always USB 
> 2.0?

I have a camera which doesn't use USB 2 but has the small connector.

-- 
Adrian
0
nonesuch
8/6/2007 5:35:34 PM
In article 
<replytogroup-332B22.12081006082007@news.lga.highwinds-media.com>,
 The New Guy <replytogroup@here.thanks> wrote:

> > > I know that USB 2.0 is much faster than USB 1.1, but I'm wondering if
> > > there is a way to distinguish between the cables for the two. The
> > > connectors can look identical; is there some other way of determining if
> > > the cable I have is 1.1. or 2.0? Or is there a difference?
> > > 
> > > Thanks for your help.
> > 
> > No difference in cables or connectors.
> 
> I've noticed that some USB 2.0 cables have "2.0" on the cable.  
> And what about the ends? Is the small USB end that is usually used for 
> transferring data from things like digital still cameras always USB 
> 2.0?

Nope. It's just an alternative form factor for small devices where you 
can't really justify the roughly square cm for the "normal" device end.
0
Gregory
8/6/2007 6:00:28 PM
> > > > I know that USB 2.0 is much faster than USB 1.1, but I'm wondering if
> > > > there is a way to distinguish between the cables for the two. The
> > > > connectors can look identical; is there some other way of determining if
> > > > the cable I have is 1.1. or 2.0? Or is there a difference?
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks for your help.
> > > 
> > > No difference in cables or connectors.
> > 
> > I've noticed that some USB 2.0 cables have "2.0" on the cable.  
> > And what about the ends? Is the small USB end that is usually used for 
> > transferring data from things like digital still cameras always USB 
> > 2.0?
> 
> Nope. It's just an alternative form factor for small devices where you 
> can't really justify the roughly square cm for the "normal" device end.

So other than if its labeled there's no way of telling?  That kind of 
sucks.  You'd think they would be proud of the fact it was 2.0 and 
plaster that all over it.  Or at least a little label.
0
The
8/6/2007 6:29:58 PM
The New Guy <replytogroup@here.thanks> wrote:

> > > > > I know that USB 2.0 is much faster than USB 1.1, but I'm wondering
> > > > > if there is a way to distinguish between the cables for the two.
> > > > > The connectors can look identical; is there some other way of
> > > > > determining if the cable I have is 1.1. or 2.0? Or is there a
> > > > > difference?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks for your help.
> > > > 
> > > > No difference in cables or connectors.
> > > 
> > > I've noticed that some USB 2.0 cables have "2.0" on the cable.  
> > > And what about the ends? Is the small USB end that is usually used for
> > > transferring data from things like digital still cameras always USB
> > > 2.0?
> > 
> > Nope. It's just an alternative form factor for small devices where you
> > can't really justify the roughly square cm for the "normal" device end.
> 
> So other than if its labeled there's no way of telling?  That kind of
> sucks.  You'd think they would be proud of the fact it was 2.0 and 
> plaster that all over it.  Or at least a little label.

But if we are just talking cables it shouldn't matter ... they should
all do USB 2.

-- 
Adrian
0
nonesuch
8/6/2007 6:49:30 PM
The New Guy wrote:
>>>>> I know that USB 2.0 is much faster than USB 1.1, but I'm wondering if
>>>>> there is a way to distinguish between the cables for the two. The
>>>>> connectors can look identical; is there some other way of determining if
>>>>> the cable I have is 1.1. or 2.0? Or is there a difference?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for your help.
>>>> No difference in cables or connectors.
>>> I've noticed that some USB 2.0 cables have "2.0" on the cable.  
>>> And what about the ends? Is the small USB end that is usually used for 
>>> transferring data from things like digital still cameras always USB 
>>> 2.0?
>> Nope. It's just an alternative form factor for small devices where you 
>> can't really justify the roughly square cm for the "normal" device end.
> 
> So other than if its labeled there's no way of telling?  That kind of 
> sucks.  You'd think they would be proud of the fact it was 2.0 and 
> plaster that all over it.  Or at least a little label.

Telling what? There's no difference in the cable types at all. Do
some of your own research and find out what each connector type is
for and why the smaller 4 and 5 pin types are employed.

You want to spend more for the 2.0 designation, go ahead.

-- 
Grandpa

The New Guy wrote:
 > Just because someone believes something, doesn't mean its true.
 > If you're happy with your system, that's great.  Enjoy away.
0
Grandpa
8/6/2007 6:59:44 PM
> >>>>> I know that USB 2.0 is much faster than USB 1.1, but I'm wondering if
> >>>>> there is a way to distinguish between the cables for the two. The
> >>>>> connectors can look identical; is there some other way of determining if
> >>>>> the cable I have is 1.1. or 2.0? Or is there a difference?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks for your help.
> >>>> No difference in cables or connectors.
> >>> I've noticed that some USB 2.0 cables have "2.0" on the cable.  
> >>> And what about the ends? Is the small USB end that is usually used for 
> >>> transferring data from things like digital still cameras always USB 
> >>> 2.0?
> >> Nope. It's just an alternative form factor for small devices where you 
> >> can't really justify the roughly square cm for the "normal" device end.
> > 
> > So other than if its labeled there's no way of telling?  That kind of 
> > sucks.  You'd think they would be proud of the fact it was 2.0 and 
> > plaster that all over it.  Or at least a little label.
> 
> Telling what? There's no difference in the cable types at all. Do
> some of your own research and find out what each connector type is
> for and why the smaller 4 and 5 pin types are employed.
> 
> You want to spend more for the 2.0 designation, go ahead.

So you're saying its not possible for a cable to limit the speed?
I've always thought there was a specific designation for USB 2.0 
cables and if you used a 1.0 cable your speed would go down.
Not so?
0
The
8/6/2007 10:23:53 PM
On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 17:23:53 -0500, The New Guy wrote
(in article 
<replytogroup-2F9494.17235206082007@news.lga.highwinds-media.com>):

>>>>>>> I know that USB 2.0 is much faster than USB 1.1, but I'm wondering if
>>>>>>> there is a way to distinguish between the cables for the two. The
>>>>>>> connectors can look identical; is there some other way of determining 
>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>> the cable I have is 1.1. or 2.0? Or is there a difference?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks for your help.
>>>>>> No difference in cables or connectors.
>>>>> I've noticed that some USB 2.0 cables have "2.0" on the cable.  
>>>>> And what about the ends? Is the small USB end that is usually used for 
>>>>> transferring data from things like digital still cameras always USB 
>>>>> 2.0?
>>>> Nope. It's just an alternative form factor for small devices where you 
>>>> can't really justify the roughly square cm for the "normal" device end.
>>> 
>>> So other than if its labeled there's no way of telling?  That kind of 
>>> sucks.  You'd think they would be proud of the fact it was 2.0 and 
>>> plaster that all over it.  Or at least a little label.
>> 
>> Telling what? There's no difference in the cable types at all. Do
>> some of your own research and find out what each connector type is
>> for and why the smaller 4 and 5 pin types are employed.
>> 
>> You want to spend more for the 2.0 designation, go ahead.
> 
> So you're saying its not possible for a cable to limit the speed?
> I've always thought there was a specific designation for USB 2.0 
> cables and if you used a 1.0 cable your speed would go down.
> Not so?

Not so. Plenty of posts in this thread have said so.

-- 

Tim
lance_1012@hotmail.com

0
Tim
8/6/2007 10:41:21 PM
The New Guy wrote:
>>>>>>> I know that USB 2.0 is much faster than USB 1.1, but I'm wondering if
>>>>>>> there is a way to distinguish between the cables for the two. The
>>>>>>> connectors can look identical; is there some other way of determining if
>>>>>>> the cable I have is 1.1. or 2.0? Or is there a difference?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for your help.
>>>>>> No difference in cables or connectors.
>>>>> I've noticed that some USB 2.0 cables have "2.0" on the cable.  
>>>>> And what about the ends? Is the small USB end that is usually used for 
>>>>> transferring data from things like digital still cameras always USB 
>>>>> 2.0?
>>>> Nope. It's just an alternative form factor for small devices where you 
>>>> can't really justify the roughly square cm for the "normal" device end.
>>> So other than if its labeled there's no way of telling?  That kind of 
>>> sucks.  You'd think they would be proud of the fact it was 2.0 and 
>>> plaster that all over it.  Or at least a little label.
>> Telling what? There's no difference in the cable types at all. Do
>> some of your own research and find out what each connector type is
>> for and why the smaller 4 and 5 pin types are employed.
>>
>> You want to spend more for the 2.0 designation, go ahead.
> 
> So you're saying its not possible for a cable to limit the speed?
> I've always thought there was a specific designation for USB 2.0 
> cables and if you used a 1.0 cable your speed would go down.
> Not so?

Geez man, how many times are you gonna play this game? How hard is
it to DAGS or go to Wiki *before* you ask a question? And then you
have the nerve to question the answers you have been given! What's
the significant difference here between USB cables and audio cables?
Or have you slept since that thread?

-- 
Grandpa

The New Guy wrote:
 > Just because someone believes something, doesn't mean its true.
 > If you're happy with your system, that's great.  Enjoy away.
0
Grandpa
8/7/2007 12:08:17 AM
> >>>>>>> I know that USB 2.0 is much faster than USB 1.1, but I'm wondering if
> >>>>>>> there is a way to distinguish between the cables for the two. The
> >>>>>>> connectors can look identical; is there some other way of determining 
> >>>>>>> if the cable I have is 1.1. or 2.0? Or is there a difference?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks for your help.

> >>>>>> No difference in cables or connectors.

> >>>>> I've noticed that some USB 2.0 cables have "2.0" on the cable.  
> >>>>> And what about the ends? Is the small USB end that is usually used for 
> >>>>> transferring data from things like digital still cameras always USB 
> >>>>> 2.0?

> >>>> Nope. It's just an alternative form factor for small devices where you 
> >>>> can't really justify the roughly square cm for the "normal" device end.

> >>> So other than if its labeled there's no way of telling?  That kind of 
> >>> sucks.  You'd think they would be proud of the fact it was 2.0 and 
> >>> plaster that all over it.  Or at least a little label.

> >> Telling what? There's no difference in the cable types at all. Do
> >> some of your own research and find out what each connector type is
> >> for and why the smaller 4 and 5 pin types are employed.
> >> You want to spend more for the 2.0 designation, go ahead.
> > 
> > So you're saying its not possible for a cable to limit the speed?
> > I've always thought there was a specific designation for USB 2.0 
> > cables and if you used a 1.0 cable your speed would go down.
> > Not so?
> 
> Geez man, how many times are you gonna play this game? How hard is
> it to DAGS or go to Wiki *before* you ask a question? And then you
> have the nerve to question the answers you have been given! What's
> the significant difference here between USB cables and audio cables?
> Or have you slept since that thread?

I didn't ask the original question.  And this is not a very well known 
fact in among the computer using public.  So by bringing it out in the 
open, its good for everyone.
0
The
8/7/2007 1:05:45 AM
Grampa's signature:
The New Guy wrote:
Just because someone believes something, doesn't mean its true.
If you're happy with your system, that's great.  Enjoy away.

I don't understand why you have this as a signature.  I don't even see 
the connection between the 2 lines.  There must be a connection in 
your mind otherwise they wouldn't be there, right?  Could you 
enlighten?
0
The
8/7/2007 1:09:33 AM
The New Guy wrote:
> Grampa's signature:
> The New Guy wrote:
> Just because someone believes something, doesn't mean its true.
> If you're happy with your system, that's great.  Enjoy away.
> 
> I don't understand why you have this as a signature.  I don't even see 
> the connection between the 2 lines.  There must be a connection in 
> your mind otherwise they wouldn't be there, right?  Could you 
> enlighten?

What?!? You don't recognize your own writings? You wrote it that
way, I quote it, complete with attribution. What's not to
understand? Are you saying you don't even know what you write?

I even told you I was going to quote that statement every time I
respond to one of your posts.

-- 
Grandpa

The New Guy wrote:
 > Just because someone believes something, doesn't mean its true.
 > If you're happy with your system, that's great.  Enjoy away.
0
Grandpa
8/7/2007 3:17:13 AM
In article <uce-1DAE20.14002806082007@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
 Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> 
> Nope. It's just an alternative form factor for small devices where you 
> can't really justify the roughly square cm for the "normal" device end.

.... and there's a couple of variations. The "small one" for our Pentax 
Optio is smaller than the "small one" for our Canon S3 but maybe the 
same as the one for our Sony DV-8 and YOU CAN NEVER HAVE ENOUGH BLOODY 
CABLES IN THE LITTLE WOODEN BOX THAT YOUR WIFE KEEPS HIDING ... 22 
years! If I'd have shot her I'd be out by now ...
-- 
W. Oates
0
Warren
8/7/2007 10:36:47 AM
In article 
<replytogroup-2F9494.17235206082007@news.lga.highwinds-media.com>,
 The New Guy <replytogroup@here.thanks> wrote:

> So you're saying its not possible for a cable to limit the speed?
> I've always thought there was a specific designation for USB 2.0 
> cables and if you used a 1.0 cable your speed would go down.
> Not so?

True and not true. Your speed is slower with 1.0 than with 2.0, but not 
because of the cables. Look it up.
-- 
W. Oates
0
Warren
8/7/2007 10:37:35 AM
In article <01039211$0$10736$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
 Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <uce-1DAE20.14002806082007@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
>  Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Nope. It's just an alternative form factor for small devices where you 
> > can't really justify the roughly square cm for the "normal" device end.
> 
> ... and there's a couple of variations. The "small one" for our Pentax 
> Optio is smaller than the "small one" for our Canon S3 but maybe the 
> same as the one for our Sony DV-8 and YOU CAN NEVER HAVE ENOUGH BLOODY 
> CABLES IN THE LITTLE WOODEN BOX THAT YOUR WIFE KEEPS HIDING ... 22 
> years! If I'd have shot her I'd be out by now ...

I ran across a package in my grocery store of all places the other day 
that was billed as a universal USB cable. The cable itself was a Male-A 
to Female-A (that's the rectangular plug that ever host controller uses) 
and then there were a bunch of little adapters that were Male-A on one 
side and something else on the other. There were at least 6 of those in 
the package.
0
Gregory
8/7/2007 11:16:22 AM
In article <uce-899BC5.07162207082007@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
 Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> I ran across a package in my grocery store of all places the other day 
> that was billed as a universal USB cable. The cable itself was a Male-A 
> to Female-A (that's the rectangular plug that ever host controller uses) 
> and then there were a bunch of little adapters that were Male-A on one 
> side and something else on the other. There were at least 6 of those in 
> the package.

Cool. I'll keep an eye out for that ...
-- 
W. Oates
0
Warren
8/7/2007 11:36:02 AM
In article <ZuRti.1696$MT3.216@trnddc05>, Grandpa <me@privacy.net> 
wrote:

> The New Guy wrote:
> > Grampa's signature:
> > The New Guy wrote:
> > Just because someone believes something, doesn't mean its true.
> > If you're happy with your system, that's great.  Enjoy away.
> > 
> > I don't understand why you have this as a signature.  I don't even see 
> > the connection between the 2 lines.  There must be a connection in 
> > your mind otherwise they wouldn't be there, right?  Could you 
> > enlighten?
> 
> What?!? You don't recognize your own writings? You wrote it that
> way, I quote it, complete with attribution. What's not to
> understand? Are you saying you don't even know what you write?

Of course I understand what I wrote.  I just don't understand the 
context that you're using it in.  And why those 3 sentences?   Do they 
not seem logical to you?  Is there something wrong with them?
 
> I even told you I was going to quote that statement every time I
> respond to one of your posts.

Its a free country.  :)  You can do as you wish.
0
The
8/7/2007 2:25:29 PM
The New Guy wrote:
> In article <ZuRti.1696$MT3.216@trnddc05>, Grandpa <me@privacy.net> 
> wrote:
> 
>> The New Guy wrote:
>>> Grampa's signature:
>>> The New Guy wrote:
>>> Just because someone believes something, doesn't mean its true.
>>> If you're happy with your system, that's great.  Enjoy away.
>>>
>>> I don't understand why you have this as a signature.  I don't even see 
>>> the connection between the 2 lines.  There must be a connection in 
>>> your mind otherwise they wouldn't be there, right?  Could you 
>>> enlighten?
>> What?!? You don't recognize your own writings? You wrote it that
>> way, I quote it, complete with attribution. What's not to
>> understand? Are you saying you don't even know what you write?
> 
> Of course I understand what I wrote.  I just don't understand the 
> context that you're using it in.  And why those 3 sentences?   Do they 
> not seem logical to you?  Is there something wrong with them?
>  
>> I even told you I was going to quote that statement every time I
>> respond to one of your posts.
> 
> Its a free country.  :)  You can do as you wish.


I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you either have 
very short hair, or are bald.

-- 
Grandpa

The New Guy wrote:
 > Just because someone believes something, doesn't mean its true.
 > If you're happy with your system, that's great.  Enjoy away.
0
Grandpa
8/7/2007 2:36:05 PM
> >>> Grampa's signature:
> >>> The New Guy wrote:
> >>> Just because someone believes something, doesn't mean its true.
> >>> If you're happy with your system, that's great.  Enjoy away.
> >>>
> >>> I don't understand why you have this as a signature.  I don't even see 
> >>> the connection between the 2 lines.  There must be a connection in 
> >>> your mind otherwise they wouldn't be there, right?  Could you 
> >>> enlighten?

> >> What?!? You don't recognize your own writings? You wrote it that
> >> way, I quote it, complete with attribution. What's not to
> >> understand? Are you saying you don't even know what you write?
> > 
> > Of course I understand what I wrote.  I just don't understand the 
> > context that you're using it in.  And why those 3 sentences?   Do they 
> > not seem logical to you?  Is there something wrong with them?
> >  
> >> I even told you I was going to quote that statement every time I
> >> respond to one of your posts.
> > 
> > Its a free country.  :)  You can do as you wish.
>  
> I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you either have 
> very short hair, or are bald.

How about going out on a limb and posting something relevant?  Like an 
answer to my questions?
0
The
8/7/2007 3:59:34 PM
In article <01039ff5$0$10698$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
 Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <uce-899BC5.07162207082007@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
>  Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> 
> > I ran across a package in my grocery store of all places the other day 
> > that was billed as a universal USB cable. The cable itself was a Male-A 
> > to Female-A (that's the rectangular plug that ever host controller uses) 
> > and then there were a bunch of little adapters that were Male-A on one 
> > side and something else on the other. There were at least 6 of those in 
> > the package.
> 
> Cool. I'll keep an eye out for that ...

Turns out I slightly misremembered the options:

<http://www.jascoproducts.com/products/pc/viewPrd.asp?idcategory=52&idpro
duct=451>

My grocery store was selling it for less than half of the listed price, 
though.
0
Gregory
8/8/2007 12:45:11 AM
Reply: