f



iBook USB 1.0 or 2.0?

Hi,

Are iBooks equiped with two USB 1.0 ports, or 2.0?

thanks,
AJ


0
AJ
6/26/2003 7:20:32 AM
comp.sys.mac.portables 3106 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

7 Replies
325 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 32

In article <3efa9ec0$0$8308$4d4ebb8e@read.news.nl.uu.net>,
 "AJ" <mail@nl.nl> wrote:

> Are iBooks equiped with two USB 1.0 ports, or 2.0?

Yes. According to the new USB 2.0 spec, all USB 1.0 ports are now USB 
2.0 ports!

-- 
Enough <enough@idontcare.com>
0
Enough
6/26/2003 12:03:01 PM
In article <3efa9ec0$0$8308$4d4ebb8e@read.news.nl.uu.net>, AJ
<mail@nl.nl> wrote:

> Are iBooks equiped with two USB 1.0 ports, or 2.0?

They are USB 1.1 ports.

The only announced Mac with USB 2.0 ("High speed") ports is the new G5.

-- 
Barry
Barry@netbox.com                       <http://www.netbox.com/barry>
                           ------
             (I should put something down here).
0
Barry
6/26/2003 3:07:44 PM
"Barry Twycross" <barry@netbox.com> wrote in message
news:260620030809244498%barry@netbox.com...
> In article <VhBKa.181935$4y6.2672056@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, Enough
> <enough@idontcare.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <3efa9ec0$0$8308$4d4ebb8e@read.news.nl.uu.net>,
> >  "AJ" <mail@nl.nl> wrote:
> >
> > > Are iBooks equiped with two USB 1.0 ports, or 2.0?
> >
> > Yes. According to the new USB 2.0 spec, all USB 1.0 ports are now USB
> > 2.0 ports!
>
> I hope this is an example of your usual razor sharp wit, its less
> factually accurate than your typical posting.
>

Both witty and factually accurate. The iBooks are equipped with USB 2.0
ports (Full speed) aka USB 1.1


0
rtt
6/26/2003 8:56:08 PM
In article <d5JKa.61$8v6.13@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>, rtt
<rty@blobslob.net> wrote:

> "Barry Twycross" <barry@netbox.com> wrote in message
> news:260620030809244498%barry@netbox.com...
> > In article <VhBKa.181935$4y6.2672056@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, Enough
> > <enough@idontcare.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <3efa9ec0$0$8308$4d4ebb8e@read.news.nl.uu.net>,
> > >  "AJ" <mail@nl.nl> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Are iBooks equiped with two USB 1.0 ports, or 2.0?
> > >
> > > Yes. According to the new USB 2.0 spec, all USB 1.0 ports are now USB
> > > 2.0 ports!
> >
> > I hope this is an example of your usual razor sharp wit, its less
> > factually accurate than your typical posting.
> >
> 
> Both witty and factually accurate. The iBooks are equipped with USB 2.0
> ports (Full speed) aka USB 1.1

Don't get Barry's dander up; I'm sure he's fed up about this topic
(including my devil's advocacy about terminology and specificity) on
another group. From the USB-IF:

| All USB 2.0-compliant systems, such as laptop, notebook, and desktop
| computers, must by definition support all three data rates: 1.5 Mb/s,
| 12 Mb/s, and 480 Mb/s.

The iBook doesn't do 480Mb/s, so it's not 2.0-compliant.

G
0
Greg
6/27/2003 1:42:04 AM
In article <d5JKa.61$8v6.13@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>, rtt
<rty@blobslob.net> wrote:

> Both witty and factually accurate. The iBooks are equipped with USB 2.0
> ports (Full speed) aka USB 1.1

There is no such thing outside the crazed mind of journalist in Bangkok.

A USB 2.0 host port is by definition high speed.

-- 
Barry
Barry@netbox.com                       <http://www.netbox.com/barry>
                           ------
             (I should put something down here).
0
Barry
6/28/2003 6:22:06 AM
In article <260620032141352529%gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com>, Greg
Weston <gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:

> Don't get Barry's dander up; I'm sure he's fed up about this topic

I'm mighty fed up with how the rantings of one idiot can cause more
confusion about this than 3 years of peacful existance.

> (including my devil's advocacy about terminology and specificity) on
> another group. From the USB-IF:

I don't see it as devils advocate, you just have some mighty
hole-filled logic and I just can't see how you draw the conclusions you
manage to.

-- 
Barry
Barry@netbox.com                       <http://www.netbox.com/barry>
                           ------
             (I should put something down here).
0
Barry
6/28/2003 6:24:18 AM
In article <270620032324219128%barry@netbox.com>, Barry Twycross
<barry@netbox.com> wrote:

> In article <260620032141352529%gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com>, Greg
> Weston <gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:
> 
> > (including my devil's advocacy about terminology and specificity) on
> > another group. From the USB-IF:
> 
> I don't see it as devils advocate,

Then you weren't looking carefully enough. But I think I kind of expect
that from someone who believes that it's fair to say something like "no
other interpretation is possible" when the whole reason the thread
exists is that another interpretation was presented. I wasn't basing my
comments on what a Thai journalist said - I wasn't aware of it until
you brought it up. I was basing my comments on a reading of the
documents that you personally cited to support your point.


> you just have some mighty hole-filled logic and I just can't see
> how you draw the conclusions you manage to.

Not hole-filled logic. Just a lack of willingness to assume what's
meant by terminology that is ambiguous and not defined within its
context. USB-IF's recent posting on the subject disambiguated.

G
0
Greg
7/1/2003 12:55:24 AM
Reply: