Comments on: p2pnet World Headlines: Nov 10, 2009

By: jon7272

jon7272 — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:56:00 +0000

i suppose his failing newspaper bussiness will improve hahaha thats what he thinks

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:59:50 +0000

“Rupert Murdoch, the media tycoon who has long accused Google of ripping off content from his newspapers, said this weekend that his sites may soon disappear from the search engineâs listings”

Adieu and good riddance!

By: Devil's Advocate

Devil's Advocate — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:56:49 +0000

[Nelson]
“Ha-ha!”

By: Robert

Robert — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:36:05 +0000

*I am HOPEFUL ComputerWorld starts double-checking their articles a little more closely*

as I make a stupid mistake myself

By: Robert

Robert — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:35:25 +0000

Something doesn’t sound right here:
Up to 5Gbits/sec…
Up to 200MBytes/sec
USB 2.0 480Mbits/sec….

200MB/s is 1600Mbits/s. That’s not 5Gbits/s, it’s 1.6Gb/s. Where’s the 10x from? 480Mb/s is 60MB/s.

Sounds a little off, the math doesn’t quite add up.

I believe it relates to poor wording and mixing of claims. 5Gb/s may be in a lab with a unit that can deliver 5Gb/s to the drive, but with USB3.0’s 200MB/s or 1600Mb/s claims, that ain’t 10x the practical speed of USB2.0.

Or am I off with this? Doesn’t anyone else find the mixing of claims a little misleading?

If practical speeds were employed, you’d have not even 4x the speed, assuming you can get 60MB/s with USB2.0.

Also missing from the article but in the link is the increased speed with a special protocol driver is 320MB/s, not 200MB/s as referenced in the article.

So you could theoretically get 6x the speed, or 2560Mbps (still not 5Gb/s).

I home ComputerWorld starts double-checking their articles a little more closely.