Microsoft: We're Working on Better USB 3.0 Support in Windows 8
Microsoft: We're Working on Better USB 3.0 Support in Windows 8
Posted 08/23/2011 at 7:43am
| by Paul Lilly
14
Comments
Print
We've given up badgering AMD and Intel to implement native USB 3.0 into their chipsets, in part because both have plans to support the SuperSpeed spec, and also because third party chips from the likes of NEC and VIA work so well without driving up the cost of motherboards. That's the hardware side. On the software side, Microsoft is creating a brand new USB software stack to better support the USB 3.0 ecosystem.
Why wait until Windows 8 instead of updating Windows 7 or Vista? That's a good question, and Microsoft says it's because so many devices and their drivers currently rely on the existing software, and jumping into a new design could disrupt things.
"The solution? Don't jump in. Instead, meticulously design a new USB software stack for the new controller while maintaining existing interfaces and behaviors, ensuring every device and driver will work. For older controllers, we retained our existing software stack," Microsoft explains.
Another reason why Microsoft can afford to take its time is because the Redmond software giant is buying into In-Stat's figures, which doesn't peg USB 3.0 ubiquity with PCs until 2015.
More like this
14
Comments
Comments are closed on this article
TerribleToaster
August 23, 2011 at 8:11am
I wonder if they'll cure chronic halitosis with Win8 too.
I hear 9 out of every ten Americans suffer from it.
win7fanboi
August 23, 2011 at 7:52am
It too f@#^@#$ing soon for another OS microsoft. I welcome win7 although it didn't add much over xp but this is just ridiculous. People are not going to throw money away every two years for an OS. Nothing I have seen in win8 justifies an update. USB 3 support HA HA... send a "better support for usb 3" update package via windows update. Losers.
winmaster
August 23, 2011 at 8:21am
"People are not going to throw money away every two years for an OS."
Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows 98 SE (1999)
Windows ME (2000)
Windows XP (2001)
No, MS has never in the past released new OSes this quickly. </sarcasm>
win7fanboi
August 23, 2011 at 8:55am
Interesting... you forgot win 2k but remembered win ME. Maybe you are listing your upgrade path, my condolences. Here's mine : 2k > XP > 7.
livebriand
August 23, 2011 at 9:57am
ME came out shortly after w2k, but they were intended for different markets - w2k in businesses, and ME in the home.
TerribleToaster
August 23, 2011 at 8:55am
No, MS has never released a major update this quickly. If you are looking at MS OS's targeting at major adoption by normal consumers, your list is: 95, XP, Vista (though many argue against including Vista anywhere since it really should have never been released), Win7. It wasn't until Win XP that MS started using a single OS moniker that they revise for other applications, so it really is incredibly soon for a Win8 OS. It is the equivelent of them releasing ~6 OS's in 3 years (2 monikers with 3 revisions each) instead of ~3 in 3 years (if that makes this any clearer).
Cregan89
August 23, 2011 at 2:21pm
Wrong. First off, Windows 98 was most definitely a major OS. So the list is:
Windows 95: 1995 Q3
Windows 98: 1998 Q3
Windows XP: 2001 Q3
Windows Vista: 2006 Q4
Windows 7: 2009 Q3
Windows 8: ~2012 Q3It's the exact same release schedule it's always been, except for Windows Vista. And it's considered by many that the reason for Windows Vista's failure was because it took too long to be released, and therefore consumers and developers were too attached to XP.
TerribleToaster
August 24, 2011 at 5:26am
First, Vista was considered a failure because they released it way too soon and it was a host of glitches. Not that they didn't release it early enough. And you are still skipping out on what I was pointing out.
Since people have decided to do this by all consumer OS's released rather than the most common upgrade path, you must account for the fact that there isn't just 1 Win XP, Win Vista, and Win 7, there are 3 (major revisions) of each (so 9 OS's released from 01-09, 1 a year, with 6 being released from 06-09, 2 a year). When Win XP came out, MS started their new plan for releasing OS's. XP was the start of a completely different line of OS's from the ones they made in the 90's. This was done so that instead of having people running many different versions of their Win OS, people would primarily being running one of three types of an OS itineration (of course, Vista messed this up by sucking, and they are trying to fix it up with Win 7). Announcing the release of Win 8, and having it so soon undermines the process. You'll have Win 7 and Win 8 competing with each other as Win 7 won't be seen as obsolete, but rather a cheaper alternative to Win 8. And by saying you'll have Win 8 within a year, you'll get people waiting to upgrade from XP to Win 8 instead of going to Win 7.
Slugbait
August 23, 2011 at 10:37am
Yeah, Toast didn't get it quite right, either and it's certainly not clearer. First, you can't lump the hybrids in with NT, it's not fair: they were being produced simultaneously by completely different teams and had different customer bases. Second, XP was a point release. Third, because of support for USB 1.1, Win98 was a major release and weened many people off Win95 while attracting even more new people to personal computing.
Gotta remember that codename Nashville was canceled due to "betting the farm on NT"...and then resurrected as Memphis once it became clear that NT5 was way behind schedule and would not ship anywhere close to 1998 as planned and BrianV took over. Interesting tidbit: the Nashville codename was continued under the new IPTD division to denote the browser.
So it kinda goes like this:
Hybrids: v4.0 (Win95, released 1995 and 1996) -> v4.1 (Win98, 98SE, released 1998 and 1999) -> v4.9 (WinME, 2000) -> EOL. The largest gaps between major releases is two years (or a single gap of three years if you don't believe OSR2 was a legit major release)
True 32-bit: v3.x (released 1993/1994/1995) -> v4.0 (released 1996)-> v5.0 (W2K, released 2000)-> v5.1 (XP, released 2001) -> v6.0 (Vista, released 2006) -> v6.1 (Win7, released 2009). Gaps are usually three to four years (you can't really count Vista cuz it kept slipping and slipping and slipping...) so it is NOT incredibly soon for a Win8 OS. In fact, it's just about on time.
dgrmouse
August 23, 2011 at 10:23am
Huge numbers of users moved from 95 to 98, ironically because of the vastly improved USB support - 95 OSR2 was OEM-only.
Brad Nimbus
August 23, 2011 at 7:51am
Did Windows 7 have any issues with usb3? My setup was pretty much just to install drivers.
Eoraptor
August 23, 2011 at 5:45pm
Issues, no, but it still has a fairly large overhead on the stack that allows the USb3 hardware to talk to the operating system. So it's not nearly as effecient as it could be, all things considered (the same is true of their blue tooth stack, but you certainly don't see them rushing to patch that, do you?)
I have the feeling that win8 is going to turn out to be another Vista, or worse an ME. (lets face it, Vista at least wors out of the box, which is not something you can say for ME) folding in all this mobile trash interface on top of a mouse-based operating system is a really boneheaded move. Reminds me of the old windows 98 tag line, a 32 bit Shell, built on top of a 16 bit operating system, with an 8 bit kernal, written with a 2 bit schmuck with zero bits of common sense.
Connect with MaximumPC
Featured Content
The gang discusses the GTX 690, Trinity, Ivy Bridge, Amazon, big-box stores, MMOs,...
This month's issue
Feature
Build a PC On Any Budget
Feature
Cloud Services Showdown
How-To
Encrypt Your External Drive
Build It
Upgrade an X58 Rig
Most Commented Articles
Latest Max PC Tweets
- maximumpc: Original RickRoll Video Returns to YouTube After 24-Hour Copyright Hiatus http://t.co/MaH9Sxyy1 day 21 hours ago
- maximumpc: Corsair has decided not to go forward with its $78 million IPO, citing weak equity market conditions http://t.co/A5a4DAzj1 day 22 hours ago
- maximumpc: Want to work at Maximum PC? Our Online Managing Editor, Alex, is moving away, so we need a new one. http://t.co/9Z7JCh0E3 days 19 hours ago
