Re: flashing usb sticks?

bad sector wrote:

> VanguardLH wrote:
>
>> bad sector wrote:
>> 
>>> The entire USB interface whorehouse is already nothing but a huge
>>> scam. It shudda been put out of its misery years ago
>> 
>> What is your proposal for a replacement?  What would be your new design?
>> Of other existing connector types, what do you suggest?  
> 
> eSata with extra deep connector socket plus an at least one inch deep
> device body socket to grasp the plug end of a external mobile device

That would go backward in bandwidth.  SATA-3 has 6Gbps max bandwidth
(theoretical, not actual).  USB-3.0 goes to 5 Gbps, USB-3.1 goes to
10Gbps and UASP, USB-3.2 to 10-20 Gbps, Thunderbolt to 40 Gbps, and
USB-4 (based on Thunderbolt) is 40 Gbps.  Sometimes you find builds that
have internal HDDs with a USB3 port instead of SATA.  Users will
dismantle an old build thinking to repurpose the old HDDs in a new
build, but find the HDDs have USB ports.  SATA-3 performs still faster
than USB-3.0, but that's because SATA-3 is 6 Gpbs versus USB3.0 at 5
Gbps.  But USB is evolving to higher bandwidths, like for USB 4.3 Gen
2x2, than SATA can support.  

eSATA connectors supply no power.  Your external eSATA device has to get
power from a walwart.  For an eSATA device, you have the cable from
computer to eSATA device, and a power adapter to the eSATA device.  USB,
firewire, and thunderbolt suppy power.  Yeah, a modified eSATA connector
could get designed that includes power lines, like the combo SATA+PWR
connectors used for internal drives, or maybe your desktop PC has an
eSATAp (powered eSATA) port which means your external device needs one,
too, but you're still stuck with the lower bandwidth of eSATA compared
to USB-4 or Thunderbolt.  If you have an eSATA connector on the
backpanel of your desktop PC, is it double wide to include the power
connector (looks like the extra wide internal SATA+pwr connector), or
look like an eSATAp port?

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/5R3IpwMl1Ts/maxresdefault.jpg

No idea if eSATAp will take off.  I haven't found mobos with them.  With
users migrating to SSDs for storage, and getting mobos with m.2 NVMe
slots to use with NVMe SSDs which are using PCI for direct to CPU
transfer, SATA is dying out.  NVMe in onboard, so no connecting external
SSD NVMe drives.  For external SSDs, or even internal non-NVMe SSDs,
you're stuck with [e]SATA which went stagnant.  There is no SATA-4 in
the works.  There are no plans to extend SATA bandwidth beyond 6 Gbps.
There is SATA-3.2 Express, but that relies on the PCIe bus for achieving
more than the 6 Gbps transfer speed.  SATA-3 Express failed.  m.2 and
NVMe (using PCIe) surpassed it.

>> Thunderbolt? Thunderbolt started 11 years ago.  USB started 26 years
>> ago. Thunderbolt required paying a royalty to Intel until recently.> 
>> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/05/intel-to-make-thunderbolt-3-royalty-free-in-bid-to-spur-adoption/
> 
> another exercise in life-brevity i.e. planned obsolescence

Huh?  Removing the royalty means MORE hardware designers will adopt
Thunderbolt whether exhibited as plain Thunderbolt, or implemented in
USB-4.

SATA is stagnant (dead).  SATAe failed.  Few computers have an eSATAp
port (I haven't found any, but there may be some).  NVMe is already
available, but only for internal drives since it involve PCIe.
Thunderbolt (innate, or integrated into USB-4) will kill any eSATA[p] or
SATA interface.

Just what is your design that obviates obsolescence?  ALL computer
hardware eventually becomes obsolete.  So do the features in smart TVs,
operating systems, and anything connected to computers.  Else,
technology would stagnate, and you'd still be using an 5 MB MFM drive
with a specialty controller card.

>> Did you buy a computer with a Thunderbolt interface?  Why not?
>> Thunderbolt 3 will mutate into the USB 4 form factor.
> 
> couldn't care less

So, you really aren't interest in a better hardware storage interface.
What were you trying to convey by saying "The entire USB interface
whorehouse is already nothing but a huge scam. It shudda been put out of
its misery years ago"?  What's the "scam"?  What is so miserable about
USB?

> Now my turn. Why haven't I bought two or three other new laptops
> since my Asus G73 and why am I not likely to buy another at all for 
> some (read a loooooong) time to come?

Because your current but 12-year old hardware meets your current needs
despite the hardware is obsolescent.  That's not an excuse to condemn
newer hardware that exceeds what you have.

I have an equally old Acer laptop that is still usable.  Not better, not
faster, nor in any way excels my latest desktop PC build, or even a
younger netbook, but it still works.  When my prior desktop build got
zapped by lightning (it bypassed the UPS - high voltage goes where it
wants), I was without a computer.  I hooked a monitor, keyboard, and
mouse to the old laptop, and used that while ordering parts and doing
the new build.  The experience was frustrating and slow, but it worked.
Its battery was dead, but it worked on A/C power.  Would I use it now
that I have a fresh new build?  No way!  I used it because it was all I
had at the time.

Some consumers buy stuff because it's new or different.  Some consumers
research before buying to determine if they're getting bang for the
buck.  If your criteria doesn't mandate spending on new hardware, OS,
and apps, or faster, or more storage, or whatever then stick with what
works.  My primary car is a 2002.  Still works.  None of all the
gimmicks in the 2018, but those aren't needed for the basic use of a
car.  It rattles, has rust, so-so MPH, no passenger air bag, no head
unit to pair to my smartphone (which is 3 years old, and was introduced
6 years ago, is unsupported so no OS updates), and other features many
consumers think are needed.  As a commuter car, it still works.  Didn't
stop me from getting a newer car with lots more gimmicks, but I put the
most wear on the old car (which is now a classic being over 20 years
old).

Obviously you're not getting newer storage interfaces on your old
computer, but that doesn't obviate newer and faster is available, is not
yet obsolescent since it is still evolving rather than stagnant, like
SATA, and are [soon] available if you really do want to get away from
the "entire USB interface whorehouse".

> designed like myself for a million insertions with little risk of
> tiring 

Can be done.  Get the user out the equation, and the abuse disappears.
USB-C is rated for 10,000 insertions.  That's a rating based on the
connector format.  Some USB-C connectors are rated to 20K insertions, or
more.  Depends on how much you're willing to spend on quality.  Military
grade USB connectors that are waterproof, have a ratching ring for
secure connects and strain relief, and high insertion count are unlikely
to find their way into the consumer-grade computer parts market where
you buy computer parts, or buy pre-built computers using consumer-grade
parts.

If insertion rating will never be high enough to warrant your
acceptance, get shorty USB cables to leave plugged into your computers.
Wear on the computer's USB ports (the ones hardest to replace) will be
minimalized since only the other end will plug ito the device's USB
cable.  The shorty USB cable can be easily replaced after 10 years it
takes to come close to the insertion rating count.  Oh, those insertion
ratings are a minimum, so you get at least that many barring user abuse
which is obviously to most likely cause for failure.  No matter how
protected or robust a connector, it can be damaged by users.