> > >>>>> All the "transfer cables" I've seen have a lump in the middle. I'm
> > >>>>> pretty sure it's just a two-port USB hub. Might require a special
> > >>>>> "password" of some sort just to lock you into their software. though.
> > >> The lump in the middle of some USB cables is a filter. when USB first
> > >> came out the power and sign al wasn't so clean so filters were added to
> > >> the cables.
> > > Isaac
> > say what.
> > There two Standard, USB cable (not talking about the items in this thread)
> > USB-A to B
> > USB-B to B
> > The US-A End general general Plugs into a Device.
> > The B end plugs into the computer.
> > in last few years there have been three new types
> > USB to Mini
> > USB to Micro these are used generall on Phones.
> > The latest standard is USB3
> > I am sure there are variations on the above A-B, B-B, B-Mini, and > > B-micro in the USB3 standard.
> None of this is relevant. What *is* relevant is what Isaac said: Any > cable where both ends can mate directly to computers is not a "legal" > USB cable.
> The type of connector in use is not germane to the issue.
> 5.2.2 Compliant Cable Assemblies
> The USB 3.0 specification defines the following cable assemblies:
> USB 3.0 Standard-A plug to USB 3.0 Standard-B plug
> USB 3.0 Standard-A plug to USB 3.0 Micro-B plug
> USB 3.0 Standard-A plug to USB 3.0 Standard-A plug
> USB 3.0 Micro-A plug to USB 3.0 Micro-B plug
> USB 3.0 Micro-A plug to USB 3.0 Standard-B plug
> Captive cable with USB 3.0 Standard-A plug
> Permanently attached cable with USB 3.0 Micro-A plug
> Permanently attached cable with USB 3.0 Powered-B plug
> A captive cable is a cable assembly that has a Standard-A plug on one end and > that is either
> permanently attached or has a vendor-specific connector on the other end. A > permanently attached
> cable is directly wired to the device and it is not detachable from the > device. This specification
> does not define how the vendor-specific connector or permanent attachment > shall be done on the
> device side.
> For electrical compliance purpose, a USB 3.0 captive cable (permanently > attached or with vendorspecific
> connector on the device end) shall be considered part of the USB 3.0 device.
> No other types of cable assemblies are allowed by this specification. Section > 5.5 provides detailed
> discussion on USB 3.0 cable assemblies.
This also points out why us fogeys need to read the latest specs. USB 3.0 allows a USB 3.0 Standard A to USB 3.0 Standard A cable:
> 5.5.2 USB 3.0 Standard-A to USB 3.0 Standard-A Cable
> Assembly
> The USB 3.0 Standard-A to USB 3.0 Standard-A cable assembly is defined for > operating system
> debugging and other host-to-host connection applications. Table 5-10 shows > wire connections for
> such a cable assembly. Refer to Figure 5-16 for the USB 3.0 Standard-A plug > cable overmold
> dimensions.
The usual D+/D- pair, inherited from the USB 2.0 spec, are not connected in the cable; only VBUS and GND are connected in the legacy pins. All of the Superspeed pins are connected in what looks like a crossover configuration.
> 6.4.4 Prohibited Cable Assemblies
> USB is optimized for ease of use. The expectation is that if the device can > be plugged in, it will work.
> By specification, the only conditions that prevent a USB device from being > successfully utilized are
> lack of power, lack of bandwidth, and excessive topology depth. These > conditions are well understood
> by the system software.
> Prohibited cable assemblies may work in some situations, but they cannot be > guaranteed to work in all
> instances.
> Extension cable assembly
> A cable assembly that provides a Series A plug with a series A receptacle > or a Series B plug
> with a Series B receptacle. This allows multiple cable segments to be > connected together,
> possibly exceeding the maximum permissible cable length.
> Cable assembly that violates USB topology rules
> A cable assembly with both ends terminated in either Series A plugs or > Series B receptacles.
> This allows two downstream ports to be directly connected.
> Note: This prohibition does not prevent using a USB device to provide a > bridge between two USB
> buses.
> Standard detachable cables for low-speed devices
> Low-speed devices are prohibited from using standard detachable cables. A > standard detachable
> cable assembly must be high-/full-speed. Since a standard detachable cable > assembly is high-/fullspeed
> rated, using a long high-/full-speed cable exceeds the capacitive load of > low-speed.
So, I'd say that A-A cables are allowed, but only useable between hosts with USB 3.0 Standard A sockets. Devices with USB 2.0 Standard A sockets still need a cable with a bridge device.
Steve
-- steve <at> w0x0f <dot> com
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to
skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, sidecar in the other, body thoroughly
used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"
In article <slrnk3e0ok.hoq.g.kr...@mbp55.local>, Lewis
<g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> >> There are non-standard (not
> >> 'legal') cables that allow you to do this by doing a little end-around
> >> the standard.
> > still won't work. there's a reason the cables are not legal.
> They do work.
wrong. two hosts connected by a non-compliant cable *can't* talk to
each other unless there's active electronics in between, which acts as
a slave to each host.
Lewis <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <230820121517506581%nos...@nospam.invalid> > nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <slrnk3da10.f7n.g.kr...@mbp55.local>, Lewis
> > <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> >> >>> The lump in the middle of some USB cables is a filter. when USB first
> >> >>> came out the power and sign al wasn't so clean so filters were added to
> >> >>> the cables.
> >> >> Any cable where both ends can mate directly to computers is not a
> >> >> "legal" USB cable.
> >> > say what.
> >> Which part confused you? The USB standard is a master/slave (or
> >> host/client if you prefer) standard. You cannot normally connect two
> >> master/host devices together via USB.
> > not just normally. you can't at all, unless you use a non-compliant
> > cable, in which case it's not going to work, or worse, possibly cause
> > damage.
> >> There are non-standard (not
> >> 'legal') cables that allow you to do this by doing a little end-around
> >> the standard.
> > still won't work. there's a reason the cables are not legal.
> They do work.
A plain A-to-A cable, or one with a bridge in the cable? The USB spec specifically prohibits this configuration for USB 2.0; with USB 3.0 at both ends, it could work.
Steve
-- steve <at> w0x0f <dot> com
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to
skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, sidecar in the other, body thoroughly
used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"
In article <nospam-E443ED.23365823082...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Steve Fenwick <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > >> There are non-standard (not
> > >> 'legal') cables that allow you to do this by doing a little end-around
> > >> the standard.
> > > still won't work. there's a reason the cables are not legal.
> > They do work.
> A plain A-to-A cable, or one with a bridge in the cable? The USB spec > specifically prohibits this configuration for USB 2.0; with USB 3.0 at > both ends, it could work.
it could, but i don't know of anything that does, and that's just
electrical anyway. two hosts aren't likely to know how to talk to each
other, even if usb 3 supports such a cable.
[quote]Before buying a crossover cable, check your network adapter. Some newer network adapters automatically "cross over" when they detect that they are connected directly to another network adapter using a regular Ethernet cable.[/quote]
If both computers have Bluetooth that would be an option too, depending on how far apart they are and how long the transfer would take, depending on file size. Works between phones and computers anyway.
The most elegant option is over the local network via ethernet or wireless, as others have suggested on this thread.
> [quote]Before buying a crossover cable, check your network adapter. Some
> newer network adapters automatically "cross over" when they detect that
> they are connected directly to another network adapter using a regular
> Ethernet cable.[/quote]
In article <slrnk3jgt4.mmv.g.kr...@mbp55.local>, Lewis
<g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> >> >> There are non-standard (not
> >> >> 'legal') cables that allow you to do this by doing a little end-around
> >> >> the standard.
> >> > still won't work. there's a reason the cables are not legal.
> >> They do work.
> > wrong. two hosts connected by a non-compliant cable *can't* talk to
> > each other unless there's active electronics in between, which acts as
> > a slave to each host.
> Which is the cables I was talking about, as any literate 3rd grader
> would have been able to grasp.
those aren't cables. they're active devices, which any 1st grader would
be able to grasp.
<g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> >> >> >> There are non-standard (not
> >> >> >> 'legal') cables that allow you to do this by doing a little
> >> >> >> end-around
> >> >> >> the standard.
> >> >> > still won't work. there's a reason the cables are not legal.
> >> >> They do work.
> >> > wrong. two hosts connected by a non-compliant cable *can't* talk to
> >> > each other unless there's active electronics in between, which acts as
> >> > a slave to each host.
> >> Which is the cables I was talking about, as any literate 3rd grader
> >> would have been able to grasp.
> > those aren't cables. they're active devices, which any 1st grader would
> > be able to grasp.
> And yet, they are called "USB Data Transfer cables" you gibbering loon.
calling it a cable doesn't make it a cable.
a cable is just wires with a plug on either end. it's completely
passive. you can put an ohmmeter on the pins on each end and which are
connected to which. you can cut off the plugs and replace them with
different plugs.
this 'data transfer cable' is actually a usb device with two ports and
two permanently attached cables, one for each host. it acts as a slave
to each host and it requires software and power to work.
a normal cable does not need custom software and will have continuity
between corresponding pins.
<g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> There are non-standard (not
> >> >> >> >> 'legal') cables that allow you to do this by doing a little
> >> >> >> >> end-around the standard.
> >> >> >> > still won't work. there's a reason the cables are not legal.
> >> >> >> They do work.
> >> >> > wrong. two hosts connected by a non-compliant cable *can't* talk to
> >> >> > each other unless there's active electronics in between, which acts as
> >> >> > a slave to each host.
> >> >> Which is the cables I was talking about, as any literate 3rd grader
> >> >> would have been able to grasp.
> >> > those aren't cables. they're active devices, which any 1st grader would
> >> > be able to grasp.
> >> And yet, they are called "USB Data Transfer cables" you gibbering loon.
Lewis <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <260820120155217706%nos...@nospam.invalid> > nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <slrnk3jgt4.mmv.g.kr...@mbp55.local>, Lewis
> > <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> >> >> >> There are non-standard (not
> >> >> >> 'legal') cables that allow you to do this by doing a little > >> >> >> end-around
> >> >> >> the standard.
> >> >> > still won't work. there's a reason the cables are not legal.
> >> >> They do work.
> >> > wrong. two hosts connected by a non-compliant cable *can't* talk to
> >> > each other unless there's active electronics in between, which acts as
> >> > a slave to each host.
> >> Which is the cables I was talking about, as any literate 3rd grader
> >> would have been able to grasp.
> > those aren't cables. they're active devices, which any 1st grader would
> > be able to grasp.
> And yet, they are called "USB Data Transfer cables" you gibbering loon.
[snip]
The manufacturers can call it whatever they want, but that doesn't make it true. Euphemisms and misnomers are common in commercial products. The "Apple TV" isn't a television. "Cold cast bronze" isn't a metal; it's plastic resin which has some powdered bronze mixed in to give it a metallic appearance.
As for these "data transfer cables", Wikipedia calls them devices:
In article <wayne.morris-5F1E98.22402826082...@news.eternal-september.org>,
"Wayne C. Morris" <wayne.mor...@this.is.invalid> wrote:
> The manufacturers can call it whatever they want, but that doesn't make it > true. > Euphemisms and misnomers are common in commercial products. The "Apple TV" > isn't a television. "Cold cast bronze" isn't a metal; it's plastic resin > which > has some powdered bronze mixed in to give it a metallic appearance.
And, dammit, unshelled peanuts still have their shells on. And inflammable stuff will blow up (pace Dr. Nick). And who the hell knows what pre-sliced baloney looks like?
--
... do not cover a warm kettle or your stock may sour. -- Julia Child
> In message <260820120155217706%nos...@nospam.invalid> > nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <slrnk3jgt4.mmv.g.kr...@mbp55.local>, Lewis
>> <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>>>>>> There are non-standard (not
>>>>>>> 'legal') cables that allow you to do this by doing a little end-around
>>>>>>> the standard.
>>>>>> still won't work. there's a reason the cables are not legal.
>>>>> They do work.
>>>> wrong. two hosts connected by a non-compliant cable *can't* talk to
>>>> each other unless there's active electronics in between, which acts as
>>>> a slave to each host.
>>> Which is the cables I was talking about, as any literate 3rd grader
>>> would have been able to grasp.
>> those aren't cables. they're active devices, which any 1st grader would
>> be able to grasp.
> And yet, they are called "USB Data Transfer cables" you gibbering loon.
Ah... if it's a USB cable, it _can't_ connect two computers without a device of some kind to handle the connection. That's why you need software for those things. Just because they're _called_ 'cables' means nothing; you can call a sheep's tail a leg, but that doesn't make it one.
Lewis <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <wayne.morris-5F1E98.22402826082...@news.eternal-september.org> > Wayne C. Morris <wayne.mor...@this.is.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <slrnk3lbap.10j4.g.kr...@mbp55.local>,
> > Lewis <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> >> In message <260820120155217706%nos...@nospam.invalid> > >> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >> > In article <slrnk3jgt4.mmv.g.kr...@mbp55.local>, Lewis
> >> > <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> There are non-standard (not
> >> >> >> >> 'legal') cables that allow you to do this by doing a little > >> >> >> >> end-around
> >> >> >> >> the standard.
> >> >> >> > still won't work. there's a reason the cables are not legal.
> >> >> >> They do work.
> >> >> > wrong. two hosts connected by a non-compliant cable *can't* talk to
> >> >> > each other unless there's active electronics in between, which acts > >> >> > as
> >> >> > a slave to each host.
> >> >> Which is the cables I was talking about, as any literate 3rd grader
> >> >> would have been able to grasp.
> >> > those aren't cables. they're active devices, which any 1st grader would
> >> > be able to grasp.
> >> And yet, they are called "USB Data Transfer cables" you gibbering loon.
> > [snip]
> > The manufacturers can call it whatever they want, but that doesn't make it > > true.
> If you (for some unknown reason) want one, you'd best ask for a "USB
> data transfer cable" since that is what they are called. If you walk
> into Buy More and ask for a USB data transfer device, you are likely to
> be handed a thumb drive.
Now I get it! You live in a fictional universe, where Buy More and "USB data transfer cables" exist.
Those of us in the real world know better.
<plonk>
-- steve <at> w0x0f <dot> com
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to
skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, sidecar in the other, body thoroughly
used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"
Tim Streater <timstrea...@greenbee.net> wrote:
> In article <slrnk3oa06.318.g.kr...@mbp55.local>,
> Lewis <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> > In message <wayne.morris-5F1E98.22402826082...@news.eternal-september.org>
> > Wayne C. Morris <wayne.mor...@this.is.invalid> wrote:
> > > In article <slrnk3lbap.10j4.g.kr...@mbp55.local>,
> > > Lewis <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> > >> In message <260820120155217706%nos...@nospam.invalid> > > >> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > >> > In article <slrnk3jgt4.mmv.g.kr...@mbp55.local>, Lewis
> > >> > <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> There are non-standard (not
> > >> >> >> >> 'legal') cables that allow you to do this by doing a little
> > >> >> >> >> end-around
> > >> >> >> >> the standard.
> > >> >> >> > still won't work. there's a reason the cables are not legal.
> > >> >> >> They do work.
> > >> >> > wrong. two hosts connected by a non-compliant cable *can't* talk to
> > >> >> > each other unless there's active electronics in between, which acts
> > >> >> > as
> > >> >> > a slave to each host.
> > >> >> Which is the cables I was talking about, as any literate 3rd grader
> > >> >> would have been able to grasp.
> > >> > those aren't cables. they're active devices, which any 1st grader would
> > >> > be able to grasp.
> > >> And yet, they are called "USB Data Transfer cables" you gibbering loon.
> > > [snip]
> > > The manufacturers can call it whatever they want, but that doesn't make it
> > > true.
> > If you (for some unknown reason) want one, you'd best ask for a "USB
> > data transfer cable" since that is what they are called. If you walk
> > into Buy More and ask for a USB data transfer device, you are likely to
> > be handed a thumb drive.
In article <timstreater-AE0EDF.12113528082...@news.individual.net>,
Tim Streater <timstrea...@greenbee.net> wrote:
> > > Buy More? What is that?
> > Look up the TV programme "Chuck".
> Never heard of either of them. Well, I have now, but I rather wish I > hadn't.
"Chuck" is like "24" in that it's one of those shows that it's fun to hate. Silly mindless pop-culture. "Chuck" had some very tasty production values from time to time. Buy More is based on North American stores like Best Buy etc.
--
... do not cover a warm kettle or your stock may sour. -- Julia Child
> In article <timstreater-AE0EDF.12113528082...@news.individual.net>,
> Tim Streater <timstrea...@greenbee.net> wrote:
>>>> Buy More? What is that?
>>> Look up the TV programme "Chuck".
>> Never heard of either of them. Well, I have now, but I rather wish I
>> hadn't.
> "Chuck" is like "24" in that it's one of those shows that it's fun to
> hate. Silly mindless pop-culture. "Chuck" had some very tasty production
> values from time to time. Buy More is based on North American stores
> like Best Buy etc.
It's telling (telling what, I dunno) that an N-Zedder and someone from the Great Unwashed elucidated on a North American chain store and its references in an American TV show. And got it all quite right.
