cables (PC & Mac)

[Frank]

Can I use the same transfer cable for a PC to PC transfer as for a PC
to Mac transfer?

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:00:08 -0400, Frank wrote
(in article
<1d483914-9506-42ad...@p11g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>):

> Can I use the same transfer cable for a PC to PC transfer as for a PC
> to Mac transfer?

Define 'transfer cable'. What are you 'transferring'? Does this 'transfer
cable' require additional software? Does it use USB, FireWire, Thunderbolt,
or Ethernet ports? Why can't you simply place the two computers on a network,
up to and including the Internet, and copy stuff across the network? Dropbox,
SkyDrive, and GoogleDrive are all free unless you're using a _lot_ of
storage.

--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

[Salvatore]

On 2012-08-22, Frank <gn...@windstream.net> wrote:
> Can I use the same transfer cable for a PC to PC transfer as for a PC
> to Mac transfer?

The hardware shouldn't matter as long as both operating systems support
it. Windows and Mac OS should support the same connections, anyhow.

Is this cable a USB-to-USB cable, a FireWire-to-FireWire cable, or a
crossover Ethernet cable?

--
Blah blah bleh...

GCS/CM d(-)@>-- s+:- !a C++$ UBL++++$ L+$ W+++$ w M++ Y++ b++

[Frank]

On Aug 22, 8:29 am, J.J. O'Shea <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:00:08 -0400, Frank wrote
> (in article

> <1d483914-9506-42ad-8707-4854d37b0...@p11g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>):

>
> > Can I use the same transfer cable for a PC to PC transfer as for a PC
> > to Mac transfer?
>
> Define 'transfer cable'. What are you 'transferring'?

Files from Win 7 PC to Win 7 PC. I have Detto Move2Mac kit which
includes transfer cable. Was wondering if I could use the same cable
for PC to PC.

Does this 'transfer
> cable' require additional software?

Not for document nor graphic type file transfers. It does for some
other types.

Does it use USB, FireWire, Thunderbolt,
> or Ethernet ports?

USB

Why can't you simply place the two computers on a network,
> up to and including the Internet, and copy stuff across the network?

That is possible. I have had probs with Mac to PC interchanges on
wireless home network. I've contacted ISP, Microsoft and Apple tech
support tech support. Some say transfer not possible, but I have been
able to do it using Public folder on Mac. Not always successful at
that.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:19:45 -0400, Frank wrote
(in article
<00052f1a-9d1e-4aac...@w9g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>):

> On Aug 22, 8:29ï¿œam, J.J. O'Shea <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:00:08 -0400, Frank wrote
>> (in article
>> <1d483914-9506-42ad-8707-4854d37b0...@p11g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>> Can I use the same transfer cable for a PC to PC transfer as for a PC
>>> to Mac transfer?
>>
>> Define 'transfer cable'. What are you 'transferring'?
>
> Files from Win 7 PC to Win 7 PC. I have Detto Move2Mac kit which
> includes transfer cable. Was wondering if I could use the same cable
> for PC to PC.

I have no idea what a Detto Move2Mac cable is, but if it's got USB ends it
might work. Might need software.

>
> Does this 'transfer
>> cable' require additional software?
> Not for document nor graphic type file transfers. It does for some
> other types.

What I thought.

>
> Does it use USB, FireWire, Thunderbolt,
>> or Ethernet ports?
>
> USB

It might work.

>
> Why can't you simply place the two computers on a network,
>> up to and including the Internet, and copy stuff across the network?
>
> That is possible. I have had probs with Mac to PC interchanges on
> wireless home network. I've contacted ISP, Microsoft and Apple tech
> support tech support. Some say transfer not possible, but I have been
> able to do it using Public folder on Mac. Not always successful at
> that.
>

It's very possible to turn file sharing on on either/both systems. Please
note that to copy across the network you _must_ set access privs _explicitly_
on Windows systems. it's not enough to turn sharing on, you must give a
particular user permission to save files in the _Security_ tab; the simplest
way to do this is to log in from the Mac as your main user on the WinBox.
Going the other way, you can drop things into the Public folder on a Mac, but
to go anywhere else you again need to log in as a user who has access.

Or you can use Dropbox or SkyDrive and simply move/copy files to the Dropbox
or SkyDrive folders, and wait for propagation over the Internet, and open up
the Dropbox or SkyDrive folder on the other machine and move/copy the files
out. I have a Dropbox folder set up to hold stuff I need on several machines;
if I change one of those files on any one machine,
Mac/Windows/smartphone/whatever, the change is propagated back to all the
others. If I add a file on one machine, it's added to all. If I remove a file
on one machine, it's removed on all.

[nospam]

In article
<00052f1a-9d1e-4aac...@w9g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

Frank <gn...@windstream.net> wrote:

> > > Can I use the same transfer cable for a PC to PC transfer as for a PC
> > > to Mac transfer?
> >
> > Define 'transfer cable'. What are you 'transferring'?
>
> Files from Win 7 PC to Win 7 PC. I have Detto Move2Mac kit which
> includes transfer cable. Was wondering if I could use the same cable
> for PC to PC.

return it. you don't need it.

put both machines on the same network, turn on file sharing on one
(preferably the mac), mount that drive on the other computer and copy
as you normally would.

wired ethernet will be faster than wireless, but if you aren't copying
that much stuff, it may not matter that much.

you do *not* need a special cable or software or anything else.

> Does this 'transfer
> > cable' require additional software?
> Not for document nor graphic type file transfers. It does for some
> other types.
>
> Does it use USB, FireWire, Thunderbolt, or Ethernet ports?
>
> USB

there would need to be something in the middle. you *can't* connect two
computers by usb.

> Why can't you simply place the two computers on a network,
> > up to and including the Internet, and copy stuff across the network?
>
> That is possible. I have had probs with Mac to PC interchanges on
> wireless home network. I've contacted ISP, Microsoft and Apple tech
> support tech support. Some say transfer not possible, but I have been
> able to do it using Public folder on Mac. Not always successful at
> that.

they're all clueless, especially whomever you talked to at apple
because apple explicitly supports migration from windows to mac.

if you are transferring from an old pc to a new mac, this is *exactly*
what you want:

<http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4796?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US>

otherwise, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that you can't turn
on file sharing and copy whatever files you want, wireless or wired.

you do *not* need anything else.

[isw]

In article <k12n2...@news3.newsguy.com>,

J.J. O'Shea <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:

> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:19:45 -0400, Frank wrote
> (in article
> <00052f1a-9d1e-4aac...@w9g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>):
>

> > On Aug 22, 8:29 am, J.J. O'Shea <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:00:08 -0400, Frank wrote
> >> (in article
> >> <1d483914-9506-42ad-8707-4854d37b0...@p11g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>):
> >>
> >>> Can I use the same transfer cable for a PC to PC transfer as for a PC
> >>> to Mac transfer?
> >>
> >> Define 'transfer cable'. What are you 'transferring'?
> >
> > Files from Win 7 PC to Win 7 PC. I have Detto Move2Mac kit which
> > includes transfer cable. Was wondering if I could use the same cable
> > for PC to PC.
>
> I have no idea what a Detto Move2Mac cable is, but if it's got USB ends it
> might work. Might need software.

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.

Isaac

[nospam]

In article <isw-4B846D.10221122082012@[216.168.3.50]>, isw

<i...@witzend.com> wrote:

> 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.

it's more than just a usb hub. you can't connect two usb masters (the
computers) together. the lump needs to be a usb slave to each computer.

a network cable or even a firewire cable will work a lot better and for
a lot less money.

[Paul Sture]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:35:30 -0700, nospam wrote:

> In article <isw-4B846D.10221122082012@[216.168.3.50]>, isw
> <i...@witzend.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> it's more than just a usb hub. you can't connect two usb masters (the
> computers) together. the lump needs to be a usb slave to each computer.

This is addressed by "USB On-The-Go", aka USB OTG, which is a supplement
to the original USB 2.0 specification.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_OTG>

"Standard USB uses a master/slave architecture; a USB host acts as the
protocol master, and a USB device acts as the slave. Only the host can
schedule the configuration and data transfers over the link. The devices
cannot initiate data transfers, they only respond to requests given by a
host. OTG introduces the concept that a device can perform both the
master and slave roles, and so subtly changes the terminology. With OTG,
a device can be either a host (acting as the link master) or a peripheral
(acting as the link slave). The device connected to the "A" end of the
cable at start-up (known as the A-device) acts as the default host, while
the "B" end acts as the default peripheral (known as the B-device)."

> a network cable or even a firewire cable will work a lot better and for
> a lot less money.

Agreed.

--
Paul Sture

[nospam]

In article <l1nfg9-...@news1.chingola.ch>, Paul Sture

<nos...@sture.ch> wrote:

> >> 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.
> >
> > it's more than just a usb hub. you can't connect two usb masters (the
> > computers) together. the lump needs to be a usb slave to each computer.
>
> This is addressed by "USB On-The-Go", aka USB OTG, which is a supplement
> to the original USB 2.0 specification.

true, but it's almost guaranteed that the computers aren't usb otg. it
will still need to be a slave to both.

[Phillip Jones]

Paul Sture wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:35:30 -0700, nospam wrote:
>
>> In article<isw-4B846D.10221122082012@[216.168.3.50]>, isw
>> <i...@witzend.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.

>>
>> it's more than just a usb hub. you can't connect two usb masters (the
>> computers) together. the lump needs to be a usb slave to each computer.
>
> This is addressed by "USB On-The-Go", aka USB OTG, which is a supplement
> to the original USB 2.0 specification.
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_OTG>
>
> "Standard USB uses a master/slave architecture; a USB host acts as the
> protocol master, and a USB device acts as the slave. Only the host can
> schedule the configuration and data transfers over the link. The devices
> cannot initiate data transfers, they only respond to requests given by a
> host. OTG introduces the concept that a device can perform both the
> master and slave roles, and so subtly changes the terminology. With OTG,
> a device can be either a host (acting as the link master) or a peripheral
> (acting as the link slave). The device connected to the "A" end of the
> cable at start-up (known as the A-device) acts as the default host, while
> the "B" end acts as the default peripheral (known as the B-device)."
>
>> a network cable or even a firewire cable will work a lot better and for
>> a lot less money.
>
> Agreed.
>


--

Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net/ mailto:pjon...@comcast.net

[Phillip Jones]

nospam wrote:
> In article<l1nfg9-...@news1.chingola.ch>, Paul Sture
> <nos...@sture.ch> wrote:
>
>>>> 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 item where you need to have plugged to run certain software is
called a Dongle. It can be set up using USB.

>>>
>>> it's more than just a usb hub. you can't connect two usb masters (the
>>> computers) together. the lump needs to be a usb slave to each computer.
>>
>> This is addressed by "USB On-The-Go", aka USB OTG, which is a supplement
>> to the original USB 2.0 specification.
>
> true, but it's almost guaranteed that the computers aren't usb otg. it
> will still need to be a slave to both.

[nospam]

In article <k13rde$9n6$1...@dont-email.me>, Phillip Jones

<pjon...@comcast.net> wrote:

> >>>> 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 item where you need to have plugged to run certain software is
> called a Dongle. It can be set up using USB.

this isn't a dongle. it's a special transfer cable, such as this:
<http://www.belkin.com/images/product/F3U150-1.8M/FUL1_F3U150-1.8M.jpg>

[nospam]

In article <k13r6c$7v1$1...@dont-email.me>, Phillip Jones

<pjon...@comcast.net> wrote:

> >>> 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.

it's not a filter.

it's a special usb transfer cable with the same connectors on each end,
such as this one:
<http://www.belkin.com/images/product/F3U150-1.8M/FUL1_F3U150-1.8M.jpg>

[Phillip Jones]

That is different.

[Steve Fenwick]

In article <l1nfg9-...@news1.chingola.ch>,
Paul Sture <nos...@sture.ch> wrote:

Except that OTG is almost universally available only on mobile devices
that need to be devices when connected to computers and other hosts, and
masters when connected to devices (e.g., printers). It is only allowed
(per the USB spec) with USB micro and mini ports, which are not usually
found on desktop or laptop computers. That big rectangular USB connector
on most PCs and Macs is a USB Type A port, which can only be a host
port. The more square connector, with the bevelled corners, is a type B
port, which can only be device port.

It's hard to tell from Detto's site what the cable is; their blurbs for
their current products mention wired and wireless network transactions.
On Amazon, there's a Detto product listing that shows what looks like a
USB host-to-host cable, which is supported directly by Windows (of
various ages) but not by Mac OS X. Their value-add in this case is
probably the software to allow the Mac to use the host-to-host cable.

nospam is correct: All USB host-to-host cables need a device like this
one from Prolific
(<http://prolificusa.com/portfolio/pl-25a1-hi-speed-usb-host-to-host-brid
ge-controller/>) to act as a bridge--simply connecting two PCs or Macs,
and nothing else, to a normal USB hub won't do do the trick.

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!"

[isw]

In article <220820121035302125%nos...@nospam.invalid>,

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <isw-4B846D.10221122082012@[216.168.3.50]>, isw
> <i...@witzend.com> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> it's more than just a usb hub. you can't connect two usb masters (the
> computers) together. the lump needs to be a usb slave to each computer.

Right. I should have said "reverse hub".

> a network cable or even a firewire cable will work a lot better and for
> a lot less money.

Yup. Or WiFi.

Isaac

[isw]

In article <k13r6c$7v1$1...@dont-email.me>,

Phillip Jones <pjon...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Paul Sture wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:35:30 -0700, nospam wrote:
> >
> >> In article<isw-4B846D.10221122082012@[216.168.3.50]>, isw
> >> <i...@witzend.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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.

Any cable where both ends can mate directly to computers is not a
"legal" USB cable.

Isaac

[dorayme]

In article <isw-3216AB.22513322082012@[216.168.3.50]>,
isw <i...@witzend.com> wrote:
...

> Any cable where both ends can mate directly to computers is not a
> "legal" USB cable.
>

I agree, and what is more, it would be an *immoral* cable.

--
dorayme

[PhillipJones]

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.

[nospam]

In article <k13sk9$f9l$1...@dont-email.me>, Phillip Jones

<pjon...@comcast.net> wrote:

> >>>>>> 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 item where you need to have plugged to run certain software is
> >> called a Dongle. It can be set up using USB.
> >
> > this isn't a dongle. it's a special transfer cable, such as this:
> > <http://www.belkin.com/images/product/F3U150-1.8M/FUL1_F3U150-1.8M.jpg>
>
> That is different.

exactly the point.

[nospam]

In article <k15sup$ll2$1...@news.albasani.net>, PhillipJones

<pjon...@comcast.net> wrote:

> > Any cable where both ends can mate directly to computers is not a
> > "legal" USB cable.
>

> say what.
>
> There two Standard, USB cable (not talking about the items in this thread)
>
> USB-A to B
> USB-B to B

there is no usb-b to b cable.

the cable mentioned in the original post is usb-a to usb-a with active
electronics in the middle to act as a slave to each host. it's much
more than a plain cable. think of it as a two-sided peripheral.

> The US-A End general general Plugs into a Device.
> The B end plugs into the computer.

it's the other way around.

usb-a, the thin flat connector, plugs into a computer.
usb-b, the square connector with angled corners, plugs into a device.

<http://tehnosite.narod.ru/ft.files/USB_konektory.gif>

[nospam]

In article <slrnk3da10....@mbp55.local>, Lewis

<g.k...@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.

> These cables usually have a big filter/dongle thing in the
> middle of them.

that's *not* a filter or a dongle. it's an active device that is a
slave to both hosts.

[PhillipJones]

You are correct I worked in Electronics from thetime was 20 to about 45.
And I've bought used cables until very recently until my suplier moved
to another city.
and during that time there cable supliers had the types listed
opposite. to what is shown
in this: http://pinouts.ru/Slots/USB_pinout.shtml
and in this page they show mini-a and mini-b as to what they had listed
as mini and Micro.

Here is Pinout for USB3
http://pinoutsguide.com/Slots/usb_3_0_connector_pinout.shtml

[PhillipJones]

Lewis wrote:
> In message<k15sup$ll2$1...@news.albasani.net>

> PhillipJones<pjon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> isw wrote:
>>> In article<k13r6c$7v1$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>> Phillip Jones<pjon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paul Sture wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:35:30 -0700, nospam wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article<isw-4B846D.10221122082012@[216.168.3.50]>, isw
>>>>>> <i...@witzend.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Any cable where both ends can mate directly to computers is not a
>>> "legal" USB cable.
>>>
>>> Isaac
>
>> 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. There are non-standard (not

> 'legal') cables that allow you to do this by doing a little end-around

> the standard. These cables usually have a big filter/dongle thing in the
> middle of them.
>
>

If the USB-A cable uses the same flat connector on both ends isn't that
a legal cable.

I even has an older Western Digital Hard Drive that has a FireWire input
and a USB input and it uses the flat A connector as input It also
addition USB A jacks which you han use as a powered USB hub.

[Steve Fenwick]

In article <timstreater-76D0...@news.individual.net>,

Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:

> In article <k15sup$ll2$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> PhillipJones <pjon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>

> > isw wrote:
> > > In article<k13r6c$7v1$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > > Phillip Jones<pjon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Paul Sture wrote:
> > >>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:35:30 -0700, nospam wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> In article<isw-4B846D.10221122082012@[216.168.3.50]>, isw
> > >>>> <i...@witzend.com> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> 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.


Sure it is--that's how the USB spec is written:

> 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.

USB 2.0, the prior spec, does not:

> 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.

[nospam]

In article <slrnk3e0ok....@mbp55.local>, Lewis

<g.k...@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

[Steve Fenwick]

In article <slrnk3e0ok....@mbp55.local>,
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <230820121517506581%nos...@nospam.invalid>

> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <slrnk3da10....@mbp55.local>, Lewis
> > <g.k...@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.

[nospam]

In article <nospam-E443ED....@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.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 08/22/2012 08:32 AM, Salvatore wrote:
> On 2012-08-22, Frank <gn...@windstream.net> wrote:
>> Can I use the same transfer cable for a PC to PC transfer as for a PC
>> to Mac transfer?
>
> The hardware shouldn't matter as long as both operating systems support
> it. Windows and Mac OS should support the same connections, anyhow.
>
> Is this cable a USB-to-USB cable, a FireWire-to-FireWire cable, or a
> crossover Ethernet cable?
>
Are crossovers necessary anymore?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet_crossover_cable

Evil empire says:

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-vista/Connect-two-computers-using-a-crossover-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.

[nospam]

In article <0_ednXU03YC9JqrN...@giganews.com>,

*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > Is this cable a USB-to-USB cable, a FireWire-to-FireWire cable, or a
> > crossover Ethernet cable?
>
> Are crossovers necessary anymore?

nope. ethernet ports have been auto-sensing for about a decade and
either type of cable will work.

[Paul Sture]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 13:34:23 -0400, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

> Are crossovers necessary anymore?
>
> Evil empire says:
>
> http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-vista/Connect-two-computers-

using-a-crossover-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]

That article is probably 10 or more years old.

--
Paul Sture

[nospam]

In article <slrnk3jgt4....@mbp55.local>, Lewis

> 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.

[nospam]

In article <slrnk3lbap....@mbp55.local>, Lewis

> 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.

[nospam]

In article <slrnk3lek5....@mbp55.local>, Lewis

<g.k...@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.
>

> Nice try, you goalpost shifting loon.

that's not remotely goalpost shifting.

[Wayne C. Morris]

In article <slrnk3lbap....@mbp55.local>,
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <260820120155217706%nos...@nospam.invalid>

> 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:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easy_Transfer_Cable>

As does Bravura Software:

<http://www.bravurasoftware.com/easy-computer-sync/easy-transfer-cable.aspx>

And IOGear calls it an adapter, which is a kind of device:

<http://www.iogear.com/product/GUN262WV/#pdescription>

[Warren Oates]

In article
<wayne.morris-5F1E...@news.eternal-september.org>,

"Wayne C. Morris" <wayne....@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

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 19:12:24 -0400, Lewis wrote
(in article <slrnk3lbap....@mbp55.local>):

> In message <260820120155217706%nos...@nospam.invalid>
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> 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.

--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

[Steve Fenwick]

In article <slrnk3oa06....@mbp55.local>,
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <wayne.morris-5F1E...@news.eternal-september.org>

> Wayne C. Morris <wayne....@this.is.invalid> wrote:

> 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>

[David Empson]

Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:

> In article <slrnk3oa06....@mbp55.local>,

> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
> > In message <wayne.morris-5F1E...@news.eternal-september.org>
> > Wayne C. Morris <wayne....@this.is.invalid> wrote:

> > 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.
>

> Buy More? What is that?

Look up the TV programme "Chuck".

--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz

[Warren Oates]

In article <timstreater-AE0E...@news.individual.net>,

Tim Streater <timst...@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.

[John McWilliams]

On 8/28/12 PDT 5:23 AM, Warren Oates wrote:
> In article <timstreater-AE0E...@news.individual.net>,
> Tim Streater <timst...@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.