Looking at recent phones they seem to have USB C connectors for charging
and data, but the underlying USB protocol is USB 2.
Any specific reason?
Looking at recent phones they seem to have USB C connectors for
charging and data, but the underlying USB protocol is USB 2.
USB2 implementers likely already paid for the Vendor ID, so they
probably don't want to continue paying for USB2 while also coming out
with USB3 devices.
VanguardLH wrote:
USB2 implementers likely already paid for the Vendor ID, so they
probably don't want to continue paying for USB2 while also coming out
with USB3 devices.
Does a manufacturer need separate VIDs for USB2 and USB3?
I see several companies on the VID list with just one ID who produce
both types of device.
If a mfr only has 1 VID but produced USB2 and USB3 phones, the same VID
would get used for both their USB devices although those devices differ
on USB speed. Tis likely a mfr would create a different model number to reflect USB3 support, but the single VID would confuse the old USB2
models with the new USB3 models.
Am 16.08.23 um 17:26 schrieb David:
Looking at recent phones they seem to have USB C connectors for charging and data, but the underlying USB protocol is USB 2.
Any specific reason?
You are supposed to store your data in the cloud (where the big players
can make money with it).
Local file system access is intentionally crippled and becomes more and
more restricted with each new Android version, following the example of
iOS. Under these circumstances, it's pretty much pointless to upgrade
the local storage interface, even though most recent Qualcomm and
Mediatek SOCs do provide hardware support for USB3.1/3.2.
Well, for most people, the biggest amount of data is probably photos, videos and audio
and that data is still accessible (despite crippled
local file system access) and therefor high USB data speed would still
be nice.
Am 18.08.23 um 12:17 schrieb Frank Slootweg:
Well, for most people, the biggest amount of data is probably photos, videos and audio
You are supposed to store such data in the cloud and use the phone's
memory only as a cache for recently used data.
and that data is still accessible (despite crippled
local file system access) and therefor high USB data speed would still
be nice.
Yes, it would be nice. A MicroSD slot would also be nice, as it allows
for quick&easy transfer of the whole media archive to a new device,
without having to squeeze many Gigabytes through some bottleneck, and
without the need for the old device to be still functional.
Still, both features are absent from most modern devices. Even high-end
ones, where additional costs of a few cents are certainly not a factor.
Hergen Lehmann <hlehmann.expires.12-22@snafu.de> wrote:
You are supposed to store such data in the cloud and use the
phone's memory only as a cache for recently used data.
Yes, I know, but I'm a stubborn Dutch (cheap? :-)) geezer,
who likes to keep most things local. (I've only a (encrypted)
differential backup of my most important stuff in the cloud,
so I can recover from theft, fire, etc. with my off-site backup and
the delta in the cloud.)
A MicroSD slot would also be nice, as it allows for quick&easy
transfer of the whole media archive to a new device, without having
to squeeze many Gigabytes through some bottleneck, and without the
need for the old device to be still functional.
Still, both features are absent from most modern devices. Even
high-end ones, where additional costs of a few cents are certainly
not a factor.
For Samsung it's apparently not "Even high-end ones", but
*especially* high-end ones. My low-to-mid-range Samsung Galaxy A51,
*does* have a MicroSD slot, so I'm a happy camper.
VanguardLH wrote:
If a mfr only has 1 VID but produced USB2 and USB3 phones, the same VID
would get used for both their USB devices although those devices differ
on USB speed. Tis likely a mfr would create a different model number to
reflect USB3 support, but the single VID would confuse the old USB2
models with the new USB3 models.
But that's why a combination of VID and PID is used ...
USB3 requires licensing. It's free, but a license is required.
On 8/18/2023 8:32 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Hergen Lehmann <hlehmann.expires.12-22@snafu.de> wrote:
You are supposed to store such data in the cloud and use the
phone's memory only as a cache for recently used data.
Yes, I know, but I'm a stubborn Dutch (cheap? :-)) geezer,
I pay US$2/mo for 100G. I consider that cheap...
who likes to keep most things local. (I've only a (encrypted)
differential backup of my most important stuff in the cloud,
That makes sense. I also encrypt my important sensitive stuff.
But I don't for music, photos, etc. That makes them easily available on
ALL of my devices including the ones that don't have enough storage to
hold it locally.
So no matter where I am I can whip out a device and bore folks with
pictures. It backfired on me recently though. A greatgrandkid was
showing me her 1st grade class photo. So I whipped out my Fire tablet
and showed her mine. All I got was an eye roll...
so I can recover from theft, fire, etc. with my off-site backup and
the delta in the cloud.)
A few years back my neighbor lost all his electronics in a burglary with nothing backed up. Makes one get religion...
A MicroSD slot would also be nice, as it allows for quick&easy
transfer of the whole media archive to a new device, without having
to squeeze many Gigabytes through some bottleneck, and without the
need for the old device to be still functional.
Or just use use a MicroSD to USB adapter. No bottleneck...
Still, both features are absent from most modern devices. Even
high-end ones, where additional costs of a few cents are certainly
not a factor.
My GUESS would be that folks aren't using them much anymore. I haven't
used mine in over a year, maybe 2?
For Samsung it's apparently not "Even high-end ones", but
*especially* high-end ones. My low-to-mid-range Samsung Galaxy A51,
*does* have a MicroSD slot, so I'm a happy camper.
Enjoy it while it lasts. My latest toy came with ONLY a USB-C port. But
I already had a box of adapters... ;)
AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
Yes, for the transfer scenario there are other options. For having
more storage in the phone, a MicroSD card sometimes can still be useful,
but with my current phone - even with many offline maps - I haven't yet needed it, the 128GB storage is 'only' about half full.
Still, both features are absent from most modern devices. Even
high-end ones, where additional costs of a few cents are certainly
not a factor.
My GUESS would be that folks aren't using them much anymore. I haven't
used mine in over a year, maybe 2?
Haven't used mine at all, nearly 3 years. But hush, we don't want to
wake 'Arlen' et al, do we now!?
For Samsung it's apparently not "Even high-end ones", but
*especially* high-end ones. My low-to-mid-range Samsung Galaxy A51,
*does* have a MicroSD slot, so I'm a happy camper.
Enjoy it while it lasts. My latest toy came with ONLY a USB-C port. But
I already had a box of adapters... ;)
AJL wrote:
My latest toy came with ONLY a USB-C port. ButI already had a box of adapters... ;)
I bought some from China. They're crap and don't fit tightly on either
end. How hard could it have been to make them better?
Just ordered some from Amazon. Easy to return if they're crap.
The Real Bev wrote:
AJL wrote:
I already had a box of adapters... ;)My latest toy came with ONLY a USB-C port. But
I bought some from China. They're crap and don't fit tightly on either >>end. How hard could it have been to make them better?
Little kids have little hands so their assembly skills suffer.
Just ordered some from Amazon. Easy to return if they're crap.
I got mine from Amazon (via China)...
I've never actually figured out whether or not Prime is worth paying
for I'm afraid that it's not, but I don't drink and instant
gratification is a good substitute.
We actually got something the day we ordered it!
On 8/18/2023 8:04 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
I've never actually figured out whether or not Prime is worth paying
for I'm afraid that it's not, but I don't drink and instant
gratification is a good substitute.
Depends on your usage.
With packages being delivered almost every day at my house (ordered
mostly by you know who) it saves me money in postage alone. And when I
get specific birthday requests from the out of town greatgrandkids
Amazon wraps and ships them for me. And even here in town it's often
easier for me to order from Amazon and have it at the door a day or two
later than to have to run to the store. Then I also use their Prime
video and book loaning services.
So I like it (as do around 150 million others in the US) but YMMV...
We actually got something the day we ordered it!
My best time was 4 hours from order to door. Amazing to me the system
that must be behind that efficient service. However I live within 5
miles of two humongous Amazon plants so that may help a bit...
On 8/18/23 4:06 PM, AJL wrote:
The Real Bev wrote:
AJL wrote:I already had a box of adapters... ;)
My latest toy came with ONLY a USB-C port. But
I bought some from China. They're crap and don't fit tightly on either >>>end. How hard could it have been to make them better?
Little kids have little hands so their assembly skills suffer.
Just ordered some from Amazon. Easy to return if they're crap.
I got mine from Amazon (via China)...
I've never actually figured out whether or not Prime is worth paying for
-- I'm afraid that it's not, but I don't drink and instant gratification
is a good substitute. We actually got something the day we ordered it!
Okay, my supposition got shot down. The VID can be looked up without
even having the product. The PID is part of the presentation data the
client gives the host which get saved as that device's enumeration data
in the registry (HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Enum, 3 USB subkeys).
VID you can get without having the product. PID requires the USB handshaking, so you must have the product and connect it. Have you seen online lists of VIDs that also catalog the PIDs?
VIDs are registered, a 16-bit mfr identifier, and burned into the
[EEP]ROM in the device. However, you don't need to have the physical
product to get the registered VID that is available in online lists.
PIDs are not registered, a 16-bit descriptor (product number) of
whatever the mfr chooses to burn for the enumeration data in the
[EEP]ROM. Mfrs don't have to (and cannot) register the PID descriptors.
What I've seen in the VID lists for major mfs, like Samsung, HP, NEC,
Kodak, Logitech, and so on is they have several VIDs.
Once a mfr purchases a VID registration, they could use it with physical
PIDs (burned into the device, not registered) for all their products (up
to 65536 products). Some might do it that way: 1 VID + many PIDs.
Others don't, and register multiple VIDs. I'm not a USB product maker,
so I don't know why a mfr would register multiple VIDs with each
incurring the registration process and cost money. I could guess they
want to differentiate between different types of product (say, printer
versus camera), or between product family lines, but that's just a guess
from cursory observation of VID definitions.
Say I give you a VID of 0810. You can look up its registration to find
that it is for Logitech and, in addition, for their QuickCam product
line, but that doesn't give you the PID which is needed for the VID+PID identifier needed by the OS to figure out which driver gets used for the device. Just knowing the registered VID doesn't give you the PID. You
get the PID, and the VID, when you have the device, and after you plug
it into the USB bus, and after the USB handshaking to get the VID+PID to enumerate the device.
As for the OP asking why there are no USB3 phones, there are. He didn't
look before buying his phone. If critical to him, it should've been one
of the specifications as criteria for which phone he bought.
VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:
Okay, my supposition got shot down. The VID can be looked up without
even having the product. The PID is part of the presentation data
the client gives the host which get saved as that device's
enumeration data in the registry (HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Enum,
3 USB subkeys). VID you can get without having the product. PID
requires the USB handshaking, so you must have the product and
connect it. Have you seen online lists of VIDs that also catalog
the PIDs?
Yes:
https://the-sz.com/products/usbid/
http://www.linux-usb.org/usb-ids.html
However, in practice you can't know the VID of a device in advance,
because there isn't a strong mapping from manufacturer's corporate
identity to the device hardware. For many devices the brand on the
outside does not match the chip that's inside, and it's the chip that provides the VID:PID. Sometimes there's a flash memory which can be reprogrammed to present as the vendor, but sometimes it just appears
with the chip manufacturer's ID.
PIDs are not registered, a 16-bit descriptor (product number) of
whatever the mfr chooses to burn for the enumeration data in the
[EEP]ROM. Mfrs don't have to (and cannot) register the PID descriptors.
What I've seen in the VID lists for major mfs, like Samsung, HP, NEC,
Kodak, Logitech, and so on is they have several VIDs.
There's no 'registration' beyond paying for the VID. The lists above
are just users collecting data from devices they have.
Once a mfr purchases a VID registration, they could use it with physical
PIDs (burned into the device, not registered) for all their products (up
to 65536 products). Some might do it that way: 1 VID + many PIDs.
Others don't, and register multiple VIDs. I'm not a USB product maker,
so I don't know why a mfr would register multiple VIDs with each
incurring the registration process and cost money. I could guess they
want to differentiate between different types of product (say, printer
versus camera), or between product family lines, but that's just a guess
from cursory observation of VID definitions.
Last time I checked (a while back) the fee was $1500.
It is quite likely that big vendors like Samsung may exhaust the PID
space of a single VID (think about all the variations of products
there are).
Looking at recent phones they seem to have USB C connectors for charging
and data, but the underlying USB protocol is USB 2.
Any specific reason?
I vaguely recall a Samsung a good few years back having a special
connector for a special cable to allow higher speed transfers, but that
was back in the mists of time.
Recently I wanted to download some photos to my computer, and as at
the moment all the usb-3 sockets in the front were in use, I
connected to one of the usb-2 connectors (at the front of the
computer). There were more connectors at the back, but I did not want
to get up.
Just reading the directory took for ever. So yes, usb-3 is faster on
my phone. Full usb-3 speed, I do not know. Maybe not.
Phone is a Motorola G52
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
Recently I wanted to download some photos to my computer, and as at
the moment all the usb-3 sockets in the front were in use, I
connected to one of the usb-2 connectors (at the front of the
computer). There were more connectors at the back, but I did not want
to get up.
Just reading the directory took for ever. So yes, usb-3 is faster on
my phone. Full usb-3 speed, I do not know. Maybe not.
Phone is a Motorola G52
Hmm, the following sites say the Moto G52 uses USB 2:
https://www.gsmarena.com/motorola_moto_g52-11457.php https://www.phonearena.com/phones/Motorola-moto-g52_id11899
Even Motorola says so, too:
https://www.motorola.com/we/smartphones-moto-g-52/p?skuId=445
Are the front-side USB connectors built into the desktop's system case
which likely means they go to headers on the mobo, and perhaps some of
the back-side USB connectors are not backpanel ports from the mobo, but instead on a daughtercard? Are there any backside/backpanel USB2 ports?
If so, the front-side USB2 ports might be sharing the same USB
controller on the mobo with backside USB2 ports (if the backside USB2
ports were active instead of unused or sitting idle).
What type of files were in the directory/folder? Image files?
Is your
File Explorer configured to show thumbnails of your files?
That
requires interrogating (opening) the files to get at a thumbnail of
image files, and that slows down updating all those thumbnails of files. Users will sometimes complain that File Explorer is showing an ever-progressing green animation in the address bar that takes a long
time. Once they disable showing thumbnails, all that processing
overhead is gone. There is a thumbnail cache, but quite often it has to
get rebuilt, so you see the green progress animation in the address bar.
<Aside>
I asked about the origin of the USB controller because it can affect the realized transfer rate. I have front-side USB3 ports in my system case
that go to USB3gen3.1 headers on the mobo, not to USB2 headers.
I deliberately bought a mobo with lots of USB ports and headers. On the backpanel: 7 type A USB3gen3.1 ports, and 1 type C USB3gen3.1 port. At
the top front of the case, are 2 type A USB ports connected to a
USB3gen3.1 header on the mobo. With just the mobo's backpanel and
case-mount USB ports, I have 10 total.
I have 7 more front-side USB ports, but those are in an expansion module
that usurped a 5.25" bay in the mini-tower case, and connect to
USB3gen3.1 headers on the mobo. Power is from a PSU SATA connector for
full 0.9A on each USB3 port. Connect using 20pin (well, 19pin since
blank one used as a key) to USB3gen3.1 header on mobo, so 2 USB mobo
ports shared across 7 external ports, so typically I only have 1 or 2
USB devices active at the same time, but may leave plugged in other idle devices.
In all, I have 15 USB3gen3.1 ports available. The mobo does have two
USB2 headers, but they're unused. If I ever needed more USB ports, I
could use backplates with USB ports to connect to the remaining USB3
header (2 USB) and the 2 USB2 (1 USB each) headers to add up to another
4 USB ports, but in the 4 years since I built this setup I've not needed
more USB ports. As you can see, I don't like using external powered USB hubs.
What you have available in your setup depends on your mobo, what it has
for backpanel USB ports, what it has for USB headers on the mobo, and
how you utilized them. If yours is a pre-built, you get whatever the manufacturer gave you. I don't think I've owned a prebuilt PC for
probably about 3 decades. I like designing my own, and getting what I
want instead of settling for what someone else will give me.
</Aside>
On 2023-08-20 16:26, VanguardLH wrote:
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
Recently I wanted to download some photos to my computer, and as at
the moment all the usb-3 sockets in the front were in use, I
connected to one of the usb-2 connectors (at the front of the
computer). There were more connectors at the back, but I did not want
to get up.
Just reading the directory took for ever. So yes, usb-3 is faster on
my phone. Full usb-3 speed, I do not know. Maybe not.
Both my previous phone (Samsung Galaxy S2) and my current one (Samsung
Galaxy A54) take a *very* long time to display the contents of the DCIM folder when accessed by USB cable from a Windows PC. It seems to show each new icon/filename (depending on the Windows Explorer "View" setting for that folder) at a rate of one every second or so - so it took ages to display the whole set of photos so I could select the recent ones that I wanted to copy to my PC for permanent storage. OK, I could have deleted more of the old photos once I'd copied them to the PC, but it is nice to keep some on the phone in case I ever want to access them when I'm away from home and my PC.
I'm not sure whether this is slow USB (eg USB1) or a weird protocol (ie the folder on the phone doesn't appear to the PC as a normal external USB HDD).
It is sometimes quicker to select the photos and email them to myself, to be picked up at the PC, though that loses the file timestamp on the photos - it becomes the time when the photos were saved from the email, rather than the time when the photo was taken. Obviously the filename that includes the date/time remains.
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote in message news:kkh14jF24epU1@mid.individual.net...
On 2023-08-20 16:26, VanguardLH wrote:
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
Recently I wanted to download some photos to my computer, and as at
the moment all the usb-3 sockets in the front were in use, I
connected to one of the usb-2 connectors (at the front of the
computer). There were more connectors at the back, but I did not want
to get up.
Just reading the directory took for ever. So yes, usb-3 is faster on
my phone. Full usb-3 speed, I do not know. Maybe not.
Both my previous phone (Samsung Galaxy S2) and my current one (Samsung
Galaxy A54) take a *very* long time to display the contents of the DCIM folder when accessed by USB cable from a Windows PC. It seems to show
each new icon/filename (depending on the Windows Explorer "View" setting
for that folder) at a rate of one every second or so - so it took ages
to display the whole set of photos so I could select the recent ones
that I wanted to copy to my PC for permanent storage. OK, I could have deleted more of the old photos once I'd copied them to the PC, but it is
nice to keep some on the phone in case I ever want to access them when
I'm away from home and my PC.
I'm not sure whether this is slow USB (eg USB1) or a weird protocol (ie
the folder on the phone doesn't appear to the PC as a normal external
USB HDD).
It is sometimes quicker to select the photos and email them to myself,
to be picked up at the PC, though that loses the file timestamp on the
photos - it becomes the time when the photos were saved from the email, rather than the time when the photo was taken. Obviously the filename
that includes the date/time remains.
On 21/08/2023 15:33, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
Super old style. Pls could someone remove the stains and the dust?
Last time I remember I did it in a similar way was around 2008.
The OP could just use DropBox...
Super old style. Pls could someone remove the stains and the dust?
Last time I remember I did it in a similar way was around 2008.
Am 21.08.23 um 14:43 schrieb NY:
Both my previous phone (Samsung Galaxy S2) and my current one (Samsung
Galaxy A54) take a *very* long time to display the contents of the DCIM
folder when accessed by USB cable from a Windows PC. It seems to show each >> new icon/filename (depending on the Windows Explorer "View" setting for that
folder) at a rate of one every second or so - so it took ages to display the
whole set of photos so I could select the recent ones that I wanted to copy >> to my PC for permanent storage. OK, I could have deleted more of the old
photos once I'd copied them to the PC, but it is nice to keep some on the >> phone in case I ever want to access them when I'm away from home and my PC. >>
I'm not sure whether this is slow USB (eg USB1) or a weird protocol (ie the >> folder on the phone doesn't appear to the PC as a normal external USB HDD). >>
It is sometimes quicker to select the photos and email them to myself, to be
picked up at the PC, though that loses the file timestamp on the photos - it
becomes the time when the photos were saved from the email, rather than the >> time when the photo was taken. Obviously the filename that includes the
date/time remains.
Super old style. Pls could someone remove the stains and the dust?
Last time I remember I did it in a similar way was around 2008.
I send mine wireless/ftp to my computer when I'm sitting at it, which is
very fast.
Super old style. Pls could someone remove the stains and the dust?
Last time I remember I did it in a similar way was around 2008.
There's a nifty program called jhead (both linux and windows) that,
among other things, will set the filename to the exif date.
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote in message news:kkh14jF24epU1@mid.individual.net...
On 2023-08-20 16:26, VanguardLH wrote:
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
Recently I wanted to download some photos to my computer, and as at
the moment all the usb-3 sockets in the front were in use, I
connected to one of the usb-2 connectors (at the front of the
computer). There were more connectors at the back, but I did not want
to get up.
Just reading the directory took for ever. So yes, usb-3 is faster on
my phone. Full usb-3 speed, I do not know. Maybe not.
Both my previous phone (Samsung Galaxy S2) and my current one (Samsung
Galaxy A54) take a *very* long time to display the contents of the DCIM folder when accessed by USB cable from a Windows PC. It seems to show each new icon/filename (depending on the Windows Explorer "View" setting for that folder) at a rate of one every second or so - so it took ages to display the whole set of photos so I could select the recent ones that I wanted to copy to my PC for permanent storage. OK, I could have deleted more of the old photos once I'd copied them to the PC, but it is nice to keep some on the phone in case I ever want to access them when I'm away from home and my PC.
I'm not sure whether this is slow USB (eg USB1) or a weird protocol (ie the folder on the phone doesn't appear to the PC as a normal external USB HDD).
It is sometimes quicker to select the photos and email them to myself, to be picked up at the PC, though that loses the file timestamp on the photos - it becomes the time when the photos were saved from the email, rather than the time when the photo was taken.
Obviously the filename that includes the
date/time remains.
Looking at recent phones they seem to have USB C connectors for charging
and data, but the underlying USB protocol is USB 2.
Or use an specific tool in the phone to connect to the computer, doing
the sending or copy from the phone. Is it AirDroid?
Super old style. Pls could someone remove the stains and the dust?
Last time I remember I did it in a similar way was around 2008.
The OP could just use DropBox...
Right. Or other cloudbased solutions. There are so many.
I send mine wireless/ftp to my computer when I'm sitting at it, which is
very fast.
Super old style. Pls could someone remove the stains and the dust?
Last time I remember I did it in a similar way was around 2008.
There's a nifty program called jhead (both linux and windows) that,
among other things, will set the filename to the exif date.
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
Or use an specific tool in the phone to connect to the computer, doing
the sending or copy from the phone. Is it AirDroid?
Regarding speed, I find copying a huge DCIM folder from Android to Windows over USB takes a LOT longer respectively than a small DCIM seems to take.
While drag and drop over USB takes no thinking, there are plenty of back
and forth Wi-Fi copying solutions such as Kies and NitroShare and others.
With Windows, you can also easily mount the Android phone as a drive letter (and then you can use batch scripts like robocopy to copy back & forth).
You can also copy back and forth using adb on the PC and I know that the latest scrcpy has a copy feature at least from Windows to the phone.
I don't know if scrcpy has a drag and drop the other way but I can easily test it for you if you're interested in using scrcpy to mirror Android.
Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote
Super old style. Pls could someone remove the stains and the dust?
Last time I remember I did it in a similar way was around 2008.
The OP could just use DropBox...
Right. Or other cloudbased solutions. There are so many.
It takes no intelligence to be an idiot like you are.
To copy a file six inches from the phone to the PC (or the other way
around) and to have to resort to putting it on someone else's computer to
do that is just about as brain dead stupid an idea as is possible.
Why do you think they want you to use those highly marketed solutions
using
their computers and why do you think they make it so easy for idiots to
do?
David <wibble@btinternet.com> wrote
Looking at recent phones they seem to have USB C connectors for charging
and data, but the underlying USB protocol is USB 2.
Recent rumors are that USB4 with "stratospheric speeds" may be out soon.
Rumors of Thunderbolt/USB4 chips on iPhone 15 series allowing "stratospheric" speeds
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/-xFRCvEg-G0>
Rumors of Thunderbolt/USB4 chips on iPhone 15 series allowing "stratospheric" speeds
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/-xFRCvEg-G0>
Most current SoCs do support USB3, and yes, future SoCs will very likely support USB4 (not only in the apple world).
However, this feature is currently unused (yes, in the apple world too). Where do you get the assumption, that this will change?
Exactly. It may be old fashioned but I like to use a direct computer-to-computer solution if possible.
Maybe there are special FTP-like tools that can be installed on an Android phone and a Windows/Linux computer to transfer files. But if a phone has a USB socket, then you'd think that it would be made so it "looked" like a normal USB hard drive when plugged into a computer,
and could transfer files
to/from at the highest rate that the USB allowed - and on a phone that was bought this year, you'd expect that to be USB3. Alternatively, you'd expect the phone to be able to do a SAMBA share of its folders so it looked like a UNC \\server\sharename drive.
I get the impression that the slowness of USB relates to disk-drive
emulation of the phone rather than the USB speed. A USB2 HDD plugged into a computer shows its files immediately in Windows Explorer, even if the transfer of those files is throttled at USB2 speed. With the phone, the
files appear in Windows Explorer one by one - that is that takes the time. Having selected a group of files, the actual transfer *appears* to be pretty quick, though I've not actually timed it.
The phone to computer via USB connection is so slow, mainly due to the
use of MTP (Media Transfer Protocol). (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Transfer_Protocol>)
If you want something faster, you need another - more efficient -
protocol or/and another type of connection (i.e. network/Wi-Fi instead
of USB).
I haven't tried it, but perhaps 'adb pull' (and 'push', etc.) via USB
is faster than MTP, but that command-line method is not for everybody.
<https://adbshell.com/commands/adb-pull>
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 09:06:49 |
| Calls: | 6,666 |
| Files: | 12,213 |
| Messages: | 5,336,264 |