Question Backward or Forward Compatibility: USB 2.0 versus USB 3.x?

[BonzaiDuck]

It's amazing that I now forget things I'd figured out years earlier.

I'm conservative in my choice of USB thumb drives. Just for storage of MP3 music files for playback, I don't think it necessary to use a USB 3.x flash drive: A 2.0 flash drive is more than adequate.

But the type of stubby USB 2.0 flash drives that I need for my car and laptops is harder to find for a 128GB capacity, while my SUV's USB input for a certain MP3 player has the USB 2.0 spec.

If I purchase a USB 3.0 128GB flash drive, is it downwardly compatible with a device's USB 2.0 input?

I finally found the USB 2.0 128GB flash drive that I want, but it took a while in the search. I'd like to know my options if later I can only find USB 3.x flash drives. I'm sure there will always be plenty of USB 2.0 flash drives of a 128GB capacity around, but I want the tiny stubby ones. As I said -- harder to find now as USB 2.0.

 

[Paperdoc]

Yes, this is not a problem. The USB3 devices all CAN and WILL function when plugged into any USB2 port. They just will work at only the lower speed of the USB2 system. Of course, with some devices the USB3 device cannot get as much power from a USB2 port as from a USB3 port (e.g., external laptop hard drives), but for your use - a memory chip in a thumb drive - this is NO issue at all. Those units need very little power.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Yes, this is not a problem. The USB3 devices all CAN and WILL function when plugged into any USB2 port. They just will work at only the lower speed of the USB2 system. Of course, with some devices the USB3 device cannot get as much power from a USB2 port as from a USB3 port (e.g., external laptop hard drives), but for your use - a memory chip in a thumb drive - this is NO issue at all. Those units need very little power.

Thank you for assisting my declining brain.

This will be of some use and value in the future. Because of my uncertain understanding and a tendency to caution, I've purchased some "stubby" USB 2.0 128GB thumb drives which arrived yesterday. They cost me about $10 each -- which is chump-change. Now I know I can get the same stubby USB sticks as USB 3.0 and still use them the same way.

Why would it matter? Well, I want to store a huge music/MP3 collection on a thumb-drive for my SUV's audio system. At least, with USB 3.0, I can build the USB storage on my PC using the faster 3.0 transfer rate -- saving time. If the MP3 player in my old Trooper reads it through a USB 2.0 interface, it will save me time in the initial file transfer. And -- of course -- I'd like better options in choosing which USB thumb drives to buy.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Yes, this is not a problem. The USB3 devices all CAN and WILL function when plugged into any USB2 port. They just will work at only the lower speed of the USB2 system. Of course, with some devices the USB3 device cannot get as much power from a USB2 port as from a USB3 port (e.g., external laptop hard drives), but for your use - a memory chip in a thumb drive - this is NO issue at all. Those units need very little power.

Whoa! Here's one for you!

I bought two of these 128GB "USB 2.0" stubby thumb drives, and as I said -- received them yesterday. I tried copying my music/MP3 library to one of them, formatted as "exFAT" -- a successor to FAT32, which I looked up to educate myself. My system won't offer an option to re-format the drive as FAT32. I understand the "cons" of exFAT as well as the pros. This was plugged in to a standard USB 2.0 port on my PC. Eventually, errors would occur, prompting me to "Try Again", "Skip" or "Cancel". I tried this twice with the same frustrating results.

I happened to look at the "Safely Remove . . " information in my system tray, stunned that it would tell me the drive is a "USB 3.0". Of course, that's not what I understood I had received with my purchase. Strange! So I removed the drive.

Then I chose to try again in one of my two front-panel USB 3.0 ports. Now, the copying proceeds more smoothly. The progress indicator shows a near-constant transfer rate around 7MB/s, without hills and valleys in the graph. So I'm asking "What is going on with THAT?!" So far, progress has reached 50% with none of the errors I mentioned.

I'm a bit confused with this. . . . How is it that my system shows them as "USB 3.0", whether they are plugged into a 2.0 port or a 3.0 port? This is a totally up-to-date version of Windows 10.

 

[Paperdoc]

I do not know all the answers here, but I can speculate.

It is possible that the USB3 memory sticks you got identify themselves that way when the port and software drivers of your computer interrogate them for their properties. This would not affect how the USB2 port uses the device, but it will inform you what you have.

The reason for the newer EXFAT formatting was the limits imposed by the older FAT32 file access system - specifically, on the maximum file size. But that also involved limits on the numbers of files and of file allocation units on one storage device. All of these are parts of the specs of the file system. The EXFAT system was designed to allow much larger files, and MANY more files on a device. Now, it is possible, I suppose, that the driver for a USB2 port on your computer might NOT be able to deal with huge files or with so many files. On the other hand, surely a driver for the new USB 3 ports WOULD be capable of dealing with those parameters, given that "thumb drives" and other mass storage devices have all gone to much larger capacities than in the "old days" of plain USB2. That could explain why you had no problem using the USB 3 thumb drives on a USB 3 port for storing many files on a huge storage device. It does leave an interesting possibility, though. Let us know how well your SUV's older system (designed for USB2 storage units) can READ all those files on those drives.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I do not know all the answers here, but I can speculate.

It is possible that the USB3 memory sticks you got identify themselves that way when the port and software drivers of your computer interrogate them for their properties. This would not affect how the USB2 port uses the device, but it will inform you what you have.

The reason for the newer EXFAT formatting was the limits imposed by the older FAT32 file access system - specifically, on the maximum file size. But that also involved limits on the numbers of files and of file allocation units on one storage device. All of these are parts of the specs of the file system. The EXFAT system was designed to allow much larger files, and MANY more files on a device. Now, it is possible, I suppose, that the driver for a USB2 port on your computer might NOT be able to deal with huge files or with so many files. On the other hand, surely a driver for the new USB 3 ports WOULD be capable of dealing with those parameters, given that "thumb drives" and other mass storage devices have all gone to much larger capacities than in the "old days" of plain USB2. That could explain why you had no problem using the USB 3 thumb drives on a USB 3 port for storing many files on a huge storage device. It does leave an interesting possibility, though. Let us know how well your SUV's older system (designed for USB2 storage units) can READ all those files on those drives.

Absolutely -- you see this clearly. First, whether the drive is reliable for copying data from a known-perfect 2.5" spinner, and second -- whether the MP3 player's USB 2.0 port will read it properly.

But since my last post, I have gathered updated "statistics." After about 90% of the data was copied without error, there were four errors in sequence regarding two folders in my collection. This was considerably less than failed to copy in the USB 2.0 port, but still an indication of errors -- now on the second of the two drives I bought.

Before I can confirm for sure, let me say I should know better in making inexpensive purchases. I had always purchased brand-name USB sticks before: Verbatim, PNY, Sandisk. Every time you buy something like this which came out of a Chinese factory, you're taking a risk on sub-par manufacture and performance. We buy many electronic components from Chinese factories, and many of those have a reliable QC history. But there is a bigger incidence of defective goods. If a product doesn't have a specific brand-name, then the people who made it don't have a reputation to protect as they go forward with their performance.

OK -- that was two Mexican dinners-worth of unwise purchases. I'll fry up some Taco Grande taco-shells myself, and make more taco meat from leftover Turkey. I found a Samsung USB 3.0 and a Sandisk 3.0, which are now in my shopping cart. Live and learn. But I'm hopeful that I can buy these devices so I can use them in a vehicular USB 2.0 port. Based on my experience with those devices and the reasonable belief you know what you're talking about, that may be the whole issue and these drives I may yet order won't show me any confusions.

 

[Paperdoc]

Make it so, No. 1!

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Make it so, No. 1!

Proof of the pudding will be to see the brand-name flash drives perform and behave properly. No problem formatting and transferring MP3 files to a 64 GB USB 2 drive. But those are formatted as FAT32. I've never had exFAT drive-formats before these Chinese knock-offs. Both of these $10 units quickly show a need for Windows to repair them, leaving FOUND[nnn] files on the drive. And that doesn't help: copying more files just results in another iteration and more FOUND files.

I don't know what possessed me, to spend even $10-each on unbranded USB drives. Stupid, I guess . . .

 

[BonzaiDuck]

While I wait for the Amazon delivery of a Samsung 128GB USB 3 flash drive, I'm experimenting with the sub-standard Chinese drives.

Windows doesn't want to offer me a FAT32 option for a 128GB thumb drive. It can be done with either PowerShell or EaseUS Partition Manager, which I have.

If these cheap flash drives -- as I've so far judged to be inferior -- can be formatted as FAT32 and then successfully filled with folders of MP3 files, that's fine and wonderful. My SUV's MP3 player will only read the files. If it works, then fine and wonderful. If not, well -- wait for the Amazon delivery.

UPDATE SO-FAR, or SO-FAR UPDATE

At 75% complete for copying the "Classical" test music folder, this seems to be the solution for the el-cheapo Chin-tsy rip-offs I bought for $10 each. They successfully format as FAT32, and they give file transfers without error. At least so far -- 80% now . . .

If I can do the "Classical", I can finish up with "RocknRoll", "Folk", "Country-Western" and "Other" in one copy operation. Easy-Peasy.

That's good. A lot of the cheap $40-or-less Chinese cyber-junk has raised the level of my lifestyle. "It has enlarged my mind!" Flash-drive owner jus' has to know his limitations. To paraphrase the High Plains Drifter. [And -- sure. It should be obvious by now. I vaped up on my cannabis ARGO device, and I'm zonked out of my mind at the moment . . . TIME TO PUT ON SOME TUNES! ROCK . . . AND . . . ROLL, brothers and sisters!]

UPDATE AGAIN -- "Classical" folder 90% completed, then -- no cigar. These drives seem to stop after 16GB full.

This is worse than "poor quality control". I suspect . . .

 

[Leeea]

This is worse than "poor quality control". I suspect . . .

Google Search