Do you really need a USB 2.0 cable to transfer at 2.0 speeds? An USB 1.1 cable won't cut it?

[yllus]

Just wondering. I don't think there's any physical difference in the cables by inspection, but I could be wrong.

 

[Goosemaster]

the 2.o ones are probably more conductive, but in the end, if it is good cable, it should be fine.

480Mbps is ideal anyways. The devices are much slower than that

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

I think it's just a firmware thing.

 

[Contagious]

Originally posted by: yllus
Just wondering. I don't think there's any physical difference in the cables by inspection, but I could be wrong.

That's like asking if plugging a capacitor into a wall socket is a good idea.

You never know until you try.

 

[brxndxn]

USB 1.1 cables will work at USB 2.0 speeds. USB 1.1 hubs will not work at USB 2.0 speeds.

 

[mercanucaribe]

The cables are the same. USB 2.0 cables are really wallet weight reduction devices.

 

[Valkerie]

common sense.

get a USB 2.0 wire

 

[mchammer]

It's fine, the cables are the same. The only type of cable that is different is a low speed usb cable, but those are always supposed to be molded into a device, such as a mouse, so you won't find them on their own.

 

[mchammer]

Here's a good deal: Text

 

[EGGO]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
The cables are the same. USB 2.0 cables are really wallet weight reduction devices.

Oooh I love that description. I'm using that in life now.

 

[yllus]

Hah, I thought they were the same. Makes sense since the USB 1.1 cable that came with my Canon A70 digicam transfers at 2.0 speeds to my Rio Carbon MP3 player, but I figured it could have been some weird fluke or my imagination (I should try a sustained transfer).

I'm looking at this retractable USB 1.1 cable with 5 interchangable heads on it. Tres geek.