microsoft controller dongle usb 2 vs usb 3

something I had in my Pentium 2, 15 Years ago -.-Īnd the Alienware steambox. Consider this, the 'new' Steam controller, is just now adopting USB 2.0.

By the time companies like Steam adopt USB 3.0, that technology will be long since dead. Originally posted by games:USB 2.0 only has a strong foothold in the market because game-changer companies refuse to push the envelope with new tech, milking old tech for as much $$$ as they can.

If two technologies are equally useful for the targeted scope of the product, then their technical aspects don't ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ matter other than the non-technical details like cost and market for sale. I striked out everything that doesn't matter for a non-rechargeable (uses AA batteries) videogame controller with basic input controls, Usefulness is a factor in deciding to use USB 3.0 over 2.0 You don't expect Microsoft to continue to support Windows Millenium do you ? - same era.ġ5 year old models of hardware reskinned to look pretty, then locked down to only work with one brand. Sorry, but tech from 2000 has been all but abandoned. I suppose for that reason, perhaps you would prefer an ATA 133 hard drive, or Vesa video card - since it's 'useful' as well. Not sure how using old technology is 'useful'.

If it still had the visual touchscreen I could see 3.0 being needed. Originally posted by Shake&Bake CorpsThndr:And usefulness. Or their 3.0 ports are taken up by items that actually need it since this is just a controller.

Here, USB 2.0 vs 3.0, market share of 3.0 points is not as wide, and if they forces 3.0 compatibility (thus making it so 2.0 ports cannot use the controller), it'd lose a LOT of old computers that do not have 3.0 ports. Graphics cards still made AGP cards going from AGP to PCIe but they still focused on improving to PCIe and abandoning the obsolete AGP. PCI vs PCIe isn't a very good comparison unless you're talking about non-graphics cards, in which market shares of port compatibility plays just as much as a factor as cost. Unless the controller requires batteries even when plugged in via USB cable drain is not an issue here. Since it uses batteries the faster charging time of 3.0 is not needed.įor the PC side, the wireless dongle is 2.0, but that's the PC powering that.įor the cord, you're corded. Perhaps the next model will have dual USB 2.0/3.0 support (maybe with a rechargeable battery), but for what their target is, 3.0 support wasn't needed.įor internal controller wireless, they probably have it engineered in a way to use the least amount of power VS the battery life as possible.

Microsoft controller dongle usb 2 vs usb 3