Incredible history of the origin of USB - port that changed everything

Ajay Bhatt suffered from updating his computer, and eventually saw the need for one connector, necessary to rule everyone

In ancient times, a zoo of cables was needed to connect something to your computer — a mouse, a printer, a hard disk. You may need a PS / 2 connector or serial port, Apple Desktop Bus or DIN; Possibly a parallel port, SCSI or Firewire cable. If you heard about these things, or if you have not heard, thank USB. When she was first released in 1996, her idea was contained right in the title: a universal serial bus . And to be universal, it had to be able to just work. “The technologies we replaced — serial ports, parallel ports, mouse and keyboard ports — all required serious software support, and after each installation the device required numerous reboots and sometimes even opening the case,” said Ajay Bhatt , who retired in 2016- m after working at Intel. "Our goal was this - took the device, stuck it into the computer, and it worked."

Making the technology work turned out to be from engineers at Intel in Oregon, and it was Intel who persuaded the industry to support this standard, since it was necessary to make it easier to work with PCs in order to sell them in large quantities. However, the person who initially was a skeptic took up the popularization of the standard: to the surprise of many geeks, in 1998, under the leadership of Steve Jobs, Apple released a breakthrough first iMac that supported only USB. Increased USB 2.0 speeds made it possible to use new peripherals, such as a flash drive that helped kill the floppy, Zip and CD-R. Then followed a whole procession of connected devices: disco balls, head massagers, keys with passwords, an infinite amount of charge for the phone. In the world now, according to one of the estimates, there are six billion USB devices.

Now, on the heels of the typical USB Type-A and Type-B ports, a new cable design, Type-C, available on phones, tablets, computers and other devices is coming - and fortunately, unlike the old USB cables, it is double-sided. The next generation of USB4, which will be released this year, will be able to deliver speeds of up to 40 Gb / s, 3000 times faster than the fastest version of the first USB. Bhat could not have imagined such a thing when, in the beginning of the 90s, when he was a young engineer at Intel, he tried to install a multimedia card. The rest is the story that journalist Joel Johnson recorded with the help of several key characters. Their memories have been edited for clarity.
')

“I knew computers could be simplified.”

Ajay Bhatt : I think around 1992 - and in 1990 I went to work at Intel - I started looking at the PC. I always thought they were too complicated to use. This view was based on observing how difficult my family was working with computers and trying to accomplish some simple task like printing a document.


Ajay Bhatt

Even it was difficult for me to use them, but I am a technician. I had difficulty updating my PC when multimedia cards began to come out. I looked at this architecture, and I thought - you know what? There are better ways to work with computers, and this one is just too complicated.

Bala Cadambi (I / O Interface Architecture Manager, Intel I / O Technology Standards Director): If you go back to the basics of PC, it was based on IBM’s hardware and documentation for IBM — and the BIOS and interfaces. He collected, believing that it will be used by experts. But by the end of the 90s it became clear that during the evolution of the PC should become more easy to use.

AB : The original goal was to attract a new class of users and promote new computer users. And it all started in 1992. I came to work and offered this idea to several managers, but I didn’t see much interest. People did not understand the benefits of something like USB, but I was worried about this idea. I knew that computers can be simplified, and that you do not need a specialist from the IT department to install a printer, set up a keyboard, mouse, or support multiple input devices.

First: microprocessors

BK : Both Intel and Microsoft imagined a business that went beyond the first 10 million users, and wanted the hardware and PC programs to be easier to use, more convenient and standardized.

The first of these initiatives was the PCI bus (Peripheral Component Interconnect). It was designed to make it easier for some systems in the PC case to be installed, initialized, updated and maintained. The initiative has gradually evolved into the idea of plug and play [turned on and play]. PCI became the first standard 32-bit interface, and gradually evolved into PCI Express.

But even within the PCI framework, each type of periphery had different characteristics in transferring data in and out of the PC. In some cases, it was required to use adapter connectors outside the PC, or additional cards inside.

AB : The main difficulty at that time was the existence of many ways to connect to the gland. That is, every time you changed something, you needed to make major changes in the OS and in the applications.

Everyone thought it was the greatest difficulty, and my boss, in fact, announced that these changes should not be carried out: “I do not think you will succeed. You don't understand PC architecture. ” I replied: “No, no. We can fix it. Believe me. It is possible. " It was hard for me to convince him.

BK : At that time, the PC was not a laptop, it was a desktop computer. In that era, laptops just appeared, they were bulky, large boxes. Literally, I would say, the device was portable if it had a pen. If there was no pen, it was a desktop computer.

By connecting these devices, you gradually became disorderly - your standard for audio, yours for the modem, yours for the SCSI printer. Each of them had their own artifacts at work. Connector orientation. Can I connect on the fly, or need to restart the computer. Is there software in the computer, or do I need to install it additionally from a floppy disk Will everything work if you move the device from one interface to another.



AB : I did not get positive answers, so I moved horizontally to a parallel group in the company, and began working under the authority of Mr. Fred Pollock. At that time there were quite a few " honored researchers of Intel " working at the company. This is the most outstanding techies company. He was incredibly intelligent, one of the largest computer scientists. I talked to him, and he responded as follows: “I don’t know. You know what, try to convince yourself. ” This is what I needed. I needed a man of fairly broad views that would allow me to take the risk.

But I did not rely solely on him. I began to convey this idea to other groups within Intel. I spoke with businessmen, spoke with technologists, and as a result I even talked to Microsoft. We talked with other people who eventually became our partners - Compaq, DEC, IBM, NEC, etc.

In fact, I had to not only formalize this idea within the company, but also to enlist the support of external agents, and, naturally, every person in each company had his own opinion about how things should be. What was common was that everyone eventually agreed that it was too difficult to use a PC, and even designing equipment for it was difficult. Something had to be done, and here it all started.

"A lot of storms, a lot of discussion"

“In February 1992, when Intel and others worked on the release of PCI and the PnP concept, a group of companies met in Redmond to discuss the standardization of PC external interfaces.

BK : It was a spontaneous meeting. It was clear that even the formulation of our task was poorly understood, not to mention how to solve it. At that moment I was already managing the team that developed PCI and PnP at Intel, so we had enough knowledge to understand how difficult this task would be.

We could not assess this in terms of the potential for future application and technology requirements. So the solution to the current problem may have been obvious, but in order to imagine what the PC interfaces will look like in a few years, we had to start research. Meet with companies. Chat with analysts. Chat with end users. Follow the trends in business and in the consumer market.

AB : Slowly but surely, I began to convince people from Intel of the necessity of all the subtleties of the requirements that we had, and which eventually turned into USB. I think that somewhere in 1993 we reached an internal agreement, and set to work.



All these beliefs took away about a year and a half. Many storms took place, many discussions took place at the early stages of development, when we had to overcome people's skepticism and form the same idea about how to solve a problem.

By the end of 93 or the beginning of 94, I assembled a small team. We at Intel had internal working groups that generated ideas, engaged in analytics and wrote specifications. We also regularly worked with external partners.

Then the project was called Serial Box. He had no names. Everything came from technology.

Work on the Serial Box at the diner at 2 nights

Jim Pappas, an I / O expert, and marketing experts joined Ajay and Bale, who were introduced through the joint work on the PnP initiative. In the summer of 1994, they formed a working group.

Jim Pappas (Technical Lead, and now Intel's Technical Initiative Director): We were a very focused and dedicated team. Our four - I, Bala, Ajay and Steve Wally - were very, very active and very closely communicated - especially Bala and me. I did not call him home for about fifteen years, but when I picked up the phone, my fingers dialed his number themselves - we talked so often. That was incredible.

We arranged what was called a charged breakfast. Suppose we had an appointment with a company in their territory. We could fly into place at different times from different cities. In an hour or two, we met at some diner, Denny's or another. And there we arranged what we called the charged breakfast. “What will we say tomorrow, what do we need?” We had a habit of not only working together, but also working almost around the clock, and it was an incredibly interesting feeling.

BK : We literally went on a trip for a year. We visited about 50 companies across the entire spectrum of the industry — printers, scanners, communication devices, industrial controllers, keyboards, mice, joysticks, modems, and the like. I am shocked how much interest there is in such a simple thing as a standard external interface. Enthusiasm was born because all of these companies had their own requirements, and they believed that their market opportunities were limited to current interfaces.

However, the biggest problem was that we did not solve specific problems, only facilitated the existing state of affairs. Everything could have been stuck somewhere, so there was a difficult question: “why do you need to accept the standard before the next one?”

Team building

The Ajay, Balls, and Jim team has grown into a larger group at Intel. It was divided into separate disciplines: protocols, organization of bits, electromechanical issues - connectors and cables - business group, adaptation group.

AB : We organized to attack all aspects of technology and successfully enter the market, because we wanted to take into account all the nuances. We wanted to not only release specifications, but also to help developers release technology-related products.

We didn’t stop after we finished with specifications, and came up with a recipe for developing various proposals. We also made a so-called. “Interoperability programs” —when different manufacturers gathered together, they were tested on pre-prepared tests, and we made sure that everyone followed the specifications, and that all devices would work together without problems.

And although we were an alliance, we were like a startup that paid attention to all aspects of not only specifications, but also product development, and, as a result, its launch into the market.

DP : Ajay managed the technical specifications, Bala engineers, I managed the entire program. We assembled a group of engineers. Intelly, the situation was called “two in one box” when you have two managers. I asked Balu to join me in managing the program. We kind of got back to back. He looked inside Intel and managed the engineers, I watched the progress in the industry.

BK : Jim was engaged in external relations, external building of the industry, gathered a group of promoters, an industry forum. He has a talent for presenting technology aspects to the market. He often handed me speeches, but we worked on them together. At the end of each day, we exchanged information, keeping each other informed. They called at 11 pm. This went on for years. The phone rang, and our spouses thought, “This is probably Bala. This is probably Jim. ” That was the mode.

AB : I think everything worked out for us because everything we did was well implemented. And I knew it would be like that, because we had multi-faceted teams that were working on software and OS experts. We had people who knew how to create systems, for example, IBM and Compaq. We had people who knew how chips are made, for example, Intel and NEC. We had a Nortel company that knew how to create telephony and other things that eventually became very important. By assembling a team of experts, we were able to reduce the risk, and guarantee wide application specifications suitable for various options.

BK : Ajay was the heart of the specification. It was his passion. He was also passionate about understanding the requirements to ensure that the specifications meet the requirements. Engineer Jeff Morris had already moved from Santa Clara to Oregon to work with my team. He knew that he really wanted to work on this project. He wrote a good half of the first specifications along with all the technical descriptions needed to develop the technology.

AB : We finished the specifications somewhere by 1995. Passed trade fair COMDEX. Our goal was to finish the specifications in time for it, by November 1995. Then we started working on products and all that. It was a long way, but in the end the industry realized that this work really solved many PC problems.

The problem with Firewire and other interfaces

Computer companies really wanted to facilitate the connection of devices, but among the applications that required an increase in the speed of the interfaces, video stood out in particular. Digital media was still in its infancy, but transferring video to computers and downloading it was one of the main tasks of computer and peripheral manufacturers. Intel engineers, working on the interface, which will then become USB, have also studied possible faster alternatives.

BK : In general, streaming multimedia, transferring videos from and to PC was an area that we could highlight and say: “You need to be able to do something like that.” I think that in general, most companies recognized that if devices are easier to use, then it will be easier to buy, upgrade, support and service. They will also receive fewer returns and call support less frequently.



Collecting the requirements, we simultaneously evaluated the technology that can meet them. We obviously did not want to invent something new, if there was already something similar enough or good enough.

We studied about 12 different technologies. The most obvious was IEEE 1394, which was later dubbed Firewire. When I first started appearing at these commission meetings to check if the technology would work, 1394 was a 10 MB interface. It seemed like a technology that is looking for a problem that it could solve. They already had something, but they were not sure what to use it for, and this technology was developing. It was a bit more complicated and expensive than was necessary for a PC. On the other hand, she had potentially useful items.

We looked at the then generation of technologies like Ethernet. We studied the interfaces for audio. Apple then had a GeoPort interface. We even chatted with Apple to see if they would be interested in developing this project. But it did not work out. Another industry standard was Access Bus.

AB : I personally traveled a huge number of different forums. I talked with people from related areas, and said: "Guys, let's collect all our applications." For music there is a MIDI interface, and it is used by many synthesizers, keyboards, and so on. I remember how I had a meeting with key telephony manufacturers in Dallas, because there were a large number of external partners. We tried to convince people that computer telephony can be done with something like USB, and many people thought that we could not support certain things of this kind. It was believed that HP wants to force printers to communicate with a computer via infrared communication.

BK : I would say that in parallel, USB, 1394 and Access Bus have been developing for a couple of years. In 93-94 years. And then a wide public USB support was formed. Then it was called Serial Bus. We have not yet come up with a name.

How USB got its name

BK : The appointment of the USB name took considerable committee effort. We had three ways. Someone thought that a name consisting of numbers would not take root. Too technologically advanced. It is not necessary to call it as something like 1394. This is a specification number, but something must be done with which users can associate. We tried to invent consumer names. And then we decided that it was too far away from what the USB project was.

If you have not noticed, then Intel adore acronyms. If we turn to our organization, many of the names of teams, organizations, projects, technologies consist of acronyms. We had to start from this, as well as from the universality of the solution. We played with it. How can we expand it?

On the other hand, the word “tire” seemed counterintuitive, but the industry knew what it meant. Therefore, we left him. Other interfaces were parallel - SCSI, parallel port, and so. Our new standard was fashionable. Economically simple. These elements like to make the name.

Therefore, the option universal serial bus took the lead. The idea was to use the word bus [eng. - not only “tire”, but also “bus” / approx. transl.], as something that takes you from one point to another, efficiently and reliably.

In the end, I think it won due to universality. That is what we tried to do.

DP : COMDEX was the biggest show in Las Vegas, and in 1998 we rented a big hall, we had a big showcase. We rented a large pavilion, where we held a press conference, we connected 127 devices to the PC and hired Bill Nye [a well-known popularizer of science / approx. transl.], which connected the latest device to show how much one single port on a PC could support - we had a full scene of different printers there! We walked, shaken with one mouse, then another, or typed here and there.

Well, why is this connector not bilateral?

AB : Good question. We thought about it, but our goal was to make a very cheap port, and at that time we tried to solve all the USB problems with two wires. At that time, if we had added wires to make the standard plugable in any way, we would have to add a bunch of wires and a bunch of silicon. Wires and contact cost money, so we decided to stay at the cheapest option. Serial ports and parallel ports had options with 25 pins, 36 pins, and so on. The cables were thick and expensive. We tried to solve all the problems. We were for less wires. Looking back, I can say that a two-way connector would be better.

AB : Our goal was to say that it should be an interface that would work with a mouse, with an expensive printer, or with a digital camera. We looked at the range of products. On the one hand, we wanted it to be simple enough so that the cost was very low. On the other hand, we wanted to scale, and today, when we talk, USB runs at dozens of gigabits per second. And the first one worked at 12 Mbps. We have come a long way to scale.

Microsoft's Betsy Tanner Call That Saved USB

DP : One of the people we met at Microsoft was Betsy Tanner, and at that time she was the chief mouse engineer. I talked to Betsy and said "if the day comes when you decide not to use USB for the next Microsoft mouse, I need to know about it." And she says, "OK, a reasonable request."

We were developing USB - at first it had to be a 5 Mbps bus, which at that time was faster than anything from the back of the PC case. By today's standards it is not fast, but then it seemed fast. And we needed a high speed in order to be able to branch connections through hubs, and, in fact, all devices connected to one port would share this speed among themselves - not necessarily while they would be used at the same time, but we wanted so that everything is reliable enough. Once Betsy called me and said: “Jim, you asked me to call if we decide not to use USB for our mouse. I’m calling to say that we won’t be able to do this because we have a problem. ”

I asked: "What is the problem?" She said: "Well, 5 megabits is too fast for us."

I said: “For a mouse, this bandwidth is not required, and secondly, I’m worried about whether we can meet the specifications for electromagnetic interference. Signals that go through the wire become an antenna. Will I have too much EM radiation to create digital noise? ”

She said, “we could solve this problem through cable insulation, but she adds 4 cents per foot to the cost. On a six-foot cable [1.8 m], you get 24 additional cents. I can not do it. Secondly, how can I isolate the cable if the mouse needs a simple cable? He should not influence her movements, and I am afraid that if you make isolation, he will become too hard. ”

I said: "Betsy, what would suit you?" She said: "It would be convenient for us to work with two megabits per second."

I said, “Damn, this is very slow. Can you give me a week? ”

She agreed. I turned to the team, we discussed the problem of Microsoft, and then we came up with the separation into high-speed and low-speed modes. High speed, we brought up to 12 Mbit / s. We limited the low speed to 1.5 Mbps, 3/4 of the maximum required for the mouse.

We saved Microsoft, we saved the mouse. And I think that this call from Betsy saved the program. One of the reasons for the success of USB is that the port has gone into cost limits. He did not cause a significant increase in the cost of the PC. You could even say that over time he reduced this cost.

Apple is absolutely not interested in working with us.

In the confederation of companies that helped to give birth to the USB standard, one notable player was missing. But in 1998, with the release of iMac, Apple was the first to make USB the only interface in their computers. It was Apple, not Intel, that became the first computer company associated with USB.

AB : This is interesting. Apple was not on the list, and they had a competitive product, 1394, or Firewire. Apple had its own interface. They were then famous for their ease of use. But at the end of the development of specifications, it was Apple who came out with the first product. The Windows-based system went from DOS to Windows and from Windows 3.1 to Windows 98.

Remember, we were not marketers. Our idea was to significantly change the computer industry. That was my motivation as an informatics specialist. I wanted to eliminate awkward interfaces because they limited internal extensions, and limited some computer applications.

And when we started all this, we talked to Apple, and they were absolutely not interested in working with us, they wanted to go the other way. When they accepted the specifications, we knew that we did everything right, and we began to solve the necessary problem. We were only happy. We believed that this cake should be increased, and then everyone would get a significant piece. We were not disappointed. We were delighted, and every time something came out, we were even happier, and this confirmed our idea that we were solving the right problem.


Intel advertising with Ajay Bhatt: "Our rock stars are not like yours"

Everything was with USB

DP : Since the fall of 1996, USB ports began to appear on the PC. In the fall, Microsoft released Windows OSR 2.1, if I'm not mistaken. She supported USB. But it had to be installed; OEMs could not sell it with new cars. Peripherals came out, but it was not like what happened in 1998.

When Windows 98 came out, there was just a break of the dam. World flooded USB devices.I remember how Steve Walley and I were in Tokyo. We went to Akihabaru, an electronics sales district in Tokyo, and stopped at one of the major electronics stores. We started to go and look for something with USB. This was before the release of Windows 98 or around that time. We went, did not see anything special. Someone approached us and asked if we needed help, and we said, “yes, we are looking for USB devices,” and he says, “well, it's on the fifth floor. The entire fifth floor is dedicated to USB devices! ”

In this electronic supermarket, an entire floor was dedicated to USB devices. It was a great moment. You come in, and there are whole rows. And everything was with USB.

BC: Who would have thought that the connector, described by us in the early 90s, will be used until now? This rarely happens. We had limitations in terms of cost, speed. It was designed for the desktop, not for smartphones. Looking back, I consider it a miracle that we could do everything we did and that this work stood the test of time - that we were able to develop on its basis, improve the power, speed, everything that was done in USB2 and USB3.

The miniaturization of USB has taken us beyond the PC era and right into the mobile era. We have developed other protocols that have appeared since then, except USB. And all the good we have invested in Type-C.


Ajay Bhatt and Bala Kadambi at the European Inventor Award 2013

DPA: With USB-C you can charge a laptop using a single USB port. You do not even need to make a separate port for power. It was a serious matter. Who would have thought?

BC : Defining a new connector is always a transition issue. We very carefully approached this issue. It took us six years to create Type-C capabilities. Behind this is a huge industry job.

There are two aspects to this standard. The first is the interface you stick in and it changes. And the interface behind it, between device drivers and OS, between device and drivers, is not changing. It worked great for 20 years, and goes into USB-C.

PD : - . -, - . . , .

USB – . , , . , , 2,2 . . . .