Steal the enemy's base at the start and build a technological empire.

Chapter 111 Joint Statement

At 9:00 AM on January 11, the official websites of five companies—StarCraft, Dell, Compaq, HP, and AMD—were simultaneously updated. The homepage headline featured the same document: "UHSB 1.0 Technical Standard Complete Testing White Paper and Clarification of Recent False Accusations."

The white paper is 32 pages long, in PDF format, and can be downloaded for free.

core content:

Part 1: Test Methods and Conditions

- The address, equipment model, and environmental parameters of the joint testing laboratory of the five companies were announced.

- All tests follow IEEE standard procedures and are recorded and archived in their entirety, allowing for reproduction by third parties.

- Compare the test conditions in the SI report, and mark the differences with a red box: SI used unshielded, inexpensive cables (market share < 5%), while the joint test used standard shielded cables (market share > 80%).

Part Two: Measured Data

- Electromagnetic radiation: Under standard chassis and shielded cable conditions, the radiation level of UHSB at full speed is 62% of the FCC Class B standard, fully compliant. Spectrum analysis diagram attached.

- Temperature test: After one hour of continuous large file transfer, the highest interface temperature reached 58°C (ambient temperature 25°C). Infrared thermal image attached.

- Compatibility: 23 power supplies from different brands and years were tested, and only one older product from 1992 had an issue. Conclusion: "100% compatibility with power supplies manufactured within the last five years."

- Performance stability: After 72 hours of uninterrupted transmission testing, the average speed remained at 4.8Gbps with fluctuations of <3%.

Part Three: Point-by-Point Rebuttal to the SI Report

1. "SI testing uses non-standard cables, which does not comply with industry-standard testing specifications."

2. "Common configuration in non-consumer grade products: enclosed, non-heat-dissipating chassis."

3. "The 'power supply timing conflict' only occurs on certain older hardware."

Part Four: Brief Description of Technical Principles

- Explain UHSB's differential signaling, full-duplex communication, and efficient power supply design in layman's terms.

- Comparison table: UHSB 1.0 vs USB 1.0, 12 parameters in total, UHSB wins in all aspects.

The last paragraph of the white paper:

"Technological progress requires honest discussion and fact-based debate. We welcome any technical challenges, but oppose misleading the public with misinformation. The UHSB Alliance is committed to promoting open, high-performance standards that benefit the entire industry and consumers."

At 10 a.m., the media began to react.

The first batch of reports was relatively cautious:

- CNBC: "UHSB Alliance releases rebuttal report, escalating technical dispute."

- The Wall Street Journal: "The battle of standards has entered the data war phase."

But tech media were more proactive:

Two hours after the white paper was downloaded, PC Magazine published a preliminary analysis article on its website: "Based on the available data, UHSB has a clear technological advantage. The testing conditions in the SI report are indeed questionable."

ZDNet: "A war sparked by testing methodologies. Whose data should consumers trust?"

The real explosion occurred at noon: IT enthusiast community

Slashdot (“News for Nerds”)

At 11:23 AM, user "HardwareGeek" submitted a link to the white paper, titled: "UHSB Consortium Drops Data Nuclear Bomb, Blows SI's Report to Shatters."

Within an hour, there were over 500 comments.

Highly rated comment:

"SI's testing conditions are a joke. Measuring radiation with the worst cables is like measuring volume with a leaky cup." (+412)

"Intel is panicking. USB 1.0 is as slow as a snail, and instead of rushing to develop USB 2.0, they're spending money to hack their competitors. Pathetic." (+387)

"5Gbps versus 1.5Mbps, reversible plugs require finding the right direction, free licenses versus paid patents. Intel has lost everything, leaving them with nothing but dirty tricks." (+521)

"I looked at the thermal images in the white paper. 58 degrees Celsius isn't high at all; my graphics card idles at 60 degrees Celsius." (+298)

Usenet newsgroup discussion thread titled: "UHSB vs USB: An Unfair Tech Showdown".

User "Tech_Truth" wrote:

Let's make this clear:

1. Intel's USB 1.0 theoretical speed is 1.5Mbps, but in reality it is less than 1Mbps.

2. UHSB measured at 4.8Gbps, which is 300 times that of USB.

3. Instead of improving its technology, Intel hires third parties to publish negative reports.

4. Conclusion: Intel is an obstacle to innovation. Support UHSB.

This post was widely shared.

IRC (Internet Relay Chat) channel #hardware

Real-time chat history:

`` `

[12:15] Has anyone downloaded the white paper? It's 32 pages long and packed with useful information.

[12:16] I saw it. It's so obvious that those SI guys are taking money to do things.

[12:17] I need UHSB! My hard drive array is now stuck with USB cards.

[12:18] Starry Sky System + UHSB, this is the future. Microsoft and Intel should be phased out.

`` `

At 2 PM, the public opinion shifted significantly.

A tech columnist for the San Jose Mercury News published a commentary titled "When Monopolists Start to Fear: Real Competition in the Tech Industry Through the UHSB Controversy."

The article states:

"The Wintel alliance, formed by Intel and Microsoft, dominated the PC industry for a decade. Now, an alliance led by young Chinese entrepreneurs is challenging it with better technology and a more open model. However, the alliance's first reaction is not a technological competition, but an attempt to stifle the challenger with FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt). What does this tell us? Perhaps monopolies have robbed giants of their ability to innovate."

This article has been cited extensively.

At 3 PM, the SI lab fell silent.

The media began contacting SI Labs, demanding a response.

SI's public relations department initially responded: "We stand by the scientific validity of the report."

However, when the reporter pressed for details on whether SI was willing to reproduce the test under third-party supervision in collaboration with the UHSB consortium, SI did not respond.

Internal communication within the alliance at 5 PM

Lingyun, Dell, Fairfax, Pratt, and Sanders held a brief conference call.

Dell: "Public opinion has turned around. We now occupy the moral and technological high ground."

Sanders: "That's exactly what should be done! Intel must be furious right now."

Febvre: "But our business relationship with Intel... will face even greater pressure going forward."

Pratt: "HP's enterprise customer division reported that calls inquiring about UHSB security decreased by 70% after the white paper was released."

Ling Yun: "This is just the first step. Intel may upgrade its methods next. We need to prepare for the second phase: product launch."

The meeting decided:

1. Strike while the iron is hot and release the UHSB Developer Kit (SDK) a week later.

2. Accelerate negotiations with Apple.

3. Prepare for potential patent litigation.

At 8 p.m., the online frenzy continued.

Slashdot has surpassed 2000 comments.

A new post was bumped to the front page: "If UHSB succeeds, we might see: 1. External hard drive enclosures for instant movie transfers; 2. Live streaming via HD webcams; 3. Computers connected to monitors with a single cable handling video, audio, and power. This is the kind of technology we should have in 1997!"

The comments were filled with "+1" and "Hurry up and come!"

Another meeting is underway in Redmond and Santa Clara.

But on January 11, 1997, the balance of public opinion shifted significantly in favor of the challenger for the first time.

Ordinary users and tech enthusiasts expressed their choices in the simplest terms: they want faster speeds, better technology, and more choices.

On this day, UHSB became a symbol of this expectation.

The outcome of the war is still uncertain, but the victor of the first battle is already clear.