Talk:U3 (software)

Reverted page move

I reverted an editor's recent page move (it had been moved from U3 to U3 Software) due to the guideline at WP:COMMONNAME: U3 is by far the best-known name for this company and design specification. There was no need to add the word "Software" to the article name; besides, U3 Software now redirects here. Bry9000 (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Self-Contradictory

This article contradicts itself rather badly. At one point it states:

"The software itself can be removed by reformatting the drive to FAT32 by any Windows 2000/XP, Linux or OSX system."

While later the article claims:

"Users of non-Microsoft OSes that don't have access to a Windows PC are unable to remove U3 from their "smart drives."

I don't own one of these devices, so I can't test which claim is correct, but they are mutually exclusive. If reformatting the drive erases the U3 stuff, the latter statement is incorrect. If it doesn't, then the previous statement is incorrect.

Oregonerik (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right - I've just noticed that after tidying up the latter comment.

Can anyone with a U3 device try reformatting it and make an authoriative edit? Raftermast (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No. The U3 garbage CANNOT be removed by reformatting. Or in any way, except by running proprietary software. If this were not the case, U3 would not be so controversial.

It is not just an ordinary matter of "removing software", which you can do from Linux etc. It is embedded deeper than that. -68.236.103.195 (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

There is an interesting article in the most recent (or very recent) 2600 Magazine about getting around this or at least modifying its purpose. If someone out there has a copy, please consider putting a blurb on the U3 page to enlighten us all! --geekyßroad^{. meow?} 01:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• software on the normal (USB mass storage device) drive area: removed by reformat, or even normal file deletion
• software on the weird (fake CD-ROM) drive area: removed by a hack documented in 2600 Magazine
• the weird (fake CD-ROM) drive area itself: removed by a special tool, assuming Windows doesn't crash

Compatibility

There are some issues remaining with Vista compatibility. I have edited the relevant section to reflect this, and cited sources. I do own one of these devices, and was surprised to find that vista was giving me a headache over a usb key. After about 3 hours of research, I was lucky enough to stumble upon the solution, i.e. KB940199. Toastysoul (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

I don't think the "benefits" section has any neutrality problems. In fact, I was very impressed with the way that the Wiki writers were willing to include the benefits section to provide balance to a product that is so widely hated. I recommend that we remove the neutrality tag. If anything, that section MAKES the page neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.125.45.10 (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and removed the tag. Not sure why it was added to begin with Raftermast (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It reads like a sales pitch to me. I'm inclined to remove most of the stuff in the section and restore the neutrality tag to the rest. 75.62.6.87 (talk) 08:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on sales pitch. It would surprise me greatly if it wasn't written by an employee of U3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.242.24.193 (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe renaming the "Benefit"-Section would be an option. What about "Features"?--Hjsalchow (talk) 11:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Leaves traces on host PC

Given the current explanation as to that "U3" leaves behind on the user's PC (i.e. files under C:\WINDOWS\Prefetch) I've removed this particular criticism.

U3 doesn't write to this area; those files "left behind" are actually created by the OS part of normal MS Windows operation - the prefetch system is part of Window's functionality to improve performance, and has nothing to do with U3 Raftermast (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

U3 uninstallation directions?

Do we really need those instructions on the page? 24.58.143.68 (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. It's probably the main reason people read this article. 72.40.45.79 (talk) 06:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not! Wikipedia is not a "how to" WWW site - see WP:NOTHOWTO. This sort of information should be added to the wikiHow WWW site, if anywere - but not here! ++Martin++ (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Somebody should really change the NP:NOTHOWTO page, it's stupid. Unfortunately it has somehow become locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.28.231 (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

While I understand Wikipedia is not a how to I think it is a very valid point to talk about in some way the removal process. Perhaps under criticisms it could be mentioned how they install software with out your permission. Jsholm (talk) 23:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)jsholm

Removed a bit.

Not updated software: Some software available on the u3.com website are not updated. The version offered by u3.com is 2.0.10.0, but the current version is 2.4.(ref)u3.com(/ref)

Removed that from the criticisms, didn't offer a hyperlink pointing towards the software specified, and appeared to be talking about multiple pieces of software, then using one example. Wolvenmoon (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Google Chrome illegal?

How exactly is a U3 port of Google Chrome illegal? The EULA says you can't do jack without a license, yes. However, the Chromium project, of which Google Chrome is the official release, is under the Berkeley Software Development (BSD) license, which essentially states that you can do whatever you want with the project code. If I'm wrong, please refute me.

NiveusLuna (talk) 01:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

One sentence too long. Two types of hosts.

Under the heading of "Benefits", sub heading "Portability" the second sentence is too long and not clear. Maybe it is just a matter of changing the comma after the word "options" to be a period.

We could add that there are two types of host computers: the initializing host where you need admin privs, and the anywhere host which is all other computers thereafter (that have the correct Windows OS). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.209.238 (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Security issue with U3

With third party tools it's possible to replace the embedded ISO. It is possible to place malware onto this ISO and take advantage of the autoplay to silently install a trojan immediately upon insertion of the device. Early versions of windows will simply automatically run the program directed in the autorun.inf with no prompting at all. One notable U3 Hacker program comes with a nasty piece of malware on it, described over here.

http://www.hak5.org/usb-switchblade

71.193.11.72 (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

U3 drives contain an autorun.inf that immediately runs the LaunchU3.exe application upon insertion of the USB stick. This is counter to basic PC security (and akin to having an email program that automatically launches attachments for any emails received), and inherently dangerous since an infected .exe would be automatically attempted to run. This problem would be compounded if the USB drive is listed as a root-level shared drive. In recognition of this, some antivirus/pc security software, upon installation, ask the user if they want to add a registry entry to prevent USB autorun.

THE ABOVE SECTIONS NEED TO BE MASSAGED AND ADDED TO THE CRITICISMS SECTION 173.19.142.10 (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Major criticisms of U3

Hi, I have seen for myself what a stupid idea U3 is! You insert a U3 USB device to store some files, then you get something automatically run and also things appear in the system tray. Isn't a USB storage device just that - a STORAGE device! Why do the U3 developers insist on making it complicated - a simple thing like a USB drive is made needlessly complicated and prone to problems that wouldn't otherwise exist!?

That's your opinion. You could give exactly the same argument against CD/DVDs with autorun.inf - despite the simple fact that Microsoft's inclusion of this functionality did cause a drop in support calls from clueless users who didn't know how to start an executable from a CD/DVD.

U3 is a tool for a job, and one which a lot of users find U3 extremely useful, and something which simplifies using their USB device. Clearly you don't share this view - which is fair enough! (FWIW, you can get rid of it if you want to)

Just because you prefer using a claw hammer, doesn't mean that all ball pein hammers should be discontinued! 20:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The criticism section on the page needs more added to it and ref links, such as this one: http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/paytonbyrd/this-crap-sucks-u3-16328 TurboForce (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, not a WP:RS; besides. The guy who wrote it clearly doesn't read Wikipedia, which includes the gold nugget of information he (and you) probably wanted to get hold of - information on how to remove U3. Raftermast (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't be so ridiculous! Comparing a STORAGE device to a software installation CD/DVD that is READ ONLY is a lame example. So a person without great computer skills buys a USB storage device from a shop so he or she can STORE files on it.

You may not be aware of it, but CDs and DVDs are used for storage - not just for "software installation"!

With respect to autorun.inf, perhaps you've not aware that you can run software directly from a U3 device (and any other USB storage device)? Many users do this in order to carry their applications around with their data files - a process which U3 does simplify.

I appreciate that (as you put it), you don't have great computer skills, but (and this is the point you may have missed) you can still store files on a U3 device! You may not have realised it, instead focussing on the U3 software you effectivly got for free, but yes - it's true! Raftermast (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

They get home and plug it into the USB port and then gets a load of junk appear on the screen they didn't expect or want. What a stupid invention from U3 that probably increases the price of the USB device in the first place!

Ah ha! So that's the problem you have! Not to worry - just turn it off by selecting the "please don't run this software" option - you can even remove U3 it from your device if you feel that bad about it. As I said above, please read the Wiki article; you'll find it quite informative. Raftermast (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Raftermast, will you please stop using abbreviations like "WP:RS" and "FWIW" - I don't understand them.

Try clicking on the link to find out what WP:RS is. I know some people find it complex, but give it a go!

If you don't understand standard internet acronyms, try looking them up! There's plenty of places on the internet which list standard web acronyms! Raftermast (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I see people get frustrated by computers all the time, this U3 invention is another stupid idea that frustrates people who don't want it. If I find ref links, I will add them. I may be coming across as angry, but if like me you see "everyday" computer users get bad tempered by things they don't understand and by things that are made needlessly complicated, then you will see why the computer industry needs to wake up, smell the coffee and live in the real world where not everyone using computers are experts. TurboForce (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If you didn't expect the U3 software to be included in the device you bought, you should probably have read the packaging before making your purchase. All of the device manufacturers make it quite clear which products have U3 - it's one of the selling points!

The only seemingly bad tempered and upset user seems to be yourself - I would suggest that you don't buy devices with U3 in future if they cause you so much distress (or StartKey, when it's released). There's plenty of "vanilla" devices around which you can buy! The Wikipedia really isn't the right place to vent your spleen - you may find it more constructive to either contact SanDisk to complain, or go back to the store you bought your U3 enabled device from, and ask for your money back. Raftermast (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I **do** have good computer skills and I've edited many pages about computer topics on Wikipedia. What frustrates me is the technology constantly changing, and I mean CONSTANTLY changing. You learn one set of standards, then they introduce another set! I did buy a U3 storage device, but the packaging didn't say what it was, except with a link to the U3 website (that doesn't work, see next section below). When there are valid criticisms, I believe they should be included. A perfectly valid one in the case of U3, as mentioned on the main page, is the problem of having TWO drive letters for ONE storage device. I would also like to include the fact that the U3 device not only has 2 drive letters, but what could also be confusing to some people as it 'becomes' a "CD Drive" too, with the CD icon!

I hate to think what havoc "StartKey" will cause amongst the ordinary Joe-public who don't understand the technical side of computers! TurboForce (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a Terrible idea

and the article should really cite some authroative sources speaking about the downsides of this. Every now and then I forget and let a non-technical guest stick an ordinary USB stick into one of our Windows computers at the office and then we have to spend the next day wiping it clean because the virus scanner came up positive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.238.69 (talk) 04:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

U3 Websites are no longer functioning.

When attempting to open a U3 web site, the following appears:

Failure To Connect To Web Server Failure To Connect To Web Server

Pinging U3 results in the following:

Pinging U3.com [174.129.233.110] with 32 bytes of data:

Request timed out. Request timed out. Request timed out. Request timed out.

Ping statistics for 174.129.233.110:

   Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss),

The only way to load official U3 software to your Cruzer is via the Cruzer Program Wizard. The number of applications available is very minimal.

A bewildered follower. 69.19.14.32 (talk) 12:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I've had problems with the Cruzer Program Wizard bugging out and not wanting to run again until you eject and reinsert the drive. Also, if the program listed in the external links section is able to crack the password protection, than how can you call U3 secure?! SharkD  Talk  03:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that SanDisk quietly dropped most of the support for U3, though I'm not sure why. The www.u3.com website is no longer functioning and the u3.sandisk.com site contains only minimal information. The number of available applications has shrunk since U3 was launched. I used U3 extensively for several years, but now that the number of applications is down to just a few, I have stopped using it. I'm looking forward to the sucessor. It used to be that you could download software from the SanDisk website and install it to your drive "as well as" installing it from the Cruzer Program Wizard. SanDisk's online store is gone now and the Program Wizard is nearly useless. In my opinion, U3 is dead. --71.159.230.121 (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's dead, Jim (link taken from the reference for the "SanDisk is phasing it out starting in 2009" statement in the introductory section of the article). Guy Harris (talk) 08:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks to the editors of the article. I came across a U3 stick for the first time (to my knowledge) today at work and was somewhat baffled and disconcerted by its weirdnesses. Having read the removal section I have now converted it into a nice straightforward common-or-garden memory stick with which I am much happier. If you contributed to this usefulness please pat yourself on the back. Cheers DBaK (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)