They should just rebrand it as SB and be done with it, there's nothing universal about it anymore.
USB 3.2 is going to make the current USB branding even worse
61–70 of 158 posts
Re: USB 3.2 is going to make the current USB branding even worse
#62USB-IF has to be doing this to deliberately confuse end users, right? I get that it's a specification number, not a product name, but they have to know that this will only cause problems for customers trying to find the appropriate cable. Incredibly, their language usage specifications doc https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/usb_3_2_language_pro... begins with this: > USB-IF emphasizes the importance and value of…
They seem to go out of their way to find perverse naming. Apart from 3.0/3.1/3.2 there’s the highspeed/superspeed nonsense. I can never keep any of it straight.
Re: USB 3.2 is going to make the current USB branding even worse
#63Who the heck came up with USB 3.2 Gen 2×2? That has got to be the dumbest idea. No one cares how it works, we just have to go through the utter crap of buying a cable. Does the low end manufactures pull the most weight in this org because that's the only way this makes any sense.
> Who the heck came up with USB 3.2 Gen 2×2? That has got to be the dumbest idea. No one cares how it works Well, you will if you end up trying to use a part which supports 2×1 with a part which supports 1×2, since they both support the same top speed, but together they only support the lower speed of 1×1.
I cannot tell if you are joking, and that scares me worse than if you are completely serious.
Re: USB 3.2 is going to make the current USB branding even worse
#64[deleted]
Re: USB 3.2 is going to make the current USB branding even worse
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Who the heck came up with USB 3.2 Gen 2×2? That has got to be the dumbest idea. No one cares how it works Well, you will if you end up trying to use a part which supports 2×1 with a part which supports 1×2, since they both support the same top speed, but together they only support the lower speed of 1×1.
I cannot tell if you are joking, and that scares me worse than if you are completely serious.
I'm mostly serious, though I really don't know why 1×2 exists and why you'd build a part that supports it but not 2×2 (or, alternatively, that supports it instead of 2×1, which is, but for a name change, an older standard with the same nominal bandwidth), and the 2×2 will also support 2×1.
But maybe there is an electrical engineering reason why it might be practical to do 1×2 but not 2×1 in some device.
Re: USB 3.2 is going to make the current USB branding even worse
#66USB-IF has to be doing this to deliberately confuse end users, right? I get that it's a specification number, not a product name, but they have to know that this will only cause problems for customers trying to find the appropriate cable. Incredibly, their language usage specifications doc https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/usb_3_2_language_pro... begins with this: > USB-IF emphasizes the importance and value of…
The motivation is the same for re-branding 4G-LTE as 5G (or 6G). Sell the same thing with a new name so customers are tricked into thinking you're selling something newer and better based on the spec sheet without context.
It’s like they created Long Term Evolution (no more ‘G’enerations) then immediately realized the marketing issue.
Re: USB 3.2 is going to make the current USB branding even worse
#67USB-IF has to be doing this to deliberately confuse end users, right? I get that it's a specification number, not a product name, but they have to know that this will only cause problems for customers trying to find the appropriate cable. Incredibly, their language usage specifications doc https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/usb_3_2_language_pro... begins with this: > USB-IF emphasizes the importance and value of…
When quoting, please prefix lines with > instead of using preformatted text: preformatted text for blocks of prose is horribly unusable, everywhere.
It’s even better to also italicize (using asterisks), e.g.:
> USB-IF emphasizes the importance and value of consistent messaging on USB product packaging, marketing materials, and advertising. Inconsistent use of terminology creates confusion in the marketplace, can be misleading to consumers and potentially diminishes USB-IF’s trademark rights.
Then at a glance there is a distinction between the comment itself vs. quotations.
Re: USB 3.2 is going to make the current USB branding even worse
#68USB with and without thunderbolt was already confusing enough for your normal joe. Now you have 3 version of USB 3.2 with require you to do a detail specsheet lookup before plugging in?
Re: USB 3.2 is going to make the current USB branding even worse
#69* USB 3.2 Gen 2 10 Gbps
* USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 20 Gbps
Therefore, If a motherboard has two USB 3.2 Gen 2 10 Gbps port, can it be labeled as USB 3.2 Gen 2x2?
Re: USB 3.2 is going to make the current USB branding even worse
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
I cannot tell if you are joking, and that scares me worse than if you are completely serious.
I'm mostly serious, though I really don't know why 1×2 exists and why you'd build a part that supports it but not 2×2 (or, alternatively, that supports it instead of 2×1, which is, but for a name change, an older standard with the same nominal bandwidth), and the 2×2 will also support 2×1. But maybe there is an electrical engineering reason why it might be practical to do 1×2 but not 2×1 in some device.
1x2 requires lower frequency electrical signals I suspect? That might be preferable in some scenarios. Still insane.