21–30 of 333 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe the byte changed its meaning like many words did in the past. To a lot of younger developers a byte is synonymous with an octet.
A byte has been synonymous with an octet for as long as I can remember. I found a Wikipedia article [1] that describes the transition of a byte meaning the number of bits to encode character of text to an octet. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Units_of_information
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe the byte changed its meaning like many words did in the past. To a lot of younger developers a byte is synonymous with an octet.
A byte has been synonymous with an octet for as long as I can remember. I found a Wikipedia article [1] that describes the transition of a byte meaning the number of bits to encode character of text to an octet. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Units_of_information
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8b/10b_encoding
A byte is also referred to the smallest addressable unit. Which in most cases is 8 bits but many (I guess mostly niche architectures) have much larger characters/bytes, and is still very much relevant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that was the case, the front non-thunderbolt ports would not be faster, but they are.
Getting USB 2.0 speeds strongly suggests that the cables somehow had horrendous signal integrity... Anyway I grabbed a 3.1 gen2 SSD and plugged it directly into my 16" M1 Pro (Sandisk Extreme), and I got 850 MB/s read/write with his tool. And that's supposedly one of the exact drives and laptops he tested. So something is going wrong for him, and it's 90% likely to be cables.
In your test, did you use a TB4 cable or a USB data cable?
The inability of the USB standards body to stick to a versioning scheme beggars belief: what in the world could "USB 3.1 Gen 2" possibly mean? Versions are free, why not simply name it "USB 3.2" and make the next one 3.3? "Gen 2" strikes me as the "Essay FINAL (final version 2).docx" of standards revisions.
I don't think it's an accident. I think manufacturers pressured the body to ensure they can always claim compatibility with the latest standard. For that purpose, version number became irrelevant and the profile name ("Gen 2") became important.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it's an accident. I think manufacturers pressured the body to ensure they can always claim compatibility with the latest standard. For that purpose, version number became irrelevant and the profile name ("Gen 2") became important.
Same thing happened with HDMI 2.1, all new features were defined as optional so everyone who only supports the 2.0 feature set can claim HDMI 2.1 compliance
The consortiums don’t seem to realize that short-term profits are coming at their expense of their brand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Getting USB 2.0 speeds strongly suggests that the cables somehow had horrendous signal integrity... Anyway I grabbed a 3.1 gen2 SSD and plugged it directly into my 16" M1 Pro (Sandisk Extreme), and I got 850 MB/s read/write with his tool. And that's supposedly one of the exact drives and laptops he tested. So something is going wrong for him, and it's 90% likely to be cables.
It doesn’t seem particularly likely to be the cables when the same cable plus same external drive but with an Intel Mac results in the expected performance numbers. In your test, did you use a TB4 cable or a USB data cable?
I used a USB cable, but I retested with an active TB4 cable with the same results. And again with a passive TB3 cable to the same results.
USB went from being the universal bus, to just being the universal connector. There are never any guarantees that your device (or cable!) actually supports the operation you’re trying
I'm fine with devices offering different capabilities. But the cables should be marked clearly... I have one of the chinese drawing tablets, which has a convoluted "to USB-C" adapter. Apparently you can also drive it with USB-C directly, however only a manufacturer-provided cable (supershort) fits the port. Noone know what cable you can use alternately...
How about by using different ports? Imagine if instead of playing whack a mole with 4 usb-c ports on my laptop, 2 usb c ports on my monitor and a bag of cables, I could plug a cable that fits into the port it fits into?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it's an accident. I think manufacturers pressured the body to ensure they can always claim compatibility with the latest standard. For that purpose, version number became irrelevant and the profile name ("Gen 2") became important.
Same thing happened with HDMI 2.1, all new features were defined as optional so everyone who only supports the 2.0 feature set can claim HDMI 2.1 compliance
The inability of the USB standards body to stick to a versioning scheme beggars belief: what in the world could "USB 3.1 Gen 2" possibly mean? Versions are free, why not simply name it "USB 3.2" and make the next one 3.3? "Gen 2" strikes me as the "Essay FINAL (final version 2).docx" of standards revisions.
USB 3.1 Gen 1 is the straight rebranding of USB 3.0, USB 3.1 Gen 2 is the "original" 3.1, which is 3.0 updated to a 10Gbps signalling rate (from 5), and a more efficient encoding (128/132, versus 8/10).
But wait, there's worse!
USB 3.2 Gen 1 is the same thing as USB 3.1 Gen 1
USB 3.2 Gen 2 is the same thing as USB 3.1 Gen 2
USB 3.2 Gen 1x2 is 2 lanes of Gen 1 (both G1 and G2 are single-lane), so 2x5Gbps at 8/10
USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 is 2 lanes of Gen 2, so 2x10Gbps at 128/132.
Don't ask me why you'd want to use 1x2, I've no idea, and apparently USB-IF doesn't either (they don't even recommend a marketing name for it).
The inability of the USB standards body to stick to a versioning scheme beggars belief: what in the world could "USB 3.1 Gen 2" possibly mean? Versions are free, why not simply name it "USB 3.2" and make the next one 3.3? "Gen 2" strikes me as the "Essay FINAL (final version 2).docx" of standards revisions.