Quoted post unavailable.
No post body was provided.
M1 Thunderbolt ports don’t fully support USB 3.1 Gen 2
181–190 of 333 posts
Re: M1 Thunderbolt ports don’t fully support USB 3.1 Gen 2
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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? 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…
> USB 3.1 Gen 1 is the straight rebranding of USB 3.0 Why? To solve what exactly? In a sane world, it'd be major.minor, with nothing appended at the end. Allowing marketers to take over everything was such a terrible mistake. At this point I myself just don't differentiate USB versions beyond 3.0. 2.0 is the slow one, 3.0 is the fast one, anything newer is "so fast I won't ever saturate this much bandwidth anyway". T…
The spec got a version bump from 3.0 to 3.1 and the new version of the spec added an additional transfer mode called "Gen 2".
From that point of view it makes a lot of sense. You need to differentiate the spec version from the features talked about in the spec.
From a marketing standpoint, it's terrible as most people need a simpler name and are incorrectly choosing the spec version. Marketing labels should just be "USB Gen 1" and "USB Gen 2". If you see "Gen 2" you know the spec version was at least 3.1, though that shouldn't even matter.
Re: M1 Thunderbolt ports don’t fully support USB 3.1 Gen 2
#183The apple apologists are in full swing in this comment section. $2000 laptops should do exactly what they claim, full stop.
No post body was provided.
Re: M1 Thunderbolt ports don’t fully support USB 3.1 Gen 2
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
> USB 3.1 Gen 1 is the straight rebranding of USB 3.0 Why? To solve what exactly? In a sane world, it'd be major.minor, with nothing appended at the end. Allowing marketers to take over everything was such a terrible mistake. At this point I myself just don't differentiate USB versions beyond 3.0. 2.0 is the slow one, 3.0 is the fast one, anything newer is "so fast I won't ever saturate this much bandwidth anyway". T…
> Why? To solve what exactly? In a sane world, it'd be major.minor, with nothing appended at the end. It's always important to get acquainted with a topic before succumbing to the desire to mindlessly criticize in ignorance. A quick search in Wikipedia shows that USB 3.1 specifies a brand new transfer rate, dubbed SuperSpeed+ transfer mode , " (...)which can transfer data at up to 10 Gbit/s over the existing USB3-typ…
Found the USB-IF member.
Re: M1 Thunderbolt ports don’t fully support USB 3.1 Gen 2
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Allowing marketers to take over everything was such a terrible mistake. I think the USB naming is the result of not using marketers.
> I think the USB naming is the result of not using marketers. No, it's specifically to give marketers what they want, which is the ability to advertise support for the latest version of the spec without actually having to improve the product. It's not USB-IF's marketers that want this, it's the vendors who pay USB-IF whose marketers want this.
Every backwards compatible spec would have this "problem".
Either a new version of a spec says that all existing implementations are out of spec, or it add new optional features and existing implementations are that don't support them are still in spec. There's really no other option.
Re: M1 Thunderbolt ports don’t fully support USB 3.1 Gen 2
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
That one is at least a little more understandable, same phy, just operates in a different spectrum.
I guess my point is it's meant to be a consumer marketing name - and if I have to explain to them that "6E" has an "E" because it's the "same phy, but operates in a different spectrum" then they've failed to create a rational naming scheme yeah? Don't get me wrong, I get it. But I also get USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 Like ... why "E" of all letters?
extended?
Re: M1 Thunderbolt ports don’t fully support USB 3.1 Gen 2
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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? 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…
> USB 3.1 Gen 1 is the straight rebranding of USB 3.0 Why? To solve what exactly? In a sane world, it'd be major.minor, with nothing appended at the end. Allowing marketers to take over everything was such a terrible mistake. At this point I myself just don't differentiate USB versions beyond 3.0. 2.0 is the slow one, 3.0 is the fast one, anything newer is "so fast I won't ever saturate this much bandwidth anyway". T…
It is a spec, not software. If usb 3.1 includes all the details on how to build and talk to devices that 3.0 did. If a device built for 3.0 suddenly wasn’t 3.1 compliant it would be a huge engineering failure on behalf of the USB-IF.
You are likely thinking of named features and of conformance marks, things like Superspeed 10 Gbps and the like. People outside hardware developers aren’t expected to know USB 3.O vs 3.1, and in fact should demand to not have to know.
Re: M1 Thunderbolt ports don’t fully support USB 3.1 Gen 2
#188I have two USB 3.2 drives that don’t work at all on my M1, but work fine on my Intel Mac. On the M1 they show up in Disk Inspector but any attempt to read from them, or even eject them, gets the bouncy ball.
Re: M1 Thunderbolt ports don’t fully support USB 3.1 Gen 2
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why can't you? I am typing this from an M1-MPB with two monitors. I just have 1 through thunderbolt and 1 through the hdmi.
I have a "MacBook Pro (13-inch, M1, 2020)" and I clearly can't have 2 external monitors. I tried everything.
That model has built-in support for a single external display in addition to the built-in display. If you want a second external display, you have to use third-party DisplayLink technology, which may be good enough depending upon your use case, but is inferior to built-in support.
Re: M1 Thunderbolt ports don’t fully support USB 3.1 Gen 2
#190The 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.
> 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? 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…
Not exactly, the generations have been renamed, so the first two are called USB 3.2 Gen 1x1 and USB 3.2 Gen 2x1 respectively. There is no such thing as USB 3.2 Gen 2.
But yes, they should have just had the version determine the gen, so a 3.0 port is always gen 1, a 3.1 port is always gen 2, and a 3.2 port is always gen 2x2. Or alternatively, skipped the version increment and marketed the new protocol as "USB 3 Gen 2", with no minor version. But now we have devices with "USB 3.1" printed on them even though they can only do 5 Gb/s.