101–110 of 158 posts
Those are just some of the questions non-technical consumers are expected to know the answers to when they are buying USB products.
This is absurd.
Honestly, the USB-IF guidance is pretty sane here. The "USB 3.0" or "USB 3.1 gen 1" or whatever simply should not appear anywhere in the consumer space. Everything should be labeled and using "SuperSpeed USB X Gbps". I'd go as far to say that articles like this exactly help keep the confusion up because the way they keep bringing up the term "USB 3.2" etc as something that consumers should care about, when it is some…
So the very same device can be accurately labelled "USB 3.0", "USB 3.1 Gen 1" and "USB 3.2 Gen 1". Those are all actually the same thing? Do I have this right?
No, it shouldn't be labeled any of those. Instead it should be labeled "SuperSpeed USB" and nothing else. And that hasn't changed over the different USB revisions.
Honestly, the USB-IF guidance is pretty sane here. The "USB 3.0" or "USB 3.1 gen 1" or whatever simply should not appear anywhere in the consumer space. Everything should be labeled and using "SuperSpeed USB X Gbps". I'd go as far to say that articles like this exactly help keep the confusion up because the way they keep bringing up the term "USB 3.2" etc as something that consumers should care about, when it is some…
"SuperSpeed" is useless in terms of branding because even technical users, much less your average consumer, have no idea what that means. Is "SuperSpeed" faster than "High Speed" or "Full Speed"? (Answer: "Full Speed" "20 Gbps USB" is better than "USB 3.2 Gen 2x2", sure, but that's not exactly a high bar. It just means USB has failed so badly with version numbers that people would rather just quote a spec figure.
Wishing for everyone to switch over to "SuperSpeed" and "SuperSpeed+" will not make it so. Fact is, both users and manufacturers are accustomed to "USB 3.0", "USB 3.1", etc. And it's not hard to see why people prefer simple version numbers as opposed to meaningless labels.
USB-IF should have simply released USB 3.1 and USB 3.2 without this ridiculous business of retroactively renaming older versions.
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, 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.
In other words, it's a crapshoot anyway, so who cares? We'll just keep plugging until something sort-of works.
(do I sound crushed by the mind-boggling trans-galactic humongousness of the borderless expanse of human (and especially commitee) stupidity?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, realistically, you don't need 100 watt power delivery for a keyboard, so you might want a less robust cable. The big mistake IMO was a lack of obvious keying. Very little stops me from using that 2w-capacity keyboard cable to try to charge my laptop. If we're lucky, there's signaling at the device to tell me what's wrong, but if they had made a different plug on the 100W cable, it would eliminate a lot of cockp…
So you'd want a low speed connector, a high speed connector, a high wattage connector and also a high speed + high wattage connector? So 4 plugs, or more if you want to add even faster speeds in the future. And then you need cables which have one of each of those connectors on each end, so we're talking about dozens of variants. No thank you. The drama around USB-C is insanely overblown; the vast majority of use case…
Here is a helpful chart of USB versions and their connectors: https://preview.redd.it/s9dun6a1xmpz.png?width=960&crop=smar... e.g. USB 3.2 has the same connector as USB-C edit: I personally care far more about the connector than exact specs of each version
This is unhelpful. The whole point of the article is that both of those middle columns are also USB 3.2, i.e. you have this: * USB 3.2 Gen 1 5 Gbps (formerly USB 3.1 Gen 1) (formerly USB 3.0) * USB 3.2 Gen 2 10 Gbps (formerly USB 3.1 Gen 2) * USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 20 Gbps Literally everyone that came up with this ridiculous naming scheme and literally everyone who approved it should never be allowed to participate in a wor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
How does all this interact with UCB 3.2?