It's like they're marketing pain relief, all new formula, super rapid fast action, targets pain directly....
USB 3.2 is going to make the current USB branding even worse
141–150 of 158 posts
Re: USB 3.2 is going to make the current USB branding even worse
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
> edit: I personally care far more about the connector than exact specs of each version hopefully usb-c connectors are tougher then micro-usb's
In my experience, the device side is much tougher. I've had 2 cables fail but even after about 3000 operations (that's about estimated 5 operations per day for 2 years in my case), the device connector still feels new with a fresh cable.
As it should be. I’d hate if the device side wore out
Re: USB 3.2 is going to make the current USB branding even worse
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's easy to make a universal port when your universe is a small handful of your own devices with no numbers to live up to.
The "small handful" adds up to about a billion devices, but it's true that they were made by a single manufacturer.
A billion devices, but just 24 different ones, over 3 product lines, plus a couple of trivial, slow ones like keyboards.
Re: USB 3.2 is going to make the current USB branding even worse
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Does anyone care about Gbps for USB? I've never hit the bandwith limitation on USB and see USB type-C as just an annoyance making me buy new cables. You haven't met new Windows (Dell, etc.) laptops yet? If you want multiple monitors with a single connector (there's often just one), it makes all the difference whether you can connect two 4k monitors @60 Hz or not.
But that's a capability on top of USB that isn't even implied by the Gbps branding.
Ah right, it's Thunderbolt. Dell is doing some weird things with it, like apparently transporting way more power than the standard allows. Shrug. Dell TB16 (thunderbolt) dock is not the nicest experience.
Re: USB 3.2 is going to make the current USB branding even worse
#145At least WiFi figured out how to improve. Would love to see "USB 4" . No ".0" afterwards, just the simpler numeral. And if you need a bigger connector, then buy the "USB 4 XL connector" cable.
"Would love to see "USB 4" ." I'd rather go for a (possibly faster) Ethernet with a redesigned smaller connector supporting POE. Smaller devices such as mice and keyboards could talk at PHY level while smarter ones with beefier microcontrollers could employ more and more layers of the network stack so that routing/tunneling data over the network when needed would become trivial. Security wise, there would be no physi…
I was speaking branding, not tech stack. Sorry if that caused any confusion.
Re: USB 3.2 is going to make the current USB branding even worse
#146At least WiFi figured out how to improve. Would love to see "USB 4" . No ".0" afterwards, just the simpler numeral. And if you need a bigger connector, then buy the "USB 4 XL connector" cable.
"SuperSpeed USB" is your "USB 4".
But what do they name it when they upgrade Superspeed?
Ethernet at least had 10Mb, 100Mb 1000Mb/Gig, etc.
Re: USB 3.2 is going to make the current USB branding even worse
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, HN is so bad at publicizing and making this easy. I spent years assuming others knew some magical tool I didn't, before realizing people just do everything manually and stick to the same unwritten style guide.
...it felt pretty obvious to me? ">" is pretty commonly used, in email for instance.
agreed, I just thought I was missing some hidden feature. Like, I have to do the line breaks myself? I guess?
Re: USB 3.2 is going to make the current USB branding even worse
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
"SuperSpeed USB" is your "USB 4".
But what do they name it when they upgrade Superspeed? Ethernet at least had 10Mb, 100Mb 1000Mb/Gig, etc.
They already did upgrade SuperSpeed. Twice.
> USB-IF’s recommended nomenclature for consumers is “SuperSpeed USB” for 5Gbps products, “SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps” for 10Gbps products and “SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps” for 20Gbps products
Re: USB 3.2 is going to make the current USB branding even worse
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Would love to see "USB 4" ." I'd rather go for a (possibly faster) Ethernet with a redesigned smaller connector supporting POE. Smaller devices such as mice and keyboards could talk at PHY level while smarter ones with beefier microcontrollers could employ more and more layers of the network stack so that routing/tunneling data over the network when needed would become trivial. Security wise, there would be no physi…
That was one of the original goals of Zeroconf. In 2002, Stuart Cheshire said [1]: > My hope is that in the future — distant future perhaps — your computer will only need one wired communication technology. It will provide power on the connector like USB and FireWire, so it can power small peripheral devices. It will use IP packets like Ethernet, so it provides your wide-area communications for things like email and…
I didn't know about that interview, thanks for sharing. It seems so natural to me to go for the one technology that fits all needs (Ethernet+POE and possibly a smaller connector). All it would need is a big player to implement that, then release the changes for free with no strings attached, but probably most parties involved can't squeeze the same profits out of open technologies.
Here's an idea to push for this technology. I have no way to develop this, neither the technical knowledge nor the money required, but comments welcome anyway. Essentially I would:
1- design a smaller connector that could host all Ethernet pairs plus power supply, 2- for testing purposes, build a small bridge board (a matchbox sized black box) between the socket and the
original Ethernet plug and a nearby USB port for power alone. Ethernet pairs would pass untouched (or possibly
replicated through a switch chipset+magnetics) while the bridge board would contain any necessary circuit to power 3- Now we have some cheap hardware which is easy to replicate to use on every platform, including SBCs where the Some proof of concept would be needed to demonstrate that, so here's my question: how hard would be to satisfy point [1] and build some hardware (mice, keyboards, audio etc) that can use the new network standard to show its benefits to the industry?
Re: USB 3.2 is going to make the current USB branding even worse
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except the list of speeds is ridiculously arcane. People can easily figure out that 3.1 beats 3 beats 2. Good luck getting them to guess whether "full speed" beats "high speed", or why there are three different things all called "Superspeed+"
There is not supposed to be any superspeed+ branding. From USB-IF guidelines: > NOTE: SuperSpeed Plus, Enhanced SuperSpeed and SuperSpeed+ are defined in the USB specifications however these terms are not intended to be used in product names, messaging, packaging or any other consumer-facing content. > USB-IF’s recommended nomenclature for consumers is “SuperSpeed USB” for 5Gbps products, “SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps” for…
Did they delete the 1x2 mode? If not, the answer to "Does this cable support SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps?" becomes significantly more complicated than it should be.
But fine, if we actually see everything branded as "SuperSpeed USB XXGbps" then it's overly long but it's understandable.
I am not convinced we won't see a hideous hodgepodge of different branding guides, though. Some saying "SuperSpeed USB __Gbps", some saying "USB 3.2", some saying "gen __", some saying "SuperSpeed+"