151–158 of 158 posts
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.
Why not enumerate it based entirely on features, also toss in what power delivery it's rated at in watts and volts. USB 3 20Gbit PD 100W 20V
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe be USB4 is already taken/planned?
USB 4.0 will actually be USB 1.0 with a new name, same speed. 4.1 will be what was USB 1.1 4.2 will be what was USB 2.0 4.3.0 will be what was 3.0. 4.3.1GXY1 will be what was 3.2 1x1 (which was 3.1 Gen 1 (which was 3.0) 4.3.1GXY2 will be what was 3.2 2x1 (which was 3.1) 4.3.2GXY1 will be what was 3.2 2x2 4.4.0 will be double the speed of 4.3.2GXY1 (what was called 3.2 2x2) but will max out at 25mm (~1") cables and pr…
One for power, one for data. It could be any scale, as long as products like monitors would need data > x, phones will charge faster up to power y, laptops need power z, etc. Two numbers are easy enough to emboss, engrave, print into a connector, cable or device...
USB-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…
So is there going to be a generation of young people who grow up thinking that all peripherals are USB, and that the naming system is so complicated/nonsensical that it isn’t even worth trying to figure it out? When I was growing up, we had USB, FireWire, and a couple size/speed variations. It was easy to understand and you could tell what a cable was by looking at it. For people who grew up in this era, the current…
And we felt damn lucky to have them.
https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/usb_3_2_language_pro...
To me it seems the "press" is distorting this press release.
Excerpt :
USB 3.2 Gen 1
o Product capability: product signals at 5Gbps
o Marketing name: SuperSpeed USB
USB 3.2 Gen 2
o Product capability: product signals at 10Gbps
o Marketing name: SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps
USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 o Product capability: product signals at 20Gbps
o Marketing name: SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps
USB 3.2 Key Messages
• Defines multi-lane operation for new USB 3.2 hosts and devices, allowing for up to two lanes of 10Gbps operation to realize a 20Gbps data transfer rate, without sacrificing cable length.
• Delivers compelling performance boosts to meet requirements for demanding USB storage, display, and docking applications.
• Enables end-users to move content across devices quickly, conveniently and without worrying about compatibility.
• Backwards compatible with all existing USB products; will operate at lowest common speed capability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
The specification is USB3.2. Gen1, Gen2, Gen2x2 are modes. The USB3.2 spec is more than just the speeds. It can include protocol updates and errata.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All of this naming doesn't matter anyway, because everybody will use USB-C cables. And, as we all know, these can support (or not) almost any combination of anything (thunderbolt, video, various power combinations, USB in all its incarnations, etc) and there is no way to tell what will work by looking at the cable or socket you are plugging into. In other words, it's a crapshoot anyway, so who cares? We'll just keep…
>because everybody will use USB-C cables That is assuming all USB-C Cable will support all power combinations ( They don't ) All USB 3.2 Speed ( They Don't ), and All Thunderbolt Spec ( They Don't ). And it is precisely this comment that makes me thick why USB-C has won. Until the problem becomes so wide spread you have to test each cable whether it is working as intended before people will call for changes.
The point is you will be able to look it up. With cables you can't. I wish it was mandatory to publish the rated max speed, amps and max number of insertions on every USB-C cable. It's only 3 numbers - but there is no chance of it happening.
Earlier 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. External SSDs are probably the only time it matters, or even multiple drives connected through a USB hub.
You don't need an SSD to get benefit from the transfer speeds of USB3. Decent hard drives support linear read speeds of ~160MB/sec. USB2 will throttle that to 40MB/sec after protocol overheads. I've also run into this using external ethernet adapters, which I still want when I'm copying large files or streaming video via airplay or steam. My last 3 laptops were missing inbuilt ethernet ports. USB 2, while much faster…