USB-C head-to-head comparison

Post by make3 » Sun, Oct 22, 2023, 7:19 PM UTC

fireflash38 wrote: post #163

moonfern wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"USB-IF strongly discourages its members and the industry at-large from using specification names/terminology in consumer-facing branding, packaging, advertisements, and other marketing materials." They recommend the following naming: XYZ's USB 40Gbps 60W USB Type-C® Cable or USB 40Gbps 60W USB Type-C® Cable USB 40Gbps... correspond to the USB4 Gen 3×2 mode Hi-Speed USB is USB 2.0 (High-Speed). A tip usb cable and a…

What a clusterfuck of branding. The inability to easily differentiate between capabilities makes everything the same as the lowest common denominator - the shittiest USB-C cable from wish.

I wish all smartphones would be able to tell you the capabilities of the wires you're using. You can't expect consumers to order weird devices from China just to know which wire to freaking use with their phones.

Post by extraduder_ire » Thu, Oct 26, 2023, 12:47 PM UTC

NikolaNovak wrote: post #214

extraduder_ire wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something like that was tried with usb 1.1, 2, and 3, being white/black/blue. But many manufacturers got very loosey-goosey with it. I'm sure it'd be worse as soon as a common spec for this popped up for USB-C.

Yeah, that was actually quite helpful (when properly implemented). Especially in era of laptops that had a mixture, you knew to plug in the portable drive into blue not the black USB port (and put your phone to charge into yellow one:).

Yellow (always supplies power) was non standard, as was green. Would have been nice if that was included in an addendum to the USB spec though.

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison