Live data from Hacker News

USB Cheat Sheet (2022)

fabiensanglard.net

51–60 of 89 posts

Re: USB Cheat Sheet (2022)

#52

Tangent: Author has this fabulous post I'd highly recommend: https://fabiensanglard.net/mjolnir/index.html I read it once years ago and I come back to it every now and then wishing my current PC (10+ years and going) would gently die so I could finally build something small and tiny.

You know, accidents happen. If you were to trip over the carpet and that venerable PC falls in the dumpster.

This sounds kinda premeditated though...

Re: USB Cheat Sheet (2022)

#53
post #43

I don't know what short-distance data communications will be like in 2050, but we know it will be called USB.

USB-G 4.6 SuperSpeed Plus, but the cables will still just be used for charging your random electronics and won't even work for that half the time.

…because Staples has replaced Amazon and Temu, which both went bankrupt in 2042, and all usb-c cables are made in Papua New Guinea with only 1/4 of the pins connected to wires. Some things never change.

Re: USB Cheat Sheet (2022)

#54
Why do we constantly change this?

What technological advance was not available x years ago to dream up usb 4?

We already know we will use the bandwith, why not dream up what will be the usb 8 spec in 20 years now and have everything working without change for 20 years?

Re: USB Cheat Sheet (2022)

#55
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PCIe also had things like "1.1", "2.1" and "3.1" - that fixed issues and added functionality - but there wasn't the same crossover between "feature sets and spec revisions" and "speeds" we see in USB today.

Manufacturers of mainstream consumer motherboards never used 1.1, 2.1, etc. for PCI-E though. What is 4.0 on the spec sheet will be 4.0 to the buyer. My old 2016 motherboard has a slew of 3.0 labelled USB ports that are now not 3.0, hence the conundrum. It just doesn't make sense why they changed established naming conventions. Is this something that causes me sleepless nights? Not in the least. But it's still an ann…

1.1 was very much commonly used in consumer marketing, to the level where there's many instances today of people referring to pcie1.x speeds as "1.1". And I'm pretty sure I've seen 2.1 in consumer marketing contexts. But you're right I didn't know 3.1 existed until I looked it up :p

But USB 3.0 is pretty much the only "speed" that hasn't changed - it always required the extra connectors for 5Gbps from the start - but no more. What about those ports is now not "3.0"?

Re: USB Cheat Sheet (2022)

#56
post #11

I once heard that the USB naming is misleading by design so that vendors could still sell older generations accessories they had in stock. The USB-IF just rebrands the old ones to make them sound current. Imagine the following naming: USB 3.0 / USB 3.1 Gen 1 / USB 3.2 Gen 1 -> USB 3 5Gbps USB 3.1 / USB 3.1 Gen 2 / USB 3.2 Gen 2 -> USB 3 10Gbps USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 -> USB 3 20Gbps Isn't that much clearer? I think USB 4 is…

I have a USB hub that I bought recently, that has very nice markings on it that are almost like you say :) I connects via USB4 to the host, and has the following markings on its ports: - Power in/USB 10Gbps - USB 10Gbps - USB 10Gbps - 8K HDMI Pretty happy with this one so far.

I got a jCreate5 hub at clearance from an Office Max (rip) and the ports are labeled just like this, no futzing on which port is the PD

Re: USB Cheat Sheet (2022)

#58
post #25

I’ve been a tech guy for 45 years and I still can’t figure out USB and Thunderbolt and what goes with what and how fast it’s supposed to run.

It wasn't until last year that I finally purchased my first USB-C device/cables – and after years of solid DisplayPort and Thunderbolt2 connections I absolutely hate USB-C (it's too delicate, physically) . Not until 2023 did I even have a computer newer than 2012, so I missed almost all of USB3's hayday — including nomenclature disputes — but the speeds sure are an improvement!

While USB Type C can be broken much more easily by brute force and it is more prone to accidental disconnects than Type A, the Type C connectors are guaranteed to survive much more cycles of plugging/unplugging than Type A connectors.

Type A connectors are typically guaranteed only for around 1000 cycles, with some better connectors rated up to 1500 cycles and some worse connectors rated only for a few hundred cycles.

If you have a device with a Type A connector that you plug and unplug at least once per day, there is a non-negligible risk that the connector will become defective before other components of the device.

On the other hand Type C connectors are guaranteed for at least ten thousand mating cycles, with the best guaranteed for at least twenty thousand cycles, so you should not be able to wear them out through normal usage.

It is true however that you must handle Type C connectors much more delicately than Type A, otherwise you can break them before they are worn out by mating cycles.

During the last few years, high-endurance Type A connectors have also appeared, which can survive a limit between 5 thousand and 20 thousand mating cycles, matching Type C connectors, but most equipment with Type A connectors does not use such more expensive connectors.

Re: USB Cheat Sheet (2022)

#59
> SBU1 and SBU2 are secondary bus wires, for the DisplayPort AUX channel and hot plug detection (HPD).

Correction - HPD signal is translated into vendor message and carried over CC lines - same ones that are used for PD and AltMode negotiation.

In DP-Alt mode SBU1/2 basically becomes AUX+/-.

Re: USB Cheat Sheet (2022)

#60
I'd love for someone who's part of the USB-IF to try and explain what the heck they were thinking with their naming conventions. They're indefensibly awful in every way.
Post reply on HN