USB-IF Confusingly Merges USB 3.0 and USB 3.1 Under New USB 3.2 Branding (macrumors.com) 131
The USB Implementers Forum (USB-IF), this week announced a rebranding of the USB 3.0 and USB 3.1 specifications, under the USB 3.2 specification. USB 3.0 and USB 3.1 will now be considered previous generations of the USB 3.2 specification. From a report: Going forward, USB 3.1 Gen 1 (transfer speeds up to 5Gb/s), which used to be USB 3.0 prior to a separate rebranding, will be called USB 3.2 Gen 1, while USB 3.1 Gen 2 (transfer speeds up to 10Gb/s) will now be known as USB 3.2 Gen 2. What used to be considered USB 3.2 will now be USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 because if offers twice the throughput speeds of USB 3.1 Gen 2, now USB 3.2 Gen 2. If the swap between USB 3.1 Gen 1 and Gen 2 to USB 3.2 wasn't confusing enough, each of these specifications also has a marketing term. The new USB 3.2 Gen 1 with transfer speeds up to 5Gb/s is SuperSpeed USB, while USB 3.2 Gen 2 with transfer speeds up to 10Gb/s is known as SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps. The USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 specification with transfer speeds up to 20Gb/s is known as SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps.
USB - iffy (Score:2)
Well it work? Iffy with a chance of putting it in the wrong side up.
Re:USB - iffy (Score:5, Funny)
We'll C about that.
Re: (Score:2)
No, this is what happens when manufacturers and other people with interests want to confuse the market so that they can present their non-top-of-the-line products as top-of-the-line. "New Motherboard with USB 3.2 Gen1!!!" on the packaging.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it USB 2 B or not 2 B?
I'd like to see some OS support a USB-C to USB-C data connection between computers other than just Apple. I should be able to push 5, 10, or even 20 Gbps between computers with a simple and cheap USB-C to USB-C peripheral cable, not a $50 specialty cable with a lump in the middle. Apple gets it to work, at 40 Gbps even, with a cable far cheaper than $50.
Re: (Score:3)
Try new USB 5G!
Re: USB - iffy (Score:2)
No Trump said US made 2G is better than Chinese made 7G
Re: (Score:3)
It's called Fibre Channel and its very expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called Fibre Channel and its very expensive.
Fibre channel is a protocol, not a piece of hardware. You can do fibre channel over copper. You can do ethernet over glass.
I'm not sure what the point of optical USB would be. Optical is slower than copper, and rather pointless until you get to long-haul. If you need to connect distant point, perhaps with some routing in between, use a networking protocol.
Re: (Score:2)
Q: wouldn't the surfaces of the optical wires scratch after repeated use?
Re: (Score:2)
They're always in a jacket. Fibre channel "cables" are more jacket than optics. That being said, they can still be damaged by crushing or bending past their minimum radius, and when that happens you get a cable that sort of works most of the time, which is quite annoying. Optical really isn't appropriate for something you'll be frequently plugging/unplugging (though not all USB use cases are like that). I've never had a problem with e.g. optical audio connectors between stereo components (another use ca
Re: (Score:2)
You can't power the little device at the end with it either. Everything would need a battery or a plug.
Re: (Score:2)
over a distance like that it makes pretty much 0 sense to use optical. even if you could put a powerline along with it. it just wouldn't be any faster and would need much more complex hw at either end. if you kept upping the complexity at either end of course you could go higher and higher with the speed.
like.. why not just do high speed irda then?
and look. how many 5gbps usb devices you have or are going to have any time soon anyways? I dont't have a single device. I don't have anything to max out the usb
And for those of us old enough to remember (Score:5, Interesting)
USB 2.0 full speed
USB 2.0 high speed.
Where USB 2.0 "full" speed was USB 1.1 speeds.
Re:And for those of us old enough to remember (Score:5, Funny)
Which USB spec will give me Ludicrous Speed?
Re: (Score:2)
Thunderbolt 3
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And for those of us old enough to remember (Score:5, Interesting)
It's all that much worse when you closelycompare the names:
usb 1.1 renamed to "usb 2.0 full speed"
usb 2.0 renamed to "usb 2.0 high speed"
And of course the names and logos were very similar and easily confused unless you read the fine print.
Rumor was at the time that there were hardware manufacturers with warehouses full of PC motherboards they couldn't sell "because everyone wanted usb 2.0", so they muscled/bribed the standards committee to rename usb 1.1 off the books so they could empty their warehouses by hustling the public. So many people were posting at the time they couldn't understand how their computer they just built with a "good new usb 2 board" was running slow, where to find drivers to "fix" it, etc. It's easy to see what usb 2.0 was "full of".
This probably is falling along similar lines. More bribes to help manufacturers not pay for their bad planning/overstock by robbing the public.
What kills me is the irony. It's a standard, the purpose is to prevent confusion, and they're leveraging it to create confusion, that they can take advantage of.
Re: (Score:2)
Worse was when you were trying to find motherboards and peripherals that all claimed to have USB 2.0 support (with no speed descriptions) Ok - is that USB 2.0/1.1 support or USB 2.0/2.0 support?
Let alone looking for that stupid "red flag" indicating high speed support which you could only seem to find on the cables. (Which was easy to add because the pin outs were the same!)
Re: (Score:2)
USB 3.0 using the USB-A connector was renamed to USB 3.1.Gen 1
The higher 10 Gbps speed on USB-A was named USB 3.1 Gen 2
USB 3.1 using the USB-C connector is USB 3.1 Type C..
Re: (Score:3)
This probably is falling along similar lines.
Devils advocate. I highly doubt it. Unlike a short period after USB2.0 was released currently there's little to no devices on the market that actually make use of USB 3.2 gen whatever the fuck the fastest USB3.1 thing was called. There's very little demand for it and if you drop top dollar on a motherboard right now you'd be lucky to get 1 or 2 USB 3.1 Gen 2 ports and many current cases still don't offer them.
I highly doubt there's any pressure here beyond: Well we did it the last few times so people expect
Re: (Score:2)
actually iirc they can do 10, 20, 30, OR 40 Gbps.
And the cable really does matter. I bought two (a cheap 3ft'er and a nice handy 6ft'er) to go with my new higher end USB C enclosure with SSD. It came with a cable too, so I had three cables to test. And they all clearly had their ratings. The cheap 3ft and the 6ft both run 20. The one that came with the enclosure does 40. Very hard to tell apart even when digging into the specs. Impossible visually.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Rumor was at the time that there were hardware manufacturers with warehouses full of PC motherboards they couldn't sell "because everyone wanted usb 2.0", so they muscled/bribed the standards committee to rename usb 1.1 off the books so they could empty their warehouses by hustling the public. So many people were posting at the time they couldn't understand how their computer they just built with a "good new usb 2 board" was running slow, where to find drivers to "fix" it, etc. It's easy to see what usb 2.0
Re: (Score:1)
No, they weren't renamed. It's just the version 2.0 of the spec includes specifications for low speed, full speed, and high speed devices. It is possible to have a low-speed or full-speed device that complies with the relevant sections of the USB 2.0 spec, and it would be correct to state that the device is USB 2.0 compliant. Devices built to the 1.0 version of the spec don't necessary comply with all parameters of the 2.0 spec, especially sections that have been modified/clarified. This is completely
Re: (Score:2)
The confusion here is because there are actually two separate parameters: speed and protocol version.
USB 2.0 wasn't just the addition of the High Speed 480Mbps mode, it also revised the software side protocol a great deal too. Worse still, the protocol stuff was really hard to explain to consumers and largely irrelevant for them anyway, but if the box said "USB 1.1" it was destined for the discount bin.
The same thing is happening here and everyone is still confused about it. USB 3.2 is the specification ver
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Spec version vs speeds (Score:2)
The USB document clearly suggested that people not conflate version numbers w/ speeds. For instance, in USB 2.0, something like a keyboard would be a low speed, a printer could be full speed and a disk could be high speed. But all of them would be USB 2.0, regardless of the speed. Similarly, a keyboard built today would be a low speed USB 3.2 keyboard, since the slower speeds are still subsets of the latest spec, unless they have been deprecated. Such as the USB mini port.
IMO, the best option would be
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Linux does alliterative animal names. You couldn't come up with something more senseless than that.
Someone hasn't seen the list of Kingdom Hearts games.
Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days
Kingdom Hearts HD 1.5 Remix
Kingdom Hearts X (but it's not X, it's Chi)
Kingdom Hearts HD 2.5 Remix
Kingdom Hearts HD 2.8 Final Chapter Prologue
Re: (Score:2)
Choking Chicken
Dancing Dragon
Exercising Elephant
Fondling Ferret
Genital Gerbil
Humping Hamster
Inventive Impala
Jacking Jackal
Kinky Kakapo
Lubricated Lizard
Masturbating Monkey
Nerking Neanderthal
Opening Octopus
Pounding Peacock
Quenched Quail
Rubbing Rabbit
Scratching Snake
Teasing Tang
Unloading Uguisu
Varnishing Vulture
Wanking Weasel
Yanking Yak
Re:Huh (Score:4, Informative)
Linux does alliterative animal names. You couldn't come up with something more senseless than that.
No, Linux doesn't do that. Ubuntu does that.
Re: (Score:1)
Trouble is ABS is compulsory in all new cars since about 2000 in Europe at least. Well my faithful 21 years old Citroën uses LHM for brakes (and direction, and suspension), but that's another story, and it has ABS of course.
Re: (Score:1)
There is a good reason why people refuse to believe it. Unlike DOT 3,4, and 5.1, DOT 5 is hydrophobic and compressible. The hydrophobic bit is good, because it will not mix with water. However, DOT 5 will aerate when the anti-lock system is activated, causing catastrophic brake failure. With non-antilock brakes, it makes the pedal squishy and unresponsive. For those two reasons alone, DOT 5 should not be used in any modern vehicle.
Since modern vehicles typically come from the factory with DOT 3 or 4, D
Re: (Score:1)
Who's thinking this stuff up?
The USB Implementers Forum (USB-IF)
They represent the industry's interests, not the consumer's. Clear, logical and honest naming schemes are not in the interest of the industry. People understanding what they are buying usually results in lower prices.
Not Surprising (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I have not seen any actual implementations of USB 3.0 with a Mini-B connector, so I'm somewhat curious as to why these even exist.
The mini-USB connectors are not part of the USB 3.x spec, they don't have the number of pins to support the "super speed" data lines. Too bad for anything with a mini-USB connector, they were left behind at USB 2.0.
USB 3 only supports the standard A and B, micro A and B, and USB-C. The A ports and connectors are interchangeable between 1.1, 2.0, and 3.x but the B connectors come in 3.x "wide" and 1.1/2.0 "narrow" variants where the wide connectors will not fit in narrow ports, but narrow connectors will f
Re: (Score:2)
USB3.x A (usually denoted by being blue) is backwards compatible, but is not the same as older A-ports, it has extra contacts that don't touch when a USB1/2 is plugged in.
Re:Not Surprising (Score:4, Informative)
How are you struggling to find the right cable? Saying there's 22 is stupid. The reality is far simpler:
The host side has 1 general style that always works, broken up into 3 if you need to pick your exact speed. Type A, Type A SS, and Type C. Other than iGarbage devices there's nothing being shipped that has Type C which also doesn't have Type A SS. All Type A connectors are compatible with each other.
That leaves us with the other side:
Type B hasn't been in common use for years and is only found on devices you won't typically plug and unplug very often (reads fixed devices)
Type B SS is rarer than hens teeth, I've only ever seen it on a single device. A HDD docking station.
Ultimately it leaves you with Type B mini, Type B micro, and Type C. The Type B micro SS is completely compatible with Type B micro.
The A side is virtually non existent out there in mini and micro variants, and so is TypeA-B.
If you buy a device right now it will come with one of only 3 different cables, all of which will connect to a modern computer and are device dependent. If you're juggling more than 3 cables for the "22" (purposeful use of quotes since there's not 22 different connectors) connectors then you're doing something horribly wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Currently on my desk:
Re: (Score:3)
You have repeated exactly what I said.
You've listed 12 devices which plug into your PC using the same connector (compatibility) or 2 different connectors (speed).
On the device side you have 3 different plugs (compatibility), or 4 (speed), + 1 for a device you don't own which if you had a modern motherboard would just work with a C connector.
You say you have 7/8 different cables on your desk, I count 3 which would work for all your devices, 4 if you need SS on the top one.
So where does that leave us? Some of
Is USB still relevant ????? (Score:2)
USB is a data bus for peripherials to a computer.
This model is getting old, most USB peripherials, like smart phones are now full fledged computers in fact.
So we should just implement an IPv6 and fast charging over USB-C, and make EVERY PERIPHERIAL use case use IPv6 communication instead of using the outdated peripherial-with-drivers-and-silly-file-exchange-protocols !
In fact, USB-C competes with Ethernet+power on the long run - they should converge to a single connector and protocol !
Just call it Undetermined Something Blues (USB) (Score:2)
I thought this was USB-C (Score:4, Funny)
I thought this was what USB-C was intended to accomplish.
Oh, right. It's something else.
Re: (Score:1)
USB-C is the connector, not the protocol. And not the controller either. That's xHCI, or OHCI, or EHCI, but not AHCI. And USB-C connectors support more than USB but I wouldn't be surprised at some point if we saw devices with USB-C connectors that don't support USB. What a soupy mess.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? Other than USB-C what USB device has ever necessitated you buying an adapter or a cable? My USB 3.1 gen 1 SSD will happily plug into the USB 1.1 socket on a 00s era motherboard with the included cable.
If USB can be described one way it would be incredibly backwards compatible. Hell that abortion of a USB-B micro 3.0 plug is living proof of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Other than USB-C what USB device has ever necessitated you buying an adapter or a cable?
I agree with your point, but I do in fact have an example. For some idiotic reason, the stereo that came with my car (a 2010 Elantra Touring) provides a female USB Mini-B port for plugging in USB devices like thumb drives and other mass storage devices (or certain phones that can emulate a mass storage device or music).
Now I don't know about you, but I'm not aware of any thumb drives or hard drives that feature a USB Mini B connector, or any phone cables that are USB Mini B on one end and USB Micro B on th
Re: (Score:2)
That is an example that's for sure. I've seen something similar now that you mention it, but I can't recall where. In any case that one at least is a breach of the USB standards so it can't really be blamed on USB. Kind of makes me angry like the really early connected "USB" devices which were only USB on the computer end. I still have a box of cables somewhere with all sorts of weird connectors in it for those shitty Sony cameras that I probably should throw away.
But I bet you as soon as I throw away I fin
Re: (Score:2)
In any case that one at least is a breach of the USB standards so it can't really be blamed on USB.
Agreed -- my intent was more to share an interesting anecdote on the subject, rather than being an argument about the general point.
Yaz
WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not just USB 5GBS, USB 10GBS?! Would that be so difficult?!
Re: (Score:2)
Why not just USB 5GBS, USB 10GBS?! Would that be so difficult?!
The obvious answer is to refer to USB 3.1 as USB 3.2 E
Re: (Score:2)
(And why "E"? Did you just pull that out of your ass? If so, why not "USB 3 acx" or some similar alphabet soup like the 802.11 people employ?)
Because AT&T [slashdot.org]. I probably should have said 3.0 to 3.2 E, though. My bad.
Re: (Score:2)
What if I'm more interested in the amperage?
Re: (Score:2)
But would they really go that fast? They don't for me with USB2 and USB3!
Gee whilikers (Score:2)
Why not add a suffix indicating speed and bandwidth instead of wasting characters with the word Gen?
I can't wait until I need one of these cables and try to figure out which is which on a site full of third party scammer like Amazon or eBay. /s
Is the number "4" unlucky to them? (Score:2)
It's like they have Atlantis Complex.
Re: (Score:1)
Well the cables are all made in China...
Re: (Score:3)
Intuitive (Score:2)
Makes sense.
We've all seen this before (Score:1)
The party of the first part shall be known in this contract as the party of the first part [youtube.com]....
Oh well, whatever the market will bear...
Are these people on drugs? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, seriously, what kind of drugs does it take to think that this idiocy actually clarifies the situation?
Re: (Score:1)
You make the error of assuming that clarity is the goal. The only goal is profit.
And the award for Consumer Confusion goes to... (Score:2)
It's a Standard. Or at least it was supposed to be.
Then again, it was never even enough of a standard to decide on what kind of connector to use, so...
How about we fire everybody on the Committee (that's right, you ever-so-noble 'Volunteers') and replace the whole concept with what it should have been. Serial Bus version 8, 9, or whatever makes sense.
Followed by Dot.Speed.
ANYthing meaningful, please...
Isn't the U in USB "Universal"? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it not? Ironically I can happily plug a USB1.1 device in my USB 3.1 gen 2 (now USB 3.2 gen 2) socket on my motherboard. Likewise any device that comes with a cable that has USB-B socket on the end can plug in any motherboard completely regardless of which standard that socket supports.
Are they bribing USB to fail? (Score:2)
While I'm sure there's a lot of nits to pick, I sometimes wonder if the USB standards body is being bribed by somebody to hobble adoption of this standard.
USB 3.2, er, I mean USB 3.2 2x2, is pretty fast and theoretically could be used as an interconnect for devices that want SAS-3 now, at least on a bandwidth basis, and it's not far off SAS-4 in performance.
I can almost buy into a conspiracy where the USB standards people are getting bribed into idiotic branding and naming practices to keep the standard dow
Re: (Score:2)
LTO-7 tape is 300 MBps uncompressed, or 2.4 Gbps. That should work on plain old USB 3.0 (5 Gbps).
If you let the drive compress the data, in theory it's 750 MBps or 6 Gbps. That should be OK on SAS-2. Or a USB 10 Gbps interface. 20 Gbps isn't really needed.
SAS-2 PCI-E interfaces can be hard for fairly cheap these days. I have 3 of them at home. PCI-E 3.0 x8 . All purchased under $100. Can't afford the LTO-7 drive, though.
USB 4 (Score:2)
It's time to give up on USB 3 and rebrand it as USB 4. They can have different speeds as USB 4, USB 4S, and USB 4+. Oh, and to make everyone happy, they should also redefine the HDMI cable as a USB-D cable.
Standards (Score:2)
-Ridiculous! We need to develope one "Universal USB" standard that covers everyone's use cases.
-Yeah!
(Soon:) Situation: There are 15 competing USB standards.
Re: (Score:2)
"The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose from."
Andrew S. Tanenbaum
Re: (Score:2)
Stop letting marketers into the design comity! (Score:3)
Could had called it 3.2 gen 3. (Score:1)
Wtf is this shit?
3.2 gen 3 would had been consistent with previous shit.
Just calling it 3.2 or 5 would had made the most sense but clearly they don't want transparency they want marketing.
Re: Could had called it 3.2 gen 3. (Score:1)
Or what about usb connector speed.
why don't they just call it (Score:2)
USB 5G? That will make everyone happy, because you know, 5G. Everyone wants 5G.
Shades of... (Score:2)
Meanwhile the only thing we care about is charging (Score:1)
No power standard? No standard for cables? All I want to know is that if I plug my HooliPhone into my FacetendoBrick charger for ten minutes, it'll be good for the whole train ride.
Re: WTF! a 2x2 is too small! (Score:1)
Master-Slave JK Flipflop
Re: (Score:3)
oh, like the GeForce 3 Ti200, GeForce 3 Ti500? Or how about a GeForce 2 MX? Or a GeForce 2 Go? Or Pro? Or Ultra? or GTS?