“USB 4 2.0”… someone should really do something about the incredibly goofy naming scheme.
this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2024
236 points (95.7% liked)
Technology
60029 readers
3736 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
With a version number like that they should have throttled the throughput to 69 Gbps.
Oh damn, I didn’t even catch that!
1985Mbps/1.21GW
Someone was high.
I never bothered to check, but are there multiple organizations making different names? Or just one that has no consistency whatsoever
They name by committee. So every corporation that is in the USB standards group will argue for whatever benefits them, with no consideration for consumers.
I fucking hate it. Buy a USB C cable and it's a crapshoot whether it's USB 2 with no power delivery, or poor quality with power delivery. Just trying to find a good quality USB 3 cable is difficult, with 3.1 or 3.2, x2 or not, shitty control chips, etc etc.
It is absolutely infuriating. It blows my mind that you can have a USB 3.2 Gen2 cable that does everything you need it to, except for the fact that it doesn’t support Power Delivery and a lot of the time you won’t even know, so if you’re sending high wattage through it there’s a real possibility you’re gonna burn some to kind up.
In theory, compliant devices can detect the voltage drop over shitty cables and request a lower charging rate.
if you’re sending high wattage through it there’s a real possibility you’re gonna burn some to kind up.
Anything over 3A or 60W requires the cable to have an e-marker. A little chip inside one of the connectors that indicates what the cable is capable of. No USB certified device should try to pull 60W or more through a cable without e-marker or anything above what the cable can handle if it does have a marker.
So universal
I know, it is a never ending source of minor comedy that “Universal” is right there in the name.
Dammit elon. The 420 ‘jokes’ aren’t as funny as you think they are. /s.
It's like they just throw darts and see what hits
These are all equivalent, which is dumb as fuck:
- 3.0 / 3.1 Gen 1 / 3.2 Gen 1
- 3.1 Gen 2 / 3.2 Gen 2 / 3.2 Gen 2x1
I suspect the corporations that influence USB did this specifically to confuse consumers (increase sales) when they could have told them exactly what they were getting e.g:
- USB3 5Gb
- USB3 10Gb
- USB4 500Mb/100w
- USB4 20Gb/100w
- USB4 40Gb/20w
- USB4 80Gb/240w
The jump from 3 to 4 could've indicated the change to USB-C ports, which should be the greatest breaking change for USB (otherwise it's no longer USB). The "/Xw" could've been used to indicate PD max watts.
This can also continue indefinitely, like "USB4 10Tb/500w", "USB5 5Pb/2kw", etc.
What I'd really like to see are regulations that require manufacturers to specify the actual speeds the specific component(s) model/batch have achieved under real world testing — both best case scenario and averages — as the theoretical limit is completely irrelevant; with wild variation between cables of the same specs.
Actually the naming scheme you propose e.g. USB4 80Gb is the real naming scheme! It's officially what the specification demands manufacturers label their products. "USB4 version 2" and so on are explicitly only the names of the internal standards that only concern people writing drivers or designing chips.
I have no idea what tech journalist are smoking. This has been a problems for so many years but they keep using the internal names. I mean nobody is complaining about having to always say "IEEE 802.11bn" instead of WI-FI 8
Lol. Can't say I'm surprised. But why do you blame tech journalists instead of the manufacturers and marketers who promote their products using internal spec names?
I just looked at the last 5 USB enclosures and cables I bought. All of the boxes and marketing display the internal spec name prominently. 3/5 boxes only mention the speed once, as a bullet point in the features section...
Undoubtedly the best naming scheme. The x2 suffix should not be dropped tho, because it shows that USB and the alt-DP mode can be used at the same time.
Can't wait for USB 4.0 Gen 2 revision 1.1 version b.
They really seem hell bent on making their version numbers look like user agent strings.
USB/2.0 (4.0; Gen 2; rv:1.1) USB4.1 Gen 3x3 (FIREWIRE, like RS232)
Great.
Can we start having enforceable standards for the fucking cables?
No, we're going from "a different cable for every device" to "a different cable for every device but you need a label maker because they all look the same", and you're going to like it
No, but I can get you USB4.1 Gen 3x3
I'll wait for USB4 2.1x3 Plus
That's all wrong, it's going to be USB4.2 2.1x2.1 gen 2 plus
eye twitch
At least thunderbolt cables are somewhat straightforward.
If only thunderbolt wasn't Intel proprietary BS lmao
Truth
Nintendo suggests "New USB4 2.1x3 Plus". Good luck shopping online...
If I learned anything then it‘s to trust manufacturers to sleep on this for the coming years until Microsoft stops supporting old USB completely or something.
Microsoft is kinda obsessed with backwards compatibility so no, that won't happen.
Floppy disks will probably get dropped before USB.
Can't wait for USB 4 3.2
Can't wait for USB 4.20 ayyy
But which connector? A, B, C, Micro, Mini?
AC mini
Can we please have some form of colour system or something
Ok but why are there two of them the same?
The single phase line is the same thing as the first phase of a three phase line. In either case, you know it is carrying one of at least one phase of the current.
Linux already supports this right?
Yes, but it is now on a platform with a lot more support.
Linux got it by adapting the Thuinderbolt kernel support of Intel.
Though not sure if every distro actually supports it.
If USB4 is so good, why isn't there USB4 2?
USB-IF:
*rolls usb 4 2.0
🥱
If I were Mr Monk, I would be distressed with their choice of writing 80 Gbps, when they could have written 10 GBps. Just a nice round 10.
It's standard to write speed in bits and space in bytes
Man I can’t wait for those faster USB4 services!
view more: next ›