[HN Gopher] USB-C naming to somehow get worse with USB4 Version 2.0
___________________________________________________________________
USB-C naming to somehow get worse with USB4 Version 2.0
Author : thg
Score : 22 points
Date : 2022-09-01 20:00 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| rektide wrote:
| The ongoing ability to never name anything consistently or well
| has to be a sick inside joke at USB-IF. This isn't _entirely_
| new. USB 3.1 Gen 2, which latter became USB 3.2 2x1, is sort of
| similar-ish in pattern. They 're iterating & trying something new
| again! But I'm imagining saying something like "USB 3.2 2.0". We
| seem about there. Yeah that don't seem great.
|
| Anyhow, super excited for this change. I love love love that home
| networking is futzing around with 2.5Gbps, but USB4+ has direct
| host-to-host attach at data-center speeds. The distance is way
| less but often people just want to plug their laptop into their
| NAS, and now there's amazing options built in on most computers
| (waiting for more NAS applicances!).
|
| > _USB4 Version 2.0 has also been updated to feature the latest
| versions of the DisplayPort standard and PCIe spec_
|
| Still love so much that we can tunnel all kinds of other
| protocols (DisplayPort, Thunderbolt, &c). Yeah, it's chaotic, but
| I _love_ this chaos. Good chaos. Lots of possibilities chaos.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > Yeah, it's chaotic, but I love this chaos. Good chaos. Lots
| of possibilities chaos.
|
| This chaos makes me very reluctant to use it at all.
| resoluteteeth wrote:
| > The ongoing ability to never name anything consistently or
| well has to be a sick inside joke at USB-IF. This isn't
| entirely new. USB 3.1 Gen 2, which latter became USB 3.2 2x1,
| is sort of similar-ish in pattern.
|
| It literally dates back to USB 2, when USB 1 was helpfully
| renamed USB 2.0 full speed (as opposed to "high speed")
| standyro wrote:
| > Yeah, it's chaotic, but I love this chaos. Good chaos. Lots
| of possibilities chaos.
|
| I disagree. Having to buy 5 cables (and return 4 of them) just
| to figure out which one supports the USB 4 spec correctly and
| doesn't have weird issues with Thunderbolt or DisplayPort is
| annoying. I shouldn't need to be an electrical engineer just to
| figure out whether it will work with a Thunderbolt hub, or
| deliver adequate speeds or display resolutions...
| aappleby wrote:
| I propose we ignore the current names and just go with "USB-C 40G
| 100W" or "USB-A 5G 10W" or whatever.
|
| The current naming is silly and unhelpful.
| joshstrange wrote:
| AND that we require the specs printed on every USB-C cable.
|
| I guess at some point I'll need to buy a USB-C tester that can
| spit out the data/charging speed and things like if it supports
| TB3/4/etc.
| cmatthias wrote:
| This isn't specific enough for some situations. Let's say you
| have a "USB-C 40G 45W" port. For power, your port could supply
| either 15V 3A, or 20V 2.25A, or both. If I have a device that
| wants 45W but only supports 20V, and your port only supports
| 15V via PD, it's going to fall back to 5V and you'll get a max
| of 15W out of the port.
|
| Similarly, on the data side, can your "USB-C 40G 45W" port be
| used to directly connect to a display via a USB-C to
| DisplayPort cable? Will it support Thunderbolt 4, e.g., can it
| connect to a TB4 dock and drive two 4K 60hz displays from a
| single cable?
|
| USB is a mess. Your suggestion is admirable, but given what the
| spec already supports, I don't think there's a way to convey
| all the info that should be conveyed in a short, easy to
| remember way.
| tqkxzugoaupvwqr wrote:
| Your suggestion is so sensible it hurts.
| scarface74 wrote:
| In my search for a "universal USB C" cable I have found.
|
| - you have to make sure they support the wattage requirements you
| need.
|
| - you have to make sure it isn't power only and supports data.
|
| - you have to make sure it supports the data speed you need
|
| - you have to make sure it supports video over USB C - I have a
| portable USB C monitor.
| joshstrange wrote:
| Can someone give a legitimate reason for this madness? I thought
| we were past the hell of "USB 3.1 gen 1"/"USB 3.1 gen 2".
|
| Why is every standards body seemingly incapable of sane naming?
| The same thing just happened with WiFi semi-recently.
|
| "WiFi 6": Oh thankfully we have sane naming after years of
| B/G/AC/AX/etc
|
| "WiFi 6E": WTF were they thinking?
| luckman212 wrote:
| Must be the same committee who came up with the various PoE
| standards. 802.11af, 802.11at, 802.3bt... PoE, PoE+, PoE++...
| hooverd wrote:
| PoE# next?
| kosma wrote:
| An organization grows to a size where decisions are made by
| committee, bikeshedding is rampart, and one idiot in marketing
| can dismiss and derail the naming suggestions of an entire
| engineering team.
| cestith wrote:
| When can we just have three-part versions? USB 4.0.1 anyone?
| Right now, they're making a joke of the "Universal" in "Universal
| Serial Bus", unless their point is all of it can fall back to 12
| Mbps.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-01 23:02 UTC)