[HN Gopher] USB4 v2 is also 120 Gbps
___________________________________________________________________
USB4 v2 is also 120 Gbps
Author : WithinReason
Score : 61 points
Date : 2022-09-02 19:19 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.angstronomics.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.angstronomics.com)
| syngrog66 wrote:
| I've lost track of how many different USB standards exist now
| pmalynin wrote:
| When are we going to hear about USB4.1 2x2 Gen 1 V2? Surely that
| will be compatible with existing cables.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| The touted 80gbps one is presumably USB4 Gen4x2x2 (or Gen4x4?),
| this is presumably USB4 Gen4x3x1 or something.
|
| No, I don't even know. Can we please just call them fucking
| USB11 and USB12 or something?
| sophacles wrote:
| No, V1 of the USB versioning scheme has been deprecated for
| several versioning scheme versions now.
| metadat wrote:
| But what revision? R1 or R1.31?
|
| If you use an R1 cable on a 1.31 device, you may end up with a
| brick, or even worse a fire.
|
| Before plugging them in, I always dissect open the ends of my
| cables and examine the chips under a microscope just to be
| certain. Sometimes a delid is also needed, in such instances I
| head over to Ken Shirriff's house. :P
| [deleted]
| al2o3cr wrote:
| Personally, I'm waiting for USB4 HD Chain of Memories 358/2
| Birth by Sleep Remix Final Chapter Prologue 2.0
| ArcMex wrote:
| Wow, this comment is a sight for Soras
| bxparks wrote:
| I _think_ you are joking about "USB4.1 2x2 Gen 1 V2", but I
| can't tell. USB naming is messed up.
| MBCook wrote:
| To make it less confusing they'll be moving to the old WiFi
| style names. The new versions will be called, in order:
|
| USB-A, USB-B, USB-R, USB-CZ, USB-L2, USB-S, then USB-D. To
| avoid confusion they'll use the same physical port, which is
| now Type-C, but renamed Type-1138.
|
| USB-D is somewhat theoretical as we're likely to go through
| more renaming by then. But I digress.
|
| It's important to note each version of the standard supports
| both active ("o") and passive ("u") variants depending on
| distance.
|
| Power levels are a simple scale of 10^nth milliwatts,
| expressed as a Roman numeral for readability. So I = 10mw, II
| = 100mw, etc.
|
| Soon you can buy a highly advanced passive USB cable capable
| of delivering 10kW to your car for charging.
|
| USB-SuX.
| [deleted]
| marcosdumay wrote:
| I think it's only a matter of they renaming every model every
| time the standard is updated. So models come with
| $standard_version $standard_revision $main_model_version
| $minor_model_version, and there are different sets of all of
| those numbers that refer to the same thing.
|
| Or maybe they have another naming schema orthogonal to that
| that I don't know about.
| dheera wrote:
| I dunno but why can't we just use fiber already
| le-mark wrote:
| I wish I could get 100gbs+ fiber as cheap and ubiquitous usb
| 2.0. I'm curious why not as well.
| jabbany wrote:
| Doesn't pass power?
|
| A huge chunk of the newer USB protocols has also been support
| for higher wattage faster charging.
| cesarb wrote:
| Playing devil's advocate: a fiber+power cable makes some
| sense. The main thing which limits the cable length is the
| data wires, not the power wires (just notice how one of the
| main counter-arguments for "one USB cable to rule them all"
| is "the higher bandwidth passive USB cables have to be
| shorter and thicker").
| lazide wrote:
| Fiber is far too fragile to deal with the abuse even
| babied USB cables put up with, unless you mandate some
| kind of semi-articulating steel conduit anyway.
| dheera wrote:
| So put power? You can run fiber right alongside 50 amp high
| voltage cables if you want without any signal corruption
| issues whatsoever.
|
| For practical purposes they'd need just {fiber, 19VDC,
| GND}, and none of the schengens that USB-C has. No
| shielding issues, no signal corruption issues, nothing. And
| you could run it for kilometers.
| dTal wrote:
| You need at least 5V DC for backwards compatibility with
| devices that expect that.
| dheera wrote:
| No, you don't. Get an adapter with a voltage converter,
| just like you would if you need to plug a 120V-only
| device in a 240V outlet.
|
| 120VAC outlets have not changed in 60 years and that's
| owing to the fact that they output just straight-up
| power, no negotiation BS.
| cesarb wrote:
| > 120VAC outlets have not changed in 60 years
|
| Where I live, 120VAC outlets last changed less than 20
| years ago, with the adoption of the new NBR 14136
| standard for plugs and sockets.
| RicoElectrico wrote:
| ... & Knuckles (tm)
|
| But in all seriousness, this is one of the worst things
| marketer types make us suffer. Breaking consistency of naming
| and numbering. EACH and EVERY model series of ANYTHING
| successful just has to break the pattern at some time.
|
| Remember when Nokia phones had 4-digit model numbers,
| optionally with "i"? Then Nseries and Eseries arrived which all
| had Symbian, but confusingly enough they continued to make
| 4-digit models with Symbian in parallel. They also started
| "classic" and "slide" series which often reused other unrelated
| model numbers. Around 2010 they changed it all to a hot mess
| like X3-02, C3-01, then came 3-digit optionally with Asha in
| front. Thankfully they were not as creative with Lumia which
| had 3-digit or 4-digit models.
| rcthompson wrote:
| USB4.1 2x2 Gen 1 V2 & Knuckles requires you to plug the cable
| into a special active adapter that then plugs into the
| device.
| joshstrange wrote:
| I was SURE they had learned their lesson after the clusterfuck
| that was 3.1/3.2 but no, right back at the same shit again.
|
| It's hard to see this as anything but purpose-built to make it
| harder to tell what a cable is capable of (a huge boon to
| scammers, aka: 90% of cable sellers). If the USB-IF had half a
| brain between them all (clearly they don't) they would require
| the data/charging/etc specs to be printed on the cable. Instead
| they spend their time coming up with confusing standards that
| are indecipherable to the average person which lead to a shitty
| world where everyone needs a cable tester to know what a cable
| is capable of, or they have constant bad experiences with a
| cable that fits the port but underperforms if it works at all.
|
| I've heard some people say this is because it's all marketing-
| driven vs engineering-driven, if that's the case the fire the
| whole department because they suck at marketing. It's gotten to
| the point the only cables I can trust are from Anker and even
| those suffer from lack of labeling on them.
| bravura wrote:
| Can you recommend a reliable cable tester?
| ThrowawayTestr wrote:
| You can get little USB power meters but they only tell you
| voltage and current, not transfer capability. Actual cable
| testers cost thousands.
| joshstrange wrote:
| I wish, I've looked a little but part of the problem is the
| new specs. I doubt many testers can be "forward compatible"
| to be able to test new specs before they exist. I have an
| old USB-A tester I used but it's obviously useless for
| USB-C and all it's specs. Even then, the old tester I have
| just tells you the speed/wattage, not the max, it's more
| for monitoring than testing.
|
| At some point I'll just have to bite the bullet and get
| whatever is on the market and hope there aren't new specs
| right around the corner.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| AFAICT they are learning some lessons. Its not supposed to be
| called USB4 V2. It's USB 80Gbps. But whether vendors get with
| the program...
| shmerl wrote:
| USB4 v2, really? How hard was it to call it USB 5?
| mysterydip wrote:
| Can consumer devices even transfer data that fast? Or is this
| future-proofing?
| AaronFriel wrote:
| High end displays can. 8k60Hz at full (8-bit) color depth and
| chroma (4:4:4) is around 64Gbps. The article notes that with
| some features of the spec to reduce bandwidth, this enables
| "8K144 HDR with Display Stream Compression and no chroma
| subsampling" with room to spare.
|
| It's a common complaint of even current generation displays &
| docks that dual display 4k 60Hz docks are few and far between,
| and good luck getting even one display at 4k 120Hz on docks. My
| experience there is mostly miss, rarely hit.
| threeseed wrote:
| You can bet Apple is dying to release a 5K 120Hz (Promotion)
| Pro Display XDR.
|
| Be interesting if this USB4 v2 ends up in the upcoming
| MacBook Pro M2.
| NegativeK wrote:
| I mentioned in a previous version of this discussion that PCIE5
| NVME is specced to > 14GB/s, and I'd really like to have
| external drives capable of that.
| rrgok wrote:
| Dumb question: what is stopping us from creating TCP/IP over
| USB4v2 so that I can create a home network (LAN) of 120Gbps?
| mortenjorck wrote:
| The biggest thing stopping you might be the cost difference
| between 100 feet of cat7 versus a 100-foot certified
| Thunderbolt 4 cable.
| lazide wrote:
| The longest true thunderbolt 4 cable you can have is 3 meters
| or a bit under 10 ft.
|
| I guess you could try making some kind of thunderbolt 4 media
| converter and do it over fiber, but R&D would probably be
| pretty steep.
| magixx wrote:
| There are optical Thubderbolt 3 cables made by Corning/Wero
| up 100m ($$$$). While not TB4, I've used regular TB3 cables
| with TB4 devices without issue. I assume it would be
| similar for those optical cables given same bandwidth
| requirements. I've also seen TB4 5m cables being sold with
| the listing saying they are rated up to 30gbps instead of
| 40.
| NegativeLatency wrote:
| USB is a tree so IDK seems hard to generally map that to a
| packet switched network
|
| If 100G NICs were avalible you could do: computer -> usb4 ->
| 100GB NIC -> optical -> 100GB NIC -> usb4 -> computer
| prvit wrote:
| We already have things like thunderbolt-net
| DannyBee wrote:
| The max cable Length at that speed is pretty darn short.
| amelius wrote:
| What's stopping us from adding a repeater every couple of
| feet? Transistors aren't expensive and integrating it into
| the cable shouldn't be too difficult.
| ip26 wrote:
| I'm sure it's possible, but 40Gbps fiber bundles probably
| win easily on cost per bandwidth over any significant
| distance.
| wyager wrote:
| Transistors that can pass 120gbps are probably expensive as
| hell, possibly into InP territory.
|
| The cheapest way to do this is over OS2 fiber. Look up how
| much money you have to spend to get 2x 100gbps OS2 PHYs and
| 2x 100gbps QSFP28 cards.
| ChrisLomont wrote:
| 120Gbps repeaters will be expensive. Making circuits that
| fast is incredibly tricky, with power, heat, rf (and more)
| issues.
|
| If you think it's cheap make one and get rich.
|
| But it's most certainly not cheap or easy or low cost.
| vxNsr wrote:
| As others have said, it comes down to length, if you want
| 120Gbps you'll need to go with fiber
| rektide wrote:
| Using a valuable rate-limited post to say: you can. USB4
| mandates direct host-to-host connectivity. If you bought an
| Intel laptop with 11th-gen/Rocket Lake (March 2011) or better,
| the cpu has built-in 40Gbps USB4/thunderbolt that can do host-
| to-host, although not every laptop implements the actual PCIe
| side of that. This has been support in Thunderbolt since Linux
| 4.15[1] in 2017.
|
| Alas more generally, things aren't super hot for USB4 devices &
| things like ethernet integration. USB4<->ethernet options are
| still very very limited. Paying multi-hundred dollars for 10Gbe
| is... unfortunate. We have a long way to go before USB4 IP
| starts coming to actual devices; the hubs shield us from the
| obviousness of the need by being, in effect, a far-away mini-
| southbridge with wild behavior-switching on each port. So it's
| easy to keep doing what we're doing. But eventually I hope we
| stop using bridge chips and have some re-usable PCIe tunneling
| or other just better actual USB4<->flash or USB4<->ethernet
| chips that really try to be modern. It'll be a while.
|
| As another poster says, cable length is short. 2m with active
| cables. USB3 had a lot of great cables with active repeaters
| built in (for a while there my desktop was 10m away from my
| desk), and I admit, I'm surprised I haven't seen this happen
| yet for USB4, but it should. One of my desires from USB is to
| make a longer range USB spec. Please give me 20Gbps over 10m?
| But for people just wanting to plug their laptop or desktop
| into their NAS, or wanting to direct-attach a mini-cluster
| together... heck yeah, USB4 is there for you, today.
|
| [1] https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-4.15-Networking
| hotpotamus wrote:
| There was at least one model of Dell switch that used HDMI for
| 10G connectivity a few years back, so it seems doable. I think
| most people looking for cheap and fast home networking end up
| going TCP over infiniband, which is a project I've been meaning
| to look at sooner rather than later myself. You won't touch
| 120G though, but I don't think you'll find disks that fast
| anyway.
| bitwize wrote:
| And the only reasonable implementation will be in Apple hardware.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| Is there a reason (other than design by committee) that USB is so
| complicated? You need to have the right kinds of connectors,
| cables, and device support. The speeds you get vary for any
| number of reasons. Why didn't someone just say "all the cables
| are fast and charge good and if you want slow or bad, use old
| USB"? It seems we've found the worst possible situation, where
| consumers don't understand what they need or can use or why, and
| instead of making it easier, we get the second version of the
| fourth version which has multiple versions that all do different
| things under different circumstances.
| bombcar wrote:
| Because if you're selling a computer, and it has a USB 2 port,
| you don't want your spec sheet saying "USB 2" while others have
| "USB 3", but it's hard to upgrade your stuff mid-cycle, so you
| get "USB 3.1" to be defined as "USB 2" so you can look at least
| competitive.
| sharikous wrote:
| Certified Thunderbolt 4 called are available and the fastest
| and most compatible you can get.
|
| Expensive but reliable.
|
| I don't understand all this hate for USB. Sure the labeling
| could be better but having a standard that is basically back
| compatible all the way to the nineties and now a single
| multipurpose port for charging/storage/displays/devices is a
| nice feat.
| rektide wrote:
| Exactly. Yes.
|
| I'd also just say this is a low information environment.
| Traditionally, we'd rely on the media as a line of defense.
| Product reviews would tell us who to trust, what the good
| deals are. We trusted the media to review & find problems &
| surface issues in the past. But those institutions have
| undergone enormous revenue crunch, and there's very few left
| who can really go in depth & do the deep, thorough,
| intelligent exploration we ought trust them for. Online
| marketplaces in the world today are bedlam, and there are few
| trusted authorities. This is a general world condition, but
| with tech it's extra bad because when things don't work, we
| almost ever know why/who to blame, it's all just frustrating
| wizard-shit that's broken & not going, & we are left bereft
| utterly impotent in the face of these high tech system's
| mysterious failures.
|
| Honestly, I'd prefer not paying for USB-IF certification on
| my cables, and I don't care that none of the official logos
| designating certain compliances are met are embossed on my
| cables. But I also am a geek who will go spend 3 hours to
| find Benson (alas no longer active) or Linus's in-depth tech
| reviews[1], and who doesn't mind trying some cables (buy a
| couple different ones at a time), finding some not working, &
| returning those, to save a couple bucks at some hassle. For
| most people: just buy certified gear.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vn2vdQZhs0w https://docs.
| google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQ1maB_K91Aw...
| cogman10 wrote:
| The reason is $$$
|
| Unfortunately, USB has more features than USB manufactures want
| to support. So, the end result is a bunch of those features are
| optional. That complicates everything. Is this a USB-C cable
| that can support PD 3.1? Who knows! Because, not all USB-C
| cables NEED to support PD 3.1, some of them just need to
| transmit data at USB 2.0 speeds. Those can be made super cheap.
|
| This is especially bad when talking about things like devices.
| Sure, every device now-a-days has the USB-C connector, but does
| your phone really need to be capable of doing 80gbps on that
| port? Nope, so it's optional. (and would be sold, rightly so,
| as a power saving measure).
|
| Every USB feature has a fast, cheap, low power tradeoff going
| on and the standard allows for you to mix and match features to
| your heart's content.
| summerlight wrote:
| If you're trying to mandate the highest requirements for all
| manufacturers, then they're going to either not build or not
| conform simply because it's too expensive. This is an
| unfortunate consequence of being the universal standard; it's
| even worse if manufacturers decide to ignore the standard so
| you gotta try embrace them.
| Denvercoder9 wrote:
| > Why didn't someone just say "all the cables are fast and
| charge good and if you want slow or bad, use old USB"?
|
| Part of the problem is that making fast cables is expensive,
| and manufacturers will skimp on that expense to save money.
| spicybright wrote:
| Which is fine. There's plenty of devices I own that just need
| a charging cable. But it's near impossible to know what cable
| does what. Even some of the expensive ones I've bought don't
| do what they say.
|
| You would think with how much money is pumped into the
| governing body of the standard they could both force
| classifications of cables/devices and also verify they
| actually do what's advertised.
|
| Every company using USB-C needs to pay $3500 USD to use the
| branding and a proper vendor ID. Every single company. And
| yet they still can't solve the very basics.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| It's not even just that it's expensive: if you look at a
| cable that's full-everything including top-rating for power
| delivery, it's a pretty thick inflexible thing and not at all
| what you want for e.g. a mouse or a keyboard or whatever.
| bobbylarrybobby wrote:
| But they can just continue making old USB2 cables
| spicybright wrote:
| But there's no profit to be made when everything new uses
| USB-C now.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| Usb-c runs usb 2.0 just fine! And yet we still have
| companies trying to make bad USBv(n+2)
| test1235 wrote:
| Nobody would buy their old USB2 cables when they can get
| other faster cables, so the manufacturers of the old cables
| would actually rather pump money into politically
| pressuring the relevant standards committee into
| 'massaging' their latest technical definitions to include
| products which already exist.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| People buy USB2 cables all the time, and they're usually
| correctly labeled too.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| But then why make them USBv4? Just make v3 cables. Has it
| truly been politicized by the industry to add so much
| complexity so crappy manufacturers can sell bad
| cables/hardware with the latest version number instead of
| just making stuff that consumers can use?
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > all the cables are fast
|
| Wouldn't that be massively expensive? I don't need my charging
| able to cost that much.
| blark wrote:
| If I'm going to waste a 120 Gbps multipurpose port on
| charging, I want to do it with style.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| Sure, then have a charging flavor and a data flavor. Put a
| special little logo on the connectors. Why do we need such a
| complicated spectrum of things that plug into each other but
| don't work well for data or power?
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > Sure, then have a charging flavor and a data flavor.
|
| Well that's what they do - and then an X flavour and a Y
| flavour, etc, and that's how we ended up where we are.
| joshstrange wrote:
| > Put a special little logo on the connectors.
|
| We absolutely don't do this. All my USB-C connector
| cables look identical, it's utter madness.
| eropple wrote:
| I've found that the good cables that I've got all have a
| PD wattage label at least. Except for the Apple cables,
| but I can recognize those on sight and I'm not buying
| USB-C cables I could confuse for then.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Yeah we didn't do the icon part. But the original comment
| said make them all the same, then we figured out why
| that's not practical.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| The spectrum of cables is not really that wide. The problem
| is that almost none of them are labeled.
| smilespray wrote:
| Please send me the number of your dealer.
| AnonCoward42 wrote:
| There is no reason they make the transfer speeds as hard to
| read/decipher as possible. However there is a reason that
| features are separated. These do cost money in implementation
| in regards to the cable, the host, and client.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| But we make the up front cost trade-off at the expense of
| nothing working right. People buy cables or chargers that
| don't support the right level of charging. Cables work with
| some monitors but not others. Instead of paying extra for
| things that just work, we end up paying for impossible-to-
| distinguish hardware that may or may not work because of some
| flavor of the spec that doesn't work with the other piece of
| hardware you're trying to connect it to. A lot of that ends
| up being instant trash. Genuine, good hardware that is just
| incompatible is indistinguishable from badly made hardware:
| to the consumer they both don't work. And so we end up with
| waste and frustration in the name of saving a few bucks.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| The charging situation isn't their fault. USB wasn't
| designed for it. Non-compliant devices started allowing
| charging before it was ever permitted. Then they added PD
| but nobody supported it and manufacturers cooked up their
| own ad hoc systems to detect a charger.
| TillE wrote:
| I don't know what you're talking about, everybody uses PD
| these days.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| PD predates USB 3. Nobody supported it until it became
| integrated into modern USB controllers. Prior to that
| there were janky manufacturer specific resistor
| combinations used to signal the presence of a charger.
| poisonborz wrote:
| I'm really starting to think this is absolutely on purpose.
| Clear versioning would make all cables/accessories instantly
| outdated/undesirable whenever the new generation starts to show
| up. Unclear, obfuscated versioning is used to dampen this
| effect - for most purposes the older cables are "good enough"
| anyway, and when not, the user will make another buy. Same
| thing with HDMI or WiFi.
| rektide wrote:
| Does anything else use PAM3? PAM4 is all over the place (PCIe 6.0
| from this winter, 25/100/200 Gbe, GDDR6X, I forget who else but
| more), but PAM3... apparently once was used for 100BASE-T4[1].
| That's 100 mbit, not Gbit, not 1000Mbit, 100 mbit.
|
| Just so excellent that the USB4 nee-Thunderbolt tunneled/packet-
| switched architecture means that, if we do get a speed bump, that
| boost is a win for displays, storage, egpus connected via
| displayport, thunderbolt, what-have-you. (Not necessarily for
| those devices, but the % of throughput they consume diminishes
| respectively). The leap to USB4 is a huge shift, but
| tunneling/packet-switching has so many downstream benefits.
|
| I'm sure to be downvoted, but- grasping the third rail here: does
| anyone else tire of every time USB being mentioned, the thread
| turning into a mudslinging festival? I find repetitive, almost
| never constructive, usually incredibly poorly defined (my dock
| didn't work-- ok, how? at all? doubtful) complaints repeated ad-
| nauseam, and there's such limited energy to refute the waves of
| negativity from the sore & aggrieved. I want there to be room for
| these voices, but the mere mention of USB is a magnet for misery.
| I can & apparently should write some blog posts on why things are
| they way they are, how incremental evolution happens, and how
| progress isn't always smooth. But to the larger phenomenon of
| muck raking being the popular activity at every mention: it's
| definitely not just USB, in online communities this vocal
| persistent complaint about topics is a social condition that, so
| far, has no remedy, no redress. Systemd had to deal with this,
| Kubernetes, react, rails; so many have had their time on the
| planet of being targetted subjects. It just happens again and
| again and again, and the world doesn't deserve to have only the
| negative so amplified. It'd be so nice to redirect these energies
| to more focused gathering places, and to let the actual news &
| events be discussed in peace.
|
| To add a usb naming joke, and to build constructively &
| consistently on the past, this would obviously be USB4 2x12. Two
| channels of of 60 Gbps (5Gbps * 12). The previous USB4 2.0 would
| be 2x8. There, I fixed it for you.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse-amplitude_modulation
| sophacles wrote:
| > I'm sure to be downvoted, but- grasping the third rail here:
| does anyone else tire of every time USB being mentioned, the
| thread turning into a mudslinging festival?
|
| No. I was sold on USB being one cable to replace them all. Now
| we're back to making sure we carry all the right cables for our
| devices. The glorious 20 days of "all my accessories can be
| dealt with by one cable" was amazing and the USB folks decided
| to go ahead and screw that up.
| rektide wrote:
| to me it's exactly the opposite. but i've spent effort
| growing into this.
|
| i carry a keyring of adapters, one good 1m $25 heavy-duty
| USB4 cable for connecting fancy stuff, & a regular short-ish
| light $8 usb3 100w cable for most daily usage. there are
| usb-c to anything pigtails/adapters up the wazoo: usb-a
| male/female, usb-mini-b, usb-micro-b, displayport male,
| displayport female, hdmi male, hdmi female, 20v dc barrel
| jack, 12v dc barrel jack. most are under $10, less than the
| specific cable. and a female/female c couplers for good
| luck/desperate times.
|
| there's some subtle side-perks over dedicated cables to. the
| displayport & hdmi adapters often have power in, which means
| if the target is closer to power, i can run a ~2m usb-pd
| cable (if available) from power to target, & it shares the
| same extra 1m to laptop reach.
|
| that i can carry a 100w battery that works with nearly any
| device is just _chef kiss_ icing-on-the-cake /intensely
| better than where we were. thanks usb-c / usb-pd.
|
| it sounds stupid, having a keyring of adapters. but i _used_
| to carry cables for everything, way too often /just-in-case.
| now i just carry one good cable, and a variety of jacks i can
| put on the end of it. it's a world of improvement to me. i'm
| not sure what world you lived in where one cable did it all-
| i always had display, power, data cables, and i also totally
| get how most people haven't realized how to properly/easily
| do usb-c with pigtails/adapter jacks, but wow, it's just
| night & day better to me, & i think it should be for you too.
| sophacles wrote:
| Given the world that exists, I'm interested in this good
| cable and the adapters. Previous experience has shown
| adapters to be janky at best, but that could just be an
| area where tech has improved or I don't know how to find
| quality yet - what do you recommend?
|
| (I reserve the right to still be salty over the wasted
| ideal of one cable to rule them all though)
| tenebrisalietum wrote:
| USB deserves it. It's almost as bad as SCSI, but least the 50
| different connectors were differently shaped and I could buy
| one that matches and know what it would do beforehand. I can't
| do that with USB.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| The Base-T Ethernet standards get very creative about their
| modulation levels. 1GBase-T (IIRC) uses PAM-5. Using non-
| standard PAM levels is a very weird thing to do, and it appears
| to only be useful for optimizing speeds on old (or cheap)
| cables.
|
| However, PAM-4 did originally have problems with transitions
| between the extreme levels (00 to 11 and vice versa). There was
| academic discussion of line codes that could eliminate these,
| but it appears that this kind of technology has fallen by the
| wayside in favor of PAM-3 for USB.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > The Base-T Ethernet standards get very creative about their
| modulation levels.
|
| Yeah, just look at 100BASE-TX. It also uses 3 signal levels,
| but in a repeating cycle and the incoming bits decide how
| long to linger on each voltage.
|
| Fun fact: Both 100BASE-TX and 1000BASE-T have a symbol rate
| of 125MHz.
| segfaultbuserr wrote:
| Also an Ethernet fun fact: with 100BASE-T1 and 1000BASE-T1,
| you can now get Fast and Gigabit Ethernet over a single
| twisted pair. It's primarily used for embedded and
| especially automotive applications to simplify wiring. Both
| use PAM-3.
| jiggawatts wrote:
| All the things you listed are industry-wide standards or
| frameworks where people are essentially _forced_ to use them. I
| mean sure, not at gunpoint, but they're inescapable in
| practice, especially at typical workplaces.
|
| All of those things are also fairly opinionated and all-
| encompassing, trying to be all things for all people... and
| failing to be a good fit for many of them.
|
| Hence the grumbling.
|
| You'll see similar conversations about government too for the
| same reasons: forced on people, wide scope, poor fit for many.
|
| Inevitably someone will say: "But you have a choice! You don't
| _have_ to use whatever the subject is!"
|
| Sure... I can live on an island away from everything.
|
| I'm a Windows systems integrator and I'm learning Kubernetes
| now even though it's a poor fit for Windows.
|
| Why? Because it's the "new hotness" and several vendors support
| it and clients demand it.
|
| So I'm forced to deal with something I don't really want to.
| Not to say that k8s is necessarily bad, just that it's not nice
| to deal with in my scenario...
| awoimbee wrote:
| Would asymmetric PCIe tunneling be possible ? For external GPUs
| it would be perfect !
| NonNefarious wrote:
| How does this relate to Thunderbolt, if it does? Is it daisy-
| chainable?
|
| What a PITA this has become. Does USB still impose excessive
| processor overhead?
|
| Then there's the unavailability of any USB hub that doesn't suck
| donkey balls.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-02 23:01 UTC)