USB-IF To Continue Confusing Name Scheme With USB4 Gen 3x2 (techrepublic.com) 79
intensivevocoder writes: USB4 will be formally published at the USB Developer Days Seattle on September 17, and the USB Implementers Forum (USB-IF) is expected to continue the widely maligned naming scheme for USB speeds introduced in February for USB 3.2, an engineer familiar with the USB-IF's plans told TechRepublic. As a quick recap, USB 3.1 Gen 2, increased the lane speed to 10 Gbps. A second 10 Gbps lane was added in the USB 3.2 standard, which the USB-IF calls "USB 3.2 Gen 2x2." USB4 (which is not written as "USB 4.0") will reach speeds of 40 Gbps, doubling the speeds again. USB4 was first previewed in March, when the USB Promoter Group announced that USB4 would be based on Intel's Thunderbolt 3 specification, though specific details are expected later this month.
Re: IF (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't get the end bit. If it's based on Thunderbolt 3, why not just use Thunderbolt 3, which has 40 GBPs of bi-directional traffic already, form fits with USB-C cables, and is already on millions of devices? Why do we need two standards?
This is going to piss people off when the external GPU they ordered works with one and not the other in the same way, *almost* working, but feeling off until the user confirms it's not signaling at the intended speed.
Why you don't let engineers do marketing (Score:4, Funny)
Old joke that if engineers were in charge of marketing sushi they would have tried to sell it as "cold raw fish".
Engineers have many wonderful traits but naming things in ways helpful to the general public seems to be a large blind spot for many of them.
Re:Why you don't let engineers do marketing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
I don't know any engineers that are even just okay with the way USB IF is naming these versions. I suspect these versions aren't being named by engineers.
Re: (Score:2)
This. Not like the naming is consistent and logical as one could expect from an engineer.
Re:Why you don't let engineers do marketing (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, if you read TFA, it seems as though the naming is logical if a bit verbose.
USB 3.0 becomes USB 3.2 Gen 1, is 5Gbps and has connector types USB-A and USB-C
USB 3.1 becomes USB 3.2 Gen 2, is 10Gbps and has connector types USB-A and USB-C
USB 3.2 becomes USB 3.2 Gen 2×2, is 20Gbps and has connector type USB-C
USB 4 has to be at least USB 3.2 compliant (so 20Gbps) and can be as fast as 40 Gbps and have a connector type of USB-C
Logical doesn't always mean understandable (Score:2)
Actually, if you read TFA, it seems as though the naming is logical if a bit verbose.
That's the problem I'm joking about. It's logical to the point where it's incomprehensible to people who aren't USB experts or geeks who get a stiffy thinking about this stuff. Normal people can live with a scheme that makes it clear that the larger number is better/faster/desirable/newer. The USB 3.2 Gen whatever scheme utterly fails to communicate this to most people. Most people don't give a shit about the details - they just want to know if it will work like they expect.
Re: (Score:2)
In that case, they should abandon all hope of USB X.Y.zzy+plugh ever being worth buying into.
It is pretty clear that USB's main intention is to bamboozle, and not to actually solve problems.
Re: (Score:2)
they just want to know if it will work like they expect.
In that case, they should abandon all hope of USB X.Y.zzy+plugh ever being worth buying into.
It is pretty clear that USB's main intention is to bamboozle, and not to actually solve problems.
I think the goal is to create FUD about USB3 to the point where people will seek out more expensive USB4 devices since it will be clear what those are.
But I bet with Thunderbolt there will be so much confusion about which parts are supported for a given device, that it will make things worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that existing devices will not magically have their labels updated, so it will be impossible if something is the "old USB 3.2" or the "new USB 3.2".
And all this "Gen" crap? Can you even trust device manufactures to correctly get the label right, much less not lie outright about the capabilities of their devices?
Re: (Score:2)
I was writing drivers for a USB device a while back, so I read through all the documentation blah blah, some manufactures can't even get the symbol on the correct side of the plug right. So no, I'm sure they will fuck this up as well.
"Consistent and logical"? (Score:4, Insightful)
This. Not like the naming is consistent and logical as one could expect from an engineer.
You mean like naming Android versions [wikipedia.org] after sweet junk food? Because that makes total sense - I always think of kit kats as the logical successor to jelly beans. ;-) Or the WiFi naming conventions? (802.11 followed by random letters in no obvious order to anyone else) It's not too hard to find bad naming conventions and choices that were obviously propelled by engineers. Scientists are pretty bad at it too sometimes.
Engineers sometimes delve into whimsical. Nothing wrong with that. But logic and consistency are clearly not always brought to the party...
That said just because someone is in marketing doesn't mean they are automatically good at it either. Engineers tend to be overly logical and pedantic (I fit that description) but marketing folks tend to have the opposite problem and name things in ways that make no sense at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, to be fair the 802.11 spec did actually go through most of the letters in order until they got to y and then went with two letter affixes that started with "a." Most of the various revisions were never really used in consumer hardware though or the features were rolled into latter versions. So not really an engineer problem but more of a "what does the industry think is enough of an advance to get people to buy new equipment" problem.
Nobody cares about engineering names (Score:2)
Well, to be fair the 802.11 spec did actually go through most of the letters in order until they got to y and then went with two letter affixes that started with "a." Most of the various revisions were never really used in consumer hardware though or the features were rolled into latter versions.
So what? End users don't give a shit about the spec or the process by which the standards were made. I'm sure the naming convention makes perfect sense to the engineers developing it. To anyone else it is utterly meaningless and communicates absolutely nothing about what it is, what it does, or how it works. By all means if the naming convention makes sense to the engineers during development then keep using it in development. But I absolutely guarantee you that most people know what WiFi is and have n
Re:"Consistent and logical"? (Score:5, Informative)
802.11 (the first standard supporting up to 1Mbps and not used widely)
802.11a (supportting 54Mbps with ODFM on 5GHz)
802.11b (supporting 11Mbps with DSSS on 2.4GHz)
802.11c (wireless bridging), 802.11d (regulatory domains), 802.11e (QoS), 802.11f (Inter-AP communication)
802.11g (supporting 54Mbps with ODFM on 2.4GHz)
802.11h (radar detection), 802.11i (WPA2), 802.11j (Japanese channels), 802.11k (load balancing)
802.11l is skipped, 802.11m contains clarifications for earlier specifications 802.11n (supports 300Mbps with 40MHz channels on 2.4 and 5GHz)
etc..
So it all makes sense:
802.11 is the first standard
802.11a is the second
802.11b is the third
802.11g is the eighth
802.11n is the fifteenth
802.11ac is the twentieth
802.11ad is the twenty-first
etc..
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't necessarily released in order though. They're generally in the order that the IEEE working groups form. A working group that formed later may complete its work sooner - 802.11b was standardised before 802.11a despite 802.11a being allocated to a 5GHz implementation before 802.11b. But even that isn't always the case, because they sometimes jump ahead to a mnemonic letter, like 802.11j for Japanese channels not actually coming chronologically after 802.11i (it was somewhat earlier).
Users don't care about the technical details (Score:2)
802.11 went from:
Yeah the sort of folks who read slashdot might know/care but nobody else does. I'm sure the 802.11whatever naming does make sense to the engineers working on it. It makes sense to absolutely nobody else. It communicates nothing about what the product is, what it does, which versions are better/faster, whether they are compatible, etc. My parents wouldn't even understand the description table you listed. They don't know what wireless bridging or load balancing or ODFM or any of the rest of that means n
Re: (Score:2)
room-temperature acid-denatured sea protein is more accurate
Re:Why you don't let engineers do marketing (Score:5, Funny)
room-temperature acid-denatured sea protein is more accurate
No, that's Ceviche. /s
Re: (Score:2)
that too
Re: (Score:2)
room-temperature acid-denatured sea protein is more accurate
Ha! I like that even better. Well played sir.
Re: (Score:1)
Crap.
Here's how an engineer would have named the USB versions.
USB 1.0 low speed: USB 1.5M
USB 1.0 full speed: USB 10M
USB 2.0 high speed: USB 480M
USB 3.0 super speed / USB 3.1 gen 2: USB 5G
USB 3.1 gen 2 super speed: USB 10G
USB 4 gen 3x2: USB 20G
If you wanted to include the power capability, you'd add it with a slash: USB 1.5M/500mA.
It's the marketing dipshits that made us try to remember whether "full speed" was faster than "high speed". The general public can't remember that nonsense any better than anybody
Re: (Score:2)
naming things in ways helpful to the general public seems to be a large blind spot for many of them.
Depends what you consider helpful. Names that are super-descriptive and names that are artful and have character both have value.
So the takeaway is... (Score:2, Interesting)
Avoid USB of any flavor, as you will have no idea what is compatible with what? This seems like a good way to completely screw up an otherwise excellent standard.
Re:So the takeaway is... (Score:4, Informative)
Avoid USB of any flavor, as you will have no idea what is compatible with what? This seems like a good way to completely screw up an otherwise excellent standard.
You seem to think it hasn't always been like this.
Either it was and is (and probably will be) an excellent standard, or you should wish to have avoided it since the second v1.0
Yes, you read that correctly. USB 1.0 started at 1.5 Mbit. The second 1.0 was 12 Mbit. USB 2 was 480 Mbit.
These were named "Slow speed", "Full speed" and "High speed"
Then came the second v2.0 adding the "micro" connector into the mix, right next to the existing "mini" connector.
This crap went all the way back to the late 90s and beginning of 2000.
Re: (Score:2)
USB 1.0 was 1.5Mbps, with only control, interrupt and bulk endpoints. USB 1.1 added full-speed mode (12Mbps) and isochronous endpoints. There were no USB 1.0 chips sold on the general market, only prototypes, and hence no compatibility issues with it.
Re: (Score:2)
The takeaway is that if I want to be sure I get full transfer and charging speed, I'll probably need to keep the charger and/or cable for that particular device.
What I understand, unless they're changing something, is that all versions of USB are backwards-compatible and will fall back to the minimum spec if the newer stuff isn't supported.
That can still certainly cause issues, like the classic "plug your phone in and it says it's charging but it only gains 3% in 12 hours". To me it's a signage issue. None
Re: (Score:2)
Only my newest phone gives a brief message about "Turbo charging is enabled" that disappears after a few seconds with no apparent way to check. For slow charging, it says nothing.
I only use one charger for my phone. Sometimes it says charging. Some times it says Turbo charging. No obvious reason for one or the other.
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm not mistaken the "Turbo" in Android and Qualcomm chips usually means newer 15 to 30 watt standards from the past few years. That still doesn't even distinguish USB 1 and 2 power standards. I believe the weakest fallback mode delivers about 1-5 watts for USB 2.0.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The worst was when Fulls Speed was slower than Hi Speed.
Why can't they just give numbers. (Score:4, Insightful)
For some stupid reasons products shortly loose their boring but informative number scheme, to pop up with a new scheme only to create confusion.
The number scheme. I am on version 3 and they now have version 4. I know my version 3 isn't the latest version, If I am on version 3 and they have version 6, then I know I may be really behind the times. However If I have version 3 and there is version XP19IveryBridge I really don't know if I am behind, or how far behind I may be.
In short most of us, cannot afford upgrades all the time, also most of us doesn't have the resources to be actively current on the version history of such products.
They think it may get better marketing by giving it a hip and trendy name. However what it really does is confuse people and not realize there may be a good reason to upgrade.
Just ask most people with an Intel Computer, they have an I3, I5, I7, perhaps an I9 but we had these names on the chips for many years, and the generation of the chip is more important to those who want to stay current. But they don't show that on their stickers, what makes it worse, is they upgrade their stickers every version, the hologram, is around the edge, or there is a hologram that cuts threw the middle, perhaps there is a different shape.... Sure if I am fixing these systems, I could tell the difference, because I am exposed to them daily. However for most of us, we know that 9 is greater than 8.
I expect one reason why people are no longer buying new PC's (despite other things such as most software is being made for low power mobile devices allowing a longer PC Life Cycle) is the fact there is no easy version number, to let they user know their computer is old. Back in the old day if you had a 286 and then your friend gets a fast 486 and all the games say 386 or better. You can easily tell you may need to get a faster computer, and perhaps wait for that 586 to come out.
Re: (Score:2)
I expect one reason why people are no longer buying new PC's ... is the fact there is no easy version number
I honestly doubt that has any sort of real impact. The main reason is that most people don't actually need a PC - especially when a cell phone/tablet covers all their computing needs from internet browsing and email to photographs, to even mobile business apps. That would only leave gaming lagging behind in quality, in which case they buy a console. The PC - if needed at work - is usually provided by the workplace.
Re: (Score:3)
Never underestimate someones willingness to show off. Practical or not, When they get a New Car, or a New Computer or nearly anything they spent a lot of money for. It really is a primal instinct (Especially for men). "Look at me! See how I have provided more than the necessity for survival. See how good mating stock I am" I have heard a lot of people who say "Status isn't important to them..." and "No one cares about new crap" However you will catch them showing off in different ways. Including how
Re: (Score:2)
>I expect one reason why people are no longer buying new PC's (despite other things such as most software is being made for low power mobile devices allowing a longer PC Life Cycle) is the fact there is no easy version number, to let they user know their computer is old. Back in the old day if you had a 286 and then your friend gets a fast 486 and all the games say 386 or better. You can easily tell you may need to get a faster computer, and perhaps wait for that 586 to come out.
Back then the apparent performance changes between 286, 386, and 486 were significant when compared with the expected lifespan of a computer. Even though your hardware would run for years, what you wanted your computer to do in terms of performance encouraged you to upgrade every year or so. Now computers are generally fast enough performance wise, and you can use a computer for many years before performance becomes a reason to upgrade.
Re: (Score:3)
Every Year or so was really pushing it. Every 4 years was the standard for a long time. Today it is closer to 8-12 years, which is actually closer to the time-frame people will own a car.
Re: (Score:2)
People "stopped buying" PCs for the same reason they stopped buying iPhones - they already have one, and the annual upgrades no longer offer anything compelling.
You can try to push people one way or the other with marketing strategies like using the version number as a branding tool. And oh, do they try. Does it work? That depends on who they try it on. They're trying it on 10 billion people, I imagine it's working on some of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why can't they just give numbers. (Score:5, Interesting)
However for most of us, we know that 9 is greater than 8.
I think that we all know that 7 is greater than 10. Even 8.1 is greater than 10.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
:::SLAP::: (Score:4, Interesting)
Which USB works with what USB? (Score:2)
Re: Which USB works with what USB? (Score:1)
Confusion intended (Score:5, Interesting)
How nobody can see the marketing shenanigans here is beyond me. This is an obvious attempt by the consortium, made of some of the top PC OEM and part manufacturers in the world, to confuse the market so they can sell their old stock of parts easier. Because nobody likes buying this year's PC with last year's USB.
Re: Confusion intended (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
default is 16 inches, though you can get a 30inch
TWSS of the day ....
Re: (Score:2)
At this point, all I can say is last year's speeds were more than enough. Fuck the dumbasses in the marketing department. Even if you try to buy the latest and greatest it's going to be obsolete by the time it arrives at your house.
PCIe, SATA, USB: why? (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Marketing makes life difficult (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Enough already (Score:3)
On the one hand there's great engineers doing all this amazing work to give us faster connection speeds, and on the other hand there's the dumbasses in the marketing department doing all they can to confuse the fuck out of everyone.
Nice work, dumbasses.
Re: (Score:3)
Charge/power rates? (Score:2)
How about rolling in a standard for high-speed charging, instead of leaving this to proprietary solutions?
Re: (Score:2)
You mean something like USB PD?
I don't give a flying fuck what they call it (Score:2)
Other than that USB is fast enough that, unless I'm looking for something specialized, I don't give a flying fuck what you call it.
Unfortunately, USB fails my simple test. All cables are labeled USB, or USB 3.0, or some other generic term that unfortunately means nothing to the average consumer. There is, what, a 50/50 chance that a USB 3.0 cable will plug into my USB 3.0 phone. The plugs look the s
New connector (Score:1)
I'm sure this will have yet another connector to lose. I think most of us have a drawer full of usb connectors from the various phone and other vendors. Guess which one will work with this device! It won't be the one in your hand.
Re: (Score:2)
I can tolerate a couple of different connectors such as the regular USB plug for computers, vs. Micro USB for mobile devices. The real problem with USB is that version 3 is electrically different from 1 or 2, and it seems 4 will be different again. USB3 only looks "universal" because they crammed both old and new electrical connectors into the same plug. After a few more iterations, I expect to see a fist-sized lump in the name of "universal" connectivity.
http://teknohog.godsong.org/ra... [godsong.org]