5 ms·
Who the heck came up with USB 3.2 Gen 2×2? That has got to be the dumbest idea. No one cares how it works, we just have to go through the utter crap of buying
by protomyth 8y ago
Who the heck came up with USB 3.2 Gen 2×2? That has got to be the dumbest idea. No one cares how it works, we just have to go through the utter crap of buying a cable. Does the low end manufactures pull the most weight in this org because that's the only way this makes any sense.
- zzzcpan 8y agoIt makes more sense for high end manufacturers, who want to sell expensive high end cables and make it hard for people to find and buy cheap compatible cables from anyone else.
- protomyth 8y agoActually, I think its the other way. The confusing branding helps any low-end manufacture to do the least amount (cheapest) work to get something that looks like a high-end designation.
- zzzcpan 8y agoI don't think confusion can help them here. It helps to steer consumers towards less scary choice though, i.e. to the brand they trust. Remember how in the Nokia days manufacturers of mobile phones all made incompatible chargers and data cables. Eventually they were hit with regulations. I think this is similar, but more advanced plot against consumers with plausible deniability.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> Who the heck came up with USB 3.2 Gen 2×2? That has got to be the dumbest idea. No one cares how it works Well, you will if you end up trying to use a part which supports 2×1 with a part which supports 1×2, since they both support the same top speed, but together they only support the lower speed of 1×1.
- protomyth 8y agoI cannot tell if you are joking, and that scares me worse than if you are completely serious.
- dragonwriter 8y agoI'm mostly serious, though I really don't know why 1×2 exists and why you'd build a part that supports it but not 2×2 (or, alternatively, that supports it instead of 2×1, which is, but for a name change, an older standard with the same nominal bandwidth), and the 2×2 will also support 2×1. But maybe there is an electrical engineering reason why it might be practical to do 1×2 but not 2×1 in some device.
- bpye 8y ago1x2 requires lower frequency electrical signals I suspect? That might be preferable in some scenarios. Still insane.
- other_herbert 8y agoJust wait, Usb 3.2 1x1x1x1 is just around the corner for high power draw devices!
- KSS42 8y agoYes lower frequency. There is a big jump in implementing a 10G PHY vs a 5G PHY
- brigade 8y agoProbably it’s for cables, in that a 1x2 cable can (I assume) be longer for cheaper than a 2x1 cable.
- mjevans 8y agoWhy not enumerate it based entirely on features, also toss in what power delivery it's rated at in watts and volts. USB 3 20Gbit PD 100W 20V
- thefounder 8y agoWhat's "3" for?
- isostatic 8y agosocket format?
- Tsiklon 8y agoyou've got A, B, C, Micro, and Mini connectors all that conform to 3.0 and 3.1 spec... Alas the standard needs standardised....
- u320 8y agoAnd A is always the same socket regardless of version while B is not. It's a mess.
- mattashii 8y ago> And A is always the same socket regardless of version Even this is technically incorrect: USB-3 A-type sockets, though backwards compatible for f/m and m/f connecting with USB-2, have 5 more contacts compared to USB-2 type A sockets.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- mjevans 8y agoReturning to this topic, maybe... USB-C-3 for the new connector format. USB-C-2 for some (many) cellphones. USB-Micro-2 (for many phones). USB-Mini-2 (older phones) - Edit - I changed my mind, the connector is more important than the wire version.
- ulfw 8y agoTotally agree. I’d much rather have. Simple branding such as USB A5, USB C10, USB C20 to indicate the maximum speed and connector possible for each iteration.
- jwr 8y agoAll of this naming doesn't matter anyway, because everybody will use USB-C cables. And, as we all know, these can support (or not) almost any combination of anything (thunderbolt, video, various power combinations, USB in all its incarnations, etc) and there is no way to tell what will work by looking at the cable or socket you are plugging into. In other words, it's a crapshoot anyway, so who cares? We'll just keep plugging until something sort-of works. (do I sound crushed by the mind-boggling trans-galactic humongousness of the borderless expanse of human (and especially commitee) stupidity?)
- protomyth 8y agoThunderbolt compatible cables are their own pain in the butt. Apple loves their power only, and I had to order from Monoprice Thunderbolt 3 40Gbps 100W cable, and not get suckered with a 60W or a 20Gbps cable. To save others the trouble, here is the link https://www.monoprice.com/product?p_id=24722 https://www.monoprice.com/product?p_id=24722 because that seems like the easiest if you have to have a single cable type around. To think, memory used to be the number soup......
- ksec 8y ago>because everybody will use USB-C cables That is assuming all USB-C Cable will support all power combinations ( They don't ) All USB 3.2 Speed ( They Don't ), and All Thunderbolt Spec ( They Don't ). And it is precisely this comment that makes me thick why USB-C has won. Until the problem becomes so wide spread you have to test each cable whether it is working as intended before people will call for changes.