3 ms·
>‘USB’ is a marketing term, anyways. Current USB looks nothing like the first version How so? You can plug a first gen, USB 1.0 mouse into an Android phone's U
by dTal 7y ago
>‘USB’ is a marketing term, anyways. Current USB looks nothing like the first version
How so? You can plug a first gen, USB 1.0 mouse into an Android phone's USB-C port with no more than a passive adapter, and it'll work. That's way more commonality than "just a marketing term" - it's functionally backwards compatible at the electrical, protocol, and driver level.
- Someone 7y agoUSB1:USB-C is a bit like 8086:x64. The latter ‘boots’ pretending to be the former, but preferably doesn’t spend much time in that mode. USB1: 4 wires, half-duplex, with the host in control. Upstream- and downstream ports determine who’s the host. Negotiation of bus speed in hardware, using a few diodes/wires. USB3: 9 wires, full-duplex, uses 8b/10b encoding (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8b/10b_encoding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8b/10b_encoding). Negation of bus speed in software. USB-C: adds more power options, displayLink.
- int_19h 7y agoIt doesn't matter how it's implemented from the user's perspective. The important part is that it's guaranteed to work - and it does.