15 ms·

> Why? To solve what exactly? In a sane world, it'd be major.minor, with nothing appended at the end. It's always important to get acquainted with a topic befo

by faller 4y ago

> Why? To solve what exactly? In a sane world, it'd be major.minor, with nothing appended at the end. It's always important to get acquainted with a topic before succumbing to the desire to mindlessly criticize in ignorance. A quick search in Wikipedia shows that USB 3.1 specifies a brand new transfer rate, dubbed SuperSpeed+ transfer mode, "(...)which can transfer data at up to 10 Gbit/s over the existing USB3-type-A and USB-C connectors (1200 MB/s after encoding overhead, more than twice the rate of USB 3.0)". This is a different transfer mode than the SuperSpeed transfer rate specified in USB 3.0. To allow implementations to support both transfer speeds, the implementations that supported SuperSpeed transfer rates were dubbed USB 3.1 Gen1, while the implementations that supported SuperSpeed+ transfer rates were dubbed USB 3.1 Gen2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_3.0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_3.0 To me that's a very convenient, and customer-centric way of putting together a standard. So there's a minor addition to a major release. Is that left to an annex? No. Do we fork standards? No. We just release a backwards-compatible v3.1 standard that in practice deprecates v3.0 and thus allows the whole industry to avoid piling up the list of current standards that we care about.

jandrese 4y ago
Adding a new transfer rate seems like a reasonable place to bump the minor version number of a protocol. After reading all of that I'm even more convinced that it should have just been USB 3.2.
- faller 4y ago
  > Adding a new transfer rate seems like a reasonable place to bump the minor version number of a protocol. After reading all of that I'm even more convinced that it should have just been USB 3.2. I'm not sure you read any of that. I mean, they bumped the standard version to 3.1 from 3.0 after adding a new transfer rate. Also, USB 3.2 was bumped up from 3.1 after adding two new data transfer modes. I also add that the naming scheme is quite obvious once you start to think about it. * USB 3.0 only supports the one SuperSpeed data transfer mode. * USB3.1 was released, and it specifies two distinct data transfer modes: the legacy Gen1 mode and the novel Gen2 mode. * USB3.2 is released, and it supports four transfer modes: the legacy Gen1 and Gen2 modes from USB3.1, and two new SuperSpeed+ modes which are 2x and 4x faster than Gen2.
  - colejohnson66 4y ago
    But then why rename 3.0 to 3.1 then 3.2? And now with USB4, everything is USB4. If I remember the upcoming standard correctly, your cheap USB-C cable only doing 420 Mb/s (USB 2 speeds) is now USB4! For free! If a USB 3.0 cable can suddenly become USB 3.1 (or 3.2) overnight, then what's the point of versions? And what's with "Gen #" at the end? Because a consumer is easily going to be able to see that a USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 is better than a USB 3.2 Gen 1 cable? Or maybe the sellers will just not advertise the "Gen #" portion? According to the Q&A section of this Samsung external drive[0], the difference between this and a USB 3.1 drive is nothing but the model number. </rant> The USB Consortium has been overrun by marketing that thinks that making things more confusing (read: tricking) is better for the consumer. [0]: https://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-256GB-Extreme-Solid-State/dp/B08GY3Z4JR?sourceid=Mozilla-search https://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-256GB-Extreme-Solid-State/dp/...
    - frosted-flakes 4y ago
      It's the name of the standard. I'm not sure that those names were ever meant to be user-facing, but unfortunately they are. If device-makers choose to support a newer standard (say 3.2), that standard needs to support older speeds (Gen 1), in addition to newer speeds (Gen 2).
      - colejohnson66 4y ago
        But USB 3.0 supported USB 2.0 and 1.0/1.1 speeds already without this "generation" garbage. If I plugged a USB 3.0 cable (9 pins) into a USB 2.0 (4 pin) hub, the device still worked at the lower speeds. I could even plug it into a USB 1.1 hub, and it would just work. I didn't need "USB 3.0 Gen 4"[a] (3.0) to know that it would work at "USB 3.0 Gen 2"[a] (1.1) or "USB 3.0 Gen 3" (2.0) speeds. [a]: Made up names; USB 3.0 didn't have this mess
        faller 4y ago
        > But USB 3.0 supported USB 2.0 and 1.0/1.1 speeds already without this "generation" garbage. No, not quite. What do you think the USB3.0 SuperSpeed is? Why, a brand new transfer mode. > If I plugged a USB 3.0 cable (9 pins) into a USB 2.0 (4 pin) hub, the device still worked at the lower speeds. You'd be glad to know that nothing changed in that regard with USB3.0, 3.1, and 3.2. In fact, the whole point of this submission is to showcase how M1 macs are only capable of drawing a lower data transfer speed unlike the new Mac Studio, thus proving that the M1 macs don't support USB 3.1 Gen2, aka SuperSpeed+.
Diggsey 4y ago
The problem is that the version of the standard is conflated with the version of the port. Here is a better system: 1) The standard has a version number. I would have suggested semver, except that USB will always be backwards compatible within the same physical port, so there's no need for separate major/minor versions. We can just use an incrementing number 1,2,3 etc. 2) The standard gives each physical port layout a name, eg. A, B, C. Port layouts can be added/removed in new versions of the standard. 3) The standard specifies and names various transfer rates, eg. T1, T2, etc with new names being added in new versions of the standard. (eg. version 1 defines speed T1, version 2 defines speeds T1, T2. etc.) 4) Manufacturers are not allowed to use the version of the USB specification in their marketing material at all. A port is not "USB 3.1", it's "USB C T2". The version of the spec only serves to confuse customers because the whole point is that versions are backwards compatible. The only thing the customer cares about is the physical port layout and what features/transfer rate are supported over that port. So the marketing names would be: USB A T1, USB A T2 USB C T1, USB C T2, USB C T3 As a customer, I can easily see that I can't plug a "USB A T1" into a "USB C T1" because they are different physical ports. I can also see that "USB C T2" is faster than "USB C T1". Admittedly thing are slightly more complicated because the transfer rate is not the only "feature", we also have to consider what kinds of data can be transferred. We can extend the full marketing name to: USB C T1 (audio) USB C T1 (audio,video) etc. Obviously this is too long to have on the port itself, so we can stick with just the port type and transfer speed (eg. USB C T2) as the short name.
- WorldMaker 4y ago
  I think you just recreated what the USB Forum is already doing? The standard as a whole has a version number that increments with the entire standard document. Port layouts are named A, B, C (and deprecated Micro-A, Micro-B, and Mini-A). The transfer rates are now named: Gen 1, Gen 2, Gen 1x2, and Gen 2x2. (These names are stupid, but they are names. Gen 1 is all the transport capabilities from USB 1.0 to USB 3.0 {including the now "classic" "superspeed"} and Gen 2 is new starting with USB 3.1 and the even worse named Gen 1x2 and Gen 2x2 are new starting with USB 3.2). > Obviously this is too long to have on the port itself, so we can stick with just the port type and transfer speed (eg. USB C T2) as the short name. Marking the port type is redundant because USB has been good about giving every port type a very different physical silhouette. USB A ports look nothing like USB B ports look nothing like USB C ports. (Arguably there are legitimate complaints that USB Micro-A and USB Mini-A had some visual at a glance issues in practice, but you couldn't insert the wrong cable into the wrong port.) So yeah, that just leaves finding a better way to mark the ports (and cables!) with the transfer speed. "Gen 1", "Gen 2", "Gen 1x1", and "Gen 1x2" all take up a lot of space and maybe aren't the friendliest names to mark on/near ports/cables, but are in theory potentially the only bit of information that ports need to be marked that cannot be assumed by physical port shape. (ETA: Which the USB-IF Marketing names like SuperSpeed 40 and logos like an arc around the number 40 next to the USB symbol are designed to do, though the fact that people don't recognize them and they don't seem common enough in practice that people know they exist is a marketing failure more than a technical failure of the standards.)
vernie 4y ago
Found the USB-IF member.
DiggyJohnson 4y ago
Wait, am I reading this right? The old transfer mode was > Superspeed But the new mode is different, it’s name is > Superspeed+ I’m sorry, I take your point in the first paragraph but I can’t find a way to wrap my head around how this system helps anyone.

by faller 4y ago

jandrese 4y ago

Adding a new transfer rate seems like a reasonable place to bump the minor version number of a protocol. After reading all of that I'm even more convinced that it should have just been USB 3.2.

faller 4y ago
> Adding a new transfer rate seems like a reasonable place to bump the minor version number of a protocol. After reading all of that I'm even more convinced that it should have just been USB 3.2. I'm not sure you read any of that. I mean, they bumped the standard version to 3.1 from 3.0 after adding a new transfer rate. Also, USB 3.2 was bumped up from 3.1 after adding two new data transfer modes. I also add that the naming scheme is quite obvious once you start to think about it. * USB 3.0 only supports the one SuperSpeed data transfer mode. * USB3.1 was released, and it specifies two distinct data transfer modes: the legacy Gen1 mode and the novel Gen2 mode. * USB3.2 is released, and it supports four transfer modes: the legacy Gen1 and Gen2 modes from USB3.1, and two new SuperSpeed+ modes which are 2x and 4x faster than Gen2.
- colejohnson66 4y ago
  But then why rename 3.0 to 3.1 then 3.2? And now with USB4, everything is USB4. If I remember the upcoming standard correctly, your cheap USB-C cable only doing 420 Mb/s (USB 2 speeds) is now USB4! For free! If a USB 3.0 cable can suddenly become USB 3.1 (or 3.2) overnight, then what's the point of versions? And what's with "Gen #" at the end? Because a consumer is easily going to be able to see that a USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 is better than a USB 3.2 Gen 1 cable? Or maybe the sellers will just not advertise the "Gen #" portion? According to the Q&A section of this Samsung external drive[0], the difference between this and a USB 3.1 drive is nothing but the model number. </rant> The USB Consortium has been overrun by marketing that thinks that making things more confusing (read: tricking) is better for the consumer. [0]: https://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-256GB-Extreme-Solid-State/dp/B08GY3Z4JR?sourceid=Mozilla-search https://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-256GB-Extreme-Solid-State/dp/...
  - frosted-flakes 4y ago
    It's the name of the standard. I'm not sure that those names were ever meant to be user-facing, but unfortunately they are. If device-makers choose to support a newer standard (say 3.2), that standard needs to support older speeds (Gen 1), in addition to newer speeds (Gen 2).
    - colejohnson66 4y ago
      But USB 3.0 supported USB 2.0 and 1.0/1.1 speeds already without this "generation" garbage. If I plugged a USB 3.0 cable (9 pins) into a USB 2.0 (4 pin) hub, the device still worked at the lower speeds. I could even plug it into a USB 1.1 hub, and it would just work. I didn't need "USB 3.0 Gen 4"[a] (3.0) to know that it would work at "USB 3.0 Gen 2"[a] (1.1) or "USB 3.0 Gen 3" (2.0) speeds. [a]: Made up names; USB 3.0 didn't have this mess
      - faller 4y ago
        > But USB 3.0 supported USB 2.0 and 1.0/1.1 speeds already without this "generation" garbage. No, not quite. What do you think the USB3.0 SuperSpeed is? Why, a brand new transfer mode. > If I plugged a USB 3.0 cable (9 pins) into a USB 2.0 (4 pin) hub, the device still worked at the lower speeds. You'd be glad to know that nothing changed in that regard with USB3.0, 3.1, and 3.2. In fact, the whole point of this submission is to showcase how M1 macs are only capable of drawing a lower data transfer speed unlike the new Mac Studio, thus proving that the M1 macs don't support USB 3.1 Gen2, aka SuperSpeed+.

Diggsey 4y ago

The problem is that the version of the standard is conflated with the version of the port. Here is a better system: 1) The standard has a version number. I would have suggested semver, except that USB will always be backwards compatible within the same physical port, so there's no need for separate major/minor versions. We can just use an incrementing number 1,2,3 etc. 2) The standard gives each physical port layout a name, eg. A, B, C. Port layouts can be added/removed in new versions of the standard. 3) The standard specifies and names various transfer rates, eg. T1, T2, etc with new names being added in new versions of the standard. (eg. version 1 defines speed T1, version 2 defines speeds T1, T2. etc.) 4) Manufacturers are not allowed to use the version of the USB specification in their marketing material at all. A port is not "USB 3.1", it's "USB C T2". The version of the spec only serves to confuse customers because the whole point is that versions are backwards compatible. The only thing the customer cares about is the physical port layout and what features/transfer rate are supported over that port. So the marketing names would be: USB A T1, USB A T2 USB C T1, USB C T2, USB C T3 As a customer, I can easily see that I can't plug a "USB A T1" into a "USB C T1" because they are different physical ports. I can also see that "USB C T2" is faster than "USB C T1". Admittedly thing are slightly more complicated because the transfer rate is not the only "feature", we also have to consider what kinds of data can be transferred. We can extend the full marketing name to: USB C T1 (audio) USB C T1 (audio,video) etc. Obviously this is too long to have on the port itself, so we can stick with just the port type and transfer speed (eg. USB C T2) as the short name.

WorldMaker 4y ago
I think you just recreated what the USB Forum is already doing? The standard as a whole has a version number that increments with the entire standard document. Port layouts are named A, B, C (and deprecated Micro-A, Micro-B, and Mini-A). The transfer rates are now named: Gen 1, Gen 2, Gen 1x2, and Gen 2x2. (These names are stupid, but they are names. Gen 1 is all the transport capabilities from USB 1.0 to USB 3.0 {including the now "classic" "superspeed"} and Gen 2 is new starting with USB 3.1 and the even worse named Gen 1x2 and Gen 2x2 are new starting with USB 3.2). > Obviously this is too long to have on the port itself, so we can stick with just the port type and transfer speed (eg. USB C T2) as the short name. Marking the port type is redundant because USB has been good about giving every port type a very different physical silhouette. USB A ports look nothing like USB B ports look nothing like USB C ports. (Arguably there are legitimate complaints that USB Micro-A and USB Mini-A had some visual at a glance issues in practice, but you couldn't insert the wrong cable into the wrong port.) So yeah, that just leaves finding a better way to mark the ports (and cables!) with the transfer speed. "Gen 1", "Gen 2", "Gen 1x1", and "Gen 1x2" all take up a lot of space and maybe aren't the friendliest names to mark on/near ports/cables, but are in theory potentially the only bit of information that ports need to be marked that cannot be assumed by physical port shape. (ETA: Which the USB-IF Marketing names like SuperSpeed 40 and logos like an arc around the number 40 next to the USB symbol are designed to do, though the fact that people don't recognize them and they don't seem common enough in practice that people know they exist is a marketing failure more than a technical failure of the standards.)

vernie 4y ago

Found the USB-IF member.

DiggyJohnson 4y ago

Wait, am I reading this right? The old transfer mode was > Superspeed But the new mode is different, it’s name is > Superspeed+ I’m sorry, I take your point in the first paragraph but I can’t find a way to wrap my head around how this system helps anyone.