5 ms·

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

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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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+.
    - colejohnson66 5y ago
      You keep dancing around my arguments. The issue isn't that things have changed; it's that they've changed in a way that makes things confusing for consumers. Go ask a random person on the street which is better: "USB 3.2 Gen 1 or USB 3.0?" I guarantee you'll find people thinking "USB 3.2 Gen 1" is better because it's a bigger number. But despite that, they're the exact same thing: 5 Gb/sec ("SuperSpeed").
      - faller 5y ago
        > You keep dancing around my arguments. No, not really. Feel free to point out exactly which argument you feel was ignored. > The issue isn't that things have changed; it's that they've changed in a way that makes things confusing for consumers. That seems to be the source of your confusion: nothing has changed. Each USB spec is backwards compatible and specifies the same data transfer modes. And there is no confusion: if you pick up a USB2 data storage device you know beforehand it won't support SuperSpeed. If you pick up a USB3.0 device you know beforehand it won't support SuperSpeed+. If you pick up a USB3.1 device you know beforehand it won't support SuperSpeed+ 2x or 4x. The whole point of the submission is to call out that M1 macs don't support USB3.1 unlike the new Mac Studio. The article also clearly states that Apple doesn't actually advertise USB3.1, just USB3.
        colejohnson66 5y ago
        > Feel free to point out exactly which argument you feel was ignored. The retroactive renaming of speed+versions. I'm not talking about the Mac. > If you pick up a USB3.1 device you know beforehand it won't support SuperSpeed+ 2x or 4x. My whole argument is that this confusion wouldn't be an issue if the USB Consortium had reserved USB 3.1 for 10 Gb/sec speeds exclusively. In other words, this: 3.0: 5 Gb/s "SuperSpeed" 3.1: 10 Gb/s "SuperSpeed+" 3.2: 20 Gb/s "SuperSpeed++" That, and that alone (with none of the "Gen" nonsense) would avoid confusion. Then, if I pick up a USB 3.1 device, I would know it's 10 Gb/sec "SuperSpeed+" without having to use a stupid "generation" number. But no, the USB Consortium decided to deprecate 3.0 and 3.1 because all new devices are "3.2 Gen whatever". That's confusion.
  - toast0 5y ago
    Sure it did. You have USB 3 Low speed and Full Speed (aka usb 1), USB 3 High Speed (aka usb 2), and USB 3 SuperSpeed. Expecting the USB consortium to give things useful names or at least let them keep their names we got used to is the same madness as expecting a singular useful version number from anything Sun derived. Anyway, according the article everything links at USB 3.1 Gen 2 SuperSpeed+, but then usually doesn't send data at anywhere near the link rate, so that's not an extra layer of confusing.
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      That was a different mess that people ignored entirely. The x.y numbers were not a mess until 3.1
faller 5y ago
> But then why rename 3.0 to 3.1 then 3.2? I honestly have no idea what you're trying to ask. Keep in mind that: * USB3.0 was released in 2008. * USB3.1 was released in 2013. * USB3.2 was released in 2017. Each standard is standalone, and specifies all of its transfer modes. I wouldn't be surprised if each of these specs also included fixes, and thus technically would represent different specs.
- colejohnson66 5y ago
  I'm not talking about the standards, but the marketing names. "USB 3.0" speed is now "USB 3.2 Gen 1" (or "USB4 Gen 1") speed just because the USB Consortium said so.
  - faller 5y ago
    > I'm not talking about the standards, but the marketing names. "USB 3.0" is now "USB 3.2 Gen 1" No, it's not. If you implement it from the legacy USB 3.0 spec then you don't care about it. It's SuperSpeed, and that's it. If instead you implement it to comply with the USB3.1 spec then you have two separate transfer modes specified in the 3.1 standard: the legacy Gen1 and the newly-added Gen2. If instead you implement it based on the USB 3.2 spec then that standard specifies four distinct transfer modes: the Gen1 specified in USB3.2, the Gen2 specified in USB3.2, and the new ones. > just because the USB Consortium said so. Who exactly do you think the USB consortium is? I mean, how do you think a standard is put together?
    - colejohnson66 5y ago
      > No, it's not. Yes, it is. > If instead you implement it to comply with the USB3.1 spec then you have two separate transfer modes specified in the 3.1 standard: the legacy Gen1 and the newly-added Gen2. No. If your device only supports 5 Gb/sec speeds, it's USB 3.0, yes. "SuperSpeed" and all that jazz. But with USB 3.2, it's now (magically) USB 3.2 Gen 1[0]: > Under this rebranding, the standard previously known as USB 3.0 or USB 3.1 Gen 1 will now be called USB 3.2 Gen 1. Furthermore, the standard previously known as USB 3.1 Gen 2 will now be renamed to USB 3.2 Gen 2. Yes, there's different transfer speeds, but if you only support 5 Gb/sec, you're a "Gen 1" device. If you're arguing that implementing USB 3.1 mandates support of the 10 Gb/sec mode, you're wrong. If that was the case, there'd be no point of this "Gen" nonsense because a 20 Gb/sec device would just be "USB 3.2" and a 5 Gb/sec device would be "USB 3.0". Remember the whole debacle a few weeks ago about HDMI 2.1 essentially just being HDMI 2.0? Why would they do that other than to confuse? The only reason for this (USB) stupid naming is to confuse consumers into thinking that their 5 Gb/sec device is "top of the line" because it supports "USB 3.2" or "USB4". For example, here's a "USB 3.2 Gen 1" flash drive.[1] It's a 5 Gb/sec flash drive, but it's 3.2 instead of the more appropriate 3.0. Why? To confuse. > Who exactly do you think the USB consortium is? I mean, how do you think a standard is put together? I think it's a consortium of companies. Many of which have marketing teams. And I'm right.[2] [0]: https://www.msi.com/blog/new-usb-standard-usb-3-2-gen-1-gen2-explained https://www.msi.com/blog/new-usb-standard-usb-3-2-gen-1-gen2... [1]: https://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-128GB-Ultra-Flash-Drive/dp/B07SYB38Q8?sourceid=Mozilla-search https://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-128GB-Ultra-Flash-Drive/dp/B0... [2]: https://www.usb.org/members https://www.usb.org/members

frosted-flakes 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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+.
  - colejohnson66 5y ago
    You keep dancing around my arguments. The issue isn't that things have changed; it's that they've changed in a way that makes things confusing for consumers. Go ask a random person on the street which is better: "USB 3.2 Gen 1 or USB 3.0?" I guarantee you'll find people thinking "USB 3.2 Gen 1" is better because it's a bigger number. But despite that, they're the exact same thing: 5 Gb/sec ("SuperSpeed").
    - faller 5y ago
      > You keep dancing around my arguments. No, not really. Feel free to point out exactly which argument you feel was ignored. > The issue isn't that things have changed; it's that they've changed in a way that makes things confusing for consumers. That seems to be the source of your confusion: nothing has changed. Each USB spec is backwards compatible and specifies the same data transfer modes. And there is no confusion: if you pick up a USB2 data storage device you know beforehand it won't support SuperSpeed. If you pick up a USB3.0 device you know beforehand it won't support SuperSpeed+. If you pick up a USB3.1 device you know beforehand it won't support SuperSpeed+ 2x or 4x. The whole point of the submission is to call out that M1 macs don't support USB3.1 unlike the new Mac Studio. The article also clearly states that Apple doesn't actually advertise USB3.1, just USB3.
      - colejohnson66 5y ago
        > Feel free to point out exactly which argument you feel was ignored. The retroactive renaming of speed+versions. I'm not talking about the Mac. > If you pick up a USB3.1 device you know beforehand it won't support SuperSpeed+ 2x or 4x. My whole argument is that this confusion wouldn't be an issue if the USB Consortium had reserved USB 3.1 for 10 Gb/sec speeds exclusively. In other words, this: 3.0: 5 Gb/s "SuperSpeed" 3.1: 10 Gb/s "SuperSpeed+" 3.2: 20 Gb/s "SuperSpeed++" That, and that alone (with none of the "Gen" nonsense) would avoid confusion. Then, if I pick up a USB 3.1 device, I would know it's 10 Gb/sec "SuperSpeed+" without having to use a stupid "generation" number. But no, the USB Consortium decided to deprecate 3.0 and 3.1 because all new devices are "3.2 Gen whatever". That's confusion.
- toast0 5y ago
  Sure it did. You have USB 3 Low speed and Full Speed (aka usb 1), USB 3 High Speed (aka usb 2), and USB 3 SuperSpeed. Expecting the USB consortium to give things useful names or at least let them keep their names we got used to is the same madness as expecting a singular useful version number from anything Sun derived. Anyway, according the article everything links at USB 3.1 Gen 2 SuperSpeed+, but then usually doesn't send data at anywhere near the link rate, so that's not an extra layer of confusing.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    That was a different mess that people ignored entirely. The x.y numbers were not a mess until 3.1

faller 5y ago

> But then why rename 3.0 to 3.1 then 3.2? I honestly have no idea what you're trying to ask. Keep in mind that: * USB3.0 was released in 2008. * USB3.1 was released in 2013. * USB3.2 was released in 2017. Each standard is standalone, and specifies all of its transfer modes. I wouldn't be surprised if each of these specs also included fixes, and thus technically would represent different specs.

colejohnson66 5y ago
I'm not talking about the standards, but the marketing names. "USB 3.0" speed is now "USB 3.2 Gen 1" (or "USB4 Gen 1") speed just because the USB Consortium said so.
- faller 5y ago
  > I'm not talking about the standards, but the marketing names. "USB 3.0" is now "USB 3.2 Gen 1" No, it's not. If you implement it from the legacy USB 3.0 spec then you don't care about it. It's SuperSpeed, and that's it. If instead you implement it to comply with the USB3.1 spec then you have two separate transfer modes specified in the 3.1 standard: the legacy Gen1 and the newly-added Gen2. If instead you implement it based on the USB 3.2 spec then that standard specifies four distinct transfer modes: the Gen1 specified in USB3.2, the Gen2 specified in USB3.2, and the new ones. > just because the USB Consortium said so. Who exactly do you think the USB consortium is? I mean, how do you think a standard is put together?
  - colejohnson66 5y ago
    > No, it's not. Yes, it is. > If instead you implement it to comply with the USB3.1 spec then you have two separate transfer modes specified in the 3.1 standard: the legacy Gen1 and the newly-added Gen2. No. If your device only supports 5 Gb/sec speeds, it's USB 3.0, yes. "SuperSpeed" and all that jazz. But with USB 3.2, it's now (magically) USB 3.2 Gen 1[0]: > Under this rebranding, the standard previously known as USB 3.0 or USB 3.1 Gen 1 will now be called USB 3.2 Gen 1. Furthermore, the standard previously known as USB 3.1 Gen 2 will now be renamed to USB 3.2 Gen 2. Yes, there's different transfer speeds, but if you only support 5 Gb/sec, you're a "Gen 1" device. If you're arguing that implementing USB 3.1 mandates support of the 10 Gb/sec mode, you're wrong. If that was the case, there'd be no point of this "Gen" nonsense because a 20 Gb/sec device would just be "USB 3.2" and a 5 Gb/sec device would be "USB 3.0". Remember the whole debacle a few weeks ago about HDMI 2.1 essentially just being HDMI 2.0? Why would they do that other than to confuse? The only reason for this (USB) stupid naming is to confuse consumers into thinking that their 5 Gb/sec device is "top of the line" because it supports "USB 3.2" or "USB4". For example, here's a "USB 3.2 Gen 1" flash drive.[1] It's a 5 Gb/sec flash drive, but it's 3.2 instead of the more appropriate 3.0. Why? To confuse. > Who exactly do you think the USB consortium is? I mean, how do you think a standard is put together? I think it's a consortium of companies. Many of which have marketing teams. And I'm right.[2] [0]: https://www.msi.com/blog/new-usb-standard-usb-3-2-gen-1-gen2-explained https://www.msi.com/blog/new-usb-standard-usb-3-2-gen-1-gen2... [1]: https://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-128GB-Ultra-Flash-Drive/dp/B07SYB38Q8?sourceid=Mozilla-search https://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-128GB-Ultra-Flash-Drive/dp/B0... [2]: https://www.usb.org/members https://www.usb.org/members