3 ms·
> 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
by 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.
- dwaite 5y agoVersions are not speeds. 3.2 continues to describe everything in 3.0, which means it continues to describe how to make devices supporting 5 gbps over USB-A/B
- Dylan16807 5y agoIf you use the smallest version number that fits your device, then you avoid confusion.
- floatboth 5y agoWell, the argument is that versions not being speeds anymore is the problem and it would've been easier if they were. Like they are in Wi-Fi for example.