22 ms·

USB-C naming to somehow get worse with USB4 Version 2.0

57 points by thg 4y ago

Havoc 4y ago
If only we had a consortium of sorts naming this stuff in a sensible manner…
joshstrange 4y ago
Can someone give a legitimate reason for this madness? I thought we were past the hell of "USB 3.1 gen 1"/"USB 3.1 gen 2". Why is every standards body seemingly incapable of sane naming? The same thing just happened with WiFi semi-recently. "WiFi 6": Oh thankfully we have sane naming after years of B/G/AC/AX/etc "WiFi 6E": WTF were they thinking?
- luckman212 4y ago
  Must be the same committee who came up with the various PoE standards. 802.11af, 802.11at, 802.3bt... PoE, PoE+, PoE++...
  - hooverd 4y ago
    PoE# next?
    - hulitu 4y ago
      POE11. Without connector /s
      - benttoothpaste 4y ago
        POE++11 will be the most important POE update since POE++98. In fact it will feel as a completely new POE.
- kosma 4y ago
  An organization grows to a size where decisions are made by committee, bikeshedding is rampart, and one idiot in marketing can dismiss and derail the naming suggestions of an entire engineering team.
- Gigachad 4y ago
  Part of the reason is that USB isn’t one linear timeline of newer versions. There are so many optional features that you are really naming a branched tree of USB specs. But even then they seem to have done a particularly bad job.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    Isn't this state of things a failure in the "universal" part of USB? What we have now is a bunch of different types of serial busses that all happen to use one of a handful of different connectors. Even if we ignore everything but the USB-C connector, we have a bunch of different types of serial busses that all use the same connector.
rektide 4y ago
The ongoing ability to never name anything consistently or well has to be a sick inside joke at USB-IF. This isn't entirely new. USB 3.1 Gen 2, which latter became USB 3.2 2x1, is sort of similar-ish in pattern. They're iterating & trying something new again! But I'm imagining saying something like "USB 3.2 2.0". We seem about there. Yeah that don't seem great. Anyhow, super excited for this change. I love love love that home networking is futzing around with 2.5Gbps, but USB4+ has direct host-to-host attach at data-center speeds. The distance is way less but often people just want to plug their laptop into their NAS, and now there's amazing options built in on most computers (waiting for more NAS applicances!). > USB4 Version 2.0 has also been updated to feature the latest versions of the DisplayPort standard and PCIe spec Still love so much that we can tunnel all kinds of other protocols (DisplayPort, Thunderbolt, &c). Yeah, it's chaotic, but I love this chaos. Good chaos. Lots of possibilities chaos.
- standyro 4y ago
  > Yeah, it's chaotic, but I love this chaos. Good chaos. Lots of possibilities chaos. I disagree. Having to buy 5 cables (and return 4 of them) just to figure out which one supports the USB 4 spec correctly and doesn't have weird issues with Thunderbolt or DisplayPort is annoying. I shouldn't need to be an electrical engineer just to figure out whether it will work with a Thunderbolt hub, or deliver adequate speeds or display resolutions...
  - mrjin 4y ago
    Cannot agree more. I returned 3 USB-C docks in a row. It didn't matter cheap or expensive, none worked fully as expected.
- resoluteteeth 4y ago
  > The ongoing ability to never name anything consistently or well has to be a sick inside joke at USB-IF. This isn't entirely new. USB 3.1 Gen 2, which latter became USB 3.2 2x1, is sort of similar-ish in pattern. It literally dates back to USB 2, when USB 1 was helpfully renamed USB 2.0 full speed (as opposed to "high speed")
aappleby 4y ago
I propose we ignore the current names and just go with "USB-C 40G 100W" or "USB-A 5G 10W" or whatever. The current naming is silly and unhelpful.
- tqkxzugoaupvwqr 4y ago
  Your suggestion is so sensible it hurts.
- joshstrange 4y ago
  AND that we require the specs printed on every USB-C cable. I guess at some point I'll need to buy a USB-C tester that can spit out the data/charging speed and things like if it supports TB3/4/etc.
- cmatthias 4y ago
  This isn’t specific enough for some situations. Let’s say you have a “USB-C 40G 45W” port. For power, your port could supply either 15V 3A, or 20V 2.25A, or both. If I have a device that wants 45W but only supports 20V, and your port only supports 15V via PD, it’s going to fall back to 5V and you’ll get a max of 15W out of the port. Similarly, on the data side, can your “USB-C 40G 45W” port be used to directly connect to a display via a USB-C to DisplayPort cable? Will it support Thunderbolt 4, e.g., can it connect to a TB4 dock and drive two 4K 60hz displays from a single cable? USB is a mess. Your suggestion is admirable, but given what the spec already supports, I don’t think there’s a way to convey all the info that should be conveyed in a short, easy to remember way.
  - aappleby 4y ago
    I would say that you can't use the simplified cable markings unless your cable supports the full set of features implied by the marking - if your cable says "20G", it must support 4k60 * 1. If it says "40G", it must support 4k60 * 2. "100w" -> must support all USB-PD volt*amp combos <= 100W. Would require compliance testing beyond what is currently done for cables, but would also remove ambiguity for the user.
    - 4y ago
scarface74 4y ago
In my search for a “universal USB C” cable I have found. - you have to make sure they support the wattage requirements you need. - you have to make sure it isn’t power only and supports data. - you have to make sure it supports the data speed you need - you have to make sure it supports video over USB C - I have a portable USB C monitor.
- saurik 4y ago
  I was hoping you also found an actual cable--as opposed to a number of lessons ;P--but maybe that us too much to ask for :(.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    I did - USB A/USB C on one end - Micro USB, Lightning, and USB C on the other end - 10Gbps data - 100W power - supports video over USB-C (4K 60Hz) https://a.co/d/1q5DhV5 https://a.co/d/1q5DhV5 A cheaper not as universal alternative. But good enough to charge everything but my 16 inch MacBook Pro https://www.amazon.com/dp/B092ZT8CJ9 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B092ZT8CJ9
cestith 4y ago
When can we just have three-part versions? USB 4.0.1 anyone? Right now, they're making a joke of the "Universal" in "Universal Serial Bus", unless their point is all of it can fall back to 12 Mbps.
olliej 4y ago
I’m waiting for USB-C (B)
DarthNebo 4y ago
They should stop backward compatibility beyond a certain point. Just converge at USB 5. Any updates should be directly to 6 or whatever.
- Gigachad 4y ago
  Backwards compatibility doesn’t seem to be the issue. It’s that new devices designed today don’t and won’t support the full spec. An ereader released today likely comes with usb 2.0 because that’s all it needs. They won’t spent the extra to give it a 40gbps chip with 10 gigabit Ethernet like the usb 4 spec defines.
mrjin 4y ago
There is simply no such a thing as one size for all but unfortunately USB-C was created for that. Differences between all those different standards and/or variants are huge and thus doesn't really matter how you name them, it's for sure going to be messy. Making it worse, they keep adding more sh*ts to it. I used to know all my cables on which can do what. Since USB-C, I seriously became no idea at all, they all look the same, but differences are just like heaven and hell.

57 points by thg 4y ago

If only we had a consortium of sorts naming this stuff in a sensible manner…

Can someone give a legitimate reason for this madness? I thought we were past the hell of "USB 3.1 gen 1"/"USB 3.1 gen 2". Why is every standards body seemingly incapable of sane naming? The same thing just happened with WiFi semi-recently. "WiFi 6": Oh thankfully we have sane naming after years of B/G/AC/AX/etc "WiFi 6E": WTF were they thinking?

luckman212 4y ago
Must be the same committee who came up with the various PoE standards. 802.11af, 802.11at, 802.3bt... PoE, PoE+, PoE++...
- hooverd 4y ago
  PoE# next?
  - hulitu 4y ago
    POE11. Without connector /s
    - benttoothpaste 4y ago
      POE++11 will be the most important POE update since POE++98. In fact it will feel as a completely new POE.
kosma 4y ago
An organization grows to a size where decisions are made by committee, bikeshedding is rampart, and one idiot in marketing can dismiss and derail the naming suggestions of an entire engineering team.
Gigachad 4y ago
Part of the reason is that USB isn’t one linear timeline of newer versions. There are so many optional features that you are really naming a branched tree of USB specs. But even then they seem to have done a particularly bad job.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  Isn't this state of things a failure in the "universal" part of USB? What we have now is a bunch of different types of serial busses that all happen to use one of a handful of different connectors. Even if we ignore everything but the USB-C connector, we have a bunch of different types of serial busses that all use the same connector.

rektide 4y ago

The ongoing ability to never name anything consistently or well has to be a sick inside joke at USB-IF. This isn't entirely new. USB 3.1 Gen 2, which latter became USB 3.2 2x1, is sort of similar-ish in pattern. They're iterating & trying something new again! But I'm imagining saying something like "USB 3.2 2.0". We seem about there. Yeah that don't seem great. Anyhow, super excited for this change. I love love love that home networking is futzing around with 2.5Gbps, but USB4+ has direct host-to-host attach at data-center speeds. The distance is way less but often people just want to plug their laptop into their NAS, and now there's amazing options built in on most computers (waiting for more NAS applicances!). > USB4 Version 2.0 has also been updated to feature the latest versions of the DisplayPort standard and PCIe spec Still love so much that we can tunnel all kinds of other protocols (DisplayPort, Thunderbolt, &c). Yeah, it's chaotic, but I love this chaos. Good chaos. Lots of possibilities chaos.

standyro 4y ago
> Yeah, it's chaotic, but I love this chaos. Good chaos. Lots of possibilities chaos. I disagree. Having to buy 5 cables (and return 4 of them) just to figure out which one supports the USB 4 spec correctly and doesn't have weird issues with Thunderbolt or DisplayPort is annoying. I shouldn't need to be an electrical engineer just to figure out whether it will work with a Thunderbolt hub, or deliver adequate speeds or display resolutions...
- mrjin 4y ago
  Cannot agree more. I returned 3 USB-C docks in a row. It didn't matter cheap or expensive, none worked fully as expected.
resoluteteeth 4y ago
> The ongoing ability to never name anything consistently or well has to be a sick inside joke at USB-IF. This isn't entirely new. USB 3.1 Gen 2, which latter became USB 3.2 2x1, is sort of similar-ish in pattern. It literally dates back to USB 2, when USB 1 was helpfully renamed USB 2.0 full speed (as opposed to "high speed")

aappleby 4y ago

I propose we ignore the current names and just go with "USB-C 40G 100W" or "USB-A 5G 10W" or whatever. The current naming is silly and unhelpful.

tqkxzugoaupvwqr 4y ago
Your suggestion is so sensible it hurts.
joshstrange 4y ago
AND that we require the specs printed on every USB-C cable. I guess at some point I'll need to buy a USB-C tester that can spit out the data/charging speed and things like if it supports TB3/4/etc.
cmatthias 4y ago
This isn’t specific enough for some situations. Let’s say you have a “USB-C 40G 45W” port. For power, your port could supply either 15V 3A, or 20V 2.25A, or both. If I have a device that wants 45W but only supports 20V, and your port only supports 15V via PD, it’s going to fall back to 5V and you’ll get a max of 15W out of the port. Similarly, on the data side, can your “USB-C 40G 45W” port be used to directly connect to a display via a USB-C to DisplayPort cable? Will it support Thunderbolt 4, e.g., can it connect to a TB4 dock and drive two 4K 60hz displays from a single cable? USB is a mess. Your suggestion is admirable, but given what the spec already supports, I don’t think there’s a way to convey all the info that should be conveyed in a short, easy to remember way.
- aappleby 4y ago
  I would say that you can't use the simplified cable markings unless your cable supports the full set of features implied by the marking - if your cable says "20G", it must support 4k60 * 1. If it says "40G", it must support 4k60 * 2. "100w" -> must support all USB-PD volt*amp combos <= 100W. Would require compliance testing beyond what is currently done for cables, but would also remove ambiguity for the user.
  - 4y ago

scarface74 4y ago

In my search for a “universal USB C” cable I have found. - you have to make sure they support the wattage requirements you need. - you have to make sure it isn’t power only and supports data. - you have to make sure it supports the data speed you need - you have to make sure it supports video over USB C - I have a portable USB C monitor.

saurik 4y ago
I was hoping you also found an actual cable--as opposed to a number of lessons ;P--but maybe that us too much to ask for :(.
- scarface74 4y ago
  I did - USB A/USB C on one end - Micro USB, Lightning, and USB C on the other end - 10Gbps data - 100W power - supports video over USB-C (4K 60Hz) https://a.co/d/1q5DhV5 https://a.co/d/1q5DhV5 A cheaper not as universal alternative. But good enough to charge everything but my 16 inch MacBook Pro https://www.amazon.com/dp/B092ZT8CJ9 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B092ZT8CJ9

cestith 4y ago

When can we just have three-part versions? USB 4.0.1 anyone? Right now, they're making a joke of the "Universal" in "Universal Serial Bus", unless their point is all of it can fall back to 12 Mbps.

olliej 4y ago

I’m waiting for USB-C (B)

DarthNebo 4y ago

They should stop backward compatibility beyond a certain point. Just converge at USB 5. Any updates should be directly to 6 or whatever.

Gigachad 4y ago
Backwards compatibility doesn’t seem to be the issue. It’s that new devices designed today don’t and won’t support the full spec. An ereader released today likely comes with usb 2.0 because that’s all it needs. They won’t spent the extra to give it a 40gbps chip with 10 gigabit Ethernet like the usb 4 spec defines.

mrjin 4y ago

There is simply no such a thing as one size for all but unfortunately USB-C was created for that. Differences between all those different standards and/or variants are huge and thus doesn't really matter how you name them, it's for sure going to be messy. Making it worse, they keep adding more sh*ts to it. I used to know all my cables on which can do what. Since USB-C, I seriously became no idea at all, they all look the same, but differences are just like heaven and hell.