2 ms·
why should the ports be different? why not standardize the ports? even then, we have color coding on USB 3, why not take that further? like USB14 has RED on bot
by 2Gkashmiri 4y ago
why should the ports be different? why not standardize the ports? even then, we have color coding on USB 3, why not take that further?
like USB14 has RED on both USB port and cable end, different for USB 63?
in the example, the USB63 port would have USB63 written on the top of port itself so user, even a non-technical user can go to the market and find USB63 cable.....
edit: like a TV can have USB65 port and the documentation states it would support cables USB40-66 so you could go and buy any of them. the documentation would list, USB41 only does 4K 60, USB44 4K 120, USB50 8K 60, USB51 8K 60x2.
on the device side, your laptop would tell you, "your laptop support cables USB 50-60 so you can decide to NOT buy any cable from USB40-49 because your laptop wont support it but your TV can so if you wanted them to work together, not buy them....
- cmatthias 4y agoAgain, this sounds like a nightmare and more confusing than the current naming scheme. I agree that in theory the USB working group should just standardize the ports, but if they’re doing that right, there’s no need for 500 different versions at all. Just mandate that for your device/port/cable to be called USB4, it must support all alternate modes, all PD voltages, etc.
- 2Gkashmiri 4y agoi am not sure if that is a good idea. why should a headphone support 100w and thunderbolt?
- cmatthias 4y agoIt wouldn’t. It could support USB 3 or some lower standard. But the key is that under a redesigned versioning scheme, every new standard is fully backward compatible with the old, with no optional bits tacked on. This makes it easy to understand for an end user (“okay, my headphones have USB3, and my computer and cables are USB4, so I know it will work fine.”)