Talk:USB/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Ferrite Cores

This page could use a discussion of ferrite cores on UBS cabels. For example, my Nikon calls for a UC-E4 USB cabel or the use of included ferrite cores. A discussion of there and the "bulge" at the end of the cabel would clarify this sort of thing.

Roy Kay (talk) 02:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Redundant information - charger standards

The information in the last two paragraphs of section 4.2.2 "Physical appearance" / "connector types" / "Mini and Micro connectors" seems to overlap with information in section 6.3 "Power" / "Mobile device charger standards." This information (regarding the mobile phone charging standards in Europe, China and also the GSMA/OMTP "Common charging solution" proposal) would seem (to me) to be a better fit under the "Power" / "Mobile device charger standards" heading. I suggest the last two paragraphs of 4.2.2 …"Mini and Micro connectors" be deleted as the information is redundant with the information provided in 6.3 "Power" / "Mobile device charger standards." Pugetbill (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Should the term "USB 3.0" be used instead of "USB 3.1 Gen 1" or "USB 3.2 Gen 1"?

This concerns the caption for the image at the right.

USB-A 3.1 Gen 1 (3.0, Also later renamed USB 3.2 Gen 1) ports

The terms "USB 3.1 Gen 1" and "USB 3.2 Gen 1" can be very confusing for people who aren't part of the technology industry. I'm not sure whether this would be a good idea, but would it be better to use the older term "USB 3.0", one that is more familiar with the average reader, or use the newer terms (such as USB 3.2 Gen 1), which can be more confusing to the average reader, but is more up to date?

References

Kevindongyt (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the terms are confusing – but those are the official names. We'd confuse the readers even more if we came up with our own naming scheme (albeit a more logical one). --Zac67 (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

SuperSpeed is also an official name. It would be much less confusing to simply call them USB Type A ports capable of SuperSpeed. The naming series such as USB 3.2 Gen 1 refers to a data transmission mode, and a picture of this hub is not a picture of a data transmission mode. 2600:8800:3709:CD00:FDB3:68DA:5063:3C14 (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

It is true, But might be slightly confusing -Muonium777

Muonium777 (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Cited from USB-IF 2019 presentation by Jeff Ravencraft, President & COO (slide 16):

USB 3.2 Gen1, USB 3.2 Gen2, USB 3.2 Gen2x2, SuperSpeed Plus, Enhanced SuperSpeed and SuperSpeed+ are defined in the USB specifications however these terms are not intended to be used in product names, messaging, packaging or any other consumer-facing content

USB 3.2 identifies three transfer rates, USB 3.2 Gen1 (5Gbps), USB 3.2 Gen2 (10Gbps) and USB 3.2 Gen2x2 (20Gbps). These specification references should only be used when addressing a technical audience

It clearly states that, in order to reduce consumer confusion, the marketing terms (″SuperSpeed USB 5Gbps″, ″SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps″, ″SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps″) should be instead used with lay audiences.

References

--176.44.197.40 (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Its not complete

I have heard and even seen a Micro-USB A; But its not here. Why? -Muonium777

Muonium777 (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Another user has added this to the table recently. Felipe lorenzzon (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

USB Mini AB incorrect depreciation date

On a time where I was researching on USB types I noticed there was a discrepancy between different Articles relating to USB, on this article, in the "Receptacle (socket) identification" Table, Micro AB was listed as introduced in the USB 2.0 Revised version, and deprecated in the next version, in 2011. However, on other pages and on an official document, It was deprecated in 2007, so it did not make it to the Revised 2.0. Mini AB were most likely added in the original 2.0 version of USB, but I could not find an exact source, in fact I downloaded the original 2.0 specification and could not find the word "Mini" inside of it at all. I would edit the article myself, but due to my inexperience with editing tables, and the missing beginning date, I decided to bring it to the talk board instead. Hopefully this is useful.

--RanidSpace (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Overview table inconsistency with Type-C

In the table in the overview section, USB Type-C is written as being introduced with USB 2.0. However, that seems impossible, since the Wikipedia page for Type-C says it was introduced in August 2014. Shouldn't it instead be changed to be available with 3.1 and up (2014 and after), and N/A before that?

--Martin0499 (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed this makes sense... I fixed this along with some other table cleanup. However, while this is intuitive to the reader, there is some ambiguity as USB-C connectors need to be backwards compatible to USB 2.0 data/power spec... --Zojj tc 09:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Article conflated the USB Specification with the USB Connector Types

It's important to be clear about whether it is discussing the specification or the connector types. Granted the various revisions of the USB spec are pretty confusing, the article should do it's best to not confuse the reader. I've done my best to clean up some of the article. More work is needed, especially as there are multiple specifications now with the power delivery stuff. Please comment/fix if I screwed something up. --Zojj tc 10:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Please stop, as I think you’re making the confusion worse. A specification document can have errors, without the standard itself being erroneous, which is why a specification document can have its own versioning separate from the versioning of the standard itself. Here, you have tried to say “USB specification 1.1”, for example, but that suggests it’s version 1.1 of the specs for a standard called “USB”, but in fact, the standard itself is called “USB 1.1”.

Specifically, the actual documentation for the various USB standards follow the titling convention “USB 2.0 Specification”, and these in turn have a version (by release date). Coming up with wiki article headings very similar to those formal titles is not a great idea. — tooki (talk) 12:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Good points. We're in agreement that confusion is bad. So how can we word the distinction between the standard/specs and the connector type? "USB" by itself is unclear. --Zojj tc 17:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

"Endpoints" should not be used in hardware communications

You should not use the term "Endpoints" or "start point" outside networking--OSI layer 2 perhaps 3. This confuses the reader who does have a networking background. 23.127.12.137 (talk) 02:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

USB - Ethernet data adapters

Since many new PCs have dropped an Ethernet connector, there is interest in USB to Ethernet connectors for high speed and hopefully, secure QoS connections. I see discussion of Ethernet power issues, but not Ethernet data related issues associated with USB 3 etc. Some links to relevant info, at least would be very helpful. CuriousMarkE (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Micro-B schematic's shape

I don't quite 'get' the schematic of the Micro-B USB connector (or "receptacle"). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB#/media/File:USB_Micro-B_receptacle.svg

The way it's drawn, it looks like two or three things overlaid on one another, and it's hard to judge the shape: it kind of looks like an oblong (rounded rectangle).

Whereas from the USB connector article. it's more apparent that the Micro-B USB connector has a kind of 'bevel' on two edges. Why isn't that shown in the schematic in this article? It would make it much easier to match up the schematic with the shape of the plug (and perhaps the socket too).

UPDATE: OK, I see the issue. This article is using the vague term "connector", which I was interpreting as the plug, but actually the schematics are of sockets (or "receptacles"). This wording at least should be amended in the article here. But it's also worth (re)considering whether it's more helpful to show the socket or the plug — or (if possible) both.

—DIV (220.244.79.195 (talk) 04:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC))
Support good-faith IP editors: insist that Wikipedia's administrators adhere to Wikipedia's own policies on keeping range-blocks as a last resort, with minimal breadth and duration, in order to reduce adverse collateral effects; support more precisely targeted restrictions such as protecting only articles themselves, not associated Talk pages, or presenting pages as semi-protected, or blocking only mobile edits when accessed from designated IP ranges.

USB-C is again listed under USB 2.0

I'm not sure what the ideal presentation is, but the current one is both misleading and strictly incorrect. The specification for the Type-C connector was released independently from the versioned USB standards, and wasn't defined directly in a "main" standard until USB 3.2. USB-C ports (host or device) and cables are also not limited to operating at speeds defined by later specifications. The Type-C specification even explicitly states "[t]he USB D+/D− signal pair is intended to transmit the USB 2.0 Low-Speed, Full-Speed and High-Speed signaling" (USB Type-C specification rev 2.2 § 3.3.1), so "USB 1.1" speeds are explicitly supported. I don't think it makes sense to place the type-C connector only under the USB 3.2 section of the table, but it definitely doesn't make sense to have it start at USB 2.0. If USB 1.0 and 1.1 are considered "Backwards compatibility only" (already an unclear label), then USB 2.0 definitely should be as well.

Additionally, perhaps the table's heading, "Available sockets by USB standard", could also be changed to facilitate the table both being more clear and more technically accurate? Qyriad (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Color-coding, revisited

I notice that in Archive 7 there is a brief discussion of color-coding between the different generations of USB (1.0, 2.0, 3.0, etc.), but that a decision was made to remove the existing mention in the article, as the editors believed that color-coding was ambiguous. But everything I have seen elsewhere suggests fairly clear-cut correlations between the generations, colors and speeds that I think should be included in the article.
USB 1.0 used white plastic inserts and has a maximum data transfer speed of 12Mbps.
USB 2.0 used black inserts and has a maximum speed of 480Mbps.
USB 3.0 uses blue inserts and can throughput at up to 5Gbps.
USB 3.1 uses teal inserts and can handle 10Gbps.
Yes, there are exceptions to these, but AFAICT, those only apply to motherboards and not to, for example, peripherals, which follow the aforementioned color conventions.
[1]https://allthedifferences.com/blue-and-black-usb-ports-difference/
[2]https://uk.rs-online.com/web/content/discovery/ideas-and-advice/usb-cable-guide
[3]https://ourtechroom.com/tech/guide-usb-port-colors-red-blue-yellow-black-white-orange-teal/
Bricology (talk) 10:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

White vs black for 1.0 vs 2.0 is a common convention, but plenty of things don't follow it and isn't part of the standard (the standard actually recommends white inserts for USB 1.0 and 2.0). If things that are contrary to the standard but are common convention should be included, then things like green ports often being QuickCharge or yellow ports providing power when the host is off should probably also be included.

It probably does warrant being mentioned in some way, but it's definitely not clear cut, especially when USB-IF certified hardware would be required to not follow some of the unofficial conventions. Qyriad (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

USB 8 pin digital camera cable

It seems like there is little info on that one. Would be nice to have it.

This looks like a proprietary connector, so wouldn't be covered on this article. pcuser42 (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Criticism

I forget the details, but there was a LOT of criticism when they introduced one of the smaller USB connectors. They claimed it would only fit one way, but in the real world many were ruining their connectors by attempting to insert them upside down. It was a significant design failure. It's definitely notable and should be included here, imho.40.142.183.146 (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Full speed and USB 1.0

The History section says that USB version 1.0 supported both 1.5 and 12 Mbit/s speeds, but the table in the Overview section lists only 1.5 under USB 1.0 and 12 under USB 1.1. As far as I understand, the History section is correct. I also checked the specification that is referenced from the History section (https://fl.hw.cz/docs/usb/usb10doc.pdf) and it mentions both 1.5 and 12 Mbps speed. So why the table says 12 Mbps speed appeared only in version 1.1? 85.65.224.102 (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out – I've fixed the table accordingly. --Zac67 (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! 85.65.224.102 (talk) 07:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

DEPRECATED ? Possible misuse of this word

As a native US english speaker, I do not understand this use of "depricated". Perhaps there is some new definition becoming popular, but I think the dictionary definition should be used. deprecated Nightwatchrenband (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

See Deprecation, which explains the use of the term with regard to computer hardware, software and programming. General Ization ^Talk 21:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

It's great to check the definition. Using the link supplied by Nightwatchrenband I find:
"3. Computers To mark (a component of a software standard) as obsolete to warn against its use in the future so that it may be phased out."

So I see no misuse (allowing that the definition be broadened to include also electronic hardware).

I also note from the same link:
"Usage Note: Deprecate originally meant "to pray in order to ward off something, ward off by prayer." [Since then], the word developed [...]."

Even though I am omitting the original context, the point is that the meaning of words is known to develop over time, and continues even now.

—DIV (220.244.79.195 (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC))
Support good-faith IP editors: insist that Wikipedia's administrators adhere to Wikipedia's own policies on keeping range-blocks as a last resort, with minimal breadth and duration, in order to reduce adverse collateral effects; support more precisely targeted restrictions such as protecting only articles themselves, not associated Talk pages, or presenting pages as semi-protected, or blocking only mobile edits when accessed from designated IP ranges.

All that said, I too think this term may be slightly misused, in that it shows, in the chart of connector types, that USB-A is "deprecated" for USB 3.2, instead of the red coloured connectors that exist and are common in reality. It's implying that there aren't any type A connectors for 3.2. I'm looking at one right now, but that's original research unless I'm allowed to cite the back of the board as a reference. 71.236.206.225 (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I feel like the issue is nearing its conclusion, but in my opinion it's still got one thing to consider. The table still implies Type-C was introduced with USB 2.0, which is impossible as the connector itself was defined in 2014. The USB-C page itself says that the connector "was developed at roughly the same time as the USB 3.1 specification". Therefore the connector should be available from USB 3.1 onwards, with "Backward compatibility only" for all prior versions. Martin0499 (talk) 14:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Martin0499: Hi, I had the same idea in the beginning, but the table do not show when a connector appeared, timewise, but what technology, i.e. to the physical layer (PHYS), it natively supports. The USB-C connector indeed has four exclusively dedicated wires/pins which implement the 2.0 specification. The 1.0/1.1-backward-compatibility is however "only" supported by this 2.0 implementation. -- ZH8000 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

"Backward compatibility" of the USB-C connector

I'm confused by the "Backward compatibility" cell of the Connector type quick reference table, especialy as it refers to the implementation of USB 2.0, while spanning over USB 1.x. For now I'm only shifting the USB-C connector, to better reflect my timeline (ie being first used by USB 3.1, though created before that, see USB-C, maybe an extra column could be used?), but I think the "backward compatibility" cell should be removed. Other connector types, which are backwards compatible in a similar fashion to the USB-C connector do not have such a cell. Alternatively, maybe this cell could be clarified?

It seems like the cell was added in 110611232 MinekPo1 (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Extra: the part I'm particularly confused about (ie the reference to USB 2.0 implementation) was added in 1166613397 MinekPo1 (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Please read the text – or any further detailed specification documents. USB-C fully implements USB 3.x and USB 2.0 down to PHYS (the physical layer). BTW: the x axis does not represent a timeline! -- ZH8000 (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

And by the way: WP:NOTFORUM. -- ZH8000 (talk) 17:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding "Other connector types, which are backwards compatible in a similar fashion to the USB-C connector do not have such a cell. Alternatively", you are probably right. It should look similar, probably. -- ZH8000 (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)