You must log in or register to comment.
yet all I needed is a “this side up” symbol …
Word
Honestly, I didn’t really have an issue with USB type A ports. They worked fine, and it was only a minor inconvenience to orient them the right way. I cared far more about capabilities of the port (speed, power delivery, etc) than I did about the actual port.
That said, micro-USB sucks in every way. The awkward “is this the right way?” thing is way worse than with USB-A, it’s not meaningfully smaller than mini-USB, the port is incredibly hard to clean (and it always gets dirty), and the connector seems to break all the time. I would’ve been totally fine with moving everything to mini-USB instead. The connector was less flimsy without being that much bigger, and it had room for more wires.
I do like USB-C though, I’m just not sure the added complexity is worth it.
Honestly, I didn’t really have an issue with USB type A ports. They worked fine, and it was only a minor inconvenience to orient them the right way. I cared far more about capabilities of the port (speed, power delivery, etc) than I did about the actual port.
I believe that the reason that the smaller USB variants showed up was because some devices were just too small to physically accommodate a USB-A plug. Think MP3 players and later – very importantly – smartphones.
For the vast majority of consumer electronics, USB-A is fine. But for things that are as thin as possible, usually to fit into a pocket, it starts to bump up against limits.
That said, micro-USB sucks in every way. The awkward “is this the right way?” thing is way worse than with USB-A, it’s not meaningfully smaller than mini-USB, the port is incredibly hard to clean (and it always gets dirty), and the connector seems to break all the time. I would’ve been totally fine with moving everything to mini-USB instead.
Mini-USB put the tensioners – the bit that wears out over time, is the bottleneck on the lifetime of the thing – on the (expensive) device rather than the (cheap) cable. Micro-USB and USB-C didn’t make that mistake.
Like, I think that there was a legitimate reason to fix that one way or another.
MP3 players and later
Sure, and I had a handful that used mini-USB instead of micro-USB, and they were completely fine. It’s easy to quickly look at the plug and orient it the right way, whereas with micro-USB, it’s a fair bit harder.
I don’t think I ever had a mini-USB device wear out the port. Then again, I didn’t have a ton of them, so maybe it’s more common.
Regardless, USB-C feels like an over-engineered solution to a few small problems. The ability to use it in any orientation is nice I guess, but I still have similar problems that I had w/ micro-USB, with cables wearing out over time. I’d rather we optimize for easier to swap ports (i.e. something like the Framework laptop’s changeable ports).
Typically, the side of the plug with the USB logo is “up”. There are exceptions.
Also typically, if a USB port is vertical, up is to the left. Again, there are exceptions.
Most devices don’t have theese symbols and basically say fuck you unless you know how to find the specs
It’s useful but it got me even more lost 😅
So many different standards my god.
Thanks for succinctly explaining what thunderbolt is
USB keeps changing their own standard every 2 years why bother learning it.
Pshh, speak for yourself. I’m ready for USB 3.2 gen 5 pro ultra max
But will that be better or worse than USB 3.3 gen 2 extra super speed?
Both, of course.
Will USB 3 get an update now USB4 is out?
Eh, USB4 is basically what USB 3.3 would’ve been, but with fresh branding. I expect it to have the same naming issues after a few updates…
Wasn’t USB4 based on Thunderbolt 3?
Sort of? It borrows a lot of the high speed protocol bits from Thunderbolt 3, but I think it does DP a little differently (at least it supports different DP standards than TB3). So it’s closely related, but not necessarily the same thing.
And Knuckles
We’re not calling it that anymore. It’s been rebranded to “SuperDuper Speed USB ]|[” now. Note that this is a different standard than the previous “SuperDuper Speed USB 3,” and under no circumstances should you call it “SuperDuper Speed USB 3.0,” because there was never any such spec and pedantic nerds will climb up your nose in the comments if you ever utter it.
Was that the first one that had M Bison as a playable character?
I mean, they update the standard to add new things. Is that bad?
They also change existing terms for no good reason.
The don’t.
But give me an example of what you’re talking about. I’ll explain.
USB3.2 gen 2, USB3.2 Gen2x2
The consumer facing names for those transmission specs are and have always been:
-
SuperSpeed 10 Gbps
-
SuperSpeed 20 Gbps
Unless you’re designing your own circuits you don’t need to worry about signaling rates (ie “Gen”) or lane configuration (Z×Y).
-
I think that maybe having two similar lightning bolt symbols that mean different things wasn’t the best design decision that the USB guys could have made.
best design decision that the USB guys could have made
lol the whole history of usb is full of design fuckyous
USB-A: the 4 dimensional port.
I mean, they fixed that with USB-C (after introducing one small USB port, mini-USB, that wasn’t reversible, with the tensioners that wear out on the expensive (device) side and and then introducing micro-USB which fixed the tensioners but still wasn’t reversible).
I’d personally kind of like to have magnetic breakaway connectors or similar so that I can’t damage devices if they fall, especially given that micro-USB and USB-C aren’t the most-physically-robust of connectors. Adapters with proprietary ways to do this exist:
https://www.amazon.com/MoKo-Magnetic-Adapter-Straight-Thunderbolt/dp/B0CGLM6PYN
But they aren’t part of the USB spec. If they ever switch to something like that, we’re gonna have another phase of incompatibility.
as easy as it is to shit on usb, kids these days will never know the misery of having a different, un-hub-able, proprietary port for every device: ps/2 for mouse and keyboard, 1/8th inch audio or SPDIF for anything audio, SCSI, parallel/serial ports, etc etc
The ‘Thunderbolt’ symbol is Intel’s proprietary technology. Apple and Intel made it. First apple registered Thunderbolt as a trademark but later they transferred it to Intel. The lightning bolt icon which supports fast charging phones or other devices when connected to the laptop is different and developed by the USB guys.
One should note that though Thunderbolt over USB-C offers the same speed and connectivity as a native thunderbolt cable, the native cable can be 40m long whereas the USB-C implementation is max 2m
deleted by creator
Things are muddied a bit though because USB 4 has built in support for thunderbolt
Everything defined in the Thunderbolt 3 spec was incorporated into the USB 4 spec, so Thunderbolt 3 and USB 4 should be basically identical. In reality the two standards are enforced by different certification bodies, so some hardware manufacturers can’t really market their compliance with one or the other standard until they get that certification. Framework’s laptops dealt with that for a while, where they represented that their ports supported certain specs that were basically identical to the USB 4 spec or even the Thunderbolt 4 spec, but couldn’t say so until after units had already been shipping.
Brother, now that thunderbolt 4 has been introduced it’s even more confusing. Some of these labels are already out of date
Thank God there’s a standard for USB. And another one. And another one. And another one. And another one. And another one. And another one. And another one. And another one. And another one. And another one. And another one…
LOL, yeah, manufacturers don’t follow this at all.
Last I looked, these (and the “blue plastic for USB 3” convention) weren’t mandated by the spec. So it’s not that they’re violating the spec, but that they’re optional.
And that’s the real issue with the USB spec, almost everything is optional. This would be fine if cables were largely interchangeable, but they’re not.
What they should have are a handful of very well-defined tiers. Cables should maybe have three (basic, mid-range, high end), and ports can have a couple more.
The problem is that there are too many separate dimensions to define the tiers.
In terms of data signaling speed and latency, you have the basic generations of USB 1.x, 2.0, 3.x, and 4, with Thunderbolt 3 essentially being the same thing as USB4, and Thunderbolt 4 adding on some more minimum requirements.
On top of that, you have USB-PD, which is its own standard for power delivery, including how the devices conduct handshakes over a certified cable.
And then you have the standards for not just raw data speed, but also what other modes are supported, for information to be seamlessly tunneled through the cable and connection in a mode that carries signals other than the data signal spec for USB. Most famously, there’s the DisplayPort Alt Mode for driving display data over a USB-C connection with a DP-compatible monitor. But there’s also an analog audio mode so that the cable and port passes along analog data to or from microphones or speakers.
Each type of cable, too, carries different physical requirements, which also causes a challenge on how long the cable can be and still work properly. That’s why a lot of the cables that support the latest and greatest data and power standards tend to be short. A longer cable might be useful, but could come at the sacrifice of not supporting certain types of functions. I personally have a long cable that supports USB-PD but can’t carry thunderbolt data speeds or certain types of signals, but I like it because it’s good for plugging in a charger when I’m not that close to an outlet. But I also know it’s not a good cable for connecting my external SSD, which would be bottlenecked at USB 2.0 speeds.
So the tiers themselves aren’t going to be well defined.
And then you have the standards for not just raw data speed, but also what other modes are supported, for information to be seamlessly tunneled through the cable and connection in a mode that carries signals other than the data signal spec for USB.
Not to mention power-only cables to avoid the security issues associated with cables that permit data transfer.
“Power-only” meaning no data BEYOND the PD devices themselves because its actually a data protocol to negotiate the power output to the device.
Right, which is why it’s so important to define tiers.
For example:
- basic support (cheap) - gen 2 speeds, charging at 5v 500ma, etc; for peripherals and whatnot
- high speed (fast enough) - 5gbps speeds, charging at 5v 500ma, etc; USB drives, regular laptop/desktop ports, etc
- fast charging (general purpose) - 5gbps data transfer, fast charging up to 45W (or maybe a little lower) at various voltages; phones, special laptop/desktop ports
- specialized PD - gen 2 speeds (faster is optional), fast charging up to 240W at various voltages
- specialized data - 40gbps data transfer, charging at 5v 500ma (faster is optional), display out
You’d use the same cable for 1-3, and specialized cables for 4 and 5, and those cables would have special markings on the connector. Ports for 3-5 would have unique markings as well. Cables and ports can go beyond those specs if they want.
Just because you can break things into separate groups doesn’t mean you should. The goal here shouldn’t be to make things easier for manufacturers, but to make things easier for users.
It has to be optional to remain a “Universal” spec.
If it had more requirements, it would be more cumbersome to implement and device manufacturers would come up with completely different, completely incompatible cables and ports (a la Apple’s lightning) that would cause you even more headaches.
“Universal” merely means devices with different capabilities can use the same interface. So you can use mice and keyboards (very low bandwidth needs) on the same port as a data hungry drive. That was the major innovation when USB took over for PS/2, parallel port, etc.
Manufacturers can still use low-end components on the client devices, the requirement would merely be that the ports in host devices and cables would meet some minimum specs to be able to meet USB certification. Instead of having a wide variety of possible configurations, force host devices into smaller niches so the marketing is clearer to customers. Devices would still negotiate voltages, data rates, etc as they do now, the only change would be forcing implementations into buckets.
The USB-C standard and particularly the USB PD (power delivery) is so complex it almost feels comical.
The PD standard document (freely available on usb.org) is over 800 pages long and features a lengthy part about the role of the cable alone which is mostly hidden from the user. Here’s a short video about this issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bZ0y9G-4Pc
Do you regularly read highly technical whitepapers? I don’t see how an 800 page document is comical for something that works so well.
I’ve literally never seen any of these except the top symbol.
I’ve never seen any of the SS 10gig or USB PD icons, but I’ve seen the rest. I’ve got Thunderbolt icons on at least 2 icons and SS USB 3.1 icons on many normal USB A ports.
TL;DR: The USB Implementers Forum is ridiculously bad at naming, symbols and communication in general. (And they don’t seriously enforce any of this anyway, so don’t even bother learning it.)
“Just plug your device in, you little bitch”
They are not bad at this. You are bad at understanding it.
Don’t get mad when you could instead learn something.
Yes it gets complex. It’s a 25-year old protocol that does almost everything. Of course it will be.
But the names are not hard if you bother to learn them.
There is some stuff to be learned, but especially with USB-C I’d say the vast majority are not labeled. There’s even some devices charged with USB C that can’t be charged with a PD charger and need an A to C cable. Phones are a great example where you have to look up the specs to know data transfer capabilities. Additionally they renamed the USB 3.0 standard which has been established for over a decade to USB 3.1 Gen 1 which is completely unnecessary and just serves to confuse. The standard was largely understandable with USB 3.0 generally being blue or at least a color other than black and on decently modern devices USB 2.0 would be black. With USB-C indication has just about gone out the window and what used to be a very simple to understand standard has now become nearly impossible to understand without having researched every device and cable you interact with.
There’s even some devices charged with USB C that can’t be charged with a PD charger and need an A to C cable
Phones with qualcomm chips briefly had their own proprietary fast charging standards that were not a USB standard. You are unlikely to be using those devices in 2024. But is it USB-IF’s fault manufacturers tried to create proprietary standards to collect royalties?
Additionally they renamed the USB 3.0 standard which has been established for over a decade to USB 3.1 Gen 1 which is completely unnecessary and just serves to confuse
No they didn’t?
The 5Gbps transfer rate introduced in 2008 is called “Superspeed” and it always has been.
USB X.X is not a port or a transfer speed. It’s the standard (ie a technical whitepaper). The standard is updated as time marches on and new features are added.
The standard was largely understandable with USB 3.0 generally being blue or at least a color other than black and on decently modern devices USB 2.0 would be black.
This was never a requirement, but it was nice to know which Type-A ports had 8 pins vs 4-pins.
With USB-C indication has just about gone out the window and what used to be a very simple to understand standard has now become nearly impossible to understand without having researched every device and cable you interact with.
For the most part you just plug it in and it works. If you need something specific like an external GPU connection, you can’t use your phone charging cable, sure. Is that really that big of a deal?
But is it USB-IF’s fault manufacturers tried […]
Yes, it absolutely is USB-IF’s fault that they are not even trying to enforce some semblance of consistency and sanity among adopters. They do have the power to say “no
soupcertification for you” to manufacturers not following the rules, but they don’t use it anywhere near aggressively enough. And that includes not making rules that are strict enough in the first place.
They are not bad at this. You are bad at understanding it.
I work with this stuff, and I do understand it. Some of my colleagues are actively participating in USB-IF workgroups, although not the ones responsible for naming end user facing things. They come to me for advice when those other workgroups changed some names retroactively again and we need to make sure we are still backwards compatible with things that rely on those names and that we are not confusing our customers more than necessary.
That is why I am very confident in claiming those naming schemes are bad.
“don’t even bother learning it” is my advice for normal end users, and I do stand by it.
But the names are not hard if you bother to learn them.
Never said it is hard.
It is more complex than it needs to be.
It is internally inconsistent.
Names get changed retroactively with new spec releases.
None of that is hard to learn, just not worth the effort.
They come to me for advice when those other workgroups changed some names retroactively again
Can you give a specific example of this?
I’d love to believe all your ethos arguments if you could give me some logos.
They’re bad because manufacturers want to pass their usb 2.0 gear as “usb 3.0 compliant”, which it technically is, and their usb 3.0 gear as “usb 3.2” because 3.2 Gen 1x1 is also 5gbps.
Also the whole alternate mode is awesome, but cheap hub chips don’t bother trying to support it and the only people who do are the laptop ports so they can save $.40 on a separate hdmi port.
And don’t get me started on all the USB-c chargers that only put out 1.5a because it’s just a normal 7805 on the back end.
They’re bad because manufacturers want to pass their usb 2.0 gear as “usb 3.0 compliant”, which it technically is, and their usb 3.0 gear as “usb 3.2” because 3.2 Gen 1x1 is also 5gbps.
The USB X.X is just the version of the standard and doesn’t mean anything for the capabilities of a physical device.
When a new standard comes out it superceeds the old one. Devices are always designed and certified according to the current standard.
Soooo…What are you talking about?
I’m talking about using the standard traditionally to denote the performance of the connection.
You don’t go around talking about your “Usb 3.0 device” that runs at 480mbps unless you’re trying to be a massive dickhole.
That’s what I’m talking about.
480mbps
A device or port that does 480mbps transfer speeds is a “Hi-Speed” device/port. That’s the real name and always has been.
It doesn’t matter what version of the USB spec it was certified under. If it was designed between 2000 and 2008 it was certified under USB 2.0 or 2.1
If that device was certified between 2008 and 2013 then it was certified under USB 3.0. That absolutely doesn’t make it a “SuperSpeed” device/port, but that’s more than clear when we use the real names.
Nobody uses that, they use the spec number because that’s what they’ve been taught, and they identify with it more than the incredibly stupid ‘full/high/super/duper/ultramegahyperspeed’ convention which the idiots at the siig decided to break again in 3.2.
Everybody literally on the planet agrees the system is moronic, you’re literally the only person who dissents, congratulations on that.
This is the correct answer; after the whole USB 3.2 Gen 2 2x2 (hands of blue) bullshit, I wouldn’t trust that team to name a park bench in the middle of the desert. Let alone something important and universally used.
The bench is called “Bench” (legacy name, it’s actually more like a concrete slab, but at the time it was more benchy that the previous bench which was just a pile of sand).
It basically gets longer every few years. At this rate, it’ll turn into an Amazon listing.
USB 3.5 Gen 3 2x2 20 Gbit Two-Sided DP PD USB 3 USB 2 USB 1 Compatible
the whole USB 3.2 Gen 2 2x2 (hands of blue) bullshit
If you’re not trying to wire your own USB port you can just use the recommended names “USB SuperSpeed 20 Gbps” or “USB 20 Gbps”. You don’t have to be confused by technical names if you don’t want to be.
The real bullshit is between your ears–you and only you can fix it.
We could have gone for already proven and tested conventions like the resistor color codes and have a unique distinguishable icon for each features to attach when needed (like thunder icon for high power). But nope, we got this
USB 3.2 Gen 4 2x2 Hyper Turbocharged World Champions and Knuckles Platinum Editionbs instead.
What is the difference between USA and USB?
One connects to all your devices and accesses your data, the other is a hardware standard.
One gives you power, the other does everything it can to make sure you never do.
OIL
Those will legally do pretty much anything depending on what cable you use anyway. (and what cable you end up using is pretty much a surprise until you’ve tested it.)
All thanks to USB making our lives more simple. (yay)
Ok, I suppose it is more simple in quite a few ways.
Who the hell makes a type-c port that only runs at 2.0 speeds?
Many cheaper smartphones have 2.0 USB C
Many expensive ones too. The iPhone 15 runs at USB 2.0 speeds, despite having USB-C.
And even fucking iPhone 16!
(But doesn’t pretty much all non apple flagships support minimum 3.0?
USB Hi-speed transfer rate are just fine for devices that need to charge regularly but frequently transfer data wirelessly.
USB 2.0 stopped being a relevant whitepaper in late 2001.
You’d be surprised. My mouse only needs 2.0, but uses a C connector for compatibility. It provides an A to C cable with only 2.0 wiring, which is a decision I assume they made to allow the wire to be more flexible as it can be charged during use or used entirely wired.
It’s also important to permit use of adapters for backwards compatibility. Like, if we stop having computers with A ports, there are still gonna be some very expensive devices out there that have A ports. You aren’t going to throw out your electron microscope with a USB A port because the USB guys have decided that USB-C being reversible is cool.
Oh totally. I have a pile of RS-232 adapters that you still need to program just about every modern Ethernet switch, and they’re all type-A ports.
Same with my keyboard, and I appreciate the compatibility. If it doesn’t need anything faster than 2.0 speeds, there’s no reason to include more expensive parts.
My headphones have a USB c port and connects at USB 2 speeds.
My headphones (Sennheiser Momentum 4) have Bluetooth, USB, and phone jack support. When using Bluetooth mode with the latest firmware update, they sporadically shut down while using in Bluetooth Multipoint mode.
I used headphones for decades very happily with a 1/8th inch jack.
They weren’t perfect.
-
Some devices used a 1/4 inch jack. This at least was electrically-compatible, so one just needed a cheap, appropriately-shaped piece of metal to adapt them.
-
The 1/8th inch jack connector took up enough space that the smartphone guys eventually mostly banished it from phones, to try to get a bit more space in the device.
-
There wasn’t a standard impedance. While most consumer devices used more-or-less the same impedance (and if you had to, you could just adjust the volume up or down slightly with different headphones) some higher-end headphones required a headphones amplifier that could push more power.
-
When you plugged a device in, it briefly shorted the connector, and made a lot of noise.
-
It wasn’t wireless (which could be seen as a minus or plus, depending upon whether you wanted ability to walk away from a computer in exchange for a set of other complexities and issues).
-
It couldn’t transmit power (well, not much; there was a convention for doing so that didn’t become widespread). That became more significant with the rise of headphones with active noise cancellation, which would need at least some way to get power to the headphones.
But honestly, those were mostly pretty minor problems. Headphones just worked in virtually all cases.
I didn’t have to worry about whether-or-not my headphones supported a given sampling rate, the number of devices that could connect to my headphones, wireless interference, or physical plug compatibility aside from the 1/8th inch and 1/4 inch issue (well, and occasionally 2.5mm headset connectors on phones). USB audio didn’t resolve the calibrated volume issue, one of the few annoyances I had with the analog connector. I have one set of Bluetooth headphones that start breaking up when I leave the room with the transceiver and another that work flawlessly across the house. I have charging rates to worry about, and whether the device is smart enough to have a battery management system capable of prolonging battery life by shutting off charging at appropriate points. The protocol and physical connector for telephone jacks has changed twice over the past hundred+ years, once to add a ring (for stereo) and once to move from 1/4 inch to 1/8th inch. The Bluetooth and USB standards, while providing for some level of backwards compatibility, have changed like some people change socks. There are different audio protocols (and in some cases competing audio codecs, like LDAC vs aptX). Lossy compression becomes an issue with Bluetooth. Some devices don’t support some sampling rates; analog headphones don’t care. Having (effectively) zero-latency pass-through mixing is guaranteed doable with any analog headphones with the appropriate mixer, so that one can hear some other audio source live; that’s not an option with Bluetooth or USB headphones.
I do like active noise cancellation, and the wireless functionality can occasionally be handy (though in general, it isn’t a game-changer for me). But I feel like the user experience has gotten a lot more problematic, in general.
There are at least 4 different incompatible 1/8" TRRS standards.
You couldn’t have picked a worse example.
-
iPhone 15, Samsung A series phones and tablets, most Motorola devices, most oppo devices, most realme devices, most nothing devices, most xiaome devices, and many more
I find it hilarious that Apple did that with the iPhone 15. Gave the current technology to only the pro models 😂
They are such grimy bastards I swear, probably saved $1 just to make you pic the pro
bet they didn’t save anything and it’s the same chip just artificially limited
holy shit. thanks, usb.
