Talk:USB: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:56, 24 December 2022 editKvng (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers108,302 edits Assessment (Mid): banner shell, Computing, Electronics (Rater)← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 15:42, 25 December 2024 edit undoShaReeLi (talk \| contribs)13 edits →Micro - B
(53 intermediate revisions by 24 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Skip to talk}}		{{Skip to talk}}
	{{Talk header\|noarchive=yes}}		{{Talk header\|noarchive=yes}}
	{{WikiProject banner shell\|1=		{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|vital=yes\|1=
			{{WikiProject Computing\|importance=Mid\|network=yes\|network-importance=mid\|hardware=yes\|hardware-importance=mid}}
	{{Vital article\|topic=Technology\|level=5\|class=B}}
	{{WikiProject ~~Computing\|class=B~~\|importance=Mid~~\|network=yes\|network-importance=mid\|hardware=yes\|hardware-importance=mid~~}}		{{WikiProject Electronics\|importance=Mid}}
	{{WikiProject ~~Electronics\|class=B\|importance=Mid~~}}		{{WikiProject Technology}}
	{{WikiProject Technology\|class=B\|importance=Mid}}
	}}		}}
	{{high traffic\|date=28 May 2015\|url=http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/15/05/28/1838208/android-m-to-embrace-usb-type-c-and-midi\|site=Slashdot}}		{{high traffic\|date=28 May 2015\|url=http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/15/05/28/1838208/android-m-to-embrace-usb-type-c-and-midi\|site=Slashdot}}
Line 29:		Line 28:
	{{Archives \|search=yes \|bot=MiszaBot I \|age=3 \|units=months \|index=/Archive index }}		{{Archives \|search=yes \|bot=MiszaBot I \|age=3 \|units=months \|index=/Archive index }}

			== File:USB 2022 September naming scheme.svg ==
	== Overview table inconsistency with Type-C ==

			This graph has some faults and is misleading. For example for the following aspects:
	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 Misplaced Pages 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?

			*Generally mismatches/simplifies operation modes with specification version
⚫	--] (]) 20:15, 30 ~~September~~ ~~2021~~ (UTC)
			*USB4 defines many more operation modes
	: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... --''']''' ]] 09:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
			*'USB4 20Gbps' does not exist as an operation mode
			*USB4 2x2 is not interchangeable with USB 3.2 2x2 as indicated by the logo
			*logos for USB 3.x and USB4 are different
		⚫	] (]) 18:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

			{{reply to\|ZH8000}}
	== Article conflated the USB Specification with the USB Connector Types ==
			:1. & 2. This table was made with consumers in mind, i.e. it tries to alleviate the confusion (for which simplifications have to be made) of previous marketing name schemes (often still being used, despite the newer recommendation for the names https://web.archive.org/web/20230510092046/https://usb.org/sites/default/files/usb_data_performance_language_usage_guidelines_september_2022.pdf and https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/usb-if_integrators_list_marketing_name_guidance_january_2023.pdf) so that the consumer can understand what they are paying for (e.g., when comparing different smartphone models). It wasn't meant to be a detailed table, e.g., containing all operation modes for USB4, only meant to contain the names/logos that can often be seen in media/print. Maybe moving the table with the paragraph to another place in the article could make the designated use clearer.
			:3. If you search for USB4 20gbps, you will find some product descriptions mentioning it. Also, I got those marketing names from https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/usb4_language_product_and_packaging_guidelines_final__0.pdf . That means I had to include somehow this certain name.
			:4. As in the recommendation from https://web.archive.org/web/20230510092046/https://usb.org/sites/default/files/usb_data_performance_language_usage_guidelines_september_2022.pdf , it is stated that for reduced confusion, clear communication of the performance signaling that a product delivers is important. So I (perhaps wrongly) decided to use 1 logo, so that it would be the most up-to-date. By my understanding (might be wrong, but as this whole thing is a big mess without concise, clear and up-to-date info, it's all I can muster) USB4 2x2 and USB 3.2 2x2 won't have separate logos, but will be marked by the same logo.
			:5. The logos used are packaging logos, from https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/usb-if_usb_performance_logo_usage_guidelines_final_20230320.pdf . If there are any more up-to-date/correct logos, please link their high quality version in the reply to this comment (preferably from official source).
			:If there are still some things needing to be changed, the best result that can arise from this discussion would be bullet points that describe where & what to change to what (with sources by which the need for the change is based on).
			:Cheers ^^ ] (]) 08:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

			{{Help me-helped}}
	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. --''']''' ]] 10:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
			Need advice whether I can now remove the disputed warning template from the table. I explained the reason for the table being as it is, but I am not getting any replies/counterarguments/tips on changing the table.
	: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”.
			] (]) 14:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
	: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. — ] (]) 12:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
			: Helpers alerted by the {{tl\|help me}} template are not going to weigh in on content issues. It's up to you to determine whether a sufficient consensus exists for what you wish to implement. If you are not getting enough response here on this talk page, the next place to go is usually to the talk page of one of the WikiProjects whose banners appear at the top of the page. After that , it might appropriate to open an ] - but sometimes it's best to go ahead and make the change and see if that smokes out some responses from other editors. You could even include a phrase like "seeing no objections on the talk page..." as part of your edit summary. ''']<sup><small>] ]</small></sup>''' 19:29, 19 November 2023 (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. --''']''' ]] 17:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

			== Hubs and Respectively ==
	== "Endpoints" should not be used in hardware communications ==

			On 30 October, an edit was made (Revision as of 13:46, 30 October 2023) to insert "hubs" as an additional type of device to which USB connections can be made, making three types. Unfortunately the article now reads:
	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. ] (]) 02:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

			... Type-A (upstream) and Type-B (downstream) connectors, found on <nowiki>''</nowiki>hosts<nowiki>''</nowiki><ins>, <nowiki>''hubs''</nowiki>,</ins> and <nowiki>''</nowiki><ins>peripheral </ins>devices<nowiki>''</nowiki>, respectively, ...
	== USB - Ethernet data adapters ==

			So "respectively" is ambiguous. "hosts" goes with Type-A, and "peripheral devices" goes with Type-B. "hubs" goes with ??? Rather than fixing it myself, I would prefer that the edtitor do it. Frankly, I don't see any good reason for complicating the issue by introducing "hubs." ] (]) 19:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
	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. ] (]) 04:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

			:No, all three kinds of devices are part of the specification, you can not remove one of them. I removed the 'respectively' term. -- ] (]) 20:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
	== DEPRECATED ? Possible misuse of this word ==
			::That's definitely an improvement. According to USB 3.1 and 3.2, "USB device" covers both "hubs" and "peripheral devices," so it is still possible to remove "hubs," but the bigger problem is now gone so thanks for that and your other work. ] (]) 01:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

			== Removed a broken source from article page. ==
	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.
	] (]) 21:32, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

			I just made an edit removing a broken source link. Hope that was good one? ] (]) 21:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
	:See ], which explains the use of the term with regard to computer hardware, software and programming. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;">]</span> <sup>] </sup> 21:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

			== "Fabrics" has no place following "USB-C" ==

			I have not seen "Fabrics" stated following USB-C in any of the cited articles. If I'm missing something, whoever entered or approved that insertion has to support it, because it makes no logical sense. User 194.230.148.168 has undone my deletion of that word in this context, stating "Read the Specs": which specs has not been cited that makes this at all clear?--] (]) 20:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
			:The citation contains "USB4 V2 with Errata and ECN through June 2023 - CLEAN.pdf" in the zip file (currently "USB4 V2 with Errata and ECN through September 2024- CLEAN.pdf" as the file has updated since then) both of which are official and contain "USB4 Fabric". Neither the article nor the source explain this usage of "fabric", and for readers of an encyclopedia (which is expected to be read by non-experts) should include an explanation or use more layman terms outside of the quotation taken from the standard. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			== Micro-A Remark ==

			On "Available connectors by USB standard", the 3.0, 3.1, and 3.2 Micro-A connector should have a Remark explaining the image is reversed from the others. ] (]) 04:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Micro - B ==

			https://www.moddiy.com/pages/USB-2.0-USB-3.0-USB-3.1-USB-3.2-USB-4.0-Connectors-and-Pinouts.html ( near bottom ) seems to have a diagram for this COMMON type of connector. Unfortunately, I do not own the work. Also, no scale. ] (]) 15:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC) . . . the existing diagram under 2.0 Revised ( column ) seems to be nearly the same, but stuff around the edges obscures the shape.

Latest revision as of 15:42, 25 December 2024

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the USB article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This

level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Networking Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Electronics Mid‑importance

	Electronics portal This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology

On 28 May 2015, USB was linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic website. (Traffic)

All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

Moved, 22 June 2011, from Universal Serial Bus to USB, see discussion.
Moved, 14 January 2012, from USB to Universal Serial Bus, see discussion.
Moved, 25 June 2013, from Universal Serial Bus to USB, see discussion.

The contents of the Device Firmware Upgrade‎ page were merged into USB on September 8, 2014. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/08/a-brief-history-of-usb-what-it-replaced-and-what-has-failed-to-replace-it/

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

File:USB 2022 September naming scheme.svg

This graph has some faults and is misleading. For example for the following aspects:

Generally mismatches/simplifies operation modes with specification version
USB4 defines many more operation modes
'USB4 20Gbps' does not exist as an operation mode
USB4 2x2 is not interchangeable with USB 3.2 2x2 as indicated by the logo
logos for USB 3.x and USB4 are different

ZH8000 (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@ZH8000:

1. & 2. This table was made with consumers in mind, i.e. it tries to alleviate the confusion (for which simplifications have to be made) of previous marketing name schemes (often still being used, despite the newer recommendation for the names https://web.archive.org/web/20230510092046/https://usb.org/sites/default/files/usb_data_performance_language_usage_guidelines_september_2022.pdf and https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/usb-if_integrators_list_marketing_name_guidance_january_2023.pdf) so that the consumer can understand what they are paying for (e.g., when comparing different smartphone models). It wasn't meant to be a detailed table, e.g., containing all operation modes for USB4, only meant to contain the names/logos that can often be seen in media/print. Maybe moving the table with the paragraph to another place in the article could make the designated use clearer.

3. If you search for USB4 20gbps, you will find some product descriptions mentioning it. Also, I got those marketing names from https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/usb4_language_product_and_packaging_guidelines_final__0.pdf . That means I had to include somehow this certain name.

4. As in the recommendation from https://web.archive.org/web/20230510092046/https://usb.org/sites/default/files/usb_data_performance_language_usage_guidelines_september_2022.pdf , it is stated that for reduced confusion, clear communication of the performance signaling that a product delivers is important. So I (perhaps wrongly) decided to use 1 logo, so that it would be the most up-to-date. By my understanding (might be wrong, but as this whole thing is a big mess without concise, clear and up-to-date info, it's all I can muster) USB4 2x2 and USB 3.2 2x2 won't have separate logos, but will be marked by the same logo.

5. The logos used are packaging logos, from https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/usb-if_usb_performance_logo_usage_guidelines_final_20230320.pdf . If there are any more up-to-date/correct logos, please link their high quality version in the reply to this comment (preferably from official source).

If there are still some things needing to be changed, the best result that can arise from this discussion would be bullet points that describe where & what to change to what (with sources by which the need for the change is based on).

Cheers ^^ GravityCore (talk) 08:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Need advice whether I can now remove the disputed warning template from the table. I explained the reason for the table being as it is, but I am not getting any replies/counterarguments/tips on changing the table. GravityCore (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Helpers alerted by the {{help me}} template are not going to weigh in on content issues. It's up to you to determine whether a sufficient consensus exists for what you wish to implement. If you are not getting enough response here on this talk page, the next place to go is usually to the talk page of one of the WikiProjects whose banners appear at the top of the page. After that , it might appropriate to open an RFC - but sometimes it's best to go ahead and make the change and see if that smokes out some responses from other editors. You could even include a phrase like "seeing no objections on the talk page..." as part of your edit summary. — jmcgnh 19:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Hubs and Respectively

On 30 October, an edit was made (Revision as of 13:46, 30 October 2023) to insert "hubs" as an additional type of device to which USB connections can be made, making three types. Unfortunately the article now reads:

... Type-A (upstream) and Type-B (downstream) connectors, found on ''hosts'', ''hubs'', and ''peripheral devices'', respectively, ...

So "respectively" is ambiguous. "hosts" goes with Type-A, and "peripheral devices" goes with Type-B. "hubs" goes with ??? Rather than fixing it myself, I would prefer that the edtitor do it. Frankly, I don't see any good reason for complicating the issue by introducing "hubs." 47.184.152.29 (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

No, all three kinds of devices are part of the specification, you can not remove one of them. I removed the 'respectively' term. -- ZH8000 (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

That's definitely an improvement. According to USB 3.1 and 3.2, "USB device" covers both "hubs" and "peripheral devices," so it is still possible to remove "hubs," but the bigger problem is now gone so thanks for that and your other work. 47.184.152.29 (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Removed a broken source from article page.

I just made an edit removing a broken source link. Hope that was good one? Olivia Harry (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

"Fabrics" has no place following "USB-C"

I have not seen "Fabrics" stated following USB-C in any of the cited articles. If I'm missing something, whoever entered or approved that insertion has to support it, because it makes no logical sense. User 194.230.148.168 has undone my deletion of that word in this context, stating "Read the Specs": which specs has not been cited that makes this at all clear?--Toolnut (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The citation contains "USB4 V2 with Errata and ECN through June 2023 - CLEAN.pdf" in the zip file (currently "USB4 V2 with Errata and ECN through September 2024- CLEAN.pdf" as the file has updated since then) both of which are official and contain "USB4 Fabric". Neither the article nor the source explain this usage of "fabric", and for readers of an encyclopedia (which is expected to be read by non-experts) should include an explanation or use more layman terms outside of the quotation taken from the standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:2940:1DD0:0:0:0:2B (talk) 04:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Micro-A Remark

On "Available connectors by USB standard", the 3.0, 3.1, and 3.2 Micro-A connector should have a Remark explaining the image is reversed from the others. 2600:1700:2940:1DD0:0:0:0:2B (talk) 04:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Micro - B

https://www.moddiy.com/pages/USB-2.0-USB-3.0-USB-3.1-USB-3.2-USB-4.0-Connectors-and-Pinouts.html ( near bottom ) seems to have a diagram for this *COMMON* type of connector. Unfortunately, I do not own the work. Also, no scale. ShaReeLi (talk) 15:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC) . . . the existing diagram under 2.0 Revised ( column ) seems to be nearly the same, but stuff around the edges obscures the shape.

Categories: