Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:19, 20 July 2023

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Template:Vital article Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Electronics Mid‑importance 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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.

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 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." , 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 Misplaced Pages's administrators adhere to Misplaced Pages'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)

Micro-B schematic's shape

I don't quite 'get' the schematic of the Micro-B USB connector (or "receptacle"). https://en.wikipedia.org/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 Misplaced Pages's administrators adhere to Misplaced Pages'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 "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.
https://allthedifferences.com/blue-and-black-usb-ports-difference/
https://uk.rs-online.com/web/content/discovery/ideas-and-advice/usb-cable-guide
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)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Computing articles
• Mid-importance Computing articles
• B-Class Computer networking articles
• Mid-importance Computer networking articles
• B-Class Computer networking articles of Mid-importance
• All Computer networking articles
• B-Class Computer hardware articles
• Mid-importance Computer hardware articles
• B-Class Computer hardware articles of Mid-importance
• All Computing articles
• B-Class electronic articles
• Mid-importance electronic articles
• WikiProject Electronics articles
• B-Class Technology articles
• WikiProject Technology articles
• Articles linked from high traffic sites