Revision as of 19:08, 22 July 2023 editZH8000 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users22,121 edits →File:USB 2022 September naming scheme.svgTag: Reverted← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:21, 22 July 2023 edit undoZH8000 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users22,121 editsm Undid revision 1166620799 by ZH8000 (talk)Tag: UndoNext edit → | ||
Line 81: | Line 81: | ||
*'USB4 20Gbps' does not exist as an operation mode | *'USB4 20Gbps' does not exist as an operation mode | ||
*USB4 2x2 is not interchangeable with USB 3.2 2x2 as indicated by the logo | *USB4 2x2 is not interchangeable with USB 3.2 2x2 as indicated by the logo | ||
⚫ | *logos for USB 3.x and USB4 are different | ||
*All USB 3.x USB4 logos are fake, anyhow | |||
⚫ | * |
||
] (]) 18:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC) | ] (]) 18:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:21, 22 July 2023
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. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
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.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
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:
|
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: |
Archives | |||||||||
Index
|
|||||||||
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)
- 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)
- It's great to check the definition. Using the link supplied by Nightwatchrenband I find:
- @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)
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)
- 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)
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)
Categories:- 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