This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 176.59.192.202 (talk) at 07:59, 23 February 2020 (→Спилил 2 средних контакта.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 07:59, 23 February 2020 by 176.59.192.202 (talk) (→Спилил 2 средних контакта.: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| 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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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. |
There have been no renaming!
Within USB there have not been any renaming. People who think there have been need to reed up on semantic versioning. USB 3.0 is NOT the same as USB 3.1 Gen 1 as USB 3.1 supports different kinds of connectors than USB 3.0. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.144.6.21 (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
History with iMac
This page claims that iMac was the first computer (or "mainstream product") with USB support, but the cited source does not make this claim. It makes the claim that iMac helped USB get more widespread support.
The iMac’s sole reliance on the USB interface meant that Mac users had to throw out all their old mice, keyboards, scanners, printers, and external drives. The computer’s lack of SCSI ports particularly scared Mac pundits, who long relied on SCSI for external storage. But at the same time, the iMac provided the first kick start USB needed to really get off the ground. Thanks to the iMac, many peripheral manufacturers launched their first-ever round of USB computer accessories—it was no coincidence that most of them shipped in transparent blue-green housing.
Another source makes the claim that other computers had USB ports at the time, but iMac was the only one that dropped support for other connectors.
The original iMac was the first computer to ship exclusively with USB ports, as it did away with famed legacy ports like ADB and SCSI. At the time, computers that happened to ship with USB ports also came with other peripheral connections like serial and parallel ports.
References
- https://www.macworld.com/article/1135017/imacanniversary.html
- https://www.networkworld.com/article/2230092/five-technologies-in-the-mainstream--thanks-to-apple.html
GeirGrusom (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
deprecated?
the table implies that the only slot and plug left since 2017 is USB-C. This makes no sense as USB-C cables come with type A on the other end.Gendalv (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- First, deprecated does not mean removed, second, as you can see with latest galaxy tab S6, galaxy note 10, etc., all functions (in particular USB Power delivery 3.0 with PPS) are only available with USB-C to USB-C with e marker cables. Also Thunderbolt 3 (and thus USB4 main alternate mode) will only (obviously) work with USB-C to USB-C COMPATIBLE with thunderbolt 3 (and PCI express) cables. ZBalling (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Alternate mode is in the USB-C spec but not in the USB4 spec. USB4 is based on Thunderbolt 3 (but is not the same) and includes backward compatibility with Thunderbolt 3 as well as USB 3.2 and 2.0. USB-C is just a spec for cable and connection which allows the other end to have whatever other connector is available. The table here simply states that USB-C is the only cable/connector that is used for the given USB version thus both ends need to be USB-C. Whenever you connect a USB-C with USB-A on the other end it will simply use a different (read: older) USB version (in most cases that would be USB 2.0 or 3.0 since these are the most used ones). The reason for that is that the USB protocol has backwards compatibility with some of its older versions. 85.144.6.21 (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2019 (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.
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
- "USB 3.2's Naming Convention Is a Hot Mess".
- "USB 3.2 standard gets new, even more confusing names ahead of its mainstream debu". The Verge.
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)
Serial or Parallel?
The infobox lists USB "Universal Serial Bus" as a serial connection. However when I look at the pinout for USB 3.0 I can count no less than 3 data "differential pairs". This "serial bus" has 6 wires to transmit data! Doesn't that make it a parallel bus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.151.105.188 (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
- First, each pair is used for Differential signaling, so each pair is two wires sending one bit. One pair is for backward compatibility with 2.0. The other two pairs send in different directions, to enable full duplex communication. A parallel bus would allow all the wires to be used for any purpose - that isn't the case for USB, where everything has a predefined role. - MrOllie (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
- It's serial. The pinout for A/B can show up to three differential pairs: one in half-duplex for low/full/high speed (USB 1.x/2.0) and two in dual-simplex for SuperSpeed (USB 3.x). USB-C adds a second half-duplex low/full/high speed link and two in dual-simplex for the additional lane for SuperSpeed 20G. It's not a bus though, at least not electrically, just logically. --Zac67 (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Спилил 2 средних контакта.
Надёжнее для зарядных умтройств. Я просто так. Может они тоже кого достают не подключаемостью.
176.59.192.202 (talk) 07:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Categories: