Talk:USB: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 03:20, 9 December 2004 editSchmuckyTheCat (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers23,934 edits →USB 1.0, 1.1, 2.0 ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 15:42, 25 December 2024 edit undoShaReeLi (talk \| contribs)13 edits →Micro - B
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Skip to talk}}
	== Use of SCSI Command Set by USB ==
			{{Talk header\|noarchive=yes}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|vital=yes\|1=
			{{WikiProject Computing\|importance=Mid\|network=yes\|network-importance=mid\|hardware=yes\|hardware-importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject Electronics\|importance=Mid}}
			{{WikiProject Technology}}
			}}
			{{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}}
			{{Old move
			\|from1=Universal Serial Bus \|destination1=USB\|result1=Moved\|date1=22 June 2011\|link1=Talk:USB/Archive 7#Requested move 2011
			\|from2=USB \|destination2=Universal Serial Bus\|result2=Moved\|date2=14 January 2012\|link2=Talk:USB/Archive 8#Requested move 2012
			\|from3=Universal Serial Bus \|destination3=USB\|result3=Moved\|date3=25 June 2013\|link3=Talk:USB/Archive 7#Requested move 2013
			}}
			{{Merged-from\|Device Firmware Upgrade‎\|date=September 8, 2014}}
			{{refideas
			\|1=http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/08/a-brief-history-of-usb-what-it-replaced-and-what-has-failed-to-replace-it/
			}}
			{{user:MiszaBot/config
			\| archiveheader = {{aan}}
			\| maxarchivesize = 100K
			\| counter = 9
			\| algo = old(90d)
			\| archive = Talk:USB/Archive %(counter)d
			}}
			{{user:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
			\|target=/Archive index \|mask=/Archive <#> \|leading_zeros=0 \|indexhere=yes
			}}
			{{Archives \|search=yes \|bot=MiszaBot I \|age=3 \|units=months \|index=/Archive index }}

			== File:USB 2022 September naming scheme.svg ==
	Q: I think it would be useful to mention that USB uses the SCSI command set, despite adopting a different physical architecture. This is actually highlighted in the ] article. As the current article stands SCSI and USB seem like completely unrelated technologies. ] 08:50, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

			This graph has some faults and is misleading. For example for the following aspects:
	A: See ] of SCSI over USB.

			*Generally mismatches/simplifies operation modes with specification version
	== Can someone please explain usb cable types ==
			*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
			] (]) 18:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

			{{reply to\|ZH8000}}
	I know there are at least two and maybe more types of cables
			: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.
	for USB - Could someone differentiate them? Is one type
			: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.
	of plug/cable for USB 1 and another for USB 2? Or does the
			: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.
	cable/plug type not matter? I know they are compatible,
			: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).
	does one cable/plug limit the bandwidth?
			: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}}
	I have tried to find this on the internet but my searches
			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.
	only turn up vendors trying to sell stuff - it is overwhelming.
			] (]) 14:14, 19 November 2023 (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)

			== Hubs and Respectively ==
	Could someone please research this and maybe even put pictures
	of the USB plug types up on the page?

			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:
	Oh, and I know that a USB 1 hub would have to be replaced to
	handle the bandwidth of USB 2, but I do not know if the cables
	make a difference.

			... 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, ...
	----
	''The link to the USB.ORG site includes access to the specs for cables which include pictures (drawings). The A end hooks to the host and the B end hooks to the device. As noted above, in the extension called On-the-go, there is also a hermaphroditic socket which will accept either the A or the B end of the mini-version of the standard cables.

			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)
	There is no plug/socket change for High speed (480Mpbs) but the cable spec was tightened in the 2.0 version to allow for the higher transfer rates. A 1.1 Spec. hub will work on a 2.0 system but will limit the maximum speed of any down-stream devices to 12Mbps regardless of whether the downstream devices are High-speed capable or not. - richard''

			: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)
	== USB A-A cables ==
			::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)
	Can someone write in detail on the topic of USB A-A cables? From what I know, there are 2 types of these:
	*Plain A-A cablle
	*A-A with electronics
	I don't know what the first one is used for, it costs ~$5 (nominal cost - cable and 2 terminals). The latter can be used to connect 2 computers and includes some kind of device, so that files can be copied (~$50). I have some info that files cannot be copied from computer to computer on the plain ones because USB is an asynchronous protocol, but I don't understrand the technical details.
	Any info on this? Any software workarounds for file transfers using the cheap cables possible?

			== Removed a broken source from article page. ==
	] 13:25, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

			== "Fabrics" has no place following "USB-C" ==
	There shouldn't be any topic of USB A-A cables. The ones that have electronics in the middle are just another device. The electronics just expose a bulk interface on each side, one to each host controller. These usually require some special software that sends files or whatever over the bulk interface to the same software running on the other machine. These aren't deserving of their own topic, they're just another device.

			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)
	Those that don't have electronics in the middle are invalid according to the spec. Since the first machine you plug one into is sending 5v and the next machine you plug it into EXPECTS to send 5v, you're just likely to blow the motherboard of one or both machines. Just bad, bad, bad. Of course you occasionally run into some no-name stupid device that uses an A-A as a device cable, avoid them like the plague. If they couldn't even get the cable spec right it's unlikely the device will work well AT ALL.
			: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-->
	-- ] 8 Dec 2004

	== ~~USB~~ ~~2 HS vs. FireWire~~ ==		== 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)
	I would like to comment on USB2.0 being in direct competition with IEEE 1394. Here are a list of features that makes then resolutely different:

			== Micro - B ==
	===Application domain===
	*USB addresses needs for a wide range of devices (mouse, keyboard, modem, hard disk drives, scanner, printer...) that do not exist in IEEE 1394.
	*IEEE 1394 addresses needs of audio-video devices such as videorecorder, digital camera that have no real equivalent on USB.

			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.
	''USB's isochronous mode does apply to streaming devices including videorecorders and audio devices such as speakers, microphones, etc. The High-speed (480Mbps) use of isochronous is directly comparable to use of IEEE 1394/Firewire for these devices - richard''

	===Communication paradigm===
	*USB provides host to peripheral communication. A host computer is required in the system.
	*IEEE 1394 provides non-centralized networking. You may build a network with simply a VCR and a TV tuner.

	Sylvwild

	''Yes, the system requres a host - but the USB On-the-go extension allows for the possibility of a unit that is usually used as a device to become a host for the purposes of a point to point conversation as you describe. The initial setup is determined by which end of the cable is plugged in to which unit but is switchable under software control so that the initial device may assume host and vice versa. The USB OTG sockets are hermaphroditic - can accept either the A or B end of the cable. - richard''





	== "Throughput" ==

	"USB 2.0 boasts 480Mbps throughput"

	I don't think so. USB 2.0 does signaling on the wire at 480 megacycles per second. The physical layer transports up to 480 million bits in one second. But that doesn't mean it has 480 Mbps ''throughput''. In fact, it pretty much guarantees the throughput is less than that.

	Looking at , the fastest way to transfer data seems to be with a high-speed bulk transaction with a data payload of 512. This gets you (see p.55) 53248000 bytes/second of bandwidth, or just under 426 Mbps throughput. And that's assuming you can saturate the line with 100% high-speed bulk transactions; I think you have to have other transactions going on to request all that data, which is why even the theoretical throughput is lower than 426 Mbps.

	Am I missing something?

	I haven't seen the Firewire spec, but it probably has something similar going on. I doubt it has 400 Mbps of throughput. But it does seem to perform better than USB 2.0: this should be a good indicator that USB doesn't really "boast" more "throughput".

	== USB 1.0, 1.1, 2.0 ==

	"Confusingly, the USB Forum has renamed USB 1.1 to USB 2.0 Full Speed; and USB 2.0 to USB 2.0 High Speed."

	Are those definitely absolutely the same? Please provide a reference. I find conflicting info online. - ] 22:39, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)


	subsequent edits deleted that info, it was wrong.

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: