USB group announces USB 3.2

[Vanderburg]

A real benefit is with something like what Apple does, using a single cable that goes to a monitor, and the monitor uses the video from the cable, sends back power to a laptop and also functions as a USB hub. On something like the LG 4K Ultrafine (It uses USB 3.1, not thunderbolt), the USB hub on the monitor only supports USB 2.0 speeds, because the video takes so much bandwidth. It'll be nice to have USB 3.0 speeds on the hub, or be able to daisy chain high resolution monitors.

[Nicnac]

it's a shame miniITX boards have no room for usb add-in cards unless you wanna go integrated graphics...

[Doobeedoo]

All awesome, just Type-C needs to get more widespread. And version numbers can confuse people. Like I still wonder why couldn't they introduce Type-C with 4.x ver. along faster speeds. It would make it less confusing for people. 

[NumLock21]

On 9/30/2017 at 4:20 PM, Nicnac said:

it's a shame miniITX boards have no room for usb add-in cards unless you wanna go integrated graphics...

They can make modular i/o ports.

[spartaman64]

On 9/30/2017 at 9:48 AM, Misanthrope said:

That's the thinking of an engineer that doesn't gets human beings will use the product. You know what the people need to know? 1, 2, 3, 4. The 4 is the newest and is the largest number henceforth the best and fastest.

 

Engineers can discuss version and revision numbers all they want but people can't possibly keep up. Hell I can't barely keep up and I have like over 13 fucking thousand replies on a tech forum.

so when windows releases a security update it should be named windows 20 instead of naming it 10.0.15063 Build 15064 or something that will confuse consumers

[Misanthrope]

2 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

so when windows releases a security update it should be windows 20

Yes because there's no difference between software updates that you can download and physical fucking products you need to purchase brand new.

[Sniperfox47]

6 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

Yes because there's no difference between software updates that you can download and physical fucking products you need to purchase brand new.

The point is you don't need to buy any of this stuff brand new. There's no new standard like their was from 1.1(uhci/ohci) to 2.0(ehci) to 3.0(xhci). There's no risk of driver incompatibility. There's no real change to the physical layer or to the protocol it communicates with.

 

3.1gen2 was, for the most part, just 3.1gen1 with a tweaked encoding scheme to allow faster transmission. 3.2 is just 3.1 with the second wire pair enabled. There's no actual change to the USB protocol itself, or even the firmware interface, just minor revisions to the spec.

 

What revision of usb 3.x a device has *really* doesn't matter since it will all "just work" together.

[Misanthrope]

9 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

The point is you don't need to buy any of this stuff brand new. There's no new standard like their was from 1.1(uhci/ohci) to 2.0(ehci) to 3.0(xhci). There's no risk of driver incompatibility. There's no real change to the physical layer or to the protocol it communicates with.

 

3.1gen2 was, for the most part, just 3.1gen1 with a tweaked encoding scheme to allow faster transmission. 3.2 is just 3.1 with the second wire pair enabled. There's no actual change to the USB protocol itself, or even the firmware interface, just minor revisions to the spec.

 

What revision of usb 3.x a device has *really* doesn't matter since it will all "just work" together.

Except it doesn't just works: Not at the max speed of the device which is the only reason to consider a different version. All of what you say has nothing to do with choosing a consumer friendly naming scheme again: a tech enthusiast talking to other engineers might find this logical but this is why engineers shouldn't be in charge of naming things because it "makes sense" to them and they cannot comprehend that most people couldn't give a shit about technical explanations and tune out right after your second sentence.

[Sniperfox47]

17 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Except it doesn't just works: Not at the max speed of the device which is the only reason to consider a different version. All of what you say has nothing to do with choosing a consumer friendly naming scheme again: a tech enthusiast talking to other engineers might find this logical but this is why engineers shouldn't be in charge of naming things because it "makes sense" to them and they cannot comprehend that most people couldn't give a shit about technical explanations and tune out right after your second sentence.

But except in enthusiast and enterprise markets nobody *uses* the max speed of these things...what applications do you have for USB 3.1gen2? SATA based SSDs that cap out at 6Gbps anyways and just see a slight bump from the reduced overhead? They don't even come close to maxing out 3.1gen2 so what are you going to use 3.2 for?

 

Or are you arguing that consumers are going to be RAIDing their USB drives?

 

External hubs? USB 3.1gen1 hubs already use the second pair for Alternate modes, they don't need 3.1gen2 or 3.2 for that. Display data and USB data are already isolated.

 

There's no use case for 3.2 in the consumer space. And even if you don't have 3.1gen2 it's not like it's even going to be noticable in the vast majority of applications.