USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 Rebranding

[TVwazhere]

As a Kingdom Hearts fan, these names totally make sense to me :^)

[The Benjamins]

5 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Your logic is totally flawd.

 

Because USB 1.x <-> 2.x is compatible

Because USB 2.x <-> 3.x is compatible.

There has never been a break in compatibility with USB (yet).

Neither has there been with PCI, PCIe.

and based on how revisioning works #.1 to #.2 is a direct replacement, replacing all functionality. #.2 MUST re state all properties of #.1 to support it.

[The Benjamins]

2 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

which is even stranger on a product communication standpoint because I'm used to looking at the SS-Fork symbol and I read that as USB 3 o_o

I think it's because of PC/motherboard spec pages?

I see it as a enthusiast vs standard consumer communication thing.

 

We like knowing the exact metrics so we pay attention to if its USB 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, ect. but their marketing materials and symbols never really used the revision number

[Cyb3rBlitzX]

This is clearly just a way for manufacturers to take advantage of ill-informed consumers.

[bcredeur97]

we were doing good with USB 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, 3.0, 3.1,

IMO this 2x2 thing could have been USB 4.0

 

but no.. they just mess it all up now

[yian88]

I think it would have been much simpler to just call them USB gen1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 etc instead of 3.0,3.1,3.2.

This way people would know what standard  & speed their products have.

I dont understand whats going on with USB all these reviisions and standards, USB 3 regular and C-type of multiple speeds why dont they just promote Type-C only its smaller better more compact, why havent we got rid of old USB type in favor of C, even if old devices need it you can just use a cheap converter or hub from type-C to regular.

 

[79wjd]

 

55 minutes ago, yian88 said:

I think it would have been much simpler to just call them USB gen1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 etc instead of 3.0,3.1,3.2.

This way people would know what standard  & speed their products have.

Because relatively minor improvements shouldn't warrant an entirely new version number. Minor improvements should always get a minor revision increase. 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, etc... 

 

The stupid thing is renaming all previous revisions with the new revision qualifier.

 

The original 3.0 should have remained 3.0 and not be remarketed as 3.1, 3.1 should have remained as 3.1 and not been remarketed as 3.1 gen 2, and so on.

55 minutes ago, yian88 said:

I dont understand whats going on with USB all these reviisions and standards, USB 3 regular and C-type of multiple speeds why dont they just promote Type-C only its smaller better more compact, why havent we got rid of old USB type in favor of C, even if old devices need it you can just use a cheap converter or hub from type-C to regular.

 

Type A and type C are the connectors, they have absolutely nothing to do with the revision of the USB spec.

[Sauron]

STAHP

12 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

The use of "2x2" makes sense but it would have been a lot less confusing to just name it USB 3.2 gen 3.

Or, you know, just "USB 3.2".

13 hours ago, sazrocks said:

Can someone explain to me why they need to retroactively rename older standards? Why isn't it USB 3 Gen 1, 2, and 3? Or better yet, just USB 3.0, 3.1, and 3.2?

Because they want to confuse people. When you buy a laptop or something, it's going to say "USB 3.2" all over it despite possibly being 3.0.

[BobVonBob]

21 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Because they want to confuse people. When you buy a laptop or something, it's going to say "USB 3.2" all over it despite possibly being 3.0.

"USB 3.2 Compatible"

[samcool55]

I really don't get why they don't use 3.0, 3.1, 3.2 or whatever.

Like, I can usually figure out naming stuff but I don't understand this at all.

 

I'm completely lost...

[bcredeur97]

at least the marketing terms "Superspeed USB 3.0 20Gbps" "Superspeed USB 3.0 10Gbps" etc aren't too bad.

[Doobeedoo]

Ugh yeah really bad branding and versioning. I've said it before, they should've started with 4.0 with USB-C even. And just add 4.x with increased speed bumps for it. Hopefully they rectify this mess they're making with next big iteration.

[Jito463]

From what I remember of the 3.1 debacle, this whole issue is caused by making it easier on engineers, so they don't have to reference back to multiple other documents.  That said, it is completely ridiculous and open to abuse by manufacturers.

9 hours ago, MadDuke said:

Mine (sic) USB 3.x ports are black so?

Yep, I've encountered several laptops with USB 3 ports that aren't blue.

5 hours ago, The Benjamins said:

But if you ever look at a product they don't mark ports with number but USB, SS USB and so on.

Fun fact, but I've actually run into computers where the USB 3 ports aren't even labeled as SS.

8 hours ago, JoshB2084 said:

Why not call it "USB 4.0 Megaspeed"?

Ludicrous Speed (have we gone to plaid, yet?).

[Gymnastboatman]

Ayyyy, made it into techlinked, noice!

 

[LAwLz]

17 hours ago, The Benjamins said:

and based on how revisioning works #.1 to #.2 is a direct replacement, replacing all functionality. #.2 MUST re state all properties of #.1 to support it.

Even if we agree that is correct (which it isn't, there is no consensus or standard for how revision numbers work), that does not excuse them for retroactively renumbering and renaming the old standards, which is where all the confusion comes from.

 

Can you give me a reason why what was called USB 3.0 back in 2008 should now be called USB 3.2 Gen 1?

[Stefan Payne]

18 hours ago, The Benjamins said:

and based on how revisioning works #.1 to #.2 is a direct replacement, replacing all functionality. #.2 MUST re state all properties of #.1 to support it.

No, that never happens.

 

I don't know where you get that shit from. But that's not the norm in Interface specs.

You can look at whatever and you see that your statement was wrong.

For example look at HDMi or Display Port Spec.

DP 1.1 is compatible to 1.2 and 1.3 and 1.4, well except for some Cables of course but the devices work! 

They don't offer the whole bandwith and thus a bit lower resolution but it does work.

 

Same with HDMI, you can put any HDMI device on any Connector and it works. Same caviat as DP though but that's similar to USB.

 

So in the end there would never be a Problem to call 5G USB 3.0 and 20G USB 3.2

[Guest]

On 2/27/2019 at 8:51 PM, VegetableStu said:

 

the problems I would probably guess from here:

• if they double the base speed again (so it's 20G from ONE lane), would it be Gen 3? and what would happen to the marketing term of "Superspeed 20Gbps"?
• if they double lanes again, I mean it'll most probably be Gen 2x4, but if they need a new connector for that, whaaaaaaat in the heck would it be now?

also I'm guessing they've dropped 5Gx2 (USB 3.2 Gen1x2) since it's not being mentioned by the USB-IF anymore ._.

time to stop and just use thunderbolt

[Stefan Payne]

8 minutes ago, floofer said:

time to stop and just use thunderbolt

...wich is proprietary garbage, not easily implemented and just some form of PCIe...

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Stefan Payne said:

...wich is proprietary garbage, not easily implemented and just some form of PCIe...

I got confused and thought this was usb-c anyway

[Mr.Humble]

#boycottusb-if

[The Benjamins]

4 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

No, that never happens.

 

I don't know where you get that shit from. But that's not the norm in Interface specs.

You can look at whatever and you see that your statement was wrong.

For example look at HDMi or Display Port Spec.

DP 1.1 is compatible to 1.2 and 1.3 and 1.4, well except for some Cables of course but the devices work! 

They don't offer the whole bandwith and thus a bit lower resolution but it does work.

 

Same with HDMI, you can put any HDMI device on any Connector and it works. Same caviat as DP though but that's similar to USB.

 

So in the end there would never be a Problem to call 5G USB 3.0 and 20G USB 3.2

At every engineering department I have ever worked at, they all say you CAN'T have 2 revision active. 3.0 was replaced by 3.1, 3.1 was replaced by 3.2.

 

If you read the Spec of USB 3.2 it goes over all the aspects of 3.1 and 3.0, while add new items.

 

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Even if we agree that is correct (which it isn't, there is no consensus or standard for how revision numbers work), that does not excuse them for retroactively renumbering and renaming the old standards, which is where all the confusion comes from.

 

Can you give me a reason why what was called USB 3.0 back in 2008 should now be called USB 3.2 Gen 1?

Because 3.0 is a obsolete revision, thus can't be used in new chip designs.

"USB 3.0" is not a name, "USB" is the name with a revision level of 3.0. once 3.1 becomes official it replaces 3.0

 

The name of 5Gbps USB is SuperSpeed USB, for 10Gbps its SuperSpeed+, it in the OP.

[LAwLz]

23 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

At every engineering department I have ever worked at, they all say you CAN'T have 2 revision active. 3.0 was replaced by 3.1, 3.1 was replaced by 3.2. 

What do you even mean by "active" exactly?

Are you saying that we can't possibly have USB 2.0 because we now have USB 3.2? That all USB 2.0 devices needs to be renamed USB 3.2 maybe?

 

23 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

If you read the Spec of USB 3.2 it goes over all the aspects of 3.1 and 3.0, while add new items. 

Or they could just do like all other standards and have clearly defined versions without constantly going back and retroactively renaming everything...

 

 

23 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

Because 3.0 is a obsolete revision, thus can't be used in new chip designs. 

The problem is that they are renaming old ones as well, for no reason.

They are also renaming new chips which don't support the higher speeds.

EVERYTHING is being renamed with USB, not just new designs. That is what is leading to confusion. If a chip has the label USB 3.2 Gen 1, which speed do you think it supports? Spoilers, it is impossible to know.

 

You can try and explain and excuse it all you want, but at the end of the day USB is the only cable standard I can think of which has this issue, and there is no practical reason for it.

[Stefan Payne]

33 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

At every engineering department I have ever worked at, they all say you CAN'T have 2 revision active. 3.0 was replaced by 3.1, 3.1 was replaced by 3.2.

You are working in what exactly?!
Do you make big ass Consumer Electronics??

And here is your problem:
Because it is that way in your department, whatever that is, it has to be the same everywhere.

 

In the Car Industry there are many "revision" active that are in some cases  incompatible with each other - each for different use cases. 

And THAT IS WHAT YOU OVERLOOK!

The Use Cases!

 

For example oil. There is 0W-30, there is 5W-40 and something in between. Because they are diferent things for different use cases.

 

USB 2.0 and 3.x is the same - or at least it should...

33 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

Because 3.0 is a obsolete revision, thus can't be used in new chip designs.

So is 2.0 but that's still in use today.

So is the old SD Card Standard. But it will be in use for many years to come

 

You can bring down the other features by calling it "USB 3.0a" and call it a day. 

But that would be too simple and you couldn't sell your "old" USB 3.0 Chipsets as USB 3.2 Chipset.

 

THAT is what its really about!

 

[Jito463]

1 hour ago, The Benjamins said:

At every engineering department I have ever worked at, they all say you CAN'T have 2 revision active. 3.0 was replaced by 3.1, 3.1 was replaced by 3.2.

 

If you read the Spec of USB 3.2 it goes over all the aspects of 3.1 and 3.0, while add new items.

You still haven't explained why USB 3.0 and USB 3.1 have to be renamed in order to add a new standard.  I can't think of a single other standard that has done this so ridiculously (if at all).  There is no reason USB 3.0 needs to be renamed as USB 3.1 Gen 1 just to create the USB 3.1 standard.  Nor is there any reason that USB 3.0/3.1g1 and USB 3.1g2 (which could have just been named USB 3.1) need to be renamed in order to create the USB 3.2 standard.

 

You keep trying to excuse it while dancing around that issue, without ever actually addressing the elephant in the room.

[The Benjamins]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

What do you even mean by "active" exactly?

Are you saying that we can't possibly have USB 2.0 because we now have USB 3.2? That all USB 2.0 devices needs to be renamed USB 3.2 maybe?

 

Or they could just do like all other standards and have clearly defined versions without constantly going back and retroactively renaming everything...

 

 

The problem is that they are renaming old ones as well, for no reason.

They are also renaming new chips which don't support the higher speeds.

EVERYTHING is being renamed with USB, not just new designs. That is what is leading to confusion. If a chip has the label USB 3.2 Gen 1, which speed do you think it supports? Spoilers, it is impossible to know.

 

You can try and explain and excuse it all you want, but at the end of the day USB is the only cable standard I can think of which has this issue, and there is no practical reason for it.

" If a chip has the label USB 3.2 Gen 1, which speed do you think it supports? Spoilers, it is impossible to know." thats 5Gbps, its in the damn spec document.

56 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

You are working in what exactly?!
Do you make big ass Consumer Electronics??

And here is your problem:
Because it is that way in your department, whatever that is, it has to be the same everywhere.

 

In the Car Industry there are many "revision" active that are in some cases  incompatible with each other - each for different use cases. 

And THAT IS WHAT YOU OVERLOOK!

The Use Cases!

 

For example oil. There is 0W-30, there is 5W-40 and something in between. Because they are diferent things for different use cases.

 

USB 2.0 and 3.x is the same - or at least it should...

So is 2.0 but that's still in use today.

So is the old SD Card Standard. But it will be in use for many years to come

 

You can bring down the other features by calling it "USB 3.0a" and call it a day. 

But that would be too simple and you couldn't sell your "old" USB 3.0 Chipsets as USB 3.2 Chipset.

 

THAT is what its really about!

 

1. Yes

 

2. In every company I have worked in so far.

 

3-4. 0W-30 and 5W-40 are version not revisions

 

Just because USB-IF makes a standard update does not mean companies have to stop making chipsets with that revision. The X.0 is the major generational changes, the 0.X are the revisions with in that. USB-IF replaces 3.x wit its current 3.2 standard which covers all aspects of 3.0 and 3.1.

 

The whole issue is that these numbers was not intended for consumer use, which is why they have their marketing terminology too. SuperSpeed USB can be USB 3.0, 3.1 gen1, USB 3.2 gen1. but its all marketed at SuperSpeed USB or SS USB. (they mostly use the symbol on devices)

 

9 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

You still haven't explained why USB 3.0 and USB 3.1 have to be renamed in order to add a new standard.  I can't think of a single other standard that has done this so ridiculously (if at all).  There is no reason USB 3.0 needs to be renamed as USB 3.1 Gen 1 just to create the USB 3.1 standard.  Nor is there any reason that USB 3.0/3.1g1 and USB 3.1g2 (which could have just been named USB 3.1) need to be renamed in order to create the USB 3.2 standard.

 

You keep trying to excuse it while dancing around that issue, without ever actually addressing the elephant in the room.

The USB 3 standard was updated which re bumps the REVISION.

USB is the name, 3 is the generation number, .0/.1/.2 are the Revisions to that generation

Edited February 28, 2019 by The Benjamins