Talk:USB

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)

Remember that USB-C is not only a USB4 plug -Muonium777

Muonium777 (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2021 (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.

USB-A 3.1 Gen 1 (3.0, Also later renamed USB 3.2 Gen 1) ports

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

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)

It is true, But might be slightly confusing -Muonium777

Muonium777 (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Cited from USB-IF 2019 presentation by Jeff Ravencraft, President & COO (slide 16):

USB 3.2 Gen1, USB 3.2 Gen2, USB 3.2 Gen2x2, SuperSpeed Plus, Enhanced SuperSpeed and SuperSpeed+ are defined in the USB specifications however these terms are not intended to be used in product names, messaging, packaging or any other consumer-facing content

USB 3.2 identifies three transfer rates, USB 3.2 Gen1 (5Gbps), USB 3.2 Gen2 (10Gbps) and USB 3.2 Gen2x2 (20Gbps). These specification references should only be used when addressing a technical audience

It clearly states that, in order to reduce consumer confusion, the marketing terms (″SuperSpeed USB 5Gbps″, ″SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps″, ″SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps″) should be instead used with lay audiences.

References

--176.44.197.40 (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Its not complete

I have heard and even seen a Micro-USB A; But its not here. Why? -Muonium777

Muonium777 (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Another user has added this to the table recently. Felipe lorenzzon (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

USB Mini AB incorrect depreciation date

On a time where I was researching on USB types I noticed there was a discrepancy between different Articles relating to USB, on this article, in the "Receptacle (socket) identification" Table, Micro AB was listed as introduced in the USB 2.0 Revised version, and deprecated in the next version, in 2011. However, on other pages and on an official document, It was deprecated in 2007, so it did not make it to the Revised 2.0. Mini AB were most likely added in the original 2.0 version of USB, but I could not find an exact source, in fact I downloaded the original 2.0 specification and could not find the word "Mini" inside of it at all. I would edit the article myself, but due to my inexperience with editing tables, and the missing beginning date, I decided to bring it to the talk board instead. Hopefully this is useful.

--RanidSpace (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Overview table inconsistency with Type-C

In the table in the overview section, USB Type-C is written as being introduced with USB 2.0. However, that seems impossible, since the Wikipedia page for Type-C says it was introduced in August 2014. Shouldn't it instead be changed to be available with 3.1 and up (2014 and after), and N/A before that?

--Martin0499 (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed this makes sense... I fixed this along with some other table cleanup. However, while this is intuitive to the reader, there is some ambiguity as USB-C connectors need to be backwards compatible to USB 2.0 data/power spec... --Zojj tc 09:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Article conflated the USB Specification with the USB Connector Types

It's important to be clear about whether it is discussing the specification or the connector types. Granted the various revisions of the USB spec are pretty confusing, the article should do it's best to not confuse the reader. I've done my best to clean up some of the article. More work is needed, especially as there are multiple specifications now with the power delivery stuff. Please comment/fix if I screwed something up. --Zojj tc 10:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Please stop, as I think you’re making the confusion worse. A specification document can have errors, without the standard itself being erroneous, which is why a specification document can have its own versioning separate from the versioning of the standard itself. Here, you have tried to say “USB specification 1.1”, for example, but that suggests it’s version 1.1 of the specs for a standard called “USB”, but in fact, the standard itself is called “USB 1.1”.

Specifically, the actual documentation for the various USB standards follow the titling convention “USB 2.0 Specification”, and these in turn have a version (by release date). Coming up with wiki article headings very similar to those formal titles is not a great idea. — tooki (talk) 12:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Good points. We're in agreement that confusion is bad. So how can we word the distinction between the standard/specs and the connector type? "USB" by itself is unclear. --Zojj tc 17:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)