USB 3.2 Specification Published

[ehansin]

Confusing "change" with "progress" is a common mistake. Different != better. Sometimes you end up with a broken hope-n-change mess that nobody has a solution for. Obamacare, for example.

Wow, Obamacare and USB linked together. Who would have thought?

[starshipeleven]

When you want to know what it does then plug it in and type "lsusb -v".

I think I told that the issue was for consumers.

If this somehow doesn't satisfy you then get yourself a cube and play with it as long as you need to:

Yeah, because having different-sized interfaces that don't fit in the wrong slot is totally wrong and unheard of in any field, and is also counter-intuitive. DDR ram, PCIe/PCI/ISA, and everything else. All wrong, all designed by morons.
Damn, thanks for reminding me.

[starshipeleven]

All true, but it is still the same 4-wire design.

USB 3.0 has 9, Type-C connectors have 24 pins.

[starshipeleven]

But I think that's the whole point of USB: physical compatibility in exchange for user reading the device's manual to find out its capabilities.

Yes but with caveats. With 3.0 ports they usually have either a SS symbol near the port or the connector is blue.
And until 3.0 the only information you needed to know what that port did was the USB version.

I mean, the problem you're describing has existed ever since USB 2.0. You could plug something into a USB 2.0 port, but you couldn't tell whether you'd get 2.0 or 1.1 transfer speeds.

Theoretically, yes. In practice no as USB 2.0 host ports took over the 1.1 relatively fast and you don't find 1.1 host ports anymore.

USB 2.0 was nearly an in-place upgrade (still 4-wire) for any USB design, and since usb controllers were integrated in the chipset very early on, they were also "free" for board designers.

And yes, I do realize that while the above is not that painful when it comes to a single device, it's a whole other matter when you're looking at a motherboard trying to figure out 6-12 ports.

Well, the issue is also on mobile devices with single ports, lack of documentation does not change.
Now that a Type-C port can also be thunderbolt or displayport, you might want to get a laptop with such ports, and since specs don't usually tell you that the device can use such functionality (but just state USB 3.1 or Type-C)... how you find out without buying the device (usually expensive) first?

[starshipeleven]

Wow, Obamacare and USB linked together. Who would have thought?

Trump supporters must go to great lenghts to show that Obama is worse than Trump, apparently.

[dwagner]

This both keeps the advantage of Serial (simpler electrically, as you only use 1 pair per channel, no need to make sure all the bits travel each at the same time), while giving the advantage of parallel (multiple channels for higher speed) without its disadvantages.
This at the cost of more software complexity (now you need to dispatch packets over several different channels - e.g.: in a round-robin fashion. And the receiving end needs to re-order them accordingly), but modern chips used in USB3/DP/Thunderbolt devices have largely enough processing capabilities to handle this transparently.

When you say "modern chips used in USB3/DP/Thunderbolt devices have largely enough processing capabilities to handle this", that kind of contradicts the "simpler electrically" aspect - an ensemble of millions of transistors in such a chip is certainly not less complex "electrically" than a few conductors carefully aligned in length.

But let's agree USB 3.2 uses serial lines, even though more than one of them in parallel. So maybe the more appropriate name would be "Universal Bus" (UB), since "Universal Bus Made of Serial Lanes Used in Parallel" (UBMSLUP) would not be appreciated by marketing.

[GreatEmerald]

Yea, I feel confused about it as well. Sure, it's great that everything can communicate with everything else, but why the confusing names? Why USB 3.1 Type-C Gen 2 instead of USB 4? Why not colour ports differently given different capabilities? Some vendors are already colouring ports orange to mean that they can be used for fast charging, why not just make that sort of thing a standard...

And indeed, for one, my tablet has a Type-C port, with a lighting symbol next to it. It is used for charging it. But does it support any of the other things that a Type-C may be able to do? I can't tell... And I'm guessing that no. I'm also guessing that I can't use that port for quickcharging my phone, either.

[sdack]

Yeah, because having different-sized interfaces that don't fit in the wrong slot is totally wrong and unheard of in any field, and is also counter-intuitive. DDR ram, PCIe/PCI/ISA, and everything else. All wrong, all designed by morons.
Damn, thanks for reminding me.

There is a good reason why RAM and internal extension cards such as ISA and PCI use different slot designs. Their designs are so different from one another even in terms of voltages that using the same slot layouts would have damaged the chipsets. These incompatibilities were introduced on purpose and to protect the customers from damages, and not because it was perhaps nice looking or felt good to have. It was often also necessary simply to accommodate for the increased number of pins, starting with 30-pins/72-pins to today's 288-pins on memory modules for instance. You really think one slot would have fitted all or made much sense?

There is nothing wrong with USB. It's all round the best connection type we've ever had.

[sdack]

USB 3.0 has 9, Type-C connectors have 24 pins.

When you count the individual strands of a flexible copper wire then it's actually hundreds of tiny little wires.

Still, it keeps working with just 4 wires. You can use more, and shield and twist them for extra speed, but it doesn't change it's ability to connect devices together.

[DrYak]

Still, it keeps working with just 4 wires. You can use more, and shield and twist them for extra speed, but it doesn't change it's ability to connect devices together.

Well, actually it does change.
USB ports up to 2.0 can only ever use *one* pair of wire for data (D+ and D-, the 2 contacts in the middle of a USB type A connector).
At the other end of the range USB-C can use simultaneously up to *5* pairs of wire for data (4 of which - RX1, TX1, RX2, TX2 - can be used for USB3.x, while simultaneously at the same time USB2 can be provided over the central D+ and D-)

And indeed, for one, my tablet has a Type-C port, with a lighting symbol next to it. It is used for charging it. But does it support any of the other things that a Type-C may be able to do? I can't tell... And I'm guessing that no. I'm also guessing that I can't use that port for quickcharging my phone, either.

*You* can't tell : yes, indeed. BUT *the tablet* should be able to detect it and tell it to you ! Most of it is negociable over the cable itself.
Case in point: charging. Currently, charging is both partially negociated by various charging protocols (like USB Power Delivery) and partially by measuring the voltage drop.
Concrete example : My Jolla phone can detect whether it can safely charge at 1100 mA or must throttle down to a lower current. And I can check it in the battery charge monitoring app.
If it can't even charge at 500mA, I even get a warning on the status bas, not even needing to open an app.

So you have no idea, you try to plug your phone into your tablet with a USB-C-to-USB-C cable.
But we're slowly getting to the point that both device will detect the situation and issue a warning that charging is impossible.

When you say "modern chips used in USB3/DP/Thunderbolt devices have largely enough processing capabilities to handle this", that kind of contradicts the "simpler electrically" aspect

Not from the point of view of an manufacturer.
One requires having good knowledge of signal propagation.
The other requires getting of-the-shelf chips and twisting and soldering a few wires.

The later is much more trivial to accomplish than the former. (I could even do it myself, even if I am a doctor, Jim. Not an electric engineer !)