Talk:USB

DEPRECATED ? Possible misuse of this word

As a native US english speaker, I do not understand this use of "depricated". Perhaps there is some new definition becoming popular, but I think the dictionary definition should be used. deprecated Nightwatchrenband (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

See Deprecation, which explains the use of the term with regard to computer hardware, software and programming. General Ization ^Talk 21:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

It's great to check the definition. Using the link supplied by Nightwatchrenband I find:
"3. Computers To mark (a component of a software standard) as obsolete to warn against its use in the future so that it may be phased out."

So I see no misuse (allowing that the definition be broadened to include also electronic hardware).

I also note from the same link:
"Usage Note: Deprecate originally meant "to pray in order to ward off something, ward off by prayer." [Since then], the word developed [...]."

Even though I am omitting the original context, the point is that the meaning of words is known to develop over time, and continues even now.

—DIV (220.244.79.195 (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC))
Support good-faith IP editors: insist that Wikipedia's administrators adhere to Wikipedia's own policies on keeping range-blocks as a last resort, with minimal breadth and duration, in order to reduce adverse collateral effects; support more precisely targeted restrictions such as protecting only articles themselves, not associated Talk pages, or presenting pages as semi-protected, or blocking only mobile edits when accessed from designated IP ranges.

All that said, I too think this term may be slightly misused, in that it shows, in the chart of connector types, that USB-A is "deprecated" for USB 3.2, instead of the red coloured connectors that exist and are common in reality. It's implying that there aren't any type A connectors for 3.2. I'm looking at one right now, but that's original research unless I'm allowed to cite the back of the board as a reference. 71.236.206.225 (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I feel like the issue is nearing its conclusion, but in my opinion it's still got one thing to consider. The table still implies Type-C was introduced with USB 2.0, which is impossible as the connector itself was defined in 2014. The USB-C page itself says that the connector "was developed at roughly the same time as the USB 3.1 specification". Therefore the connector should be available from USB 3.1 onwards, with "Backward compatibility only" for all prior versions. Martin0499 (talk) 14:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Martin0499: Hi, I had the same idea in the beginning, but the table do not show when a connector appeared, timewise, but what technology, i.e. to the physical layer (PHYS), it natively supports. The USB-C connector indeed has four exclusively dedicated wires/pins which implement the 2.0 specification. The 1.0/1.1-backward-compatibility is however "only" supported by this 2.0 implementation. -- ZH8000 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

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^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

"Backward compatibility" of the USB-C connector

I'm confused by the "Backward compatibility" cell of the Connector type quick reference table, especialy as it refers to the implementation of USB 2.0, while spanning over USB 1.x. For now I'm only shifting the USB-C connector, to better reflect my timeline (ie being first used by USB 3.1, though created before that, see USB-C, maybe an extra column could be used?), but I think the "backward compatibility" cell should be removed. Other connector types, which are backwards compatible in a similar fashion to the USB-C connector do not have such a cell. Alternatively, maybe this cell could be clarified?

It seems like the cell was added in 110611232 MinekPo1 (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Extra: the part I'm particularly confused about (ie the reference to USB 2.0 implementation) was added in 1166613397 MinekPo1 (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Please read the text – or any further detailed specification documents. USB-C fully implements USB 3.x and USB 2.0 down to PHYS (the physical layer). BTW: the x axis does not represent a timeline! -- ZH8000 (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

And by the way: WP:NOTFORUM. -- ZH8000 (talk) 17:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding "Other connector types, which are backwards compatible in a similar fashion to the USB-C connector do not have such a cell. Alternatively", you are probably right. It should look similar, probably. -- ZH8000 (talk) 18:47, 1 September 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)