Hacker News Reader

Comment by protomyth | Hacker News Reader

Who the heck came up with USB 3.2 Gen 2×2? That has got to be the dumbest idea. No one cares how it works, we just have to go through the utter crap of buying a cable. Does the low end manufactures pull the most weight in this org because that's the only way this makes any sense.

View on HN

All of this naming doesn't matter anyway, because everybody will use USB-C cables. And, as we all know, these can support (or not) almost any combination of anything (thunderbolt, video, various power combinations, USB in all its incarnations, etc) and there is no way to tell what will work by looking at the cable or socket you are plugging into.

In other words, it's a crapshoot anyway, so who cares? We'll just keep plugging until something sort-of works.

(do I sound crushed by the mind-boggling trans-galactic humongousness of the borderless expanse of human (and especially commitee) stupidity?)

Thunderbolt compatible cables are their own pain in the butt. Apple loves their power only, and I had to order from Monoprice Thunderbolt 3 40Gbps 100W cable, and not get suckered with a 60W or a 20Gbps cable. To save others the trouble, here is the link https://www.monoprice.com/product?p_id=24722 because that seems like the easiest if you have to have a single cable type around.

To think, memory used to be the number soup......

>because everybody will use USB-C cables

That is assuming all USB-C Cable will support all power combinations ( They don't ) All USB 3.2 Speed ( They Don't ), and All Thunderbolt Spec ( They Don't ).

And it is precisely this comment that makes me thick why USB-C has won. Until the problem becomes so wide spread you have to test each cable whether it is working as intended before people will call for changes.

For now I am refusing to buy anything that need a USB-C cable

To clarify: At the moment I have no use for the added functionality of USB-C, I understand why it is useful to many. For my needs USB-C only means compatibility problems.

I don't quite understand why this naming is a big issue. USB is now so complicated you have to look at the data sheet if you want to know what you PC or whatever provides. It's not just the speed. It's also how much power can flow, in what directions and whether it does that when the power is off. It's not just USB, but whether it supports pin reassignment to DisplayPort, Thunderbolt and what not. If you care you are going to have to look it up.

The point is you will be able to look it up. With cables you can't. I wish it was mandatory to publish the rated max speed, amps and max number of insertions on every USB-C cable. It's only 3 numbers - but there is no chance of it happening.

> Who the heck came up with USB 3.2 Gen 2×2? That has got to be the dumbest idea. No one cares how it works

Well, you will if you end up trying to use a part which supports 2×1 with a part which supports 1×2, since they both support the same top speed, but together they only support the lower speed of 1×1.

I cannot tell if you are joking, and that scares me worse than if you are completely serious.

I'm mostly serious, though I really don't know why 1×2 exists and why you'd build a part that supports it but not 2×2 (or, alternatively, that supports it instead of 2×1, which is, but for a name change, an older standard with the same nominal bandwidth), and the 2×2 will also support 2×1.

But maybe there is an electrical engineering reason why it might be practical to do 1×2 but not 2×1 in some device.

1x2 requires lower frequency electrical signals I suspect? That might be preferable in some scenarios. Still insane.

Just wait, Usb 3.2 1x1x1x1 is just around the corner for high power draw devices!

Yes lower frequency. There is a big jump in implementing a 10G PHY vs a 5G PHY

Probably it’s for cables, in that a 1x2 cable can (I assume) be longer for cheaper than a 2x1 cable.

Why not enumerate it based entirely on features, also toss in what power delivery it's rated at in watts and volts.

USB 3 20Gbit PD 100W 20V

What's "3" for?

socket format?

you've got A, B, C, Micro, and Mini connectors all that conform to 3.0 and 3.1 spec...

Alas the standard needs standardised....

And A is always the same socket regardless of version while B is not. It's a mess.

> And A is always the same socket regardless of version

Even this is technically incorrect: USB-3 A-type sockets, though backwards compatible for f/m and m/f connecting with USB-2, have 5 more contacts compared to USB-2 type A sockets.

Returning to this topic, maybe...

USB-C-3 for the new connector format.

USB-C-2 for some (many) cellphones.

USB-Micro-2 (for many phones).

USB-Mini-2 (older phones)

- Edit -

I changed my mind, the connector is more important than the wire version.

> Alas the standard needs standardised....

https://www.xkcd.com/927/

They all support the same voltage, and there are only two meaningful power delivery levels.

So they only have to put the speed class and PD or not PD. It would make things so much better.

USBFG-9000 4K 6G Deluxe

Totally agree. I’d much rather have. Simple branding such as USB A5, USB C10, USB C20 to indicate the maximum speed and connector possible for each iteration.

It makes more sense for high end manufacturers, who want to sell expensive high end cables and make it hard for people to find and buy cheap compatible cables from anyone else.

Actually, I think its the other way. The confusing branding helps any low-end manufacture to do the least amount (cheapest) work to get something that looks like a high-end designation.

I don't think confusion can help them here. It helps to steer consumers towards less scary choice though, i.e. to the brand they trust.

Remember how in the Nokia days manufacturers of mobile phones all made incompatible chargers and data cables. Eventually they were hit with regulations. I think this is similar, but more advanced plot against consumers with plausible deniability.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com