Adding a new transfer rate seems like a reasonable place to bump the minor version number of a protocol. After reading all of that I'm even more convinced that it should have just been USB 3.2.
I'm not sure you read any of that. I mean, they bumped the standard version to 3.1 from 3.0 after adding a new transfer rate.
Also, USB 3.2 was bumped up from 3.1 after adding two new data transfer modes.
I also add that the naming scheme is quite obvious once you start to think about it.
* USB 3.0 only supports the one SuperSpeed data transfer mode.
* USB3.1 was released, and it specifies two distinct data transfer modes: the legacy Gen1 mode and the novel Gen2 mode.
* USB3.2 is released, and it supports four transfer modes: the legacy Gen1 and Gen2 modes from USB3.1, and two new SuperSpeed+ modes which are 2x and 4x faster than Gen2.
If a USB 3.0 cable can suddenly become USB 3.1 (or 3.2) overnight, then what's the point of versions? And what's with "Gen #" at the end? Because a consumer is easily going to be able to see that a USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 is better than a USB 3.2 Gen 1 cable? Or maybe the sellers will just not advertise the "Gen #" portion? According to the Q&A section of this Samsung external drive[0], the difference between this and a USB 3.1 drive is nothing but the model number.
</rant>
The USB Consortium has been overrun by marketing that thinks that making things more confusing (read: tricking) is better for the consumer.
[0]: https://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-256GB-Extreme-Solid-State/dp/...
I honestly have no idea what you're trying to ask.
Keep in mind that:
* USB3.0 was released in 2008.
* USB3.1 was released in 2013.
* USB3.2 was released in 2017.
Each standard is standalone, and specifies all of its transfer modes. I wouldn't be surprised if each of these specs also included fixes, and thus technically would represent different specs.
3.1 took 3.0’s features and added more optional features to make a larger document.
3.2 likewise.
You are likely thinking the actual feature marketing names. Things like USB-C connectors and Superspeed 20 Gbps. These do not change release to release. They also might require conformance testing to use those names.
I actually blame the current mess on PC motherboard manufacturers for wiring up a crapload of non-conforming ports, like a “USB-A Gen 2x2” with a red plastic tab. IMHO thy did this because nobody wanted to take the risk of actually pushing toward USB-C. It left them without a way to use a certified/marketing name, hence pretending engineering names were appropriate.
No, it's not.
If you implement it from the legacy USB 3.0 spec then you don't care about it. It's SuperSpeed, and that's it.
If instead you implement it to comply with the USB3.1 spec then you have two separate transfer modes specified in the 3.1 standard: the legacy Gen1 and the newly-added Gen2.
If instead you implement it based on the USB 3.2 spec then that standard specifies four distinct transfer modes: the Gen1 specified in USB3.2, the Gen2 specified in USB3.2, and the new ones.
> just because the USB Consortium said so.
Who exactly do you think the USB consortium is? I mean, how do you think a standard is put together?
Yes, it is.
> If instead you implement it to comply with the USB3.1 spec then you have two separate transfer modes specified in the 3.1 standard: the legacy Gen1 and the newly-added Gen2.
No. If your device only supports 5 Gb/sec speeds, it's USB 3.0, yes. "SuperSpeed" and all that jazz. But with USB 3.2, it's now (magically) USB 3.2 Gen 1[0]:
> Under this rebranding, the standard previously known as USB 3.0 or USB 3.1 Gen 1 will now be called USB 3.2 Gen 1. Furthermore, the standard previously known as USB 3.1 Gen 2 will now be renamed to USB 3.2 Gen 2.
Yes, there's different transfer speeds, but if you only support 5 Gb/sec, you're a "Gen 1" device. If you're arguing that implementing USB 3.1 mandates support of the 10 Gb/sec mode, you're wrong. If that was the case, there'd be no point of this "Gen" nonsense because a 20 Gb/sec device would just be "USB 3.2" and a 5 Gb/sec device would be "USB 3.0".
Remember the whole debacle a few weeks ago about HDMI 2.1 essentially just being HDMI 2.0? Why would they do that other than to confuse? The only reason for this (USB) stupid naming is to confuse consumers into thinking that their 5 Gb/sec device is "top of the line" because it supports "USB 3.2" or "USB4".
For example, here's a "USB 3.2 Gen 1" flash drive.[1] It's a 5 Gb/sec flash drive, but it's 3.2 instead of the more appropriate 3.0. Why? To confuse.
> Who exactly do you think the USB consortium is? I mean, how do you think a standard is put together?
I think it's a consortium of companies. Many of which have marketing teams. And I'm right.[2]
[0]: https://www.msi.com/blog/new-usb-standard-usb-3-2-gen-1-gen2...
[1]: https://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-128GB-Ultra-Flash-Drive/dp/B0...
That's not how things work.
Devices are implemented while targeting a standard.
If you implement a USB 3.0 device then you do not support any data transfer mode capable of doing more than 5Gb/s. If you're a customer looking for more than 5Gb/s and you see that a device is only USB3.0 then you already know that it won't cut it.
That's the whole point of this submission. M1 macs don't support USB 3.1, only USB 3.0. Why? because they patently don't support the transfer speeds made possible by the new data transfer mode introduced in USB 3.1.
M1 macs support USB4.
USB specs define multiple transmission modes and speeds from port to port over a cable that one can support. They define alt modes you can support.
Separately there are conformances and marks. E.g. if your cable supports transfer according to USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 in our lab, you can _market it_ as Superspeed 20Gbps, put the logo on the connectors, etc.
So the argument would be that Apple M1 doesn’t support Superspeed 10Gbps.
Which, as an aside, I’ll need a lot more than one person testing with a single (likely non-conformant) cable before I will believe.
[a]: Made up names; USB 3.0 didn't have this mess
You have USB 3 Low speed and Full Speed (aka usb 1), USB 3 High Speed (aka usb 2), and USB 3 SuperSpeed.
Expecting the USB consortium to give things useful names or at least let them keep their names we got used to is the same madness as expecting a singular useful version number from anything Sun derived.
Anyway, according the article everything links at USB 3.1 Gen 2 SuperSpeed+, but then usually doesn't send data at anywhere near the link rate, so that's not an extra layer of confusing.
The x.y numbers were not a mess until 3.1
No, not quite. What do you think the USB3.0 SuperSpeed is? Why, a brand new transfer mode.
> If I plugged a USB 3.0 cable (9 pins) into a USB 2.0 (4 pin) hub, the device still worked at the lower speeds.
You'd be glad to know that nothing changed in that regard with USB3.0, 3.1, and 3.2.
In fact, the whole point of this submission is to showcase how M1 macs are only capable of drawing a lower data transfer speed unlike the new Mac Studio, thus proving that the M1 macs don't support USB 3.1 Gen2, aka SuperSpeed+.
No, not really. Feel free to point out exactly which argument you feel was ignored.
> The issue isn't that things have changed; it's that they've changed in a way that makes things confusing for consumers.
That seems to be the source of your confusion: nothing has changed. Each USB spec is backwards compatible and specifies the same data transfer modes.
And there is no confusion: if you pick up a USB2 data storage device you know beforehand it won't support SuperSpeed. If you pick up a USB3.0 device you know beforehand it won't support SuperSpeed+. If you pick up a USB3.1 device you know beforehand it won't support SuperSpeed+ 2x or 4x.
The whole point of the submission is to call out that M1 macs don't support USB3.1 unlike the new Mac Studio.
The article also clearly states that Apple doesn't actually advertise USB3.1, just USB3.
The retroactive renaming of speed+versions. I'm not talking about the Mac.
> If you pick up a USB3.1 device you know beforehand it won't support SuperSpeed+ 2x or 4x.
My whole argument is that this confusion wouldn't be an issue if the USB Consortium had reserved USB 3.1 for 10 Gb/sec speeds exclusively. In other words, this:
3.0: 5 Gb/s "SuperSpeed"
3.1: 10 Gb/s "SuperSpeed+"
3.2: 20 Gb/s "SuperSpeed++"
3.2 continues to describe everything in 3.0, which means it continues to describe how to make devices supporting 5 gbps over USB-A/B
There’s no point complaining that the engineering spec versioning strategy is confusing, when no consumers should have been exposed to it. The problem is squarely on manufacturers and the tech press.
> the implementations that supported SuperSpeed transfer rates were dubbed USB 3.1 Gen1, while the implementations that supported SuperSpeed+ transfer rates were dubbed USB 3.1 Gen2.
This is supposedly better than USB 3.0 (original standard), USB 3.1 (new standard, same SuperSpeed as USB 3.0), and USB 3.2 (new standard and also SuperSpeed+).
Not quite.
* USB 3.0 specifies SuperSpeed. No need to go on about GenX given it's the first one introduced by USB3 is there?
* USB 3.1 specifies two data transfer modes: Gen1 (the one introduced in USB 3.0) and Gen2 (the fancy new mode just introduced).
* USB 3.2 specifies the Gen1 and Gen2 modes from USB3.1, and adds two additional modes.
Nobody cares if multiple speeds are "introduced by USB3". If 3.0 introduces one speed, and 3.1 introduces a different speed, people can understand that just fine.
Even if you do want to focus on "introduced by USB3", then you just need "3.[generation]" or "3 Gen [generation]". Not "3.[spec revision] Gen [generation]"
… but it still seems indefensible. This comment almost reads like satire. I know standards are hard, really hard, but this seems indefensible. Especially the Superspeed -> Superspeed+ (this is ridiculous). Will this get simplified with USB4?