Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Data Storage HP Intel Microsoft Hardware Technology Apple

Upcoming USB 3.2 Specification Will Double Data Rates Using Existing Cables (macrumors.com) 159

A new USB specification has been introduced today by the USB 3.0 Promoter Group, which is comprised of Apple, HP, Intel, Microsoft, and other companies. The new USB 3.2 specification will replace the existing 3.1 specification and will double data rates to 20Gbps using new wires available if your device embraces the newest USB hardware. Mac Rumors reports: An incremental update, USB 3.2 is designed to define multi-lane operation for USB 3.2 hosts and devices. USB Type-C cables already support multi-lane operation, and with USB 3.2, hosts and devices can be created as multi-lane solutions, allowing for either two lanes of 5Gb/s or two lanes of 10Gb/s operation. With support for two lanes of 10Gb/s transfer speeds, performance is essentially doubled over existing USB-C cables. As an example, the USB Promoter Group says a USB 3.2 host connected to a USB 3.2 storage device will be capable of 2GB/sec data transfer performance over a USB-C cable certified for USB SuperSpeed 10Gb/s USB 3.1, while also remaining backwards compatible with earlier USB devices. Along with two-lane operation, USB 3.2 continues to use SuperSpeed USB layer data rates and encoding techniques and will introduce a minor update to hub specifications for seamless transitions between single and two-lane operation.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Upcoming USB 3.2 Specification Will Double Data Rates Using Existing Cables

Comments Filter:
  • Drop the Serial (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Big Hairy Ian ( 1155547 ) on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @06:32AM (#54880597)
    Surely if they are going to have multiple data channels then this is a Universal Parallel Bus
    • by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @06:43AM (#54880631)

      next they'll add daisy chaining though it might need a terminator at the end and little DIP switches to set each device to a unique ID. It could be called something like Simultaneous Chained Serial Interfaces

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        If sacrificial goats become a requirement for proper operation, I'm going to pivot to a career in landscaping.

        • by KiloByte ( 825081 ) on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @10:06AM (#54881537)

          If sacrificial goats become a requirement for proper operation, I'm going to pivot to a career in landscaping.

          It might be a complex science, but it is a science. Once you figure the correct type of dagger (both blade and handle), the number and color of required candles, you should be set.

          • Once you figure the correct type of dagger (both blade and handle), the number and color of required candles, you should be set.

            I assume you have to have the proper dribbly wax?

            snake

          • Don't trust the above poster! They tell wicked lies.

            The declination of the moon is the most significant factor. Waxing gibbous is optimal.

          • How boring, here I thought sacrificing virgins via impaling with meat sword was the correct protocol.

        • You sacrificed goats? I was lucky enough to just get away with chickens, especially when using differential SCSI.

    • Re:Drop the Serial (Score:5, Informative)

      by Matt_Bennett ( 79107 ) on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @07:19AM (#54880749) Homepage Journal

      The difference is that the data on each line is sent serially, with embedded clocking and controlled skew between lanes- meaning that the data on each lane is somewhat independent. In general a parallel bus includes separate clocking. In a serial bus like this, the data is encoded in certain ways to allow the clock to be a part of the data- the most basic encoding is what is used in 10Mb Ethernet- Manchester, where every bit has it's own clock, and it goes up from there.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Just to expand on that a little, the issue with parallel busses became that data on each line would arrive out of sync with other lines and the clock.

        For example, PCIe 4.0 is 16 gigabits/second per serial channel. Each bit has a width of 0.0625 nanoseconds, during which time light can travel about 18mm. If you wanted to transfer say 32 bits in parallel like the old PCI bus, you would need 32 connections. Problem is that for practical reasons the PCIe slot needs to be quite wide, so if your 32 pins are space

    • Re:Drop the Serial (Score:5, Informative)

      by squiggleslash ( 241428 ) on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @09:17AM (#54881185) Homepage Journal

      It's harder than you think: as you increase the data rate, trying to synchronize all 8/16/32/whatever lines becomes close to impossible. Breaking the data into multibit chunks and sending each serially via a different channel is easier because each channel can run independently, without regard to latency.

      I believe this type of thing is also why we've moved away from, say, CPUs with direct access to memory (instead CPUs have multiple layers of cache between them and the computer's real memory.) It'd be nice and much more efficient to have the memory in your computer deliver up 64 bit words to the CPU at 4 gigawords a second (ie in sync with the CPU's 4GHz clock), but good luck trying to make a parallel motherboard bus that can deliver that.

      • You are correct - but your cache analogy is not quite right. Better example would be switching from PCI to PCI express. Replaced parallel with multiple serial connections for a speed boost.
    • The data on each bus is still transfered serial ...

  • wrong direction (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Build6 ( 164888 ) on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @06:56AM (#54880675)

    the "one plug for everything" trend that began with USB Type C is a step in the wrong direction.

    having "unique" plug types for particular purposes is a *feature*, not a bug - simply by looking at the plug, we know what the cable and the port does.

    Replacing all the legacy ports is necessary (if only because the old plugs are simply just too big for modern hardware), but replacing EVERYTHING with one plug, when everything now looks the same, you end up with a situation where you simply do not know if a cable or port can do what you need it to do.

    So you see a Type C plug - is it Thunderbolt or not? Is it a DisplayPort? What voltages/amps can it provide? nobody knows (where "nobody" can include the person whose hardware it is, much less someone else who has to work with it). just look at e.g. the many forum posts of people who connected "the wrong type" of USB-C-to-HDMI connectors because they didn't know their USB C wasn't the USB C that they thought USB C was supposed to be.

    this is made even worse considering that there's active circuitry involved, where you need to worry about whether the cable itself is built right (see e.g. Benson Leung's long list of cables that can fry your hardware). in the old days, a crap cable just means crap performance or no connection. not any more.

    • Re:wrong direction (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Viol8 ( 599362 ) on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @07:15AM (#54880733) Homepage

      "the "one plug for everything" trend that began with USB Type C is a step in the wrong direction."

      I disagree. I'm utterly fed up with multiple different types of USB plug, some of them very similar making it an utter pain finding a cable with the correct connectors on both ends. There is zero reason to have all these - its not for space reasons like RS232 had its 9 pin plug since even the largest USB connector is pretty small.

      "you end up with a situation where you simply do not know if a cable or port can do what you need it to do."

      In 99% of cases you simply need to connect 2 devices, its not complex. If there is a max voltage/current issue then colour code the cables, but DONT create yet another sphagetti soup of connectors.

      • Maybe you're channeling Mr. Ive?

        Three plugs for the Mac Mini under the desk,
        Seven for the ancient X-serve in their halls of wire,
        Nine for MacPros doomed to die,
        One for Jony Ive on his dark (but tastefully brushed aluminum) throne
        In Cupertino where the Shadows lie.
        One Plug to rule them all, One Plug to find them,
        One Plug to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
        In Cupertino where the Shadows lie.

      • by Ramze ( 640788 )

        I'm waiting to see how this all plays out before I make any judgments, and I'm curious how devices are going to identify and select the proper use for the same USB cable. For instance, I'm used to having USB for I/O and HDMI for one-way A/V. If I connect 2 devices that both previously had HDMI out ports AND HDMI in ports (for video capture) as well as USB ports for I/O, how will they know what I want them to do if there's a single port on both and I connect them together? Will they both think I want t

        • Every USB Cable including C has a little microchip in the cable end that negotiates and controls the connection and discovers the capabilities of both ends and reports it back to the connecting computer.

    • Re:wrong direction (Score:5, Informative)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @07:26AM (#54880773)

      No it's the right direction providing they get to the correct end goal. We're in a transition period where the capability of the spec is being built up. The end goal is perfectly in line with what you are saying: one plug, do everything, no confusion.

      It's just not there yet.

    • There is a minimum standard for the Type C cable- once you get into the more complex cables there is active circuitry inside the cable that identifies the capabilities of the cable. Cables that are compliant with the standard should prevent dangerous situations (such as trying to put 100W down a cable that is not rated for it). At the super high data rates we're talking about and more than a few feet- we're stuck with active circuitry for redrivers. We're going to have to get away from the idea that it is j

      • by Megol ( 3135005 )

        3m = 9'. That's more than a few feet IMHO. Some cable vendors claim >=5m with a passive cable at USB 3+ speeds, that's 16'.

        But aside from that I agree.

        • Claiming to and actually making a cable that can still meet the spec after the specified number of insertions and removals is 2 different things. If someone is claiming this and doesn't have a traceable USB logo (back to the USB-IF) I wouldn't count on it.

      • by Build6 ( 164888 )

        that's the problem! in the real world (remember - "lowest cost bidding" is the iron law of business, random manufacturers out there who basically have profit margins of a penny per cable etc.) you can't be sure of the quality and provenance of cables that you encounter - of $x used in the manufacture of the cable, the vast majority of it will be spent on making the cable look good, not whether the internal circuitry is good.

        I've had situations where people hand me a Type C cable and the emotion I feel is f

        • If we want higher speeds and capability, this is the way it must go. Even a badly manufactured USB 2.0 cable could fry (or at least trigger the overcurrent protection) if its V+ and GND were crossed.

    • by AAWood ( 918613 )

      having "unique" plug types for particular purposes is a *feature*, not a bug - simply by looking at the plug, we know what the cable and the port does.

      Surely that's only important if the plug and cable are limited in what they can do? I mean, if my PC has separate ports for my PS/2 mouse and my PS/2 keyboard, it's important for me to know that the two are different and I shouldn't plug the latter into the socket for the former. It's far less important when they have identical ports and sockets and it doesn't matter which way round they go.

      There are absolutely some scenarios where distinguishing them is useful, but they've become small and rare enough (ove

      • That'd be why they often color-coded them, green and purple, as I recall. ;-)

        On a more serious note, most required you to insert them into the right port. However, a few motherboards didn't much care which PS/2 port you used. There were also laptops that had just a single PS/2 port, and those could be used by either a keyboard or a mouse. Why they only had just the one, remains a mystery. I kinda doubt it was a matter of space, laptops were bigger than some of today's desktops. And, of course, we liked it.

    • the "one plug for everything" trend that began with USB Type C is a step in the wrong direction.

      Could not disagree more. There are HUGE advantages to having common connectors. These advantages vastly outweigh the drawbacks. Connectors should be commonized as much as possible. The fewer number of cables types I have to deal with the better. I basically want to be able to hook up nearly everything with 1 or at most 2 types of cables.

      having "unique" plug types for particular purposes is a *feature*, not a bug - simply by looking at the plug, we know what the cable and the port does.

      Except you don't and you never did in a great many cases. Having to carry around and deal with 20 different types of cables is wasteful and unnecessary.

      So you see a Type C plug - is it Thunderbolt or not? Is it a DisplayPort? What voltages/amps can it provide?

      All good qualit

      • by Junta ( 36770 )

        If you buy a crap cable from a crap vendor be prepared to get crap results.

        Of course at the amperage of typical usb connection before, the 'crap results' were 'the damn cable didn't work, what a waste'. With USB power delivery, the 'crap results' are 'my thousand dollar laptop fried'. We have the unfortunate circumstance of 'cheap power cable' vendors, 'high current', and 'small form factor that mfg can screw up'.

        Same *could* happen with C13 power cabling in theory, but those are so gigantic it's hard to screw up, or at least screwing up is not a natural consequence of trying to

        • It's not that difficult. You pay more for the cable intended to be used as the power line cable, and you buy said cable from a respected vendor. Every USB C to USB C cable is at least USB 3.1.

          Google even sells one, it's a little expensive at $20, but they also sell an universal USB-C charger [google.com] for $60 that can be used for everything from a Mac, PC, or Chromebook all the way down to a phone.

          • Every USB C to USB C cable is at least USB 3.1.

            No, they are not.

            Exhibit A:
            https://www.apple.com/shop/pro... [apple.com]

            Exhibit B:
            https://griffintechnology.com/... [griffintechnology.com]

            Some might argue that these are not "USB" cables because they violate some specification as defined by the people that own the USB logo. These are cables, with USB-C connectors on both ends, and that cannot be argued.

            These are not unknown small time manufacturers either. Apple is a huge company and Griffin has been making computer cables for 25 years.

          • by Junta ( 36770 )

            My point is while personally I can be confident in my choices, I can easily see not being confident in *other* people's choices, particularly if I find myself having to borrow a cable.

            I'd say about 10% of the time when I have to borrow a micro-usb cable, someone hands me something that's a dud that they bought cheap and stuffed in a drawer. If there's a 10% chance of a dud damaging my device, then I would have lost an expensive device by now.

            On the face of it, a single cable for things under 100W is a nice

    • Being that most devices will read binary data and write binary data. It makes sense to have one port for this.
      Back in the old days.
      We had Serial Ports primarily used for Mice and Modems these came in 9 and 24 pin. Very few devices actually fully utilized the 24 pin. So we needed converters so we can have mode devices plugged into our PC. Then we had to fight for the Ports and IRQ so there was still a limitation on how many devices we can use. I had an early Graphical BBS. And often users will have problem

    • Cable-markers [google.co.uk] my good fellow.

      If you have enough cables to worry about what goes where, then cable-markers will very likely be part of your inventory.

      Or at the very least you'll have cables of different colours.

    • by Kjella ( 173770 )

      You're wrong, for the simple fact that most times it's better if something works in a degraded mode than not at all. Like if I charge a device or transfer a file it's better that it works and that I get a software warning that things aren't working optimally. Sometimes there's a hard minimum, like I depend on USB power to operate and you can't supply it or that it doesn't support what you want it to do but that's the exception. We could color code all ports and cables with a ring of capabilities, like if yo

    • having "unique" plug types for particular purposes is a *feature*, not a bug - simply by looking at the plug, we know what the cable and the port does

      You're trying to make a virtue of a problem. The right solution is that the cable and port should do everything. There's no need to figure out what it does or doesn't do, because anything the devices in question are capable of doing can be done via that port and plug.

      So you see a Type C plug - is it Thunderbolt or not? Is it a DisplayPort?

      Yes, it's all of the above, assuming it makes sense that the device can be a source/sink of the relevant data.

      What voltages/amps can it provide?

      The cable (unless it's non-compliant crap; don't buy non-compliant crap) can handle the full range of voltages and amperages in the sp

    • I'd like to see a situation, and I believe it's achievable, where USB-C forces manufacturers to provide features that currently can be omitted because "It'd mean adding another port". It ought to be possible to plug any phone or tablet into a TV, but right now that's not possible because video output is considered an exotic feature and even though there's a standard for HDMI over microUSB (the TLA is MHL IIRC) it's considered a different standard, not part of USB.

      Just moving from PS/2 (where mice and key

  • by DrXym ( 126579 ) on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @07:17AM (#54880741)
    Just stop transmitting the 0s. The data rate is instantly doubled.
    • by MysteriousPreacher ( 702266 ) on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @09:28AM (#54881265) Journal

      It depends. If the cable is angled downwards then the 1s, being heavier, fall more quickly than 0s. If the cable is angled upwards then the 0s are lighter and move more quickly.

      So whether you encode your data in to 0s or 1s will depend on how the cable is angled.

      I think we're wasted here. We could be working for these guys: http://www.audioquest.com/ethe... [audioquest.com]

      To quote their 'tech blurb' for what is an 8m Ethernet cable, ordinarily retailing for less than $10, being sold for $1,158.75:

      DIRECTIONALITY: All audio cables are directional. The correct direction is determined by listening to every batch of metal conductors used in every AudioQuest audio cable. Arrows are clearly marked on the connectors to ensure superior sound quality. For best results have the arrow pointing in the direction of the flow of music. For example, NAS to Router, Router to Network Player.

      • by Junta ( 36770 )

        But you need bigger cables for 0s, because they are wider. Sure the 1s can sometimes go sideways and get stuck in bad cables, but good cables funnel the data so that the 1s can't really do that.

      • Isn't this why the Manchester code was developed?

        Removing the DC bias meant that an equal number of 1s and 0s were sent so that the angle of the cable would not change the speed of data transfer. The ability to keep connections electrically isolated was a nice bonus.

      • by haruchai ( 17472 )

        Sounds like a real bargain compared to their 16m HDMI cable that's retailing for $14,000
        http://amzn.to/2uxALeW [amzn.to]

        AudioQuest Diamond 16m (52.49 feet) Braided HDMI Cable
        3.4 out of 5 stars 149 customer reviews | 21 answered questions
        Price: $13,499.75 + $3.99 shipping
        Only 10 left in stock - order soon.

        Ships from and sold by Electronics Expo.
        Solid Perfect-Surface Silver (PSS) Conductors
        Low Jitter, Low Distortion Audio
        Signal Conductors Controlled for Digital Audio Direction
        Dielectric-Bias System (DBS US Pat #

  • " a USB 3.2 host connected to a USB 3.2 storage device will be capable of 2GB/sec data transfer performance over a USB-C cable certified for USB SuperSpeed 10Gb/s USB 3.1"

    That's not double the rate of 3.1, it's one fifth the rate.

    • No, 2 GB/sec is 16 Gb/sec, and this typically refers to effective transfer values (discounting overheads) so the speed is roughly double (ermm, sort of).

      • Or, and I think this is what happened, they meant gigabytes per second in both cases but left off a 0. So, two typos in what should read, "20GB/sec data transfer performance over a USB-C cable certified for USB SuperSpeed 10GB/s USB 3.1"
    • Ever heard of the difference between a bit and byte? Or do you think it's coincidence that the B is capitalized in one measurement but not the other?

      • No, I think it's a second typo. Because:

        2GB/s != 2*10Gb/s

        Mixing bits and bytes like that in what's supposed to be a direct "apples to apples" comparison makes no sense.

        There was already one typo.

        It's an easy typo to make, you just don't take a finger off the shift key fast enough. SOmething I do rather often.

        It's a very common mistake.

      • Oh, there's also this: "The next version of USB, USB 3.2, will double the speed of existing Type-C cables. Cables currently qualified for USB 3.1 generation 1's 5Gbps will be able to operate at 10Gbps; those qualified for generation 2's 10Gbps will be able to run at 20Gbps." (https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/07/usb-3-2-will-make-your-cables-twice-as-fast-once-youve-bought-new-devices/)

        And this: " Put simply: it’s faster than regular USB 3.0, allowing up to two lanes of 5Gbps or two lanes of 10G

  • by enriquevagu ( 1026480 ) on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @07:59AM (#54880885)

    The post is quite confusing, since the headline says Double Data Rates Using Existing Cables but the summary specifies double data rates to 20Gbps using new wires.

    The explanation is that USB-C connectors [wikipedia.org] (type-C connectors) have two different sets of transmission/reception pairs, two pairs for transmission and two pairs for reception. This differs from previous type-A and type-B [wikipedia.org] connectors, which only have one pair of pins for (bidirectional) data transmission.

    All type-C connectors implement the pins for the four pairs, but many cables only populate the wires for two pairs, one for transmission and one for reception (as clearly explained in the Wikipedia link provided). Given the simmetry of the connector, I bet this was designed to support the reversible connection, in a manner in which only one of the pairs works at a time. For this reason, the new USB 3.2 might double the speed, but it would require cables that implement the complete set of wires for such speed. So, in the general case, double speed would actually require new cables with the complete set of wires.

    • by msauve ( 701917 )
      "All type-C connectors implement the pins for the four pairs, but many cables only populate the wires for two pairs"

      Nope. If a cable only implements 2 pairs, it's not a USB cable regardless of what the seller calls it. The spec requires cables to implement all 4 pairs.

      More correctly: There are Type-C to other type cables which only have 2 pair, simply because it's not possible to have a 2nd pair on the other end (e.g. Type-C to USB 3.1 Standard-A). There's also an uncommon USB 2.0 Type C cable, which does
      • There's also an uncommon USB 2.0 Type C cable, which doesn't have any of the high speed pairs.

        These are actually quite common. They are usually sold as "charge only" cables but the USB2 sets of wires are there to provide a data path to let the charging device know something is connected and to negotiate a charging rate.

        One thing that I thought was true was that if a cable or device had a USB-C port or connector that it would have the pins for USB 2 data. This seemed true even for all the alternate modes, the USB 2 pins would still be there and could transmit data at USB 2 speeds. That data might

        • by msauve ( 701917 )
          There are only 2 C to C cables defined in USB. Both have the USB 2.0 data connections. So regardless of what Griffin call it, that's not a USB cable.
          • I have little doubt that Griffin is playing games with the USB spec, and the USB people charged with enforcing the spec is letting them get away with it.

            I can just imagine what would happen when a blue shirted "geek" that gets paid on commission is faced with a blue haired grandma and a shelf with the $40 Griffin cable, a $30 Thunderbolt cable, and a $20 USB 2 cable. Grandma might say she wants to get photos off her new camera onto her laptop so she can e-mail them off to the girls in her sewing circle, bu

    • All type-C connectors implement the pins for the four pairs, but many cables only populate the wires for two pairs

      If the cable is not a Chinese import and it has the USB logo on it, then this is not true.

      Don't blame the spec for the people who refuse to implement it as required.

  • I look forward to USB 3.0 and 3.1 becoming "USB 3.2 Gen 1", "USB 3.2 Gen 2" and actual USB 3.2 being "USB 3.2 Gen 3".

    Seriously these marketing idiots need to be shot.

  • " two lanes of 5Gb/s or two lanes of 10Gb/s operation "

  • Too confusing (Score:5, Interesting)

    by blindseer ( 891256 ) <(ten.knilhtrae) (ta) (reesdnilb)> on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @08:57AM (#54881097)

    I have to wonder what the USB people are thinking. They have a good idea going here, why are they trying to ruin it?

    It used to be that USB-C was USB but faster. It made the "On-The-Go" bi-directional features from USB2 required so people didn't have to worry about the host/device relationship too much. The Micro-AB connector was switched to a "flippable" version, they called "Type C", which is great. The new connector is just as small but handles more power, and I don't have to worry if I got the "right" end or which way is "up".

    Where they are starting to mess this up is with four, FOUR, different video modes. You have Thunderbolt (which is just DisplayPort mixed with PCIe data), DisplayPort (which may or may not be backward compatible with the Thunderbolt mode), HDMI, and MHL (which may or may not be backward compatible with HDMI). They should have told the HDMI people to piss off and stopped at three. Maybe even tell the MHL people to piss off too but they already had an agreement with MHL on the micro-USB connector.

    Now you have four video modes, two data modes (ThunderBolt and "SuperSpeed" USB), and with this new "Ludicrous Speed" mode they added a third data mode. It's already confusing on what video adapter or cable a person might need. Even buying a simple data cable is confusing. There's the USB2 cable, the USB3 cable, and the ThunderBolt cable, they all look identical at a glance with USB-C connectors on both ends. Will my expensive Thunderbolt cable support this new USB 3.2 data rate? Will it fall back to USB 3.1 speed nicely? Or will it crap out and support only USB2 speed?

    They created this "SuperSpeed" naming to differentiate the USB2 speed devices from the faster USB3 ones. Then when USB-C came along with two "SuperSpeed" lanes they had to figure out how to make that clear to the user. They came up with "SuperSpeed+". (Notice the addition of the plus sign? It's easy to miss.) What is this new one going to be called?

    I have to wonder if this is going to die before it even gets started. The people that want a faster USB got ThunderBolt already.

    • Maybe you don't remember the audio format wars, in which the BIOS vendors just decided to support everything and you could tell the BIOS which standard to make the hardware do.

      Give it a few years and all the device firmwares will support everything and auto-switch based on detected traffic. In nicer devices you might even get automatic device bus isolation with programmable switches for things like main monitor connections, to give fixed gear its own dedicated bus bandwidth.

    • by Kjella ( 173770 )

      Where they are starting to mess this up is with four, FOUR, different video modes.

      Not really. Thunderbolt is external PCIe with DisplayPort as an alternate video mode, it's an alternative to USB data signaling not video. MHL is essentially HDMI squished to use fewer connectors + power supply, if you got USB-C out you have enough connectors for full HDMI and all MHL receptors are also HDMI ports. The problem is that if you use HDMI mode you don't get the power supply, the only way to get that from a USB-C device connected to a MHL-enabled TV is to fake MHL. That problem goes away if you g

      • In fact PCIe, DP and HDMI are now bundled in TB3 so in practice you have only two ports:

        TB3: All of the above
        USB3: USB data + power

        Oh, how I wish it were that simple.

        There are still lots of cell phones and tablets, even high priced ones, that have USB-C ports but only support USB 2 features. They might support MHL output like their older micro-USB versions but usually not. If they support some charge rate greater than the USB 2 10 watts this does not mean they are following the USB spec, but instead doing some vendor specific voltage and current that can mean setting something on fire if that charger is used with anything other than

    • It's already confusing on what video adapter or cable a person might need.

      Calm down. This specifically is compatible with the existing cables.

      Will my expensive Thunderbolt cable support this new USB 3.2 data rate? Will it fall back to USB 3.1 speed nicely?

      Well the answer there is yes and yes, but only if the devices can't negotiate 3.2.

      You're over complicating things. Use the cable that came with the device and you'll be fine.

    • They could have infinite video modes as all the video modes do it dictate which pairs of wires are dedicated to that task and it's a signaling and driver issue on the computer at that point, in other words what the cable supports doesn't at all change the physical nature of the cable, the connector or anything else.

      It's almost like you don't even know how USB works and you're posting a comment on it like an expert, what is this slashdot?

  • by Provocateur ( 133110 ) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <deidehs>> on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @09:16AM (#54881181) Homepage

    The new keyboards that will have USB can now be equipped with cigarette lighters.

    • by Khyber ( 864651 )

      My case already has a cigarette lighter built-in.

      Those tiny shitty connector contacts of USB-C couldn't even handle 5A, let alone the 10A the cig lighter needs.

      • Actually the connectors are capable of supporting 5A, though not all cables can. Not only that with USB-PD they can support 5A @20V meaning after connecting to a device with a small DC-DC converter you most definitely could power a cigarette lighter.

        • by Khyber ( 864651 )

          The cables themselves cannot if they're longer than 2 meters and that's AT ROOM TEMPERATURE (Remember ampacity drops as the cable gets warmer.) That's utter crap and a physical limitation EXPLICITLY due to the connector design. The pinout contacts aren't even equivalent to 20AWG.

          You're going to hear a LOT of stories about equipment and cables frying soon. Someone utterly forgot to do their basic wire gauge/ampacity calculations (I just had to redo 400 calculations because the idiot someone hired to re-wire

          • Make up your mind, cables or connectors. You talk of cables and list cable dimensions and length then you say the connectors are the limit despite the connectors specifically being designed for 5A at 20V. If they don't, they breach the USB spec, it's as easy as that.

            The pinout contacts aren't even equivalent to 20AWG

            They don't need to be. Kirchhoff's current law to the rescue.

            You're going to hear a LOT of stories about equipment and cables frying soon.

            We already are. Stuff that doesn't meet the USB spec, doesn't meet the USB spec. Stuff that does, doesn't fry. The spec won't let the cable fry as the cable needs to signal the host ac

            • by Khyber ( 864651 )

              "Make up your mind, cables or connectors."

              Both are pretty much one and the same. It's like you've never done any basic electronics work in your life, son. Given your high UID, you've probably never touched an iron in your life let alone have to do basic fucking goddamned calculations for appropriate wire or connector size [powerelectronics.com] on a daily basis wiring things to STRICT CALIFORNIA CODE.

              Please come back when you are a licensed electrician. Or even a two-year journeyman with at least one year of working experience.

              Y

              • Both are pretty much one and the same.

                Wow. just wow. And you accuse me of not knowing cables (licensed electrician turned engineer here)

                that's how I determined that the fucking pins on the USB-C connector alone can't handle fucking 5 amps safely over a distance greater than two meters

                Good, thanks for your input. Fortunately the pins are only 1mm long so there's a good factor of 2000x in there.
                But your idiocy about not knowing the difference between the current carrying capacity of pins vs a cable aside, the IEC disagrees with you when they published 62680-3-1. Which incidentally has all the required numbers in it.

                You didn't need to do your own calculations. You didn't need to show everyone

                • by Khyber ( 864651 )

                  " Fortunately the pins are only 1mm long so there's a good factor of 2000x in there."

                  Unless those are pure gold or silver, and NOT PLATED, they won't carry a goddamned thing over 1 amp. You just literally ignored basic physics and NESC regulations. You aren't licensed for shit - reveal your state license number or be considered a lying fuck.

  • by QuietLagoon ( 813062 ) on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @11:09AM (#54882277)
    USB is becoming a big mess of different versions, far too many versions. USB is starting to lose its usefulness. USB 3.2? Most of my devices don't even use USB 3.0 yet. The USB spec is starting to look like changes are being made for the purpose of making changes, but to no real end.
    • Why is it starting to lose it's usefulness? If it makes you feel any better just call it "USB" and ignore the number. After all the article specifically mentions complete compatibility with existing systems and existing cables, so why would the version number matter.

      Just use it and let the devices themselves figure out the best connection speed. This is the opposite of losing it's usefulness, quite literally it is becoming even more useful with no downsides.

  • Going all the way back to USB 2.0, there is a host-to-host mode in the specification, but it's not implemented in any operating system. The best we can get now is USB3.0 to gigabit dongles, which don't take full advantage of the available speed at all.

    USB 3.0 is great for storage, the speed is really nice. Then you find that your bottleneck is gigabit ethernet.
    Thunderbolt supports network bridging on the mac, but it's not really useable on linux.
    What are the roadblocks to IP over full-speed USB 3.0 or 3.1 d

    • by swb ( 14022 )

      IMHO, USB 3.1 @ 10 Gbit/sec is already fast enough to do a lot of useful work that now "requires" more expensive interfaces. I honestly don't see why even LTO-6 tape drives or array shelves couldn't be connected via USB, at least from a pure performance perspective provided that you were willing to live with 10 Gbit/second as your throughput limit, which, honestly, shouldn't be that big of a limitation considering that it bests low-end SAS and gigabit Ethernet connectivity in many cases.

      I think the biggest

  • I still have yet to see any Type C connectors in person, so using "existing cables" isn't much of a selling point, personally.

  • And still I can't get more than 1 Gbps from my network without spending tens of thousands of dollars...

"I prefer the blunted cudgels of the followers of the Serpent God." -- Sean Doran the Younger

Working...