Talk:USB 3.0

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Needs updating[edit]

I added the

tag as numerous sentences in the article refer to 2010 data -- or refer to events that will happen in 2010 or early 2011 in the future tense. Someone needs to go through and update the article thoroughly as well as fix tense. Nasukaren (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad wikipedia page. Bad. 49.183.221.95 (talk) 04:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

What's so bad? Any chances for more details, please? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 17:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look out for possible copyright violations in this article[edit]

This article has been found to be edited by students of the Wikipedia:India Education Program project as part of their (still ongoing) course-work. Unfortunately, many of the edits in this program so far have been identified as plain copy-jobs from books and online resources and therefore had to be reverted. See the India Education Program talk page for details. In order to maintain the WP standards and policies, let's all have a careful eye on this and other related articles to ensure that no copyrighted material remains in here. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could meanwhile identify some of the edits by user Keyur2808 to be 1:1 copies from [1], thereby clearly constituting a violation of copyright. Just to give one example, search for the phrase: "Hubs have always been a key element in the plug-and-play architecture of the USB. Hosts provide an implementation-specific number of downstream ports to which devices can be attached.", which was added on 2011-10-22 [2]. I therefore removed the whole section "Hot plugging". However, I don't have the time to look over all the other edits of the past weeks, so I would appreciate if someone with more time at hands would take over to clear up this article. Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The section "Electrical characteristics and power management", added by Keyur2808, was removed as well. It was a 1:1 copy of sentences found in [3], [4] and [5], with the later two most probably constituting plagiarism of yet another source themselves (probably another original USB doc). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph about data bursting was removed as well from the article since it was a 1:1 copy of chapter 4.4.1. of the USB 3.0 standard [6] and therefore constituted a copyright violation. It had been added by user Keyur2808 on 2011-10-21. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removed paragraphs about "USB 3.0 Standard-B", "USB 3.0 Powered-B" and "USB 3.0 Micro-B" connectors which were copies of chapter 5.2.1.2, 5.2.1.3. and 5.2.1.4 of the USB 3.0 standard with minimal changes. It was added by Keyur2808 on 2011-10-25. And there's still more stolen contents to be removed from the article... --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacturer: apple computers[edit]

On the side panel apple computers is listed as a manufacture but in the last sentence (of the introduction) it states that they have chosen to adopt a different port. Can anyone confirm this because it seem strange that they would reject what they manufacture. 60.242.188.86 (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apple is *not* a manufacturer of USB chipsets nor the ports needed for 3.0. Apple only integrates the components from other manufacturers (or doesn't) into what they do manufacture (which is only whole systems and major subassemblies of such, but not at large anymore components or chipsets–with some notable exceptions like the A4/A5 CPUs used in mobile devices). Since Apple only uses Intel chipsets in their computers and since the USB 3.0 specification was still receiving not insignificant revisions to it that would make manufacturers of computers or mobile devices wary of potential compatibility issues as of late 2011, it would stand to reason that these two things are the true primary reason Apple does not support (or can't) USB 3.0 in its computers yet. It is not really their fault, but it is more Intel to blame. I just love it when people poke the finger at Apple like they are conspiring to reject USB 3.0... This is not the case. If anybody was conspiring to reject USB 3.0, it would be Intel because Intel knew it was developing a competing interface called Thunderbolt which was to be released later than USB 3.0.>>=---><applimattic---> 23:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To extend this line, we still need a source if we're going to say stuff like, "Thus, Intel's lack of support for USB 3.0 proves to be a primary reason why Apple has yet to ship any computers with USB 3.0 capable ports." That's original research. Seems to make sense, and the conspiracy theory above might support it, but it's got to be sourced before it hits the 'pedia, yes? Rufwork (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On FAQ publish by Intel Development Forum (IDF 2008). To quote "USB 3.0 was developed by six industry-leading companies, collectively named the USB 3.0 Promoter Group: Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Microsoft, NEC (now known as Renesas Electronics), ST-NXP Wireless (now known as ST-Ericsson), and Texas Instruments." [Link:http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/io/universal-serial-bus/universal-serial-bus-faq.html?wapkw=usb+3.0+2008 ].

Bonvallite (talk) 11:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

USB 3.0, but 2nd revision?[edit]

First line of article states that this is the 2nd revision of USB, confusing since it's 3.0. Recommendation is to add source of this fact (or fix if mistake). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.102.82 (talk) 06:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's:
USB 1.0 - original, not a revision. USB 1.1 - first revision. USB 2.0 - first major revision. USB 3.0 - second major revision (as the article states). - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. In computer taxonomy of revision numbers, every whole number is a MAJOR version. Every decimal number or "point release" is a minor revision. That system is nearly universally used now for hardware versions, software versions and even documentation versions like this. All records concerned with USB would show that USB hardware was locked with releases 1.1, 2.0, and 3.0 specs... However, don't be fooled into thinking USB 1.0 was the original, there were many revisions before that.. all of course "minor".. Since 2.0 from 1.1 was the first major revision, that makes 3.0 from 2.0 the second (as the article states).>>=---><applimattic---> 23:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Atari's SIO ports are a lot like USB. The person who created SIO for Atari also worked on the original USB standard. Might retcon SIO as USB 0.1 Bizzybody (talk) 11:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Factual errors[edit]

The text states several times that ports require "0.9 milliwatts" of power to be available. This needs to be changed to "0.9 watts" or "900 milliwatts". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.175.202.86 (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At least the ports weren't claimed to require "0.9 megawatts". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.79.226.32 (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The text states "Windows 8 was the first operating system to offer built in support for USB 3.0.", but in the paragraph above it states "The Linux kernel has supported USB 3.0 since version 2.6.31, which was released in September 2009." While Development of Windows 8 started in 2009, it was first announced at CES 2011, and the first pre-release version of came out in 9/2011. Therefore, I submit that the statement that Windows 8 was the first operating system to offer support for USB 3.0 is incorrect. It may be better stated with a qualifier as "Windows 8 was the first Microsoft operating System to offer ..." since Linux supported USB 3.0 since 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewneely (talk • contribs) 14:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

better images of the extra 5 pins on the A connector[edit]

No idea how to upload the images, but since it took me a while to understand that the A connectors also had 9 pins, i took a couple pictures to show it. They are free to use.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gcb/8362939551/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gcb/8362940085/in/photostream/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.95.54.37 (talk) 06:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded! The images currently in the article proper do not show the new pins at all. One of them might even lead one to believe that the extra pins are in the shield (since there the four original pins and background showing through holes in the shield are of very similar colour). 78.73.90.148 (talk) 11:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding Information on Connectors[edit]

Help expand and improve on connectors to list are the following

  • Standard-A connector and receptacle
  • Standard-B connector and receptacle
  • Powered-B connector and receptacle (new in USB 3.0)
  • Micro-AB receptacle
  • Micro-A connector
  • Micro-B connector and receptacle

Bonvallite (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

10Gbps USB 3.0[edit]

The new version of USB is already written, and even demonstrated working at CES 2013. It is up for review to be finalized in the first quarter of 2013. Specification release announcement can be found here. It is *also* called SuperSpeed USB 3.0, which may lead to some confusion. Someone might want to do a write up soon, since it will soon be finalized. 173.66.7.99 (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CNET wrote an article about this today. It is named USB 3.1. The article. -"SimonOrJ"(U/T/C) 02:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Connectors Section[edit]

The tables (and picture) in this section are jumbled on top of each other when viewed in 1024x768 display. The second table should probably be moved down.

Also, could there be more information regarding the new type B connectors (pictured)? For example, to what extent they are backward compatible (perhaps with a mention of speed loss). 108.202.193.175 (talk) 16:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There you go, please check it out. Regarding the issue with tables overlapping, you're right and I've also noticed that before – that's up to the {{multicol}} tag, please report that at the appropriate talk page. — Dsimic (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, the tables were still bugging me, and not just because of the multiple-column formatting abuse. 40% of the information in the second table was identical to the Standard "B" column of the first, and another 50% (the Descriptions) belonged in the first table as well! So, I decided to be WP:BOLD and meld the two mild-mannered ordinary tables into a single, all-powerful SuperTable! (Patent Pending.)
The table now just sits right in the article flow, and it plays nice with all of the standard wrapping/sizing/floating/styling. The Powered-B pins are included along with everything else, hung right off the bottom. If color assignments are eventually obtained for Powered-B pins 10 and 11, those cells can be "turned on" with a little massaging of the wikitable code. Descriptions visibly apply to the pin asignments for all connector types.
In the process, I made a few ancillary adjustments, which I'll point out here for everyone's target practice:
  • Moved "Shield" row to the start of the table, for hopefully-obvious reasons.
  • Changed color of the drain wire (pin 7) from "Shield" to "Bare". Partly because "Shield" isn't a color, but more because the drain is specifically an unshielded wire, so "Shield" was a confusing description. The color description should ideally be "Unshielded", IMHO, but "Bare" fit better in the space. If anyone finds the term objectionable, "Unshielded" would be a correct alternative.
  • Normalized capitalization use in the Descriptions.
  • Changed Description of Shell from "Connector metal" to "Metal housing".
  • (Non-visible code change) Wrapped the arguments to all style= parameters in double quotes.
I'll also note that I must've gone back and forth a dozen times on whether the header row between pins 9 & 10 should be styled "border:none". Ultimately I decided against it, as there's a slightly more cohesive feel to the entire table if the following rows don't appear completely disconnected from what's above.
Hopefully this format will meet with everyone's approval. Comments/critiques/suggestions/flames welcome. Reverts poutingly endured. FeRD_NYC (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey FeRD NYC, you did a great job merging those two tables into a SuperTable! :) Previously, the slight abuse of multiple-column formatting has solved the issue of overlapping tables (can't find my exact commit at the moment), but this merged layout is waaay better, as it makes the whole thing much more understandable and better described. Just looking at the shared descriptions is enough for favoring the new layout.
I've just gilded the lily by centering the table (looks better positioned that way), doing some small CSS cleanups, aligning the "Description" column (yeah, was thinking of rows for some reason while writing the commit comment ;) cells to the left (a standard for such text cells, and makes it more readable), and substituted "N/A" for the cells stating there's no data applicable (or no color-coding available).
For the pin #7 (GND_DRAIN), if I'm not mistaken its wire isn't exactly "Unshielded" but actually "Uninsulated" thus actually in contact with the cable's shielding (this image shows it well)? Anyway, for it and Shell there's no color-coding available, so "N/A" should fit well, if you agree.
Regarding the last two rows (pins #10 and #11), I've also went a few times between empty cells and one big "N/A" taking up all the space, opting for that big "N/A" in the end. That way it's clear that data isn't available (or not applicable), so nobody can instead think of some table layout issues.
Hope you agree. Thoughts? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Express Card is not PC Card.[edit]

"On January 4, 2010, Seagate announced a small portable HDD with PC Card targeted for laptops (or desktop with PC Card slot addition) at the CES in Las Vegas Nevada." That's an Express Card, not a PC Card nor a CardBus card. There are no USB 3.0 PC Card or CardBus adapters. That should go into the do not use the wrong terminology file, same as the cases where people mix up PCI, PCIe and PCI-X. Bizzybody (talk) 11:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great catch! Got the article edited so this is corrected, please check it out. — Dsimic (talk) 04:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go/s?[edit]

In two places the article refers to "Go/s" - is this supposed to be GB/s? If not, then what is it? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article was vandalised about two days ago. It's fixed now, thank you for pointing it out. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

8b/10b[edit]

No one takes into account the 8b/10b encoding to convert the units GB/s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daroooo (talk • contribs) 12:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, here's a quotation from the article's USB 3.0 § Data encoding section, which takes that into account:
The "SuperSpeed" bus provides for a transfer mode at a nominal rate of 5.0 Gbit/s, in addition to the three existing transfer modes. Accounting for encoding overhead, the raw data throughput is 4 Gbit/s, and the specification considers it reasonable to achieve 3.2 Gbit/s (0.4 GB/s or 400 MB/s) or more in practice.
Looking good? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the chart shown in the USB 3.2 section, they divide the bits per second by 8 to get bytes per second and I think that is wrong. Because of the 8b/10b encoding, you should do a straight divide by 10 to convert from bits to bytes. I'm not 100% positive and I don't really want to edit the original page but thought I would mention it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedzsan (talk • contribs) 14:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

=LIKE 2.00 Manoj kumar madheshiya (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interoperability - an NPOV reality check[edit]

I'm not doing this on the front page because in a way I'm being contentious, daring to question the authorities contention that USB 3 A sockets are compatible with USB 2 A plugs - the pins are insufficiently robust and do in due course bend, making the entire socket unusable. Some such mention should be made to maintain NPOV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.25.142.238 (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Sorry, but I'm not really sure what insufficient robustness are you referring to? USB 3.0 type-A sockets are perfectly backward compatible with USB 2.0 type-A plugs, it's just that additional contacts in the USB 3.0 socket are left unused in that case. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on USB 3.0. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with USB 3.1[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge USB 3.1 into USB 3.0 CyberXRef☎ 16:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
merge discussion

Overlapping scope 3.1 gen 1 and 3.0 Widefox; talk 08:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has been forked twice by IP User:91.9.109.24 User:91.9.105.240 Ping User:Voidxor. Widefox; talk 08:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support There is nowhere near enough different in USB 3.1 to support a separate article. Jeh (talk) 08:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Later addition: If Serial ATA can live with just one article for all of its different speed versions, then obviously so can this. Jeh (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I too agree, however, if it is merged I also believe USB 3.0 should be renamed to USB 3 to cover all USB 3.x versions. 50.53.1.33 (talk) 14:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(I have moved, intact, the discussion on whether or not anonymous users can !vote from here to the next subsection) Jeh (talk) 09:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I reverted this IP's fork the first time around. If they want to split it, they need to gain consensus. From a policy and guideline perspective, I see no reason to fork a paragraph just because the transfer rate doubled. Nothing else really changed from 3.0 to 3.1. For precedent, USB 1.1 and USB 2.0 don't get their own articles; why should 3.1? – voidxor 18:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ~[User:Haslantis | Haslantis] 15:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haslantis (talk • contribs)


Can anonymous users !vote here?[edit]

This subtopic was split off from the preceding section.
  • Anonymous users can't !vote. Please sign in. – voidxor 18:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    User:voidxor IP editors can per WP:IPHUMAN. I've restored the !vote. Widefox; talk 14:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Widefox: Did you read that essay? It says that IPs can't vote. For all I know, the IP address is you or Jeh. – voidxor 21:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Restored the !vote again. This is getting disruptive - suggest you get a third opinion before you WP:REFACTOR again as it's disputed (and a disputed refactor shouldn't be repeated per guideline). Pls read the essay - this isn't RfA. Further, you also either need to retract that WP:AGF that it's some other party here or follow it through reporting the WP:SOCKPUPPET (again not here). Widefox; talk 21:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, @Widefox:. @Voidxor:, either take those suspicions (both of them, individually) to WP:SPI or withdraw them. As it stands your statement is a gross violation of WP:AGF. Jeh (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Widefox and Jeh: Please calm down. I'm not accusing either of you of anything; I am simply pointing out that from where I stand I can't tell if the IP was just one of you logged out. That is why IPs can't vote. Again, I have no reason to believe this is the case, but it's an example of why IPs can't vote. Widefox slaps me with WP:IPHUMAN without apparently reading it. It lists RfAs an ARBCOM elections as examples of such semi-democratic processes, but that's a non-exhaustive list (see the definition of "e.g."). Search that essay for the word "vote". Go ahead. Tell me where it says that IP addresses can !vote. That's right; it doesn't. It only says they can't vote. Now please stop this melodrama. – voidxor 22:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    IPHUMAN isn't what you think it is, plus it doesn't matter what you think, IPs can and do "!vote". They can't "vote". It literally doesn't matter about your perspective as this is the basis of interactions around here and you must treat IPs equally in this regard. You do not say who can and can't !vote here. To help you, you're conflating !vote with vote. The wording isn't clear but you've been around here long enough so now would be the time to stop if you've had this incorrect assumption for long. Further, repeating a contested refactor is again not allowed, even if you consider your understanding correct (which it isn't). Added to that, a vague AGF on other participants. I don't get it, this isn't even a controvercial !vote. The mistake is not gaining further opinions as this is against the opinions of two other editors now. Time to stop the disruption, and WP:LISTEN. Widefox; talk 22:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it doesn't matter what either of us think; what matters is the relevant policies and guidelines. I've cited where it says that IPs can't vote; you have yet to cite anywhere that they say that IPs can vote. I'm guessing you can't cite a relevant guideline because one doesn't exist. Instead you repeat yourself again and again, and make it sound like I'm in violation of this, that, and the other in an attempt to scare me off. How many times have you lectured me about "refactoring" now? Like four? And how many times have I "refactored" since you first mentioned it? Zero.
    Oh, and "vote" is too synonymous with "!vote". We just typically say "!vote" around here to remind ourselves that such discussions are more about the merit of the argument than actual count of votes.[1] – voidxor 23:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Voidxor: I'm unimpressed by ~"Oh, even though I named you, I didn't mean you." If you didn't mean any person here specifically, then you won't mind not naming any person specifically. The markup you want is <s>...</s> . Come on, it won't break your arm.
Widefox is also correct about IPs !voting. As described at WP:NOTVOTE, there absolutely is a difference between a "vote" and a "!vote". There are a few places like RFA where the vote count does matter (and there, IPs can't vote). We use the construction "!vote" to indicate that what's going on here is not really a vote - each "!vote" is just a comment with a clear statement of position, one way or another, as the first word, and a brief summary of the reason for taking that position. As detailed under the last bullet item here, The restriction on IP voting applies only where it's an actual vote, like RFA. This isn't one of those, it's a !vote, and P&G-based discussion matters, and IPs can participate in discussion. I don't know how it could be more clear. What you're saying is that an IP can't express an opinion here if said opinion is preceded by a single word like "Support" in boldface - but if they don't do that then it's ok for them to comment? Nonsense. Jeh (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jeh: I'm not going to retract an accusation I never made. I never accused either of you of sockpuppetry; I was illustrating an example of how other users can't tell if an IP address is simply a registered user that has logged out for the opportunity to vote again. I thought I made that clear. Had I actually had reason to believe it was a sock, I would have reported it by now.– voidxor 00:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not asking you to "retract an accusation you never made", I'm asking you to correct the appearance of an accusation. How about this then: Despite your disclaimer, your statement above regarding my and Widefox's possible sockship bothers me. You've disclaimed it already, which amounts to a retraction, but even so, someone might read it and not read the rest of the discussion. So I'd be happier if it wasn't hanging there. Could you please strike it as a courtesy to a fellow editor? After all, you can express the same concern without naming anyone. Jeh (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit - added:) For example, you could say "For all I know, the IP is someone who's already !voted under an account here. And for all you know, the IP could be me." Jeh (talk) 10:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I never said that IPs can't express an opinion. I don't know where you're getting that. I struck the vote but not the comment, in line with Wikipedia:IPs are human too point that IP's opinions should be valued but the weight of votes not biased by what could potentially be a registered user voting again. – voidxor 00:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You said that IPs couldn't express an opinion when it was formatted as a !vote. But a !vote is just a succinct statement of opinion preceded by a single bolded word. Your argument that IPs can't !vote is invalid because !votes are not counted as in a democratic "vote", and we're not counting votes here.
You are basing your argument on the the last bullet item here. But that restriction on IP voting applies only to actual "voting" - where it's an actual vote where votes are counted to determine the result,, like RFA. Yes, the "examples" list (the e.g.) is not necessarily all-inclusive, but note the wording around it that tells why those examples are in the list:
This is not one of those occasions, because it won't be decided by counting !votes. Therefore the phrase "unregistered users may not vote" does not apply here. I don't know why you keep insisting that it does. These are !votes, as described at WP:NOTVOTE, and nothing at WP:IPHUMAN says that IPs can't !vote. Only that they can't "vote". The difference is crucial.
As for "weight of votes not biased...", it does happen at e.g. AFD that closers will weigh IP !votes less, but generally only if they appear to be new IPs; the !vote of an IP with significant recent history, especially if that history is relevant to the topic area of the article being AFD'd, will routinely be considered equally with registered users.
And nowhere have I seen anyone actually strike IPs' !votes from a page! You don't get to do that just because you think they can't !vote. WP:TPOC is very clear about when you can strike or remove others' comments. This case is not supported there. Jeh (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree 100% with Jeh. Anecdotally, I've never seen anyone, ever strike an IPs !votes per se. Normally participants mark WP:SPA/WP:COI/sock/blocked/banned (both IP and accounts) but I believe it's more the closer role to strike, as participants don't get to choose who can participate. It's a gross violation to attempt to restrict other's opinions or cast aspersions without evidence. I'd expect that level of disruption to lead to a block quickly as repeating contested refactoring (let alone striking !votes) does lead to blocks due to the disruption. Not having the facts of policy on one's side and refusing to WP:LISTEN when actually wrong about policy isn't a healthy argument for the editor who's in error. Widefox; talk 07:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
voidxor challenges, "Tell me where it says that IP addresses can !vote. That's right; it doesn't." You have it backwards. It says up at that top of that section:
It then gives a list of exceptions to that rule, but nowhere there or anywhere else I can find does WP say that unregistered users can't "!vote". It only says that they can't "vote" - no exclamation point - in decisions that are "decided democratically," i.e. by counting votes.
You see, the general rule is inclusive (~"everything not expressly forbidden to IPs is permitted") and I find no evidence of an exclusion that applies to "!vote"s. I also see plenty of evidence the other way, e.g., IPs !vote'ing at AFD.
So it is you, voidxor, who needs to find a rule that says "IPs can't !vote", or else back down on this. Jeh (talk) 09:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion?[edit]

It's been more than seven days since the discussion started and we have unanimous support for merging the 3.1 article back into here. Going once... going twice... ? Jeh (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it, and also collapse the offtopic above. Widefox; talk 11:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The USB 3.1 and USB 3.0 sections should be merged, and the USB 3.0 section title should be updated to USB 3.1 ; Searches or references to USB 3.0 should redirect to the new USB 3.1 article. USB 3.1 deprecates USB 3.0, just like how USB 1.1 deprecated USB 1.0; In addition to the new 10Gbps USB 3.1 Gen 2 stuff, the USB 3.1 spec includes the entirety of USB 3.0 plus all of the engineering change notices that were released after USB 3.0 was published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.196.154.3 (talk) 09:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on USB 3.0. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Macro USB[edit]

The picture at the bottom-left of the page under the heading "Backward compatibility" contains the text "Macro-B superspeed" in the red text. 'Macro' Looks wrong but I can't fix it without removing the picture completely. Kayman1uk (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 February 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved. (non-admin closure) –Ammarpad (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

USB 3.0 → USB 3 – Since it covers 3.0 3.1 and 3.2? — Omegatron (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose It's still called the "USB 3.0 Promoter Group" even though USB 3.2 exists. This just seems like your opinion and not something based on the sources.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is a standard name. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

This should be renamed to USB 3 or USB 3.x — Omegatron (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Connector colors[edit]

I came to this article trying to figure out what the weird turquoise port on my computer was, and this article is clearly incomplete. This article should mention type A connector colors (with images), which seemed to start with USB 3. For example blue for 3.0, turquoise or cyan for 3.1 Gen 2. I think I've also seen green and red, but I'm not sure what those are. Possible source: https://www.velocitymicro.com/blog/usb-3-1-vs-usb-type-c-vs-usb-3-0-whats-the-difference/ I'd add the section myself, but it seems only wiki-lawyers can navigate all the rules and regulations to be able to actually post something without it being flagged and deleted these days, so I'll leave it to you. 2600:8800:7900:1A9:B538:CC69:5EB6:41AA (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated info on USB 3.2 spec?[edit]

I am finding a factual disconnect between the USB-IF's own February 2019 press release (PDF) on what the USB 3.2 spec is (and therefore how various media outlets talk about USB 3.2) and information on this page and on computerlanguage.com.

I think the "Gen #x#" language has been dropped with the exception of USB 3.2 Gen 2x2. I have not modified this page because I'm not sure about the accuracy of the technical spec table in the USB 3.2 section. There are two 10gbps speeds listed but according to the PDF there appears to only be one, and I'm not versed in the technical details enough to accurately correct the article. Will someone who is please update this section? Chrisw10 (talk) 23:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles inconsistent[edit]

This article contains this table:

USB 3.2 transfer modes
USB-IF recommended marketing name[1] Logo[2] USB 3.2

transfer mode

Older specifications Dual-lane Encoding Nominal speed Connectors
USB 3.1 USB 3.0 Gbit/s GB/s USB-A, B, micro B

(SuperSpeed)[3]

USB-C
SuperSpeed USB USB 3.2 Gen 1×1 USB 3.1 Gen 1 USB 3.0 No 8b/10b 5 0.500 Yes Yes
SuperSpeed USB 10 Gbit/s

USB 3.2 Gen 1×2 — — Yes 8b/10b 10 1.0 No Yes
SuperSpeed USB 10 Gbit/s USB 3.2 Gen 2×1 USB 3.1 Gen 2 — No 128b/132b 10 1.2 Yes Yes
SuperSpeed USB 20 Gbit/s USB 3.2 Gen 2×2 — — Yes 128b/132b 20 2.4 No Yes

But USB-C has a different table. Unfortunately, it cannot be included here because it is a non-free image. It is in the section Alternate Mode partner specifications, on the right side of the screen, with the caption Table showing various protocols supported by USB-C. Please check there.

They do not agree on the SuperSpeed 10 Gbit/s logos. I tried to read the reference[2] but I can't make sense of this:

The USB-IF SuperSpeed USB Trident Logo may be used solely in conjunction with Product consisting of a hub, peripheral device, add-in card, motherboard, or cable and connector assembly (anything that is not a USB Host end product) that signals at 5 Gbps, that has been submitted to and passed the SuperSpeed USB Test Procedure, and that has been posted on the USB-IF Integrators List; or solely in conjunction with Product not consisting of a hub, peripheral device, add-in card, motherboard, or cable and connector assembly, that is based on and compliant with the USB-IF USB 3.2 specification.

To me, it seems to start out to say that the logo is for hubs, peripheral devices, add-in cards, motherboards, or cable and connector assemblies; anything that is not an USB Host end product, whatever that may be. But for USB 3.2, it should be used precisely on a Product not being any of the categories for which it should be used for the earlier mentioned (unversioned) criteria. Even my attempt at explanation is hard to read...

Could somebody who understands this (a seasoned lawyer?) please have our Wikipedia articles agree on what the symbols mean? Bonus points for getting it right as well. Thanks! Digital Brains (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So that non-free image was removed (makes sense), and it's no longer inconsistent. But is it right? I think that it would actually make sense if the SUPERSPEED colour logo is for USB 3.2 Gen 1×1 and Gen 1×2 cables, referring to the fact that the pairs are capable of the 5 Gbit/s per pair transfer mode, and the SUPERSPEED+ colour logo is for USB 3.2 Gen 2×1 and Gen 2×2 cables indicating the pairs are capable of the 10 Gbit/s per pair transfer mode. This would be more in line with source,[4] since it indicates that existing cables will now be capable of the dual-pair speeds. A C-to-C cable fabricated to USB 3.1 Gen 1 carries the SUPERSPEED logo. It is also capable, per the source, of 3.2 Gen 1×2. The table indicates this would now mean it should carry the SUPERSPEED+ logo, but I suspect that is plain wrong. Digital Brains (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ USB 3.2 Specification Language Usage Guidelines from USB-IF
  2. ^ a b "USB Logo Usage Guideline" (PDF). USB.org. USB Implementers Forum. 30 November 2018. Retrieved 27 February 2019.
  3. ^ "USB 3.1 Legacy Connectors and Cable Assemblies Compliance Document Rev 1.1". USB.org. USB Implementers Forum. Retrieved 27 February 2019.
  4. ^ Bright, Peter (26 July 2017). "USB 3.2 will make your cables twice as fast ... once you've bought new devices". Ars Technica. Retrieved 27 July 2017.

[edit]

The SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps Trident Logo (looking like "SS 20") is available in updated logo usage guidelines PDF document (and has been already used on some products, e.g. ASUS ROG ZENITH II EXTREME) :

https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/usb-if_logo_usage_guidelines_final_103019.pdf

(if anyone is able to make SVG out of it, please add it to the "USB 3.2 transfer modes" table)

USB 3.0 spec release date[edit]

At the end of the lead section is an inline note (the USB 3.0 specification was released on 12 November 2008, not 2010) which appears to be disputing the date given in the infobox and maybe elsewhere in the article. I haven't got time to investigate further but it does need addressing and the article correcting if necessary. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 00:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VIA did sell non supported 3.0 chipsets, support for it in 2020?. Not sure what boards made it to markets, 2008-2010 models, chips sets by VIA meant to be released for intel chips, Nvidia Nforce, but Core chips were only supporting native intel chips. So the backwards reengenierd the chips sets for AMD, legal issues too.... So we did see USB 3.0 support on some boards, before it was implemented in the USB consortium agreements. Some did got full USB 3,0 native support, some just half and half 2.0/ 3.0......, later diver support did fix some issues, not on all 2008-2010 boards!

Good luck writing this on wiki or get sources....... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A452:7D4C:1:CC1B:F2CA:2543:6E5F (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

5G[edit]

  1. 5G HOW TIME EGO LAUNCH IN BHARAT AND SPEED READEUSE 2500 MB PAR SECEND..! I WILL WAIT... Manoj kumar madheshiya (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naming debacle[edit]

There is a MASSIVE backlash all over the Internet from the whole 3.0/3.1/3.2 gen 1,2,1x1,2x,1x2,2x2 naming madness. We really need a reception/criticism section in this wiki page to address that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.114.63.49 (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, we do not. That is still better than in HDMI 2.1. I.e. Fixed Rate Link (FRL) in HDMI 2.1 supports 6, 8, 10 Gbit, 12 Gbit over 4 lanes (Sony only has 8 over 4 lanes, for example, as it really used Display Port with max 32 gbit/s in version DP 1.4) and 3, 6 Gbit over 3 lanes. 109.252.90.66 (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On this topic, does anyone know if there is *anything* other than the link speed that differentiates USB 3.0, 3.1 and 3.2? As it stands as of this writing, the article doesn't present any other differences whatsoever. If there are other features that a USB 3.2 Gen 1 port can implement over a USB 3.1 Gen 1 port, then I think the naming makes sense. Otherwise I'm not so sure. --Dolda2000 (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

USB 3.2 Gen 1 data signaling rate inconsistency[edit]

"Although both Gen 1 and 2 signal at 10 Gbit/s, Gen 1 uses the older, less efficient line coding which results in smaller byte-rate." but the list right before this sentence listed Gen 1 as 5 Gbit/s, not 10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.166.55 (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed it now, thanks for pointing it out! It was indeed quite confusing.Digital Brains (talk) 09:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 June 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

USB 3.0 → USB 3.x – It's about all 3.x subversions and there are no specific subversion pages yet. ZH8000 (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 05:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 13:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ZH8000: This was subject to a previous RM, so should go through the regular RM process. Station1 (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Computing has been notified of this discussion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "USB 3.0" remains the WP:COMMONNAME, nobody calls it "3.x". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support USB 3.0 is imprecise per WP:CRITERIA, USB 3.x is concise per same, and follows a common naming pattern in the field of information technology. Luckily, the USB-IF is aware of Wikipedia struggling with this issue and named the successor USB4. Digital Brains (talk) 07:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - Google trends is showing a slight favor for 3.0 over 3, and no data for 3.x (almost negligible, tbh, and it looks like the trend may reverse, but at least it's something to go on). 3.0 looks favorable as common name, as to whether precision trumps that is a matter for us to decide. I feel inclined to side with the common name here as it is a bit simpler and we can cover the versions with redirects. Normally I would look at USB 1 and 2 and try to decide on consistency, but we unfortunately only have a standalone article for 3.0 ASUKITE 15:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you perhaps also look at USB 3.1 and USB 3.2 compared to USB 3.0? It's not clear to me that anybody is actually using the term USB 3.0 to refer to 3.1 or 3.2 as we are in the title of this article, and I have no idea how to analyse that either. Digital Brains (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

India Education Program course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Department of Electronics and Telecommunication, College of Engineering, Pune, India supported by Wikipedia Ambassadors through the India Education Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{IEP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 20:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Attainable cable length[edit]

The article very helpfully contains this paragraph

Unlike previous standards, the USB 3.0 standard does not specify a maximum cable length, requiring only that all cables meet an electrical specification: for copper cabling with AWG 26 wires, the maximum practical length is 3 meters (10 ft).

However, this discusses USB 3.0 cabling. Since later revisions increase the per-lane bandwidth, I wonder if it is still around 3 metres when lanes operate at 10 Gb/s. It would be great if the article provided this information. Digital Brains (talk) 09:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:USB_3.0&oldid=1205477230"