Hardware revision numbering schemes can sometimes get wonky... but it's almost as-if the USB folks live in a bubble and are completely unaware of the meme their naming scheme has become.
There has got to be a more simple naming scheme that's easier to follow...
What does the "4" in USB4 mean? When does it change? Why did it change fairly frequently until recently (with minor versions like 3.1), but then stop at 4?
I had always assumed the number in the name was the spec version. But now the spec version is explicitly v2.0, but the "4" remains in the name. Why isn't this USB5.0?
It's not like USB ports are labelled with what USB version they support or anything, such that there would be valid reasons to have a "compatibility version" that stays at 4. USB ports are just labelled/colored according to a marketing term that loosely maps to supported link speed (Hi-Speed / black, Super-Speed / blue, etc.)
Is this a thing like X11 (the "11" was a protocol version number once upon a time!), where the major version in the name somehow gradually ossified and became hard to change, even as major things kept happening to the spec; and so they just gave up and made the version an opaque part of the name, and lifted the version out somewhere else?
Like anything, they have major versions and minor versions. USB4 was a new major version because it added Thunderbolt. USB4 2.0 (should have been USB4.1 but whatever) adds some minor changes.
I like the USB-C connector but wondering if there is a better way to handle the ever expanding number of different cable types that are used with this connector (SuperSpeed, Thunderbolt, etc).
Switching to USB-C reduced the number of different cables I have at home but almost equally increased the number of different types of USB-C I have. Some work with my monitor, some don’t, some charge, some don’t charge, it’s a mess.
If you want to, you can buy all 40 Gbps 240 W Thunderbolt 4 Pro USB-C cables for all use-cases, but they're literally like $100 a metre, so that'd be insane and why instead there's a variety of cheaper cables for different use-cases.
Does this mean I'll have to deal with another planned-obsolescence connector? I was hoping with Moore's law flattening out that we would more or less be done with this mess. USB-C does a great job, what's wrong with it?
afaict it will still use the usb-c connector, they're just playing catch-up to thunderbolt as far as bandwidth. now you can do PCIe over USB4 just like thunderbolt. Although I haven't read the whole spec yet, likely it finally supports dual high-def monitors which USB4v1 didn't do
Gonna disagree with all of the other comments so far: yes, you’ll have to deal with another set of USB-C connectors with a slightly different capability matrix.
[+] [-] cesarb|3 years ago|reply
Specifications released today:
- USB4 Specification v2.0 <https://www.usb.org/document-library/usb4r-specification-v20>
- USB Type-C® Cable and Connector Specification Release 2.2 <https://www.usb.org/document-library/usb-type-cr-cable-and-c...>
- USB Power Delivery Revision 2.0 Version 1.3 and Revision 3.1 Version 1.6 <https://www.usb.org/document-library/usb-power-delivery>
Yes, they really called it "USB4 v2.0"...
[+] [-] Alupis|3 years ago|reply
There has got to be a more simple naming scheme that's easier to follow...
[+] [-] bryanlarsen|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throw0101c|3 years ago|reply
WTF?
[+] [-] TylerE|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] derefr|3 years ago|reply
I had always assumed the number in the name was the spec version. But now the spec version is explicitly v2.0, but the "4" remains in the name. Why isn't this USB5.0?
It's not like USB ports are labelled with what USB version they support or anything, such that there would be valid reasons to have a "compatibility version" that stays at 4. USB ports are just labelled/colored according to a marketing term that loosely maps to supported link speed (Hi-Speed / black, Super-Speed / blue, etc.)
Is this a thing like X11 (the "11" was a protocol version number once upon a time!), where the major version in the name somehow gradually ossified and became hard to change, even as major things kept happening to the spec; and so they just gave up and made the version an opaque part of the name, and lifted the version out somewhere else?
[+] [-] wmf|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bryanlarsen|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fabiospampinato|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MichaelZuo|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] diebeforei485|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] augustuspolius|3 years ago|reply
Switching to USB-C reduced the number of different cables I have at home but almost equally increased the number of different types of USB-C I have. Some work with my monitor, some don’t, some charge, some don’t charge, it’s a mess.
[+] [-] chrisseaton|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Dylan16807|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] csense|3 years ago|reply
How do we get back to that world?
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] causality0|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nuker|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Dylan16807|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Ptchd|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] djha-skin|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrisseaton|3 years ago|reply
USB4 v2.0 is a protocol.
Different things. No need to be this excited.
[+] [-] drzaiusx11|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nicoburns|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eyelidlessness|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dymk|3 years ago|reply