• InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    They’re bad because manufacturers want to pass their usb 2.0 gear as “usb 3.0 compliant”, which it technically is, and their usb 3.0 gear as “usb 3.2” because 3.2 Gen 1x1 is also 5gbps.

    Also the whole alternate mode is awesome, but cheap hub chips don’t bother trying to support it and the only people who do are the laptop ports so they can save $.40 on a separate hdmi port.

    And don’t get me started on all the USB-c chargers that only put out 1.5a because it’s just a normal 7805 on the back end.

    • s_s@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      They’re bad because manufacturers want to pass their usb 2.0 gear as “usb 3.0 compliant”, which it technically is, and their usb 3.0 gear as “usb 3.2” because 3.2 Gen 1x1 is also 5gbps.

      The USB X.X is just the version of the standard and doesn’t mean anything for the capabilities of a physical device.

      When a new standard comes out it superceeds the old one. Devices are always designed and certified according to the current standard.

      Soooo…What are you talking about?

      • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’m talking about using the standard traditionally to denote the performance of the connection.

        You don’t go around talking about your “Usb 3.0 device” that runs at 480mbps unless you’re trying to be a massive dickhole.

        That’s what I’m talking about.

        • s_s@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          480mbps

          A device or port that does 480mbps transfer speeds is a “Hi-Speed” device/port. That’s the real name and always has been.

          It doesn’t matter what version of the USB spec it was certified under. If it was designed between 2000 and 2008 it was certified under USB 2.0 or 2.1

          If that device was certified between 2008 and 2013 then it was certified under USB 3.0. That absolutely doesn’t make it a “SuperSpeed” device/port, but that’s more than clear when we use the real names.

          • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            Nobody uses that, they use the spec number because that’s what they’ve been taught, and they identify with it more than the incredibly stupid ‘full/high/super/duper/ultramegahyperspeed’ convention which the idiots at the siig decided to break again in 3.2.

            Everybody literally on the planet agrees the system is moronic, you’re literally the only person who dissents, congratulations on that.

            • s_s@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Nobody uses that…Everybody literally on the planet agrees the system is moronic

              Then just be as mad as you want–that’s the whole point of the news cycle anyways! Why bother learning? Congrats, chaos wins!

              • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                I’ve integrated the IP on silicon (copy pasta with axi mostly), it’s not me who has the problem, it’s normal people who don’t live this shit and just want the plug to work best, which isn’t what happens at all.

                The naming is a joke to everyone but keep being proud of it.