Talk:USB/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

power increments?

I find the following sentence confusing:

Without negotiation, the powered USB device is unable to inquire if it is allowed to draw 100 mA, 500 mA, or 1 A.

How does it negotiate 1 amp of power? Previous in the article it says that a device can request up to 5 unit loads (100 mA each with usb 2.0)

Friend rabbit (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

USB 3.0 Drive released

WD released the first USB 3.0 external drive on Jan 5 2010 - - Someone should change this article to reflect this - I would but I dont know how... 129.253.170.50 (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

PlusPower / Powered USB

These two specifications seem to be the same. PlusPower is PoweredUSB 0.8e and Powered USB contains version 0.8f of the same specification. So, these sections under Power should probably be merged, links and additional information moved to Powered_USB page and if there is some real differences between those two, it can be discussed under Powered USB page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.111.137 (talk) 18:23, August 29, 2007 (UTC) And while talking about cleaning the article, enhanced mini-B. motorola and HTC connectors probably are of little interest to most people since there are dozens of other non-standard USB connectors. At least the connectors don't belong under device classes. Perhaps separate page for non-standard USB features is required? Nonstandard_usb perhaps? All weird devices and connectors could be listed there without having to worry that readers of the main article get confused with all the variations... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.111.137 (talk) 18:33, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

So-called AGOX Picture (was Mystery plug, was Micro)

A photo of a real Micro plug would be helpful. A good one is here [1], but the loose EU copyright [2] is not loose enough for Wikipedia use.[3]

The "AGOX" terminology is obscure, especially since it is not in Wikipedia. A sentence or two explaining it would help, drawing from the archived discussions below.

Article history:

• "Mystery" changed to "AGOX", 12:23, 10 February 2009: diff
• "Micro" changed to "Mystery", 21:03, 14 May 2008: diff

Previous discussion:

• http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Universal_Serial_Bus/Archive_5#Mini_Micro_Section
• http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Universal_Serial_Bus/Archive_4#Mystery_micro_plug

USB 3.0 data is missing?

The infobox at the beginning of the article only lists 3 speed categories, yet the article says: "A new major feature is the SuperSpeed bus, which provides a fourth transfer mode at 4.8 Gbit/s" (emphasis added). So then, is it 3 or 4 modes, and can this "fourth transfer mode" be added to the infobox?

I believe I recall reading that USB 3.0 has a non-superspeed mode that will be backward-compatible with USB 2.0 (and on newegg, Bytecc USB 3.0 cables are claiming to be compatible with USB 2.0 "ports and devices"), whereas in contrast, the "superspeed" USB 3.0 cables will NOT be compatible with USB 2.0 just as this article already states... but I'm not certain if this USB 3.0 mode (1/2 the speed of superspeed?) would be the "third" transfer mode if superspeed is indeed the "fourth transfer mode" as someone has claimed in the article. Thanks if a USB expert can clarify this apparent discrepancy. 216.188.254.2 (talk) 11:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

USB 1.x has two modes, low speed (1.5Mbps) and full speed (12Mbps)

USB 2.0 adds high speed (480Mbps)

USB 3.0 adds superspeed (4800Mbps)

All four of these speeds now seem to be mentioned in the infobox (at the time of your post the "superspeed" speed was missing).-- Plugwash (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Page split

I recommend that the page be made smaller by splitting some of the technical information off to a separate page. Take the current sections 4-6 (Signaling, Data Packets, Protocol Analyzers) and move them to a page on "USB Protocols". The table at the beginning of section 3 (Device Classes) should be moved as well, but the subsections on USB Mass Storage and HID can remain on the main page. Joeinwap (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Significantly out-of-date

This webpage is now quite out of date, as the most recent information updates appear to have been pre-June 2009, before the release of certain USB 3.0 components. These components are now available. Also, there are now USB 3.0 PCI-E cards available. ozkidzez91 (talk) 09:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

In Berlin, for example. Paradoctor (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

low resistance cabling on long distance cable -

are you sure that this shouldn't be low capacitance cable (to increase distance) - since the signals are basicly AC, I would think that capacitance is a bigger issue, as it affects switching speed on a longer cable..

Deritchie (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think that entire paragraph should be snipped anyway. The limiting factor is propagation delays rather than signal attenuation. The USB specs are very clear on the matter and no-one has furnished the article with the requested cites. CrispMuncher (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Afaict to extend the difference what you'd want is a higher propogation speed cable. Whether you could make such a cable while complying with the rest of the specs I don't know (foam insulation may do it). BTW I also think the claim about "standard copper cable" is wrong, my understanding is that the propogation speed depends more on the insulator than on the conductor. Plugwash (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you can't appreciably improve propagation speed since it is already pretty close to the fastest that is even theoretically possible in copper anyway - sorry, I' don't seem to be able to find a ref for that right now - but even if you were somehow able to create a cable than transmitted at c it wouldn't give you a huge boost in length - it would go up from 5m to around 7.5m - not really an increase to get excited about. CrispMuncher (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I see what the official specs are, but I have a Lexicon Alpha connected to a 2006 intel mac mini via 3 six foot USB extender cables which I bought at the Dollar Store for $1 apiece and it works most of the time (periodically, about once every 12 hours of continuous operation it will make a very loud popping noise, and my computer will crash hard about once every 48 hours of continuous operation). But the point is, it works. Jbrave (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Micro USB

Long before the current 'micro USB' was standardised, or even seen, there was a smaller connector also called 'micro USB'. It was used on some cameras. In fact, in the picture of connectors (USB_types_2.jpg), the leftmost one is one of these smaller connectors (it is clearly not the same as the standards diagram (Types-usb_new.svg)). I believe the only difference is the width, and the smaller connectors may well plug into the larger sockets. I would appreciate some clarification on this. --Systemparadox (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Questions

I'm doing a paper on USB and I have a few questions on the article that I've come across.

Over at Intel(and other places) they say USB was created in 1995, not 1996 as the article states. See here: http://www.intel.com/technology/usb/

There is very little talk of the host controller, yet there are other pages on wikipedia detailing them. Should they not get a link? or maybe merge the HCI page here?

The OSI model is stated, but I see no reference to it in the article, so why have it? Atleast put USB in the OSI template then.

I think that's all for now. I may be completely off on all points but I just thought I'd ask. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.41.97 (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

1995 vs 1996, without researching exact dates, Intel is using pre-1.0 work from 1995, including the USB-IF which existed before a complete standard was written. The history section of this article dates it to the 1.0 release.

HCI page is stub-worthy and needs expansion, not merging to here.

OSI is not a very useful model for USB.

SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Cable Matrix

Should it be plug/plug or receptcle/plug? (Much like the host/device matrix above?)

What it currently looks like ...

Plug	Plug
	Micro-B	Micro-A	Mini-B	USB-B	USB-A
USB-A	Yes	NS	Yes	Yes	NS
USB-B	No	NS	No	No
Mini-B	No	NS	No
Micro-A	Yes	No
Micro-B	No

What seems clearer to me, and what I think is intended by the chart:

Receptacle	Plug
	Micro-B	Micro-A	Mini-B	USB-B	USB-A
USB-A	Yes	NS	Yes	Yes	NS
USB-B	No	NS	No	No
Mini-B	No	NS	No
Micro-A	Yes	No
Micro-B	No

Mraiford (talk) 12:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Mini and Micro html/css problem

Under the "Mini and Micro" section, at the end of it, [Edit] links are overlapping some of the text (there are 3 Edit links visible there). Tested in Chrome 4.1.249.1042. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.212.77.221 (talk) 08:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Apple 12V USB supply

Apple's apparently got its own ideas on powering USB devices:

The USB ports on Apple computers provide 5 V (Volts) and 500 mA (Milliamps) to each port, regardless of whether the port is USB 1.1 or USB 2.0. This is in compliance with USB specifications. On some newer Intel-based Macs, such as the MacBook (13-inch, Late 2007), when a device requiring more than 5V and 500mA is connected, the port with that device connected to it becomes a high-powered port capable of offering up to 1100 mA at 5 V. That port will continue to operate as a high-powered port until the device is removed.

This is used notably by the iPad, but probably by other devices as well. GreenReaper (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Am I stupid, or where did the title of this section apply/go (i.e., your text does not include anything about 12 volts). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.155.195.130 (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Two USB Articles

There seem to be two parallel articles about this subject: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Usb http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Universal_Serial_Bus

They are fairly similar, but the difference that caught my attention was the discrepancy between each section on USB 3.0. Landroo (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Two articles for the same subject

There seem to be two parallel articles about this subject: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Usb http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Universal_Serial_Bus

They are fairly similar, but the difference that caught my attention was the discrepancy between each section on USB 3.0. Landroo (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

misleading advertised speeds

USB advertising has long been mis-leading. By design.

When USB 2.0 came out, the older slow 12Mbps speed was marketed as "full", the new fast 480 speed as "high". It is very hard when buying things to keep in mind that "full"-speed actually means slow! Just as bad, all USB 2.0 products are advertised as "up to 480" speed, even though no products actually achieve 60MBps data transfer, and few even achieve half that. Real-world speeds around 10MBps are typical.

Now that USB 3.0 has a theoretical speed ten times as high, we can expect that all USB products in the future will be touted as "up to 4800" regardless of what speeds they really achieve. (Now that they have allocated "super", 4.0 should be called "super-duper".) Reviewers and raters of products are most at fault for allowing this travesty to continue. -96.237.69.64 (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Is Not a Forum.--Gorpik (talk) 11:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

reference collection of USB symbols

do you think that is helpful for the article?
File:Logos-Overview.gif
--20:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander.stohr (talk • contribs)

A few resources for USB device developers

Chapter 9 of the USB 2.0 specification talks about devices should work. Also useful is the CDC specification. There is some less sleep-inducing material on the BeyondLogic website (HTML, PDF(A4)). I am starting to throw together a few notes at WillWare/USB Device Firmware which other developers are welcome to use.

-- WillWare (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Mini-B 8-pin variant?

There is a photograph of the 8-pin mini-B connector, but other than that this variant is not discussed in the article. Would someone care to expand? — OttoMäkelä (talk) 12:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

link suggestion

this is a rather readable web page explaining the technical details of USB: http://www.beyondlogic.org/usbnutshell/usb2.shtml --Alexander.stohr (talk) 12:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

4 significant figures justified?

What is the point of using 4 significant figures for the power below?

... and can supply more power (up to 12.95 W ...

--Mortense (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Strange notation

What kind of notation is the one below (the power, at 5 V, is listed after the value of the current)? I have never seen it before.

500 mA[2.5 W]

1800 mA[9.0 W]

1500 mA[7.5 W]

900 mA[4.5 W]

Isn't there a better way to express it?

--Mortense (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

MBs and MiBs

The article switches too frequently between MB and MiB. Please *try* to stick with just one and *only* one unit of measurement through the entire article. SharkD  Talk  11:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

1 Method to bypass the distance limit of 5 meters for USB 2.0 is wrong

I researched the distance limit 8 years ago and the method to bypass the 5 meter limit by using "Low resistance cable" is wrong. USB distance limit are imposed by the speed of light, not the power of the signal. Acknowledgments must be received in the time it takes the signal to travel a little over 10 meters through wire. Add in some time for the electronics of the hub to respond and the true limit is 5 meters. Period.

Any USB circuit that can successfully use a cable over 5 meters works because the USB circuitry does not follow specs. Presumably by extending the time limit for the response, or ignoring the lack of response.

I have tested 5 meter cables with built in hub on the end. I have chained 3 of them together and achieved a response at a distance of 18 meters (3 x 5 meter cable+hub and 3 meter cable for device). At that time it was not reliable(2002-2003).

208.254.58.8 (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

True: the speed of light is involved. The limit really comes about because of the signal being reflected back from the other end of the cable can interfere with the next transmitted packet. 86.166.66.41 (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

"Safely" removing USB devices, particularly storage devices

I'm in an online argument with someone regarding whether or not a User needs to toggle the "Remove Device" icon when removing a USB device, specifically in this case a USB thumb-drive.

I say that once the data transfer has completed, the device can be safely pulled, and that this quality is one of the primary reasons why USB was created.

However, the other person is saying that it is bad to do this and that you should first do the whole "safely remove" thing. I think this is bunk. Urban legend. An idiot repeating the last stupid thing some other idiot told them, and I came here (to wiki) to prove it, only I do not find any reference to this.

````Jonny Quick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.137.251.249 (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The OS has file and handles open on the device. Without doing a safe removal, the device state and file system may be left in a bad state. And you may not know when a data transfer has completed, so best off giving the OS advance warning. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

No. Since at least Win Xp (i.e. something like 2001) Windows, at least, defaults to "optimize for fast removal" for USB-attached external storage devices. You can change that to "optimize for high performance", but unless you do so, there will be no handles left open after the write-operation itself is finished. Windows would like to write to the journal before the drive is removed, but there is no way to "leave the file system in a bad shape" when using a journalled FS like NTFS. That kind of thing went the way of the Dodo back in the nineties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.78.180.35 (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The Amiga operating system allowed some protection against removing a floppy disk with open files. It would pop up a warning saying "you MUST reinsert this disk to preserve the data, or click cancel and the data will be lost". Modern PCs could offer the same capability with USB storage, caching the unwritten data and writing it out if the device can be reinserted ..... but all of them do not do this and simply discard any unwritten data, so your files may be corrupted if you don't do the "safe removal". DMahalko (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The "Safely remove hardware" issue doesn't (and shouldn't) appear on this page as it is specific to the hardware itself, rather than the USB interface (for example, there is no need to safely remove a mouse or keyboard). The page USB mass-storage device class would be a more appropriate page for this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kragen2uk (talk • contribs) 07:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

References/Citations?

Citations are needed in the overview section... --12.19.37.102 (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that many citations - that are currently from other web sites - could be replaced by ones from the standard spec. That is the standard, after all. Of course it would take some time to look through the long specs :( For now I could replace one missing citation with the specs. Hoemaco (talk) 10:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

For the section on usb mass storage: "A live USB OS, resident on a write-locked SD card is impervious to modification by computer viruses or ill-conditioned software.[citation needed]" At SD card specs (http://www.sdcard.org/developers/tech/sdcard/pls/simplified_specs/Part_1_Physical_Layer_Simplified_Specification_Ver3.01_Final_100518.pdf) it says on page 32: "A proper, matched, switch on the socket side will indicate to the host that the card is write-protected or not. It is the responsibility of the host to protect the card. The position of the write protect switch is un- known to the internal circuitry of the card." So it's up to the card reader - if it can be hacked then the write lock cann't prevent it. Finding citations for all possible card readers' protection abilities seems futile.. Hoemaco (talk) 10:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I've included some more citations from the Specs. Trouble is, the page numbering is in the format of 1-3 etc. I've tried the following format in citations : p. 31 (1-3) where p31 is the page number my pdf reader told me and (1-3) is what's on the bottom of the page (so as not to mistake it with pages 1 through 3). Any better ideas? Hoemaco (talk) 11:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Success of USB largely due to the Apple iMac?

Should this be mentioned in the article? The success of USB was largely due to it being the only interface on the original iMac in 1998. Until the iMac came along, the take up rate of USB on PCs was very slow, and not much hardware was released.Davez621 (talk) 07:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess it could be mentioned as one of the factors. Another very important factor is that Intel (and other chipset manufacturers) included USB ports right on the chipset, making it easy for motherboard manufacturers to support the standard. A computer end user could feel confident that the USB-using peripherals they bought could be used with any modern computer, be it PC or Mac.

This was not true for the FireWire interface, which was also present on the iMac (and was the only interface port on the first iPods) but did not gain nearly as much uptake, because FireWire was (almost?) never included in the chipset, but required an external (to the chipset) interface chip, which meant additional cost that motherboard manufacturers would rather avoid. Thus you could not be certain that a given computer, however recent, would have a FireWire port. This situation continues to the modern day. -- 146.6.204.60 (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Very much an opinion. Source it well if you want to add it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

When the iMac came out it offered USB, Ethernet and basically nothing else. Ethernet is far from ideal as a perhipheral interface (for starters most machines only have one port and that is often already connected to a network the user doesn't control) so that really left USB as the only viable option for those wanting to sell their peripherals to iMac users. How much of a factor this was in the overall USB market (vs say how much impact windows 98 had) is likely impossible to quantify but at the very least it gave any mac supporting vendors a strong motivation to implement USB.

The case of firewire was a somewhat different one, PCs did not generally support firewire while macs continued to support USB. So the only reason to implement firewire was a need for high performance (and that mostly went away when USB 2 came along) Plugwash (talk) 11:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Firewire also cost $1 per port in licensing fees initially. Big damper.

iMac had an impact on USB, the biggest impact was design - lots of peripherals mimicked the jolly rancher color scheme but they still ended up used with a PC. That's why I ask anyone who wishes to include this to find a very good source for the opinion. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

IMO it is reasonable to mention the imac as the first common machine where USB replaced rather than supplemented the "legacy" ports and leave any conclusions on what that implied to the reader. Plugwash (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

A citation would be required, because I will challenge it. USB ports were available on Windows based PCs long before the iMac appeared. They were present in the chipsets from when the Pentium hit the market, though they were not actually connected to anything. LAter Pentium motherboards brought the USB interface to a header on the board itself, but it still didn't find its way to an external connector. It didn't really matter at this stage as there was nothing to connect to it. 86.166.66.41 (talk) 10:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Answer this question then: How can Intel based PCs lead USB when even Windows 95 didn't support it until SR2 - released in August 1997? Windows NT 4 - used around the same time as 95, never supported USB (users had to wait until Windows 2000.) A very low percentage of PCs actually received Windows 95 SR2, and people still had to purchase PCI cards to support USB. And, Windows 98 was the first Windows OS to come out with USB support out of the box - but was delayed until May 1998. And even by 2000, statistics showed that more people were using Windows 95 pre-SR2 than any other Windows version, therefore even by 2000 most Windows users had USB-less computers.

On the other hand, Mac OS has supported USB since 8.1, released in January 1998. Every Macintosh coming off the factory line with Mac OS 8.1 fully supported USB - including the original iMac Bondi Blue. Like another editor mentioned earlier, many peripherals put out by Belkin, etc. WERE in fact designed with the bondi blue color, and had switchable colors that matched the entire iMac egg-shaped line.

And so, to say that USB has been supported on the PC since the Pentium would be false - because it is NOT the CPU or chipset on the motherboard that determines compatibility, but rather it is the operating system that provides the compatibility. And, based on what occurred between 1998 and 2000, USB was used more by Mac OS users than Windows users. Groink (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

durability

I'm not sure that in the durability section, the part with "Yankeedam's solution" should be included. Its style is a bit out of place, it quotes some unknown and un-referenced guy, and it advocates self-made and possibly damaging modification of usb plugs. I personally like modifications and homemade stuff, but it's a bit out of the style and scope here I think, at least it should be re-worded and referenced. Possibly by someone who understands it better than I and has better English. Hoemaco (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed it. Thank you for pointing it out. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Marketing for HP?

This line appears in the USB 3.0 top section: "On October 28, 2010 Hewlett-Packard released the HP Envy 17 3D featuring a Renesas USB 3.0 Host Controller several months before some of their competitors."

I'm questioning relevance since other models of laptops had USB 3.0 prior to that point (The ASUS G73JW, for example, was released before then, and has USB 3.0). Seems more like marketing. I propose changing it to something like "By the end of October, 2010, there were multiple models of laptops and desktops available with USB 3.0, including those made my X, Y, Z" (that last part if we really do feel it necessary to include mfr names). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgbrownnt (talk • contribs) 19:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Licensing

This isn't covered in the article at present, and it ought to merit some mention... it's interesting for comparison with other standards.

The USB 3.0 Adopters Agreement appears to suggest that USB 3.0 is royalty free, although there is a small annual fee for a Vendor ID and an additional small fee for licensing the logo. Is this correct?

217.42.234.161 (talk) 09:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)