Jump to content

Talk:USB/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

USB 2.0 high speed vs full speed.

Please explain the Difference between USB 2.0 speeds. As I understand it full speed is actually 12Mb/s same as 1.0 devices, while high speed is 280Mb/s, But both full speed and high speed devices may show the same usb 2.0 logo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.245.75.27 (talk) 14:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

USB 3.0

I want more information about USB 3.0 --Samit Boonyaruk (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I came to this page looking for info on 3.0. A good place to put it would be in the overview, next to the other two's specs. 131.187.128.50 (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a new connector used on peripherals, apparently referred to as USB 3.0 Micro B. It should be mentioned in the description of connectors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Troglosphere (talk • contribs) 20:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)<!-

For USB2 devices plugged into a USB3 hub - do you get more bandwidth between hub & PC for the connected USB2 devices, or does it degrade back to USB2 speeds? E.g. I have USB2 micro controller programmers that use a lot of bandwidth, is it worth using a USB3 hub over a USB2 hub? Another example would be USB2 Hard Disk Drives plugged into a USB3 Hub, with USB2 the hub to PC bandwidth is shared between the hard disks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.158.114 (talk) 06:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

A USB2 device will not "get faster" because it is connected to a USB3 hub. A USB2 device will not "degrade" back to USB2 speeds because never communicated at USB3 speed to start with. A USB3 hub contains a virtual USB2 hub which talks on a separate USB2 bus back to the host controller. All downstream USB2 devices on a USB3 hub use the same USB2 bus back to the host controller.
This is different than the USB1 device on a USB2 hub scenario. Using multiple USB2 hubs, or having a USB2 hub with multiple transaction translators, would create a separate virtual USB1 bus back to the host controller for each device. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
It is a little more complicated than that. Although USB1 and USB2 communicate over the same pair of wires, the ports into which the cable is plugged actually has 2 sets of receiver and transmission circuitry, one for the two USB1 speeds and a separate one for USB2 speed. This came about because the method of termination chosen for the original USB1 bus will not work at USB2 speeds. On plugging a USB1 device into a USB2 compliant hub, the hub communicates with the device at USB1 speeds (using its USB1 transceiver circuitry) but upconverts the data stream to USB2 speed for onward transmission to the host, enabling onward communication over the USB2 system. This was done to prevent slow speed communication holding up the bus for faster transmissions - a major limitation of the original USB1 system.
The presence of the two sets of ports can be easily observed in a PC. Device manager will reveal twice as many root ports as the PC has physical connectors. Those grouped in pairs are the USB1 ports and those grouped in greater than 2 (usually 4 or 6) are the USB2 ports (and may be identified as 'enhanced').
USB3 has further complicated the issue, because it uses a different bus protocol (and even a different bus withing a USB3 cable). Thus a USB3 port has three sets of transmit and receive circuitry. All of this is transparent to the user, unless a fault with a faster port or inadequate cabling causes the system to fall back to a slower speed, giving the error that your device will work faster when plugged into a USB2 (or USB3) port. 109.156.49.202 (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

USB 3.0 Pin Outs

There are various problems with the USB 3 connector diagrams and pin outs. In section 4 Physical Appearance, the right hand diagram "Micro-B USB 3.0 compatible socket" :

  • If this is a receptacle diagram, the right hand standard B pinout labels are reversed.
  • They're labeled 5 4 3 2 1. To align with the standard plug connector circuits they should be 1 2 3 4 5. I assume the left hand SuperSpeed pinouts are reversed too.
  • In the text in the diagram: "are aligned pin-minute increase in the standard", I don't believe pin-minute is an english preposition. Suggest: "is backward compatible with 2.0 B connectors".

In the section USB 3 Pinout - the USB 2.0 mini/micro OTG pin is omitted. See the above diagram. If there is no physical pin in this location, the table should list the pin location as not used.

I trivially editted the main article to distinguish 'standard' as in 'standard A/B type connectors', vs standard as in 'standard prior to USB 3.'

I assume someone with more experience will straighten this out.

-- LarryLACa (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there's a problem with the text in the diagram. In fact, as a non expert, I was unable to make sense of the text until I read this discussion topic.

I now believe that in the phrase "on the side of the specification standard micro USB 3.0 connector," the word "standard" is not used as a noun, but rather the phrase "specification standard" is being used as an adjective to describe the micro USB 3.0 connector. If that's the case, it should be written with a hyphen, i.e., "specification-standard." (This is not just for the sake of grammatical correctness, but for clarity, because without that hyphen, I kept thinking the phrase referred to something on the side of the specification standard, and I couldn't figure out what in the diagram was the specification standard and what was on the side of it.)

The correction mentioned by LarryLACa regarding the "are aligned pin-minute" phrase, if correct, clears up the rest. Otherwise, I don't know what the phrase is saying. Can someone who knows the standard rewrite this diagram text?

70.162.128.130 (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Possible unit error in section Transfer Rates / Transfer speeds in practice

There seems to be an error in the following phrase (error highlighted):

As of 2004[update], the actual throughput of USB 2.0 high bandwidth attained with a hard drive tested on a Mac was about 18 MiB/s, 30% of the maximum theoretical bulk data transfer rate of 60 MiB/s (480 Mbit/s)...

Usually transfer speeds are quoted in decimal Mbit/s. If this is the case, then 60 MiB/s should be replaced with 60 MB/s (decimal megabytes/s) or 57.2 MiB/s (to maintain uniformity in unit usage), since one MiB is strictly 2^20 = 1,048,576 Bytes. I could have fixed the page by myself, but I'm unsure if the top speed is 480 decimal Mbit/s or 480 Mib/s = 503 Mbit/s. I belive the former (decimal Mbit/s) has more chance of being correct. Maaf (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the USB standards and I discovered that the maximum speed in USB 2.0 is indeed 480 decimal Mbits/s = 60 MB/s = 57.2 MiB/s. I've corrected the typo, however, percentages are still incorrect. I've sent an e-mail to the cited article author asking him whether he used decimal MB/s or binary MB/s in his post. After he answers me I will fix the percentages.Maaf (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I think I've pointed it out before here (and I suspect I'm fighting a losing battle) but equating e.g. 480Mbit/s with 60MB/s isn't really valid. Protocol overhead (bit stuffing in particular) means such "equations" are crude approximations at best. We need to avoid presenting them as if they were somehow true by definition. USB2.0 is 480Mbit/s, not 60MB/s. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC).

480 bits equals 60 bytes. Other than that, 30 MB/s are common transfer rates over USB (using external hard drives). For example C't magazine always includes a speed test of USB port in their PC hardware tests and the values are always around 30 MB/s. (I don't know if it is Mi or "plain" M). --Xerces8 (talk) 13:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The c't guys know what they're doing, so M = 10^6. -- Zac67 (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

USB 2.0 uses 10 bit sequences to represent an 8 bit byte. The maximum data rate USB 2.0 can deliver is 48 Million Bytes per second not including overhead. The 60MB/s rate in the article is incorrect. DieselDude (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Connectors: Mini-B plug (5-pin) image, micro-USB 8-pin, and micro-B USB3

The micro/mini USB connectors are too confusing for me to be sure, but it seems to me the 2nd connector in the image of several mini/micro/standard connectors, labelled "Mini-B plug (5-pin)", looks just like a micro connector (not mini) with fewer pins, and thus my best guess is that the text should say "Micro-B plug (5-pin)", or, even more likely, "8-pin" (see below), since the 5-pin version probably is the leftmost one (even though it's bigger).

Yes confusing. The images are inconsistent with each other. The 2nd plug in that 6-together image is called Micro-B, but is different to another Micro-B in an image below it. In the 6-together image the left-most one is labelled ExtUSB but looks just like what's called Micro-B below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.165.2.55 (talk) 02:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

There also seems to exist an 8-pin "micro-USB" which looks much like the ordinary 5-pin micro-B but only around 4.9mm wide (I have one in front of me right now, it is not uncommon). See here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Micro_USB_db.jpg I'd bet on that this is what is denoted "Mini-B plug (5-pin)" in the image (although not all pins show there), looks just like it anyway.

AND there also seems to be a new 10-pin micro-B for USB3.0: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:USB_3.0_Micro_B_plug.PNG

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.209.36.220 (talk) 08:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

confusing use of terms

Please, try to explain or re-cast as be consistent in the use of possible equivalent terms: plug, male, female, receptacle, connector, jack. 69.9.28.55 (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Good point. While I'm not going to actually make any changes, the USB standard indicates the proper terms are "receptacle" and "plug", which are female and male respectively. 76.243.42.111 (talk) 11:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
There is an obviously accepted standard for determining whether any connector is male or female. The USB connectors have flown in the face of this convention and identified them the wrong way around. Have a look at the end of a free USB type B 'plug' and decide if it's male or female. The presence of a large hole makes it female. Similarly the spigot in the Type B receptacle makes it resolutely male especially given that the receptacle's spigot goes in the plug's hole. I'm sure I don't need to draw a diagram at this point!! 109.156.49.202 (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

charging standard & maximum power relationship

The USB 2.0 standard specifies the maximum power available from a USB hub port as 2.5W. The USB charging standard promoted by device manufacturers specifies a maximum power of 5W. What is the relationship between these two standards and how is the difference in specification dealt with in practice?. Does this cause failure?. 118.90.14.211 (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Found this: http://www.usb.org/developers/devclass_docs (scroll to "battery charging"). Not certain if it's the exact document you want, but it seems relevant. In case it breaks some time in the future, the link was titled "Battery Charging v1.2 Spec and Adopters Agreement". --Wascally wabbit (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Protocol analyzers trivial section deletion?

the section as it currently stands tells you nothing apart from that protocol analysers can be obtained. It merely bulks out the article. Should we delete it?CecilWard (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 2011

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved per WP:COMMONNAME. WP:TITLEFORMAT explicitly exempts things that are almost exclusively known by their abbreviations and USB is clearly the common name for this thing. The alphabet soup argument is something I empathize with (but, unfortunately, not supported by policy!) --rgpk (comment) 17:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Elaboration: Hopefully, we're all agreed that the thing is rarely referred to as a universal serial bus and almost always called USB (if not, then we certainly have a problem). Given that, let's look at the arguments for not moving it to USB. The first argument presented was based on WP:TITLEFORMAT. As I point out above, that doesn't hold for this sort of situation. The second argument is that there are other meanings of USB. That may indeed be the case but, since USB redirects to this thing, that is a completely separate issue and should be discussed separately. The third argument is the 'ought' argument. That is not a good argument because policy specifically directs us to use the common name, not what it ought to be, other things being equal. Even if that were not the case, Universal Service Bus is hardly ever used anyway so, as chris cunningham points out, this would be an exception anyway. The last two arguments are non-starters. Sure, the first line will say USB or Universal service bus or whatever. Nothing wrong with that because the title is at its common name where it should be and the first line of almost every article contains all alternative titles. I'm afraid I didn't treat the W Nowicki's arguments about alphabet soups seriously and apologize if it was meant as a substantive one. All in all, the only argument that has some strength is the TITLEFORMAT one, but this appears to be an exception along the lines of NATO. --rgpk (comment) 23:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Universal Serial Bus → USB – "USB" already redirects here, and is by far the most common name for the subject. As it is clearly the primary topic for this initialism, it can live happily at the root title without disambiguation. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I would agree with you expect for two things in this article: 1) WP:TITLEFORMAT would suggest we don't use the abbreviation, and 2) there are plenty of other meanings for USB as covered in the dab page that I would think the Universal Serial Bus article should be more clear about its specific title. As it is set up today I think the current redirect with the "about" link if someone used USB is very appropriate and non-confusing. Why is a change necessary? I think the Solid-state drive article is a perfect comparison. Most people use the term SSD, but since there are so many other meanings we left the article title as the full description and redirected the acronym showing the link to the dab. I think we should do the same here and leave it as is. § Music Sorter § (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Clearly the primary topic and the common name. I actually didn't know what the full name of <whatever it is> before seeing this at requested moves, but have regularly heard the term USB. Jenks24 (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If this is the primary topic of "USB", then USB can and should remain as a redirect to this article. That doesn't mean we need to move the article. The title of an article about a particular thing ought to be the name of the thing, not an abbreviation of the name, except perhaps in extraordinary cases where the actual name is hardly ever used in practice. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
IBM is the official name of the company. Digital Equipment Corporation is usually abbreviated DEC, etc. but those are shorthands, not the name of the thing. W Nowicki (talk) 00:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: If we move to USB the very first thing the article is going to do is expand the acronym anyway, almost as if to say "This article is called USB but we really mean..." The standard is called Universal Serial Bus, not USB. The article title is itself part of the explanation of what is being covered and we already have a redirect in place to assist the reader. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC).
  • Oppose: computer articles have way too much alphabet soup. Please take pity us poor acronym-impaired readers. W Nowicki (talk) 00:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move war?

Wow, 5 oppose votes versus 2 (including the nominator) support votes and it's moved? What's the point of even having move discussions? –CWenger (^ • @) 17:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This sure sounds like an abuse of administrator rights. If the consensus is not what you want, move it anyway? Do two moves in eight days make it a move war? W Nowicki (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Elaborated above. Bear in mind that these are discussions, not polls, and vote counting is not the way that consensus is determined. (See WP:NOTAVOTE and WP:Consensus.) --rgpk (comment) 22:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I would argue the first point you raise above, which is it is not "almost exclusively known by its abbreviation". (I don't know why I didn't articulate this better in my vote instead of simply stating my preferred outcome.) To me, there is not a great way to objectively determine this, so the votes are perhaps even more important than normal. USB is quite common but you can see the full name used at the top of the USB.org, for example. 5–2 is a pretty strong consensus to override in any case, but particularly when we are dealing with a rather subjective policy. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
"Not a head count" means "not a head count", not just "not a head count in tie breaks". USB.org is obviously going to want to explain as early as possible what the full expansion is, as that's one of the primary jobs of an explanatory website. And I don't want to have to go bringing up Googlefight links, but real-world usage obviously favours the contraction by several orders of magnitude. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME had already been cited in the introduction. As such every commenter had considered it before commenting and those against the move had dismissed it in favour of other arguments. This isn't a case of a policy coming up out of nowhere and nuking an argument; this is a case of a fully informed community reaching a conclusion and a single individual substituting his own conclusion for the one reached. That is not reaching consensus: that is abuse of process.
RegentsPark also assumes that everyone concurs that USB is the more common name to begin with. I don't know where that came from as it certainly was not the debate. I hinted at this in my comments but since cnsensus seemed pretty clear to me I didn't bother to develop it as much as I might have. To be clear, I do not accept that within the meaning of WP:COMMONNAME. That policy dos not say what you may assume it does. It doesn't matter what you or I or some random web page say. It certainly doesn't matter which gets more Google hits. We pay attention to reliable sources and WP:RS is quite a high threshold that excludes many casual uses of the terms. I can't claim to have done a comprehensive survey, but in more learned texts that clearly meet the threshold my initial sampling shows that the expanded form is the more common one. Indeed, in the debate as judged there is only one RS cited. That is in expanded form. Where does the assertion that the abbreviated form is prevalent come from, if not from the debate, and without the admin indirectly involving himself? Crispmuncher (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC).
Are there any acronyms which would not be the WP:COMMONNAME, in this case? I mean, acronyms are created because they are so much easier to use. Does that make them "almost exclusively known by [their] abbreviation"? –CWenger (^ • @) 15:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
The test is 'almost exclusively'. If you look at WP:TITLEFORMAT, the examples are: NATO and Laser are both ok as abbreviations while UK is not. --rgpk (comment) 15:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
In that case the USB as common name assertion fails immediately. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC).
I appreciate what you are saying. If we are to determine what is the WP:COMMONNAME for something, what method do you think is more valid than asking the opinion of all participating editors who have to use some method. I know Google.com is not a "reference" but look at the following:
"USB" & "Universal Serial Bus" Comparison
Related term "USB" ____ "Universal Serial Bus" ____
Port 73.2M 6.9M
Hub 35.0M 3.0M
Mouse 31.1M 4.0M
Cable 79.2M 5.0M
Power 67.0M 7.5M
"Flash Drive" 41.1M 1.5M
{blank} 1,470.0M 10.5M
I was convinced USB is the commonly used name for this long before I did either poll. If we are supposed to use some other method, I am happy to listen. § Music Sorter § (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Crispmuncher, in reply to your comment, my view on the WP:COMMONNAME point was based on a simple poll of about 20 people at my office. I took around a cable used for my mouse and asked what they would call that connection. It was unanimously USB. I felt that was consistent with what I thought as well. My initial opposition to this change was because I misunderstood WP:TITLEFORMAT. Now that I understand it better it makes sense and I will update my vote above for better historical understanding.§ Music Sorter § (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
That's precisely my point. The twenty people in your straw poll are twenty unreliable sources. Those are twenty opinions that are completely ignored. That is where the "not a vote" element really kicks in. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC).
Oops, forgot it was locked above. I guess I won't change it with strikeout.§ Music Sorter § (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
rgpk, I appreciate your detailed elaboration on the move decision above. I also appreciate the better understanding of WP:TITLEFORMAT as it applies to abbreviations. I realize I missed the fact that USB was already redirecting to Universal Serial Bus which creates a different case than we have on SSD and Solid State Drive. Based on that I would not have opposed in case future readers care about how this poll and outcome transpired. § Music Sorter § (talk) 03:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I did not want to sound combative, just wanted to understand what consensus was then. An obvious problem with the "poll of twenty people" is that they all knew what USB was. My assumption is that people read wikipedia articles becase they do not know what something is. That is why it seems better to expand acronyms except in cases like "laser" where it had really come into English as a word. In this case, those 20 were all office computer users. Consider someone reading in the year 2020 when the technology described here is obsolete because computers are all less than three milimeters thick. Another example: consider Sacramento, California. If you ask 20 people who live in California, they will most commonly call it just "Sacramento". If you google search, probably the most common would be Sacramento, CA. But this is meant to be a global encyclopedia. We append the full state name at the end of the title, not the abbreviation which is most common, but might not be known to those not familiar with it already. Another example is Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. By far the most coverage of this topic (certainly all by a certain political party) uses the moniker "ObamaCare". There are many cases where a nickname or abbreviation is often used, but a full name is more appropriate for an encyclopedia. W Nowicki (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Purely from a policy perspective, article titles should be recognizable, precise, concise, natural and consistent and the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. (see WP:AT.) One would have to argue that the long form of USB is generally more recognizable, precise, concise, natural, consistent and more frequently used then USB for the title to be at the long form. That may well be the case but I haven't seen anyone present any arguments along those lines. Unfortunately your examples are too dissimilar to be useful here. Sacramento, California is disambiguated along the guidelines set for American cities (much debated, BTW!). The health care act title has POV connotations whatever title is used and, obviously, there has to be a POV minimizing consensus. For USB, on the other hand, there are no POV connotations, and the disambiguation and/or primary topic argument has yet to be made. (BTW, article titles are designed for access, not for education. The general idea is that a user will type the name that is the most familiar and will expect to see that name pop up at the top of the screen. If more users see a different title pop up, then, other things being equal - POV, consistency, disambiguation, etc., the article is probably at the wrong title.) --rgpk (comment) 12:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Tangled in the middle of that thread, CWenger asks if there are "any acronyms which would not be the WP:COMMONNAME, in this case". Leaving aside cases where the abbreviated title is obviously pretty ambiguous (UK, TV, ABC), we do not in general avoid titling subjects with their abbreviations if those are indeed common. M Nowicki's comment that "a full name is more appropriate for an encyclopedia" is, quite simply, not what our naming guidelines say, as evidenced by the third of the five basic rules:

Precision – titles are expected to use names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously

Emphasis mine. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It has been two and a half months now. I've still awaiting a demonstration that USB is the most common name - I warned against Google stats before they were posted. I am not going to let this lie: this is one of the worst admin abuses I have seen here. Is such evidence going to be forthcoming or shall I open a dispute now? Crispmuncher (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Simson Garfinkel, Boston Globe. Happy yet? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

No need for hyperbole; it is just a title after all, and even I can see some value in the reasoning, just disagree with it. For example, not sure which side the comment about "..to identify the topic of the article unambiguously" is arguing? Clearly "USB" does not identify the topic unambiguously, since there in fact is a page USB (disambiguation), so that rule argues for the full name, right? Also my claim that "full name is more appropriate for an encyclopedia" is clearly supported by the rule under WP:TITLEFORMAT which says Avoid abbreviations. So the claim ", quite simply, not what our naming guidelines say" is not so "simple". The guidelines say "avoid abbreviations". As one who has seen all sorts of computer technology come and go through the years, it is just a matter of time before this one too fades into history and the acronym USB becomes better known as something else. It will have nowhere near the staying power of Laser for example, and will eventually need to be moved back to its proper name (if Wikipedia is still around we hope). W Nowicki (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Case now filed with the mediation cabal. You may consider this to be an unimportant point but personally I consider that holding admins to account is of the utmost importance: policy can't be interpreted selectively to suit a personal position. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC).

Article way too detailed

This article is like a technical documentation of the USB standard, rather than an encyclopedic article of the subject. We should consider removing many of the sections since they don't really belong on Wikipedia. The faster you can get to the point the better. Technical documentation belongs on other sites dedicated to the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.59.76.22 (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2012‎ (UTC)

How do they DO it?

It says: "The goal was ...replacing the multitude of connectors at the back of PCs." One presumes they once used the expensive 30-pin etc mish-mash of connectors for a reason. I had presumed it was cable bandwidth, inductance or some such. Seemingly USB uses a technology not available then. What is it? This fundamental and interesting question should be near or in the intro. Thanks! --69.110.90.230 (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Doug Bashford.

The main reason for all the pins for old connectors and fewer pins for newer connectors is the speed of data transmission. In order to get more data per cycle on the older connectors, you add more data lines. The newer interfaces have many more data cycles per unit of time, so you can fit more bits per second on fewer wires. Also, many of the non-data wires in the multiple pin connectors were used for physical hand-shaking. With newer connectors such as USB, the hand-shaking is handled through the data pins, instead of having dedicated wires. Electronics have gotten faster, allowing more bits per second on fewer wires. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.6.16 (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. Consensus is both strong and unanimous. There's a day left on its listing, but with such clear consensus, there's no need to run it through the entire process. --BDD (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Universal Serial Bus → USB – USB already redirects here (so it's just as precise), it is far more recognizable, it is far more common (see this ngram), it is more natural, it's far more concise, it's consistent with other computer-related terms where acronym usage far exceeds the spelled-out words (see JPEG, BIOS, DVD, DDR SDRAM, etc.). I think that's the entire list at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, a policy stating in part that titles "usually convey what the subject is actually called in English". I think I can rest the case there. Red Slash 08:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Support - in general I don't favour acronyms as titles, but this is a case in which the acronym's usage clearly outweighs that of the full title many times over. In fact it has been one of the examples at the WP:TITLEFORMAT guideline since 12 December 2012 despite not actually conforming to the guideline itself.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Thunderbolt

I removed a logically flawed proposition that comparing:

  • two USB3 ports used in parallel to connect to two fast Samsung 840 SSDs, and
  • a single Thunderbolt port connected to two slow Micron c400 SSDs

is a proper or relevant way to analyze intrinsic USB or Thunderbolt channel or controller throughput.

The SSDs' performance difference alone will mask the throughput differences, if any, of the communication channels and of the controllers.

Such comparisons are also of limited validity because SATA interfaces also impose a throughput bottleneck that will disappear when SSDs migrate e.g. to SATA Express interfaces. These interfaces will use either faster SATA signalling speeds, or even dispense with the SATA protocol layer altogether and implement direct PCIe interfacing to the SSD controller via PCIe x2 or x4 channels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.164.0.183 (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Type A or Type B? (moved comment)

The following comment was found here. I moved it here where you folks might consider it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Htc_extmicrousb_port_and_mhl-hdmi_plug.png
This is listed as type B, but note the lack of chamfered corners, which means from the text on the USB page that it is really a type A that has been mislabeled and will cause confusion

– JBarta (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

As this comment mentions a picture used in the article and as it suggests a possible mistake, it sure would be nice to have a knowlegeable editor give it a quick look and remark either way if we are embarrassing ourselves by presenting an inaccuracy in the article. – JBarta (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm unsure of your context, however I did notice this ECN, I believe it's current:
USB Engineering Change Notice

USB ECN: USB 2.0 Phase-Locked SOFs 1 USB ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICE Title: Clarification on the Chamfer on USB 2.0 Micro Connectors Applies to: MicroUSB Specification to the USB 2.0 Specification, Revision 1.01 Summary of ECN Modify the USB2.0 micro receptacle definition so that the external chamfer metals are optional as they are in the USB3.0 micro specification. Reasons for ECN A number of the portable device manufacturers are asking for Micro-series receptacles that have the lead-in chamfer removed. This is primarily an Industrial Design concern as it improves the aesthetics of products. .....snip

USB Engineering Change Notice USB ECN: USB 2.0 Phase-Locked SOFs 2 Specification Changes Universal Serial Bus Micro-USB Cables and Connectors specification Revision 1.01

The ECR proposes to add a note “Chamfer metals are optional with no sharp edges.” to the Figure 4-9 Micro-AB receptacle interface on the page 24 and to the Figure 4-10 Micro-B receptacle interface on the page 25 as shown in the following pages.

I don't know if this applies to your context.
--68.127.89.221 (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Doug Bashford

NRZI definition conflict

The NRZI diagram and definition given on this page directly conflicts with the one given on: Non-return-to-zero

Specifically, that page defines: "One" is represented by a transition of the physical level. "Zero" has no transition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.209.62.126 (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Missing connector drawings

  1. The "Micro-USB AB" connector drawing isn't shown in this article. Please add.
  2. Should the unofficial "USB Mini-b (4-pin)" or "USB Mini-b (Fuji)" connectors be shown or described in this article?
  3. See this site http://www.cablestogo.com/support/connector-guides/usb for descriptions.

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 10:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

USB A-A cables

Continued from Talk:USB/Archive_1#USB_A-A_cables and Talk:USB/Archive_1#TCP over USB?

Dumb A-to-A cables are nonstandard. But is there a reason that the article doesn't mention "smart" cables that have USB A plugs on both ends and some sort of electronics in the middle? From the perspective of the standard, such a cable is two devices, and it may appear to the hosts as an Easy Transfer Cable or as a pair of Ethernet NICs with a crossover cable between them. --Damian Yerrick (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

In the lead...

I was BOLD and added the third paragraph to the lead: "Generally there are four basic kinds or sizes of USB connector systems;..." because I could find no compact description of USB that described these four, plus Type-A and B, plus the 3 speed protocols, attempting to roll them into a whole. My target is the person who never heard of a Micro or Mini connector or Type-A. Obviously such a generalized overview will be incomplete and be inaccurate in some cases, which is why I used terms like "generally." To be 100% accurate is to lose clarity, readability, and the overview. So I don't think we need strict fact checking here, but I do want concept checking for major conceptual or labeling blunders. (Because yesterday I never heard of Type-A.) I think any changes should be made only to add conceptual clarity or readability. Thanks!
--69.110.90.230 (talk) 07:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Although it is a bold edit, where are the references? Groink (talk) 09:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Groink, the majority of that info is from the three or four inline (wiki) links I gave, plus in the body of this article, including the related illustrations. They are: flash drives, USB On-The-Go, USB 3.0, and SuperSpeed. When you Reverted that overview you misrepresented Wiki when you claimed: "broke the most important rule - where are the cited references?)" "most important rule!?" Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) Fact is, before my repair, the lead section was way out of wiki specs, lacking "a summary of its most important aspects," lacking "a concise overview of the article," and failed to "summarize the most important points," and did not as much "invite a reading of the full article." In fact the second paragraph of wiki's Manual of Style/Lead section's lead section lists six objectives before, "according to reliable, published sources," ...is listed. Furthermore, and more specifically:
quoting MOS:LEADCITE#Citations: "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material.".... "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article."
The reason given for your Undo; insufficient "cited references" was clearly unfounded in Wiki lead policy, and thrust. Perhaps more important, that Revert has degraded the article and tossed it back out of Wikipedia specifications. Please correct. You might be comforted by this concept and these words: "Space is scarce in the lead, so people are tempted to cram too much into one sentence, or pile on lots of references, in order to fully state and prove their case—resulting in an unreadable lead. In the body, you have all the space you need to cover subtleties and to cover opposing ideas fairly and in depth,...."WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY
--69.110.90.230 (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)Doug Bashford
Jesus, I'm not going to debate policies with an editor who says, "So I don't think we need strict fact checking here." Wikipedia's rules: Verifiability. No original research. Done! If you say that it is raining outside right now, you need to cite a reference to an official weather report to prove it. If you say that that there are four seasons in the year, you need to cite a reference. Wikipedia editors are not allowed to say, "Hey! Trust me on this info" or "This is common knowledge." End of story. You broke the cardinal rule of Wikipedia. You are not going to wheezel your way out it by throwing out there a dozen other policies just to distract others that you broke the very foundation of Wikipedia. Groink (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh brother. Pot...kettle...black. Who said anything about "trust?" So tell us Groink, which one of Wiki's various guidelines that I quoted specifically regarding; lead sections are you overriding due to your superior opinion and knowledge? If you (or others) can't present a reasonable argument or rebuttal to my evidence & arguments I'll have to make the correction myself.
I was hoping when presented with counter-evidence you might self-correct. ...anyways...in the Reason article I stumbled on this cool quote in it's Lead:

Reason is closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs, attitudes, traditions, and institutions, and therefore with the capacity for freedom and self-determination.

--69.110.90.230 (talk) 02:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Doug Bashford
Groink is right here. You do need to be accurate in your statements, and you admitted that what you wrote would be "incomplete and [...] inaccurate". Wikipedia cannot accept inaccurate information at all. pcuser42 (talk) 04:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I said no such thing. I said: "Obviously such a generalized overview will be incomplete and be inaccurate in some cases, which is why I used terms like "generally." To be 100% accurate is to lose clarity, readability, and the overview." When one starts a statement with the word "generally," then one talks generally, as Wiki requires in a Lead section, one has made no inaccurate statements. My original intention was not to beg forgiveness for inaccuracies as it may have sounded, it was my polite attempt to request that the conceptual overview not be littered with inappropriate non-overview, non conceptual details. My error was in assuming all the editors here with enough gall to pull a Revert would be familiar with Lead section philosophy and recognize "Lead talk" and my intent. Nobody has challenged that overview as being inaccurate in any way, which it is not. It is only incomplete because that is the nature of Lead sections. As far as anybody has shown, it was deleted for what I wrote here, NOT what was written in the article. Again, this is what I wrote:

Generally there are four basic kinds or sizes of USB connector systems; 1) the older "Standard" (typical on say, USB flash drives), 2) the popular but now-deprecated (or disapproved) "Mini," 3) currently the most popular; the "Micro," and 4), the versatile "USB On-The-Go" scheme in both Mini and Micro sizes. Unlike common household power extension cords, each end of a USB cable uses an utterly different kind of connector; an A type and a B type. (This design is to prevent electrical overloads and smoked equipment.) Therefore in general, any of these four "sizes" each requires four different connectors; a male and female A-type at one end, plus a male and female B-type at the other. Counter-intuitively, the "micro" is the most durable.
They also come in three data transfer speeds, USB one, two and three, with the "USB 3.0" using a different connector with more pins. USB 3.0 is also called "SuperSpeed," —being up to ten, potentially even twenty times faster than the more common USB 2.0.

So where are all the inaccuracies? If there are some, let's fix them, not revert the whole paragraph! Without that paragraph, the lead does not even come close to meeting Wikipedia standards as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section). (Again, the references are in the article bodies (here and linked) where those concepts are expanded.) I hope we are not going to be caught in a loop where I solve people's objections only to have another objection "discovered," all the while the conclusion supposedly based on those now-solved objections remain unchanged.
--69.110.90.230 (talk) 10:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Okay, I'll try one more time because even a blind squirrel can find the nut. How difficult is it to take every statement in your paragraph and simply tack on a reference that verifies the statement? If you're so confident that the statements you've written are factual, then PROVE IT! Forget about the manual of style. Adding references to your paragraph is priority one. Following the manual of style comes second. We'd rather see a really badly stylized article WITH references, than a perfectly stylized article but WITHOUT references. Now do you see our point? Groink (talk) 10:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's start off by analyzing your paragraph. "Generally there are four basic kinds or sizes of USB connector systems; 1) the older "Standard" (typical on say, USB flash drives), 2) the popular but now-deprecated (or disapproved) "Mini," 3) currently the most popular; the "Micro," and 4), the versatile "USB On-The-Go" scheme in both Mini and Micro sizes." Do you have references that say there are only four USB connector systems? Is there a fifth maybe you missed? Or even a sixth? "This design is to prevent electrical overloads and smoked equipment." Is this true? Where's the reference? I'm not sure if this is even true... I've seen A-type to A-type, and B-type to B-type USB cables. Are they out of compliance? Is there a reference to say they're not? "Counter-intuitively, the "micro" is the most durable." Who says so? Apple may disagree with you, since it uses the Lightening connector on its newest iPhone and iPad. Apple says micro-USB is not durable. "They also come in three data transfer speeds, USB one, two and three, with the "USB 3.0" using a different connector with more pins." Is this true? USB 3.0 may have more pins than 2.0 and 1.0, but the type-A end is still only four pins. How is that so? USB 3.0 is "up to ten, potentially even twenty times faster than the more common USB 2.0." Only in theoretical terms. How about in actual application of the standard? See what I mean by verify your statements? Groink (talk) 10:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
OK Groink, perhaps the two issues of; "the "micro" is the most durable," and "potentially even twenty times faster" could be improved. And you ask: "We'd rather see a really badly stylized article WITH references, than a perfectly stylized article but WITHOUT references. Now do you see our point?"
Huh? "We???" "our???" Yes Groink, I still understand your opinion and values, but that does not change the fact that they are not Wikipedia's well documented opinion and values. And again condensed, re-quoting Wikipedia, MOS:LEADCITE#Citations: "The presence of citations in the introduction is [not] required" Your request is denied. Your reasoning has been falsified. Your whim is not reason. Hello? Anybody home? ...Let me explain...
Groink, do you even grasp the fact that the lead section has different rules than the rest of a Wikipedia article!? ...and different philosophies? ...and different goals? Cuz if you do, it seems to REALLY PISS YOU OFF. I can't believe you wrote: "Forget about the manual of style." ...and then because you want it so bad, we should override Wikipedia with YOUR almighty sanctimonious obsession with references as a reason to delete somebody's work. That seems to make you a rouge editor,—you are acting outside of Wikipedia's accepted behavior. And what of common decency???? The article IS TAGGED: "This article's lead section may not adequately summarize key points of its contents. Please consider expanding the lead..." I try and help and your inconsiderate tantrum/vandalism is the thanks I get.
Your personal opinion and rogue values demands Wikipedia remove the philosophical differences that differentiate the lead from the body. Seemingly you don't grasp the concept of "overview," and thus somehow felt a need to cite any possible exceptions and outliers and details that would, oops! destroy it as an overview, —much less a clear, clean, readable overview. That's not an "overview," pal. That's not an "introduction," Groink.   —BY DEFINITION!—
Groink, your given values are outside of Wikipedia standards. You are demanding I cover all the questionable exceptions one could dream up --in an OVERVIEW! How silly is that?
  You are demanding I use the rules and values of the article body,—on the Lead Section! How silly is that?
 In my text you utterly pretend the four terms: "Generally," "basic," "in general," and "potentially," are invisible, then complain that there might be exceptions to those concepts. How silly is that?
  Groink, I strongly urge you to get right with Wikipedia's values and stop acting like a mean-spirited, sanctimonious bully based solely on your own values and what is starting to look like an obsession. And by "Wikipedia's values" I mean: the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section). If you have a better source, do let us know. If you can't respect Wikipedia, ...put her values over your own, please go elsewhere.
You have still not cited a valid reason for your deletion. (It would appear there is none.) Meanwhile this article does not meet Wikipedia standards, as tagged. How silly is that?
--69.110.90.230 (talk) 04:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Doug Bashford
Groink, I hope this is useful— To reiterate: Nearly all of your objections are covered in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section). No I am not going to go thru it with you line by line, attempting to spoon feed you. (I've already done ENOUGH of that.) Why don't you try reading it some time? Yes, I suspect it will make you uncomfortable, you being a "rules guy," and not a "concept guy." But try to discern the goals and concepts there. That the Lead is substantially different than the article Body is a fact, and that fact is a GOOD thing. ...and PLEASE, no more empty, unsupported opinions from you.
--69.110.90.230 (talk) 04:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Doug Bashford
After all that typing - probably hours of effort on your part, you still cannot come up with even ONE reference? Not even one? Your focus is way off-base. Way off. A lead section give you no right to add un-founded, un-proven, weasel-worded, and simply false information to an article. There is nothing in the policy that allows for this - nothing that says I can write whatever I want in the lead section, and let the rest of the article explain it, which is basically what you're doing. I will continue to revert if you continue to add information of this sort. If you are really serious about Wikipedia, get an account! No sense arguing with an un-named anon any further. I'm outta here! Groink (talk) 04:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Is that so? I'm just summarizing the body. So what do you suppose this Wikipedia quote Means?

...update the lead to summarize the body....Space is scarce in the lead, so people are tempted to cram too much into one sentence, or pile on lots of references...resulting in an unreadable lead. In the body, you have all the space you need to cover subtleties ...fairly and in depth, separately, one at a time.

Well? What does it mean, Mr. Groink? ...I keep quoting Wiki, and all you can do is shout vague insults and whine "I don't like it!" Without evidence, people are liable to think you don't belong here. No wonder you write: "Forget about the manual of style!" ...Because Wikipedia is on my side in this? Duh.
On your home page you brag about reorganizing USB, and now you think you own it. Yet it's been Wiki-tagged since December 2012 to "consider expanding the lead." Could it be you couldn't do it because of your obsession with inappropriate rules and philosophies, and now you are jealous of my work? How else to explain your totally irrational behavior and displayed disrespect for Wikipedia guidelines? You don't own it Groink. Now man up.
--69.110.90.230 (talk) 22:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Doug Bashford

After several months the Lead Section still remains tagged as incomplete, and there have been no attempts to repair it (other than my own). There also have been no valid objections, nor valid specific changes suggested to my above quoted (and deleted) fix. I will therefore put the improvements as suggested and discussed in detail above back.
As always, I still agree that there should be minimal un-referenced material in the Lead that is not covered in the article Body;—as per Wiki policy—and am still open to suggestion in this regard.
--68.127.89.221 (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Doug Bashford


Repaired Lead section as discussed.
--68.127.93.1 (talk) 23:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Why there are type a and type b plug?

I read from a blog saying it is because type a is dedicated to host and b for peripheral but unable to verify it. May someone verify it and write that inrmto article?C933103 (talk) 06:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

See USB#Standard_connectors - type A cable end points towards host, type B towards device. Zac67 (talk) 10:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Official Standards

Are the official standards IEC 62680-1, -2, -3, -4 etc ? If so, why are they not brought up in the references? Should there be a section outlining these?

  • IEC 62680-1 Universal Serial Bus interfaces for data and power, Part 1: Universal Serial Bus Specification, Revision 2.0
  • IEC 62680-2 Universal Serial Bus interfaces for data and power, Part 2: USB Micro-USB Cables and Connectors Specification, Revision 1.01
  • IEC 62680-3 Universal Serial Bus interfaces for data and power, Part 3: USB Battery Charging Specification, Revision 1.2
  • IEC 62680-4 Universal Serial Bus interfaces for data and power, Part 4: Universal Serial Bus Cables and Connectors Class Document Rev. 2.0 (Published)

 kgrr talk 17:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Why the citation need for standard nomenclature?

Dig the following quote from "connector properties" : The official USB specification documents also periodically define the term male to represent the plug, and female to represent the receptacle.[citation needed]

The use of the terms male and female to refer to plug and receptacle are standard speech in the electrical world, and as such hardly need citation. . . Just my humble opinion. . .

72.196.100.240 (talk) 10:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You're assuming that everyone has the same knowledge. Have a look at Wikipedia:NOTBLUE. pcuser42 (talk)

BM connector ?

Is this a USB connector ? It is called BM connector but I don't find anything about it.

For example, see http://www.befr.ebay.be/itm/Adaptateur-USB-3-0-Male-vers-BM-Imprimante-Male-SuperSpeed-Neuf-/261248886819?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_23&hash=item3cd3a5a823 .

Thanks. AXRL (talk) 11:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello there! This is actually a good remark, as we don't have it currently covered very well. It would be great it someone could take a picture of a full-size device-side USB 3.0 connector, and add it to the USB 3.0 article. -- Dsimic (talk) 13:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistent USB 1.1 release date

In "History" you can read: "The first widely used version of USB was 1.1, which was released in September 1998."

In "History/USB 1.x" you can read: "Few USB devices made it to market until USB 1.1, released in August 1998,[...]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.18.24.95 (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you know which one is correct? pcuser42 (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

USB Type-C connector

Connector type C is in the horizon: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2068940/planned-new-usb-connector-will-fit-both-ways.html So that section needs update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palacesblowlittle (talk • contribs) 02:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out! Type C connector is already mentioned in the Usability and "upside-down" connectors section, and it should be described in more detail within the USB 3.0 article, once the actual connector specification becomes finished and publicly accesible. — Dsimic (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

If you are editing/watching this USB article, then you might also want to edit/watch the following articles:

If you know of any other USB articles, please add them above. I didn't include numerous redirects. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. As discussed below, USB appears to be the common name.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

USB → Universal Serial Bus – Page moved from existing location by BDD 1 July citing talk page discussion. No such talk page discussion exists. Last discussion of this issue dated Jan 2012 which was decided in favour of full form 3142 (talk) 13:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose: USB as an acronym is so universally used, that renaming the article to Universal Serial Bus wouldn't actually be an improvement. Also, we have the USB 3.0 article which should be renamed too in that case, for consistency, and that would simply be awkward. — Dsimic (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. bd2412 T 15:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose and speedy close; yes it did take place, although I understand your confusion because it's hard to find. I started that discussion, so I did remember it. Talk:USB/Archive_7#Requested_move_2013 Red Slash 16:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I generally dislike having TLAs as titles, but in this case I think it might be warranted by sources. Try searching for USB in Google Books, and you'll find numerous titles with just USB in them like USB Explained, USB Complete, USB Design by Example. Books which spell out the acronym in the title like Universal Serial Bus system architecture are generally older. Frankly either one would be justifiable, but for WP:TITLECHANGES sake I'd say USB is fine. In general using google ngrams as a rationale will move most articles to their acronyms PPP vs. Point-to-Point, TCP vs. Transmission Control Protocol, Central Intelligence Agency vs. CIA etc., but that's generally not done, so most of the archived discussion linked above is actually flawed in this respect. Google ngrams searches the full bodies of text, so of course acronyms, when they exist, vastly overwhelm the spelled out names in text, or else why would anyone bother creating acronyms if they don't save space?! However, that's not a good argument that we should use acronyms everywhere, including as titles. WP:ACRONYMTITLE explains that such moves have been controversial and unstable (as it seems to be the case here as well). One should generally try to figure out if acronyms are preferred as/in titles for the respective subjects e.g. in other encyclopedias, books, etc. Someone not using his real name (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: per all the other reasons already listed in opposition. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • In the IMDB discussion someone opposed the move to acronym with argument "The CNN example is not really applicable, as imdb.com refers to uses the full name in its title, while cnn.com uses the abbreviation." So, out of curiosity, I checked out usb.org, and they do start with "Universal Serial Bus (USB) connects more than computers and peripherals. It has the power to connect you with a whole new world of PC experiences. USB is your instant connection to the fun of digital [...]" On the other hand, someone else argued in the same discussion "the initials are only used by people that already know about it. If I want to tell someone about it I always refer to it in full the first time I mention it." By that other argument, the USB acronym probably wins here if I had to introduce it to some new consumer who doesn't really need to understand how it works, but if on the other hand I were to introduce it to, say, engineering students, no doubt I'd expand the acronym as it is insightful to someone who already has a clue about what "bus" and "serial" mean in the computing world (though I can't remember when I actually had to introduce someone to USB, so this is pretty academic, both ways). So, YMMV as they say. Wikipedia is already inconsistent about such matters (NASA vs. Central Intelligence Agency -- both had overwhelming and explicit consensus for their present titles.) I think we generally lack a good and simple test on which to decide such matters, ergo the churning... Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, this article also starts with "Universal Serial Bus (USB) is an industry standard developed in the mid-1990s that defines the cables, connectors [...]", so it should be good for everyone. :) — Dsimic (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

USB trident icon with "plus" sign

Suggested topic: the significance of the "+" sign in the trident icon.

Ref.: http://www.usb.org/developers/docs/icon_design.pdf 78.29.225.154 (talk) 12:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Quite interesting, great find! Though, I haven't seen that plus sign yet on USB 2.0 ports? Hm, thoughts? — Dsimic (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Power and signaling voltages

The sidebar just lists 5V as the signaling voltage, but this is wrong. In a forum someone just explained to me that the ~5V supply is for the end device to regulate down to 3.3V, which is then used for the 3.3V signaling. The 5V can vary a lot, and devices aren't meant to run on 5V (which is why it can go down to something like only 4.0V). It makes sense; the ~5V supply ensures that cable losses, dirty connectors, etc. won't affect devices getting solid 3.3V with their internal regulators. It also explains why USB chargers can vary widely in voltage, and why ones that don't give rock-solid 5V aren't crappy, it's just the wrong expectation that USB supplies a solid 5.0V.

A while back I was searching for this information as to why the supply was 5V but signaling was only 3.3V, and never found an answer. It would be great if this page explained the above (assuming it's correct). Someone will have to find a source, preferably the USB standard. 70.124.88.175 (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not that simple. USB 2.0 in fact uses differential signalling on its D+ and D- wires, and the differential sensitivity there is in the 300 mV range. Maximum allowed line voltage is 5.25 V, while minimal is 4.75 V, for the VBUS line providing power to the USB device. It's up to the actual device to be possibly satisfied with less than 5 V there. For example, external USB hard drives do require 5 V, while low-voltage applications (such as a USB mouse) are required to operate at 4.4 V, measured at the device end of the USB cable. Universal Serial Bus Revision 2.0 specification provides a complete set of specs.
So, the article is good, don't trust everybody on those forums. :) -- Dsimic (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand: "The specification provides for ... 5 V ± 5% ... between the positive and negative bus power lines". Where does the 4.4V come in; why is it mentioned? Does it also apply to the USB Battery Charging Specification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.58.129 (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
It all comes from the Universal Serial Bus Revision 2.0 specification. Line voltage is what's between the positive and negative bus power lines; the article goes with 5 V ± 5%, while 5% of 5 V is 0.25 V, and that's inline with the above specified allowed 4.75–5.25 V line voltage range (VBUS). 4.4 V comes in from the requirement for low-voltage applications (such as a USB mouse or keyboard); such devices are required to operate at 4.4 V, as thin and long cables (for USB HID devices) are causing voltage drops at the device ends of such cables. USB Battery Charging is different, it primarily isn't designed around devices' operational voltages. Makes more sense? — Dsimic (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

USB Battery Charging Specification Inaccuracy

The article: "A charging port supplies up to 500 mA at 5 V, up to the rated current at 3.6 V or more, and drop its output voltage if the portable device attempts to draw more than the rated current."

A quote puported from the battery charging specification 1.1: "A device having a Dedicated Charging Port is required to specify on its packaging or casing, the rated current at which the output voltage of the Dedicated Charging Port is capable to supply VCHG [4.75V-5.25V]. The actual current at which the Dedicated Charging Port voltage drops to 3.6V is required to be within +50%/-0% of the current value specified on the package or casing."

How I found it: http://www.raspberrypi.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=6187&p=80651

Clearly, this section is misleading and should be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.58.129 (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! Things aren't that simple, and they've also changed between revisions 1.1 and 1.2 of the USB Battery Charging Specification... Have you checked out diagrams on pages 37 and 39, in file BC1.2_FINAL.pdf (available as part of BCv1.2_011912.zip (revision 1.2))? Various voltage drops are allowed, depending on the current, and on whether it's about a charging downstream port (CDP), or a dedicated charging port (DCP). Similar diagrams are also available in the revision 1.1. In short, that section in the article is trying to provide a brief "translation" of those diagrams in the opening sentence or two, taking revision 1.1 as the reference. — Dsimic (talk) 04:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Power Y-shaped cables are not conforming

The Power section talks about how devices can use two ports to draw more power,

Some devices, such as high-speed external disk drives, require more than 500 mA of current[1] and therefore may have power issues if powered from just one USB 2.0 port: erratic function, failure to function, or overloading/damaging the port. Such devices may come with an external power source or a Y-shaped cable that has two USB connectors (one for power and data, the other for power only) to plug into a computer. With such a cable, a device can draw power from two USB ports simultaneously.[2]

but my reading of the compliance updates on usb.org's site is that Y-cables are prohibited

Use of a 'Y' cable (a cable with two A-plugs) is prohibited on any USB peripheral. If a USB peripheral requires more power than allowed by the USB specification to which it is designed, then it must be self-powered.

At the very least, it seems the above should be rewritten to explain that devices needing more than a single power can provide must be self-powered in order to conform to the USB specification, but that many non-conforming devices come with a Y-cable rather than an external power supply in order to save costs, and may not work with or possibly even damage some USB hosts. 70.124.88.175 (talk) 06:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Host / Device

The roles of the host and peripheral devices aren't very clear from reading this article. Defining that the host always provides power (if it does) and what the relationship between the host and peripherals is for sending/receiving data would much improve this article. Probably in the first paragraph below the intro.

This is just my opinion, I'm not an expert, but this information was not clear to me after reading the article. Sanchazo (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Type C

I've added a short item for the new Type C connector, which has been referenced in a few articles in Infoworld and references to the article are included in the reference along with a short summary. As more information becomes available, the section can be expanded. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! Type-C connector is already described within the USB § Usability and orientation section, please have a look. I'd say that having a separate USB § "C" connector section might be confusing until the connector is actually standardized and commercially available. Thus, I've deleted the section; hope you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 16:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Who invented the USB?

Was it an individual or a team? Fletcherbrian (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

A comittee, I presume (looking at the 376 different plugs, all of which have to be inserted three times until they fit, and other design "features" ;-) --BerlinSight (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Mini-A connector?

In the Connector section, the tables dealing with plug & receptacle combinations and the cable plug combinations neglect the Mini-A type, describing only Mini-B. Any particular reason why? --Joe Sewell (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

"USB device" is not defined

  "Redirected from USB device"

It explains what it does in concept but not what it is. Is it firmware? A connector? Both?

Quote: USB On-The-Go makes it possible for two USB devices to communicate with each other without requiring a separate USB host. In practice, one of the USB devices acts as a host for the other device." --71.137.156.36 (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)Cheers!

Colors and USB version

In the article it says two places that USB 1.x connector are white and 2.0 are black. My keyboard (SK-8125) has an internal USB 1.1 hub, and the connectors are black. My Raspberry Pi has USB 2.0, and its connectors are white. --CableCat (talk) 07:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

... and I have a bunch of black USB 2.0 ports. We should probably figure out how to present that color-coding means pretty much nothing unless it's about the USB 3.0 and blue color. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 17:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Being blue is no indicator of speed, I have a USB cable that's probably type 2 and the cable is as blue as my Ethernet cable, if I didn't look at the ends closely it's easily mistaken for an Ethernet cable. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I have updated the article, and deleted the claims. --CableCat (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

still image capture device class

Please add the still image capture device class, the Picture Transfer Protocol, and the Media Transfer Protocol to the table in the USB#Device classes section.

Each one has some specific hexadecimal USB class number associated with it, right? --DavidCary (talk) 01:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Cabling

The inset refers to 'A USB twisted pair, where the "Data +" and "Data −" conductors are twisted together in a double helix. ' I contend that this is misleading. The Data + and Data - are NOT twisted in a double helix, unless you consider the multiple individual conductors within each insulated cable. [3] ExpatSalopian

Hello there! Well, a helix refers to a single curve in three-dimensional space – as we have two conductors in a twisted pair, it's a double-helix layout. It's somewhat similar to structure of the DNA, and there are sources naming the DNA a double-helix structure. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Pin numbering on USB plugs and receptacles

The pin numbering system in the Pinouts section is is described as:

note that all pin numbers as shown are as per plug; for type A and B receptacles, pin numbers as shown are looking from the back out the front; a more typical manufacturer's "top" view into the receptacle would show the pin numbers as mirrored

This sentence is confusing to someone unfamiliar with the subject. What does "as per plug" mean? Is the pin numbering system for type A and type receptacles different from mini and micro receptacles? Which end of the plug is the "back"? The end with the cable? What is the "typical" top view?

If you understand sentence this could you explain it more clearly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.5.255 (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! Yes, you were right, additional description in that section was quite confusing. Went ahead and edited the article, so now it should be clear enough what is it all about. Please check it out. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
after researching this some, I have concluded that both the descriptive explanation and icons for the pin-out table - while in logical agreeance with one another - are both incorrect. Pins do not get re-numbered just because one connector is male and the other is female. Each pin number corresponds to a conductor within the cable. Although the position of the pin may differ from male to female connectors, the pin numbering is still related to the conductor and does not change since all USB interfaces employ straight-through connections.
Ex: pin1 -> pin1, pin2 -> pin2, etc.[4]
I will edit the descriptive text and see if I can figure out the icon files. Icons will depict pin-outs per standard front view format (looking straight-on at the connectors, as if the cable exits out the "back"). Jchap1590 (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
You're totally right that pin numbers stay the same, but that's the case only between plugs and receptacles of the same size type. As an example of the opposite, and as already noted in the USB § Host and Device interface receptacles section, pin numbered as "4" on the Mini-B receptacle is used for On-The-Go host/client identification, while pin numbered as "4" on the Type-A plug is connected to GND.
Hope you agree. Went ahead and clarified that a bit, together with modifying the table so it now shows a Mini-A receptacle instead of a Mini-A plug, with correct and matching numbering of pins. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, went ahead even further and created two more images, depicting Type-A and Type-B receptacles, and used them to replace images displayed earlier in the connector mating matrix. That allowed second note to be deleted, so there should be no more confusion. Hope you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
perfect, it looks great! thanks for the assistance. Jchap1590 (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm glad you like the results. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Non-USB plug in photo and description of USB plugs

On the right side of the page there is a picture titled "Usb_connectors.JPG" and the description describes this as "Types of USB connector left to right", but then goes on to list connectors including what is described as "UC-E6 proprietary (non-USB) plug"... This is a non-sequitur and should be fixed, but doing so would require a replacement picture. DracoDan82 (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello! That's a good remark, but the picture is what it is, and short of providing another picture we can only handle that through the image caption. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal for DFU

Device Firmware Update (DFU), as a USB device class specification, should be merged into the USB article. In more detail, DFU seems notable enough for having a separate article, but I don't see that much of the possibilities for expanding it into a sizeable stub, at least – it's simply too technical. Thus, merging it here should be fine, ending up with a few sentences that most probably would belong to the USB § Device classes section. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Go for it. I'd do it myself but some anon IP from East Cheem will instantly revert it. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Done, please check it out. Additionally, the proposal has been "cooking" for long enough with no complaints. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
@Wtshymanski: Nobody will revert your merge attempts provided you do them correctly. But that's the problem: you still refuse to do them correctly as you were notified on your talk page to do following the last ANI on the subject. You may care to note that Dsimic did it entirely correctly. The copyright licence employed by Wikipedia requires any text moved to another article to be correctly attributed back to the author. The talk page tags on the source and destination artcles' talk pages are Wikipedia's chosen method of maintaining that attribution. It is not helped that you frequently merge against consensus and merges are your current vehicle for deleting material from Wikipedia without good reason. 188.130.89.12 (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Link in reference 72 is obsolete or highjacked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.150.10 (talk) 05:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference 1. is also dead. 128.214.135.164 (talk) 07:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

History of USB

...as there are some companies mentioned in the history you may also consider to add that Apple radically promoted USB by introducing the first iMac with USB ports (and without SCSI) to the market. I remember this was 1996/97 and had much impact on the acceptance of USB and a lot of other hardware with USB came up that time. --Thomas Österheld (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Screw/Snap-lock USB connectors? Structured wiring?

As someone who has to deal with interactive whiteboard installations in schools, I am deeply frustrated by USB. It was never designed for the long-distance and structured/permanent wiring jobs it's been pushed into serving. I seem to regularly deal with loose push-fit connectors and flaky connections and bus extenders, where there's no solution but to "unplug/replug" and "wiggle and jiggle" and hope that it works for a while again.

Is there any sort of official industrial, architectural, or structured wiring to replace standard USB cabling, that is designed to be more permanent, with either snap-lock Modular_connectors or D-subminiature screw-down connectors?

It seems rather extreme to be taking apart out-of-warranty USB devices, removing the USB A/B sockets, and directly soldering 90 ohm twisted pair / modular connectors onto the device, but that seems about the only option to force reliable connections, and get rid of the crappy standard push-together and then fall apart while hidden behind device or in ceiling USB connectors.

-- DMahalko (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia is NOT a "solve my problem" blog. Second, I've seen some special USB connectors with screws/locks on them for industrial purposes, but they aren't a standard. Third, put Velcro around the USB connector hole and along both sides of the USB cable plug, then use another piece of the other Velcro type to connect the 2 together, ugly but it should work. Fourth, I agree this is a problem, but unfortunately no official solution. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
http://www.sealevel.com/support/article/AA-00149/0/SeaLATCH-Locking-USB-Cable-Solution.html
http://www.te.com/catalog/minf/en/779
I only make Talk comments where exploration of said comment would make a useful addition to the article. Due to USB being pushed so very far beyond its original use for "nearby serial connections", this is very relevant to the article, and I think worthy of addition to the article, regarding bus extenders and permanent-connection reliability. :)
-- DMahalko (talk) 13:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
You pointed out problems with the USB connector in some situations and asked questions, but you didn't say anything about wanting to improve the article. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 15:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Roundup: 2.5-inch Hard Disk Drives with 500 GB, 640 GB and 750 GB Storage Capacities (page 17)". xbitlabs.com. 2010-06-16. Retrieved 2010-07-09.
  2. ^ "I have the drive plugged in but I cannot find the drive in "My Computer", why?". hitachigst.com. Retrieved 2012-03-30.
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_helix_%28disambiguation%29
  4. ^ USB 3.0 Cable Diagram.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:USB/Archive_7&oldid=1137278566"