Talk:USB/Archive 8
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Split history and USB3 sections
- Agree - I agree that the article is too long and I think those two sections would work nicely in their own articles with a link back to small paragraphs here. § Music Sorter § (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Done. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Mice vs mouses
The mouse (computing) article covers this naming convention question with sources. You will find a number of sources saying it can be either mice or mouses and the official online Oxford Dictionary (2011) source states the term mice is more common. Since the mouse article uses mice throughout the article and this article was written originally with mice (from what I can tell), I propose that this article which links to that article use the same convention. I am reverting the change to keep the original until we come to a consensus. § Music Sorter § (talk) 05:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Quite. "Mouses" is sheer pedantry, and I've never heard it in the wild. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- "Mice". Never ever heard or read "Mouses" which just sounds horrible. --Zac67 (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- There's no such thing as a consensus on grammar. It's "Mice". "Mouses" is only used when people are trying to be cute. Padillah (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- I've eliminated the controversy in the lead section by replacing "mice" with the general term "pointing devices", with a wikilink to [[Mouse (computing)]]. "Pointing devices" includes terms like mouse, trackball, touchpad, digitizing tablet, joystick, etc. — QuicksilverT @ 16:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Lead too short?
Smackbot tagged the article with {{Lead too short}} on 1 July 2011. The lead could use some work to improve the article summary in the first sentence or two, removing some of the convoluted syntax and making it more accessible to a tyro, but I see nothing wrong with the length of the lead. Accordingly, I've removed the tag. — QuicksilverT @ 16:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- Smackbot merely dated the tag: I added it, as even after rewriting the old lede to better act as a summary it's still far, far too short for as well-developed an article as this. It does not make the most cursory effort to explain the technical details of the standard and brushes on its history and use in only the lightest manner. Please read WP:LEDE, which explains exactly what we expect of a good article introduction; for an article this size it should be three or four good paragraphs long and should make an adequate attempt to summarise all of the key points expressed in the article. If I don't find time to do this myself in the near future I'll be re-tagging it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Redirect request
Can an authorized user make a redirect from USB plugs to USB#Physical_appearance please?
~ender 2011-08-10 20:38:MST
Done Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
System Design Section
This section is too theoretical with no examples provided for each new term introduced. The vast majority of people use USB devices, so giving examples of what each term means seems only natural. To not give examples only serves to keep the general public away from reading this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.81.244 (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
USB.org links
Seanmcd27 (talk · contribs) added the following comment to the references section while fixing some dead references. It doesn't belong in the article body so I've moved it here.
note that because of the naming convention used by the usb consortium website, every time they update a document it breaks the links on this page. if you go to you can find the documents referenced on this page even if the more specific links are broken
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 23:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Controversy
Some people say the logo which is similar to a pitchfork was created to offend Christians --88.111.125.135 (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Who are those people?.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- The key word to search for is "trident". If you Google "trident USB Christians", there are an abundant of articles that can serve as possible sources. The trident is seen as a symbol of Satan, and USB's use of an image of a trident has some Christians to refer to USB devices as "satanic devices," or "the devil's technology." If you look in the Trident in popular culture article, you'll find a mention of the USB symbol looking like a trident. As a result, Evangelical Christians in Brazil, for example, have banned the use of USB after claiming the technology is the mark of Satan-worshippers. If Wikipedia allows discussions of "fan death" among the Koreans, I think the trident link is well sourced and should be covered, if anything, as a pop culture subject. Groink (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- There's nothing to suggest that it was created with the purpose of that.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- No no, no one saying that the USB trident was used "for" the purpose of symbolizing Satan, although the original editor mentioned as such. Think of the issue when Procter & Gamble used a moon like symbol for its corporate logo, and people believed that the company were Satan worshipers. This is well covered in the Wikipedia article, under the "Logo controversy" section. Many articles here in Wikipedia cover these kinds of issues regarding logos; Google "site:en.wikipedia.org satan logo" Groink (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- There's nothing to suggest that it was created with the purpose of that.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- The key word to search for is "trident". If you Google "trident USB Christians", there are an abundant of articles that can serve as possible sources. The trident is seen as a symbol of Satan, and USB's use of an image of a trident has some Christians to refer to USB devices as "satanic devices," or "the devil's technology." If you look in the Trident in popular culture article, you'll find a mention of the USB symbol looking like a trident. As a result, Evangelical Christians in Brazil, for example, have banned the use of USB after claiming the technology is the mark of Satan-worshippers. If Wikipedia allows discussions of "fan death" among the Koreans, I think the trident link is well sourced and should be covered, if anything, as a pop culture subject. Groink (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- The original story came from a Brazilian newspaper equivalent of the Onion, translated to English, reprinted, and then taken out of context and ran as truth. It doesn't matter how many RS re-ran, quoted, paraphrased the story when the source was satire. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- This should NEVER be taken seriously, otherwise it turns into this mess: Moon landing conspiracy theories. If you create a section in the article, put it at the bottom and call it Humor or something not serious sounding, because it sure the heck isn't a real controversy. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- We're not going to add a new section for something so trivial. If this were a genuinely notable event (which it isn't, as detailed by SchmuckyTheCat above) then it would belong in the still-to-be-written section on the standard's impact. However, as it isn't, it doesn't. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Requested move 2012
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
USB → Universal Serial Bus – The reasons for this request are based on the dispute over the legitimacy of the move last June and the discussion. I deliberately didn't want to propose this over Christmas when people are less likely to be paying attention and while this is far from my preferred approach (I would rather the original decision was overturned) it does seem the best way of getting a shoddy decision reversed based on the advice given at dispute resolution.
There are four primary reasons for proposing this move:
- There was no consensus for the previous move.
- The determination of consensus was based on a selective application of policy and no opportunity was given to dispute that.
- WP:TITLEFORMAT is clear that there is a presumption against initialisms in article titles.
- The threshold for over-riding that presumption where the subject is "almost exclusively" known by its initialism and an expanded form is less familiar that the abbreviated form. That does not apply here.
I'm aware people may be getting tired of this by now, but it was a outrageous decision then and it still is now. Hopefully we can draw a line under this with a fresh discussion. Crispmuncher (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC).
- Support. Have a look at USB (disambiguation), there are several important competitors for the acronym. Of course web-based searches will currently favour the computer term, but Universal Serial Bus is recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources (WP:AT of course) while the acronym is arguably ambiguous. Play safe and make the undisambiguated name USB the DAB. Andrewa (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. Very few non-technical people know what the full term means, or even that the "bus" in question is a Bus (computing), not a Bus (that universally follows a series of stops ;-). Everybody knows that "USB" is something the mouse or the harddrive needs to work with his computer. The other USBs are, without exception, abbreviations only encountered in very specialised situations. Even if I heard about e.g. a "USB report" in an academic situation, I would expect a report about USB, not a report written by Stony Brook or the Universidad Simón Bolívar. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: That has not been my experience, or I suppose it depends what you mean by non-technical people... very few Australians, and almost none below the age of thirty, are uncomfortable programming and using a GPS or downloading pictures from a mobile phone. In that sense even those who describe themselves as non-technical are actually far more technically competent than the majority of Australians were in my youth. The phrase universal serial bus flows off the tongue without any thought that it might a sort of motor omnibus, any more than the phrase Her Majesty the Queen leads them to wonder whether the current monarch is best described as Majestic. The case might be stronger in the case of LED; I doubt even technical people would object to using the term for a three-lead device were one to come into common use, it would no longer be any sort of diode but would IMO still be called a LED for clarity. And yet we still use Light-emitting diode rather than LED as the article title. Andrewa (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Weak support because of WP:TITLEFORMAT. USB should still redirect. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- Weak support per SchmuckyTheCat, including redirect. This initialism thing easily gets out of control with vested interests jockeying for perceived status in obscurity. This case is close, IMO, because this meaning seems used much more often than the dozen others, but better to err on the side of clarity and description rather than jargon and insider knowledge. ENeville (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support per WP:TITLEFORMAT, with USB as prime redirect. The rest routing to USB (disambiguation). -- SchreyP (messages) 21:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Strong oppose. There seems to be a concession here that this is the primary topic for USB, so I won't argue for that. But given that it's the primary topic, why not use the more recognizable form? WP:COMMONNAME seems clear on this point. Powers T 03:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- The provision of WP:TITLEFORMAT relating to initialisms takes precedence since it is much more specific than the more general guidance at WP:COMMONNAME. In any case I have not accepted USB is the more common name in reliable sources: its simply that at dispute resolution both sides accepted we don't need to show the full form is more common. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC).
- TITLEFORMAT only specifies a presumption in favor of the expanded title; in the case of a widely known acronym such as this one, one which is regularly used without expansion in reliable sources, the presumption is no longer necessary and gets in the way of serving our readers. Powers T 19:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Widespread use is not the threshold for countermanding that presumption: almost exclusive use is. That is difficult to demonstrate as evidenced by previous discussions of the issue. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC).
- TITLEFORMAT only specifies a presumption in favor of the expanded title; in the case of a widely known acronym such as this one, one which is regularly used without expansion in reliable sources, the presumption is no longer necessary and gets in the way of serving our readers. Powers T 19:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- The provision of WP:TITLEFORMAT relating to initialisms takes precedence since it is much more specific than the more general guidance at WP:COMMONNAME. In any case I have not accepted USB is the more common name in reliable sources: its simply that at dispute resolution both sides accepted we don't need to show the full form is more common. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC).
- Weak oppose - at first I wanted to support, but I changed my mind after reading WP:ACRONYMTITLE: almost exclusively known by its acronym or is widely known and used in that form (e.g. NASA and radar). and also: In many cases, no decision is necessary because a given acronym has several expansions, none of which is the most prominent. [...] the acronym should be a disambiguation page. Han-Kwang (t) 17:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:ACRONYMTITLE. — MrDolomite • Talk 23:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Weak support We should avoid acronyms in titles if the subject of the article has a widely known expanded form. It is indeed widely known to computer enthusiasts that USB stands for "Universal Serial Bus". A strong counter-argument would be that the less digitally literate have only encountered this name in compound terms, primarily the now ubiquitous "USB stick". Having a redirect from USB to Universal Serial Bus, instead of to a disambiguation page, would remedy any associated problems with this, however. —Ruud 20:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Frankly I don't see how anyone can "oppose per WP:TITLEFORMAT" or equivalent, at least without a lot of elaboration. Those policy statements are clear that there is a presumption AGAINST acronyms. The exception clearly has a very high threshold by design and I don't see this meeting that. Even Powers above doesn't claim this, criticizing the policy rather than its application. The title is very much part of the article too and I feel that "Universal Serial Bus" better communicates what the article is about than yet another TLA. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 03:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please don't put words in my mouth. I support TITLEFORMAT's advice in general; I just think it's being applied too strictly here. As Han-Kwang said, ACRONYMTITLE allows initialisms if the subject "is widely known and used in that form". That's clearly the case here, and if WP:TITLEFORMAT doesn't include that same language, it should. Powers T 14:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, that was not my intention, but the threshold is intentionally set high in policy. It is not a question of interpretation and application. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC).
- Please don't put words in my mouth. I support TITLEFORMAT's advice in general; I just think it's being applied too strictly here. As Han-Kwang said, ACRONYMTITLE allows initialisms if the subject "is widely known and used in that form". That's clearly the case here, and if WP:TITLEFORMAT doesn't include that same language, it should. Powers T 14:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. Interestingly, a few months ago at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Weakening the wording of WP:ACRONYMTITLE there was almost universal agreement that USB was clearly allowed under ACRONYMTITLE because it is so common. Jenks24 (talk) 06:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- It is not a given where consensus is there, certainly not overwhelmingly so: it starts out strongly for USB but swings back towards the end. In any case I will point out it is not a balanced discussion: I chose not to take part, nor did any other opposers of the disputed move. In my case the whole discussion left a very bad taste in the mouth: after being accused of forum shopping simply for filing a case at DR after months of being ignored that very editor opens up a new front days later. It's worth also noting the case at DR since even neutral commentators raised concerns as to the legitimacy of the previous move. That becomes especially significant in case of a "no consensus" outcome. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC).
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
4-pin Mini B USB connector?
Is there any information in the article about a 4-pin mini B connector, as opposed to the 5-pin version? Apologies if I've missed it - Or maybe it's not a USB standard, it's just some people have bought a Mini-B cable that doesn't fit, ie - You need to know the pin number also. Thanks 88.104.143.197 (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Host interface receptacles diagrams wrong
the plug and socket images are the same for most of them, they need to be changed so the pin numbering is reversed on the plug, and so the image is of a plug connector not a socket.--82.4.97.209 (talk) 12:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, it seems now to be just the Type A and Type B receptacles that erroneously show diagrams of connectors. In addition to flipping the pin numbers, they should also be modified to correctly show solid areas and open areas as the reverse of what they would be for their corresponding connectors. Quick check did not show such diagrams currently in Commons.Areinarz (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
400px-Usb_connectors.JPG / "a non-USB proprietary plug"
The caption on 400px-Usb_connectors.JPG seems incorrect or minimally ambiguous as it relates to the wording "a non-USB proprietary plug" "Types of USB connectors left to right (ruler in centimeters): Micro-B plug, a non-USB proprietary plug, Mini-B plug (5-pin), Standard-A receptacle, Standard-A plug, Standard-B plug"
I propose: "a proprietary plug" instead of "a non-USB proprietary plug". For most people "proprietary" denotes a lack of interoperability. So non and "proprietary" together sounds like it is universal. Is that the case with this plug? Semantics could be argued, regardless it is confusing.
--170.252.248.203 (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
High Power from Apple Computers
According to http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4049, newer Apple computers have USB ports that can supply 12V at 1100mA. I don't have any information on how a device can request this power; it would be great if someone who knows how to do this would put it in this article. SomeDwayne (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- I can only see mention of 5V at 1100mA. --Petteri Aimonen (talk) 19:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Y-cable not mandatory
I have usually had no problems with those slightly higher-power USB devices when used with a straight cable (instead of the Y-cable that ships with them). I'm talking about 2.5" HDDs and slim-type optical drives. Is it that the USB controller does not actually care and the power is just delivered directly from the 5V rail? So maybe the Power section should also mention that in practice many times those devices work without having to pull power from 2 ports? 84.248.91.142 (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Loading a 2.0 USB port with >500 mA violates the standard. It may or may not work and some (esp. notebook) ports may even get destroyed, so advising to neglect the standard is bad advice. Y-cables are non-standard as well and may or may not work and/or destroy a port. I agree that in 99.9% of all cases this doesn't matter but have also seen notebooks go up in smoke. IMHO it's a bad idea supplying >50 mA or 100 mA to a port that hasn't properly arbitrated for more to begin with. OTOH a maximum of 2.5 W was very weak from the start - 1394 allows up to 45 W. Zac67 (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Actually if any damge results that is itself a violation of the standard - the lines (both data and power) must be short-circuit proof and must re-enable once the condition is removed (I admit I can't recall immediately whether a device reset is permitted, but e.g. a push-to-reset circuit breaker isn't). The spec permits up to 100mA without any negotiation at all - this isn't sloppy but essential even for "full" USB devices as opposed to power thieves: many devices require start-up time before they can declare themselves and begin the enumeration process. As for the excess current, most motherboards ultimately limit current through use of a polyfuse. Whether that is one fuse per port, or one per number of ports varies depending both on the manufacturer and the model. A 1A fuse common to a pair of ports is quite common. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC).
WP is not in the advice business, nor here to promulgate any offical viewpoint. We are here to describe and dispense relevant details. The USB power situation is complicated, and needs to be worded with care. (Many external hubs are power-challenged. Even when sold with power supplies, they are often under-powered.) -96.233.20.116 (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
USB/AV out
There is devices (digital cameras, phones) which has USB to audio/video output. The USB to AV output cable has RCA connector on other side. This is very interesting and not obvious usage of USB. I think USB/AV out should be explained in this article (at least it should be mentioned). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.118.216.195 (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
USB On-The-Go Connectors, correct?
In this article under the heading: USB On-The-Go Connectors "A USB On-The-Go device is required to have one, and only one USB connector: a Mini-AB or Micro-AB receptacle" ... Propose this is better as per the USB To Go article to have: "The original USB On-The-Go standard introduced a plug receptacle called mini-AB which was replaced by the micro-AB in later revisions (Revision 1.4 onwards)."
Wikiacc101px9 (talk) 11:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable. --Frederico1234 (talk) 11:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Plus symbol on USB logos
I came here looking for the meaning of the plus symbol on the USB logo on many USB ports, surprisingly it is not mentioned.
I propose to change the logo to something like http://galaxy4.net/misc/USB_Icon_with_plus.svg and make the description read "The basic USB trident logo, showing optional plus symbol representing USB 2.0 support [#]' citing reference "USB 2.0 Icon Design Guideline" at http://www.usb.org/developers/docs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annihilannic (talk • contribs) 11:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Actually now I'm leaning more towards an image with the 3 logo variants (including the SS "superspeed" version for USB 3.0) one above the other. --Annihilannic (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
simultaneous charge and sync
>To support simultaneous charge and sync, even if the communication port doesn't support charging a demanding device, so called accessory charging adapters are introduced, where a charging port and a communication port can be combined into a single port.
Could this be explained in more details?
85.115.110.103 (talk) 13:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
A/B Power
Section "Usability and "upside down" connectors" The standard connectors were deliberately intended to enforce the directed topology of a USB network: type A connectors on host devices that supply power and type B connectors on target devices that receive power
Section "USB standard connectors" "A Type B plug delivers power in addition to carrying data"
Something is wrong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtpaley (talk • contribs) 21:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps the author means that the Type B plug delivers power (from the A end of the cable) to the Type B receptacle. Although, come to think of it, the first sentence above would probably be more correct if it said: ... Type A receptacles on host devices that supply power and Type B receptacles on target devices that receive power. Areinarz (talk) 00:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Conflicting Data
"USB 2.0: Released in April 2000. Added higher maximum signaling rate of 480 Mbit/s (effective throughput up to 35 MB/s)"
"USB 3.0 was released in November 2008. The standard specifies a maximum transmission speed of up to 5 Gbit/s (625 MB/s), which is more than 10 times as fast as USB 2.0 (480 Mbit/s, or 60 MB/s)"
so which is it, 35 MB/s or 60 MB/s? Freegen (talk) 05:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- 480 MBit/s divided by 8 gives 60 MByte/s. pcuser42 (talk) 06:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Effective throughput is always smaller than the maximum transmission speed, because of protocol overhead. Later in the same paragraph there is info on the effective throughput of USB 3.0 (estimated at 400 MB/s). --Petteri Aimonen (talk) 09:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Nokia picture?
Why is that Nokia Pop-port picture where it is?
There's nothing in that area about Nokia. Later, the article mentions Nokia; does it need to be moved there?
Fustigate314159 (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Request for approval to translate this article to Ukrainian Wikipedia
Hi, Thanks to all the editors of this page. for their hard work and time spent. I have read the Help pages but I found very little about translation of Wikipedia articles between different language versions, other than citing the original article at the heading. I 'd like to ask the editors how they would feel about me translating their article to the Ukrainian version of Wikipedia? My Other Head (talk) 11:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
A mess
Quite frankly this article to me feels like a complete mess! Please don't take this as an insult to the authors because it's not. This article has loads of great information for a very important topic. THat being said I think it suffers heavily from a lack of design. All of this information causes it to feel very overwhelming and disorganized in the way it is presented. For example, I think its a great idea to have the versions of USB at the beginning of this article where they are located. People will often come to this article trying to find the difference between the USB2.0 and USB3.0, having this at the beginning is perfect. The problem is the USB2.0 section looks like it threw up on itself. There is NO NEED to have that list at this place in the article. Are many of them important? Yes. Do they need to be there? Definitely not. They would likely be better addressed at other points in the article or not at all.
Additionally, the history is good but I feel that the history section might be better organized allowing it to serve as both a history AND a quick reference at the same time. By splitting the USB2.0 paragraph and putting it in the following USB2.0 section and same with the USB 3.0 paragraph. I propose that each of the version subsections contain the following: Short history blurb(likely address why the version was created), number of pins, Dataspeeds (low and high), power capabilities, does it have additional charge capabilities (and if so whats the usual max power capability). This would let people know the most relevant information in a quick nutshell. Then as the article goes on you can get into the nitty gritty like signaling protocols, plug variants, etc.
Just my thoughts.
PedroDaGr8 (talk) 06:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree wholeheartedly! The problem with many techie articles like this one is that most contributors are techies themselves. And I've learned from years of software and hardware development experience that techies write terrible documentation. It basically takes someone with virtually no knowledge of the subject to really clean things up here. What you and I would consider useless, techies consider vitally important to record complete detailed descriptions of every little thing to do with USB.
- With that said, what needs to be done to this article is to restructure the sections so that at least the first page of the article displays what most people will want to read, and the second half being all the technical detailed stuff. Many people visit this article not for the gory details about USB, but rather the basics about connectors, cross-compatibility, and operating system support. Studies have shown that people will only read the first "page" of a Wikipedia page, and not even bother to scroll down. Therefore, it is vitally important that the basics of USB are covered on the first page. Maybe even utilize collapsible tables of the really techie stuff to shorten the display length of the article to make it easier to read. That's how I'd approach a re-org. Groink (talk) 06:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- I completely agree I am working on restructuring the beginning. I think in general the article should flow:
- Intro - always necessary
- History/Versions/Overview - This will be the tl;dr section of the article. I feel should include the who, what, when and why about USB. It also should have a standardized layout/table that lists the logo, the name, high/low speeds, current capabilities, battery charge ability, etc.
- Physical Features - This will discuss the physical features of USB.
- A sub-topic of physical features: Connectors (Std A&B, Mini, Micro, USB 3.0, proprietary, etc.)
- A sub-topic of physical features: Cabling
- Power delivery capability (this could also theoretically be moved into the more technical area)
- layers on top of the standard (such as Charger Mode and USB OTG)
- After this is discussed NOW we can start getting into the technical stuff. Some of the stuff is very necessary (signalling and device types), a lot of the stuff feels like it needs to be consolidated into a few more logical sections, whileother stuff just feels like extra data.
- I completely agree I am working on restructuring the beginning. I think in general the article should flow:
PedroDaGr8 (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Connectors and plugs - Usability and orientation: misleading/biased information
The section "Connectors and plugs" starts with a box reading: "Please help improve it by merging similar text or removing repeated statements". I'm tempted to take this advice advice and remove the word "incorrectly" from the sentence starting the subsection named "Usability and orientation" ;-) Jokes aside, the section really is lacking a lot of arguments. The main problem with the design is in the word "visible". I.e. To match a USB plug and a receptacle both of them must be visible, which is not easily achieved in most situations. The only use case where the USB plug design matches its expectations probably is, when you connect the plug at the end of a cable into a receptacle located at the end of another cable under good lighting conditions and without visual impairments preventing you from detecting the logo. In general the USB plug design fails to provide a reliable method for mating when you
- are sitting at a table and insert a plug into a PC standing below the tabletop
- insert a plug into a receptacle located at the back of a PC (traditionally the most common location)
- insert a plug into a laptop computer without turning it around or bending your head over
- are farsighted and don't wear your glasses
- try to connect a device under low light conditions, esp. in combination with low vision
The Micro USB plugs found on mobile devices are even worse, if you don't have optimal vision. Fortunately, the problem can be worked around rather easily by applying a drop of hotmelt glue or some such on top of the logo on the USB plugs, improving their tactile recognizability. But such a barrier-free design should have been in the specs from the very start - and these problems should be mentioned in the discussion of the plug design in the WP article as well. BerlinSight (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hello! Well, that's already addressed in the USB § Usability and orientation section, here's a quote:
- While it would have been better for usability if the cable could be plugged in with either side up, the original design left this out to make manufacturing as inexpensive as possible. Ajay Bhatt, who was involved in the original USB design team, is working on a new design to make the cable insertable either side up. The new reversible plug is also much smaller than the current USB 3.0 Micro-B connector; it is called Type-C, and should be introduced as an addition to the existing USB 3.1 specification.
- That explains the reasons for such a design, and the future solution. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, no! Though the introduction of the Type-C plug actually would solve the problem, the qouted section does not address the problems I mentioned in any way. Also the argument "as inexpesive as possible" does not apply in that context. E.g. extruding the logo by some tenths of a millimeter does not significantly increase production costs. As I mentioned, the real problem is that the USB specs focus on the visibility of the logo, which, as I pointed out above, is a severly flawed design. BerlinSight (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Some people have higher tactile sensitivity, some have lower; thus, it might be that raising the logo on USB plugs even slightly further might not help all people. However, manufacturers many times do not keep the USB sockets oriented in the right way, rendering the tactile feedback pretty much useless. I've seen numerous devices with wrongly oriented horizontal USB sockets, computer motherboards have their USB sockets in vertical position, for example, and not all ATX cases have the motherboards oriented the common way. Furthermore, people position devices they own differently, upside-down and whatnot. :) At the same time, Wikipedia is all about summing up reliable sources, not about publishing original research. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Micro-USB reliability
I saw articles tracing back Micro-USB reliability issues to its poor design. For example, Andreas Ødegård (2012-12-20). "Hardware comparison: Lightning connector vs MicroUSB connector". favoured double-sided Apple Lightning design over the "standard" micro-USB one.ilgiz (talk) 02:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Style on micro and mini USB
The capitalization for micro and mini is inconsistent. We should confirm which is correct and normalize. The USB Implementers Forum (at USB.org) seems to capitalize Micro uniformly, but I cannot find an instance of Mini to check. FelioLBB (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Version history - USB 2.0: misleading information about bitrate
The section claims that "Due to bus access constraints, the effective throughput of the High Speed signaling rate is limited to 35 MB/s or 280 Mbit/s." and has a source (a table p.40 of the specification) to back it up. The editor failed to realize or convey that this is only the case for control transfers. On page 53 of the source, an equivalent table, show speeds closer to the previous figure of 480 MBit/s for bulk transfers which are used when transferring files. The same is also true of isochronous and interrupt transfers. Given this, and the fact that the section is not a proper place to distinguish between transfer types, I'm tempted to just remove the sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.130.74.35 (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hello! I'm sure you've tried to use a fast USB flash drive over USB 2.0, and for some reason it can hardly go over those 35–40 MB/s. How should that be explained? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, the article is not correct with "due to bus access constraints": it's the mass storage protocol/class that is flawed not (that much) the transport protocol itself, UAS is somewhat faster. WP:RS anyone? -- Zac67 (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- Linux kernel documentation claims that rates above 35MB/s are indeed achievable for bulk transfer and periodic transfer modes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:e35:2427:8bc0:922b:34ff:fe92:7487 (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- That's a WP:RS for sure, but here's a quote from Documentation/usb/ehci.txt:
- At this writing, individual USB 2.0 devices tend to max out at around 20 MByte/sec transfer rates. This is of course subject to change; and some devices now go faster, while others go slower.
- The first NEC implementation of EHCI seems to have a hardware bottleneck at around 28 MByte/sec aggregate transfer rate. While this is clearly enough for a single device at 20 MByte/sec, putting three such devices onto one bus does not get you 60 MByte/sec. The issue appears to be that the controller hardware won't do concurrent USB and PCI access, so that it's only trying six (or maybe seven) USB transactions each microframe rather than thirteen. [...]
- It's expected that newer implementations will better this, throwing more silicon real estate at the problem so that new motherboard chip sets will get closer to that 60 MByte/sec target. That includes an updated implementation from NEC, as well as other vendors' silicon.
- Thus, unfortunately it confirms nothing about real-world USB 2.0 transfer rates higher than, as stated, 28 MB/s. At the same time, I still haven't seen a USB 2.0 controller that would go over those 35–40 MB/s with a fast USB flash drive. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- That's a WP:RS for sure, but here's a quote from Documentation/usb/ehci.txt:
eSATA information
"eSATA does not supply power to external devices." This is incorrect, I know this first hand since I have external eSATA 2.5" HDD. The data and the power goes through my eSATA port. Spiralciric (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Max. voltage spec seems wrong
In the summary table under "Electrical", it says: "Max. voltage 5.00±0.25 V (pre-3.0)..." Does this mean that some models have a max. voltage of 4.75 V and other models a max. voltage of 5.25 V? Or does it mean that the max. voltage varies from unit to unit, so that one should always be at 4.75 V or below to prevent damage in the worst case? Either way it makes no sense. 173.76.253.219 (talk) 02:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- The standard says that devices should accept host voltages from the mentioned range. So "max." is probably not a good term. --Bdijkstra (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- 5 volts, with a tolerance of 0.25 volts in either direction. pcuser42 (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- Well, "max. voltage" is what's presented by the
{{Infobox connector}}template. In case of USB, presenting that as "operating voltage", for example, might be better, however opinions about that should be expressed on Template talk:Infobox connector. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)- Apparently it would be more correct to refer to it as the "nominal voltage" rather than the max voltage. See Real versus nominal value. -- DMahalko (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- Well, "max. voltage" is what's presented by the
USB 3.1 and Type-C
The text of the USB 3.1 Specification has been released on December 13, along with USB Power Delivery 2.0 and Type-C connector specifications. http://www.usb.org/developers/docs/ --37.144.226.124 (talk) 12:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- I concur the article needs amplification in this area, as well as a re-write of the existing content.20:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.164.249 (talk)
USB 3.1 with Type A connectors
I don't know if this is allowed by the standard, but actually most current motherboards with USB 3.1 use the Type A connector, e.g. (the first link contains a photo of the plug, for the board in the second link, you can scroll down to see a photo of the board where connectors are marked). --MrBurns (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- I just added a remark, that some boards still use the type-A connector for USB 3.1. --MrBurns (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
-- I just added a comment to the USB Type-C section asking why the comment about USB 3.1 Type-A connectors is part of Type-C. I strongly concur that the Type-C section needs more expansion. And concur that 3.0/3.1 be merged and clarified as part of the overall USB wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.168.153 (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
