SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
One cable to rule them all... for now:
The USB 3.0 Promoters Group announced an update to the existing USB 3.1 standard in order to double the maximum possible bandwidth from 10 Gbps to 20 Gbps. This USB 3.2 specification is currently in the final draft review phase. USB 3.2 will remain backward compatible with existing USB devices.
The new specifications will retain the USB 3.1 physical layer data rates and encoding techniques. The doubling of bandwidth is achieved by going in for a two-channel operation (current USB 3.1 Gen 1/2 devices use only one 'super-speed' channel).The use of two channels is possible only if a certified USB 3.1 Type-C cable is used to connect the host and the device.
[...] The USB 3.2 update is consumer-friendly, since backwards compatibility is retained and there is no need for any new cables. Thunderbolt 3 also uses Type-C, and can go up to 40 Gbps. Its specifications are being opened up, and that makes future developments in the USB Type-C space worth keeping an eye on.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Thursday July 27 2017, @11:45PM (8 children)
That has nothing to do with certification though - an uncertified cable is perfectly capable of announcing it supports "class omega wizz-bang", and then failing to deliver, or even frying your hardware. Certification is about making sure that the cable you're buying has been built with exacting enough tolerances to actually support the features it claims.
A large number of cable upgrades amount to little more than making sure the wires in the cable are all within, for example, +/-0.1mm of the same length rather than +/-0.3mm, which can make a huge difference as signal frequencies increase. As I recall that's pretty much the difference between USB 1 and 2 cables. The result being that many v1 cables will handle v2 speeds just fine because chance (or better than required construction tolerances) left them within the new, tighter, requirements as well.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Friday July 28 2017, @09:59AM (7 children)
Wouldn't that be false advertising?
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday July 28 2017, @01:56PM (6 children)
I don't think internal implementation details count as advertising.
Of course the package probably also makes that claim, which *would* count as false advertising - but there's no shortage of cheap overseas marketers willing to sell you a $2 "256GB" flash drive either. And if enough people complain, maybe they'd change their name...
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Friday July 28 2017, @03:45PM (5 children)
How is claiming to support something, merely an implementation detail?
Sure, but that's illegal. It's just a matter of enforcement being tricky.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday July 29 2017, @06:01PM (4 children)
The electronics are not making the claim to a person, and most importantly not to the consumer before they buy. They have no potential (direct) way to influence the purchase decision, and hence are not advertising.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Monday July 31 2017, @08:55AM (3 children)
I don't follow. If the seller has deliberately led me to believe I'm buying a 256GB drive, when in fact it isn't, well that means it's false advertising, no?
Or is your point that it's not an 'advert' exactly? Well, whatever, it's still unlawful.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday July 31 2017, @12:56PM (2 children)
My point is only that the electronics in the cable are not part of that process.
If the electronics make a claim they can't back up, then the package probably does as well, and *that* is false advertising. But the the electronics aren't part of it.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Monday July 31 2017, @05:19PM (1 child)
Then we agree, but that strikes me as quite a nitpick.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday August 01 2017, @01:19AM
Agreed - but as soon as you mention anything to do with the law (like false advertising), nitpicking is the rule and common sense has little place.