Talk:USB hardware/Archive 1

Archive 1

Split from USB

Article was 131 kB. So bold split, as per splitting rules.

No editorial changes involved in this material. Some material retained and simplified on the USB article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick Jelliffe (talk • contribs) 08:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 15 February 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to USB hardware. (non-admin closure) Celia Homeford (talk) 11:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

---

USB (Physical) → USB connectorUSB connector – Not only is the "P" in "Physical" is incorrectly capitalized (as it isn't a proper name), but the word "Physical" itself is so vague in this context. As such, I propose that "USB connector" is a much more simple and correct name that leaves no room for ambiguity. ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 21:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Move to USB hardware - This article is covers several physical/hardware aspects of USB (as opposed to the software), and this title will capture that. IF the intended scope is just the connectors, then USB connector is fine, but information on cabling, ports, hubs, and other devices needs to be removed . The problem is that the overall structure and focus of the articles in this series doesn't seem to be aging well. Very likely the content of this page should be merged into distinct articles for USB 1.0 and USB 2.0 just as there is one for USB 3.0 as well as articles for USB-A, USB-B, and USB-C style connectors. USB or better yet Universal Serial Bus should be a much more simple overview and act more like a WP:BROADCONCEPT. -- Netoholic @ 02:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, I was thinking on much the same lines, but you put it better. With the various series of USB, plus that there are ]MicroUSB, MiniUSB and so on, it is not as if there is one type of USB connector or one type of hardware specification for it: and the electronic and hardware characteristics are pretty much siamese twins anyway. For example is the specified maximum length of cable a hardware aspect or an electronic aspect? 178.164.162.144 (talk) 07:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  Support: per reason above. ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 14:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Move to USB hardware -In ictu oculi (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support either USB connector or USB hardware, since the current adjective as disambiguator is so odd. Dicklyon (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support I agree that "USB (Physical)" is not a great name. USB connector, USB cabling or USB hardware would all be good choices. See my comment in the "Discussion" section below. -- RobLa (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• USB A, USB B both redirect to USB. USB C redirects to USB-C. All of these use USB connectors, indeed are the definitions of USB connectors and their physical (as opposed to electronic) properties. i don't see what good comes of moving this over, if anything USB connector should be a DAB. I agree it is the wrong caps and could be moved to USB (physical). 178.164.162.144 (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Per my comment in the straw poll, I agree that "USB (Physical)" is not a great name. I'd like to propose a few alternatives:

• A. Rename to USB connector (the original proposal from Arkhandar). Some content would need to find a new home.
• B. Rename to USB hardware (alternative suggested by Netoholic). That seems to be the best name to capture the scope of the article.
• C. Split article into USB connector and USB cabling, and merge what doesn't fit back into USB
• D. Rename article to USB cabling. "cabling" is arguably a superset of "connector", and the USB article deep links to both the "#Connector" and "#Cabling" sections of this article.
• E. Leave the article at USB (Physical)

If I were doing the work, the roadmap I'd propose is Step 1) A, Step 2) C. So, I support Arkhandar's proposal, but I'm also happy with A, B, C, or D. -- RobLa (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2019 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

About extension cables -- the kind with Type A plug on one end, and a sort of Type A receptacle on the other

Please edit the article to discuss extension cables for USB -- cables with a regular Type A plug on one end, and a sort of Type A receptacle on the other.

The article has this general statement: "USB cables have plugs, and the corresponding receptacles are on the computers or electronic devices." I suppose one end of an extension cable is an exception to this general statement.

Quite possibly, extension cables aren't, or weren't, in full compliance with USB specifications. Perhaps they are limited to USB 2 speeds. But extension cables are sometimes useful and can easily be bought.

The article has 2 photographs which show extension cables. The opening photograph shows "Various USB connectors along a centimeter ruler..." In this photograph, item "(4) Type-A receptacle" is mounted on a cable, rather than on a computer or device. The 3rd illustration is a photograph: "USB extension cable, male plug on the left, female socket on the right." The photographs are dated 2010 and 2007. USB 3 became common about 2010. Oaklandguy (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Do a Google search on [ "USB 3.0 Extension Cable" ]. I corrected the error in the article. It now reads "USB cables typically have different kinds of plugs on each end, and the corresponding receptacle is usually on the computer or electronic device." --Guy Macon (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I concur. The USB standard specifically forbids extension cables and these cables cannot carry the USB Certified logo (although it is not hard to find them with the logo, but that's trademark infringement). So it's debatable whether such cables are USB cables or are just cables that happen to interconnect with actual USB cables. They're useful things, and they have a place in an encyclopedic article, but it's debatable whether they are USB cables. But I'll allow that many people interpret words more freely than I usually do. I'd like the text to stress a bit more that these are non-standard cables, but I don't care enough to edit it myself right now. Digital Brains (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

USB PD rev. 2.0/3.x source power rules

This table is confusing, because each voltage has a white rectangle below the obvious profile. For example +5V has the .1-3 A which gives up to 15W, and then below has a box for all the higher power ratings with 3.0. It might be useful to have a caption explaining that the higher power modes are possible at that voltage, but that the power is capped at the lower mode level. or something like that. Chris2crawford (talk) 02:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

4-Pin Mini B

Unless I missed it, there's no mention at all of 4-Pin Mini B connectors. These were definitely a thing - early digital cameras, for example, used them. I remember having a hard time trying to source a replacement. If someone could find out if they were part of the official standard / where they fit in / if and when they were replaced by 5-Pin variant, that’d be a good addition. 80.5.118.143 (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

No, they're not part of the official standard, they're a proprietary solution some manufacturers used for a while. However, I think they deserve mention in the article, just like we mention "extension cables" that are specifically forbidden by the standard even. Digital Brains (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree. For historical accuracy and full documentation, there should be a section on proprietary variations. The 4-pin Mini B is in fact still in use. It is very difficult to find references to this connector type. Aftermacx (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Physical size of USB-A connector

This article does not show the outer dimensions of the USB-A plug. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.53.184.154 (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm also missing any notes about "spacing specifications". Specifically if multiple type-A female connector are in a row (horizontal line), what is the minimum distance? I have some sticks that seems overly wide (blocks the neighboring connector), so I wonder whether those sticks are within specification. Uhw (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Connector colors

There are no sources for these colors, except for citation number 9 which is just an Amazon product page link. An Amazon link is not a legitimate source. Anyone can make one and put whatever they want there.

Can we get better sources for these colors and their purposes? 76.69.148.67 (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

In fact, that link is now dead. Looking back at an archived copy, nowhere in the product description did it explain the green port. Clearly somebody's original research, which I have now removed.

Like you, I'm looking for a reference to support the alleged white=USB 1.x, black=USB 2.0 association that's shown in the illustrated table on USB. — voidxor 00:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

10 Pin SuperSpeed MiniUSB Type B

They did exist here's a port and cable 172.116.113.102 (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

And your question or suggestion is...?

Whatever that is, it's nonstandard. See § About extension cables -- the kind with Type A plug on one end, and a sort of Type A receptacle on the other and § 4-Pin Mini B above for similar discussions about how much coverage the nonstandard junk that comes out of China deserves. Seems like a rabbit hole to me. — voidxor 00:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

USB UC-E6

I couldn't find anything about USB UC-E6 in the article. Are there other USB UC connectors? UC=Ultra Compact? --2A02:810A:1E40:A14:1826:696D:92DD:D906 (talk) 10:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

This looks like another nonstandard connector to me. See any of the other discussions on this talk page. — voidxor 00:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Connectors

The first paragraph launches into discussion of sizes (standard, mini, micro) and speeds (Low Speed, Full Speed, High Speed, SuperSpeed & SuperSpeed+). Following that is the paragrgraph explaining topology (Unlike other data buses ...) with the upstream/downstream distinction. Logically the order of the two paragraphs should be reversed; topology should be explained before connector size and speed.

The explanation of upstream/downstream orientation is there and the explanation of A/B is there but the relationship between orientation and A/B is left implicit. For any reader who doesn't already understand the subject, explicit would be better than implicit.

Comments? Any objection to improvements? Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@PeterEasthope: Sorry this hasn't gotten any response in three years. You certainly make valid points and have my support. Can you tell whether these issues still need to be addressed? — voidxor 23:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Just swapped the two paragraphs as suggested earlier. Let's see whether the change is tolerated before investing effort to explain the relationship of orientation to A/B. Thanks for the interest. ... PeterEasthope (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Very good, thanks! You can wait if you like, but I get the sense from the history that there's not a lot of editors here. I would suggest appending, at minimum, something like "per talk" to your edit summaries so that anybody viewing your edits can find this discussion with your detailed reasoning. — voidxor 16:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Cable differences between USB 1.x and 2.0?

The Cabling section is a little terse. Can anybody tell me if the cable standards (e.g. wires, twists, shielding) changed at all from USB 1.x to USB 2.0, other than the slight change of the maximum allowed length? I realize that was 23 years ago. Even if there was no real change (in other words, a pre-2000 USB version 1 cable would be within spec for 480 Mbit/s USB version 2 connections), I think that would be worth mentioning. — voidxor 18:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Citation for "USB does not allow extensions cables"

Throughout the article there are several statements to the tune of "USB does not allow extensions cables" (specifically at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_hardware#Connectors under the image for a non-standard extension cable and the first image in the article). However, this statement is not cited or referenced at all. Without personally going through the USB specification to see if this is true or false, the only talk about this seems to be from @Voidxor above referring to this archived discussion on the topic

It may prove beneficial to find an official source for this statement to reference, or failing that, append the good old [ citation needed ] to each mention of extension cables not being allowed. 61.69.232.98 (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

This took less time than I'd feared. In revision 2.0 of the USB standard dated April 27,2000 (available on the USB.org Web site), section 6.4.4 "Prohibited Cable Assemblies" says explicitly that extension cables are not allowed because they can create a cable that exceeds the allowed length. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the legwork, Wtshymanski. — voidxor 23:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)