Come on @arstechnica, you literally wrote an article about this in 2003! Check your archives!https://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2003/10/2927-2/ …
Show this thread
Apparently people (like @arstechnica) think USB-IF is messing up their versioning but... it's *literally worked like this all along*. USB 2.0 never meant "480mbps High Speed". You can have a USB 2.0 low-speed 1.5Mbps device. People just *thought* it did. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/02/usb-3-2-is-going-to-make-the-current-usb-branding-even-worse/ …pic.twitter.com/kiU3ofiXxq
-
-
-
My mouse is very much a USB 2.0 *low-speed 1.5mbps* device. This is how it has always worked! That is not to say that USB-IF's approach isn't a confusing mess, especially with the speed names (LS/FS/HS/SS/SS+)... but it's been a *consistent* confusing mess from the very start.pic.twitter.com/NE9sBg9STQ
Show this thread -
@DrPizza, might want to amend the article? I mean you're right it's confusing, but it's not new or different from what USB-IF have been doing until now.Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
What's with the rename though?
-
There is no rename. Newer versions *include and extend* old speeds. USB 1.0 low-speed is the same as USB 1.1 low-speed is the same as USB 2.0 low-speed is the same as USB 3.0 low speed etc. There are other non-speed-related parts where the version makes a difference.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Bad technical details can be disguised by clever marketing. USB-IF managed to make messy details even more confusing in their marketing. That’s quite an achievement.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Are you saying if it's not 480Mbps it's likely a fake China or Isle of Man market controller?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.