USB 3.2 standard promises 20Gbps speeds over existing Type-C cables

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 29
    bonobobbonobob Posts: 397member
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    No you don't. It doesn't make a lick of difference if your USB-C peripheral only supports USB 3.1 speeds and on your Mac with USB 3.2 in 5 years time.
    Given that 3.1 is a slower speed than 3.2, the difference it matters is the difference in speed between them. Not sure how that’s confusing.
    Fragmentation requires breaking, but if your old USB 3.1 device still works on a new Mac that supports up to USB 3.2 then nothing has FRAGMENTED.
    OK, what I'm more worried of is the vice versa, you buy a new mac right now that is USB 3.1 speed, which Apple first adopted in October last year with the macbook pros, then in about 6 months everything goes to USB 3.2 and you can't use the newer accessories with your new mac, you only have about a year of the standard on use before it is replaced, and sure you can go backwords with USB 3 or 2 speeds, but 3.1 is never truly popularized and you do have fragmentation on the device you use, of course you can buy the newer 3.2 USB computers, but that is costly to the consumer for true speed access.
    This is not a problem.  I have several USB 3.X devices which work just fine on a USB 2.0 interface.  They just do everything at USB 2.0 speeds.  I fully expect the same to be true with USB 3.2 devices on 3.1 or 3.0 interfaces.  And most devices won't even be using the full speed of 3.2, anyway, due to other limitations of the design.
    williamlondoncurtis hannah
     2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 22 of 29
    GeorgeBMacgeorgebmac Posts: 11,421member
    fulles said:
    GeorgeBMac said:.
    We've the longest sustained period of economic and employment growth in modern history.   No recession.  But it made a good political spiel...
    I've assumed you are in US so apologies if you aren't. If you are in the US the facts don't back up your statement.

    Unemployment actually grew in the US in June so your current sustained period of employment growth is 0 months. It also grew in Dec 2016 and Jan 2017.

    In terms of economic growth the last quarter with negative growth was Q1 2014. That means your current sustained period of economic growth is 12 quarters. Between Q2 1991 and Q4 2001 the US had 39 consecutive quarters of economic growth. Unless you don't count 2001 as "modern history" you have quite a way to go before you reach that target.
    I was responding to your statement that:
    "we’re still basically in a recession and teetering on the brink of a global depression"

    It's good to see you waffling on that blanket announcement...
    And, since no economist in the world will recognize a singe month up or down as either growth or recession, your argument is pretty much invalidated. 
    And, the period of 2008 - 2017 by all economists (except Republicans -- but their pretty weird) is recognized as the longest sustained period of growth as well as one of the strongest.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 23 of 29
    fullesfulles Posts: 7member
    GeorgeBMac said:

    I was responding to your statement that:
    "we’re still basically in a recession and teetering on the brink of a global depression"

    That wasn't my statement. Somebody else said that. I was just pointing out that you are incorrect in stating that the US is in its longest sustained period of growth in modern history.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 24 of 29
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    I was responding to your statement that: “we’re still basically in a recession and teetering on the brink of a global depression"
    Sorry, that was me.
    And, the period of 2008 - 2017 by all economists
    Careful with those appeals to majority!

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-26/despite-endless-buying-tech-investors-are-hedging-most-10-years
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-26/paul-singer-markets-confidence-central-bankers-isnt-justified
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-26/two-charts-dictate-future-economy
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-25/how-big-deleveraging-are-we-talking-about
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-25/death-cross-central-bank-credibility

    And yes, I know that ZH is always overzealous about their timeframes for what they say will happen. But what they say does eventually happen. Just ignore when they say it will and you’ll be right as rain.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 25 of 29
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member
    MacPro said:
    Soli said:
    sflocal said:
    appex said:
    Bring back USB power-on feature from USB keyboard or USB device. As possible with former Apple ADB and USB keyboards, as well as USB dongles with USB 1.0 specifications, like the i-Cue.

    That is extremely useful and convenient to turn on the computer when it is below or behind the table/desk or far away from reach in the floor, etc. It is even a health issue (backbone health!).
    Apple's sleep-mode is the best in the business.  Why not just leave It on and walk away?  I leave mine plugged into a good UPS to keep the power clean.  It's extremely rare for me to ever have to turn my Mac off.
    People that turn off their Macs constantly are probably the same people that all clean out apps from Fast App Switch on iOS.
    It always makes me chuckle when I see all the 'I never turn my Mac off ' comments as if it is a badge of honor or criticisms usually accompanied by supercilious comments about those of us that do, in my case, many times a day, simply because they do not have a need.  Not everyone is sitting there all day reading blogs or posting pearls of wisdom.

    Some of us are involved testing hardware, beta versions of macOS, file systems, Windows releases (betas) and various other OSs from a load of different external SSDs not to mention beta versions of software that can be problematic, different LANs that can really screw up USB, heck even requiring the PRAM zapping on occasions.  Warm restarts to blessed externals or using option to get the disk start up selection can fail without a full shut down and restart very often.  Thank heavens for the new Mac Pro that can sit by my right hand on the desk!  The cheese graters were a nightmare to get at for me, under a desk in the dark with the dust bunnies lol.


    Yeah, I hear ya...

    In normal times, I leave my Macs on plugged into a UPS.

    But, I also play with the betas as they become available...

    I installed macOS High Sierra beta 1 on June 5 -- buggy but no major problems...

    Then I installed beta 2 when it became available and chose to convert the Macintosh HD built-in Fusion Drive (early iMac 27 5K) to AFPS.  (The reasoning was that AFPS was working without flaw on iOS 11).

    After a couple of days without incident, with the system on 24/7, the display show that the built-in Fusion Drive had failed...

    Long story, short: it has taken me over a month to fix the built-in Fusion Drive.
    • There were times where I could not even boot from an external drive -- had to fiddle with the Fusion Drive in Target Disk mode from another Mac.  
    • APFS was not well supported by the Disk Utility App or the CLI.
    • Finally, the beta 4 release CLI provided enough capability to erase, mount/unmount, partition both the SDD and Disk components and then combine them into a Fusion Drive.
    • This restored successfully from TimeMachine.

    No lie, I actually got it working about 2:00 AM today.

    Lesson learned! Not gonna' use no APFS Fusion Drive until much later -- maybe public release of macOS High Sierra!

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 26 of 29
    Mike Wuerthelemike wuerthele Posts: 6,956administrator
    Contentious politics and economy discussions in Political Outsider please. Keep them off my front page.

    No more warnings will be issued.
    stompy
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 27 of 29
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member
    bonobob said:
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    No you don't. It doesn't make a lick of difference if your USB-C peripheral only supports USB 3.1 speeds and on your Mac with USB 3.2 in 5 years time.
    Given that 3.1 is a slower speed than 3.2, the difference it matters is the difference in speed between them. Not sure how that’s confusing.
    Fragmentation requires breaking, but if your old USB 3.1 device still works on a new Mac that supports up to USB 3.2 then nothing has FRAGMENTED.
    OK, what I'm more worried of is the vice versa, you buy a new mac right now that is USB 3.1 speed, which Apple first adopted in October last year with the macbook pros, then in about 6 months everything goes to USB 3.2 and you can't use the newer accessories with your new mac, you only have about a year of the standard on use before it is replaced, and sure you can go backwords with USB 3 or 2 speeds, but 3.1 is never truly popularized and you do have fragmentation on the device you use, of course you can buy the newer 3.2 USB computers, but that is costly to the consumer for true speed access.
    This is not a problem.  I have several USB 3.X devices which work just fine on a USB 2.0 interface.  They just do everything at USB 2.0 speeds.  I fully expect the same to be true with USB 3.2 devices on 3.1 or 3.0 interfaces.  And most devices won't even be using the full speed of 3.2, anyway, due to other limitations of the design.

    Next,week we're getting new MacBook [Pro] computers for my 2 grandkids starting Junior College and Undergraduate.

    Because Apple is heavily involved in the USB Standards, I suspect that the 2017 USB 3 MacBooks will be firmware-upgradeable to USB 3.2.

    I suspect that this is one of the major reasons that Apple released USB 3-only MacBooks -- even worth suffering the slings and arrows...

    That's the way Apple rolls!
    bshank
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 28 of 29
    Mike Wuerthelemike wuerthele Posts: 6,956administrator
    bonobob said:
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    No you don't. It doesn't make a lick of difference if your USB-C peripheral only supports USB 3.1 speeds and on your Mac with USB 3.2 in 5 years time.
    Given that 3.1 is a slower speed than 3.2, the difference it matters is the difference in speed between them. Not sure how that’s confusing.
    Fragmentation requires breaking, but if your old USB 3.1 device still works on a new Mac that supports up to USB 3.2 then nothing has FRAGMENTED.
    OK, what I'm more worried of is the vice versa, you buy a new mac right now that is USB 3.1 speed, which Apple first adopted in October last year with the macbook pros, then in about 6 months everything goes to USB 3.2 and you can't use the newer accessories with your new mac, you only have about a year of the standard on use before it is replaced, and sure you can go backwords with USB 3 or 2 speeds, but 3.1 is never truly popularized and you do have fragmentation on the device you use, of course you can buy the newer 3.2 USB computers, but that is costly to the consumer for true speed access.
    This is not a problem.  I have several USB 3.X devices which work just fine on a USB 2.0 interface.  They just do everything at USB 2.0 speeds.  I fully expect the same to be true with USB 3.2 devices on 3.1 or 3.0 interfaces.  And most devices won't even be using the full speed of 3.2, anyway, due to other limitations of the design.

    Next,week we're getting new MacBook [Pro] computers for my 2 grandkids starting Junior College and Undergraduate.

    Because Apple is heavily involved in the USB Standards, I suspect that the 2017 USB 3 MacBooks will be firmware-upgradeable to USB 3.2.

    I suspect that this is one of the major reasons that Apple released USB 3-only MacBooks -- even worth suffering the slings and arrows...

    That's the way Apple rolls!
    You may be right about the MacBook. But, given that the USB-C connectors in the MBP are driven by Thunderbolt controllers, it'll depend on that platform how Apple has implemented it, and if the implementation allows for TB3 controller firmware updates.
    stompybshank
     0Likes 0Dislikes 2Informatives
  • Reply 29 of 29
    While it was the jump from USB 2 to USB 3 and I believe it also applied to the jump to USB 3.1 (10gbps), my understanding was it required hardware changes and that the reason Apple was one of the last to roll out the new standard was because they didn't like to use PLEX Chips on the motherboard.  With them saying you would need new hardware devices for USB 3.2, I would assume the same requirements are needed for hardware changes.  In other words, I don't see any of the current or upcoming 2017 Macs using USB 3.2, and unless  Apple uses an add-on chip, it wouldn't be until Cannonlake at least, for it to be included in the Chipset/CPU.  It will likely be the Chipset/CPU set after Cannonlake, I don't know off hand what it's called.  Note, I'm not saying Apple won't use an add-on chip to implement USB 3.2, just that based on their previous history, I'm not expecting them to.  As for adding it to existing computers, I'm only expecting that with PCI-E plug-in cards, whether over Thunderbolt 3 on Macs, or a PCI-E slot on a PC.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.