Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

USB 4 Will Support Thunderbolt and Double the Speed of USB 3.2 (engadget.com)

Posted by msmash on from the up-next dept.

At a Taipei event earlier today, Intel revealed that USB 4 will once again utilize dual channels to achieve 40Gbps speeds, even on existing 40Gbps-certified USB-C cables. A report adds: Better yet, thanks to Intel finally offering Thunderbolt 3 to manufacturers with open licensing, USB 4 will be integrating this tech and thus effectively becoming the "new" Thunderbolt 3. In other words, USB 4 will pretty much be the mother of all wired connectivity options, and will be ready for more powerful PCIe plus DisplayPort devices. It is expected to take 18 months between the final spec of USB 4 being published in the second half of this year, and the first devices hitting the market, so don't expect to see USB 4-powered commercial devices until sometime in 2021.
Further reading, from last week: USB-IF Confusingly Merges USB 3.0 and USB 3.1 Under New USB 3.2 Branding.

80 of 165 comments (clear)

  1. Will the wires catch on fire? by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I Know, I know faster transmission, of data doesn't necessarily require more power. Just a higher frequency signals of the data. Which gets increasingly harder to read, and more prone to interference. But 40Gbs in a cable that most people will coil up to keep the wires organized just seems like something prone to problems. Unless USB4 cables will have a ton of insulation, to prevent the outside world from interfering with it. Or will it have more error checking thus this 40Gbs is just a theoretical speed, and it is actually much slower in real life, because it keeps on on having data loss.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Will the wires catch on fire? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nothing an $80 4ft cable with gold plated connectors couldnt fix!

    2. Re:Will the wires catch on fire? by jfdavis668 · · Score: 4, Funny

      If they do, you can rename it Firewire.

    3. Re:Will the wires catch on fire? by Crash+Dummy+Redux · · Score: 1

      I once pointed out to a manager that a 1,000-feet serial cable coiled up underneath the desk was unnecessary when a 20-feet cable could have connected the PC to the modem. He said it still work and that was that.

    4. Re:Will the wires catch on fire? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Don't worry. I'm sure there's be a Denon multi-grand USB4 cable in the near future. All gold plated and shit.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    5. Re:Will the wires catch on fire? by Morgon · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oldschool HDMI was 4.2 Gbit. The newer 2.0 spec is 18 GBit, which are almost certainly the most common now.

      But you are correct (in spirit - we're talking Gbit, not GB) that the next gen, 2.1, claims to be 48Gbit, but a) they're not in wide enough use to test this argument (I don't know that any consumer gear has 2.1 yet), and b) you'd need to actually use that bandwidth (e.g. 4K/120, 8K), which again is not going to be common for some time.

      It does look like HDMI 2.1 cables are thick enough to have decent shielding.

      --
      [DISCLAIMER: This post is a work of satire and should not be misconstrued as a holy text upon which to base a religion.]
    6. Re:Will the wires catch on fire? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 5, Informative

      Though a bit of an oversimplification, USB4 is basically just a rebranding of Thunderbolt 3. Thunderbolt 3 already does 40Gbps and has been out now for a few years. I have yet to hear reports of cables spontaneously erupting in flame or whatnot, and though USB 3.x and TB3 cables are stiffer than USB 2 cables, I don't think they're swaddled in insulation to a crazy degree. If you're curious how this will work, look back over the documentation for TB3.

    7. Re:Will the wires catch on fire? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 5, Informative

      Unless USB4 cables will have a ton of insulation, to prevent the outside world from interfering with it. Or will it have more error checking thus this 40Gbs is just a theoretical speed, and it is actually much slower in real life, because it keeps on on having data loss.

      You have to overcome miller capacitance in the cables, so the voltages are extremely-low.

      What you do, you twist pairs of signal-carrying cables around each other, and you raise a signal cable by a few millivolts to signal. The signal pair will be e.g. 5mV apart. If you get EMI, then each cable will raise its voltage state equally, so you go from 0mV/5mV to 27mV/32mV. That's still 5mV, it's still signal, it's still clear.

      Self-shielding.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    8. Re:Will the wires catch on fire? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Oldschool HDMI was 4.2 Gbit. The newer 2.0 spec is 18 GBit, which are almost certainly the most common now.

      But you are correct (in spirit - we're talking Gbit, not GB) that the next gen, 2.1, claims to be 48Gbit, but a) they're not in wide enough use to test this argument (I don't know that any consumer gear has 2.1 yet), and b) you'd need to actually use that bandwidth (e.g. 4K/120, 8K), which again is not going to be common for some time.

      It does look like HDMI 2.1 cables are thick enough to have decent shielding.

      A few problems though. First, no one makes 48Gbps HDMI stuff. No transmitters, no receivers, heck, the certification tests don't exist yet. (And most of HDMI2.1 tests don't exist). The only tests that do exist are those that can be implemented right now - eARC, VRR (Variable Refresh Rate), etc. (And HDMI org doesn't want people referring to HDMI by revision number, but by feature support, because 48Gbps isn't needed yet while certain features of 2.1 already are (like the aforementioned eARC and VRR).

      Second problem is that cable isn't certified - HDMI 2.0 cables are hard enough to make that the HDMI org now puts them under certification tests, and every passing cable puts on a special logo and sticker that shows it with a QR code to verify the results. (This is a good way to see who OEMs cables from whom, because the big players don't re-test, they just slap on the sticker from the company that makes the cables).

      More info and example - https://www.hdmi.org/manufactu...

      Though the label has changed - they added a manufacturer name to the text part of the sticker.

      And it's on every cable, not on every shelf of cables or on the peg - every certified cable carries it so you can't cheat by mis-hanging cables or other things.

    9. Re:Will the wires catch on fire? by smprather · · Score: 1

      Behold the magic of differential twisted-pair signaling. It's not 100% immune to the outside world, but damn close. Add some shielding, and a robust receiver circuit (like the world-beating(?) Cypress FX2LP USB2.0 receiver I designed), and you're good to go. Faster transmission can trigger a 2cd-order higher power effect in that send/receive circuits are typically lower noise when biased at higher currents. So the tighter eye diagram requirements of the higher speeds may trigger higher power in the transceivers to cope. Or not. I haven't done IC analog circuit design in a while, so I'm not sure how FinFETs compare to planar FETs WRT noise.

    10. Re:Will the wires catch on fire? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Though a bit of an oversimplification, USB4 is basically just a rebranding of Thunderbolt 3. Thunderbolt 3 already does 40Gbps and has been out now for a few years. I have yet to hear reports of cables spontaneously erupting in flame or whatnot, and though USB 3.x and TB3 cables are stiffer than USB 2 cables, I don't think they're swaddled in insulation to a crazy degree. If you're curious how this will work, look back over the documentation for TB3.

      Except Thunderbolt requires active cabling, and always has from the first revisions. The cable ends contain little pre-emphasis and measurement chips to test out the cabling and compensate for various effects. And you can't get longer than about 6 feet or so before you must move to optical cabling (where the signal is converted to optical. Power is still carried by wires alongside the fiber)

    11. Re:Will the wires catch on fire? by Crash+Dummy+Redux · · Score: 1

      I'm not creimer. If I was, so what?

    12. Re:Will the wires catch on fire? by Crash+Dummy+Redux · · Score: 1

      Repeating the same answer every time I deny that I'm creimer doesn't make it true.

    13. Re:Will the wires catch on fire? by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      yes, but what if your electrons aren't flowing in the right direction? how does monster get around that technical limitation/hurdle????

    14. Re:Will the wires catch on fire? by Crash+Dummy+Redux · · Score: 1

      Really chris?

      I'm not Chris.

      What year was this?

      Late 1980s.

      Because RS-232 serial isn't supposed to go beyond 50 feet.

      If you want the max speed at 19,200 baud. A 1,000 feet cable can run at 4,800 baud. For a 2,400 baud modem located 20 feet away, it worked just fine. That type of cable was for 500 feet or less runs for 9,600 baud between serial consoles and mainframe.

    15. Re:Will the wires catch on fire? by TaleWeaver · · Score: 1

      I once pointed out to a manager that a 1,000-feet serial cable coiled up underneath the desk was unnecessary when a 20-feet cable could have connected the PC to the modem. He said it still work and that was that.

      That is 20 times the maximum cable length of an RS232 cable! "Cable length is one of the most discussed items in RS232 world. The standard has a clear answer, the maximum cable length is 50 feet, or the cable length equal to a capacitance of 2500 pF." https://www.lammertbies.nl/com...

    16. Re:Will the wires catch on fire? by Crash+Dummy+Redux · · Score: 1

      If you have read the rest of that link, you can increase cable distance with a low capacitance cable or decrease data speed. Not every cable in the real world is going to be at spec.

    17. Re:Will the wires catch on fire? by kqs · · Score: 1

      I've seen many out-of-spec cables work. But also, RS232 is hardly the only serial protocol out there; I've installed RS422 cables to connect equipment on opposite sides of a football stadium, all well within spec.

    18. Re:Will the wires catch on fire? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Oversimplification, but yes this is one of several tricks that engineers uses to improve signal quality. Another commonly used one is ... shielding. In many cases you would use both. A good example of a cable that uses both is ... a USB 3.0 cable.

    19. Re:Will the wires catch on fire? by Crash+Dummy+Redux · · Score: 1

      The problem wasn't an out of spec cable. It was some idiot dropping 1,000 feet on the floor and adding connectors for a 20 feet run. I can't tell you how many times I pulled out a 100 foot cable when I expected a 10 foot cable because someone didn't have any 10 foot cables.

    20. Re:Will the wires catch on fire? by Crash+Dummy+Redux · · Score: 1

      Chris must have hurt you really bad for you to be this obessive with him. Please get help and stop harassing me.

    21. Re:Will the wires catch on fire? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      SATA and eSATA are the same interface, but not the same cable. SATA is inside a high-EMI envelope within a computer casing; eSATA is exposed to less electromagnetic interference.

      SATA doesn't have shielding; eSATA requires shielding.

      eSATA will work without shielding; so will USB 3.0. Both will also emit large amounts of EMI outside the shielded envelope, interfering with other electronic devices and violating FCC regulations.

      USB 3.0 cables aren't shielded from outside electronics; outside electronics are shielded from USB 3.0 cables.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    22. Re:Will the wires catch on fire? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      SATA and eSATA are the same interface, but not the same cable. SATA is inside a high-EMI envelope within a computer casing; eSATA is exposed to less electromagnetic interference.
      SATA doesn't have shielding; eSATA requires shielding.

      You description of the cables is right but the motivation behind them is quite different. Let's address them:

      Firstly the EMI envelope within a PC is controlled and far lower than what you compare it to. Short lengths of very low current very low voltage signals at high frequencies radiate but do so poorly. On the flipside you have eSATA, a standard which will be routed directly next to unshielded LV power cables of multiple devices using a standard that allows double the length of cable, and will typically use 3-4x the cable length as well. Running a long cable out the back of your computer is far worse for interference on a differential signal than running a short one inside your computer and hence eSATA requires additional shielding.

      Of course there are situations where SATA devices are exposed to excessive EMI which is precisely why shielded SATA cables are actually available, but inside a standard computer isn't such a nasty environment.

      USB 3.0 cables aren't shielded from outside electronics; outside electronics are shielded from USB 3.0 cables.

      And that is not remotely true. The data lines are twisted to prevent radiation and have been for a long time. The signaling frequency hasn't changed appreciably between standards (as in appreciably to the ability for a 1m long cable to radiate as an antenna, which it barely is capable of doing at the frequencies being talked about) either between the standards where shielding was required and where they were not, and in fact USB 3.0 all things being equal would be less likely to cause external interference than USB 2.0 based on signalling alone.

      Mind you this is academic since the shielding requirements of a USB cable are very low to ensure they remain flexible.

    23. Re:Will the wires catch on fire? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Firstly the EMI envelope within a PC is controlled and far lower than what you compare it to. Short lengths of very low current very low voltage signals at high frequencies radiate but do so poorly.

      The PC envelope is specifically designed to be an EMI shield due to EMI generated by the PC. It's an FCC compliance point.

      And that is not remotely true. The data lines are twisted to prevent radiation and have been for a long time.

      Twisting the data lines causes them to self-shield against near-end cross-talk (for round-trip pairs e.g. Ethernet, they'll have opposing magnetic fields which self-cancel), and also causes LVDS pairs to remain at the same base voltage when acting as antenna (these pairs don't self-shield against NEXT). It doesn't prevent them from radiating outward in an LVDS setup.

      and in fact USB 3.0 all things being equal would be less likely to cause external interference than USB 2.0 based on signalling alone.

      Oh really?

      With the HDD connected, the noise floor in the 2.4 GHz band is raised by nearly 20 dB. This could impact wireless device sensitivity significantly.

      With a wireless mouse, performance is fine at 2, 3, and 5 feet. Attach a USB 3.0 hard drive (no writing to it) and the mouse is fine at 2 feet, but lags at 3 feet and 5 feet. Modifying the USB 3.0 connector at the host device itself improves performance of the wireless mouse.

      Here's the thing: wifi signals don't cause autism; they just cause other wifi signals to fail. That's true when the signal isn't even a wifi signal, but is in the same band. USB 3.0 emits EMI in that band.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
  2. Re:DMA by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    Never mind that, what about IRQ attacks?

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  3. Naming by Kokuyo · · Score: 4, Funny

    So double the speed of 3.2... But which 3.2? Will it be equal to 3.2 2x2 or twice that?

    1. Re:Naming by Seq · · Score: 1

      It will be marketed as "Ludicrous Speed USB"

      --
      -- Seq
    2. Re:Naming by Kokuyo · · Score: 1

      At this point, I find that to be the only acceptable move forward to be honest.

    3. Re:Naming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Did you mean 3.2 High speed or 3.2 Full speed?

    4. Re:Naming by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      And the next one after that is going to be named "Plaid USB", obviously.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    5. Re:Naming by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      They should have said "fuck everything!" and gone straight to 5.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:Naming by mandark1967 · · Score: 1

      Did you mean 3.2 High speed or 3.2 Full speed?

      It's USB 3.2 Electric Bugaloo you insensitive clod

      --
      Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
    7. Re:Naming by fbobraga · · Score: 1

      4x4 MPFI Turbo automatic

    8. Re:Naming by fintux · · Score: 1

      They should just call it USB 4.2 gen 1 for future-proofness so they don't need to rename it first from USB 4.0 to USB 4.1 gen 1 and then to USB 4.2 gen 1.

  4. Latency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Bandwidth is all very good but past a certain point, latency is of more interest. John Carmack's Tech Talk went into quite some detail. So, wow us with the headline figure but it's not the whole story.

    1. Re:Latency? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      The latency for USB 3 is something like 30 microseconds. Some people are asking how anyone achieves that because they're only able to get as low as 60-70 microseconds.

      That's like 250-550 signals per 60fps frame. Your input lag is 1/500th of an NTSC frame.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
  5. Re:"...the mother of all wired connectivity option by ledow · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't think the "universal" is undeserved.

    You used to have to have parallel and serial and PS/2 keyboard and mouse ports on your computer.

    Now you can run almost anything - even direct hard drives, network adaptors, displays, telephones, modem, Wifi, 4G, etc. all of the same USB bus. To the point that machines can easily be supplied with nothing more than power and USB and still be fully functional. That's pretty "universal" to me.

    The problem comes when people come up with competing standards - like Thunderbolt - which aren't part of the spec where your only option is to fold it into USB and basically have it be "Thunderbolt over USB". Fact is... it's universal enough that they can do that.

    USB is pretty amazing. USB2 was just - to the amateur eye - faster versions of USB.

    I can still plug in a mouse from the 1990's into a modern laptop and it "just works". It's only the oddball devices (which a universal specification allows - someone can easily make all kinds of nutty things that rely on OS-specific drivers, etc.) that don't and usually only because of issues unrelated to the USB transport itself.

    USB is pretty damn good for what it is, and underappreciated nowadays.

  6. USB 4 will once again ... by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

    And USB 4 will once again be obsolete by tomorrow, when TSB 27 will be announced. TSB is not a typo, but Temporary Serial Bus fits the name so much better.

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    1. Re:USB 4 will once again ... by Wookie+Monster · · Score: 2

      Isn't each new USB standard backwards compatible with the old one? If my next computer only has USB4 ports, I'm pretty sure my keyboard and mouse will still work with it. USB improvements aren't like switching from Betamax to VHS.

    2. Re:USB 4 will once again ... by guruevi · · Score: 1

      The cables and controllers sure aren't compatible, you need a converter from USB-x to USB-2 which typically includes a full controller on-chip. Even USB-3 to USB-2, the controllers aren't backwards compatible and thus older software that talks to OHCI/EHCI won't talk to xHCI or beyond.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    3. Re:USB 4 will once again ... by mlyle · · Score: 1

      ???

      > The cables and controllers sure aren't compatible, you need a converter from USB-x to USB-2 which typically includes a full controller on-chip.

      USB3 type A has a few extra contacts, but you can plug USB1.0 type A cables into it and use USB1.0 devices, or anything inbetween...

      > Even USB-3 to USB-2, the controllers aren't backwards compatible and thus older software that talks to OHCI/EHCI won't talk to xHCI or beyond.

      Yah, you need an appropriate driver and OS that knows how to talk to xHCI, but actual end-user software that just wants to do USB2 things it looks identical.

  7. Complexity is awesome! by ebonum · · Score: 2

    One cord to rule them all!

    What I really need to know is if it will support 3 phase 480V to run my HAAS CNC?

  8. Network and storage over USB4 by mnmn · · Score: 1

    At these speed, USB4 stands to be way faster than most ethernet out there. 10gbit ethernet has been taking forever due to SPF power issues and manufacturing costs. USB4 with dedicated chip/channels would be twice the speed of full duplex ethernet 10gbit.

    However it is not quite being designed for true network and storage connectivity. The need is there but the buffers/latency might hurt it a bit.

    I wonder if we'll see dedicated PCIE cards with dedicated USB4 chips so we can have nonblocking shorter-distance network connectivity better than gigabit ethernet

    Or even USB-over-fiber next. Now that's a thought.

    --
    "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
    1. Re:Network and storage over USB4 by Freischutz · · Score: 1

      At these speed, USB4 stands to be way faster than most ethernet out there. 10gbit ethernet has been taking forever due to SPF power issues and manufacturing costs. USB4 with dedicated chip/channels would be twice the speed of full duplex ethernet 10gbit. However it is not quite being designed for true network and storage connectivity. The need is there but the buffers/latency might hurt it a bit. I wonder if we'll see dedicated PCIE cards with dedicated USB4 chips so we can have nonblocking shorter-distance network connectivity better than gigabit ethernet Or even USB-over-fiber next. Now that's a thought.

      At these speed, USB4 stands to be way faster than most ethernet out there. 10gbit ethernet has been taking forever due to SPF power issues and manufacturing costs. USB4 with dedicated chip/channels would be twice the speed of full duplex ethernet 10gbit. However it is not quite being designed for true network and storage connectivity. The need is there but the buffers/latency might hurt it a bit. I wonder if we'll see dedicated PCIE cards with dedicated USB4 chips so we can have nonblocking shorter-distance network connectivity better than gigabit ethernet Or even USB-over-fiber next. Now that's a thought.

      <sarcasm> Yeah, thanks to Tnunderbolt, one of those crap-ass ideas Apple came up with and never amounted to anything because they never became 'mainstream PC tech'. </sarcasm>

      Presumably all those Apple haters out there will maintain full self-consistency by boycotting any hardware incorporating USB4 since it now integrates EEEEEVIL Apple tech!

    2. Re:Network and storage over USB4 by PPH · · Score: 1

      At these speed, USB4 stands to be way faster than most ethernet out there.

      Until someone plugs a slow device into the USB bus. And your 40 Gbps network has to wait for those mouse data packets. This may be why vendors aren't in a rush to adopt USB for every application. Lots of pissed off customers because they don't understand that it's the old generation junk that they keep plugged in that slows down their fanc external hard drive.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re:Network and storage over USB4 by Mordaximus · · Score: 1

      Presumably all those Apple haters out there will maintain full self-consistency by boycotting any hardware incorporating USB4 since it now integrates EEEEEVIL Apple tech!

      Hopefully they know Thunderbolt (Light Peak) is an Intel thing.

    4. Re:Network and storage over USB4 by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      Looks like Thunderbolt was developed by Intel with collaboration from Apple. Not the other way around....

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    5. Re:Network and storage over USB4 by thereddaikon · · Score: 1

      Using USB for networking sounds like a horrible idea. The cables will be short and expensive, the infrastructure a mess and 40G ethernet (yes it is a thing) can go up to 30 meters for copper whereas copper Thunderbolt (USB 4) is limited to 3. So its inferior and pointless. Cat8 is $40 for 20m while TB3 rated USB-C is $20 for 0.5 meters. Ethernet is considerably cheaper at $2 a meter versus $40 a meter. Unless you mean making USB 4 to ethernet adapters so you can ditch the ethernet port on your machine. I definitely see that happening. Apple already has done that. I don't like it, because it quickly leads to a world of dongles but I don't see why it wouldn't carry over to PC's as well.

    6. Re:Network and storage over USB4 by _merlin · · Score: 1

      I've been using 10Gbps Ethernet for a decade, and 40Gbps Ethernet (effectively four bonded lanes of 10Gbps) for half a decade. 10Gbps NICs are cheap now. You can run far longer distances than USB, and switches, routers, etc. are readily available. USB3 isn't going to replace Ethernet in the datacentre any time soon.

  9. Re:"...the mother of all wired connectivity option by thereddaikon · · Score: 1

    USB bus

    Universal Serial Bus bus?

  10. Be stuck with shit on board video? so no amd high by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Be stuck with shit on board video? so no amd high end cpu's?? Need an video loop back cable?

  11. the usb to e-net box will need an Chip and usb max by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    the usb to e-net box will need an Chip and 40 will max out the usb bus.

    Also in servers needs to be cpu pci-e bus not stacked off of the PCH.

  12. 40 Gbps on a 40 Gbps cable? by scourfish · · Score: 1

    Well this is some seriously impressive backwards compatibility.

  13. Re:What the fuck happened to "just works"? by mccalli · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's just cashing in on the retro craze. If you were nostalgic for SCSI, wide SCSI, ultrawide SCSI, I-can't-believe-it's-not-SCSI and my-god-why-can't-I-connect-this-SCSI-to-that-SCSI et al., then USB is the standard for you.

  14. too bad the usb c female connectors last ~ 1yr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I have had 2 phones with usb c now (nexus 6p and xaomi mi max 2), the usb c port has lasted about 1 year before getting loose and having to be propped in a certain way to connect, It is not a good port in that respect. I wish they would make a better solution.

    1. Re:too bad the usb c female connectors last ~ 1yr by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      And yet here we are with two decades old hardware that still have perfectly functional USB type A ports.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  15. Re:DMA by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    What about DMA attacks?

    That's exactly the right question. Possibly they've got this worked out with TB authorization - supposedly the Windows from last April and boltd on linux do the right thing.

    We've heard that Macintosh still allows stealing network traffic with DMA attacks, but maybe they can fix their IOMMU implementation. I do think Apple has the capability to fix it, but it's also possible that some of the early Thunderbolt machines don't get updates anymore.

    I will be surprised if neither of the current implementations that we think are doing the right thing never have a vulnerability found. The boltd guy is on here sometimes - I hope he can talk about how he has isolated the security surface to the smallest piece of code and has, maybe formally, had that code proven for correctness.

    It's worth doing if we're ever going to get high performance peripherals. I don't know if computer science is advanced enough now to do it right, but we should see if it's possible. With XPoint RAM this is going to be even more important. Heck, you might be able to bring your state with you from desktop to desktop using your phone as a storage backend before long (BTW, @USPTO take notice).

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  16. Re: "...the mother of all wired connectivity optio by houghi · · Score: 1

    Delivering power over USB is a thing for pprtables, so you could have USB 4.0 on each and every device. Perhaps only external power on desktops, servers snd monitors.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  17. Universal Security Bugs by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

    Pretty early on we saw problems with USB being a little too universal, as it became obvious that it's a bad idea to allow someone to plug something in that can be both a storage device and a keyboard (it doesn't take much imagination to see how that can be a security problem.)

    Now we're upping the ante a little and allowing USB devices direct access to memory (yeah, really, that's PCI's whole dealio, it's literally the only reason PCI exists. And the big deal with this is it's PCI over USB.)

    This is good... why?

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    1. Re:Universal Security Bugs by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      as it became obvious that it's a bad idea to allow someone to plug something in that can be both a storage device and a keyboard (it doesn't take much imagination to see how that can be a security problem.)

      We used to have key-capture devices like that to slip between an AT keyboard and the port.

      There's a reason I described voting machine standards in which no physical electrical port may be accessible between polling begin and end of polling day after generating proof of ballot set. We're going to have to go into glorious battle to force vendors to accept these standards, but I'm ready for that.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
  18. Just great. by bjwest · · Score: 2

    So now I need to buy another fucking cable.

    --

    --- Keep the choice with the user..
    1. Re:Just great. by Chelloveck · · Score: 1

      So now I need to buy another fucking cable.

      Correct. And it will have USB-C connectors so it will look identical to a USB 3.2 cable next to it in your parts drawer. And since the 3.2 cable will probably work, albeit at a lower speed, good luck ever figuring out which is which. Yay standards?

      --
      Chelloveck
      I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
    2. Re:Just great. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      So now I need to buy another fucking cable.

      No you don't. The first device you buy which needs this will come with the cable.

      Seriously who has ever bought a USB cable. Weird.

    3. Re:Just great. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Yes yay standards. I can't find my USB 3.2 cable so I can just use my thunderbolt cable. That's what standards allow.

      If you have a problem with the confusion why would you suffer by leaving obsolete crap lying around. You can just thunderbolt the world :)

    4. Re:Just great. by Chelloveck · · Score: 1

      Ha! I still have DB25 RS232 cables lying around, and I'm pretty sure I could dig up a null modem to go with them. Like I'm not going to eventually end up with every generation USB cable ever made...

      --
      Chelloveck
      I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
  19. How many flavours? by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

    To empower consumers, USB4 will come in a variety of new flavours:
    -USB4
    -USB4 gen 1.5
    -USB gen pi
    -USB4 2x2
    -USB4 4x4
    -USB4 4x4 /w ABS
    -USB4 /w cheese
    -USB4 ultra graphics pro turbo
    -USB4 with kung-fu action grip

    Of course, you have no idea what particular flavour your cable will be and if it will be compatible with the devices you are connecting, but hey, it's progress!

    1. Re:How many flavours? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I'm hoping they move entirely to Type-C and establish HDMI-over-type-C, audio accessory mode, Ethernet alternative mode, and high-speed charging in the base standard.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    2. Re:How many flavours? by heson · · Score: 1

      They will probably include some cost saving variants.
      usb4-swift = usb 1.0
      usb4-quick = usb 1.1
      usb4-brisk = usb 2.0
      usb4-express = usb 3.0
      usb4-hasty = 3.1
      usb-4-dashing = 3.2

    3. Re:How many flavours? by fbobraga · · Score: 1

      you missed USB4 Electric Boogaloo

  20. Re:"...the mother of all wired connectivity option by Miamicanes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My main complaint with folding Thunderbolt into USB is the fact that it opens the door for asshole manufacturers like Apple to turn around and make laptops with a single fucking USB port, then expect consumers to go out and buy an ungodly expensive hub to unwrap everything.

    In the beginning, there was DisplayPort. Using it with multiple displays required an expensive hub, but you could also use it with a cheap passive adapter cable to connect a single HDMI display. And it was good.

    Then came Thunderbolt. Thunderbolt was multiplexed into DisplayPort. In theory, using the port for BOTH Thunderbolt AND DisplayPort required a UNGODLY expensive hub, but in reality, the only thing anyone cared about connecting via Thunderbolt was an external video card that had a DisplayPort or multiple HDMI ports of its own, so you could skip the expensive hub since you were still only connecting a single device to the computer itself using the computer's single DisplayPort port. And it was still good.

    Then someone got the idea of multiplexing DisplayPort into USB. At first, it seemed like an OK idea... you could still use a cheap adapter cable to connect a single Thunderbolt eGPU to one of the ports, and use a $15 USB hub to connect things to the remaining USB port(s). After some nervous concern, it was still good.

    Then Apple decided to Boldly Innovate, and sell laptops with a single USB port that needs a $500 hub if you want to use BOTH Thunderbolt (or DisplayPort) AND USB peripherals, and other manufacturers quickly followed just because they all blindly follow every stupid trend Apple comes up with. And it really, totally, fucking SUCKED.

    Condensing everything -- PCIe, video, and USB -- into a single port that needs an expensive hub is OK when you're talking about a device like a phone that has extremely limited space for external expansion ports AND where using external peripherals is itself an extreme, rare edge case... but doing it with something like a LAPTOP where there's MORE than enough room for a half dozen ports, and would add only a few cents to the manufacturing cost, is just plan mean and user-hostile.

    Yeah, combo hubs will probably be cheap SOMEDAY... but in the meantime, we're looking at 3-5 years of needing hubs that cost more than the peripherals connected to them. DisplayPort got away with needing an expensive hub, because most people didn't actually NEED that expensive hub to use it for the most common use case (connecting a single monitor). That's absolutely NOT the case with USB... especially if the manufacturer decides to pull an 'Apple' and ALSO use that single USB port for power delivery as well.

  21. Re:"...the mother of all wired connectivity option by Kjella · · Score: 1

    The biggest standardization effort was actually not on the hardware side. While USB has some nice features like hot-plugging and auto-negotiation it's basically readPacket() and writePacket(). The huge difference was that they started defining device classes like keyboards, mice, game pads, memory sticks, headphones/speakers etc. so you didn't need special drivers for each device. Some things took longer than other, like for example webcams took a while. You could watch the raw USB packets but the protocol had to reverse engineered. Today you just comply with the webcam device class (I think it's called video/audio device or something) and it just works.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  22. Re:"...the mother of all wired connectivity option by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

    The problem comes when people come up with competing standards - like Thunderbolt - which aren't part of the spec where your only option is to fold it into USB and basically have it be "Thunderbolt over USB".

    USB3 is a competing standard to USB1/2. It looks "universal" from a distance because the USB3 pins are hidden next to the old 1/2 pins. It's not even "USB3 over USB1/2", it's a bag on the side. The result is as universal as a lump of serial, parallel and PS2 connectors glued together -- sure, one of them will probably fit, but it's not really a solution to the multitude of different connectors if you just hide them all inside the same ground shell.

    USB was supposed to replace "legacy ports" but now it has become a legacy port itself. I.e. even when more and more devices are USB3 compatible, we have to drag along the old 1/2 pins to keep it "universal". Yes, I've complained about this for years.

    My solution? Call different technologies by different names. Make a different connector for different electrical protocols.

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  23. Re:"...the mother of all wired connectivity option by mlyle · · Score: 1

    > My solution? Call different technologies by different names. Make a different connector for different electrical protocols.

    How do I benefit from this? I have a limited footprint for connectors in my laptop. Better to have electrical/pinout magic to make ports work with "slow" (but still pretty capable) devices, and multiplexer magic to allow multiple kinds of high speed signalling over the remaining pins.

    These ports with multiple functions aren't too expensive, and I am usually better off with 4 "USB" ports than 3 ports good for keyboard, mice, and slow thumb drives; 2 ports good for fast SSD or PCIe expansion, 2 ports good for external monitors, etc-- both in cost, physical footprint, and ease of use.

  24. Re:"...the mother of all wired connectivity option by DCFusor · · Score: 1

    Rubber ducky. USB has a fatal flaw that can't be fixed with back compatibility. It has to trust the device to tell the truth about what it is.

    --
    Why guess when you can know? Measure!
  25. Re:"...the mother of all wired connectivity option by vadim_t · · Score: 1

    So buy a laptop with more ports.

    I've got a laptop with 1 thunderbolt port (and two USB C), and damn, it's nice. I can charge from either side of the laptop, which is great for safety and comfort. I can plug two 4K monitors into one port with a pretty cheap dongle. It even works in Linux. And I can plug an external video card, but I've not tried yet.

    It's extremely cool that I can expand a small, light, long battery life laptop into a configuration that's got all the comforts of a high end desktop.

  26. Re:Be stuck with shit on board video? so no amd hi by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    but most AMD cpu's don't have any on board video. workstations are the same way.
    Also you don't want USB bandwidth to eaten up by an HDMI display.

    And Will cards pass more then 1 DP bus as there are limits to the number of displays

  27. Re:"...the mother of all wired connectivity option by fbobraga · · Score: 1

    support will drop on the next stop :P

  28. Re: "...the mother of all wired connectivity optio by fbobraga · · Score: 1

    cheap cables to chager my phone seems to doesn't work anymore... I'm suspicious it's because the change on standards (that the cable claims to support, but does not on the real word...) - it's more expensive to by working USB cases (to charge mobile devices and transfer files) now...

  29. Re:"...the mother of all wired connectivity option by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Indeed. Fortunately unlike Apple and Microsoft other manufacturers choose to continue to compete on the desires of consumers and while that happens you'll continue to see multiple ports on laptops.

  30. Where's my high speed LAN? by hoggoth · · Score: 1

    Great. Now my keyboard can do 40 Gbps, but my LAN is still stuck at 1 Gbps. Why can't this inexpensive technology be used to give me a high speed LAN? 10GB Ethernet still costs thousands of dollars.

    --
    - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)