Talk:USB/Archive 2

USB2 and ExpressCard
Anyone care to write someting about the inclusion of USB2 in the ExpressCard-standard? -- Henriok 21:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Communication Device Class Updated
According to this document, the Communications Device Class is 0x02, I updated it (the article claimed it was 0x0A)

http://www.usb.org/developers/devclass_docs/usbcdc11.pdf

- 0xA is the CDC-data class interface. That tries to be the simplest interface for transferring data, just a pair of pipe.

The list of class codes is here: http://www.usb.org/developers/defined_class

254
it read "maximum of 253 different device classes are possible"

but actually it's 254. (There are 256 numbers in the range 0 - 255. 256 minus 2 = 254)

Potential for Growth
Couldn't they upgrade the connecter ports in such a way that it would be backwards compatable, but offering yet more data? Or would it be easier to provide a future proofed format in the first place? - 68.228.33.74 06:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's what they did with USB 2.0--Jack 04:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Software vendors (eltima)
Seems like an ad. Did eltima put this here? Could someone ivestigate the IP of whomever it was that added this? Could more software vendors be added (NOT BY THE VENDORS) to make this part of the article more legit, or remove the "Software Vendors" part of the article if that is not possible? (24.99.192.9 05:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC))


 * Also the "Communication with USB devices" section looks like a bunch of advertisements for various products and projects. 64.171.162.77 01:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Comparison table
I think a comparison table between the maximum length of a USB cable versus length of serial cables and parallel could be a good point. This is because in industry, the serial cable can fit better some applications like remote monitoring of devices. 200.57.23.253 15:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

USB packet description is total fantasy!
The description of the USB packet format is completely, WILDLY inaccurate. Whoever wrote it was either willingly entering false information, or made something up.

I will remove the bogus table and enter accurate information about USB packets and communication.

I have removed the section titled "USB packet format". The entry is so far from reality that it had to have been completely made up. Hard to understand why anyone would want to mislead people on USB; it's not exactly a politically charged technology.

The offending edit was made on 10 October 2006, at 20:35. You can see when it was introduced at.

I plan on writing a new entry for this section, giving some basics on USB packet formats (plural!) and transfers, and pointers into the USB standards.

-

That packet description sounds vaguely like a descriptor I've seen some where. I think it may be the configuration block for a general purpose device chip from some vendor.

Firewire section title
I think that the title of the comparison between firewire section should be "USB vs firewire" or comparison between "usb and firewire" bea cause it looks like a section anbout Firewire itself. --Guillo7x 23:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Uncommon USB plugs
The "USB 4-pin Flat Mini B" plug type is a very hard to find plug. Note that this is different from "USB 4-pin Mini B" plug type.

Mini B 4-pin vs. 5-pin
Some cameras/mp3 players etc use 4-pin mini B connectors, some use 5-pin. This subject seems to not appear in the article. Would someone who understands it please add these details? 69.87.193.56 19:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Afaict the official mini-b connector is 5 pin, however there are a wide variety of unofficial connectors arround. Plugwash 20:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent Article
The main wikipedia USB article is superb - really. --Gautam3 07:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a great article, but the abundance of technical details is daunting for a typical user/consumer who wants to get a general idea about USB. What is the best way to deal with this kind of problem in wikipedia? Should there be a shorter, simpler main summary article, and a separate "USB technical details" article? Are there good examples elsewhere of how to handle this? I don't want to dumb things down, but I also don't want readers to flee in the face of too-much-tech to make heads or tails of... 69.87.204.76 14:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

High res logos?
USB.org has a licensing program for their logo. Is it better to get a license from them rather then to use the "it is believed...low resolution"? There are also some restriction of the usage and display of the logo if we do. --Dispenser 04:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * http://www.usb.org/press/weblink

Just a quick suggestion for the article, more pictures of the miniature USB connectors would be good. Psykus 20:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup references
I think it would be best to either use either footnotes or links, preferably footnotes. Also, please follow Wikipedia's guidelines when citing sources. Ceros 04:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)