It stopped being "universal" as soon as they released newer versions, and that is the core of their problem.
USB was meant to provide standard detection and management design patterns to improve on RS232 serial and PS/2. Those busses were focused on a narrow category of devices like mice and keyboards which use low data rates and low power.
Then designers started pushing that scope to the limits, and USB itself became a chokepoint. Competing busses started coming out and, instead of holding on to the integrity of a non-changing & working spec, the USB group decided to pervert it and compete harder. Now the scope of what USB is and isn't is defined with a blurred line.
"One standard connector type!"
Decades later...What. The. Shit. is going on here?!?
new releases should be backwards compatible if they follow the standard.
yep but they aren't
thank china
Most of the time ( in my experience) the data follows the standard. They use the same chip(s) for just about every electronic device with USB. now the mechanics of it is a whole different story. They all want to make their own connector and sell it at a premium price. and although they use the same standard on the traffic, the interpreting software may be custom and of no standard. if it requires a special driver for the operating system it is attached to, it should be provided with the system. I know most prolific adapters come with their own disc and will not work if you don't install the driver. but once installed, It usually works as advertised. I go all the way back to the TRS80, commodore 64, vic 20 era. not pulling rank , but I've seen it all. :-)
Eh, universal just meant that you could plug in all different kinds of peripherals, which is still true. It used to be that most different kinds of peripherals had their own port (although several ports were overloaded on functionality, and many custom/odd peripherals reused the ports designed for other things).
Versioning of buses is hardly unique to USB. Technology must advance. People want to plug their shit in arbitrarily, have it work, AND have it be fast.
The problem is with imprecise labeling of what ports are capable of and what devices require. This is the fault of manufacturers of laptops and shitty widgets, who, frankly DNGAF. I also note that, with respect to the DisplayPort alternate debacle, it's not a single group of people defining what works. It's a hodgepodge of groups trying to reuse the same port.
universal just meant that you could plug in all different kinds of peripherals, which is still true
No, that's the blurred line now. If "plug in" means strictly physical, sure. If you mean to operate at a minimal mode of compatibility between mixed versions, okay. But when a device behaves differently depending on what version the host is running, and depending on whether the hub is powered or not, then it's not exactly "universal" anymore...at least not the way I define universal.
Versioning of buses is hardly unique to USB. Technology must advance.
It's marketed as "the same as before, just better". For use cases that are that much more demanding of power, bandwidth, scalability, accessibility, reliability, or anything that just needs more complexity, they shouldn't use USB for that. Use the right tool for the right job, as they say, and USB is not a one size fits all bus.
I will give you that "Universal" for the foreseeable future is going to be a lie.
USB has always been more about cheap than good. And yet "good enough" means that not a lot of devices embrace alternatives.
(post is archived)