Well congratulations to people making it harder for those who might've understood what it meant before and deceiving people who just see a bigger number.

WTH wrong with the previous naming scheme? 3.0, 3.1, 3.2 was very clear to begin with. Why muck it up with extra labels?

alanm:

WTH wrong with the previous naming scheme? 3.0, 3.1, 3.2 was very clear to begin with. Why muck it up with extra labels?

To be fair they already did muck it up with 3.1. 3.0 doesn't really exist anymore, it's just 3.1 gen 1 and 3.1 gen 2 now. Or rather now it's 3.2 gen 1 and so on... USB-IF just can't be trusted to handle the consumer-facing aspects of the standard it seems, invalidating every single piece of existing information every time they update the standard seems to be the norm now. 🙁 Obviously I fully agree with you regarding the 3.0/3.1/3.2 naming scheme, that's clearly what they should have kept and what everyone should still be using.

Haha, this is just a bad joke right?! 😀 They forgot to rename USB 2.0 to USB 3.2 Gen 0, and USB 1.1 to USB 3.2 Gen -1, and USB 1.0 to USB 3.2 Gen -1:2 . 🙄

As stupid as it is, all companies are like this... AMD with their now 3080 GPU's - wtf is that about AMD Motherboards don't just change Letter but also number in revision eg A320, B350 then X430.... whats wrong with B320 and B370? (Where Letter denotates major revision and number version) Nvidia and the sudden jump from 1060 to 2060 (which I can understand to a point) but what about 1660? What's that all about? Then the words Super, Ultra and Max added to everything. It's all quite lame - Chronological makes sense, random

This is a complete nomenclature mess.

If they want to go with "gen" to make people, i guess, understand it...better? Then why not USB 3 Gen 1 USB 3 Gen 2 USB 3 Gen 3 They seem to think consumers get confused with the .1 .2 .3 etc., hence the only real things being changed (and making it more confusing), so again why not just get rid of that whole portion and label them all USB 3 and whatever generation they are.......

Brit90:

As stupid as it is, all companies are like this... AMD with their now 3080 GPU's - wtf is that about AMD Motherboards don't just change Letter but also number in revision eg A320, B350 then X430.... whats wrong with B320 and B370? (Where Letter denotates major revision and number version) Nvidia and the sudden jump from 1060 to 2060 (which I can understand to a point) but what about 1660? What's that all about? Then the words Super, Ultra and Max added to everything. It's all quite lame - Chronological makes sense, random

None of what you stated really had anything to do with what is going on here. Yes, most companies have a chronological nightmare, but most companies also do not rename products. You would have been correct in your statement if you had talked about nvidia or AMD's literal rebrands (no, not the "rebrands" many people state, if there's a difference, even if just frequency, that's not a rebrand, i'm talking about the literal rebrands where nothing was changed but all of the sudden it's a "new" product with a "new" generation numbering) but you didn't post any of that. This post is literally about rebranding entire, already setup namings, because of....no reason at all. Not about how companies don't always make sense with their NEXT products naming or even current product namings.

Thank you! It's difficult enough as is. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXzno7VUQAAP229.jpg

Both the absurd naming convention and the over-diversified specs really takes the U out of USB. EDIT: It is worth pointing out that there are actual differences between USB 3.0 and 3.1 gen 1. They're subtle and overall not really worth mentioning, but frankly, the differences were hardly noteworthy and the naming scheme is still confusing. I'm not sure if 3.2 has any any new features or not that carries over to the slower speeds. If it's strictly a bandwidth boost, they're really screwing this up.

and (most of people) no one will care about it.... all of these if have some sort of benefit, will gonna for marketing purpose

Sorry this is too complicated for me...

Maybe the USB-IF and SD Association should join forces? 😀 More serious, I'm more interested in USB4 (Yep, another new naming WITHOUT the space) being combined with Thunderbolt making 40Gbps possible.