Yeah, if we could totally re-do everything, something like this would be ideal. But the problem is, under the current spec it’s possible, and quite common (at least on the PC side of things) to have a 20gbps USB-C port that doesn’t support displays at all.
I’m not giving Apple a pass here either; the product info pages for all of the M1 (non-Pro) Macs all make reference to “Thunderbolt / USB 4” ports, which is imprecise at best, and intentionally deceptive at worst.
USB20H.100W - USB with HDMI alternate mode and 100W PD (HDMI alternate mode exists in theory only at present though)
USB40T.60W - USB with thunderbolt alternate mode
USB40DT.40W - both thunderbolt and displayport alternate modes supported
USB40DHMTV.60W - USB with all alternate modes (so far: displayport, HDMI, MHL, Thunderbolt, VirtualLink).
Being allowed to color-code cables would be nice too. The USB-C spec forbids that IIRC.
Edit: imagine if the USB consortium had authority in the 1900s - 1920s. "Let's have mains power, phones, and radio antennas all use the same connector!"
The poster didn't suggest suffixes like this. I took their point to be the opposite: let's have short, easy-to-read, meaningful names for each possible combination of port.
But regardless, this is what I was getting at when I said "I don’t think there’s a way to convey all the info that should be conveyed in a short, easy to remember way." The spec is far too overloaded with functionality to have any kind of naming system that is both sane and unambiguous.
For example, USB40DHMTV.60W (rolls right off the tongue!) doesn't specify what PD voltages are supported, or whether the "T" component is Thunderbolt 3 or Thunderbolt 4.
Comments
Yeah, if we could totally re-do everything, something like this would be ideal. But the problem is, under the current spec it’s possible, and quite common (at least on the PC side of things) to have a 20gbps USB-C port that doesn’t support displays at all.
I’m not giving Apple a pass here either; the product info pages for all of the M1 (non-Pro) Macs all make reference to “Thunderbolt / USB 4” ports, which is imprecise at best, and intentionally deceptive at worst.
I think they're suggesting a few suffixes: -
USB40.100W - USB only, 40G, 100W PD
USB20H.100W - USB with HDMI alternate mode and 100W PD (HDMI alternate mode exists in theory only at present though)
USB40T.60W - USB with thunderbolt alternate mode
USB40DT.40W - both thunderbolt and displayport alternate modes supported
USB40DHMTV.60W - USB with all alternate modes (so far: displayport, HDMI, MHL, Thunderbolt, VirtualLink).
Being allowed to color-code cables would be nice too. The USB-C spec forbids that IIRC.
Edit: imagine if the USB consortium had authority in the 1900s - 1920s. "Let's have mains power, phones, and radio antennas all use the same connector!"
The poster didn't suggest suffixes like this. I took their point to be the opposite: let's have short, easy-to-read, meaningful names for each possible combination of port.
But regardless, this is what I was getting at when I said "I don’t think there’s a way to convey all the info that should be conveyed in a short, easy to remember way." The spec is far too overloaded with functionality to have any kind of naming system that is both sane and unambiguous.
For example, USB40DHMTV.60W (rolls right off the tongue!) doesn't specify what PD voltages are supported, or whether the "T" component is Thunderbolt 3 or Thunderbolt 4.