Jump to content

Talk:USB/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 9

First sentence garbled in "Proprietary connectors and formats" section

Sentence is either run-on or mis-punctuated. Don't know enough re XBox to correct it. Peter Delmonte 17:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Are cables for USB 1 the same as cables for USB 2?

Are cables for USB 1 the same as cables for USB 2? I have searched the web for an hour and can not find a clear answer. I suspect they are physically the same, but may be tested differently? If someone knows the answers, it could save millions of cables from ending up in the dump.

I see ads saying a cable is "USB 2.0 High Speed Certified" but what does it mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.83.182 (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Cables made before USB 2.0 did not have controlled differential impedance. If impedance of the twisted pair in the cable deviates significantly from 90 Ohms, High-Speed USB devices will suffer from signal reflections, and distorted USB packets would cause excessive data corruption and corresponding attempts to recover. There are also certain elevated requirements for levels of transmission losses, and for wire gages, to deliver power to bus-powered devices, including lower contact resistance. "USB 2.0 High Speed Certified" means that the cable meets all these requirements.Alexei123 04:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not positive but my understanding is that if a cable was properly made to USB 1.1 specs it should be ok for the high speed mode introduced in 2.0. Unfortunately as with everything there are many cables out there that weren't made to the proper specs. Plugwash 12:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Since coaxial cables at those frequencies are treated as waveguides, they need to be specially engineered for the higher speed. True, a hi-quality USB 1.1 cable designed to cover the full range of frequencies that appear at the maximum rate for USB 1.1 (11 Mbps) and allowing for some headroom, should accomodate USB 2.0 Hi-Speed (12 Mbps) but not Full-speed, which is 480 Mbps. The very least you will get a lot of errors and retries with such a cable. EpiVictor 12:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Usbovercurrent.png

Image:Usbovercurrent.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

USB 4.0

How is it that I'm seeing hardware coming out which claims to have USB 4 connectors, but I can't find any real data about USB 4?

This is what I've found and have no way of verifying it's accuracy:

Leaked draft for USB 4.0 specification

1. One symmetrical, fully bi-sexual hardware interface, no male/female connectors, no fumbling to find the right direction for the plug, no unnecessary adapters.
2. Hybrid fiber optic / electric interface, fiber for data at speeds exceeding 1GB/s, can be updated indefinitely via DSP, electric for legacy data and power to supply energy dependent devices.
3. 12 Volts, 3200 mA max distributed power via the bus. This is enough to power to run standard 3.5" disk drives, CD/DVD drives, scanners, printers, and other small devices that USB does not support.
4. Backwards compatible with Ethernet, and all 8P8C / RJ45 variations- requires adapter.
5. Intelligent connectivity, full data/power link is not established until hardware determines the appropriate device settings and requirements.
6. Small enough for use with micro devices like flash memory, MP3 Players and mobile phones yet pragmatic enough to endure in adverse environments.
7. No DRM / Copy Protection junk. Additionally the standard is entirely open source and does not require a costly license or any other idiotic nonsense to utilize.

So... does anybody have any more information about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.44.253 (talk) 03:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, USB 3 isn't even available yet to the general public. How could devices be available that claim to be USB 4? Sounds like a typo. Brielle (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like a Slashdot wanker wishlist, not a proposal. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
I think this rumor came from someone misinterpreting what they were reading. Originally, it was probably either satire or someone's discussion on what would be a good idea. Some of those seem like they might be good ideas, but it's highly unlikely that there's any sort of work started on a USB 4 draft by people who will have an impact on it, other than perhaps idle design discussions. I'd like to point out that much of it isn't coherent. #7 sounds like uninformed jibber-jabber; "open source" and "DRM / Copy Protection junk" have little or nothing to do with USB. Also, #4 doesn't make sense; while adding compatibility with Ethernet would be cool, it isn't called back-compatiblilty, since Ethernet is a parallel technology. Also, USB and Ethernet are are wildly incompatible from the topology's perspective; you could mate Ethernet with Firewire, but not with USB, at least not without a complex interface device that already exists; nor is it "compatible" if you need an adaptor (I already have a USB to Ethernet "adaptor"). I'm not sure what #2 means. From reading the main article, it seems like #5 is already implemented in USB 2. Obviously, #6 is already implemented as well (many of us already own USB flash memory readers). -- 67.132.216.172 (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Fix rationale behind "max latency limits max length"?

Ok, so the section under cables states that the maximum length of a USB cable is 5 meters because of latency issues. Where it makes a mistake though, is saying those issues are caused by the per-meter latency specification.

Regardless of the physical constraints, all the specification constraint does is force the maximum length to be at least 5 meters. That is, no cable less than or equal to 5 meters in length whose per-meter latency meets the 5.2 ns standard could possibly fail the 26 ns per cable standard.

If I (hypothetically) have a copper wire whose latency is 1 ns per meter ("less that 5.2 ns per meter"), it could be 26 meters in length while still being in compliance with the specifications. A 1 picosecond per meter latency could be 26000 meters in length, etc.

The article should be re-worded to say the 5 meter limit is imposed by the physical constraints of the wire combined with the per-cable specification. The actual physical limit of information is approximately 3.34 ns per meter, based on the speed of light. 26 ns / ~3.34 ns ~= 7.79, so unless there's some overhead not mentioned, a "perfect" cable would be safe to beyond 7.79 meters. Edit, forgot to sign: fosley 131.50.151.8 (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Upgrading: Picture USB_types_2.JPG

  • First post to discussion forum, so please forgive any errors.

I have altered USB_types_2.jpg to include 1cm tick marks on the 5cm scale at the bottom of the pic. If this is considered beneficial, please see http://www.gentwood.com/USB_types_2.jpg to retrieve it and put it in the original's place. (I do not know how to replace a pic and would not do so in any case until verifying you agree.) Thx. Gloucks (talk) 00:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


another image or an adjusted caption would be necessary, but i don't know where to get one or what the actual type of this plug on the outer left actually is.

cheers, mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

At least Fujifilm FinePix F40fd camera has such a connector. 85.156.235.161 (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Add a list of problems

Please add a list of problems that the user might encounter: having to unplug and replug a device because it has "died", etc. Jidanni (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a troubleshooting site or a manual. Groink (talk) 05:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Video tapes

Can USB be used to transport video from tapes, or only digital? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SantanaHomerunner (talk • contribs) 18:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

In short, yes you can. There are dozens of devices on the market that will allow "analog" video like VHS, Betamax, etc. to be captured on a PC via USB. Best resource for further research would be videohelp.com - try http://forum.videohelp.com/topic341813.html for starters. Groink (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

revert on Overcurrent

An editor removed a section describing Apple's use of higher than 500ma on ports as being out of spec with the edit summary "not out of spec." The spec is section 7.2.1.2, overcurrent, and says "The preset value cannot exceed 5.0A" and any compliance test (required for logo certification, see USB.org document "USB Compliance Checklist, Systems") will attempt to trigger this condition and fail the port. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Mac Book Air USB port

The Apple Documentation states that this port is completely within specifications 500 mA at 5V. Accordingly I reverted the unsourced fact that the port is proprietary:

MacBook Air Computers (January 2008)

The MacBook Air computer introduced in January 2008, based on the Intel Core 2 Duo, has multiple internal USB controllers built into the South Bridge.

The external USB port supports 500 mA at 5 V for 2.5 W.

The external USB port complies with the Universal Serial Bus Specification 2.0. High-speed USB devices are accessed via the Enhanced Host Controller Interface (EHCI) and full-speed and low-speed devices are accessed via the Universal Host Controller Interface (UHCI).

A high-powered Apple keyboard can be attached directly to the external port, and software will enable one of its downstream ports to supply 500 mA of power. The external port also supports the External MacBook Air SuperDrive when it is directly attached.

[1] -- KelleyCook (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"First" USB device

I found mention of the Toshiba "InTouch" control panel, which is claimed to be the "first" USB device in this press release (warning - popup ads):

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1996_Sept_19/ai_18690920

Is there any truth to that claim? The InTouch control panels were part of Toshiba's Infinia desktop PCs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.203.128 (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. They weren't very great at being compliant and even though all they did was HID type stuff they weren't HIDs. There were plenty of devices (keyboards, mice, hubs) that were closer to both bus and HID compliance that were in test labs at the same time. They may have been the first device actually seen in major US retail stores. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

USB B Pin out incorrect?

I viewed a few websites that had the pin out on the USB B connector different. So I went to the spec and it looks like wikipedia's image is incorrect. I think the USB B connector pin out is mirrored. Pin 1 is top right, Pin 2 is top left, Pin 3 is bottom left and Pin 4 is bottom right. http://www.usb.org/developers/docs/usb_20_092407.zip (9.7MB spec) - see figure 6.8 on page 96 of USB_20.pdf. I am going with the spec for my hardware so will find out soon on the protype!203.89.189.117 (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Remember with any connector the pinout on the face of the plug is the mirror image of the face of the socket. If you assume the wikipedia image is the face of a plug it is consistant with the spec. If you assume the wikipedia image is the face of a socket then it is wrong. The image on wikipedia looks more like a plug than a socket to me so on that basis it is consistant with the spec (which gives the face of the socket) Plugwash (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Image Request

Reqimageother|USB micro B plug (Can we get permission to use Mobileburn's Picture: Mini vs Micro USB) -- User:76.209.28.72 16:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Size limitations

This article states: "Unlike most other connector standards, the USB spec also defines limits to the size of a connecting device in the area around its plug."

I've been unable to find this in the specification document. It only seems to specify connectors for cables. I've also found contradictory advice in the USB-IF developers forum ("maximum/minimum physical dimension of a USB dongle"). Does anyone know where this information came from?

DFU

From openmoko

USB Device Firmware Upgrade (DFU) is an official USB device class specification of the USB Implementers Forum.

It specifies a vendor and device independent way of updating the firmware of a USB device. The idea is to have only one vendor-independent firmware update tool as part of the operating system, which can then (given a particular firmware image) be downloaded into the device.

In addition to firmware download, it also specifies firmware upload, i.e. loading the currently installed device firmware to the USB Host.

Larytet

Thanks!

A useful and informative encyclopedia article! Many thanks to the authors and editors.

Speed is the wrong term

A speed is measured in meters per second (or whichever inches per millennium). A rate is measured in cubic meters per second or in units per second (or whichever...). All occurrences of speed should be replaced by rate in this article. A Pirard 12:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's one word for you: anal. Have you ever sat in a LAN party and have two techies talk tech and use the word "rate" in a sentence (other than how they rate the only female in the group?) EVERYONE uses the word speed when describing how fast something is - from broadband Internet connectivity to PC bus performance. In everyday spoken language, speed and rate are virtually interchangeable. If you're trying to correct the rest of the world, this is not the way to go about it. Groink 20:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
One link for you: WP:CIVIL. Read it. -- trlkly 09:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Missing Connector Types

Minor Edits

Hi, I removed the point that USB connectors are 'cheap to manufacutre' since this can almost be said about anything that is mass-manufactured - I somehow doubt that there is any reason why USB could be considered to be significantly cheaper than any other type of connector. Also, I removed "......." that was at the end of a sentence. Silica-gel (talk) 09:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If this was sourced, it should be returned to the article. USB plugs and headers are significantly cheaper (even in mass production) than legacy ports they replaced: RS-232, IEEE1284, DB-9, etc. OEMs look at savings of a penny, even fractions of a penny, cost differentials.
If it is not sourced, it should not matter that it was removed. Someone can add it later with a ref. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Older HIDs

The article section on Human Interface Devices states that these can use PS/2-to-USB adapters without internal logic since these devices have logic to do either PS/2 or USB. This may be true for newer PS/2 devices, but older seem not to have such capability. While investigating the conversion of an IBM Model M keyboard to USB (cheaper than finding a new PS/2 cable for the same), I discovered that many have had problems getting a straight PS/2-USB adapter to work. There are devices described as PS/2-USB converters (Clickykeyboards web site on PS/2 to USB converters) that apparently contain some sort of logic (just a class 03 id perhaps?).

I don't know whether its worth adding something about this to the article. --Michael Daly (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

As I read the article, it is discussing bundled adapters. You buy a new USB mouse, and find a PS/2 adapter in the box, or vice versa. Converting equipment made before USB was even thought of is going to take more work.
It is useful to read that section however. It is older thank Wikipedia's reference fetish and probably needs to be sourced and re-written at some point. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Slim USB

There seems to be an influx of "slim" or "flat" USB connectors. Where are these mentioned? What are the specs? (See here)

Coolhandscot (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to be anything new. It is just a standard USB connector without the metal jacket that hugs around the USB connector. Groink (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't belive there is any official spec for the things, afaict they are just an obvious (and spec violating) simplification of the standard connector. Plugwash (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

USB Cable Extension

Can we have a subsection for USB Cable Extension? The article needs more practical information. For example, the maximum length of 25-30 feet is not possible in practice, due to operating system and device limitations, not mentioned in the article. Active hubs "theoretically" increase range, but in reality, your OS and the device you are connecting will reject more than 2 hubs. 1 active extensions seems to always work, but in OSX 10.4 you can have just one, and in Windows XP you can sometimes use 2 active USB extensions. So in reality you can extent just 32 feet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.102.109 (talk) 08:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:BOLD. Come up with verifiable sources, and then write the section. Groink (talk) 08:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a 12 m (cca. 40 feet) USB 1.1 extension (three 4 m USB A extension cables plugged together, without active components) between a computer and a printer (data exchange only, both obviously have seperate power units) - using it without a problem. I didn't actually realize there is a length limitation until reading this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.201.44.249 (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"Active Extensions" are bus-powered hubs. The specification allows one layer of a bus-powered hub in a topology. Extending with just extender cables isn't allowed at all in the specification. There are plenty of commercial range-extending products (including cat5 as physical layer, ethernet as a MAC layer, and wireless) that are also outside the specification.
Any kind of jury-rigged solution (commercial or not) that is outside the specification has no reason to be discussed in an encyclopedia article unless it is so common (like the usage on gaming consoles) that leaving it out is a disservice to readers. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Can you point out (with a URL or page link) where in the specification it only allows one layer of bus powered hub? I don't understand why the spec should care since a hub is a hub whether bus powered or externally powered.
The only issue that I can fathom has to do with current draw, and a single-port bus-powered hub is considerably different in operation from a multi-port bus-powered hub since it only has to carry its own weight for current draw and pass the rest of the capacity down the chain. Does the spec make a distinction between single-and-multi port bus-powered layered hubs?
I'm of the opinion that the single-port hub extenders didn't exist as a concept when the spec was originally created so it may not be officially supported only because the spec writers didn't think of that application at the time of writing the spec. DMahalko (talk) 11:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not have time right now to go dig in the spec. The statement "a hub is a hub..." is incorrect also. A BP hub is only required to provide 100ma per port, an SP hub 500ma. Most BP hubs will gang the 500ma (minus the ma used by the hub itself) from the bus to a single port if the device requests it, but it is not required. Regardless of why, there is only one allowed layer of BP hubs.
Additionally, I've never come across a active extension cable that did not claim to be a 4 port self-powered hub. Nobody sends these things for compliance testing either, so they aren't logo certified. Since they claim to be self-powered, the OS (any OS) has no reason to force compliance with the bus-power spec and you can daisy chain them until you run out of power or maximum SP hub depth. That isn't to say that making a single port bus-powered hub that IS in compliance with the rest of the spec isn't possible, but, AFAIK, they don't exist.
It isn't our job as encyclopedia writers to contemplate hypotheticals, second-guess the USB-IF, describe work-arounds or provide trouble-shooting. There are plenty of other internet sources for that, quality YMMV. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Note that current isn't the only potential issue with bus powered hubs that claim to be self powered. There is also the issue of volt drop to consider, each hub and it's associated wiring will introduce volt drop on the supply voltage. The extra volt drop caused by a chain of bus powered hubs possiblly running off an overloaded USB port could easilly cause malfunctions. Plugwash (talk) 12:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Over-rated durability

"The encasing sheath and the tough molded plug body mean that a connector can be dropped, stepped upon, even crushed or struck, all without damage" Well, the encasing might easily be bent by stepping on it, requiring the user to bend it back in order to connect it again. Sure, the "important" thing (the connector) isn't broken, but if the encasing is bent you won't be able to insert it. So, I think that the durability of USB contacts isn't as good as what the wiki page now says it is. Ran4 (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree - USB reliability is overrated in the article; the mini USB on my Wrist PDA now fails intermittently after 3 year, 1-2 inserts per day.

Another agreement. The Mini plug sucks, it works itself loose until the tight fit is loose, and the contacts don't mate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ligart (talk • contribs) 04:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant. You're citing original research. Furthermore, the context is such that USB plugs are being contrasted with legacy plugs which they replaced, which were more delicate. Every try unbending a serial pin? 128.111.207.55 (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It's perfectly relevent. The durability claims are unreferenced, and read like they have been copied straight off some marketing material. Personal experience is valid for refuting such weak claims. I have stepped on both DB-25 serial connectors and usb connectors in my time, but have only managed to damage a usb connector. The old serial connectors hurt more though. 122.107.20.56 (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there's issues not mentioned - while the male connector is quite robust, the female connector is highly prone to break when the male is removed non-straight. I've already broke two female connectors - one by accidentally pulling the connector sideways while stepping on a controller's cord, other apparently broke off gradually. Accidental break upon removal is next to impossible on connectors like DB25 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.58.11.245 (talk) 13:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yet another nonstandard connector

Several models of digital cameras and early RIO MP3 players used a small connector similar in shape to the original B connector, about the same height as the Mini B, but narrower. The data lines are reversed, power is not. The device end typically has an arrow molded into the housing instead of the USB trident logo. (A RIO cable can be made by cutting the red wire as the players are not designed to have power applied to the USB port and may be damaged.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 07:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Capacity and Data Transfer Rate

It says: Capacity: 12 or 480 Mbit/s (1.5 to 60 MByte/s) Shouldn't it be Data Transfer Rate instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.52.16.213 (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

After reading all of this, I am still wondering why USB data transfer rates are so much faster than say a typical serial port. Even though there are 32 "pipes" or logical channels, there is still only a 1 bit data width if I understand correctly. Anyone care to explain ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.196.237.253 (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The controller and device processing abilities are much faster than old serial. There is a much shorter interval between each bit being sent/received, therefore the overall throughput is much higher. Hurricanefloyd (talk) 06:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

1394 Trade Association's Consumer's FAQ claims that "480 Mbits per second is the raw bus rate for USB2 and NOT the rate at which data transfer can be achieved. There is a much higher overhead involved in USB2 data transfer..." and that the factual data transfer rate of FireWire 400 is better than that of USB 2.0 (there is a table provided). Should either assertion be mentioned in the article (and perhaps in the IEEE 1394 interface article)? Chortos‑2 (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

throttling of high-speed devices when plugged into same hub with full-speed devices

It would be nice if the article would cover this topic. I read somewhere that some hubs don't exhibit this problem. What's the deal? Feel free to delete this if you fix the article. Dave Yost (talk) 07:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No hubs should do this. Some cheap crap probably does, and probably does not carry the USB-IF logo either. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

USB Versions

I always thought that "Full Speed" (1.5 MB/sec) USB Devices were called "USB 1.1", and that the "Low Speed" (0.188MB/sec) USB Devices were called "USB 1.0". The "USB Signalling" section only mentions 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0, but no 1.1.

I have seen many USB devices that say "USB 2.0 (USB 1.1 Compatible)", with Apple's iPod being one such example, though many USB Drives another. This website also seems to state 1.1 refers to the speed. 86.169.112.65 (talk) 13:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Black and white photo

I disagree with the usage of a monochrome photo of a standard USB hub. This is an informational document, not an art project. I'd change it, but I don't have a USB hub, and my wiki skills are lacking. I suggest a color image be used instead. ACiD GRiM (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"Not an art project" — let's not give in to the popular misconception that any black-and-white photo made after the invention of practical color photography is automatically the creation of some rebellious hippie dropout. If the photograph was originally color and then converted to black-and-white, yeah, that's definitely tooly. But let's give it the benefit of the doubt. It's not a bad photo, and it gets the job done. – The Realms of Gold (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that the device in the photo is not really a "standard USB hub"; it is a Belkin F1U400 4 computer to 4 peripheral multiway switch that will allow any of the computers to access any of the devices. 217.34.211.170 (talk) 11:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Mystery micro plug

The mystery plug, on a cable for my Pentax K10D
The mystery plug, on a cable for my Panasonic DMC-TZ3

(continuing the above section, on the small 8-pin plug which is apparently misidentified as "micro-B" in this image)

I agree that this plug is not a standard micro-B plug, which is about 7×1.8mm and has 5 contacts, as described precisely in the "USB Cables and Connectors Class Document".

If you look at the end of the connector closely, it seems it is the charging plug that is used in the Nintendo DS Lite

I have one of these "mystery plugs" on a cable for my Pentax K10D camera and don't really know what to call it. Its dimensions are approximately 4.75×1.8mm, smaller than standard micro-B. And it has positions for 8 contacts, not the 5 of micro connectors. I have seen it on several cameras, where it is usually used to provide both USB and composite video via the same receptacle on the camera (hence the extra 3 pins).

This connector/cable seems to be used by many different camera brands, including at least:

I have seen it referred to with several names:

ITS JUST USB ON THE GO!!!!! dear lord —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.172.136 (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this thing standardized or not?? There appears to be a huge amount of confusion around it... Can anyone explain what it is supposed to be called, or reference any documents that describe it??? ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 20:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether it could be called standardized or not, but I can tell you what it is. It's a "USB multi-connector" that's very popular on midrange DSLRs, including pins for USB, video output, and often a remote shutter release. The function of the port varies depending on which cable is attached. As far as I know there's no agreement between manufacturers as to pin assignment, but it's not unreasonable that they would have a common physical spec.

Andrew Rodland (talk) 09:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This plug is also used on the Panasonic DMC-TZ3 stills camera (and probably it's closely related cousins the TZ2, TZ4 & TZ5). I measured the connector itself (the metal bit) as 5mm x 2mm. Nihilobstat (talk) 03:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

... and used on many HTC and RIM phones. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

... interestingly, also present on Jabra BT-8010 stereo bluetooth headphones. Maybe the excessive pins are dedicated to connecting the left and right earpiece, while the rest is standard USB. Charger only uses two of those (the most left and most right one) Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.0.216.225 (talk) 19:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Its been my experence from working in a Photo Lab/Elecronics store that many camera companies create there own propriatary USB plugs that look like the USB "mystery micro plug". We sell many of these diffrent types of USB plugs in a package including the one that looks like the USB plug in question, however it only worked for a small precentage of the cameras (usualy point and shoot but sometimes DSLRs) that they fit. Additionaly I have seen this same plug in several diffrent kinds of electronics including cheep model "3-in-one" webcams, phones. They would fit, but it would not function. So my answer would be both yes and no to the standardization question. Yes the size is a standerd size, however just because it fits dosn't guarantee that it will work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by N@vi (talk • contribs) 19:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

My camera (the model I cannot recall at the moment) uses this connector for USB, as well as NTSC / PAL video out. 216.151.20.61 (talk) 04:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a Nikon Coolpix L6, which has this connector. I also have the Jabra BT125 headset that came with Warhawk for the PS3, which also has the connector. I lost the cable for the camera and now use the cable for the headset with no problems. I was also on vacation and a friend with a laptop happened to have the same cable and the camera was also able to connect to his computer with no problems. (I don't know what he had the cable for.) If they're not at least standard to some extent, I've been lucky. Considering the Jabra headset only uses the cable for charging, it would only need two pins to carry power - yet carries data for the camera just fine. Also, I have the Nintendo DS and DS Lite and it is a different connector. Senatorpjt (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on personal knowledge, and having worked in the field for a few years, the 'Mystery Plug' is internally named the 'Agox connector' when used in combination with digital cameras. We refer to them this way because of the gentleman with whom I worked. 128.61.120.190 (talk) 22:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I remember seeing it called the 'Agox Connector' in Nikon documentation somewhere. I always wondered why. 128.61.69.123 (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... very interesting. Do you have a reference for it anywhere??? ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 06:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm no longer working there, but I could possibly try to get some documents from people who still work there. 128.61.120.190 (talk) 09:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

So, after having asked around, I've learned that the connector's internal name of 'Agox' is on some documentation that we haven't released to the public yet. The name is perfectly fine to use for the article, but the Nikon documents cannot be released. If I could cite them here, I would, but alas, I am still bound not to release the information behind this. 24.98.65.137 (talk) 04:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It stands for Asynchronous Gamma-Object Transfer (x=trans). In Nikon's logical model, the alpha object acts as a server, the beta object acts as a client, and data that flows between the two are considered gamma objects. There are delta and epsilon objects as well, but those are too small to get into. 128.61.69.123 (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:USB/Archive_4&oldid=562454000"