Every time I have to buy a device or cable that uses contemporary USB versions (later than 2.0) I am again forced to wonder what in the the world the USB implementers forum were thinking with this confusing mess of designations. 😖
There were people of a lot of organizations, there have to be a consensus, they have been debating it all day, it was late, and they wanted to get home and get some sleep.
Or it was like Microsoft have been naming products since the beginning: there is a sane technical name, used mainly internally (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7...) and other concocted by the marketing department that makes no sense at all (1, 2, 3, 95, 98, ME, XP, Vista, 7, 8, 10, 11...)
@internic
There were people of a lot of organizations, there have to be a consensus, they have been debating it all day, it was late, and they wanted to get home and get some sleep.
Or it was like Microsoft have been naming products since the beginning: there is a sane technical name, used mainly internally (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7...) and other concocted by the marketing department that makes no sense at all (1, 2, 3, 95, 98, ME, XP, Vista, 7, 8, 10, 11...)