USB4 Specification Announced: Adopting Thunderbolt 3 Protocol for 40 Gbps USB • Hacker News Board

Re: USB4 Specification Announced: Adopting Thunderbolt 3 Protocol for 40 Gbps USB

#201

Post by gumby » Tue, Mar 05, 2019, 3:50 AM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #138

gumby wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> good USB C cables seem to be made out of gold USB type C cables are active (they have silicon in them and handshake themselves with the host rather than simply being wire (possibly plus a resistor) as with old USB cables.) Cost will come down as volume goes up. Currently the only way to buy a cheaper cable is to buy a noncompliant and possibly dangerous one. > Life would become so much easier if everything was USB…

Most of the cables aren't going to have anything more than a few-cent chip that lists the capabilities.

That's true; a few cents of chip and a couple of cents more complex assembly, propagated through the supply chain. (there's a little bit of handshake for PD, billboard etc but I agree with your point that the cost will be pennies).

Once they become ubiquitous I imagine the usual forces will drive the cost way down so we'll end up with something like the current mix of good and crap cables. Hopefully nobody will advertise 100 W over 30 gauge wire, but probably...!

Re: USB4 Specification Announced: Adopting Thunderbolt 3 Protocol for 40 Gbps USB

#202

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Mar 05, 2019, 4:01 AM UTC

abrowne wrote: post #190

gambiting wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So remind me, why can you walk into any apple store, pick up a new MacBook and a 5K LG monitor, and when you plug in the monitor using the USB-C cable that was bundled with the MacBook it just won't work at all? My point is - the standards might be back and forward compatible. But the cables and ports definitely aren't - and your average consumer has absolutely no way of knowing. They look absolutely identical on the…

A lot (most?) charge cables are USB 2.0 — just enough data to negotiate the higher power. If they supported faster data too, they'd be more expensive. But it definitely should be more clear! Apple's minimalism doesn't help in this case, either.

[deleted]

Re: USB4 Specification Announced: Adopting Thunderbolt 3 Protocol for 40 Gbps USB

#203

Post by protomyth » Tue, Mar 05, 2019, 4:04 AM UTC

abrowne wrote: post #199

stephenr wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple's minimalism doesn't help in this case, either. Apple don't make a "USB-C data" cable - they make a USB-C charge cable, or a TB3 cable, and the TB3 one has the thunderbolt logo on each end. They also refer to it specifically as "USB-C Charge Cable", everywhere .

Yes, if you buy it standalone. But what about in the computer box? I've opened a lot of MacBook Pros, and I can't remember seeing any labeling.

I’ve gotten into the habit of taking the supplied cable on all Mac portables and replacing it with a Thunderbolt 3 40gbs 100w cable from Monoprice before handing it over to the staff person. It cuts down on “why won’t this work” questions surrounding monitors and such.

Re: USB4 Specification Announced: Adopting Thunderbolt 3 Protocol for 40 Gbps USB

#204

Post by gumby » Tue, Mar 05, 2019, 4:19 AM UTC

tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #191

cm2187 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you can't charge a laptop with an optical cable. As for copper, I understand you don't get 40gbps with a 3m cable (though not a specialist).

You can, however, charge it with a combined cable that uses copper to bring power to the laptop (and optical converter), and optics to transfer the data.

Good idea, wonder if anyone will ever make one!

Re: USB4 Specification Announced: Adopting Thunderbolt 3 Protocol for 40 Gbps USB

#205

Post by gameshot911 » Tue, Mar 05, 2019, 4:26 AM UTC

silotis wrote: post #143

chrisseaton wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With USB 3.0 they added 4 more signals for separate transmit/receive So is it not actually serial any more?

Serial/Parallel have commonly accepted technical meanings in the context of data interfaces which aren't necessarily intuitive. Parallel refers to taking a raw bit stream and sending N bits at a time down N wires to a receiver who reads N bits at a time and reconstructs the bitstream. This was a common technique in the early days of computing because it is very simple to implement and low clock speeds meant it was of…

Awesome comment.

Re: USB4 Specification Announced: Adopting Thunderbolt 3 Protocol for 40 Gbps USB

#206

Post by gumby » Tue, Mar 05, 2019, 5:16 AM UTC

_wmd wrote: post #195

xenadu02 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything is optional. USB-IF is for manufacturers, most of whom want to do whatever the cheapest quickest thing is. The user experience absolutely comes second to manufacturing cost and marking convenience. The naming confusion exists because cheap manufacturers don't want to be branded as the "lesser" product or be offering a "lesser" computer. The confusion aids them. They can ship a slightly cheaper computer or…

If only it were just about cost, comprehensiveness might be a better way to look at it. I really don't want my laptop's keyboard and trackpad to require clocks to drive my clicks and keystrokes at 40Gbps, that's just going to murder batteries and bank accounts for no reason whatsoever. So you're left with a choice in this wonderful alternative non-optional world: some expensive temperature controlled oscillator with…

> I really don't want my laptop's keyboard and trackpad to require clocks to drive my clicks and keystrokes at 40Gbps, that's just going to murder batteries and bank accounts for no reason whatsoever.

If it makes you feel better: you can make an ultra cheap type C cable that's basically the same as your old Type A cables and will act like your old fashioned cable except you can plug it in either way in any port.

Re: USB4 Specification Announced: Adopting Thunderbolt 3 Protocol for 40 Gbps USB

#207

Post by gumby » Tue, Mar 05, 2019, 5:19 AM UTC

dcbadacd wrote: post #175

cesarb wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The worst part about USB-C is that it can be implemented so wrong it bricks your device! The miswiring that bricked his device, swapping GND and VBUS, could also happen with older USB plugs. There's nothing specific to USB-C about it, USB plugs have a defined polarity for the power pins since the very first version of the standard.

There's also the Nintendo Switch issue

That was due to non-compliance on Nintendo's part, hardly a USB Type C issue.

Re: USB4 Specification Announced: Adopting Thunderbolt 3 Protocol for 40 Gbps USB

#208

Post by gumby » Tue, Mar 05, 2019, 5:27 AM UTC

protomyth wrote: post #203

abrowne wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, if you buy it standalone. But what about in the computer box? I've opened a lot of MacBook Pros, and I can't remember seeing any labeling.

I’ve gotten into the habit of taking the supplied cable on all Mac portables and replacing it with a Thunderbolt 3 40gbs 100w cable from Monoprice before handing it over to the staff person. It cuts down on “why won’t this work” questions surrounding monitors and such.

I'm glad you mentioned this -- didn't show up on a "USB-C" search and I didn't think to search for thunderbolt. I'm switching!

Re: USB4 Specification Announced: Adopting Thunderbolt 3 Protocol for 40 Gbps USB

#209

Post by gumby » Tue, Mar 05, 2019, 5:30 AM UTC

j16sdiz wrote: post #185

bazooka_penguin wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cables should have a ss or ss 10 or ss 20 label on them. The end devices should too I believe.

"should" The USB logo on usb1.0 cable should be printed on the "upper" side. How many times did you inserted it the wrong way?

The spec also mandates the orientation of the connector (socket) side but many manufactures have ignored that too.

Re: USB4 Specification Announced: Adopting Thunderbolt 3 Protocol for 40 Gbps USB

#210

Post by WhitneyLand » Tue, Mar 05, 2019, 5:32 AM UTC

_wmd wrote: post #195

xenadu02 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything is optional. USB-IF is for manufacturers, most of whom want to do whatever the cheapest quickest thing is. The user experience absolutely comes second to manufacturing cost and marking convenience. The naming confusion exists because cheap manufacturers don't want to be branded as the "lesser" product or be offering a "lesser" computer. The confusion aids them. They can ship a slightly cheaper computer or…

If only it were just about cost, comprehensiveness might be a better way to look at it. I really don't want my laptop's keyboard and trackpad to require clocks to drive my clicks and keystrokes at 40Gbps, that's just going to murder batteries and bank accounts for no reason whatsoever. So you're left with a choice in this wonderful alternative non-optional world: some expensive temperature controlled oscillator with…

Not sure you're countering my argument at all because I of course agree we can't just blindly do things that make systems impractical to buy or use.

If fact I would certainly be all for a few basic well thought out combinations as mentioned:

>>one thing with nothing optional (or at least a very small number of combinations)

The problem is, that's not what USB-C/USB-3 whatever is. It's permutations must be in the millions at least, literally. That degree of complexity is simply not necessary to satisfy (forgot 80/20) 99% of users. The 1% (like people here) as usual would have more specialized/flexible/technically oriented options.

It's not comparable to counting number of buses or standards. It's more about the sum total of complexity and confusion within a generation of an ecosystem. Especially when manufactures could have better profits and simplify the equation quite a bit by taking looking at things longer term and as an ecosystem.

It's ironic that often the "savings" you mention individual manufacturers are trying to achieve is a false dichotomy, which becomes visible only when they are willing to take a step back and look at things more holistically.

Often what appears to be only benefiting another company...well you know, the old rising tide lifting all boats thing and so forth and so on...