61–70 of 276 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wish laptops would've standardised on the 20V barrel jack (maybe with slightly different sizes to denote current capability), like they almost did before USB-C came along.
What's the advantage of that over usb-pd chargers that also deliver 20V?
That there aren't a bunch of cables which _might_ work, not to be confused with the same cables that carry data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How true is it?
Not at all - its likely they wanted to reduce support calls from people who try and charge the laptop using mobile phone and other inappropriate chargers. I use dell, Lenovo, & apple PD chargers interchangeably without issues.
Unless you can get Apple to agree to use these logos on their official cables, this kind of standard isn't going anywhere. And I don't think Apple would be seen dead with logos that look like that.
Honestly apple does not need those specific logos . They just need to label their cables in the first place. They could use their own trademark(s). They are big enough that tons of people trust them and will take an apple with 100W and 40G written on it at face value. Then tons of people who don't trust Apple will scrutinize their offerings heavily.
https://www.apple.com/ae/shop/product/MLL82ZM/A/usb-c-charge...
https://www.apple.com/ae/shop/product/MQ4H2ZM/A/thunderbolt-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wish laptops would've standardised on the 20V barrel jack (maybe with slightly different sizes to denote current capability), like they almost did before USB-C came along.
With USB-C charger, I can charge my: - ANC Headphones - Laptop - Tablet - Phone - Portable in-ear headphones and bunch of other stuff I carry around while traveling. All of those with a single 100W laptop charger. I can't do that with a barrel connector. It's a huge improvement despite "confusion" everyone on this site loves harping on.
20v/140w :: 12v/80w etc;
and a different connector for _data_ with similar markings for
40G/20G/10G/5G/480Mb
In classic USB committee style, they try to do the right thing and still bungle the naming/marketing. Just like the absurd “hi-speed/super speed” debacle, they fail to mention what people really want to know: “Will this drive my monitor?” — bandwidth tells me most of what I need to know but to the average user it makes no sense. “Is this a fast cable for my external drive”? “Is this really expensive cable overkill fo…
> most people will have to guess, and will get the more expensive one “just in case” Good. The more full-features and the less underfeatured USB cables are bought and found around - the better for everyone. I don't buy/grab a USB cable "for the drive" I expect it to do the job every time I happen to need a USB cable. In fact I'd like a single ultimate USB-n-All logo to exist which would mean the cable is fully and re…
What I'd like is a mark for servicable USB-C cables so everyone can just compete on price on that.
These logos kind of solve that, but personally I'd like the threshold only being the combined certification.
But at least most people can just filter on one logo and compare on that, even if they don't understand exactly what each logo entails.
Unless you can get Apple to agree to use these logos on their official cables, this kind of standard isn't going anywhere. And I don't think Apple would be seen dead with logos that look like that.
https://old.reddit.com/r/UsbCHardware/comments/mjz2pu/usb4_a...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How true is it?
Not working? Totally true. Damaging it? There's definitely historical evidence for it [1], but I think the situation is a little improved these days. I personally had a nexus 5x charger damage a Pixel 3a such that that charger and usb a-c cables were the only ones which would work in that device from then on. [1]: https://www.engadget.com/2016-02-03-benson-leung-chromebook-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Across USB-C land, there's the various USB3s as well as Thunderbolt, DisplayPort, PCIe, and probably others, too, all sharing the same connector with arbitrary overlaps or omissions of compatibilities across the N-dimensional matrix.
USB 4 is supposed to fix this by basically removing all the optionality. Of course I don’t know how you tell if a device/cable is reliably USB 4 or not.
You mean, it's going to make it even more confusing by leaving in most the optionality. Intel's "Thunderbolt 4" certification removes (some of the) optionality. Detailed explanation here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UsbCHardware/comments/mjz2pu/usb4_a... and here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UsbCHardware/comments/mjz2pu/usb4_a...
Relevant quote:
--- start quote ---
Thunderbolt 4 is Intel's specific branding and certification program for its USB4 implementation. Thunderbolt 4 takes USB4, and turns on a bunch of the optional features and makes them mandatory (TBT4) requirements.
Among those optional features are:
- 40Gbps required (base USB4 spec allows 20Gbps-only hosts)
- Thunderbolt 3 backward compatibility (base USB4 allows host to skip TBT3)
- PCIe tunneling support required (base USB4 allows host to not support PCIe)
--- end quote ---
USB is a textbook study in how to design by committee and create easily avoidable problems out of thin air
USB-C//////etc.
I had to buy some cables recently and really couldn't pick one nor distinguish particular features at glance, and the item description and graphics can be deceiving, even more so on stores like Amazon