Te author is… delusional at best. USB has multiple standards that use the “a” type port. And many peripherals exist that are primarily “a” and not “c”.
Apple is on the usb-c track because the eu is forcing them to conform to such.
Why aren't motherboards mostly USB-C by now? (2021)
221–230 of 511 posts
Re: Why aren't motherboards mostly USB-C by now? (2021)
#222I don't even have any devices that use USB-C. Not a single one. The only USB-C cables I have are for charging phones.
I have a mouse, headphones, stream deck, phones with type C
Re: Why aren't motherboards mostly USB-C by now? (2021)
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interestingly enough, they're specced the opposite way. > Standard USB has a minimum rated lifetime of 1,500 cycles of insertion and removal, the Mini-USB receptacle increased this to 5,000 cycles, and the newer Micro-USB and USB-C receptacles are both designed for a minimum rated lifetime of 10,000 cycles of insertion and removal. [1] > To accomplish this, a locking device was added and the leaf-spring was moved fro…
Personally I think these numbers are fabricated horseshit, drafted by some engineer behind a desk running endless simulations. The USB industrial complex made the same claims with micro-USB vs mini-USB; and are now doing it again with Type-C. My empirical evidence: I've now had to replace two laptop motherboards due to a (mechanically) failed USB-C port. Guess what I haven't had to do in 25 years? Replace a failed US…
In my experience, it's entirely manufacturer-dependent. Comparing Apple, Dell and Lenovo, the Dell and the Apple machines (MacBook Pros and XPS 13) have had no problems. Both feel as good as the day they were purchased. The Lenovo (ThinkPad P14s/x280) had connectors falling out after around six months - which is particularly annoying given that they charge over USB C. Overall, I've been massively disappointed by the build quality of the more recent ThinkPads, especially since they get a lot of individuals espousing their benefits here, especially over the MacBooks.
Re: Why aren't motherboards mostly USB-C by now? (2021)
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
The connector lifetimes are tested by some manufacturers. When I was working on USB (electrical) testing at Microsoft we had test jigs for testing connectors to failure and I can vouch for Microsoft's connectors having lifetimes exceeding 25,000 insertions. We would also test how many miles a mouse would travel before the glides would wear out.
we had test jigs for testing connectors to failure[...] 25,000 insertions That's likely to be the exact reason why the reliability specs don't line up with reality: your test jigs are almost certainly going to be inserting the plugs directly with exact precision, whereas in practice people are going to just "jam it in" and apply significant side-loads as well as misalignment and levering forces. It's not hard to desi…
>That's likely to be the exact reason why the reliability specs don't line up with reality: your test jigs are almost certainly going to be inserting the plugs directly with exact precision, whereas in practice people are going to just "jam it in" and apply significant side-loads as well as misalignment and levering forces.
as someone who was involved with endurance/reliability testing of other physical products, I think you'd be surprised.
Randomized jitter and movement patterns are often replicated and considered.
Re: Why aren't motherboards mostly USB-C by now? (2021)
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
Minimum is just that, minimum. Have you ever seen a broken standard USB port or connector? Me not once in my entire life, unlike micro-USB or USB-C.
I surely have. Any even semi-public USB power socket is hanging on by a thread, some of them have the inside paddles snapped off entirely. I haven't seen a Type C one in such a state yet, but I eagerly await it.
The problem with usb c (but also mini and micro) is the weak connector on the device itself. The way its connected to the board is way weaker than a large usb a connector on a motherboard. Accidentally pullen a keyboard while attached will for sure destroy a usb c port. A usb a most likely survive.
Re: Why aren't motherboards mostly USB-C by now? (2021)
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interestingly enough, they're specced the opposite way. > Standard USB has a minimum rated lifetime of 1,500 cycles of insertion and removal, the Mini-USB receptacle increased this to 5,000 cycles, and the newer Micro-USB and USB-C receptacles are both designed for a minimum rated lifetime of 10,000 cycles of insertion and removal. [1] > To accomplish this, a locking device was added and the leaf-spring was moved fro…
Minimum is just that, minimum. Have you ever seen a broken standard USB port or connector? Me not once in my entire life, unlike micro-USB or USB-C.
As the goto electronics guy I have swen broken USB A but not broken USB-C (yet). USB-C is sturdy, the weakness is either going to be the cable or the bonding of the copper with the PCB. Both is basically a matter of go much money the manufacturers are willing to spend.
Re: Why aren't motherboards mostly USB-C by now? (2021)
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally I think these numbers are fabricated horseshit, drafted by some engineer behind a desk running endless simulations. The USB industrial complex made the same claims with micro-USB vs mini-USB; and are now doing it again with Type-C. My empirical evidence: I've now had to replace two laptop motherboards due to a (mechanically) failed USB-C port. Guess what I haven't had to do in 25 years? Replace a failed US…
The connector lifetimes are tested by some manufacturers. When I was working on USB (electrical) testing at Microsoft we had test jigs for testing connectors to failure and I can vouch for Microsoft's connectors having lifetimes exceeding 25,000 insertions. We would also test how many miles a mouse would travel before the glides would wear out.
How can a large usb A port be weaker than a tiny usb c port?
If you attach a keyboard and throw it out of the window the usb A port will remain ok whereas the usb c port instantly gets damaged.
Re: Why aren't motherboards mostly USB-C by now? (2021)
#228USB-C aside, I find that *TX motherboard manufacturers have been too unimaginative when it comes to I/O and haven't evolved for the past ~10y to serve growing demand in new and evolving segments. My pet-peeve: If you want more than a single NIC in an AMD-based small form factor, your options are extremely limited. Even if you're open for importing and paying >$300 for just the board or going a couple of generations b…
You need a PCI card NIC anyway for when Realtek introduces another high throughput triggered bug in their driver and the motherboard NIC becomes useless.
If you're getting a motherboard with multiple NICs, it's probably not limited to lowest cost NICs, so Intel is on the table. (Although, I'm still not sure if they got their 2.5g NICs to work?)
Dual NIC boards with AMD sockets does seem like a niche unfulfilled, though. There's some options on the Intel side though, something like ASRock Z690M-ITX/ax might work if you compromise on CPUs.
Re: Why aren't motherboards mostly USB-C by now? (2021)
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
The connector lifetimes are tested by some manufacturers. When I was working on USB (electrical) testing at Microsoft we had test jigs for testing connectors to failure and I can vouch for Microsoft's connectors having lifetimes exceeding 25,000 insertions. We would also test how many miles a mouse would travel before the glides would wear out.
we had test jigs for testing connectors to failure[...] 25,000 insertions That's likely to be the exact reason why the reliability specs don't line up with reality: your test jigs are almost certainly going to be inserting the plugs directly with exact precision, whereas in practice people are going to just "jam it in" and apply significant side-loads as well as misalignment and levering forces. It's not hard to desi…
I guess most damage actually does not happen during insertion itself but when someone trips over the cable while the plug is in the socket. Simply because of its bigger size that force is then applied to a bigger grip surface and thus lower per square millimeters on USB-A while the forces will be much bigger with C
Re: Why aren't motherboards mostly USB-C by now? (2021)
#230calling USB A “legacy” and a “relic” is so misplaced. we all still own USB A devices. I challenge the author to go find a wired keyboard or mouse that comes with a USB C plug. it’s possible, but not easy. the thing is, we could just have both! this isn’t some winner/loser scenario. the real question should be why these computers with enough bandwidth for 11+ connectors don’t at least split the difference with 6/5 of…
Yet on the opposite side we are still buying USB A peripherals _because_ we do not have USB C ports everywhere.