Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why aren't motherboards mostly USB-C by now? (2021)

philip.greenspun.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 511 posts

Re: Why aren't motherboards mostly USB-C by now? (2021)

#231

Post by jhugo »

causi wrote: post #209
arcticbull wrote: post #176

Earlier 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…

Micro-USB and USB-C receptacles are both designed for a minimum rated lifetime of 10,000 The idea that micro-USB and USB-C are supposed to be equally durable is the wrongest thing I've read all day. Frankly, mini-USB is the single most delicate connector I've ever used. Other than a couple PDAs, I never owned a single mini-USB device those receptacle didn't end up breaking off the board.

You’re mixing up mini-USB and micro-USB. Also, the board attachment is not strictly speaking part of the connector standard. Manufacturers are free to, and do, screw that up in myriad ways.

Re: Why aren't motherboards mostly USB-C by now? (2021)

#232

Post by microtonal »

wannacboatmovie wrote: post #207
arcticbull wrote: post #176

Earlier 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…

My empirical evidence: I've now had to replace two laptop motherboards due to a (mechanically) failed USB-C port.

I have had laptops with only USB-C ports since 2015 and not a single one failed. I also don't know anyone who had a broken USB-C port. There is probably variance between manufacturers.

Re: Why aren't motherboards mostly USB-C by now? (2021)

#233

Post by atoav »

picture wrote: post #183
arcticbull wrote: post #176

Earlier 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…

I think it's a bit ironic that the cable is considered more costly than the receptacle, which is generally true if you consider the device as a whole, but now we have multiple hundreds of dollars thunderbolt cables and the cap on the actual receptacle component is below $10 even for ones with support for higher speeds. But then again, most people don't have the SMD rework tooling to be able to easily replace receptac…

It is probably easier to have two cables and replace a broken one in case of failure than replacing your USB connector (or the lifted pads) in case of failure.

A broken cable means the cable will be replaced, a broken connector might mean the device is thrown out.

Now I am a person with the skill and tools to replace such a connector or patch up the PCB in most cases, but Ibstill think I'd rsther replace the cable. Thebexpensive thing isn't the part. It is my time.

Re: Why aren't motherboards mostly USB-C by now? (2021)

#234

Post by Kuraj »

crote wrote: post #67
korginator wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

USB-C is simply more convenient to use, and you get it right 100% of the time, instead of your orientation being wrong 50% of the time with USB-A.

Just don't accidentally stick USB-C into a USB-A port. It will fit and it will short the port, causing the machine to crash. Speaking from experience...

Also don't accidentally stick an USB-A port into an Ethernet port. It will fit but your peripheral won't work

Re: Why aren't motherboards mostly USB-C by now? (2021)

#235

Post by 2809 »

korginator wrote: post #30
aslilac wrote: post #3

calling 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…

USB-C is simply more convenient to use, and you get it right 100% of the time, instead of your orientation being wrong 50% of the time with USB-A.

USB-A has a straight forward top and bottom. Once you know this, you almost never connect it wrong.

Re: Why aren't motherboards mostly USB-C by now? (2021)

#236

Post by thegeekpirate »

hurryer wrote: post #199
arcticbull wrote: post #176

Earlier 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.

Absolutely, the two on the front of my HAF 932 were the first things to break, in fact.

Funny enough, I've never seen a micro or C break :D

Re: Why aren't motherboards mostly USB-C by now? (2021)

#237

Post by arcticbull »

holoduke wrote: post #225
arcticbull wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's going to depend on the connector. Plenty have through-hole mounts. You can also get surface-mount type A connectors.

Re: Why aren't motherboards mostly USB-C by now? (2021)

#238

Post by lifeisstillgood »

Because every designer has a choice - build onboard A connectors and supply seperate A-C adaptors or build C-onboard and supply seperate C-A adapters.

The incentives are to make the motherboard at a price point and A connectors are going to be 1cent or less cheaper. This is probably true for the cable adaptors too.

But if I had to put money on one thing it's power - you can run a small laptop off USB-C which is where the whole thing shoukd be moving to - USB-C for everything power and data, but making every connector hook up to the 5.5V on the motherboard is awkward and marking just one is confusing.

It's not a great argument but my take is USB-C is only great when every connection is USB-C and if it's not great then why bother

Re: Why aren't motherboards mostly USB-C by now? (2021)

#239

Post by ThatPlayer »

crote wrote: post #81
anakaine wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This said, USB-C needs to have its standards updated, and standardised. Eg all cables must support a minimum of USB 3.1 with power and data, with appropriate shielding. Stop yielding so many concessions. I'm already in a spot where I have a number of USB-C to C cable varieties that all look basically the same, but have very different characteristics. One cable basically refuses to charge anything. Another has no data…

A big part of this is that a lot of manufacturers are just completely ignoring the standards. The standards specify a rather limited set of cables, and it specifies clear ways to label them which make it extremely obvious to consumers what the cable is capable of. But manufacturers just... can't be bothered to actually follow the standard . The main reason why there isn't one cable is that it has mutually-incompatibl…

>it'd be $30 rather than $3

I think this is the big one. Having only fast cables is already possible. Just toss out all your unknown and slower USB-C cables, and buy a bunch of known good 30$ Thunderbolt 4 cables to replace them all. You don't need to force manufacturers to do anything.

But I'm sure the majority of users don't care about USB 4 or Thunderbolt on all their cables. They've probably never used USB-C for mass data transfers, it's a charging cable, or maybe a USB 2.0 data rate devices like a Playstation controller or a headphones adapter now that 3.5mm jack is dead. Even most of the enthusiasts here probably don't care about spending an extra 5$ to upgrade their keyboard's USB-C cable to USB 3. It's just a waste of money.

Post reply on HN