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

281–290 of 511 posts

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

#281

Post by imiric »

epigramx wrote: post #243
userbinator wrote: post #154

My experience has shown that USB C connectors are far more fragile than A, and every time I plug one in, for some reason the fit just feels vague and unsatisfying. An A plug, when you get it the right way, slides in solidly. As others have mentioned, C seems to have been designed to be the smallest possible, which makes sense for mobile devices, but not for a desktop and its peripherals.

they should make it big as A, and reversible as C, why do I have to think of solutions so obvious?

Those exist[1]. I reckon connector size is an issue on smaller devices, but there's no reason why USB-C couldn't be improved to make the connection more secure.

[1]: https://tripplite.eaton.com/main/search?q=reversible%20usb%2...

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

#282

Post by ginko »

arcticbull wrote: post #174
treyd wrote: post #120

It's very easy to bodge together a USB-A connector in a pinch in a way that USB-C just isn't. USB-A is simple and there's literally tens of billions of devices that would be made just a little bit closer to being e-waste if USB-A ports became substantially less common than they already are on mainstream devices. Adapters exist and should exist, but we shouldn't have to rely on them.

It's also very easy to bodge together a USB-C connector in a pinch that only supports USB 2.0 USB-C is an extraordinarily flexible connector and is super backwards-compatible. If you wanted to provide the exact same support as a USB A port, it's not any more complex. Just finer pitch to solder, but not any finer than anything else on the motherboard. An A to C cable is also entirely passive. I think it's ok to rely o…

>It's also very easy to bodge together a USB-C connector in a pinch that only supports USB 2.0

If I found out (some of) the USB-C ports on my mb were limited to USB 2.0 speed and power I’d be quite pissed.

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

#283

Post by jojobas »

dcow wrote: post #177
treyd wrote: post #120

It's very easy to bodge together a USB-A connector in a pinch in a way that USB-C just isn't. USB-A is simple and there's literally tens of billions of devices that would be made just a little bit closer to being e-waste if USB-A ports became substantially less common than they already are on mainstream devices. Adapters exist and should exist, but we shouldn't have to rely on them.

No. If we designed everything around its “bodge together in a pinch factor” we wouldn’t have technology let alone industry. It’s just not realistic or practical to live in the past and I do not believe it would be oppressive to ask people who still have a use for type A to buy a $5 adapter. Also the type C connector retains the exact pins you need to use it in 2.0 mode, they’re just smaller. Literally all these adapt…

I still have plenty USB-A/B devices and I'd rather not buy a new cable for each of them.

Ain't broke, don't fix it. They will fade away eventually.

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

#284

Post by rightbyte »

onetimeuse92304 wrote: post #250
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…

The insertion cycles are only for proper insertion. Like when you are looking at it and doing it at a correct angle. Also, rated lifetime does not take into account things like tugging the cable to the side of your PC because your foot got tangled in it. USB C is extremely fragile due to its size and not much can be done to help it. USB C might be created to withstand more insertion cycles. After all it is meant to b…

> yes, connectors got much better in the past decades

Really? How is e.g. the HDMI connectors "better" than the VGA connectors? VGA connectors seems far more robust to me. Same with d-sub mouse connectors.

I guess the signal rating is better now but the old ones didn't need high frequency capabilities.

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

#286

Post by ajsnigrutin »

dcow wrote: post #177
treyd wrote: post #120

It's very easy to bodge together a USB-A connector in a pinch in a way that USB-C just isn't. USB-A is simple and there's literally tens of billions of devices that would be made just a little bit closer to being e-waste if USB-A ports became substantially less common than they already are on mainstream devices. Adapters exist and should exist, but we shouldn't have to rely on them.

No. If we designed everything around its “bodge together in a pinch factor” we wouldn’t have technology let alone industry. It’s just not realistic or practical to live in the past and I do not believe it would be oppressive to ask people who still have a use for type A to buy a $5 adapter. Also the type C connector retains the exact pins you need to use it in 2.0 mode, they’re just smaller. Literally all these adapt…

> ...people who still have a use for type A to buy a $5 adapter

I have literally tens of devices with usb A to usb B/mini/micro etc. cables, and only a few that have usb C, and even most of those came with a usb A -> usb C cable.

USB A is far from dead and should stay... I don't want to live in an "apple-like world", where you need an adapter for everything that should be included directly in the first place (lika an USB A port!!). And I already have to buy a serial (rs232) adapter, because they removed it for no real reason.

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

#287

Post by rightbyte »

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.

Mini is quite fine I thing you are mixing it up with micro.

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

#289

Post by RCitronsBroker »

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.

i most definitely have seen more broken A ports in my life than I’ve seen broken C ports. I still remember being mystified by my elementary school janitor bending one back into shape(-ish) back when i was 6 or something lol

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

#290

Post by userbinator »

nine_k wrote: post #272
dcow wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. If we designed everything around its “bodge together in a pinch factor” we wouldn’t have technology let alone industry. It’s just not realistic or practical to live in the past and I do not believe it would be oppressive to ask people who still have a use for type A to buy a $5 adapter. Also the type C connector retains the exact pins you need to use it in 2.0 mode, they’re just smaller. Literally all these adapt…

Still we live with power sockets and lamp sockets that hark back to Edison times, more than a century ago, and live relatively happily. Backwards compatibility with millions (and hundreds of millions) of existing devices is a powerful force. While I'm in favor of USB-C connector eventually replacing USB-A connector completely, I think it's best done gradually, with new devices still offering the occasional USB-A sock…

New mobos still have PS/2, especially the higher-end ones.

Edit: don't believe me? https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/Z790-AORUS-TACHYON-rev-...

    1 x PS/2 keyboard port
    1 x PS/2 mouse port
Post reply on HN