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

291–300 of 511 posts

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

#291

Post by rezonant »

rightbyte wrote: post #284
onetimeuse92304 wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

VGA connectors were incredibly irritating to deal with, especially since so many of them were equipped with smooth screwing bolts with very little area to spin them with your fingers. I for one don't miss this.

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

#292

Post by gmgmgmgmgm »

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…

There are many times I've tried to insert USB-A wrong since it's rectangular but only has one correct way and sometimes the fit is tight and sometimes it's hard to see the socket (behind a PC, under a monitor, etc...)

USB-C doesn't have this issue. Much better

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

#293

Post by wouldbecouldbe »

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.

Yeah USB-C is horrendous.

Broke my light macbook air from being so tightly connect it dropped, macbook also had very short charger cables for a while.

While being so tight it often refuse to charge because of it being so good in collecting dust and having a long neck that makes a small hit bend it so it doesn't work.

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

#294

Post by rezonant »

arcticbull wrote: post #201
hurryer wrote: post #199

Earlier 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.

To be fair, I haven't seen a USB C power port available in public once so far myself, and while it would be nifty for them to become the norm over USB-A, I really think it's a bad idea to subject users to unknown USB charging ports in public. A wall outlet can't pretend to be a keyboard, for instance.

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

#296

Post by rezonant »

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.

Connectors which have consistently shifting pressure applied, especially from side to side, are going to fail faster regardless of the design. It just so happens that the side that's most likely to be in this state is the side connected to the phone you're holding, the headphones you're wearing, etc. I have seen USB and Lightning ports fail on tons of different devices where the user is actively using the device while it is plugged in, even when they treat it gingerly and even without any identified sharp tugs or the like.

I've taken to using Volta plugs for all my USB devices at the device side to prolong the life of their ports, and it's great for unifying micro USB, Lightning, and USB-C onto one cable. Highly recommend them!

That said I agree USB-C connectors on desktop motherboards are particularly poorly made, and indeed make an unsatisfying connection.

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

#297

Post by mort96 »

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…

Have you seen how big the contact pads are on type A, and how small they are on type C? I don't think anyone is "bodging together" a type C connector or soldering anything on its contact pads.

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

#298

Post by hulitu »

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.

I have the same experience. The USB-C on my phone is dyin. Charging the phone has become a challenge. Yet on my 12 years old computer, the front USB A ports are a bit loose, but still working properly.

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

#300

Post by dotancohen »

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…

  > 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.
Zip tie the cable to the case?
Post reply on HN