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

311–320 of 511 posts

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

#311

Post by linuxdude314 »

Roark66 wrote: post #245
wannacboatmovie wrote: post #207

Earlier 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…

Exactly. There is no way a significantly smaller connector with way more pins can be as robust as a large one with less pins. It is 100% horseshit. My anecdote to add, but this time comparing USB-c power delivery with the lowly ~8mm barrel jack. I recently got a laptop shipped to me by a remote client to use to connect to their network. I pull it out of the box set it up and I notice the usb c power cable has the sli…

Just use the 120w on both…

Of course something that needs 120w isn’t going to be able to be be powered by a 90w supply.

This is not a problem. Frankly it sounds like you don’t understand how electricity works.

I use the same USB-C GaN charger for all of my devices including MacBook Pro and Sony A7RIV. It’s 200W…

Just buy a big enough charger and you’re good.

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

#312

Post by pbhjpbhj »

holoduke wrote: post #227
kayfox wrote: post #208

Earlier 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.

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.

Of course you want the port to be weaker than the board it is attached to, so that the port breaks rather than the board.

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

#313

Post by FeepingCreature »

dbtc wrote: post #150
mjevans wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I refuse to buy a mobile phone without one. Just not happening.

What phone would you buy right now if needed one?

I bought a new phone a few months ago. Galaxy A14 5G. Of course, it's an extreme budget phone, but it works fine for me and - because there's less pressure to go for flatness - it has a 3.5mm port. In my experience, lots of budget phones still have them.

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

#314

Post by pbhjpbhj »

microtonal wrote: post #232
wannacboatmovie wrote: post #207

Earlier 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…

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.

And variance between users, some people grab the cable and yank it to remove the plug from the socket, for example.

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

#315

Post by meiraleal »

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.

Not my experience at all. USB-A would very often break. Never I had a USB-C break.

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

#316

Post by herbst »

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.

My laptop has a opinion which side is up on usb c and doesn't connect the other way around (the way docking stations use)

I basically have to replace my laptop to use my docking station just because usb c isn't sturdy enough :/

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

#317

Post by [deleted] »

wouldbecouldbe wrote: post #293
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.

[deleted]

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

#318

Post by hulitu »

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…

These are requirements. There is a looong way from requirements to final product.

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

#319

Post by fennecbutt »

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 notice a lot of people are arguing against usb c, but in reality: devices are designed for the average consumer, not us special HN peeps, usb c is the way forward, we can't use a bulky almost industrial USB connection forever, having a single type of connection has so many benefits, if someone exceeds the plug/unplug rating or the socket breaks for some other reason...it can just be repaired.

Everyone arguing against c like they wanna go back to old style serial port connectors or something.

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

#320

Post by linuxdude314 »

picture wrote: post #190
arcticbull wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

USB A was released in 1996, it's older than I suspect the majority of HN readers at this point. An A to C cable is entirely passive, so not exactly a big deal to get a cheap adapter. Not sure I'd rely on keyboards as the standard bearer for 'not a relic' many of them still support PS/2 via passive adapter. That was announced in 1987 and is older than me.

Comparing technology to human lifetimes doesn't seem very relevant. Even not accounting for broad categories like "fire" or "language", we're still using individual technology from "long ago" like knives, forks, pen and paper, etc. It's fine to make improvements that keep backwards compatibility (more ergonomic scissor should be able to cut the same paper), but changing connector just because it's old is unwise. The…

Absurd comparison. It’s completely irrational to compare computer hardware is if it’s just some tool.

If you don’t need the bandwidth, good for you. The rest of us choose modernity and nice things like, USB-C hard drives, network adapters, etc…

USB-A is not a connector, it’s a whole spec. You can’t get the same performance out of that connector as you can a USB-C connector.

Post reply on HN