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

321–330 of 511 posts

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

#321

Post by kalium-xyz »

rightbyte wrote: post #304
rezonant wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you wanted to have quick insert connection you could just not tighten the screws. I almost never tightened the screws, but it was good on monitors which were pivoting. I am writing this on a screen where the HDMI connector pops out if a even touch it.

Just tighten one of them, its what i do half the time

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

#322

Post by iforgotpassword »

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.

Never seen a broken public A port, but maybe it was because the A port was already there for a decade and got good wear while public C ones are relatively new? And I think many people still use A to C cables on the go because those ports are way more common, so they just get a lot more wear.

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

#323

Post by kalium-xyz »

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…

Once you accidentally insert the usb c cable into the wrong port and short out your mobo you start Inserting it properly and start fearing it :/

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

#324

Post by hulitu »

serf wrote: post #224
userbinator wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

I agree with the parent's comment. I also worked with automated test setups and did human tests. Nothing compares to a human tester. We tested small remote controlls and it was amazing to see that a human hand can inflict more damage to the product that an automated test setup. (the remote was given to different persons just to push the buttons until we reached the desired number of button presses).

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

#325

Post by almostnormal »

eastbound wrote: post #258
winrid wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah, I had to replace the front ports on my current PC case because the center part of the plugs came out...

Is the solution to have easily-replaceable USB sockets?

Or standardizing USB-XLR.

People would complain about the price of the cables, the size of the cables, and the size of the devices.

Small is fragile, and fragile should be replaceable.

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

#326

Post by iforgotpassword »

arcticbull wrote: post #176
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.

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…

> To accomplish this, a locking device was added and the leaf-spring was moved from the jack to the plug, so that the most-stressed part is on the cable side of the connection. This change was made so that the connector on the less expensive cable would bear the most wear.

Not arguing that this isn't a good idea, but considering that the A port looks gigantic compared to C it seems those springs being a couple times larger also makes them a lot more durable, to the point where it's a non-issue.

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

#327

Post by hulitu »

userbinator wrote: post #269
matsemann wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> your test jigs are almost certainly Why assume that? Why not be humble and just ask the person with first hand knowledge instead of basically attacking their setup based on guessing?

Because you can search for what connector testing machines look like, and they all look like they'll just destroy the connector if it isn't aligned correctly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdIdEbr9wQQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GkDnQlesUM

This is true. A test system will only apply force from one or more predefined directions. A user, on the other side will not take care that he inserts the connector at 45 degrees +/- 3 degrees.

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

#328

Post by da768 »

nottheengineer wrote: post #278
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…

I once bent the USB-C connector on a dell dock just because the cable is stiff and the bend from going below my desk put too much force on the connector. It still works, but has an angle now. If the cable wasn't permanently attached, having the wear parts on that side would be fine. The EU should definitely mandate that, I don't see any technical reasons for soldering one side of the cable.

On the WD19/22TB it's actually user-replacable/upgradable, but parts aren't necessarily easy to find.

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

#329

Post by arccy »

rightbyte wrote: post #306
y7 wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You never had one of the pins slightly bending so the connector wouldn't fit anymore and you had to manually try to bend it back?

Sure. But if I remember correctly the cable ends are both male, so it was never the device that got bent. In some sense weakness on the right part is a feature.

every meeting room had a long semi-permanent cable wired through the walls / floors. bent pins on those were not fun.

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

#330

Post by moffkalast »

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 DVI and HDMI all have their major issues, DisplayPort is the clear winner in all aspects.
Post reply on HN