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

451–460 of 511 posts

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

#451

Post by lxgr »

linuxdude314 wrote: post #311
Roark66 wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

That might be true for desktops (and even these could very well throttle their TDP based on available power), but most laptops I know can actually just supply the difference from their battery.

I personally just wouldn't get a laptop that can't run on a much more compact lower power wall adapter. Being able to use a tiny 20W power brick in a pinch is great.

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

#452

Post by neuromanser »

wongarsu wrote: post #378
rightbyte wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I am writing this on a screen where the HDMI connector pops out if a even touch it. Just one more reason to switch to DisplayPort. The only downside of DisplayPort over VGA is that it's up to the connector model if it locks, not user input; but other than that DisplayPort seems clearly superior over VGA. Apart from the obvious signal improvements, slightly more compact design and the recessed port, even an non-lock…

If I had to choose between a disconnection and damaged circuitry… I managed to pull too strongly on a DisplayPort cable plugged into monitor, resulting in broken PCB. Luckily, the HDMI wasn't affected.

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

#453

Post by TheRealPomax »

stephenr wrote: post #188
TheRealPomax wrote: post #76

A lot of devices don't need what USB-C offers: USB-A is a concurrent, not legacy, standard. You want USB-C for high-power, high-transfer-speed connections. An incredible number of peripherals don't need either of those things, connecting them with USB-C just makes no sense.

Usb4 does not define "type-a" connectors, thus type-a by definition is not "concurrent" with type-c in the usb spec. It is deprecated/legacy (ie still in use but not supported by newer versions of the spec)

That's very much not how USB version numbers works. Each version replaces a previous version "within the same generation", while guaranteeing backward compatibility with USB 2.0 (at least for the foreseeable future, given that it's unlikely that devices that only need USB 2.0 features will ever disappear).

- The USB 3.2 standard replaced 3.1/3.0, but explicitly did not replace USB 2.0

- Similarly, USB 4 guarantees USB 3.2 and USB 2.0 compatibility.

It doesn't matter that USB 4 does not define a Type A connector for USB 4 connections: a USB 4 controller can accept Type A on circuitry that's designed to operate in USB 2.0 compatibility mode.

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

#454

Post by Yizahi »

iforgotpassword wrote: post #326
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…

> 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…

Maybe they designed this way, but in practice usb-c ports are getting destroyed over time and not cables. On my two Samsung phones ports started degrading over 2 years use and after 3-4 years they are trash, barely connecting without fix to any cable. Same cables connected to the less used hosts, like new Kindle or new powerbank connect snugly and hold fine. I feel that usb-c port design is just garbage or maybe pushes materials too far.

And I've never ever seen a usb-a port break or the cable connector part.

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

#455

Post by Yizahi »

kayfox wrote: post #208
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…

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.

My phone is 4 years old and it's type-c port completely destroyed for the last year, it barely connects (and cables are good, verified on the newer hosts). Even we assume I've connected it 2 times per each day every day, ot would mean about 2000-3000 insertions tops. This is an order of magnitude worse than that fantasy 25k number. Another phone with 1000-2000 insertions over life time is also showing port degradation.

And I charge my phones in 99% of cases at home, stationary and undisturbed.

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

#456

Post by upon_drumhead »

crote wrote: post #63
upon_drumhead wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://codekeyboards.com are currently USB C as are https://www.wasdkeyboards.com

Note that these are keyboards and not mouses, and they have USB-C sockets rather than permanently attached cables with USB-C plugs. They are also very premium products. When it comes to the entire ecosystem, a $5 bargain-bin noname OEM keyboard with permanently-attached cable is more representative - and those definitely don't come with USB-C yet. That would probably add a few cents to their BOM, so it simply isn't w…

I was replying to this specifically

> 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.

where they do specially call out keyboards

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

#457

Post by caturopath »

TheRealPomax wrote: post #162
caturopath wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"No sense" seems like a strong claim. USB-C is a better plug (reversible, durable). I don't know how much more expensive USB-C might be, but considering the number of cheapo devices that come with an unwanted cable with at least one (often 2) USB-C ends, I assume it's not all that high. The main use I encounter where USB-A is actually better are dongles that don't stick out.

Can't say the USB-C is all that much of a better plug. Reversible: certainly convenient, but the tiny little stubby easily breakable plug? Strong minus. I've snapped a million micro-USB connectors (may it die as many deaths in favour of either real USB-A or USB=C), more USB-C connectors than I wish I had, but I can't remember ever snapping a USB-A connector.

Eep, I've had much better luck than you! My bigger concern for tugs would be whether the plug or the socket broke first, I think, though I don't know what fares better by that metric

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

#458

Post by Yizahi »

halJordan wrote: post #423
imiric wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here. I've experienced flaky connections with several USB-C ports, and sometimes the port itself gets dislodged. I've had devices RMA'd because of it. Nowadays I'm very careful when plugging in USB-C, doing my best to not pull on the cable, etc. It's overall a worse UX than with USB-A, and being reversible doesn't make up for it. Then you have the mess of protocols and standards that use the connector, where I n…

I don't think this is anymore than growing pains. Do you guys seriously misremember how terrible usb-a ports were? Now they're the gold standard apparently.

I've never seen a USB-A port or cable connector break physically or become loose fit. At most wires inside cheap cables snapped, but that's unrelated to the port. On the other hand USB-C port (host part, not the cable) quality is dogshit. All my type-c devices slowly degrade their ports over time. At 3-4 years mark they are trashed.

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

#459

Post by dcow »

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…

To my knowledge there haven’t been any recent leaps and bounds advances in electrical socket technology where a bunch of 200 year old houses are the only thing holding us back.

Early on maybe 8 or nine years ago I would have made a similar argument as you are now, but it’s been quite awhile even mice and keyboards come standard with usbc now.

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

#460

Post by throw555chip »

arcticbull wrote: post #443
throw555chip wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The wheel was invented before anyone living today yet it remains relevant.

Only because this is living rent-free in my head - a good wheel analogy would be Type C is rubber wheels and Type A is wooden wheels. Compatible, but nobody uses wood anymore.

Actually some continue to use wooden wheels:

https://dcrwheels.co.uk/custom-wheelsets/building-with-woode...

"Ghisallo have been making rims since the 1940s"

Post reply on HN