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

461–470 of 511 posts

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

#461

Post by nine_k »

philistine wrote: post #390
nine_k wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yeah but I'd still argue PC manufacturers have it backwards. Offering 1 or 2 USB-C ports and 4 USB-A ports is the wrong ratio. The Mac Pro has it right: 2 USB-A ports in the front, one inside for software keys, and 8 Thunderbolt 4 ports for truly insane speeds impossible to achieve with an A plug.

The reason may be the cost. Four insane-speed ports, especially with DisplayPort routed to all of them, take more resources, more expensive chips, and trickier PCB routing.

My Thinkpad T14 has one USB-C port which works best for charging (also handles Ethernet and slow-speed stuff), and another that works best with an external 4K display. All else is USB-A. But I bought it for $500 used. A used Mac Pro 2019 is like $2500, to say nothing about a new one.

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

#462

Post by nine_k »

dcow wrote: post #459
nine_k wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I can imagine a much nicer power socket, symmetrical, more safe, always grounded, smaller than the Euro socket. But it has no chance to take over the world, which is dominated by either the Edison's or Siemens's (I suppose) early designs.

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

#463

Post by dangus »

anonymouskimmer wrote: post #434
dangus wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compatibility wasn’t what motivated people to switch away from the parallel port, 56k modem, nor the floppy disk. Consider this exercise: The Nintendo Switch is the third best-selling console of all time. Walk me through how you would design it if the only port was USB-A.

Back in 1998 there were 4 or 5 main port types. And today there are still 4 or 5 main port types (with bluetooth as well). Compatibility was indeed the reason to switch to USB in the first place, as the universal serial bus made plug-and-play real. No reason not to have two USB port types, except device thinness. The only issue the parallel port, 56k modem, and floppy disk share in common is throughput. This isn't a…

You can buy middle American mass market automobiles that have USB-C and do not have USB-A. That’s your bellwether.

Most of the USB user base doesn’t care about that nerdy stuff.

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

#464

Post by anonymouskimmer »

dangus wrote: post #463
anonymouskimmer wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Back in 1998 there were 4 or 5 main port types. And today there are still 4 or 5 main port types (with bluetooth as well). Compatibility was indeed the reason to switch to USB in the first place, as the universal serial bus made plug-and-play real. No reason not to have two USB port types, except device thinness. The only issue the parallel port, 56k modem, and floppy disk share in common is throughput. This isn't a…

You can buy middle American mass market automobiles that have USB-C and do not have USB-A. That’s your bellwether. Most of the USB user base doesn’t care about that nerdy stuff.

I'm not a tech nerd. I'm a lab biologist who just comments here. Multiple ports is my non-nerdy, non-rich use case.

My current car is almost 17 years old, and was bought used last year to replace the 20 year old car that I totaled. I certainly can't afford most cars with any USB ports, and wouldn't want them if I could.

Are car USB ports used for anything other than smart phones?

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

#465

Post by kubiton »

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…

[flagged]

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

#466

Post by userbinator »

fortran77 wrote: post #405
fragmede wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

maybe we can get that for USB-D in 2025 after the Apple magsafe patent runs out

Microsoft had a magnetic connector on the Surface laptops so I don’t thing patents are standing in the way.

Even before that, magnetic power connectors were common on kitchen appliances like kettles and fryers.

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

#467

Post by arcticbull »

throw555chip wrote: post #460
arcticbull wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

That's really cool :) thanks for sharing!

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

#468

Post by jojobas »

dcow wrote: post #447
jojobas wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You don’t have to but a new cable for each one. 7-Port USB 3.0 Hub: https://a.co/d/aRru1K1

This hub sounds so convenient that maybe, just maybe, some genius had an idea to incorporate it into the motherboard?

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

#469

Post by lbourdages »

nubinetwork wrote: post #78

Find me a device that needs the bandwidth of USB type C. The only thing that springs to mind are 4k HDMI capture cards...

USB type C is a connector. It says nothing about the protocol it supports.

It could be anything from USB 2.0 up to USB 4/Thunderbolt 4.

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

#470

Post by ajsnigrutin »

cesarb wrote: post #385
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...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…

> And I already have to buy a serial (rs232) adapter, because they removed it for no real reason. RS-232 is a pain, it's one of the few users of negative voltages on a PC (others being ISA cards and PCI cards; PCI Express finally removed the last negative voltage pin), and the input needs to be tolerant of any voltage between -25V and +25V. I can see why computer manufacturers would love to not have to deal with it a…

And somehow a usb->rs232 adapter can handle all that, including negative voltages and costs less than $5, and a max232 chip for less than $1.
Post reply on HN