Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I'm a USB-C Maximalist

shkspr.mobi

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 461 posts

Re: I'm a USB-C Maximalist

#261

Post by wtallis »

Telaneo wrote: post #200
DimmieMan wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HDMI and display port are in a similar boat. Putting the spec on the connector would be so much help. Even purchasing them is a nightmare these days because everything says ultra super duper fast supreme and then the fine print says it's actually just 3.0 (or doesn't say at all sometimes on online storefronts). Multiple time's I've found myself in the store flipping around the box like a rubics cube trying to find th…

Even then, I've had success with older HDMI and DP cables up to fairly high bandwidths. It's only on a longer cable and a 4K screen, as well as one 1440p screen that was just really picky for some reason, that I've had issues. Meanwhile, the instant I want to transfer a non-trivial amount of bytes, USB 2 speeds come and make my life worse than it needs to be (or at least it did before I sat down, found decent speedy…

The critical difference is that USB versions keep adding new wires and active components, while the display cables largely stick to tightening the analog signal integrity requirements. Whether an old HDMI cable works for a new display is largely a question of how high the data rate is for the new resolution and refresh rate, vs how much the manufacturer of the cable overshot their analog bandwidth target.

Re: I'm a USB-C Maximalist

#262

Post by bsammon »

chaosharmonic wrote: post #15

I too am a USB-C maximalist, but with a handful of differences from OP: - You lose me at "toothbrush." I don't want personal care items that have internal batteries at all , because they'll eventually die on me while the device itself (brush heads notwithstanding) is otherwise perfectly functional. I'd much rather keep rechargeable AA(A)s on hand for that kind of stuff. (I still haven't found a good electric razor fo…

> I don't want personal care items that have internal batteries at all, because they'll eventually die on me while the device itself (brush heads notwithstanding) is otherwise perfectly functional. I'd much rather keep rechargeable AA(A)s on hand for that kind of stuff. (I still haven't found a good electric razor for this purpose, though, and have actually just gone back to manual for the foreseeable future.)

My solution to this was to get an electric razor that doesn't use batteries. My 20-year-old no-battery electric Norelco razor was bought in a chain pharmacy. I've looked in recent years, and I don't see them any more in brick-and-mortar stores, but they're still made, and available online.

The (minor, IME) downside is that electric razors without batteries are generally on the low-end of the spectrum, rarely including the fancy (even non-battery-related) features found on the high end electric razors.

Re: I'm a USB-C Maximalist

#264

Post by gumby »

firloop wrote: post #227
gumby wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I scan the emarker on every USB C that comes into the house and add a p-touch label. I chuck out power-only and ultra baseline (60 W/USB 2 cables) with no marker or resistors. Power-only cables could be handy when traveling as they are essentially a condom, but they can only charge slowly and I always have a better cable with me. I wouldn’t mind a PD aware charge-only device but inquire require some MITM circuitry an…

Some cheaper devices I have (e.g. rechargeable LED light strip) _only_ charge via power-only cables. Was maddening when I realized I had thrown out all but one of the cables that can charge it.

Thankfully I’ve never encountered one. But I’ll check before discarding if I ever get a device that comes with one, thanks!

Re: I'm a USB-C Maximalist

#265

Post by stephen_g »

Waterluvian wrote: post #259

My son plugged a cheap Switch controller into a cheap Switch charging block/dock to charge the controller. I don’t know who shot first but they’re all dead. I love USB-C and I guess the device(s) weren’t to spec, but if it plugs, it ought to be safe. Kind of a surprising miss to be honest. Usually the cheap Amazon crap isn’t this bad.

What solution are you proposing though? As long as people can buy USB-C connectors on the open market, they're going to be able to create devices that horribly deviate from the spec in terrible ways. But it's better that they are available for people who do follow the spec in their designs, instead of, say, trying to tightly control parts availability.

A compliant device has quite a lot of protection against all sorts of faults (short to VBUS etc.) but if the device was non-compliant then all bets are off.

Who knows, the charger might have been so non-compliant that it could have somehow got mains onto the connector, which is potentially deadly so probably good if it's stopped working...

But at the end of the day you shouldn't judge a standard by dodgy and possibly dangerous electronics that completely fail to comply to that specification!

Re: I'm a USB-C Maximalist

#266

Post by pmarreck »

Yes, but some cheap USB-C devices only charge when the other end is USB-A.

This is not to spec, and to my knowledge this was a cost-cutting measure done by Chinese companies to cheapen manufacturing costs.

So for that reason I CANNOT simply rely on USB-C, I also have to have a USB-C-to-A converter and a USB-A-to-C cable, which is of course ridiculous. Thanks, China.

Re: I'm a USB-C Maximalist

#267

Post by stephen_g »

qurren wrote: post #97
chaosharmonic wrote: post #15

I too am a USB-C maximalist, but with a handful of differences from OP: - You lose me at "toothbrush." I don't want personal care items that have internal batteries at all , because they'll eventually die on me while the device itself (brush heads notwithstanding) is otherwise perfectly functional. I'd much rather keep rechargeable AA(A)s on hand for that kind of stuff. (I still haven't found a good electric razor fo…

I break about 1 USB-C plug a week. They are simply not designed well for real people who do real things in the world, including physical work, exercise, hiking, woodworking, biking, and the like. They are designed by someone in a corporate office who just never gets out to see the real world. Here's how the last few broke: * Phone with typical inadequate battery + external portable battery pack plugged in, shoved in…

That’s impressive, I have managed to break a lot of micro connectors (not even from proper stress, just from prolonged normal use) but I have never managed to break a USB-C cable or connector!

Re: I'm a USB-C Maximalist

#268

Post by _carbyau_ »

Gigachad wrote: post #256
_carbyau_ wrote: post #243

TFineA mentions a USB cable tester. I know very little about testing or all the standards involved in USB. And I would like a way to test cables. Is there a good reason we can't hook one (or both?) end(s) of a cable to a computer and use a program to tell what it does?

Sort of. USB-C cables have an emarker chip inside them which reports the capabilities of the cable. The USB controller on your laptop reads this chip and makes use of the info, but as of today there is no standardized way for the controller chip to pass this info up to the OS. I assume most of them don't even provide an interface at all for the OS to request it. I vaguely recall someone from Google working on this is…

Thank you for the clarification!

Well, when someone figures out a "standardized way for the controller chip to pass this info up" I hope they do it better than S.M.A.R.T. for disks.

Re: I'm a USB-C Maximalist

#269

Post by Gigachad »

_carbyau_ wrote: post #268
Gigachad wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sort of. USB-C cables have an emarker chip inside them which reports the capabilities of the cable. The USB controller on your laptop reads this chip and makes use of the info, but as of today there is no standardized way for the controller chip to pass this info up to the OS. I assume most of them don't even provide an interface at all for the OS to request it. I vaguely recall someone from Google working on this is…

Thank you for the clarification! Well, when someone figures out a "standardized way for the controller chip to pass this info up" I hope they do it better than S.M.A.R.T. for disks.

There's also the issue that most USB cables are cheap junk that either is non compliant, or actively lying about it's capabilities. Which is hard to solve since anyone can sell USB cables without needing to pass testing.

Re: I'm a USB-C Maximalist

#270

Post by stephen_g »

linux_is_nice wrote: post #194
cricalix wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes it's not the cable. Sometimes it's the sodding device. I have some IP60-something speakers for the shower. Write up says USB-C power. Brilliant says I, I've got plenty of good ones I use for charging laptops and other USB-C form factor accepting devices. Sodding things only charge with their special USB-A to USB-C cable. They're in the bag labeled "cursed usb-c charge cables".

I do electronics professionally. This is likely because in order to save a bit on BOM costs, the device itself doesn't have the necessary pulldown resistors to signal to turn on VBUS. USB-A has always-on VBUS while USB-C doesn't. Because the spec allows for always-on VBUS in a USB-A to USB-C cable, some devices just assume that they're always being powered by one of those cables.

I doubt it’s even saving cost, it’s just incompetence. It works with the USB A to C cable, so job done. They’ve probably never plugged it into a PD charger, and probably just copied the schematic from the last (defective) product and will copy and paste it into the next one too.
Post reply on HN