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

I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them

makeuseof.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 266 posts

Re: I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them

#101

Post by Kirby64 »

ryandrake wrote: post #95
Kirby64 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

USB-A has many variants and we don’t call it a different connector. Heck, USB-B and micro USB both have 3.0 variants that are physically different and we don’t call them something different either. I don’t see the problem here. This is just semantics, especially when they aren’t even labeled period… people just see a cable and will try plugging it in.

The other USBs are no better TBH. I still remember USB Full Speed and USB High Speed. Do you remember, without looking it up, which one is faster? Same form factor, same physical connector.

USB2 has been backwards compatible from the beginning though. I can’t think of a time in the past… 15, maybe 20 years where a USB cable wasn’t capable of high speed, unless it didn’t have data lines at all.

(And yes, I don’t need to look it up. But also I’m extremely familiar with the USB spec and have been tangentially involved with the USB-IF)

Re: I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them

#102

Post by cameldrv »

ryandrake wrote: post #73
Kirby64 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you want all cables to be thick, $60, and cap out at 1 meter long, this is not a reasonable standard. 480mbps USB-C is perfectly adequate for many applications. Likewise for 60W cables.

So, call it USB-D or something, if one cable is significantly different (in purpose, performance, form factor) than another cable. Don't just call everything the same label, and let the non-technical buyer beware.

There are names for all of the features. It would be cool if there were some sort of color code or physical indication of a cables capability, but one of the cool things about usb-c is that the same connector works for really cheap stuff and really high end stuff. For example, in a pinch I can charge my MacBook (slowly) from a $5 gas station usb charger.

Re: I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them

#103

Post by happymellon »

synack wrote: post #71

I came up with a color code based on the wiring: Red for Power Only, Blue for USB 2.0, Green for USB 3 (the ones with the extra pairs connected). I use paint pens to mark every cable I come across with this code. Generally speaking, only the Green ones have special PD emarker chips. It doesn't cover every possible configuration, but it's good enough for when I'm like "I need a USB cable" vs "I need a good USB cable"…

I thought blue indicated USB 3.0?

Re: I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them

#105

Post by zx8080 »

ReactiveJelly wrote: post #99
stouset wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, great, it’s called USB-D. Is this a new connector? Or do we now need to resort to labeling cables and checking the label? Do we do this for every new version and combination of versions for USB? USB-PD? Thunderbolt? DisplayPort?

The computer / phone should auto-detect and tell you on-screen

The hell Apple or Google cares.

Re: I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them

#106

Post by bariumbitmap »

Kirby64 wrote: post #90
bariumbitmap wrote: post #76

> Any cable that can transfer data faster than USB 2.0 speeds also requires a chip to do so. I always found this confusing because USB 3.0 Micro-B cables can transfer data faster than USB 2.0 without needing an e-marker, so why do USB-C cables need one if they already have the Tx and Rx SuperSpeed wires? It seems like the answer is, roughly, "it's complicated". https://old.reddit.com/r/UsbCHardware/comments/1ow1tpf/w…

If you’re following USB-C standard, all cables with faster data than 480mbps and more power than 60W require an e marker, period. Whether devices will still function for USB3 without that marker… that’s another story and will depend on the device.

I'm not disputing that the e-marker is required by the USB-C the standard, I'm saying that conceptually it's confusing that an e-marker is required for USB-C cables but not for a USB 3.0 Micro-B cable with the same wires and data transfer capabilities.

Re: I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them

#108

Post by Barbing »

bcraven wrote: post #13
safeimp wrote: post #11

Verge recently posted this (free) app for testing on Mac's: https://www.theverge.com/gadgets/963759/whatcable-usb-c-cabl...

They are just catching up with ShowHN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47972511

Useful app, funny thread (centipede), and the MacRumors Bartender alternative link arising from the menu bar decision discussion means I might be able to ditch Ice! (reduce spacing instead)

Re: I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them

#109

Post by QuantumNomad_ »

zx8080 wrote: post #105
ReactiveJelly wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The computer / phone should auto-detect and tell you on-screen

The hell Apple or Google cares.

Apple should care because customers will blame slow charging times and slow transfer speeds on the phone

Re: I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them

#110

Post by CamperBob2 »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #80
mshroyer wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why on earth is so much more expensive than an arbitrary pair of devices that could max out a cable?

Think about it. You need to generate a precise, calibrated, 40GHz signal, transmit it, then precisely measure the returned signal for phase, amplitude, and waveform integrity -at that speed. Oscilloscopes and logic analyzers that run at that speed, are damn expensive.

Someone could do an equivalent-time sampling instrument for not much money, if the market were there. It's probably not, though.
Post reply on HN