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

201–210 of 274 posts

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

#201

Post by maccard »

pimterry wrote: post #194
maccard wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the current situation is I can take two devices with a USB C connector, connect them with a USB c cable, and they won’t work. Is that really better?

In almost all cases they will work, just slowly. There's always some power, and almost always some data (power-without-data cables exist, but they're very rare, mostly a specialist security thing). If the power isn't enough to power a device, that's annoying, but it's strictly better than when we had a unique power cable per-device. We've replaced "carry a charger per device" with "carry one charger for your highest…

You’re somewhat underplaying it - plugging a cheapo random Chinese knock off cable into my MacBook is effectively useless. Plugging a 480Mb cable into a thunderbolt dock is effectively useless.

> The only optional feature you'll run into that may or may not work at all is monitor support.

Between charging, data transfer and monitors we’re now at the three primary uses for USB that may or may not work at their advertised performance depending on what combination of devices you use and what connector you use. And to be clear, trickle charging a high power device is “degraded” in the same way that GitHub was “degraded” yesterday.

Yes I do think a different spec is the right solution - why should the charging port for my electric toothbrush accept a cable that’s plugged into a Nintendo switch dock on the other end? Something like USB 3 MicroB is an example of how a “high featured” device can share with the power delivery.

> you've just invented display cables which your monitor almost certainly supports today anyway.

Which my laptop doesn’t have a port for anymore!

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

#202

Post by criddell »

traceroute66 wrote: post #157
roaringrocky wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But for bandwidth can't you just have two simple computers at either end that can send a 100GB file and if it arrives in 20 seconds, you know you have 40gbps of bandwidth?

> But for bandwidth can't you just have two simple computers at either end that can send a 100GB file and if it arrives in 20 seconds, you know you have 40gbps of bandwidth? Because that is not reproducible and introduces all sorts of other random variables to your test. Expensive equipment is the only answer here. Its a bit like when you ask an electrician to install network cable (yuk !). They consider their job do…

If you buy decent cables from reputable companies (CableMatters, LTT, Apple, etc...) you could end up with a drawer full of high quality mystery cables. A cheap tester is probably all you really need to sort out that mess.

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

#203

Post by spjt »

ryandrake wrote: post #70

> But I shouldn't have had to do any of this. It's time cables came with a label of their own, or some sort of color coding. There shouldn't even need to be a label. A USB-C cable should be a USB-C cable should be a USB-C cable. There should be a single connectivity/performance spec, and if the cable meets it, it can be called a USB-C cable, and if it doesn't, it should have to be marketed as USB-JUNK or something. T…

A label is fine. With USB the risk is that the thing doesn't work as well as it could. It's been the situation forever with extension cords that they have the wire gauge printed on them, and in that case the risk is that if you choose the wrong cable you will burn your house down. Labels are good enough.

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

#204

Post by Kirby64 »

godelski wrote: post #122
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.

> USB-A has many variants > especially when they aren’t even labeled period What are you talking about? USB-A is color coded. You'll frequently see white and blue. Admittedly this is harder with USB-C because the size, but I don't see why we can't label these things. Not labeling just leads to confusion and fraud. https://www.corsair.com/us/en/explorer/diy-builder/storage/u...

Sometimes. They’re not required to be labeled, though. I would agree that the blue connector for USB3.0 is more common… but again it’s not universal and certainly not every device ever does this.

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

#205

Post by Kirby64 »

tremon wrote: post #190
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.

That's still an astonishing design failure: different ports have different connectors for a reason. Can you imagine a what would have happened if the car charging infrastructure would have used your regular 120/230V plugs? There is zero reason why 480mbps USB-C should exist when we already had 480mbps USB-A, except for misguided designers prioritizing aesthetics over usability.

> Can you imagine a what would have happened if the car charging infrastructure would have used your regular 120/230V plugs?

They largely do. I’m not sure I understand your point? The amount of current pulled by the car in an EV is dictated by the car (equivalent to the PD controller on USB-C) and the amount of current max is indicated by the EVSE (which, is sort of like an emarker). When you plug that EVSE into the wall, there is absolutely nothing telling it how much current it can pull.

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

#206

Post by MichaelZuo »

gchamonlive wrote: post #188
ryandrake wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The terminology is something like TECH PHYSICAL-TYPE USB A/B/C So a USB-D would imply a different physical connection and end up confusing the consumer even more. If the cable supports 60w charging or only 25w, if it's full or half bandwidth, those characteristics seem to me like we are talking about grading quality, so a better expansion would be: TECH PHYSICAL-TYPE GRADE USB A/B/C 1/2/3 And define which quality the…

Why not just USB-C Type 123?

That allows for 999 possible permutations of usb-c cables.

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

#207

Post by gchamonlive »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #206
gchamonlive wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The terminology is something like TECH PHYSICAL-TYPE USB A/B/C So a USB-D would imply a different physical connection and end up confusing the consumer even more. If the cable supports 60w charging or only 25w, if it's full or half bandwidth, those characteristics seem to me like we are talking about grading quality, so a better expansion would be: TECH PHYSICAL-TYPE GRADE USB A/B/C 1/2/3 And define which quality the…

Why not just USB-C Type 123? That allows for 999 possible permutations of usb-c cables.

because USB-C is a shorthand for USB Type C

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

#208

Post by rationalist »

Whitespace wrote: post #196
rationalist wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By chance, has anyone tested Cable Matters' cables? I just bought a couple of their Thunderbolt™ 5 cables. They seem like a reputable company that would make their cables true-to-spec. Thanks in advance!

I have some that I got to connect to my MBP, which supports TB5. Unfortunately my MSI MPG 321URX doesn't properly support it, so half of the time the DisplayPort over USB negotiation doesn't work, and the monitor doesn't connect properly. Apparently the majority of non-TB devices will have trouble with it. I can't even use the cable to charge my phone when attached to a wall wart!

> I can't even use the cable to charge my phone when attached to a wall wart!

It sounds like maybe you have a defective cable? When I first used the cable, it didn't charge my phone until I made sure it was plugged in all the way.

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

#209

Post by phil21 »

dmos62 wrote: post #144
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?

Ehem, we already do that. USB-C is an umbrella term and everyone has a homebaked organizing system to tell which USB-C cable can do what, or a homebaked testing routine where we run through 5 cables each time we need to connect something. That's what the article is about. Calling all these cables USB-C and making them look indistinguishable is a very leaky abstraction.

I mean, if you care about this and it annoys you the fix is very simple and relatively cheap.

Just set a minimum baseline/standardization for the type of cable/capabilities you need for your highest end device. Only keep those cables, give away the rest, and buy a half dozen new cables so no matter which you select you will always get the right one.

I've rarely found I need a "special" USB-C cable outside of connecting Thunderbolt ports. Those are mostly static on my monitors, with one in my laptop bag. They also happen to be decently labeled on the connector with what they are.

Once in a while I get an incredibly cheap horrible one from some throw away style device and I simply toss the cable immediately.

The only exception I can think of are USB-A -> USB-C adapter cables where the device is so cheap it doesn't implement USB-C PD delivery at all and expects a "dumb" 5V connection. That is a charger issue though, not a cabling one. Those devices are luckily starting to become much more rare.

I purged the house of the worst 5W USB-A charges long ago in a fit of rage. Anything that couldn't do 15W was tossed. We still have more 15W chargers than I could ever use in a lifetime.

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

#210

Post by Whitespace »

3RTB297 wrote: post #94
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"…

As much as the original author bemoans having to do the labeling themselves, 99% of people don't care or don't have such a mix of cables as to make it a challenge to find one to suit the task. If you care, then care enough to do small, practical things for yourself. A little loop of tape. Paint marker. Even just sorting them into drawers/boxes/whatevers by type.

I think the issue isn't that it's this huge ordeal for a person to do, but that if billions of people have to do this then that's a fundamental design flaw that could have been avoided.
Post reply on HN