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

271–280 of 511 posts

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

#271

Post by labster »

epigramx wrote: post #243
userbinator wrote: post #154

My experience has shown that USB C connectors are far more fragile than A, and every time I plug one in, for some reason the fit just feels vague and unsatisfying. An A plug, when you get it the right way, slides in solidly. As others have mentioned, C seems to have been designed to be the smallest possible, which makes sense for mobile devices, but not for a desktop and its peripherals.

they should make it big as A, and reversible as C, why do I have to think of solutions so obvious?

You’re a genius.

Of course, no one wants a big connector in their cell phone, so we’ll have to make a mini C. And then a micro C. And then they’ll make USB D to try to simplify all of these competing standards.

That said the form factor of type C is a little too small to be wieldy to me.

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

#272

Post by nine_k »

dcow wrote: post #177
treyd wrote: post #120

It's very easy to bodge together a USB-A connector in a pinch in a way that USB-C just isn't. USB-A is simple and there's literally tens of billions of devices that would be made just a little bit closer to being e-waste if USB-A ports became substantially less common than they already are on mainstream devices. Adapters exist and should exist, but we shouldn't have to rely on them.

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 socket for quite some time. Remember how slowly PS/2 ports disappeared from PCs which also featured USB sockets next to them, or how PCI and PCIe coexisted for many years on PC motherboards.

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

#273

Post by Sakos »

arcticbull wrote: post #201
hurryer wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Minimum is just that, minimum. Have you ever seen a broken standard USB port or connector? Me not once in my entire life, unlike micro-USB or USB-C.

I surely have. Any even semi-public USB power socket is hanging on by a thread, some of them have the inside paddles snapped off entirely. I haven't seen a Type C one in such a state yet, but I eagerly await it.

I know the repair place I worked at sees a lot of broken USB-C ports. Way more than they ever had A. They hate the new, smaller ports because they're usually built very flimsily unless it's Apple.

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

#274

Post by szundi »

chx wrote: post #193
picture wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a bit ironic that the cable is considered more costly than the receptacle, which is generally true if you consider the device as a whole, but now we have multiple hundreds of dollars thunderbolt cables and the cap on the actual receptacle component is below $10 even for ones with support for higher speeds. But then again, most people don't have the SMD rework tooling to be able to easily replace receptac…

> now we have multiple hundreds of dollars thunderbolt cables This is mostly an exaggeration. Apple has a $160 3m 40Gbps cable but Cable Matters has the same for $70 (and Trebleet has a 2.5m one for $50). The 25 feet 40gbps cable from Pure Fi is the only I can think of that fits the "multiple hundreds' description at $200 but then again it's an active optical cable (it's not compatible with plain USB). > the cap on t…

It is rather less than 1 usd even on Lcsc where everyone can buy it

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

#275

Post by Espressosaurus »

sbuk wrote: post #223
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…

In my experience, it's entirely manufacturer-dependent. Comparing Apple, Dell and Lenovo, the Dell and the Apple machines (MacBook Pros and XPS 13) have had no problems. Both feel as good as the day they were purchased. The Lenovo (ThinkPad P14s/x280) had connectors falling out after around six months - which is particularly annoying given that they charge over USB C. Overall, I've been massively disappointed by the…

My USB C connector failed on my Dell 5520 about 2 or 3 years in. None of the USB-A ports have failed yet, and that computer is pushing 6 years old now.

USB C is, in my experience, much more sensitive than USB-A to real-world usage.

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

#276

Post by imiric »

userbinator wrote: post #154

My experience has shown that USB C connectors are far more fragile than A, and every time I plug one in, for some reason the fit just feels vague and unsatisfying. An A plug, when you get it the right way, slides in solidly. As others have mentioned, C seems to have been designed to be the smallest possible, which makes sense for mobile devices, but not for a desktop and its peripherals.

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 need to use specific cables for specific devices, and I'm never sure which one is which. The term "universal" in USB has completely lost its meaning.

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

#277

Post by causi »

jhugo wrote: post #231
causi wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Micro-USB and USB-C receptacles are both designed for a minimum rated lifetime of 10,000 The idea that micro-USB and USB-C are supposed to be equally durable is the wrongest thing I've read all day. Frankly, mini-USB is the single most delicate connector I've ever used. Other than a couple PDAs, I never owned a single mini-USB device those receptacle didn't end up breaking off the board.

You’re mixing up mini-USB and micro-USB. Also, the board attachment is not strictly speaking part of the connector standard. Manufacturers are free to, and do, screw that up in myriad ways.

No, I'm not. The connector side of micro-USB is usually the failure point. I had mini-USB receptacles fail at an extremely high rate back when I was building and selling mini-USB 2.5 inch external hard drive enclosures back in high school. Micro-USB wasn't even invented until 2007.

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

#278

Post by nottheengineer »

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…

I once bent the USB-C connector on a dell dock just because the cable is stiff and the bend from going below my desk put too much force on the connector. It still works, but has an angle now. If the cable wasn't permanently attached, having the wear parts on that side would be fine. The EU should definitely mandate that, I don't see any technical reasons for soldering one side of the cable.

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

#279

Post by jstanley »

dcow wrote: post #177
treyd wrote: post #120

It's very easy to bodge together a USB-A connector in a pinch in a way that USB-C just isn't. USB-A is simple and there's literally tens of billions of devices that would be made just a little bit closer to being e-waste if USB-A ports became substantially less common than they already are on mainstream devices. Adapters exist and should exist, but we shouldn't have to rely on them.

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…

> people who still have a use for type A

Isn't this basically everyone?

I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen something that plugs into type C and it's not either a phone charger or a type A adapter.

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

#280

Post by onion2k »

wannacboatmovie wrote: post #207
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…

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…

Guess what I haven't had to do in 25 years? Replace a failed USB-A socket. Ever.

USB-A connectors are robust enough that you can't really pull them out by the cable. You have to pull the connector, which means you always pull them straight out. USB-C cables are smaller so some people yank the wire part of the cable instead of the connector, leading to a shearing force on the socket, which breaks it over time.

Broken connector ports are pretty much always user error. If you're a bit more careful to pull things out straight the port won't fail for years.

Post reply on HN