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

USB inventor explains why the connector was not designed to be reversible (2019)

pcgamer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 544 posts

Re: USB inventor explains why the connector was not designed to be reversible (2019)

#341

Post by [deleted] »

LoganDark wrote: post #221
notyourwork wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> isn’t exactly common but it’s not exactly rare either. Using electronics needs a drivers license like equivalent. Some people shouldn't have access to them if getting an HDMI connector wrong is an issue.

> Using electronics needs a drivers license like equivalent. I bet everyone seriously wishes there were a "seriously honestly just not a fucking idiot" license. The fact that we know which way a connector goes puts us in a whole different league from the rest of the population; most people are so braindead stupid that they can't even fathom being smarter. Sometimes I wonder if being neurodivergent is even worth it. D…

[deleted]

Re: USB inventor explains why the connector was not designed to be reversible (2019)

#342

Post by ewoodrich »

notyourwork wrote: post #195
hellotheretoday wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterpoint: I knew a few people awhile back that wrecked FireWire audio gear because they forced the connecter in backward and powered it on Even now i do a small repair shop as a side business. Broken hdmi connectors because someone forced the connector in upside down isn’t exactly common but it’s not exactly rare either. Some people think stuff really needs to be forced together, apparently

> isn’t exactly common but it’s not exactly rare either. Using electronics needs a drivers license like equivalent. Some people shouldn't have access to them if getting an HDMI connector wrong is an issue.

My Mac Mini that I use as a server is positioned where I can't tell which port I am plugging into with any accuracy without unplugging it which I don't want to do

Re: USB inventor explains why the connector was not designed to be reversible (2019)

#343

Post by somat »

Reversible is overrated. what I always liked were the genderless connectors. Actual engineers probably don't like them because making a long cable by chaining a bunch bunch of short cables together is almost always a bad idea so they are very rare. The only two I have ever seen in the wild was the IBM bus and tag cables(a strong contender for the most manly data connector I have ever seen) and some unknown telephone headset cord with a seriously over engineered connector.

The bus and tag connector: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_and_Tag

Re: USB inventor explains why the connector was not designed to be reversible (2019)

#344

Post by fuster »

kuratkull wrote: post #208
Hackbraten wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The most fragile part (the wafer in the center of the receptacle) is on the expensive-to-repair device, while the least fragile part is on the cheap-to-replace cable. Why do you think that the wafer is the most fragile part? One might argue that the latch mechanism would be the part most exposed to wear and tear due to mechanical stress incurred by plugging and removing. Those side latches are located in the plug,…

Personally my last two phones have had this. It starts slowly - the cables occasionally don't work, then some cables won't work at all, then no cables work without 2 minutes of gentle manipulation, eventually it becomes almost impossible to charge. You waste so much time on this before it gets so bad that you can't live another day with the phone. I haven't seen a USB-C cable that has wore out.

I've had this happen about three times now, but every time the actual problem is pocket lint inside the connector. After I clean it out it is back to working like new. It's not always obvious that it's lint until you start scraping back there since it gets jammed pretty hard when plugging in the cable.

Re: USB inventor explains why the connector was not designed to be reversible (2019)

#345

Post by somat »

whoooooo123 wrote: post #190
snakeyjake wrote: post #140

> Making USB reversible to begin with would have necessitated twice as many wires and twice as many circuits, and would have doubled the cost. This is... not correct. You can make USB reversible with 1 extra pin and 1 extra wire. Grounds on pins 1 and 5, data on pins 2 and 4, and VCC on pin 3. Then have those pins on both sides of the plug and a socket with a single set of contacts on one side. That's BASICALLY what…

The problem with USB-a isn't that it's non reversible, it's that it's non-reversible _and_ rectangular, so it's not clear at a glance which way round it should go. All they had to do was make the connector have a non-symmetrical shape so that it's immediately obvious which way round it goes when you pick it up - you could do it without even looking. Think of how much time we'd have collectively saved with this minor…

Right, the only thing worse than USB was the PS2 port. What sort of madness drive someone to invent a round connector that is keyed.

Hyperbole aside, there are some very good reasons to go with round connectors, it can be very strong and you can put a big nut on them to have an extremely secure lock. however the PS2 connector is nether of these things, It would require a much more robust key to work well.

The worst connector I ever encountered was on a old ATI capture card, it was the same barrel as a ps2 connector but had about 15 pins. Everything had to be perfect for it to insert, a tiny scratch or a slightly bent pin, it was not going anywhere.

Re: USB inventor explains why the connector was not designed to be reversible (2019)

#346

Post by hotshoe »

Seems like it always took me 3 steps to plug in a usb-a cable.

1. Doesn't easily insert so assume I've got it upside down. Flip. 2. Still doesn't easily insert so inspect, and realize it had it right the first time. 3. Insert for real this time.

I don't miss usb-a, but it was a vast improvement over the rs-232 and parallel port cables that preceded it.

Re: USB inventor explains why the connector was not designed to be reversible (2019)

#348

Post by zlsa »

hedora wrote: post #283
scarface_74 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grab a random USB C cable. Now answer a few questions. 1. What speed does the cable support? 2. How much data does the cable support? 3. Can it support video over USB-C?

4. Is it capable of charging this device? 5. Is it capable of charging devices when plugged into this charger? 6. If it can charge this combination of things, what wattage can it charge at?

4. Yes, all USB-C to USB-C cables can charge at a minimum of 60W which should be sufficient to charge almost anything

5. It depends, but the output capacity is printed on the power supply[0]. (Compare to USB-A, where the most you could do is 12W.)

6. The minimum of the cable (60W for any cable, 100W for some cables, 240W for a very few[1]) and the charger

[0] Annoyingly, this problem is compounded when using a power supply that can output (say) 100W on one USB-C port, but when both are used, the limit on the two ports is 60W / 40W.

[1] There are vanishingly few products (power supplies, cables, and devices) that support USB EPR. If you have one of these, just use the power supply and cable the device came with; this is no worse a situation than with devices that used proprietary power cables.

Re: USB inventor explains why the connector was not designed to be reversible (2019)

#349

Post by userbinator »

randyrand wrote: post #311
snakeyjake wrote: post #140

> Making USB reversible to begin with would have necessitated twice as many wires and twice as many circuits, and would have doubled the cost. This is... not correct. You can make USB reversible with 1 extra pin and 1 extra wire. Grounds on pins 1 and 5, data on pins 2 and 4, and VCC on pin 3. Then have those pins on both sides of the plug and a socket with a single set of contacts on one side. That's BASICALLY what…

To help visualize: 1: GND 2: DATA +/- 3: VCC 4: DATA +/- 5: GND

With that pinout you'd end up with one orientation being full/high-speed and the other being low speed.

Edit: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_communications#Signaling_s...

Re: USB inventor explains why the connector was not designed to be reversible (2019)

#350

Post by deathanatos »

dylan604 wrote: post #215
jdblair wrote: post #197

I used to "bedazzle" my USB cables. Bedazzling is when you decorate something with little plastic reflective jewel stickers. I always put the jewel in the same side (the "top") so I could feel which way the cable should be oriented. Then I could be confident I had the orientation correct without looking. I called this USBedazzling. The other folks in the office didn't think it was a funny as I did.

what if the port was in the opposite orientation, or worse, vertically oriented?

Bedazzle the port on the "front" side, whichever way that happens to point. Then just align bedazzling.

Or just bedazzle the port if it's wrong. I've only ever once encountered a backwards port. Cough HP cough

Post reply on HN