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

481–490 of 544 posts

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

#481

Post by sokoloff »

criddell wrote: post #467
sokoloff wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t find which of the old ones definitely worked (because I bought 6 at once and didn’t manage to return the duds) and though it arrived on Sat, I haven’t had time to fully test the new one. It carried 4K/60, but I haven’t tested it across all our devices to be sure it does full power delivery to all. (If it only works on some, I have no problems sending it back until I get one that works well for all.) I’ll try…

Thanks. So far I’ve ordered 3 cables and none work. The first one was a charging cable. I didn’t even know that was a thing and it’s when I started to learn about the differences between cables. My second one didn’t support DP Alt Mode which I seem to need. The third one was a 100W 4k USB Gen 3.1 that supported AltMode, but it just didn’t work reliable (that’s the one that results in the screen blacking out periodica…

Your last paragraph annoys my frugal Yankee nature enough that it’s a long-last resort for me.

On my personal desk setup, I don’t charge my Macbook in the same cable that carries video. My wife’s setup is a single cable connection (but she has an Air, so only a single external monitor).

Working from home, I undock rarely, so two cables is not a problem for me, but I want a one cable for the kids who will dock/undock almost daily.

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

#482

Post by perilunar »

donatj wrote: post #5

Hear me out. The original USB only had 4 pins. I always thought a round ringed TRS style plug like headphones use would have been great. No way to orient it incorrectly.

YES. TRRS would have been great. Or mini-TOSLINK

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

#483

Post by carstenhag »

dweekly wrote: post #370
jonny_eh wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For an example of an asymmetrical "rectangle", look at HDMI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#/media/File:HDMI_connecto...

DisplayPort is even simpler; a notched shaved off of one of the corners.

Still very difficult to plug in, also often struggling with its orientation.

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

#484

Post by carstenhag »

lesuorac wrote: post #13

I know everybody is still on the high from USB-C but I'm still going to go on the record it will be one of the biggest disasters in cable history. 1) There's going to be video-only cables; low-voltage only cables; etc and this time everything is usb-c so you can literally only tell which ables work by testing all of the dozen cables instead of the 1-2 USB-As you have. 2) The connector is symmetrical but the pins aren…

Bonus: Buy 5 phones from 2023 with their chargers. Buy 5 random USB-C cables. Use 5 cables that were shipped with random stuff (rechargeable lamp, etc).

In my experience you can barely get the phones to survive without their "own" wall charger + cable combination. It's really terrible.

I don't understand how a 120€, 140W MacBook usb-c can't charge my OnePlus 8 at all. Not even with 5V 1A.

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

#486

Post by carstenhag »

crote wrote: post #460
p1mrx wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

USB-IF should publish a table of every possible cable/adapter/receptacle type, with a short alphanumeric code that can be printed or molded onto the connector. The set of permutations is too large to fit into an icon, but a lookup table allows for unlimited detail.

There aren't that many permutations. Power-wise it is 60W, 100W (deprecated), and 240W. Data-wise it is 480Mbps, 5Gbps, 20Gbps, 40Gbps, 80Gbps. A simple power/data rating like already specified[0] is enough for >99% of cables. [0]: https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/usb-if_usb_type-c_ca...

Except for the dozens of manufacturer-specific power ratings which are not PD-conform.

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

#487

Post by hiatus »

mananaysiempre wrote: post #263
hiatus wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the same with usb-c extension cords. Our extension cords now need microcontrollers in them, what a time to be alive.

Given those microcontrollers are 0.05 USD at worst, meh, though I acknowledge it sounds a bit crazy if you don’t recognize how cheap micros can be nowadays. Laptop chargers have used similar schemes (perhaps with bare serial EEPROMs instead of MCUs) since forever, FWIW.

The absurdity to me is not the cost, but the complexity. Our (or at least my own) intuition of an extension cord is as a dumb cord just relaying signals, but they are more complex than that, now.

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

#488

Post by bigstrat2003 »

palata wrote: post #434
bigstrat2003 wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fairness there are plenty of people who think one should not consider it a language flaw if you can shoot yourself in the foot. See: basically every C programmer.

That's my point: where do you put the limit? A gun allows you to shoot yourself in the foot. Does that make it a bad gun? I think most of us would agree here: if you are at high risk of shooting yourself in the foot, you should not be given a gun. Nobody ever says "oh, this laptop is bad, because if you take it in the bath you will probably break it". But for some reason, for professional programmers , we consider it…

Well, my point is that not everybody thinks that it's unbearable to require programmers to be careful with their tool. So I'm not sure if your point really works as a result.

But that said, I personally am one who thinks we should try to do better with programming languages, so I'll give you my $.02 for what little it's worth. The difference between something like a gun being able to blow your foot off, and the C programming language being able to metaphorically blow your foot off, is the complexity of avoiding the failure state. With a gun, even the most beginner gun handler understands that whatever the gun is aimed at will have a bad time when you fire it. They therefore can very easily know the answer to "when I fire this, will I shoot my own foot" is "no, because I'm not aiming at my foot".

With C, it's more like "the gun will shoot your foot if you aim directly at it - but also it'll shoot your foot without aiming at it if it's the third Tuesday of the month, or if Venus is in conjunction with Saturn, or if your aim is tilted exactly 1.4 degrees off target". That is, the ways you can hurt yourself in C are vastly more complicated, and include plenty of situations where even an experienced practitioner may not realize that they're in for a bad time.

I think that is why you see a push to eliminate sharp edges with programming languages that you don't see elsewhere. If it were readily obvious when you're in for some pain with programming languages, people wouldn't object so much.

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

#489

Post by kergonath »

Paianni wrote: post #451
kergonath wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FireWire was great for that. I loved that connector.

The 6-pin connector was nice. But laptops and camcorders generally had the 4-pin connector (sans power)...not so nice.

Indeed. The small one was very flimsy and annoying to use.

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

#490

Post by kergonath »

eternityforest wrote: post #431
kergonath wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FireWire was great for that. I loved that connector.

Wasn't it based on the GB link cable?

I’ve seen that claim but AFAICT it comes from a single source, which was a presentation by someone involved in the FireWire connector design. So at this point it’s more of an urban legend, until we have some solid confirmation.

It does not really matter though, they are very similar in construction, and are very sturdy, and I really like them both :)

Post reply on HN