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

I’ve made a Cursed USB-C 2.0 device

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 143 posts

Re: I’ve made a Cursed USB-C 2.0 device

#91

Post by el_nahual »

Theodores wrote: post #39
weinzierl wrote: post #16

Now I want a USB-C thumb drive that has different data on different sides. Like the old 5 1/4" diskette drives where you flipped the disk for double capacity. Using it for retro-gaming would be fun. When the game says "Flip the Disk" you flip the USB drive.

Given that this is the only practical application you have to wonder why we ever had the one way plugs in the first place.

To me it's more baffling that a one-way plug would have a (roughly) symmetrical profile. Or even worse, the round connectors (like old PS/2 mouse/keyboard connectors).

A one-way plug would be fine if the profile were sharply asymmetrical, to the point where one could find the right orientation by touch alone. Maybe something like an even more pronounced trapezoid than hdmi.

Re: I’ve made a Cursed USB-C 2.0 device

#92

Post by legohead »

Hnaomyiph wrote: post #4

I feel like USB-C is cursed enough on its own. The sheer number of times I’ve had to explain to family members why just because the two USB-C ports on a laptop look the same, doesn’t mean they work the same.

I've had more issues with USB-C connections wearing out than other formats, even micro&mini-usb.

My phone barely charges at this point, which is frustrating because it otherwise performs fine. I'm going to have to buy a new phone because of the damn charging port!

I was considering how many times I've actually plugged it in. Worst case for me would be 3x/day. At 3 years, that's only ~3300 times. Surely they stress tested the connection more than that before production? Of course, these days I'm plugging it like 20x/day because it falls out or just doesn't work.

Re: I’ve made a Cursed USB-C 2.0 device

#94

Post by frosted-flakes »

xoa wrote: post #68
Hnaomyiph wrote: post #4

I feel like USB-C is cursed enough on its own. The sheer number of times I’ve had to explain to family members why just because the two USB-C ports on a laptop look the same, doesn’t mean they work the same.

I feel like this is a temporary state of affairs that falls into the bucket of "regrettable but unavoidable". Over time I think the standard march of mass manufacture, refinement, miniaturization, and so on will result in every single USB-C plug on a general purpose device (like a notebook) doing the max of the standard. They'll all be Thunderbolt 4/USB 4 or whatever, and thus able to do everything. Cables production…

There will always be some inconsistencies that consumers will need to be aware of. For example, Thundetbolt cables are limited in length, to about 0.5 m for passive cables and 1 m for active cables (and those are very expensive). Meanwhile, a bog-standard charging cable can easily be several metres long. I doubt every cable will become an active Thunderbolt cable; that's simply not realistic or economical.

Re: I’ve made a Cursed USB-C 2.0 device

#95

Post by Kuinox »

chaorace wrote: post #86
Kuinox wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Compare the 4(ish) pins of USB-A to the 24 pins on USB-C This is misleading. If you want to only cover the USB-A spec with USB-C, you need only 8 pins. I have a cheap USB C on my desk that got 8pins because it do only USB and charge. USB-C can pass HDMI signal on the other pins, which your USB-A can't do.

Sure, it's misleading. That's why the next sentence reads... > Not all of them are strictly necessary for parity with USB-A, but you could cut that number in half quite easily if the plug were not reversible Is 4 not half of 8?

You imply that the USB-C could have only 12 cables. Only the USB2.0 pins are duplicated, there is 4GND and 4PWR cables for power need, and the rest of the connector are not duplicated. If it was not reversible, USB-C would be 22 connectors, not 12. Plus USB-A is the only one with 4 cables, what was used on most phones was USB-B micro which has 5 cables.

Re: I’ve made a Cursed USB-C 2.0 device

#96

Post by yarcob »

weinzierl wrote: post #16

Now I want a USB-C thumb drive that has different data on different sides. Like the old 5 1/4" diskette drives where you flipped the disk for double capacity. Using it for retro-gaming would be fun. When the game says "Flip the Disk" you flip the USB drive.

That won't work because the detection logic is in the female side, not the male side. You could make a hard disk with detachable cable, though.

Re: I’ve made a Cursed USB-C 2.0 device

#97

Post by yarcob »

tenacious_tuna wrote: post #56
magicalhippo wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> just because the two USB-C ports on a laptop look the same, doesn’t mean they work the same. This is already a solved problem[1] through color coding. Not sure why they couldn't use that scheme. Maybe combine a few to indicate things like DisplayPort and Thunderbolt capability, could have up to four quadrants for example. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC_System_Design_Guide#Color-c...

> this is already a solved problem through color coding Speaking from experience, I don't think most end users are liable to pay enough attention to their ports to notice the color coding. I remember family members being confused by the blue 3.0 ports when those were a thing--now there's also red ones, and different color C ones, and some C ports have the little lightning bolt and some don't, and most users don't kno…

Does the bolt mean Thunderbolt or power delivery?

Re: I’ve made a Cursed USB-C 2.0 device

#98

Post by [deleted] »

Kuinox wrote: post #95
chaorace wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, it's misleading. That's why the next sentence reads... > Not all of them are strictly necessary for parity with USB-A, but you could cut that number in half quite easily if the plug were not reversible Is 4 not half of 8?

You imply that the USB-C could have only 12 cables. Only the USB2.0 pins are duplicated, there is 4GND and 4PWR cables for power need, and the rest of the connector are not duplicated. If it was not reversible, USB-C would be 22 connectors, not 12. Plus USB-A is the only one with 4 cables, what was used on most phones was USB-B micro which has 5 cables.

[deleted]

Re: I’ve made a Cursed USB-C 2.0 device

#99

Post by chaorace »

Kuinox wrote: post #95
chaorace wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, it's misleading. That's why the next sentence reads... > Not all of them are strictly necessary for parity with USB-A, but you could cut that number in half quite easily if the plug were not reversible Is 4 not half of 8?

You imply that the USB-C could have only 12 cables. Only the USB2.0 pins are duplicated, there is 4GND and 4PWR cables for power need, and the rest of the connector are not duplicated. If it was not reversible, USB-C would be 22 connectors, not 12. Plus USB-A is the only one with 4 cables, what was used on most phones was USB-B micro which has 5 cables.

What are you trying to argue here? All pins on the connector are rotationally symmetric. They may not be useless, because they still increase overall bandwidth, but they are indeed doubled. A non-reversible connector would not use this design and there would be fewer pins as a result (as much as half).

Also: USB-B micro connectors might have 5 pins, but the cable itself has 4 wires. The OTG pin is grounded in the connector. This is actually why I said "4(ish)" in my original post.

Re: I’ve made a Cursed USB-C 2.0 device

#100

Post by avian »

m463 wrote: post #85
avian wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it funny how people used to complain about the sheer number of times they had to explain to family members exactly the opposite: "No need to ask. If you can plug it in, then it will work. Computers are fool-proof like that. No, it's not like the jacks on the hi-fi" As in, someone got a new mouse and didn't know where to plug it into their computer, when in fact there was only one DB-9 connector on the computer…

Didn't DB-9 also work for early video before VGA?

Monochrome adapters (Hercules) indeed had a DB-9, but it was a different gender than serial (COM) ports. Monitor output had a female DB-9 and COM ports had a male DB-9.
Post reply on HN