6 ms·

> most consumers are completely clueless In my experience even many techies are clueless, myself included. I recently purchased a Lenovo* Thunderbolt laptop do

> most consumers are completely clueless In my experience even many techies are clueless, myself included. I recently purchased a Lenovo* Thunderbolt laptop dock for my new Lenovo laptop that has a USB-C port, but quickly found out that this laptop does not support Thunderbolt: the dock plugs-in fine, but doesn't actually work. Apparently there is a separate "USB-C dock" in addition to their Thunderbolt dock, but I wasn't aware this was something I had to take into consideration. I'm also left wondering what would happen if I took the USB-C charger for the laptop and plugged it into the USB-C port on my phone, or vice versa. How "universal" is USB-C anymore? * I'm not a fan of Lenovo in general but that's what's available through work.

wlesieutre 9y ago
The charging should work if they've adhered to the USB Power Delivery standard. Laptops should be pretty good about this. Basically there are a couple of pairs of voltage/amperage ratings and the charger/device will negotiate the highest rate that both are capable of. It tops out at 100W (5A at 20V). Qualcomm has their own "Quick Charge" system which is not generally compatible. A lot of phones (Samsung) are doing this, but a quick search says it might also work with USB-PD chargers. In other words, it sounds nice but it's actually a bit of a mess. FWIW I use an Anker 5-port + USB-C charger at my desk with a Macbook Pro and it works fine (though it's 29W instead of 61W so it doesn't charge the battery during use). http://www.usb.org/developers/powerdelivery/ http://www.usb.org/developers/powerdelivery/ https://www.reddit.com/r/GalaxyS8/comments/69xox4/the_galaxy_s8_supports_usbpd_5v3a/ https://www.reddit.com/r/GalaxyS8/comments/69xox4/the_galaxy...
yorby 9y ago
isn't Thunderbolt for Apple devices?
- berbec 9y ago
  It's been around for PCs for a while too. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it started as an Apple/Intel extension to DP. I've yet to see it in an AMD PC yet.
  - wtallis 9y ago
    Thunderbolt wasn't really an extension to DisplayPort, it just initially re-used the mini-DP connector and has provisions to carry a DisplayPort data stream alongside the PCI Express data stream. When attaching something like a storage device, none of the DisplayPort-related stuff is active.
- wila 9y ago
  Thunderbolt was developed by intel. [0] [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolt_(interface) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolt_(interface)
  - yorby 9y ago
    > developed by intel and Apple...[1] Usually whatever Apple touches becomes very proprietary... 1.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolt_(interface) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolt_(interface)
    - MisterTea 9y ago
      They ruined firewire with the idiotic trademarking of the name Firewire causing other companies to brand their products: IEEE 1394, 1394, i.LINK (Sony) and Lynx (Texas Instruments). That lead to similar problems that USB C is having where you have confused people asking questions such as "Is this 1394 camera compatible with my iMac?" or "Oh, i.LINK is the same thing as Firewire AND 1394? So I was able to use all of those things this whole time?" Things got a little better but combined with the per port royalty vs $0 for USB it was bound to fail. And that's a shame because it was a nice bus with very low latency, overhead and memory mapping. It would be perfect for creating small Linux clusters or distributed systems with just a few 1394 cables between machines. Superior to USB in every single way save for cost.
kbenson 9y ago
That's one of the reasons I bought the specific dock offered by Dell for my XPS 15. The laptop and dock support thunderbolt, but it's carried across USB-C. Getting this all right and knowing it will work as expected was enough for me to pay an extra $30-$40 to make sure I got a well tested docking system. The article I just read to make sure I had my facts straight before posting[1] said it best I think. USB-C is a connector, which support many protocols (including USB 3.0/3.1 and Thunderbolt 3). In other words, it's the equivalent to the Ethernet in your network, over which you run a protocol like TCP/IP, or IPX/SPX (not that I think anyone actually runs this much anymore). It's confusing because for USB 1.0 and USB 2.0 the protocol and the connectors were fairly closely linked (although they did downgrade as needed). 1: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-Thunderbolt-3-vs-USB-C-cable https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-Thund...
- monocasa 9y ago
  And yet, I plug an Ethernet cable into a switch manufactured 20 years ago, and it works great, albeit at slower speeds.
  - MisterTea 9y ago
    Same with a USB mouse from 2003.
  - kbenson 9y ago
    Twenty years from now plug a new USB-C cable into something manufactured twenty years ago and it may work too. You know what might not work too great now over Ethernet even if the connector works? An IPX/SPX device, since there's nothing to connect to on the other end. Your Ethernet network will be functioning perfectly, but you'll find yourself having trouble getting internet access because your router/firewall/etc are all running IP.
    - monocasa 9y ago
      > and it may work too It may work. It doesn't even now. And IPX/SPX work just fine. I was actually playing a DOS game over multiplayer the other night.
MisterTea 9y ago
I had a friend try to connect his Google Pixel to his TV using a USB C -> HDMI adapter and complain to me when it didn't work. I then explained that USB C has AltMode which supports other protocols like PCIe and displayport but only if the manufacturer has included such functionality. He was both confused and annoyed that his Macbook could display it's screen on the TV but his Android couldn't even though the have the SAME PLUG. Dumb Dumb Dumb. And don't defend your choice to buy/use Lenovo. Screw what anyone thinks. I still have my 2011 Thinkbook classic running Linux to this day.
- voltagex_ 9y ago
  Isn't the Pixel just using USB 2 over the C connector?
  - leetcrew 9y ago
    yeah, I dont actually know of any smartphones implementing usb 3.x. would be kinda pointless considering the transfer speeds of the actual flash.
    - voltagex_ 9y ago
      eMMC 5.1 could easily saturate USB 2. https://www.anandtech.com/show/8988/samsung-introduces-the-first-emmc-51-based-flash-memory https://www.anandtech.com/show/8988/samsung-introduces-the-f...
    - vardump 9y ago
      Most smartphones sport 200-500 MB/s flash speeds, so nearly enough to saturate USB 3. Perhaps some already could do so.

wlesieutre 9y ago

The charging should work if they've adhered to the USB Power Delivery standard. Laptops should be pretty good about this. Basically there are a couple of pairs of voltage/amperage ratings and the charger/device will negotiate the highest rate that both are capable of. It tops out at 100W (5A at 20V). Qualcomm has their own "Quick Charge" system which is not generally compatible. A lot of phones (Samsung) are doing this, but a quick search says it might also work with USB-PD chargers. In other words, it sounds nice but it's actually a bit of a mess. FWIW I use an Anker 5-port + USB-C charger at my desk with a Macbook Pro and it works fine (though it's 29W instead of 61W so it doesn't charge the battery during use). http://www.usb.org/developers/powerdelivery/ http://www.usb.org/developers/powerdelivery/ https://www.reddit.com/r/GalaxyS8/comments/69xox4/the_galaxy_s8_supports_usbpd_5v3a/ https://www.reddit.com/r/GalaxyS8/comments/69xox4/the_galaxy...

yorby 9y ago

isn't Thunderbolt for Apple devices?

berbec 9y ago
It's been around for PCs for a while too. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it started as an Apple/Intel extension to DP. I've yet to see it in an AMD PC yet.
- wtallis 9y ago
  Thunderbolt wasn't really an extension to DisplayPort, it just initially re-used the mini-DP connector and has provisions to carry a DisplayPort data stream alongside the PCI Express data stream. When attaching something like a storage device, none of the DisplayPort-related stuff is active.
wila 9y ago
Thunderbolt was developed by intel. [0] [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolt_(interface) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolt_(interface)
- yorby 9y ago
  > developed by intel and Apple...[1] Usually whatever Apple touches becomes very proprietary... 1.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolt_(interface) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolt_(interface)
  - MisterTea 9y ago
    They ruined firewire with the idiotic trademarking of the name Firewire causing other companies to brand their products: IEEE 1394, 1394, i.LINK (Sony) and Lynx (Texas Instruments). That lead to similar problems that USB C is having where you have confused people asking questions such as "Is this 1394 camera compatible with my iMac?" or "Oh, i.LINK is the same thing as Firewire AND 1394? So I was able to use all of those things this whole time?" Things got a little better but combined with the per port royalty vs $0 for USB it was bound to fail. And that's a shame because it was a nice bus with very low latency, overhead and memory mapping. It would be perfect for creating small Linux clusters or distributed systems with just a few 1394 cables between machines. Superior to USB in every single way save for cost.

kbenson 9y ago

That's one of the reasons I bought the specific dock offered by Dell for my XPS 15. The laptop and dock support thunderbolt, but it's carried across USB-C. Getting this all right and knowing it will work as expected was enough for me to pay an extra $30-$40 to make sure I got a well tested docking system. The article I just read to make sure I had my facts straight before posting[1] said it best I think. USB-C is a connector, which support many protocols (including USB 3.0/3.1 and Thunderbolt 3). In other words, it's the equivalent to the Ethernet in your network, over which you run a protocol like TCP/IP, or IPX/SPX (not that I think anyone actually runs this much anymore). It's confusing because for USB 1.0 and USB 2.0 the protocol and the connectors were fairly closely linked (although they did downgrade as needed). 1: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-Thunderbolt-3-vs-USB-C-cable https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-Thund...

monocasa 9y ago
And yet, I plug an Ethernet cable into a switch manufactured 20 years ago, and it works great, albeit at slower speeds.
- MisterTea 9y ago
  Same with a USB mouse from 2003.
- kbenson 9y ago
  Twenty years from now plug a new USB-C cable into something manufactured twenty years ago and it may work too. You know what might not work too great now over Ethernet even if the connector works? An IPX/SPX device, since there's nothing to connect to on the other end. Your Ethernet network will be functioning perfectly, but you'll find yourself having trouble getting internet access because your router/firewall/etc are all running IP.
  - monocasa 9y ago
    > and it may work too It may work. It doesn't even now. And IPX/SPX work just fine. I was actually playing a DOS game over multiplayer the other night.

MisterTea 9y ago

I had a friend try to connect his Google Pixel to his TV using a USB C -> HDMI adapter and complain to me when it didn't work. I then explained that USB C has AltMode which supports other protocols like PCIe and displayport but only if the manufacturer has included such functionality. He was both confused and annoyed that his Macbook could display it's screen on the TV but his Android couldn't even though the have the SAME PLUG. Dumb Dumb Dumb. And don't defend your choice to buy/use Lenovo. Screw what anyone thinks. I still have my 2011 Thinkbook classic running Linux to this day.

voltagex_ 9y ago
Isn't the Pixel just using USB 2 over the C connector?
- leetcrew 9y ago
  yeah, I dont actually know of any smartphones implementing usb 3.x. would be kinda pointless considering the transfer speeds of the actual flash.
  - voltagex_ 9y ago
    eMMC 5.1 could easily saturate USB 2. https://www.anandtech.com/show/8988/samsung-introduces-the-first-emmc-51-based-flash-memory https://www.anandtech.com/show/8988/samsung-introduces-the-f...
  - vardump 9y ago
    Most smartphones sport 200-500 MB/s flash speeds, so nearly enough to saturate USB 3. Perhaps some already could do so.