7 ms·

This is where it goes wrong. Everyone thinks their particular favourite port is a 'pro' essential, and we end up with Homer-cars with a thousand ports. Just use

This is where it goes wrong. Everyone thinks their particular favourite port is a 'pro' essential, and we end up with Homer-cars with a thousand ports. Just use USB-C. Almost everything can go through USB-C.

TeMPOraL 5y ago
But not everything can go through the USB-C cable you have on hand. That's the annoying bit with USB-C. We may have (almost) standardized on a single plug/socket shape, but we didn't escape the essential complexity - the fact that one type of connection cannot handle all the use cases we'd like it to. We just pushed that complexity into cables. Instead of having to deal with separate data, network and graphics ports, users now have to deal with potentially separate data, network, graphics and charging cables. I'm not convinced this is an improvement, because USB-C cables are a bottom-feeder market that will not hesitate to outright scam the buyer. At this point I'm not sure it's an improvement. I feel like the optimum point would be a small amount of standards targeting mutually incompatible applications. That, or forcing some specification requirements on USB-C, and standardize some capability labels.
- infogulch 5y ago
  I hope that this is what USB4 will bring, since iiuc, USB4 is basically the IF's name for Thunderbolt-4-capable USB-C. This was enabled by Intel contributing the TB4 spec to the committee, in a shockingly benevolent move that I guess may have been the greatest internal political feat Intel staff pulled off in the last decade. Edit: Oh and presumably the ports on the Framework are USB4, they just can't say that yet because the certification is still in the works.
  - mixmastamyk 5y ago
    Really? Interesting if true. Is that the case with other new intel gear?
    - infogulch 5y ago
      Ah it seems I was slightly off, it's TB3 not TB4, "The USB4 specification is based on the Thunderbolt 3 protocol specification." [0] But it does require: USB-PD, PCIe & DP tunneling, minimum 20 Gbit speed, max 40 Gbit speed. Stated goals to "minimize end-user confusion". I've seen some peripherals and such with it, no laptops yet though. The spec was released in 2019, so considering hardware cycle time we should start to see more devices soon. It's pretty cool that Framework will likely be on the leading edge of that wave. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB4
      - curt15 5y ago
        The Dell XPS 13 9310 has two TB4/USB4 ports.
        iSnow 5y ago
        Is Dell still gimping them to 10Gbit/s like they used to? Considered an 13" XPS for years, but then turned to Apple because of this ridiculous decision.
        Dylan16807 5y ago
        They'd better not be. Thunderbolt 4 mandates 32Gbps of data. The site says each port has 4 lanes of pcie 3.0
      - jjoonathan 5y ago
        > PCIe tunneling Hell yeah, USB over PCIe over USB over PCIe here we goooooo!
- hfjrkekdkfj 5y ago
  I do not want all my USB-C cables to be able to handle 90W. That would make them very thick and expensive. I do not want all my USB-C cables to support the maximum 40 GBps speed (or whatever it is). That would require them to have all the 19 wires and shielding and all and again, would make them expensive and short. And just imagine how much a 90W maximum speed 3 meter cable would cost... I prefer having one power cable, one fast cable and then a bunch of disposable cables for general use cases.
  - kragen 5y ago
    USB-PD permits 100 W with 20 V at 5 A. If that's carried over just two round copper wires (I don't know whether it is in USB-C) they would need to be 18-gauge or thicker for safety—about 0.94 millimeters. If they're copper, that's about 7.3 grams of copper per meter, 14.6 grams including the return path. Copper is expensive: almost US$7/kg. So a 3-meter 5-amp DC or two-phase cable would weigh 45 grams and contain 15¢ worth of copper. You could drop both the cost and the weight by going to aluminum. If you were designing the system from scratch, you could use 3-phase AC to cut the weight by half again, and use 48 volts to cut the weight by another 58%. I don't have any idea how thick the 19 wires have to be for USB 40Gbps (GBps?) but I imagine the answer is "not nearly that thick".
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      Afaik, signaling frequency is typically cross-talk limited, vs diameter limited. Think more shielding, stricter tolerances over thicker.
      - kragen 5y ago
        It sounds like you could maybe make substantial progress by just separating the differential pairs (?) by a millimeter or two of dielectric, giving you a ribbon cable, with much lower crosstalk than the round kind. Bonus points if you color the dielectric rainbow colors.
      - Dylan16807 5y ago
        I feel like it's harder than shielding and tolerances, given that longer passive cables don't seem to exist despite the very high prices people are paying for active cables.
- int_19h 5y ago
  It's definitely an improvement, because you can still carry the one cable that does it all, and use it for everything, even the things that don't actually require it.
romwell 5y ago
>and we end up with Homer-cars with a thousand ports. And what exactly is wrong with that? Ever seen musician's gear? Even the cheapest, smallest mixer boards support XLR, RCA, 1/4", and often USB for audio I/O -- and have many of them. Because yes, everyone has something essential to their flow, and number of configurations grows exponentially.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > Ever seen musician's gear? I guess some of those are analogue? I guess you can't squeeze those all through the same physical form factor connector. You can with digital, so let's reduce the clutter and do it!
  - laurent92 5y ago
    Yes, exactly, let’s suggest musicians to use USB-C, and every third cable won’t work, and they will be able to make a concert but with no guitar, exactly like the devices in front of us when we try to work. The only insurance against “the USB-C downtime” is a subscription to Amazon Prime 24hrs delivery and another $68 (no kidding) Apple cable.
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      > Yes, exactly, let’s suggest musicians to use USB-C Not sure what you mean - I said didn't really apply to analogue.
  - romwell 5y ago
    Except for USB, they are all analogue, and some are mutually interchangeable. 3.5mm TRS, dual 3.5mm TS, dual RCA, 1/4" TRS, dual 1/4" TS, XLR cables transfer the same kind of signal, and you can easily convert between the connector with dongles. Mixers have all of these so that you wouldn't have to. The utility is not thinking about where the f***ing dongle is when you just want to plug something in.
    - deleted 5y ago
moonchrome 5y ago
There's thunderbolt, USB 3, USB 4. External adapters of varying quality and capabilities are often inferior to even budget integrated stuff. For example getting a 4k 60FPS HDMI dongle was going to cost me >100$, and the cheap ones I had overheated. Meanwhile a budget laptop with HDMI and integrate graphics works fine. Getting a dock with gigabit ethernet, high res HDMI, decent SD reader and a fast hub was >200$ last time I checked - and not that portable either.
whywhywhywhy 5y ago
Apart from displays which are objectively garbage though USB-C
mrjin 5y ago
Cannot agree more. USB-C is a big mess. I've quite a few of them in different specs. Some can do 100w PD, some support DP-Alt mode, some are Thunderbolt 3, and some are USB 3.0 and can allow a maximum of 2A, some even only support USB 2, however can deliver 5A. Put all those mess aside, some started to fail just after being used a couple of times.
nikau 5y ago
Pro is 2xUSBC, 2xUSBA and HDMI. That covers pretty much every common scenario when travelling. USB-C for a connecting to a dock, HDMI for a meeting room screen, USB-A for reading a flash drive. Homer cars is a macbook with a bunch of stupid HDMI and usb-c to usb-a dongles hanging off it so you can read a flash drive or connect to a meeting room screen.

TeMPOraL 5y ago

But not everything can go through the USB-C cable you have on hand. That's the annoying bit with USB-C. We may have (almost) standardized on a single plug/socket shape, but we didn't escape the essential complexity - the fact that one type of connection cannot handle all the use cases we'd like it to. We just pushed that complexity into cables. Instead of having to deal with separate data, network and graphics ports, users now have to deal with potentially separate data, network, graphics and charging cables. I'm not convinced this is an improvement, because USB-C cables are a bottom-feeder market that will not hesitate to outright scam the buyer. At this point I'm not sure it's an improvement. I feel like the optimum point would be a small amount of standards targeting mutually incompatible applications. That, or forcing some specification requirements on USB-C, and standardize some capability labels.

infogulch 5y ago
I hope that this is what USB4 will bring, since iiuc, USB4 is basically the IF's name for Thunderbolt-4-capable USB-C. This was enabled by Intel contributing the TB4 spec to the committee, in a shockingly benevolent move that I guess may have been the greatest internal political feat Intel staff pulled off in the last decade. Edit: Oh and presumably the ports on the Framework are USB4, they just can't say that yet because the certification is still in the works.
- mixmastamyk 5y ago
  Really? Interesting if true. Is that the case with other new intel gear?
  - infogulch 5y ago
    Ah it seems I was slightly off, it's TB3 not TB4, "The USB4 specification is based on the Thunderbolt 3 protocol specification." [0] But it does require: USB-PD, PCIe & DP tunneling, minimum 20 Gbit speed, max 40 Gbit speed. Stated goals to "minimize end-user confusion". I've seen some peripherals and such with it, no laptops yet though. The spec was released in 2019, so considering hardware cycle time we should start to see more devices soon. It's pretty cool that Framework will likely be on the leading edge of that wave. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB4
    - curt15 5y ago
      The Dell XPS 13 9310 has two TB4/USB4 ports.
      - iSnow 5y ago
        Is Dell still gimping them to 10Gbit/s like they used to? Considered an 13" XPS for years, but then turned to Apple because of this ridiculous decision.
        Dylan16807 5y ago
        They'd better not be. Thunderbolt 4 mandates 32Gbps of data. The site says each port has 4 lanes of pcie 3.0
    - jjoonathan 5y ago
      > PCIe tunneling Hell yeah, USB over PCIe over USB over PCIe here we goooooo!
hfjrkekdkfj 5y ago
I do not want all my USB-C cables to be able to handle 90W. That would make them very thick and expensive. I do not want all my USB-C cables to support the maximum 40 GBps speed (or whatever it is). That would require them to have all the 19 wires and shielding and all and again, would make them expensive and short. And just imagine how much a 90W maximum speed 3 meter cable would cost... I prefer having one power cable, one fast cable and then a bunch of disposable cables for general use cases.
- kragen 5y ago
  USB-PD permits 100 W with 20 V at 5 A. If that's carried over just two round copper wires (I don't know whether it is in USB-C) they would need to be 18-gauge or thicker for safety—about 0.94 millimeters. If they're copper, that's about 7.3 grams of copper per meter, 14.6 grams including the return path. Copper is expensive: almost US$7/kg. So a 3-meter 5-amp DC or two-phase cable would weigh 45 grams and contain 15¢ worth of copper. You could drop both the cost and the weight by going to aluminum. If you were designing the system from scratch, you could use 3-phase AC to cut the weight by half again, and use 48 volts to cut the weight by another 58%. I don't have any idea how thick the 19 wires have to be for USB 40Gbps (GBps?) but I imagine the answer is "not nearly that thick".
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    Afaik, signaling frequency is typically cross-talk limited, vs diameter limited. Think more shielding, stricter tolerances over thicker.
    - kragen 5y ago
      It sounds like you could maybe make substantial progress by just separating the differential pairs (?) by a millimeter or two of dielectric, giving you a ribbon cable, with much lower crosstalk than the round kind. Bonus points if you color the dielectric rainbow colors.
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      I feel like it's harder than shielding and tolerances, given that longer passive cables don't seem to exist despite the very high prices people are paying for active cables.
int_19h 5y ago
It's definitely an improvement, because you can still carry the one cable that does it all, and use it for everything, even the things that don't actually require it.

romwell 5y ago

>and we end up with Homer-cars with a thousand ports. And what exactly is wrong with that? Ever seen musician's gear? Even the cheapest, smallest mixer boards support XLR, RCA, 1/4", and often USB for audio I/O -- and have many of them. Because yes, everyone has something essential to their flow, and number of configurations grows exponentially.

chrisseaton 5y ago
> Ever seen musician's gear? I guess some of those are analogue? I guess you can't squeeze those all through the same physical form factor connector. You can with digital, so let's reduce the clutter and do it!
- laurent92 5y ago
  Yes, exactly, let’s suggest musicians to use USB-C, and every third cable won’t work, and they will be able to make a concert but with no guitar, exactly like the devices in front of us when we try to work. The only insurance against “the USB-C downtime” is a subscription to Amazon Prime 24hrs delivery and another $68 (no kidding) Apple cable.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    > Yes, exactly, let’s suggest musicians to use USB-C Not sure what you mean - I said didn't really apply to analogue.
- romwell 5y ago
  Except for USB, they are all analogue, and some are mutually interchangeable. 3.5mm TRS, dual 3.5mm TS, dual RCA, 1/4" TRS, dual 1/4" TS, XLR cables transfer the same kind of signal, and you can easily convert between the connector with dongles. Mixers have all of these so that you wouldn't have to. The utility is not thinking about where the f***ing dongle is when you just want to plug something in.
  - deleted 5y ago

moonchrome 5y ago

There's thunderbolt, USB 3, USB 4. External adapters of varying quality and capabilities are often inferior to even budget integrated stuff. For example getting a 4k 60FPS HDMI dongle was going to cost me >100$, and the cheap ones I had overheated. Meanwhile a budget laptop with HDMI and integrate graphics works fine. Getting a dock with gigabit ethernet, high res HDMI, decent SD reader and a fast hub was >200$ last time I checked - and not that portable either.

whywhywhywhy 5y ago

Apart from displays which are objectively garbage though USB-C

mrjin 5y ago

Cannot agree more. USB-C is a big mess. I've quite a few of them in different specs. Some can do 100w PD, some support DP-Alt mode, some are Thunderbolt 3, and some are USB 3.0 and can allow a maximum of 2A, some even only support USB 2, however can deliver 5A. Put all those mess aside, some started to fail just after being used a couple of times.

nikau 5y ago

Pro is 2xUSBC, 2xUSBA and HDMI. That covers pretty much every common scenario when travelling. USB-C for a connecting to a dock, HDMI for a meeting room screen, USB-A for reading a flash drive. Homer cars is a macbook with a bunch of stupid HDMI and usb-c to usb-a dongles hanging off it so you can read a flash drive or connect to a meeting room screen.