this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2024
1127 points (99.2% liked)
Technology
66067 readers
5041 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
USB-C doesn't have speeds, it's just a connector type. USB 1, 2, 3-3.2, 4 etc. is the protocol responsible for speed. You can have a USB-C connector with any implementation (except maybe USB 1). It can even do DisplayPort stuff.
So for USB-C to become irrelevant we need to come up with a better connector form factor. Which is unlikely to happen soon. But also, same thing happened with USB-B Micro connector (colloquially called micro USB), it was designated as a standard (but Apple managed to get an exemption) and manufacturers had no issues moving to a better connector, which is USB-C.
What I don't understand is what was wrong with mini-USB.
Too thick? Just why do people want a portable computer to be thinner that their wallet, or their notebook, or their damned pen, or that Snickers bar in their pocket which nobody made thinner. Who the hell told them that "miniaturization being the future of tech" has anything to do with the box inside which that tech is mounted being just a bit thinner? I mean, were it thin enough to put computers into printed magazine pages, maybe (I think I've read that someone did this, with a computer kinda as powerful as ZX Spectrum). Why do they specifically need it? Not to appear "modern", but really?
The question is, because for me personally mini-USB was very convenient. It held well, was easy enough to stick the right way (and not ruin it trying to stick it the wrong way).
Now, I guess USB-C is fine if it can do the same and go both ways. I actually like it, except RPi 4 is the only device I have needing it.
It's just ... how can one try so many connector types for one group of standards?..
Mini-USB sucked, big time. Not so bad as micro, but yea it was bad.
The main advantage of C over all previous versions is that it's reversible, you can't plug it in wrong. The shape is also... "flat"?, so it's easier to fit into the socket, mini had that wavy like thing going on.
My data source is my small kid: he's broken 3 (and counting...) usb-~~mini~~ micro connectors by tugging the charging PS4 controllers, and he has to ask me to connect the cable to charge them, he's unable to do it himself yet. With his tablet, 0 usb-c connectors broken and he can plug it in himself.
I think you guys are taking about micro USB. PS4 controllers have micro, PS3 controllers had mini USB.
They were both equally terrible the only improvement micro had over mini was it was slightly smaller.
I stand corrected, thanks. The mini was bad, the micro in the PS4 controllers is god awful.
That is correct.