Okay, great, it’s called USB-D. Is this a new connector? Or do we now need to resort to labeling cables and checking the label?
Do we do this for every new version and combination of versions for USB? USB-PD? Thunderbolt? DisplayPort?
Do we do this for every new version and combination of versions for USB? USB-PD? Thunderbolt? DisplayPort?
That's what the article is about. Calling all these cables USB-C and making them look indistinguishable is a very leaky abstraction.
There are 6 different transfer speeds, from 480mbps to 120gbps.
There’s DisplayPort yes/no.
There are 4 thunderbolt genrations, each with its own marker.
Some of those are dependent (480mbps cables don’t have markers), so it’s not a full permutation problem. Only about 20 different combinations are valid.
Is the proposal to have 20 different physical connectors? Or to prune the space down to 6 or so by requiring all cables to be very thick, or to support higher transfer speeds than make any sense for a charging cable?
It’s not a leaky abstraction. It’s a physical interface standard that does not guarantee electrical properties. Same way you can plug a 6A cord and a 20A cord into the same electrical outlet.
- "USB Speed 2" means [20gbps, thunderbolt 3, displayport, 20 watts].
- "USB Speed 3" means 100gbps, thunderbolt 4, etc.
- "Power 100" means 100 watts minimum.
Make a little logo for each standard - "S2" / "S3" / "P100" which can be branded onto each end of the cable. People who care can look at the logos and tell what a given cable can do.
Thanks for the link. I didn't know those labels also tell you if a cable supports displayport alt mode and thunderbolt 3.
Thunderbolt is also a USB C form factor/port, just has better naming and private control over usage.
I have a similar USB tester as the author. It's rather useful and inexpensive. Good bit of homelab kit.
Just set a minimum baseline/standardization for the type of cable/capabilities you need for your highest end device. Only keep those cables, give away the rest, and buy a half dozen new cables so no matter which you select you will always get the right one.
I've rarely found I need a "special" USB-C cable outside of connecting Thunderbolt ports. Those are mostly static on my monitors, with one in my laptop bag. They also happen to be decently labeled on the connector with what they are.
Once in a while I get an incredibly cheap horrible one from some throw away style device and I simply toss the cable immediately.
The only exception I can think of are USB-A -> USB-C adapter cables where the device is so cheap it doesn't implement USB-C PD delivery at all and expects a "dumb" 5V connection. That is a charger issue though, not a cabling one. Those devices are luckily starting to become much more rare.
I purged the house of the worst 5W USB-A charges long ago in a fit of rage. Anything that couldn't do 15W was tossed. We still have more 15W chargers than I could ever use in a lifetime.
I don't have a cable tester, and I don't want to buy one. The companies who make USB cables should be responsible for this testing. I don't want to do expensive homework on behalf of USB cable companies.
From reading TT, it seems there’s just no easy solution to complexity if we want interoperability.
I didn’t hate lightning cables…
While GP’s take is ridiculous (if common), I do think the notion that Apple led the charge on USB-C is mostly a myth, outside of them being active participants on the USB Implementor’s Forum.
Yes.
YES oh please yes! Give me labels! I'm sick of playing guessing games with my USB cables. Which one should I use for my external drive? This cable is thick! Will it work? Maybe it's only thick so it can send power? It seems impossible to tell, even if I plug it in to my computer. The files are there, I just need to somehow guess that it's a bit slower than it's supposed to go. Another cable feels expensive but its 1m. Will it work? Do I get slower data rates? I can't tell. I hate guessing. Label the cables!