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.

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.

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.

Really? Interesting if true. Is that the case with other new intel gear?

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

> PCIe tunneling

Hell yeah, USB over PCIe over USB over PCIe here we goooooo!

The Dell XPS 13 9310 has two TB4/USB4 ports.

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.

They'd better not be. Thunderbolt 4 mandates 32Gbps of data.

The site says each port has 4 lanes of pcie 3.0

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.

I prefer all my cables with the same heads to be exactly the same. Why thought it was a good idea to make them different? As if someone buying the cable will know the difference.

But then you lose the flexibility of using one port in many different ways. What we need is some standard color coding or other clear visual indicator on cables to reflect their capabilities.

I've opined the same before. Just put standard-colored rings (with textures, if we want to be sight-flexible) on the cables, when they're shipped from the factory.

Standardize the colors through the IF, and bam, you can tell at a glance what a cable is capable of.

Like resistors, except I don't think cables are likely to shrink too much in the future.

You'll never get Apple to do that though. They didn't with USB-3, they didn't with mouse/keyboard, they won't put them on their cables. And since they're the premium brand, everyone else will have to follow them.

I'm not sure why you're being downvoted, those examples are all absolutely true. There's no chance of Apple complying with a spec which doesn't meet their sense of industrial design (which there's no way this would).

I will say, they're not alone. Look at Razer, for instance. Electric green is not exactly a part of the USB 3 standard.

In which case Apple is welcome to deal with their users being confused about cables. I see this as how the market is supposed to work.

If it's a cable property, then Apple can do whatever it wants with its cables. And everyone else can do what they want with theirs.

But if Apple can do it then so will all the cheap cable manufacturers and everyone else will be confused too.

Some manufacturers following an indicator spec is better than what we have now.

Which is a great solution if all you have are Apple cables, but colored rings fall off or get broken. It's like the US solution to healthcare: "don't be poor", it's not practical in real-world sense. People are going to buy (and make) whatever shit cable they want and regulations and standards don't mean a thing.

You could colour the plastic inside the connector. That would be invisible once plugged which would probably suit Apple etc.

I would have to go with the parent comment although I know what you're saying as it would reduce cost.

I think what we've learned throughout the years is that your color coding idea doesn't work out in practice due to an earlier comment stating that the USB-C market being bottom-feeder. There has to be an exact, rigid specification of USB-C cables that all of them should follow (i.e. USB4/TB4). Any more complicated than that like color coding results in giant scams by manufacturers, outright wrong, or impossible-to-find cables on an eCommerce search engine. I just don't want to deal with any of those anymore. It feels so much nicer right now to look up TB4 on AliExpress and be done with it, no more worrying or guessing.

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".

Cables cost about 5$, no one would give a fuck if they cost $5.15

Bottom of the barrel vendors will absolutely give a fuck and will cheap out without telling you.

The advantage of USB 2 is that it's so simple that it's very hard to screw it up. You pretty much have to intentionally do it if you want to create a dangerous cable. Even the shittiest cable will work with the vast majority of devices (it might slightly heat up, voltage may sag at the receiving end meaning it will charge slower, but it'll somewhat work).

USB-C is significantly more complex and requires active electronics in the cable itself in some cases, and the potential for higher voltages means a faulty/recklessly-designed cable could request higher voltage from the charger and blow up whatever's connected at the other end.

The chip in the cable just identifies it. Cables don't request voltages.

And the cheap cables won't have that chip, so they'll support 60 watts.

That's my thinking, yes.

Afaik, signaling frequency is typically cross-talk limited, vs diameter limited. Think more shielding, stricter tolerances over thicker.

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.

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.

There might be issues of attenuation; we're talking about signals in the GHz range, where you have to use waveguides instead of wires to get low losses.

> I do not want all my USB-C cables to be able to handle 90W. That would make them very thick and expensive.

The difference between the minimum and 100W is that the cables need to support 5 amps instead of 3. That's not much difference at all considering there are data wires too.

Supporting 240W requires a couple tiny components in the plug. That's also barely anything.

Cables handle 60W not by being thicker, but by allowing a higher voltage. The thickness of the cable is decided by amperage, not voltage.

So when operating at 90W the cable only needs to be a tiny bit thicker and negligibly more expensive than a normal 15W cable.

By “expensive” are you talking in the $20-30 range for a single sufficiently long cable? I don’t replace cables that often but I don’t see the big deal paying a reasonable for a high throughput cable when needed.

So the problem is that those cable aren't identifiable without special tester.

They are if you buy the right cables. Just buy cables which have the capabilities you want, and are obvious to you. It's pretty easy, as long as you're willing to put about 5 minutes into the effort one time.

Then I need to put a specification label to every cable.

Lots of angry people on this thread who don't realize cables with icons describing their function exist. You just need to look.

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.

>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.

> And what exactly is wrong with that?

Honestly? Presentation. That's why I consider it a dumb argument in general. People mention "Homer's car" or equivalent memes from works of fiction as some kind of ridiculous contraptions, but don't bat an eye when a show like Star Trek does the same. The big difference, IMO, is that Homer's car is delivered to you up front, a solution looking for problem(s). Star Trek's tricorder or roundabout or a starship only happen to show a different one-off feature every episode - so the realization that the equipment is deeply multipurpose, and has all those features already present, kind of flies past people who're not into this sort of thing.

The issue for me is how silly it is to hard-code these arbitrary and often single-purpose connectors in the laptop.

A laptop should be a general computing device. So why hard-code something as weirdly specific as an SD card reader into it? Give it the functionality to have any IO device attached (USB-C) instead.

> Give it the functionality to have any IO device attached (USB-C) instead.

Because a laptop is a portable device, and carrying something with dongles dangling from it is something that nobody wants to do.

Hence the solution that the Framework offers: a device body that allocates space for USB-C dongles such that they fit flush when installed.

Now all we need is an industry standard for those.

How many additional watt-hours of battery would they have been able to fit in the laptop if they didn’t have the carve-outs for such dongles?

Say what you want about the MacBook’s lack of user-replacability, but it’s basically a tiny chip board about the same size as the iPhone’s, with a big box of batteries holding it.

> How many additional watt-hours of battery would they have been able to fit in the laptop if they didn’t have the carve-outs for such dongles?

Looking at the insides, I'm going to guess about 2 watt hours. Or they could have made it unmeasurably thinner.

> Say what you want about the MacBook’s lack of user-replacability, but it’s basically a tiny chip board about the same size as the iPhone’s, with a big box of batteries holding it.

Framework has 55 watt hours. The obsolete macbooks have 41. Both intel and M1 macbook pros have 58. Both intel and M1 macbook airs have 50.

Sounds like that lack of user-replacability isn't necessary.

Yeah I'm still waiting on the improved battery life that losing 3.5mm was supposed to give me.

Not buying it. I'll take extra 2mm for 3.5mm and usb a.

Going to get into the 1.5mm jack life

Not enough to justify cutting them out.

(The answer is of the same level as question. If you want to imply that there's a significant gain, go prove it.)

Yup, I'm singing praise to Framework here.

The sanest system I've seen in a decade at least.

I don't even need a new laptop, and I still want this one.

I guess PCMCIA was kind of like this. Of course dongles were bigger back then.

Man I loved the idea of PCMCIA back in the day. Mobile network access (EDGE, if I remember correctly) via one of them on my chunky Toshiba was awesome.

I was fascinated by PCMCIA, because I had a laptop I was trying to put OpenBSD on it in 2001 and its ethernet port was not working, so the card was a workaround. I always wondered why it didn't really take off in Europe, it was a simple and pretty compact way (for the time) to get very advanced stuff in a laptop - I guess it was expensive to produce and the name was atrocious. I believe it got more popular in Japan.

I very much enjoy multiple USB 3 ports, ethernet, card reader on my laptop and do not have to carry any dongles. And I can easily hook 2 x 4K 60P screens using built in HDMI and mini-DP ports. It also has thunderbolt 3 so I can still hook anything extra should I ever wish.

That argument would make far more sense if these anorexia laptops at least compensated for the removed ports with more USB ports. But no, you get the same pathetic 4 (at most) as always.

Even worse when they're the pathetic failure (host-side) that is USB-C, so nothing fits without a dongle anyway. Bonus points if you have to waste one of them for charging the laptop, yay!

From what I have seen, it is more the hobby/semi professional range that has all the possible connectors built in whereas in the high end it is more modular and you buy different modules dependent on the connectivity you need. Especially if you need to fit it into a rack. E.g. you might only have some DSUB 25 pin connectors, but they cover dozens of analog I/O channels on minimal amount of space.

I'm not sure a mixer is the best comparison here since its sole purpose is to combine inputs.

Yeah, and what's the point of having I/O ports on a computer?

> 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!

I'm not a musician, but I've seen plenty of DJs setup their gear. It is clear that the connectors and cables are designed to be physically durable. They work in environments where even a beefed up USB cable would only last a few gigs, since building compact connectors for consumer grade electronics is at odds with the day to day reality of commercial applications.

I'm sure that other factors play a role. The economics of going digital would be terrible if it meant replacing a significant amount of equipment every time a new standard took over the market. Again, pointing to USB (since that it what everyone seems to associate with universal digital connections), we have seen three major iterations and a number of minor ones over the past 30 years. That's hardly the type of cycle that businesses want to hop onto given that a tiny operation requires thousands of dollars of equipment, where any given component may be anywhere from a couple of years old to over a decade old.

> we have seen three major iterations and a number of minor ones over the past 30 years.

... None of which broke existing functionality. I can plug a full-speed device from 2000 into a USB-3 A port and it will work perfectly (as long as there is still software support for the vendor-specific drivers that might have been necessary for non-class-compliant devices).

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.

Most modern mixers support toslink (and even coaxial sometimes), especially ones that are specifically oriented towards timecode control.

my gear has toslink as well

One man's clutter is another man's treasure. I hate dongles and extra parts, give me a fuckton of different ports!

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.

> Yes, exactly, let’s suggest musicians to use USB-C

Not sure what you mean - I said didn't really apply to analogue.

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.

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.

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.

Apart from displays which are objectively garbage though USB-C

My newest laptop gets a fairly consistent 700-800Mbps on WiFi.

Don't get me wrong I still prefer ethernet to avoid packet loss and reduce latency but download throughput isn't a problem I notice on WiFi anymore (since I'm also only on a 1Gbit/s line)

Your laptop is not magic, it will only get those speeds with the right access point and if you are close enough to it.

If you carry your laptop someplace else it might not find itself in such ideal conditions.

What a bizarre retort. It should also be fairly obvious that if you carry your laptop somewhere else you're not going to be able to reach it with the ethernet cable, either.

If you have a good WiFi network at home, that's great when your laptop is at home, but if you carry it outside your home you are at the mercy of whatever infrastructure you find there.

Usually if you need to transfer large amounts of data you can still plug in an Ethernet cable in e.g. an office.

Why not? They come up to 300 feet long, in all colors, optionally flat and thin and easily deliver more speed than any (current) WiFi can.

Because usually, you can't just throw a 100m cable through a building and plug it just into some Ethernet socket. And who wants to carry around a spool of cable?

I like how the guy’s wearing a belt of I don’t know what, 7.62x39?, and they point out the stun gun for self defense.

Labeled a cyberpunk but it looks like the perfect 90’s amateur mobile porn production studio.

Yah, well, Mondo2000, California... probably got some inspiration there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MONDO_2000 :-)

Yeah I used to be a stickler for everyone being plugged in for video calls but it really isn't necessary anymore.

I don’t know really… yes Ethernet is nice to have but in 16 years of using an MBP as my “pro” machine in a big company I needed it like twice, 14 years ago. So yeah in principle, you’re right.

I use the ethernet port on my laptop every day. Gigabit internet is far superior to my wifi.

Yeah at home my work laptop is always plugged into ethernet. I use WiFi for my phone and my old “tv watching” laptop.

Why should anyone waste the precious space in a ultrportable laptop on the newfangled and time unproven technology which Ethernet is? I want my Token Ring port back to connect to my ring in a box with a Boy George connector – to celebrate the diversity of the computing I have filled up the basement and the attic of my house with.

Prole. FDDI it is! ;-)

I'm not disagreeing with the value of a wired Ethernet connection, but both my new ThinkPads (P1 and X1E Gen 3) have gigabit Wi-Fi. Connected to my Asus RT-AX86U, I got a 935Mbps download on a speed test over Comcast.

I had heard that 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) was pretty good, and it sure looks that way so far. I have some good Cat 8 Ethernet cables, so I will experiment with that too.

Early WiFi 6E routers have been clocked at 1.8 Gbps!

Thanks to their expansion card developer program, if you're not the lone voice in the desert, someone can build one!

https://community.frame.work/c/expansion-cards/developer-pro...

I have fiber optics internet connection at home, and my 4 year old MacBook Pro does consistently over 500Mbps (peaks close to 700Mbps) over WiFi. Granted, it’s still not 1Gbps, but I can’t think of any regular scenario where it would make a significant difference.

You just need a good wireless router.

I live in an apartment building, while I have a 5g router in my living room my work room is separated by a bearing wall, but even in the same room I often get random interference where the internet starts stuttering.

My desktop with ethernet is way more stable than my MBP WIFI. Also ping is noticeably lower for games.

For $15 USD you can get a USB to gigabit Ethernet adapter. Many (most?) laptops don't have Ethernet on them anymore.

Because the RJ-45 won't physically fit. So you need a dongle just for the physical connector. Therefore it may as well be an active dongle from USB-C.

Hmm, I think the RJ-45 fits well enough on my 2019 Acer Aspire laptop. With the spring-loaded flap shut, it ends up being no thicker than the HDMI port next to it.

There were also the things from lenovo https://youtu.be/ZzHAaaVVLTs?t=45

seems they're working on it https://community.frame.work/t/ethernet-rj45/2203/2

if there's a bounty on it, i'll pick it up :)