Microsoft Mandates Universal USB-C Functionality To End 'USB-C Port Confusion' on Windows 11 Devices (tomshardware.com) 97
Microsoft will require all USB-C ports on Windows 11 certified laptops and tablets to support data transfer, charging, and display functionality under updated hardware compatibility program rules. The mandate targets devices shipping with Windows 11 24H2 and aims to eliminate what Microsoft -- and the industry -- calls "USB-C port confusion," where identical-looking ports offer different capabilities across PC manufacturers.
The Windows Hardware Compatibility Program updates also require USB 40Gbps ports to maintain full compatibility with both USB4 and Thunderbolt 3 peripherals.
The Windows Hardware Compatibility Program updates also require USB 40Gbps ports to maintain full compatibility with both USB4 and Thunderbolt 3 peripherals.
Cool (Score:3)
Sounds good.
Re:Cool (Score:5, Insightful)
It is good on paper, the problem is that this will increase cost where they are not needed (do anyone need 6 display or charging ports?!).. so laptops will simply limit those ports to one or two usb (in the same side for sure) and done, problem solved... oohh, you need more? buy a usb hub, it is now your problem! ohh remember that you may need power ... now a laptop require several extras to carry around.
Saying that they require at least 2 video and charging, it is a good idea, but requiring all... don't know
Re: (Score:2)
I have multiple displays connected to my laptop in the office. Two over USB-C, one over HDMI and one connected via USB-A DisplayLink. They're only 1080p screens since we have a surplus of those, internal graphics card would probably choke on higher resolutions.
But yes, a laptop with more than two native USB-C ports is probably not common.
Is it a pricing thing or market segmentation? USB 3.x has been around for a decade and yet at least on phones none of that fancy alt-mode DeX stuff runs on my cheap Android
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is amazing to me that manufacturers specifically make equipment non-compatible and confusing to the consumer.
There has never been a pre-built computer made that satisfied me. Why is that? Are my requirements that terribly unique?
I think it is because hardware is engineered from philosophies other than "what the customer wants".
How does something like that happen unless manufacturing itself is a completely captured segment of society?
Re: (Score:2)
It is good on paper, the problem is that this will increase cost where they are not needed (do anyone need 6 display or charging ports?!)..
That is a good theory, but in practice it doesn't work like that. At present USB-C features are already routed to ports dynamically as you need. Literally ever laptop I have with any USB-C port can charge through *any* of them. Literally any laptop with USB-C display port can display through literally any of them. The key is that these features happen one at a time and are routed via the host controller. Microsoft doesn't say all need to be doing everything at the same time - which would be impossible anywa
Yep (Score:1)
Good idea
It's frustrating using a laptop and plugging a monitor into "USB-C" that doesn't support display
Re: (Score:2)
What crappy laptops are we talking about here? I've seen this on tablets and phones but never a laptop. Even my crappy Dell work laptop does just fine on a USB-C docking station.
Re:Yep (Score:5, Interesting)
I have a year old ThinkPad with two USB-C ports. Both work with the docking station, but only one will charge the battery. I've deep cycled the battery countless times because I plugged into the wrong port.
Re: (Score:2)
After a year you either get it or you don't.
I know this because I didn't get it either. But I don't even try to blame anyone or anything else. If I were slightly more peeved, I would label the ports myself.
Re: (Score:1)
I think your Thinkpad is broken. My house is littered with the things and none of them charge off only a single port unless defective.
Notable exceptions are P and X1E series devices, but those don't charge off USB-C at all up until the latest X1E gen.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The high end Dell my employer gives me has this problem. It has three USB-C ports, only one supports charging, and I'm not entirely convinced the other two support the DisplayPort extension.
Personally I use a dock with it so it's no biggie, and assumed it was difficult to implement multiple possible power-in ports, but apparently it's probably a good step for user friendliness to have "all ports are the same" be standard.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not that upset about a monitor not working on USB-C as long as there are alternatives.
What bugs me to no end is the fact the Windows Kernel DMA Protection, which causes a lot of headache with Thunderbolt where it could range from erratic behavior to no functionality until the user has logged on and to log on the user needs network connection, for which you need Thunderbolt.
At least docking stations without Thunderbolt is mostly unaffected.
Re: (Score:1)
This is great! (Score:2)
Re:This is great! (Score:5, Insightful)
so basically the reason you don't like this is exclusively because it's Microsoft proposing it?
I mean hate for Microsoft is perfectly justified, but this is something that benefits everyone. There are no downsides to this. USB-C is a mess of broken implementations and this is certainly a step forward.
It'd make low-end laptops more expensive (Score:2)
There are no downsides to this.
The only downside I can think of is that low-end Windows laptops could become a lot more expensive to support display and 40 Gbps on all ports. This could drive laptop makers toward an operating system with even more restricted functionality: ChromeOS.
Re:It'd make low-end laptops more expensive (Score:5, Informative)
This is a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, you know, just use USB-A port if you don't have a full feature usb-c controller. Honestly, this should have been part of the USB-C from go, but good on Microsoft for stepping up where they failed.
Re:It'd make low-end laptops more expensive (Score:5, Insightful)
There's only one protocol really built-in to the connector spec- USB2.
The high-speed lines are free to be used however.
The advanced features that people are associating with USB-C are actually not part of its specification at all.
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying is that it's not the manufacturer's fault for making the standard deliberately ambiguous and open to interpretation (because USB is a consortium of manufacturers), but rather, people's fault for not understanding fully what they were getting into, and not reading the fine print (and also their fault for lacking the ability to understand the weasel-wordery of the manufacturer's specs?)
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying is that it's not the manufacturer's fault for making the standard deliberately ambiguous
You mean deliberately flexible.
USB-C's high-speed lanes can carry USB3, USB4, Thunderbolt3, Thunderbolt4, Thunderbolt5, DisplayPort, and HDMI signaling, on top of the power and aux lines required to implement USB-PD.
but rather, people's fault for not understanding fully what they were getting into, and not reading the fine print (and also their fault for lacking the ability to understand the weasel-wordery of the manufacturer's specs?)
Not fault. People are stupid. That's just how it goes.
USB-IF provided a universal port, people, the dumb animals that they are, conflate that port with the functionality. In the middle are cheap computer manufacturers that profit off of that.
Re: (Score:2)
The advanced features that people are associating with USB-C are actually not part of its specification at all.
That is partially false. The IEC 62680-1-3 specification which defines USB-C actually defines all the alternate modes and how the connector should handle them. The only thing is, this are all listed as "optional" to implement.
Re: (Score:2)
The IEC 62680-1-3 specification which defines USB-C actually defines all the alternate modes and how the connector should handle them.
Actually, only the physical link layers that are also managed by the USB-IF. This previously included basically USB3, USB-PD, and USB4- but now includes DP (which is cool).
But those are entirely separate from the requirements of the connector- they're just the standards for if you're implementing those protocols over the connector.
Re: (Score:2)
USB4 does get a whole chapter- but again, it's not the implementation of USB4's protocol, it's discussing how it needs to interop with things using USB-C Alt Modes, since it works just slightly different (Uses Enter_USB command instead of Enter_Mode)
Re:This is great! (Score:5, Insightful)
There are ton of downsides to this. USB2/3.0 ehci/xhci chips are practically free. They can be attached to the system architecturally in a lot of ways, so they don't have to consume valuable native PCI-E lanes.
This is a dumb rule. It means laptops outside very expensive ones will likely end up with 1 or 2 ports. You'll have to carry a hub around because including a built-in hub would break Microsoft stupid rules... I don't need a 40GBps port to connect low bandwidth stuff like mice and keyboards to, or a whole host of other peripherals like printers, scanners, even network interfaces of various kinds that will never exceed 5Gbps.
The real problem is USB-C was not nearly as smart as everyone thought. One universal plug that could be a lot of different things, in terms of usb 3.X version, can be use for power or not, maybe supports a display or not, might be thunderbolt or not, was not smart. Microsoft is trying to fix that but it is to late, devices that absolutely SHOULD be using a USB-A type host side plug are all USB-C now.
Re: (Score:2)
It means laptops outside very expensive ones will likely end up with 1 or 2 ports.
I don't believe this would be the case, at least not for long - the new USB chips will become cheaper as time goes by.
But even if this happens, it's a good thing. As a customer, I much prefer to buy merchandise where what I see is what I get. I don't want to have to dig through fine print on some vendor's confusing site to find out what the real capabilities are. I can compare a laptop that has 2 full USB-C ports against one that has 3 full USB-ports. I can't really compare it against a laptop that has 1 fu
Re:This is great! (Score:5, Informative)
I fail to see your point. If you want ports that don't have the USB C functionality, then take USB A ports, FFS. They are exactly that, what you want.
Re: (Score:2)
But they also have USB-A? And also there are adapters that you can make USB-C ports from USB-A ports if you really want the USB-C version.
Sure, low-spec USB-C ports can be sufficient, but it's fair to say it causes a lot of confusion, and a USB-C adapter in USB-A is just as good as low-spec USB-C and a bit more obvious to set expectations lower.
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that now, everyone has gone USB-C only on a lot of host devices, because they could. So the peripheral devices are all USB-C connectors.
The time to get restrictive about what protocols and operational modes must be supported on USB-C ports was 2019, when USB-4 first was a thing. That manufactures would have perhaps been a little less 'courageous' about going down to one and only one type of port. The cows are out of the barn now.
Not to mention this isn't going to help consumers one iota. The
Re: (Score:2)
then take USB A ports
No the issue here is that we are trying to depreciate that connector not breath new life into it. But the GP is wrong anyway. Many host controllers can dynamically route functions to ports meaning if you have the capabilities for high speed USB it doesn't mean every port is expected to have the same maximum PCI-e connectivity at once, just that this function could be routed to any port.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think this means completely removing standard USB ports? I expect that to happen sometime, as the USB-C connector is smaller and easier to connect, but I don't think this will hasten that date.
I had a Del workstation laptop that was like that. No standard ports. And yeah, I had to buy a hub so I could plug in all the olde school USB devices I needed.
While the manufacturers want us to buy all new devices, I have a few that only come with standard ports. A few no longer made.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The real problem is USB-C was not nearly as smart as everyone thought. One universal plug that could be a lot of different things, in terms of usb 3.X version, can be use for power or not, maybe supports a display or not, might be thunderbolt or not, was not smart. Microsoft is trying to fix that but it is to late, devices that absolutely SHOULD be using a USB-A type host side plug are all USB-C now.
The goal of a single connector using USB-C has been achieved; however, people are starting to realize that may not always be a good idea if the capability of the connector varies from machine to machine and between ports of the same machine.
How many display ports do you need (Score:2)
You will always need more USB ports, but not all of them need to connect a monitor to.
And does M$ think they can mandate what ports manufacturers put on their PC.s
I remember them saying that LapTops had to have a camera. (Fortunately my Win11 device is not a laptop, its one of those mini-desktops thats just over an inch thick, by 3 in by 5 in )
(BTW by display port I mean in generic terms, not the Apple (R) (TM) type.)
Re:How many display ports do you need (Score:5, Insightful)
You will always need more USB ports, but not all of them need to connect a monitor to.
One of the major reasons behind the existence of USB was the "U" part - Universal. IE you just have a lot of plugs on the device and plug your device into a free port, without having to worry about finding the specific port dedicated to the device you were plugging in.
Without that, USB is even WORSE than the proprietary ports it replaced because with those you physically couldn't plug something into the wrong port. If you have purpose specific USB ports you can end up plugging a wire into a port that it very much fits into perfectly but in which the device doesn't function.
And does M$ think they can mandate what ports manufacturers put on their PC.s
Manufacturer's are free to do whatever they want - but if they want to use Microsoft's "Windows 11 Certified" marketing and labeling, they will have to abide by the terms Microsoft sets for that.
Its up to the manufacturers to decide if that label is worth changing their designs to comply with. As with most cases in the past, most big manufacturers will do so. Most fly-by-night generic brands probably will not.
Re: (Score:1)
One of the major reasons behind the existence of USB was the "U" part - Universal. IE you just have a lot of plugs on the device and plug your device into a free port, without having to worry about finding the specific port dedicated to the device you were plugging in.
Without that, USB is even WORSE than the proprietary ports it replaced because with those you physically couldn't plug something into the wrong port. If you have purpose specific USB ports you can end up plugging a wire into a port that it very much fits into perfectly but in which the device doesn't function.
Precisely. A visit to StackExchange and searching on USB issues will reveal all kinds of confusion on why one USB-C port can do something but another USB-C port cannot. In my experience this is most often seen on USB-C docks that will have a dedicated port (or rather attached cable) to connect to the host, a USB-C port for power input, and another USB-C port for peripherals. This is a limitation of pre-USB4 hardware as it seems USB4 docks should not be so limited. This is in part an artifact of USB spec
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I know you mean well, but you might not remember the old, old days before USB. A DB25 could be Centronics parallel or just serial. And a DB9 could be serial or video (CGA or EGA)!
Re: (Score:2)
I've been around since the days of 8-bit computing but I admittedly didn't step into "IBM Compatibles" until getting a 486 - I was a Commodore guy before then. By that time VGA monitors using DB15 were the norm, all serials were DB9, and DB25 was pretty much always parallel.
Re: (Score:3)
You will always need more USB ports, but not all of them need to connect a monitor to.
One of the major reasons behind the existence of USB was the "U" part - Universal. IE you just have a lot of plugs on the device and plug your device into a free port, without having to worry about finding the specific port dedicated to the device you were plugging in.
If USB was actually a standard, it wouldn't look like this conglomeration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org].
And I have to have cables for many of them. So it is not remotely universal. And you'll notice they have more revisions coming.
Re: (Score:2)
As much as I dislike Microsoft, this sounds like a great idea... so I am suspicious of the details. This is still Microsoft we are talking about here.
How else would Windows Hello work? (Score:3)
And does M$ think they can mandate what ports manufacturers put on their PC.s
I remember them saying that LapTops had to have a camera.
This article [minitool.com] claims that the camera requirement exists to support Windows Hello authentication. How would Microsoft's Windows Hello or Apple's Face ID work without a camera? Or what other means of quickly authenticating the user to the operating system and to the external passkey/password store would you recommend instead?
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes, it's not just the number of ports, but the location. How am I as a user supposed to know which ones I can plug my monitor into? Trial and error?
One of the boons of recent generations of computers, is that when doing phone support, you can tell people that if the plug fits, it will work. With the current confusion, you can no longer count on that being the case.
Microsoft can't mandate what ports manufacturers put into their PCs, unless those manufacturers want a Microsoft certification. Nearly all
Re: (Score:2)
And does M$ think they can mandate what ports manufacturers put on their PC.s
Of course they do. Why on Earth would you think otherwise? Microsoft is a monopoly and therefore wields monopoly power. They have been dictating terms to manufacturers for 30 years or more, and there isn't a damned thing the manufacturers can do about it -- even if they wanted to do anything about it. I'm sure they cope with their subservience by telling themselves they don't care.
Re: (Score:2)
And does M$ think they can mandate what ports manufacturers put on their PC.s
I'm pretty sure this dates back to at least 1998, perhaps earlier. If I'm mistaken on that then Microsoft had some fairly strict specs on being certified for 98SE, ME, or XP which puts that at 1999, 2000, or 2001. Whatever the date was there were minimum requirements to get Microsoft's blessing on hardware and it included USB, this was sometime around 1998 to 2001. This didn't mean hardware manufacturers were forced to comply, it meant that without meeting that spec the hardware was not "Microsoft certif
Re: (Score:3)
I think the above poster is referencing the old Microsoft PC System Design Guides (PC-97, -98, -99 and PC 2001). See this Wikipedia link for more info
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
One of the few enduring, useful, legacies of the Design Guides was a standard set of colors for the moldings for PC ports and cable connectors.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple may have designed the mini DisplayPort adapter, was that what you meant?
Also while Apple designed mini DisplayPort, it was adopted by VESA as part of the DisplayPort 1.2 specification as well as Thunderbolt 1 and 2 specifications.
Re: (Score:2)
You will always need more USB ports, but not all of them need to connect a monitor to.
And nor will they need to. Dynamic routing of functionality to individual ports is a thing that host controllers are capable of. Just because you have 6 USB-C ports doesn't mean you can hook a display to all of them at once, this requirement here is that you can hook a display to any specific single one without having to guess.
And does M$ think they can mandate what ports manufacturers put on their PC.
No they don't think that. They know they can. That's the whole thing about certifying hardware. MS can mandate anything for their certification system. It's up to the manufacturer to
Great idea, terrible implementation (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, this sounds like a great idea up front, but the requirements hurt the ecosystem for bespoke designs.
The FrameWork 16 for instance has 6x USB-C ports on it for its modular connectivity. By Microsoft's new requirement, ALL 6 ports must have charging capabilities, video capabilities, and because they're above the 40gbps threshold, support PCIe connectivity too.
This sounds -great- on the surface, but what is the level of complexity and monetary cost to have SIX charging ports on a single laptop? Where is the practicality in that anyways? Additionally, the cost of the muxes to push video to all of those ports, and PCIe to all of those ports.
Does your desktop have 6 display output ports? Probably not.
Thanks to these requirements, the FrameWork 16 is essentially dead in the water for Microsoft Windows certification, along with any other vendor that wants more than 4x ports on their devices.
We're either going to have a limited number of ports, or regress back to the slop of USB-A, USB-C, (mini)DP, HDMI, and whatever slop a company wants to accommodate more connectivity, instead of a single port that has a few optional specs turned on/off depending how its wired internally.
Yeah, I totally get it and would love to have a world where there is truly a single port. But even with this new spec requirement, it still isn't standardized entirely. There is the above 40gbps spec and below 40gbps spec with different requirements for each. There is a difference between "has video" and "has GOOD video", as well as "has PCIe/Thunderbolt" and "doesn't have PCIe/Thunderbolt"
Vendors having the choice between driving up per-port costs for all this optional stuff that almost nobody will ever use vs not having the ports at all? Welcome to the Apple world of only having 2 USB-C ports.
Re: (Score:3)
We're either going to have a limited number of ports, or regress back to the slop of USB-A, USB-C, (mini)DP, HDMI, and whatever slop a company wants to accommodate more connectivity, instead of a single port that has a few optional specs turned on/off depending how its wired internally.
I predict having 2 USB-C ports and told to buy a multiport dongle.
Re:Great idea, terrible implementation (Score:5, Informative)
Is Framework currently "Windows 11 Certified"?
If they are not or do not care (and I have to imagine the customer base Framework markets towards does not care much at all) then they are free to do what they like and not get the label.
Microsoft can't force a vendor to integrate hardware, they can just do things like this.
Re: (Score:1)
This sounds -great- on the surface, but what is the level of complexity and monetary cost to have SIX charging ports on a single laptop? Where is the practicality in that anyways? Additionally, the cost of the muxes to push video to all of those ports, and PCIe to all of those ports.
One controller handles all of them. It's not like you're charging from multiple ports at once.
There is no cost of muxing.
The USB4/TB controller receives DP streams from the GPU and either tacks it to the PHY via DP-Alt, or packetizes it over the USB4/TB CIO connection.
Does your desktop have 6 display output ports? Probably not.
That's not how it works. At all.
The controller is wired up to DP lanes on the GPU. It then directs the streams as negotiated on the far side (DP-Alt, or USB4/TB packetized)
We're either going to have a limited number of ports, or regress back to the slop of USB-A, USB-C, (mini)DP, HDMI, and whatever slop a company wants to accommodate more connectivity, instead of a single port that has a few optional specs turned on/off depending how its wired internally.
Nice laptops made this transition long ago. It's really only shitty
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Does your desktop have 6 display output ports? Probably not.
Apple seems to have 6 display output ports on their desktop computers. Their Microsoft OS supporting competitors can't figure this out? I didn't check the entirety of Apple's current offerings but their low-end Mac Mini has 5 USB-C ports and a single HDMI port. The Mini supports only three displays but they can be plugged into any combination of those six ports.
We're either going to have a limited number of ports, or regress back to the slop of USB-A, USB-C, (mini)DP, HDMI, and whatever slop a company wants to accommodate more connectivity, instead of a single port that has a few optional specs turned on/off depending how its wired internally.
It wasn't that long ago when people preferred this "slop" of ports.
Apple was mocked for removing HDMI, USB-A, and whatever else from their hardwa
Re: (Score:2)
Apple seems to have 6 display output ports on their desktop computers. Their Microsoft OS supporting competitors can't figure this out? I didn't check the entirety of Apple's current offerings but their low-end Mac Mini has 5 USB-C ports and a single HDMI port. The Mini supports only three displays but they can be plugged into any combination of those six ports.
That's because every port is plugged into a USB4 or TB controller. It's that simple. And that's all that Microsoft is demanding here, if you want to use their label to sell your PC.
No more bullshit USB-C ports connected to USB2 PHYs. It's a shit ass practice. It's only done on cheap ass computers, really, but any step toward getting rid of that bullshit is a good one in my eyes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the display has a DisplayPort output for MST daisy-chaining so there's no need to use the remaining USB-C port for a second display.
DisplayPort 1.2 or higher with Multi-Stream Transport can daisy chain monitors. However the computer and monitor must support MST.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> The FrameWork 16 for instance has 6x USB-C ports on it for its modular connectivity. By Microsoft's new requirement, ALL 6 ports must have charging capabilities, video capabilities, and because they're above the 40gbps threshold, support PCIe connectivity too.
I'm really not seeing the problem. I suspect this'll add pennies to the cost, especially after chip manufacturers see the mandate and adjust SKUs accordingly.
FrameWork is also free to replace some of the USB Cs with USB As, and I've got to be hone
Re: (Score:2)
God just shut up already.
Re: (Score:2)
This sounds -great- on the surface, but what is the level of complexity and monetary cost to have SIX charging ports on a single laptop?
Not much. Functionality can be routed between USB-C devices. The requirement is that any port supports the functionality, not that all ports support all functionality at once. Only one port needs to negotiate charging. Only one port needs to negotiate display. Quite a few host controllers on the market can already do this.
Thanks to these requirements, the FrameWork 16 is essentially dead in the water for Microsoft Windows certification
So no change then? The Framework 16 isn't Windows Certified at the moment, isn't marketed as such, and it doesn't show up in the spec list.
Vendors having the choice between driving up per-port costs for all this optional stuff that almost nobody will ever use
Errr most people use this. The guessing game of w
why does my laptop only have 3 ports? (Score:2)
And why does it only work with the displays that support MST (multi stream transport)?
Making things simpler for end users isn't always so simple.
Unintended Consequences (Score:5, Insightful)
While generally this is a great idea, on unintended consequence is that laptop makers will limit the number of USB-C ports if adding support for all the features is a challenge.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a challenge, it's just selecting the appropriate host controller with routing functionality and making sure the signalling on the PCB isn't skimped on. But in any case you miss a great option here: People are crying foul on here listing models that would be affected (the poster above you complains that the Framework laptop won't be certifiable), but completely fail to realise that certification is optional. You can ship Windows on a non certified device, you just can't put a windows sticker on the
In Reviewing my USB-C ports... (Score:2)
Turns out I have 5 total ports among 4 laptops.
The oldest of my machines is an envy X360 from like...2017. It's just standard USB.
My gaming rig is Super Speed and Display Port - I would not expect a 290W laptop to charge over USB-C PD.
My Inspiron 7390 2-in-1 has dual Thunderbolt USB-C, it also only does USB-C charging so it gets TWO ports.
This Dell Inspiron 25 from last year does charging and data.
I think now that AMD is doing Thunderbolt (or something similar)...we'll see more Thunderbolt support, renderin
Re: (Score:1)
My wife's X360 must be slightly newer than yours, it has a charge-capable C port.
Nice work ruining it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Most obviously, MS is saying that if it doesn't support a display and device charging it's forbidden. So it's mandatory for all type-C ports to include the expense of power delivery circuitry capable of handling your device's potential load and either a dedicated video out or DP switching between type-C ports if there are more ports than there are heads on the GPU. You want a cheap just-USB USB port? Either that's Type A so nobody can standardize on connectors; or it gets omitted to meet logo requirements. Further; if a system supports 40Gbps USB4 all its ports are required to do so; including higher peripheral power limits, PCIe tunneling, and TB3 compatibility. You think it might be nice to have a port to plug flash drives into without allocating 4 PCIe lanes? Screw you I guess.
Then there's what the alleged confusion reduction doesn't actually specify: USB3 systems are only required to support 'minimum 1' displays. They need to have the supporting circuitry to handle that one display being on any port; but just ignoring the second DP alt mode device connected is fine; no further requirements. Data rates of 5, 10, or 20Gbs and accessory power supply of either greater than 4.5 or 7.5w are also fine(except that 20Gbs ports must be greater than 7.5); USB4 systems have higher minimum requirements; 2 4k displays and 15w power; but are similarly allowed to mingle 40 and 80Gbs; and it's entirely allowed for some systems to stop at 2 displays and some to support more; so long as the displays that are supported can be plugged in anywhere.
Obviously the tendency to do type-C ports that are just totally unlabeled or with a teeny cryptic symbol was no unduly helpful; but this seems like taking what could have been a fairly simple distinction (like the one that existed all the way back in the firewire/USB 1.1 days, or in the thunderbolt/USB systems, or slightly more informally on non-intel systems without thunderbolt), of "the fast port that does the things" and "the cheap port that is in ample supply"; and 'reducing confusion' by just banning the cheap port that is in ample supply(unless it's type A, for space consumption and to prevent connector standardization).
Are you really telling me that there wasn't something you could come up with to just tell the user which ones are power/video/PCIe and which ones are normal random accessory USB ports? I hope you like docking stations; because it seems like there will be a lot of those in our future.
Re: (Score:1)
And don't all the ports run into the same controller chip, leaving the whole question moot?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you basing all of that on the assumption that traditional USB ports won't exist anymore?
And don't all the ports run into the same controller chip, leaving the whole question moot?
I have a Dell XPS 15 that I bought used college surplus that lacks USB-A ports altogether. I can fully believe that a port first used on computers 29 years ago and last physically revised sixteen years ago would be retired from most devices, same as how I watched DE-9 and DB-25 ports for serial and parallel, PS/2 ports for keyboards and mice, and readers and expansion ports like CF, SD, Micro SD, and PCMCIA have gone away.
Re: (Score:2)
Devices that are mechanically restricted to type-c by mechanical constraints that require the smaller connector have a greater incentive to just skimp on ports; while devices big enough for type-As now have greater incentive to retain mixed ports because type-Cs now mandate further costs on top of the slightly more expensive connector. If you want to give someone a place to plug in a mouse; poster
Re: (Score:2)
I could see that happening.
And to be fair, I don't hate USB-A like I used to, or frequently disconnected and reconnected cables/dongles/ports I like it. It's not as durable as I'd like, but it's physically big enough that if junk makes its way into the port or plug I can clean it out. If the outer housing ends up bent I can bend it back. I can put micro-SD card readers into the socket that are nearly flush with the socket itself.
USB-C is more fragile than USB-A, if something gets into the connector it'll
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Are you really telling me that there wasn't something you could come up with to just tell the user which ones are power/video/PCIe and which ones are normal random accessory USB ports?
The USB spec includes logos to use to specify the capabilities of a given USB-C port. One issue I see is that on any compact device, such as a laptop that is less than a half inch thick, the markings can be difficult to see and identify.
I could see this as Microsoft specifying UI features on software to meet their approval, if the software developers aren't following the Microsoft standards on how the click of a mouse button produces some input then they lose Microsoft's blessing. If they choose to be so
Good! (Score:3)
icons (Score:5, Insightful)
Would have been better to demand standard iconography somewhere around the port. I don't think anyone was really demanding every USB port be able to be used to run an 8k display.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Would have been better to demand standard iconography somewhere around the port. I don't think anyone was really demanding every USB port be able to be used to run an 8k display.
We absolutely do demand that. We shouldn't need to guess which of our "universal" ports have which feature. No one here is pretending that all ports should be able to do 8k at once at the same time, just that hardware vendors pick a host controller that can route functionality to whichever port requests it. That is a thing that exists by the way. There's no reason all your ports can't have all the functionality. But there's good reason why they can't all do it at once (and that isn't required here).
will this be mandatory for upgrading to Win12 (Score:2)
?? Hopefully yes
Only downside is that AMD will be collateral damage for this initiative, as many an AMD platform has asymetrical ports. See, for example Framework's AMD 13" and 16"Laptops.
Re: (Score:2)
and kill DESKOPS GPUS? (Score:2)
and kill DESKOPS GPUS?
steam os will take up the mass exit if MS does BS like that.
In the original spec (Score:2)
In the original spec, it specified that the "C" stood for confusion, and to this day that art has stood the test of what, now?
Great thing about standards (Score:2)
Embrace, Extend, Extinguish comes for USB-C (Score:2)
When Microsoft says it wants USB-C to 'just work,' what they mean is: just work with Microsoft’s drivers, certified hardware, and update pipeline—or else.
Microsoft’s latest pledge to “end USB-C confusion” via the Windows Hardware Compatibility Program (WHCP) sounds great—until you remember the company's long history of using standards enforcement as a means of channel control.
Let’s not pretend this is new territory. Microsoft has been running the “embrace, ext