477
submitted 1 month ago by blibla@slrpnk.net to c/technology@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Dariusmiles2123@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 month ago

As long as a computer has 4 usb-c ports, I think you’re covered for everything.

Yes we had more different ports back in the days, but most were never used.

Usb-c is way more practical. Still that implies that you have more than 2 Usb-c ports.

[-] Omgboom@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago

Yeah guys it's way more practical to carry 11 usb c dongles everywhere you go

[-] fallingcats@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

That's the most straw in a straw man I've seen in the whole thread.

Most new laptops have USB-C, A, and SD/micro SD, and HDMI. That's 95% of all uses.

If you really need more then you just bought the wrong laptop. Get a Thinkpad or framework 16. If you need to interface with old hardware, get a contemporary machine.

[-] ripcord@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago

OK, but that wasn't the example shown or example given.

That configuration above (and often one of those collapsible Ethernet ports) makes a lot of sense. And a headphone jack. But that's a LOT different than just USB-C, which was the complaint.

[-] GetOffMyLan@programming.dev 1 points 1 month ago

At work both my monitors and networking go through the same port. The monitor also acts as a usb hub.

You can buy an adapter and plug everything in one port.

I love it personally.

[-] potustheplant@feddit.nl 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

You can only do that because your monitors are not high resolution and high refresh rate. The data cap for usb-c is not that high.

[-] GamingChairModel@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Can you break this down?

The 2017 model pictured in this post supported Thunderbolt 3, which was a 40 gbps connection. Supported display modes included up to 4k@120, 2x4k@60, or 5k@60, which was better than the then-standard HDMI 2.0.

What combination of resolution, frame rate, and color depth are you envisioning that having a dock handle a gigabit Ethernet connection, analog audio would require scaling down the display resolution through the same port?

By 2021, the MacBook Pros were supporting TB4, and the spec sheets on third party docking stations were supporting 8k resolutions, even if Macs themselves only supported 6k, or up to 4x4k.

Even if we talk about DisplayPort Alt Mode, a VESA standard developed in 2014, and supported in the 2017 models pictured in this post, that's just a standard DP connection, which in 2017 supported HDR 5k@60. But didn't support a whole separate dock with networking and USB ports.

[-] potustheplant@feddit.nl 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Supported display modes included up to 4k@120, 2x4k@60, or 5k@60

Right, for a single device.

What combination of resolution, frame rate, and color depth are you envisioning that having a dock handle a gigabit Ethernet connection, analog audio would require scaling down the display resolution through the same port?

Dual 4k120 would already saturate the bandwith. Regarding networking, gigabit is pretty slow for LAN depending on your workload. If you were to require 10gbit, you'd be SOL.

By 2021, the MacBook Pros were supporting TB4, and the spec sheets on third party docking stations were supporting 8k resolutions, even if Macs themselves only supported 6k, or up to 4x4k.

Did you read the specs in your link? Even with that TB4 dock you wouldn't be able to do dual 4k120.

I really don't get trying to justify manufacturers forcing you to buy an additional device to get the same ports they could provide natively without using a hub/dock. It's a pretty submissive attitude.

[-] GamingChairModel@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Dual 4k120 would already saturate the bandwith.

What would you use to drive dual 4k/120 displays over a single cable, if not Thunderbolt over USB-C? And what 2017 laptops were capable of doing that?

Even if we're talking about two different cables over two different ports, that's still a pretty unusual use case that not a lot of laptops would've been capable of in 2017.

[-] potustheplant@feddit.nl -1 points 1 month ago

4k120 panels weren't even available in 2017 afaik. But you could do dual 4k120 with one hdmi 2.1 and 1 displayport 1.4 so just need 2 video outputs from your laptop (which used to be pretty common).

Please note that we're having this discussion in 2024 and I'm talkimg about use cases in 2024. I don't really see the point in talking about what you would theoretically do 6 years ago with panels that weren't even available.

[-] ccunning@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

USB-C is just a connector, but Thunderbolt 5 uses it and for asymmetric uses (e.g. a monitor) it can hit 120Gbps.

Isn’t that going to support most monitors?

[-] potustheplant@feddit.nl -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Please, list the devices that you know have tb5.

Also, that's the total bandwidth in a best case scenario. You're not factoring in that you'll need to share that with all of the devices in a hub. That's without mentioning that you need the hub (which also has a cost).

[-] rmuk@feddit.uk 0 points 1 month ago

The USB4 protocol can handle 160Gb/s split asymettrically (so, say, 120Gb/s out, 40Gb/s in), wheras the upper limit for DisplayPort's highest bandwidth mode, Quad UHBR 20, is 80Gb/s in one direction. So you can saturate your DisplayPort 2.0 quad-channel with more than enough bandwidth to power three 10K 60Hz 30-bit (i.e. very high-end) monitors in DSC mode, and still only be using half the bandwidth of USB4, all using a single cable which I can also use to charge my earphones.

[-] fallingcats@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 1 month ago

Most devices only have 40gbps USB4. Which is still enough for almost all sane use cases. Frankly, if you need multiple 4K monitors get a desktop.

[-] potustheplant@feddit.nl 0 points 1 month ago

Uhm no? There are more than a few use cases that require a mobile set up for demos for example but that you'd also want to use in a desk setting. For example, architects or sw dev.

Which is still enough for almost all sane use cases.

Like 2 4k60 monitors and literally nothing else? You have a very conservative opinion of what a "sane" use case is. Not to mention that lots of USB-C cable certification is a mess so not even getting the cable is simple (or cheap).

[-] fallingcats@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 1 month ago

Show me one architect that is actually dragging along two external 4k displays with their laptop.

If you are a professional with specific needs buy a specific laptop. Frankly there are more than enough laptops that have more ports if that's what you need. Except even in your example you don't even need more ports because you can just use the second USB4 port.

[-] potustheplant@feddit.nl -1 points 1 month ago

You misunderstood. They use those monitors when actually working in a stationary place with their desktop setup. However, it's very common to then have to go to your client's office to show them said work or discuss future steps. At which point having multiple port options comes in handy if you have to plug in to a tv, monitor or projector.

You can't seriously consider asking for hdmi and displayport on a laptop a "specific need".

[-] fallingcats@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 month ago

Almost every laptop does have a dedicated HDMI port

[-] potustheplant@feddit.nl 1 points 1 month ago

Yeah, **one **HDMI port and no DisplayPort.

[-] fallingcats@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 month ago

If youre in an office you can be expected to use a dock

[-] potustheplant@feddit.nl 1 points 1 month ago

Why move the goalpost though? I'm not narrowing it down to a specific user in a specific setting. I'm just saying that more flexibility == more better.

Why would you make up a specific scenario to justify getting a inferior product (from a usability standpoint) than we used to?

[-] fallingcats@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

That's my whole point; No, more ports isn't more better. If you don't need them they're just more cost, more holes where water/debris can get into the machine, and more wrong holes to plug the charger into. If you do need them, then buy a machine that has them - there are plenty.

[-] potustheplant@feddit.nl 1 points 1 month ago

If you don’t need them they’re just more cost

Yeah, tell me another joke. the cost is negligible. Literally from cents to a few dollars for the manufacturer.

more holes where water/debris can get into the machine

This literally never happened to me or anyone I know.

more wrong holes to plug the charger into

If you plug in your usb-c/barrel jack charger into an ethernet/hdmi/displayport input, you deserve to have a broken laptop xD

If you do need them, then buy a machine that has them - there are plenty.

Not really true, but ok. Keep on preaching for companies that screw over consumers :)

this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2024
477 points (92.5% liked)

Technology

60116 readers
1422 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS