citpeks

About

Username
citpeks
Joined
Visits
334
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
1,007
Badges
1
Posts
271

Reactions

502Like17Dislike85Informative

  • USB-C group hopes new logos will solve customer confusion

    citpekscitpeks
    netrox said:
    That's the entire point of having logos. Also, all USB-C cables deliver power at 7.5W minimum but PD has 100W support. There is PD logo on non-Apple cables. Apple apparently did not put that logo which is annoying. 

    There is no PD logo, per se.

    All spec compliant Type-C cables must electrically support 60W (20V/3A) at a minimum, or the high-power 100W (20V/5A) spec and now the new 240W EPR spec (48V/5A) with an e-marker chip.

    That's actually one thing they got mostly right, in so far as there is a baseline minimum spec that is modern and will meet most practical needs, with a limited number of options (low/high), and not something that requires much thought or consideration from the user.

    But, up until this effort, there has been no specific, standardized 100W/240W logo, or marking, which didn't help resolve the basic problem with regard to cable identification.  Nor is it likely to now, as long as Apple and other manufacturers continue to omit markings.

    In general, to a certain extent, the more capable Type-C cables require intelligence circuitry in their connector housings, making them larger physically, but that is far from a reliable or consistent indicator of capability.

    Another common misconception is that Type-C necessarily means that the PD protocol is implemented.  The spec does have provisions for supplying power using the older, simpler and less-intelligent signalling methods, albeit fixed at 5V, and at lower maximum wattage.  This was probably done for backward compatibility, and allows for solutions where the higher power capacity and intelligent signalling required by PD isn't necessary or cost-effective.
    MplsPwatto_cobra

  • USB-C group hopes new logos will solve customer confusion

    citpekscitpeks
    Type-C has reduced the number of connectors involved -- one -- but that has not changed the number of various functions that wired connections serve.  If anything, it has made things worse, by shoehorning any and every function into using a single type of connector.

    There are eight types of USB C-to-C cables,, using the same connector, and the markings the USB-IF calls for are often missing, making it difficult to discern what a particular cable is capable of.  Drawing up new logos is not going to help if the cables lack the markings.  Adding to the confusion is the idiocy of the marketing (USB 3.x, Gen X) that only geeks will be care to decipher.

    Another piece of stupidity was not making USB 3.x data speeds the minimum requirement, which would have reduced the number of cable types, and ensured that a next-gen connection solution was fully modern.  Instead, the majority of cables are only capable of USB 2.0 data speeds, and as a practical matter, used only to charge (there is a power spec -- 60W minimum), so even if a device has a fully-modern and capable port, the cable can still serve as a limitation and gimp it.

    It's a fustercluck, that some may have even characterized as a "bag of hurt."  The whole situation reeks of design-by-committee, by and for a bunch of geeks, not normal users.
    MplsPronnwatto_cobra

  • Apple dismisses iPad mini 'jelly scroll' issue as normal behavior

    citpekscitpeks
    magman1979 said:
    So basically this is another NothingBurger that people were hoping to turn into a #<issue>Gate moment to smear Apple, check...

    Nothing to see here folks, put your OCD into your back pocket and move along.

    It's not hard to discern the different slants sites and their writers (note--I don't call them journalists, that profession is dead) have in their Apple coverage.

    This is just more of the same, and hardly surprising.

    magman1979ronndoozydozenthtlkrupp

  • Apple releases iOS 12.5.5 for older iPhones incompatible with iOS 15

    citpekscitpeks
    loopless said:
    dysamoria said:
    It’s irritating that this isn’t offered to users still on iOS 12 who DON’T want iOS 15 (yet or ever).
    A very bizarre statement

    I believe what the OP is lamenting is that the Software Update mechanism will by default only offer 12.5.5 to devices whose support ended with iOS 12.

    On a device that supports newer versions of iOS, it will be prompted to update straight to the latest version, currently iOS 15, which supports all the devices that weren't cut off at iOS 12.  Not 12.5.5, so a user who has purposely kept their device on iOS 12 cannot apply the latest 12.x patch, and is only given the option to go to all the way to 15.

    A potential workaround is to obtain the appropriate 12.5.5 ipsw payload file, and perform a manual restoration with iTunes.  But that method, which some used to downgrade iOS after finding an update not to the liking, only remains viable as long as the older version remains signed by Apple.
    muthuk_vanalingam

  • New USB-C Apple Watch charging cable now available

    citpekscitpeks
    The real breakthrough would have been if Apple freed the Watch from the need for its own dedicated charger, and made it compatible with generic Qi chargers (or AirPower [cough]), like the AirPods are.
    caladanian