USB-C ports are an active negative for me. I do not care to have them at all - I still don't own a single device that would use a USB-C port, while I have mountains of USB-A devices that will last for a length of time between 5 more years or until the earth is engulfed by the sun. I also like having dedicated power and display ports (HDMI-out is a requirement for the foreseeable future) as well, which are obvious and cannot have anything else stuffed into them.
>I also like having dedicated power and display ports (HDMI-out is a requirement for the foreseeable future) as well, which are obvious and cannot have anything else stuffed into them
I don't understand this argument when any of the ports would work. If USB C can handle power, data transfer, video, audio, etc. and you had multiple USB C ports on a device then any one of them would work for any use. That's such an easier system then having a bunch of different cords and ports.
Not all USB C ports are equal. Some have higher speed potential than others. Some have higher power providing/consumption potential than others. Some carry additional protocols (looking at you, Thunderbolt) that are only available on some ports.
Cables are in an even worse place - if your cable actually lives up to its stated capabilities (and the capabilities are as vastly different as the ports above), it's in the minority.
Not all USB C ports are equal. Some have higher speed potential than others. Some have higher power providing/consumption potential than others. Some carry additional protocols (looking at you, Thunderbolt) that are only available on some ports.
Any output that I'm going to hook up to is going to have an HDMI connection, and I would bet strongly that that is going to be the case for at least a decade. And I've got dozens of perfectly good HDMI cables kicking around.
As far as power, my understanding is that generally only a subset of the USB-C ports on a device will be rated for full voltage charging. If there's a power cord with it's own port, then you can't screw that up. You can also supply more power than the USB-C standard is rated for, which is nice if you have a real workstation rather than a lil 13" ultrabook.
The ideal would be that any old port can do anything, but I'm not holding my breath on that being a reality.
I have my workstation setup to plug in a single USB-C port that charges my laptop and drives my monitor, headphones, keyboard, mouse and a USB-A hub.
To me USB-C is a god send. I don't understand why people have such negative reactions to it.
Granted, I'm a Linux User so I stay away from both Mac and Windows boxes, and I wouldn't use either a Surface or an MBP due to a lack of Linux support. But I couldn't be more happy with the USB-C and the rest of the hardware of my Lenovo ThinkPad.
If you get a new laptop with USB-C, what are the chances of that setup working? How much time did you have to spend shopping to find a USB-C docking thingie that works with your laptop?
HDMI isn't perfect, but it works almost all the time, with any source connected to any display; especially if you limit to computers outputting to monitors, so you can ignore the DRM garbage. To my knowledge there's at least 3 ways to output video over USB-C (actually usb, alternative mode display port, alternate mode hdmi), and I wouldn't be surprised if there's more. If you pick the wrong modes, your docking station is going to be useless later -- just like a traditional docking station used to be.
Not to mention that a separate power port allows Microsoft to continue their magnetic power adapter, who's passing in Apple design is still oft maligned...
And the Surface Book 2 does have a USB-C connector and can even charge off of it.
Why is having a "dedicated" HDMI port a good thing?
Do you understand that USB-C is also an HDMI port and you just need a USB-C to HDMI cable if your monitor/tv doesn't have yet the USB-C port (which they are starting to come with)?
What's so good about having a port that can only serve one purpose and not be generic purpose?
What if you want to connect two monitors to a computer?
What if instead of a HDMI port you need to plug another Ethernet cable or another USB hard drive?
Are we going back to the times where we had a single serial port at the back and we used those switchers (mechanical ones, for those who remember the stuff)?
> Do you understand that USB-C is also an HDMI port and you just need a USB-C to HDMI cable if your monitor/tv doesn't have yet the USB-C port (which they are starting to come with)?
Yes. But I have tons of perfectly good legacy equipment, and no incentive to go buy a whole raft of new cable or dongles.
> What's so good about having a port that can only serve one purpose and not be generic purpose?
In an ideal world, sure. But in the real world, we've already got a clusterfuck of different cables and ports that all say that they are USB-C on the tin, but have wildly different capabilities in practice. If I've got ports that are special purpose, they might as well advertise the fact - Ethernet goes in the RJ45, display out goes in the HDMI, power goes into the power adapter.
Of course I also like having lots of ports, so in addition to power, HDMI, Ethernet, 3.5mm audio in and out, SD card reader, I look for 4-6 USB A ports. A 17" screen and a dedicated graphics card are nice. I'm not really a ultrabook person...
