08-04-2020, 04:43 AM
(08-03-2020, 10:12 PM)moonwalkers Wrote: And USB-C will never become much simpler than a barrel port - with barrel port all you need to know is size (which is very physical and obvious), polarity, voltage, and current (all three of which are usually specified on both device socket and the power supply), while with USB-C you need to know the standards supported by both the PSU and the cable.
Bottom line: don't like barrel port - either don't use it or vote with your money elsewhere, but don't try to convince people that technology with multiple standard levels and unobvious implementation compliance is somehow simpler than something much more straightforward. I, for one, much appreciate having the flexibility of both options.
USB-C is already much simpler than a barrel port.
Worst case scenario you fall back to 5V.
Again, because there are some issues with cables, devices and chargers that are not according to the standards, should not be blamed on the standard.
The fact that the PBP doesn't accept more current, should not be blamed on USB-C.
It's simply how the PBP was built, nothing to do with USB-C.
USB-C doesn't force anything to support up to 20V 5 amps.
And even with this limitation, you can still charge the PBP.
That's a whole different situation with a barrel charger, as there are way more parameters to block the possibility of charging.
You call the barrel port much simpler, even when you need to know the size, polarity, voltage and current?
With USB-C you don't need to know the size (there is only one size), don't need to know the polarity and hardly ever you have to worry about voltage and current that would block charging.
I am not saying people should stop using a barrel port, all I am saying is that USB-C (when implemented according to the standard) is much simpler.
