USB-C - A step to the future or not useful at all?


A TB3 port does support a 10Gbps USB-C cable (wich make sense since it’s able to deliver 40 Gbps) :relaxed: :

What is the difference between Thunderbolt 3 and USB-C? Thunderbolt 3 is a superset solution which includes USB 3.1 (10Gbps), and adds 40Gbps Thunderbolt and DisplayPort 1.2 from a single USB-C port.[/quote]


I think, that this Feature would be a killer Feature for USB-C!
Just think about how often you need to get out your USB Stick just to copy a tiny File from one computer to another.
Just one Port on each device which has this feature would make everyones life easier and would enable copying data up to 5Gbit/s.
I do not know how it is implemented in Hardware but in Software you could use the normal Windows File Dialog to choose “Enable remote File browsing” and the other PC has access to all the data on the Harddrive. Just like it is on android.

When you spin that even further you could enable audio passthrough, ethernet passthrough for your Laptop or WLAN for your PC and much more!

That would sell USB-C as THE Innovation it is, since every other possibility to transfer files is way more complicated or needs Internet (Dropbox, Windows home network (if it decides to work :joy:), traditional USB Stick, Bluetooth (needs to be properly set up), …)


USB-C isn’t the thing that needs to change to get there: it’s Windows, and possibly mainboard firmware.

When you connect two Macs together through FireWire, Thunderbolt or USB-C, they’ll handshake and create a happy little ad-hoc network. Apps like Migration Assistant will be able to create a proper link between two Macs that allow users, settings, apps and documents to be imported form one machine to the next. Great for setting up a new Mac, and picking up right where you left off on the old one. These are all software features.

Not quite like...

It’s similar (but quite superior) to the ‘Easy Transfer’ feature that was introduced in Windows Vista and then mostly forgotten, though that feature required a special USB-A to USB-A ‘Easy Transfer’ cable with a network adapter in the middle.

Alternatively, there is ‘Target Disk Mode’, which turns the machine into, basically, an external hard disk. Which works great for troubleshooting Macs that won’t boot due to software issues, or to get info off a machine without really turning it on (at least without booting to OS). This would have to be implemented on a mainboard firmware level.

Both these features already work through USB-C on Macs, so it stands to reason they should be very possible on a Windows machine as well. USB-C is up for the task, now we just need Windows to catch up!


Not only Windows, uEFI needs to reach into the drive, and expose it as a mass storage unit por Target Disk Mode to work.

Edit: Disks are not Dicks… :joy:


But you mentioned that you would need special Hardware behind the USB C Port? Do Macs have this Hardware or is Windows just not using it?

If it is not implemented into uefi (since its harder to update than windows) then you could at least File Transfer when both devices are up and running which would be a great Feature they should add to Windows.


Target Dick mode? :joy:


The hardware is there – and a data transfer feature could be done simply on a software level in Windows (Windows needs to recognise a USB-, FireWire or Thunderbolt as a potential network connection, basically).

To make something like Target Disk Mode work on a non-Mac, would be a firmware issue. The mainboard has a connection to the drive, so all it’d need is an EFI implementation that boots the computer into this mode if a key is held during start-up (not unlike going into alternate boot modes when holding Delete, for instance). Then, the firmware needs to offer all found storage devices over supported ports as a client device. It may require additional hardware implemented by the mainboard manufacturer (like making sure the right components get powered even if the system as a whole isn’t), but I think most of it is a firmware issue…

Apple has the benefit of controlling hardware and software development, so they were able to implement such features back in 1991 or so. All it takes is one or more big manufacturers to implement such support, and make it an open standard so the other manufacturers can easily join in…


Already corrected, the bane of swipe writing on mobile while on the bus and with autocorrect on. :joy:


Yeah and even them had trouble with it. Not all models supported it in its various iterations.
Now the problem is more or less solved with Linux-IO, even on previously unsupported hardware, if you know what you are doing and have a lot of time on your hands.



I think that would be a problem, since sharing data over network is (for normal users) a very complicated task.
That would Actually work right now if you take 2 USB-C ethernet Adapters and an RJ45 cable, then you would maps The USB Port to a network Port.

It would be much easier if it would work like on Android Phones with an automatic entry in the Explorer.


The question is which part of the file system would be visible to the host then? Certainly not system files? What about program files? What about other partitions you’ve created? Or would it be limited to your user’s Documents folder? What about other users’ files? What about guys like me who have exactly 0 bytes in their “documents” folder and keep everything somewhere else? And so on… You see, Windows is a much more complicated OS and it doesn’t have the concept of “virtual SD card” or whatever it’s called on Android.


I think that you should just be able to choose what folders are visible like on the shared network folders.
And by default documents, pictures,… Can be shared that normal users can use this system


Don’t forget that Windows is a multi-user OS too… what if you want to copy files from different users? Does the user need to be logged in? All in all, I think this causes too many problems. It’s a very big feature that could only possibly be introduced with Windows 11 or whatever they would call it. Not that it’s technically super difficult, but it’s difficult from the functional design point of view. There are so many different scenarios to think about…


Here’s your reason: Full-size USB speed in a micro-sized package.

USB-C is, in fact, a new protocol. Explain to me how you would get a 5gb/sec data port into a smartphone without USB-C. Protocol is the rules and standards that govern data transfer between devices, and the rules of physics don’t allow you to use a usb-A 3.1 port in a smartphone unless you make it thick enough to accomodate one. Oh, and the USB OTG spec only allows mini ports, so a full sized port in a smartphone or other similar device would be comparatively limited in capabilities. Therefore, no matter how hard you want to wish otherwise, the only way to get enhanced speed and power functionality on certain mobile devices is through a USB-C port. There simply is no other standard allowed by the USB consortium that has the same capabilities.


Micro USB 3.0 is your answer :slight_smile:

Type-C is just a port. Same protocol, USB 3.1. There are types A and B, and type B has mini and micro variants, just like 2.0

And who told you OTG supports mini? Find at least one mini OTG adapter and then we’ll talk.


That would mean a Port that is much bigger and would therefore Make devices thicker.

But I Do not want to start jet another sensless discussion about opinions. I think that USB C is a great thing, but I am also somehow angry, that I now have replace all my adapters and cables to use it…


Micro USB 3.0 is not thicker, only longer than 2.0, so it doesn’t make devices thicker. Type C, on the other hand, is thicker than Micro B.


The space in the phone gets less, therefore to have the same space you would have to increase thickness, or make the battery smaller, or remove something else.
Modern phones are built very thightly, thats why the difference from Nano to Micro SIM matters.


I have an unpleasant surprise for you: type C is actually bigger than Micro 3.0 :smile: well, at least from the looks of it. If it isn’t bigger, they’re equal.