Newer things are assumed to be more relevant?
Newer things are assumed to be more relevant?
USB-C was designed to be more sturdy than USB Type-Micro-B.USB-C doesn't look as sturdy as USB-A..
USB-C was designed to be more sturdy than USB Type-Micro-B.
The USB standard requires a minimum of 1,500 cycles of insertion / removal.
Yeah, I've never had bad luck with the actual USB-C connector. The cable itself, now, I think most modern cables are made poorly, but the connectors have never broken on me. I like USB-C because I don't even have to look when I connect them to the system.USB-C was designed to be more sturdy than USB Type-Micro-B.
The USB standard requires a minimum of 1,500 cycles of insertion / removal.
USB Type-C ports are rated for 10,000 insertion/removal cycles.
BeforeIs that usually before or after the connector breaks?
More devices/standards need to be made with reversibility in mindYeah, I've never had bad luck with the actual USB-C connector. The cable itself, now, I think most modern cables are made poorly, but the connectors have never broken on me. I like USB-C because I don't even have to look when I connect them to the system.
DIMMS would probably be twice as wide in that case so nope and that's without talking about crosstalk and other rather unwanted issues.There's no logical reason why RAM / DIMM sticks can't be designed that way.
DDR4 has already been established. No point in crying about spilled milk.DIMMS would probably be twice as wide in that case so nope and that's without talking about crosstalk and other rather unwanted issues.
Here's the pinout of DDR4 https://www.micron.com/-/media/clie...-sheet/modules/parity_rdimm/asf9c512x72pz.pdf
It's just 1x Contact pin^^ Designing crowded PCB's is really hard, you can't just move pin assignements around because it would come in handy, again, you can have issues with crosstalk and other palaver, and yes cost is indeed something they are trying to keep as low as possible so adding another layer to the PCB for example to make something possible might just be too exensive.
That could always be one of the reasons, who knows what these standard bodies think.Well maybe they simply don't want it to be handy?![]()
Hmm.. personally I would buy a new drive for the server, spinning rust would do fine , using another old(er) drive I would probably not do, SMART data is nice and all but can change faster than you can scream headcrash.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.