Groups > sci.electronics.design > #447103

Re: USB cabling constraints

From	Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
Newsgroups	sci.electronics.design
Subject	Re: USB cabling constraints
Date	2017-02-09 16:18 -0700
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<o7it89$6kt$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <o7dqs5$mg3$1@dont-email.me> <o7e3iu$3k3$1@dont-email.me> <o7gana$mc2$1@dont-email.me> <o7gnq8$fg2$1@dont-email.me> <o7ir71$s31$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On 2/9/2017 3:43 PM, Tim Williams wrote:
> "Don Y" <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote in message
> news:o7gnq8$fg2$1@dont-email.me...
>> <frown>  I guess its sort of like trying to evaluate the quality of a
>> *hammer*...
>
> Your only choice is to bang it around and see how it feels.  :^)

For *consumers*, that's typically the only choice you have!
There are no "specifications" that you can claim the hammer
fails to meet.  Unless the failure is spectacular (or, justifies
litigation), your only recorse is to avoid that same *brand*
when purchasing your NEXT hammer!

OTOH, a hammer *manufacturer* can impose standards on *his* products
and test to verify "current production" is meeting those standards.

And, compare *his* products to those of his competitors (worst case:
by purchasing samples OTC and subjecting them to the same tests).

But, you'd want to have some idea as to the pertinent criteria that
are of concern to your consumers (as well as "Legal") so you could
gauge where you sit in the potential "quality" spectrum.

E.g., I suspect mikek (amdx) will be loath to purchase another cable
from that same vendor!  (*if* he recalls the vendor's name)

OTOH, if it had been prominently branded -- or otherwise memorably
associated with a particular vendor -- it becomes a reflection on
THAT vendor, thereafter.

(As I'm not interested in being remembered as a "bottom feeding" vendor
of schlock products, I'm concerned with sorting out where other "good"
products sit in the specification continuum)

Back to sci.electronics.design | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

USB cabling constraints Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-07 08:43 -0700
  Re: USB cabling constraints amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-02-07 10:28 -0600
    Re: USB cabling constraints jrwalliker@gmail.com - 2017-02-07 08:54 -0800
    Re: USB cabling constraints rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 20:37 -0500
    Re: USB cabling constraints Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-07 20:23 -0700
    Re: USB cabling constraints Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2017-02-08 21:29 -0800
      Re: USB cabling constraints Kamen Lilov <kamenl@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 14:01 -0800
  Re: USB cabling constraints Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2017-02-07 10:39 -0800
  Re: USB cabling constraints "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-02-07 19:06 -0600
    Re: USB cabling constraints Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-07 20:35 -0700
      Re: USB cabling constraints "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-02-08 17:49 -0600
        Re: USB cabling constraints Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-08 20:33 -0700
          Re: USB cabling constraints "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-02-09 16:43 -0600
            Re: USB cabling constraints Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-09 16:18 -0700

csiph-web