I feel like that’s a little disingenuous because all those things actually serve a purpose. You need that computing power to keep up with modern software. But in 99% of cases, plugging KB+M into a USB2 vs USB3 makes no difference whatsoever. Excluding edge cases where say, your keyboard has its own USB port that you’re then trying to put a splitter on, or charge your phone on, it otherwise just legitimately doesn’t need the extra power of USB3. The basic input processes of the keyboard and mouse haven’t changed in 40 years and that’s why such a comparatively ancient piece of tech is still usable. Even just USB2 already has enough power and bandwidth on a keyboard to run your RGB backlights while still taking input with no additional latency.
I think if the manufacturer cared more about their customers and their brand image, then yeah, they’d just go ahead and make all the ports USB3 regardless. But if you’re cranking out 10,000 shitty PCs a week that you want to sell for under $500, and you can save 3 cents a unit by making two USB ports USB2, that’s still a technically viable product that can be sold and used without issue (at least, without issue pertaining to these USB ports, anyway). It makes the manufacturer a bit skeezy, but it’s not like they’re selling you something you can’t use, the things work just fine. You just don’t want to be doing mass file transfer or power transfer through them because they’re bad at both, that’s what your 3.0 port is for, which you have been provided.
This is a Minimum Viable Product sort of thing, this isn’t going to win any awards or any glowing customer praise, but for the market it was intended for (likely business) it’s a cheap ass PC tower that works well enough. I don’t know if that’s actually the case for what OP is posting here but that’s what I imagine the design decision was behind this sort of style, and it makes sense to me. I don’t really like it, but I do understand it.
I feel like that’s a little disingenuous because all those things actually serve a purpose. You need that computing power to keep up with modern software. But in 99% of cases, plugging KB+M into a USB2 vs USB3 makes no difference whatsoever. Excluding edge cases where say, your keyboard has its own USB port that you’re then trying to put a splitter on, or charge your phone on, it otherwise just legitimately doesn’t need the extra power of USB3. The basic input processes of the keyboard and mouse haven’t changed in 40 years and that’s why such a comparatively ancient piece of tech is still usable. Even just USB2 already has enough power and bandwidth on a keyboard to run your RGB backlights while still taking input with no additional latency.
I think if the manufacturer cared more about their customers and their brand image, then yeah, they’d just go ahead and make all the ports USB3 regardless. But if you’re cranking out 10,000 shitty PCs a week that you want to sell for under $500, and you can save 3 cents a unit by making two USB ports USB2, that’s still a technically viable product that can be sold and used without issue (at least, without issue pertaining to these USB ports, anyway). It makes the manufacturer a bit skeezy, but it’s not like they’re selling you something you can’t use, the things work just fine. You just don’t want to be doing mass file transfer or power transfer through them because they’re bad at both, that’s what your 3.0 port is for, which you have been provided.
This is a Minimum Viable Product sort of thing, this isn’t going to win any awards or any glowing customer praise, but for the market it was intended for (likely business) it’s a cheap ass PC tower that works well enough. I don’t know if that’s actually the case for what OP is posting here but that’s what I imagine the design decision was behind this sort of style, and it makes sense to me. I don’t really like it, but I do understand it.