Intel details Thunderbolt, says Apple has full year head start - Page 3

Originally Posted by myapplelove

so you would have to ask specifically for optical to copper cables, could be a bit confusing when you have a few say...but it makes sense.

Originally Posted by wizard69

People should be very excited as this tech is certainly not a replacement for USB. I'm not sure many in this thread recognize the incredible gulf between the two standards. TB is clearly a solution for things USB could never do.

As to the other posters I see big confusion with respect to the terms used here. Head start does not imply exclusive.

As to implementation this really has me curious. It appears that TB requires a different support chip. I suspect that this might be why Apple has not been held up by the SATA bug. TB most likely has direct access to the DMI bus or whatever it is called on Sandy Bridge. I need to dig up an architecture diagram ASAP. TB could go very far in other industries like instrumentation.

Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer

Then you haven't been checking much of late. Apple's world wide is approaching 10% for their Mac install base, and much larger obviously when we include the iOS platform.

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

How about an iPad in a few weeks?

Originally Posted by extremeskater

Not a chance.

Originally Posted by Ecphorizer

Suggestion from one who has been there for 40 years: when pulling your cable through the smurf tube, be sure to pull a waxed string to be used as a pull when you want to add something. CAT cables aren't flexible enough for this.

Also, regarding the double ganged outlets, you have power in case you ever pull fiber.

Originally Posted by nikon133

I don't know if and how much better this Thunderbolt is compared to USB3... but it is missing one thing USB has, and that is backward compatibility with USB2. Moving to USB3 is no brainer for manufacturers - everything will work.

Extend to reach other I/O technologies by using adapters that use widely available PCI Express controllers. It's simple to create a Gigabit Ethernet, or FireWire, or eSATA adapters using existing device PCI Express drivers.

Originally Posted by AppleInsider


The new standard is not backwardly compatible with USB 3.0, and Thunderbolt ports can't be added to existing PCs via an expansion card; Intel says the only way to have it is to buy a system or logic board that incorporates the new Thunderbolt controller chip. That's because the Thunderbolt chip needs direct access to both the system's video and PCI Express architecture.

Originally Posted by dagamer34

Um... this is bad reporting. "One year head start" != exclusive. The difference is this: if it was the latter, I couldn't ask Intel for the support this year even if I paid them. The former just says that Apple had all the design documents before any other manufacturer did, but if they can hurry up with new products, Intel would be happy to let them release them.

Originally Posted by Archos

Exclusive means restricted or available to a limited set. While you might think it means "a contract saying only one group can get it," the fact that Apple will be the only one offering it for the next year does indeed make it exclusive.

The fact that you'd make a production about a word and try to drum it up as "bad reporting" just makes you an asshole.

Originally Posted by SwissMac2

As for "will it work with my Mac Pro/PC whatever?" Did nobody read the bit that says it will only work if you buy a motherboard with it on?

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil

Guess Apple won't be showing us an iPad at the iPad event in six days, then.

Originally Posted by nikon133

And it failed because it didn't manage to spread through the rest of the market - non-Apple part.

I don't know if and how much better this Thunderbolt is compared to USB3... but it is missing one thing USB has, and that is backward compatibility with USB2. Moving to USB3 is no brainer for manufacturers - everything will work.

Originally Posted by majortom1981

This allows one port for EVERYTHING. Devices connected to it look to the pc as if they are connected to pcie or as a display port. You can plug in a usb device to it with the right cord even an ethernet adapter.

This is the exact kind of things laptops and netbooks needed.

Originally Posted by majortom1981

The sandybridge bug effects the sata 2 ports on sandybridge motherboards. The first two sata ports are sata 3. So on a laptop this is not a problem .Usually the hdd is one sata port and the dvd drive is the other. on sandybridge this would be the 2 sata 3 ports which are not effected.

Originally Posted by sippincider

Awesome! Now what can I plug it into, today?

Sometimes Steve skates a little too far ahead of the puck.

Originally Posted by extremeskater

Not a chance.

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil

Fiber's 100Gbps and no power.
Copper's 10Gbps and power.

They'll both have their uses.

Originally Posted by Sacto Joe

Amazing that some posters think this is bad news for Apple! Oh, that's right; we get lots of PC fanatics that post here....

\

Originally Posted by Apple ][

Me too, Firewire is far better than USB 2.

Specs sometimes lie. Even though USB 2.0 is supposed to be rated at 480 and the original Firewire is rated at a lower 400, the Firewire beats the USB 2.0 in real life usage, such as when using external drives. Firewire (400) has better sustained throughput and is faster than USB 2.0.

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

I think they'll start adding Thunderbolt to all of their products, which would ensure wide adoption. Think about it. iPhone 4, next iPods, all computers going forward, iPads. Come on!

Originally Posted by majortom1981

NO the part that converts optical to electrical will be in every optical lightpeak cable. Right now when you say run fiber that part is in the adapter. With lightpeak it will be in the cable itself. This way a lightpeak optical cable can plug into todays lightpeak ports .

Originally Posted by JeffDM

How much power is the tiny copper jack going to offer? The big Display Port jack supplies 8W. I can't find mDP power specs, but I would expect it to be smaller, say 4W, roughly what USB offers. There aren't a lot of multi-gigabit speed data devices that can sip power that efficiently. Most bus powered USB devices are very slow.



Still, USB did have the market for the better part of a decade, once USB 2.0 was available, FW400 couldn't hold on to much market beyond professional users and enthusiasts. The acceptance of FW 800 was almost negligible, which was unfortunate because my favorite dual drive enclosure never supported FW 800 with SATA drives. Most video cameras dropped Firewire years ago. I've only heard of one FW "thumb" flash drive, and it was part of a package of diagnostic software for Mac, intended for rescue use. There are three products announced right now, Lacie plans to offer their first Thunderbolt compatible drive in Summer? Promise's device is supposed to be released in Q2, which could be in 5 weeks or 4 months from now.



This is known by the people that pay attention, but it's tough to convince people to go for FW as it does add to the cost of the product and it requires more components and board space to construct, witness Apple's dropping of FW support on their iDevices.



Would it make a difference in sync speed? Last I timed an iPhone sync, it only moved data at about 50Mbps, I don't know if Thunderbolt would make much difference in sync speed.



Are you sure about that? Where do you get that? I'm skeptical that the converter can operate at what meager power that the jack can supply.

Originally Posted by herbapou

That is very very *BAD*

I was going wow the minidisplay port is going to get popular, then boom, exclusivity until 2012. WTF they want to make sure it doesnt work or what?

Apple "control-freak" attitude is going to kill the company some day.

Will iOS devices get Thunderbolt?

As noted above, Thunderbolt relies on PCI Express, the architecture that underpins Macs and most PCs. But iOS devices don’t use a PCI Express architecture, which would presumably make it difficult to simply stick a Thunderbolt port on an iPhone. Plus the dock-connector port on iOS devices provides quite a bit of additional functionality—it’s got 30 connection pins for a reason, after all. Finally, it’s not clear what benefits Thunderbolt would provide that the dock-connector port is missing. We suspect it’s far more likely that Apple will eventually sell an optional Thunderbolt-to-dock-connector cable for charging and syncing.

Originally Posted by addabox

For folks expecting Thunderbolt on upcoming iOS devices, this from an article at Macworld (which does a good job of laying out the specifics and is worth reading in its entirety):

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Docking stations were also listed among the potential applications for the new interconnect, with Intel noting that Thunderbolt can "extend to reach other I/O technologies by using adapters that use widely available PCI Express controllers. It's simple to create a Gigabit Ethernet, or FireWire, or eSATA adapters using existing device PCI Express drivers."

Originally Posted by cmf2

The dock connector is incapable of outputting digital video and data transfers are limited to USB 2.0 speeds. It's in dire need of an update. I'd say they are wrong on this one. The dock connector will last a few more generations for legacy reasons, but I'd expect iOS devices to start including this port as well very soon.

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil

Then you'll have to wait for the fiber implementations. Current Thunderbolt is 10 feet. Fiber Thunderbolt will be 100 meters and 100Gbps, but no power.



We also get Apple fanatics who cheered the rise of FireWire and wept at its death. The same thing is happening here.

Originally Posted by JeffDM

How much power is the tiny copper jack going to offer?

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil

There goes adoption.

How could they be stupid enough to make this thing of beauty into another FireWire?!

Can't be added? Yeah fricking right. How long before someone makes a PCIe Thunderbolt card for Mac Pros? I don't care if those don't do videothat's why my graphics card existsI just want the transfer speed.

Originally Posted by addabox

The shortcomings of the dock connector isn't the point, however. It's simply a fact that Thunderbolt is based off of the PCI Express architecture and iOS does not implement that architecture. Apple could start moving towards such an implementation, but the article is responding to the idea (which is being tossed around this thread) that Apple could just stick a Thunderbolt port on an iPad and do some internal wiring and be good to go. It can't, and it won't be able to without some serious work.

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil

10w, didn't it say? Perfect for charging an iPad and whatnot. Copper Thunderbolt carries 10w, while fiber can't. There was some talk of doing a copper/fiber combo to give the faster implementations power, as well.

Originally Posted by addabox

The shortcomings of the dock connector isn't the point, however. It's simply a fact that Thunderbolt is based off of the PCI Express architecture and iOS does not implement that architecture. Apple could start moving towards such an implementation, but the article is responding to the idea (which is being tossed around this thread) that Apple could just stick a Thunderbolt port on an iPad and do some internal wiring and be good to go. It can't, and it won't be able to without some serious work.

Originally Posted by cycomiko

he was talking osx not ios, but where are your figures for worldwide install base coming from?

Originally Posted by cmf2

Yes, that seems like the only reasonable argument they made in that section, but how long has Apple been working with Intel on Thunderbolt now? It's not like they'd just be starting now if they wanted to add it.

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

Is it possible that that the "serious work" could have begun some time ago -- say, about the time that Apple began the "serious work" on Thunderbolt inclusion in the Mac products?

I guess what I am asking is: Are there physical (power, heat, space, battery, etc.) or cost considerations that prevent it being on the iPad 2 (in particular)?

Or is this, mainly, an engineering consideration? Hardware? Software? Both?

An iPad with Thunderbolt capability would have significant advantages over tablets offered by the competition.

And, it would be very un-Apple-like to not have considered this in its long term planning.