Insiders believe Thunderbolt from Intel, Apple will 'greatly affect' USB 3.0 - Page 2

Isn’t TB 10Gbps in each direction while USB3.0 is 5Gbps total (theoretical speeds for both)?

Sorry but I ain't the only person noticing the insincere concern and thinly disguised Apple-bashing in your comment. Oh, so you love Apple products? But you're worried that they "cost more" and that Apple isn't "open more" and that they're "less than nice and cuddly"?

Well I have a solution for you. Get an Android phone and tablet. Android is way more open than either Mac OS X or iOS.

Oh wait. Never mind about Android being open. Things change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concern...#Concern_troll

Yes, a lot of power actually. Enough to power external hard drives beyond the 2.5" portables you see today.

This part of your trolling rant is very much true. There have been 100s of millions of people worldwide who switched or upgraded to Apple's "close" ecosystem since Apple integrated and simplified the "mean" Apple computing experience, and left out the hackers, exploiters, and malware ease of Windows and Android.

I feel my investment in Apple products are quite secure and safe with Apple as the gatekeeper. I wouldn't trust Google or any other non Apple partner with that experience.

I think there is a lot of confusion here.

Thunderbolt has a port, based on the Mini DisplayPort developed by Apple.

However, Thunderbolt can support many different protocols: Ethernet, HDMI, FireWire, USB 2/3, etc...

YES, you will see mice, keyboards, thumb drives and other low-speed accessories that have a cable with a Thunderbolt end on them. They will be USB over Thunderbolt devices.

YES, you will also see Thunderbolt hubs which will be like mini-docks. They will have a bunch of different ports, USB, HDMI, FireWire, etc... or combinations thereof for legacy devices.

YES, there will be Thunderbolt adapters. These will be cheap, plastic adapters that people may end up leaving in place.

YES, there will be cable adapters. Cables with Ethernet, HDMI, FireWire, USB, etc... on one end, and then Thunderbolt on the other.

YES, Thunderbolt will cost less, make things easier, and save space. PC vendors can consolidate on Thunderbolt and save money, space, components, and complexity by avoiding having to support a ton of legacy ports. The drive to do this will be significant, especially by Apple who *lives* for this kind of less being more kind of stuff.

YES, Thunderbolt truly is one port to rule them all.

This is very different from FireWire versus USB. This is a very good thing. I can't think of one bad thing to say about Thunderbolt.

They are nearing 200 million iOS/CocoaTouch-based devices having been sold.

•

http://www.asymco.com/2011/04/19/rev...r-to-earnings/ According to ComScore the iOS/CocoaTouch platform outnumbers Android by 59%.

•

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2011/04/...roid/?mod=e2tw

• It’ll likely be more costly than USB to implement for some time to come making it less than ideal for cheaper peripherals.
• You’ll need an adapter to run your perviously purchased USB peripherals.
• Peripherals wanting to use TB will need more expensive HW and will be sold at a premium because of the performance benefits.
• It can’t use a hub, requires a daisy chain with the display at the end (though I’m guessing you can use a hub of sorts if you don’t have to terminate the other items in the chain like with ye ol’ BNC) v. 5 hubs with USB.
• You can only connect 6 devices v 127 with USB.
• You only have a 3 meter maximum v. 5 meter with USB.

I agree that TB is a good thing, but I like to be thorough.

thunderbolt has the potential to be huge...far beyond what firewire has accomplished.

1) TB can carry multiple protocols simultaneously so it can be a truly universal connector for everything from monitors to printers

2) TB is starting at 10Gb/sec but intel expects this to scale up to 100Gb/sec within the next decade. Even if it only scales to 50Gb/sec, that's a 500% speed increase over its initial spec and that's pretty amazing

3) the initial rollout of TB is copper-based, but future versions will be optical...which means not only will it be fast, but you'll be able to use long runs of it without incident.

one cable, all protocols, long runs and blistering speed. as a total package, that impresses me far more than USB3 which, let's face it...is only a faster version of what we already have.

Thunderbolt doesn't support many protocol like we intend. While the port from Apple support 2 signal type (DisplayPort and ThunderBolt) on 2 separated channel, the Thunderbolt only transport PCI-E packet, but since all other port on a computer is connect thru a PCI controller, you can pretty much connect anything on ThunderBolt. They really should have call it ePCI-E 4x because it's really what it is.


You will unlikely see low-speed accessories on Thunderbolt since every Thunderbolt device need the proprietary Intel Thunderbold-PCI bridge and need a PCI to USB controller after that inside the device, it's just too expensive for those type of device.


I agree with you on this one. I'm pretty sure that should be the first use of Thunderbolt within a device by Apple. I'm pretty sure Apple will add some port on his next external display.


I don't know what will be the minimum cost for Thunderbolt device, since the technology is proprietary to Intel, and Intel already publicly announce they will be no licensing program for other to make compatible controller. The only way to make a Thunderbolt device is to include a Intel Thunderbolt controller in it. No word on how much Intel charge per controller, but keep in mind you need one in each Thunderbolt device.


Thunderbolt cannot cost less than USB device since Intel will have the monopole on Thunderbolt controller

YES, Thunderbolt truly is one port to rule them all.


In very excited about Thunderbolt, It enable motherboard system bus speed to communicate outside of the computer. Thunderbolt can kill the need of tower with lots of internal expansion, think about a Macbook air connect on a FiberChannel SAN thru Thunderbolt. The only downside is the technology will remain in Intel control, and everyone will need to buy controller from them, they can charge the price they want.

As I understood TB, there has to be a specialized Intel chip within the peripheral device to translate the TB data for the peripheral. Is that true, and would that consume too much space in an iOS device? How would it connect to an ARM SoC?

Does anyone know?

Update: "Unlike USB, to redirect PCI to other (virtual) machines, device specific solutions are required."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunder...interface)#PCI

Intel isn't adding TB until Ivy Bridge ships some time in 2012. Dave was arguing that USB 3.0 will be included on virtually every PC this year and is already available on a significant number today.

I believe TB will eventually succeed in the marketplace where FireWire faltered, but there won't be a significant number of non-Macs sporting a TB port until 2013 so it only makes sense for peripheral manufacturers to ship USB 3.0 devices now.

Perhaps USB can return to the role it was originally best suited for, lower speed i/o devices. USB 1.0 was great for mice, keyboard, printers, scanners and the like. It took USB 2.0 to handle disk. Firewire was always better for external disk based solutions like audio and video, but USB 2.0 won out, for a variety of reasons.

Thunderbolt encapsulates the high bandwidth needs, HDMI video and eSATA disk, with bandwidth to spare. Even if we don't need the bandwidth, the minimal real estate the plug takes on the side of a computer may be enough to sell the idea. Video producers love it, but the question remains, can Thunderbolt prove to be more popular than USB 3.0 adoption? It's firewire vs USB 2.0 all over again. Sounds like Intel is hedging its bets and supporting both, for the moment. May the best interface win.

dont be a fag

video producers love it - where's the proof. If you find me any quotes there better be no connection between that "producer" and Apple otherwise they are being paid. Video producers like tried and true technology - just FYI

Apples introduction of USB was different to TB.
USB was designed to connect multiple peripherals with ease, and also not needing a driver in most cases. TB otoh, is firewire, its faster, can be daisy chained. but for the average consumer, they wont care for this, as many stuck to USB. Photographers/editors bought into it as you would with the promised speed.

I suppose the deep mac fans will go all out, the consumers who just have to have the latest and best to brag about it will go all out & lastly companies that rely on transfer speeds in the multimedia/ data storage industry.

I look forward to seeing it in action, but wont be buying into it immediately, I will wait to see how it takes off over the next 2 years. usb3 for me for now, well when apple begins to support it

I'm not so sure the average consumer won't buy into it. As soon as they realize their data backups, transferring their hugh itunes and iphoto libraries will take seconds as opposed to hours, my guess is they'll be demanding it.

It's not a matter of hating but of cost-benefit.

Blu-ray has buckets loads of DRM which would require recoding of the OS at very deep levels to support and given that most monitors don't allow people to really tell the difference what's the point?

Flash is a bloated format that on the Mac is a CPU hogging pig with HTML5 poised to fill the gab with far less CPU consumption.

But TB only has display port 1.1 and is tied on board / on board add in GPU's.

Now how will it tie into pci-e based added in video cards and not even that new video cards have display port 1.2 / 1.3 that has more bandwidth then TB port has.