or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple looking to make Thunderbolt and USB ports thinner, more durable
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple looking to make Thunderbolt and USB ports thinner, more durable - Page 2

post #41 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

So you’re saying it’s impossible to use the same physical 30-pin connector design with updated HW to accommodate faster speeds while being backwards compatible?

Oi, just now we were talking about CURRENT hardware being updated for a future Thunderbolt-30 pin cable. Stop changing the goalposts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Why can newer NAND benefit from 6Gbps SATA III over 3Gbps SATA II but newer NAND built right onto the logic board can’t benefit from more than 480Mbps?
I implore you to look at USB 1.0, USB 2.0 and USB 3.0. I then ask you to look at FireWire 800, FireWire 1600 and FireWire 3200 in regards to ports interfaces looking the same but having an increased functionality.



And no, I don't think the flash inside iDevices is as fast as SSD's that costs hundreds or over a thousand dollars, Do YOU? I just ran HD Tune on an iPod Nano (latest gen) for reference sake, and its write speed was 9MB/s (or about 70Mb/s).
post #42 of 56
One more example of what makes Apple different in the best ways. While others are content to bolt on whatever off-the-shelf components are standard, Apple never ceases to find ways to improve the details. Even if you find this a nit-picky example, remember that it is indicative of Apple's entire approach. The fact that they are this careful and detail oriented about relatively peripheral aspects of their products indicates the care they devote to the core parts.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #43 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by tipoo View Post

Oi, just now we were talking about CURRENT hardware being updated for a future Thunderbolt-30 pin cable. Stop changing the goalposts.

You’re not making any sense.

Quote:
And no, I don't think the flash inside iDevices is as fast as SSD's that costs hundreds or over a thousand dollars, Do YOU? I just ran HD Tune on an iPod Nano (latest gen) for reference sake, and its write speed was 9MB/s.

Where is your proof that Apple’s iDevice NAND is so slow that it couldn’t benefit from faster than USB 2.0 speeds? Where is your proof that a single 16GB or 32GB MLC chip in an SSD is "hundreds or over a thousand dollars”? What does the iPod Nano’s overall write speed have to do with the maximum write speed offered by a faster connecting type or from faster NAND that isn’t bought for a $150 PMP?

You’re not thinking this through. You’re making wild assumptions based on limited data and applying them as fact across the board. That’s not logical.

I see no reason why Apple wouldn’t want to include Thudnerbolt syncing and charging into their future iDevices. It offers too many benefits with little downside. In fact the only downsides I can think of is the size of the chip and the possibility that a new Dock Connector standard may have to be made in order to accommodate additional pins that the current 30-pin connector can’t handle.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #44 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Where is your proof that Apple’s iDevice NAND is so slow that it couldn’t benefit from faster than USB 2.0 speeds? Where is your proof that a single 16GB or 32GB MLC chip in an SSD is "hundreds or over a thousand dollars”? What does the iPod Nano’s overall write speed have to do with the maximum write speed offered by a faster connecting type or from faster NAND that isn’t bought for a $150 PMP?

You’re nothing this through. You’re making wild assumptions based on limited data and applying them as fact across the board. That’s not logical.


Coming from the guy who thinks a single MLC chip can max out the speed of USB 2.0? THAT'S not logical. SSD's speed comes from mass parallelism. Again, unless you can show me a cheap single or double chip flash module that can max out USB 2.0 speeds, your point is ridiculous. I showed you the write speed of a current iDevice, and its nowhere near SSD levels.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

You’re not making any sense.



Good grief, the whole last page we were talking about current devices being updated for a Thunderbolt to 30 pin connector port, is that clear enough for you? . You seem to accuse anyone you disagree with of not making sense. In case your memory is foggy, I'll remind you what started me talking about it being pointless to make older devices compatible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by res1233 View Post

The pin config can, as far as i know, be changed with a software update, and so, they could add thunderbolt to either unused pins, or repurpose those FireWire pins that most people don't use anymore.

Get it now? I was not talking about future devices. And if you don't mind, we've been circle-derping too long for my liking, if you don't see my point thats fine.
post #45 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Your post makes no sense. Would you mind clearing it up and organizing your thoughts better before I rip it apart?

?!? Perhaps you just need a common frame of reference. "Dock Connector" = the thing on business-oriented PC laptops that allow dumb users to quickly disconnect everything from their laptops without unplugging individual cables. A "dock" is otherwise known as a "port replicator", a device that plugs into the laptop's dock connector and uses that to channel I/O to ports on the replicator, typically Ethernet, Display, Power and in this day and age USB (rather than catering to the old fashioned PS/2, Serial and Parallel folk).

You plug all your cabling, monitor and power adapter into the "dock" and then position your laptop just so, press down so it makes positive contact, and voila your laptop is connected to your devices and network without having to manually insert cabling all the time. People have been bugging Apple to offer this forever, and the closest Apple's gotten so far is to reduce the number of cables to plug in to three - power, display, and a USB - which all come from the monitor. Of course, then you need your Ethernet cable, so there's actually four cables to plug in.

Dumb users don't like to deal with plugging and unplugging individual cables when they need to connect their laptops in the morning or disconnect to go home. Unless you think ahead, and secure your cables somehow, they can separate off, fall behind the desk, and just generally be a pain in the butt. IT folk prefer docks as the cables tend to survive longer, tho docks are known to fail too, causing all sorts of odd errors.

Thunderbolt looks like a potential dock connector, reducing the cable count to three - TB, power, and Ethernet.
post #46 of 56
I took the previous use of dock connector to be referring to Apple's 30 pin iDevice format, not some generic laptop dock scheme.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #47 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by revilre View Post

Folks, stop getting your panties in a bunch. These aren't new USB connectors for cables. These are just the manufacturing process for the ports on the computer to make them more durable, thinner within the case, and more attractive. Its still an improvement to how the connectors are built so they don't have big gaps, collect turn, look like chunks of silver in the side of a case, have a weak easily broken plastic surround, etc.

No new form factor is even being discussed. Every USB device in existence would still plug into these new port designs. They are just making a better spoon, not a spork.

They didn't read the article fully. When they say Apple is looking to make the ports smaller they freaked, not knowing AI meant the overall footprint in the computer not the format. Standard size USB, but in a more efficient implementation that will take less space on the inside & be more durable.

Apple loves to take old technology & show how with just a little effort it could have been done a whole lot better, it's their way of poking fun at the competition & making them appear lazy in the eyes of the end user.
post #48 of 56
All the nervous nellies here need to realize that all this patent really amounts to is replacing the USB socket housing with the shell of the device in question. How this obvious idea is patentable is beyond me.
post #49 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by tipoo View Post

Get it now? I was not talking about future devices. And if you don't mind, we've been circle-derping too long for my liking, if you don't see my point thats fine.

I think you're confused, i didn't say anything to call for that kind of response, others have however.
post #50 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by tipoo View Post

Coming from the guy who thinks a single MLC chip can max out the speed of USB 2.0? THAT'S not logical. SSD's speed comes from mass parallelism. Again, unless you can show me a cheap single or double chip flash module that can max out USB 2.0 speeds, your point is ridiculous. I showed you the write speed of a current iDevice, and its nowhere near SSD levels.





Good grief, the whole last page we were talking about current devices being updated for a Thunderbolt to 30 pin connector port, is that clear enough for you? . You seem to accuse anyone you disagree with of not making sense. In case your memory is foggy, I'll remind you what started me talking about it being pointless to make older devices compatible.



Get it now? I was not talking about future devices. And if you don't mind, we've been circle-derping too long for my liking, if you don't see my point thats fine.

Sorry, I don't get it either, so use small words and explain why I would even want to talk about mod'ing / updating existing idevices to TB. Give a detailed example. Draw me a picture.

As for the USB write speeds, no you are not clear either. If you are saying that an ipod or whatever transfer speed is limited by the SSD, and not the processor bus, cache or any other number of data transfer bottle necks etc, Sol was looking for technical proof. Where is the technical break down of the data flow from memory to cache to processor to usb bus etc show the potential speeds and the SSD is the limiting factor?
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
post #51 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by res1233 View Post

I think you're confused, i didn't say anything to call for that kind of response, others have however.

I wasn't replying to you, just showing how the discussion started to the other guy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boeyc15 View Post

Sorry, I don't get it either, so use small words and explain why I would even want to talk about mod'ing / updating existing idevices to TB. Give a detailed example. Draw me a picture.

I didn't say you would want to, thats just what the discussion was on the last page.

Quote:
If you are saying that an ipod or whatever transfer speed is limited by the SSD, and not the processor bus, cache or any other number of data transfer bottle necks etc, Sol was looking for technical proof. Where is the technical break down of the data flow from memory to cache to processor to usb bus etc show the potential speeds and the SSD is the limiting factor?

Whatever the bottleneck is, it shows that USB 2.0 isn't even close to being fully saturated by iPods. They would have to improve its transfer speed many fold just to saturate USB 2.0 fully. Especially for older devices, as again, the discussion was whether they would make Thunderbolt to 30 pin cables and update the software for compatibility (which I doubt is even possible, but whatever). My whole point was that it won't make things magically faster. Even with new devices, it would be a long time before USB 2 was saturated by iDevices.
post #52 of 56
I think Ethernet is the biggest munter of the I/O ports on a Mac these days.
post #53 of 56
I can no longer look at these Apple patent drawings without thinking of Aperture Science. Can't wait till Apple makes a MacBook Air purely out of "hard light".
post #54 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by tipoo View Post

Whatever the bottleneck is, it shows that USB 2.0 isn't even close to being fully saturated by iPods. They would have to improve its transfer speed many fold just to saturate USB 2.0 fully. Especially for older devices, as again, the discussion was whether they would make Thunderbolt to 30 pin cables and update the software for compatibility (which I doubt is even possible, but whatever). My whole point was that it won't make things magically faster. Even with new devices, it would be a long time before USB 2 was saturated by iDevices.

That's what I got from the very first post about speed. Syncing iDevices has always been painfully slow compared with copying files to a cheap USB flash drive. That told me that iDevices either have slow flash, hardware that's not optimized for data transfer, bad syncing software or a combination of all three.

It could be 5-10 years before an iDevice will be able to use more than 480MBPS and it could take longer than that for USB ports to disappear from computers so Apple will have to find other reasons to change their iDevice interface to include Thunderbolt.
post #55 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

Quoting part of the original article because apparently people have trouble reading it before clicking reply.

They aren't talking about adapters, they are talking about changing port designs so they can be smaller when they are not in use, but still accepting industry standard plugs. Other parts of the article talk about using rounded components within the port to reduce the wear and tear on the plug from repeated insertions, or having the ports made of the same material as the case. In all scenarios, there no discussion of a new plug, just new ports for accepting the existing plugs.

I can understand using rounded components within the port to reduce wear and tear on the plug, but I still cannot get my head around how a port that expands to accept a standard sized connector result in creating thinner machines like the MBA. If it anyway accepts the standard size, how will an expanding port which remains closed when not in use make it possible for a thinner machine?

EDIT: Never mind - I read the initial part "Apple could also make the ports thinner by removing portions of the USB shell along one or more sides. ", so I guess that is how it will be done.
post #56 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruckerz View Post

This comes as I pay $30 for yet another display adapter to plug my mini/macbook/imac into a standard DVI monitor.

Every hardware refresh, different style ports/new adapter cables to do the same thing as the previous generation did. All for the sake of aesthetics.

Apple's design choices are not driven solely by aesthetic considerations. But often the result is pretty and clean. Case in point: Unibody construction. Milling the body of the MBP/MBA line out of a solid block of aluminum makes it look nicer than bits that are bolted together, but more importantly, the body is much stronger than if it were sheets of aluminum (or worse, plastic) stamped into a laptop shape and then screwed together. Each time metal is bent, it is weaker at the bent areas. My 13" MacBook feels just as tank-durable as it did when I got it two years ago. No warping or twisting or creaking.

Developing ports that will allow MBP/MBAs to be even thinner and lighter is time and energy well-spent. Making them more durable is even more significant--USB ports especially get A LOT of mileage. I've already lost one USB port on my old 17" Powerbook G4 (built in the "stamped/molded aluminum" era!)

I think it's pretty great that Apple is this detail-oriented.
"Don't be a dick!"Wil Wheaton
Reply
"Don't be a dick!"Wil Wheaton
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple looking to make Thunderbolt and USB ports thinner, more durable