or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Intel unveils 10-gigabit Ethernet Thunderbolt Networking coming to Macs, PCs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Intel unveils 10-gigabit Ethernet Thunderbolt Networking coming to Macs, PCs - Page 2

post #41 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by polymnia View Post
 

 

You may have had other issues with your existing cabling. Certain miswirings will allow for slower mbps speeds.

 

It is true that Cat5 cable is capable of supporting 1000mbps in certain circumstances. I have this in my own home network. When I first began wiring my home 10 years ago, Cat5 was the standard. As I have upgraded Macs and Switches, my connections have automatically taken advantage of Gigabit speed.

 

I'm expecting that with my short cable runs it may be possible to reach 10gbps once I have a Mac and Switch capable of those speeds.

 

The thing is, the number of conductors and the fact that they are arranged in twisted pairs hasn't changed since Cat5 at least. So the speed is something the networking hardware negotiates upon establishing link using only the electrical characteristics the networking hardware can quantify. If both ends determine they can send and receive a certain speed over a given connection, they will settle on that speed regardless of the cable's rating.

 

It is even possible that a wiring fault or poor quality installation could reduce a Cat6 cable to 100mbps or 1000mbps on a 10gbps hardware network.

 

What's weird is I had a NetGear 1Gb Hub with cable sense.  I had the 5 cables connected that my bro did for me and the Hub was negotiating them at the 100 BaseT (I didn't know at the time), the lights were saying they were 100 BaseT.  Then I went and had to buy 1 additional cable and I plugged it in and the light changed, at the time I didn't even know the Hub had different color lighting to sense the cable bandwidth.  I said why is this a different color from the other ports.  Then I said Mother Effer, those cables my bro got weren't Cat6, and the new one I got was Cat6, and the Hub lights were sensing the difference.  So I ordered from Monoprice all new Cat6 cable, and all the lights lit up signifying 1Gb.  The only thing I can think of is my Brother must have gotten me Cat4... No he got me Cat5, I think you are thinking Cat5e which supports 1Gb...

 

Here is a chart I found:

 

http://www.howtogeek.com/70494/what-kind-of-ethernet-cat-5e6a-cable-should-i-use/

 

Laters...

Adobe Systems - "Preventing the Case-Sensitive revolution everyday..."
Reply
Adobe Systems - "Preventing the Case-Sensitive revolution everyday..."
Reply
post #42 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetCanadaV2 View Post
 

It would be interesting to do a cost comparison between Thunderbolt 2 and Cat6A network wiring assuming a Thunderbolt 10G network switch will be released sometime in the future. One thing to consider is you would have to buy a Cat6A 10G NIC card for the computer vs having Thunderbolt built-in every mac computer.

 

If there ever is a Thunderbolt Switch, there will certainly be 10GbE adaptors built-in or available for Macs. These are already available as Thunderbolt Breakout Boxes, which is cost prohibitive and clunky for most applications now. But the next iteration of the tech will certainly be miniaturized. I expect we will see network adaptor dongle available in 10GbE sometime soon.

 

At that time, the Cat6 network would be much more cost effective.

 

I believe the Cat6 network will be the way to go as Macs receive the ability to easily connect to such networks via 10GbE hardware.

nothing to see here

Reply

nothing to see here

Reply
post #43 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post
 
 After Apple found success with it, Microsoft came out with a revision to 98 that fixed most, but not all, of the problems with USB.

USB keyboards still don't work completely on Windows or Linux because unlike Macs the USB driver loads after the bios which means you cannot access the bios, and unfortunately that is necessary more often than it should be with Windows. I have to keep an old serial keyboard around just to interrupt the boot to get to the bios. Those keyboards are difficult to find in a computer store, although I would imagine they are still available online. I always thought it was crazy for our data center to provide monitor/mouse/keyboard carts so you could work on your servers, but they were USB which prevented you from accessing the bios which is often something you needed to do, otherwise you probably wouldn't even need to be at the colo.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #44 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by polymnia View Post

If there ever is a Thunderbolt Switch, there will certainly be 10GbE adaptors built-in or available for Macs. These are already available as Thunderbolt Breakout Boxes, which is cost prohibitive and clunky for most applications now. But the next iteration of the tech will certainly be miniaturized. I expect we will see network adaptor dongle available in 10GbE sometime soon.

At that time, the Cat6 network would be much more cost effective.

I believe the Cat6 network will be the way to go as Macs receive the ability to easily connect to such networks via 10GbE hardware.

I'm not sure why we're using terms like "Cat6" network. That category rating of the cable in no way infers what the speed of the network is, only the max speed it can be but even that isn't enough information as the length of the cable is important. For example, the previously noted rating that Cat5e cables are rated for 10Gib/s up to 45 meters.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #45 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by rezwits View Post
 

 

What's weird is I had a NetGear 1Gb Hub with cable sense.  I had the 5 cables connected that my bro did for me and the Hub was negotiating them at the 100 BaseT (I didn't know at the time), the lights were saying they were 100 BaseT.  Then I went and had to buy 1 additional cable and I plugged it in and the light changed, at the time I didn't even know the Hub had different color lighting to sense the cable bandwidth.  I said why is this a different color from the other ports.  Then I said Mother Effer, those cables my bro got weren't Cat6, and the new one I got was Cat6, and the Hub lights were sensing the difference.  So I ordered from Monoprice all new Cat6 cable, and all the lights lit up signifying 1Gb.  The only thing I can think of is my Brother must have gotten me Cat4... No he got me Cat5, I think you are thinking Cat5e which supports 1Gb...

 

Here is a chart I found:

 

http://www.howtogeek.com/70494/what-kind-of-ethernet-cat-5e6a-cable-should-i-use/

 

Laters...

 

That is your experience. And it in no way contradicts what I said. The Cat Rating just means the cable meets particular electrical specifications. The sending and receiving units have their own signaling technology that can help transmit at a higher data rate than the cabling rating might initially suggest.

 

All that said, moving to higher grade cable is exactly what should be done if you are not getting the rated speed your hardware should be capable of.

 

But sometimes you can get lucky and a sub-standard cable will connect at a higher rate.

 

I wouldn't suggest intentionally installing older cable, but if you have older cable installed it is quite possible to get more performance out of it in some cases.

 

In my own case, I installed a couple runs of Cat6 to important points in the house before finishing my basement and losing easy wiring access forever.

nothing to see here

Reply

nothing to see here

Reply
post #46 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I'm not sure why we're using terms like "Cat6" network. That category rating of the cable in no way infers what the speed of the network is, only the max speed it can be but even that isn't enough information as the length of the cable is important. For example, the previously noted rating that Cat5e cables are rated for 10Gib/s up to 45 meters.

 

I thought I was being careful in separating the physical network characteristics from the data rates being transmitted over it in my comets.

 

When I say Cat6 network, I am referring the the physical installation being Cat6 rated.

 

I don't see a good way to describe the speed of a physical network in any objective way. If signaling tech improves, which it has as long as we have built networks, the speed of that network will change without necessarily modifying anything in its physical infrastructure.

 

Networks are rated by category describing the electrical characteristics.

 

Speed is dependent on what signaling equipment is attached to the ends of the network.

 

At least that's the way I look at it. I'm no data com professional, I just play around at my home and my girlfriend's store.

nothing to see here

Reply

nothing to see here

Reply
post #47 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Watch the BYOPC crowd collectively yawn at this while they trumpet the benefits of USB 3.0, because Thunderbolt will be forever stigmatized as an "Apple proprietary technology".

 

I'm not a BYOPC'er anymore, but even I have made choices that eschew TB in favour of USB 3. The reasons: cost, ubiquity and good-enoughness.

 

USB 3 carries data from my RAID faster than the drives can deliver it and it cost hundreds of dollars less than its Thunderbolt equivalent. My little USB3 pocket drive gave me twice as much capacity per dollar as I could get with Thunderbolt, probably due at least partly to the dearth of TB options in that product category, plus I can plug that drive into any computer anywhere since USB3 is backwards compatible.

 

Of course USB3 is slower than Thunderbolt. Of course USB3 requires system overhead that Thunderbolt doesn't. The point is that those issues only matter in the context of data streams that push the limit of what the protocol can carry. Few connections in most people's lives come anywhere near tapping the capacity of USB3, so the advantages of Thunderbolt become purely theoretical. Given the much broader availability of USB and its lower cost, for me , choosing it over Thunderbolt where possible is a no brainer.

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply
post #48 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post
 
So yeah, rewrite history as you see fit. Make the PC the star of the show.

 

Wow. The "yer either with us or agin' us" sentiment runs deep around here, doesn't it? Relax, it's just a forum. Nobody dies.

 

If my suppliers at the time had done what Apple did -- replace very connector on the machine with a new one -- I might have been annoyed. I'd have to buy new mice, keyboards, scanners and printers. Adding USB while retaining legacy stuff for a few years was a nice respectful way of handling the transition.

 

So it's not about making one platform or the other the "star," it's about alternative forms of transition. Specifically, the right way versus the Apple way. :lol:

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply
post #49 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Apple bet the farm on USB, replacing the proprietary ADB, RS-232, and even floppy and SCSI ports found on older Macs, way back in 1998 when the first Bondi blue iMac shipped. And Mac OS X had full driver support for all standard USB devices classes (HID, sound devices, printers, etc).
People forget their history rather quickly. Apple did indeed blaze trails with USB, something that still works like crap on Windows hardware.
Quote:
Meanwhile, PCs were still shipping with legacy PS2 mouse and parallel printer ports.
You mean "are" above, many PCs still ship with PS/2 ports.
Quote:
So yeah, rewrite history as you see fit. Make the PC the star of the show.

EDIT: year of first iMac was 1998, not 2001. And yes, Apple was criticized for adopting USB back then.

I didn't see a lot of criticism of Apple. Generally a lot of hate was directed at USB due to the high overhead and people not grasping the interfaces good points. MicroSoft on the other hand took years to do USB even half right. The rather long gestation on Windows really stunted USBs growth in those early years.
post #50 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

I use TB in target-mode when copying 20GB files between macs. I got spoiled doing this. Doing it via Ethernet would be great! I'd love to have Apple incorporated this into Time Capsule.

Of course, the Thunderbolt haters are remaining very quiet right now. Whiners.

 

I guess you haven't been to this news item on Engadget then? The hate is alive and well my friend :)

 

Any technical progress Apple is involved in is by definition evil and everything else is just a generous gift to Humanity. Thats basically the narrative I guess...

post #51 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

People forget their history rather quickly. Apple did indeed blaze trails with USB, something that still works like crap on Windows hardware.

Which is interesting because on the tests I've seen USB on Windows seems to have a faster throughput rate than on Mac OS X.

Quote:
"The Windows PC implementation of USB 2.0 puts the Mac to shame."

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #52 of 66
Something to look forward to for a couple years from now, when i have replaced my rMBP with something that has TB2. Me computers are still too slow from time 2 time.
post #53 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Which is interesting because on the tests I've seen USB on Windows seems to have a faster throughput rate than on Mac OS X.

There is more to good behavior than just raw speed. If you have ever had to deal with a Windows machine that reassigns virtual com ports on you for no obvious reason you will have a different definition of what is good. Compared to the Windows networking stack, USB on Windows is pretty unreliable. Worst is the drivers for many USB devices which are often terrible.

USB on a Mac isn't perfect but it seems to be far more reliable. Maybe Apple is just lucky fewer fly by night hardware vendors play in their sand pile.

As to barefeats that referenced article is from 2004. There have been improvements since then. How good those improvements are I can not say. It would be interesting to see the same tests ran under Mavericks. On one of my old machines, that needs a computer nurse, I've been running Mavericks of a USB drive and frankly it performs decently that way. It by no means would keep up with a modern PCI Express based machine but it isn't terrible compared to the original drive. Given that I can't say for sure how good or bad the current drivers are.
Edited by wizard69 - 4/7/14 at 4:16pm
post #54 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


People forget their history rather quickly. Apple did indeed blaze trails with USB, something that still works like crap on Windows hardware.
 

Boy ain't that the truth. It STUNS me how bad Windows still is with anything USB. It's embarrassing 

post #55 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

There is more to good behavior than just raw speed. If you have ever had to deal with a Windows machine that reassigns virtual com ports on you for no obvious reason you will have a different definition of what is good. Compared to the Windows networking stack, USB on Windows is pretty unreliable. Worst is the drivers for many USB devices which are often terrible.

USB on a Mac isn't perfect but it seems to be far more reliable. Maybe Apple is just lucky fewer fly by night hardware vendors play in their sand pile.

As to barefeats that referenced article is from 2004. There have been improvements since then. How good those improvements are I can not say. It would be interesting to see the same tests ran under Mavericks. On one of my old machines, that needs a computer nurse, I've been running Mavericks of a USB drive and frankly it performs decently that way. It by no means would keep up with a modern PCI Express based machine but it isn't terrible compared to the original drive. Given that I can't say for sure how good or bad the current drivers are.

I always assumed it was driver issues and not anything wrong with Windows per say.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #56 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

“But no one will adopt Thunderbolt!”

 

Is it possible there are already more Thunderbolt devices in existence now than there are Cat7 devices?

I'm not sure, although utilization is another important point. In terms of the notebooks it became much more useful on the rmbp models than the older ones. In many cases daisy chaining isn't an option, so having one port tied to any high bandwidth operation isn't that great. It's especially the case if you ever have to hook up to a larger display. This may be 3 years past launch, but it could be very interesting, especially if 10G hardware comes down in price.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I always assumed it was driver issues and not anything wrong with Windows per say.


I blame the issue of writing driver code in a 2 am caffeine frenzy:D.

post #57 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz View Post
 

 

 Adding USB while retaining legacy stuff for a few years was a nice respectful way of handling the transition.

 

 

 

This mindset is why we still see new release laptops with VGA ports. I prefer the Apple way, even if I have to make do with cable adapters for a little while.

"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #58 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post
 
This mindset is why we still see new release laptops with VGA ports.

 

I said a few years, not decades! :)

 

There is a world of middle ground between manufacturers being as silly as you describe above and the disruptive all-or-nothing Apple approach.

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply
post #59 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post
 

 

This mindset is why we still see new release laptops with VGA ports. I prefer the Apple way, even if I have to make do with cable adapters for a little while.


No it isn't. VGA ports stuck around on specific notebooks due to projectors and their replacement costs (more than you probably think). HDMI didn't become somewhat common until more recently, and I don't recall dvi every being dominant there. I can probably guess why most of them migrated to HDMI rather than displayport. Anyway at least attempt to be accurate.

post #60 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post
 


No it isn't. VGA ports stuck around on specific notebooks due to projectors and their replacement costs (more than you probably think). HDMI didn't become somewhat common until more recently, and I don't recall dvi every being dominant there. I can probably guess why most of them migrated to HDMI rather than displayport. Anyway at least attempt to be accurate.

I disagree - there's nothing that -compels- PC manufacturers to support VGA directly on their hardware. You don't need to replace working projectors, simply support them via adapters. In turn this would push projector manufacturers into using more modern connector technology.

"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #61 of 66
So is this accurate?

Thunderbolt 1 1-gbit Ethernet
Thunderbolt 2 10-gbit Ethernet

Or does the 10-gbit somehow apply to the original Thunderbolt too?
post #62 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post
 

I disagree - there's nothing that -compels- PC manufacturers to support VGA directly on their hardware. You don't need to replace working projectors, simply support them via adapters. In turn this would push projector manufacturers into using more modern connector technology.


I'm not sure if you missed the point that the VGA connectors aren't there to plug in CRTs. Regardless some of the adapters are absolutely terrible. I've had good luck with monoprice cables that have different end connectors. Take a look at the reviews on Apple's adapters. They aren't a highly profitable item. Apple might design the the look of the external plastic shell components, but everything else is obviously sourced and produced as cheaply as possible. I've used them before, and none of mine died, but they frequently came loose. This wouldn't happen on the VGA end of it due to the hardware lock, but these really aren't an ideal solution. There are other problems. Displayport provides the ability to transport VGA signals, but it's not part of the thunderbolt specification. If someone needed to use one, they couldn't via thunderbolt. I think HDMI->VGA might work though.

 

Anyway you also missed the point about projectors. Some of them cost $5-10k, and they lead very long lives. These are not computers that are replaced every couple years, so anything remaining is really to support the older projectors that are still in the wild. You should not blame the oems for supporting what is required of them, especially when they only do so on a subset of their lines. Any of those companies would enjoy dropping the $2 part from their design. Apple didn't have a lot of legacy customers from that era. New ones as I mentioned tend to use things like hdmi, so this is just a sticking point with older stuff.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by libertyforall View Post

So is this accurate?

Thunderbolt 1 1-gbit Ethernet
Thunderbolt 2 10-gbit Ethernet

Or does the 10-gbit somehow apply to the original Thunderbolt too?

 

Thunderbolt 1 should have the bandwidth available. You'll have to wait until we find out what is supported.

post #63 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

Boy ain't that the truth. It STUNS me how bad Windows still is with anything USB. It's embarrassing 

LOL. Don't plug in your device to a different USB port on the hub, because if you do, Windows will search for drivers all over again!

I've also had Windows 7 take literally 5-6 minutes to finish installation of HID devices (using standard HID drivers that were already freakin' built in to Windows). What's more annoying? Windows forgets the device and I have to suffer through the wait again. The device was a Logitech presenter (wireless clicker for PowerPoint), which appears to Windows as a USB keyboard. Why it would have so much goddamn trouble with a name-brand USB "keyboard" is completely beyond me. On my Mac, it just works.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #64 of 66
Ethernet is a protocol. This isn't ethernet emulation; it's ethernet on thunderbolt.
post #65 of 66

That is why Windows stinks!

post #66 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

Thunderbolt 1 should have the bandwidth available. You'll have to wait until we find out what is supported.

Mavericks added this kind of functionality and it was tested here:

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/10/os-x-10-9-brings-fast-but-choppy-thunderbolt-networking/

It showed up as 10Gbps on the Thunderbolt 1 machine. The practical test showed a lot of overhead though and didn't get above 1.6Gbps.

"As Apple actually implemented Thunderbolt networking as Ethernet over Thunderbolt rather than IP over Thunderbolt, it's possible to add other Ethernet and Ethernet-like interfaces (such as Wi-Fi) to the Thunderbolt Bridge: use "manage virtual interfaces" in the little gear menu under the list of interfaces in the network settings.

I had the Pro bridge its Wi-Fi interface to the Air over Thunderbolt, and from the Air's perspective it was just like it was connected to the Wi-Fi network: other computers showed up in the Finder and everything. However, the Pro had a kernel panic and the Air had a hard time copying files or loading web pages. Could be a side effect of the creative take on TSO, or maybe something else is going on."

Maybe Intel's implementation is designed to work out the transfer speeds and stability problems.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Intel unveils 10-gigabit Ethernet Thunderbolt Networking coming to Macs, PCs