The new 15-inch MacBook Pro is still designated Model A1286. Apple has been using that same model number since October 2008.
This points to one of the things that has always seemed so bizarre to me -- the Apple penchant / insistence -- on making it hard to definitively identify Mac models.
I ask my clients what model Mac they have, most times all they can say is if its a MacBook or iMac or mini. They look at it and it only has that name. Hard to find any differentiating data.
(Look at how Apple even publishes its ow Mac specs -- 'late nnnn', 'early 'nnnn' -- to help you identify the machine.)
I have to collect all the processor/speed/memory/profiler info before I have any reasonable idea what machine it really might be.
Apple using one model number for multiple machines over 2.3 years is just dumb.
Sheesh.
While the products are marvelous, some of Apple idiotsyncrasies --i mean idiosyncrasies-- are unfathomable.
'thou shalt be no model numbers on any of my Macs'
This points to one of the things that has always seemed so bizarre to me -- the Apple penchant / insistence -- on making it hard to definitively identify Mac models.
I ask my clients what model Mac they have, most times all they can say is if its a MacBook or iMac or mini. They look at it and it only has that name. Hard to find any differentiating data.
(Look at how Apple even publishes its ow Mac specs -- 'late nnnn', 'early 'nnnn' -- to help you identify the machine.)
I have to collect all the processor/speed/memory/profiler info before I have any reasonable idea what machine it really might be.
Apple using one model number for multiple machines over 2.3 years is just dumb.
Sheesh.
While the products are marvelous, some of Apple idiotsyncrasies --i mean idiosyncrasies-- are unfathomable.
'thou shalt be no model numbers on any of my Macs'
Have you ever bought a car? A 2011 Porsche 911 is a bit different from a 1985 Porsche 911 I suspect. I do NOT want to go back to the bad old days of Mac IIci, Mac IIsi, Mac IIfx, Performa 6120, Performa 6125, Quadra 610, Quadra 700, Quadra 660AV, Centris 610, etc., etc.
now compare that to say HTC which uses the same basic hardware in a new model phone every 2 months with a different name. the android market even sees my new Inspire as a Desire HD.
go to ebay and compare prices of old iphones to android phones. in 18 months no one will remember what the HTC Inspire was and i'll have to pay someone to take it off my hands. meanwhile i can still sell an iphone 3G for US dollars
Totally agree. Also isn't this apples and oranges anyway? As I read it the Thunderbolt is a bus connection not a device connection.
Which means that one could connect an USB controller via TB (or several, each giving you the possibility to connect to 127 USB devices). So it's more like comparing oranges to the trucks delivering the oranges.
The ThunderBolt Chip is possibly made with 65 or even 90nm. Hence its size. Since it is in very low production quantities and at its first incarnation. Once it get shrink to 45nm it should be much smaller.
Agreed, this is probably a first generation chip which will shrink in size or even be incorporated into the next generation of motherboard chipsets just like USB, etc. But if you look at the photo, the actual chip currently is not that large, most of the space is taken up by the substrate it is mounted on which provides the leads to the connections on the motherboard. In the future you may not even see a dedicated chip to provide Thunderbolt.
The new MBPs support jumbo ethernet frames... just like the Macbooks from 2 years ago
Do you know this for a fact? I just set up a NAS and was disappointed to find out my 2010 MacBook Pro has its wing clipped when it comes to Jumbo frames.
I went to the Apple store today to inquire about the 2011 MBPs, but nobody there knew what jumbo frames were, much less if the ethernet controller was capable of enabling their use..
It actually troubles me a bit in the Apple side. I have never seen ifixit comment on build quality before, and publicizing it doesn't bode too well for Apple. People buy Apple for quality.
I completely agree. Apple's standout quality of hardware is vital to them. I do hope these things aren't typical of the new line. That said, I'm sure you'd find similar shoddiness in most electronics nowadays but people tend to judge Apple to a higher standard, understandably so, and rightly so given their premium prices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Snitch
"In comparison, FireWire supports 63 devices and USB supports up to 127 devices."
Yeah, but ask the folks at a tech repair shop like TekServe in NYC about that. They'll tell you that chaining even a half-dozen Firewire or USB devices can lead to large-scale data corruption. (Yes, I learned this the hard way.)
Absolutely! I would not want to try hooking up 127 USB devices to a computer. That sounds like a world of pain and it's hard to even imagine such a setup ever being needed. You'd also have to power each device as there's no way the bus power would keep all that going, whatever the devices were. I think 6 is pushing it as far as is sensible for daisy chaining so Thunderbolt won't be held back on that front IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
I love how Apple always give us more at the previous price. The cost of the MBP has actually come down to absorb the cost of the Thunderbolt technology. In 2012 when the HPs and Dell's of this world play catch up with Apple yet again it will be interesting to see if, on their paper thin margins, they can do that too.
I love Apple's stuff as much as the next guy but let's not pretend they are generous in their hardware specs! Electronics components come down in price rapidly and if Apple don't lower their price accordingly, then of course they can put more into their computer if they keep the same margin.
I don't think it's any kind of criticism of HP or Dell that they have thinner margins. It's a different business model, one that gives the customer more for their money on paper. I'd rather pay more for unibody enclosures, better screens and OSX but let's not mock the competition for choosing to make less profit. That's absurd.
Apple is sitting on $50B. And they still want c. $300 pure profit for a 13" MacBook Pro from little old Joe Public. I don't think that's anything to be proud of (incidentally, the price is EXACTLY the same in £s in the UK despite their being $1.6 to the £). I love Apple's products, but their profit margins are nobody's friend. I used to defend it by saying that profit margin allowed a massive R&D budget, but you don't amass $50B by accident.
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy
what do HP and dell have to catch up to? thunderbolt? i bet only .01% of computer users cares about it and it will probably die along with VL Bus or go into obscurity like firewire.
i'm personally waiting for the ipad 2 to come out. the computer era of desktops and laptops is long gone. a computer is something you store your data on and do tasks like photo editing or sending the photos to be printed at wal mart. otherwise it's not used 99% of the time unlike your iphone/ipad or android phone. other than mobile professionals why anyone would spend $2000 on a laptop in 2011 is beyond me
Without wanting to be rude, this is a silly comment. Thunderbolt is supported by Apple and Intel. That alone will give it a huge impact on the market. I agree that a tiny number of users will care about it for a while, but that doesn't mean other computer manufacturers won't need to catch up. It's definitely a coup of sorts for Apple to have 12 months for exclusivity with this.
To say that the era of laptops and desktops is long gone is like saying the era of the petrol car is long gone; it's epically premature. I cannot do my job with an iPad, as much as I love it. None of my family could do theirs with an iPad. I am actually struggling to think of anyone I know who could do their job with an iPad at the time of writing. I don't see the office culture of big businesses disappearing any time soon.
Whatever future iPads bring, even when they have Core i7-level power one day, there'll still be a contemporary laptop/desktop that is twice as powerful and that will give creative professionals an edge on competition using slower hardware. I still have to wait for Aperture to process adjustments. I still have to get a coffee while I export HD videos. Tablets are a LONG way from replacing laptops. Your own personal use at home is a tiny fraction of the global use of computers.
If it's unfathomable why someone would spend $2000 on their primary workstation that they earn their living from, you must have mental tunnel vision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro
Please explain why this is likely or why it's not more likely due to new components and revised firmware.
I agree, this seems to be total speculation. I'd say it was far more likely that the 33% faster RAM and the faster CPU's are more likely the cause, but again, speculation. I can't see it being down to more stringent testing though, Apple seems quite proud of the honesty of its internal battery testing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macslut
This is where the whole "Apple exclusive for a year" nonsense came from. Intel worked with Apple on Thunderbolt, and even got the request to develop such a thing directly from Apple. The mini-Display port used for Thunderbolt was actually developed by Apple. So while Apple had early access to implement Thunderbolt, the parts are available to anyone.
...Yes, expect multiple Thunderbolt ports, and fairly early removal of a bunch of legacy ports. Apple will lead with this with the MacBook Air, but next year we'll see others starting to remove the legacy ports to save space and reduce cost and complexity.
Thunderbolt is kind of a big deal.
Why is it 'nonsense'? It's fact. And one Apple will be quite smug about I'd imagine. Not only is it a competitive advantage, but it brings prestige to the brand.
I don't think we'll see multiple Thunderbolt ports for a while. I think Apple plan to use Thunderbolt's speed to allow fewer connections directly to the laptop by utilising a hub of some sort. That's the Apple way of thinking. That's how they expect users to use Apple Displays and I think it'll only be more logical now with Thunderbolt on a future model of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Young
This points to one of the things that has always seemed so bizarre to me -- the Apple penchant / insistence -- on making it hard to definitively identify Mac models.
I ask my clients what model Mac they have, most times all they can say is if its a MacBook or iMac or mini. They look at it and it only has that name. Hard to find any differentiating data.
(Look at how Apple even publishes its ow Mac specs -- 'late nnnn', 'early 'nnnn' -- to help you identify the machine.)
I have to collect all the processor/speed/memory/profiler info before I have any reasonable idea what machine it really might be.
Apple using one model number for multiple machines over 2.3 years is just dumb.
Sheesh.
While the products are marvelous, some of Apple idiotsyncrasies --i mean idiosyncrasies-- are unfathomable.
'thou shalt be no model numbers on any of my Macs'
Hard to argue with that. It is very confusing and unnecessary. Apple's so proud of innovation, I'm sure they can innovate a neat nomenclature, even if it's only used as a secondary name to the MacBook Pro branding. They do it with OSX...Jaguar, Tiger, Leopard etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax
Have you ever bought a car? A 2011 Porsche 911 is a bit different from a 1985 Porsche 911 I suspect. I do NOT want to go back to the bad old days of Mac IIci, Mac IIsi, Mac IIfx, Performa 6120, Performa 6125, Quadra 610, Quadra 700, Quadra 660AV, Centris 610, etc., etc.
I don't think any of us want to go back to that. I find it incomprehensible how so many tech companies insist on utterly stupid nomenclatures. Bizarre combinations of letters and numbers chosen just because they sound kinda cool.
I do think Apple should name their product lines though. It's worked well for Intel. Sandy Bridge lets us know what generation of Core i Processors we're dealing with. Apple could just call this the Sandy Bridge line up or devise their own nice name for each year's revision. Then just put that name in the System Profiler so tech support can do their jobs in half the time.
"I have a 13" MacBook Pro Sandy Bridge/Dakota/Hogwarts etc." It would help.
Quote:
Originally Posted by faduci
Which means that one could connect an USB controller via TB (or several, each giving you the possibility to connect to 127 USB devices). So it's more like comparing oranges to the trucks delivering the oranges.
I think that's the way Thunderbolt will go. It's a very neat way to hook up your MacBook Pro to all your devices in 3 seconds flat and it allows peripheral manufacturers to keep costs down by sticking with USB2, which is more than fast enough for the vast majority of individual peripherals' needs.
as a home user it's nice that MBP's have better quality and support but for my use i can buy a new dell/hp in the $700 range every year for three years and it would be the same as one MBP with AppleCare. i was actually looking to buy an MBP for that reason after my latest HP experience a few years ago, but changed my mind after i got a new lenovo to replace it. and the new dell/hp's i see seem to be made better. and i use my iphones and android phone so much that my lenovo usually sits in my bag unless i'm at work or need to VPN into work to do something
Thanks for sharing an insight into your amazing wonderful technology filled life.
You mention VPN with a smug, as if you are the only person on the planet that knows about it.
Do you know why I am attacking you ? When you use the term fanboy, you lost all credibility.
So instead of me responding in a technically articulate way, instead I will simply mock you, as you mocked others. May I suggest that in future don't bring up fanboys terms and so on, it just makes you look silly.
Also I don't care if you use this computer, or this phone, who cares, apart from you.
iFixit ranked the new 2011 MacBook Pro a 7 out of 10 on its reparability scale. It noted that the new version allows for the battery to be disconnected without removing it from the laptop.
The addition of a "spudger" makes disconnecting the battery easier.
A spudger is the probing tool they used to disconnect the connector, rather than the name of the connector itself.
Why is it 'nonsense'? It's fact. And one Apple will be quite smug about I'd imagine. Not only is it a competitive advantage, but it brings prestige to the brand.
Actually, it's quite the opposite of fact. The nonsense is that Apple had an exclusive *deal* with Intel for Thunderbolt. The reality is that while Apple may be the only PC vendor using Thunderbolt before Ivy Bridge, nothing is preventing any other PC vendor from releasing Thunderbolt PCs today other than what I outlined in my post. It certainly is a competitive advantage and brings prestige, but it's not an exclusive *deal*.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonamac
I don't think we'll see multiple Thunderbolt ports for a while. I think Apple plan to use Thunderbolt's speed to allow fewer connections directly to the laptop by utilising a hub of some sort. That's the Apple way of thinking. That's how they expect users to use Apple Displays and I think it'll only be more logical now with Thunderbolt on a future model of that.
I'm not sure how you arrive at hubs being Apple's way of thinking. Take a look at Mac now and see how many FireWire and USB ports they have. Since those ports become obsolete since USB and FireWire devices could be plugged directly into Thunderbolt with a mini-display to USB/FireWire cable to adapter, it makes perfect sense for Apple to use the extra real estate for additional Thunderbolt ports and eliminate the need for a hub just to attach more than one device, or requiring daisy chaining, especially where that can't be done with end-unit devices. Again, think about what Apple did when implementing both USB and FireWire.
Actually, it's quite the opposite of fact. The nonsense is that Apple had an exclusive *deal* with Intel for Thunderbolt. The reality is that while Apple may be the only PC vendor using Thunderbolt before Ivy Bridge, nothing is preventing any other PC vendor from releasing Thunderbolt PCs today other than what I outlined in my post. It certainly is a competitive advantage and brings prestige, but it's not an exclusive *deal*.
I'm not sure how you arrive at hubs being Apple's way of thinking. Take a look at Mac now and see how many FireWire and USB ports they have. Since those ports become obsolete since USB and FireWire devices could be plugged directly into Thunderbolt with a mini-display to USB/FireWire cable to adapter, it makes perfect sense for Apple to use the extra real estate for additional Thunderbolt ports and eliminate the need for a hub just to attach more than one device, or requiring daisy chaining, especially where that can't be done with end-unit devices. Again, think about what Apple did when implementing both USB and FireWire.
How can anyone use Thunderbolt without access to a Thunderbolt-enabled motherboard? Until Intel make that technology available to others then nobody can use it. It's not a matter of soldering a few wires to an existing motherboard, you need to have access to a supply of the Thunderbolt controller chips as seen in this article. Only Apple have that. That's called a deal.
You are making the mistake of thinking Thunderbolt will replace USB, I don't think it will for a good while, if ever. USB more that fulfils the needs for mice, keyboards, webcams, printers, scanners, graphic tablets etc. I think Apple will see Thunderbolt as being able to be the port that all these other devices enter the computer through via a hub. They have already culled USB slots down to 2 on MacBook Pros.
I see this as Apple's way of thinking because of how they have designed the Apple Cinema Display You put your MacBook next to it and plug in the power cable and one USB cable and everything hooked up to the display is then accessible to the MacBook. The problem with the existing setup is that the USB2 connection isn't fast enough to make this an ideal solution for power users (and who else buys a $1k display but a power user?). Thunderbolt will allow us to have 2, 3, 4 Firewire 800 drives hooked up to the display, or even a solid state external drive (up until now not possible/worthwhile making). All that storage could go through just the one Thunderbolt connection to the MacBook and still keep its 800Mbps speed.
Why have 4 Thunderbolt connectors when it's speed allows so much to go through just one via a hub? This wasn't the case with USB2 or Firewire. There was only so much one USB/Firewire socket could handle without significant speed hits, hence the need for multiple sockets. You could have every USB device you own connected through just one Thunderbolt cable and the only reason you'd need a second Thunderbolt cable would be if you needed a 10Gbps transfer rate to something else, some sort of SSD from the future perhaps. My point is we're years from Thunderbolt's speed being a bottleneck so we only need the one socket.
My point is we're years from Thunderbolt's speed being a bottleneck so we only need the one socket.
And you're years from convincing me I need to cart around an external hub for something as simple as plugging crap in. As long as a laptop has to be as large as the size of its screen, give me more than one port and let me use insanely high amounts of bandwidth via them.
And you're years from convincing me I need to cart around an external hub for something as simple as plugging crap in. As long as a laptop has to be as large as the size of its screen, give me more than one port and let me use insanely high amounts of bandwidth via them.
I think we'll see the current setup of one Thunderbolt and 2-3 USB2 ports for a good while to come. You can't plug any existing device directly into a Thunderbolt port so there's no need for multiple Thunderbolt ports is there? My point all along was that we only need one Thunderbolt port for the foreseeable future. I didn't say we didn't need USB2 ports any more, nor did I say I want to see them replaced with a hub.
You can't plug any existing device directly into a USB port, so there's no need for multiple USB ports, is there?
That's you in '97. And when the iPad 2 and iPhone 5 come out, that will be you in July of this year.
And mine's that we need more. Best to look to the future rather than the present.
You don't understand. There is a need for multiple USB ports because there is an inherent limit to how fast data can be put through one USB port and that limit is reached using disk drives. If you have a USB hub with 4 disk drives attached to it connected to your computer, you will only be able to use those disks at a quarter of their potential speed. That makes USB hubs far less useful than a Thunderbolt hub would be.
With Thunderbolt, the speed is so far over the limit of the USB interfaces for the hard disks that you can have them all hooked up to the hub and connect it to the to computer via Thunderbolt and have them all going through the one port without losing any of their speed.
Maybe you want more than 6 hard disks attached to your mac and need more ports? 12, 18 disks, just to be safe?
I'm not stuck in 1997, I can just see the big picture. You will NEVER need a Thunderbolt mouse, keyboard, webcam etc. They will simply never, ever need Thunderbolt speed. USB is already overkill for their speed requirements.
One Thunderbolt port and 2 USB will do 99.9% of people for a very long time to come.
You don't understand. There is a need for multiple USB ports because there is an inherent limit to how fast data can be put through one USB port and that limit is reached using disk drives.
Also a limit to how fast data can be put through one Thunderbolt port.
Quote:
With Thunderbolt, the speed is so far over the limit of the USB interfaces for the hard disks that you can have them all hooked up to the hub and connect it to the to computer via Thunderbolt and have them all going through the one port without losing any of their speed.
USB, yes. FireWire, sure. eSATA, maybe depending on the number of devices. Not devices designed for Thunderbolt.
Maybe you want more than 6 hard disks attached to your mac and need more ports? 12, 18 disks, just to be safe?
Quote:
I'm not stuck in 1997, I can just see the big picture. You will NEVER need a Thunderbolt mouse, keyboard, webcam etc. They will simply never, ever need Thunderbolt speed.
Webcam I can see. You think we'll have these sensors forever? How about external storage? How about iDevices? Multi-drive RAIDs? Thunderbolt's based on PCIe, so why not externalize fiber channel hardware and run everything through it?
Quote:
One Thunderbolt port and 2 USB will do 99.9% of people for a very long time to come.
How can anyone use Thunderbolt without access to a Thunderbolt-enabled motherboard? Until Intel make that technology available to others then nobody can use it. It's not a matter of soldering a few wires to an existing motherboard, you need to have access to a supply of the Thunderbolt controller chips as seen in this article. Only Apple have that. That's called a deal.
You're wrong here in thinking that vendors need to wait until Ivy Bridge. They have the option of doing exactly what Apple is doing today. Some may very well do just that, but more likely they're going to wait until Ivy Bridge. Thus it's not an exclusive deal, but rather may remain an Apple advantage until Ive Bridge comes out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonamac
You are making the mistake of thinking Thunderbolt will replace USB, I don't think it will for a good while, if ever. USB more that fulfils the needs for mice, keyboards, webcams, printers, scanners, graphic tablets etc. I think Apple will see Thunderbolt as being able to be the port that all these other devices enter the computer through via a hub. They have already culled USB slots down to 2 on MacBook Pros.
Actually, the 17" MBPs have 3 USB ports. Why? Why not just give one and make users carry a hub around? You may think for your use that 1 USB port with a hub would hit a bandwidth wall, but most users see it as a hassle to carry a USB hub just to connect an iPhone and external drive at the same time.
The reason why Thunderbolt will replace USB ports is because it can. A DisplayPort more than fulfills the need for a DisplayPort, but yet Apple did away with it because there's no point in having one when there's Thunderbolt.
This is one of the key reasons for the development of Thunderbolt. The idea is that you have one port to rule them all. You take your devices and you plug them in without having to think "this one goes into this port, that one goes into that port". You have ports, you plug your devices into any of the available ports. They're all the same.
"This happened before". Serial and ADB ports were fine for keyboards and mice. For that matter, so was USB 1.1, but now it's just USB 2.0. This is because it's easier for the end user and cheaper and easier for the PC maker as well as the device makers.
Again, this is the whole reason why Apple requested Thunderbolt as a something everything else could roll into. There's no need to consider "Mice only need the speed of USB 1.1, so put a USB 1.1 port on there, and then put USB 2.0 for devices that need that speed, and FireWire 800 for devices that need that speed, and DisplayPort for devices that need that, and then Thunderbolt for only the stuff that needs that".
When Ivy Bridge is released, removing the legacy ports and having multiple Thunderbolt ports becomes cheaper, easier, and requires less space.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonamac
I see this as Apple's way of thinking because of how they have designed the Apple Cinema Display You put your MacBook next to it and plug in the power cable and one USB cable and everything hooked up to the display is then accessible to the MacBook. The problem with the existing setup is that the USB2 connection isn't fast enough to make this an ideal solution for power users (and who else buys a $1k display but a power user?). Thunderbolt will allow us to have 2, 3, 4 Firewire 800 drives hooked up to the display, or even a solid state external drive (up until now not possible/worthwhile making). All that storage could go through just the one Thunderbolt connection to the MacBook and still keep its 800Mbps speed.
Yes, this is one fantastic use of Thunderbolt. There will be hubs and there will be docks, but not everyone has a desk station that they connect there notebooks to, and many people need connectivity to devices on the road. Thus it makes sense to have multiple Thunderbolt ports and the ability to plug all devices in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonamac
Why have 4 Thunderbolt connectors when it's speed allows so much to go through just one via a hub? This wasn't the case with USB2 or Firewire. There was only so much one USB/Firewire socket could handle without significant speed hits, hence the need for multiple sockets. You could have every USB device you own connected through just one Thunderbolt cable and the only reason you'd need a second Thunderbolt cable would be if you needed a 10Gbps transfer rate to something else, some sort of SSD from the future perhaps. My point is we're years from Thunderbolt's speed being a bottleneck so we only need the one socket.
Why did Apple include an SD card reader...you can just connect an external one. Why include an optical drive...you can just connect an external one...the list goes on. The issue is more than bandwidth, it's about convenience.
I'm not stuck in 1997, I can just see the big picture. You will NEVER need a Thunderbolt mouse, keyboard, webcam etc. They will simply never, ever need Thunderbolt speed. USB is already overkill for their speed requirements.
One Thunderbolt port and 2 USB will do 99.9% of people for a very long time to come.
It may do it, but it would be cheaper, easier, and consume less real estate to have 3 Thunderbolt ports.
Why do we have USB 2.0 ports for mice when Serial, ADB or USB 1.1 ports were already overkill for their speed requirements?
Also a limit to how fast data can be put through one Thunderbolt port.
USB, yes. FireWire, sure. eSATA, maybe depending on the number of devices. Not devices designed for Thunderbolt.
Maybe you want more than 6 hard disks attached to your mac and need more ports? 12, 18 disks, just to be safe?
Webcam I can see. You think we'll have these sensors forever? How about external storage? How about iDevices? Multi-drive RAIDs? Thunderbolt's based on PCIe, so why not externalize fiber channel hardware and run everything through it?
Quite possibly. but we'll see.
But that Thunderbolt limit is so much higher than USB's that its impact will be of a different nature. Only top, top end devices will ever reach it. USB's limit was always going to be reached by a few normal devices.
I don't see a webcam ever requiring a data transfer rate faster than 60MB per second. The quality of video would have to be stupendous. Unless you have a friend you like to iChat with who regularly has Hollywood blockbusters happen in front of his MacBook for your dereliction, I wouldn't worry about USB ever limiting your Webcam experience :P
Disk drives are the only consumer grade peripheral that will ever need a Thunderbolt port dedicated to it, and that's why I don't think the 1997 USB thing was fair comment.
We'll see, but I'm pretty confident that USB is here for a good while yet and that Thunderbolt's most exciting use could be the advent of 8, 10, 12 port USB hubs. I've needed one for some time.
You're wrong here in thinking that vendors need to wait until Ivy Bridge. They have the option of doing exactly what Apple is doing today. Some may very well do just that, but more likely they're going to wait until Ivy Bridge. Thus it's not an exclusive deal, but rather may remain an Apple advantage until Ive Bridge comes out.
Actually, the 17" MBPs have 3 USB ports. Why? Why not just give one and make users carry a hub around? You may think for your use that 1 USB port with a hub would hit a bandwidth wall, but most users see it as a hassle to carry a USB hub just to connect an iPhone and external drive at the same time.
The reason why Thunderbolt will replace USB ports is because it can. A DisplayPort more than fulfills the need for a DisplayPort, but yet Apple did away with it because there's no point in having one when there's Thunderbolt.
This is one of the key reasons for the development of Thunderbolt. The idea is that you have one port to rule them all. You take your devices and you plug them in without having to think "this one goes into this port, that one goes into that port". You have ports, you plug your devices into any of the available ports. They're all the same.
"This happened before". Serial and ADB ports were fine for keyboards and mice. For that matter, so was USB 1.1, but now it's just USB 2.0. This is because it's easier for the end user and cheaper and easier for the PC maker as well as the device makers.
Again, this is the whole reason why Apple requested Thunderbolt as a something everything else could roll into. There's no need to consider "Mice only need the speed of USB 1.1, so put a USB 1.1 port on there, and then put USB 2.0 for devices that need that speed, and FireWire 800 for devices that need that speed, and DisplayPort for devices that need that, and then Thunderbolt for only the stuff that needs that".
When Ivy Bridge is released, removing the legacy ports and having multiple Thunderbolt ports becomes cheaper, easier, and requires less space.
Yes, this is one fantastic use of Thunderbolt. There will be hubs and there will be docks, but not everyone has a desk station that they connect there notebooks to, and many people need connectivity to devices on the road. Thus it makes sense to have multiple Thunderbolt ports and the ability to plug all devices in.
Why did Apple include an SD card reader...you can just connect an external one. Why include an optical drive...you can just connect an external one...the list goes on. The issue is more than bandwidth, it's about convenience.
How can a vendor do what Apple is doing today? Do they have access to Thunderbolt controller chips? Anyway, it's a small matter really in the grand scheme of things.
I take your point that having one port type is an advantage, but having three Thunderbolt ports at the expense of USB ports would be insane in 2011, and probably 2012 and 2013 as well. People already own USB devices, many of them. Thunderbolt won't be ready to replace USB for a good while. Also, will licensing be as cheap for a new tech like Thunderbolt as it is for USB? I don't know, just musing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macslut
It may do it, but it would be cheaper, easier, and consume less real estate to have 3 Thunderbolt ports.
Why do we have USB 2.0 ports for mice when Serial, ADB or USB 1.1 ports were already overkill for their speed requirements?
USB unified several standards that were all existing simultaneously. PS/2 was being used for this, Serial for that etc. It was messy and they were old, not particularly practical (in a physical, disconnecting, reconnecting sense) ports. USB could just be slid in, done. People liked that.
Also, serial was far slower than USB is today and USB really took off when 2.0 came along. There was a need for more speed for all manner of uses. There isn't any now. Only storage really needs it. Your points are good, I just think that people won't see the same problems with USB as they did with all those old 1980/90s things. They'll think 'why do I need another type of connector? USB was fine.'
I don't carry a hub around with me. I find only having 2 ports a pain. I bought a Bluetooth mouse just to free one up. I'm not for a moment suggesting we all have one port and connect everything via a hub. I'm saying that USB ports are far more useful to every single user right now and will be for some time to come. I think Thunderbolt's primary use for a while will be to conduct other devices into the computer via a hub.
When the 1,080,000p webcam comes out, we might need a Thunderbolt port adding... I believe Thunderbolt ports could replace USB like you say, but it won't happen for a very long time. Until then, adding more Thunderbolt ports and losing USB ports would mean carrying adapters around for existing devices. That's as bad as needing a hub.
Comments
The new 15-inch MacBook Pro is still designated Model A1286. Apple has been using that same model number since October 2008.
This points to one of the things that has always seemed so bizarre to me -- the Apple penchant / insistence -- on making it hard to definitively identify Mac models.
I ask my clients what model Mac they have, most times all they can say is if its a MacBook or iMac or mini. They look at it and it only has that name. Hard to find any differentiating data.
(Look at how Apple even publishes its ow Mac specs -- 'late nnnn', 'early 'nnnn' -- to help you identify the machine.)
I have to collect all the processor/speed/memory/profiler info before I have any reasonable idea what machine it really might be.
Apple using one model number for multiple machines over 2.3 years is just dumb.
Sheesh.
While the products are marvelous, some of Apple idiotsyncrasies --i mean idiosyncrasies-- are unfathomable.
This points to one of the things that has always seemed so bizarre to me -- the Apple penchant / insistence -- on making it hard to definitively identify Mac models.
I ask my clients what model Mac they have, most times all they can say is if its a MacBook or iMac or mini. They look at it and it only has that name. Hard to find any differentiating data.
(Look at how Apple even publishes its ow Mac specs -- 'late nnnn', 'early 'nnnn' -- to help you identify the machine.)
I have to collect all the processor/speed/memory/profiler info before I have any reasonable idea what machine it really might be.
Apple using one model number for multiple machines over 2.3 years is just dumb.
Sheesh.
While the products are marvelous, some of Apple idiotsyncrasies --i mean idiosyncrasies-- are unfathomable.
Have you ever bought a car? A 2011 Porsche 911 is a bit different from a 1985 Porsche 911 I suspect. I do NOT want to go back to the bad old days of Mac IIci, Mac IIsi, Mac IIfx, Performa 6120, Performa 6125, Quadra 610, Quadra 700, Quadra 660AV, Centris 610, etc., etc.
go to ebay and compare prices of old iphones to android phones. in 18 months no one will remember what the HTC Inspire was and i'll have to pay someone to take it off my hands. meanwhile i can still sell an iphone 3G for US dollars
Totally agree. Also isn't this apples and oranges anyway? As I read it the Thunderbolt is a bus connection not a device connection.
Which means that one could connect an USB controller via TB (or several, each giving you the possibility to connect to 127 USB devices). So it's more like comparing oranges to the trucks delivering the oranges.
The ThunderBolt Chip is possibly made with 65 or even 90nm. Hence its size. Since it is in very low production quantities and at its first incarnation. Once it get shrink to 45nm it should be much smaller.
Agreed, this is probably a first generation chip which will shrink in size or even be incorporated into the next generation of motherboard chipsets just like USB, etc. But if you look at the photo, the actual chip currently is not that large, most of the space is taken up by the substrate it is mounted on which provides the leads to the connections on the motherboard. In the future you may not even see a dedicated chip to provide Thunderbolt.
The new MBPs support jumbo ethernet frames... just like the Macbooks from 2 years ago
Do you know this for a fact? I just set up a NAS and was disappointed to find out my 2010 MacBook Pro has its wing clipped when it comes to Jumbo frames.
I went to the Apple store today to inquire about the 2011 MBPs, but nobody there knew what jumbo frames were, much less if the ethernet controller was capable of enabling their use..
- Spence
It actually troubles me a bit in the Apple side. I have never seen ifixit comment on build quality before, and publicizing it doesn't bode too well for Apple. People buy Apple for quality.
I completely agree. Apple's standout quality of hardware is vital to them. I do hope these things aren't typical of the new line. That said, I'm sure you'd find similar shoddiness in most electronics nowadays but people tend to judge Apple to a higher standard, understandably so, and rightly so given their premium prices.
"In comparison, FireWire supports 63 devices and USB supports up to 127 devices."
Yeah, but ask the folks at a tech repair shop like TekServe in NYC about that. They'll tell you that chaining even a half-dozen Firewire or USB devices can lead to large-scale data corruption. (Yes, I learned this the hard way.)
Absolutely! I would not want to try hooking up 127 USB devices to a computer. That sounds like a world of pain and it's hard to even imagine such a setup ever being needed. You'd also have to power each device as there's no way the bus power would keep all that going, whatever the devices were. I think 6 is pushing it as far as is sensible for daisy chaining so Thunderbolt won't be held back on that front IMO.
I love how Apple always give us more at the previous price. The cost of the MBP has actually come down to absorb the cost of the Thunderbolt technology. In 2012 when the HPs and Dell's of this world play catch up with Apple yet again it will be interesting to see if, on their paper thin margins, they can do that too.
I love Apple's stuff as much as the next guy but let's not pretend they are generous in their hardware specs! Electronics components come down in price rapidly and if Apple don't lower their price accordingly, then of course they can put more into their computer if they keep the same margin.
I don't think it's any kind of criticism of HP or Dell that they have thinner margins. It's a different business model, one that gives the customer more for their money on paper. I'd rather pay more for unibody enclosures, better screens and OSX but let's not mock the competition for choosing to make less profit. That's absurd.
Apple is sitting on $50B. And they still want c. $300 pure profit for a 13" MacBook Pro from little old Joe Public. I don't think that's anything to be proud of (incidentally, the price is EXACTLY the same in £s in the UK despite their being $1.6 to the £). I love Apple's products, but their profit margins are nobody's friend. I used to defend it by saying that profit margin allowed a massive R&D budget, but you don't amass $50B by accident.
what do HP and dell have to catch up to? thunderbolt? i bet only .01% of computer users cares about it and it will probably die along with VL Bus or go into obscurity like firewire.
i'm personally waiting for the ipad 2 to come out. the computer era of desktops and laptops is long gone. a computer is something you store your data on and do tasks like photo editing or sending the photos to be printed at wal mart. otherwise it's not used 99% of the time unlike your iphone/ipad or android phone. other than mobile professionals why anyone would spend $2000 on a laptop in 2011 is beyond me
Without wanting to be rude, this is a silly comment. Thunderbolt is supported by Apple and Intel. That alone will give it a huge impact on the market. I agree that a tiny number of users will care about it for a while, but that doesn't mean other computer manufacturers won't need to catch up. It's definitely a coup of sorts for Apple to have 12 months for exclusivity with this.
To say that the era of laptops and desktops is long gone is like saying the era of the petrol car is long gone; it's epically premature. I cannot do my job with an iPad, as much as I love it. None of my family could do theirs with an iPad. I am actually struggling to think of anyone I know who could do their job with an iPad at the time of writing. I don't see the office culture of big businesses disappearing any time soon.
Whatever future iPads bring, even when they have Core i7-level power one day, there'll still be a contemporary laptop/desktop that is twice as powerful and that will give creative professionals an edge on competition using slower hardware. I still have to wait for Aperture to process adjustments. I still have to get a coffee while I export HD videos. Tablets are a LONG way from replacing laptops. Your own personal use at home is a tiny fraction of the global use of computers.
If it's unfathomable why someone would spend $2000 on their primary workstation that they earn their living from, you must have mental tunnel vision.
Please explain why this is likely or why it's not more likely due to new components and revised firmware.
I agree, this seems to be total speculation. I'd say it was far more likely that the 33% faster RAM and the faster CPU's are more likely the cause, but again, speculation. I can't see it being down to more stringent testing though, Apple seems quite proud of the honesty of its internal battery testing.
This is where the whole "Apple exclusive for a year" nonsense came from. Intel worked with Apple on Thunderbolt, and even got the request to develop such a thing directly from Apple. The mini-Display port used for Thunderbolt was actually developed by Apple. So while Apple had early access to implement Thunderbolt, the parts are available to anyone.
...Yes, expect multiple Thunderbolt ports, and fairly early removal of a bunch of legacy ports. Apple will lead with this with the MacBook Air, but next year we'll see others starting to remove the legacy ports to save space and reduce cost and complexity.
Thunderbolt is kind of a big deal.
Why is it 'nonsense'? It's fact. And one Apple will be quite smug about I'd imagine. Not only is it a competitive advantage, but it brings prestige to the brand.
I don't think we'll see multiple Thunderbolt ports for a while. I think Apple plan to use Thunderbolt's speed to allow fewer connections directly to the laptop by utilising a hub of some sort. That's the Apple way of thinking. That's how they expect users to use Apple Displays and I think it'll only be more logical now with Thunderbolt on a future model of that.
This points to one of the things that has always seemed so bizarre to me -- the Apple penchant / insistence -- on making it hard to definitively identify Mac models.
I ask my clients what model Mac they have, most times all they can say is if its a MacBook or iMac or mini. They look at it and it only has that name. Hard to find any differentiating data.
(Look at how Apple even publishes its ow Mac specs -- 'late nnnn', 'early 'nnnn' -- to help you identify the machine.)
I have to collect all the processor/speed/memory/profiler info before I have any reasonable idea what machine it really might be.
Apple using one model number for multiple machines over 2.3 years is just dumb.
Sheesh.
While the products are marvelous, some of Apple idiotsyncrasies --i mean idiosyncrasies-- are unfathomable.
Hard to argue with that. It is very confusing and unnecessary. Apple's so proud of innovation, I'm sure they can innovate a neat nomenclature, even if it's only used as a secondary name to the MacBook Pro branding. They do it with OSX...Jaguar, Tiger, Leopard etc.
Have you ever bought a car? A 2011 Porsche 911 is a bit different from a 1985 Porsche 911 I suspect. I do NOT want to go back to the bad old days of Mac IIci, Mac IIsi, Mac IIfx, Performa 6120, Performa 6125, Quadra 610, Quadra 700, Quadra 660AV, Centris 610, etc., etc.
I don't think any of us want to go back to that. I find it incomprehensible how so many tech companies insist on utterly stupid nomenclatures. Bizarre combinations of letters and numbers chosen just because they sound kinda cool.
I do think Apple should name their product lines though. It's worked well for Intel. Sandy Bridge lets us know what generation of Core i Processors we're dealing with. Apple could just call this the Sandy Bridge line up or devise their own nice name for each year's revision. Then just put that name in the System Profiler so tech support can do their jobs in half the time.
"I have a 13" MacBook Pro Sandy Bridge/Dakota/Hogwarts etc." It would help.
Which means that one could connect an USB controller via TB (or several, each giving you the possibility to connect to 127 USB devices). So it's more like comparing oranges to the trucks delivering the oranges.
I think that's the way Thunderbolt will go. It's a very neat way to hook up your MacBook Pro to all your devices in 3 seconds flat and it allows peripheral manufacturers to keep costs down by sticking with USB2, which is more than fast enough for the vast majority of individual peripherals' needs.
as a home user it's nice that MBP's have better quality and support but for my use i can buy a new dell/hp in the $700 range every year for three years and it would be the same as one MBP with AppleCare. i was actually looking to buy an MBP for that reason after my latest HP experience a few years ago, but changed my mind after i got a new lenovo to replace it. and the new dell/hp's i see seem to be made better. and i use my iphones and android phone so much that my lenovo usually sits in my bag unless i'm at work or need to VPN into work to do something
Thanks for sharing an insight into your amazing wonderful technology filled life.
You mention VPN with a smug, as if you are the only person on the planet that knows about it.
Do you know why I am attacking you ? When you use the term fanboy, you lost all credibility.
So instead of me responding in a technically articulate way, instead I will simply mock you, as you mocked others. May I suggest that in future don't bring up fanboys terms and so on, it just makes you look silly.
Also I don't care if you use this computer, or this phone, who cares, apart from you.
iFixit ranked the new 2011 MacBook Pro a 7 out of 10 on its reparability scale. It noted that the new version allows for the battery to be disconnected without removing it from the laptop.
The addition of a "spudger" makes disconnecting the battery easier.
A spudger is the probing tool they used to disconnect the connector, rather than the name of the connector itself.
Why is it 'nonsense'? It's fact. And one Apple will be quite smug about I'd imagine. Not only is it a competitive advantage, but it brings prestige to the brand.
Actually, it's quite the opposite of fact. The nonsense is that Apple had an exclusive *deal* with Intel for Thunderbolt. The reality is that while Apple may be the only PC vendor using Thunderbolt before Ivy Bridge, nothing is preventing any other PC vendor from releasing Thunderbolt PCs today other than what I outlined in my post. It certainly is a competitive advantage and brings prestige, but it's not an exclusive *deal*.
I don't think we'll see multiple Thunderbolt ports for a while. I think Apple plan to use Thunderbolt's speed to allow fewer connections directly to the laptop by utilising a hub of some sort. That's the Apple way of thinking. That's how they expect users to use Apple Displays and I think it'll only be more logical now with Thunderbolt on a future model of that.
I'm not sure how you arrive at hubs being Apple's way of thinking. Take a look at Mac now and see how many FireWire and USB ports they have. Since those ports become obsolete since USB and FireWire devices could be plugged directly into Thunderbolt with a mini-display to USB/FireWire cable to adapter, it makes perfect sense for Apple to use the extra real estate for additional Thunderbolt ports and eliminate the need for a hub just to attach more than one device, or requiring daisy chaining, especially where that can't be done with end-unit devices. Again, think about what Apple did when implementing both USB and FireWire.
Actually, it's quite the opposite of fact. The nonsense is that Apple had an exclusive *deal* with Intel for Thunderbolt. The reality is that while Apple may be the only PC vendor using Thunderbolt before Ivy Bridge, nothing is preventing any other PC vendor from releasing Thunderbolt PCs today other than what I outlined in my post. It certainly is a competitive advantage and brings prestige, but it's not an exclusive *deal*.
I'm not sure how you arrive at hubs being Apple's way of thinking. Take a look at Mac now and see how many FireWire and USB ports they have. Since those ports become obsolete since USB and FireWire devices could be plugged directly into Thunderbolt with a mini-display to USB/FireWire cable to adapter, it makes perfect sense for Apple to use the extra real estate for additional Thunderbolt ports and eliminate the need for a hub just to attach more than one device, or requiring daisy chaining, especially where that can't be done with end-unit devices. Again, think about what Apple did when implementing both USB and FireWire.
How can anyone use Thunderbolt without access to a Thunderbolt-enabled motherboard? Until Intel make that technology available to others then nobody can use it. It's not a matter of soldering a few wires to an existing motherboard, you need to have access to a supply of the Thunderbolt controller chips as seen in this article. Only Apple have that. That's called a deal.
You are making the mistake of thinking Thunderbolt will replace USB, I don't think it will for a good while, if ever. USB more that fulfils the needs for mice, keyboards, webcams, printers, scanners, graphic tablets etc. I think Apple will see Thunderbolt as being able to be the port that all these other devices enter the computer through via a hub. They have already culled USB slots down to 2 on MacBook Pros.
I see this as Apple's way of thinking because of how they have designed the Apple Cinema Display You put your MacBook next to it and plug in the power cable and one USB cable and everything hooked up to the display is then accessible to the MacBook. The problem with the existing setup is that the USB2 connection isn't fast enough to make this an ideal solution for power users (and who else buys a $1k display but a power user?). Thunderbolt will allow us to have 2, 3, 4 Firewire 800 drives hooked up to the display, or even a solid state external drive (up until now not possible/worthwhile making). All that storage could go through just the one Thunderbolt connection to the MacBook and still keep its 800Mbps speed.
Why have 4 Thunderbolt connectors when it's speed allows so much to go through just one via a hub? This wasn't the case with USB2 or Firewire. There was only so much one USB/Firewire socket could handle without significant speed hits, hence the need for multiple sockets. You could have every USB device you own connected through just one Thunderbolt cable and the only reason you'd need a second Thunderbolt cable would be if you needed a 10Gbps transfer rate to something else, some sort of SSD from the future perhaps. My point is we're years from Thunderbolt's speed being a bottleneck so we only need the one socket.
My point is we're years from Thunderbolt's speed being a bottleneck so we only need the one socket.
And you're years from convincing me I need to cart around an external hub for something as simple as plugging crap in. As long as a laptop has to be as large as the size of its screen, give me more than one port and let me use insanely high amounts of bandwidth via them.
And you're years from convincing me I need to cart around an external hub for something as simple as plugging crap in. As long as a laptop has to be as large as the size of its screen, give me more than one port and let me use insanely high amounts of bandwidth via them.
I think we'll see the current setup of one Thunderbolt and 2-3 USB2 ports for a good while to come. You can't plug any existing device directly into a Thunderbolt port so there's no need for multiple Thunderbolt ports is there? My point all along was that we only need one Thunderbolt port for the foreseeable future. I didn't say we didn't need USB2 ports any more, nor did I say I want to see them replaced with a hub.
You can't plug any existing device directly into a Thunderbolt port so there's no need for multiple Thunderbolt ports is there?
You can't plug any existing device directly into a USB port, so there's no need for multiple USB ports, is there?
That's you in '97. And when the iPad 2 and iPhone 5 come out, that will be you in July of this year.
My point all along was that we only need one Thunderbolt port for the foreseeable future.
And mine's that we need more. Best to look to the future rather than the present.
You can't plug any existing device directly into a USB port, so there's no need for multiple USB ports, is there?
That's you in '97. And when the iPad 2 and iPhone 5 come out, that will be you in July of this year.
And mine's that we need more. Best to look to the future rather than the present.
You don't understand. There is a need for multiple USB ports because there is an inherent limit to how fast data can be put through one USB port and that limit is reached using disk drives. If you have a USB hub with 4 disk drives attached to it connected to your computer, you will only be able to use those disks at a quarter of their potential speed. That makes USB hubs far less useful than a Thunderbolt hub would be.
With Thunderbolt, the speed is so far over the limit of the USB interfaces for the hard disks that you can have them all hooked up to the hub and connect it to the to computer via Thunderbolt and have them all going through the one port without losing any of their speed.
Maybe you want more than 6 hard disks attached to your mac and need more ports? 12, 18 disks, just to be safe?
I'm not stuck in 1997, I can just see the big picture. You will NEVER need a Thunderbolt mouse, keyboard, webcam etc. They will simply never, ever need Thunderbolt speed. USB is already overkill for their speed requirements.
One Thunderbolt port and 2 USB will do 99.9% of people for a very long time to come.
You don't understand. There is a need for multiple USB ports because there is an inherent limit to how fast data can be put through one USB port and that limit is reached using disk drives.
Also a limit to how fast data can be put through one Thunderbolt port.
With Thunderbolt, the speed is so far over the limit of the USB interfaces for the hard disks that you can have them all hooked up to the hub and connect it to the to computer via Thunderbolt and have them all going through the one port without losing any of their speed.
USB, yes. FireWire, sure. eSATA, maybe depending on the number of devices. Not devices designed for Thunderbolt.
Maybe you want more than 6 hard disks attached to your mac and need more ports? 12, 18 disks, just to be safe?
I'm not stuck in 1997, I can just see the big picture. You will NEVER need a Thunderbolt mouse, keyboard, webcam etc. They will simply never, ever need Thunderbolt speed.
Webcam I can see. You think we'll have these sensors forever? How about external storage? How about iDevices? Multi-drive RAIDs? Thunderbolt's based on PCIe, so why not externalize fiber channel hardware and run everything through it?
One Thunderbolt port and 2 USB will do 99.9% of people for a very long time to come.
Quite possibly. but we'll see.
How can anyone use Thunderbolt without access to a Thunderbolt-enabled motherboard? Until Intel make that technology available to others then nobody can use it. It's not a matter of soldering a few wires to an existing motherboard, you need to have access to a supply of the Thunderbolt controller chips as seen in this article. Only Apple have that. That's called a deal.
You're wrong here in thinking that vendors need to wait until Ivy Bridge. They have the option of doing exactly what Apple is doing today. Some may very well do just that, but more likely they're going to wait until Ivy Bridge. Thus it's not an exclusive deal, but rather may remain an Apple advantage until Ive Bridge comes out.
You are making the mistake of thinking Thunderbolt will replace USB, I don't think it will for a good while, if ever. USB more that fulfils the needs for mice, keyboards, webcams, printers, scanners, graphic tablets etc. I think Apple will see Thunderbolt as being able to be the port that all these other devices enter the computer through via a hub. They have already culled USB slots down to 2 on MacBook Pros.
Actually, the 17" MBPs have 3 USB ports. Why? Why not just give one and make users carry a hub around? You may think for your use that 1 USB port with a hub would hit a bandwidth wall, but most users see it as a hassle to carry a USB hub just to connect an iPhone and external drive at the same time.
The reason why Thunderbolt will replace USB ports is because it can. A DisplayPort more than fulfills the need for a DisplayPort, but yet Apple did away with it because there's no point in having one when there's Thunderbolt.
This is one of the key reasons for the development of Thunderbolt. The idea is that you have one port to rule them all. You take your devices and you plug them in without having to think "this one goes into this port, that one goes into that port". You have ports, you plug your devices into any of the available ports. They're all the same.
"This happened before". Serial and ADB ports were fine for keyboards and mice. For that matter, so was USB 1.1, but now it's just USB 2.0. This is because it's easier for the end user and cheaper and easier for the PC maker as well as the device makers.
Again, this is the whole reason why Apple requested Thunderbolt as a something everything else could roll into. There's no need to consider "Mice only need the speed of USB 1.1, so put a USB 1.1 port on there, and then put USB 2.0 for devices that need that speed, and FireWire 800 for devices that need that speed, and DisplayPort for devices that need that, and then Thunderbolt for only the stuff that needs that".
When Ivy Bridge is released, removing the legacy ports and having multiple Thunderbolt ports becomes cheaper, easier, and requires less space.
I see this as Apple's way of thinking because of how they have designed the Apple Cinema Display You put your MacBook next to it and plug in the power cable and one USB cable and everything hooked up to the display is then accessible to the MacBook. The problem with the existing setup is that the USB2 connection isn't fast enough to make this an ideal solution for power users (and who else buys a $1k display but a power user?). Thunderbolt will allow us to have 2, 3, 4 Firewire 800 drives hooked up to the display, or even a solid state external drive (up until now not possible/worthwhile making). All that storage could go through just the one Thunderbolt connection to the MacBook and still keep its 800Mbps speed.
Yes, this is one fantastic use of Thunderbolt. There will be hubs and there will be docks, but not everyone has a desk station that they connect there notebooks to, and many people need connectivity to devices on the road. Thus it makes sense to have multiple Thunderbolt ports and the ability to plug all devices in.
Why have 4 Thunderbolt connectors when it's speed allows so much to go through just one via a hub? This wasn't the case with USB2 or Firewire. There was only so much one USB/Firewire socket could handle without significant speed hits, hence the need for multiple sockets. You could have every USB device you own connected through just one Thunderbolt cable and the only reason you'd need a second Thunderbolt cable would be if you needed a 10Gbps transfer rate to something else, some sort of SSD from the future perhaps. My point is we're years from Thunderbolt's speed being a bottleneck so we only need the one socket.
Why did Apple include an SD card reader...you can just connect an external one. Why include an optical drive...you can just connect an external one...the list goes on. The issue is more than bandwidth, it's about convenience.
I'm not stuck in 1997, I can just see the big picture. You will NEVER need a Thunderbolt mouse, keyboard, webcam etc. They will simply never, ever need Thunderbolt speed. USB is already overkill for their speed requirements.
One Thunderbolt port and 2 USB will do 99.9% of people for a very long time to come.
It may do it, but it would be cheaper, easier, and consume less real estate to have 3 Thunderbolt ports.
Why do we have USB 2.0 ports for mice when Serial, ADB or USB 1.1 ports were already overkill for their speed requirements?
Also a limit to how fast data can be put through one Thunderbolt port.
USB, yes. FireWire, sure. eSATA, maybe depending on the number of devices. Not devices designed for Thunderbolt.
Maybe you want more than 6 hard disks attached to your mac and need more ports? 12, 18 disks, just to be safe?
Webcam I can see. You think we'll have these sensors forever? How about external storage? How about iDevices? Multi-drive RAIDs? Thunderbolt's based on PCIe, so why not externalize fiber channel hardware and run everything through it?
Quite possibly. but we'll see.
But that Thunderbolt limit is so much higher than USB's that its impact will be of a different nature. Only top, top end devices will ever reach it. USB's limit was always going to be reached by a few normal devices.
I don't see a webcam ever requiring a data transfer rate faster than 60MB per second. The quality of video would have to be stupendous. Unless you have a friend you like to iChat with who regularly has Hollywood blockbusters happen in front of his MacBook for your dereliction, I wouldn't worry about USB ever limiting your Webcam experience :P
Disk drives are the only consumer grade peripheral that will ever need a Thunderbolt port dedicated to it, and that's why I don't think the 1997 USB thing was fair comment.
We'll see, but I'm pretty confident that USB is here for a good while yet and that Thunderbolt's most exciting use could be the advent of 8, 10, 12 port USB hubs. I've needed one for some time.
You're wrong here in thinking that vendors need to wait until Ivy Bridge. They have the option of doing exactly what Apple is doing today. Some may very well do just that, but more likely they're going to wait until Ivy Bridge. Thus it's not an exclusive deal, but rather may remain an Apple advantage until Ive Bridge comes out.
Actually, the 17" MBPs have 3 USB ports. Why? Why not just give one and make users carry a hub around? You may think for your use that 1 USB port with a hub would hit a bandwidth wall, but most users see it as a hassle to carry a USB hub just to connect an iPhone and external drive at the same time.
The reason why Thunderbolt will replace USB ports is because it can. A DisplayPort more than fulfills the need for a DisplayPort, but yet Apple did away with it because there's no point in having one when there's Thunderbolt.
This is one of the key reasons for the development of Thunderbolt. The idea is that you have one port to rule them all. You take your devices and you plug them in without having to think "this one goes into this port, that one goes into that port". You have ports, you plug your devices into any of the available ports. They're all the same.
"This happened before". Serial and ADB ports were fine for keyboards and mice. For that matter, so was USB 1.1, but now it's just USB 2.0. This is because it's easier for the end user and cheaper and easier for the PC maker as well as the device makers.
Again, this is the whole reason why Apple requested Thunderbolt as a something everything else could roll into. There's no need to consider "Mice only need the speed of USB 1.1, so put a USB 1.1 port on there, and then put USB 2.0 for devices that need that speed, and FireWire 800 for devices that need that speed, and DisplayPort for devices that need that, and then Thunderbolt for only the stuff that needs that".
When Ivy Bridge is released, removing the legacy ports and having multiple Thunderbolt ports becomes cheaper, easier, and requires less space.
Yes, this is one fantastic use of Thunderbolt. There will be hubs and there will be docks, but not everyone has a desk station that they connect there notebooks to, and many people need connectivity to devices on the road. Thus it makes sense to have multiple Thunderbolt ports and the ability to plug all devices in.
Why did Apple include an SD card reader...you can just connect an external one. Why include an optical drive...you can just connect an external one...the list goes on. The issue is more than bandwidth, it's about convenience.
How can a vendor do what Apple is doing today? Do they have access to Thunderbolt controller chips? Anyway, it's a small matter really in the grand scheme of things.
I take your point that having one port type is an advantage, but having three Thunderbolt ports at the expense of USB ports would be insane in 2011, and probably 2012 and 2013 as well. People already own USB devices, many of them. Thunderbolt won't be ready to replace USB for a good while. Also, will licensing be as cheap for a new tech like Thunderbolt as it is for USB? I don't know, just musing.
It may do it, but it would be cheaper, easier, and consume less real estate to have 3 Thunderbolt ports.
Why do we have USB 2.0 ports for mice when Serial, ADB or USB 1.1 ports were already overkill for their speed requirements?
USB unified several standards that were all existing simultaneously. PS/2 was being used for this, Serial for that etc. It was messy and they were old, not particularly practical (in a physical, disconnecting, reconnecting sense) ports. USB could just be slid in, done. People liked that.
Also, serial was far slower than USB is today and USB really took off when 2.0 came along. There was a need for more speed for all manner of uses. There isn't any now. Only storage really needs it. Your points are good, I just think that people won't see the same problems with USB as they did with all those old 1980/90s things. They'll think 'why do I need another type of connector? USB was fine.'
I don't carry a hub around with me. I find only having 2 ports a pain. I bought a Bluetooth mouse just to free one up. I'm not for a moment suggesting we all have one port and connect everything via a hub. I'm saying that USB ports are far more useful to every single user right now and will be for some time to come. I think Thunderbolt's primary use for a while will be to conduct other devices into the computer via a hub.
When the 1,080,000p webcam comes out, we might need a Thunderbolt port adding... I believe Thunderbolt ports could replace USB like you say, but it won't happen for a very long time. Until then, adding more Thunderbolt ports and losing USB ports would mean carrying adapters around for existing devices. That's as bad as needing a hub.