And what about the DisplayPort portion? Apparently, the current version of Thunderbolt does not provide the full bandwidth of the latest DisplayPort standard.
That's really not true. It keeps getting repeated here anyway. Displayport can have from one to four lanes. Tbolt has two channels per port. It's a complex issue but throughput in Displayport four lanes have 17.28 Gbs, after the chatter is removed. Tbolt is very efficient. It's thought that both channels can carry the signal.
We'll find this out as things progress, but to say it can't happen is not the case from what we know now.
Don't be so sure. Display port has 7 pins and is used to transmit Tbolt now on the MBP's. There is no reason yet to believe for certain it won't do so here. As Quoted from Patently Apple:
Notice the "at least"? Apple wouldn't need to put a technology in the patent it hadn't yet decided to add, or hadn't yet finished working on. The patent can always be amended later if required.
A standard Displayport connector has 20 pins, not 7 pins, you would need at least 11 pins for full DP = quad-lane, hence TBolt.
I just downloaded the patent and, in fact there is a pin configuration for quad-lane DP (FIG.6E), so I apologize for that, full TBolt is possible, the article is still mistaken in associating dual-lane DP to Thunderbolt.
But that doesn't change the fact that the device using this connector would need to be able to send data thru PCIe lanes (at PCIe speed to be relevant) and have a TB controller. While it surely is possible on a Mac (but probably not that much relevant/useful), we are far from seeing that on iDevices. I think that USB2/USB3+DP offers already improvements for many situations/applications.
Let's not forget that Tbolt has two channels going each way at once. That's a total of 20Gbs each way. And this is just the first implementation. We know that if the path for this isn't interrupted, it will reach 100Gbs within ten years. As it's being described as 10Gbs now, that could actually mean 200Gbs each way on two channels. That would be fast enough for almost anything. And by that time, they'll figure out a way to have an even faster version, or a new bus.
It doesn't matter. Intel's TBolt 1.0 doesn't support DP 1.2. What's the point of offering DP 1.2 even over two 10Gb/s channel if that was possible, that would leave you with less than 3Gb/s for data. I think it's a good thing that Intel limits DP at 1.1 on TBolt for the moment.
I don't see how TBolt's future at 100Gb/s has anything to do with the standards supported or not today. But OK, TBolt will get better with time, so will many other technologies: 16x PCIe 3.0 slots will offer 128Gb/s each way at once as soon as later this year...
It doesn't matter. Intel's TBolt 1.0 doesn't support DP 1.2. What's the point of offering DP 1.2 even over two 10Gb/s channel if that was possible, that would leave you with less than 3Gb/s for data. I think it's a good thing that Intel limits DP at 1.1 on TBolt for the moment.
I don't see how TBolt's future at 100Gb/s has anything to do with the standards supported or not today. But OK, TBolt will get better with time, so will many other technologies: 16x PCIe 3.0 slots will offer 128Gb/s each way at once as soon as later this year...
When Displayport 1.2 devices hit the market, will Apple be ready for it? I'm sure that PC manufacturers would have no problem making products with both full size Displayport 1.2 ports and separate Thunderbolt ports. What are the chances of Apple doing something like that? So unless Thunderbolt gets higher bandwidth to match Displayport 1.2, Apple would have to:
1) Not support Displayport 1.2 capabilities like very high resolution monitors or daisy chaining higher number of monitors. Or:
2) Make systems with both Mini Displayport and separate Thunderbolt ports.
Somehow I get the feeling that before too long, every apple device will have only one connector, a TB one. Pure business move, all customers would have to spring for "changers" to plug in FW, USB, etc. devices. Very clever, expense of crating the product goes DOWN, those buying the product see their cost go UP.
A few years of that and their cash on hand will swell way over 100 billion. They use that to buy a small country and move there, thus avoiding a whole bunch of taxes.
Firewire *was* in every product they make, that isn't why it failed. It failed because PC manufacturers refused to pay the few cents a connector royalties on it (and let's face it, they also hated it simply because Apple was promoting it), and so wouldn't install it in their products. When USB was rapidly evolved into a product with almost as fast a throughput a few years later, the few that did adopt it dropped it, even though it had more going for it than just the speed.
The same thing *could* happen here, although I know nothing about the technical specs so I'm not sure. If the USB 3 folks could double the speed somehow, USB could still hang on in the same manner even though just like Firewire, there are many more reasons to use Thunderbolt than just the raw speed.
A cheaper, dumber, faster pipe always seems to win out because the manufacturers are all fighting each other over fractions of a penny thanks to Microsoft.
That's the problem with USB (Universal Serial Bus), it was designed around HIDs & not around hardware expansion. Thunderbolt basically brings PCIx expansion to the laptop, one of a few limitations to laptops that still makes desktops an appealing choice for pros & gamers.
If I understand Thunderbolt correctly you could basically beef up your laptop via expansion devices through the thunderbolt port like adding cards to a desktop. I don't think DP takes any of this bandwidth, as it has it's own 20Mbps provision I think, though I'm not 100% certain on that.
This all seems to play into an idea Apple had long ago where you could have a Dock for your computer that is more than a port replicator or USB hub, but that actually turns it into a beefy desktop when docked. No more need for a Mac Pro & a MacBook Pro!! I guess right now that is probably still wishful thinking.
Surely we are talking about mini-Thunderbolt, apple's fork of the standard?
Sorry, I can't plug that in. Has anyone got an adapter?
Sir you are creating a new name...this just confuses everyone. There is no mini-Thunderbolt. The Intel/Apple coordination of Thunderbolt uses the minidisplay port as the standard. The port is smaller, will cost less in volume. Display port never really caught on as an industry standard even though Intel wanted to become just that.
That's the problem with USB (Universal Serial Bus), it was designed around HIDs & not around hardware expansion. Thunderbolt basically brings PCIx expansion to the laptop, one of a few limitations to laptops that still makes desktops an appealing choice for pros & gamers.
Actually USB was designed for 32 and 64 bit operations as the old legacy ports for keyboards et al were 16 bit channels. Intel designed USB to be used instead of FW because USB promoted the use of processors. The advantage of FW was it was a smart controller scheme and did not require a Processor interrupt to work ... so data transfer was faster. Sony picked up on FW and renamed it iLink... they wanted it so they could transfer large digital photo files without needing a computer at all. (Just a bit of history).
Quote:
If I understand Thunderbolt correctly you could basically beef up your laptop via expansion devices through the thunderbolt port like adding cards to a desktop. I don't think DP takes any of this bandwidth, as it has it's own 20Mbps provision I think, though I'm not 100% certain on that.
Actually Apple designed the concept of Lightpeak (downgraded performance a bit but included power distribution through copper wires to Thunderbolt. Lightpeak was fiber optics oriented and data rates up to 100 Mbps) to get back to the idea of one port that daisy chains into hubs that can offer all the older legacy ports that so many cling to and feel are so essential. Intel developed the controller for Thunderbird and implemented it for the PCI express architecture so it would promote Core2 and their latest series of processors of the "i" family ... i3, i5 and i7. Intel wouldn't license to Nvidea as Intel wanted to include their own graphics chip. It never was a good, but it cost less, and seemed good enough for everything except high performance gaming , et al.
If Apple has somehow included the TB controller for ARM processors in their mobile products then a whole new world of interconnects develops. That is what seems to be happening with the patent re: the 30 pin standard mobile connector Apple has been using for the past few years with their mobile devices. It remains to be announced if that hardware is already in iPad2 or requires iPad3 for implementation. We just don't know yet. Rumors will spread this every which way. Best just to wait and learn.
Quote:
This all seems to play into an idea Apple had long ago where you could have a Dock for your computer that is more than a port replicator or USB hub, but that actually turns it into a beefy desktop when docked. No more need for a Mac Pro & a MacBook Pro!! I guess right now that is probably still wishful thinking.
TB is not for docking. Docks are expensive and have not been a good investment as new technology grows. Sony tried that and it failed, because it was too expensive over time. The same thing happened with HP.
If you'll notice the recent stuff from Adobe wherein they are offering apps for iOS that will enable input creative color mixing,etc. via iPad2 then using high speed data transfer to MBP for instance where in post movie editing via Final Cut Pro can be accomplished in a very professional way.
Look at the new pre NAB conference where all this discussion of all this new stuff is coming together.
Somehow I get the feeling that before too long, every apple device will have only one connector, a TB one. Pure business move, all customers would have to spring for "changers" to plug in FW, USB, etc. devices.
By the time this happens, none of the old port devices will exist at all.
Quote:
A few years of that and their cash on hand will swell way over 100 billion. They use that to buy a small country and move there, thus avoiding a whole bunch of taxes.
Except peripherals are nowhere near Apple's largest sales segment, nor will they ever be. Stop the FUD.
By the time this happens, none of the old port devices will exist at all.
Except peripherals are nowhere near Apple's largest sales segment, nor will they ever be. Stop the FUD.
The sarcasm was all mine, but the FUD really comes from Cupertino. We hear exactly nothing from them, no idea of what plans they have, what I/O direction are they hoping for. They sure do have a history of abruptly dropping "old and tired" interfaces that the rest of the world continues to use, leaving their users scrambling.
So where is the plan? What are the intentions? How will they implement? Why should I not believe this is going to be another ADB (something I got burned on to the tune of 300+ bucks)?
Looks like the end of the road for FireWire though I really do hope that Apple include FireWire 800 at least in the upcoming iMac revision as I still have 5 working external HDs, 2 hubs and a 2 video cameras with FW
What a great technology it is/was. Far superior in every way to USB but Apple got it wrong with licensing. I do hope they get it right this time round.
The sarcasm was all mine, but the FUD really comes from Cupertino. We hear exactly nothing from them, no idea of what plans they have, what I/O direction are they hoping for. They sure do have a history of abruptly dropping "old and tired" interfaces that the rest of the world continues to use, leaving their users scrambling.
So where is the plan? What are the intentions? How will they implement? Why should I not believe this is going to be another ADB (something I got burned on to the tune of 300+ bucks)?
FUD is where a corporation floats hints and innuendo of what's to come, usually when the competition gets a leg up on them and they want to prevent everyone from heading to the exits. Pretty much by definition, "hearing nothing" is the opposite of FUD.
Which isn't to say that hearing nothing a good thing either. I agree that a roadmap would be nice, but it's just not how Apple does business.
FUD is where a corporation floats hints and innuendo of what's to come, usually when the competition gets a leg up on them and they want to prevent everyone from heading to the exits. Pretty much by definition, "hearing nothing" is the opposite of FUD.
Which isn't to say that hearing nothing a good thing either. I agree that a roadmap would be nice, but it's just not how Apple does business.
Sorry, but "it's just not how Apple does business" in no way excuses them. "Hearing nothing" means we should be fearful that a lot of our investments may be tossed out... uncertainty whether functionality may be lost in that investment because TB to FW just does not allow the same functionality as real ports do.
It seems this only will be an issue to those of us who have stuck with the platform for a length of time... we are the ones that have a lot of investment in equipment other than our Macs.
Sorry, but "it's just not how Apple does business" in no way excuses them. "Hearing nothing" means we should be fearful that a lot of our investments may be tossed out... uncertainty whether functionality may be lost in that investment because TB to FW just does not allow the same functionality as real ports do.
It seems this only will be an issue to those of us who have stuck with the platform for a length of time... we are the ones that have a lot of investment in equipment other than our Macs.
If I wasn't clear, I wasn't saying that I think it's acceptable for Apple to not providing a roadmap w/r/t Thunderbolt.
I was just pointing out that, historically, it's not the kind of thing they've been known to do.
There are pros and cons to everything in life; when dealing with Apple the whole "secrecy" thing is just one of the cons...
Comments
And what about the DisplayPort portion? Apparently, the current version of Thunderbolt does not provide the full bandwidth of the latest DisplayPort standard.
That's really not true. It keeps getting repeated here anyway. Displayport can have from one to four lanes. Tbolt has two channels per port. It's a complex issue but throughput in Displayport four lanes have 17.28 Gbs, after the chatter is removed. Tbolt is very efficient. It's thought that both channels can carry the signal.
We'll find this out as things progress, but to say it can't happen is not the case from what we know now.
Don't be so sure. Display port has 7 pins and is used to transmit Tbolt now on the MBP's. There is no reason yet to believe for certain it won't do so here. As Quoted from Patently Apple:
Notice the "at least"? Apple wouldn't need to put a technology in the patent it hadn't yet decided to add, or hadn't yet finished working on. The patent can always be amended later if required.
A standard Displayport connector has 20 pins, not 7 pins, you would need at least 11 pins for full DP = quad-lane, hence TBolt.
I just downloaded the patent and, in fact there is a pin configuration for quad-lane DP (FIG.6E), so I apologize for that, full TBolt is possible, the article is still mistaken in associating dual-lane DP to Thunderbolt.
But that doesn't change the fact that the device using this connector would need to be able to send data thru PCIe lanes (at PCIe speed to be relevant) and have a TB controller. While it surely is possible on a Mac (but probably not that much relevant/useful), we are far from seeing that on iDevices. I think that USB2/USB3+DP offers already improvements for many situations/applications.
Let's not forget that Tbolt has two channels going each way at once. That's a total of 20Gbs each way. And this is just the first implementation. We know that if the path for this isn't interrupted, it will reach 100Gbs within ten years. As it's being described as 10Gbs now, that could actually mean 200Gbs each way on two channels. That would be fast enough for almost anything. And by that time, they'll figure out a way to have an even faster version, or a new bus.
It doesn't matter. Intel's TBolt 1.0 doesn't support DP 1.2. What's the point of offering DP 1.2 even over two 10Gb/s channel if that was possible, that would leave you with less than 3Gb/s for data. I think it's a good thing that Intel limits DP at 1.1 on TBolt for the moment.
I don't see how TBolt's future at 100Gb/s has anything to do with the standards supported or not today. But OK, TBolt will get better with time, so will many other technologies: 16x PCIe 3.0 slots will offer 128Gb/s each way at once as soon as later this year...
It doesn't matter. Intel's TBolt 1.0 doesn't support DP 1.2. What's the point of offering DP 1.2 even over two 10Gb/s channel if that was possible, that would leave you with less than 3Gb/s for data. I think it's a good thing that Intel limits DP at 1.1 on TBolt for the moment.
I don't see how TBolt's future at 100Gb/s has anything to do with the standards supported or not today. But OK, TBolt will get better with time, so will many other technologies: 16x PCIe 3.0 slots will offer 128Gb/s each way at once as soon as later this year...
When Displayport 1.2 devices hit the market, will Apple be ready for it? I'm sure that PC manufacturers would have no problem making products with both full size Displayport 1.2 ports and separate Thunderbolt ports. What are the chances of Apple doing something like that? So unless Thunderbolt gets higher bandwidth to match Displayport 1.2, Apple would have to:
1) Not support Displayport 1.2 capabilities like very high resolution monitors or daisy chaining higher number of monitors. Or:
2) Make systems with both Mini Displayport and separate Thunderbolt ports.
A few years of that and their cash on hand will swell way over 100 billion. They use that to buy a small country and move there, thus avoiding a whole bunch of taxes.
Take that Bill Gates!
Firewire *was* in every product they make, that isn't why it failed. It failed because PC manufacturers refused to pay the few cents a connector royalties on it (and let's face it, they also hated it simply because Apple was promoting it), and so wouldn't install it in their products. When USB was rapidly evolved into a product with almost as fast a throughput a few years later, the few that did adopt it dropped it, even though it had more going for it than just the speed.
The same thing *could* happen here, although I know nothing about the technical specs so I'm not sure. If the USB 3 folks could double the speed somehow, USB could still hang on in the same manner even though just like Firewire, there are many more reasons to use Thunderbolt than just the raw speed.
A cheaper, dumber, faster pipe always seems to win out because the manufacturers are all fighting each other over fractions of a penny thanks to Microsoft.
That's the problem with USB (Universal Serial Bus), it was designed around HIDs & not around hardware expansion. Thunderbolt basically brings PCIx expansion to the laptop, one of a few limitations to laptops that still makes desktops an appealing choice for pros & gamers.
If I understand Thunderbolt correctly you could basically beef up your laptop via expansion devices through the thunderbolt port like adding cards to a desktop. I don't think DP takes any of this bandwidth, as it has it's own 20Mbps provision I think, though I'm not 100% certain on that.
This all seems to play into an idea Apple had long ago where you could have a Dock for your computer that is more than a port replicator or USB hub, but that actually turns it into a beefy desktop when docked. No more need for a Mac Pro & a MacBook Pro!! I guess right now that is probably still wishful thinking.
Surely we are talking about mini-Thunderbolt, apple's fork of the standard?
Sorry, I can't plug that in. Has anyone got an adapter?
Sir you are creating a new name...this just confuses everyone. There is no mini-Thunderbolt. The Intel/Apple coordination of Thunderbolt uses the minidisplay port as the standard. The port is smaller, will cost less in volume. Display port never really caught on as an industry standard even though Intel wanted to become just that.
That's the problem with USB (Universal Serial Bus), it was designed around HIDs & not around hardware expansion. Thunderbolt basically brings PCIx expansion to the laptop, one of a few limitations to laptops that still makes desktops an appealing choice for pros & gamers.
Actually USB was designed for 32 and 64 bit operations as the old legacy ports for keyboards et al were 16 bit channels. Intel designed USB to be used instead of FW because USB promoted the use of processors. The advantage of FW was it was a smart controller scheme and did not require a Processor interrupt to work ... so data transfer was faster. Sony picked up on FW and renamed it iLink... they wanted it so they could transfer large digital photo files without needing a computer at all. (Just a bit of history).
If I understand Thunderbolt correctly you could basically beef up your laptop via expansion devices through the thunderbolt port like adding cards to a desktop. I don't think DP takes any of this bandwidth, as it has it's own 20Mbps provision I think, though I'm not 100% certain on that.
Actually Apple designed the concept of Lightpeak (downgraded performance a bit but included power distribution through copper wires to Thunderbolt. Lightpeak was fiber optics oriented and data rates up to 100 Mbps) to get back to the idea of one port that daisy chains into hubs that can offer all the older legacy ports that so many cling to and feel are so essential. Intel developed the controller for Thunderbird and implemented it for the PCI express architecture so it would promote Core2 and their latest series of processors of the "i" family ... i3, i5 and i7. Intel wouldn't license to Nvidea as Intel wanted to include their own graphics chip. It never was a good, but it cost less, and seemed good enough for everything except high performance gaming , et al.
If Apple has somehow included the TB controller for ARM processors in their mobile products then a whole new world of interconnects develops. That is what seems to be happening with the patent re: the 30 pin standard mobile connector Apple has been using for the past few years with their mobile devices. It remains to be announced if that hardware is already in iPad2 or requires iPad3 for implementation. We just don't know yet. Rumors will spread this every which way. Best just to wait and learn.
This all seems to play into an idea Apple had long ago where you could have a Dock for your computer that is more than a port replicator or USB hub, but that actually turns it into a beefy desktop when docked. No more need for a Mac Pro & a MacBook Pro!! I guess right now that is probably still wishful thinking.
TB is not for docking. Docks are expensive and have not been a good investment as new technology grows. Sony tried that and it failed, because it was too expensive over time. The same thing happened with HP.
If you'll notice the recent stuff from Adobe wherein they are offering apps for iOS that will enable input creative color mixing,etc. via iPad2 then using high speed data transfer to MBP for instance where in post movie editing via Final Cut Pro can be accomplished in a very professional way.
Look at the new pre NAB conference where all this discussion of all this new stuff is coming together.
Somehow I get the feeling that before too long, every apple device will have only one connector, a TB one. Pure business move, all customers would have to spring for "changers" to plug in FW, USB, etc. devices.
By the time this happens, none of the old port devices will exist at all.
A few years of that and their cash on hand will swell way over 100 billion. They use that to buy a small country and move there, thus avoiding a whole bunch of taxes.
Except peripherals are nowhere near Apple's largest sales segment, nor will they ever be. Stop the FUD.
By the time this happens, none of the old port devices will exist at all.
Except peripherals are nowhere near Apple's largest sales segment, nor will they ever be. Stop the FUD.
The sarcasm was all mine, but the FUD really comes from Cupertino. We hear exactly nothing from them, no idea of what plans they have, what I/O direction are they hoping for. They sure do have a history of abruptly dropping "old and tired" interfaces that the rest of the world continues to use, leaving their users scrambling.
So where is the plan? What are the intentions? How will they implement? Why should I not believe this is going to be another ADB (something I got burned on to the tune of 300+ bucks)?
Looks like the end of the road for FireWire though I really do hope that Apple include FireWire 800 at least in the upcoming iMac revision as I still have 5 working external HDs, 2 hubs and a 2 video cameras with FW
What a great technology it is/was. Far superior in every way to USB but Apple got it wrong with licensing. I do hope they get it right this time round.
The sarcasm was all mine, but the FUD really comes from Cupertino. We hear exactly nothing from them, no idea of what plans they have, what I/O direction are they hoping for. They sure do have a history of abruptly dropping "old and tired" interfaces that the rest of the world continues to use, leaving their users scrambling.
So where is the plan? What are the intentions? How will they implement? Why should I not believe this is going to be another ADB (something I got burned on to the tune of 300+ bucks)?
FUD is where a corporation floats hints and innuendo of what's to come, usually when the competition gets a leg up on them and they want to prevent everyone from heading to the exits. Pretty much by definition, "hearing nothing" is the opposite of FUD.
Which isn't to say that hearing nothing a good thing either. I agree that a roadmap would be nice, but it's just not how Apple does business.
ADB (something I got burned on to the tune of 300+ bucks)?
What ADB devices did you own that didn't work with the $10 ADB-USB adapters that came out after the first iMac?
What ADB devices did you own that didn't work with the $10 ADB-USB adapters that came out after the first iMac?
Wacom graphics tablet...
FUD is where a corporation floats hints and innuendo of what's to come, usually when the competition gets a leg up on them and they want to prevent everyone from heading to the exits. Pretty much by definition, "hearing nothing" is the opposite of FUD.
Which isn't to say that hearing nothing a good thing either. I agree that a roadmap would be nice, but it's just not how Apple does business.
Sorry, but "it's just not how Apple does business" in no way excuses them. "Hearing nothing" means we should be fearful that a lot of our investments may be tossed out... uncertainty whether functionality may be lost in that investment because TB to FW just does not allow the same functionality as real ports do.
It seems this only will be an issue to those of us who have stuck with the platform for a length of time... we are the ones that have a lot of investment in equipment other than our Macs.
Sorry, but "it's just not how Apple does business" in no way excuses them. "Hearing nothing" means we should be fearful that a lot of our investments may be tossed out... uncertainty whether functionality may be lost in that investment because TB to FW just does not allow the same functionality as real ports do.
It seems this only will be an issue to those of us who have stuck with the platform for a length of time... we are the ones that have a lot of investment in equipment other than our Macs.
If I wasn't clear, I wasn't saying that I think it's acceptable for Apple to not providing a roadmap w/r/t Thunderbolt.
I was just pointing out that, historically, it's not the kind of thing they've been known to do.
There are pros and cons to everything in life; when dealing with Apple the whole "secrecy" thing is just one of the cons...