They recently bought Vertica which was a pretty smart decision. Not in the consumer space, but still a nice move for them.
HP replaced Neoview with Vertica... but did HP really understand/know why Neoview failed? (... or maybe HP just Hurd it wasn't working out for them and dropped Neoview)
Too early to tell if HP is in over their heads with Vertica. The deal just closed less than a month ago.
It is. Unless they put this thing on an iPad or an iPhone no one is going to adopt it. iOs is the only place Apple rules the marketplace. As far as firewire is concerned, even Apple themselves stopped putting firewire on their laptops for a time.
What ticks me off here is that Apple didn't include flash on iOS because, according to Jobs, they have a finite amount of resources and personnel and they want to focus attention on emerging technologies that have a future.
You can't tell me USB is done for. It's everywhere. (Much like Flash.) Apple can't really expect everyone to toss out every camera, printer, hard drive, iPod in favor of this lightning bolt stuff.
Even if it's wayyy better than USB, it's not compelling enough of a feature to make people run out and buy a new computer.
So in the end, Thundercat is going to be a waste of time and resources.
OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! How much BS talk do we have to endure from you? Did you ever read anyting anywhere? Or are you ignorant beyond repair?
Support for both Thunderbolt and USB 3.0 will appear in Intel's next-generation processors, code-named "Ivy Bridge." Those chips, which will arrive in 2012, are the successor to the "Sandy Bride" processors that began shipping earlier this year.
Read HP's press release carefully. They didn't say they wouldn't use Thunderbolt. In fact, they specifically stated that they might use it in the future.
Now, remember Intel/Apple's announcement of Thunderbolt. Apple had a full year head start because of their participation in the development of Thunderbolt.
So, let's translate HP's statements:
"We are still a long way from having Thunderbolt ready, so we couldn't offer it today even if we wanted to. Rather than taking a hit on sales, we'll spread some FUD and say that we're not using it".
It's that simple. HP will be using Thunderbolt in a year.
It's that simple. HP will be using Thunderbolt in a year.
I agree... Apple will introduce something new that will require TB and then, like the iPad, the other companies will fall all over themselves trying to follow Apple's lead as quickly as possible because usb 3 just won't cut it.
I'm guessing that video is one of the main uses of Thunderbolt, yet all of the high quality cameras are using Compact Flash for storage. Plus there are a few billion USB Flash drives out there. We are probably going to see Thunderbolt card readers pretty quickly along with USB converters. I'm not an expert but I would assume that the SD card reader in the MBP is USB as well, not to mention the millions of iPhones and iPads that rely on it. So I don't see USB going away anytime soon.
Read HP's press release carefully. They didn't say they wouldn't use Thunderbolt. In fact, they specifically stated that they might use it in the future.
Now, remember Intel/Apple's announcement of Thunderbolt. Apple had a full year head start because of their participation in the development of Thunderbolt.
So, let's translate HP's statements:
"We are still a long way from having Thunderbolt ready, so we couldn't offer it today even if we wanted to. Rather than taking a hit on sales, we'll spread some FUD and say that we're not using it".
It's that simple. HP will be using Thunderbolt in a year.
Once upon a time, Steve Wozniak came before HP execs with the Apple I and offered it to them to sell, because they had first rights to anything he invented while in their employ. The HP execs had no interest in personal computers because there was no market for these things in 1976. The rest is history.
The lesson? Companies like HP have 20/20 hindsight. Companies like Apple have 20/20 foresight.
PC makers will choose between adding Thunderbolt because it is good technology, or ignoring it to make Macs, yet again, the odd machine out and less compatible with most of the new stuff. HP have made their choice and, I suspect, are publically inviting the others to join in - after all, why gloat over a missing feature.
Superior technology may have little to do with success.
Intel has said from day one that Apple will basically have a 1 year exclusive window on Thunderbolt due to product design cycles. I'd be surprised to see HP or most manufacturers officially say that Thunderbolt was great when they won't have it for almost a year. That would be admitting that Apple already has tomorrow's solution shipping today.
I agree... Apple will introduce something new that will require TB and then, like the iPad, the other companies will fall all over themselves trying to follow Apple's lead as quickly as possible because usb 3 just won't cut it.
There isn't much that Thunderbolt offers that USB 3.0 doesn't. There's enough throughput for high-speed storage devices and video displays (ala DisplayLink). There are some technical advantages to Thunderbolt, but there are ZERO devices on the market right now to take advantage of it, whereas there are millions of USB devices out there, thousands of which already take advantage of USB 3.0.
Let's also remember that Thunderbolt is an Intel-exclusive I/O port. If you wanted to build an AMD system with a Thunderbolt port, well, sorry, you can't.
HP will continue to watch the market, and if Thunderbolt has a future that goes beyond a niche, I'm sure they'll consider adopting it. For now, why on earth is anyone defending a port that only has theoretical capabilities and no accessories available to use it? Its too early to bother with it.
There isn't much that Thunderbolt offers that USB 3.0 doesn't. There's enough throughput for high-speed storage devices and video displays (ala DisplayLink). There are some technical advantages to Thunderbolt, but there are ZERO devices on the market right now to take advantage of it, whereas there are millions of USB devices out there, thousands of which already take advantage of USB 3.0.
Let's also remember that Thunderbolt is an Intel-exclusive I/O port. If you wanted to build an AMD system with a Thunderbolt port, well, sorry, you can't.
HP will continue to watch the market, and if Thunderbolt has a future that goes beyond a niche, I'm sure they'll consider adopting it. For now, why on earth is anyone defending a port that only has theoretical capabilities and no accessories available to use it? Its too early to bother with it.
Pretty much this.
Yes, LightPeak / Thunderbolt looks good on a spec sheet, but keep in mind a few things about the reality of the situation:
1) It is a brand new port with questionable support and adoption
2) The implantation by Apple will probably not be the final or standardized form of Lightpeak. LightPeak was originally (and still is) designed to operate over fiber optic. Thunderbolt operates over copper (electrical) and Intel is planning on making the switch to optical later this year. What this means for the early adopters of the electrical version, I don't know. It may be a simple as buying an optical-electrical adapter, it may not.
3) Theres the licensing issue. As mentioned above, you can't get an AMD system with LightPeak (at least not currently). For Apple, who uses Intel exclusively, this isn't an issue. For companies that make use of both Intel and AMD chips, this can get complex. And based on the hype surrounding BD and Llano, we might be seeing a lot more OEM AMD systems soon.
Thundercrap will die a slow and painful death when people realize that the choice of peripherals for it is severely limited. USB 3.0 will win, because it's backwards compatible with all of their other USB peripherals. Even their mice. It won't matter that USB 3.0 can "only" run at 5Mbps vs. Thundercrap's 10Mbps. People will want choice and compatibility much more than the extra speed.
Geez dude, angry much? As I see it, there's no "competition" between USB 3.0 and Thunderbolt. In fact, as the article suggests, they "compliment" each other:
Thunderbolt: Hi USB 3.0! It's so cool that you're new and improved, and yet backwards compatible with older peripherals, without the need for any adapters!
USB 3.0: Why thank you, Thunderbolt, for that fine compliment! And I congratulate you on your awesome bandwidth, your support for multiple protocols and your daisy chain capability!
Thunderbolt: Hey, you know, while it's cool that we're friendly enough to compliment each other, there's no reason we can't complement each other as well!
1) It is a brand new port with questionable support and adoption
Every I/O technology was brand new at some point in history.
Quote:
2) The implantation by Apple will probably not be the final or standardized form of Lightpeak. LightPeak was originally (and still is) designed to operate over fiber optic. Thunderbolt operates over copper (electrical) and Intel is planning on making the switch to optical later this year. What this means for the early adopters of the electrical version, I don't know. It may be a simple as buying an optical-electrical adapter, it may not.
My guess is that Thunderbolt/LightPeak will scale up over time, but the physical interface will remain more or less intact--much like USB. One or more of the copper wires will be replaced by optical fiber once that goes into production, but because the physical interface would remain the same, users of "older" Thunderbolt-based peripherals will not be left in the cold--and probably won't even need an adapter. But I'm an optimist.
Quote:
3) Theres the licensing issue. As mentioned above, you can't get an AMD system with LightPeak (at least not currently). For Apple, who uses Intel exclusively, this isn't an issue. For companies that make use of both Intel and AMD chips, this can get complex. And based on the hype surrounding BD and Llano, we might be seeing a lot more OEM AMD systems soon.
As I understand it, Thunderbolt is driven by a controller chip, not the CPU, so why can't an Intel controller chip live on an AMD CPU motherboard? (I'm asking honestly, because I don't know.)
As I understand it, Thunderbolt is driven by a controller chip, not the CPU, so why can't an Intel controller chip live on an AMD CPU motherboard? (I'm asking honestly, because I don't know.)
Every device employing TB must be capable of exerting the same control functions over the link. A separate controller chip is used, either a single channel version for low-power devices or the full-power dual channel, 40 Gbps (theoretical max) chip apparently. Intel apparently intends to release a developer kit in June or July.
Thunderbolt will permit the kinds of capability that Firewire provides but more so. For example, high-definition video cameras (1080p) could share their screens with the Mac (or later, the iPad ) and because of the fully peer-to-peer authority provided, allow interactive commanding from either end etc. with no latency issues.
Funny how the 1394TA is JUST NOW trumpeting "Breakthrough to 1.6 Gigabit/second Speeds", of course Apple is MIA on the faster standard they developed on new Macs:
HP builds disposable computers built to last the warranty period (1 year) then die. Right now there are no Thunderbolt peripherals. HP doesn't care what's going to be available 1 year from now, because they're looking at the next quarter, not next year. Next year they'll have an entirely new line of computers that'll have Thunderbolt if there are peripherals for it that people want, or won't have Thunderbolt if there aren't. But right now there aren't Thunderbolt peripherals, so they don't care about Thunderbolt. That's just how HP works -- they're followers, not leaders.
Same reason is you'll be lucky to get an hour and a half from an HP laptop battery on their 17" laptops -- the reality is that most 17" laptops today are bought as desktop replacements, so they give their customers what they currently want -- a cheap 17" desktop replacement laptop. Getting out in front and leading customers into new territories is *not* HP's style, and never has been ever since Hewlett and Packard retired and left the company to "professional" managers, who are followers who rise to the top by licking the right boots, not leaders.
Everyone seems to be ignoring the most important issue when it comes to mass market tech: COST
The host/guest nature of USB wins when you are looking to use the same technology for both expensive/high-speed devices like external RAID enclosures AND cheap/slow devices like mice and thumb-drives.
With USB the more expensive host controller in the computer does the heavy lifting for a cheaper guest controller in the connected device. USB3 is fast enough for most uses and the guest devices are cheaper to build.
FireWire & Thunderbolt are both peer-2-peer which may get you more speed and the ability to chain devices, but they both require more complex and expensive chips than those used for the USB guests.
Comments
They recently bought Vertica which was a pretty smart decision. Not in the consumer space, but still a nice move for them.
HP replaced Neoview with Vertica... but did HP really understand/know why Neoview failed? (... or maybe HP just Hurd it wasn't working out for them and dropped Neoview)
Too early to tell if HP is in over their heads with Vertica. The deal just closed less than a month ago.
It is. Unless they put this thing on an iPad or an iPhone no one is going to adopt it. iOs is the only place Apple rules the marketplace. As far as firewire is concerned, even Apple themselves stopped putting firewire on their laptops for a time.
What ticks me off here is that Apple didn't include flash on iOS because, according to Jobs, they have a finite amount of resources and personnel and they want to focus attention on emerging technologies that have a future.
You can't tell me USB is done for. It's everywhere. (Much like Flash.) Apple can't really expect everyone to toss out every camera, printer, hard drive, iPod in favor of this lightning bolt stuff.
Even if it's wayyy better than USB, it's not compelling enough of a feature to make people run out and buy a new computer.
So in the end, Thundercat is going to be a waste of time and resources.
OMG! OMG!
So my choices are FW800 or USB 2.0. Not being nerdy enough to pay $75 for a FW800 enclosure, my main storage bus is USB 2.
Almost everyone who uses Mac will be using USB 2.0, not Thunderrelevant or whatever.
USB is what is important for real users. Apple would do well not to fall behind in that.
Support for both Thunderbolt and USB 3.0 will appear in Intel's next-generation processors, code-named "Ivy Bridge." Those chips, which will arrive in 2012, are the successor to the "Sandy Bride" processors that began shipping earlier this year.
"Sandy Bride?"
Too many Don Rickles comments come to mind...
Read HP's press release carefully. They didn't say they wouldn't use Thunderbolt. In fact, they specifically stated that they might use it in the future.
Now, remember Intel/Apple's announcement of Thunderbolt. Apple had a full year head start because of their participation in the development of Thunderbolt.
So, let's translate HP's statements:
"We are still a long way from having Thunderbolt ready, so we couldn't offer it today even if we wanted to. Rather than taking a hit on sales, we'll spread some FUD and say that we're not using it".
It's that simple. HP will be using Thunderbolt in a year.
It's that simple. HP will be using Thunderbolt in a year.
I agree... Apple will introduce something new that will require TB and then, like the iPad, the other companies will fall all over themselves trying to follow Apple's lead as quickly as possible because usb 3 just won't cut it.
"Sandy Bride?"
Too many Don Rickles comments come to mind...
I was looking for an image of Uma Thurman, as the bride in Kill Bill 2,
where she just escaped from the underground coffin, but I couldn't find
a good one.
Wow. What a bunch of gullible people.
Read HP's press release carefully. They didn't say they wouldn't use Thunderbolt. In fact, they specifically stated that they might use it in the future.
Now, remember Intel/Apple's announcement of Thunderbolt. Apple had a full year head start because of their participation in the development of Thunderbolt.
So, let's translate HP's statements:
"We are still a long way from having Thunderbolt ready, so we couldn't offer it today even if we wanted to. Rather than taking a hit on sales, we'll spread some FUD and say that we're not using it".
It's that simple. HP will be using Thunderbolt in a year.
Once upon a time, Steve Wozniak came before HP execs with the Apple I and offered it to them to sell, because they had first rights to anything he invented while in their employ. The HP execs had no interest in personal computers because there was no market for these things in 1976. The rest is history.
The lesson? Companies like HP have 20/20 hindsight. Companies like Apple have 20/20 foresight.
The race is on.
PC makers will choose between adding Thunderbolt because it is good technology, or ignoring it to make Macs, yet again, the odd machine out and less compatible with most of the new stuff. HP have made their choice and, I suspect, are publically inviting the others to join in - after all, why gloat over a missing feature.
Superior technology may have little to do with success.
Intel has said from day one that Apple will basically have a 1 year exclusive window on Thunderbolt due to product design cycles. I'd be surprised to see HP or most manufacturers officially say that Thunderbolt was great when they won't have it for almost a year. That would be admitting that Apple already has tomorrow's solution shipping today.
I agree... Apple will introduce something new that will require TB and then, like the iPad, the other companies will fall all over themselves trying to follow Apple's lead as quickly as possible because usb 3 just won't cut it.
There isn't much that Thunderbolt offers that USB 3.0 doesn't. There's enough throughput for high-speed storage devices and video displays (ala DisplayLink). There are some technical advantages to Thunderbolt, but there are ZERO devices on the market right now to take advantage of it, whereas there are millions of USB devices out there, thousands of which already take advantage of USB 3.0.
Let's also remember that Thunderbolt is an Intel-exclusive I/O port. If you wanted to build an AMD system with a Thunderbolt port, well, sorry, you can't.
HP will continue to watch the market, and if Thunderbolt has a future that goes beyond a niche, I'm sure they'll consider adopting it. For now, why on earth is anyone defending a port that only has theoretical capabilities and no accessories available to use it? Its too early to bother with it.
There isn't much that Thunderbolt offers that USB 3.0 doesn't. There's enough throughput for high-speed storage devices and video displays (ala DisplayLink). There are some technical advantages to Thunderbolt, but there are ZERO devices on the market right now to take advantage of it, whereas there are millions of USB devices out there, thousands of which already take advantage of USB 3.0.
Let's also remember that Thunderbolt is an Intel-exclusive I/O port. If you wanted to build an AMD system with a Thunderbolt port, well, sorry, you can't.
HP will continue to watch the market, and if Thunderbolt has a future that goes beyond a niche, I'm sure they'll consider adopting it. For now, why on earth is anyone defending a port that only has theoretical capabilities and no accessories available to use it? Its too early to bother with it.
Pretty much this.
Yes, LightPeak / Thunderbolt looks good on a spec sheet, but keep in mind a few things about the reality of the situation:
1) It is a brand new port with questionable support and adoption
2) The implantation by Apple will probably not be the final or standardized form of Lightpeak. LightPeak was originally (and still is) designed to operate over fiber optic. Thunderbolt operates over copper (electrical) and Intel is planning on making the switch to optical later this year. What this means for the early adopters of the electrical version, I don't know. It may be a simple as buying an optical-electrical adapter, it may not.
3) Theres the licensing issue. As mentioned above, you can't get an AMD system with LightPeak (at least not currently). For Apple, who uses Intel exclusively, this isn't an issue. For companies that make use of both Intel and AMD chips, this can get complex. And based on the hype surrounding BD and Llano, we might be seeing a lot more OEM AMD systems soon.
Thundercrap will die a slow and painful death when people realize that the choice of peripherals for it is severely limited. USB 3.0 will win, because it's backwards compatible with all of their other USB peripherals. Even their mice. It won't matter that USB 3.0 can "only" run at 5Mbps vs. Thundercrap's 10Mbps. People will want choice and compatibility much more than the extra speed.
Geez dude, angry much? As I see it, there's no "competition" between USB 3.0 and Thunderbolt. In fact, as the article suggests, they "compliment" each other:
Thunderbolt: Hi USB 3.0! It's so cool that you're new and improved, and yet backwards compatible with older peripherals, without the need for any adapters!
USB 3.0: Why thank you, Thunderbolt, for that fine compliment! And I congratulate you on your awesome bandwidth, your support for multiple protocols and your daisy chain capability!
Thunderbolt: Hey, you know, while it's cool that we're friendly enough to compliment each other, there's no reason we can't complement each other as well!
USB 3.0: What? Oh, I get it! HAHAHAHA!!!
1) It is a brand new port with questionable support and adoption
Every I/O technology was brand new at some point in history.
2) The implantation by Apple will probably not be the final or standardized form of Lightpeak. LightPeak was originally (and still is) designed to operate over fiber optic. Thunderbolt operates over copper (electrical) and Intel is planning on making the switch to optical later this year. What this means for the early adopters of the electrical version, I don't know. It may be a simple as buying an optical-electrical adapter, it may not.
My guess is that Thunderbolt/LightPeak will scale up over time, but the physical interface will remain more or less intact--much like USB. One or more of the copper wires will be replaced by optical fiber once that goes into production, but because the physical interface would remain the same, users of "older" Thunderbolt-based peripherals will not be left in the cold--and probably won't even need an adapter. But I'm an optimist.
3) Theres the licensing issue. As mentioned above, you can't get an AMD system with LightPeak (at least not currently). For Apple, who uses Intel exclusively, this isn't an issue. For companies that make use of both Intel and AMD chips, this can get complex. And based on the hype surrounding BD and Llano, we might be seeing a lot more OEM AMD systems soon.
As I understand it, Thunderbolt is driven by a controller chip, not the CPU, so why can't an Intel controller chip live on an AMD CPU motherboard? (I'm asking honestly, because I don't know.)
As I understand it, Thunderbolt is driven by a controller chip, not the CPU, so why can't an Intel controller chip live on an AMD CPU motherboard? (I'm asking honestly, because I don't know.)
Every device employing TB must be capable of exerting the same control functions over the link. A separate controller chip is used, either a single channel version for low-power devices or the full-power dual channel, 40 Gbps (theoretical max) chip apparently. Intel apparently intends to release a developer kit in June or July.
Thunderbolt will permit the kinds of capability that Firewire provides but more so. For example, high-definition video cameras (1080p) could share their screens with the Mac (or later, the iPad
All the best.
Sounds like you had an Epson inkjet.
That's what I was going to say, I've never had to do any of what he claims with my Canon, but the Epson needs constant work to get it to print
http://www.1394ta.org/press/Newslett...l11/page2.html
But when will FireWire's goal of 3.2Gigabit/second capabilities be achieved, and will it be far too late?!
Same reason is you'll be lucky to get an hour and a half from an HP laptop battery on their 17" laptops -- the reality is that most 17" laptops today are bought as desktop replacements, so they give their customers what they currently want -- a cheap 17" desktop replacement laptop. Getting out in front and leading customers into new territories is *not* HP's style, and never has been ever since Hewlett and Packard retired and left the company to "professional" managers, who are followers who rise to the top by licking the right boots, not leaders.
The host/guest nature of USB wins when you are looking to use the same technology for both expensive/high-speed devices like external RAID enclosures AND cheap/slow devices like mice and thumb-drives.
With USB the more expensive host controller in the computer does the heavy lifting for a cheaper guest controller in the connected device. USB3 is fast enough for most uses and the guest devices are cheaper to build.
FireWire & Thunderbolt are both peer-2-peer which may get you more speed and the ability to chain devices, but they both require more complex and expensive chips than those used for the USB guests.
Morgue