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

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 67
    polymniapolymnia Posts: 942member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by GadgetCanadaV2 View Post

     

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


     

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

     

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

     

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

  • Reply 42 of 67
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by melgross View Post

     
     After Apple found success with it, Microsoft came out with a revision to 98 that fixed most, but not all, of the problems with USB.


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

  • Reply 43 of 67
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    polymnia wrote: »
    If there ever is a Thunderbolt Switch, there will certainly be 10GbE adaptors built-in or available for Macs. These are already available as Thunderbolt Breakout Boxes, which is cost prohibitive and clunky for most applications now. But the next iteration of the tech will certainly be miniaturized. I expect we will see network adaptor dongle available in 10GbE sometime soon.

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

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

    I'm not sure why we're using terms like "Cat6" network. That category rating of the cable in no way infers what the speed of the network is, only the max speed it can be but even that isn't enough information as the length of the cable is important. For example, the previously noted rating that Cat5e cables are rated for 10Gib/s up to 45 meters.
  • Reply 44 of 67
    polymniapolymnia Posts: 942member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by rezwits View Post

     

     

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

     

    Here is a chart I found:

     

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

     

    Laters...


     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

  • Reply 45 of 67
    polymniapolymnia Posts: 942member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

    Networks are rated by category describing the electrical characteristics.

     

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

     

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

  • Reply 46 of 67
    lorin schultzlorin schultz Posts: 2,748member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post



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

     

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

     

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

     

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

  • Reply 47 of 67
    lorin schultzlorin schultz Posts: 2,748member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

     
    So yeah, rewrite history as you see fit. Make the PC the star of the show.


     

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

     

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

     

    So it's not about making one platform or the other the "star," it's about alternative forms of transition. Specifically, the right way versus the Apple way. <img class=" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />

  • Reply 48 of 67
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,902member
    Apple bet the farm on USB, replacing the proprietary ADB, RS-232, and even floppy and SCSI ports found on older Macs, way back in 1998 when the first Bondi blue iMac shipped. And Mac OS X had full driver support for all standard USB devices classes (HID, sound devices, printers, etc).
    People forget their history rather quickly. Apple did indeed blaze trails with USB, something that still works like crap on Windows hardware.
    Meanwhile, PCs were still shipping with legacy PS2 mouse and parallel printer ports.
    You mean "are" above, many PCs still ship with PS/2 ports.
    So yeah, rewrite history as you see fit. Make the PC the star of the show.

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

    I didn't see a lot of criticism of Apple. Generally a lot of hate was directed at USB due to the high overhead and people not grasping the interfaces good points. MicroSoft on the other hand took years to do USB even half right. The rather long gestation on Windows really stunted USBs growth in those early years.
  • Reply 49 of 67
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sflocal View Post



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



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

     

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

     

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

  • Reply 50 of 67
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    wizard69 wrote: »
    People forget their history rather quickly. Apple did indeed blaze trails with USB, something that still works like crap on Windows hardware.

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

    "The Windows PC implementation of USB 2.0 puts the Mac to shame."
  • Reply 51 of 67
    Something to look forward to for a couple years from now, when i have replaced my rMBP with something that has TB2. Me computers are still too slow from time 2 time.
  • Reply 52 of 67
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,902member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    Which is interesting because on the tests I've seen USB on Windows seems to have a faster throughput rate than on Mac OS X.

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

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

    As to barefeats that referenced article is from 2004. There have been improvements since then. How good those improvements are I can not say. It would be interesting to see the same tests ran under Mavericks. On one of my old machines, that needs a computer nurse, I've been running Mavericks of a USB drive and frankly it performs decently that way. It by no means would keep up with a modern PCI Express based machine but it isn't terrible compared to the original drive. Given that I can't say for sure how good or bad the current drivers are.
  • Reply 53 of 67
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post





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

     

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

  • Reply 54 of 67
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    wizard69 wrote: »
    There is more to good behavior than just raw speed. If you have ever had to deal with a Windows machine that reassigns virtual com ports on you for no obvious reason you will have a different definition of what is good. Compared to the Windows networking stack, USB on Windows is pretty unreliable. Worst is the drivers for many USB devices which are often terrible.

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

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

    I always assumed it was driver issues and not anything wrong with Windows per say.
  • Reply 55 of 67
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

    “But no one will adopt Thunderbolt!”

     

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


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

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





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



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

  • Reply 56 of 67
    sennensennen Posts: 1,466member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz View Post

     

     

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

     

     


     

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

  • Reply 57 of 67
    lorin schultzlorin schultz Posts: 2,748member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sennen View Post

     
    This mindset is why we still see new release laptops with VGA ports.


     

    I said a few years, not decades! :)

     

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

  • Reply 58 of 67
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sennen View Post

     

     

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




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

  • Reply 59 of 67
    sennensennen Posts: 1,466member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hmm View Post

     



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


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

  • Reply 60 of 67
    So is this accurate?

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

    Or does the 10-gbit somehow apply to the original Thunderbolt too?
Sign In or Register to comment.