Apple, for quite some time, has been a key innovator and early technology implementor.
Apple has a pattern of being among the first to adopt new technologies, but then failing to keep up with later upgrades to those technologies. For example:
1) Just about every Mac person credits Apple with driving USB adoption with the Bondi iMac in 1998. But Apple did not start using USB 2 until the Power Mac G5 in 2003, even though PC manufacturers had been using USB 2 at least 2 years before.
2) Apple invented and promoted Firewire 400, and includes Firewire 800 on most Macs today. But Firewire 1600 and 3200 were approved by IEEE back in 2008 and Apple never shipped any systems with those interfaces.
3) The RAM that Apple puts in Macs is typically slower than the RAM included in brand name PCs.
Are we going to see the same pattern when Intel releases future versions of Thunderbolt?
Apple has a pattern of being among the first to adopt new technologies, but then failing to keep up with later upgrades to those technologies. For example:
1) Just about every Mac person credits Apple with driving USB adoption with the Bondi iMac in 1998. But Apple did not start using USB 2 until the Power Mac G5 in 2003, even though PC manufacturers had been using USB 2 at least 2 years before.
2) Apple invented and promoted Firewire 400, and includes Firewire 800 on most Macs today. But Firewire 1600 and 3200 were approved by IEEE back in 2008 and Apple never shipped any systems with those interfaces.
3) The RAM that Apple puts in Macs is typically slower than the RAM included in brand name PCs.
Are we going to see the same pattern when Intel releases future versions of Thunderbolt?
Since Thunerbolt support is built into the Intel chipset itself, I would think that Apple would automatically support whatever version of Thunerbolt that chipset includes. The only question of delay that I foresee would be how fast Apple migrates from one Intel chipset to another (Sandy Bridge to Ivy Bridge for example).
We really don't need two standards for this. Thunderbolt can do everything from video to printers to storage, why support USB 3.0. I was skeptical about thunderbolt specifically because I thought it may be too late for wide spread adoption, but if intel insisted we could have seen Dell and hp pick it up. Now it is less likely If it remains apple only, thunderbolt might be the FireWire of today. A great idea with little support.
1. For any device with a high signaling speed, like Thunderbolt, there is significant cost and power draw attached. Thunderbolt support will easily add $5 to a device. If it's a $100 device, it's worth it. If it's a $10 memory stick, what's the point?
You're not paying attention. What I said was that given the choice between USB3 or USB2/Thunderbolt that the USB2/Thunderbolt combination was superior. I don't think anyone has suggested dropping USB2 ports from a computer- so those memory sticks will continue to work fine.
BTW, where in the world did you get that Thunderbolt would add $5 to a device? Wouldn't it be better to work with facts rather than making things up?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twelve
2. There's absolutely no reason to do a Thunderbolt keyboard or mouse.
See above. No one suggested dropping the USB ports.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twelve
3. Since a Thunderbolt takes up 4 PCI-E lanes on the chipset, you won't see many systems, and especially not laptops, that have more than one Thunderbolt port. Having 6 or more USB ports on a system is commonplace.
The difference, of course, is that you can daisy chain Thunderbolt, so you don't need a lot of ports. Furthermore, Thunderbolt isn't going to replace your keyboard, mouse, etc, so it is only going to be used for a small number of high speed devices. One or two TB ports should be plenty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twelve
4. Since USB 3.0 is fully backward compatible with USB 1.x and 2.x devices, consumers won't need to replace all their USB devices.
And they don't have to replace them if the system contains both Thunderbolt and USB2 ports, either. You seem to believe that a vendor can only include one type of port in their system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twelve
5. Since the CPU overhead for Thunderbolt is much lower than any USB variant, high throughput devices (e.g. video, high-end storage, audio) will tend to use Thunderbolt.
That's the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twelve
6. Daisy-chaining requires more cables and a bit more user sophistication than "just plug it in." Remember that you'll generally want your monitor at the END of the Thunderbolt cable. If you need to plug in a memory stick (which would now need two connectors instead of one), would you really want to disconnect your monitor and, possibly, your storage devices, just to plug it in?
Daisy chaining requires more cables than USB? You're REALLY confused.
And you're still stuck on the stupid idea that systems would not have USB ports, as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twelve
In summary, I don't believe anyone is thinking of this properly. Thunderbolt is more of a single-cable laptop dock connector, and an external PCI-E connector for desktop/server systems. USB3 is better for low-speed, cheap devices that will be inserted and removed regularly.
In summary, you're the only one who isn't thinking properly.
While it certainly makes sense for Intel to support both, I just can't see that USB 3.0 has any value. Since there are no existing USB 3.0 devices, anyone creating a new product has to decide between USB 3 and Thunderbolt. Why not pick the faster, daisy-chainable technology?
A number of people have corrected you (including me now as I have two USB 3 devices on my desk), but you still haven't acknowledged this?
Since there are no existing USB 3.0 devices, anyone creating a new product has to decide between USB 3 and Thunderbolt. Why not pick the faster, daisy-chainable technology?
I've had a USB 3 hard drive for months now. It's too bad by PC only has USB 2 though.
Remember that you'll generally want your monitor at the END of the Thunderbolt cable.
Which is a monumentally stupid usability decision on the part of Intel. Having to disconnect your monitor or hub in order to take something out of the chain is a HUGE impediment to TB's adoption prospects. Users hate that sort of thing.
What? There are TONS of USB 3.0 devices on the market. Especially external hard disks.
Tons of USB 3.0 HDDs while just a handful of USB 3.0 motherboards with 4 or more USB 3.0 ports.
In fact, the most common configuration is just 2 USB 3.0 port. That's not a winning endorsement.
Hell, my 5 year old Linux box that is just a ASUS Barebones system has 4 USB 2.0 in the front and 4 USB 2.0 ports in the back.
The total number of motherboards with 6 USB Ports from Newegg is 2. With 4 it's down to 7 total number of boards ranging from $175 +tax to $500+tax.
Sorry, but that's not a ringing endorsement.
All the POS boards with 1 USB 3.0 is where the range of $75+tax - $600+tax. Most of them are purchased from the $200 - $300+ range because system builders know the stuff lower priced is just junk.
Apple is not moving to USB 3.0. They will be USB2.0/Firewire and Thunderbolt moving forward.
All new MacBook Pros are 3 USB 2.0 Ports, Firewire 800 and Thunderbolt.
I'd expect a port less for USB 2.0 on the MacBook but more Thunderbolt ports on the Mac Pro up and coming.
I also expect the Mac Mini to include Thunderbolt and no USB 3.0.
I don't expect an iPad/iPod Touch/iPhone base station with Thunderbolt, until it makes sense.
The integration into chipsets is already happening. It would be silly not to support the interface.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheff
We really don't need two standards for this. Thunderbolt can do everything from video to printers to storage, why support USB 3.0.
People gave this idea that Thinderbolt is perfect or magical. Nothing could be further from the truth, like all communications links it has it's limits and overhead. It would be fairly easy to keep that link saturated with today's machinery.
Besides why would anybody put a slow low bandwidth device on such a port?
Quote:
I was skeptical about thunderbolt specifically because I thought it may be too late for wide spread adoption, but if intel insisted we could have seen Dell and hp pick it up. Now it is less likely If it remains apple only, thunderbolt might be the FireWire of today. A great idea with little support.
The number one problem I see in this forum is that people don't understand that TB and USB 3/2/1 have absolutely nothing to do with each other. This whole discussion is bogus because of it.
People gave this idea that Thinderbolt is perfect or magical. Nothing could be further from the truth, like all communications links it has it's limits and overhead. It would be fairly easy to keep that link saturated with today's machinery.
Of course it has limitations, but in pretty mug every category they far exceed USB. Higher bitrates and more power when using the USB protocol. That's what matters here. You should happy we finally have a shipping product for this. It's a good thing.
Quote:
The number one problem I see in this forum is that people don't understand that TB and USB 3/2/1 have absolutely nothing to do with each other. This whole discussion is bogus because of it.
Sure they do! They both can use the USB protocol and both push data. I'm not sure how "to do with" you want or need. It's not like FW and USB were ever compatible. I see no reason for TB not to catch on.
USB 3.0 is the same size port as USB 1 and 2. USB 3.0, just like 2.0 was, is backwards compatible with USB 2.0 (and 1.0), so the same port can work for both.
True. Couple of Gigabyte motherboards I have seen recently have number of USB 3 ports, the only physical difference being the color - Gigabyte seems to use blue colored connectors. Not sure if that is actual standard or just something Gigabyte decided to do on their own. I think USB 3 is also capable of supplying more power through the connector, but compatibility with older USB devices is full.
Nah! While I miss a good Centronics port as much as the next person - time, and technology marches on... With today's technology, we have the SCSI set of cables, adapters and terminators -- a real man's interface!
I always say if the cable doesn't weigh more than the connected devices (combined) -- it ain't worth having!
Man, SCSI was the bomb, back in the day when beige was the new black.
*sniff* Your posts always make me nostalgic, Dick... And I'm only 32!
Tons of USB 3.0 HDDs while just a handful of USB 3.0 motherboards with 4 or more USB 3.0 ports.
In fact, the most common configuration is just 2 USB 3.0 port. That's not a winning endorsement.
Hell, my 5 year old Linux box that is just a ASUS Barebones system has 4 USB 2.0 in the front and 4 USB 2.0 ports in the back.
The total number of motherboards with 6 USB Ports from Newegg is 2. With 4 it's down to 7 total number of boards ranging from $175 +tax to $500+tax.
Sorry, but that's not a ringing endorsement.
All the POS boards with 1 USB 3.0 is where the range of $75+tax - $600+tax. Most of them are purchased from the $200 - $300+ range because system builders know the stuff lower priced is just junk.
Apple is not moving to USB 3.0. They will be USB2.0/Firewire and Thunderbolt moving forward.
All new MacBook Pros are 3 USB 2.0 Ports, Firewire 800 and Thunderbolt.
I'd expect a port less for USB 2.0 on the MacBook but more Thunderbolt ports on the Mac Pro up and coming.
I also expect the Mac Mini to include Thunderbolt and no USB 3.0.
I don't expect an iPad/iPod Touch/iPhone base station with Thunderbolt, until it makes sense.
Nah, Ivy Bridge Macs will be USB 3.0, FW800 and Thunderbolt in 2012. It will be virtually free to include USB 3.0 using the chipsets Intel provides.
But it goes back to my saying about lack of cohesion at Apple with Steve unwell. What is the plan with Thunderbolt exactly? All consumer and prosumer-grade stuff will be USB 3.0 and that will be enough for most people. I predict that the number that will use Thunderbolt will be niche even in 2012... sure, video pros and all that, but still... niche.
Somehow I don't see USB3 ports in future Mac hardware... despite the fact there will be many more USB3 devices than TB devices. So maybe think about adding the usual 40 bucks to whatever Mac you want to get an adapter to go TB to USB3...
Of course it has limitations, but in pretty mug every category they far exceed USB. Higher bitrates and more power when using the USB protocol. That's what matters here. You should happy we finally have a shipping product for this. It's a good thing.
I never said I was unhappy with the product, what I'm unhappy with is this thread! As I said the whole discussion is bogus, there is almost no overlap in the application potential of the two standards. We will likely never see a TB mouse for example.
Quote:
Sure they do! They both can use the USB protocol and both push data. I'm not sure how "to do with" you want or need. It's not like FW and USB were ever compatible. I see no reason for TB not to catch on.
TB is a PCI Express extension it no more runs a USB protocol than standard PCI Express to USB bridge connections. I'm not sure why you I'm under the impression TB won't catch on, actually I think it will end up being a key feature for future Macs. That does not mean though that USB is going away anytime soon. Again they don' even remotely compete with each other.
As aside note people get all excited about USB 3 in PC hardware but yet don't realize the bridge chips involved in offering up that interface are on a 1x PCI-E link and can never offer up the full bandwidth that USB is to offer.
I think that Apple's intent is solely to make neater devices with these forked standards, but they have a blindspot for the inconvenience it causes to their users and how much of a disincentive it is for many to try out connecting devices together.
BTW, could someone lend me a mini-Thunderbolt to Thunderbolt adapter?
Comments
Apple, for quite some time, has been a key innovator and early technology implementor.
Apple has a pattern of being among the first to adopt new technologies, but then failing to keep up with later upgrades to those technologies. For example:
1) Just about every Mac person credits Apple with driving USB adoption with the Bondi iMac in 1998. But Apple did not start using USB 2 until the Power Mac G5 in 2003, even though PC manufacturers had been using USB 2 at least 2 years before.
2) Apple invented and promoted Firewire 400, and includes Firewire 800 on most Macs today. But Firewire 1600 and 3200 were approved by IEEE back in 2008 and Apple never shipped any systems with those interfaces.
3) The RAM that Apple puts in Macs is typically slower than the RAM included in brand name PCs.
Are we going to see the same pattern when Intel releases future versions of Thunderbolt?
Also Mini VGA, Mini DVI, Micro DVI.
Don't forget HDI-45
Apple has a pattern of being among the first to adopt new technologies, but then failing to keep up with later upgrades to those technologies. For example:
1) Just about every Mac person credits Apple with driving USB adoption with the Bondi iMac in 1998. But Apple did not start using USB 2 until the Power Mac G5 in 2003, even though PC manufacturers had been using USB 2 at least 2 years before.
2) Apple invented and promoted Firewire 400, and includes Firewire 800 on most Macs today. But Firewire 1600 and 3200 were approved by IEEE back in 2008 and Apple never shipped any systems with those interfaces.
3) The RAM that Apple puts in Macs is typically slower than the RAM included in brand name PCs.
Are we going to see the same pattern when Intel releases future versions of Thunderbolt?
Since Thunerbolt support is built into the Intel chipset itself, I would think that Apple would automatically support whatever version of Thunerbolt that chipset includes. The only question of delay that I foresee would be how fast Apple migrates from one Intel chipset to another (Sandy Bridge to Ivy Bridge for example).
1. For any device with a high signaling speed, like Thunderbolt, there is significant cost and power draw attached. Thunderbolt support will easily add $5 to a device. If it's a $100 device, it's worth it. If it's a $10 memory stick, what's the point?
You're not paying attention. What I said was that given the choice between USB3 or USB2/Thunderbolt that the USB2/Thunderbolt combination was superior. I don't think anyone has suggested dropping USB2 ports from a computer- so those memory sticks will continue to work fine.
BTW, where in the world did you get that Thunderbolt would add $5 to a device? Wouldn't it be better to work with facts rather than making things up?
2. There's absolutely no reason to do a Thunderbolt keyboard or mouse.
See above. No one suggested dropping the USB ports.
3. Since a Thunderbolt takes up 4 PCI-E lanes on the chipset, you won't see many systems, and especially not laptops, that have more than one Thunderbolt port. Having 6 or more USB ports on a system is commonplace.
The difference, of course, is that you can daisy chain Thunderbolt, so you don't need a lot of ports. Furthermore, Thunderbolt isn't going to replace your keyboard, mouse, etc, so it is only going to be used for a small number of high speed devices. One or two TB ports should be plenty.
4. Since USB 3.0 is fully backward compatible with USB 1.x and 2.x devices, consumers won't need to replace all their USB devices.
And they don't have to replace them if the system contains both Thunderbolt and USB2 ports, either. You seem to believe that a vendor can only include one type of port in their system.
5. Since the CPU overhead for Thunderbolt is much lower than any USB variant, high throughput devices (e.g. video, high-end storage, audio) will tend to use Thunderbolt.
That's the point.
6. Daisy-chaining requires more cables and a bit more user sophistication than "just plug it in." Remember that you'll generally want your monitor at the END of the Thunderbolt cable. If you need to plug in a memory stick (which would now need two connectors instead of one), would you really want to disconnect your monitor and, possibly, your storage devices, just to plug it in?
Daisy chaining requires more cables than USB? You're REALLY confused.
And you're still stuck on the stupid idea that systems would not have USB ports, as well.
In summary, I don't believe anyone is thinking of this properly. Thunderbolt is more of a single-cable laptop dock connector, and an external PCI-E connector for desktop/server systems. USB3 is better for low-speed, cheap devices that will be inserted and removed regularly.
In summary, you're the only one who isn't thinking properly.
Nah! While I miss a good Centronics port as much as the next person - time, and technology marches on...
There is no need to miss them, Datamax-O'Neil label printers still come with them
While it certainly makes sense for Intel to support both, I just can't see that USB 3.0 has any value. Since there are no existing USB 3.0 devices, anyone creating a new product has to decide between USB 3 and Thunderbolt. Why not pick the faster, daisy-chainable technology?
A number of people have corrected you (including me now as I have two USB 3 devices on my desk), but you still haven't acknowledged this?
Since there are no existing USB 3.0 devices, anyone creating a new product has to decide between USB 3 and Thunderbolt. Why not pick the faster, daisy-chainable technology?
I've had a USB 3 hard drive for months now. It's too bad by PC only has USB 2 though.
Remember that you'll generally want your monitor at the END of the Thunderbolt cable.
Which is a monumentally stupid usability decision on the part of Intel. Having to disconnect your monitor or hub in order to take something out of the chain is a HUGE impediment to TB's adoption prospects. Users hate that sort of thing.
What? There are TONS of USB 3.0 devices on the market. Especially external hard disks.
Tons of USB 3.0 HDDs while just a handful of USB 3.0 motherboards with 4 or more USB 3.0 ports.
In fact, the most common configuration is just 2 USB 3.0 port. That's not a winning endorsement.
Hell, my 5 year old Linux box that is just a ASUS Barebones system has 4 USB 2.0 in the front and 4 USB 2.0 ports in the back.
The total number of motherboards with 6 USB Ports from Newegg is 2. With 4 it's down to 7 total number of boards ranging from $175 +tax to $500+tax.
Sorry, but that's not a ringing endorsement.
All the POS boards with 1 USB 3.0 is where the range of $75+tax - $600+tax. Most of them are purchased from the $200 - $300+ range because system builders know the stuff lower priced is just junk.
Apple is not moving to USB 3.0. They will be USB2.0/Firewire and Thunderbolt moving forward.
All new MacBook Pros are 3 USB 2.0 Ports, Firewire 800 and Thunderbolt.
I'd expect a port less for USB 2.0 on the MacBook but more Thunderbolt ports on the Mac Pro up and coming.
I also expect the Mac Mini to include Thunderbolt and no USB 3.0.
I don't expect an iPad/iPod Touch/iPhone base station with Thunderbolt, until it makes sense.
Tons of USB 3.0 HDDs while just a handful of USB 3.0 motherboards with 4 or more USB 3.0 ports.
In fact, the most common configuration is just 2 USB 3.0 port. That's not a winning endorsement.
What does the number of USB ports on a PC count towards the original posters claim that there is no USB3 devices in existance?
We really don't need two standards for this. Thunderbolt can do everything from video to printers to storage, why support USB 3.0.
People gave this idea that Thinderbolt is perfect or magical. Nothing could be further from the truth, like all communications links it has it's limits and overhead. It would be fairly easy to keep that link saturated with today's machinery.
Besides why would anybody put a slow low bandwidth device on such a port?
I was skeptical about thunderbolt specifically because I thought it may be too late for wide spread adoption, but if intel insisted we could have seen Dell and hp pick it up. Now it is less likely If it remains apple only, thunderbolt might be the FireWire of today. A great idea with little support.
The number one problem I see in this forum is that people don't understand that TB and USB 3/2/1 have absolutely nothing to do with each other. This whole discussion is bogus because of it.
People gave this idea that Thinderbolt is perfect or magical. Nothing could be further from the truth, like all communications links it has it's limits and overhead. It would be fairly easy to keep that link saturated with today's machinery.
Of course it has limitations, but in pretty mug every category they far exceed USB. Higher bitrates and more power when using the USB protocol. That's what matters here. You should happy we finally have a shipping product for this. It's a good thing.
The number one problem I see in this forum is that people don't understand that TB and USB 3/2/1 have absolutely nothing to do with each other. This whole discussion is bogus because of it.
Sure they do! They both can use the USB protocol and both push data. I'm not sure how "to do with" you want or need. It's not like FW and USB were ever compatible. I see no reason for TB not to catch on.
An adapter?
USB 3.0 is the same size port as USB 1 and 2. USB 3.0, just like 2.0 was, is backwards compatible with USB 2.0 (and 1.0), so the same port can work for both.
True. Couple of Gigabyte motherboards I have seen recently have number of USB 3 ports, the only physical difference being the color - Gigabyte seems to use blue colored connectors. Not sure if that is actual standard or just something Gigabyte decided to do on their own. I think USB 3 is also capable of supplying more power through the connector, but compatibility with older USB devices is full.
Nah! While I miss a good Centronics port as much as the next person - time, and technology marches on... With today's technology, we have the SCSI set of cables, adapters and terminators -- a real man's interface!
I always say if the cable doesn't weigh more than the connected devices (combined) -- it ain't worth having!
Man, SCSI was the bomb, back in the day when beige was the new black.
*sniff* Your posts always make me nostalgic, Dick... And I'm only 32!
Tons of USB 3.0 HDDs while just a handful of USB 3.0 motherboards with 4 or more USB 3.0 ports.
In fact, the most common configuration is just 2 USB 3.0 port. That's not a winning endorsement.
Hell, my 5 year old Linux box that is just a ASUS Barebones system has 4 USB 2.0 in the front and 4 USB 2.0 ports in the back.
The total number of motherboards with 6 USB Ports from Newegg is 2. With 4 it's down to 7 total number of boards ranging from $175 +tax to $500+tax.
Sorry, but that's not a ringing endorsement.
All the POS boards with 1 USB 3.0 is where the range of $75+tax - $600+tax. Most of them are purchased from the $200 - $300+ range because system builders know the stuff lower priced is just junk.
Apple is not moving to USB 3.0. They will be USB2.0/Firewire and Thunderbolt moving forward.
All new MacBook Pros are 3 USB 2.0 Ports, Firewire 800 and Thunderbolt.
I'd expect a port less for USB 2.0 on the MacBook but more Thunderbolt ports on the Mac Pro up and coming.
I also expect the Mac Mini to include Thunderbolt and no USB 3.0.
I don't expect an iPad/iPod Touch/iPhone base station with Thunderbolt, until it makes sense.
Nah, Ivy Bridge Macs will be USB 3.0, FW800 and Thunderbolt in 2012. It will be virtually free to include USB 3.0 using the chipsets Intel provides.
But it goes back to my saying about lack of cohesion at Apple with Steve unwell. What is the plan with Thunderbolt exactly? All consumer and prosumer-grade stuff will be USB 3.0 and that will be enough for most people. I predict that the number that will use Thunderbolt will be niche even in 2012... sure, video pros and all that, but still... niche.
Of course it has limitations, but in pretty mug every category they far exceed USB. Higher bitrates and more power when using the USB protocol. That's what matters here. You should happy we finally have a shipping product for this. It's a good thing.
I never said I was unhappy with the product, what I'm unhappy with is this thread! As I said the whole discussion is bogus, there is almost no overlap in the application potential of the two standards. We will likely never see a TB mouse for example.
Sure they do! They both can use the USB protocol and both push data. I'm not sure how "to do with" you want or need. It's not like FW and USB were ever compatible. I see no reason for TB not to catch on.
TB is a PCI Express extension it no more runs a USB protocol than standard PCI Express to USB bridge connections. I'm not sure why you I'm under the impression TB won't catch on, actually I think it will end up being a key feature for future Macs. That does not mean though that USB is going away anytime soon. Again they don' even remotely compete with each other.
As aside note people get all excited about USB 3 in PC hardware but yet don't realize the bridge chips involved in offering up that interface are on a 1x PCI-E link and can never offer up the full bandwidth that USB is to offer.
Also Mini VGA, Mini DVI, Micro DVI.
I think that Apple's intent is solely to make neater devices with these forked standards, but they have a blindspot for the inconvenience it causes to their users and how much of a disincentive it is for many to try out connecting devices together.
BTW, could someone lend me a mini-Thunderbolt to Thunderbolt adapter?