Ugh, what's the point?! It's a step back from Thunderbolt! With these things you'll never achieve the theoretical speeds printed on the box, the only way to achieve those would be to plug them in via Thunderbolt which can easily lap USB3 speeds. There are, most likely (I think I can say that here), going to be adaptors for USB3 via Thunderbolt in the near future - they will achieve speeds greater than the dedicated variety on competitors hardware.
Why add another hole in a computer body? Why are we still using wires anyway? If we must then the idea of one to rule them all is the best way forward.. remember those patents leaning toward the idea that the power and Thunderbolt cable could be combines, with the power brick as some sort of hub for all those ports like USB3.
Ugh, what's the point?! It's a step back from Thunderbolt! With these things you'll never achieve the theoretical speeds printed on the box, the only way to achieve those would be to plug them in via Thunderbolt which can easily lap USB3 speeds. There are, most likely (I think I can say that here), going to be adaptors for USB3 via Thunderbolt in the near future - they will achieve speeds greater than the dedicated variety on competitors hardware.
USB and Thunderbolt have different reasons to exist. The situation isn't the same as it was back in the USB vs FW days : those were two truly competing interface, one of which was sinked by greed (high implementation cost due to royalties) despite being better. USB3 however is only a small peripheral interface while TB is an extension interface, allowing portable computer users to have functionality additions unplanned by the original computer makers (new ports, faster video cards, MIDI cards, and other type of controllers for devices). TB is way over USB and way over FW too. But TB does not make USB irrelevant : we still need a way to connect stuff easily to our machines, and USB is the way.
USB and FW were duplicated functionalities.
USB and TB are complementary.
USB2 and FW4 are way too slow, and FW8 devices are virtually non-existent.
I'm looking forward to both, and I'm waiting, for my next Mac, for the 2 interfaces to be present.
It's surprising it's taken so long for USB 3 to be a standard fit item on PCs as USB 3 devices, chiefly external drives, have been available cheaply for a long time now. I've had one on my desk for the best part of a year now, connected through USB 2 of course.
TB is too expensive for me to incorporate into my workflow, I work with video and photographs, Luckily I have a 2008 15inch Alu macbook pro that has an express port, I will certainly purchase the usb3 adapter for it.
I have purchased 4x USB3 2.5inch HDD casings for $14 each (my 7200rpm drives will go in those)
4x bay drive for $200, and 2x single cases all USB3.
Reason, I have just purchased a desktop windows that has USB3 and I love the speed for next to nothing and soon compatibility between both OS's
hopefully TB will be affordable for us who can't afford to spend much. I'm sure it wont be long.
USB and Thunderbolt have different reasons to exist. The situation isn't the same as it was back in the USB vs FW days : those were two truly competing interface, one of which was sinked by greed (high implementation cost due to royalties) despite being better. USB3 however is only a small peripheral interface while TB is an extension interface, allowing portable computer users to have functionality additions unplanned by the original computer makers (new ports, faster video cards, MIDI cards, and other type of controllers for devices). TB is way over USB and way over FW too. But TB does not make USB irrelevant : we still need a way to connect stuff easily to our machines, and USB is the way.
USB and FW were duplicated functionalities.
USB and TB are complementary.
USB2 and FW4 are way too slow, and FW8 devices are virtually non-existent.
I'm looking forward to both, and I'm waiting, for my next Mac, for the 2 interfaces to be present.
First, I don't think it was royalties that sunk the FW standard. That dispute was settled pretty early on, and settled down to $0.25 a port instead of $1 a port that was originally proposed. The high implementation cost was because it was a more complicated standard.
USB and FW weren't completely duplicated. USB had human interface devices, Firewire had a media I/O mode and deck controls. Granted, the first was useful to consumers, the second, to professionals. Most FW devices could daisy chain without extra devices, USB needed hubs to attach more devices.
While I am waiting for a newer version of the Mac Pro to be released, I'd love to see Apple work to give me a faster way to save images to my external drives. I have a photography studio, and have 15 external 2TB drives. They are now in eSATA bays. The image files include work back to 1999 - and they get backed up to a set of drives that live off site.
Rather than working on a file on my desktop, I work in Photoshop on the file from the external drive. That slows things down considerably - but the alternative was that the desktop versions and the stored versions of the files began to drift apart (and work was getting lost).
How do USB-3 and Thunderbolt compare to eSATA transfer speeds to an external drive?
USB 3.0 devices are already widely available at the same cost as USB 2.0. I have had a 2TB external HDD with USB 3.0 in use for a few months - cost the same as a USB 2.0 drive.
Thunderbolt is expensive, poorly supported, and will go the way of Firewire with a complete lack of mainstream adoption outside of the hardcore Apple crowd. I was in the Apple store in NY yesterday shopping for a new drive and a sales guy said they also had Thunderbolt external drives in stock but they weren't on display. Why? Because they cost a grand, approximately 10 times more than an equivalent USB 3.0 drive.
Hold on, doesn't Ivy Bridge have USB 3 support at the chipset level? So if this is true, that means the next refresh won't bring Ivy Bridge? Bummer.
On the other hand, that does make me think they have a chassis redesign in mind, just like when Intel had such a gap in their lineup they released their new battery technology, giving us another reason to buy in the absence of a big processor update.
At some point it will make sense to replace the USB2 ports with USB3 ports. But I don't think I'd bother having both types of ports on the same machine.
One benefit of USB 3.0 is the image in the mind of switchers. A PC user has been using USB 3.0 but considers going to Apple. The lack of USB 3.0 would be seen as a negative even if their current USB 3.0 devices aren't compatible.
People need to be able to think of what they are gaining going to Mac instead of what they are losing.
Same with the Blu-Ray thing. It's a subtle mental thing but it is real.
While I am waiting for a newer version of the Mac Pro to be released, I'd love to see Apple work to give me a faster way to save images to my external drives. I have a photography studio, and have 15 external 2TB drives. They are now in eSATA bays. The image files include work back to 1999 - and they get backed up to a set of drives that live off site.
Rather than working on a file on my desktop, I work in Photoshop on the file from the external drive. That slows things down considerably - but the alternative was that the desktop versions and the stored versions of the files began to drift apart (and work was getting lost).
How do USB-3 and Thunderbolt compare to eSATA transfer speeds to an external drive?
It really depends on what you're doing and how you're doing it, and with what devices. I would keep an eye on a site called barefeats.com, they test drives, raids and related items on Macs.
Yep, but even that is solved with the free Mac software, "Mac Blu-ray Player."
Before I report you for advertising spam, mind explaining in a non-corporate schilling way the workings of this software?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK
Works for me, I like choice.
Not this "choice", you don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tipoo
...that means the next refresh won't bring Ivy Bridge? Bummer.
The next refresh was never going to be Ivy Bridge. Just like the first Nehalem chips were never going to be used.
Quote:
On the other hand, that does make me think they have a chassis redesign in mind
That's a few more years off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTac
One benefit of USB 3.0 is the image in the mind of switchers. A PC user has been using USB 3.0 but considers going to Apple. The lack of USB 3.0 would be seen as a negative even if their current USB 3.0 devices aren't compatible.
Except Thunderbolt is better in every conceivable way.
Quote:
Same with the Blu-Ray thing. It's a subtle mental thing but it is real.
We need USB3 now. Large file transfers and backups are painfully slow over USB2. Ubiquitous, cheap Thunderbolt storage devices are unlikely in the forseeable future.
Thunderbolt has a lower max cable length. So far the parts are still more expensive even if they are coming down in price. It's limited in how many ports you can add if I'm not mistaken, and the daisy chain argument does not currently work. Even if it did it has the bandwidth of about a 4 lane PCIE 2.0. So far it is definitely not the answer to everything. Even apple is using usb sticks for reinstallation of lion if the internet is not a reliable means.
Even apple is using usb sticks for reinstallation of lion if the internet is not a reliable means.
Because not all of their Lion-compatible computers have Thunderbolt ports?
"So you're saying that if that were the case, Apple would be inventing a Thunderbolt flash drive?"
I'm saying we obviously can't know that because it isn't the state of the world, but I am suggesting it. And suggesting that it would have been awesome.
USB was designed as a standardized connector for input devices and storage where data is accessed randomly. It provides high speed (even USB 1 was high speed for the time) burst rates for quick access to single files.
Firewire was designed for both two way communication and sustained transfer speeds. This is why ALL tape based video cameras used firewire. When data was transferring, the speed was constant. The USB bus isn't designed to provide a consistent stream of data for hours on end. Firewire is also a networking standard, but it never really took off.
It's not about having the fastest connection, it's about having the RIGHT connection.
Seagate has stated they are working on Thunderbolt adaptors for their GoFlex line of drives (which have interchangeable baseplates for different connections). But when will they be released?
Comments
Why add another hole in a computer body? Why are we still using wires anyway? If we must then the idea of one to rule them all is the best way forward.. remember those patents leaning toward the idea that the power and Thunderbolt cable could be combines, with the power brick as some sort of hub for all those ports like USB3.
Ugh, what's the point?! It's a step back from Thunderbolt! With these things you'll never achieve the theoretical speeds printed on the box, the only way to achieve those would be to plug them in via Thunderbolt which can easily lap USB3 speeds. There are, most likely (I think I can say that here), going to be adaptors for USB3 via Thunderbolt in the near future - they will achieve speeds greater than the dedicated variety on competitors hardware.
USB and Thunderbolt have different reasons to exist. The situation isn't the same as it was back in the USB vs FW days : those were two truly competing interface, one of which was sinked by greed (high implementation cost due to royalties) despite being better. USB3 however is only a small peripheral interface while TB is an extension interface, allowing portable computer users to have functionality additions unplanned by the original computer makers (new ports, faster video cards, MIDI cards, and other type of controllers for devices). TB is way over USB and way over FW too. But TB does not make USB irrelevant : we still need a way to connect stuff easily to our machines, and USB is the way.
USB and FW were duplicated functionalities.
USB and TB are complementary.
USB2 and FW4 are way too slow, and FW8 devices are virtually non-existent.
I'm looking forward to both, and I'm waiting, for my next Mac, for the 2 interfaces to be present.
I have purchased 4x USB3 2.5inch HDD casings for $14 each (my 7200rpm drives will go in those)
4x bay drive for $200, and 2x single cases all USB3.
Reason, I have just purchased a desktop windows that has USB3 and I love the speed for next to nothing and soon compatibility between both OS's
hopefully TB will be affordable for us who can't afford to spend much. I'm sure it wont be long.
USB and Thunderbolt have different reasons to exist. The situation isn't the same as it was back in the USB vs FW days : those were two truly competing interface, one of which was sinked by greed (high implementation cost due to royalties) despite being better. USB3 however is only a small peripheral interface while TB is an extension interface, allowing portable computer users to have functionality additions unplanned by the original computer makers (new ports, faster video cards, MIDI cards, and other type of controllers for devices). TB is way over USB and way over FW too. But TB does not make USB irrelevant : we still need a way to connect stuff easily to our machines, and USB is the way.
USB and FW were duplicated functionalities.
USB and TB are complementary.
USB2 and FW4 are way too slow, and FW8 devices are virtually non-existent.
I'm looking forward to both, and I'm waiting, for my next Mac, for the 2 interfaces to be present.
First, I don't think it was royalties that sunk the FW standard. That dispute was settled pretty early on, and settled down to $0.25 a port instead of $1 a port that was originally proposed. The high implementation cost was because it was a more complicated standard.
USB and FW weren't completely duplicated. USB had human interface devices, Firewire had a media I/O mode and deck controls. Granted, the first was useful to consumers, the second, to professionals. Most FW devices could daisy chain without extra devices, USB needed hubs to attach more devices.
Rather than working on a file on my desktop, I work in Photoshop on the file from the external drive. That slows things down considerably - but the alternative was that the desktop versions and the stored versions of the files began to drift apart (and work was getting lost).
How do USB-3 and Thunderbolt compare to eSATA transfer speeds to an external drive?
Thunderbolt is expensive, poorly supported, and will go the way of Firewire with a complete lack of mainstream adoption outside of the hardcore Apple crowd. I was in the Apple store in NY yesterday shopping for a new drive and a sales guy said they also had Thunderbolt external drives in stock but they weren't on display. Why? Because they cost a grand, approximately 10 times more than an equivalent USB 3.0 drive.
On the other hand, that does make me think they have a chassis redesign in mind, just like when Intel had such a gap in their lineup they released their new battery technology, giving us another reason to buy in the absence of a big processor update.
People need to be able to think of what they are gaining going to Mac instead of what they are losing.
Same with the Blu-Ray thing. It's a subtle mental thing but it is real.
While I am waiting for a newer version of the Mac Pro to be released, I'd love to see Apple work to give me a faster way to save images to my external drives. I have a photography studio, and have 15 external 2TB drives. They are now in eSATA bays. The image files include work back to 1999 - and they get backed up to a set of drives that live off site.
Rather than working on a file on my desktop, I work in Photoshop on the file from the external drive. That slows things down considerably - but the alternative was that the desktop versions and the stored versions of the files began to drift apart (and work was getting lost).
How do USB-3 and Thunderbolt compare to eSATA transfer speeds to an external drive?
It really depends on what you're doing and how you're doing it, and with what devices. I would keep an eye on a site called barefeats.com, they test drives, raids and related items on Macs.
Yep, but even that is solved with the free Mac software, "Mac Blu-ray Player."
Before I report you for advertising spam, mind explaining in a non-corporate schilling way the workings of this software?
Works for me, I like choice.
Not this "choice", you don't.
...that means the next refresh won't bring Ivy Bridge? Bummer.
The next refresh was never going to be Ivy Bridge. Just like the first Nehalem chips were never going to be used.
On the other hand, that does make me think they have a chassis redesign in mind
That's a few more years off.
One benefit of USB 3.0 is the image in the mind of switchers. A PC user has been using USB 3.0 but considers going to Apple. The lack of USB 3.0 would be seen as a negative even if their current USB 3.0 devices aren't compatible.
Except Thunderbolt is better in every conceivable way.
Same with the Blu-Ray thing. It's a subtle mental thing but it is real.
You can already play Blu-ray discs in OS X.
Not this "choice", you don't.
What's wrong with choice? Having Thunderbolt and USB3 would be the best of both worlds.
Thunderbolt may be faster but not everyone is going to support it, which is why we need USB3 as well.
Thunderbolt may be faster but not everyone is going to support it...
Why?
(filler)
USB 3.0 is dead. Bring Thunderbolt!
Thunderbolt has a lower max cable length. So far the parts are still more expensive even if they are coming down in price. It's limited in how many ports you can add if I'm not mistaken, and the daisy chain argument does not currently work. Even if it did it has the bandwidth of about a 4 lane PCIE 2.0. So far it is definitely not the answer to everything. Even apple is using usb sticks for reinstallation of lion if the internet is not a reliable means.
Even apple is using usb sticks for reinstallation of lion if the internet is not a reliable means.
Because not all of their Lion-compatible computers have Thunderbolt ports?
"So you're saying that if that were the case, Apple would be inventing a Thunderbolt flash drive?"
I'm saying we obviously can't know that because it isn't the state of the world, but I am suggesting it. And suggesting that it would have been awesome.
USB and FW were duplicated functionalities.
No, they weren't.
USB was designed as a standardized connector for input devices and storage where data is accessed randomly. It provides high speed (even USB 1 was high speed for the time) burst rates for quick access to single files.
Firewire was designed for both two way communication and sustained transfer speeds. This is why ALL tape based video cameras used firewire. When data was transferring, the speed was constant. The USB bus isn't designed to provide a consistent stream of data for hours on end. Firewire is also a networking standard, but it never really took off.
It's not about having the fastest connection, it's about having the RIGHT connection.
Why?
I think this article sums it up... http://www.ecnmag.com/blog/2011/02/c...vs-USB3.0.aspx