I'm not sure what you mean. I tend to use the term peripherals to define electronics that are attached to a personal computer but accessory (or even attachment) isn't incorrect.
Are we going to have quibbles about word meanings here? I don't understand why accessories is the wrong term here.
If you insist: I think there is a greater variety of add-on devices with Lightning connector (speakers, docks, cables, adapters) than there is a variety of Thunderbolt peripherals (drives, docks, adapters, converters, cables).
Are we going to have quibbles about word meanings here?
If you insist: I think there is a greater variety of add-on devices with Lightning connector than there is a variety of Thunderbolt peripherals.
Ah, and I see your edited post after I replied. I was looking at it from the view that iDevice is the peripheral that plugs into the Mac/PC, which is wrong way to look at that since it's just USB signaling. Thunderbolt on a Mac/PC connection to a device should be compared to an iDevice with Lightning connecting to an accessory.
I wasn't looking at it from the view that iDevice is the peripheral that plugs into the Mac/PC, which is wrong way to look at that since it's just USB signaling.
I wasn't thinking of it that way at all. There are plenty of things that connect to iOS devices that aren't computers, I wasn't counting computers.
Items priced out of the market won't ever be adopted widely. USB 3 might be all that anybody needs until USB 4.
Thunderbolt requires chips in the cables. When cables fail due to the wires losing connection with the chips, Thunderbolt will get a reputation as more expensive than it is worth. If Intel wants Thunderbolt to succeed it had better let others play with it or it will just die on the vine.
Why would you imagine it at all? Are you under the erroneous presumption that Intel is trying to replace USB, which it includes in their chipsets, with Thunderbolt?
Your original post bringing up Falcon Ridge was in response to someone saying USB was all they needed, so Thunderbolt was an irrelevance. I'm just rolling with your conversation, no need to pick a fight.
USB would seem to have a more assured future than Thunderbolt, as Thunderbolt has had such limited uptake. The roadmap for Thunderbolt is interesting, and testament to Intel's commitment, but if the market doesn't appear then that roadmap could well go out the window, so USB is probably still the safer bet.
USB would seem to have a more assured future than Thunderbolt, as Thunderbolt has had such limited uptake. The roadmap for Thunderbolt is interesting, and testament to Intel's commitment, but if the market doesn't appear then that roadmap could well go out the window, so USB is probably still the safer bet.
They really aren't comparable that way because they not true competitors. Remember that it's PCIe+DP over an mDP port interface. TB wraps in a lot of things that USB would do but you'd only use it for specific items. TB is a way to send data along with TB being locked to Intel at this time is certainly not helping because AMD, PPC, ARM, et al. systems can't be the primary device its connected to. I don't even think TB is a requirement for Intel's Ultrabooks any longer.
I've been wanting something like for many years before it happened. Just like USB was great because it allowed for multiple cable types to be a single cable type Thunderbolt does this for those that have displays with all the other peripherals built-in (camera, microphones, speakers, USB hub, FW hub, IR sensor, Thunderbolt out port, Ethernet). This also opens up the possibility for many PCIe options. For instance, it would be possible to have a MBA that couldn't run a 4K display well that could be connected to a 4K display because it has it's own discreet GPU built-in
The only thing the above setup is missing is the inclusion of this Apple patent (below) that will put optical Thunderbolt (aka Light Peak) via the MagSafe connector. Then you have one cable. Remember when you had to plug them all in separately or use a very expensive and clunky docking station interface with a laptop?
Only the failure of USB 3 has kept the window of opportunity open for Thunderbolt. There are so many problems with USB 3 devices which have delayed its adoption and the complete state of denial in which the vendors maintain themselves has delayed the widespread adoption of USB 3 peripherals. Cost is the major advantage of USB 3, but what does it matter when there are fundamental problems with the technology?
Intel has been both slow in bringing the chipsets for Thunderbolt to market and damaged the "brand" with the 1st year being exclusive to Apple. And then there is the pricing. It is many times too high, proving that people simply will not adopt an overpriced technology when there is a more reasonably priced alternative, even a seriously flawed one. Didn't anyone learn the lesson that Blu-ray disks learned when they finally got around to bringing their prices into the range consumers were willing to pay?
Neither Intel nor any of the vendors have shown any indication of emerging from their collective state of denial about USB 3 or Thunderbolt for that matter.
Some vendors have offered ("premium") external drives in Thunderbolt enclosures with 5,400 RPM drives which are slow by any standard. Hello! Is there anybody there?
None of them appear to "get it". At this stage the answere to the question of USB 3 or Thunderbolt may just be "neither".
When USB3 is outdated, TB will still be there, using the same port and be more future-proof than USB.
Maybe, maybe not. That's what we thought about Firewire vs. USB2 (remember the talk about FW1600?) and we were wrong. By the time USB2 was replaced, Firewire was dead too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
[...] It's not CPU intensive like USB is.
I thought I read or heard somewhere that while USB2 was CPU intensive, USB3 resolves, or at least significantly mitigates that. Have I been mis-informed?
WTF?! If having a Mac notebook and an Apple display that doesn't offer you much then what the hell are your expectations? They're certainly not realistic if you don't think that's a better solution than what was available in years past.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
It's Crowley; ignore him.
Sure, you could do that, or you could read the comment in context. He said that plans to improve Thunderbolt IN THE FUTURE do not benefit anyone now. He's right. Why do you take issue with that?
Someday cars will do 100 miles per gallon. Academically interesting in the context of fossil fuels versus alternative energies, but doesn't affect a discussion of the shortage of gas stations TODAY.
Promising to double the bandwidth in the future does nothing to resolve whatever is already impeding adoption by manufacturers.
They really aren't comparable that way because they not true competitors. Remember that it's PCIe+DP over an mDP port interface. TB wraps in a lot of things that USB would do but you'd only use it for specific items. TB is a way to send data along with TB being locked to Intel at this time is certainly not helping because AMD, PPC, ARM, et al. systems can't be the primary device its connected to. I don't even think TB is a requirement for Intel's Ultrabooks any longer.
I've been wanting something like for many years before it happened. Just like USB was great because it allowed for multiple cable types to be a single cable type Thunderbolt does this for those that have displays with all the other peripherals built-in (camera, microphones, speakers, USB hub, FW hub, IR sensor, Thunderbolt out port, Ethernet). This also opens up the possibility for many PCIe options. For instance, it would be possible to have a MBA that couldn't run a 4K display well that could be connected to a 4K display because it has it's own discreet GPU built-in
This is all fine, I'm glad you're enthusiastic about it, and I agree that its a very impressive protocol and getting to an (almost) one cable solution is a great aspiration. But the PCIe options by and large don't exist yet (and are fairly niche appeal), and the only display to my knowledge that has all those peripherals built in is the ACD - a fine display, for sure, but it's not a competitive market when there's only a single choice. And it is still very expensive. USB is fulfilling the vast majority of needs for the vast majority of people, as evidenced by bdkennedy1's original post that you replied to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
The only thing the above setup is missing is the inclusion of this Apple patent (below) that will put optical Thunderbolt (aka Light Peak) via the MagSafe connector. Then you have one cable. Remember when you had to plug them all in separately or use a very expensive and clunky docking station interface with a laptop?
A surefire way to damage uptake of Thunderbolt would be to change the connector. If what you say here happens then I hope Apple also includes a regular Thunderbolt with the miniDP-style connector and doesn't try to force the ACD as the single wired option.
A surefire way to damage uptake of Thunderbolt would be to change the connector. If what you say here happens then I hope Apple also includes a regular Thunderbolt with the miniDP-style connector and doesn't try to force the ACD as the single wired option.
Who said anything about getting rid of the cooper connector?
No one. You don't have to read a criticism into everything. I was just noting that I don't think integrating Thunderbolt into Magsafe should be a substitute for the current Thunderbolt, as it would damage confidence in a coherent future for the protocol.
And I think Apple should be careful about the message they send by integrating Thunderbolt into Magsafe even if they retain the Thunderbolt connector. They'd be straying back into ADB territory of proprietary lock in on cabling (as well as presumably making Magsafe cables more expensive). I can't imagine Apple would want to release Magsafe as a licenseable standard (could be wrong, but they haven't done so far), so while I like the single cable aspect of it in principle, the integration in a proprietary form is a turn off. Mitigated if they keep the standalone Thunderbolt connector, but still, careful messaging needed.
Comments
Are we going to have quibbles about word meanings here? I don't understand why accessories is the wrong term here.
If you insist: I think there is a greater variety of add-on devices with Lightning connector (speakers, docks, cables, adapters) than there is a variety of Thunderbolt peripherals (drives, docks, adapters, converters, cables).
Ah, and I see your edited post after I replied. I was looking at it from the view that iDevice is the peripheral that plugs into the Mac/PC, which is wrong way to look at that since it's just USB signaling. Thunderbolt on a Mac/PC connection to a device should be compared to an iDevice with Lightning connecting to an accessory.
I wasn't thinking of it that way at all. There are plenty of things that connect to iOS devices that aren't computers, I wasn't counting computers.
Replace wasn't with was and it reads to my original intent.
Items priced out of the market won't ever be adopted widely. USB 3 might be all that anybody needs until USB 4.
Thunderbolt requires chips in the cables. When cables fail due to the wires losing connection with the chips, Thunderbolt will get a reputation as more expensive than it is worth. If Intel wants Thunderbolt to succeed it had better let others play with it or it will just die on the vine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Why would you imagine it at all? Are you under the erroneous presumption that Intel is trying to replace USB, which it includes in their chipsets, with Thunderbolt?
Your original post bringing up Falcon Ridge was in response to someone saying USB was all they needed, so Thunderbolt was an irrelevance. I'm just rolling with your conversation, no need to pick a fight.
USB would seem to have a more assured future than Thunderbolt, as Thunderbolt has had such limited uptake. The roadmap for Thunderbolt is interesting, and testament to Intel's commitment, but if the market doesn't appear then that roadmap could well go out the window, so USB is probably still the safer bet.
They really aren't comparable that way because they not true competitors. Remember that it's PCIe+DP over an mDP port interface. TB wraps in a lot of things that USB would do but you'd only use it for specific items. TB is a way to send data along with TB being locked to Intel at this time is certainly not helping because AMD, PPC, ARM, et al. systems can't be the primary device its connected to. I don't even think TB is a requirement for Intel's Ultrabooks any longer.
I've been wanting something like for many years before it happened. Just like USB was great because it allowed for multiple cable types to be a single cable type Thunderbolt does this for those that have displays with all the other peripherals built-in (camera, microphones, speakers, USB hub, FW hub, IR sensor, Thunderbolt out port, Ethernet). This also opens up the possibility for many PCIe options. For instance, it would be possible to have a MBA that couldn't run a 4K display well that could be connected to a 4K display because it has it's own discreet GPU built-in
The only thing the above setup is missing is the inclusion of this Apple patent (below) that will put optical Thunderbolt (aka Light Peak) via the MagSafe connector. Then you have one cable. Remember when you had to plug them all in separately or use a very expensive and clunky docking station interface with a laptop?
Intel has been both slow in bringing the chipsets for Thunderbolt to market and damaged the "brand" with the 1st year being exclusive to Apple. And then there is the pricing. It is many times too high, proving that people simply will not adopt an overpriced technology when there is a more reasonably priced alternative, even a seriously flawed one. Didn't anyone learn the lesson that Blu-ray disks learned when they finally got around to bringing their prices into the range consumers were willing to pay?
Neither Intel nor any of the vendors have shown any indication of emerging from their collective state of denial about USB 3 or Thunderbolt for that matter.
Some vendors have offered ("premium") external drives in Thunderbolt enclosures with 5,400 RPM drives which are slow by any standard. Hello! Is there anybody there?
None of them appear to "get it". At this stage the answere to the question of USB 3 or Thunderbolt may just be "neither".
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
When USB3 is outdated, TB will still be there, using the same port and be more future-proof than USB.
Maybe, maybe not. That's what we thought about Firewire vs. USB2 (remember the talk about FW1600?) and we were wrong. By the time USB2 was replaced, Firewire was dead too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
[...] It's not CPU intensive like USB is.
I thought I read or heard somewhere that while USB2 was CPU intensive, USB3 resolves, or at least significantly mitigates that. Have I been mis-informed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
WTF?! If having a Mac notebook and an Apple display that doesn't offer you much then what the hell are your expectations? They're certainly not realistic if you don't think that's a better solution than what was available in years past.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
It's Crowley; ignore him.
Sure, you could do that, or you could read the comment in context. He said that plans to improve Thunderbolt IN THE FUTURE do not benefit anyone now. He's right. Why do you take issue with that?
Someday cars will do 100 miles per gallon. Academically interesting in the context of fossil fuels versus alternative energies, but doesn't affect a discussion of the shortage of gas stations TODAY.
Promising to double the bandwidth in the future does nothing to resolve whatever is already impeding adoption by manufacturers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
They really aren't comparable that way because they not true competitors. Remember that it's PCIe+DP over an mDP port interface. TB wraps in a lot of things that USB would do but you'd only use it for specific items. TB is a way to send data along with TB being locked to Intel at this time is certainly not helping because AMD, PPC, ARM, et al. systems can't be the primary device its connected to. I don't even think TB is a requirement for Intel's Ultrabooks any longer.
I've been wanting something like for many years before it happened. Just like USB was great because it allowed for multiple cable types to be a single cable type Thunderbolt does this for those that have displays with all the other peripherals built-in (camera, microphones, speakers, USB hub, FW hub, IR sensor, Thunderbolt out port, Ethernet). This also opens up the possibility for many PCIe options. For instance, it would be possible to have a MBA that couldn't run a 4K display well that could be connected to a 4K display because it has it's own discreet GPU built-in
This is all fine, I'm glad you're enthusiastic about it, and I agree that its a very impressive protocol and getting to an (almost) one cable solution is a great aspiration. But the PCIe options by and large don't exist yet (and are fairly niche appeal), and the only display to my knowledge that has all those peripherals built in is the ACD - a fine display, for sure, but it's not a competitive market when there's only a single choice. And it is still very expensive. USB is fulfilling the vast majority of needs for the vast majority of people, as evidenced by bdkennedy1's original post that you replied to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
The only thing the above setup is missing is the inclusion of this Apple patent (below) that will put optical Thunderbolt (aka Light Peak) via the MagSafe connector. Then you have one cable. Remember when you had to plug them all in separately or use a very expensive and clunky docking station interface with a laptop?
A surefire way to damage uptake of Thunderbolt would be to change the connector. If what you say here happens then I hope Apple also includes a regular Thunderbolt with the miniDP-style connector and doesn't try to force the ACD as the single wired option.
Who said anything about getting rid of the cooper connector?
No one. You don't have to read a criticism into everything. I was just noting that I don't think integrating Thunderbolt into Magsafe should be a substitute for the current Thunderbolt, as it would damage confidence in a coherent future for the protocol.
And I think Apple should be careful about the message they send by integrating Thunderbolt into Magsafe even if they retain the Thunderbolt connector. They'd be straying back into ADB territory of proprietary lock in on cabling (as well as presumably making Magsafe cables more expensive). I can't imagine Apple would want to release Magsafe as a licenseable standard (could be wrong, but they haven't done so far), so while I like the single cable aspect of it in principle, the integration in a proprietary form is a turn off. Mitigated if they keep the standalone Thunderbolt connector, but still, careful messaging needed.