The pricing is insulting. You've got $20 in electronic chips and $15 in packaging and they want how much?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Third-Party Thunderbolt Docking Stations Remain Vaporware as Shipping Dates Pushed Back
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sure, and I'd love to see browser-based access too, but it ain't happening. iMessage is there to sell Apple devices, unfortunately, so I really don't see them extending their free messaging to Android users, do you?
As designed for compatible devices, iMessage works really well in my experience -- at least since the iOS 6 and Mountain Lion updates.
Yep, still too expensive and not much availability. It's a great tech but prices need to drop significantly for a mass consumer adoption.
Nope, TB has only 10Gbit/s reserved for the display data (display port version 1.1a) and that is not enough to power even one 4K display. In theory you could of course use the Thunderbolt's other 10Gbit/s lane for display data as well to make it same as display port ver 1.2 (20Gbit/s), but then you wouldn't be able to connect anything else to the monitor/same chain since it wouldn't be Thunderbolt anymore.
Of course Apple could bypass this issue by using two thunderbolt connectors for the display (like they have on rMBP). But yeah, one TB port doesn't have enough bandwidth to push 2 4K displays (or even one).
True and I wish Apple would solve the problem by offering its own hub (essentially Thunderbolt Display minus the display).
For a "failure", my Thunderbolt Display and eSATA hub work very well, and have features (FireWire 800 in the case of the display, native AHCI SATA support in the case of the hub) that are both important to me and*not currently available in competing USB 3.0 devices. Not entirely unlike FireWire in its heyday, vis-a-vis USB 1.1 and 2.0.
USB 3.0, with its ubiquity, backward-compatibility, and improved bandwidth, is an excellent replacement for FireWire 800. Damn shame the Sandy Bridge Macs don't support it. What I'd really love to see is a bus-powered Thunderbolt USB 3.0 adapter with Thunderbolt passthrough that's compatible with OS-integrated drivers. While I understand the "non-chain-ending" Thunderbolt controllers are considerably more expensive, if such a device retailed for $150 or less, I'd buy two.
In contrast to USB 3.0, Thunderbolt could, with only incremental improvements (read: more and faster PCIe lanes), easily replace PCI Express in all applications where "internal" isn't an obvious advantage. As an example, imagine a rack unit with an integrated management controller, redundant power, and port replication for one or more "Mac mini Pro" CPUs connected via a convenient, front-loading "warm-swap" mechanism. Now imagine this unit connected via Thunderbolt to rack-mounted Thunderbolt audio and/or video interfaces, "legacy" rack-mounted PCI express card cages to support existing high-end storage controllers and 10Gbps+ Ethernet interfaces, and possibly even additional, redundant CPU units.
Perhaps a pipe dream, but I'd love to see something along these lines as a replacement for the Mac Pro, with full- and minitower enclosures available as accessories.
USB 3.0, with its ubiquity, backward-compatibility, and improved bandwidth, is an excellent replacement for FireWire 800. Damn shame the Sandy Bridge Macs don't support it. What I'd really love to see is a bus-powered Thunderbolt USB 3.0 adapter with Thunderbolt passthrough that's compatible with OS-integrated drivers. While I understand the "non-chain-ending" Thunderbolt controllers are considerably more expensive, if such a device retailed for $150 or less, I'd buy two.
In contrast to USB 3.0, Thunderbolt could, with only incremental improvements (read: more and faster PCIe lanes), easily replace PCI Express in all applications where "internal" isn't an obvious advantage. As an example, imagine a rack unit with an integrated management controller, redundant power, and port replication for one or more "Mac mini Pro" CPUs connected via a convenient, front-loading "warm-swap" mechanism. Now imagine this unit connected via Thunderbolt to rack-mounted Thunderbolt audio and/or video interfaces, "legacy" rack-mounted PCI express card cages to support existing high-end storage controllers and 10Gbps+ Ethernet interfaces, and possibly even additional, redundant CPU units.
Perhaps a pipe dream, but I'd love to see something along these lines as a replacement for the Mac Pro, with full- and minitower enclosures available as accessories.
create a modular dock. you purchase the base unit which would be a slim block, no thicker than 0.5" which will contain the logic board. you purchase the individual ports that you want, which are sold in modular blocks that snap onto the base unit. you want an HDMI port? then buy the HDMI module. if you want 3 USB 3.0 ports, you buy that module.
etc.
i don't know why a manufacturer hasn't done this already...
etc.
i don't know why a manufacturer hasn't done this already...
On the other hand, slower speed drives run cooler and use less power.
My home Core i7 has one of the latest SandForce SSD drives for the system and applications - and arrays of "green" drives for the bulk storage.
That's the way to go....
Not really insulting - you forget about the highly paid programmers writing all of the third party device drivers necessary to make T-Bolt actually work....
TB tech should probably never been implemented by Apple. They are focused on post PC devices. The idea of TB was cool at least.
Pardon me, but the Matrox looks like a prototype made in a garage.
EDIT: Okay, apparently just bad picture. It looks much better in other pictures.
EDIT: Okay, apparently just bad picture. It looks much better in other pictures.
think of the 3rd party drivers
I'm not sure that I completely understand your concept, but want to point out that T-Bolt is basically "external PCIe".
As such, since PCIe was designed as an internal peripheral bus, it doesn't lend itself to sharing among systems.
To oversimplify a bit - the CPUs are the "masters", and the devices are the "slaves". Connecting multiple "masters" to a T-Bolt chain would create a huge amount of additional complexity if it were even possible in the general case.
And, since it appears that none of the docking station companies have managed to handle the complexity of a single master - creating "a huge amount of additional complexity" doesn't seem like a good path to follow.
I'm not sure that I completely understand your concept, but want to point out that T-Bolt is basically "external PCIe".
As such, since PCIe was designed as an internal peripheral bus, it doesn't lend itself to sharing among systems.
To oversimplify a bit - the CPUs are the "masters", and the devices are the "slaves". Connecting multiple "masters" to a T-Bolt chain would create a huge amount of additional complexity if it were even possible in the general case.
And, since it appears that none of the docking station companies have managed to handle the complexity of a single master - creating "a huge amount of additional complexity" doesn't seem like a good path to follow.
Not under Mountain Lion on Mid-2012 hardware (Macs). ML has obviously optimized USB 3.0 drivers (which support the UASP). Is this true? I do not know. If this is true, then USB 3.0 is hardware accelerated on a Mid-2012 Mac + ML, because:
wikipedia.org said:
UASP support requires compatible enclosures or other UASP compatible USB 3.0 hardware.
Miss the point.
If Apple made more products for it and actively helped others design products FW would be far more prevalent.
And did you see my sig??
I think that "grid computing" is based on systems connected over network interfaces.
T-Bolt is not a network interface, so you can't make a grid of systems connected by T-Bolt.
Since I said "I'm not sure that I completely understand your concept" I was simply trying to point out that if the earlier post meant to say that you could connect systems using T-Bolt that there was a big problem.
Or start a new Ivy Bridge Mac mini (base model) in the target disk modus (via Thunderbolt). This should give you four USB 3.0 interfaces. Waiting for the 2012 Mac mini...
----------
No, i'm blind.
It's crap like this that keeps me sticking to my Firewire 800 External Hard Drives for video editing... Apple and third parties need to get it together with this Thunderbolt stuff...
And, let's not forget to go back to Betamax and horse and buggies!
THese darn people inventing and/or using new technologies , making adapters and all should really leave us alone.
It was so peaceful!
but it reduces costs b/c the company doesn't have to keep re-engineering the "full" dock as Belkin finds itself having to do over and over again
it would be a great kickstarter project
It's Apple/Mac accessory. Hence the price. Now that PCs got TB the prices and availability will improve drastically.
Or start a new Ivy Bridge Mac mini (base model) in the target disk modus (via Thunderbolt). This should give you four USB 3.0 interfaces. Waiting for the 2012 Mac mini...
----------
No, i'm blind.
Very interesting suggestion on the mac mini. I learned something new.