Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

UnfetteredMind

macrumors 6502
Jun 6, 2012
451
77
I currently have no machines with Thunderbolt, but I'm considering refreshing my 2006 MacPro in the next year (since it won't run ML). I have multiple eSATA devices (RAID, standalone drive). They do have FW800 connections so it's possible I could connect them that way as well, assuming the new Mac I go with still has FW800.

Any lowering of TB costs is welcome! Hopefully it will lower the costs of actual consumer products using TB.
 

caligomez

macrumors regular
Feb 8, 2011
246
88
San Juan, PR
So TB cable prices are "likely" to drop a couple of bucks by "2013"... Great.. That'll be a big relief when I buy a $400 TB Hub or $600 external drive a year from now..:rolleyes:
 

bungiefan89

macrumors 6502a
Apr 5, 2011
565
76
Whole-heartedly agree, except just have multiple Thunderbolt ports. Screw USB :)
A single port for everything does sound even better but... USB has been SO outrageously successful, I can't imagine it being completely replaced, even with something as powerful as Thunderbolt. Just think of all the hundreds of USB devices available today... are you going to use a USB to Thunderbolt dongle for ALL of those?
 

spazzcat

macrumors 68040
Jun 29, 2007
3,658
4,747
Nope. Still a dinosaur.

Hands up how many of you own a Thunderbolt peripheral >2 years since launch?

I have a RMPB, so I have a network adapter and a display port adapter, so I own two...
 

WestonHarvey1

macrumors 68030
Jan 9, 2007
2,771
2,187
What about when Thunderbolt goes optical? How will that work, will we need new Macs again? Isn't an optical cable basically just a piece of translucent plastic? Wouldn't it then be tons cheaper? Would that finally get rid of the freaking supercomputer built into the cable?

When fiber versions become available, the optical transducers can be included inside the cable connectors. That will make them compatible with current TB Macs.
 

spazzcat

macrumors 68040
Jun 29, 2007
3,658
4,747
A single port for everything does sound even better but... USB has been SO outrageously successful, I can't imagine it being completely replaced, even with something as powerful as Thunderbolt. Just think of all the hundreds of USB devices available today... are you going to use a USB to Thunderbolt dongle for ALL of those?

You could use a USB hub that plugs in to a TB port.
 

bungiefan89

macrumors 6502a
Apr 5, 2011
565
76
Thunderbolt port and single cable to connect everything. With adapters you can use virtually any protocol with it. It's essentially a huge pipe and you can throw anything you want at it.
Then why can't I use my 2011 iMac as a screen for my Xbox 360? :mad:
 

AidenShaw

macrumors P6
Feb 8, 2003
18,667
4,676
The Peninsula
Ultra-high multi-path bandwidth anywhere from 10-20Gbps with copper and 100Gbps with fiber

There are no optical T-Bolt cables at any speed. You are quoting roadmap and theoretical numbers. And "multi-path" is questionable - a T-Bolt chain is single-path.

Fail.

Forward-compatible with optical transceivers.

Are you talking about T-Bolt 2.0 or T-Bolt 3.0?

T-Bolt 1.0 does not support optical cables - but there are certain vaporware noises about connectors with Cu-Optical transceivers in the cable for longer cable runs at copper speeds - but each end is a copper connection.


Daisy-chainable.

This is a liability, not an asset. Daisy chains are pure suck - since you often have to shut the system down to remove or insert a device in the middle
 

spazzcat

macrumors 68040
Jun 29, 2007
3,658
4,747
Actually, given how strong Thunderbolt seems to be, I think it could easily be an industry standard if they could drop the price.
Picture this: in the year 2015, the ONLY ports on most computers are USB 3.0 and Thunderbolt. You no longer have a need for VGA, DVI, HDMI, FireWire, or even Ethernet. All of those could be run through Thunderbolt and suddenly it's much easier to connect devices to computers. Yes, it would certainly take a long time to adopt the technology like that, but it sounds like a convenient world once fully adopted, doesn't it?

Don't need to wait until 2015, my RMPB already has no network port, firewire, DVI, or VGA. It does have HDMI, but really Apple could have just included a third TB port.

----------

High price = low adoption rate = FireWire all over gain.

The price will come down, look at Bluray when it first came out. All tech is pricey when it first comes out...
 

Fortimir

macrumors 6502a
Sep 5, 2007
669
435
Indianapolis, IN
You are quoting roadmap and theoretical numbers.
Yep. Never said I wasn't.

And I should have specified that by multi-channel I was referring to the ability of Thunderbolt to not suck performance out of the entire bus like USB. Thunderbolt is designed to handle multiple devices of varying levels of performance without affecting the channel itself.

This is a liability, not an asset. Daisy chains are pure suck - since you often have to shut the system down to remove or insert a device in the middle
Most things I'd want to daisy chain aren't being hotplugged, so that's a near-non-issue. And now that everything is going the way of SSDs, a full system restart takes 15 seconds. I can deal. The big point for me is that I still see daisy chains as a plus since devices can be smaller and I'm faced with less cable clutter.

----------

High price = low adoption rate = FireWire all over gain.

Thunderbolt is quite a bit more capable than Firewire. I think it will have a much better future... not that Firewire really had a bad life. It's still around, just living in the shadows. Thunderbolt is definitely a MUCH larger threat to Firewire than anything else.
 

3PO

macrumors newbie
Jul 6, 2012
7
0
Don't need to wait until 2015, my RMPB already has no network port, firewire, DVI, or VGA. It does have HDMI, but really Apple could have just included a third TB port.

----------



The price will come down, look at Bluray when it first came out. All tech is pricey when it first comes out...

Of course it will come down, the point is it will be too late.

----------

Thunderbolt is quite a bit more capable than Firewire. I think it will have a much better future... not that Firewire really had a bad life. It's still around, just living in the shadows. Thunderbolt is definitely a MUCH larger threat to Firewire than anything else.

So was Firewire compared to USB.
 

rmwebs

macrumors 68040
Apr 6, 2007
3,140
0
Surely it would have made more sense to put that tiny microcontroller and voltage regulator on the actual thunderbolt port and devices, thus reducing the cable cost...you know...how every single other cable works.
 

deeddawg

macrumors G5
Jun 14, 2010
12,245
6,392
US
Thunderbolt is a really cool idea. It'd be great if/when it becomes commonplace with many inexpensive accessories and cables.

But what I don't understand is: Who on earth thought eight chips inside every cable was a good idea? Anything requiring $50 cables is going to be adopted about as fast as concrete soccer balls.
 

Fortimir

macrumors 6502a
Sep 5, 2007
669
435
Indianapolis, IN
Surely it would have made more sense to put that tiny microcontroller and voltage regulator on the actual thunderbolt port and devices, thus reducing the cable cost...you know...how every single other cable works.

You're just moving the cost and sacrificing expand-ability. Think about how many limits are lifted by making the port "open" and forcing the cables and peripherals to utilize it. Sure it costs a hair more because you'll have more cables... but this is a pro tech, not a consumer one at the moment.
 

tomovo

macrumors newbie
Jul 29, 2010
28
59
iPhone

If the iPhone is going to get a new connector, it should be Thunderbolt.
 

ArtOfWarfare

macrumors G3
Nov 26, 2007
9,555
6,053
Surely it would have made more sense to put that tiny microcontroller and voltage regulator on the actual thunderbolt port and devices, thus reducing the cable cost...you know...how every single other cable works.

I wouldn't consider myself a hardware pro (I'm more of a software guy,) but isn't the fact that those chips are in the cable instead of the port the reason optical TB cables will work with current macs?

Going this route with USB years ago would have meant USB 3 cables would be allowed to plug into USB 2 ports, wouldn't it?

This route allows ports to be forward compatible and support devices not yet released rather than backwards compatible and only support prior devices.

Put another way, getting the latest and greatest means replacing a few cables that add up to a few hundred dollars, rather than your computer setup, which for pro users is generally more than a few thousand dollars.

(If I'm wrong, someone please let me know - I could be grossly misinformed.)
 

hobo.hopkins

macrumors 6502a
Jul 30, 2008
569
6
I believe that everyone would welcome a price decrease. It's always an unfortunate hindrance to the adoption of new technology.
 

baryon

macrumors 68040
Oct 3, 2009
3,877
2,924
When fiber versions become available, the optical transducers can be included inside the cable connectors. That will make them compatible with current TB Macs.

So, the optical signal (the light pulses) won't be coming from the computer, but rather generated by the cable? So there will not only be 2 freaking microcomputers in each cable (one at each end), but also a whole light generating/receiving thingy?

Wouldn't it be easier to just put an LED in the computer (cheap as hell) that simply blinks the 1s and the 0s and a transparent cable relays them? I mean, I'm not an engineer, but this is how optical audio works today, it costs nothing and it's a working way to relay lots of information. Why can't Thunderbolt do this?
 

Conflagrare

macrumors newbie
Jul 17, 2009
9
0
Surely it would have made more sense to put that tiny microcontroller and voltage regulator on the actual thunderbolt port and devices, thus reducing the cable cost...you know...how every single other cable works.

Originally Posted by WestonHarvey1
When fiber versions become available, the optical transducers can be included inside the cable connectors. That will make them compatible with current TB Macs.

It's so you can take the new optical table which is not yet designed/made/sold, and plug them into your existing thunderbolt port.

"So, the optical signal (the light pulses) won't be coming from the computer, but rather generated by the cable? So there will not only be 2 freaking microcomputers in each cable (one at each end), but also a whole light generating/receiving thingy?

Wouldn't it be easier to just put an LED in the computer (cheap as hell) that simply blinks the 1s and the 0s and a transparent cable relays them? I mean, I'm not an engineer, but this is how optical audio works today, it costs nothing and and it's a working way to relay lots of information. Why can't Thunderbolt do this?"

And no, optical transmitters are NOT cheap. Low frequency crap LED's yes. But not for high speed. Here's one for a 1Gb network at $100:

http://www.amazon.com/Cisco-GLC-SX-MM-1000BASE-SX-Transceiver-Module/dp/B0000ANEX9

I guarantee that thunderbolt runs faster than Ethernet... a lot faster, and hence more expensive.
 

faroZ06

macrumors 68040
Apr 3, 2009
3,387
1
It'll still be expensive because Apple charges ripoff prices for cables.

----------

It's annoying how Apple is sacrificing FireWire 400 for FW800 and/or Thunderbolt. So many devices use FW400. It was cool when Apple just gave us FW800 and FW400, but now you need adapters. I'm gonna stick with 2008 for a while.

----------

If the iPhone is going to get a new connector, it should be Thunderbolt.

I doubt the iPhone's internal memory is even fast enough to utilize Thunderbolt effectively, so it would end up just being overpriced. Firewire would be good.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.