|
|
#1 |
|
Still no Thunderbolt Splitter?
It has been 1.5 years or so since thunderbolt products have been around... but I still can't find a Thunderbolt splitter. Anybody know of one? I have two THB devices that I need to connect.
Thanks |
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Thunderbolt will never have "splitters," the nature of the technology requires each port to have its own little chipset. Do your TB devices not have a pass-through port for you to daisy chain? Most do...
__________________
MacBook Pro 13" (2012) | Core i7 @ 2.9 GHz | 256 GB Samsung 830 SSD | 16 GB Corsair RAM Thunderbolt Display iPad mini 32 GB WiFi iPhone 5 32 GB Apple TV 3 |
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Still semi-vaporware, but the much-delayed Belkin Express Dock will give you two Thunderbolt ports:
http://www.belkin.com/us/thunderbolt |
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
#4 | |
|
Quote:
__________________
jesterpictures.com theoryiseverything.com jarek.com Shoot for the Impossible...Then do it MacPro Octo 2.66, 32GB, ATI 4870, 23" ACD, Dell 2311h -- 15" MBP 2.6 i7, Anti-Glare, 16GB, 240GB SSD + 1TB |
||
|
|
1
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Hence the advantage of buying devices with dual ports for daisy chaining.
Of the two "chains" on my iMac: 1) iMac port 1 -> Pegasus R4 -> Seagate Desktop Drive -> A pair of Seagate portable TB drives for manual rotation of offsite backup of media. 2) iMac port 2 -> TBD -> unpopulated port The only thing I am waiting for now is a 20 meter optical TB cable... so that I can move the Pegasus & Seagate desktop drives up into my secure storage closet one floor up. /Jim |
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Thunderbolt doesn't work that way, hence a splitter will never exist.
__________________
iMac | Intel i7 3.4GHz | 32GB RAM | 1TB Fusion | GTX 680MX Mac Mini | Intel i5 2.5GHz | 8GB RAM | 500GB | AMD 6630M MacBook Air 13 | Intel i5 1.7Ghz | 4GB RAM | 256GB SSD |
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
#7 | |
|
Quote:
|
||
|
|
0
|
|
|
#8 | |
|
Quote:
|
||
|
|
0
|
|
|
#9 | |
|
Quote:
TB is alive and healthy... and those of us who are using it are reaping the benefits. It is MUCH faster than any other interface on today's Macs, which becomes obvious as soon as one starts using it. Not only is it a fast bus... but the CPU utilization is superb. The price premium is very small compared to the performance that it delivers. Just a few years ago, this type of performance was only available using very expensive enterprise solutions. /Jim |
||
|
|
0
|
|
|
#10 | |
|
Quote:
|
||
|
|
0
|
|
|
#11 | |
|
Quote:
/Jim |
||
|
|
0
|
|
|
#12 |
|
|
0
|
|
|
#13 | |
|
Quote:
http://www.belkin.com/us/F4U055/p/P-...t-announcement |
||
|
|
0
|
|
|
#14 | |
|
Quote:
That's definitely going to be extremely popular. The price is very affordable and very similar to USB 3.0 hubs. Another nail in the Thunderbolt coffin. And most probably the final one in the Firewire coffin. |
||
|
|
0
|
|
|
#15 | |
|
Quote:
I'll argue that TB is not dead. Most who use it routinely probably realizes it. Anyone who previously used enterprise class peripherals realizes that TB is an absolute bargain. /Jim |
||
|
|
0
|
|
|
#16 | |
|
Quote:
The device looks rather good if you don't mind all those cables. Some of my TB hard drive do not daisy chain, like my LaCie d2 USB 3.0 Thunderbolt Series 4TB and 3 TB External Hard Drives. Some of the LaCie Drives do daisy chain Thunderbolt.
__________________
iMac 27 inch 3.4GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7, 768 GB SSD, 32GB 1600MHz DDR3 SDRAM, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680MX 2GB GDDR5, Time Capsule (Gen 5) 3 TB, iMac 27" (2010) Intel 2.8 GHz i7, 12 GB RAM, 1TB HDD |
||
|
|
0
|
|
|
#17 | |
|
Quote:
|
||
|
|
0
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Thanks, I did notice that and wondered about it. Unfortunate one cannot split Thunderbolt.. Still the hub idea is a good one.
__________________
iMac 27 inch 3.4GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7, 768 GB SSD, 32GB 1600MHz DDR3 SDRAM, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680MX 2GB GDDR5, Time Capsule (Gen 5) 3 TB, iMac 27" (2010) Intel 2.8 GHz i7, 12 GB RAM, 1TB HDD |
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
#19 | |
|
Quote:
And now? USB 3.0 retains compatibility with all the old revisions. And firewire? Dead. Oh, I use the TB display. It's a great piece of hardware and I wish TB would take of as USB did. Sadly I am sure, that is not going to happen. |
||
|
|
0
|
|
|
#20 | |
|
Quote:
USB's extreme focus on cost (with the goal of PC ubiquity) was what propelled its acceptance. A few "ease of use" features such as breaking the 1/1 correspondence between "ports" and "peripherals" helped... as well as providing significant power distribution. Still... the cost structure is what drove it to ubiquity.As you stated... FW moved forward and became very relavent in a few smaller markets... such as digital video (largely because of Sony) and professional applications. In many ways (as you stated)... TB fills that same need as FW once did. I believe that the demise of FW today is a result of those professional applications moving to TB. Hence... USB is being replaced by new versions of USB. FW is being replaced by TB. Personally... I would not expect TB to replace USB. It is possible, but unlikely, that USB could replace TB. In fact... it does in many consumer PCs today... the same class of machines that never had FW in the first place. However, TB advances the professional capability of professional machines (over FW)... just like USB 3.0 extends the capabilities over the original USB 1.1. So... that was a long-winded way of agreeing with you. /Jim |
||
|
|
0
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Honestly I never looked at TB and USB as "NOT" being in competition.
If you take that out of the equation, it starts to make more sense. But I still struggle with the thought that TB is going to have a hard time achieving the critical mass of users with these prices. And there's another perspective: - low bandwidth/range - BT - high bandwidth/range - A/C - very high bandwidth/wired - TB - charging - induction With consumer devices moving to inductive charging and wireless transmission speeds reaching the speeds of wired ethernet and exceeding the writing capablities of NAND chips (not in RAID, that is) - there is really no need for USB anymore. Or for any wired protocol, except for those, requering extreme transfer rates. What is the main usage of USB nowadays? (if you think of connect/disconnect events) Charging... Thanks for pointing me in a bit different direction of thinking. |
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
#22 | |
|
Quote:
1) While A/C might encroach on wired ethernet in consumer implementations... it will not do the same to TB... nor will it displace ethernet in enterprise. TB is really a pro-level technology. The fact that we can get the capability so damn inexpensively in our Macs is fantastic. Don't compare it to USB. Compare it to enterprise solutions at "near consumer" price points. 2 ) NAND is going to be augmented within the next few years (probably 4-5) with new replacement technology that is yet 3 additional orders of magnitude faster than NAND. So while NAND is 3 orders of magnitude (1000X) faster than HDDs... it is still 3 orders of magnitude (1000X) slower than system memory. This is evident if you compare IOPs of SSDs to IOPs of HDDs. IOPs are what makes your computer fly. The replacement technology for NAND will be approximately the same speed as system memory... and will also have much better endurance and much smaller block size (certainly down to cache line sizes and potentially down to byte level). As a result what we know as storage and memory will blur. This is perhaps the single largest change that is looming in the field of computer science. It is absolutely fascinating. /Jim |
||
|
|
0
|
![]() |
|
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:17 AM.






MacBook Pro 13" (2012) | Core i7 @ 2.9 GHz | 256 GB Samsung 830 SSD | 16 GB Corsair RAM
USB's extreme focus on cost (with the goal of PC ubiquity) was what propelled its acceptance. A few "ease of use" features such as breaking the 1/1 correspondence between "ports" and "peripherals" helped... as well as providing significant power distribution. Still... the cost structure is what drove it to ubiquity.
Linear Mode
