Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Oct 3, 2012, 04:59 PM   #76
mdriftmeyer
macrumors 68020
 
mdriftmeyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Pacific Northwest
The pricing is insulting. You've got $20 in electronic chips and $15 in packaging and they want how much?
mdriftmeyer is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2012, 04:59 PM   #77
curmudgeon32
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by realeric View Post
Apple would have made Android/Windows 8/Blackberry apps so that I could send free text messages to my friends, like KakaoTalk.
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.
curmudgeon32 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2012, 05:08 PM   #78
organerito
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post
The pricing is insulting. You've got $20 in electronic chips and $15 in packaging and they want how much?
Yes! I know! It is like Apple selling adapters and crappy earphones.
organerito is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2012, 05:08 PM   #79
gugy
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: La Jolla, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by NutsNGum View Post
Blunderbolt.
Yep, still too expensive and not much availability. It's a great tech but prices need to drop significantly for a mass consumer adoption.
__________________
MacPro 2.66 12 Core, 30" and 23" ACDs, MacBook Pros, iPhones, iPads, iPods and tons of other Apple crap.
gugy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2012, 05:22 PM   #80
topmounter
macrumors 68000
 
topmounter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: FEMA Region VIII
Sad, but it is clearly time for a hasty retreat back to USB 3.0.
__________________
In33weTrust.com
topmounter is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2012, 05:28 PM   #81
master-ceo
macrumors 65816
 
master-ceo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The SUN
Cool
__________________
-jungmark
Apple isn't going to have the lens stick out from the phone. The design would be awful.

Last edited by master-ceo; Oct 3, 2012 at 05:40 PM.
master-ceo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2012, 05:30 PM   #82
Sincci
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Finland
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhoDaKat View Post
I'm fairly certain TB has the bandwidth to push a 27" retina display. I remember reading somewhere that it could push 2 4K screens. Fairly certain...not positive.
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).
Sincci is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2012, 05:35 PM   #83
nutmac
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by magbarn View Post
The problem is that many of the TB equipped MBA/MBP only have either pathetically slow USB 2.0 or FW800 to fall back on.
True and I wish Apple would solve the problem by offering its own hub (essentially Thunderbolt Display minus the display).
nutmac is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2012, 05:36 PM   #84
jasomill
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
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.
jasomill is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2012, 05:42 PM   #85
Medic311
macrumors 68000
 
Medic311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
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...
Medic311 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2012, 05:49 PM   #86
AidenShaw
macrumors G5
 
AidenShaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Peninsula
Quote:
Originally Posted by magbarn View Post
For a given generation of HD, usually the higher platter speed=higher transfer rates. That said, the majority of 2012 5400rpm hard drives easily exceed USB 2.0 transfer rates almost two-fold. So even 5400rpm drives get a speed boost from TB/USB 3.0
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....


Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post
The pricing is insulting. You've got $20 in electronic chips and $15 in packaging and they want how much?
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....
__________________
6 October 2014 - the day that the debate about marriage equality ended. And equality prevailed.
AidenShaw is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2012, 05:58 PM   #87
BornAgainMac
macrumors 601
 
BornAgainMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Florida Resident
TB tech should probably never been implemented by Apple. They are focused on post PC devices. The idea of TB was cool at least.
BornAgainMac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2012, 06:02 PM   #88
Swordylove
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
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.
__________________
~
Swordylove is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2012, 06:02 PM   #89
AidenShaw
macrumors G5
 
AidenShaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Peninsula
think of the 3rd party drivers

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasomill View Post
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.
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.
__________________
6 October 2014 - the day that the debate about marriage equality ended. And equality prevailed.
AidenShaw is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2012, 06:20 PM   #90
ThisIsNotMe
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by AidenShaw View Post
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.
Huh?
What do you think grid computing is?
ThisIsNotMe is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2012, 06:23 PM   #91
Mr. Retrofire
macrumors 601
 
Mr. Retrofire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: www.emiliana.cl
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettochris View Post
...so USB 3 doesn't get you much more than the inefficient CPU hogging protocol.
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by wikipedia.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_Attached_SCSI

USB 3.0 SuperSpeed – host controller (xHCI) hardware support, no software overhead for out-of-order commands

...

USB 3 host controller (xHCI) provides hardware support for Streams
UASP support requires compatible enclosures or other UASP compatible USB 3.0 hardware.
__________________

“Only the dead have seen the end of the war.”
-- Plato --
Mr. Retrofire is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2012, 06:23 PM   #92
PracticalMac
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettochris View Post
What are you talking about? FireWire 800 is sweet, my drives sound much better running even FireWire 400 than USB 2(smooth sounding writes not choppy), and FireWire 800 pretty much goes as fast as the drive so USB 3 doesn't get you much more than the inefficient CPU hogging protocol. Ask anyone in digital video, FireWire was a savior and thunderbolt is even more awesome. Just because the masses don't get it doesn't make it a failure.
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??
__________________
FireWire 1394 Intelligent network guaranteed data transfer, 1500mA power, Ethernet compatible
Read: 160 files, 650MB total, FW400 70% faster then USB2
Write: 160 files, 650MB total, FW400 48% faster
PracticalMac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2012, 06:25 PM   #93
robvas
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgg204 View Post
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...
It would cost more than just making a 'full' dock.
robvas is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2012, 06:31 PM   #94
AidenShaw
macrumors G5
 
AidenShaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Peninsula
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisIsNotMe View Post
Huh?
What do you think grid computing is?
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.
__________________
6 October 2014 - the day that the debate about marriage equality ended. And equality prevailed.
AidenShaw is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2012, 06:32 PM   #95
Mr. Retrofire
macrumors 601
 
Mr. Retrofire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: www.emiliana.cl
Quote:
Originally Posted by iAppl3Fan View Post
Why anyone would want to spend $400 for a hub is beyond me. Pick up a refub TBD for around $829 and get a n awesome screen and true docking station.
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...

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by PracticalMac View Post
And did you see my sig?
No, i'm blind.
__________________

“Only the dead have seen the end of the war.”
-- Plato --
Mr. Retrofire is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2012, 06:37 PM   #96
mediacomposer
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Boston, MA
Send a message via AIM to mediacomposer Send a message via Skype™ to mediacomposer
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...
mediacomposer is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2012, 06:38 PM   #97
Thunderhawks
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by topmounter View Post
Sad, but it is clearly time for a hasty retreat back to USB 3.0.
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!
__________________
It's ready, when it's ready !
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." — Benjamin Franklin
Thunderhawks is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2012, 06:40 PM   #98
Medic311
macrumors 68000
 
Medic311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by robvas View Post
It would cost more than just making a 'full' dock.
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
Medic311 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2012, 06:42 PM   #99
lilo777
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post
The pricing is insulting. You've got $20 in electronic chips and $15 in packaging and they want how much?
It's Apple/Mac accessory. Hence the price. Now that PCs got TB the prices and availability will improve drastically.
lilo777 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2012, 06:50 PM   #100
iAppl3Fan
macrumors 6502a
 
iAppl3Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Retrofire View Post
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.
__________________
 13" MacBook Air (Mid 2013) + Dual 27" Thunderbolt Display
 15" MacBook Pro with Retina Display (Mid 2012) + 24" LED Cinema Display
 TV |  Time Capsule |  iPod |  iPhone |  iPad Air/mini
iAppl3Fan is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sonnet Echo 15 Docking Stations Delayed for Thunderbolt 2 Upgrade MacRumors Mac Blog Discussion 49 Feb 7, 2014 09:02 AM
Beware of Docking Stations--external HD issue tunebeach Mac Peripherals 1 Mar 27, 2013 07:42 PM
iPad: iPad 4 LTE, shipping date just pushed back a week bobt iPad 4 Nov 15, 2012 10:57 PM
Macbook pro docking stations? sinitry23 MacBook Pro 8 Oct 29, 2012 08:32 PM
USB 3 Docking Stations Relznuk Mac Peripherals 6 Jul 16, 2012 08:28 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:59 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC