Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jan 16, 2013, 02:16 PM   #126
sittnick
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pentad View Post
We can ship TB to the Island of Misfit Technologies where it can run and play with OpenDoc, Pippin, Taligent, Pink, and Copland.
-P
QuickDraw GX is feeling left out.
sittnick is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2013, 05:06 PM   #127
shurcooL
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by weckart View Post
The world has been able to do this over USB 2.0 for quite some time already, so, of course, the greater bandwidth of USB 3.0 was hardly going to be a stumbling block.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00612ZPQA

You can stop rolling those eyes now.
Awesome! Why would I use my 15" MBP's dedicated Radeon video card and connect it to my 30" monitor via DisplayPort, when I can use a $64 USB video card. Clearly they should get rid of Thunderbolt altogether since it's so useless.

Sarcasm aside, I know there are USB video cards. But that's not how you want to connect your main external display in most cases.
shurcooL is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2013, 05:18 PM   #128
shabbasuraj
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
I blame Intel for ThunderBlunder
shabbasuraj is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2013, 05:35 PM   #129
manu chao
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightarchaon View Post
In all the years of firewires existence, i hadnt used a single firewire device (in fact no PC i owned had firewire ports) until i was purchased by work, in late 2008, a macbook pro.. the only device i have ever connected to it, is the also supplied by work Drobo.

Likely the only device ever to connect to my iMacs thunderbolt port will be a USB 3 breakout box, and possibly a Drobo mini (because the idea of 4 raided 256gb ssds makes me very happy)

This is all also keeping in mind that the price gap between firewire products and USB products became negligible very quickly, and a lot of devices carried both as standard, i don't see this happening with USB3/Thunderbolt because people will buy a much cheaper USB3 only competitor to a product with both ports.
The funny thing is that for many years FW800 offered twice as much speed compared to USB 2 but despite what you describe as a negligible price gap between the two, 95% of the population turned out to be cheapskates that did not want to pay that negligible price difference (and no, it wasn't about interoperability, very few people share HDDs with other people and as you said almost all FW devices had a USB port as well).

Think about that, 95% of the population is not willing to pay $30 extra to get twice the speed.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
I hate coming into the middle of a conversation, since I have no idea if you're being sarcastic or not. But...

Every computer sold in within (at least) the last 5 years have PCI-e onboard.
I was being sarcastic. And I obviously meant PCI-e slots since we talk here about ports to plug stuff in. And even if maybe most PC desktops had PCI-e slots, what counts in the TB doomsdayers mind is people actually buying peripherals that plug into a port.
manu chao is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2013, 08:31 PM   #130
MagnusVonMagnum
macrumors 68040
 
MagnusVonMagnum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by manu chao View Post
The funny thing is that for many years FW800 offered twice as much speed compared to USB 2 but despite what you describe as a negligible price gap between the two, 95% of the population turned out to be cheapskates that did not want to pay that negligible price difference (and no, it wasn't about interoperability, very few people share HDDs with other people and as you said almost all FW devices had a USB port as well).

Think about that, 95% of the population is not willing to pay $30 extra to get twice the speed.
I don't know what world you were living in, but when I bought my portable computer powered 500GB backup drive for my MBP in 2008 with FW800 and USB 2.0, it cost more like $100 more than a USB 2.0 only drive ($250 vs $150 if I recall correctly or something close to that. It sure as heck wasn't wasn't $30 more or when I bought a second drive for my Netbook I wouldn't have got the USB 2.0 only drive despite the fact the Netbook didn't have Firewire since I could potentially re-use it at some point in the future on one of my other Macs, if needed).

FW400 drives were often maybe $40-60 more 4-6 years ago, but FW800 was always a good premium over both. In short, they weren't giving it away. It had a limited market and they knew you were getting a big speed improvement to boot. Perhaps NOW you might find some FW800 drives closer to $30 more in SOME cases compared to certain drives, but I sure as heck never saw any at that price differential when I was shopping for one in 2008.
__________________
Mac Mini Server 2012 (2.3GHz Quad i7, 8GB, 2x1TB RAID 0) ; External 12x Memorex Blu-Ray USB3, External WD 3x3TB,1x2TB HD USB3)
15" Matte MBP 2.4GHz, 4GB/500GB, NVidia 8600M GT; 3 ATV; 2 iPod Touch
MagnusVonMagnum is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 17, 2013, 09:41 AM   #131
trancinchino
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmwebs View Post
I for instance have a rMBP 15". Both thunderbolt ports are used for my dual 24" monitors. I couldnt use the HDMI port as OSX doesnt support many HDMI monitors, and treats the connection to my monitor as a TV if I use that port (thus giving overscan and terrible picture quality).
I found this statement very strange. I have used an Asus monitor (which I returned), and currently have connected both my Dell & Samsung monitors at home to my '12 Mac Mini with no issues. That's already three major brands there. It doesn't seem like HDMI should be an issue with OSX.
trancinchino is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 17, 2013, 10:54 AM   #132
rmwebs
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by trancinchino View Post
I found this statement very strange. I have used an Asus monitor (which I returned), and currently have connected both my Dell & Samsung monitors at home to my '12 Mac Mini with no issues. That's already three major brands there. It doesn't seem like HDMI should be an issue with OSX.
It shouldnt be, but it is. It's well documented too.

HDMI on the rMBP is just dodgy. If I plug one of my 2 monitors into it, it picks them up as a TV with a 720p resolution. If I plug them in via a DVI > Displayport cable, they work fine.

It looks like its not just the rMBP either. The Macbook Air and Mini have the same problem. Someone at Apple messed up.

It's not just me:

http://www.ehmac.ca/mac-iphone-ipad-...n-quality.html
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1488630
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1460607
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1390034
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/4249436
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/4119545
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/4080525

It's a really hard error/issue to describe. The only way to describe it would be to get you to plug your mac into your TV set. You'll notice that there is a noticeable difference in quality, especially with text. Now imagine that lack of detail magnified (it seems to get worse the smaller the screen), to the point where text is barely readable. Thats what it looks like.
rmwebs is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 17, 2013, 11:39 AM   #133
Wicked1
macrumors 68040
 
Wicked1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Jersey
Quote:
Originally Posted by hamean View Post
Thunderbolt has been an abject failure to this point. Bytes from this article indicate that it will continue to be available exclusively at the professional price point for the foreseeable future.
Hence why I feel it is an utter Failure...USB3 however is making leaps and bounds.

TB is too expensive, very limited, only works on Macs (even though that is all I have is Macs) and I just think it is not worth the cost, especially with USB 3.2 going to 10GB by 2014.

Very few vendors for TB also, seems LaCie has the hold on the market for some reason? I use Seagate and they just came out with adapters for it, so prefer to get one of those for $99 and use my current HDD then buy a $300 500GB LaCie HDD
__________________
iPhone 5 16GB White
2012 MacBook Pro 13" 2.5/4GB/240GB SSD
iPad Air 128GB/LTE White
Wicked1 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 17, 2013, 11:44 AM   #134
kennethpm
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post
Thunderbolt is a prosumer-level technology, it's not designed to be a USB replacement. It's effectively a PCI-e bus extension. If you don't need what that offers then a USB 3.0 external drive might be all you ever need.
'Pro-sumer" what cr-p! Then why is it on my Macbook Air? This technology is dead! Apple blew it. Just look at the price on Thunderbolt peripherals, Adapters, and hard drives.

I am a con-sumer.
kennethpm is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 17, 2013, 01:47 PM   #135
ArchAndroid
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: London, England
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainydays View Post
Yet they released a Thunderbolt enabled mobo last spring.
For $200 more than a comparable motherboard without Thunderbolt.

Worth it ?
__________________
Intel Core i7-2600k | Sapphire R9 290 Tri-X | Asus P8P67-M Pro | Samsung 8GB DDR3-2133 | Samsung 830 256GB | WD 1.5TB + 1TB | Dell U2412M
MacBook Pro 15.4" 2.66GHz | Samsung Galaxy SIII | iPod Touch
ArchAndroid is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 17, 2013, 02:00 PM   #136
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by kennethpm View Post
'Pro-sumer" what cr-p! Then why is it on my Macbook Air? This technology is dead! Apple blew it. Just look at the price on Thunderbolt peripherals, Adapters, and hard drives.

I am a con-sumer.
Apple blowing it and putting it on consumer focused models does not mean the technology is dead.

Intel has been pushing TB has a prosumer level technology since 2011, I linked to their stance then multiple times already. That Apple tried to push it down to consumers and failed (in light of it being more prosumer than consumer friendly) is not a failure of the tech, nor does it mean the tech is dead in the segment its meant for.

Thunderbolt is doing fine in the prosumer sector.
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 17, 2013, 04:12 PM   #137
manu chao
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusVonMagnum View Post
I don't know what world you were living in, but when I bought my portable computer powered 500GB backup drive for my MBP in 2008 with FW800 and USB 2.0, it cost more like $100 more than a USB 2.0 only drive ($250 vs $150 if I recall correctly or something close to that. It sure as heck wasn't wasn't $30 more or when I bought a second drive for my Netbook I wouldn't have got the USB 2.0 only drive despite the fact the Netbook didn't have Firewire since I could potentially re-use it at some point in the future on one of my other Macs, if needed).

FW400 drives were often maybe $40-60 more 4-6 years ago, but FW800 was always a good premium over both. In short, they weren't giving it away. It had a limited market and they knew you were getting a big speed improvement to boot. Perhaps NOW you might find some FW800 drives closer to $30 more in SOME cases compared to certain drives, but I sure as heck never saw any at that price differential when I was shopping for one in 2008.
I just checked prices for two examples:
- 2.5" cases, random vendor (ICY BOX), USB 2-only: $32, FW800: $65
- Voyager dock: USB 3-only: $38, FW800: $78

In particular in the case of the latter, ie, a dock, you pay $40 once (or twice if you need two docks) which is fairly little in the grand scheme of things of owning a computer.
manu chao is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 17, 2013, 08:27 PM   #138
MagnusVonMagnum
macrumors 68040
 
MagnusVonMagnum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by manu chao View Post
I just checked prices for two examples:
- 2.5" cases, random vendor (ICY BOX), USB 2-only: $32, FW800: $65
- Voyager dock: USB 3-only: $38, FW800: $78

In particular in the case of the latter, ie, a dock, you pay $40 once (or twice if you need two docks) which is fairly little in the grand scheme of things of owning a computer.
I guess you missed the part where I said I was talking about OVER FOUR YEARS AGO when it was actually a relevant format being one of the faster ones available. In fact, I mentioned this several times and said you might find one now for that difference, but certainly not back then and certainly not pre-packaged. I mean who cares what they are going for NOW when it's now outdated and slow as heck compared to USB 3.0 (and yet STILL costs more!) What do you want, 800Mbits for $78 or 5Gbits for $38? I'll take the latter, thank you. There isn't a single TB enclosure available that I can find to compare there, but I'm sure it'd be more like $178 if it were available.
__________________
Mac Mini Server 2012 (2.3GHz Quad i7, 8GB, 2x1TB RAID 0) ; External 12x Memorex Blu-Ray USB3, External WD 3x3TB,1x2TB HD USB3)
15" Matte MBP 2.4GHz, 4GB/500GB, NVidia 8600M GT; 3 ATV; 2 iPod Touch
MagnusVonMagnum is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 17, 2013, 10:57 PM   #139
silroc
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
As per usual

"technically better" doesn't always win

These idiots still don't get it

VHS vs BETAMAX

Sure, beta was "better" but how'd that go?

Total arrogance and lack of respect of history

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by kennethpm View Post
'Pro-sumer" what cr-p! Then why is it on my Macbook Air? This technology is dead! Apple blew it. Just look at the price on Thunderbolt peripherals, Adapters, and hard drives.

I am a con-sumer.
So true- apple fan-frauds always fighting reality.......
__________________
Apple Products - Nano Gen 3, Iphone 5, Macbook, iPad 2
silroc is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 18, 2013, 12:02 AM   #140
SactoGuy18
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sacramento, CA USA
Send a message via Yahoo to SactoGuy18
Question: is Thunderbolt I/O support built into Windows 8? Does Intel offer software drivers so it works under Windows 7? If the answer to both is yes, then Thunderbolt adoption could roll out fairly quickly, especially now that we're about to get optical Thunderbolt connections (which would finally put the e-SATA standard to rest).
__________________
3G iPod nano (8 GB teal blue case), 7G iPod nano (16 GB blue case), 4G iPod touch (32 GB), iPad Air "Silver" (32 GB)
SactoGuy18 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 18, 2013, 02:16 AM   #141
repoman27
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2011
Thunderbolt and USB are complementary technologies. USB will never become a native digital display interface, whereas Thunderbolt ports use the VESA mini-DisplayPort connector and can operate in DisplayPort legacy signaling mode. USB 3.0 is backwards compatible with the billions of USB devices in the world, and Thunderbolt can drive just about any display that exists. Thunderbolt was meant as a replacement for ExpressCard slots, VGA, DVI, HDMI, DisplayPort and FireWire ports on Ultrabooks, notebooks, all-in-one and USFF PCs, not as a replacement for USB.

This is not a format war. AMD and Intel have both integrated USB 3.0 controllers into their chipsets, which means virtually every x86 PC produced from here on out will have USB 3.0. Having Thunderbolt is a bonus. Apple largely buried the cost of the controllers so that Mac prices did not increase when they introduced this technology. Having that extra functionality available is not a bad thing. For those who keep saying USB 3.0 is going to "win", well then I guess owners of Macs with both USB 3.0 and Thunderbolt ports are "bi-winning".

Most people do not need to buy a semi-tractor trailer or diesel locomotive because an automobile serves their purposes much better and costs considerably less. However, those same people could not enjoy their current standard of living if those other modes of transportation ceased to exist. Most PC end users do not require their devices to include 40 or 100 GbE capabilities, but they depend on a larger network that uses those technologies extensively. Most folks may not yet have a need for a 10 Gbit/s I/O interface on their PC either, but they do like watching movies, listening to music and the fruits of various other industries that are seeing widespread adoption of Thunderbolt devices. Popularity is not the only benchmark of success.

Apple is the largest purchaser of semiconductors in the world, and it is reasonable to believe they are Intel's number one customer in the consumer space. Due to the cost of the technology, Light Peak was really only sought after by two OEMs, Apple and Sony, and only Apple was willing to go all-in. Apple is therefore the only significant customer of Thunderbolt controllers. When discussing Thunderbolt, one needs to bear in mind that it is a proprietary interface developed by Intel for Apple. As long as Apple chooses to keep buying controllers from Intel, the interface will continue to exist. Saying Thunderbolt is DOA demonstrates a general lack of understanding of the underlying economics. For the past several years, Mac sales have grown steadily while the rest of the PC market has stalled and actually started to contract. Why would Apple eliminate a feature that differentiates them from the competition when those features clearly seem to be allowing Apple to outperform the industry?

Based on its per channel data rate, Thunderbolt is the fastest interface to ever appear in a consumer device. It is a sort of Hayabusa moment for PC I/O. It is also the least expensive 10 Gbit/s per channel solution in terms of cost per port by a factor of 5 or more. It may be expensive, but it is not necessarily overpriced. While increased adoption will introduce some economies of scale, and moving to newer processes along with better integration of some of the functions at the edges will help to lower prices, Thunderbolt will always be a premium technology; this fundamentally can't be changed. The controller is huge and costs almost as much as the PCH on most systems, and the transceivers are operating close to the maximum speeds currently achievable even in the enterprise space. The reason why Ferrari's aren't $14k is not because they can't sell enough of them to hit that price point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rmwebs View Post
It shouldnt be, but it is. It's well documented too.

HDMI on the rMBP is just dodgy. If I plug one of my 2 monitors into it, it picks them up as a TV with a 720p resolution. If I plug them in via a DVI > Displayport cable, they work fine.

It looks like its not just the rMBP either. The Macbook Air and Mini have the same problem. Someone at Apple messed up.

It's not just me:

http://www.ehmac.ca/mac-iphone-ipad-...n-quality.html
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1488630
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1460607
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1390034
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/4249436
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/4119545
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/4080525

It's a really hard error/issue to describe. The only way to describe it would be to get you to plug your mac into your TV set. You'll notice that there is a noticeable difference in quality, especially with text. Now imagine that lack of detail magnified (it seems to get worse the smaller the screen), to the point where text is barely readable. Thats what it looks like.
The problem is that you are not driving your display at its native resolution, with 1:1 pixel mapping. This is not necessarily the fault of the Mac's HDMI port at all. HDMI was designed for HDTVs, not high resolution PC displays. Unless your display has an HDMI 1.3 or newer sink device in it, it can only support resolutions up to 1920x1200 at 60 Hz. It will therefore report that as the maximum supported resolution to whatever is driving it. Displays that can support resolutions higher than 1920x1200 @ 60 Hz over HDMI will still require a "High Speed" HDMI cable. Both the Mac and the display will also have overscan/underscan settings that need to be configured to get 1:1 output. The Mac could be outputting a signal that is spot on, but the scaler built in to the display is mangling it. There are also various ways to force output of a resolution that is not expressly listed in your display's EDID, if it comes down to that.

This is why DisplayPort is preferable to HDMI for connecting displays to a PC.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusVonMagnum View Post
I guess you missed the part where I said I was talking about OVER FOUR YEARS AGO when it was actually a relevant format being one of the faster ones available. In fact, I mentioned this several times and said you might find one now for that difference, but certainly not back then and certainly not pre-packaged. I mean who cares what they are going for NOW when it's now outdated and slow as heck compared to USB 3.0 (and yet STILL costs more!) What do you want, 800Mbits for $78 or 5Gbits for $38? I'll take the latter, thank you. There isn't a single TB enclosure available that I can find to compare there, but I'm sure it'd be more like $178 if it were available.
I've been buying FW800 gear since '04, and while I've paid dearly for some items, others were quite reasonable. I have several USB 2.0/FW400/FW800 enclosures that I bought for $30-$40 apiece. I also picked up a 2TB WD USB 2.0/FW400/eSATA drive at Best Buy when all I needed was a bare drive because they were the same price. (I know, not a FW800 example, and it was early 2009, but it was the good ol' days before the flood in Thailand.) I think part of the problem with FW hard drive pricing is that it was perceived solely as a Mac feature, and certain brands like LaCie and G-Technology became very prominent while putting out high-margin, form over function designs. This obviously continues today and has spread to Thunderbolt drives. In the end, it's the cost of the controllers that determines the lower end of the pricing scale. The Oxford Semiconductor controllers that were the most popular choice for FW800 gear need only have added $25 or so to the retail price of a drive as compared to just USB 2.0.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SactoGuy18 View Post
Question: is Thunderbolt I/O support built into Windows 8? Does Intel offer software drivers so it works under Windows 7? If the answer to both is yes, then Thunderbolt adoption could roll out fairly quickly, especially now that we're about to get optical Thunderbolt connections (which would finally put the e-SATA standard to rest).
Thunderbolt per se doesn't so much require drivers. The connected devices appear simply as PCIe devices to the host. In order for a product to get Thunderbolt certification for Windows, however, the manufacturer has to provide drivers that can support hot-plugging for the PCIe devices used in that product.

I think USB 3.0 with UASP has already put eSATA to rest for the most part. And although optical cables for Thunderbolt will probably become more widely available than they are today, I don't see Thunderbolt switching to optical connections until 2017 or so.

No cable will make existing Thunderbolt controllers faster. Intel's roadmap appears to call for a speed increase to 20 Gbit/s per channel in 2014. Copper cables and connectors will likely continue to be the norm on the desktop and should support the new speed just fine. Building optical transceivers into devices when they aren't needed would be a waste of money, circuit board real-estate and power budget for everyone except the very small minority that require a link longer than 3.0 m. Keeping the transceivers in the cables allows for multiple transmission media to be used and reduces the overall cost for everyone.

Last edited by repoman27; Jan 18, 2013 at 02:27 AM.
repoman27 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 18, 2013, 02:42 AM   #142
thekev
macrumors 603
 
thekev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
Apple blowing it and putting it on consumer focused models does not mean the technology is dead.

Intel has been pushing TB has a prosumer level technology since 2011, I linked to their stance then multiple times already. That Apple tried to push it down to consumers and failed (in light of it being more prosumer than consumer friendly) is not a failure of the tech, nor does it mean the tech is dead in the segment its meant for.

Thunderbolt is doing fine in the prosumer sector.
Blowing it is a strong description. They overly marketed it when as far I can see their primary intention was to release a display + dock combination and a small amount of external storage based on it. The rMBP models and imac may have 2 ports. The others just have it where mini displayport already existed. It builds out on an existing port. I'm not inclined to believe that if it wasn't added, we would have received something else in its place.
__________________
world's largest manufacturer of tin foil hats, none of that aluminum foil crap.
thekev is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 18, 2013, 03:06 AM   #143
rmwebs
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by repoman27 View Post
The problem is that you are not driving your display at its native resolution, with 1:1 pixel mapping. This is not necessarily the fault of the Mac's HDMI port at all. HDMI was designed for HDTVs, not high resolution PC displays. Unless your display has an HDMI 1.3 or newer sink device in it, it can only support resolutions up to 1920x1200 at 60 Hz. It will therefore report that as the maximum supported resolution to whatever is driving it. Displays that can support resolutions higher than 1920x1200 @ 60 Hz over HDMI will still require a "High Speed" HDMI cable. Both the Mac and the display will also have overscan/underscan settings that need to be configured to get 1:1 output. The Mac could be outputting a signal that is spot on, but the scaler built in to the display is mangling it. There are also various ways to force output of a resolution that is not expressly listed in your display's EDID, if it comes down to that.

This is why DisplayPort is preferable to HDMI for connecting displays to a PC.
I get what you're saying, and do agree with most parts. I dont pretend to be an expert in how HDMI works but here's what I dont get. If I drop into bootcamp running Windows or Linux (Debian) - it works fine. It's only in OS X that it cant figure out the resolution.

It's not a major issue for me as I'm happy to use the two thunderbolt ports, it's just a bit frustrating that you've paid 1500 for a laptop and one of its 'features' doesn't work as expected.
rmwebs is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 18, 2013, 03:50 AM   #144
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by SactoGuy18 View Post
Question: is Thunderbolt I/O support built into Windows 8? Does Intel offer software drivers so it works under Windows 7? If the answer to both is yes, then Thunderbolt adoption could roll out fairly quickly, especially now that we're about to get optical Thunderbolt connections (which would finally put the e-SATA standard to rest).
How would optical TB connections help adoption at all ? The cabling is going to be massively more expensive than the current, already too expensive options and it won't be faster.

Why would optical TB "finally" put eSATA to test ? eSATA is 6 Gbps vs TB's 10 Gbps...

I don't understand how you're thinking here.
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 18, 2013, 05:05 AM   #145
theluggage
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolspot18 View Post
Except that enclosure probably costs 1000.00... when I thought Thunderbolt was merely an extension of PCI-E.
Unfortunately, it's not just a case of soldering the Thunderbolt wires onto a bog standard PCIe backplane...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Val-kyrie View Post
Thank you for the clarification (which I bolded); however, the first part of your post states the problem for the typical consumer--price.
Thing is, for some professionals, the ability to plug a Fibre Channel or pro capture card into their laptop is going to be transformative and worth the $$$howmuch!? price tag.

However, the typical consumer simply doesn't need PCIe these days. Back in the day, when I assembled my own PCs, the PCI/ISA bus would be loaded up with sound card, ethernet card, maybe a second disc controller, SCSI card for a scanner, Firewire card for video editing etc. However, increasingly that all ended up on the motherboard or available via USB and PCI sat there unused. The only thing I've plugged into a PCI slot in the last 5-6 years is a TV tuner (and some of those turn out to be the maker's USB product stuck onto a USB controller card!)

So PCIe enclosures are always going to be a small market, and in electronics, small market == high prices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Val-kyrie View Post
If the price is too high (e.g., $300 for a port replicator) then people will simply wait and purchase a new computer with the new ports
...except its not a port replicator or hub. It is a brand new set of controllers over and above what the laptop provides.

The big cock-up there was they've taken too long to get to market - if the Belkin hub had been available last summer, with eSATA and USB3 as then promised, it would have been a perfect upgrade for 2011 Macs. Limping out next September, sans eSATA, when Macs with USB3 are becoming commonplace and those 2011 Macs are ripe for replacement... not so much.

Quote:
Mac users alone don't constitute a large enough market to make this enterprise succeed.
I'm not so sure. Thunderbolt is pretty irrelevant to the generic desktop PC (since they have internal PCIe slots) or big blocky laptops with loads of ports and/or ExpressCard slots. It is mainly a tech for high-end-but-slim laptops and small-form-factor/all-in-one computers - Apple have a huge chunk of that particular market segment, and a deep-pocketed customer base. If that market isn't big enough then Thunderbolt has problems.

Thats why I think Apple should start making more Thunderbolt peripherals itself - starting with the proverbial decent Thunderbolt dock - in nice Jonny Ive cases, and priced to encourage third parties to undercut them... I'm sure its easier to predict how many units you would sell if Apple have established a market and your product is 20% cheaper...
theluggage is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 18, 2013, 07:41 AM   #146
GermanyChris
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Here
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusVonMagnum View Post


Yeah, but there's NOTHING "Convenient" about daisy-chaining. Just ask anyone on here that has ONE Thunderbolt port and it doubles as their 2nd monitor output. If they want to hook up a hard drive to it and a monitor is already connected, they have to disconnect the monitor, plug in the hard drive and plug the monitor into the pass-through on the hard drive (assuming it even has one). Then, the process has to be reversed when the portable hard drive is disconnected and that means fiddling with more wires. Now imagine having 3 hard drives connected and removing the one in the middle. It's time to look for the wires again. It's a MESS. It would be FAR better to have a HUB to just connect and disconnect to. And people pointed out there would be hubs for TB, but I haven't seen a single one yet that was more than just a bunch of OTHER ports and a single pass-through for TB and even most of those haven't actually made it to market yet over two years later. Apple's own monitor has USB 2.0 on it (i.e. It's fun to replace an entire overpriced monitor just to update its hub).
Or you could just unmount the HDD when not using it. If the data needs to be accessed from other computers on your net work just share the drive?
GermanyChris is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 18, 2013, 07:48 AM   #147
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanyChris View Post
Or you could just unmount the HDD when not using it. If the data needs to be accessed from other computers on your net work just share the drive?
So you're saying people have to work around daisy chaining... I really don't understand what people feel is so great about daisy chaining devices. I thought we moved away from such bus topologies onto star topologies because it's easier to add and remove devices dynamically without impacting the rest of the connected devices.

10Base2 Ethernet anyone ? SCSI chains ? You really would rather go back to this stuff than what replaced it ?
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 18, 2013, 08:00 AM   #148
GermanyChris
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Here
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
So you're saying people have to work around daisy chaining... I really don't understand what people feel is so great about daisy chaining devices. I thought we moved away from such bus topologies onto star topologies because it's easier to add and remove devices dynamically without impacting the rest of the connected devices.

10Base2 Ethernet anyone ? SCSI chains ? You really would rather go back to this stuff than what replaced it ?
yes actually because I find it more convenient. TB offers me a on cable solution for a portable. One TB cable connects all my external storage and displays.
GermanyChris is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 18, 2013, 08:10 AM   #149
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanyChris View Post
yes actually because I find it more convenient. TB offers me a on cable solution for a portable. One TB cable connects all my external storage and displays.
One cable ? Sorry, that's not sufficient. Every device in the chain still requires its own cable.

Daisy chaining died for good reasons in the 90s. Lets leave it buried. Anyway, Thunderbolt is also capable of being used in a star topologie.
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 18, 2013, 08:59 AM   #150
AidenShaw
macrumors G5
 
AidenShaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Peninsula
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
Why would optical TB "finally" put eSATA to test ? eSATA is 6 Gbps vs TB's 10 Gbps...
And with the exception of the rather expensive direct PCIe drives, the drive is on a 6 Gbps or slower SATA link anyway....


Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
Anyway, Thunderbolt is also capable of being used in a star topologie.
It's capable, but it cannot be used in a star topology.
__________________
Edward Snowden - American Hero.
Daniel Ellsberg: "Edward Snowden: Saving Us from the United Stasi of America"
AidenShaw 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:54 AM.

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

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