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.
AirPlay and Thunderbolt May Be Limited to High-End Devices to Start
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not all bus type topologies work the same way, nor can they all work through a hub. Some really are dependant on the daisy chain of devices (having the actual controller on each device forward each packet) and being physically and not just logically connected in a bus type topology.
Yes, I will be convinced if you do find something on this, and yes I have done my own research and found nothing of the sort, hence why I said "Citation Needed". I have yet to find the actual citation for or against this.
There is just nothing out there that proves or disproves Thunderbolt's ability of working with hubs.
Citation needed.
Thank you, yes it does. At least someone here knows how to back up assertions. Now to wait for Thunderbolt hubs. This at least solves 1 problem with "daisy chaining" and "monitor" being last.
I am excited, not because I can't utilize thunderbolt on my NEW 12-core, but because this should shrink the prices of alternative storage solutions. Throughput of the lacie is terrible for thunderbolt...I expected more. Pegasus im sure is faster, but I don't use promise.
Daisy chaining TB ...
Take a look at the PCI bus design. A bridge chip has 4 ports, and if you have on-board dual ethernet - you find that one port is daisy-chained into a second bridge chip to a) replace the original port, and b) give 3 additional ports.
Look at a dual or quad fiber-channel interface. Technically, they are all single-FC cards, with the PCI bridge added onto the PCI card.
Lets not forget: I am talking internal PCI here, for external, you need additional line drivers and some-voltage protection, and hot-plug capability. This kind of chips don't exist at this time. In high-end servers you find hot-plug PCIe slots, so the building blocks do exist - just not as TB implementation. This is why it takes time...
(Disclaimer: I used to design hardware for Apple][, ][gs, IBM-PC/PCI; but have not done any actual work on PCIe).
Take a look at the PCI bus design. A bridge chip has 4 ports, and if you have on-board dual ethernet - you find that one port is daisy-chained into a second bridge chip to a) replace the original port, and b) give 3 additional ports.
Look at a dual or quad fiber-channel interface. Technically, they are all single-FC cards, with the PCI bridge added onto the PCI card.
Lets not forget: I am talking internal PCI here, for external, you need additional line drivers and some-voltage protection, and hot-plug capability. This kind of chips don't exist at this time. In high-end servers you find hot-plug PCIe slots, so the building blocks do exist - just not as TB implementation. This is why it takes time...
(Disclaimer: I used to design hardware for Apple][, ][gs, IBM-PC/PCI; but have not done any actual work on PCIe).
At this moment a lot of users with an iMac or MBP with a TB port complain about having problems like black outs and flickering when on an external monitor connected to their displayport with TB.
So let them fix that problem first before continuing with combining DP with TB.
So let them fix that problem first before continuing with combining DP with TB.
Yeah right... about that...
DLNA is one of the most horrible formats/standards ever made.
It's obscure implementations and very limited file-formats make practical implementations a living hell.
My Samsung TV (series C) for example can play almost any file from USB - and via LAN aswell. But then there's only DLNA - and no SMB or whatsoever - so streaming fils like MKV r other stuff becomes virtually impossible.
And once you see a picture you find out that neither fast-forward nor pause (!!) work on this particular server/client connection.
DLNA ist just plain crap.
Didn't Apple learn from the Firewire debacle? There's a reason USB won over Firewire and it isn't because it's a better technology. Apple has to stop with these expensive licensing issues if they want their technologies to stick. And they talk about Blu-Ray being a "big bag of hurt..."
Nailed it.
Thank you for finding that link.
Now all we have to do is wait for a TBolt hub or switch to appear on the market to understand its real capabilities.
(For example, the PDF file doesn't mention the significant restriction that only a handful of devices can be daisy-chained. We don't have any idea what the limits of star and tree configurations will be.)
We should also point out (again) that TB is not Apple technology. It is Intel Technology. That alone makes the ball game different. I also propose that we drop the comparison with USB. Thunderbolt and USB are apples and oranges different things and one is not designed to replace the other. Heck, comparing it to firewire is pretty specious too. USB 3.0 is only designed to replace USB 2.0 - a technology that is still with us. Nobody honestly is expecting people to use peripherals like mice and keyboards with Thunderbolt. Thunderbolt is designed to replace other tech. Who is to say that they will not co-exist peacefully.
Bottom line, if Thunderbolt fails, it will be because of Intel. Apple might be the only game in town supporting it, but that isnt going to last forever. It isnt much of a gamble for Apple to support it since they were already using MDP.
I simply think that we should try to avoid decrying certain technologies as DOA or anything based on the technology that is out right now. Its just not very fair to make predictions on stuff like Thunderbolt that has only been out there for a few months (commercially that is). Heck, Intel hasnt released a board with native support yet (that I am aware of at least). You cant call something dead or predict much about it when the only guys in town that released a computer with the ports did so by basically acting early.
All I ask is that we give Thunderbolt the time to gain some ground. We are essentially pairing them in a Marathon that neither of them are actually participating against and calling a victor 30 seconds after firing the gun in a marathon.
Bottom line, if Thunderbolt fails, it will be because of Intel. Apple might be the only game in town supporting it, but that isnt going to last forever. It isnt much of a gamble for Apple to support it since they were already using MDP.
I simply think that we should try to avoid decrying certain technologies as DOA or anything based on the technology that is out right now. Its just not very fair to make predictions on stuff like Thunderbolt that has only been out there for a few months (commercially that is). Heck, Intel hasnt released a board with native support yet (that I am aware of at least). You cant call something dead or predict much about it when the only guys in town that released a computer with the ports did so by basically acting early.
All I ask is that we give Thunderbolt the time to gain some ground. We are essentially pairing them in a Marathon that neither of them are actually participating against and calling a victor 30 seconds after firing the gun in a marathon.
one thing i would like to know is what is the data read/write access speed of a typical 5400/7200 rpm hard drive and how does it compare to various interfaces (usb2, firewire400, firewire 800, esata, usb3 and thunderbolt)
what is the bottleneck in different scenarios and what configurations ie raids best complement the standard in terms of maximizing capacity. it's nice seeing these $1000+ peripherals with ssd raids but i'm interested in knowing what will be available at more attainable price points.
i like the idea of thunderbolt in that a heap of data should be utilizing a more sophisticated pathway than a mouse or keyboard.
it is absurd though to suggest that thunderbolt connectivity demands a $100 premium. it's simply a port. we didn't see monitor prices rise $100 with the addition of a mini display port. i suspect the reality is that it's nearer to $5 worth of parts, a $5 licensing fee and a $90 premium.
what is the bottleneck in different scenarios and what configurations ie raids best complement the standard in terms of maximizing capacity. it's nice seeing these $1000+ peripherals with ssd raids but i'm interested in knowing what will be available at more attainable price points.
i like the idea of thunderbolt in that a heap of data should be utilizing a more sophisticated pathway than a mouse or keyboard.
it is absurd though to suggest that thunderbolt connectivity demands a $100 premium. it's simply a port. we didn't see monitor prices rise $100 with the addition of a mini display port. i suspect the reality is that it's nearer to $5 worth of parts, a $5 licensing fee and a $90 premium.
It would appear that way (e.g., the Lion clean install story).
Seagate has announced that a Thunderbolt Upgrade Cable will be available for their external FreeAgent GoFlex drives later this year. I can't imagine that they plan to set the cable's MSRP at $124.99.
What really frustrates me, is how FW 800 is still the only connection that is fast, reliable and versatile at the same time .
USB never meant to go serious, and didn't, eSATA is just some akward mainboard extension, and now TB is here, only it will take at least 2-3 years until there are enough peripheral devices - if it catches on at all, and doesn't do a mini display port.
Wifi isn't even worth mentioning.
Looks to me like there is some huge development gap for peripheral connections.
USB never meant to go serious, and didn't, eSATA is just some akward mainboard extension, and now TB is here, only it will take at least 2-3 years until there are enough peripheral devices - if it catches on at all, and doesn't do a mini display port.
Wifi isn't even worth mentioning.
Looks to me like there is some huge development gap for peripheral connections.
Low-End hard drive = 500GB Seagate Barracuda for $40? If you saw the price of what they charged for a 3TB GoFlex on release, or any MyBook for that matter, this shouldn't be a problem at all.
A 5400RPM external hard drive obviously doesn't need anything else than USB2.0 anyways, Thunderbolt is for something like SSDs or the MyBook Studio (even that one is probably fine with FW800, unless you have more than one), which is are so expensive that a raise of $20 should cover the cost of a $40 Thunderbolt chip.
A 5400RPM external hard drive obviously doesn't need anything else than USB2.0 anyways, Thunderbolt is for something like SSDs or the MyBook Studio (even that one is probably fine with FW800, unless you have more than one), which is are so expensive that a raise of $20 should cover the cost of a $40 Thunderbolt chip.
For now it does not, because there is no need so yes you are correct USB 3 is lacking from Mac. But like TB in the next 12 months it should become standard all over.
Low-End hard drive = 500GB Seagate Barracuda for $40? If you saw the price of what they charged for a 3TB GoFlex on release, or any MyBook for that matter, this shouldn't be a problem at all.
A 5400RPM external hard drive obviously doesn't need anything else than USB2.0 anyways, Thunderbolt is for something like SSDs or the MyBook Studio (even that one is probably fine with FW800, unless you have more than one), which is are so expensive that a raise of $20 should cover the cost of a $40 Thunderbolt chip.
Even USB 3 will be way faster than a conventional HD can write to, so your right in that all this speed is only for a limited crowed but people do tend to miss the point.
Think multiple USB3/TBolt devices
USB 3.0 should be faster than a *single* spinning hard drive, but it can be a bottleneck if you have many devices or if some of them are RAID-0 or SSD.
You also have an issue of increased latency with cache reads - with single drives showing up with 64 MiB caches, reads that hit in the cache will be slowed by USB 3.0, even with a single drive.
TBolt should be fast enough for single drive cache reads, but if you have a number of drives it could become noticeable. People who say that "you need an SSD to really use TBolt" aren't thinking about running multiple drives at once.
USB 3.0 should be faster than a *single* spinning hard drive, but it can be a bottleneck if you have many devices or if some of them are RAID-0 or SSD.
You also have an issue of increased latency with cache reads - with single drives showing up with 64 MiB caches, reads that hit in the cache will be slowed by USB 3.0, even with a single drive.
TBolt should be fast enough for single drive cache reads, but if you have a number of drives it could become noticeable. People who say that "you need an SSD to really use TBolt" aren't thinking about running multiple drives at once.
I said the same thing when I first heard about Light Peak. There is simply no way that it could be cost comparable for regularly consumer gear to a USB3 one. FW400/800 drives always cost considerably more than their USB2 counterparts, but unlike them, typical traditional style platter hard drives aren't going to be any faster with Thunderbolt than USB3. Until there's a significant speed advantage (or possibly latency) involved with one product compared to the other, there's no real reason to put out the extra cash for the TB version if you've also got USB3 on your machine. And if you do not, one single device at $100 more will more than pay for buying a USB3 card (assuming you have a computer that can take one...not most Macs, obviously, which is why some of us are peeved that Apple couldn't be bothered to also adopt USB3 at the same time. I've already got a 3TB USB3 drive sitting here using USB2 speeds on a Mac when it could be going considerably faster under USB3 (double according to the manual).
Apple has an exclusive agreement with Intel for the use of Thunderbolt/LightPeak until the end of the year. A truly bone-headed move IMHO
What do you mean no need? The "next 12 months" is not good enough. Every new Mac shipping should have USB 3. My impression is that Apple is deliberately not shipping USB 3 in a misguided attempt to promote Thunderbolt. And we, the customer, suffer because of this.
You are wrong. Apple is guidde solely by profits. Since USB 3.0 support is not included in current Intel chip sets Apple is bulking at paying $3 extra for additional controller chip to add it to Mac computers.
Last edited:
Apple has an exclusive agreement with Intel for the use of Thunderbolt/LightPeak until the end of the year. A truly bone-headed move IMHO
Where have you heard that ? You'll need to provide a citation for this. This is not the case as far as what I have read, anyone is free to implement Thunderbolt right now.
I remember when it was also the lack of space on the board to place the controller. The Thunderbolt controller is massive compared to a USB 3.0 one.
Apple has to pay Intel for a ThunderBolt controller as well. Intel is giving everyone else free reign, for now, to profit on USB 3.0 controllers.
Didn't Apple learn from the Firewire debacle? There's a reason USB won over Firewire and it isn't because it's a better technology. Apple has to stop with these expensive licensing issues if they want their technologies to stick. And they talk about Blu-Ray being a "big bag of hurt..."
With Firewire and Thunderbolt Apple is trying hard t.o make sure it looks different than its competitors. It might not make any bit of difference in terms of user experience, and yeah the expensive licensing issues makes them even worse despite having better technical specifications, but Apple loves that "we're not a PC" image that they get from making the 2011 MBP thunderbolt-only.
What sucks is that as a consumer now I don't have a USB 3.0 port just cause Apple is being elitist... lame.