Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

Any USB 3.0 Cards Coming Soon?

simplymuzik3

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 29, 2009
589
0
I've been thinking about buying a used Mac pro (last gen 8 core) and I was wondering if there are any USB 3.0 cards coming out that I could pop into my Mac? I just want to make sure that I can add the card in the future and get the best out of the machine.

Thanks,
 

Loa

macrumors 68000
May 5, 2003
1,631
61
Québec
I've been thinking about buying a used Mac pro (last gen 8 core) and I was wondering if there are any USB 3.0 cards coming out that I could pop into my Mac? I just want to make sure that I can add the card in the future and get the best out of the machine.

As for right now, you can't. The cards exist, but not he Mac OS X drivers for them just yet.

As for the future, it's pretty much a sure thing. Someone will develop drivers for such cards, but as to exactly when, nobody knows.

Loa
 
Comment

nanofrog

macrumors G4
May 6, 2008
11,719
2
USB 4 (or whatever) will be out before USB 3.
Well, the chips needed are out for USB 3.0, so there only needs to be drivers created for OS X. Now whether or not someone (Apple or 3rd party) will do this, is another story...

Personally, I think the best chance will be via 3rd party, as it will be awhile before it's included in the chipset (when Apple would implement USB 3.0).
 
Comment

TheStrudel

macrumors 65816
Jan 5, 2008
1,134
1
False. USB3 is DOA and FW1600 is vaporware. Lightpeak is the future.

FW1600 is not vaporware on 's part, because they have announced nothing. Nobody's been pushing or advertising it, so how can you make a call on it? It's too soon to make any kind of judgement on USB 3 (remember how long it took for USB 1 to catch on? iMacs featured it first as a built-in option). Lightpeak may very well be the future, but it hasn't even been announced in any firm way.

Your statement lacks substantiation.
 
Comment

deconstruct60

macrumors G3
Mar 10, 2009
9,458
2,041
Personally, I think the best chance will be via 3rd party, as it will be awhile before it's included in the chipset (when Apple would implement USB 3.0).

The problem though perhaps is that nobody will want to create the wheel only to see Apple reinvent the wheel. However, appears some are thinking about doing it.... maybe....

http://www.mcci.com/mcci-v5/hostside/xhci.html


It is doable, but won't be surprised if turns out like video cards where there is a premium placed on top for MacOSX versions because of the additional workload for relatively low volume.
 
Comment

diazj3

macrumors 6502a
Jan 19, 2008
879
135
False. USB3 is DOA and FW1600 is vaporware. Lightpeak is the future.

The real question is when will manufacturers start implementing either in their audio, video and storage devices... :confused:
 
Comment

deconstruct60

macrumors G3
Mar 10, 2009
9,458
2,041
FW1600 is not vaporware on 's part,

In the context of PC peripherals nobody has said anything about supporting this. If no peripherals vendors are excited and on board then it isn't going to fly. FW1600/3200 will exist, but mainly embedded and avionics applications. ( there is firewire in the F-22 and F-35.) That doesn't mean will go down to Fry's and pick up a FW1600 hard drive.




Nobody's been pushing or advertising it, so how can you make a call on it?

That is clear indicator for something that has been standardized for a couple of years that it is dead in the water. FW1600/3200 was passed around 2007-2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FireWire#FireWire_S1600_and_S3200). Two-three years later and no traction ? Not a particularly good indicator.

USB 3.0 is late ( early predictions would arrive in 2009 ) but numerous products have been introduced since Januarary and can commonly see motherboard products with it embedded in finished, shipping products. Is it present on all? No? However, for all "power user" boards it is becoming a required feature. Can go to any larger store that sells boards and see at least a couple boards with USB 3.0 for sale.

May be too early to tell but definitely more indicative than none 3 years later.

Lightpeak may very well be the future, but it hasn't even been announced in any firm way.

Lightpeak isn't even a standard. Let alone fully realized. Not does it really replace USB since it drives up the costs of the peripherals higher than USB 3.0 and is primiarly targeted at aggregation of data streams rather than a single device connection stream.

It is a nice way to reuse some of the tech developed for fiber based USB 3.0. But really doesn't replace USB 3.0 for exactly same reasons the fiber solution failed.
 
Comment

nanofrog

macrumors G4
May 6, 2008
11,719
2
The problem though perhaps is that nobody will want to create the wheel only to see Apple reinvent the wheel. However, appears some are thinking about doing it.... maybe....

http://www.mcci.com/mcci-v5/hostside/xhci.html


It is doable, but won't be surprised if turns out like video cards where there is a premium placed on top for MacOSX versions because of the additional workload for relatively low volume.
I made the comment based on getting a product in user's hands. As Intel has delayed USB 3.0 capability in the chipsets, the only way that can happen sooner, is via a 3rd party developer.

As per the Mac Edition tax, unfortunately, it's to be expected IMO (from a business POV, it's a logical way to recoup the additional development time for the drivers, and it's cost is spread over a smaller number of users). PC users wouldn't care to cover the Mac users' added development costs.

It does happen, but I'm more accustomed to that occuring with professional products, such as RAID, FC, Infiniband,...
 
Comment

300D

macrumors 65816
May 2, 2009
1,284
0
Tulsa
Lightpeak may very well be the future, but it hasn't even been announced in any firm way.
Just demonstrated by Intel on Apple hardware and software and planned for mass production by next year. The entire reason they are intentionally delaying support of USB3 is to give LightPeak even more of an advantage.

My statement lacks substantiation.
Your post has been corrected for accuracy.
 
Comment

nanofrog

macrumors G4
May 6, 2008
11,719
2
Just demonstrated by Intel on Apple hardware and software and planned for mass production by next year. The entire reason they are intentionally delaying support of USB3 is to give LightPeak even more of an advantage.
No.

Neither the laptop or desktop system demo was on Apple hardware. Laptop source, note the pic.

The first demonstration was on a test system, and is not an Apple computer (see the pic below; source of the pic). Another source with additional pics. Please note that the system uses a standard PSU, cards, and other cabling. The "Blue Board" = LightPeak Evaluation Board. The rest is a test bed assembled of readily available parts. :eek: And if that's not a massive clue, note the LED's towards the right rear in the pic = CPU fan. :rolleyes:

If you look at the second source for desktop pics, you'll see a small bit of bread board in there too. It's NOT ready for prime time yet, and that's the most logical reason for Intel delaying USB 3.0, as it's seen as a competing interface (even if the reality is a bit different).
 

Attachments

  • Light_Peak-5_400x385.jpg
    Light_Peak-5_400x385.jpg
    43.1 KB · Views: 129
Comment

TheStrudel

macrumors 65816
Jan 5, 2008
1,134
1
It seems funny that I have to post this on a rumors board, but:

Rumors ≠ future products.

Speculation ≠ facts.

Standards ≠ products.

The standardization of Firewire 1600 or anything similar has little to do with the creation of related products. Vaporware is a product that's announced and never brought to market, not a standard that people decide not to use. And for that matter, it could be used and you might not know about it. Or were you already aware that Firewire 800 has been used in industrial applications and jet fighters?

Talk is very cheap. It's funny to watch people trash a port or protocol without a technical or market understanding of what is happening or what will happen.

Or better yet, prognosticate about things which are not even close to hitting the market. That's what all the anti- pundits do ("iPad will fail! iPhone is doomed!", and I'm still amazed people pay them to write or speak, because their opinions have been shown to be demonstrably false repeatedly.

Do you really want to appear like a Rob Enderle?

Back to the subject of USB 3.0 cards, I wouldn't be surprised if they turn up in 6 months to a year - If  writes drivers, a glut of cards will show up. Otherwise, I wouldn't put it past Sonnet or OWC to write drivers and build their own cards. Similar things have happened in the past.
 
Comment

300D

macrumors 65816
May 2, 2009
1,284
0
Tulsa
Yes, actually. Ever heard of "prototype" or "R&D boards"?

Speculation ≠ facts.
Actually, when its based on a thing called evidence it is.

Vaporware is a product that's announced and never brought to market, not a standard that people decide not to use.
FW1600 was announced in 2007 and never used.

Or were you already aware that Firewire 800 has been used in industrial applications and jet fighters?
Are you aware that even my 5 year old Mac has FW800 built-in? Catch up with the discussion, you're a few years behind.

I wouldn't put it past Sonnet or OWC to write drivers and build their own cards
For 5-10 times the cost of the same PC compatible card.
 
Comment

nanofrog

macrumors G4
May 6, 2008
11,719
2
Yes, actually. Ever heard of "prototype" or "R&D boards"?
Intel would use one of their own boards, not Apple's.

One of the biggest reasons, is that LightPeak is meant to be used in a multitude of systems. That means it has to function in BIOS as well, and Apple's boards don't use it, and BIOS emulation could cause issues that would complicate the validation phases. (BTW, Intel's retail boards now run both BIOS and EFI based firmware; user's choice - just flash it).

Another happens to be the fact there's no IP issues involved over firmware (and Apple's not working with Intel on this as you think - they're interested, sure, but not developing the hardware).

There's other clues available, if you look closely at the pics. The PSU mentioned is a major one (Apple's boards use non-standard connectors, yet they use a standard PSU), as is the lack of any daughter board of any kind containing RAM or CPU's.

I know you're a big Apple fan, but they're just not involved in LP's development as you think.
 
Comment

300D

macrumors 65816
May 2, 2009
1,284
0
Tulsa
Intel would use one of their own boards, not Apple's.
Then explain why they didn't.

That means it has to function in BIOS as well
False.
(and Apple's not working with Intel on this as you think
False as well.

as is the lack of any daughter board of any kind containing RAM or CPU's.
As is done with all of Apple's machines except the MP. Not having a daughter board proves absolutely nothing.

but they're just not involved in LP's development as you think
False as well.
 
Comment

nanofrog

macrumors G4
May 6, 2008
11,719
2
Then explain why they didn't.
I already did. Go back and re-read the post. And take a serious look at the pics.

It's there, if you look. :rolleyes:

LP's meant to go in as many systems as possible, so that means BIOS based boards as well as EFI (includes all the Itanium systems, not just Apple products).

Remember, LP is a cheap 10Gb/s interface compared to 10G Ethernet (check the prices of the switches and routers for 10G Ethernet; it's expensive). This is very important to the server market.

False as well.
You completely missed the meaning there.

I didn't say Apple wasn't involved at all, just not the hardware design (which is a consortium of companies involved with Intel, that are focused on the actual components to make it work, such as cables, lasers,...). Software is a different area, and that's resources Apple can contribute.

As is done with all of Apple's machines except the MP. Not having a daughter board proves absolutely nothing.
:rolleyes:

The LP evaluation boards REQUIRE a PCIe slot, so that excludes Mini's and iMacs. The MP would be the best system (over the XServe) to do so. It does use daughter boards (aka RAM risers on the '06 - '08 systems), and a RAM + CPU unit in the '09's.


Well... given Intel's relationship with Apple and that Intel demoed it on OSX, I can certainly see the argument that it was Apple hardware as having some validity.

https://www.macrumors.com/2009/09/2...ate-on-next-generation-light-peak-connectors/

Or maybe the Intel guys are contributing to Chameleon?
;)
Remember, Intel's boards will also run EFI, which would make it much easier to get OS X running (no need to run an EFI emulator). And Apple can contribute software support for the standard (it helps them by having the OS X side developed in order to get it released sooner, perhaps beating the competition to market).

UNIX is also easier to deal with than Windows when developing new tech, and move to other OS's later (easier to find and solve problems that way).
 
Comment

Loa

macrumors 68000
May 5, 2003
1,631
61
Québec
Wow, you guys still read 300D's posts?

Still isten to him as he comes down from the mount with his own truths?

:-D

Loa
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.