Fiber Optic Thunderbolt Cables Begin Mass Production, Available Up to 30m in Length

[Tech198]

Neat..

Is this all done, just because "backward compatibility" and the fact we got probably use these with minimum efforts ? Or is it just the fact "We don't know what else we can do to get faster speeds" type question ?

These look ok, but no matter how better something is,,don't expect these to be cheap, and even if they are, what about usage in the real world..

Thunderbolt still is not wide spread..... so knock yourselves out and make a 100Gig cable for all i care... its not gonna sell.

 

[coolfactor]

This sounds cool. Of course, since this is an OPTICAL cable, Apple will refuse to support it on their computers, and refer to it as a "bag of hurt".

I know you're being sarcastic, but just so others don't get confused.. they are already supported.

----------

The one question I have is - why did Apple name the new iOS cable "Lightning"? Could there somehow be connection to Thunderbolt down the road sometime? Lightning, after all, does suggest "quick transfer", so it's an interesting name to choose for no other reason.

 

[RBR2]

Intel has also announced that the optic technology has increased bandwidth and price, to a full $100 per cable, at each end.

The second generation Thunderbolt is supposed to debut in the first half of 2013. It is supposed to be cheaper, and faster the the current Thuderbolt and use fiber optic cabling. Getting the cost of Thunderbolt down is imperative to its acceptance and success. At this time, USB 3 is experiencing major problems that provide the perfect opportunity for Thunderbolt 2 to overake it and simply replace it. Cost is the only advantage which USB 3 ever had over Thunderbolt and, with USB 3's technical problems, the time is right for Thunderbolt to make a move. Aside from speed, Thunderbolt has the advantage of being able to be daisy chained which USB 3 can not do.

Getting a specification established so that multiple vendors can get into production (and competition which will help with pricing) is an important step in the process, the importance of which can not be overestimated.

 

[duervo]

I doubt this will see any sort of widespread use in Apple's consumer products.

I view this as more of a recent development from Intel and their Partners, that will provide a more affordable alternative to IBM's older (and much more expensive) InfiniBand technology, to be targeted mainly at medium to large businesses.

On a related note, the "pinched to 180 degrees" statement makes no mention of the minimum bendable radius inherent in conventional fibre channel cables, but I suspect that there is still such a thing of which to be mindful with this cable. Such a limit might be reduced in importance by the thickness of the cable insulation being used (thicker insulation will prevent smaller bendable radius, thereby minimizing risk to fibre damage.)

 

[AidenShaw]

At this time, USB 3 is experiencing major problems...

Care to back that up with proof? It seems to work fine for me.

FUD....

Aside from speed, Thunderbolt has the advantage of being able to be daisy chained which USB 3 can not do.

USB can use hubs, which is far superior to the horrors involved with daisy-chaining.

 

[Tech198]

I know you're being sarcastic, but just so others don't get confused.. they are already supported.

----------

The one question I have is - why did Apple name the new iOS cable "Lightning"? Could there somehow be connection to Thunderbolt down the road sometime? Lightning, after all, does suggest "quick transfer", so it's an interesting name to choose for no other reason.

I had the same view...... I'm still trying to wonder what other name you could use to refer to "lightning" .. Apple still hasn't explained this to me.... meaning, there is to meaning. The other thing was "quick transfer" i took as "must be faster than USB 3.0" Sadly.... no.

 

[technopimp]

Is there nothing of any importance left on the Internet to argue about, that people are seriously taking heated sides over a freaking 100 foot peripheral cable?

#iamoutragedforsomereason!

But since I might as well join in, luckily now ill be able to buy a (probably) $100 cable to put my $500 hard drive enclosure in the next room.

 

[KnightWRX]

But FireWire can act as an ethernet cable effectively, and I thought TB could too.

I have a trusty TB to Ethernet adapter. That doesn't make TB a network connection, it's still a host based interconnect. You'll require other logic to perform network operations which are not part of TB per se. But like your computer's internal PCIe bus, you can connect interfaces that are network interconnects to the TB bus.

 

[goobot]

I know you're being sarcastic, but just so others don't get confused.. they are already supported.

----------

The one question I have is - why did Apple name the new iOS cable "Lightning"? Could there somehow be connection to Thunderbolt down the road sometime? Lightning, after all, does suggest "quick transfer", so it's an interesting name to choose for no other reason.

They said it themselves, it's just called that to go along with the thunderbolt name.

 

[RBR2]

Care to back that up with proof? It seems to work fine for me.

FUD....




USB can use hubs, which is far superior to the horrors involved with daisy-chaining.

FUD? No. Just do some reading. Google is your friend. (Try USB 3 Interference.) USB 3 devices, including hubs, are the source of interference with Wi-Fi networks, Bluetooth devices and so on. It is not a matter of one particular manufacturer. There is even an Intel "White Paper" on the subject. The apparent causes are many, ranging from cabling to grounding (or lack thereof) of ports and circuit boards to the technology itself. Google is your friend. Try USB 3 Interference. You'll be reading for awhile. I have experienced it myself. It's really simple...turn the USB 3 device on and things don't work. Turn it off and things work just fine.

It's true that hubs can be used. I don't know that I would call them far superior to daisy chaining. They are both subject to the same bandwidth limitations. For that matter so does Thunderbolt.

Thunderbolt 2, or whatever it will be called, is due during the first half of 2013 and has the opportunity to overtake USB 3 if the problems with USB 3 are not resolved and quickly. I don't really see the commitment to resolving the problems of USB 3 in the industry. Indeed, for the most part, the industry is in denial and does not want to believe the magnitude and extent of the problems of USB 3. It had so much promise as an inexpensive interconnect for peripherals and has turned out to be such a disappointment.

The problems are only now beginning to be recognized as these devices are coming to market. The industry standards and government tests with which all manufacturers say they have complied are woefully inadequate as devices which have passed these tests still cause major problems. Simply put, the industry does not want to realize that they have a major problem on their hands.

I, for one, have purchased my last USB 3 device. Go buy all you want and see how far you get...you might get lucky and find one of the few combinations which are not troublesome.

I certainly am not please with this situation, but it is a reality, not FUD.

----------

Is there nothing of any importance left on the Internet to argue about, that people are seriously taking heated sides over a freaking 100 foot peripheral cable?

#iamoutragedforsomereason!

But since I might as well join in, luckily now ill be able to buy a (probably) $100 cable to put my $500 hard drive enclosure in the next room.

Who knows where the price for this stuff will fall, but optical cabling opens up many possibilities for networking in the office environment as well as home networking. I would welcome a truly high speed (faster than Gigabit) NAS system.

But, yes, I guess things are quiet now for cabling to make it to the forefront of discussion.

Cheers

 

[torana355]

FUD? No. Just do some reading. Google is your friend. (Try USB 3 Interference.) USB 3 devices, including hubs, are the source of interference with Wi-Fi networks, Bluetooth devices and so on. It is not a matter of one particular manufacturer. There is even an Intel "White Paper" on the subject. The apparent causes are many, ranging from cabling to grounding (or lack thereof) of ports and circuit boards to the technology itself. Google is your friend. Try USB 3 Interference. You'll be reading for awhile. I have experienced it myself. It's really simple...turn the USB 3 device on and things don't work. Turn it off and things work just fine.

It's true that hubs can be used. I don't know that I would call them far superior to daisy chaining. They are both subject to the same bandwidth limitations. For that matter so does Thunderbolt.

Thunderbolt 2, or whatever it will be called, is due during the first half of 2013 and has the opportunity to overtake USB 3 if the problems with USB 3 are not resolved and quickly. I don't really see the commitment to resolving the problems of USB 3 in the industry. Indeed, for the most part, the industry is in denial and does not want to believe the magnitude and extent of the problems of USB 3. It had so much promise as an inexpensive interconnect for peripherals and has turned out to be such a disappointment.

The problems are only now beginning to be recognized as these devices are coming to market. The industry standards and government tests with which all manufacturers say they have complied are woefully inadequate as devices which have passed these tests still cause major problems. Simply put, the industry does not want to realize that they have a major problem on their hands.

I, for one, have purchased my last USB 3 device. Go buy all you want and see how far you get...you might get lucky and find one of the few combinations which are not troublesome.

I certainly am not please with this situation, but it is a reality, not FUD.

This is an issue that is easily fixed if you actully google it.

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT5172

Just use properly shielded usb3 cables and don't place the HDD behind the screen on hear the hinge on laptops.

 

[charlituna]

Yes.
In fact any and all external drives, even via Ethernet, can be turned into a target boot disk.

He's didn't say boot disk and I'm not sure you are correct about using Ethernet with a hard drive, particular in target disk mode. Fairly certain that said mode is FireWire,USB or TB only.

Now certainly you can use Ethernet to 'NetBoot' off a server. That's that they do at the actual Apple Stores these days.

 

[iRCL]

30m .. why? Lol

That's 100 feet.

Because of "noise"? #FirstWorldProblems ... mechanical HDD's are hardly annoying, and SSD is the future especially for thunderbolt.

Looks like you don't get it. I'm going to guess that you frequently don't get it

 

[avanpelt]

Pricing is also unknown, but given the more advanced active fiber technology in the cables, it's possible they could be significantly more expensive than current cables.

If that's true, these will be a non-starter. Can we just go ahead and bury Thunderbolt already?! It sounded great in 2011, but it's been two years and it's still not mainstream. It should be safe to say it's dead.

 

[Lil Chillbil]

now if only this could replace co-ax cables

 

[Michael CM1]

So when will TB ports be on devices poor people like me use instead of just massive storage arrays? Every external HDD I see touts USB 3. I don't know that disk drives can keep up with either's transfer rate, but I'm guessing at some point flash storage will get so close to platters in cost that those external drives will just be big hunks of flash.

 

[Macman45]

30m .. why? Lol

That's 100 feet.

Because of "noise"? #FirstWorldProblems ... mechanical HDD's are hardly annoying, and SSD is the future especially for thunderbolt.

This is actually useful....I don't need 30M but 15 would be nice...I can then move my R4 off my desk and put it elsewhere. My current T/Bolt cable won't even reach the floor. I would buy a 15M version if one becomes available.

 

[Morshu9001]

I have a trusty TB to Ethernet adapter. That doesn't make TB a network connection, it's still a host based interconnect. You'll require other logic to perform network operations which are not part of TB per se. But like your computer's internal PCIe bus, you can connect interfaces that are network interconnects to the TB bus.

But can you connect two Macs directly with TB to make a network and transfer files between them with AFP and such at TB speeds?

 

[el-John-o]

I would love to see thunderbolt realized as an ultra high performance network interface (sort of like Fibre Channel). With long cables, and a server capable of acting as a 'hub' for several high performance workstations, there are some real possibilities, for those who work with very large files.

Gigabit ethernet is becoming outdated in some environments. Working with large digital image files from very high resolution DSLR's (21mp+, Nikon has some new models around 36mp! In RAW that means some HUGE file sizes), uncompressed, massive video files, etc. etc. One concern for many professionals in that field is storage and data redundancy.

Imagine, now, a rack with a couple large RAID enclosures with several terabytes of fast storage (12k drives, SSD's, etc.), all connected via thunderbolt to a Mac Pro, and that Mac Pro having a pair of thunderbolt cards with several ports on each, running out to a several high end workstations allowing them all to access the same large, redundant storage setup with speeds as fast as if the drives were installed locally.

It would be a tremendously expensive setup, but it's a setup that I think would really be incredible in certain professional environments (and the kinds of environments that would be willing to shell out that kind of cash). At the same time Thunderbolt being a consumer product (and faster than fibre channel) may actually save some money in a setup like that, Fibre Channel is insanely expensive. I'd love to see it only because I'd love to see thunderbolt technology realized in that way. I also wish it had more network capabilities with Mac OS. Much like FireWire does. I'd love to be able to network a pair of mac's together on occasion with super high speed transfer rates. Not something I need every day, but I've got this potentially 20gbps port on my computer, why shouldn't I be able to use it to network with another computer with a 20gbps port?

I also wonder if future generations of thunderbolt or technologies like thunderbolt would ever be fast enough for true, genuine shared computing. What I mean by that is, individuals working on, say, iMac workstations, but with a thunderbolt connection they share with several others to a fully loaded 12 core Mac Pro, with the Mac Pro being fully capable of handling more demanding tasks, as seamlessly as dedicated 'switchable' GPU's in laptops handle certain loads but remain dormant otherwise.

Oh the possibilities!

Of course with these long thunderbolt cables, several users sharing one computer already seems around the corner. 'Thin clients' have existed for a long time, but Thunderbolt opens the door for these types of computing systems to work with just one cable, AND be able of handling demanding, high performance tasks. Imagine a small photography or videography studio being able to buy just one loaded Mac Pro, and a few thunderbolt displays, and being all set with several powerful workstations at a fraction of the cost?

 

[SteveW928]

I imagine it would be best suited for server based systems. Follow my train of thought.

Except that Apple seems to have given up on that market... and maybe even pro-users in general.

In fact, I'm not really sure what Apple is going to do with this connector, seeing as they seem to be letting it go the way of the dodo (I mean FW 800).

 

[Macman45]

I would love to see thunderbolt realized as an ultra high performance network interface (sort of like Fibre Channel). With long cables, and a server capable of acting as a 'hub' for several high performance workstations, there are some real possibilities, for those who work with very large files.

Gigabit ethernet is becoming outdated in some environments. Working with large digital image files from very high resolution DSLR's (21mp+, Nikon has some new models around 36mp! In RAW that means some HUGE file sizes), uncompressed, massive video files, etc. etc. One concern for many professionals in that field is storage and data redundancy.

Imagine, now, a rack with a couple large RAID enclosures with several terabytes of fast storage (12k drives, SSD's, etc.), all connected via thunderbolt to a Mac Pro, and that Mac Pro having a pair of thunderbolt cards with several ports on each, running out to a several high end workstations allowing them all to access the same large, redundant storage setup with speeds as fast as if the drives were installed locally.

It would be a tremendously expensive setup, but it's a setup that I think would really be incredible in certain professional environments (and the kinds of environments that would be willing to shell out that kind of cash). At the same time Thunderbolt being a consumer product (and faster than fibre channel) may actually save some money in a setup like that, Fibre Channel is insanely expensive. I'd love to see it only because I'd love to see thunderbolt technology realized in that way. I also wish it had more network capabilities with Mac OS. Much like FireWire does. I'd love to be able to network a pair of mac's together on occasion with super high speed transfer rates. Not something I need every day, but I've got this potentially 20gbps port on my computer, why shouldn't I be able to use it to network with another computer with a 20gbps port?

I also wonder if future generations of thunderbolt or technologies like thunderbolt would ever be fast enough for true, genuine shared computing. What I mean by that is, individuals working on, say, iMac workstations, but with a thunderbolt connection they share with several others to a fully loaded 12 core Mac Pro, with the Mac Pro being fully capable of handling more demanding tasks, as seamlessly as dedicated 'switchable' GPU's in laptops handle certain loads but remain dormant otherwise.

Oh the possibilities!

Of course with these long thunderbolt cables, several users sharing one computer already seems around the corner. 'Thin clients' have existed for a long time, but Thunderbolt opens the door for these types of computing systems to work with just one cable, AND be able of handling demanding, high performance tasks. Imagine a small photography or videography studio being able to buy just one loaded Mac Pro, and a few thunderbolt displays, and being all set with several powerful workstations at a fraction of the cost?

Exactly. I am planning on buying an R8 to further increase my data storage capacity...What with Blu-Ray running in at 25GB a shot, I figure I will need more than the current R4. It makes sense to have these units off my desk, daisy chined together, and living in an unobtrusive place. They are on pretty much 24 /7 anyway, so there is no real need to have access to them.

 

[el-John-o]

Except that Apple seems to have given up on that market... and maybe even pro-users in general.

In fact, I'm not really sure what Apple is going to do with this connector, seeing as they seem to be letting it go the way of the dodo (I mean FW 800).

I don't think Apple has given up on the Pro Market, OR the server market. Lots of users are using Mac Mini and Mac Pro systems as servers. The XServe is another story though. But regardless, though the Mac Pro doesn't always have the latest flashy features, it remains the de facto standard as a high performance creative professional platform, and I think Apple is keeping that market happy.

As far as thunderbolt, it's barely been two years, way too early to call this one. However, I think the issue with FireWire (remember, Apple was ALSO an initial/early adopter of USB. As I recall, they were the FIRST to use USB, and a big issue back then was all of the peripherals were Mac only and were expensive and limited, because unless you had the fancy new iMac or colorful Power Mac, you didn't have USB) was that it never really took off in the PC market. In fact, FW400 caught on in the PC World much better than FW800 did, despite it's performance advantages. Thunderbolt, I think, will be more a part of the PC marketplace than FireWire was.

But, remember, Thunderbolt, like FW800, is a high performance I/O system that is primarily used for storage. Being married to display port allows it to work for displays, but, other than that the primary use is going to be high speed storage. For your typical user the speed of USB 3.0 is MORE than enough. I think Thunderbolt will be a product that is going to be popular on mobile platforms (for docking stations, and, I hope, for external graphics and things like that), but more importantly, popular in professional, workstation, and server environments. Calling it dead is like calling FibreChannel or bridged gigabit network connections dead because the typical Best Buy consumer market doesn't use it. Well, it's not meant for them anyway. It's a high performance connection for high performance needs. (Though, FibreChannel is as good as dead now with thunderbolt, just as soon as Intel Xeon processors become compatible with thunderbolt...)

I really, truly think where thunderbolt is really going to take off is going to be the server market. When server level motherboards and CPUs start implementing thunderbolt, I can see servers and storage arrays connected with thunderbolt, and then connected with their clients with ethernet, similar to the way FC is used now. Thunderbolt will give them a tremendous boost in performance, and be an excellent solution for load balancing and utilizing high speed disks. As it is now, a FibreChannel controller can be well over a grand, and the cables are pricey too. There's no reason not to replace it with thunderbolt once the technology is available.

 

[mabhatter]

Step 2 is now complete. Now that fibre is available, it's time to bump up the speeds.

not really, 10 Gbps is pretty hard for anything not connected to 16x PCI-E or directly to the CPU Chipset to keep up with at this point. Definitely in the consumer space... 10 Gbps ethernet is still a fairly pricy enterprise server option.

I would guess the fiber converter is actually in the connector on these cables. All the existing ports are Copper-only. What you really gain is the ability to use these in server rooms as the Copper cables are limited to 6 foot max. They don't seem to have many switches available for Thunderbolt, so you'll have to settle for a Beowulf cluster of these.

Now only if you had some Mac Pros with at least 3 ports each (Beowulf says so) to plug into all those cables!!!

 

[SteveW928]

Connector leverage...

Is anyone else bothered by the length of those cable ends? That just seems like it would put a crazy amount of stress on the ports and circuit boards. I'm about to order my first TB device, but the cable kind of scares me... (anyone remember those square external SCSI cables?)

 

[SteveW928]

I don't think Apple has given up on the Pro Market, OR the server market. Lots of users are using Mac Mini and Mac Pro systems as servers. The XServe is another story though. But regardless, though the Mac Pro doesn't always have the latest flashy features, it remains the de facto standard as a high performance creative professional platform, and I think Apple is keeping that market happy.

While I'm not sure dumping the XServe was a good idea, the problem is more on the software side of things. Yes, with something like TB, a mini makes a decent server hardware wise (we used to have a whole rack of minis in the server room where I used to work ).

Lion and Mt Lion Server dumped way too many features. Who cares if it is cheap if it isn't competent. And, OSX has become quite problematic for the Pro market as well. One great example is the whole 'save-as' mess Apple has created. Sure, that might save a newbie who forgets to save, now and then... but it really messes up entire workflows for Pro and business users. Imagine 50 users sharing documents on a server. Nightmare!

Apple keeps making one silly move after another as they chase the consumer market. It's kind of ironic actually. Apple was a company known for attention to detail. This was the reason many of us spent the extra bucks to use their stuff. Now, it's starting to look like that lack of attention to detail may be the chink in their armor.

I'm really hoping they get their act together soon. I've been an Apple fan and consultant for over 2 decades. But, I think they are starting to make crucial mistakes in very core areas. That does have me worried.

As far as thunderbolt, it's barely been two years, way too early to call this one.

Yea, I hope you are correct. I was a bit joking, though I really wish Apple was putting a bit more effort into this. They could not gouge so much on the cables. They could push for some more devices to be developed. Heck, they could make a device or two if others aren't stepping up to the plate.