Hewlett Packard Not Convinced of the Value of Thunderbolt

[KnightWRX]

It's worthwhile waiting a few more months for something that solves all single-box expansion problems, not just a souped-up HDD connector.

But people don't want dongles... especially since you'll apparently need to do daisy chain the "dongles" (let's hope they even offer that possibility. Imagine having to hang your TB to USB3 dongle at the end of the chain... oups that was the monitor's spot...).

So TB will be mostly a souped-up HDD connector. But wait! Looking at what's planned... it's all high-end Workstation/SMB Servers type storage arrays, not consumer stuff. It's priced in the thousands yet doesn't offer the versatility of NAS. Yeah...

No seriously. TB is a solution looking for a problem.

 

[firestarter]

But people don't want dongles... especially since you'll apparently need to do daisy chain the "dongles" (let's hope they even offer that possibility. Imagine having to hang your TB to USB3 dongle at the end of the chain... oups that was the monitor's spot...).

So TB will be mostly a souped-up HDD connector. But wait! Looking at what's planned... it's all high-end Workstation/SMB Servers type storage arrays, not consumer stuff. It's priced in the thousands yet doesn't offer the versatility of NAS. Yeah...

No seriously. TB is a solution looking for a problem.

Well, you can cry all you like over the lack of USB3.

I'll be more than happy to get on using TB. It solves more of my requirements than USB3 would, and I think the fact it's based on PCIe is some good smart engineering.

When someone offers you a $50 TB to USB3 hub you'll quieten down enough I'm sure.

 

[KnightWRX]

Well, you can cry all you like over the lack of USB3.

Who's crying ? Just discussing here. This is a discussion forum, not a "all praise to Apple" forum...

I'll be more than happy to get on using TB. It solves more of my requirements than USB3 would, and I think the fact it's based on PCIe is some good smart engineering.

Go ahead and waste money on high-end storage arrays all you like, I'll buy my storage to put on my network, where it is accessible by all my hosts. So it's either NAS or internal HDDs in my server for me. No USB3 or TB.

When someone offers you a $50 TB to USB3 hub you'll quieten down enough I'm sure.

Why ? quieten down what ? Are you implying that people saying USB3 seems to have a more consumer targetted future than TB are just whiners ?

Seriously, do you even want to discuss here or are you just throwing out your opinion as a fact everyone should bow down to ? Tell us right now, I'll gladly ignore you if you don't want to discuss anything.

 

[MorphingDragon]

No seriously. TB is a solution looking for a problem.

Or its just trying to be the fastest. You know, something that has been happening since GPU companies learnt that sex and exponentially pretty graphs with bigger and bigger numbers on it sell.

 

[firestarter]

Who's crying ? Just discussing here. This is a discussion forum, not a "all praise to Apple" forum...

Who is praising Apple? I think Apple might have made a marketing error in giving us 'too much' with TB. For years they've been able to differentiate their products by limiting expandability, dumbing down and enforcing obsolescence. Now they've exposed PCIe, and third parties can add whatever ports they like. I'm no fan of Apple's heavy handed marketing, so this is a great thing!

Go ahead and waste money on high-end storage arrays all you like, I'll buy my storage to put on my network, where it is accessible by all my hosts. So it's either NAS or internal HDDs in my server for me. No USB3 or TB.

You do that. Personally, I find myself using and needing to back up terabytes of data... and for that gigabit ethernet takes an eternity. Faster direct connection can't come quick enough.

Why ? quieten down what ? Are you implying that people saying USB3 seems to have a more consumer targetted future than TB are just whiners ?

I'm saying that people who continually rubbish TB without acknowledging it's flexibility and open design are both closed minded and unimaginative.

Seriously, do you even want to discuss here or are you just throwing out your opinion as a fact everyone should bow down to ? Tell us right now, I'll gladly ignore you if you don't want to discuss anything.

Suits me. Your mind seems completely closed on this issue... you've pretty well rubbished the standard across all the threads I've seen on it.

As far as I can see, you have very little of interest to add on this subject.

 

[KnightWRX]

I'm saying that people who continually rubbish TB without acknowledging it's flexibility and open design are both closed minded and unimaginative.

I don't quite see how an external PCIe bus is useful as consumer technology, especially in light of announced products. I remain open, but share HP's position that now is not the time for TB, especially not in this form.

As for enterprise grade, TB is suited for workstations or SMB servers that do not need the advantages provided by SAN or NAS or can't afford such beasts (which makes me wonder how they will afford the current planned TB stuff).

Sometimes, imagination just breeds fairy tales, and this also needs to be recognized. I'd rather remain cold and brazen and wait for actual products that promote the usefulness of the tech to appear before jumping into it.

 

[firestarter]

I don't quite see how an external PCIe bus is useful as consumer technology, especially in light of announced products. I remain open, but share HP's position that now is not the time for TB, especially not in this form.

Millions of PC users value their internal PCIe bus. If consumers didn't need that sort of expandability, vendors wouldn't provide it. Are they all wrong?

I agree with HPs position. Internal PCIe > Thunderbolt.

but for single box sealed Macs, Thunderbolt > nothing!

As for enterprise grade, TB is suited for workstations or SMB servers that do not need the advantages provided by SAN or NAS or can't afford such beasts (which makes me wonder how they will afford the current planned TB stuff).

Sorry dude, but you're thinking too small. GigE is too slow for a lot of creative industries, which need FiberChannel. So it's the opposite of what you're saying... for enterprise SAN users, FiberChannel adapters plugging into TB will be a gift.

USB3 is all about local storage and doesn't help with SAN. If you're in favour of data on the network, you should be preferring TB over USB3.

Sometimes, imagination just breeds fairy tales, and this also needs to be recognized. I'd rather remain cold and brazen and wait for actual products that promote the usefulness of the tech to appear before jumping into it.

But back to your point about promoting discussion... your behaviour seems to be to jump in and close down pro-TB talk. Although you don't personally like the standard, I don't see how this is promoting the discussion that you say you value so much.

Would you prefer the 'discussion' to be one long whine about Apples lack of support of USB3?

 

[AidenShaw]

"solution in search of a problem" is a bit harsh, but not too far off of the truth

Millions of PC users value their internal PCIe bus. If consumers didn't need that sort of expandability, vendors wouldn't provide it. Are they all wrong?

I agree with HPs position. Internal PCIe > Thunderbolt.

but for single box sealed Macs, Thunderbolt > nothing!

Best quote of the thread - TBolt is better than the nothing that Apple provides in most systems.

Sorry dude, but you're thinking too small. GigE is too slow for a lot of creative industries, which need FiberChannel. So it's the opposite of what you're saying... for enterprise SAN users, FiberChannel adapters plugging into TB will be a gift.

It's "Fibre Channel", not "FiberChannel" - by the way.

For enterprise SAN users, the "gift" would be a 2U to 4U quad socket Apple OSX server box with real PCIe slots for real Fibre Channel HBAs. I don't think that the enterprise users are writing letters to Santa Claus asking for a way to connect FC to their laptops.

USB3 is all about local storage and doesn't help with SAN. If you're in favour of data on the network, you should be preferring TB over USB3.

Since most people will interpret "network" as meaning a TCP/IP network, let me point out that TBolt is not a network. It's a point-to-point internal bus.

And if you want NAS, you can already attach TCP/IP storage to your GbE port on most of your Apples. For the 0.0001% of sites with 10GbE infrastructure (and $500,000 NAS boxes with 10GbE ports) TBolt will be an advantage if sometime in the future someone decides to build a TBolt->10GbE dongle for $800+ (the cheapest 10GbE PCIe NIC at Newegg is $589.99, and the cheapest 10GbE switch at Newegg is $4000 for a 6 port switch). I don't believe any TBolt 10GbE adaptors have been pre-announced at this time.

 

[KnightWRX]

Sorry dude, but you're thinking too small. GigE is too slow for a lot of creative industries, which need FiberChannel. So it's the opposite of what you're saying... for enterprise SAN users, FiberChannel adapters plugging into TB will be a gift.

As an enterprise grade Unix administrator (big Iron Integrity boxes these days), I can't see it. My servers have plenty of empty slots for HBAs and since they aren't going anywhere...

And if you want NAS, you can already attach TCP/IP storage to your GbE port on most of your Apples. For the 0.0001% of sites with 10GbE infrastructure (and $500,000 NAS boxes with 10GbE ports) TBolt will be an advantage if sometime in the future someone decides to build a TBolt->10GbE dongle for $800+ (the cheapest 10GbE PCIe NIC at Newegg is $589.99). I don't believe any TBolt 10GbE adaptors have been pre-announced at this time.

Exactly, the problem with TB's high-end performance is that it comes with a high-end price tag. But the peripherals it will be used to connect also come with a high-end price tag.

And let's face it, who's connecting a 10GbE card to an iMac or MBP ? the internal hard drive can't even write that fast. For workstations and servers, what would you rather buy ? The interface card or the dongle that will be priced higher (since it will require more tech in the form of a TB controller). Same for FC. HBAs are already very expensive, why add extra expense when I can simply insert them into my empty PCIe slots.

We'll see what the future holds, but let's not go all goggly eyes just yet. As a DAS solution for workstations or SMB servers, it'll work. How big is that market and really how much does it even need a 10Gbps interconnect ? That remains to be seen.

As a consumer tech, USB3 is both cheaper and available now.

 

[KnightWRX]

double.

 

[firestarter]

Best quote of the thread - TBolt is better than the nothing that Apple provides in most systems.

Glad you agree!

It's "Fibre Channel", not "FiberChannel" - by the way.

Ah - interesting. Fibre is how I'd spell it (being British). I assumed it was an Americanised standard and spelling though...

For enterprise SAN users, the "gift" would be a 2U to 4U quad socket Apple OSX server box with real PCIe slots for real Fibre Channel HBAs. I don't think that the enterprise users are writing letters to Santa Claus asking for a way to connect FC to their laptops.

Actually you're wrong. I know of businesses speccing iMacs out for FC use, given their upcoming support of FC over TB.

The OSX server is another issue entirely and outside of the context of this discussion.

This isn't about hooking up laptops, it's about using cost effective hardware, rather than having to run a Mac Pro, just to be able to add a FC card (or any fast external storage for that matter... FW800 is SLOW).

Since most people will interpret "network" as meaning a TCP/IP network, let me point out that TBolt is not a network. It's a point-to-point internal bus.

Nice condescending factlet... aimed at who? I'm more than aware what TBolt is.

And if you want NAS, you can already attach TCP/IP storage to your GbE port on most of your Apples. For the 0.0001% of sites with 10GbE infrastructure (and $500,000 NAS boxes with 10GbE ports) TBolt will be an advantage if sometime in the future someone decides to build a TBolt->10GbE dongle for $800+ (the cheapest 10GbE PCIe NIC at Newegg is $589.99). I don't believe any TBolt 10GbE adaptors have been pre-announced at this time.

We weren't talking about 10GbE.

And of course, TB is about a lot more. FireWire support (through an adapter) returning to Apple's low end and lightweight laptops, for example. USB3 will not do this.

 

[AidenShaw]

Ah - interesting. Fibre is how I'd spell it (being British). I assumed it was an Americanised standard and spelling though...

Nope, it hasn't been Americanized - "Fibre" is the official spelling.

Actually you're wrong. I know of businesses speccing iMacs out for FC use, given their upcoming support of FC over TB.

"Support" through third party TBolt-FC dongles like the Promise SANlink - not support out-of-the-box.

Do you have prices for the SANlink? The Promise site doesn't, and doesn't even mention if it has two SFP ports or has integrated GBICs.

The OSX server is another issue entirely and outside of the context of this discussion.

But still relevant to a discussion of Apples on a SAN.

This isn't about hooking up laptops, it's about using cost effective hardware, rather than having to run a Mac Pro, just to be able to add a FC card.

Assuming that an Imac plus a SANlink costs less than a Mac Pro and an HBA. (Probably true, but if the mythical Apple mini-tower existed then "cost effective hardware" would apply.)

Nice condescending factlet... aimed at who? I'm more than aware what TBolt is.

Clearly not at you - since I used the introducer "Since most people".

A lot of Apple fans don't realize that TBolt is a PCIe extender and not a 10Gbps network. There were many suggestions about building superclusters with MiniMacs and TBolt at the introduction - even people suggested that the North Carolina data center could be filled with MiniMacs on TBolt.

I simply added a clarification that TBolt NAS would involve GbE or 10GbE NICs, so that it would be clear to all that NAS directly on TBolt isn't possible.

We weren't talking about 10GbE.

But you mentioned "data on the network" after previously only using the terms "SAN" and "FC", so it's a relevant topic since you could have meant TCP/IP networks instead of SAN.

And of course, TB is about a lot more. FireWire support (through an adapter) returning to Apple's low end and lightweight laptops, for example. USB3 will not do this.

At least for those willing to spend perhaps $299 for a 1394 port.

It's frustrating that so little information is public about the proprietary single-source interface called "Thunderbolt". Frustrating that only a few devices have been pre-announced, and only one of those has put a price tag ($299) on the addition of the TBolt interface.

Apple killed FW800 by reserving it for the top end systems, so that there wasn't sufficient market penetration to lead the peripheral vendors into adding FW800 capability, and there wasn't sufficient volume to reduce the prices of the FW800 interfaces to commodity levels.

If TBolt is a similar "gold-plated" interface, it will stagnate like FW800.

 

[cirus]

Isn't this titled "HP not convinced of the value of thunderbolt"? The fact is that HP is not going to include enterprise level abilities in products for the average user. This makes perfect sense as very few would be pushing the limits of USB 3.0. Why include something that will not be used? In light of this it makes perfect sense not to include thunderbolt in their computers as it would push the cost up by maybe $40-$50 and that would lead to an increase in prices. People who buy an $800 hp desktop will not need anything like fibre channel, SAN link, NAS, etc.

 

[AidenShaw]

Isn't this titled "HP not convinced of the value of thunderbolt"? The fact is that HP is not going to include enterprise level abilities in products for the average user. This makes perfect sense as very few would be pushing the limits of USB 3.0. Why include something that will not be used? In light of this it makes perfect sense not to include thunderbolt in their computers as it would push the cost up by maybe $40-$50 and that would lead to an increase in prices. People who buy an $800 hp desktop will not need anything like fibre channel, SAN link, NAS, etc.

Note that this story is based on HP's announcement of some new desktops priced starting at $299 to $599. Don't read into it that HP won't put TBolt into higher end products.

And don't forget that no TBolt devices are shipping, and almost none of the pre-announced TBolt devices has disclosed their suggested retail prices. The only one that I know of that has shown a price has the TBolt model at $299 more than the the standard.

The issue isn't that "HP says TBolt is crap", it's that HP is saying that "in spring 2011 TBolt doesn't provide value in the sub $500 desktop". Two very different things.

 

[MattInOz]

Since most people will interpret "network" as meaning a TCP/IP network, let me point out that TBolt is not a network. It's a point-to-point internal bus.

Ummm... Thunderbolt isn't internal. Yes it does extend a traditionally internal bus external but it's not the first or only system to do that.. Yes this bus is point-to-point but that's not to say only two only two devices can ever speak to each other as there is a hub/host which allows for negotiation of dynamic point-to-point links between devices on it's network.

I don't think most people have a clue what TCP/IP is either. To most people the network is the cable you plug it to connect to the Internet or a server.

Does it really matter which end of the cable the PCIe to TCP/IP translation occurs?

 

[AidenShaw]

Yes this bus is point-to-point but that's not to say only two only two devices can ever speak to each other as there is a hub/host which allows for negotiation of dynamic point-to-point links between devices on it's network.

Links to devices that allow multiple systems to share a single TBolt bus - or it doesn't exist.

In a logical sense, TBolt is internal. Devices attached to TBolt controllers show up as PCIe cards on your system. Devices attached to those controllers (e.g. SATA drives attached to a PCIe SATA controller on a TBolt peripheral) appear as internal devices.

I don't think most people have a clue what TCP/IP is either. To most people the network is the cable you plug it to connect to the Internet or a server.

And I think that "most people" realize that the cable that you use to plug into the Internet (or modem or switch or server) is very different from the USB cable that you connect to an external hard drive.

Does it really matter which end of the cable the PCIe to TCP/IP translation occurs?

Sometimes it does. You can connect two systems via a Cat5 cable connected to the RJ45 port (with any modern GbE controller that automatically senses whether a crossover connection is needed). You can't connect two mini Display Ports together.

 

[toke lahti]

This isn't about hooking up laptops, it's about using cost effective hardware, rather than having to run a Mac Pro, just to be able to add a FC card (or any fast external storage for that matter... FW800 is SLOW).

FC is by itself starting to be very not cost effective.
FCoE in 10GE is replacing it and some facilites have even chose multi-port 1GE,
like products from Small Tree.

And of course, TB is about a lot more. FireWire support (through an adapter) returning to Apple's low end and lightweight laptops, for example. USB3 will not do this.

Where do you need fw, if you've got usb3?
What else TB brought to laptops, which was taken away with express card?
Years behind everything and now a little speed bumb from express card to TB.
And crippling displayport on the way.
Apple should have installed multiple eSATAp ports to all its products years ago.
And upgraded those to usb3 before 2010.
It was way before when Apple decided to not offer technologically asmuch bang for the buck as possible.
If only good reason for TB is to have FC with iMacs, we are now in the nichest of niche.
And when the same time you could do the same thing cheaper with MP & multi-lane ethernet.
Let's pay $100 TB tax for every single external harddrive from now on and see how we can't use 90% of new fast devices (which uses usb3).
Great!

 

[firestarter]

FC is by itself starting to be very not cost effective.
FCoE in 10GE is replacing it and some facilites have even chose multi-port 1GE,
like products from Small Tree.

I'm sure Small Tree will release Thunderbolt products at some point.

Where do you need fw, if you've got usb3?

Audio hardware. There's a lot of eternal kit that uses FW800 for low latency, and there are audio-over-FW standards (used by Yamaha mixing desks for example).

Also high end camera kit (Hasselblad and Leaf photo backs).

High end video.

There's a lot of good hardware out there with years of life that's left in it. Thunderbolt and a TB to FW adapter will provide support for that as Apple discontinues their native support. USB3 will not do this.

What else TB brought to laptops, which was taken away with express card?
Years behind everything and now a little speed bumb from express card to TB.

It's quite a big bump. Seems like a more flexible standard than Expresscard.

And crippling displayport on the way.

True. It'll be interesting to see if Apple upgrade the displayport version they're supporting.

Apple should have installed multiple eSATAp ports to all its products years ago.

Well, they never saw that as a good choice for an external interface.

And upgraded those to usb3 before 2010.

This is interesting. Do you think Apple will not support USB3 even after they get it 'for free' as part of Intel's chipsets? I think they'll end up supporting it.

It was way before when Apple decided to not offer technologically asmuch bang for the buck as possible.
If only good reason for TB is to have FC with iMacs, we are now in the nichest of niche.
And when the same time you could do the same thing cheaper with MP & multi-lane ethernet.

No, it's so much more than that. But the ability to finally expand the sealed-box Macs with high speed networking, fast external disk access is fantastic.

Let's pay $100 TB tax for every single external harddrive from now on and see how we can't use 90% of new fast devices (which uses usb3).
Great!

So buy a TB to eSATA adapter, or a TB to USB3 adapter. I'm sure they'll be marketed at some point.

I actually don't think Thunderbolt will be popular as a 'final device' interface (and I think that's OK). I think it'll be more popular as a bridge connection. Even a TB external drive is really a TB/PCIe to SATA adapter, hooked up to a SATA drive... it just depends whether you want that logic inside the drive case, or in it's own adapter.

 

[AidenShaw]

I actually don't think Thunderbolt will be popular as a 'final device' interface (and I think that's OK). I think it'll be more popular as a bridge connection. Even a TB external drive is really a TB/PCIe to SATA adapter, hooked up to a SATA drive... it just depends whether you want that logic inside the drive case, or in it's own adapter.

A TBolt to six port eSATA controller with port-multiplier support would be awesome.

 

[-hh]

Note that this story is based on HP's announcement of some new desktops priced starting at $299 to $599. Don't read into it that HP won't put TBolt into higher end products.

And don't forget that no TBolt devices are shipping...

The issue isn't that "HP says TBolt is crap", it's that HP is saying that "in spring 2011 TBolt doesn't provide value in the sub $500 desktop". Two very different things.

And what that 'value proposition' statement is really saying is:

HP believes that the demographics of their customer that's buying cheap & low end desktops won't be willing to pay more for that hardware to have TB capability, partly because TB isn't an obvious "here, today and needed" capability on low end hardware.

Since TB peripherals aren't shipping yet, HP probably believes that they can wait until the 2012 product cycle. A classical "customer pull" instead of a "supplier push".


-hh

 

[AidenShaw]

And what that 'value proposition' statement is really saying is:

HP believes that the demographics of their customer that's buying cheap & low end desktops won't be willing to pay more for that hardware to have TB capability, partly because TB isn't an obvious "here, today and needed" capability on low end hardware.

Since TB peripherals aren't shipping yet, HP probably believes that they can wait until the 2012 product cycle. A classical "customer pull" instead of a "supplier push".


-hh

Your argument would have more validity if HP had just announced a new series of $1000+ single and dual socket workstations without adding TBolt.

Since they announced very low end systems - systems that will probably cost less than any TBolt peripheral - it doesn't have much to support it.

When the Intel chipset supports TBolt natively, then one could make valid criticisms if HP fails to simply put a port on the bulkhead.

And, by the way, where were you when Apple completely failed at "supplier push" with FW800?

 

[toke lahti]

Audio hardware. There's a lot of eternal kit that uses FW800 for low latency, and there are audio-over-FW standards (used by Yamaha mixing desks for example).

Also high end camera kit (Hasselblad and Leaf photo backs).

High end video.

There's a lot of good hardware out there with years of life that's left in it. Thunderbolt and a TB to FW adapter will provide support for that as Apple discontinues their native support. USB3 will not do this.

Usb3 has all that fw has; asynchronous/isynchronous stuff and low latency.
Maybe you should check usb3's specs.
How an earth otherwise blackmagic could have released BoB few years ago with hd-sdi & usb3?
Technically there's no reason why there wouldn't be fw-usb3 adapter.
Question is more like if there is ever any use for it.
Apple have killed the legacy compatibility by removing old connectors and express card / pc card readers.
Why would they start to care now?
High end video with fw? Joking? Maybe a decade ago, today it's sdi, hdmi, usb3...
Btw, did you noticed in NAB the new SxS cards that had a port in them, so you don't need a reader in your computer, just a cable and a port.
Care to guess which port was that?

It's quite a big bump. Seems like a more flexible standard than Expresscard.

True. It'll be interesting to see if Apple upgrade the displayport version they're supporting.

Both are like pci bus. Of course TB is faster, but have you noticed, how you think fw is fast enough, but express card isn't? Logics?

Well, they never saw that as a good choice for an external interface.

What could be possibly wrong with mass storages native connection with its native speed and when it is invluded in chipset?
You don't get fw royalties out of it?

This is interesting. Do you think Apple will not support USB3 even after they get it 'for free' as part of Intel's chipsets? I think they'll end up supporting it.

Maybe, but eSata came with chipset and they didn't support it. Also you could bundle eSata port with usb port, so you wouldn't even waste the precious "left side area".

No, it's so much more than that. But the ability to finally expand the sealed-box Macs with high speed networking, fast external disk access is fantastic.

More fantastic than having eSata with same fast access (interface is not limiting the speed) seven (7!) years ago?

So buy a TB to eSATA adapter, or a TB to USB3 adapter. I'm sure they'll be marketed at some point.

Maybe again, but just wondering why those adapters are not even announced, when both major mac lines would support them?

Btw, here's the article where I learned the cost effectines of tb-fc adapters:
http://www.studiodaily.com/main/searchlist/T2-+-Back-Alley-Films-Goes-Gig-E_12777.html

 

[firestarter]

Technically there's no reason why there wouldn't be fw-usb3 adapter.

It would be much more involved from a driver point of view. FW interface chips running on PCIe are already supported as part of OSX. A TB->FW would require no additional driver.

I don't think there was ever a USB2 to FW adapter?

Question is more like if there is ever any use for it.
Apple have killed the legacy compability by removing old connectors and express card / pc card readers. Why would they start to care now?

Apple were always halfhearted about Express-card. They dropped it from the 15inch MBP quickly enough.
I think I've made the case for the desirability of legacy FW support.

The great thing about Thunderbolt is that Apple don't HAVE to care. If Apple want to drop FW (or Ethernet!) completely, it doesn't matter... they've exposed the PCIe bus over Thunderbolt, and any 3rd party vendor can add that functionality back.

Both are like pci bus. Of course TB is faster, but have you noticed, how you think fw is fast enough, but express card isn't? Logics?

I've never said that FW is fast enough. I've continually complained that it's too slow... for external storage, certainly. For audio use, it's fine.

Maybe, but eSata came with chipset and they didn't support it. Also you could bundle eSata port with usb port, so you wouldn't even waste the precious "left side area".

More fantastic than having eSata with same fast access (interface is not limiting the speed) seven (7!) years ago?

I'm not here to defend Apple. eSATA would have been really nice to have.

Btw, here's the article where I learned the cost effectines of tb-fc adapters:
http://www.studiodaily.com/main/searchlist/T2-+-Back-Alley-Films-Goes-Gig-E_12777.html

That's odd... the article makes no mention of Thunderbolt.

 

[toke lahti]

It would be much more involved from a driver point of view.

So you are really scared that modern cpu's don't have power for that?

I don't think there was ever a USB2 to FW adapter?

Why would have been? Usb2 were too slow to host fw connection and every computer has usb ports already, so why change fw port to usb?

The great thing about Thunderbolt is that Apple don't HAVE to care. If Apple want to drop FW (or Ethernet!) completely, it doesn't matter... they've exposed the PCIe bus over Thunderbolt, and any 3rd party vendor can add that functionality back.

Wrong, if there's no 3rd party solution (like there isn't now), nobody buys a mac, if it doesn't have the ports you need.

That's odd... the article makes no mention of Thunderbolt.

Do you think FC has gotten somehow cheaper after TB arrived to some Macs?

 

[firestarter]

So you are really scared that modern cpu's don't have power for that?

No, but I'm realistic about the amount of work it takes to write good drivers, especially for something as functional as a high speed communication stack. No driver required = big win.

Why would have been? Usb2 were too slow to host fw connection and every computer has usb ports already, so why change fw port to usb?

Sure... but USB2 was fast enough for things like DV streams from camcorders, so an adapter could have been useful to some. No, I think USB2->Firewire was just too much trouble.

Wrong, if there's no 3rd party solution (like there isn't now), nobody buys a mac, if it doesn't have the ports you need.

The MacBook Air has no ethernet, yet it's one of Apple's big sellers. If you want Ethernet, you have to put up with only '100' speed, using a USB adapter.

Sonnet has announced Thunderbolt to GigE and Thunderbolt to FW800 adapters.
http://www.sonnettech.com/news/nab2011/index.html

Do you think FC has gotten somehow cheaper after TB arrived to some Macs?

If you want FC, Thunderbolt gives you the option of FC from an iMac, rather than from a MacPro. That's cheaper, right?

Same with 10GbE. I'm sure there will be TB->10GbE interfaces, and TB now gives you the possibility of running that from consumer level machines.