In the NT line-up, it was introduced with Windows 2000, but then again, no consumer was running NT 4.0 anyway as it had a different driver architecture and a very restrictive HCL because of it.
I'm not your typical consumer
In the NT line-up, it was introduced with Windows 2000, but then again, no consumer was running NT 4.0 anyway as it had a different driver architecture and a very restrictive HCL because of it.
you sure do have more questions than answers!
I'll have to repeat myself: Apple had 3% global market share when iMac was introduced (1998).
Google that if you don't believe me.
What would you say, if you were told that 99% of USB ports shipped in 1998 were in windows pc's or their peripherals?
This means that there were 33 times more usb ports sold in windows pc's.
And very logical conclusion from this is, that macs had so tiny little market share of usb ports, that they cannot define the market penetration.
AFAIK, there were very few usb accessories for "mac only". Most of all were "mac and windows98 compatible" and there not even a hint for any proof in that Seebach's article that "mac only" usb accessories were sold more than windows pc usb accessories.
Once more AFAIK, around 1998-2000 all pc accessories turned to usb, not because of macs, but because usb was faster, cheaper and easier.
IMacs were hyped also in Finland, but for every one iMac, there were 100 windows pc's sold. And all of those started using usb.
It came from market share, and I've now said it enough times.
I'm not sure how scientific proof you want, but maybe you know that "power law" = "Pareto principle" ≠ "80/20 rule". And if you don't know more about how to proof things in science, then read about power law from wikipedia.
I don't need to proove you that you can't use power law in this case, you have to proove me, that you can.
And no, Pareto principle does not work with 3%...
And nevertheless all of this doesn't matter anything in few days when all new macs have usb3.
Those who can live with 5Gbps for pennies can enjoy best price-performance ratio in the market and those who need more can buy these $500 dongles as much as they want, if those boxes ever materializes...
Finally, I just can't understand what harm those legacy ports makes.
If they don't cost a penny and there's a lot of room for them in full sized ATX motherboard, why not?
The funny part is he asks you to back your market share assertions, and then he makes wild claims like "explosion of colored peripherals" without providing any backing other than his opinion.![]()
It still needs twice as many connections to the laptop than a Dell/Lenovo dock.
T-Bolt had so much promise - but Apple has completely destroyed the promise....
I'll tell it one more time and them I'm done, if you still don't get it.Now you tell us that Apple had 3% of global market share. Which one is the right answer?When you told us to "Google that", which number should we have been seeking?
![]()
Funny that you have written so many times "1995 article" and you still do.My suggestion -- and Peter Seebach's 1995 article -- suggest that the presence of USB and particularly the lack of the old proprietary Apple keyboard/mouse ports precipitated the near-universal acceptance of USB for keyboards/mice and low-speed connectivity in general.
Mac market share was (or still is, if you consider the real topic of this thread) too little to change the world.That is correct but irrelevant. You completely missed the point of the adoption section of Seebach's article. The adoption of USB on the Mac had little to do with the features of USB; it had to do with the fact that, starting with the iMac, the old proprietary ports were no longer available. The adoption problem was solved by forcing Mac users to use the modern interface.
Yep.In other words, you believe that the adoption problem for USB (described in Seebach's article) was nonexistent.
No, I'm not claiming that and you know that.Also note: "all pc accessories turned to usb" doesn't seem accurate. Are you claiming that 100% of the keyboards and mice shipped with PCs were USB devices by the end of 2000?
No, I didn't saw the explosion. Actually I saw very few of them. Most usb-cables were just normal gray, beige or black.You didn't respond to the question I asked. I asked you if you saw the explosion of third-party color USB cables that accompanied the 2nd-generation color iMacs. Did you see an explosion of those third-party cables in Finland at that time?
I'd like to hear at least one argument, why 33:1 ratio worked in this case. I have presented numerous arguments, why it didn't work and you have not objected these at all.My point is that the power law doesn't have to be a 4:1 ratio. Seebach makes the case that Apple's new computers were the driving force for USB acceptance. But there's probably no point in discussing that with you; you don't seem willing to even acknowledge the adoption problem that existed for USB in 1998.
When usb2 was new, it could took even 20-30% of cpu power from some weaker machines. Now that all cpu's have at least 10x power compared to those over a decade a ago, this is non-issue today.Historically, there are more issues than simply the bandwidth. Firewire incurred far less CPU overhead for the I/O than USB. Perhaps Intel has been able to address those overhead issues with their latest implementation of USB.
That's why I stated that in big desktops there's no harm from ps/2.Gruber just noted a problem with brand-new laptops with a VGA port: the size of that connector is now a limiting factor in the dimensions of the laptop. Have you not noticed the dimensions of the TB port -- clearly specified by Apple?
That's why I stated that in big desktops there's no harm from ps/2.Three costs of keeping these legacy ports were discussed in this message.
I do understand that, but I don't understand what that has to do with what we are discussing here about?Do you understand the value proposition in removing Flash from iOS web browsers? Based on what you said in this message, I'd guess that you don't understand.
If "cost" is quantified as hardware cost, I wholly agree. But "cost" can also be quantified as the real estate on the side/back of a laptop. AFAIK, I believe the PS/2 connectors have virtually disappeared from laptops.
"Cost" can also be measured a third way: the degree of simplicity of the device for naive users to correctly use. I think it's safe to say that Apple pays far more attention to that "cost" than any of the PC manufacturers.
That's why I'm saying that 97% of usb ports were shipped in "windows pc world".
But frankly iMacs didn't change anything in kb/mouse market in whole.
AFAIK at least for the next 5 years (1998-2002), most pc's still shipped with keyboards with ps/2. And many still uses them. Mouses began to change to usb when laptops took the lead in market and again I don't understand how macs could have affected to this in any way.
When iMac shipped, most new pc's had usb. Next year all new pc's had usb.Not early on -- early on, many PCs didn't have USB.
Even monolithic niche isn't always enough.Now, that can be a small market, but it's a market that is easily targeted and has the key trait that none of the devices currently on the broader market can compete in it. If you make a USB keyboard for the iMac, the hundreds of PS/2 keyboards out there are not competing with you.
Niche markets can support products, especially niche markets that have the key trait that their members cannot buy something else. This is why that godawful memory stick format exists -- because Sony makes things which use that format, so people who buy those things must buy memory stick media to go with those things.
So, yes, it was a really tiny market, but because it was monolithic -- absolutely everyone in it would buy USB, none of them could buy anything but USB -- it was influential.
When iMac shipped, most new pc's had usb. Next year all new pc's had usb.
If you look now back 15 years, do you really think that those few months mattered in success of USB so much that if iMac would have other ports to connect kb+mouse, USB wouldn't have succeeded?
To me the most amazing thing about original iMac was how successful it was. It was huge PITA that all your old hardware became obsolete in on blink and there were no external storage to store your work.
I think that this really shows how important is good OS & software & GUI. If those are better than competitors, the hardware can be really crappy (like mobile device made out of glass)...
I'll tell it one more time and them I'm done, if you still don't get it.
I threw 1% just out of my mind.
The real Apple market share was 3%.
That's why I'm saying that 97% of usb ports were shipped in "windows pc world".
Funny that you have written so many times "1995 article" and you still do.
But frankly iMacs didn't change anything in kb/mouse market in whole.
Every computer had at least semi standard way to connect kb+mouse, but other accessories (printers, scanners, cameras, phones, storage, etc.) were problem and this is really where usb made difference and simplified everything enormously.
Mac market share was (or still is, if you consider the real topic of this thread) too little to change the world.
It is nice that Seebach is reading this by himself, so I'd prefer to hear his thoughts about my arguments.
No, I'm not claiming that and you know that.
No, I didn't saw the explosion. Actually I saw very few of them. Most usb-cables were just normal gray, beige or black.
I'd like to hear at least one argument, why 33:1 ratio worked in this case.
When usb2 was new, it could took even 20-30% of cpu power from some weaker machines. Now that all cpu's have at least 10x power compared to those over a decade a ago, this is non-issue today.
That's why I stated that in big desktops there's no harm from ps/2.
That's why I stated that in big desktops there's no harm from ps/2.
I do understand that, but I don't understand what that has to do with what we are discussing here about?
Care to elaborate?
Interesting point! I still see them on some laptops, but mostly the sort that also have docking stations -- docking stations pretty much always seem to have PS/2 ports.
I was totally looking forward to the new MBP, but it seems to me that until something like this docking station exists, I can't actually USE the new MBP. (And since I hate Belkin, but use Firewire, I may be screwed anyway.)
My argument was that kb+mouse were irrelevant in usb adoption."Had USB" is ambiguous. Many laptops and desktops did not use USB for their keyboards or mice for years in the future.
It took less than year after iMac was launched, that all new pc's had usb.What "few months"?ALL of the Apple computers after that original iMac used USB for its keyboards and mice. ALL of them got rid of the proprietary connectors.
USB probably would have eventually taken over -- but it would have taken far longer.
I told you to google it, but if you are too lazy for it, here's the link:If you are going to quote a "real" number, please provide the source for that number. That's the simple and effective way to conduct a fact-based discussion here.
You really mean that Peter wrote about iMacs in 1995?That's because Peter wrote his USB article in 1995. I have no idea what you are upset about.
No they didn't and I've told you why.Frankly, they did. But you have never ever given any critical commentary to the points that Peter made in that 1995 article. You really haven't given us any indication that you even read his article.
I'm saying that iMacs were too small to be tipping point.How exactly does this disagree with the thesis that iMacs were the tipping point of USB adoption? Printers for iMacs had to be USB compliant.
Ps/2, serial or parallel ports are not proprietary.I'm not going to presume what you know. You didn't seem to be familiar with the adoption problem that Peter describes. Your statement was ambiguous; I couldn't tell if you realized that PC keyboards and mice continued to ship with the proprietary connectors for many more years. That is the adoption problem!
Funny that you really think that cables with fun colors made people to buy usb peripherals and this was somehow key to usb's success.Aha. It's entirely likely that those third-party vendors didn't export to Finland. You never saw how those third-party vendors helped fuel the adoption of USB.
I wasn't talking about efficiency. I was talking about raw computational power. Your "speak-when-spoken-to" protocol is not a problem anymore, since the host can speak 100x faster than 15 years ago. With all possible hickups usb3 is much more faster in every way of usage than fw. It might not be as efficient in many cases, but it doesn't have to be. These days there's so much horsepower to loose.CPU efficiency was irrelevant to the issue I was discussing. The issue is how much the CPU has to be involved in the data transfers; this influences both latency and throughput. Read the section "Data transfer speed of USB vs FireWire" in this article to understand this historical problem with USB.
Note: Intel's implementations may have mitigated this issue with their latest implementation of USB 3, but I would guess that FW (and now native TB) are still more efficient for data-transfer than USB.
Once again I wasn't talking about laptops. I stated that (normal sized, not like mac mini) desktops have plenty of room for ports and therefore there's no harm having legacy ports.I have no idea what you mean by this repeated sentence. You asked what harm legacy ports on computers make; the dimensions of those legacy ports do indeed have a negative influence on modern laptops. Apple's brand-new MBP with retina display would not have been physically possible if they had to tack a VGA port to the side of that machine.
It took less than year after iMac was launched, that all new pc's had usb.
Me?You are confusing "coincidence" with "cause and effect".
(ie: a second TB port), it looks like dead in the water or is it?
I still am trying to figure out this dock.
I think we are all passing it over here because it is really aimed at Ultrabook owners, not Mac owners. It has what a PC user would expect on their box. PC users don't want or need Firewire or even Thunderbolt beyond connecting to the docking station. And the docking station will handle a computer monitor, wired Ethernet, speaker system and their USB peripherals just fine.
It would be better if it had another tb port
(ie: a second TB port), it looks like dead in the water or is it?
I still am trying to figure out this dock.
A good comparison is to USB 3.0 docks. There are some with similar functionality for about $150-200, so $249 is pricier, but not entirely unreasonable, either. It's too bad this doesn't have FireWire, but consider that this does have Gigabit Ethernet, and is a cheaper way for owners of 2011 MacBook Airs and Pros to add USB 3.0 than replacing their Macs. It could have a niche following.
But it's dead in the water without a TB pass-through; thus preventing from connecting an min-DP or higer-rez external display.
Not dead in the water at all, at least for the many Windows PCs that will be coming out with Thunderbolt. It's a perfect docking station for them, with the typical collection of PC accessories (which doesn't include Firewire, miniDP, or Firewire).
Nice looking product, a little pricey though and doesn't really offer that many ports. Only three USB? I'll pass
I'm still waiting for those external graphics cards. Something like that with a Mac Mini or Macbook Air would be so awesome.
Why in heaven's name do you think that large businesses prefer manufacturer-specific docks? Why would they want to be locked in to a particular manufacturer? What busess advantage does that give over a dock that can work with a broad range of
Just because some IT departments want something doesn't mean that it's right. If the IT departments had their way, everybody in those large companies would still be using RIM phones, and nobody would have the option of using Android or iPhone phones.
No specs!!
In competition, i prefer the Rugged' Thunderbolt/USB 3.0 Portable Drives
And I wish I could have my RIM Blackberry work phone back. I'm considering just buying a Blackberry Tour to replace my 4S as my work phone, ( though we're going to switch to Android pretty soon, they didn't buy very many fruit phones, thank **** ).
They prefer those docks because those docks tend to be integrated very well with whatever machine is designed to go with them
Or maybe because - until Thunderbolt and maybe USB 3 - there wasn't a standard interface that could drive a dock with multiple USB ports, video, sound in/out, Ethernet, maybe Firewire and other stuff over a single connector? So such docks tend to rely on proprietary, multi-pin connectors that connect directly to the auxiliary USB/Video/Ethernet/etc. signals from the laptop motherboard.
They prefer those docks because those docks tend to be integrated very well with whatever machine is designed to go with them,
And they like things that " just work ", so they would rather buy docks that manufacturers make for their own machines, so it " just works " rather than dealing with supporting tons of different models.
Large IT departments are a huge market, so they decide whats right.