Matrox Announces DS-1 Thunderbolt Docking Station for $249

[talmy]

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 and switched to NT with 3.51, although I did have a copy of 3.1 but speaking of restrictive, it was very finicky. That it wouldn't run games was not an issue for me, it ran the software I needed to run. But thanks for verifying my memory that USB didn't work under 4.0.

 

[FloatingBones]

you sure do have more questions than answers!

Both questions and answers are part of a discussion. You've given some answers that are unclear or contradictory; it's appropriate to ask about those.

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.

First, you told us:

What would you say, if you were told that 99% of USB ports shipped in 1998 were in windows pc's or their peripherals?

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?

"Google that" is a low-grade way to participate in the discussion here. If you have some fact for the discussion, please provide a reference. Making up numbers is also a low-grade way to participate in the discussion. If some number is made up, please acknowledge the error and then move on.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Once more AFAIK, around 1998-2000 all pc accessories turned to usb, not because of macs, but because usb was faster, cheaper and easier.

In other words, you believe that the adoption problem for USB (described in Seebach's article) was nonexistent.

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?

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.

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?

It came from market share, and I've now said it enough times.

You first said 99%. Now you say 97%. You never clarified which number was accurate. It appears that the 99% number was made up.

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.

Your statement above is incorrect. The Pareto principle applies to only a subset of systems that display the dynamics of the power law.

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.

The statement I was questioning was your claim:

And no, Pareto principle does not work with 3%...

Who says so? Or was I just supposed to "google that" to see where your claim comes from.

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.

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...

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.

A second issue: with FW, everything from display, data, keyboard, mouse, and network can be piped through a single connector. In other words, you have the ability to do a real dock with TB. You can't do that with USB.

Finally, I just can't understand what harm those legacy ports makes.

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?

If they don't cost a penny and there's a lot of room for them in full sized ATX motherboard, why not?

Three costs of keeping these legacy ports were discussed in this message.

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.

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.

Do you want to discuss that, KnightWRX? Would you like a reference?

Or are you just sniping in the discussion?

It still needs twice as many connections to the laptop than a Dell/Lenovo dock.

What two things are you comparing here, Aiden? Are you comparing a rigid laptop dock to a TB connection?

T-Bolt had so much promise - but Apple has completely destroyed the promise....

What specifically do you think that Apple has done?

 

[toke lahti]

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?

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".

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.

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.
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.
Another thing is, that I don't see keyboards and mouses so important in USB acceptance. I think that much more important is everything else, which used all kind of proprietary or more expensive connectors before.
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.

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.

Mac market share was (or still is, if you consider the real topic of this thread) too little to change the world.
Or do you really think that after the imac hype and megalomaniac ad campaign, all windows pc users run to computer shops and changed their working kb+mouse to usb versions?
But lets just assume that every imac user bought 5 usb accessories.
And every windows pc user bought 5 accessories which only 1 was usb.
Then imac users bought 13% of all usb accessories and windows pc users bought 87%. Now which one was more important to accessory manufacturers?

In other words, you believe that the adoption problem for USB (described in Seebach's article) was nonexistent.

Yep.
It is nice that Seebach is reading this by himself, so I'd prefer to hear his thoughts about my arguments.

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'm not claiming that and you know that.
If you need very precise statements, I rephrase "vast majority of other usb accessories than kb+mouse". Like I said, I think kb+mouse were the least important accessories for usb success, before laptops came most important computers later well in this millenium.

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?

No, I didn't saw the explosion. Actually I saw very few of them. Most usb-cables were just normal gray, beige or black.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That's why I stated that in big desktops there's no harm from ps/2.

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.

I do understand that, but I don't understand what that has to do with what we are discussing here about?
Care to elaborate?

 

[therealseebs]

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.

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.

"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.

Yes. Although...

Long-term historically, Apple had a history of making things easier for naive users at the expense of extreme hostility to the needs or desires of non-naive users. OS X has mostly been a move away from that, but their new MBPs strike me as a bit of a step back towards that. Offering a militantly-simple experience is great if, and only if, all the things you want to do were represented in their focus groups.

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.)

I am in the unfortunate position of liking OS X but being outside Apple's main demographic these days.

----------

That's why I'm saying that 97% of usb ports were shipped in "windows pc world".

Not early on -- early on, many PCs didn't have USB.

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.

I can tell that you don't understand. Let me try to explain it.

In the absence of the Mac, it doesn't matter how many PCs ship with USB ports, because every PC ships with PS/2 ports. While the PC users could in theory buy a USB device:

1. Every PC user can also buy non-USB devices.
2. Most PC users already have devices that work.
3. The non-USB device will work with other PCs they may also have or still use sometimes.

So for the PC market, even if 90% of machines ship with a USB port, you're still better off selling PS/2 keyboards.

Enter the iMac. Suddenly, there is a new market. It's a small market, but in this market, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING can sell unless it is USB. Period. Every user in this market is in the market for USB devices. They cannot use non-USB devices. They will not prefer non-USB devices for compatibility, because a non-USB device won't work for their primary machine. They cannot continue using their old keyboards and mice.

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.

The difference is that, as you note, the PC market has lots of people with USB ports. And now, watch the magic:

When it was PS/2 vs. ADB, it was basically impossible to make a single device work with both, although you could sort of fake it up with a special switch and cabling (I had a keyboard which could do that).
When it was PS/2 vs. USB, suddenly you could get a keyboard that worked on your Mac and on your PC, because the PC had USB support too.

In the absence of the Mac, there was no advantage to USB really, and most people just kept getting PS/2 keyboards that worked with their old stuff.

But once the Mini showed up and created a market of people who would only buy USB, no matter what, there was a reason to make a bunch of USB stuff. And once you were making USB stuff, you could sell it to PC users too, because hey, they have USB ports. And the compatibility with the Mac became a selling point, and a reason for people to buy USB instead of PS/2 keyboards.

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.

 

[toke lahti]

Not early on -- early on, many PCs didn't have USB.

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?

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.

Even monolithic niche isn't always enough.
You know the situation of esata ec adapters for macs?
I don't believe that kb+mouse had any big impact on USB acceptance. Other accessories did it and for those iMac was too tiny niche.
When you buy a computer, you usually get kb+mouse with it. Usually they are not replaced for a few years. Usb had saturated the market somewhere around 2000 and most of iMac owners had never bought a 3rd party replacement kb+mouse at that time. Most people still buy only Apple's kb's, but the hockey puck mouse was so bad, that maybe Logitech sold quite many USB mouses by that time.
Anyway, I think that saying that USB wouldn't have succeeded if iMac owners didn't have to buy USB accessories is funny.
Because at the same time many times more USB accessories were sold to PC's even when they didn't have to buy them.
You got your iMac or pc and both already had kb+mouse, doesn't matter if they are USB or ps/2, you have them, they work ok and you are not running to the stores to replace them just because you saw Apple's ad about how nice USB is.
What you buy next is important and those accessories showed how nice USB was.
In mass marketing volumes count more than anything else, so mac's couldn't have real impact considering the sales numbers.
Maybe their ad campaign hightened the awareness of USB among the pc users, but that's it.
You could also say that Apple's software business is key their success, since it's niche, steady basis for all the other products, but we all know where the money comes...
Or you could even develop this "no choice means victory" theory in that if Apple dropped all other ports than tb from macs, tb would became huge success?

To me the most amazing thing about original iMac was how successfull 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)...

 

[FloatingBones]

When iMac shipped, most new pc's had usb. Next year all new pc's had usb.

"Had USB" is ambiguous. Many laptops and desktops did not use USB for their keyboards or mice for years in the future.

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?

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.

It's like FLASH on websites: FLASH would have eventually disappeared on its own: failures like the lack of accessibility made FLASH non-viable. But by never providing FLASH on its iOS browsers, Apple accelerated the process of the web becoming FLASH-free.

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.

Perhaps because you didn't understand the audience for the iMac: many were brand-new home computer users.

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)...

Mobile device? The iMac was a desktop computer.

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.

It made a mess when it landed. If you're going to make up numbers, say things like "it's my guess" or somesuch.

The real Apple market share was 3%.
That's why I'm saying that 97% of usb ports were shipped in "windows pc world".

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.

Funny that you have written so many times "1995 article" and you still do.

That's because Peter wrote his USB article in 1995. I have no idea what you are upset about.

But frankly iMacs didn't change anything in kb/mouse market in whole.

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.

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.

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.

Mac market share was (or still is, if you consider the real topic of this thread) too little to change the world.

Yes. You seem to believe that small market share automatically implies an equally small influence. That's why I brought up the power law: all sorts of examples where a small population in a dynamic system have a significant/dominant influence on the entire population. Most people don't ever deal with the power law in their formal education.

It is nice that Seebach is reading this by himself, so I'd prefer to hear his thoughts about my arguments.

He agrees with me: you don't understand his arguments.

No, I'm not claiming that and you know that.

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!

No, I didn't saw the explosion. Actually I saw very few of them. Most usb-cables were just normal gray, beige or black.

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'd like to hear at least one argument, why 33:1 ratio worked in this case.

Read Peter's article.

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.

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.

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 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.

I do understand that, but I don't understand what that has to do with what we are discussing here about?
Care to elaborate?

Many of Apple's strategic decisions have to do with what they remove from their product offerings. I mentioned Flash back in this message in the thread. Going Flash-free on iOS was controversial --- especially to Adobe -- but it turned out to be a correct and crucial decision for the iOS platform. The same applies to getting rid of those proprietary keyboard/mouse ports in the first iMac (1998). People who don't "think differently" have the most difficulty understanding these decisions. They have tremendous difficulty understanding the tremendous success of products like that original iMac, the iPhone, the iPad, etc.

Do you now understand why I mentioned the power law in this discussion?

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.

Apple ditched the wired ethernet connection from their new high-end skinny retina MBP today (and added a $29 TB to ethernet dongle). They also had to shave a bit of thickness from their MagSafe connector to have it fit on this machine.

I haven't heard anyone track laptop thickness in a Moore's Law fashion. That would be interesting...

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.)

macsales.com sells a bus-powered Thunderbolt to Expresscard/34 adapter box. They sell a variety of Expresscard cards -- including one that has a pair of FW 800 connections. That should get you started until you migrate your storage over to TB external drives, right?

I think you should be OK. That's a pretty inexpensive adapter for someone with external FW drives.

 

[toke lahti]

"Had USB" is ambiguous. Many laptops and desktops did not use USB for their keyboards or mice for years in the future.

My argument was that kb+mouse were irrelevant in usb adoption.
Do you read my answers at all? Any counter-arguments?

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.

It took less than year after iMac was launched, that all new pc's had usb.
After that pc market started adopting usb, not because Jobs told them, but because usb was faster, more compact, cheaper and universally compatible.
Far longer? How long is that? And any reasoning to support that?

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.

I told you to google it, but if you are too lazy for it, here's the link:
http://www.google.fi/url?sa=t&rct=j..._Zy5Aw&usg=AFQjCN***vtdAKUNDPhiRN_W3LI_x-vJPg

That's because Peter wrote his USB article in 1995. I have no idea what you are upset about.

You really mean that Peter wrote about iMacs in 1995?
I didn't know that you think he is clairvoyant.
The paper is dated 26 Apr 2005.

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.

No they didn't and I've told you why.
Maybe you should read my answers again and then have at least one real counter-argument.

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.

I'm saying that iMacs were too small to be tipping point.
Usb didn't succeed because iMac users bought 1 million usb peripherals, if pc users had bought 100 million peripherals that didn't use usb.

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!

Ps/2, serial or parallel ports are not proprietary.
All that Peter says is that "Even if USB is a better, more desirable piece of technology, it may not be more marketable than the alternatives!"
Now, where's the evidence?
Also, there's straight errors in the text:"The biggest market in 1998 was in serial and parallel ports (or joystick ports, PS/2 ports, and so on) -- there was no reason to target the USB market."
Yes there was lots of other reasons, which also have already stated in this thread. Usb was PnP and a lot faster than its predecessors. No need to tweak port settings like with serial & parallel.

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.

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.

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.

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.
And when you talks about efficiency, there should be also consideration of money. How much usb gives bang for a buck (like Gbit/s per $)? A whole lot more than TB ever will.

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.

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.

Lastly, if you want "simple and effective way to conduct a fact-based discussion here" stop repeating magic words "power law".
You just can't explain anything with that.
Give a claim or thesis how it worked here in this case and proove it!

 

[AidenShaw]

you have it backwards, sir

It took less than year after iMac was launched, that all new pc's had usb.

Most PCs were shipping with USB before the original Bondi-blue "Space Egg" Imac was released.

You are confusing "coincidence" with "cause and effect".

 

[toke lahti]

You are confusing "coincidence" with "cause and effect".

Me?

 

[twoodcc]

It would be better if it had another tb port

 

[Joseph Farrugia]

with no TB pass through

(ie: a second TB port), it looks like dead in the water…or is it?

I still am trying to figure out this dock.

 

[talmy]

(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 feel I had the answer to this question back on page 3:

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.

 

[MacNewsFix]

If memory serves, Steve Jobs said many years ago that, at the time of the iMac launch, a high ranking exec at Intel phoned him to personally thank him for endorsing USB by including it in the original iMac.

I've seen some argue that Apple's small marketshare at the time of the iMac launch had little influence on PC OEMs. Considering that shortly following the launch of the original bondi blue iMac, PC makers abandoned beige boxes and, to this day, are influenced by Apple (Ultrabooks = MacBook Airs) with its continually small (albeit growing) share of the overall computer market. Many PC hardware and software execs have gone on record stating that Apple sets trends and, ergo, has influence. If this point was mentioned earlier by others, apologies for being redundant.

BTW, Harry McCracken wrote a very good piece back in 2008 discussing technologies Apple has killed. I had forgotten how long the PC industry tends to support, as one frequent PC apologist describes things, "antiquated" technology.

 

[KPOM]

It would be better if it had another tb port

True, that would be nice, but perhaps it would be more expensive.

(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.

 

[Joseph Farrugia]

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.

Remember that users who opt for this will be utilizing this on the desktop;
there will be many, many of them who will be using external displays that are larger than Apple's HDMI implementation.

JF

 

[golf1410]

Looks good though when you flip it over.

 

[talmy]

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).

 

[Joseph Farrugia]

interesting……

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).

PCs or laptops or netbooks with a TB port, but lack a native audio, DVI, Ethernet or maybe even an extra USB port……these PCs are looking so much like the MBA

 

[InfiniteLoop]

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 USB 2.0? WTF? Why not have 3 x USB 3.0 which are compatible with USB 2.0 anyway?

I will hod out for much more affordable TB to eSata & USB 3.0 hub.

 

[Clint007]

Matrox mist the marketing...

No specs!!

In competition, i prefer the Rugged' Thunderbolt/USB 3.0 Portable Drives

http://www.lacie.com/us/products/product.htm?id=10599

 

[G51989]

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

They prefer those docks because those docks tend to be integrated very well with whatever machine is designed to go with them, hell years ago right out of college, so probably 05 I had a Dell dock for my latitude that would remember all my mouse and monitor settings for 3 displays + the laptop itself, it was also made very well, charged my laptop and had tons of IO ports.

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.

And its good for IT departments, because large ones don't buy computers by the dozen, or pallet, when we made the big upgrade on our campus to Windows 7 ( for the office workers and bean counters, I need mah workstation to always be up to date. ), They brought them in by the semi, I think they ended purchasing something like 9500 machines at once, and its MUCH easier to deal with 1 OEM, than it is with dozens.

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.

Large IT departments are a huge market, so they decide whats right.

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 **** ). Because my old Blackberry could go 2-3 DAYS without recharging, and I was more productive on it kuz of this thing called " buttons ". My 4S hardly makes it 16 hours before it needs to be plugged in.

 

[talmy]

No specs!!

In competition, i prefer the Rugged' Thunderbolt/USB 3.0 Portable Drives

The Matrox device is a docking station, not a portable drive. They aren't competing products.

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 **** ).

But Blackberries are fruit phones.

 

[theluggage]

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.

I used a Sony laptop dock like this for a while (before OSX grew up - never could stand 'classic' MacOS) and it was jolly convenient - just clip in the laptop and bingo. Pretty durable too - no plugs to pull out by the cable. Glad I didn't pay for it though...

Yes, there are 'universal' docks that use USB, but a USB 2.0 port is always going to be a bottleneck (plus a CPU drain) if you want to do much more than hook up a keyboard, mouse and printer.

 

[AidenShaw]

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.

The proprietary connectors have a big advantage over T-Bolt though - no need for extra PCIe "cards" in a typical dock.


Want audio input/output from a T-Bolt dock - put a PCIe sound controller in it.

Want eSATA in a T-Bolt dock - put a PCIe SATA controller in it.

Want USB in a T-Bolt dock - put a PCIe USB controller in it.

Want Ethernet in a T-Bolt dock - put a PCIe NIC in it.

With the typical proprietary dock (AKA "port replicator") all of these device controllers are already on the motherboard, and minimal electronics are needed (and no additional drivers for the ports).

 

[FloatingBones]

They prefer those docks because those docks tend to be integrated very well with whatever machine is designed to go with them,

That's the point: times are a-changing. In the deep dark ages, monitors and keyboards were manufacturer-specific. If TB docks work with every computer with a TB port, why wouldn't the be a superior solution.

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.

Why do you presume that TB docks won't "just work"?

Large IT departments are a huge market, so they decide whats right.

That's the way it used to be. Large IT departments were infatuated with Blackberries. They were unwilling to allow iPad connection or (gasp!) allow employees to use iPhones or Android phones. Do you know any IT department that hasn't bowed to the will of their customers -- allowing iPads?