The best docking system EVER was called Duo Dock...from Apple.
As for this release by Matrox, the only thing one can say is:
ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Matrox Announces DS-1 Thunderbolt Docking Station for $249
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The best docking system EVER was called Duo Dock...from Apple.
As for this release by Matrox, the only thing one can say is:
ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT.
The key word you both missed from my query was interoperable. Lenovo has provided a dock for [some] Lenovo laptops; Dell has produced a dock for [some] Dell laptops. AFAIK, no company has provided a solution to provide all connections through a single generic dock.
Intel's Thunderbolt is available for anyone who wishes to license it. Apple announced back in 2008 that its mini displayport tech is freely available for licensing for anyone who requests it.
Apple provides Thunderbolt ports on all of its Macs except for the (unportable) Mac Pro (and that deficiency should be addressed with a model refresh). Any current Apple machine that users will be traveling with can be serviced through Thunderbolt docks like the Matrox. My point is that a Thunderbolt-capable drop-in facility makes far more sense than one for any of those manufacturer-specific model-specific laptop docks.
Those manufacturers have provided proprietary and model-specific solutions. They have never addressed -- never attempted to address -- the problem of a single generic port that could be used for the display, storage, and networking needs of all traveling users. Those proprietary docks that have been around "since the last century" are not part of the solution; they are part of the precipitant.
A drop-in facility that hosted the Noah's Ark of all of the proprietary docks would be a non-starter; I certainly haven't seen any in this century or the last.Thunderbolt through mini displayport offers something new -- for all mobile users. Drop-in facilities could offer premium services based on this single generic peripheral technology. That is the point.
Yes, it is, considering how many people were angry about the possible loss of gigabit Ethernet in the MBP.
Meh
Lack of a TB port is the non-starter, but the lack of HDMI and FW800 slams the door. The presence of USB2 ports is mystifying when USB3 is backward compatible. I hope the Maxtor comes down in price.
Lack of a TB port is the non-starter, but the lack of HDMI and FW800 slams the door. The presence of USB2 ports is mystifying when USB3 is backward compatible. I hope the Maxtor comes down in price.
still cheaper than buying a new mac
What's a "new" Mac?
You mean an old Mac in a sealed box?
=)
I want to see one device in the $100 range.
Just FW, USB3, and an ADDITIONAL TB... Ethernet if it's being dropped from the MBP.
Hopefully Apple gets the gist, and is sticking 2x Thunderbolt ports in every new build. I'd want one on each side of the MBP.
Is it possible/will we ever see a Thunderbolt-->FW or USB3 cable? Just the cable, no stupid dangling attachments needed, what a world that would be.
I like how they included every advanced interface into that thing.
Because it wouldn't make much sense without HDMI/MDP/DP, more than one USB 3.0, FW800 TB daisy chaining or eSATA.
So I think the price is remotely okay from a standpoint of knowing you always get ripped off with TB.
Oh wait
Glassed Silver:mac
Because it wouldn't make much sense without HDMI/MDP/DP, more than one USB 3.0, FW800 TB daisy chaining or eSATA.
So I think the price is remotely okay from a standpoint of knowing you always get ripped off with TB.
Oh wait
Glassed Silver:mac
I hear you. Either mandate all devices have 2 ports to be licensed, or spec thunderbolt to work with hubs like USB. It's an annoying catch with thunderbolt if you plan on using an older display.
Apparently you need pictures to be noticed!
HDMI, USB 3.0, blue ray and Radeon 6650M 1GB video card, all for $350.
Of course, if you really want to put things in perspective, you can also buy these for $300.
I'll tell you what, simply make a box with 2 thunderbolt ports to allow daisy chaining, esata & USB 3 ports and I will buy one. The iMacs already has everything else, and will bring a 2011 iMac ports up to whatever is released in 2012.
No grasping of the daisy-chain capabilities of Thunderbolt, no cash.
Seriously, $240 buys you a lot of USB hubs "for mice and keyboards" and Mini-DisplayPort to HDMI adaptors.
Seriously, $240 buys you a lot of USB hubs "for mice and keyboards" and Mini-DisplayPort to HDMI adaptors.
Amazing
By all appearances the Matrox DS1 is sporting a dual-link DVI-I connector. There are a lot of very expensive displays in the wild that support dual-link DVI, and it is the one interface you can't convert to from DisplayPort with a sub $10 adapter. DP to dual-link DVI adapters need an external power source and generally run about $90 or more. Converting from DVI to HDMI is trivial, and Matrox lists HDMI support in their tech sheet, so the adapter is most likely included.
This is the first Thunderbolt device to include USB 3.0, and everyone is bashing it. I'm confused. Every other article about a Thunderbolt device to date has elicited hundreds of comments stating, "No USB 3.0, no way," or "If this had USB 3.0 I'd buy it in a second." Instead this thread has become the best evidence on the interwebs to counter the perennial argument that FireWire is dead. Seriously, the way most people talk about it, you'd think every person who has ever owned a piece of FireWire gear took the time to personally post their discontent with the DS1. This is especially odd because the only Mac that has Thunderbolt and not FireWire is the MacBook Air. So I guess a lot of MBA owners feel really strongly about FireWire but still bought a Mac without it...
The lack of a second Thunderbolt port on this device is very odd, because the only Thunderbolt controllers identified thus far that have a DisplayPort source (to allow for video output) are 4-channel variants. Thus there was no cost savings as far as the controller goes by opting for a single Thunderbolt port.
The lack of a second USB 3.0 port is also odd, because I'm not aware of any single port USB 3.0 host controllers on the market (they all tend to be 2 or 4 port). The inclusion of USB 2.0 does make sense, because these ports will still function on a system that does not have driver support for SuperSpeed USB, which would be the vast majority of them at this point.
edit: There is the Fresco Logic FL1000 single port USB 3.0 host controller, which Matrox may well have used here in conjunction with a four port USB 2.0 hub. The FL1000 only provides a PCIe 1.1 x1 back end though—super weak.
By all appearances the Matrox DS1 is sporting a dual-link DVI-I connector. There are a lot of very expensive displays in the wild that support dual-link DVI, and it is the one interface you can't convert to from DisplayPort with a sub $10 adapter. DP to dual-link DVI adapters need an external power source and generally run about $90 or more. Converting from DVI to HDMI is trivial, and Matrox lists HDMI support in their tech sheet, so the adapter is most likely included.
This is the first Thunderbolt device to include USB 3.0, and everyone is bashing it. I'm confused. Every other article about a Thunderbolt device to date has elicited hundreds of comments stating, "No USB 3.0, no way," or "If this had USB 3.0 I'd buy it in a second." Instead this thread has become the best evidence on the interwebs to counter the perennial argument that FireWire is dead. Seriously, the way most people talk about it, you'd think every person who has ever owned a piece of FireWire gear took the time to personally post their discontent with the DS1. This is especially odd because the only Mac that has Thunderbolt and not FireWire is the MacBook Air. So I guess a lot of MBA owners feel really strongly about FireWire but still bought a Mac without it...
The lack of a second Thunderbolt port on this device is very odd, because the only Thunderbolt controllers identified thus far that have a DisplayPort source (to allow for video output) are 4-channel variants. Thus there was no cost savings as far as the controller goes by opting for a single Thunderbolt port.
The lack of a second USB 3.0 port is also odd, because I'm not aware of any single port USB 3.0 host controllers on the market (they all tend to be 2 or 4 port). The inclusion of USB 2.0 does make sense, because these ports will still function on a system that does not have driver support for SuperSpeed USB, which would be the vast majority of them at this point.
edit: There is the Fresco Logic FL1000 single port USB 3.0 host controller, which Matrox may well have used here in conjunction with a four port USB 2.0 hub. The FL1000 only provides a PCIe 1.1 x1 back end though—super weak.
Last edited:
Exactly! If you're gonna do it... do it right!
The Belkin dock is missing some things... and so is this Matrox dock.
Maybe someone will build the "kitchen sink" dock.
I mean... why not? One dock to rule them all!
I didn't own a computer in those times, but what I do remember is the past decade when USB did pretty much everything, and it always was really cheap, too.
Can't they just keep making connections faster while keeping the same price? I mean they do that with CPUs, hard drive space, and everything that Moore's Law applies to, so why not ports?
The key word you both missed from my query was interoperable. Lenovo has provided a dock for [some] Lenovo laptops; Dell has produced a dock for [some] Dell laptops. AFAIK, no company has provided a solution to provide all connections through a single generic dock.
Intel's Thunderbolt is available for anyone who wishes to license it. Apple announced back in 2008 that its mini displayport tech is freely available for licensing for anyone who requests it.
Those manufacturers have provided proprietary and model-specific solutions. They have never addressed -- never attempted to address -- the problem of a single generic port that could be used for the display, storage, and networking needs of all traveling users. Those proprietary docks that have been around "since the last century" are not part of the solution; they are part of the precipitant.
First point. The Matrox and Belkin are not a dock. In PC parlance they would be Port Replicators, although that's not entirely appropriate here as they don't replicate the ports - they reproduce Ethernet and Audio and expand with USB 3.0 in the case of the Matrox. Port Extender is probably the most appropriate term in my book.
Assuming for a second that there was a suitable interface for a single connection port replicator prior to Thunderbolt (hint - there wasn't) its not in the interests of Lenovo/Dell/<insert OEM here> to offer one. They want to lock corporates into their ecosystem so they keep buying their hardware. It's hardly any different to Apple really.
The closest OEMs like Lenovo/Toshiba got to an *interoperable* solution was USB 2.0 port replicators and they sucked. USB 2.0 is quite unsuitable for high bandwidth interfaces like video and ethernet.
All the business Lenovo's fit the standard dock now. They did 10+ years ago in the last days of IBM, and Lenovo stopped doing it for a while after they took over. They soon got the message from the corporate customers and mended their ways.
Thunderbolt came to the Mac what - one year ago ?
To this day, there are virtually no devices, adapters, connectors and such that make TB a viable solution for anything .
Make no mistake; the pricing, at this point , does not depend on production costs - if anyone in the industry was interested in promoting it , there'd be plenty of options by now .
TB looks like the proverbial stepchild right now .
Big bucks for tech that isn't halfway where it promised to be , and supported by nobody .
3-5 years till it's usable in a wide scale , I think, and chances are the much inferior USB 3.0 has taken over by then .
To this day, there are virtually no devices, adapters, connectors and such that make TB a viable solution for anything .
Make no mistake; the pricing, at this point , does not depend on production costs - if anyone in the industry was interested in promoting it , there'd be plenty of options by now .
TB looks like the proverbial stepchild right now .
Big bucks for tech that isn't halfway where it promised to be , and supported by nobody .
3-5 years till it's usable in a wide scale , I think, and chances are the much inferior USB 3.0 has taken over by then .
Yes! This to START!
A high end version should be an external HDD/SSD/ODD that also serves as a hub. Let's use these 10GBit dual channels folks!
Aiden may have beat me to it, but the concept of a dock, especially high end ones have been around for at least a decade or more. The one Aiden points to is the one for the Dell Latitude, and there is a smaller one for the Dell M6600 that's more a quickie one to get two additional monitors including the one in your laptop . . . sorta like the MBP with two TBolt displays. It sells for $130.
Last edited:
I have to ask, what is all this about "no ESATA, no go" stuff? Who really uses ESATA? As far as I know, that connection never took off. USB 2/3 is where it's at. Firewire 400/800 is also up there. ESATA seems antiquated at this point. Maybe I'm missing something?
We all understand there's a difference. Why do you think it's important? Does anyone really prefer these legacy proprietary manufacturer-specific docks?
Note: none of the docks really cover what Intel has done with Thunderbolt. They have essentially extended the internal bus to external boxes: network, storage, and video.
Correct. That's why none of the older names really describe what these thunderbolt replicators do.
Also correct -- at least for now. It would take a manufacturer whose highest priority was the customer experience to structure their architecture this way. At some point in the future, manufacturers may be required to provide thunderbolt support -- because their customers demand it.
Incorrect. Apple's strategy is completely different. They provide a bus that allows third parties to get high-performance storage, video, and networking through thunderbolt. They don't sell any docks at all.
Bingo. This is a wholly new beast.
But they don't fit the Dells, or HPs, or Psystars. OTOH, if/when Lenovo starts providing Thunderbolt, they won't have any need for these proprietary docks.
Yes, the part you are missing is price. A drive with eSATA is cheaper than many FW800 devices at times and offers twice the speed up to 3Gbps. There's no need for a bridge since it's the external version of SATA. The SATA 6G version is said to double that.
Not as fast as TBolt, but a whole heck of a lot cheaper.
The Dell D-series docks are interoperable among all D-series laptops. The E-series replaced the D-series in 2009, and is still current. The E-series docks work with most systems from 2009 and later.
...and the kicker:
LOL - what could be more proprietary than T-Bolt?
How many systems have T-Bolt? Some Apples from the last year. Big whoop.
Try to separate the reality from the hype.
Actually, T-Bolt would have a 6 Gbps PCIe SATA controller on the disk side, so it could be no faster than eSATA 6 Gbps.
(And possibly a bit slower, since some insane manager at Intel decided to put DisplayPort traffic on the T-Bolt lanes.)
T-Bolt 1.0 is DOA - and most people realize it.
Wait for T-Bolt 2.0 with actual support for optical links, and the elimination of the stupid requirement to share the line with DisplayPort signals.
Last edited:
Yeah! I don't remember that either. From their page:
Now THAT looks a whole lot better. I didn't see pricing and it says "September 2012".
Last edited: