Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
the only real downside I can see to this whole TB thing is their statement on needing a whole new computer/mobo. The fact that you can't even somehow retroactively add a TB connection (even at a slower speed) to existing hardware is going to mean that TB probably won't be in my house for another 2-4 years. We have very new macs and they aren't being replaced anytime soon.
But did you add FW800 to your existing Macs when it came out or did you wait until your normal upgrade path finally led to FW800-equipped Macs? If the latter is true, there is no difference to TB and FW800 or any other interface technology for that matter.
And that begs the question: am I going to pay more for peripherals that support TB in the mean time? Nope. In reality if all I can use are USB and FW800 that's where my money will go.
So, you will keep buying non-TB harddrives until the day your new Mac with TB arrives, from which day on you will be kicking yourself for not having bought TB peripherals? (I do not mean not to wait a year or so for prices to come down, that makes perfectly sense.)
However, I think it could be a slow process for a lot of people like me who are perfectly satisfied with USB 2.0.
And that probably explains everything, of course, if you are fine with USB 2 vs. FW800, the benefits of faster connections (and daisy-chaining), FW800 being about twice as fast as USB 2, are not important enough for you to spend too much thought, or even worse, money on it.

Likely, the key difference between people that care about interface speed and those that do not, is whether you use external storage only for backups or whether you actually work with data on external storage.
 
Thunderbolt and Lightpeak (very, very frightening)

My 2p-worth (for what it's worth, probably less than 2p :))

No addon cards: Maybe they will eventually come as 3rd party. But at the speed that TB runs at, I can't see a PCIe card being able to keep up. It'll need the controller chip wired directly into the CPU and memory bus at a very low level surely, hence the claim that it would need a new motherboard. Maybe it's possible to run it at a lower speed over the PCIe bus, but then who will be responsible if TB devices don't work properly? Therefore I can't see Intel, Apple or any major computer vendor producing these as official solutions. It may be possible (but probably not cost effective) for Apple to release a new MacPro logic board though?

Security: Saw a report earlier talking about it being insecure (like firewire) because of the architecture and giving direct access (presumably by target mode in their FW example of hacking into a locked down machine). Fortunately full disk encryption would reduce the risk of a malicious device being able to pull stuff from the disk directly via some future target-mode equivalent, unless it can read/write directly to memory of a running system, but surely they've considered that sort of thing....?

Cables: Yes, presumably the optical cables will be more expensive if they have the optical hardware in rather than in the interface. However I can't see there'll be any significant speed difference of optical over copper, as the local interface is copper, so the only real need for the optical cables will be for longer distance runs (like with networking - runs of 100m or so are fine with copper gigabit, several km requires fibre). For most standard setups, a copper cable should be fine...

Would be nice to have standard connector for everything although that does still depend on how Intel license it. If they start charging extortionate fees or denying access to it to competitors such as AMD then the market will be fragmented and the advantages will be reduced.
I also cannot see it (for the forseeable future) replacing all other cable types. There's no technical reason why it couldn't be used for networking for example, except that no company will want to ditch their existing equipment and cabling infrastructure and replace it all with expensive optical cables which require new cable ducts that don't have tight bends, etc etc.

But great for simply plugging peripherals together!

Steve.
 
That and the fact that Thunderbolt uses a display line in addition to the PCIe line to the controller.
The problem is that TB combines both PCIe lanes and a DP signal. And the DP signal went through the graphic card first. Any add-on card would thus need to include a graphic card or be fed the graphic card output. And since the data-carrying PCIe line and the graphic card signal with the current motherboard architecture must come from different PCIe lanes, I do not know whether combining them again in TB add-on card would be possible while keeping all that time syncronisation in-tact.
 
So that would mean that I could theoretically use two external screens plus the screen on my macbook pro to get 3 different screens showing three different things at one time.
You'd still need a graphic card pumping out enough pixels to support them.
 
if the new "battery-testing-procedure" is closer to a real world usage scenario, why don't they test the older models and them compare battery life?

In my eyes this always means the numbers are less favorable and Apple is just not man enough to admit that the huge performance improvement comes at a cost. Unless proven otherwise I declare them *******!
 
I am curious when the Pegasus R6 (or R4) are going to be available - I don't see them anywhere except described on the Promise.com website. That is the RAID he is using in the video. I'd also be interested in knowing if it was RAID 5, 0, 1 etc.

( http://www.promise.com/storage/raid_series.aspx?region=en-US&m=574&rsn1=40&rsn3=47 )

When the Mac Pro's arrive with TB, I expect those will sell quickly - and maybe even for the MBPs.
 
question, in order for the thunderbolt to transfer up to 800 megs a sec from an array to the Macbook, does the HD inside the Macbook Pro need to be an SSD since it's a lot quicker than HDD or does that not matter?
 
Well no PCIe expansion card sucks, but is not that tragic for me. It will be quite some time until peripheral makers start producing stuff, especially since this is not going mainstream before 2012. And who knows, there might be a 3rd party sollution for a TB expansion card, so one can use the connection but at a slower speed than with a newer motherboard/computer.

What I'm wondering is, since this is also Apples new display connection, when there is a '11 Mac Pro with new gpu options, will I be able to upgrade to these in my '10 Mac Pro? If not, that would be really frustrating.
 
[/I]Always sticking it to the Mac Pro guys.... :mad:

I'm willing to bet a million dollars Apple asked Intel to purposely block implementation into PCIe cards, in order to force Mac Pro owners to upgrade.

Thanks for nothing, Intel/Apple.

Wow, really? I bet Apple came over to your house and kicked your dog too.
 
if the new "battery-testing-procedure" is closer to a real world usage scenario, why don't they test the older models and them compare battery life?

In my eyes this always means the numbers are less favorable and Apple is just not man enough to admit that the huge performance improvement comes at a cost. Unless proven otherwise I declare them *******!

You're a pussie. They did.

http://www.apple.com/macbook/specs.html

Just in case you were wondering, this was previously a 10h battery. Either they went to every 2010 macbook owner's home and changed the battery or they actually lowered their own estimate of the battery's longevity.
 
Last edited:
2 things.
1. Did it bother anyone else that he kept saying megabytes per second, instead of megabits?
2. Will you be able to go into Target Disk Mode, like you can with FW, with Thunderbolt? Target Disk Mode is insanely valuable when we do troubleshooting on our Mac's at work. The early 2008 (Collector's Edition, :D) Macbooks make some work harder due to their lack of FW. If this can replace FW and it's functionality, as well as USB, I say go for it.

One Cable to Rule Them All! :eek:
 
In regards to that 4.5GB file transfer...I think I need to change my pants...<drooooool> I deal with 10-15 GB video files on a daily basis, Thunderbolt is going to make archiving, transferring and rendering my bitch. :cool:
 
2 things.
1. Did it bother anyone else that he kept saying megabytes per second, instead of megabits?

No. When you're talking about file transfer speeds, megabytes per second is a much more useful measure. The megabits per second spec of the interface doesn't tell you anything about overhead.

2. Will you be able to go into Target Disk Mode, like you can with FW, with Thunderbolt? Target Disk Mode is insanely valuable when we do troubleshooting on our Mac's at work. The early 2008 (Collector's Edition, :D) Macbooks make some work harder due to their lack of FW. If this can replace FW and it's functionality, as well as USB, I say go for it.

Can't find the article I was reading but apparently target mode is supported.
 
You're a pussie. They did.

http://www.apple.com/macbook/specs.html

Just in case you were wondering, this was previously a 10h battery. Either they went to every 2010 macbook owner's home and changed the battery or they actually lowered their own estimate of the battery's longevity.

Sorry... but where do they compare battery life of prior MBP to the battery endurance of the new ones using THE SAME TESTING METHODOLOGY? Still don't see it!
 
glossy mess

Watching that demo, again, proves why I spend the extra dollars to get antiglare screens and no longer buy apple displays.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; nl-nl) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

As they claim this is forward and backward compatible. Will this thunderbolt port be compatible and use the 25Gbps and scalable 100Gbps optic cables that intel was/is aiming at?
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

Why no comment on apple as to prices rising? That infuriates me.
 
That's because

It is actually MegaBYTES per second they were measuring and not MegaBITS.

Does any one else wonder how well the current disks inside a Macbook pro even with them being SSD could saturate this port?

Surely it can't copy files from one macbook to another (even if both equipped with SSDS) at anywhere near 700 MBPS?
 
In regards to that 4.5GB file transfer...I think I need to change my pants...<drooooool> I deal with 10-15 GB video files on a daily basis, Thunderbolt is going to make archiving, transferring and rendering my bitch. :cool:

I'm wondering though, if you have a 15gig file on your SSD enabled MBP, you wont be able to transfer it out even to a very fast storage solution at that speed, that read speed of the SSD and the write speed of the target storage disk will limit this well below what we are seeing here between RAM i guess and a RAID unit!
 
Wow again hopefully all the complainers about the battery can at least stop complaining for a minute and breath.

Breathe.

Take a breath and breathe.

the only real downside I can see to this whole TB thing is their statement on needing a whole new computer/mobo. The fact that you can't even somehow retroactively add a TB connection (even at a slower speed) to existing hardware is going to mean that TB probably won't be in my house for another 2-4 years. We have very new macs and they aren't being replaced anytime soon.

And that begs the question: am I going to pay more for peripherals that support TB in the mean time? Nope. In reality if all I can use are USB and FW800 that's where my money will go.

I'm not saying this is a failure, as plenty of people with a TB connection will adopt peripherals that utilize it. However, I think it could be a slow process for a lot of people like me who are perfectly satisfied with USB 2.0.

Unfortunately, those of us who have limited funds cannot afford to upgrade to a new computer just to take advantage of Thunderbolt. It's too bad there is not a method of adding a card that will enable our Mac Pros to achieve those speeds.

And if you buy a new MacBook Pro with Thunderbolt and have an older model, I doubt you would be able to take full advantage of the faster speeds of Thunderbolt when transferring files between them.

The point here is that most of us don't have a need for that speed because most of us don't work with extremely large files.

Much the same can be said about USB 3.

From the MacWorld article:

Does Thunderbolt support Target Disk Mode and Migration Assistant?

On the new MacBook Pro models, you can use Target Disk Mode over a computer-to-computer Thunderbolt connection. (We assume this will be the case with future Thunderbolt-equipped Macs, as well.) However, Mac OS X’s Migration Assistant software doesn’t currently support Thunderbolt connections.
 
The amount of people here saying they were getting 10 hours on here were laughable. Now how do you feel when even Apple says those numbers were complete and utter BS. These new tests aren't even representative either I'll bet no websites with flash were used or downloading files. Who doesn't download something nowadays.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.