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.
ThunderBolt Products Starting to Roll Out at NAB
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Question:
Where is the new FCP?
Did Apple take the stage at this event or didn't they? I find it odd MR hasn't reported on it yet... or... IDK, when would Apple take the stage? It seems like it's an early morning company to me, not an evening-going-into-night company.
But like, if Apple never took the stage, I'd say it's newsworthy given there were a good deal of rumors saying that they would.
Where is the new FCP?
Did Apple take the stage at this event or didn't they? I find it odd MR hasn't reported on it yet... or... IDK, when would Apple take the stage? It seems like it's an early morning company to me, not an evening-going-into-night company.
But like, if Apple never took the stage, I'd say it's newsworthy given there were a good deal of rumors saying that they would.
So aesthetics is the issue. Interesting. Well, I suppose recognizing the label to differentiate between the mini-DisplayPort and ThunderBolt ports would be a good step (a lot of people often mis-guess the USB connection). I realize it's a in a format similar to the mini-DisplayPort, however could this change? Either way, if that's their excuse it seems fairly thin.
Thanks, just saw it.
Kind of surprised it's such a late thing... doesn't Apple tend to do events at 10 AM, not 10 PM? (I guess it's still only 7 PM on their coast... still, isn't it time to go home by now for their employees?)
Let's look at it a different way...
Almost every residential building in NYC has 1/4" to 1/2" (diameter) copper water pipes for their city water service... Even skyscrapers are mostly fitted with similar sized pipes for 99% of it's living spaces.. So, why is NYC paying billions of dollars to have a 24 feet diameter water pipe constructed to bring water down from the reservoirs or why build a 12+ lane super-highway when a car is only one lane in width?
B_A_N_D_W_I_D_T_H B_A_B_Y!!
Usage of TB technology is not restricted to a single user (device) at a time... TB is very much like a the PCI bus found in modern PC's, cept it's all done on a much smaller interconnect... It's really very sweet you can literally have 3 or 4 monitors running off of it as well as accessing a very high speed NAS and reading from a bluray drive (not playing from it ... but thats not the fault of TB)... It can literally have EVERYTHING and ANYTHING plugged into it.... Well put it this way... if something can be engineered to operate in a PCI slot... It'll work just fine as a TB device.
Last edited:
NO - it does state that Apple had a major role - don't have the interest to get into a tech crunch vs engadget pi$$ing match as to which one is correct BUT there are some articles CITING the point.
Pricing would be crazy. I wonder if this would change when more manufacturers make Thunderbolt ports.
Last edited:
Again, the chosen word was "envisionned". This is purely an Intel tech that Apple had a big role in. The way Chuppa Chuppa initially phrased it reversed the roles, making this an Apple tech that Intel was tasked with implementing.
I have no qualm with Apple's big role in the tech, but they didn't "envision" it at all and to claim as such is to rewrite history.
Both of you have yet to provide evidence to the contrary.
Quoted from the Engadget article "Engadget has learned -- thanks to an extremely reliable source -- that not only is Apple complicit in the development of Light Peak, but the company actually brought the concept to Intel and asked them to create it"
You are looking at the "evidence" but refuse to see it. No idea if it is accurate - but it is in print.
No offence, I can easily disregard anything coming from Engadget.
One more source and I'm in.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/
None taken - I'm just posting a "citation" that comments on Apple's major role - might be accurate - might be wrong.
None taken - I'm just posting a "citation" that comments on Apple's major role - might be accurate - might be wrong.
Do you trust Wikipedia?
In fact the line above this one on Wikipedia says: Everything I've read that is sourced to Intel says an add-on card won't be possible. It's my guess that the integration for Thunderbolt needs to be deeper than an PCI Express card, especially with its capability to carry video/data. It may be that Intel does not want people confused by data-only Thunderbolt ports. OTOH, I'm not a Thunderbolt engineer, so I may be completely mistaken.
Technical issues aside - odds are that Apple would rather sell you a new Mac Pro with Thunderbolt onboard.
Sorry, refuse to see what ? You posted a TechCrunch article which refuted itself. You did not post an engadget story. What am I refusing to see exactly ? I'm reading the links you supplied. Supply links that at least support your position next time, and I won't "refuse to see it" like you say.
Next, your Engadget article was refuted. Hardly justification to propose as fact that apple "envisionned" anything as far as Thunderbolt goes.
I'm not questioning that they played a role, be it major or minor, I'm questioning the importance Chuppa is giving Apple which his choice of "envision". All history of TB points to the contrary. Your engadget article is the first to say that Apple envisionned it and it was quickly refuted.
So again : Citation Needed.
That would mean video onboard too. Which would not be completly dumb since the MP also plays the role of the Xserve now, and that some usages don't need a powerful gpu. For those usages that need one (or two), the PCIe slots are there, and the onboard Thunderbolt port(s) could be used as data port(s) only.
The other way, is to release graphics cards including Thunderbolt port(s), and since Apple offers only a couple of them for the MP, it shouldn't be that complicated, especially when future Xeon SB cpus will offer 24/40 PCIe 3.0 lanes per cpu. A 16x PCIe 3.0 slot could accomodate 16x 2.0 lanes for the gpu itself and up to 16x 2.0 lanes for Thunderbolt controllers...
I think that Intel wants Thunderbolt to carry video no matter what, that's, I believe, the reason why they said "no PCIe upgrade card" for existing computers. Someone can probably make a 16x PCIe 2.0 combo card with gpu + Thunderbolt, but the gpu would have to be connected thru only 8x lanes with 4x/8x lanes for the Thunderbolt port(s). Maybe it's a good idea, maybe it's not... Technically, there's no reason why it can't be done.
In any case, Intel will release Thunderbolt's Developer Kits this quarter, so more technical info will be available, and some questions may be answered.
Cool it down.
It is possible that Apple 'dictated'. It is possible that intel did it on their own. No one has a concrete answer to this. So it's better to let it go.
Cool what down ? Are you proposing my post was made out of anger ? Written text has no emotionality.
It is possible indeed, hence why I'm asking for citations to what someone posted as fact, rather than as a possibility. Citation to support the fact still has not been provided.
Then it has no meaning.
Honestly, that's a very stupid thing you said.
He did provide citation for the same; the engadget article.
But due to its inception being an Engadget based article, I wouldn't base any conclusions on that.
But yes, he did cite the argument.
Do you trust Wikipedia?
Everything I've read that is sourced to Intel says an add-on card won't be possible. It's my guess that the integration for Thunderbolt needs to be deeper than an PCI Express card, especially with its capability to carry video/data. It may be that Intel does not want people confused by data-only Thunderbolt ports. OTOH, I'm not a Thunderbolt engineer, so I may be completely mistaken.
Technical issues aside - odds are that Apple would rather sell you a new Mac Pro with Thunderbolt onboard.
I am not a Thunderbolt engineer either...in fact, it is interesting (and odd) that Intel is only now announcing the availability of a TB developer kit.
Do you trust the Wiki? While a grain of salt is advisable, I merely reference the item. It does seem to me, however, that the line you reference is talking about a non-GPU PCIe card. I had posted an earlier comment referencing the Intel position that there could not be a TB card (because TB must directly access both the graphics processor and the PCIe lanes). This means that there will not be a simple TB add-on card like adding a FW800/USB 2 card in the past.
The line I referenced seems to indicate that it would be possible for a TB controller to be on a graphics card (and thereby gaining direct access to the GPU) and have direct access to the PCIe lane(s) in which the "TB enabled Graphics Card" is mounted with true (video and data) TB port(s) on the outside.
Would Apple prefer to sell you a new machine? Of course they would. Apple have a well established, if nasty, pattern of abandoning the purchasers of earlier hardware to their fate (not co-incidentally, it is one of the arguments against the use of the Mac platform frequently aired by the PC community).
I believe I mentioned third party developers. If not I do so now. It would be an interesting project for a third party manufacturer to integrate a TB controller and associated ports onto a graphics card that is otherwise the same as a supported graphics card so that it would be recognized by the OS.
Whether Apple have tied access to the TB ports in some bizarre manner which would make this impossible only some clever engineers would know after looking at the new OS & hardware implementation. Apple probably could not care less, but it is a market opportunity for somebody nonetheless.
The reason for the earlier reference to the data only possibility is the reality that external storage for Mac Pros is severely hampered by the lack of a fast interface unless one has made the transition to fibre.
A good RAID array could challenge the current TB bandwidth, but I doubt anyone would complain too loudly considering the lack of alternatives and the degree of improvement over the status quo.
Cheers
Wait, for something to have meaning it must have emotions attached to it ? Whatever happened to cold objective debate ?
Meaning is derived from the content, not from the emotions behind the statements. We're in a debate of facts, not in a subjective discussion. Emotionality has no place in the text.
Or am I not understanding what you mean here ? My post was objective in that I was not refusing to view the evidence, I just found his evidence to be contradictory and self-refuting and thus not applicable. I stated it as such and further explained when told I was "refusing to see" something that just wasn't there to begin with.
There was nothing to "cool down".
His statement was not an argument. It was as a fact. And the Engadget article is not a citation to support the fact since it has been refuted by CNET, according to the very source AppleCorps used initially, TechCrunch.
That's not what I meant. You're trying to mix things up now. All you said was:
'Written text has no emotionality.'
You sounded as if it were a general statement or a fact which is absolutely false.
The only reason why I said 'cool down' was because he did mention in his last post that his citation isn't consistent with any fact. And then you...
He did rest his argument down, but you didn't.
Cool down *.
*Conditions Apply.
- Only if you haven't already.
- Only if you were 'cooled' down in the first place.
Read the article and links - it is all there - you continue to refuse to see it. As I stated in my earlier post - not getting into who is correct or who has refuted who - just saying info is out there giving Apple credit for pushing / envisioning / whatever the lightpeak approach.