yeah.. firewire has been my main cable for moving data around between different computers and drives.. for at least a decade.
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.
TB - is it the future?
- Thread starter Varmann
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
yeah.. firewire has been my main cable for moving data around between different computers and drives.. for at least a decade.
At least with that quote we _know_ that the unit has been misspelled. The only problem: We don't know whether "gigabites" is a misspelling of "gigabytes" or "gigabits".
I wish FW400 had morphed into fw800 like USB Has kept backwards comparability.
If TB was using FW400 cables and had maintained backwards comparability they would have a much stronger case.
"Buy this, it's the connector of the future" then "nope, get this one instead, it's the connector TO the future!!" Followed by " ok, those were wrong, but we've finally got it right, this one really IS the right one"
Meanwhile USB still looks the same but has gotten much faster. And is definitely the popular choice.
If TB was using FW400 cables and had maintained backwards comparability they would have a much stronger case.
"Buy this, it's the connector of the future" then "nope, get this one instead, it's the connector TO the future!!" Followed by " ok, those were wrong, but we've finally got it right, this one really IS the right one"
Meanwhile USB still looks the same but has gotten much faster. And is definitely the popular choice.
My MBP has a thunderbolt port that hasn't been used once since its was bought 18 months ago. It's been a huge red herring personally speaking. The peripherals and cables are expensive and hard to come by.
The problem as far as I see it is this. Apple see TB as a technology that allows for a modular approach in system build and usage. This helps them build small compact, sealed units which they obviously have a penchant for. But for TB to really take off, mainstream PCs need to adopt it but there isn't the same need: PC workstations have PCIE slots for new or additional GPUs, ample bays for hard drives & storage and then USB 3 to deal with miscellaneous peripheral requirements. There just doesn't seem to be the same need for TB in PC land and without that, there isn't the volume sales potential to bring the price down.
I'm fed up with all the talk of what TB promises. Give me real peripherals at a fair price and maybe I'll look at it again but right now my TB port is about as useful as a chocolate teapot.
The problem as far as I see it is this. Apple see TB as a technology that allows for a modular approach in system build and usage. This helps them build small compact, sealed units which they obviously have a penchant for. But for TB to really take off, mainstream PCs need to adopt it but there isn't the same need: PC workstations have PCIE slots for new or additional GPUs, ample bays for hard drives & storage and then USB 3 to deal with miscellaneous peripheral requirements. There just doesn't seem to be the same need for TB in PC land and without that, there isn't the volume sales potential to bring the price down.
I'm fed up with all the talk of what TB promises. Give me real peripherals at a fair price and maybe I'll look at it again but right now my TB port is about as useful as a chocolate teapot.
what kind of peripherals are you using with the mbp? (no additional display i take it but what else?)
Agree on USB having a long life so far but as for the others being like that... that will never change. It's always been like that and it'll continue to be. I think it's on purpose just to keep the computing public buying new stuff - kinda like planned-obsolescence. So next year, 5 years from now, and 10 years past that we will still be dealing with different "new and improved" interconnects be they cabled, surface, or wireless. It's just the way it is.
In a way it has, you can readily buy FW400 to FW800 cables that work quite well, and keeps FW400 devices in service. MonoPrice has a very reasonably priced one.
Lou
i think the real ticket (when using these computers in a way they were designed for) is going to be in wireless.
using my personal experience, most of my file transfer between computers happens via me emailing myself.. maybe 4-5x a day during certain phases. airdrop looks sweet to me but i can't use it on the 1,1.. once i get that and update the router (2003?), i can easily see airdrop getting rid of the email thing.. for files of around 1-4gb, i'll currently use flash.. (above that and i fw them).. i'll also use firewire for hooking up render nodes.
i mean that's most (90%?) of the data moving operations a typical pro might encounter on a day-to-day and it can all be handled wireless.. the nodes would definitely be ok on modern wifi. printing wireless-- fine..
the latest airport is looking pretty good as well.. 3TB? that could timemachine my mp drive, fill it with my other data, and still have 1TB left..
any of my computers can easily access, you know.. i mean really, as far as thunderbolt drives go, i could foresee having a little portable ssd and that's it.
so 2 thunderbolt cables to displays (long term thinking
, one hanging out for the portable and one hanging out for larger data transfers between computers. (which by the way, is the exact amount of data/video cords i use now). [EDIT]i guess it's more like one hanging out and one in the mbp backpack[/edit]
if i were more data hungry, i'd put a thunderbolt drive in the mix..
most people don't need that much beyond what the computer itself offers. after a certain point, it's completely about the software. but yeah, i can see apple as a business wanting lockdown on which cables will be used but at least that made some (seemingly) good cables which can/will simplify life in a workstation..
it might not be this exact cable but something like thunderbolt is where things are heading.. 1 style cord / connector to replace 10 styles.. i'm sorry if you don't see it but that is a good thing.
.. usb3?it's funny to hear people hype up usb3 and how cheap it is compared to thunderbolt -- meanwhile, i'm sitting around like 'christ, looks like i'm going to be paying more to hook up the mouse' ... that's what usb is for, the gazillion little sub$100 gadgets.. it might not be so easy to see it like that now but it should be more apparent within the next decade.
so will thunderbolt 'make it'? maybe not.. looking sort of probable at this point.. but if it doesn't, something like it will.
[edit- oh.. i use dropbox a lot too..wireless]
using my personal experience, most of my file transfer between computers happens via me emailing myself.. maybe 4-5x a day during certain phases. airdrop looks sweet to me but i can't use it on the 1,1.. once i get that and update the router (2003?), i can easily see airdrop getting rid of the email thing.. for files of around 1-4gb, i'll currently use flash.. (above that and i fw them).. i'll also use firewire for hooking up render nodes.
i mean that's most (90%?) of the data moving operations a typical pro might encounter on a day-to-day and it can all be handled wireless.. the nodes would definitely be ok on modern wifi. printing wireless-- fine..
the latest airport is looking pretty good as well.. 3TB? that could timemachine my mp drive, fill it with my other data, and still have 1TB left..
any of my computers can easily access, you know.. i mean really, as far as thunderbolt drives go, i could foresee having a little portable ssd and that's it.
so 2 thunderbolt cables to displays (long term thinking
, one hanging out for the portable and one hanging out for larger data transfers between computers. (which by the way, is the exact amount of data/video cords i use now). [EDIT]i guess it's more like one hanging out and one in the mbp backpack[/edit]if i were more data hungry, i'd put a thunderbolt drive in the mix..
most people don't need that much beyond what the computer itself offers. after a certain point, it's completely about the software. but yeah, i can see apple as a business wanting lockdown on which cables will be used but at least that made some (seemingly) good cables which can/will simplify life in a workstation..
it might not be this exact cable but something like thunderbolt is where things are heading.. 1 style cord / connector to replace 10 styles.. i'm sorry if you don't see it but that is a good thing.
.. usb3?it's funny to hear people hype up usb3 and how cheap it is compared to thunderbolt -- meanwhile, i'm sitting around like 'christ, looks like i'm going to be paying more to hook up the mouse' ... that's what usb is for, the gazillion little sub$100 gadgets.. it might not be so easy to see it like that now but it should be more apparent within the next decade.
so will thunderbolt 'make it'? maybe not.. looking sort of probable at this point.. but if it doesn't, something like it will.
[edit- oh.. i use dropbox a lot too..wireless]
Last edited:
I never quite understood why Thunderbolt has to carry DisplayPort signals, too. My main gripe with this approach is that it kills the third party market of PCIe Thunderbold add-in cards.
Up to the 5.1 Mac Pro there is no way to add Thunderbolt to your Mac. This is because of the arbitrary DisplayPort requirement. Im quite sure well, Im not a hardware developer that otherwise we would already see Thunderbolt add-in cards by now (e.g. like this).
If I had the option to add TB to my 5.1 MP I would at least consider buying hardware with a Thunderbolt interface. But the way Apple forced Thunderbolt out of old Macs, I dont even have to think about thunderbolt.
Maybe if there is Thunderbolt and FW800 on the external device and the additional costs arent prohibitive for both interfaces, I might consider buying something as "future proof". But my experience tells me, computers and especially their interfaces and the word "future proof" should not be used in the same sentence.
So, while there might be situations where there is an advantage in having data and DisplayPort signals on the some cable, this is a minority use case that put a high barrier on Thunderbolt adoption.
Wireless is convenient, and excellent for easy communication of small amounts of data, but it is not the future of high speed data transmission.
Firstly, a fibre optic connection like Thunderbolt promises to be soon operates in the infrared E/M spectrum, with wavelengths of a few micrometres. Wireless uses 'microwaves', which misleadingly have wavelengths of a few centimetres. Therefore the theoretical maximum transfer speed of an optical fibre connection is in the order of 10,000 times that of wireless, such as Wi-Fi or Bluetooth.
Secondly, wireless suffers from further limitations to its maximum transmission speed due to atmospheric distortion, an inverse-square power scaling for transmission range, and interference between different transmitters and receivers. An optical fibre connection suffers from none of these problems.
Last edited:
More first generational than backwards-compatible, since one can't take an Apple TB Display and hook it up to a MDP-only-based Mac.
Had this ("usable on a MDP port") been part of the TB Specs, Apple would have been able to have had changed over their LCD display line rather than carried both of them forward for well over a year.
Notionally none. Of course if the above had been done, it would have allowed Mac Pro consumers to have purchased forward with TB displays which would have eased the transition to the Tube, by lowering its eventual effective cost of entry.
This is a very good observation. 802.11ac is theoretically capable of 850 MB/s (theoretical), which from a bandwidth (although not necessarily latency) standpoint is well above consumer needs...at least when one doesn't have bandwidth competition.
Given that 802.11ac provides this with "only" 10 x 160MHz bands, there's a lot of potential for bandwidth capability growth, particularly as solid state continues to climb the frequency bands...assuming costs and acceptable spectrum allocation. The good news is that the DARPA contracts for a 10Gigabit Ethernet WANs are also underway, and there was a relevant Executive Order a couple of years ago to direct the regulators to free up to give commercial applications greater access. Even so, they do tend to balk when one submits an allocation application in an essentially open band that's requesting ~3GHz in width.
-hh
You've answered your own question here and it's a very common misconception. Thunderbolt isn't designed as a replacement for USB but to compliment it. USB 3 is the common interface with minimal cost and 'good enough' speeds for the vast majority of users and devices. Thunderbolt is a modern version of SCSI (showing my age here) for those users who need something more.
Thunderbolt comes into its own in certain high end situations and the range of options will likely expand as the technology improves. As far as the Mac Pro goes it gives users a frankly ridiculous amount of external bandwidth and a lot of flexibility to boot (multiple monitor setups spring to mind). It will never be cheap but that's fine as it's designed as a pro standard, at least for now. It doesn't have to replace USB to 'win', it just has to do its job for those that need it.
Well, my main gripe is that since the laptop only has USB 2, that there isn't a reasonably priced option for a TB hard drive, or a TB->USB 3 converter. A fast external hard drive would probably be the most useful peripheral right now.
I know it's hardly an ambitious request given Thunderbolt's capabilities but you'd think someone would make such a thing given the obvious demand. I know there's a LaCie hub available but that's too big and cumbersome.
It is not because it is a bad idea. Even if could get it to work it with the added complexity, it cripples the device. No one is going to have a TB based monitor with no ports on it. It doesn't make any sense. Folks don't even do that without Thunderbolt. (e.g., typically at least USB hub that requires another cable).
If the ports on the monitor are useful to most TB monitor users and you have a mode that turns them off, then do you have a useful/high-value addition to your standard? I think the answer on that is pretty clear.
As opposed to the much larger set of Apple monitors that Mac Pro users use that are DisplayPort and DVI based which the Thunderbolt port does work with ( with dongle in DVI case).
This whole tail wagging the dog thing of the Mac Pro needed to sell more Thunderbolt display is deeply flawed. ( threads like this one
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1607261/ are indicative that most Mac Pro users aren't using Apple displays. )
It really doesn't cost Apple much of anything to continue selling a completely stagnant display line for a few more additional years. Witness the ACD 30" which was designed in 2003 , introduced in 2004, and sold until 2010. Nevermind that until later this year there was a larger base of Macs to sell the mini DisplayPort display into than Thunderbolt. (the display is primarily targeted at laptops ).
Maybe dropping the mini DisplayPort version will allow Apple to introduce a non-laptop oriented model (no magsafe connector and better/large port selection). I suspect they won't though.
Easier than just plugging your mini DisplayPort monitor into one of the 6 Thunderbolt ports and one of the nearby USB 3.0 ports ? As opposed to sitting with a monitor with difunctional USB 2.0 , Firwire, and Ethernet ports for the last year or two waiting to be "future proofed" some time , some day?
The old stuff works. That is what backwards compatibility is normally all about.
Lower cost of entry? By buying something were half of the functionality is turned off for an extended period of time........
Besides in Apple's pricing world the mini DisplayPort ACD costs exactly the same price as the more flexible, if you have TB ports, TB Display/Docking-station. Where is it lowered?
There is an abnormally large number of Thunderbolt ports on the new Mac Pro precisely for using some subset of them purely in backwards compatible DisplayPort mode without significantly impacting Thunderbolt and number of daisy chained devices likely to buy in any way.
Huge assumptions since bandwidth is highly regulated and highly already allocated. Further "only" 10 isn't going to work so hot in close proximity to other networks trying to use the same 10 bands.
That theoretical is going to remain highly theoretical for a long while. As some point these speed increases are going to start trading distance for speed.
Not 10Gb, but 100Gb.
http://www.networkworld.com/communi...sec-wireless-technology-can-penetrate-clutter
Also wireless not necessarily mean radio RF. The piggyback project is also indicative that this solution may end up being like Navy low frequency sonar which pisses all over whale song ..... in the sense that may have to use allocated spectrum and stomp all over other folks traffic but theirs still gets through. ( that probably isn't going to work so well if multiple folks with the same tech approach get into close proximity. )
yeah, a fast portable external drive is something i would like as well.. i've been eyeing up this thing:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/901227-REG/LaCie_9000352_256GB_Rugged_USB3_Thunderbolt.html
i mean, it's basically perfect for me but $350 is too high for me to consider right now.. maybe next year if all goes well with the new desktop.. (but i think that high cost is more related to the ssd as opposed to thunderbolt.. though i'm sure thunderbolt is making it more pricey as well)
USB 3.0 cables aren't compatible with USB 2.0. Both FW and USB require different cables to get the speed increase. With USB you can use an old cable in the new system and get "stuck" at USB 2.0 speeds. It FW800 cables aren't physically compatible with FW400. But USB 3.0 cables aren't either.
"... To avoid confusion, USB 3.0 cables are not only differentiated by carrying blue colour-coding on the sockets, but also by featuring a completely new and uniquely-shaped connector at the device end. ... "
http://www.trustedreviews.com/opinions/usb-3-0-what-is-it-and-do-you-want-it
Absolutely nothing changing isn't necessarily going to bring speed improvements.
There was no particular "room" in FW400 sockets to do something like what is being done with separate set of wires that USB 3.0's Super Speed runs on. Even FW400 has 6 and 4 conductor connectors. There is no way the 4 was going to go anywhere near 9 even if made the socket hole slightly different.
If it had progressed faster the move to 9 conductors enabled getting to the 1600 and 3200 speeds/encodings might have offset the need for different types of cables.
TB couldn't happen on just for 4 conductors. They required a cable capable of carrying the bandwidth or else it is a complete waste of time. DisplayPort was relatively free and evidently open to assistance in promoting the port to more widespread use. They head lots of bandwidth headroom with 4 sets of wire that could be used as bandwidth conduits. Witness that 4K 60Hz video traffic isn't going to require a new physical connector for DisplayPort 1.2 at all.
FW400 was design for bandwidth limits from the previous century. They'd have to be on major drugs to select that as being a viable target for the new standard.
USB superficially looks the same. It is physically different. Likely if they ever produce the 10Gb one it will be physically different even more if actually want to get those kind of speeds. You'll be able to use the old cables and devices but that won't approach the new speed. [ Simple upgrade would be to add two more pairs to the plug if possible in the "superspeed" section of the plug. That would do the doubling. ]
USB has a track record of advertising a "theoretical" top speed that no users ever get close to in real life.
" ... Accounting for encoding overhead, the raw data throughput is 4 Gbit/s, and the specification considers it reasonable to achieve 3.2 Gbit/s (0.4 GB/s or 400 MB/s) or more in practice.[4] ... "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_3.0
This 10Gb upgrade is likely same story different day.
It will be "faster than" the HDD or even single SATA 6Gb/s SSD attached but won't really hit the top quoted speeds in terms of user usable bandwidth.
Somewhat dubious conclusions. The article has two major points.
A. " This brings us to the first problem with Thunderbolt -- it's too good. 10 Gbit/s far exceeds what most people need. ... "
Depends on what user is trying to do. This smacks of the typical USB viewpoint on the world where the need is based on a single purpose external device that needs to be plugged in.
Let's say the user has a need for within easy reach on desktop need for
USB 3.0 socket ( 5Gb/s )
FW 800 socket ( ~1Gb/s )
Ethernet socket ( 1Gb/s )
total about 7 Gb/s. It isn't 10 but is also isn't far exceeds.
Even if it just USB 3.0 socket plus SATA 3Gb/s device it is still in 6-7 Gb/s range.
So the issue more so do most users have absolutely everything all inside of one box or not. Not whether the average user could leverage a sizable fraction of 10Gb/s or not. Just widespread prevalence to devices that test the limits of USB 3.0 coupled to another moderately high bandwidth protocol will do that. That is probably going to increasingly happen over time.
2. "But there's another problem facing Thunderbolt, and this one means that Thunderbolt will never gain traction -- and it's the new USB 3.0 specification that's in the pipeline.
....
According to the USB Implementers Forum, the updated specification should be ready by mid-2013, and hardware based on the new specification will be available within about a year. ..."
The USB IF said USB 3.0 was coming real soon now for several years too. That 2009 see new USB 3.0 hardware and just a few products appear. There is a substantive gap between when standards finish and widespread products appear for all standards.
By the time USB 3.0 gets to 10Gb/s Intel will be in a full production mode on Thunderbolt v2 which tops out in the "boosting bandwidth" wars at 20Gb/s. I guess he can circle back to the first point for those with only USB 3.0 SuperDuper speed devices but misses the point that Thunderbolt would have moved forward to the point so it could now support remote USB 3.0 SuperDuper controllers. That was its primary purpose all along. Not to replace USB ( or any of the standard ports ) but to aggregate the traffic from those ports so that it can be transferred back to a core host box relatively transparently.
However, his first point poses a higher potential threat to USB 3.0 SuperDuper mode than it does to Thunderbolt. SuperDuper mode is going to require new controllers with even higher PCI-e lane requirements ( or even higher internal chipset throughput ). Probably bigger Bluetooth RF interference problems too if simply just add two more sets of wires to the socket. It likely will go into discrete controllers first before Intel or AMD every loop it into the core chipsets. But if believe his first assertion it has no market. Unlike Thunderbolt, USB is aimed at the lowest-common-denominator market. It probably means new cables and new equipment to fully leverage. Except for top end SATA 6Gb/s SSDs few USB devices are running into a wall with USB 3.0.
SuperDuper mode is far more so a positioning move to keep USB 4.0 open long term so that folks don't try to claim that Thunderbolt is trying to cover it. It likely is also aimed at cutting off the lower end (relative to TB ) were TB and USB 3.0 overlap somewhat. [ None of these different protocols are perfectly segmented. ]
USB 3.0 SuperDuper mode might get standardize in late 2013 ( note we are already past mid-2013 now and the USB IF has been slient. ). My guess is won't see SuperDuper mode standardize till at least 2014 (maybe 2015 if they spend any time on the RF pollution problems they likely are to create if sloppily do this) and not more than a small handful of products before CES 2015. Likewise, no core chipset incorporation of SuperDuper mode until around 2015-16 timeframe too.
At this time it is clear that 2013 won't be the year of Thunderbolt as the Ars article projected. I think what is being ignored though is vendors probably being clued into the Thunderbolt v2 road map. The TB controller for 2013 (Redwood Ridge ) was primarily only a host oriented update to support host only DisplayPort v1.2 backwards compatible mode. From a peripherals standpoint, all the action is coming in 2014 with new v2 controllers that peripherals can leverage so there is little motivation to do a new 2013 TB product.
For several of those vendors too there is also open question of what Intel does with the PortRidge class controller. It only has one channel (really only useful for chain-ender devices ). For v2 that would minimally have to be 2 channels. Is Intel going to going to keep the price down (or lower) on those or incrementally raise it?
USB 3.0 SuperDuper has similar problems. Some vendors haven't mastered deploying regular USB 3.0 without knocking out your bluetooth. Why are they going to move to SuperDuper 3.0 when can't even do simple 3.0 right? Most of the "race to the bottom" vendors don't want the standards to move forward quickly as that requires higher R&D investments. They'll want a window to soak slightly higher margins out of USB 3.0 before moving on.
I don't really see any of this being too much of a problem - if the marketing goes right. Right, Intel is saying that TB is for higher end systems - Workstations and servers mostly I guess. So it would be kinda like saying SAS doesn't have a chance because SATA III and SATA Express are pressing in.
Also such high-end systems are not for the every-man so it doesn't really matter if TB is too fast for them. I guess that's not really true anyway tho! I have a $600 Panasonic GH2 that shoots 1080p and just messing around with that in various NLEs I could totally use some storage that did 2GB/s or more after I up-res it and convert it for multi-layer editing. So I kinda think the author of that article is either living 3 years in the past or is falsely assuming the "everyman" does nothing but web-browse.
Also such high-end systems are not for the every-man so it doesn't really matter if TB is too fast for them. I guess that's not really true anyway tho! I have a $600 Panasonic GH2 that shoots 1080p and just messing around with that in various NLEs I could totally use some storage that did 2GB/s or more after I up-res it and convert it for multi-layer editing. So I kinda think the author of that article is either living 3 years in the past or is falsely assuming the "everyman" does nothing but web-browse.
Last edited:
It is not even that narrow of a niche. Thunderbolt isn't going to make the $200-350 bargain basement discount special PC. Frankly neither did Firewire to a large extent. Not hitting the majority of extremely price sensitive users doesn't necessarily mean the technology is high niched. There can be a state of less than everybody and not being in a niche. Subset and niche are not interchangeable words.
Thunderbolt isn't particularly a good fit for purposely dedicated servers. Almost none of those have DisplayPort (mini or otherwise) connectors on them. More than a few are in the relative stone ages with VGA connectors. If trying to take Thunderbolt to systems with a high VGA preference, that probably isn't going to work.
Trying to cast Thunderbolt as primarily being aimed at Direct Attached Storage (DAS) is a mistake. DAS is not what is going to make Thunderbolt successful or not; especially in the primarily racked systems solution space.
This gets to the core of what I was saying about FW400/800/TB
"If price put a damper on Thunderbolt, an updated USB 3.0 standard that brings all the performance benefits of Thunderbolt, along with the added value of being compatible with current USB hardware, is a nail in the coffin of Thunderbolt."
Nobody cares or needs to know if they add wires, connectors or unicorn hairs to make it happen. Their issues with FCC over RF interest no one in the least.
I can plug ANY USB cable into any port on any device and it works.
It used to be that when I created a new Mac I would CCC from old to new. Originally this was FW400. Then I had to get a 400 to 800 adapter for some setups. I discovered that frequently I couldn't find the dongle.
Then one day I ordered some new SSDs for some MBPs. They came with a cheap, simple snap on USB adaptor for like $10. I think it is USB3, might be 2. I don't care because it works on every Mac I use it on. Mac Pro from 2008 can boot from it. So I can slide sled from any MP and either use it as SATA or slap one of these cheap adaptors on and get my new drive imaged with ease.
Had they figured out a way to keep connectors same on FW over the years, they might be competitive. But they didn't and my FireWire cables and adapters are buried in drawers. And more than a year after buying my first Mac with TB, I have yet yo purchase a single accessory for it.
"If price put a damper on Thunderbolt, an updated USB 3.0 standard that brings all the performance benefits of Thunderbolt, along with the added value of being compatible with current USB hardware, is a nail in the coffin of Thunderbolt."
Nobody cares or needs to know if they add wires, connectors or unicorn hairs to make it happen. Their issues with FCC over RF interest no one in the least.
I can plug ANY USB cable into any port on any device and it works.
It used to be that when I created a new Mac I would CCC from old to new. Originally this was FW400. Then I had to get a 400 to 800 adapter for some setups. I discovered that frequently I couldn't find the dongle.
Then one day I ordered some new SSDs for some MBPs. They came with a cheap, simple snap on USB adaptor for like $10. I think it is USB3, might be 2. I don't care because it works on every Mac I use it on. Mac Pro from 2008 can boot from it. So I can slide sled from any MP and either use it as SATA or slap one of these cheap adaptors on and get my new drive imaged with ease.
Had they figured out a way to keep connectors same on FW over the years, they might be competitive. But they didn't and my FireWire cables and adapters are buried in drawers. And more than a year after buying my first Mac with TB, I have yet yo purchase a single accessory for it.
IEEE 802.11 wasn't formalized until until 1997.
----------
you can tell if it's USB 3 by the color, it's blue.
You can tell that way sometimes. I read something (I think it was on www.usb.org ?) that said that was just a myth. Then I actually bought some USB3 components some time later and they was all black.
But I have heard this blue myth repeated lots FWIW....
Last edited:
Price isn't so much the issue as anchoring.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring
The facts are that an updated USB 3.0 isn't going to bring all the real performance benefits of Thunderbolt. Even the USB IF thinks USB 3.0 really only delivers around 3.2Gb/s. So 2 * 3.2Gb/s is going to be less the 10Gb/s , let alone 20Gb/s. USB's track record of overhead eating into their advertized bit rate means it isn't going to meet the performance benefits.
Prices isn't so much of an issue because Thunderbolt isn't a "USB 3.0 killer". What is more so at issue is whether people want to pay for performance or are primarily just interested in paying same or cheaper prices over time. For people who are anchored on price .... the other features don't particularly matter.
Folks are going to care when the USB 3.0 cable that came with their USB 3.0 device doesn't fit their USB 2.0 socket. They may have more USB 2.0 cables handy (not buried at the absolute bottom of a drawer).
The standard USB cord doesn't work on a micro USB socket. Funny how that isn't a huge burden. This whole thing of only one single physical cable format forever is acceptable is pure smoke.
the 400 to 800 isn't really an adapter as much as a cable with two different formats at the ends. It really doesn't have to convert because FW800 cabling is compatible with FW400 signals. There is no conversion that needs to be done. It is merely fitting into the physical socket form factor.
If this was theoretical quibbles with the FCC then might be an issue. But
Real problem with Magic Mouse
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1570261/
Real problem with external device.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1492414/
Seen issue pop up enough to ask questions.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1569618/
OWC seen enough to create a band-aid solution (instead of tackling the core root cause )
http://eshop.macsales.com/item/OWC/DIYIMM12BTS/
Going to much higher bandwidth their going to run into FCC issues, but implementers are shooting themselves in the foot all by themselves. (Although does cast some doubts on FCC's class B testing process. )
Are there Thunderbolt products with the similar problems? Not really.
Works and delivers value is two different things. If trying to offload a 2TB drive in minimal time a USB 2.0 cable isn't going to work so well. Yeah it eventually works.
Not really.
Not being part of the many core chipsets ( even in FW400 format ) was a ubiquitious problem. [ Yes, there were some chipsets, but Intel went out of their way to bury Firewire. That was a far bigger impact than any cable issue. ]
Apple's silliness is tagging FW800 as a "Pro" feature. More common need for 800/400 would have transition that cable into the USB-microUSB kind of frequency of use. FW800 common across all Macs would have also made the physical/format cables less needy for those who wanted to go all FW800.
If you are happy doing USB 2.0 speed HDD transfers that isn't particularly surprising.
It depends on where one is at in their lifecycle, which is also why you asked this:
Simply envision the use case that has existed for the past couple of years with Mac Pro customers:
1) Apple is marketing TB as the future and has put it on their laptops, but not yet the MP.
2) Something changes and you need a new display. Could be because the old one died, or you're changing setups...doesn't really matter. What matters is that you need to budget for a display and even if you had budget for a new Mac Pro, it doesn't have TB yet.
Conclusion: your options are constrained because your legacy MDP-equipped Mac can't drive a TB based monitor at all.
In order to keep operating with your legacy hardware, the business decision you're forced into either: (A) buy a non-discounted Apple MDP-based display, or a 3rd Party display, or (B) buy a new TB-capable machine and a new TB display.
Granted, the situation was worse last year; with the Tube on the horizon there is a figurative light at the end of the tunnel..but it still means that the value of one's legacy hardware is still potentially shortened because of TB's incompatibility to legacy hardware from the display's side.
Yes, that is value added ... see above for explanation why.
The facts of the matter are that despite everyone's use cases being slightly different, it isn't particularly unusual for the desktop and display from being out of strict lockstep. As such, the optimize-compatibility-with-legacy-equipment factor cuts both ways.
A new TB monitor on an old Mac Pro does not work.
True, and acknowledged with 'Spectrum Allocation', which encompasses both the regulatory part and the real world practical use part.
In Open Literature, perhaps. Enough not said.
Yes, that's the one I was trying to recall; sorry for missing a zero.
'Radio' is adequate for the layperson to understand the basic concept, and if one really wants to be pedantic, RF is defined as from 3Hz to 3THz. In any case, one can also avoid the crosstalk/competition problems by 'simply' going to functionally vacant bands, which is where the technology challenge comes in: what can now be done in Solid State versus conventional (bigger/etc) vacuum tubes which makes it more feasible? FYI, there's already been some works published employing Solid State at 200+GHz, and there's a relevant atmospheric window...
-hh
The other more fundamental problem with USB is that it's not suitable for particularly intensive workflows. The protocol is also going to get in the way a lot more for communicating with devices that are basically overgrown PCI-E devices anyway. If you have something like a PCI-E audio component, your Thunderbolt transition path is pretty clear, while a USB 3.0 transition path is more painful.
So USB's speed is not the only issue holding it back against Thunderbolt.
For devices that fall more cleanly under the USB 3.0 spec like drives and input devices, it will still be ok. But more exotic devices are still clearly suited better for Thunderbolt, and cheaper to implement under Thunderbolt once production of the controllers ramps.
So USB's speed is not the only issue holding it back against Thunderbolt.
For devices that fall more cleanly under the USB 3.0 spec like drives and input devices, it will still be ok. But more exotic devices are still clearly suited better for Thunderbolt, and cheaper to implement under Thunderbolt once production of the controllers ramps.