Is it just me?

[LDS]

Originally Posted by robertg

yes, and most people don't need those things so it *absolutely* makes sense to have a tiny connector for them on a very thin notebook. And they do make thunderbolt docks with every connector imaginable if you have a lot of legacy gear. Bulky optical media is on its way out.

Just the thunderbolt to ethernet adaptor doesn't take much more space than the cable itself.

Most people don't need thunderbolt at all!

That is the can of worms.

Thickness or what users want most like runs a very distant second to the obvious market opportunity that thunderbolt forwards. One of reduced parts counts, maintained price tags and a whole new sub-industry of pay-per-peripheral-connections.

[robertg]

Originally Posted by LDS

Most people don't need thunderbolt at all!

That is the can of worms.

Thickness or what users want most like runs a very distant second to the obvious market opportunity that thunderbolt forwards. One of reduced parts counts, maintained price tags and a whole new sub-industry of pay-per-peripheral-connections.

Dude, are you seriously advocating a conspiracy theory that thunderbolt is created for nothing more than profit? That it's some sort of scheme to make people buy more adapters? Are you serious.

It's plain and obvious common sense that ONE connector which everything can operate over is superior to having a bunch of legacy connectors that are becoming obsolete.

When you look at it that way, thunderbolt is the future. New devices are coming out which are TB only, and the legacy stuff is still supported with an adapter. It's the best of both worlds.

And you are aware that TB is as fast as PCI express, right.

[LDS]

Originally Posted by robertg

Dude, are you seriously advocating a conspiracy theory that thunderbolt is created for nothing more than profit? That it's some sort of scheme to make people buy more adapters? Are you serious.

I haven't said conspiracy theory anywhere. I merely suggested that thunderbolt forwards a distinct business opportunity. Business. The kind that is operated to make money. If you want to somehow raise an argument that this isn't Apple's modus operandi - have at it.

It's plain and obvious common sense that ONE connector which everything can operate over is superior to having a bunch of legacy connectors that are becoming obsolete.

When you look at it that way, thunderbolt is the future. New devices are coming out which are TB only, and the legacy stuff is still supported with an adapter. It's the best of both worlds.

And you are aware that TB is as fast as PCI express, right.

I think you are confusing thunderbolt on paper with thunderbolt in reality. On paper it is great and does offer a lot. We are a long way from being able to run everything from one connector, particularly in a way which is economical.

"Superior" is a black hole as well. Superior at providing huge bandwidth to applications that require very little? That sounds like overkill to me. Even more so considering an 0.5m thunderbolt cable will set you back a pretty penny!

The best of both worlds is what Gigabyte or Asus are doing by providing standardised connections as well as thunderbolt, simply because thunderbolt isn't prevalent enough yet. There is nothing "best" about having to spend $250+ on a thunderbolt hub just to access a combination of peripheral connections that most computer, hardware and peripheral manufacturers still actively support and create.

In that sense, I think you are using the term "legacy" very prematurely. Only in Mac land is Thunderbolt being pushed so hard... and even then, it remains a relatively niche protocol.

But anyway. Enough sidetracking.

I wonder if Avid have any plans of changing their EuCon controllers to TB.

[robertg]

Originally Posted by LDS

I haven't said conspiracy theory anywhere. I merely suggested that thunderbolt forwards a distinct business opportunity. Business. The kind that is operated to make money. If you want to somehow raise an argument that this isn't Apple's modus operandi - have at it.

What you sound like is one of those guys who complained because apple changed their iPhone dock connector to the new lightning one all because they wanted to make more money. Conspiracy nonsense. Never mind the fact that the smaller connector means it takes up far less room for other components in the phone, among other long-term benefits.

Technological miniaturization = progress.

I think you are confusing thunderbolt on paper with thunderbolt in reality. On paper it is great and does offer a lot. We are a long way from being able to run everything from one connector, particularly in a way which is economical.

Actually, paper and reality are very close. Do you actually know what you're talking about? Take a look at this lab test. 19 thunderbolt hard drives daisy-chained together to a new cylinder mac pro. 500-700 MB/s throughput for just about all of them, with a very negligible dip at the end of the chain. That's insane. What more do you want?

http://www.macworld.com/article/2146...challenge.html

"Superior" is a black hole as well. Superior at providing huge bandwidth to applications that require very little? That sounds like overkill to me. Even more so considering an 0.5m thunderbolt cable will set you back a pretty penny!

Overkill? It's still bleeding edge, dude, you can't expect everything to take full advantage overnight. What you are failing to see is that Apple and Intel have developed this for the long haul. In addition to all those drives the thunderbolt bus was driving 4 displays!

The best of both worlds is what Gigabyte or Asus are doing by providing standardised connections as well as thunderbolt, simply because thunderbolt isn't prevalent enough yet. There is nothing "best" about having to spend $250+ on a thunderbolt hub just to access a combination of peripheral connections that most computer, hardware and peripheral manufacturers still actively support and create.

Give me a break. The legacy connectors are going the way of the dinosaur. Just like serial ports, parallel ports, and every other obsolete connector in the world. And if a dock costs $160-200? (Your pricing was a bit off). Who cares? If you're one of those rare people that REALLY need all of those old ports, pony up the cash. Stop thinking so small.

In that sense, I think you are using the term "legacy" very prematurely. Only in Mac land is Thunderbolt being pushed so hard... and even then, it remains a relatively niche protocol.

The industry would be very wise to adopt it because obviously it can perform, and there isn't anything better like it.

[Emcha_audio]

Let's put it this way, when we can buy External TB HDD enclosure for under 80$ without having to buy an adapter to buy one that has an other connector and costs 4 to 5 times less, then we can say the other products are on the way to being legacy. In this instance, miniaturization to fit the need of the Ismallthingpeople ala Iphone, is not always best. Also remember, not every one needs to be driving 4 displays on top of many HDD so yes it is overkill for 80% of the market, and that is why it is so slow to being adopted in the general market. Other companies have understood this and are making good on profiting from the supposed "Legacy" Market because the vast majority of users are not fully adopting this new tech unless forced to by one corporation who removes almost every other connectors from it's mainstream products. You got to wonder though if they were so heavily invested and foreseeing of the future, why did they still leave 2 HDMI, 4 usb 3, and 2 Ethernet ports on the Itrash? Quite possibly because they understood their faux pas, after 3 years of it being on the market and not gaining much traction, in removing the widely adopted ports by the mass and moved too fast with THB.

[robertg]

Originally Posted by Emcha_audio

Let's put it this way, when we can buy External TB HDD enclosure for under 80$ without having to buy an adapter to buy one that has an other connector and costs 4 to 5 times less, then we can say the other products are on the way to being legacy. In this instance, miniaturization to fit the need of the Ismallthingpeople ala Iphone, is not always best. Also remember, not every one needs to be driving 4 displays on top of many HDD so yes it is overkill for 80% of the market, and that is why it is so slow to being adopted in the general market. Other companies have understood this and are making good on profiting from the supposed "Legacy" Market because the vast majority of users are not fully adopting this new tech unless forced to by one corporation who removes almost every other connectors from it's mainstream products. You got to wonder though if they were so heavily invested and foreseeing of the future, why did they still leave 2 HDMI, 4 usb 3, and 2 Ethernet ports on the Itrash? Quite possibly because they understood their faux pas, after 3 years of it being on the market and not gaining much traction, in removing the widely adopted ports by the mass and moved too fast with THB.

Well, as far as the iTrash, having a reasonably priced super-computer is a good thing, and I say reasonably priced because the "apple tax" is actually non-applicable to this, some of those parts like the motherboard are custom and don't even exist.. in fact, they tried to replicate it with PC parts and it came out to cost much more.

I'd rather have a computer like that which the software has to "grow into" than get a machine you have to keep replacing every few years, no?

Having the option to run 3 4K displays now is also pretty sweet.

They left the ports on because they know very well that stuff isn't legacy anymore. When I say "legacy" I'm talking about the far-future, when palm-sized computers like the current iPhones are 10 times as powerful and small connectors like thunderbolt will definitely be needed. Of course it's still too expensive because it's very bleeding edge.

[Emcha_audio]

We'll have to disagree on the part where replacing every few years part because even though the concept is new, fact is in roughly 2 years if not before it will be already too costly compared to more powerful computer with different design. But I'm happy that we agree on the pricing and the fact that the other connectors are far from being "legacy" items.

[LDS]

Originally Posted by robertg

What you sound like is one of those guys who complained because apple changed their iPhone dock connector to the new lightning one all because they wanted to make more money. Conspiracy nonsense. Never mind the fact that the smaller connector means it takes up far less room for other components in the phone, among other long-term benefits.

Technological miniaturization = progress.



Actually, paper and reality are very close. Do you actually know what you're talking about? Take a look at this lab test. 19 thunderbolt hard drives daisy-chained together to a new cylinder mac pro. 500-700 MB/s throughput for just about all of them, with a very negligible dip at the end of the chain. That's insane. What more do you want?

http://www.macworld.com/article/2146...challenge.html



Overkill? It's still bleeding edge, dude, you can't expect everything to take full advantage overnight. What you are failing to see is that Apple and Intel have developed this for the long haul. In addition to all those drives the thunderbolt bus was driving 4 displays!



Give me a break. The legacy connectors are going the way of the dinosaur. Just like serial ports, parallel ports, and every other obsolete connector in the world. And if a dock costs $160-200? (Your pricing was a bit off). Who cares? If you're one of those rare people that REALLY need all of those old ports, pony up the cash. Stop thinking so small.



The industry would be very wise to adopt it because obviously it can perform, and there isn't anything better like it.

The current implementation of Thunderbolt isn't bleeding edge. It is a dumbed down appropriation done in a quintessentially Apple way to create small desktop computing ecosystems.

The original introduction by Intel in 2009 called it "Light Peak". It didn't use active copper cabling. As the name suggests it used fibre optic and various protocols cleverly multiplexed for bandwidths up to 100GBps. 10x what Thunderbolt 1.0 offers, with a much larger scope than just your average desktop peripherals.

I suspect the reason a lot of manufacturers aren't so quick to jump on Apple's Thunderbolt Ecosystem philosophy is because of how quickly it and parallel technologies are progressing. Intel's Alpine Ridge Thunderbolt controller will increase bandwidth to 40GBps and USB 3.1 will increase to 10GBps, both with 100w of available bus power.

The bleeding edge currently is Intel's MXC. A 64 strand fibre optic cable with 1.6TBps of bandwidth, potentially as a step to further realise the intended design of Light Peak.

For this reason, it wouldn't surprise me if the industry saw it as a wise move to avoid getting bogged down in an active copper standard like the current thunderbolt.

[robertg]

Originally Posted by LDS

The current implementation of Thunderbolt isn't bleeding edge. It is a dumbed down appropriation done in a quintessentially Apple way to create small desktop computing ecosystems.

The original introduction by Intel in 2009 called it "Light Peak". It didn't use active copper cabling. As the name suggests it used fibre optic and various protocols cleverly multiplexed for bandwidths up to 100GBps. 10x what Thunderbolt 1.0 offers, with a much larger scope than just your average desktop peripherals.

I suspect the reason a lot of manufacturers aren't so quick to jump on Apple's Thunderbolt Ecosystem philosophy is because of how quickly it and parallel technologies are progressing. Intel's Alpine Ridge Thunderbolt controller will increase bandwidth to 40GBps and USB 3.1 will increase to 10GBps, both with 100w of available bus power.

The bleeding edge currently is Intel's MXC. A 64 strand fibre optic cable with 1.6TBps of bandwidth, potentially as a step to further realise the intended design of Light Peak.

For this reason, it wouldn't surprise me if the industry saw it as a wise move to avoid getting bogged down in an active copper standard like the current thunderbolt.

I read about light peak and a reason it wasn't successful is due to the added cost associated with fiber optics. If we're barely taking advantage of 20G/s now really how much more unnecessary would 100 G/s be.. maybe in 5-10 years when peripherals really do need to go that fast? Maybe some sort of brainwave device that would manipulate our neurons into imagining we are in more interesting places.

[LDS]

Originally Posted by robertg

I read about light peak and a reason it wasn't successful is due to the added cost associated with fiber optics. If we're barely taking advantage of 20G/s now really how much more unnecessary would 100 G/s be.. maybe in 5-10 years when peripherals really do need to go that fast? Maybe some sort of brainwave device that would manipulate our neurons into imagining we are in more interesting places.

I think that is precisely why thunderbolts adoption has been slow. Light Peak will appear in one form or another, its in the development roadmap... but first as a server side technology where even 100g/s is a limiting factor... Intel is thinking big. Like data centers full of servers that run Cat5 or Cat6 to a fibre optic equipped network switch. The future of data transmission isn't a bunch of cute little devices on your desktop. It is faster data centers and more cloud computing.

Thunderbolt exists in a kind of no-mans land where it is technically too prohibative for server-side use, yet too cost prohibitive to fully replace cheap protocols with ever increasing bandwidths like USB 3.1.