Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Thunderbolt

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 211 posts

Re: Thunderbolt

#111

Post by zefhous »

rorrr wrote: post #97
rudiger wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thunderbolt aims to replace nearly every kind of single-use connectors (HDMI, DisplayPort, eSATA, USB, Ethernet). Unifying the connector for displays, peripherals, network and power is a great idea, so I can't complain if they're going up against USB 3.0.

Ha. Good luck to them. Thunderbolt will be lucky to replace firewire. There's no way in the world it can replace USB, Ethernet or HDMI. Just think of the number of devices out there with these ports. It might replace SATA eventually, but it will have to fight against USB.

Thunderbolt will replace them. And it will itself be subsequently replaced for its own shortcomings.

Re: Thunderbolt

#112

Post by rapind »

damoncali wrote: post #41
marknutter wrote: post #17

How long before we can buy external graphics cards that utilize thunderbolt? It'd save me the hassle of having to build gaming PCs every couple years.

You can lease your card: http://cuttingedgegamer.com/

Those prices aren't bad at all based on some newegg comparisons. I was expecting a massive markup.

Re: Thunderbolt

#113

Post by tygorius »

Pulpertank wrote: post #46
yread wrote: post #13

So the whole USB2.0/Firewire is going to repeat? Sigh.

Apple seems to be targetting a whole different sector with this technology. See Cringley's take on this ( http://www.cringely.com/2011/02/attack-of-the-minis/ ) about how this technology could go into data centers. Interesting move by Apple.

Oh, that's just Crazy Bob talking. If that had really been Apple's strategy, they wouldn't have alienated so many customers in the way they killed the xServe line last year. If they had really wanted to keep their toe-hold in that market, they wouldn't have said, "Let them eat mini Macs." I think it's simply the case that Apple's signature advantages in the consumer space don't translate into a 1U world, and they recognized that.

Re: Thunderbolt

#114

Post by cwp »

rorrr wrote: post #97
rudiger wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thunderbolt aims to replace nearly every kind of single-use connectors (HDMI, DisplayPort, eSATA, USB, Ethernet). Unifying the connector for displays, peripherals, network and power is a great idea, so I can't complain if they're going up against USB 3.0.

Ha. Good luck to them. Thunderbolt will be lucky to replace firewire. There's no way in the world it can replace USB, Ethernet or HDMI. Just think of the number of devices out there with these ports. It might replace SATA eventually, but it will have to fight against USB.

From the Apple page on Thunderbolt: "you can use existing USB and FireWire peripherals — even connect to Gigabit Ethernet and Fibre Channel networks — using simple adapters."

So, twice as fast as USB 3.0 and compatible with existing devices. Doesn't seem like much of a fight. USB won't disappear overnight, but it's already obsolete.

Re: Thunderbolt

#115

Post by wmf »

doron wrote: post #62

Can anybody shed light on the possibility of DRM or some implementation of Tilt-bits to restrict output from this port to high resolution screens etc?

DisplayPort already has two different flavors of DRM. Thunderbolt, being basically PCIe over a DisplayPort cable, doesn't add any additional DRM.

Re: Thunderbolt

#117

Post by [deleted] »

DarrenLehane wrote: post #85

Anybody notice how it shares the name with HTC's 'ThunderBolt' 4G phone being released, and how it looks like both Intel and HTC have trademarks on the word?

[deleted]

Re: Thunderbolt

#118

Post by gamble »

maggit wrote: post #104
jlazarow wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Light Peak right now is only copper. Optical will be added in the future most likely.

I'd like to read about this. Is there an available document explaining why? Or do you know the reason? (Not that I hate copper or anything, it is just that they designed it for fiber from the beginning and then suddenly bailed out)

Same reason why every interface standard that flirts with optical eventually ends up supporting copper: optical components are more expensive, and over short runs you can get acceptable performance with copper.

Re: Thunderbolt

#119

Post by [deleted] »

brk wrote: post #49
sandis wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was surprised about the symbol as well. It's just a matter of time until someone gets hurt while trying to connect their peripherals to a transformer.

Perhaps true, but how exactly would you mate the connector with a high voltage power source without a massive amount of kludgery?

[deleted]

Re: Thunderbolt

#120

Post by bgruber »

brk wrote: post #49
sandis wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was surprised about the symbol as well. It's just a matter of time until someone gets hurt while trying to connect their peripherals to a transformer.

Perhaps true, but how exactly would you mate the connector with a high voltage power source without a massive amount of kludgery?

my sister recently plugged a usb cable into an ethernet port. don't assume that because something seems like a massive amount of kludgery to you that a user won't do it anyway.
Post reply on HN