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

141–150 of 211 posts

Re: Thunderbolt

#141

Post by capstone »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #138
capstone wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thunderbolt technology leverages the native PCI Express and DisplayPort device drivers available in many operating systems today. This native software support means no extra software development is required to use a Thunderbolt technology enabled product. http://www.intel.com/technology/io/thunderbolt/325136-001US_...

Not enough. That's talking about support from developers, not whether hardware vendors need to pay for licensing to include this tech in their hardware. That said, Mini DisplayPort is free of hardware licensing fees... so there's a good chance.

The poster of the question is a developer. I answered to help get the information he asked for, not have my answer graded on completeness or lack thereof with a curt "Not enough".

Re: Thunderbolt

#142

Post by jimbokun »

nlogn wrote: post #126
cwp wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thunderbolt may be technically superior in every single way, but unless other manufacturers use it for their laptops/motherboards, Apple's 10ish% market share is going to ensure that USB 3.0 "wins" ultimately. This will wind up being just like firewire where aside from Apple's stuff and a select few "Apple" manufacturers, nobody uses it and consumers either buy the more expensive Apple stuff, or use a dongle and see…

Apple also pioneered USB with the iMac. Because USB was the only way to connect anything to the iMac, it served as a catalyst for device makers to come out with USB devices, since they knew they had a captive market.

Once the number of USB peripherals reached critical mass, the general PC market followed suit.

So, will Thunderbolt adoption more closely resemble that of Firewire, or USB?

Re: Thunderbolt

#143

Post by billybob »

hallmark wrote: post #81

I am delighted that Thunderbolt isn't reusing the USB plug form-factor. Early rumors showed Light Peak plugs that were the standard rectangular USB shape with fiber optic channels blended in: http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/19/apple-to-introduce-light... The outer rectangular, doubly symmetrical shape of USB is a usability nightmare! You know what I'm talking about. Good riddance.

Ever notice that an Ethernet jack is just the right height for a USB plug to go into it snugly? I got confused by that one day when I plugged something in without paying attention.

Re: Thunderbolt

#144

Post by tygorius »

ZoFreX wrote: post #134
tygorius wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, it's not so bad once you take advertising sub-clause of the spec into account. That's the hidden clause that states the USB logo will be on the top of a properly-oriented plug unless you're Microsoft or Logitech, in which case your corporate name is allowed top-billing, so to speak. Of course, if the slots are oriented vertically...

Microsoft USB plugs all have a little nub on the "top" side, if memory serves.

Interesting. The only Microsoft USB plug I have these days is one of the wireless stubs, where the logo is the only clue. I have noticed that some Logitech products have a concave top, presumably for the same tactile feedback approach.

Of course, you can always just look at the end of the plug and orient it so the white plastic key is on the bottom, but where's the fun in that?

Re: Thunderbolt

#145

Post by icarus_drowning »

nlogn wrote: post #126
cwp wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thunderbolt may be technically superior in every single way, but unless other manufacturers use it for their laptops/motherboards, Apple's 10ish% market share is going to ensure that USB 3.0 "wins" ultimately. This will wind up being just like firewire where aside from Apple's stuff and a select few "Apple" manufacturers, nobody uses it and consumers either buy the more expensive Apple stuff, or use a dongle and see…

But we're not talking about Apple's marketshare. We're talking about Intel's influence. And that's quite a bit different.

Re: Thunderbolt

#146

Post by mkramlich »

sandis wrote: post #14
CrLf wrote: post #9

Technically it seems nice, but what's up with reusing the "high voltage" symbol for this? And "thunderbolt" is a very tacky name...

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.

No it will work exactly as intended. They'll experience a thunderbolt.

Re: Thunderbolt

#147

Post by angelbob »

CrLf wrote: post #9

Technically it seems nice, but what's up with reusing the "high voltage" symbol for this? And "thunderbolt" is a very tacky name...

Do you think it's more or less tacky than "Firewire"?

Re: Thunderbolt

#148

Post by Semiapies »

ac-slater wrote: post #127
Semiapies wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why?

Because serial is a trivial interface to implement in home brew electronics, just throw in a MAX232. Even many major consumer electronics are still developed via a serial console. Sure they have fancier connectors to talk to your PC and the network but serial is so simple it's practically idiot proof. So it breaks far less often, makes new hardware much simpler to bring up, and it allows you to debug the fancier inte…

Ah, I see. I can definitely understand that.

Still not crazy about it as yet one more connector for mass-manufactured devices, though.

Re: Thunderbolt

#149

Post by icarus_drowning »

__david__ wrote: post #93
bugsy wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And so is FW unless you buy one of the very expensive interfaces that happens to have highly optimized fine tuned drivers. Source: personal experience finding the drivers of most FW audio interfaces under $1000 impose outrageous CPU loads when doing many channels and using more than one device on the supposedly daisy chainable FW bus.

Funny, my experience is the opposite--FireWire drivers are generally very DMA oriented and require little to no CPU at all, while USB drivers tend to need more CPU for the protocol overhead. This is because FireWire is an address oriented bus and the hardware can map FireWire addresses to CPU addresses and DMA in and out with (literally) zero CPU overhead. A driver write would really have to go out of their way to ma…

Yeah, this has been my experience as well. Even cheap Firewire audio interfaces are light-years better than their USB counterparts.

I still use a USB 2.0 MIDI controller and the latency is absolutely killer. Press a key, a beat later, see the note appear on piano roll...

Re: Thunderbolt

#150

Post by modeless »

cal5k wrote: post #25

I can't seem to find an answer to this in the materials - is this optical or copper? Light Peak was supposed to be optical, but the Wikipedia page has unsubstantiated claims of it initially being copper.

It's copper for now. I haven't found any confirmation of this, but I believe Intel's strategy for optical is to have the lasers and light detectors built into the cable itself, so that the plug connection is still completely electrical.
Post reply on HN