Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Why Thunderbolt Is Dead In the Water

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the cables-can't-swim dept.

Technology 568

adeelarshad82 writes "In the same way that Apple championed FireWire for the replacement of parallel SCSI, Thunderbolt is meant as the next big thing in video and audio peripheral interfaces. Plus, it's Apple's move to beat USB 3.0. However, Thunderbolt is off to a slow start, for a number of reasons — from cost to the technology's features in comparison to USB 3.0 — which is why it may be dead in the water."

cancel ×

568 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Sigh (0)

gum2me (723529) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194658)

Sigh

Really? (3, Insightful)

Bishop923 (109840) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194692)

New technology is expensive and uncommon a couple months after release. News at 11.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36194724)

USB 3.0 wasn't.

Re:Really? (1)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194744)

Yes and no. I have friends (typically video geeks) who use Firewire for doing mass transfers because it is more efficient than USB 2.0. I'm not sure we can call Thunderbolt dead in the water since as far as I can tell it wasn't really touted as a replacement for USB 3.0. For what it's worth, I believe that it will be used by the Mac crowd for awhile and then become relegated to the same niche market that Firewire currently occupies.

Re:Really? (1)

grub (11606) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194776)

Yep, Firewire smokes USB for transfer speeds with external disks.

Re:Really? (1)

beef3k (551086) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194918)

Not if your external disk is USB 3.0. Firewire 800 = nearly 800 mbit/s, USB 3.0 peaks at 3.2 gbit/s (5gbit/s before removing protocol overhead). An external USB 3.0 SSD drive smokes any previous external disk.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36194970)

IEEE-1394b intro year: 2002
USB 3.0 availability: 2010.

I'm pretty sure hardware manufacturers learned something in the 8 years between the two; good job at making a complete hash of it though.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36195040)

Firewire is still slower.

Re:Really? (1)

MassacrE (763) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195070)

Firewire 800 is slower, what about firewire 3200?

Re:Really? (2)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195006)

All things being equal, an external eSATA SSD drive should utterly smoke any USB 3.0 device, even if you ignore all the CPU overhead with USB....

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36195018)

No one was talking about USB 3.0, they were talking about USB 2.0.

But as is typical on Slashdot, current, faster, better technology is always worse than "OMG it'll be here real soon now in the future and it'll be totally perfect!" eg, all the BS I had to read about FW400 being worse than USB 2.0, despite it not being actually out and available to buy for months, you know, because FW800 was NEVER going to happen. Rolleyes.

Re:Really? (2, Informative)

Zan Lynx (87672) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195020)

And anyone who needed a disk faster than FireWire has been using eSATA.

So far, the only use I've seen for USB 3 is over-priced flash drives.

Re:Really? (2)

grub (11606) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195048)

I haven't tried a USB 3.0 disk yet, but remember that a USB 2.0 disk performed OK as something to write or read from as a backup-type device. Tried some random IO on it and it completely sucked bag.

Conversely, we had an old fileserver used for a group which had Firewire drives chained off it. That worked surprisingly well for them.

Re:Really? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195082)

eSata is the correct answer for that problem. There is or will be very shortly esata 6gbit/s.

Re:Really? (4, Insightful)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194762)

That much is obvious, yes. But if you read the article, you will see that the author's primary problem with Thunderbolt is that it offers practically no improvement over USB3, while cutting out the backwards compatibility that was originally intended in the LightPeak demo. Combine that with the high cost of entry, and why would anyone want to switch to the new technology? Without high volume, the price will never come down. THAT is what the author meant.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36194952)

You mean no improvement aside from being able to use ONE interconnect for displays and external disks alike?

Re:Really? (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195094)

You mean no improvement aside from being able to do the [thinkgeek.com] same [newegg.com] thing? [tomshardware.com]

FTFY

Re:Really? (5, Interesting)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195096)

My understanding is that USB3 has a max theoretical transfer rate of 4 GB/s while Thunderbolt is at 10 GB/s per channel giving 20 GB/s total. Also overhead limits USB3 having a peak of 3.2 GB/s. Thunderbolt is designed more to replace eSATA and FireWire than USB.

What the hell is Thunderbolt? (1, Insightful)

Epsilon Moonshade (108853) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194698)

The first thought when I read that was "... is this a P-47 or something?"

Is it possible this thing's major failing is that few people have heard of it? (ignoring that if it comes from Apple, it's probably a proprietary standard with licensing fees to match...)

Re:What the hell is Thunderbolt? (4, Informative)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194728)

Actually, it comes from Intel, and is the former LightPeak they've been showing off for the past few years. Apple is simply the first OEM to pick it up in their hardware.

Re:What the hell is Thunderbolt? (2)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194800)

I'm not really seeing how it's like LightPeak at all, given that they've ditched the optical connection altogether.

Re:What the hell is Thunderbolt? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36194810)

I'm not really seeing how it's like LightPeak at all, given that they've ditched the optical connection altogether.

This.

Re:What the hell is Thunderbolt? (1)

RapmasterT (787426) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194844)

I'm not really seeing how it's like LightPeak at all, given that they've ditched the optical connection altogether.

yes, about two years ago. Thunderbolt is EXACTLY like LightPeak, as they are the same thing. LightPeak was the project codename, Thunderbolt is the formal product name.

Re:What the hell is Thunderbolt? (1)

ajo_arctus (1215290) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194892)

I may be wrong here, but I think the optical stuff lives in the connector with lightpeak. That means you can plug an optical cable in to your existing thunderbolt ports and see the same benefits (i.e, it jumps to 10Gbps capable and runs over a good distance) -- once the cables and supporting hardware arrive. That's my understanding, though I haven't paid much attention.

Re:What the hell is Thunderbolt? (1)

Zan Lynx (87672) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195046)

That matches with what I've read, and is also the reason for the high power output levels of the Thunderbolt port.

Re:What the hell is Thunderbolt? (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194902)

The plan is for long-haul cables to embed the electroptics in the cable ends, not in the devices they're connecting.

-jcr

Re:What the hell is Thunderbolt? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36195084)

I see how it's like Light Peak: Intel owns the Light Peak(tm) mark, and can define it as a herd of goats with semaphore flags tied to their hooves if they want.

Re:What the hell is Thunderbolt? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36194850)

Apple is simply the first OEM

Is Apple really OEM? How would we call for example Hon Hai Precision Industry then?

Re:What the hell is Thunderbolt? (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194742)

Thunderbolt/light peak was developed by Intel.

Re:What the hell is Thunderbolt? (4, Informative)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194806)

Is it possible this thing's major failing is that few people have heard of it? (ignoring that if it comes from Apple, it's probably a proprietary standard with licensing fees to match...)

Well, it used to be called Light Peak, and it's an Intel technology that Apple is championing. It's all Intel. It's basically DisplayPort plus x2 PCIe.

The Thunderbolt name is actually trademarked by Intel, so they're probably going to promote it heavily.

And Intel is promoting it heavily - the Intel chipsets all have Thunderbolt controllers built in. Whereas, if you wanted USB 3.0, the manufacturer will have to throw in a separate chip and supporting components for that - USB 3.0 isn't coming to Intel chipsets until next year.

This is an issue as laptop manufacturers who want USB 3.0 have to throw in a separate chip (lots of $$$) and its support components, while Thunderbolt comes "for free". At least, if the laptop runs Intel chips with an Intel chipset.

As for dead in the water - it's hard to tell. A lot of manufacturers have thrown their hats into the ring of Thunderbolt accessories - hard drives, capture carts, etc. It can provide up to 10W of power (4x USB, but short of FireWire power), plus with daisy chaining and the like.

The best answer is that it's really to replace FireWire moreso than supplant USB 3.0. FW3200 is pretty much dead.

Re:What the hell is Thunderbolt? (2)

b0bby (201198) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194986)

This is an issue as laptop manufacturers who want USB 3.0 have to throw in a separate chip (lots of $$$) and its support components, while Thunderbolt comes "for free". At least, if the laptop runs Intel chips with an Intel chipset.

TFA says the hardware is ~$90, compared to ~$3 for USB, so I don't think this is correct.

Re:What the hell is Thunderbolt? (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194992)

Don't forget that Thunderbolt will also replace the VGA/DVI connector on a machine, either directly, or using an adapter. Because an adapter can be used, PC and motherboard makers have zero to lose by changing to this for video out on laptops, where space is a premium. Desktop video is still a tossup, but a video connector that takes less space and also supports a high speed interface would be welcomed.

Bullshit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36194700)

Thunderbolt will be the next USB, the next standard.

Re:Bullshit. (2, Insightful)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194784)

No it won't. USB will be the next USB. The connector is too common now to ever be replaced as the default digital interface for most things. It's on the front of my car radio, for damn sake.

A good parallel is the 3.5mm headphone jack. Frankly, it's stupidly large and poorly designed for what it needs to do (USB isn't). But it will never be replaced by another (wired) connector in it's application space. There's just too many of them, and it's hard to make a compelling case for replacement for 98% of users.

Re:Bullshit. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36194870)

And they'll never replace 5.25" and 3.5" floppy drives - the slots are on the front of my computer, for damn sake!

Technology evolves. Deal with it, sally.

Re:Bullshit. (1)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194980)

And they'll never replace 5.25" and 3.5" floppy drives

The 5.25 and 3.5" floppies had significant drawbacks that begged for an improvment. First it was the Zip drive. Then some people used CDR/CDRW's. Finally, the thumb drive became king. Each was a significant improvement. USB will remain forever as a wired interface, because it's too close to the perfect port for a mouse, keyboard, etc to be replaced. That means volume, and volume means cheap. Device makers go where the volume is for most of their products.

Re:Bullshit. (5, Interesting)

aristotle-dude (626586) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194942)

No it won't. USB will be the next USB. The connector is too common now to ever be replaced as the default digital interface for most things. It's on the front of my car radio, for damn sake.

A good parallel is the 3.5mm headphone jack. Frankly, it's stupidly large and poorly designed for what it needs to do (USB isn't). But it will never be replaced by another (wired) connector in it's application space. There's just too many of them, and it's hard to make a compelling case for replacement for 98% of users.

That is a bad analogy. The 3.5mm jack is easy to use because there is no wrong way to plug it in. Now the USB connector on the other hand is crap because a lot of people probably have to make two or three tries before then can plug something in. It is a really poor design which is only marginally better than those stupid PS/2 keyboard/mouse ports.

Now the Thunderbolt connector, on the other hand, has just one right way that you can try to even plug it in. It is easy to see which side is up.

Re:Bullshit. (1)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195068)

Now the USB connector on the other hand is crap because a lot of people probably have to make two or three tries before then can plug something in.

Who exactly are you hanging out with? I'm picturing those infomercials, where they try to convince you that straining spaghetti is really hard, then cut to a clip of some moron accidentally dumping spaghetti on the floor. Fortunately, they have a new spaghetti strainer which will help you avoid this, and they have it for sale.

"is dead" or "may be dead" (2)

jayveekay (735967) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194706)

The title and the summary seem to be in disagreement. How do i know which to trust?

Re:"is dead" or "may be dead" (1)

Frett2 (630407) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194878)

neither of them, this is slashdot after all

Re:"is dead" or "may be dead" (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195008)

Perhaps if Netcraft would have some sort of means of confirmation it might finally be settled.

Huh? (2, Insightful)

Walt Sellers (1741378) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194708)

Let's not turn all the world into a pro wrestling match...

Apple built Thunderbolt with Intel, not against them. If it was only about fighting USB, they wouldn't team up.

Re:Huh? (1)

RapmasterT (787426) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194864)

Let's not turn all the world into a pro wrestling match...

Apple built Thunderbolt with Intel, not against them. If it was only about fighting USB, they wouldn't team up.

Intel "built" thunderbolt, and partnered with Apple to put it into the market on Macbooks first. a non-trivial difference.

Apple didn't build Thunderbolt (4, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194874)

Intel did. Intel designed and developed the tech, and Apple just came to them and said "Hey, here's some ideas for the final implementation, and we'd like to put it in our devices soon." It is an Intel technology, and one in development for quite awhile.

It is targeted at something of a different market from USB3. It is more expensive for devices to implement, and less secure, since it is really just an external PCIe port. However that means full DMA, low latency and so on.

They are complimentary technologies.

Re:Apple didn't build Thunderbolt (1)

Altus (1034) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194990)

Yes, but remember, if it fails in the market its another example of Apples shitty track record with developing standard connectors and it is becomes a huge success and the Mac Book pros cause a a bunch of equipment manufacturers to build devices for it, then its Intel's technology and Apple had nothing to do with bringing it to market or helping to make it successful.

Anti-Slashdot Effect (2)

Relyx (52619) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194710)

It seems these days any new technology which Slashdot takes a dislike to goes on to enjoy huge success. Take for example the iPad, Facebook, Twitter... I am almost tempted to predict that Thunderbolt will be a huge success :)

Re:Anti-Slashdot Effect (0)

Epsilon Moonshade (108853) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194740)

I'm sure it'll be hard for you to overstate your satisfaction.

Re:Anti-Slashdot Effect (1)

Relyx (52619) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194750)

Yes.

Re:Anti-Slashdot Effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36194760)

Slashdot dislikes those things because they are successful and shouldn't be. Who the hell cares what people are doing every minute of the day?!

Re:Anti-Slashdot Effect (1)

Relyx (52619) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194900)

Who is to say they shouldn't be successful?

Thunderbolt is effectively a PCIe extender - faster and more flexible than USB 3.0. Sealing all the fibre optics - including the transmitters and receivers - within the cable is a great idea too. Ideally I would just like to connect one Thunderbolt cable to my laptop and plug all my other peripherals into a breakout box.

Re:Anti-Slashdot Effect (1)

Relyx (52619) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194922)

Personally, I don't know what I would do without Facebook. The world has changed. As a freelancer, all my industry contacts are Facebook Friends. In fact, these days, a lot of work comes in via FB messages, not email.

Re:Anti-Slashdot Effect (1)

Ruke (857276) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194932)

Most people, it turns out. Who'da thunk?

(Most people, it turns out.)

Re:Anti-Slashdot Effect (1)

Jonner (189691) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194894)

It seems these days any new technology which Slashdot takes a dislike to goes on to enjoy huge success. Take for example the iPad, Facebook, Twitter... I am almost tempted to predict that Thunderbolt will be a huge success :)

There are many excellent reasons to dislike every one of your examples independent of their successes. You might as well predict that Window Phone 7 will be a huge success.

Re:Anti-Slashdot Effect (1)

Relyx (52619) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194988)

However their positives vastly outweigh their negatives. Otherwise they wouldn't be successful.

Re:Anti-Slashdot Effect (1)

The Dawn Of Time (2115350) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195052)

There are at least as many excellent reasons to like all of the examples, as well. Particularly for non-geek people who don't get caught up in silly software ethics arguments or meaningless technological purity battles.

Re:Anti-Slashdot Effect (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195072)

It's more likely the fact that people here actually understand the implications of Apple's iPad strategy, the privacy problems with Facebook. I'm not sure specifically what is wrong with Twitter, but it's probably the fact that it encourages twats to tweet about twits and give people the idea that we care about those sorts of arrogant gits.

As far as Thunderbolt goes, I think it's at least a reasonable debate to have. Right now I can't imagine it being of any particular utility for the mainstream. Although, it could be quite useful for laptops.

Article reads like a big Apple bash (3, Interesting)

The Dawn Of Time (2115350) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194716)

The article reads like a big Apple bash, even though Thunderbolt is Intel's tech. The points about cost are probably valid but the whole thing comes off as a big unsourced bitchfest.

Betting against Apple (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36194718)

Apple tech is too expensive. Other tech is cheaper and almost as good. Apple approach is but fancy marketing and packaging. Apple sure to fail, lose tremendous amounts of money, and disappoint users. Disappointed users will flee and adopt cheaper alternatives en masse.

Shocking prediction, I know, but remember: you heard it here first.

Re:Betting against Apple (1)

ModernGeek (601932) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194746)

People have been saying this since the beginning of Apple. If you're going to bash Apple, you are going to have to try harder.

Re:Betting against Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36194858)

People have been saying this since the beginning of Apple. If you're going to bash Apple, you are going to have to try harder.

Sorry, I thought this was Slashdot. Since when does bashing Apple on slashdot require anything except repeating the same criticism over again?

*sigh*

Let me try again. Apple tech is proprietary, other tech is open. Apple tech is but a ploy to lock users into standards nobody else will use, and foster dependence on Apple to prevent unhappy users from switching to cheaper tech.

Re:Betting against Apple (1)

grub (11606) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194748)


Apple tech is too expensive. Other tech is cheaper and almost as good.

Hurrr.... You just made the case for why Apple products have a price premium.

Re:Betting against Apple (2)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194752)

But this is Intel tech, not Apple.

Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36194734)

I never saw anyone expect it to get common quickly...

Thunderbolt hardware cost no less than $90 (0)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194736)

From the article " Thunderbolt hardware, we've been told, cost no less than $90"

Ouch.

Re:Thunderbolt hardware cost no less than $90 (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195098)

Hmm, if that's all it costs, I want one. Seriously, a good SATA card will set you back more than that. Granted that is like double the cost of a USB 3.0 card, but given that this is a somewhat different type of interface with other uses, that doesn't seem to be unreasonable. Especially given that Thunderbolt isn't being manufactured at scale yet.

Sensationalist article with no substance (1, Insightful)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194756)

If you think theres no compelling difference between the CPU-bound USB 3.0 and what is essentially an external PCIe connector, you need to go back and do some more research. LightPeak /Thunderbolt is just plain better than USB3.0; downsides do include lack of backwards compatibility, and that may prove to be its biggest obstacle, but to argue that "USB3.0 is good enough" is just wrong.

As for price, USB3.0 has been out for about a year now, with Thunderbolt only having rolled off the shelves-- and this, only in Apples computers so far-- a few months ago. Right now, on newegg, im only seeing USB3.0 on highend multi-hundred-dollar motherboards, so it seems to be a wash in that regard.

Its way too early to tell, and anyone saying otherwise is full of it.

Re:Sensationalist article with no substance (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194840)

I think that thunderbolt will fail, but I have not spent a lot of time looking at it vs USB 3.0. My opinion is based on the way it is being introduced and the way the companies behind it seem to be positioning it from my perspective (We've got this great new interface that our competitors don't).

That said your final line says the key thing. "Its(sic) way too early to tell, and anyone saying otherwise is full of it."

Re:Sensationalist article with no substance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36194842)

I have USB 3.0 on a cheap Gigabyte 880G motherboard.

Re:Sensationalist article with no substance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36194872)

LightPeak /Thunderbolt is just plain better than USB3.0

Firewire was just plain better than USB 2.0, now it's a niche product.

Re:Sensationalist article with no substance (1)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194884)

>If you think theres no compelling difference between the CPU-bound USB 3.0 and what is essentially an external PCIe connector

Don't confuse merit with popularity/cheapness.

Firewire was the superior standard 10 years ago and USB killed it. Non-tech savvy consumers will shake their heads at Thunderbolt (silly name) and demand the "new" USB. They'll say they have lots of USB stuff and it needs to go faster. The tech geek in their family will be talking up USB 3.

Its impossible to predict the future, but the merits of Thunderbolt may not save it from economic extinction. I don't see Apple approved connectors making much way outside of the Apple world. Displayport anyone?

I'm not taking sides. I just make sure whatever I buy has an eSATA port.

Re:Sensationalist article with no substance (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194972)

Firewire was the superior standard 10 years ago and USB killed it

Firewire was superior in some respects, but inferior in others. For example, wasn't there a dollar per port license fee?

Re:Sensationalist article with no substance (4, Informative)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194964)

You just spent 3 sentences telling people why anyone who argues differently from you is wrong, yet you provided not a single reason. The only fact you provided is easily disproven:

Right now, on newegg, im only seeing USB3.0 on highend multi-hundred-dollar motherboards, so it seems to be a wash in that regard.

Most certainly not! I see 29 USB 3.0 motherboards less than $100 at newegg. [newegg.com] . The $500 HTPC I bought this year has 2 USB 3.0 ports, as does my 8 month old laptop. By next year even the low-end will have it because manufacturers will have unloaded their USB 2.0 chipset boards.

Re:Sensationalist article with no substance (3)

strength_of_10_men (967050) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194996)

Right now, on newegg, im only seeing USB3.0 on highend multi-hundred-dollar motherboards

Newegg says you're [newegg.com] wrong [newegg.com] .

Re:Sensationalist article with no substance (1)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195054)

If you think theres no compelling difference between the CPU-bound USB 3.0 and what is essentially an external PCIe connector, you need to go back and do some more research. LightPeak /Thunderbolt is just plain better than USB3.0; downsides do include lack of backwards compatibility, and that may prove to be its biggest obstacle, but to argue that "USB3.0 is good enough" is just wrong.

As for price, USB3.0 has been out for about a year now, with Thunderbolt only having rolled off the shelves-- and this, only in Apples computers so far-- a few months ago. Right now, on newegg, im only seeing USB3.0 on highend multi-hundred-dollar motherboards, so it seems to be a wash in that regard.

Its way too early to tell, and anyone saying otherwise is full of it.

You see, only what you want to see: USB 3.0 Motherboards starting at $69 [newegg.com]
The expansion cards for USB 3.0 start at $29.
USB 3.0 consumer devices were released about a year and a half ago.

Apparently you belong to those who "need to go back and do some more research". You make blanket claims of thunderbolt > USB3.0 but offer no specifics to support this argument. Finishing your post with "anyone saying otherwise is full of it" is just bait for someone like me to come and blow holes in your fail of a thought. Care to try again?

Re:Sensationalist article with no substance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36195080)

Right now, on newegg, im only seeing USB3.0 on highend multi-hundred-dollar motherboards,

Starting at $68. [newegg.com]
In fact, there's nearly 100 to choose from for under $100.

Excuse me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36194772)

However, Thunderbolt is off to a slow start, for a number of reasons — from cost to the technology's features in comparison to USB 3.0

Are you kidding me? First thing is, USB 3.0 isn't that popular right now either. And Thunderbolt is so much better than USB 3.0 that it's not even funny. It's much faster than USB 3.0. You can have any protocol on Thunderbolt, it's not just for external hard drives.

So what's so special about USB 3.0 anyway? The same stupid connector that isn't keyed and that you always have to try twice to connect it?

Re:Excuse me? (1)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194836)

Faster for what? That's the question. Hard drives? They're already slower than USB 3.0. Video? Why should I choose thunderbolt over HDMI? Scanners? Printers? Input Devices? Video Capture? USB 2.0 is good enough for lots of this, and 3.0 will be even better. Like firewire, there's a small problem space that's better solved by Thunderbolt than USB, but not enough volume there to drive the cost low enough to be adapted by the mainstream.

Re:Excuse me? (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195066)

Faster for what?

Cameras. 4K is coming, and FW 800 wasn't going to cut it. Also, being able to have 100 meter cables when they go optical is a huge advantage.

-jcr

Re:Excuse me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36194924)

The same stupid connector that isn't keyed and that you always have to try twice to connect it?

The USB logo goes "up", Brainiac.

Re:Excuse me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36194966)

There's no "up" when the connector is sideways, dumbass.

What, no "Netcraft confirms Thunderbolt is dead"? (-1, Offtopic)

ZaMoose (24734) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194774)

C'mon, trolls, y'all are falling down on the job!

Netcraft confirms Thunderbolt is dead (1)

Anonymous Codger (96717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194938)

There, happy now?

Room for both (1)

AndyAndyAndyAndy (967043) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194778)

I doubt Apple really wants to undercut USB. As someone above pointed out, if that was truly the case, Apple and Intel wouldn't be partners for Thunderbolt. You can easily predict, though, that Thunderbolt will become the preferred / default connection for iOS hardware, and probably no shortage of specialty devices for those willing to pay. Can't say for sure, of course, but "dead in the water" is clearly premature if not wholly misguided, given the broader outlook.

Re:Room for both (1)

Coren22 (1625475) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195102)

I foresee a lightpeak docking station being introduced. You could even put USB3.0 in it :)

Cross Platform (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194786)

A standard which I can currently only plugin to an Apple computer but not PCs? DOA.

Portable HDDs are supposed to be portable. Part of portability is working on multiple platforms. Until Intel gets their PC release in line it's only going to be used by those who know they'll only ever want their data on a Mac.

Re:Cross Platform (1)

Ex Machina (10710) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194912)

Only FAT filesystems are truly portable between Windows and Macs & FAT is a terrible file system no big (> 4 or 2 GB) files. Totally useless for many tasks.

Firewire a replacement for SCSI? (1)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194816)

In the same way that Apple championed FireWire for the replacement of parallel SCSI

Hmm... I've been in the datacenter a LONG time... and a photographer even longer. I don't recall many devices in the datacenter replacing their parallel SCSI with firewire, and I don't recall many cameras/camcorders using parallel SCSI and transitioning into firewire.

Let Porn Decide!!!! (1)

softWare3ngineer (2007302) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194820)

...they shall pick the standard. as always.

Re:Let Porn Decide!!!! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36194860)

I'm sure there are more porn star names that are variations on "Thunderbolt" than there are on "USB 3.0."

Not that I could say for sure. *cough*

Badly done hater bait. (1)

pdo400 (86490) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194822)

An utterly useless article information wise, and a little too over the top to be considered a fine example of hater bait. I know you're not the brightest bunch, but surely you can do better than this, eds.

I can see this ending up similar to Firewire... (1)

andyr86 (1942246) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194882)

...with USB providing a wide range of functionality and compatibility and Thunderbolt providing extremely high bandwidth for certain applications like audio interfaces and digital audio workstation.

it's about devices (1)

kangsterizer (1698322) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194886)

a zillion usb devices already available, work with usb, even if not at full speed
almost nothing works on thunderbolt

same thing happened with firewire, although at least cameras are using it

thunderbolt and usb are both techs of intel so there isnt a lot of real competition anyway. the advantage of thunderbolt being that you can use it like a pci express lane.
yeah - but. by the time there's enough devices that make sense, usb4 might be around (just like usb "killed" fw)

where are the data only Thunderbolt cards? video c (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194906)

where are the data only Thunderbolt cards?

How Will Thunderbolt tie in to desktop video cards?

Thunderbolt needs to get into more systems and Pci-e x4 cards will help that big time.

As for video I don't see ATI / nvidia putting pci-e switches + Thunderbolt chips on there video cards so will there be voodoo 1 like loop back cables to tie the chipset or on MB TB chip to the DP bus or will desktops just have build in data only TB ports?

Will the new mac pro go to on board video chips / MXM slots for video?

Light Peak! (-1)

MoldySpore (1280634) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194920)

This tech was originally going to be based on fiber optics and was going to be called "LightPeak". Thing is, Intel's engineers were able to squeeze more throughput out of copper than they originally anticipated. That is a real shame. If it had been fiber based tech, it could have opened the door to the next level of peripheral connectivity. Instead they shot themselves in the foot. Funny that Apple picked it up though. Seems like a good place for it. lol

Re:Light Peak! (1)

The Dawn Of Time (2115350) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195026)

What does "shot themselves in the foot" even mean in this context? Is it not "cool" enough for you or something?

I'm sure somebody said the same thing about USB (1)

lowy (91366) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194940)

I have neither the time nor the inclination to research this, but I'm sure someone said the same thing in the early days of USB.

We'll see if "rumors of its death are premature". I am just happy we are moving towards a faster local I/O standard and applaud Apple for having the guts to champion the technology it thinks is best.

Thunderbolt is tied to the old DisplayPort v1.1 (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#36194962)

Thunderbolt is tied to the old DisplayPort v1.1.

DisplayPort v1.2 is faster.

huh (1)

stazeii (1148459) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195004)

yeah, this seems like a pretty ignorant post. Thunderbolt is not Apple (It's almost entirely Intel). It's not them trying to undermine USB3 (which is also largely Intel). And new tech is always slow to start. Who writes this crap?

Hope it does better than Displayport and Firewire (1)

straponego (521991) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195010)

Thunderbolt looks like a very useful technology. Unfortunately it will add several dollars to the cost of the PC, so probably only Macs will support it, so it'll be hard to find good, cheap monitors etc., and ultimately it will fail. Unless the PC manufacturers decide to grow a pair and do something useful for a change. The PC industry seems committed to the worst possible technologies that people will buy.

also a stupid name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36195092)

Thunderbolt? Really?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>