Slashdot Mirror
Expect Hundreds of Thunderbolt Devices, Says Intel
An anonymous reader writes "Thunderbolt ports have been spotted on a PC motherboard, but the reality is that the technology is far from mainstream outside of Apple products. Which is why it is interesting to hear Intel predict that 'a hundred' Thunderbolt devices are expected to be on the market by the end of the year. The comment was made this week at Intel's presentation at IDF in Beijing. Ultrabooks with Thunderbolt are expected to appear this year."
But literally, just hundreds.
Or are they also counting the computers with an unused thunderbolt port on them?
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Which is why it is interesting to hear Intel predict that 'a hundred' Thunderbolt devices are expected to be on the market by the end of the year.
Intel designed Thunderbolt in conjunction with Apple. Which probably means Intel did most of the leg-work on it. How exactly is it "interesting" that Intel is promoting something they invented?
/dev/random
I understand it's just another port to plug things in. Just what we need, laptops with fifteen different input and output ports
You don't appear to understand it at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolt_(interface)
since im against the whole LMFGI thing i will just drop a wikilink for you.
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
In short, it's a combination of both Mini DisplayPort and PCI Express, multiplexed together and demultiplexed at the reciever, but the controller is smart enough to maintain backwards compatibility with regular old displayport 1.2, so your MiniDP adapters will still work.
This isn't something that Monoprice can make for $1.
There's a CPU and a significant transceiver chip the connectors on each end of the cable.
They're going to be more expensive than USB 3 cables no matter where you get them from.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Ah, but this is one port to rule them all. Conceivably, this could be the only port (aside from the charger) on an ultrabook, maybe a USB port or two in addition. Add a Thunderbolt docking station and you can add ANY port that can be placed on a PCIe bus, even an external GPU.
Thunderbolt separates those who know how to use Google from the users.
No, that's porn.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
I understand it's just another port to plug things in. Just what we need, laptops with fifteen different input and output ports. VGA, DVI, HDMI, DP, USB3, whatever thunderbolt is, FW, eSATA, unique docking connector, Ethernet, unique power socket, and a card reader for eighteen different cards. I'm sure I've missed a few.
The point is, it's a "God cable." It can, without exaggeration, replace all of those you listed, except the power socket one.
(For example, A MacBook Air has a thunderbolt port and one USB port, and can connect to all the other peripheral types you mention with just those. And that USB port is just for convenience.)
Unfortunately, it's currently priced accordingly. Also, it suffers from the Competing Standards problem.
Ah, finally we can have one port to rule them all! It's about time.
I think this is appropriate.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
Thuderbolt just extends the PCIe bus to external devices, with all the speed and flexibility that entails, no biggie, right? Sure, it means you really could get rid of all the other ports completely and use a breakout cable if necessary (only in the interim as other types of ports might just go away), making devices much smaller and simpler. But we don't want fantastic new things, we just want solid legacy support for 10 - 20 year old standards.
Really. All a geek should need to know is "externalize PCIe". All the speed of an internal bus (and more) without having to physically put the card into the machine, and even being able to do it at a distance. Greater modularity, better performance. But apparently it's bad to have newer, better things, when we could just stick with the older, crappier. Right?
Thunderbolt is a high speed device interface that has similar performance to PCI Express. It supports a wide range of devices that require very high bandwidth and low latency I/O operations, including displays, network adapters, mass storage devices (Disk Drives, RAID arrays etc.) and things like that. Like USB, the port can supply power to attached devices but it runs at much higher data rates than even USB 3.0. Currently it is generally only supported by Apple but the article is saying that it is starting to show up on more generic X86 hardware.
Looking at the comparisons I've found, seems that Thunderbolt is likely to put a spanner in the works for USB 3.0 support. Why bother with USB 3.0 when this port exists at about the same price? Yea there is the compatibility issue with USB, but I have a feeling they will leave the USB 2.0 ports and just add Thunderbolt until they can send USB to the same place printer and serial ports went. Given the bandwidth available on this port, you can put multiple displays and a hand full of disk drives on one port and do away with the VGA, DVI, and eSATA ports in one shot.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
"Someone announced something really neat and cool and you'll want one. It'll be out soon, on every platform. What, you don't know? Google it, mother-fucker!" Yeah, real fucking informative. News I can use indeed.
Everything you know is wrong, Just forget the words and sing along.
Define: Thunderbolt ... paid too much for the hardware, though".
A. The Primary Weapon in Zeus' arsenal.
B. A loud noise, generally appearing (ha!) after a lightning bolt.
C. A sexual act involving [censored, for the sake of the children].
D. Some new port, similar to firewire, that won't catch on anywhere except with apple fanboys, who will claim is the second (third) coming of apple superiority while the rest of us just say "Nice OS, dude
Quartz Extreme and Core Image. Are there any other real reasons to spend all that money on generic hardware?
With direct pci access, how does this open up computer monitors as a new attack vector? I can see it now:
Step 1) Buy computer monitor
Step 2) Modify and return said monitor
Step 3) Someone plugs "open box" or "refurbished" monitor into their computer
Step 4) Profit!
Its a external PCIe 4x connector that can also carry DisplayPort signals... and yes external Thunderbolt to PCIe card cages exist.
C. A sexual act involving [censored, for the sake of the children].
Cowboy Neil?
Required reading for internet skeptics
So by taking the stuff out of the computer, and putting it into other "stuff", we are going to create an explosion of soul-sucking, space-sucking, power-sucking transformers and cheap little crappy enclosures for externalized ports.
That is until some vendor says: "Hey, let me put all those external ports you need into one box for you!"
And then the next vendor says: "Hey, let me put those ports in the monitor for you"
And then the next vendor says: "Hey, my monitor and computer are the same box, so lets put it all back inside"
At that point we will be right back where we started, but will have spent tons of money we didnt need to spend.
And what happened to DisplayPort. Thats gotta be the shortest obsolescence cycle on record.
I think Thunderbolt requires more silicon for a hard drive than USB. Of course, it is also faster, so it may be worth it, but it isn't quite open and shut.
Where Thunderbolt shines is for displays. It can replace your video cable, your audio cable, your USB cable, your eSATA cable, and your FireWire cable all with a single wire. Now, you can plug in all your hard drives (via USB or FireWire or eSATA) into the monitor on top of your desk instead of fumbling around behind the machine underneath.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
No, they learnt from the old DMA Hacks on Firewire. Now Intel CPU's have an IOMMU to prevent those DMA attacks from succeeding. Whether a way to break that will be found in future remains to be seen.
If they do find a way to break it, then we are back to where we were before. Physical access always wins with hacking. DMA Attacks can be done via Firewire, thunderbolt, PCI, PCI express, PCMCIA, ExpressCard, etc... Basically anything that is connected to the bus. Yet we will still use it due to its performance/efficiency advantages, and the world will not end.
> Now, you can plug in all your hard drives (via USB or FireWire or eSATA) into the monitor on top of your desk instead of fumbling around behind the machine underneath.
I just use front facing hot swap drive bays. Doesn't matter if it is drives in the main chassis or drives in an external enclosure. They don't sit anywhere near the monitor. I would not want them to.
For "fumble-devices", I have a hub sitting on top of the desk.
PCs also tend to have front facing USB and Firewire ports.
You're trying to invent problems that don't actually exist.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I read about Lightpeak back in '05-ish.(epeen flex)
AMD announced that they have something to compete with TB, but there is no details and I have not heard anything about it since a small blip in an interview from months ago.
Or your VESA bus, or your MCA bus, or your EISA bus. Or your firewire...
But what about my short, yellow bus? Can parent still use that?
Intel plans on TB replacing PCIe ports, monitor connections, etc. One port to rule them all. 40/100gb fiber versions will be out in 2-3 years, at least the 40gb version, ma'b not the 100gb.
The speed listed already has overhead subtracted.
Also, since the fiber version should get cheap from mass production and maturity of the product, I would hope that fiber physical ports should start getting cheap for network devices also. I don't see why a network switch can't be made of a bunch of cheap 100Gb fiber TB ports that push Ethernet frames. They're good for 100m distances.
It's the one port that might be technologically capable of ruling them all(use cases that actually use 8x or greater PCIe lanes excepted); but the economics, not of Thunderbolt specificially; but of 'one port to rule them all' generally, have always been problematic:
There are, in broad strokes, three variables that matter for an interface:
1. Cost: What does having a host port of that flavor add to a device's cost? What does being a slave device of that port cost?
2. Speed: What is possible, and what is precluded, based on the bandwidth of this interface?
3. Power: How beefy does a host device need to be to provide spec-approved power to a slave device? What classes of slave device will be impossible without a wall-wart of their own?
It isn't obviously possible to win in all three camps: Cost and speed are usually at each other's throats, which means that you can have a massive ecosystem with no high-end/high-speed products(USB), or an expensive port that you can't even plug a damn mouse into(firewire, before it got cheap). Power is more of an internal contradiction: If you spec the bus to provide considerable power, all sorts of 1-wire-only slave devices are possible; but the cost and bulk of host PSU/battery systems bloat. If you spec the bus to provide minimal power, every peripheral has some janky little wall-wart or y-cable; but even tablets and phones and such can be host devices. If you fudge, and spec a range, you get messy uncertainty.
The 'one interface' problem isn't a technological one; but an economic one.
You realize a device on the PCIe bus can do ANYTHING to a system, right? At that low a level it has complete access to memory, it can crash your system, or worse, and there's shit you can do about it. That's part of the reason for USB to be like it is. It provides very high level access, it is all controlled through the CPU. Means a lot of overhead, but also more security.
Also there's the fact that TB costs a whole lot more to implement in devices. USB slave devices are dumb, most of the logic is on the master, the computer. Not the case with PCIe, you need more logic to work on the bus, so shit will cost more.
It has its place, potentially, don't get me wrong. But this idea that it'll replace everything is silly. You don't want a TB mouse. You want a USB mouse.
I'm not sure about PC Card; but ExpressCard depends: that connector is 1x USB2 + 1xPCIe. Most of the lower speed devices are actually just USB dongles designed to fit inside your laptop. The ones that are actually PCIe peripherals? I hope you brought your IOMMU....
So that they are informative enough to allow one to decide whether or not to read the applicable article.
What is an article?
What does applicable mean?
Should we explain what a port is?
How much information is enough? Is this a website for morons or for nerds?
If you don't know what something is look it up first, and then if you still don't understand put up the information you have found and post your questions regarding the sections you don't understand.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
DisplayPort is championed but not controlled by Apple. It is controlled by VESA. Apple did create the mini-DSP connector and VESA included it in the DSP v1.2 specification. I believe Apple offered mini-DSP royalty free as it was intended to be part of the DSP standard. As for why we are now seeing non-Apple Thunderbolt devices, there are two primary reasons. Apple worked with Intel on Thunderbolt and thus got at least a year head start on all their competitors. Apple with firm control of their hardware has been known to drop/adopt interfaces faster than their competitors. Most PC and MB makers still include PS-2 connectors and some still include LPT connectors on new hardware today. Apple dropped ADB with the original iMac 15 years ago in favor of USB and FireWire.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
It's more useful on laptops. Get home, plug your laptop into just two cables (Thunderbolt and power) and you're ready to go with your big monitor, keyboard, mouse, printer, scanner, external drives, network and that silly light-up snowman your mother bought you for Christmas. Just like you could do with a docking station, except not limited to just a few laptops by one vendor and without taking up a big chunk of desk.
First, VESA controls DisplayPort specification, not Apple. Second Apple has offered mini-DisplayPort royalty-free when they offered to VESA to include it in the latest spec. Lastly, nothing in the Thunderbolt specs says that companies must use the mini-DSP connector; they can use the full-size connector if they feel paranoid about it.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
If Intel is going to push it, it'll catch on. So far they haven't, but looks like that may change.
I can't see them pushing it with any zeal now that the 70-series chipsets feature native USB 3. It doesn't help that Intel has also shipped the best USB 3 controller in existence. When USB 3 satisfies your average user's high-speed expansion needs, there's not much reason for Thunderbolt on mainstream platforms.
Thunderbolt silicon probably won't be integrated anytime soon (adding cost), and the $50 active cables aren't helping things (you can get 6-foot USB 3 cables for around 10 bucks). Given that USB 3 is now universal on all mainstream PCs sold, it's going to be hell justifying the extra cost of Thunderbolt.
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
Your feelings are not mired in reality but flawed perceptions. Again, VESA controls the standard. This is some of the same illogical thinking when people listed Apple controlling AAC as a reason not to use iPods (Apple doesn't control that standard either). The fact that many, many devices are coming out with ThunderBolt says the manufacturers are not concerned about this or they would have objected to Intel.
I take it from your feelings that you avoid using any WebKit based browser like Chome, don't use CUPS, or any software that Apple contributes to Open Source.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Literally now literally means "figuratively."
I normally agree with you on looking something up, but the summary was 3 sentences long. There was plenty of room to say:
"Thunderbolt (Apple's latest data transfer protocol) ports have been spotted on a PC motherboard, but the reality is that the technology is far from mainstream outside of Apple products. Which is why it is interesting to hear Intel predict that 'a hundred' Thunderbolt devices are expected to be on the market by the end of the year. The comment was made this week at Intel's presentation at IDF in Beijing. Ultrabooks with Thunderbolt are expected to appear this year."
I don't mind looking things up, but at least give me very general idea about what type of info I'm about to read up on. I (yes, I am being serious) thought that these were ports to hook my Thunderbolt directly to my PC in some fancy new Intel/HTC project, and wondered what the hell Apple had to do with any of it. When I clicked the link, I was a little annoyed at just how wrong I was. If you're gonna use an ambiguous name, come up with a half sentence to disambiguate it, or at the very least provide a clarifying link.
I don't feel comfortable about Apple's involvement in Webkit or CUPS either. And I am certainly not alone in that. See this for example. Also, note that KDE, the original developers of the KHTML project that Apple forked and renamed as Webkit also would appear to be unwilling to jump into the arms of Apple. KDE supports both Webkit and KHTML, and KHTML continues to be developed entirely independently from Apple.
"Not feeling comfortable" does not necessarily amount to "actively avoiding". While Apple mostly behaves themselves with respect to CUPS (which also was not developed by Apple) and Webkit, I would not trust my life to that. And note also that I feel the same way about Android, not without reason. Fortunately, the common thread that runs through all of these projects is that forking is easy and legal, and the credible probability that a forked project would soon eclipse its former corporate owners tends to keep the worst forms of of bad behavior in check.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
Of course it had nothing to do with the release of the USB2 standard which overtook every other interface on the market at the time for both speed and compatibility. It also just so happened that the other major OS supplier, you know the one with 2000% the market share that Apple has in the PC space, released a new converged OS that had full native USB support. Dream on Apple Fanboys...