Then I suppose it's a good thing that with a real PC you can isolate things by using a different bus. You can use a different HBA. One might even be included gratis with your external device.
That's in contrast to a TB vendor not even including a cable.
It's hard to compare though. There aren't enough TB devices out there yet so there's simply not enough people around yet that could have war stories at this point.
Thunderbolt may be dead by the time all of the necessary tech catches up in terms of both performance and price. Faster cables are fine but you have to have something to plug them into. Preferably, that's something that is cheap enough to sell to people.
The main reason to use USB is cost and convenience. That is the reason it became "more standard" than Firewire. Cost and convenience won out over raw speed or lower system overhead.
That is the reason it is likely to remain more standard.
> 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.
> Many keyboards already have USB ports on them, so there is no need to be so elaborate.
No. Not really.
The idea of plugging a mouse into your keyboard is very much a non-PC idea. A keyboard isn't going to have it's own hub unless it is made to be sold to Mac users. PC users simply are not used to plugging mice into their keyboard.
> Looking at the comparisons I've found, seems that Thunderbolt is likely to put a spanner in the works for USB 3.0 support.
I think you have that backwards.
Thunderbolt is NOT the same price as USB3. It is considerably more expensive. Forgetting the legacy support aspect for a moment, you've got the very real problem that TB is at this point mostly vaporware. There are few machines or devices available outside of the Apple reality distortion field.
USB3 is already being bundled with PC motherboards. USB3 add-on cards are cheaper than a Thunderbolt CABLE. USB3 devices are much cheaper.
You have to be a pretty dedicated Apple fanboy to really believe what you posted.
None of that is terribly interesting or compelling despite your mindless attempts at trying to elevate the newest shiny shiny above anything else.
It's not terribly interesting or compelling because most of us don't have to spend a bare minimum of $2400 just to get a basic expandable and future proof system.
I can already put a new GPU into an old PC and have it run circles around a current Mac.
As far as "legacy" goes. This thing is nothing but legacy. It's a new wrapper around all of the old legacy interfaces for those that can't interact with them directly.
You see "legacy". I see something that is standardized enough to be used with just about any machine still running.
Once you've gone to all that expense, you might as well have a separate machine. This seems to be a solution to problems that only Apple users have because of how Apple likes to design it's hardware.
You can forgive us for being confused. The last time Intel did something like this they included it for free on all of their motherboards. By the time Microsoft finally got around to support it, most of the machines out there already had support for it.
None of that is happening this time around.
TB gets confused for an Apple-centric followup to Firewire because that's what it looks like on the surface.
Sure they are. Their product success is based on the perception that it is "free". This leads to everyone devaluing it and no one being interested in paying for support (extended or otherwise).
The Linux community has nothing on Windows when it comes to "freetards".
Yet despite all of these published bugs, the actual malware available is NILL.
You are simply engaging in the usual "overly optimistic" attempt by Lemmings to conflate actual malware in the wild with mere bugs.
The problem with Windows is that it automates the execution of random untrusted code. Windows also has the habit of doing stupid things by default with regard to services opening holes that would never exist on a Unix box or a Mac.
Microsoft has a history of harmful information hiding and blurring the distinction between programs and data.
This all leads to a platform where the "Morris Worm" is an example of how to build things rather than something to be avoided.
> And these libraries can not completely change their function calls every 3 months
I have binaries running that are 10 years old and have kept chugging along through multiple distribution changes. So the idea that Linux is this fragile is beyond silly. Legacy support is certainly possible if you have someone with a clue tending to things.
The key problem here is that Windows and Microsoft products generally violate one of the main design principles of an appliance. It should not need constant maintenance and babysitting. You should be able to deploy it and ignore it without worrying that it will be a threat to self and others.
How long has "Apple OpenStep" been around now? 10+ years. They're having their first visible trojan problem just now. After all that time.
Microsoft's big contribution to the industry has been to lower standards and expectations.
This is the trump card here. You can choose to fix your own problems if you have the source. This is not something merely limited to Linux. This also happens with commercial applications and companies that are smart enough to realize that they may need to do their own long term support.
"open source" is not just a Linux or Free Software thing.
Microsoft simply isn't the bogeyman it once was. Their attempt to turn the web into a Microsoft proprietary playground failed. If anything, I think people tend to simply care less about Microsoft these days. People are far more likely to react to newer more relevant companies.
This sounds like someone trying to desperately make Microsoft seem more relevant than it really is.
Microsoft is now the legacy vendor. Apple is much more menacing. So are Facebook and Google.
Money corrupts. A sick patient is a permanent profit center. A problem solved is not. It's far better from an American business perspective to keep on selling you a defective product.
Also, Americans like easy answers even if they're bogus. So a product or method that is actually effective won't get anywhere. A company that sells such a thing won't get anywhere until they stop trying to be so helpful and just sell flimflam like everyone else.
I was never in an active "boycott Sony" mode. Although I am not sure that it mattered. That's the problem really. Sony is suffering from a great deal of indifference in general I think rather than just the rage of a few well informed nerds.
What's Sony got to offer us that would make us want to break a boycott even if we decided we were boycotting them? I think a lack of answer to that question is their real problem.
We tried that whole "confederacy" thing. It didn't work out. That's why we have a federal constitution.
That said. There are certain founding principles where were stated at the birth of the nation that are directly at odds with the idea of owning another man.
Saying that it was all about "states rights" is tremendously hypocritical. The South was not content to "live and let live". They wanted to boss around the North. That's why monstrosities like the New Fugitive Slave Act was enacted. THAT little gem is about as far away from "states rights" as you can get.
The idea that the South just wanted a quite confederacy where they could be left alone is blatant hypocrisy.
So that means that the Fire Eaters dragged everyone into their fight. That doesn't mean that the fight wasn't ultimately about preserving the Fire Eater's notion of the status quo.
The whole slavery thing was a moral crusade for only a vanishingly small portion of the North. Most people were interested in preserving the Union and couldn't care less about slavery or slaves. Initially, Union commanders tried to "make nice" with the Confederacy and were under the misguided hope that the old status quo could be reinstated. Runaway slaves were even returned to their masters.
"freeing the slaves" was as much a military tactic as anything else.
Slashdot Mirror
Then I suppose it's a good thing that with a real PC you can isolate things by using a different bus. You can use a different HBA. One might even be included gratis with your external device.
That's in contrast to a TB vendor not even including a cable.
It's hard to compare though. There aren't enough TB devices out there yet so there's simply not enough people around yet that could have war stories at this point.
Thunderbolt may be dead by the time all of the necessary tech catches up in terms of both performance and price. Faster cables are fine but you have to have something to plug them into. Preferably, that's something that is cheap enough to sell to people.
The main reason to use USB is cost and convenience. That is the reason it became "more standard" than Firewire. Cost and convenience won out over raw speed or lower system overhead.
That is the reason it is likely to remain more standard.
> 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.
> 99% of us knew what this was months ago. It's not our fault you don't keep up with your own field.
In my field any TB device would be considered a cheap consumer toy.
> Many keyboards already have USB ports on them, so there is no need to be so elaborate.
No. Not really.
The idea of plugging a mouse into your keyboard is very much a non-PC idea. A keyboard isn't going to have it's own hub unless it is made to be sold to Mac users. PC users simply are not used to plugging mice into their keyboard.
> Looking at the comparisons I've found, seems that Thunderbolt is likely to put a spanner in the works for USB 3.0 support.
I think you have that backwards.
Thunderbolt is NOT the same price as USB3. It is considerably more expensive. Forgetting the legacy support aspect for a moment, you've got the very real problem that TB is at this point mostly vaporware. There are few machines or devices available outside of the Apple reality distortion field.
USB3 is already being bundled with PC motherboards. USB3 add-on cards are cheaper than a Thunderbolt CABLE. USB3 devices are much cheaper.
You have to be a pretty dedicated Apple fanboy to really believe what you posted.
None of that is terribly interesting or compelling despite your mindless attempts at trying to elevate the newest shiny shiny above anything else.
It's not terribly interesting or compelling because most of us don't have to spend a bare minimum of $2400 just to get a basic expandable and future proof system.
I can already put a new GPU into an old PC and have it run circles around a current Mac.
As far as "legacy" goes. This thing is nothing but legacy. It's a new wrapper around all of the old legacy interfaces for those that can't interact with them directly.
You see "legacy". I see something that is standardized enough to be used with just about any machine still running.
Once you've gone to all that expense, you might as well have a separate machine. This seems to be a solution to problems that only Apple users have because of how Apple likes to design it's hardware.
You can forgive us for being confused. The last time Intel did something like this they included it for free on all of their motherboards. By the time Microsoft finally got around to support it, most of the machines out there already had support for it.
None of that is happening this time around.
TB gets confused for an Apple-centric followup to Firewire because that's what it looks like on the surface.
Sure they are. Their product success is based on the perception that it is "free". This leads to everyone devaluing it and no one being interested in paying for support (extended or otherwise).
The Linux community has nothing on Windows when it comes to "freetards".
Yet despite all of these published bugs, the actual malware available is NILL.
You are simply engaging in the usual "overly optimistic" attempt by Lemmings to conflate actual malware in the wild with mere bugs.
The problem with Windows is that it automates the execution of random untrusted code. Windows also has the habit of doing stupid things by default with regard to services opening holes that would never exist on a Unix box or a Mac.
Microsoft has a history of harmful information hiding and blurring the distinction between programs and data.
This all leads to a platform where the "Morris Worm" is an example of how to build things rather than something to be avoided.
> And these libraries can not completely change their function calls every 3 months
I have binaries running that are 10 years old and have kept chugging along through multiple distribution changes. So the idea that Linux is this fragile is beyond silly. Legacy support is certainly possible if you have someone with a clue tending to things.
The key problem here is that Windows and Microsoft products generally violate one of the main design principles of an appliance. It should not need constant maintenance and babysitting. You should be able to deploy it and ignore it without worrying that it will be a threat to self and others.
How long has "Apple OpenStep" been around now? 10+ years. They're having their first visible trojan problem just now. After all that time.
Microsoft's big contribution to the industry has been to lower standards and expectations.
This is the trump card here. You can choose to fix your own problems if you have the source. This is not something merely limited to Linux. This also happens with commercial applications and companies that are smart enough to realize that they may need to do their own long term support.
"open source" is not just a Linux or Free Software thing.
An XP box that can't be connected to a network is pretty useless for most people. This isn't the 80s.
Nerds read comics. A gun happy vigilante is perfect comic book fodder.
Someone else already mentioned Batman and Punisher.
If I were in Zimmerman's position, I would expect to be arrested and not see the outside world again until I was able to make bail.
An adult gunned down an unarmed minor in the street.
Can't even make the usual pretense about self-defense. Although it doesn't stop some people from trying.
The 911 dispatcher told him the back off and let the real professionals handle it.
That is an established fact.
These "stand your ground" laws work both ways. Zimmerman saw Trayvon as a perp and Trayvon probably saw Zimmerman as a sexual predator.
Microsoft simply isn't the bogeyman it once was. Their attempt to turn the web into a Microsoft proprietary playground failed. If anything, I think people tend to simply care less about Microsoft these days. People are far more likely to react to newer more relevant companies.
This sounds like someone trying to desperately make Microsoft seem more relevant than it really is.
Microsoft is now the legacy vendor. Apple is much more menacing. So are Facebook and Google.
Money corrupts. A sick patient is a permanent profit center. A problem solved is not. It's far better from an American business perspective to keep on selling you a defective product.
Also, Americans like easy answers even if they're bogus. So a product or method that is actually effective won't get anywhere. A company that sells such a thing won't get anywhere until they stop trying to be so helpful and just sell flimflam like everyone else.
Sweat too much and you'll just die of fluid loss and electrolyte imbalance.
You are making the mistake of assuming that extant socialist systems are any thing like their idealized portrayal.
I was never in an active "boycott Sony" mode. Although I am not sure that it mattered. That's the problem really. Sony is suffering from a great deal of indifference in general I think rather than just the rage of a few well informed nerds.
What's Sony got to offer us that would make us want to break a boycott even if we decided we were boycotting them? I think a lack of answer to that question is their real problem.
Sony? Who cares?
> but rather treat the states like provinces
We tried that whole "confederacy" thing. It didn't work out. That's why we have a federal constitution.
That said. There are certain founding principles where were stated at the birth of the nation that are directly at odds with the idea of owning another man.
Saying that it was all about "states rights" is tremendously hypocritical. The South was not content to "live and let live". They wanted to boss around the North. That's why monstrosities like the New Fugitive Slave Act was enacted. THAT little gem is about as far away from "states rights" as you can get.
The idea that the South just wanted a quite confederacy where they could be left alone is blatant hypocrisy.
So that means that the Fire Eaters dragged everyone into their fight. That doesn't mean that the fight wasn't ultimately about preserving the Fire Eater's notion of the status quo.
The whole slavery thing was a moral crusade for only a vanishingly small portion of the North. Most people were interested in preserving the Union and couldn't care less about slavery or slaves. Initially, Union commanders tried to "make nice" with the Confederacy and were under the misguided hope that the old status quo could be reinstated. Runaway slaves were even returned to their masters.
"freeing the slaves" was as much a military tactic as anything else.