# USB 3.0 usurped by Light Peak on Macs?



## digitddog (Jul 5, 2006)

According to cnet, it looks like Apple may be adopting Light Peak technology in the upcoming Macbook Pro update. This might explain why Apple has been slow to adopt USB 3.0. 

Newdeal, though, made a good point on this topic exactly one year ago. When will we see Light Peak peripherals? It could take awhile, so maybe we will still see USB 3.0 along with Light Peak on Macs.



Newdeal said:


> I think its pretty clear USB 3.0 will be the technology for the next few years so yeah I am sure apple will have it. I am guessing they would like to introduce light peak at some point but USB 3.0 will be easier to implement due to the backwards compatibilty and also I am sure that lightpeak is going to take a bit of time to be priced well enough for them to fit it into systems and get peripheral makers to adopt it. [snip, snip] I will guess that USB 3.0 won't be in macs until 2011 with the macbook pros and mac pros getting it earlier in the year and the macbook and imacs getting it towards the end of the year


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

I sure hope they bring Target Disk Mode to Light Peak - that, and horribly slow transfer speeds, have kept me far away from USB.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

For Mac Pro users with an open PCI-E slot you can add USB 3.0 now for $79.

CalDigit 2 Port USB 3.0 SuperSpeed PCI Express Card for Mac Pro


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

digitddog said:


> ... Newdeal, though, made a good point on this topic exactly one year ago. *When will we see Light Peak peripherals?* It could take awhile, so maybe we will still see USB 3.0 along with Light Peak on Macs.


Exactly, do any Light Peak capable peripherals even exist yet? USB 3.0 peripherals do, it would be silly for Apple to adopt a technology for which no peripherals exist all the while bypassing an existing technology that provides far greater speeds than anything they offer now.


----------



## digitddog (Jul 5, 2006)

Refresh my memory, Screature. Did Apple adopt Firewire before there were any/many Firewire peripherals? I don't recall.

And on that same notion, Apple introduced AirPrint and suddenly we're seeing AirPrint compliant devices (at least from HP anyway). 

I guess the question is: Does Apple have the clout to drive peripheral manufacturers to quickly embrace Light Peak?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

digitddog said:


> Refresh my memory, Screature. Did Apple adopt Firewire before there were any/many Firewire peripherals? I don't recall.
> 
> And on that same notion, Apple introduced AirPrint and suddenly we're seeing AirPrint compliant devices (at least from HP anyway).
> 
> I guess the question is: Does Apple have the clout to drive peripheral manufacturers to quickly embrace Light Peak?


I don't recall the exact history in terms of peripheral development and actual deployment of the standard. Firewire is the Apple branded version of the IEEE 1394 interface which was developed in conjunction with Sony (branded i.Link) and Texas Instruments (branded Lynx).

As I recall the deployment of Firewire and i.Link was primarily used in the beginning in conjunction with video cameras and audio components.

The main point for me is this (as I mentioned in my previous post), why leapfrog over USB 3.0 which has an established base of peripherals already in manufacture in favour of a standard that has next to no/no peripherals ready to be used. Effectively adding a port/feature that is currently useless. 

I guess they are adopting the "Field of Dreams" approach... "build it and they will come". Which can be true, but why not in the meantime provide a truly useful feature/port.


----------



## An Old Soul (Apr 24, 2006)

Light peak can handle multiple protocols, I'm sure an adapter kit will fill the void until devices come out.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

An Old Soul said:


> Light peak can handle multiple protocols, I'm sure an adapter kit will fill the void until devices come out.


Good point... I hadn't thought of that. Obviously those cleaver devils at Apple did, thanks for making this point Old Soul.


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

It seems that the topic is getting some pretty good and knowledgable coverage, even if it is still a rumour.

Apple announcing new high-speed interconnect, Light Peak here we come? -- Engadget

I just hope that it comes with a really good and well designed connections when it does arrive.


----------



## digitddog (Jul 5, 2006)

The cnet article mentions that the initial implementation of Light Peak will likely use copper, not fiber optic, so a USB 3.0 adapter isn't impossible, I'd assume. This other article indicates that Light Speed could be used as the carrier protocol over which native protocols, like USB 3.0, can run.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

digitddog said:


> Refresh my memory, Screature. Did Apple adopt Firewire before there were any/many Firewire peripherals? I don't recall.
> 
> And on that same notion, Apple introduced AirPrint and suddenly we're seeing AirPrint compliant devices (at least from HP anyway).
> 
> I guess the question is: Does Apple have the clout to drive peripheral manufacturers to quickly embrace Light Peak?


Actually, any printer can become AirPrint compatible.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

I thought that the lightpeak collaboration with intel and apple was announced a couple of years ago?


----------



## Chimpur (May 1, 2009)

I read somewhere that there may be breakout boxes that would connect over a single light peak cable into the Mac. I wouldn't trust breakout boxes under normal circumstances, but I think if anyone can figure a way to make them stylish, unobtrusive and highly function; I'd say it has to be Apple lol!


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

digitddog said:


> Refresh my memory, Screature. Did Apple adopt Firewire before there were any/many Firewire peripherals? I don't recall.
> 
> And on that same notion, Apple introduced AirPrint and suddenly we're seeing AirPrint compliant devices (at least from HP anyway).
> 
> I guess the question is: Does Apple have the clout to drive peripheral manufacturers to quickly embrace Light Peak?


The thing about apple is they can do what they want everyone has to adapt..
if you recall - USB was out for a while but it really did not take off until apple included it in the first imacs.
so if apple comes with the light peak or what ever they will call it.. not to worry everyone with have to adapt.. or be left behind..
sadly that is the way things go.
remember when they dropped firewire 400, every one made adaptors to convert to 800.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

screature said:


> The main point for me is this (as I mentioned in my previous post), why leapfrog over USB 3.0 which has an established base of peripherals already in manufacture in favour of a standard that has next to no/no peripherals ready to be used. Effectively adding a port/feature that is currently useless.


Because USB 3.0 will be here and then gone in 2-3 years? From what I read Lightpeak is supposed to replace USB, firewire, SATA, etc. It would be great if we didn't need several different kinds of ports. 

Besides, if Apple followed the peripheral companies, we'd probably have parallel ports and floppies. It's amazing how fast periperal companies can adapt and get something out.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

macintosh doctor said:


> The thing about apple is they can do what they want everyone has to adapt..
> if you recall -* USB was out for a while but it really did not take off until apple included it in the first imacs*...


I disagree/don't agree (this is for SQ ... inside joke... please disregard what is in the parenthesis, mc) I was a PC (Windows) user when USB came out and it was ubiquitous in the PC world before Apple joined the party....

They weren't/aren't always leaders and in many ways compared to the PC hardware world Apple were/are followers, to the extent that they wait to see what truly works and what people want... they learn from other people's early mistakes... and this isn't a bad thing. It makes a lot of business sense... this is the "conservative" part of their business model and I think it has served them well overall.

Apple are leaders in terms of concept, design, software, build quality and in the past, displays (no longer sadly) but in terms of "PC" hardware, aside form the PPC chip (really Motorola) and Firewire (in conjunction with Sony and Texas Instruments) and the Mac Mini they really aren't trail blazers in terms of "hardware". You can't be all things at once. Specialization is/can be a good thing... when you combine that with revolutionary concepts and design... well you get Apple.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Kosh said:


> Because USB 3.0 will be here and then gone in 2-3 years? From what I read Lightpeak is supposed to replace USB, firewire, SATA, etc. It would be great if we didn't need several different kinds of ports.
> 
> *Besides, if Apple followed the peripheral companies, we'd probably have parallel ports and floppies. It's amazing how fast periperal companies can adapt and get something out.*



I don't think USB 3.0 will be gone in 2-3 years and you need to read my subsequent post Kosh...

Actually no Light Peak will not "replace" any of those technologies, at least directly and to begin with. It will simply provide a common "entry point" for any of those technologies.. that is one of the things that makes it revolutionary.

Again I don't agree with the rest of your post, see my post above.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

digitddog said:


> Refresh my memory, Screature. Did Apple adopt Firewire before there were any/many Firewire peripherals? I don't recall.
> 
> And on that same notion, Apple introduced AirPrint and suddenly we're seeing AirPrint compliant devices (at least from HP anyway).
> 
> I guess the question is: Does Apple have the clout to drive peripheral manufacturers to quickly embrace Light Peak?


I recall Apple adopting Firewire when there were very few products to be had—even years before OS X. One of the first devices that I recall utilizing it was a scanner. :lmao:

Apple seems to have the vision of where tech is heading and getting a jump on it. Firewire never really caught on with the Windows crowd despite USB's lack of performance.

I think, if anything, we may see Firewire disappear eventually.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> I recall Apple adopting Firewire when there were very few products to be had—even years before OS X. One of the first devices that I recall utilizing it was a scanner. :lmao:
> 
> Apple seems to have the vision to see where tech is heading and getting a jump on it. Firewire never really caught on with the Windows crowd despite USB's lack of performance.
> 
> I think, if anything, we may see Firewire disappear eventually.


Apple didn't adopt the IEEE 1394 interface, they were a major developer of the standard.

Actually the IEEE 1394 (not just firewire, Sony had i.Link, Texas Instuments had Lynx, all essentially the same thing) interface was adopted by many video camera manufactures and digital audio manufactures many years before OSX and was adopted even in the PC (Windows) world, it was the development of USB 2.0 that started the long decline of the IEEE 1394 interface.

I agree though that Firewire (IEEE 1394 interface) is well on its way to extinction.


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

Hmmm... from my recollections I tend to agree with macintosh doctor and the comment at Why Powered USB Is Needed, Part 1: The Short History of USB » Ad Terras Per Aspera

"Greg Grothe says:
April 1, 2007 at 12:03 am
The one part of the history he left out was that in 1998 while most IBM PC’s had a USB port, none of the peripheral manufacturers were making USB devices. When Apple announced going to USB, this forced that segment (Mac peripheral market) to go to USB – and it exploded. In a year you had gobs of USB devices, for both the IBM PC’s and the Macs. Apple’s move made USB take off – we owe the kudos to them."

I was using an ADB G3 Mac at the time and recall many a snide remark from some Winbox users about Apple being such a looser and were now installing those useless USB ports in thier new Macs.

And Apple almost blew it with the round "Hockey puck" USB mouse that came with those Macs. ;-)


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

pm-r said:


> Hmmm... from my recollections I tend to agree with macintosh doctor and the comment at Why Powered USB Is Needed, Part 1: The Short History of USB » Ad Terras Per Aspera
> 
> "Greg Grothe says:
> April 1, 2007 at 12:03 am
> ...


My bad, sorry... I was thinking of USB 2.0, my post is actually applicable to USB 2.0.  The reason for Apple's slow adoption of USB 2.0 was quite simple.. they were defending their interest in Firewire.

Sorry guys and thanks pm-r for setting the record straight.


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

I wasn't trying to set any "record straight", but just posting my recollection and another's quote to give it some supportive credit.

But I sure agree with your comment of Apple's slow implementation of USB 2.0 and I finally got fed up and put in a USB 2.0 PCI card into our G4 1.25 GHz MDD Mac just a few years ago.

Maybe I should do the same with a PCI e-SATA card for occasional useage of such devices. Or maybe even add a Firewire 800 card or.... Hmmm...

I don't even have some of those choices with our Intel 24" 2.4 GHz iMac. And I must admit that I have always appreciated the expansion capabilities of the tower Macs.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

screature said:


> Apple didn't adopt the IEEE 1394 interface, they were a major developer of the standard.
> 
> Actually the IEEE 1394 (not just firewire, Sony had i.Link, Texas Instuments had Lynx, all essentially the same thing) interface was adopted by many video camera manufactures and digital audio manufactures many years before OSX and was adopted even in the PC (Windows) world, it was the development of USB 2.0 that started the long decline of the IEEE 1394 interface.
> 
> I agree though that Firewire (IEEE 1394 interface) is well on its way to extinction.


I'm fully aware of the history, but it's one thing to invent something and entirely another to include it with your products. There are many technologies (I'm sure) Apple has worked on that never made it into customers hands. The way I see it the minute to commit to tech and elect to include it in your product… I consider that adopting.

One of the first Firewire devices I owned was a Sony Digital8 Handycam that I bought after getting an iMac DV in '99. I spent many hours chopping footage in the 1st version of iMovie (long before iLife existed, and it was a buggy piece of *****) until it the camera fell apart.


----------



## Guest (Feb 24, 2011)

pm-r said:


> I don't even have some of those choices with our Intel 24" 2.4 GHz iMac. And I must admit that I have always appreciated the expansion capabilities of the tower Macs.


And every year the expansion choices get less and less. Now the only Macs that we can really add cards to are Mac Pro's and 17" MacBook Pro's (and I bet not for much longer for them). Yes sure, you can add external USB or Firewire devices ... but that still leaves a pretty large and gaping hole in your expansion choices. Want eSata or USB3 -- things that have already pretty much become standard on other platforms? If you don't have one of the aforementioned machines forget it. It's like we're taking steps backwards again ... remember the days before standard video, keyboard and mouse connections? (i.e. VGA/DVI, USB) ... it seems to be rearing its ugly head again.

To me that's honestly a sad state of affairs ... hopefully this will change, but I'm not holding my breath. Apple has always sort of been an "Our way or the Highway" type of hardware manufacturer.


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

MannyP Design said:


> I'm fully aware of the history, but it's one thing to invent something and entirely another to include it with your products. There are many technologies (I'm sure) Apple has worked on that never made it into customers hands. The way I see it the minute to commit to tech and elect to include it in your product… I consider that adopting.
> ... ...


MannyP Design, just do a search on even some recent Apple patents which I'm sure you have done, and you'll find your comments are quite accurate.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> I'm fully aware of the history, but it's one thing to invent something and entirely another to include it with your products. There are many technologies (I'm sure) Apple has worked on that never made it into customers hands. *The way I see it the minute to commit to tech and elect to include it in your product… I consider that adopting.*
> 
> One of the first Firewire devices I owned was a Sony Digital8 Handycam that I bought after getting an iMac DV in '99. I spent many hours chopping footage in the 1st version of iMovie (long before iLife existed, and it was a buggy piece of *****) until it the camera fell apart.


Ok we will have to agree to disagree on the word adopt... to me you only adopt that which isn't your own.. if it is your own, you implement it... a matter of semantics I suppose but it is how I see it anyway. 

At any rate that was the basis of my point to you, because of our differences in how we would use the word adopt... sorry to have come across as though you didn't know the history... you never know what people do or do not know, I was just clarifying my perspective relative to how I would refer to it...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mguertin said:


> ...*Apple has always sort of been an "Our way or the Highway" type of hardware manufacturer.*


+1 Regrettably this is very true in general...


----------



## rvxtream (Aug 12, 2010)

This thread excites me. I'm really looking forward to all the new technologies. Most of all, I'm hoping to see an Lite peak pci-e card for my mac pro asap! I know that there's no peripherals yet but it would make my 3 year old MP feel current again!


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

screature said:


> Ok we will have to agree to disagree on the word adopt... to me you only adopt that which isn't your own.. if it is your own, you implement it... a matter of semantics I suppose but it is how I see it anyway.
> 
> At any rate that was the basis of my point to you, because of our differences in how we would use the word adopt... sorry to have come across as though you didn't know the history... you never know what people do or do not know, I was just clarifying my perspective relative to how I would refer to it...


No worries. And no, I didn't read your message as such.


----------



## Newdeal (Nov 2, 2009)

I think its at the point now though that USB 3.0 even though it has been available for awhile has been used in so few systems that manufacturers won't have trouble switching over to producing thunderbolt products instead and with intel paving the way rather than apple companies that rely on intel chipsets (pretty much everybody) will be able to use thunderbolt easily. I think intel has made the decision to kill USB 3


----------



## bgps (Sep 18, 2006)

Newdeal said:


> I think its at the point now though that USB 3.0 even though it has been available for awhile has been used in so few systems that manufacturers won't have trouble switching over to producing thunderbolt products instead and with intel paving the way rather than apple companies that rely on intel chipsets (pretty much everybody) will be able to use thunderbolt easily. I think intel has made the decision to kill USB 3


Very true I think it is amazing how few USB 3 devices out in the market. It almost seems like a chicken and the egg thing. Companies are not making USB 3 devices because there are still not a lot of computers that come with USB3, and of course computer companies...you know visa versa. 

From the specs "thunderbolt" sounds good, only time is gonna tell if it takes off. 

BGPS


----------



## Guest (Feb 24, 2011)

There are actually quite a lot of USB3 devices in certain sectors ... pro audio and video being two of them. Not as much in the consumer devices that I've seen to date though.


----------



## digitddog (Jul 5, 2006)

mguertin said:


> There are actually quite a lot of USB3 devices in certain sectors ... pro audio and video being two of them.


I'd always assumed that these were sectors in which Mac held a significant market share. Certainly in the pro video arena, where Final Cut Pro is available, Macs play a big role. Do these Mac users rely on Firewire 800? Have peripheral developers embraced FW800? (I happily muddle along with FW400 on my aging Macs.)


----------



## Bjornbro (Feb 19, 2000)

mguertin said:


> Not as much in the consumer devices that I've seen to date though.


Last week I saw a whole skid of USB 3.0 1TB WD external hard drives at Costco. I thought to myself, are there _that_ many USB 3.0 PCs out there? Must be, since Costco wouldn't carry something that doesn't sell in large volumes.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

digitddog said:


> I'd always assumed that these were sectors in which Mac held a significant market share. Certainly in the pro video arena, where Final Cut Pro is available, Macs play a big role. Do these Mac users rely on Firewire 800? Have peripheral developers embraced FW800? (I happily muddle along with FW400 on my aging Macs.)


USB 3.0 is about 3-4x as fast as FW800 and for pros with Mac Pros a USB 3.0 PCI-E card is peanuts to add for the extra speed.


----------



## digitddog (Jul 5, 2006)

screature said:


> USB 3.0 is about 3-4x as fast as FW800 and for pros with Mac Pros a USB 3.0 PCI-E card is peanuts to add for the extra speed.


Thanks for the information. I'd completely overlooked the fact that Mac Pros have PCI slots.


----------



## Guest (Feb 24, 2011)

digitddog said:


> I'd always assumed that these were sectors in which Mac held a significant market share. Certainly in the pro video arena, where Final Cut Pro is available, Macs play a big role. Do these Mac users rely on Firewire 800? Have peripheral developers embraced FW800? (I happily muddle along with FW400 on my aging Macs.)


There are some (but very few) FW800 interfaces in this area that I've seen. Most of us use FW800->FW400 adapters.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

mguertin said:


> There are some (but very few) FW800 interfaces in this area that I've seen. Most of us use FW800->FW400 adapters.


eSATA tends to be the way to go if you're looking to not spend twice as much for an enclosure that has FW800. That and eSATA is usually at least 1500 Mbps, but tends to be incredibly flaky when it comes to the connectors and drivers.

USB 3.0 Drives work fine on USB 2.0 connections - the majority of external hard drives are pretty much USB 2.0 only.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Chealion said:


> eSATA tends to be the way to go if you're looking to not spend twice as much for an enclosure that has FW800. That and eSATA is usually at least 1500 Mbps, but tends to be incredibly flaky when it comes to the connectors and drivers.
> 
> USB 3.0 Drives work fine on USB 2.0 connections - the majority of external hard drives are pretty much USB 2.0 only.


I've been seeing more and more USB 3.0 enclosures... especially the multibay variety ready for RAID arrays. It has been slow though and Intel is to blame for that.


----------



## Guest (Feb 24, 2011)

Chealion said:


> eSATA tends to be the way to go if you're looking to not spend twice as much for an enclosure that has FW800. That and eSATA is usually at least 1500 Mbps, but tends to be incredibly flaky when it comes to the connectors and drivers.
> 
> USB 3.0 Drives work fine on USB 2.0 connections - the majority of external hard drives are pretty much USB 2.0 only.


For enclosures I agree wholeheartedly and own a bunch of eSata multi-drive enclosures myself. I'm also pretty miffed that Apple has totally ignored eSata 

I was talking more about video peripherals (for capture, playback, etc).


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Chealion said:


> eSATA tends to be the way to go if you're looking to not spend twice as much for an enclosure that has FW800. *That and eSATA is usually at least 1500 Mbps, but tends to be incredibly flaky when it comes to the connectors and drivers.*
> 
> USB 3.0 Drives work fine on USB 2.0 connections - the majority of external hard drives are pretty much USB 2.0 only.


This has not been my experience at all... I have many eSATA enclosures and no problems of any kind. What do you mean by flaky?


----------



## rvxtream (Aug 12, 2010)

Reading the press releases on Thunderbolt today, I'm now rooting for USB 3.0. I need fast reliable connection speeds today not when I buy a new computer 2-3 years from now. Unlike Thunderbolt, USB 3.0 can be added to my Mac Pro via PCI-e Card. Intel has confirmed that it will not have a PCI-e Card or express card adapter. Only way to add Thunderbolt is to buy a new computer! This implementation is very similar to PCI moving to PCI-E, and remember that took 1-2 years after it was first brought to the market and finally standardized at pci-e 2.0.


----------



## Guest (Feb 24, 2011)

screature said:


> This has not been my experience at all... I have many eSATA enclosures and no problems of any kind. What do you mean by flaky?


I agree here, I've never had any issues with my 12 eSata drive setup. The only thing I consider flaky about them are the connectors, they are pretty flimsy.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

rvxtream said:


> Reading the press releases on Thunderbolt today, I'm now rooting for USB 3.0. I need fast reliable connection speeds today not when I buy a new computer 2-3 years from now. Unlike Thunderbolt, USB 3.0 can be added to my Mac Pro via PCI-e Card. Intel has confirmed that it will not have a PCI-e Card or express card adapter. Only way to add Thunderbolt is to buy a new computer! This implementation is very similar to PCI moving to PCI-E, and remember that took 1-2 years after it was first brought to the market and finally standardized at pci-e 2.0.


So let me get this straight, you are rooting for a technology because you can add it to your old computer. So when you get a new computer you want it to have a slower, more CPU-reliant technology, just so you can be happy for a couple of years in the meantime?


----------



## gtgt (Jul 19, 2005)

Why can't Apple have both? It would be similar to what they have now with firewire and usb. Just Thunderbolt and usb3. Everyone would be happy. Can't we all just get along?


----------



## digitddog (Jul 5, 2006)

Take this for what it's worth, but according to this liveblog of the Intel launch of Light Peak, it doesn't appear that Light Peak PCI Express cards will be compatible with current computers. (Jump down to 10:25 for a short mention by cnet editor Dong Ngo).


----------



## rvxtream (Aug 12, 2010)

hayesk said:


> So let me get this straight, you are rooting for a technology because you can add it to your old computer. So when you get a new computer you want it to have a slower, more CPU-reliant technology, just so you can be happy for a couple of years in the meantime?


Yup! In 2 years from now, my 2-3TB usb3.0 drive that I buy this week for $200-$300 would of served me well, and probably be ready to be replaced with a equal sized SSD with a thunderbolt port that will go great with the computer that I'll buy at the same time (in 2 years). People often forget that most HDDs on the market can't even touch the speeds that Sata II are capable of providing (unless you have expensive fancy raid setups). I'm just a freelance video editor trying to stay relevant in a fast moving hardware world.

...and, I'd hardly call my Mac Pro 4,1 an _*old*_ computer!


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

rvxtream said:


> ... .... ... People often forget that most HDDs on the market can't even touch the speeds that Sata II are capable of providing (unless you have expensive fancy raid setups). ... ...


I can't believe that this isn't mentioned more in this list. And that even includes some of the fastest read/write dive setups out there.

And after reading about the latest Thunderbolt (Light Peak technology) and some of the Thunderbolt enabled products, I'm scratching my head even trying to understand some of it such as the soon to be released Promise Technology drive enclosures.

"Promise Pegasus R4 and R6 are the First 4-bay and 6-bay High Performance Hardware RAID Solutions designed to unleash the raw power of Thunderbolt™ technology..." 

OK, I get that, but not when I read some of the details:

"...can deliver a sustained data transfer rate up to 800MB per second."

Definitely nothing to sneeze at for data speed, but if Thunderbolt has 10 Gbps of throughput in both directions, isn't that comparable to having a no-speed limit freeway and nothing but small Fiat 500 cars using it???


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

pm-r said:


> "...can deliver a sustained data transfer rate up to 800MB per second."
> 
> Definitely nothing to sneeze at for data speed, but if Thunderbolt has 10 Gbps of throughput in both directions, isn't that comparable to having a no-speed limit freeway and nothing but small Fiat 500 cars using it???


I suspect the 800 MB is what they get from 6 drives in RAID 0. (Of note 800 MB/sec is 6.4 Gbps), so yes at the moment the "highway" is still really clear for *now* (the limiting factor being the hard drives). Video and other applications will eat all the bandwidth you can throw at it and still want more.


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

Thanks for the clarification, I almost missed the 800 MB/sec is 6.4 Gbps translation.

Those big Bs and little bs get me every time. ;-)


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

rvxtream said:


> Yup! In 2 years from now, my 2-3TB usb3.0 drive that I buy this week for $200-$300 would of served me well, and probably be ready to be replaced with a equal sized SSD with a thunderbolt port that will go great with the computer that I'll buy at the same time (in 2 years). People often forget that most HDDs on the market can't even touch the speeds that Sata II are capable of providing (unless you have expensive fancy raid setups).


Well that's just it - a lot of pros have expensive fancy RAID setups. People want a faster bus. USB is also horribly CPU dependent - you'll never get anywhere near the promised speeds of USB 3 just like the "slower" FireWire 400 beats out USB 2.

But I don't see the problem here - go buy a USB 3 card and drive if you like - nothing is stopping you.


----------

