2012 iMacs

[GWestphal]

Presumably the 2012 iMacs will have the H77 or Z77 intel chips, so my question is with native USB 3.0 baked into it, will Apple finally put USB 3.0 on the iMac? Presumably they will use chips that have tri-gate transistors, so they will run most more power efficient and faster.

Do current iMacs read SDXC cards?

What other features do you think they could possibly add?

 

[Oil]

Do current iMacs read SDXC cards?

Yes

 

[ChAoTiCpInOy]

I wouldn't think apple would put USB 3.0 on any of their devices. They'd rather put thunderbolt on them.

 

[GTSRguy]

I doubt there will be USB 3.0, when they are already installed with something twice as fast, thunderbolt. The question is, will 3.0 takeoff where TB doesnt? Either are really used much at this point

 

[manly]

I doubt there will be USB 3.0, when they are already installed with something twice as fast, thunderbolt. The question is, will 3.0 takeoff where TB doesnt? Either are really used much at this point

if USB3 is baked into the Intel chipset, why would Apple not offer the interface in Macs?

TB is sexy and all, but USB3 will be ubiquitous and cheap once it's in every Intel chipset (see USB 1.1/2.0 vs FireWire). Despite it not being a native chipset feature, USB3 is already popping up in many commodity external hard drives. External I/O is really something where broad industry adoption beats out technical wizardry.

 

[JackBurton]

The current iMac has 4 USB 2.0 ports, why wouldn't they replace them with 3.0 ports? Apple hasn't gone to USB 3.0 presumably because Intel doesn't have an integrated solution. And I'm with Apple, I wouldn't want to complicate things and risk reliability by adding some junk third party controller. It just makes sense to wait for Intel.

 

[ChAoTiCpInOy]

if USB3 is baked into the Intel chipset, why would Apple not offer the interface in Macs?

Because apple doesn't support technology just because it's built into the chipset. They fully support thunderbolt which is a jump above USB 3.0. Why support something that thunderbolt does better?

 

[dawks]

The current iMac has 4 USB 2.0 ports, why wouldn't they replace them with 3.0 ports? Apple hasn't gone to USB 3.0 presumably because Intel doesn't have an integrated solution. And I'm with Apple, I wouldn't want to complicate things and risk reliability by adding some junk third party controller. It just makes sense to wait for Intel.

Both Apple and Intel are holding off on USB3 so they can push 'Thunderbolt'. Theres no real reason why they haven't had USB 3 for 2 years now other than marketing.

 

[Bateluer]

I'd be more interested in a Bluray drive option than USB3, personally. Haven't seen much that you can do with Thunderbolt yet, aside from connecting a monitor to it.

 

[manly]

Because apple doesn't support technology just because it's built into the chipset. They fully support thunderbolt which is a jump above USB 3.0. Why support something that thunderbolt does better?

because it will be ubiquitous and come essentially free (on the chipset). As JackBurton said, every Mac has a number of USB2 ports to begin with; it makes zero sense to artificially limit throughput since every storage maker will support USB3 going forward on consumer HDs.

Blu-ray seems like a no-brainer for an iMac, except Apple doesn't want to license whatever's required to ship software playback. Strategically Blu-ray also conflicts with their Apple TV "hobby".

 

[Bateluer]

Blu-ray seems like a no-brainer for an iMac, except Apple doesn't want to license whatever's required to ship software playback. Strategically Blu-ray also conflicts with their Apple TV "hobby".

I'd like to see the option in a Mac Mini, makes the most sense there, I think.

 

[mrSHEiK124]

because it will be ubiquitous and come essentially free (on the chipset). As JackBurton said, every Mac has a number of USB2 ports to begin with; it makes zero sense to artificially limit throughput since every storage maker will support USB3 going forward on consumer HDs.

Blu-ray seems like a no-brainer for an iMac, except Apple doesn't want to license whatever's required to ship software playback. Strategically Blu-ray also conflicts with their Apple TV "hobby".

I'd like to see the option in a Mac Mini, makes the most sense there, I think.

Blu-Ray doesn't conflict with Apple TV - it conflicts with the iTunes Movie/TV store. You won't see it in a Mac Mini. Not until their own media sales start to dwindle [if they do]. Apple knows where their bottom-line is.

 

[boomhower]

Because apple doesn't support technology just because it's built into the chipset. They fully support thunderbolt which is a jump above USB 3.0. Why support something that thunderbolt does better?

Because in a couple years everything from flash drives to cameras will be USB3 where hardly anything will be thunderbolt, just like firewire.

 

[Bateluer]

Because in a couple years everything from flash drives to cameras will be USB3 where hardly anything will be thunderbolt, just like firewire.

Firewire didn't have the backing of Intel either. Thunderbolt does. If its in built into the Intel chipsets, which will be in 90% of every PC and laptop board made, you'll see t-bolt ports get common. And peripheral makers will make devices for them.

Doesn't effect me much though, for the moment. USB2 provides more than enough bandwidth to move pictures from my digital camera or phone.

 

[Eug]

The current iMac has 4 USB 2.0 ports, why wouldn't they replace them with 3.0 ports? Apple hasn't gone to USB 3.0 presumably because Intel doesn't have an integrated solution. And I'm with Apple, I wouldn't want to complicate things and risk reliability by adding some junk third party controller. It just makes sense to wait for Intel.

because it will be ubiquitous and come essentially free (on the chipset). As JackBurton said, every Mac has a number of USB2 ports to begin with; it makes zero sense to artificially limit throughput since every storage maker will support USB3 going forward on consumer HDs.

As stupid as it may seem, Apple did exactly this with USB 2. It was a long time before they upgraded from USB 1.1, because they were pushing Firewire.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's not until 2013 before we see USB 3 on Macs.

Because apple doesn't support technology just because it's built into the chipset. They fully support thunderbolt which is a jump above USB 3.0. Why support something that thunderbolt does better?

Cuz USB 3 hardware is already available, and it's affordably priced. I don't really see how Thunderbolt is really that much better in casual real-world use than USB 3 for say a single external SSD. If it means the USB enclosure is $30 and the Thunderbolt one is $100, guess which one I'm buying?

I won't buy another iMac or MacBook Pro until it gets USB 3. Sig edited.

 

[Kaido]

I was really excited about Thunderbolt until I saw the actual implementation:

1. Only Apple has it right now. No other (PC) motherboards. Zero plans for an aftermarket PCI Express card at this time.

2. Switched from optical to copper cable. Lame.

3. Cable has 12 chips inside. Twelve.

4. Cable costs $50. No joke.

5. Cable is only available from Apple right now. And is limited to a 2.0-meter size.

6. It's expensive to put Thunderbolt in your peripheral, so there's hardly any right now, and the future ones will be expensive (Magma/Vidock PCI Express adapters, etc.)link

7. They put a wussy version in the Macbook Air (Eagle Ridge), which only supports ONE monitor output. So you can't really daisy-chain 6 monitors to your Air (plus iirc, the GPU only supports dual monitors - so onboard + 1 external)

All in all, failboat. I was really excited about the new standard, but it's turning into Firewire - limited to just a few applications and not well-loved by the general consumer population. Coulda shoulda woulda. Apple can take Thunderbolt and shove it in a box with Final Cut Pro X

My vote is for External PCI Express :awe:

 

[manly]

As stupid as it may seem, Apple did exactly this with USB 2. It was a long time before they upgraded from USB 1.1, because they were pushing Firewire.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's not until 2013 before we see USB 3 on Macs.

I don't remember the exact timeline but the key difference is Apple designed its own chipsets back then. When Intel integrates USB3, it becomes essentially free to all OEMs.

Cuz USB 3 hardware is already available, and it's affordably priced. I don't really see how Thunderbolt is really that much better in casual real-world use than USB 3 for say a single external SSD. If it means the USB enclosure is $30 and the Thunderbolt one is $100, guess which one I'm buying?

I won't buy another iMac or MacBook Pro until it gets USB 3. Sig edited.

I think we're in agreement this seems to be a replay of USB vs FireWire except TB seems to be far more expensive (maybe now is a bad time to judge cost since it's essentially in the early adoption phase). In fact, FireWire had a much greater real world advantage over USB 1.1 and it still ultimately lost to cheap/everywhere USB2.

As Kaido mentioned, active signaling means a relatively high floor to the cable cost.

 

[KeithP]

I don't think Thunderbolt has to displace USB to be considered a success. I am not sure why anyone would say otherwise. I am willing to wait it out and see how things shake out in the next year or so.

As far as USB 3.0, I think Apple will include it as soon as it is included in the chipsets they use. Time will tell.

-KeithP

 

[gmaster456]

I was really excited about Thunderbolt until I saw the actual implementation:

1. Only Apple has it right now. No other (PC) motherboards.

Nope. Sony has it too.

 

[alfa147x]

Old folks answer this:
When firewire came out did the computers have USB as well?

 

[Pliablemoose]

Nope. Sony has it too.

I'm very impressed with what Sony did too.

http://www.slashgear.com/sony-vaio-z-series-13-3-ultraportable-with-thunderbolt-dock-28161695/

 

[TheStu]

Old folks answer this:
When firewire came out did the computers have USB as well?

I think they had USB 1.1 at the time. And USB 2.0 may have been out at the time, but I am not sure if it was on any of apple's systems.

 

[gmaster456]

I'm very impressed with what Sony did too.

http://www.slashgear.com/sony-vaio-z-series-13-3-ultraportable-with-thunderbolt-dock-28161695/

I'm impressed with the Z series too. Where else do you have the option to get a 13inch laptop with a 1080p screen and Two SSD's in Raid 0?

 

[manly]

I think they had USB 1.1 at the time. And USB 2.0 may have been out at the time, but I am not sure if it was on any of apple's systems.

USB2 didn't ship on Macs until 2003 so FW400 had a few years head start. It was vastly superior to USB 1.1 yet still lost once USB 2.0 shipped on every PC.

Don't get me wrong, FireWire has been reasonably successful but it never had the market penetration of a commodity technology.

Didn't Sony choose a USB A connector for its ThunderBolt implementation? Doesn't that sound like a brain fart?