• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

2012 iMacs

G

GWestphal

Golden Member
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?
 
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
 
GTSRguy said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
manly said:
if USB3 is baked into the Intel chipset, why would Apple not offer the interface in Macs?
Click to expand...

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?
 
JackBurton said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
ChAoTiCpInOy said:
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?
Click to expand...
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".
 
manly said:
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".
Click to expand...

I'd like to see the option in a Mac Mini, makes the most sense there, I think.
 
manly said:
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".
Click to expand...

Bateluer said:
I'd like to see the option in a Mac Mini, makes the most sense there, I think.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
ChAoTiCpInOy said:
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?
Click to expand...

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

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. 😛
 
JackBurton said:
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.
Click to expand...
manly said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

ChAoTiCpInOy said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
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:
 
Eug said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
alfa147x said:
Old folks answer this:
When firewire came out did the computers have USB as well?
Click to expand...

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.
 
TheStu said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top