Discussion:
Asus, ASrock, Gigabyte to incorporate Thunderbolt.
(too old to reply)
Flint
2011-12-27 15:44:09 UTC
Permalink
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20111226PD214.html

I guess Apple/Intel needs some help from the Wintel sector to help
Thunderbolt along from being YA stalled technology.
--
MFB
Flint
2011-12-27 15:48:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Flint
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20111226PD214.html
I guess Apple/Intel needs some help from the Wintel sector to help
Thunderbolt along from being YA stalled technology.
Sorry for the post folks, wrong NG.
--
MFB
r***@hotmail.com
2012-01-06 04:41:55 UTC
Permalink
Not to change the subject, I just threw out a shitload of Apple ADB
keyboards and mice and a smattering of keyboards for Sun, HP 9000 and
SGI machines. Absolutely no market for any of them that I could
find.....

I also still have some S-Bus cards for SPARC stations. I seem to
remember these were around at about the same time as the last of the
Amigas and other oddball home computers....IIRC they were plug and
play too, compact, well engineered. Probably I'll wind up putting
them in the scrap pile too. Funny how 20 year old computers that cost
the price of a car are worthless and old vacuum tubes worth a damn
fortune!
Flint
2012-01-06 15:22:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@hotmail.com
Not to change the subject, I just threw out a shitload of Apple ADB
keyboards and mice and a smattering of keyboards for Sun, HP 9000 and
SGI machines. Absolutely no market for any of them that I could
find.....
I also still have some S-Bus cards for SPARC stations. I seem to
remember these were around at about the same time as the last of the
Amigas and other oddball home computers....IIRC they were plug and
play too, compact, well engineered. Probably I'll wind up putting
them in the scrap pile too. Funny how 20 year old computers that cost
the price of a car are worthless and old vacuum tubes worth a damn
fortune!
Tell me about it. I sold off most of Amiga stuff years ago while they
still had some value left in them. Sold them to a guy over in
Germany. Seems that used Amiga stuff (along with a lot of old
Commodore stuff) remained quite popular over in the Brittish/Euro
markets for several years after C='s demise in the mid 90's.

I still have my old orginal Amiga 1000 however. It is the original
1985 model, but I just couldn't part with it. It still works, and has
a Greg Tibbs designed 'Rejuvenator' daughterboard I literally had to
wrestle with to install, and I'm not giving it up for anything short
of a massive EMP! ;-) The rejuvenator board was a replacement
'daughtercard' that fit on the motherboard via a bunch of molex header
pins, and replaced the Amiga's noisy PALS (so the ZORRO connector on
the side was more reliable), and the 1000 itself could use the
upgraded ECS, or enhanced chipset including the Fatter Agnus
graphics/animation chip, and Amiga Kickstart(bootloader) ROM.

I had such a time getting it together, the guy who developed the board
(Greg Tibbs) and I worked on it for over an hour up in his hotel room
at the Atlanta Amiga DevCon (back in 90 IIRC). Getting all those
molex header pins to line up was a real bear.

I also had an AdSpeed 68010 accelerator on it, but it went screwy, so
I put the original 68000 back in it. It still has a ZORRO side slot
attached SCSI controller connected, and a 20 year old ancient 100MB
Quantum SCSI drive that also still works.

Once in a blue moon, I do boot it up just for nostalgia sake, and I
even use it on occasion just for a text editor I've found to still be
the best damn little ASCII text editors ever made (called QED). It's
only an 80K program that had two internal macro command sets, and a
columnar cut & past function that works better than any editor I've
used, even to this day.
--
MFB
r***@hotmail.com
2012-01-07 02:46:12 UTC
Permalink
Tell me about it.  I sold off most of Amiga stuff years ago while they
still had some value left in them.  Sold them to a guy over in
Germany.  Seems that used Amiga stuff (along with a lot of old
Commodore stuff) remained quite popular over in the Brittish/Euro
markets for several years after C='s demise in the mid 90's.
I still have my old orginal Amiga 1000 however.  It is the original
1985 model, but I just couldn't part with it.  It still works, and has
a Greg Tibbs designed 'Rejuvenator' daughterboard I literally had to
wrestle with to install, and I'm not giving it up for anything short
of a massive EMP! ;-)  The rejuvenator board was a replacement
'daughtercard' that fit on the motherboard via a bunch of molex header
pins, and replaced the Amiga's noisy PALS (so the ZORRO connector on
the side was more reliable), and the 1000 itself could use the
upgraded ECS, or enhanced chipset including the Fatter Agnus
graphics/animation chip, and Amiga Kickstart(bootloader) ROM.
I've got an original off the camera U-Matic tape of Andy Warhol
drawing Debbie Harry laying around somewhere....
Flint
2012-01-07 05:43:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@hotmail.com
Post by Flint
Tell me about it. I sold off most of Amiga stuff years ago while they
still had some value left in them. Sold them to a guy over in
Germany. Seems that used Amiga stuff (along with a lot of old
Commodore stuff) remained quite popular over in the Brittish/Euro
markets for several years after C='s demise in the mid 90's.
I still have my old orginal Amiga 1000 however. It is the original
1985 model, but I just couldn't part with it. It still works, and has
a Greg Tibbs designed 'Rejuvenator' daughterboard I literally had to
wrestle with to install, and I'm not giving it up for anything short
of a massive EMP! ;-) The rejuvenator board was a replacement
'daughtercard' that fit on the motherboard via a bunch of molex header
pins, and replaced the Amiga's noisy PALS (so the ZORRO connector on
the side was more reliable), and the 1000 itself could use the
upgraded ECS, or enhanced chipset including the Fatter Agnus
graphics/animation chip, and Amiga Kickstart(bootloader) ROM.
I've got an original off the camera U-Matic tape of Andy Warhol
drawing Debbie Harry laying around somewhere....
Gawd, I almost forgot about that! :) You wouldn't have any of the
"Stevie" commercials C= put out, would you?
--
MFB
r***@hotmail.com
2012-01-12 00:58:56 UTC
Permalink
Tell me about it.  I sold off most of Amiga stuff years ago while they
still had some value left in them.  Sold them to a guy over in
Germany.  Seems that used Amiga stuff (along with a lot of old
Commodore stuff) remained quite popular over in the Brittish/Euro
markets for several years after C='s demise in the mid 90's.
I still have my old orginal Amiga 1000 however.  It is the original
1985 model, but I just couldn't part with it.  It still works, and has
a Greg Tibbs designed 'Rejuvenator' daughterboard I literally had to
wrestle with to install, and I'm not giving it up for anything short
of a massive EMP! ;-)  The rejuvenator board was a replacement
'daughtercard' that fit on the motherboard via a bunch of molex header
pins, and replaced the Amiga's noisy PALS (so the ZORRO connector on
the side was more reliable), and the 1000 itself could use the
upgraded ECS, or enhanced chipset including the Fatter Agnus
graphics/animation chip, and Amiga Kickstart(bootloader) ROM.
  I've got an original off the camera U-Matic tape of Andy Warhol
drawing Debbie Harry laying around somewhere....
Gawd, I almost forgot about that! :)  You wouldn't have any of the
"Stevie" commercials C= put out, would you?
--
MFB
Sadly, no. Nor do I have a working U-Matic machine.

Krooburg Science
2011-12-27 17:47:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Flint
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20111226PD214.html
I guess Apple/Intel needs some help from the Wintel sector to help
Thunderbolt along from being YA stalled technology.
--
MFB
This isn't the first time Apple has introduced higher end new
technology while the Windoze machine makers dragged their feet. Apple
introduced USB first, as well as Firewire, both far superior to
anything the crappy Wintel makers were offering at the time. Apple was
also so the first to introduce built in SCSI for easy hookup of mass
storage devices as well plug n' play networking well before it was
offered by the "slow to figure it out" DOS machine guys. They're
always 2 steps behind.

As far as Thuderbolt itself goes, it's already getting love from the
video editing community. With video I/O boxes by companies like AJA
Video Systems and Promise, you can edit uncompressed HD video on a
friggin' Macbook Pro or iMac using apps like Avid's Media Composer,
Final Cut Pro, or Adobe Premiere. And once again, the windoze guys are
late to the party.

- K
Arny Krueger
2011-12-27 21:14:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Krooburg Science
This isn't the first time Apple has introduced higher end new
technology while the Windoze machine makers dragged their feet.
You seem to understimate the uselessness of putting sockets on computers
when there is no equipment to plug into them. USB interfaces were on WinTel
machines long before there was much of anything to plug into them.
Post by Krooburg Science
Apple introduced USB first,
Nope. USB is a product of the USB Implementers Forum, not Apple. The prime
movers in the USBIF includes HP, Intel, and Microsoft. They sit on the board
of directors but Apple doesn't and AFAIK nevefr has . Apple was also *not*
a founder. Apple is a late-comer, as they promoted Firewire over USB in the
early days.
Post by Krooburg Science
as well as Firewire,
Which spent about 10 years being a solution that was largely in search of a
problem.
Post by Krooburg Science
both far superior to anything the crappy Wintel makers were offering at
the time.
Your presentation of history seems to be in error. USB was the Wintel
offering that addressed the same basic need as Firewire. Letsee, Windows a
product of Microsoft and Intel - founding members and still holding seats on
the board of directors. Isn't that Wintel?
Post by Krooburg Science
Apple was also so the first to introduce built in SCSI for easy hookup of
mass storage devices
SCSI has been available, implemented, and sold as components of Wintel
machines all along. There were ISA cards for SCSI drives that plugged into
the origional IBM PCs, and sequels.
Post by Krooburg Science
as well plug n' play networking
Plug and play networking basically refers to 10BT and sequel, twisted pair
technology. The prior technology was coax-based which required terminators
that made it difficult to hot plug equipment without at least a short term
network outage. 10BT addressed that. 10BT is again not a product of Apple,
nor were they the first impementers of it.
Post by Krooburg Science
well before it was offered by the "slow to figure it out" DOS machine
guys. They're always 2 steps behind.
Just not true. Network interface cards existed for Apples and PCs at the
same time.
Post by Krooburg Science
As far as Thuderbolt itself goes, it's already getting love from the
video editing community.

It seems like the application of Thunderbolt in this context would be as a
means to add external graphics cards. This begs the question of "whats wrong
with internal graphics cards"? Graphics interfaces are becoming
commoditized. The basic on-board video interface on a modern computer or
laptop is not that far from the SOTA of 5 years or the high end mainstream
of 3 years ago.
Post by Krooburg Science
With video I/O boxes by companies like AJA
Video Systems and Promise, you can edit uncompressed HD video on a
friggin' Macbook Pro or iMac using apps like Avid's Media Composer,
Final Cut Pro, or Adobe Premiere.
Your ignorance of the video workload associated with video editing is
showing. It's nothing compared to high end gaming for example. Video editing
no way puts serious stress on video cards. Editing video on any of the
better-equippped laptops is hardly rocket science and takes no special
hardware.
Post by Krooburg Science
And once again, the windoze guys are late to the party.
No, the party is doing quite well with or without Thunderbolt.
Krooburg Science
2011-12-27 22:31:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by Krooburg Science
This isn't the first time Apple has introduced higher end new
technology while the Windoze machine makers dragged their feet.
You seem to understimate the uselessness of putting sockets on computers
when there is no equipment to plug into them. USB interfaces were on WinTel
machines long before there was much of anything to plug into them.
Post by Krooburg Science
 Apple introduced USB first,
Nope. USB is a product of the USB Implementers Forum, not Apple. The prime
movers in the USBIF includes HP, Intel, and Microsoft. They sit on the board
of directors but Apple doesn't and AFAIK nevefr has . Apple was also *not*
a founder. Apple is a late-comer, as they promoted Firewire over USB in the
early days.
Arni as usual you have your head up your ass. The first iMac model was
the first computer on the market with built in USB. Any windows usb
implementation was an add-on. And it was the Mac that popularized the
format. I don't give a shit if Apple was on the committee or not (I
know they weren't). But it's no secret that they pushed the interface
forward considerably. As for promoting Firewire over USB for certain
applications, YOU BET. Because the original implementation of USB was
only 11Mb/s vs. *400Mb/s* for FW. There is no comparison and USB could
not be used for video application and high speed drive connectivity.
Apple was still the first to ship built-in USB, USB keyboards and
mice.
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by Krooburg Science
 as well as Firewire,
Which spent about 10 years being a solution that was largely in search of a
problem.
Bullshit! DV based camcorders with FW ports and hard disks started
hitting the market immediately after FW started shipping. That was
followed very shortly by analog video to FW encoding boxes.
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by Krooburg Science
both far superior to anything the crappy Wintel makers were offering at
the time.
Your presentation of history seems to be in error. USB was the Wintel
offering that addressed the same basic need as Firewire.
Wrong shit-for-brains. How can a 11Mb/s interface possibly compete
with 400Mb/s as stated above?? Apple never indeed FW to be used for
simple peripherals like keyboards & mice. It was intended for devices
that need real bandwidth like storage, video, and scanners.
Post by Arny Krueger
Letsee, Windows a
product of Microsoft and Intel - founding members and still holding seats on
the board of directors. Isn't that Wintel?
Post by Krooburg Science
 Apple was also so the first to introduce built in SCSI for easy hookup of
mass storage devices
SCSI has been available, implemented, and sold as components of  Wintel
machines all along. There were ISA cards for SCSI drives that plugged into
the origional IBM PCs, and sequels.
But it wasn't built into off the shelf PCs now was it Arnold?? You had
to buy and configure cards and load drivers. It was NOT included and
not plug and play with off the shelf PCs. It WAS on the Mac. And it
was very easy to use! For PCs, it required additional expertise that
was never required for the Mac.
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by Krooburg Science
 as well plug n' play networking
Plug and play networking basically refers to 10BT and sequel, twisted pair
technology. The prior technology was coax-based which required terminators
that made it difficult to hot plug equipment without at least a short term
network outage. 10BT addressed that.  10BT is again not a product of Apple,
nor were they the first impementers of it.
You really don't know FUCK ALL about the Mac, do you Arni?? The
earliest Macs and operating systems all came standard with AppleTalk
protocol and could use the standard serial/printer ports with an
adapter and simple phone wire to network multiple Macs and printers
right out of the box! You could share files very easily. To do the
same with DOS/Windows PCs, you had to buy cards and install network
drivers like Novell to do even basic networking which was NOT simple.
The Mac once again was ahead of it's time and plug and play with
networking.

http://lowendmac.com/ed/rosen/09ar/appletalk-localtalk.html
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by Krooburg Science
well before it was offered by the "slow to figure it out" DOS machine
guys. They're always 2 steps behind.
Just not true. Network interface cards existed for Apples and PCs at the
same time.
Post by Krooburg Science
As far as Thuderbolt itself goes, it's already getting love from the
video editing community.
It seems like the application of Thunderbolt in this context would be as a
means to add external graphics cards. This begs the question of "whats wrong
with internal graphics cards"?   Graphics interfaces are becoming
commoditized. The basic on-board video interface on a modern computer or
laptop  is not that far from the SOTA of 5 years or the high end mainstream
of 3 years ago.
You can add anything via TB in theory that you can stick on a PCI bus
Arni, what's you point??
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by Krooburg Science
With video I/O boxes by companies like AJA
Video Systems and Promise, you can edit uncompressed HD video on a
friggin' Macbook Pro or iMac using apps like Avid's Media Composer,
Final Cut Pro, or Adobe Premiere.
Your ignorance of the video workload associated with video editing is
showing. It's nothing compared to high end gaming for example. Video editing
no way puts serious stress on video cards. Editing video on any of the
better-equippped laptops is hardly rocket science and takes no special
hardware.
Who's talking about video cards?? How the fuck are you going to get
uncompressed HD video in and out of small format computer without PCI
slots ARNI?? You need I/O and disk storage with HUGE bandwidth,
something you cannot get currently on USB. Thunderbolt provides up to
10Gb throughput which is fast enough to handle uncompressed RGB HD
video at 60fps. It also opens up the door for multiple high end
displays with built in GPU that can run off of one small machine for
your so=called "high end gaming." So TB is a boon for all these
things.
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by Krooburg Science
And once again, the windoze guys are late to the party.
No, the party is doing quite well with or without Thunderbolt.
I can ingest, edit, and output uncompressed HD footage for release
right now on even a Mac Mini or Macbook Air. You can't do that on ANY
Windows laptop right now. Sure, most people don't need to do that. But
the point of my post is that Apple has a history of pushing useful
change into the computer over most other companies. Same was also true
for desktop publishing, word processing, music distribution, and cell
phones. It seems the purpose of your post was to be WRONG and argue
useless points.

xo
- K
Arny Krueger
2011-12-28 13:18:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by Krooburg Science
This isn't the first time Apple has introduced higher end new
technology while the Windoze machine makers dragged their feet.
You seem to understimate the uselessness of putting sockets on computers
when there is no equipment to plug into them. USB interfaces were on WinTel
machines long before there was much of anything to plug into them.
Post by Krooburg Science
Apple introduced USB first,
Nope. USB is a product of the USB Implementers Forum, not Apple. The prime
movers in the USBIF includes HP, Intel, and Microsoft. They sit on the board
of directors but Apple doesn't and AFAIK nevefr has . Apple was also *not*
a founder. Apple is a late-comer, as they promoted Firewire over USB in the
early days.
Arni as usual you have your head up your ass.
Borglet, you are just blowing hot air - trying to save your butt in the face
of the many errors that you have made.
Post by Arny Krueger
The first iMac model was the first computer on the market with built in
USB.
Absolute bollocks! The iMac was announced in May 1998 and first shipped in
August 1998, and by then people had been building PCs with USB ports for
years. Reality: The original iMac was the first Apple with built-in USB but
no floppy drive. I can cite numerous sources to support that claim, but with
your track record for denial and poor reading comprehension, it's not worth
my trouble.

Here's a little factoid - USB was supported by Win95 SR 2.1, and Win95 SR2.1
was first delivered by Windows OEMs in May 1997.
Post by Arny Krueger
Any windows usb implementation was an add-on.
It was part of the Windows systems that OEMs were installing and shipping in
May, 1997.

Point, set, match to Arny, as usual! ;-)
Flint
2011-12-29 08:01:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by Krooburg Science
This isn't the first time Apple has introduced higher end new
technology while the Windoze machine makers dragged their feet.
You seem to understimate the uselessness of putting sockets on computers
when there is no equipment to plug into them. USB interfaces were on WinTel
machines long before there was much of anything to plug into them.
Post by Krooburg Science
Apple introduced USB first,
Nope. USB is a product of the USB Implementers Forum, not Apple. The prime
movers in the USBIF includes HP, Intel, and Microsoft. They sit on the board
of directors but Apple doesn't and AFAIK nevefr has . Apple was also *not*
a founder. Apple is a late-comer, as they promoted Firewire over USB in the
early days.
Arni as usual you have your head up your ass.
Borglet, you are just blowing hot air - trying to save your butt in the face
of the many errors that you have made.
Post by Arny Krueger
The first iMac model was the first computer on the market with built in
USB.
Absolute bollocks! The iMac was announced in May 1998 and first shipped in
August 1998, and by then people had been building PCs with USB ports for
years.
Like one of my old QDI AT motherboards...
Post by Arny Krueger
Reality: The original iMac was the first Apple with built-in USB but
no floppy drive. I can cite numerous sources to support that claim, but with
your track record for denial and poor reading comprehension, it's not worth
my trouble.
Here's a little factoid - USB was supported by Win95 SR 2.1, and Win95 SR2.1
was first delivered by Windows OEMs in May 1997.
Post by Arny Krueger
Any windows usb implementation was an add-on.
It was part of the Windows systems that OEMs were installing and shipping in
May, 1997.
Correct again. As of Win95(B), IIRC.
--
MFB
Arny Krueger
2011-12-29 13:06:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Flint
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by Arny Krueger
The first iMac model was the first computer on the market with built in
USB.
Absolute bollocks! The iMac was announced in May 1998 and first shipped in
August 1998, and by then people had been building PCs with USB ports for
years.
Like one of my old QDI AT motherboards...
Thanks for the confirmation. My memories of the mid-late 1990s are
imperfect, but I remember installing Pentium-II motherboards with USB ports
on them. Hardware is easy, but finding software support for it is another
question. My recollection was that motherboards with USB 1.0 ports started
showing up as retail products in early1997. Initial software support came
via DOS device drivers and TSR's for USB mice.
Post by Flint
Post by Arny Krueger
Reality: The original iMac was the first Apple with built-in USB but
no floppy drive.
Here's a little factoid - USB was supported by Win95 SR 2.1, and Win95 SR2.1
was first delivered by Windows OEMs in May 1997.
Post by Arny Krueger
Any windows usb implementation was an add-on.
It was part of the Windows systems that OEMs were installing and shipping in
May, 1997.
Correct again. As of Win95(B), IIRC.
I did a little checking, and Win95B is an alias for Win95SR2.0. USB support
commenced with Win95SR2.1. For confirmation of this check out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_95 - please see the table about 2/3 of
the way down the page.

Actual official ship date for Win95SR2.1 was August, 1997 which is still
about a year before the ship date for the original iMac.
Flint
2011-12-29 18:08:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by Flint
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by Arny Krueger
The first iMac model was the first computer on the market with built in
USB.
Absolute bollocks! The iMac was announced in May 1998 and first shipped in
August 1998, and by then people had been building PCs with USB ports for
years.
Like one of my old QDI AT motherboards...
Thanks for the confirmation. My memories of the mid-late 1990s are
imperfect, but I remember installing Pentium-II motherboards with USB ports
on them.
You're welcome. And like you, so have I. :)

It's been a while, but this is an old Apple Fanboy pop myth that just
seems to refuse to die, and one I've had to disabuse folks of the
notion many times over in the CSMA newsgroup, and elsewhere.

Round two: Apple's iPad is >not< the first tablet PC as the Fanboys
claim, either. Furthermore, Apple's patent trolling tendencies in its
ongoing courtroom battlefronts around the world, and ITC hearings
are starting to come back to bite them in the arse (as it should).

I seem to recall ST:TNG episodes back in the 80's that had 'pads' that
were tablet PCs, and there was even prior art examples of tablet PCs
going back to Stanley Kubrick's 2001 film. Word is that Samsung is
even using that one as a defense against Apple's patent trollery of late.
Post by Arny Krueger
Hardware is easy, but finding software support for it is another
question. My recollection was that motherboards with USB 1.0 ports started
showing up as retail products in early1997. Initial software support came
via DOS device drivers and TSR's for USB mice.
Post by Flint
Post by Arny Krueger
Reality: The original iMac was the first Apple with built-in USB but
no floppy drive.
Here's a little factoid - USB was supported by Win95 SR 2.1, and Win95 SR2.1
was first delivered by Windows OEMs in May 1997.
Post by Arny Krueger
Any windows usb implementation was an add-on.
It was part of the Windows systems that OEMs were installing and shipping in
May, 1997.
Correct again. As of Win95(B), IIRC.
I did a little checking, and Win95B is an alias for Win95SR2.0. USB support
commenced with Win95SR2.1. For confirmation of this check out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_95 - please see the table about 2/3 of
the way down the page.
You are correct. My statement on '95B' was a tad early, although 3rd
party vendors did provide their own (rather limited) driver support at
that time.
--
MFB
Arny Krueger
2011-12-28 14:18:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Krooburg Science
SCSI has been available, implemented, and sold as components of Wintel
machines all along. There were ISA cards for SCSI drives that plugged into
the origional IBM PCs, and sequels.
But it wasn't built into off the shelf PCs now was it Arnold??
Of course they were. You could get them as standard items from people like
HP, Dell, and Compaq. I worked on them back in the day. You would walk into
your neighborhood PC clone shop and they would also be very happy to set up
such a machine for you. They were turnkey items!

SCSI hard drives and controllers were always premium-priced items compared
to MFM and IDE. But there was a strong market for SCSI-based PC computers
for file servers and high end workstations. With PCs you had a choice. With
Apple, you took what Apple rammed down your throat.
Post by Krooburg Science
You had to buy and configure cards and load drivers
No, the SCSI controller and drive were in the box, and the drivers were
loaded on the SCSI hard drive. You hooked up the keyboard, mouse, monitor,
power cord and the machine booted off of the built-in SCSI drive.

That this would be so is simply common sense. Why wouldn't it be so?

Borglet, your brain has been turned to mush by reading way too much Apple
propaganda. You should get out once in a while. I've been doing PCs since
the early 1980s, and was routinely hands-on with all this stuff since then.
I worked on PCs and Apples when the latest-greatest was the original Apple
2, and with PCs since the only PC was the original IBM PC. I worked on the
original portable Compaq's. I worked on CP/M machines when DOS wasn't even a
glint in Bill Gate's eye! I worked on Osborne's! Get a clue, man!
Flint
2011-12-29 08:04:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by Krooburg Science
SCSI has been available, implemented, and sold as components of Wintel
machines all along. There were ISA cards for SCSI drives that plugged into
the origional IBM PCs, and sequels.
But it wasn't built into off the shelf PCs now was it Arnold??
Of course they were. You could get them as standard items from people like
HP, Dell, and Compaq. I worked on them back in the day. You would walk into
your neighborhood PC clone shop and they would also be very happy to set up
such a machine for you. They were turnkey items!
SCSI hard drives and controllers were always premium-priced items compared
to MFM and IDE. But there was a strong market for SCSI-based PC computers
for file servers and high end workstations. With PCs you had a choice. With
Apple, you took what Apple rammed down your throat.
Post by Krooburg Science
You had to buy and configure cards and load drivers
No, the SCSI controller and drive were in the box, and the drivers were
loaded on the SCSI hard drive. You hooked up the keyboard, mouse, monitor,
power cord and the machine booted off of the built-in SCSI drive.
That this would be so is simply common sense. Why wouldn't it be so?
Borglet, your brain has been turned to mush by reading way too much Apple
propaganda. You should get out once in a while. I've been doing PCs since
the early 1980s, and was routinely hands-on with all this stuff since then.
I worked on PCs and Apples when the latest-greatest was the original Apple
2, and with PCs since the only PC was the original IBM PC. I worked on the
original portable Compaq's. I worked on CP/M machines when DOS wasn't even a
glint in Bill Gate's eye! I worked on Osborne's! Get a clue, man!
Not to mention that he sounds like he suffers from an Amiga-like 'Guru
Meditation' error... <g,d,&r>
--
MFB
Arkansan Raider
2011-12-29 13:35:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Flint
Not to mention that he sounds like he suffers from an Amiga-like 'Guru
Meditation' error... <g,d,&r>
Wow. Dude brought up the Amiga. +1

BTW, I still have my Amiga 500. Makes a great doorstop. ;^)

---Jeff
Arny Krueger
2011-12-29 14:06:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arkansan Raider
Post by Flint
Not to mention that he sounds like he suffers from an Amiga-like 'Guru
Meditation' error... <g,d,&r>
Wow. Dude brought up the Amiga. +1
BTW, I still have my Amiga 500. Makes a great doorstop. ;^)
Amiga - yet another example of how being way before your time can be totally
deadly. Brilliant technology!
Flint
2011-12-29 18:20:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by Arkansan Raider
Post by Flint
Not to mention that he sounds like he suffers from an Amiga-like 'Guru
Meditation' error...<g,d,&r>
Wow. Dude brought up the Amiga. +1
BTW, I still have my Amiga 500. Makes a great doorstop. ;^)
Amiga - yet another example of how being way before your time can be totally
deadly. Brilliant technology!
Damn straight it was. A Preemptive, multithreaded multitasking OS?
Had it back in 1985, and had did it working in as little as 256K
(that's right, KILOBYTES) of ram. It had custom coprocessors to
offload graphics/animation/sound from the CPU, making multitasking
practical and usable on a single end user workstation. A custom
coprocessor slot to upgrade your CPU option via the addition of CPU
accelerator cards? Had it, and a working precursor to Wintel machines
having plug-n-play (called 'Autoconfig') that actually >worked< a full
10 years before Windows 'Plug-n-PRAY' did.
--
MFB
Arkansan Raider
2011-12-30 01:24:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by Arkansan Raider
Post by Flint
Not to mention that he sounds like he suffers from an Amiga-like 'Guru
Meditation' error...<g,d,&r>
Wow. Dude brought up the Amiga. +1
BTW, I still have my Amiga 500. Makes a great doorstop. ;^)
Amiga - yet another example of how being way before your time can be totally
deadly. Brilliant technology!
Damn straight it was. A Preemptive, multithreaded multitasking OS? Had
it back in 1985, and had did it working in as little as 256K (that's
right, KILOBYTES) of ram. It had custom coprocessors to offload
graphics/animation/sound from the CPU, making multitasking practical and
usable on a single end user workstation. A custom coprocessor slot to
upgrade your CPU option via the addition of CPU accelerator cards? Had
it, and a working precursor to Wintel machines having plug-n-play
(called 'Autoconfig') that actually >worked< a full 10 years before
Windows 'Plug-n-PRAY' did.
Also a classic example of great technology, piss-poor marketing. Oh, for
the shame, Commodore!

/shakin' mah hayd at what coulda' been...

---Jeff
Flint
2011-12-30 07:05:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arkansan Raider
Post by Flint
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by Arkansan Raider
Post by Flint
Not to mention that he sounds like he suffers from an Amiga-like 'Guru
Meditation' error...<g,d,&r>
Wow. Dude brought up the Amiga. +1
BTW, I still have my Amiga 500. Makes a great doorstop. ;^)
Amiga - yet another example of how being way before your time can be totally
deadly. Brilliant technology!
Damn straight it was. A Preemptive, multithreaded multitasking OS?
Had it back in 1985, and had did it working in as little as 256K
(that's right, KILOBYTES) of ram. It had custom coprocessors to
offload graphics/animation/sound from the CPU, making multitasking
practical and usable on a single end user workstation. A custom
coprocessor slot to upgrade your CPU option via the addition of CPU
accelerator cards? Had it, and a working precursor to Wintel
machines having plug-n-play (called 'Autoconfig') that actually
Post by Arny Krueger
worked< a full 10 years before Windows 'Plug-n-PRAY' did.
Also a classic example of great technology, piss-poor marketing. Oh,
for the shame, Commodore!
/shakin' mah hayd at what coulda' been...
---Jeff
"Commodore marketing" - an oxymoron if there ever was one. The
running joke was one could always tell a Commodore marketing guy - he
was the one with missing toes as their marketing slogan was always
"Ready, fire, AIM!!!""... Those guys couldn't market a bucket of
water to an arab dying of thirst in the desert. But then the same
could also be said for just about every owner of the Amiga technology
since Commodore, especially Gateway.
--
MFB
Arny Krueger
2011-12-30 13:06:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by Arkansan Raider
Post by Flint
Not to mention that he sounds like he suffers from an Amiga-like 'Guru
Meditation' error...<g,d,&r>
Wow. Dude brought up the Amiga. +1
BTW, I still have my Amiga 500. Makes a great doorstop. ;^)
Amiga - yet another example of how being way before your time can be totally
deadly. Brilliant technology!
Damn straight it was. A Preemptive, multithreaded multitasking OS? Had it
back in 1985, and had did it working in as little as 256K (that's right,
KILOBYTES) of ram.
256K seems small, but OS/360 did it on a mainframe in 16K.
It had custom coprocessors to offload graphics/animation/sound from the
CPU, making multitasking practical and usable on a single end user
workstation.
Very impressive.
A custom coprocessor slot to upgrade your CPU option via the addition of
CPU accelerator cards? Had it, and a working precursor to Wintel machines
having plug-n-play (called 'Autoconfig') that actually >worked< a full 10
years before Windows 'Plug-n-PRAY' did.
Plug-and-play was a MS/Intel PC hardware facility that was independent of
Windows. When Win95/Win98 were booted, plug and play resource allocation
had already been conceivably already been done once by the BIOS. Most BIOS's
had an option to not bother, and let Windows just do it all. Point being
that PNP was available to DOS or any other OS that ran on the PC and was not
just a Windows feature. Windows had to do it all over again because it ran
in protected mode, and needed total control over the hardware.

I don't think that the basic technology for PNP was rocket science, but with
all of the hardware and software that was available for the PC, the
political and administrative hoops were pretty daunting. Virtually every
motherboard and I/O card had to be changed and it was all voluntary.
Welcome to the downside of capitalism/democracy - the fact that every change
is voluntary.
Flint
2011-12-31 00:10:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by Arkansan Raider
Post by Flint
Not to mention that he sounds like he suffers from an Amiga-like 'Guru
Meditation' error...<g,d,&r>
Wow. Dude brought up the Amiga. +1
BTW, I still have my Amiga 500. Makes a great doorstop. ;^)
Amiga - yet another example of how being way before your time can be totally
deadly. Brilliant technology!
Damn straight it was. A Preemptive, multithreaded multitasking OS? Had it
back in 1985, and had did it working in as little as 256K (that's right,
KILOBYTES) of ram.
256K seems small, but OS/360 did it on a mainframe in 16K.
True, but it wasn't _preemptive_ multitasking, but more of a 'task
switcher' multitasking OS, which was rather common in mainframes by
then. On the _desktop_ however, the Amiga was the first true
preemptive multitasking system with a dynamic (on the fly) task
prioritization/reprioritization. Even the classic Mac was simply a
'task switcher'.
Post by Arny Krueger
It had custom coprocessors to offload graphics/animation/sound from the
CPU, making multitasking practical and usable on a single end user
workstation.
Very impressive.
A custom coprocessor slot to upgrade your CPU option via the addition of
CPU accelerator cards? Had it, and a working precursor to Wintel machines
having plug-n-play (called 'Autoconfig') that actually>worked< a full 10
years before Windows 'Plug-n-PRAY' did.
Plug-and-play was a MS/Intel PC hardware facility that was independent of
Windows. When Win95/Win98 were booted, plug and play resource allocation
had already been conceivably already been done once by the BIOS.
I suppose, if you count hardcoded IRQ register assignments as
'plug-n-play'. Add in a modem or HDD controller and see just how
'plug n play' it really was. More often than not, one had to do the
XT/AT slot "shuffle" to get things to work together, and/or BIOS
setting tweaks (if your BIOS vendor even provided that option in the
first place - many didn't).

On the Amiga, it was much more straight-forward and simple, and didn't
care which of its expansion (ZORRO) slots a device was in
(NuBus on the Mac was similar in that regard). Install a card, and add
a tiny bit of config text into the Amiga's mountlist file, and voila!
As the Apple fan-boys like to say, "it just worked".


Most BIOS's
Post by Arny Krueger
had an option to not bother, and let Windows just do it all. Point being
that PNP was available to DOS or any other OS that ran on the PC and was not
just a Windows feature. Windows had to do it all over again because it ran
in protected mode, and needed total control over the hardware.
I don't think that the basic technology for PNP was rocket science, but with
all of the hardware and software that was available for the PC, the
political and administrative hoops were pretty daunting. Virtually every
motherboard and I/O card had to be changed and it was all voluntary.
Welcome to the downside of capitalism/democracy - the fact that every change
is voluntary.
--
MFB
Peter Larsen
2011-12-31 09:48:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Flint
Post by Arny Krueger
256K seems small, but OS/360 did it on a mainframe in 16K.
True, but it wasn't _preemptive_ multitasking, but more of a 'task
switcher' multitasking OS, which was rather common in mainframes by
then. On the _desktop_ however, the Amiga was the first true
preemptive multitasking system with a dynamic (on the fly) task
prioritization/reprioritization. Even the classic Mac was simply a
'task switcher'.
The exec in AmigaDOS - as it was called initially - is from a british 197x
mainframe OS. They had "their own thing going" but the programmer left in
anger after a disagreement - this is how I remember what I have read once
upon a time 10+ years ago - and they had to go shopping for something that
worked. So it is the multitasking Turbinia they have in it.

Microsoft couldn't implement anything like it in their own "Windows" because
they were Amiga developers and as such were operating on a non-disclosure
agreement. THAT is why it took them so long to get Windows reasonably good,
compared to the exec (preemptive, taskpri levels from -127 to 127) it still
is as crude as a sidewheeler.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen
Flint
2011-12-31 11:29:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Larsen
Post by Flint
Post by Arny Krueger
256K seems small, but OS/360 did it on a mainframe in 16K.
True, but it wasn't _preemptive_ multitasking, but more of a 'task
switcher' multitasking OS, which was rather common in mainframes by
then. On the _desktop_ however, the Amiga was the first true
preemptive multitasking system with a dynamic (on the fly) task
prioritization/reprioritization. Even the classic Mac was simply a
'task switcher'.
The exec in AmigaDOS - as it was called initially - is from a british 197x
mainframe OS.
The Exec was the OS *kernel* on which the AmigaOS 'Intuition' GUI
layer was built. It was written totally by Carl Sassenrath, and not
from a British mainframe OS. You might be confusing elements of the
OS and Amiga>DOS< layer which was done by MetaComCo, out of Bristol,
England. AmigaDOS, the command line interface and the Amiga File was
originally written in BCPL (a precursor to the C programming
language), and was the same language used to write TRIPOS, but was
replaced by an AmigaDOS completely rewritten in C, and all of the BCPL
code ripped out.


They had "their own thing going" but the programmer left in
Post by Peter Larsen
anger after a disagreement - this is how I remember what I have read once
upon a time 10+ years ago - and they had to go shopping for something that
worked. So it is the multitasking Turbinia they have in it.
Microsoft couldn't implement anything like it in their own "Windows" because
they were Amiga developers and as such were operating on a non-disclosure
agreement. THAT is why it took them so long to get Windows reasonably good,
compared to the exec (preemptive, taskpri levels from -127 to 127) it still
is as crude as a sidewheeler.
Yep, the AmigaDOS command: "ChangeTaskPri"
Post by Peter Larsen
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
--
MFB
Arny Krueger
2011-12-31 14:46:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Flint
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by Arkansan Raider
Post by Flint
Not to mention that he sounds like he suffers from an Amiga-like 'Guru
Meditation' error...<g,d,&r>
Wow. Dude brought up the Amiga. +1
BTW, I still have my Amiga 500. Makes a great doorstop. ;^)
Amiga - yet another example of how being way before your time can be totally
deadly. Brilliant technology!
Damn straight it was. A Preemptive, multithreaded multitasking OS? Had it
back in 1985, and had did it working in as little as 256K (that's right,
KILOBYTES) of ram.
256K seems small, but OS/360 did it on a mainframe in 16K.
True, but it wasn't _preemptive_ multitasking, but more of a 'task
switcher' multitasking OS, which was rather common in mainframes by then.
All of the OS/360 variants ran application programs with all interrupts
enabled, and in a special storage protection mode where they could not
access storage outside of the program and its data without being trapped.
They could be prempted at any time by higher priority tasks, and there was
full subtasking and mulitasking. Task priority was changed on-the-fly to
meet system performance goals. I was a OS/360 system programmer at a
customer shop and also an IBM system support Field Engineer.
Post by Flint
On the _desktop_ however, the Amiga was the first true preemptive
multitasking system with a dynamic (on the fly) task
prioritization/reprioritization.
Nahh. Things like this were old hat by then. The first model Amiga was
launched in 1985, and by then IBM was on their second generation virtual
memory OSs. OS/360 dates back to the middle 1960s.
Post by Flint
Even the classic Mac was simply a 'task switcher'.
I don't know much about Mac OS internals.
Post by Flint
Post by Arny Krueger
It had custom coprocessors to offload graphics/animation/sound from the
CPU, making multitasking practical and usable on a single end user
workstation.
Very impressive.
A custom coprocessor slot to upgrade your CPU option via the addition of
CPU accelerator cards? Had it, and a working precursor to Wintel machines
having plug-n-play (called 'Autoconfig') that actually>worked< a full 10
years before Windows 'Plug-n-PRAY' did.
Plug-and-play was a MS/Intel PC hardware facility that was independent of
Windows. When Win95/Win98 were booted, plug and play resource allocation
had already been conceivably already been done once by the BIOS.
I suppose, if you count hardcoded IRQ register assignments as
'plug-n-play'.
I don't and PC BIOS-level PNP was far more dymanic than that.
Post by Flint
Add in a modem or HDD controller and see just how 'plug n play' it really
was.
Been there, done that. The modem might have been a bit of a special case
because its addresses and IRQ were hard coded for COM1-4. The primary hard
drive controller was hard coded but additional ones were not.
Post by Flint
More often than not, one had to do the XT/AT slot "shuffle" to get things
to work together, and/or BIOS setting tweaks (if your BIOS vendor even
provided that option in the first place - many didn't).
Your error heres is that the XT and AT were not designed to be plug-and-play
machines, and no claims were ever made by well-informed people that they
were. You're anticipating PNP by over a decade.
Post by Flint
On the Amiga, it was much more straight-forward and simple, and didn't
care which of its expansion (ZORRO) slots a device was in
(NuBus on the Mac was similar in that regard). Install a card, and add a
tiny bit of config text into the Amiga's mountlist file, and voila! As the
Apple fan-boys like to say, "it just worked".
PC PNP didn't exist at the time, so this is all very unfair.
Post by Flint
Post by Arny Krueger
I don't think that the basic technology for PNP was rocket science, but with
all of the hardware and software that was available for the PC, the
political and administrative hoops were pretty daunting. Virtually every
motherboard and I/O card had to be changed and it was all voluntary.
Welcome to the downside of capitalism/democracy - the fact that every change
is voluntary.
And the is the big point. When you design new hardware in a vacuum, you
don't have to bring the world along with you. That was the Amiga's advantage
and the PC's disadvantage.
Flint
2012-01-01 23:26:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by Flint
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by Arkansan Raider
Post by Flint
Not to mention that he sounds like he suffers from an Amiga-like 'Guru
Meditation' error...<g,d,&r>
Wow. Dude brought up the Amiga. +1
BTW, I still have my Amiga 500. Makes a great doorstop. ;^)
Amiga - yet another example of how being way before your time can be totally
deadly. Brilliant technology!
Damn straight it was. A Preemptive, multithreaded multitasking OS? Had it
back in 1985, and had did it working in as little as 256K (that's right,
KILOBYTES) of ram.
256K seems small, but OS/360 did it on a mainframe in 16K.
True, but it wasn't _preemptive_ multitasking, but more of a 'task
switcher' multitasking OS, which was rather common in mainframes by then.
All of the OS/360 variants ran application programs with all interrupts
enabled, and in a special storage protection mode where they could not
access storage outside of the program and its data without being trapped.
They could be prempted at any time by higher priority tasks, and there was
full subtasking and mulitasking. Task priority was changed on-the-fly to
meet system performance goals. I was a OS/360 system programmer at a
customer shop and also an IBM system support Field Engineer.
Post by Flint
On the _desktop_ however, the Amiga was the first true preemptive
multitasking system with a dynamic (on the fly) task
prioritization/reprioritization.
Nahh. Things like this were old hat by then. The first model Amiga was
launched in 1985, and by then IBM was on their second generation virtual
memory OSs. OS/360 dates back to the middle 1960s.
Post by Flint
Even the classic Mac was simply a 'task switcher'.
I don't know much about Mac OS internals.
Post by Flint
Post by Arny Krueger
It had custom coprocessors to offload graphics/animation/sound from the
CPU, making multitasking practical and usable on a single end user
workstation.
Very impressive.
A custom coprocessor slot to upgrade your CPU option via the addition of
CPU accelerator cards? Had it, and a working precursor to Wintel machines
having plug-n-play (called 'Autoconfig') that actually>worked< a full
10
years before Windows 'Plug-n-PRAY' did.
Plug-and-play was a MS/Intel PC hardware facility that was independent of
Windows. When Win95/Win98 were booted, plug and play resource allocation
had already been conceivably already been done once by the BIOS.
I suppose, if you count hardcoded IRQ register assignments as
'plug-n-play'.
I don't and PC BIOS-level PNP was far more dymanic than that.
Post by Flint
Add in a modem or HDD controller and see just how 'plug n play' it really
was.
Been there, done that. The modem might have been a bit of a special case
because its addresses and IRQ were hard coded for COM1-4. The primary hard
drive controller was hard coded but additional ones were not.
Post by Flint
More often than not, one had to do the XT/AT slot "shuffle" to get things
to work together, and/or BIOS setting tweaks (if your BIOS vendor even
provided that option in the first place - many didn't).
Your error heres is that the XT and AT were not designed to be plug-and-play
machines,
So its an 'error' to say PnP didn't exist then? You're missing the
point that XT/AT bus had no OS support for PnP, and that Win95 did
provide backwards compatibility with XT/AT based hardware. It just
didn't work very well, even on ATX hardware. To be fair, this was
largely due to legacy and PnP hardware conflict issues, but it still
suffered from inherent birth defects largely until PCI came along.
Post by Arny Krueger
and no claims were ever made by well-informed people that they
were. You're anticipating PNP by over a decade.
No I'm not anticipating anything. PnP did indeed exist over a decade
before it did on Wintel boxes. It was called Amiga's 'autoconfig'.
Post by Arny Krueger
That's< the significant point. PnP's early implementation on
windows< was >broken<, regardless if it was designed more for ATX
mobos, that's another significant point. Remember, early windows up
to and including win98 was backwards compatible w/old AT/XT based mobo
hardware as well, and didn't just run on ATX mobos.

Then there was the Amiga's OS support for it. Even compared with PCI
configuration, Autoconfig was much simpler, but had the same basic
functionality. For example, PCI allows random access to the
configuration memory space of devices, but required system registers
and I/O lines whereas Autoconfig didn't require this, but only
required that devices can be configured sequentially, and remain
configured until a system reset/reboot.

Autoconfig even supported hot-plugging (albeit for one device - the
last one) although most 3rd party manufacturers requiring hot-plugging
didn't make use of Autoconfig for whatever was being added and removed
(e.g. a PCMCIA card) but rather, they assigned whatever resource was
necessary permanently to the port or controller and handled the
addition or removal.
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by Flint
On the Amiga, it was much more straight-forward and simple, and didn't
care which of its expansion (ZORRO) slots a device was in
(NuBus on the Mac was similar in that regard). Install a card, and add a
tiny bit of config text into the Amiga's mountlist file, and voila! As the
Apple fan-boys like to say, "it just worked".
PC PNP didn't exist at the time, so this is all very unfair.
That's the point exactly. It DID exist, the Amiga's 'Autoconfig' WAS
'plug-n-play'. What it wasn't was called "PCI configuration",
although similar to it. 'Plug-n-play' was an implementation beginning
with Win95, a full 10 years after the Amiga had it.
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by Flint
Post by Arny Krueger
I don't think that the basic technology for PNP was rocket science, but with
all of the hardware and software that was available for the PC, the
political and administrative hoops were pretty daunting. Virtually every
motherboard and I/O card had to be changed and it was all voluntary.
Welcome to the downside of capitalism/democracy - the fact that every change
is voluntary.
And the is the big point. When you design new hardware in a vacuum, you
don't have to bring the world along with you. That was the Amiga's advantage
and the PC's disadvantage.
Aside from the Amiga's OCS (original chipset) and subsequent chipset
co-processors, everything >was< pretty much industry standard
hardware. The custom >coprocessors< were simply an additional layer
of hardware elegantly implemented making multitasking on a single
cpu/end user platform *efficient* and useful by offloading graphics,
animation, audio, and port I/O from the host CPU, but the base
hardware (CPU, RAM, disk drives) and standards such as
SCSI/serial/parallel ports & cabling were all standard. The major
architectural difference being that the Amiga, like the Mac and Atari,
was a 680x0 platform, and the Amiga's ZORRO bus, but then the ZORRO
bus was largely an extension of the 680x0 bus, not all that different
from ISA bus' extension on x86.

The Amiga 2000 model even had XT/AT bus slots in parallel to the
Amiga's own ZORRO bus slots to allow for PC compatibility via a
"bridgeboard" SBC-type card so as to be able to run MessyDOS apps
natively. Essentially, one had two computers in one - the Motorola
680x0 based Amiga siude, and x86 based MessyDOS side.

I used to run an Amiga 2500 with an 040 based CPU accelerator and a
386 bridgeboard. I could also alternately boot up that Amiga in a Mac
emulation mode when needed.
--
MFB
Arny Krueger
2012-01-02 17:49:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Flint
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by Flint
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by Arkansan Raider
Post by Flint
Not to mention that he sounds like he suffers from an Amiga-like 'Guru
Meditation' error...<g,d,&r>
Wow. Dude brought up the Amiga. +1
BTW, I still have my Amiga 500. Makes a great doorstop. ;^)
Amiga - yet another example of how being way before your time can be totally
deadly. Brilliant technology!
Damn straight it was. A Preemptive, multithreaded multitasking OS? Had it
back in 1985, and had did it working in as little as 256K (that's right,
KILOBYTES) of ram.
256K seems small, but OS/360 did it on a mainframe in 16K.
True, but it wasn't _preemptive_ multitasking, but more of a 'task
switcher' multitasking OS, which was rather common in mainframes by then.
All of the OS/360 variants ran application programs with all interrupts
enabled, and in a special storage protection mode where they could not
access storage outside of the program and its data without being trapped.
They could be prempted at any time by higher priority tasks, and there was
full subtasking and mulitasking. Task priority was changed on-the-fly to
meet system performance goals. I was a OS/360 system programmer at a
customer shop and also an IBM system support Field Engineer.
Post by Flint
On the _desktop_ however, the Amiga was the first true preemptive
multitasking system with a dynamic (on the fly) task
prioritization/reprioritization.
Nahh. Things like this were old hat by then. The first model Amiga was
launched in 1985, and by then IBM was on their second generation virtual
memory OSs. OS/360 dates back to the middle 1960s.
Post by Flint
Even the classic Mac was simply a 'task switcher'.
I don't know much about Mac OS internals.
Post by Flint
Post by Arny Krueger
It had custom coprocessors to offload graphics/animation/sound from the
CPU, making multitasking practical and usable on a single end user
workstation.
Very impressive.
A custom coprocessor slot to upgrade your CPU option via the
addition
of
CPU accelerator cards? Had it, and a working precursor to Wintel machines
having plug-n-play (called 'Autoconfig') that actually>worked< a full
10
years before Windows 'Plug-n-PRAY' did.
Plug-and-play was a MS/Intel PC hardware facility that was independent of
Windows. When Win95/Win98 were booted, plug and play resource allocation
had already been conceivably already been done once by the BIOS.
I suppose, if you count hardcoded IRQ register assignments as
'plug-n-play'.
I don't and PC BIOS-level PNP was far more dymanic than that.
Post by Flint
Add in a modem or HDD controller and see just how 'plug n play' it really
was.
Been there, done that. The modem might have been a bit of a special case
because its addresses and IRQ were hard coded for COM1-4. The primary hard
drive controller was hard coded but additional ones were not.
Post by Flint
More often than not, one had to do the XT/AT slot "shuffle" to get things
to work together, and/or BIOS setting tweaks (if your BIOS vendor even
provided that option in the first place - many didn't).
Your error heres is that the XT and AT were not designed to be plug-and-play
machines,
So its an 'error' to say PnP didn't exist then?
No, its an error to cricitize a machine for lacking features that did not
generally exist at the time.
Post by Flint
You're missing the point that XT/AT bus had no OS support for PnP, and
that Win95 did provide backwards compatibility with XT/AT based hardware.
It just didn't work very well, even on ATX hardware. To be fair, this was
largely due to legacy and PnP hardware conflict issues, but it still
suffered from inherent birth defects largely until PCI came along.
Post by Arny Krueger
and no claims were ever made by well-informed people that they
were. You're anticipating PNP by over a decade.
No I'm not anticipating anything. PnP did indeed exist over a decade
before it did on Wintel boxes.
Of course, but lets try to be a little fair about this.

Give me an example of a machine that was sold in 1981 that really had
comparable PNP. IOW, a machine that was mainstream and not some lab toy. A
machine for which a goodly number of third-party extensions exist, and a
machine that would auto-reconfigure itself when installed any of those
cards.
Post by Flint
It was called Amiga's 'autoconfig'.
Since the Amiga was not announced until 1985 and the first popular 500 model
was not sold until 1987, you have to leave the PC & XT out of the discussion
because they were introduced in 1981 and 1983 respectively. You have to
leave out the AT because it was introduced and publicly sold in 1984.

Plug and play for PC-architecture equipment was introduced in 1994-1995.
This was about 7 years after the public introduction of the Amiga. To be
fair, the Amiga had the advantage of being a "clean sheet of paper" design,
and also being the product of just one company. Plug and play for the Amiga
did not require an industry-wide standard be developed with 100's of
competing participants.

So you are not making an apples-to-apples comparison.

Plug and play technology had been implemented in comptuer development labs
going back to 1984. Expecting hardware that was actually on the market
years before 1984 to implement PNP seems unrealistic. Comparing a
clean-sheet-of paper design to legacy equipment that had to change a very
large industry to be relevant is obviously unfair.

BTW, ATX is a 1995 spec for the physical dimensions (AKA form factor) of
system boards, not a specification for the detailed technical properties of
those system boards. Perhaps you were thinking of the PS/2 technical specs,
which was first released to the public in 1987?

All things considered, questioning why IBM did not do anything along the
lines of plug and play for the PS/2 line seems like a fair comparison to
make. The PS/2 was essentially a clean piece of paper hardware design in
its way. OS/2 was a clean piece of paper sotware design for its operating
sysetm. Comparison of the PS/2 with the Amiga seems a pretty fair thing to
do. In that context, the PS/2 comes up way short. I've always felt that the
PS/2 was a good example of IBM hubris, and you've just given me another
reason why!
Flint
2012-01-02 21:53:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by Flint
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by Flint
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by Arkansan Raider
Post by Flint
Not to mention that he sounds like he suffers from an Amiga-like 'Guru
Meditation' error...<g,d,&r>
Wow. Dude brought up the Amiga. +1
BTW, I still have my Amiga 500. Makes a great doorstop. ;^)
Amiga - yet another example of how being way before your time can be totally
deadly. Brilliant technology!
Damn straight it was. A Preemptive, multithreaded multitasking OS? Had it
back in 1985, and had did it working in as little as 256K (that's right,
KILOBYTES) of ram.
256K seems small, but OS/360 did it on a mainframe in 16K.
True, but it wasn't _preemptive_ multitasking, but more of a 'task
switcher' multitasking OS, which was rather common in mainframes by then.
All of the OS/360 variants ran application programs with all interrupts
enabled, and in a special storage protection mode where they could not
access storage outside of the program and its data without being trapped.
They could be prempted at any time by higher priority tasks, and there was
full subtasking and mulitasking. Task priority was changed on-the-fly to
meet system performance goals. I was a OS/360 system programmer at a
customer shop and also an IBM system support Field Engineer.
Post by Flint
On the _desktop_ however, the Amiga was the first true preemptive
multitasking system with a dynamic (on the fly) task
prioritization/reprioritization.
Nahh. Things like this were old hat by then. The first model Amiga was
launched in 1985, and by then IBM was on their second generation virtual
memory OSs. OS/360 dates back to the middle 1960s.
Post by Flint
Even the classic Mac was simply a 'task switcher'.
I don't know much about Mac OS internals.
Post by Flint
Post by Arny Krueger
It had custom coprocessors to offload graphics/animation/sound from the
CPU, making multitasking practical and usable on a single end user
workstation.
Very impressive.
A custom coprocessor slot to upgrade your CPU option via the
addition
of
CPU accelerator cards? Had it, and a working precursor to Wintel machines
having plug-n-play (called 'Autoconfig') that actually>worked< a
full
10
years before Windows 'Plug-n-PRAY' did.
Plug-and-play was a MS/Intel PC hardware facility that was independent of
Windows. When Win95/Win98 were booted, plug and play resource allocation
had already been conceivably already been done once by the BIOS.
I suppose, if you count hardcoded IRQ register assignments as
'plug-n-play'.
I don't and PC BIOS-level PNP was far more dymanic than that.
Post by Flint
Add in a modem or HDD controller and see just how 'plug n play' it really
was.
Been there, done that. The modem might have been a bit of a special case
because its addresses and IRQ were hard coded for COM1-4. The primary hard
drive controller was hard coded but additional ones were not.
Post by Flint
More often than not, one had to do the XT/AT slot "shuffle" to get things
to work together, and/or BIOS setting tweaks (if your BIOS vendor even
provided that option in the first place - many didn't).
Your error heres is that the XT and AT were not designed to be plug-and-play
machines,
So its an 'error' to say PnP didn't exist then?
No, its an error to cricitize a machine for lacking features that did not
generally exist at the time.
Post by Flint
You're missing the point that XT/AT bus had no OS support for PnP, and
that Win95 did provide backwards compatibility with XT/AT based hardware.
It just didn't work very well, even on ATX hardware. To be fair, this was
largely due to legacy and PnP hardware conflict issues, but it still
suffered from inherent birth defects largely until PCI came along.
Post by Arny Krueger
and no claims were ever made by well-informed people that they
were. You're anticipating PNP by over a decade.
No I'm not anticipating anything. PnP did indeed exist over a decade
before it did on Wintel boxes.
Of course, but lets try to be a little fair about this.
Give me an example of a machine that was sold in 1981 that really had
comparable PNP. IOW, a machine that was mainstream and not some lab toy. A
machine for which a goodly number of third-party extensions exist, and a
machine that would auto-reconfigure itself when installed any of those
cards.
Post by Flint
It was called Amiga's 'autoconfig'.
Since the Amiga was not announced until 1985 and the first popular 500 model
was not sold until 1987, you have to leave the PC& XT out of the discussion
because they were introduced in 1981 and 1983 respectively. You have to
leave out the AT because it was introduced and publicly sold in 1984.
Plug and play for PC-architecture equipment was introduced in 1994-1995.
This was about 7 years after the public introduction of the Amiga. To be
fair, the Amiga had the advantage of being a "clean sheet of paper" design,
and also being the product of just one company. Plug and play for the Amiga
did not require an industry-wide standard be developed with 100's of
competing participants.
So you are not making an apples-to-apples comparison.
Plug and play technology had been implemented in comptuer development labs
going back to 1984. Expecting hardware that was actually on the market
years before 1984 to implement PNP seems unrealistic. Comparing a
clean-sheet-of paper design to legacy equipment that had to change a very
large industry to be relevant is obviously unfair.
BTW, ATX is a 1995 spec for the physical dimensions (AKA form factor) of
system boards, not a specification for the detailed technical properties of
those system boards. Perhaps you were thinking of the PS/2 technical specs,
which was first released to the public in 1987?
All things considered, questioning why IBM did not do anything along the
lines of plug and play for the PS/2 line seems like a fair comparison to
make. The PS/2 was essentially a clean piece of paper hardware design in
its way. OS/2 was a clean piece of paper sotware design for its operating
sysetm. Comparison of the PS/2 with the Amiga seems a pretty fair thing to
do. In that context, the PS/2 comes up way short. I've always felt that the
PS/2 was a good example of IBM hubris, and you've just given me another
reason why!
You bring up some valid points. It's just seems to be kind of having
your cake and eating it too when in one sentence you say PnP existed
back in OS/360(plus variants) era, yet discount XT/AT's lack of it
simply because it 'wasn't designed' with it. Seems a bit
apples/oranges to compare mainframe implementation to a single user
consumer desktop to me based merely on the PnP-like aspects.

Remember, I *did* say the Amiga was the first _desktop_ with it, but
perhaps I should have been more granular/specific and said 'single
end-user/consumer' platform?

I would agree a more realistic comparison would have been between PS/2
and the Amiga, or even Mac vs. Amiga (although I've been through that
holy war ages ago, and am tired of it). But then the more significant
discussion would have to be over MCA vs. ZORRO-II/ZORRO-III. But as
you said, IBM's hubris killed that architecture's adoption. Between
that and demise of Commodore/Amiga, it's all moot.

In an eerily similar repeat of historic mistakes, Apple did it with
Firewire vs. USB, and Intel may just be repeating the same mistake yet
again with Thunderbolt vs. USB 3.0, and/or PCI-Sig's PCI external
initiative announced mid last year.

The more things change, the more they seem to remain the same...
--
MFB
Flint
2012-01-02 21:59:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arny Krueger
BTW, ATX is a 1995 spec for the physical dimensions (AKA form factor) of
system boards, not a specification for the detailed technical properties of
those system boards. Perhaps you were thinking of the PS/2 technical specs,
which was first released to the public in 1987?
Not PS/2 specifically, but after rereading what I typed, obviously it
was a typo on my part. :) My bad...
--
MFB
Flint
2011-12-29 07:45:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Krooburg Science
Post by Flint
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20111226PD214.html
I guess Apple/Intel needs some help from the Wintel sector to help
Thunderbolt along from being YA stalled technology.
--
MFB
This isn't the first time Apple has introduced higher end new
technology while the Windoze machine makers dragged their feet. Apple
introduced USB first, as well as Firewire, both far superior to
anything the crappy Wintel makers were offering at the time.
Revisionist history. Apple did not introduce USB first. Intel along
with others in the consortium developed the standard, and PC mobo
makers had USB headers/ports first. Apple's 'contribution' to USB was
simply being a tipping point in incentivizing the skiddish peripheral
makers to support USB. Wintel PC Users, however, bought those
peripherals up pretty darn fast once the peripheral vendors got off
their duffs and starting making them available. Furthermore, at >no<
point did Apple users ever out-consume Wintel users of USB peripherals
once they were made available for purchase.

Now, Firewire, different story. But then Apple screwed the pooch on
that one by getting too damn greedy on an exorbitant per port
licensing scheme. They should have never done that, and Firewire
should have been the defacto standard, with USB a distant second.
(remember, access.bus was also another vying serial contender)



Apple was
Post by Krooburg Science
also so the first to introduce built in SCSI for easy hookup of mass
storage devices as well plug n' play networking well before it was
offered by the "slow to figure it out" DOS machine guys. They're
always 2 steps behind.
Sorry, but the Amiga also had SCSI long before those guys.
Post by Krooburg Science
As far as Thuderbolt itself goes, it's already getting love from the
video editing community. With video I/O boxes by companies like AJA
Video Systems and Promise, you can edit uncompressed HD video on a
friggin' Macbook Pro or iMac using apps like Avid's Media Composer,
Final Cut Pro, or Adobe Premiere. And once again, the windoze guys are
late to the party.
Not necessarilly. While Apple is the first to roll out Thunderbolt
enabled systems, there simply hasn't been many perphs to really
support it until just recently, and even then, the ramp-up is still
rather slow.

On top of that, this year, you will see Wintel mobo makers, and
laptop/notebook vendors starting to include Thunderbolt ports as well.
Acer and Asus are rolling out new Ultrabook designs based on Ivy
Bridge and Thunderbolt controllers in the next 6 months, as are
Gigabyte and Sony. In the meantime, USB 3.0 ports are available >now<
even on lower end systems, and a plethora of USB 3.0 capable devices
are now on the market. Between the bandwidth of USB 3.0 being more
than adequate for even SSDs, and lesser expensive cabling than TB
cables, backwards compatibility with the 6 >billion< (plus) legacy USB
devices, Thunderbolt will remain a niche transport layer (it's not
really a true 'bus' per se), and is currently more of a solution in
search of a problem. When Intel finally gets Thunderbolt advanced to
the optical transport layer stage as originally promised (back when
Thunderbolt was code-named "Light Peak"), then and only then will we
see it take off in a bigger way.

I (for one) would love to see TB become the MADI cable replacement.
--
MFB
Arny Krueger
2011-12-29 13:20:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Krooburg Science
Post by Flint
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20111226PD214.html
I guess Apple/Intel needs some help from the Wintel sector to help
Thunderbolt along from being YA stalled technology.
--
MFB
This isn't the first time Apple has introduced higher end new
technology while the Windoze machine makers dragged their feet. Apple
introduced USB first, as well as Firewire, both far superior to
anything the crappy Wintel makers were offering at the time.
Revisionist history. Apple did not introduce USB first. Intel along with
others in the consortium developed the standard, and PC mobo makers had
USB headers/ports first. Apple's 'contribution' to USB was simply being a
tipping point in incentivizing the skiddish peripheral makers to support
USB.
To some degree USB was the Wintel answer to Firewire. By shipping iMacs with
USB ports they were attacking their own technology.
Wintel PC Users, however, bought those peripherals up pretty darn fast
once the peripheral vendors got off their duffs and starting making them
available. Furthermore, at >no< point did Apple users ever out-consume
Wintel users of USB peripherals once they were made available for
purchase.
In those days Apple was way below 10% market share.
Now, Firewire, different story.
I would like to clarify any ideas that I think that Firewire is anything
less than brilliant technology.
But then Apple screwed the pooch on that one by getting too damn greedy on
an exorbitant per port licensing scheme.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/02/17/apple_caves_in_over_firewire/

"The announcement follows the widespread criticism targeted at Apple earlier
this year when it emerged the company was charging newer licensees a
$1-a-port royalty"
They should have never done that, and Firewire should have been the
defacto standard, with USB a distant second.
(remember, access.bus was also another vying serial contender)
Apple's greed prevented USB from dying on the vine.
Apple was
Post by Krooburg Science
also so the first to introduce built in SCSI for easy hookup of mass
storage devices as well plug n' play networking well before it was
offered by the "slow to figure it out" DOS machine guys. They're
always 2 steps behind.
Sorry, but the Amiga also had SCSI long before those guys.
The S in SCSI stands for "Shugart", not Apple.
Post by Krooburg Science
As far as Thuderbolt itself goes, it's already getting love from the
video editing community. With video I/O boxes by companies like AJA
Video Systems and Promise, you can edit uncompressed HD video on a
friggin' Macbook Pro or iMac using apps like Avid's Media Composer,
Final Cut Pro, or Adobe Premiere. And once again, the windoze guys are
late to the party.
Not necessarilly. While Apple is the first to roll out Thunderbolt
enabled systems, there simply hasn't been many perphs to really support it
until just recently, and even then, the ramp-up is still rather slow.
If you strip the hype away, it becomes clear that Thunderbolt is currently
positioned as a high end, ultra high speed interface. It is by defintion
currently not a mass market product.
On top of that, this year, you will see Wintel mobo makers, and
laptop/notebook vendors starting to include Thunderbolt ports as well.
Acer and Asus are rolling out new Ultrabook designs based on Ivy Bridge
and Thunderbolt controllers in the next 6 months, as are Gigabyte and
Sony.
It's all about chips and consumer demand.
In the meantime, USB 3.0 ports are available >now< even on lower end
systems, and a plethora of USB 3.0 capable devices are now on the market.
Between the bandwidth of USB 3.0 being more than adequate for even SSDs,
and lesser expensive cabling than TB cables, backwards compatibility with
the 6 >billion< (plus) legacy USB devices,
I've been building PCs for a number of months with mid-range motherboards
that have USB 3.0 already on them. Software support goes back to XP which is
now like 10 years old.

I've been doing what Apple apparently can't do yet, and that is supply
working computers that have full hardware and software support for USB 3.0.

If the Wintel group always drags its feet as claimed by Borglet, where on my
local Apple Store's shelves are computers with USB 3.0 support? They
aren't. Apple's USB 3.0 support appears to still be at the rumor level.
Thunderbolt will remain a niche transport layer (it's not really a true
'bus' per se), and is currently more of a solution in search of a problem.
When Intel finally gets Thunderbolt advanced to the optical transport
layer stage as originally promised (back when Thunderbolt was code-named
"Light Peak"), then and only then will we see it take off in a bigger way.
If it takes off.
I (for one) would love to see TB become the MADI cable replacement.
BNC and ST1 are so old school.
Flint
2012-01-06 00:13:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by Krooburg Science
Post by Flint
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20111226PD214.html
I guess Apple/Intel needs some help from the Wintel sector to help
Thunderbolt along from being YA stalled technology.
--
MFB
This isn't the first time Apple has introduced higher end new
technology while the Windoze machine makers dragged their feet. Apple
introduced USB first, as well as Firewire, both far superior to
anything the crappy Wintel makers were offering at the time.
Revisionist history. Apple did not introduce USB first. Intel along with
others in the consortium developed the standard, and PC mobo makers had
USB headers/ports first. Apple's 'contribution' to USB was simply being a
tipping point in incentivizing the skiddish peripheral makers to support
USB.
To some degree USB was the Wintel answer to Firewire. By shipping iMacs with
USB ports they were attacking their own technology.
Wintel PC Users, however, bought those peripherals up pretty darn fast
once the peripheral vendors got off their duffs and starting making them
available. Furthermore, at>no< point did Apple users ever out-consume
Wintel users of USB peripherals once they were made available for
purchase.
In those days Apple was way below 10% market share.
Now, Firewire, different story.
I would like to clarify any ideas that I think that Firewire is anything
less than brilliant technology.
But then Apple screwed the pooch on that one by getting too damn greedy on
an exorbitant per port licensing scheme.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/02/17/apple_caves_in_over_firewire/
"The announcement follows the widespread criticism targeted at Apple earlier
this year when it emerged the company was charging newer licensees a
$1-a-port royalty"
They should have never done that, and Firewire should have been the
defacto standard, with USB a distant second.
(remember, access.bus was also another vying serial contender)
Apple's greed prevented USB from dying on the vine.
Apple was
Post by Krooburg Science
also so the first to introduce built in SCSI for easy hookup of mass
storage devices as well plug n' play networking well before it was
offered by the "slow to figure it out" DOS machine guys. They're
always 2 steps behind.
Sorry, but the Amiga also had SCSI long before those guys.
The S in SCSI stands for "Shugart", not Apple.
Post by Krooburg Science
As far as Thuderbolt itself goes, it's already getting love from the
video editing community. With video I/O boxes by companies like AJA
Video Systems and Promise, you can edit uncompressed HD video on a
friggin' Macbook Pro or iMac using apps like Avid's Media Composer,
Final Cut Pro, or Adobe Premiere. And once again, the windoze guys are
late to the party.
Not necessarilly. While Apple is the first to roll out Thunderbolt
enabled systems, there simply hasn't been many perphs to really support it
until just recently, and even then, the ramp-up is still rather slow.
If you strip the hype away, it becomes clear that Thunderbolt is currently
positioned as a high end, ultra high speed interface. It is by defintion
currently not a mass market product.
On top of that, this year, you will see Wintel mobo makers, and
laptop/notebook vendors starting to include Thunderbolt ports as well.
Acer and Asus are rolling out new Ultrabook designs based on Ivy Bridge
and Thunderbolt controllers in the next 6 months, as are Gigabyte and
Sony.
It's all about chips and consumer demand.
In the meantime, USB 3.0 ports are available>now< even on lower end
systems, and a plethora of USB 3.0 capable devices are now on the market.
Between the bandwidth of USB 3.0 being more than adequate for even SSDs,
and lesser expensive cabling than TB cables, backwards compatibility with
the 6>billion< (plus) legacy USB devices,
I've been building PCs for a number of months with mid-range motherboards
that have USB 3.0 already on them. Software support goes back to XP which is
now like 10 years old.
I've been doing what Apple apparently can't do yet,
... more like doesn't >want< to do.

and that is supply
Post by Arny Krueger
working computers that have full hardware and software support for USB 3.0.
If the Wintel group always drags its feet as claimed by Borglet, where on my
local Apple Store's shelves are computers with USB 3.0 support? They
aren't. Apple's USB 3.0 support appears to still be at the rumor level.
The borglet's claims aside, Intel's upcoming Ivy Bridge chipset
definitely supports USB 3.0, and Apple's annual refresh is due
shortly. Since USB 3.0 is essentially 'free' to Apple, I suspect
Apple will provide USB 3.0 as well, albeit in an understated way.
They'll almost have to, lest the PC vendors surpass them feature-wise
as Asus would then be in a position to do with its own newer/upcoming
Ivy Bridge based ultrabooks.
Post by Arny Krueger
Thunderbolt will remain a niche transport layer (it's not really a true
'bus' per se), and is currently more of a solution in search of a problem.
When Intel finally gets Thunderbolt advanced to the optical transport
layer stage as originally promised (back when Thunderbolt was code-named
"Light Peak"), then and only then will we see it take off in a bigger way.
If it takes off.
It has taken off already. It just hasn't taken off as a meaningful
direct competitor to USB 3.0 however, nor should it. Intel themselves
have already backpedaled somewhat, and stated publicly that TB and USB
3.0 are to be viewed as >complimentary<, not competitive. Therefore,
anyone who argues a 'vs' debate between the two are simply given to a
false dichotomy.

TB will succeed in the marketplace, albeit a niche market, whereas USB
will remain the dominant consumer serial bus standard.
Post by Arny Krueger
I (for one) would love to see TB become the MADI cable replacement.
BNC and ST1 are so old school.
--
MFB
Rupert
2012-01-06 18:40:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Flint
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by Krooburg Science
Post by Flint
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20111226PD214.html
I guess Apple/Intel needs some help from the Wintel sector to help
Thunderbolt along from being YA stalled technology.
--
MFB
This isn't the first time Apple has introduced higher end new
technology while the Windoze machine makers dragged their feet. Apple
introduced USB first, as well as Firewire, both far superior to
anything the crappy Wintel makers were offering at the time.
Revisionist history.  Apple did not introduce USB first.  Intel along with
others in the consortium developed the standard, and PC mobo makers had
USB headers/ports first.  Apple's 'contribution' to USB was simply being a
tipping point in incentivizing the skiddish peripheral makers to support
USB.
To some degree USB was the Wintel answer to Firewire. By shipping iMacs with
USB ports they were attacking their own technology.
Wintel PC Users, however, bought those peripherals up pretty darn fast
once the peripheral vendors got off their duffs and starting making them
available.  Furthermore, at>no<  point did Apple users ever out-consume
Wintel users of USB peripherals once they were made available for
purchase.
In those days Apple was way below 10% market share.
Now, Firewire, different story.
I would like to clarify any ideas that I think that Firewire is anything
less than brilliant technology.
But then Apple screwed the pooch on that one by getting too damn greedy on
an exorbitant per port licensing scheme.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/02/17/apple_caves_in_over_firewire/
"The announcement follows the widespread criticism targeted at Apple earlier
this year when it emerged the company was charging newer licensees a
$1-a-port royalty"
  They should have never done that, and Firewire should have been the
defacto standard, with USB a distant second.
(remember, access.bus was also another vying serial contender)
Apple's greed prevented USB from dying on the vine.
  Apple was
Post by Krooburg Science
also so the first to introduce built in SCSI for easy hookup of mass
storage devices as well plug n' play networking well before it was
offered by the "slow to figure it out" DOS machine guys. They're
always 2 steps behind.
Sorry, but the Amiga also had SCSI long before those guys.
The S in SCSI stands for "Shugart", not Apple.
Post by Krooburg Science
As far as Thuderbolt itself goes, it's already getting love from the
video editing community. With video I/O boxes by companies like AJA
Video Systems and Promise, you can edit uncompressed HD video on a
friggin' Macbook Pro or iMac using apps like Avid's Media Composer,
Final Cut Pro, or Adobe Premiere. And once again, the windoze guys are
late to the party.
Not necessarilly.  While Apple is the first to roll out Thunderbolt
enabled systems, there simply hasn't been many perphs to really support it
until just recently, and even then, the ramp-up is still rather slow.
If you strip the hype away, it becomes clear that Thunderbolt is currently
positioned as a high end, ultra high speed interface. It is by defintion
currently not a mass market product.
On top of that, this year, you will see Wintel mobo makers, and
laptop/notebook vendors starting to include Thunderbolt ports as well.
Acer and Asus are rolling out new Ultrabook designs based on Ivy Bridge
and Thunderbolt controllers in the next 6 months, as are Gigabyte and
Sony.
It's all about chips and consumer demand.
   In the meantime, USB 3.0 ports are available>now<  even on lower end
systems, and a plethora of USB 3.0 capable devices are now on the market.
Between the bandwidth of USB 3.0 being more than adequate for even SSDs,
and lesser expensive cabling than TB cables, backwards compatibility with
the 6>billion<  (plus) legacy USB devices,
I've been building PCs for a number of months with mid-range motherboards
that have USB 3.0 already on them. Software support goes back to XP which is
now like 10 years old.
I've been doing what Apple apparently can't do yet,
... more like doesn't >want< to do.
  and that is supply
Post by Arny Krueger
working computers that have full hardware and software support for USB 3.0.
If the Wintel group always drags its feet as claimed by Borglet, where on my
local Apple Store's shelves are computers with USB 3.0 support?  They
aren't. Apple's USB 3.0 support appears to still be at the rumor level.
The borglet's claims aside, Intel's upcoming Ivy Bridge chipset
definitely supports USB 3.0, and Apple's annual refresh is due
shortly.  Since USB 3.0 is essentially 'free' to Apple, I suspect
Apple will provide USB 3.0 as well, albeit in an understated way.
They'll almost have to, lest the PC vendors surpass them feature-wise
as Asus would then be in a position to do with its own newer/upcoming
Ivy Bridge based ultrabooks.
Post by Arny Krueger
Thunderbolt will remain a niche transport layer (it's not really a true
'bus' per se), and is currently more of a solution in search of a problem.
When Intel finally gets Thunderbolt advanced to the optical transport
layer stage as originally promised (back when Thunderbolt was code-named
"Light Peak"), then and only then will we see it take off in a bigger way.
If it takes off.
It has taken off already.  It just hasn't taken off as a meaningful
direct competitor to USB 3.0 however, nor should it.  Intel themselves
have already backpedaled somewhat, and stated publicly that TB and USB
3.0 are to be viewed as >complimentary<, not competitive.  Therefore,
anyone who argues a 'vs' debate between the two are simply given to a
false dichotomy.
TB will succeed in the marketplace, albeit a niche market, whereas USB
will remain the dominant consumer serial bus standard.
Post by Arny Krueger
I (for one) would love to see TB become the MADI cable replacement.
BNC and ST1 are so old school.
--
MFB
TB may make more market penetration than you think. Apple has filed
new patent apps for using TB in IOS devices. If they move forward on
that front, TB could become a very popular interface.

Rupert
Flint
2012-01-06 22:46:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rupert
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by Krooburg Science
Post by Flint
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20111226PD214.html
I guess Apple/Intel needs some help from the Wintel sector to help
Thunderbolt along from being YA stalled technology.
--
MFB
This isn't the first time Apple has introduced higher end new
technology while the Windoze machine makers dragged their feet. Apple
introduced USB first, as well as Firewire, both far superior to
anything the crappy Wintel makers were offering at the time.
Revisionist history. Apple did not introduce USB first. Intel along with
others in the consortium developed the standard, and PC mobo makers had
USB headers/ports first. Apple's 'contribution' to USB was simply being a
tipping point in incentivizing the skiddish peripheral makers to support
USB.
To some degree USB was the Wintel answer to Firewire. By shipping iMacs with
USB ports they were attacking their own technology.
Wintel PC Users, however, bought those peripherals up pretty darn fast
once the peripheral vendors got off their duffs and starting making them
available. Furthermore, at>no< point did Apple users ever out-consume
Wintel users of USB peripherals once they were made available for
purchase.
In those days Apple was way below 10% market share.
Now, Firewire, different story.
I would like to clarify any ideas that I think that Firewire is anything
less than brilliant technology.
But then Apple screwed the pooch on that one by getting too damn greedy on
an exorbitant per port licensing scheme.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/02/17/apple_caves_in_over_firewire/
"The announcement follows the widespread criticism targeted at Apple earlier
this year when it emerged the company was charging newer licensees a
$1-a-port royalty"
They should have never done that, and Firewire should have been the
defacto standard, with USB a distant second.
(remember, access.bus was also another vying serial contender)
Apple's greed prevented USB from dying on the vine.
Apple was
Post by Krooburg Science
also so the first to introduce built in SCSI for easy hookup of mass
storage devices as well plug n' play networking well before it was
offered by the "slow to figure it out" DOS machine guys. They're
always 2 steps behind.
Sorry, but the Amiga also had SCSI long before those guys.
The S in SCSI stands for "Shugart", not Apple.
Post by Krooburg Science
As far as Thuderbolt itself goes, it's already getting love from the
video editing community. With video I/O boxes by companies like AJA
Video Systems and Promise, you can edit uncompressed HD video on a
friggin' Macbook Pro or iMac using apps like Avid's Media Composer,
Final Cut Pro, or Adobe Premiere. And once again, the windoze guys are
late to the party.
Not necessarilly. While Apple is the first to roll out Thunderbolt
enabled systems, there simply hasn't been many perphs to really support it
until just recently, and even then, the ramp-up is still rather slow.
If you strip the hype away, it becomes clear that Thunderbolt is currently
positioned as a high end, ultra high speed interface. It is by defintion
currently not a mass market product.
On top of that, this year, you will see Wintel mobo makers, and
laptop/notebook vendors starting to include Thunderbolt ports as well.
Acer and Asus are rolling out new Ultrabook designs based on Ivy Bridge
and Thunderbolt controllers in the next 6 months, as are Gigabyte and
Sony.
It's all about chips and consumer demand.
In the meantime, USB 3.0 ports are available>now< even on lower end
systems, and a plethora of USB 3.0 capable devices are now on the market.
Between the bandwidth of USB 3.0 being more than adequate for even SSDs,
and lesser expensive cabling than TB cables, backwards compatibility with
the 6>billion< (plus) legacy USB devices,
I've been building PCs for a number of months with mid-range motherboards
that have USB 3.0 already on them. Software support goes back to XP which is
now like 10 years old.
I've been doing what Apple apparently can't do yet,
... more like doesn't>want< to do.
and that is supply
Post by Arny Krueger
working computers that have full hardware and software support for USB 3.0.
If the Wintel group always drags its feet as claimed by Borglet, where on my
local Apple Store's shelves are computers with USB 3.0 support? They
aren't. Apple's USB 3.0 support appears to still be at the rumor level.
The borglet's claims aside, Intel's upcoming Ivy Bridge chipset
definitely supports USB 3.0, and Apple's annual refresh is due
shortly. Since USB 3.0 is essentially 'free' to Apple, I suspect
Apple will provide USB 3.0 as well, albeit in an understated way.
They'll almost have to, lest the PC vendors surpass them feature-wise
as Asus would then be in a position to do with its own newer/upcoming
Ivy Bridge based ultrabooks.
Post by Arny Krueger
Thunderbolt will remain a niche transport layer (it's not really a true
'bus' per se), and is currently more of a solution in search of a problem.
When Intel finally gets Thunderbolt advanced to the optical transport
layer stage as originally promised (back when Thunderbolt was code-named
"Light Peak"), then and only then will we see it take off in a bigger way.
If it takes off.
It has taken off already. It just hasn't taken off as a meaningful
direct competitor to USB 3.0 however, nor should it. Intel themselves
have already backpedaled somewhat, and stated publicly that TB and USB
3.0 are to be viewed as>complimentary<, not competitive. Therefore,
anyone who argues a 'vs' debate between the two are simply given to a
false dichotomy.
TB will succeed in the marketplace, albeit a niche market, whereas USB
will remain the dominant consumer serial bus standard.
Post by Arny Krueger
I (for one) would love to see TB become the MADI cable replacement.
BNC and ST1 are so old school.
--
MFB
TB may make more market penetration than you think. Apple has filed
new patent apps for using TB in IOS devices. If they move forward on
that front, TB could become a very popular interface.
Rupert
Not only have they filed, but last year, they actually got a patent
for a new slimmer 30 pin dock connector which incorporates TB.

http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/04/05/slimmer.may.carry.usb
--
MFB
Flint
2012-01-06 23:43:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rupert
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by Krooburg Science
Post by Flint
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20111226PD214.html
I guess Apple/Intel needs some help from the Wintel sector to help
Thunderbolt along from being YA stalled technology.
--
MFB
This isn't the first time Apple has introduced higher end new
technology while the Windoze machine makers dragged their feet. Apple
introduced USB first, as well as Firewire, both far superior to
anything the crappy Wintel makers were offering at the time.
Revisionist history. Apple did not introduce USB first. Intel along with
others in the consortium developed the standard, and PC mobo makers had
USB headers/ports first. Apple's 'contribution' to USB was simply being a
tipping point in incentivizing the skiddish peripheral makers to support
USB.
To some degree USB was the Wintel answer to Firewire. By shipping iMacs with
USB ports they were attacking their own technology.
Wintel PC Users, however, bought those peripherals up pretty darn fast
once the peripheral vendors got off their duffs and starting making them
available. Furthermore, at>no< point did Apple users ever out-consume
Wintel users of USB peripherals once they were made available for
purchase.
In those days Apple was way below 10% market share.
Now, Firewire, different story.
I would like to clarify any ideas that I think that Firewire is anything
less than brilliant technology.
But then Apple screwed the pooch on that one by getting too damn greedy on
an exorbitant per port licensing scheme.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/02/17/apple_caves_in_over_firewire/
"The announcement follows the widespread criticism targeted at Apple earlier
this year when it emerged the company was charging newer licensees a
$1-a-port royalty"
They should have never done that, and Firewire should have been the
defacto standard, with USB a distant second.
(remember, access.bus was also another vying serial contender)
Apple's greed prevented USB from dying on the vine.
Apple was
Post by Krooburg Science
also so the first to introduce built in SCSI for easy hookup of mass
storage devices as well plug n' play networking well before it was
offered by the "slow to figure it out" DOS machine guys. They're
always 2 steps behind.
Sorry, but the Amiga also had SCSI long before those guys.
The S in SCSI stands for "Shugart", not Apple.
Post by Krooburg Science
As far as Thuderbolt itself goes, it's already getting love from the
video editing community. With video I/O boxes by companies like AJA
Video Systems and Promise, you can edit uncompressed HD video on a
friggin' Macbook Pro or iMac using apps like Avid's Media Composer,
Final Cut Pro, or Adobe Premiere. And once again, the windoze guys are
late to the party.
Not necessarilly. While Apple is the first to roll out Thunderbolt
enabled systems, there simply hasn't been many perphs to really support it
until just recently, and even then, the ramp-up is still rather slow.
If you strip the hype away, it becomes clear that Thunderbolt is currently
positioned as a high end, ultra high speed interface. It is by defintion
currently not a mass market product.
On top of that, this year, you will see Wintel mobo makers, and
laptop/notebook vendors starting to include Thunderbolt ports as well.
Acer and Asus are rolling out new Ultrabook designs based on Ivy Bridge
and Thunderbolt controllers in the next 6 months, as are Gigabyte and
Sony.
It's all about chips and consumer demand.
In the meantime, USB 3.0 ports are available>now< even on lower end
systems, and a plethora of USB 3.0 capable devices are now on the market.
Between the bandwidth of USB 3.0 being more than adequate for even SSDs,
and lesser expensive cabling than TB cables, backwards compatibility with
the 6>billion< (plus) legacy USB devices,
I've been building PCs for a number of months with mid-range motherboards
that have USB 3.0 already on them. Software support goes back to XP which is
now like 10 years old.
I've been doing what Apple apparently can't do yet,
... more like doesn't>want< to do.
and that is supply
Post by Arny Krueger
working computers that have full hardware and software support for USB 3.0.
If the Wintel group always drags its feet as claimed by Borglet, where on my
local Apple Store's shelves are computers with USB 3.0 support? They
aren't. Apple's USB 3.0 support appears to still be at the rumor level.
The borglet's claims aside, Intel's upcoming Ivy Bridge chipset
definitely supports USB 3.0, and Apple's annual refresh is due
shortly. Since USB 3.0 is essentially 'free' to Apple, I suspect
Apple will provide USB 3.0 as well, albeit in an understated way.
They'll almost have to, lest the PC vendors surpass them feature-wise
as Asus would then be in a position to do with its own newer/upcoming
Ivy Bridge based ultrabooks.
Post by Arny Krueger
Thunderbolt will remain a niche transport layer (it's not really a true
'bus' per se), and is currently more of a solution in search of a problem.
When Intel finally gets Thunderbolt advanced to the optical transport
layer stage as originally promised (back when Thunderbolt was code-named
"Light Peak"), then and only then will we see it take off in a bigger way.
If it takes off.
It has taken off already. It just hasn't taken off as a meaningful
direct competitor to USB 3.0 however, nor should it. Intel themselves
have already backpedaled somewhat, and stated publicly that TB and USB
3.0 are to be viewed as>complimentary<, not competitive. Therefore,
anyone who argues a 'vs' debate between the two are simply given to a
false dichotomy.
TB will succeed in the marketplace, albeit a niche market, whereas USB
will remain the dominant consumer serial bus standard.
Post by Arny Krueger
I (for one) would love to see TB become the MADI cable replacement.
BNC and ST1 are so old school.
--
MFB
TB may make more market penetration than you think. Apple has filed
new patent apps for using TB in IOS devices. If they move forward on
that front, TB could become a very popular interface.
Rupert
Not only have they filed, but last year, they actually got a patent
for a new slimmer 30 pin dock connector which incorporates TB.

http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/04/05/slimmer.may.carry.usb
--
MFB
Loading...