15 New Messages
Digest #9603
Messages
Fri Jun 14, 2013 6:23 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"TimeFramePhoto"
On Jun 14, 2013, at 7:10 AM, Otto Nikolaus wrote:
> On 14 June 2013 06:29, TimeFramePhoto <macdane@mac.com > wrote:
>
>> Yes, from what I've read it would be a little silly to spring for a TB
>> enclosure for use with spinning disk drives as they simply can't take
>> advantage of TB's speed. For that, USB3 and FW800 are plenty. As far as
>> data storage and transfer, I'd be interested in a portable SSD drive using
>> TB, but there are very few out there, and pricy + pricy = really pricy. As
>> in $500 for a 240GB drive. No thanks.
>>
>> As a photographer, I'd also be extremely interested in a reasonably priced
>> TB reader for my CompactFlash cards. One of my cameras generates RAW files
>> on the order of 50MB per click...that adds up in a hurry and it would be
>> great to be able to move that data from card to Mac quickly, but no such
>> thing exists. That's just adding insult to injury because nobody even makes
>> FW card readers anymore.
>>
>> So while I'm sure there are plenty of others, those are two applications
>> of TB that would really help me out.
>>
>
> But how fast are the fastest CF cards? 1000x? That's 150 MB/s or 1200 Mb/s.
> USB 3 is easily fast enough.
Sure it is, but I'm stuck in a spot where I don't have USB3 on any of my Macs. I recognize that that's *my* problem, but then I'm looking at this from my perspective.
> On 14 June 2013 06:29, TimeFramePhoto <macdane@mac.
>
>> Yes, from what I've read it would be a little silly to spring for a TB
>> enclosure for use with spinning disk drives as they simply can't take
>> advantage of TB's speed. For that, USB3 and FW800 are plenty. As far as
>> data storage and transfer, I'd be interested in a portable SSD drive using
>> TB, but there are very few out there, and pricy + pricy = really pricy. As
>> in $500 for a 240GB drive. No thanks.
>>
>> As a photographer, I'd also be extremely interested in a reasonably priced
>> TB reader for my CompactFlash cards. One of my cameras generates RAW files
>> on the order of 50MB per click...that adds up in a hurry and it would be
>> great to be able to move that data from card to Mac quickly, but no such
>> thing exists. That's just adding insult to injury because nobody even makes
>> FW card readers anymore.
>>
>> So while I'm sure there are plenty of others, those are two applications
>> of TB that would really help me out.
>>
>
> But how fast are the fastest CF cards? 1000x? That's 150 MB/s or 1200 Mb/s.
> USB 3 is easily fast enough.
Sure it is, but I'm stuck in a spot where I don't have USB3 on any of my Macs. I recognize that that's *my* problem, but then I'm looking at this from my perspective.
Fri Jun 14, 2013 6:24 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"TimeFramePhoto"
Yes, I consider it all the time, for a few seconds at a time. Then I see the price tag :-(
On Jun 14, 2013, at 8:34 AM, Denver Dan wrote:
> . . . Except . . .
>
> Have you considered moving data between two external hard drives via
> Thunderbolt?
>
> Denver Dan
>
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 01:29:44 -0400, TimeFramePhoto wrote:
>>>
>>> Also, I keep reading that few external hard drives can saturate
>>> FireWire 800, let alone Thunderbolt. So what kind of applications
>>> can take advantage of it?
>>
>> Yes, from what I've read it would be a little silly to spring for a
>> TB enclosure for use with spinning disk drives as they simply can't
>> take advantage of TB's speed. For that, USB3 and FW800 are plenty. As
>> far as data storage and transfer, I'd be interested in a portable SSD
>> drive using TB, but there are very few out there, and pricy + pricy =
>> really pricy. As in $500 for a 240GB drive. No thanks.
On Jun 14, 2013, at 8:34 AM, Denver Dan wrote:
> . . . Except . . .
>
> Have you considered moving data between two external hard drives via
> Thunderbolt?
>
> Denver Dan
>
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 01:29:44 -0400, TimeFramePhoto wrote:
>>>
>>> Also, I keep reading that few external hard drives can saturate
>>> FireWire 800, let alone Thunderbolt. So what kind of applications
>>> can take advantage of it?
>>
>> Yes, from what I've read it would be a little silly to spring for a
>> TB enclosure for use with spinning disk drives as they simply can't
>> take advantage of TB's speed. For that, USB3 and FW800 are plenty. As
>> far as data storage and transfer, I'd be interested in a portable SSD
>> drive using TB, but there are very few out there, and pricy + pricy =
>> really pricy. As in $500 for a 240GB drive. No thanks.
Fri Jun 14, 2013 7:40 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Denver Dan" denverdan22180
Howdy.
Just had a message back from Sonnet customer service on this new Echo
15 Thunderbolt Dock.
I asked two questions about the Thunderbolt dock.
>> Question 1.
>> Do the eSATA ports support port multiplayer? This is a requirement for
>> use with devices like an eSATA four HD Sans Digital MobileStor hard
>> drive box.
>
> Answer 1: No, the Echo Dock data ports will not support PM.
>>
>> Question 2.
>> Is the Echo 15 available without a hard drive and without an optical
>> drive?
>
> Answer 2: The Echo Dock will be available without a storage drive but will
not
> be sold without an optical drive.
Very disappointed in the lack of Port Multiplier (PM). It means I
won't be able to use most of my eSATA equipment with this Thunderbolt
device.
Back to the drawing board.
Denver Dan
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 09:57:25 -0400, Denver Dan wrote:
>
> I've been mentioning new Thunderbolt products from time-to-time the
> past couple of years.
>
> With the new MacPro cylinder announced and with 6 Thunderbolt Two ports
> Thunderbolt devices should proliferate at a greater speed and will be
> more important for peripheral connections.
>
> With that in mind, here's a new announced product from Sonnet.
>
> Echo 15 Thunderbolt Dock.
>
> <http://www.sonnettech.com/product/echo15thunderboltdock.html >
>
> 15 ports and a bay/tray/slot for either a hard drive or optical drive
> like a BD burner.
>
> Ports include:
>
> - Two 3 Gb/s eSATA
> - One FireWire 800
> - One RJ-45 (Gigabit Ethernet)
> - Two Thunderbolt
> - Four USB 3.0
> - Two audio input
> - Two audio output
> - microphone jacks: 1 in front and 1 in rear
> - headphone jack
> - stereo speaker jack
> - Power plug socket
>
> Sonnet says availability will be summer 2013.
>
> A device like this could preclude the necessity of something like a
> card expansion chassis for eSATA PCIe cards (card cage), a USB 3 hub, a
> FireWire adapter, for users like me.
>
> Still to be determined with this gadget is whether the eSATA ports
> support port multiplayer or not.
>
> Price could be about $400 USD.
>
> Denver Dan
>
Just had a message back from Sonnet customer service on this new Echo
15 Thunderbolt Dock.
I asked two questions about the Thunderbolt dock.
>> Question 1.
>> Do the eSATA ports support port multiplayer? This is a requirement for
>> use with devices like an eSATA four HD Sans Digital MobileStor hard
>> drive box.
>
> Answer 1: No, the Echo Dock data ports will not support PM.
>>
>> Question 2.
>> Is the Echo 15 available without a hard drive and without an optical
>> drive?
>
> Answer 2: The Echo Dock will be available without a storage drive but will
not
> be sold without an optical drive.
Very disappointed in the lack of Port Multiplier (PM). It means I
won't be able to use most of my eSATA equipment with this Thunderbolt
device.
Back to the drawing board.
Denver Dan
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 09:57:25 -0400, Denver Dan wrote:
>
> I've been mentioning new Thunderbolt products from time-to-time the
> past couple of years.
>
> With the new MacPro cylinder announced and with 6 Thunderbolt Two ports
> Thunderbolt devices should proliferate at a greater speed and will be
> more important for peripheral connections.
>
> With that in mind, here's a new announced product from Sonnet.
>
> Echo 15 Thunderbolt Dock.
>
> <http://www.sonnette
>
> 15 ports and a bay/tray/slot for either a hard drive or optical drive
> like a BD burner.
>
> Ports include:
>
> - Two 3 Gb/s eSATA
> - One FireWire 800
> - One RJ-45 (Gigabit Ethernet)
> - Two Thunderbolt
> - Four USB 3.0
> - Two audio input
> - Two audio output
> - microphone jacks: 1 in front and 1 in rear
> - headphone jack
> - stereo speaker jack
> - Power plug socket
>
> Sonnet says availability will be summer 2013.
>
> A device like this could preclude the necessity of something like a
> card expansion chassis for eSATA PCIe cards (card cage), a USB 3 hub, a
> FireWire adapter, for users like me.
>
> Still to be determined with this gadget is whether the eSATA ports
> support port multiplayer or not.
>
> Price could be about $400 USD.
>
> Denver Dan
>
Fri Jun 14, 2013 10:53 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"David Brostoff" dcbrostoff
On Jun 14, 2013, at 02:53 , Chris Jones <jonesc@hep.phy.cam.ac.uk > wrote:
>> On Jun 13, 2013, at 9:36 PM, David Brostoff wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 13, 2013, at 16:16 , TimeFramePhoto <macdane@mac.com > wrote:
>>>
>>>> In my experience, it hasn't, which is sort of my complaint. I've had TB on the last 2-3 Macs I've purchased but have never been able to justify the expense of trying to buy stuff that plugs into them!
>>>
>>> Also, I keep reading that few external hard drives can saturate FireWire 800, let alone Thunderbolt. So what kind of applications can take advantage of it?
>
> Its not just a matter of if a *single* device can saturate a TB
> connection. In fact, this is exactly what you don't want as it would
> then mean once you start daisy chaining devices together, which is one
> of the main benefits of TB, you would start to loose performance. The TB
> connection has to be faster than any single device can handle, so it
> doesn't become the weak link in the chain…
Yes--sorry for confusing things by stating the situation backwards. What I meant was that I have heard that FireWire 800 can already supply data faster than most drives can handle. True?
If so, what is the use of getting a Thunderbolt-compatible drive such as the Buffalo MiniStation, which operates at 5400 RPM <http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Buffalo/HDPA1.0TU3/ >>? Maybe I am missing something?
David
>> On Jun 13, 2013, at 9:36 PM, David Brostoff wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 13, 2013, at 16:16 , TimeFramePhoto <macdane@mac.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Also, I keep reading that few external hard drives can saturate FireWire 800, let alone Thunderbolt. So what kind of applications can take advantage of it?
>
> Its not just a matter of if a *single* device can saturate a TB
> connection. In fact, this is exactly what you don't want as it would
> then mean once you start daisy chaining devices together, which is one
> of the main benefits of TB, you would start to loose performance. The TB
> connection has to be faster than any single device can handle, so it
> doesn't become the weak link in the chain…
Yes--sorry for confusing things by stating the situation backwards. What I meant was that I have heard that FireWire 800 can already supply data faster than most drives can handle. True?
If so, what is the use of getting a Thunderbolt-
David
Fri Jun 14, 2013 11:36 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"N.A. Nada"
From what I understand, the ridiculous prices were started because Intel has included several $30 chips in each connection point. Yet others have been able to duplicate the TB process with $2 chips. This is further compounded by Apple's insistence, rightly or wrongly, to only recognize the Intel chips.
Hopefully, the high prices will choke the purchasing, and drive the prices down. It seems that Intel is trying to artificially inflate the prices, and also create a monopolistic position.
I do not understand the technology behind ThunderBolt, so I am not in a position to do much more than speculate, on either Apple's or Intel's positions.
Brent
On Jun 14, 2013, at 3:48 AM, Otto Nikolaus wrote:
Not at sensible prices, which was my point. ;)
Otto
On 14 June 2013 03:33, Denver Dan <denver.dan@verizon.net > wrote:
> Howdy.
>
> I think there's more TB stuff than you may realize, Otto.
>
> Check this link at OWC for their page of Thunderbolt devices.
>
> <http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/Thunderbolt/ >
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Hopefully, the high prices will choke the purchasing, and drive the prices down. It seems that Intel is trying to artificially inflate the prices, and also create a monopolistic position.
I do not understand the technology behind ThunderBolt, so I am not in a position to do much more than speculate, on either Apple's or Intel's positions.
Brent
On Jun 14, 2013, at 3:48 AM, Otto Nikolaus wrote:
Not at sensible prices, which was my point. ;)
Otto
On 14 June 2013 03:33, Denver Dan <denver.dan@verizon.
> Howdy.
>
> I think there's more TB stuff than you may realize, Otto.
>
> Check this link at OWC for their page of Thunderbolt devices.
>
> <http://eshop.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Fri Jun 14, 2013 11:58 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"N.A. Nada"
Dane,
I take it you are getting your photography work done currently without TB. So you really not in a spot, you could continue on, as you are now.
Nothing is forcing you to move to TB, but the conditions to make that move are unsatisfactory to you. In other words, you consider the prices too high.
As an example, when ever moving to a new Mac or OS, I make a spreadsheet. I list the items or features in the first column, pros in the second column, cons in the next, check off for resolved cons, and notes in the next.
I include an item about can I justify the price, and I will accept an answer of no, but I want it and I have the cash to get it. It sounds like you have this item listed in the con or no column.
I also include an item for future. Meaning how long do I expect this to be viable into the future, or if it may be abandoned or orphaned shortly. For me, I have been burned a couple of times by technology being orphaned, so I am usually hesitant to try the first of any new model. With you calling it TB1, it sounds like you are recognizing that this is a bleeding edge technology, at least subconsciously.
I tend to weight these two items high when as I go through this method of making a buying decision. I don't buy until the majority are pros and the cons are resolved. I might buy before all of the cons are resolved if they have little weight, knowing I will just have to make do with out these items being resolved, currently.
Brent
On Jun 14, 2013, at 6:23 AM, TimeFramePhoto wrote:
> On 14 June 2013 06:29, TimeFramePhoto <macdane@mac.com > wrote:
>
>> Yes, from what I've read it would be a little silly to spring for a TB
>> enclosure for use with spinning disk drives as they simply can't take
>> advantage of TB's speed. For that, USB3 and FW800 are plenty. As far as
>> data storage and transfer, I'd be interested in a portable SSD drive using
>> TB, but there are very few out there, and pricy + pricy = really pricy. As
>> in $500 for a 240GB drive. No thanks.
>>
>> As a photographer, I'd also be extremely interested in a reasonably priced
>> TB reader for my CompactFlash cards. One of my cameras generates RAW files
>> on the order of 50MB per click...that adds up in a hurry and it would be
>> great to be able to move that data from card to Mac quickly, but no such
>> thing exists. That's just adding insult to injury because nobody even makes
>> FW card readers anymore.
>>
>> So while I'm sure there are plenty of others, those are two applications
>> of TB that would really help me out.
>>
On Jun 14, 2013, at 7:10 AM, Otto Nikolaus wrote:
> But how fast are the fastest CF cards? 1000x? That's 150 MB/s or 1200 Mb/s.
> USB 3 is easily fast enough.
TimeFramePhoto <macdane@mac.com > wrote:
Sure it is, but I'm stuck in a spot where I don't have USB3 on any of my Macs. I recognize that that's *my* problem, but then I'm looking at this from my perspective.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I take it you are getting your photography work done currently without TB. So you really not in a spot, you could continue on, as you are now.
Nothing is forcing you to move to TB, but the conditions to make that move are unsatisfactory to you. In other words, you consider the prices too high.
As an example, when ever moving to a new Mac or OS, I make a spreadsheet. I list the items or features in the first column, pros in the second column, cons in the next, check off for resolved cons, and notes in the next.
I include an item about can I justify the price, and I will accept an answer of no, but I want it and I have the cash to get it. It sounds like you have this item listed in the con or no column.
I also include an item for future. Meaning how long do I expect this to be viable into the future, or if it may be abandoned or orphaned shortly. For me, I have been burned a couple of times by technology being orphaned, so I am usually hesitant to try the first of any new model. With you calling it TB1, it sounds like you are recognizing that this is a bleeding edge technology, at least subconsciously.
I tend to weight these two items high when as I go through this method of making a buying decision. I don't buy until the majority are pros and the cons are resolved. I might buy before all of the cons are resolved if they have little weight, knowing I will just have to make do with out these items being resolved, currently.
Brent
On Jun 14, 2013, at 6:23 AM, TimeFramePhoto wrote:
> On 14 June 2013 06:29, TimeFramePhoto <macdane@mac.
>
>> Yes, from what I've read it would be a little silly to spring for a TB
>> enclosure for use with spinning disk drives as they simply can't take
>> advantage of TB's speed. For that, USB3 and FW800 are plenty. As far as
>> data storage and transfer, I'd be interested in a portable SSD drive using
>> TB, but there are very few out there, and pricy + pricy = really pricy. As
>> in $500 for a 240GB drive. No thanks.
>>
>> As a photographer, I'd also be extremely interested in a reasonably priced
>> TB reader for my CompactFlash cards. One of my cameras generates RAW files
>> on the order of 50MB per click...that adds up in a hurry and it would be
>> great to be able to move that data from card to Mac quickly, but no such
>> thing exists. That's just adding insult to injury because nobody even makes
>> FW card readers anymore.
>>
>> So while I'm sure there are plenty of others, those are two applications
>> of TB that would really help me out.
>>
On Jun 14, 2013, at 7:10 AM, Otto Nikolaus wrote:
> But how fast are the fastest CF cards? 1000x? That's 150 MB/s or 1200 Mb/s.
> USB 3 is easily fast enough.
TimeFramePhoto <macdane@mac.
Sure it is, but I'm stuck in a spot where I don't have USB3 on any of my Macs. I recognize that that's *my* problem, but then I'm looking at this from my perspective.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:04 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Charles Carroll" charlesmarkcarroll
Last night I was on my cell and could not find the 2 articles I wanted that
are better written here they are:
http://semiaccurate.com/2012/08/02/ioi-technology-shows-off-external-pcie-devices-at-computex/
and
http://semiaccurate.com/2013/05/24/amd-finally-puts-dock-port-on-a-device/
The gist of what they say and based on my shopping here is my read:
USB 3.0 is doing ok at getting lots of devices and hubs out there. Intel
does not seem to want promote USB 3.0 by building it into all their
hardware because the standard is easy and cheap for many to implement thus
they don't need any Intel dependent insides. Enter Thunderbolt where Intel
controls it with an iron fist and expensive parts are required by anyone
making devices or hubs, but since unlike USB 3 which is an open standard
Thunderbolt is designed to be closed so Intel clones like AMD will not have
it. Unlike USB 3 and 2 which work well together Thunderbolt is its own
thing. Most claims Intel makes about it's speed and ability to deliver
power and data through optical cables they cannot implement or prove
currently, its just hype. And some say impossible and Intel has not proven
their promised throughput is possible yet.
For us Mac users Thuderbolt is a fast bus but when I go to the store or
online it is hard to find hubs and cables and anything thunderbolt, but USB
3 much easier.
AMD apparently just engineered a DOCK PORT delivering a lot more than
Thunderbolt promises and has proven it with accessories and cables. With $2
parts on each side of the connection.So it may be the VHS that beats
BetaMax next round. USB 3 and Dock Port seem better choices for motherboard
mfrs cost, add-on cards and performance/delivery wise.
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Denver Dan <denver.dan@verizon.net > wrote:
> **
>
>
> Howdy.
>
> The semi accurate article is written in such a gobbledegook of dense
> acronyms and tech jargon that it is incomprehensible.
>
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 22:24:16 -0400, Charles Carroll wrote:
> >
>
> http://semiaccurate.com/2013/04/10/thunderbolt-still-broken-but-new-parts-talked-up/
> >
> > http://semiaccurate.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7117
> > On Jun 13, 2013 10:49 AM, "TimeFramePhoto" <macdane@mac.com > wrote:
> >
> >> **
>
> >>
> >>
> >> While it's great to see new Thunderbolt products trickling into the
> >> marketplace, I remain concerned at their continued high prices and
> relative
> >> scarcity.
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
are better written here they are:
http://semiaccurate
and
http://semiaccurate
The gist of what they say and based on my shopping here is my read:
USB 3.0 is doing ok at getting lots of devices and hubs out there. Intel
does not seem to want promote USB 3.0 by building it into all their
hardware because the standard is easy and cheap for many to implement thus
they don't need any Intel dependent insides. Enter Thunderbolt where Intel
controls it with an iron fist and expensive parts are required by anyone
making devices or hubs, but since unlike USB 3 which is an open standard
Thunderbolt is designed to be closed so Intel clones like AMD will not have
it. Unlike USB 3 and 2 which work well together Thunderbolt is its own
thing. Most claims Intel makes about it's speed and ability to deliver
power and data through optical cables they cannot implement or prove
currently, its just hype. And some say impossible and Intel has not proven
their promised throughput is possible yet.
For us Mac users Thuderbolt is a fast bus but when I go to the store or
online it is hard to find hubs and cables and anything thunderbolt, but USB
3 much easier.
AMD apparently just engineered a DOCK PORT delivering a lot more than
Thunderbolt promises and has proven it with accessories and cables. With $2
parts on each side of the connection.So it may be the VHS that beats
BetaMax next round. USB 3 and Dock Port seem better choices for motherboard
mfrs cost, add-on cards and performance/
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Denver Dan <denver.dan@verizon.
> **
>
>
> Howdy.
>
> The semi accurate article is written in such a gobbledegook of dense
> acronyms and tech jargon that it is incomprehensible.
>
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 22:24:16 -0400, Charles Carroll wrote:
> >
>
> http://semiaccurate
> >
> > http://semiaccurate
> > On Jun 13, 2013 10:49 AM, "TimeFramePhot
> >
> >> **
>
> >>
> >>
> >> While it's great to see new Thunderbolt products trickling into the
> >> marketplace, I remain concerned at their continued high prices and
> relative
> >> scarcity.
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:43 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Denver Dan" denverdan22180
Howdy.
I'm not sure who does understand Thunderbolt!
It began as a fiber optic (called Light Peak) peripheral cable effort
but reverted to copper wire tech so it could carry both data and
power.
Current Thunderbolt over copper can also carry 10w of power.
Thunderbolt seems to be related in some way to Mini Display Port and to
PCI Express.
One of the specs for the new MacPro is the internal PCI Express
Generation 3 running at 40 GB/s. That's Gigabytes per second and not
Gigabits per second which is what the 20 Gb/s Thunderbolt
bi-directional speed refers to. This is for the SSD storage drive and
for other components.
There is a Thunderbolt chip on logic board but the Thunderbolt cable
that you buy and use has a special computer chip in each plug end.
I've read a number of articles on Thunderbolt and still don't
understand whether the plug end chips incorporate a form of extremely
miniaturized laser in both the fiber optic/Light Peak AND the copper
wire versions or just in the Light Peak versions.
The new Thunderbolt Two protocol should transmit data and video at 20
Gb/s in both directions but some sources indicate that Thunderbolt may
be capable of 100 Gb/s via some form of fiber optic (in the future).
Thunderbolt Two should be able to move a big movie file from one drive
to another in maybe 15 seconds. I'm doing an educated guess on that
time since there are other variables involved.
Perhaps a tech guru could put Thunderbolt in more comprehensible
language.
Denver Dan
On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 11:36:47 -0700, N.A. Nada wrote:
> I do not understand the technology behind ThunderBolt, so I am not in
> a position to do much more than speculate, on either Apple's or
> Intel's positions.
>
> Brent
I'm not sure who does understand Thunderbolt!
It began as a fiber optic (called Light Peak) peripheral cable effort
but reverted to copper wire tech so it could carry both data and
power.
Current Thunderbolt over copper can also carry 10w of power.
Thunderbolt seems to be related in some way to Mini Display Port and to
PCI Express.
One of the specs for the new MacPro is the internal PCI Express
Generation 3 running at 40 GB/s. That's Gigabytes per second and not
Gigabits per second which is what the 20 Gb/s Thunderbolt
bi-directional speed refers to. This is for the SSD storage drive and
for other components.
There is a Thunderbolt chip on logic board but the Thunderbolt cable
that you buy and use has a special computer chip in each plug end.
I've read a number of articles on Thunderbolt and still don't
understand whether the plug end chips incorporate a form of extremely
miniaturized laser in both the fiber optic/Light Peak AND the copper
wire versions or just in the Light Peak versions.
The new Thunderbolt Two protocol should transmit data and video at 20
Gb/s in both directions but some sources indicate that Thunderbolt may
be capable of 100 Gb/s via some form of fiber optic (in the future).
Thunderbolt Two should be able to move a big movie file from one drive
to another in maybe 15 seconds. I'm doing an educated guess on that
time since there are other variables involved.
Perhaps a tech guru could put Thunderbolt in more comprehensible
language.
Denver Dan
On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 11:36:47 -0700, N.A. Nada wrote:
> I do not understand the technology behind ThunderBolt, so I am not in
> a position to do much more than speculate, on either Apple's or
> Intel's positions.
>
> Brent
Fri Jun 14, 2013 6:35 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"redhillsranger" jsm5320432
Guys:
I've a MB Pro 2.66 running OSX 10.7.5. For some reason this morning when I opened my hard drive to look for something the scroll bar on the right side of the screen had disappeared. I went into system preferences and under the "General Setting" I checked that "show scroll bars: always" is still checked.
I have scroll bars on Safari, and other programs but not in finder.
How do I get my scroll bar back on finder?
Thanks,
John
I've a MB Pro 2.66 running OSX 10.7.5. For some reason this morning when I opened my hard drive to look for something the scroll bar on the right side of the screen had disappeared. I went into system preferences and under the "General Setting" I checked that "show scroll bars: always" is still checked.
I have scroll bars on Safari, and other programs but not in finder.
How do I get my scroll bar back on finder?
Thanks,
John
Fri Jun 14, 2013 7:35 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Denver Dan" denverdan22180
Howdy.
What View in your Finder window set to use?
Icon View and List View don't have scroll bars unless the number of
icons more than fills the size of Finder window you have opened.
Denver Dan
On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 13:35:08 +0000, redhillsranger wrote:
> I've a MB Pro 2.66 running OSX 10.7.5. For some reason this morning
> when I opened my hard drive to look for something the scroll bar on
> the right side of the screen had disappeared. I went into system
> preferences and under the "General Setting" I checked that "show
> scroll bars: always" is still checked.
>
> I have scroll bars on Safari, and other programs but not in finder.
>
> How do I get my scroll bar back on finder?
>
> Thanks,
>
> John
What View in your Finder window set to use?
Icon View and List View don't have scroll bars unless the number of
icons more than fills the size of Finder window you have opened.
Denver Dan
On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 13:35:08 +0000, redhillsranger wrote:
> I've a MB Pro 2.66 running OSX 10.7.5. For some reason this morning
> when I opened my hard drive to look for something the scroll bar on
> the right side of the screen had disappeared. I went into system
> preferences and under the "General Setting" I checked that "show
> scroll bars: always" is still checked.
>
> I have scroll bars on Safari, and other programs but not in finder.
>
> How do I get my scroll bar back on finder?
>
> Thanks,
>
> John
Fri Jun 14, 2013 11:17 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Pat Taylor" pat412255
Can anyone point me to the chart available to help a new Mac user learn the different keys versus the Windows system he has been using?
Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:07 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"N.A. Nada"
A web search for "apple vs windows keyboard layout" will give you a result of
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT5636
Is that what you are looking for?
Brent
On Jun 14, 2013, at 11:17 AM, Pat Taylor wrote:
Can anyone point me to the chart available to help a new Mac user learn the different keys versus the Windows system he has been using?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
http://support.
Is that what you are looking for?
Brent
On Jun 14, 2013, at 11:17 AM, Pat Taylor wrote:
Can anyone point me to the chart available to help a new Mac user learn the different keys versus the Windows system he has been using?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:18 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Denver Dan" denverdan22180
Howdy.
Do you want to learn keyboard commands to do things in Finder?
Note that the "interface" with the Macintosh is called Finder. This is
where you open windows, copy files, delete files, create new folders,
and more.
There is no "Windows Explorer" on Macintosh. The Finder is like a
Windows Explorer.
When in Finder you can see keyboard commands on all of the Finder's
Menu bar menus.
For example, in Finder > File menu, the New Folder command is Shift
Command n.
You can see the keyboard command to do this to the right of the command
itself.
I've added the Command and the Option key symbols at the start of each
of the following sentences but don't know if they will survive the
email trip.
⌘ The Command key is the one with the clover leaf-like symbol. There
are two command keys on your keyboard on either side of the space bar.
̢δ The Option key is next to the Command key and on a Windows system
called the Alt key. Symbol looks like a slide with a bar.
>>To find a list of keyboard commands pull down the Finder's Help menu and
pick Help Center:
Type Keyboard in the search field and pick Keyboard Shortcuts from the
list of responses.
There are several different lists of keyboard shortcuts.
>> To print listings or make a PDF for different keyboard shortcuts use your
web browser and go to:
<http://www.apple.com >
Then click the Support tab.
In the Search box type keyboard shortcuts.
Several lists will appear.
>> Note that you can either print these lists, OR, you can make a PDF of
them. You can make a PDF of almost anything you see on screen on a
Macintosh. Choose File > Print. Then click the PDF button in the Print
dialog box and pick one of the several different ways to deal with PDFs. I
usually pick Save as PDF.
Welcome to Macintosh and Good Luck!
Denver Dan
On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:17:05 -0600, Pat Taylor wrote:
> Can anyone point me to the chart available to help a new Mac user
> learn the different keys versus the Windows system he has been using?
Do you want to learn keyboard commands to do things in Finder?
Note that the "interface&quo
where you open windows, copy files, delete files, create new folders,
and more.
There is no "Windows Explorer" on Macintosh. The Finder is like a
Windows Explorer.
When in Finder you can see keyboard commands on all of the Finder's
Menu bar menus.
For example, in Finder > File menu, the New Folder command is Shift
Command n.
You can see the keyboard command to do this to the right of the command
itself.
I've added the Command and the Option key symbols at the start of each
of the following sentences but don't know if they will survive the
email trip.
⌘ The Command key is the one with the clover leaf-like symbol. There
are two command keys on your keyboard on either side of the space bar.
̢δ The Option key is next to the Command key and on a Windows system
called the Alt key. Symbol looks like a slide with a bar.
>>To find a list of keyboard commands pull down the Finder's Help menu and
pick Help Center:
Type Keyboard in the search field and pick Keyboard Shortcuts from the
list of responses.
There are several different lists of keyboard shortcuts.
>> To print listings or make a PDF for different keyboard shortcuts use your
web browser and go to:
<http://www.apple.
Then click the Support tab.
In the Search box type keyboard shortcuts.
Several lists will appear.
>> Note that you can either print these lists, OR, you can make a PDF of
them. You can make a PDF of almost anything you see on screen on a
Macintosh. Choose File > Print. Then click the PDF button in the Print
dialog box and pick one of the several different ways to deal with PDFs. I
usually pick Save as PDF.
Welcome to Macintosh and Good Luck!
Denver Dan
On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:17:05 -0600, Pat Taylor wrote:
> Can anyone point me to the chart available to help a new Mac user
> learn the different keys versus the Windows system he has been using?
Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:30 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Pat Taylor" pat412255
Thanks, but I had thought that there was a chart listing the two. I had a vague memory that a member had placed it in the files on our group site, but didn't see it there. I found one chart on he Apple support site, but it seemed a little confusing for a new user.
Sent from my iPad...î…
On Jun 14, 2013, at 1:07 PM, "N.A. Nada" <whodo678@comcast.net > wrote:
> A web search for "apple vs windows keyboard layout" will give you a result of
>
> http://support.apple.com/kb/HT5636
>
> Is that what you are looking for?
>
> Brent
>
> On Jun 14, 2013, at 11:17 AM, Pat Taylor wrote:
>
> Can anyone point me to the chart available to help a new Mac user learn the different keys versus the Windows system he has been using?
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sent from my iPad...î…
On Jun 14, 2013, at 1:07 PM, "N.A. Nada" <whodo678@comcast.
> A web search for "apple vs windows keyboard layout" will give you a result of
>
> http://support.
>
> Is that what you are looking for?
>
> Brent
>
> On Jun 14, 2013, at 11:17 AM, Pat Taylor wrote:
>
> Can anyone point me to the chart available to help a new Mac user learn the different keys versus the Windows system he has been using?
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:35 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Pat Taylor" pat412255
Thanks, Dan. My son in law will be the new user & I hope to help him with his transition. I found a chart using the suggestion you provided that should be helpful.
Pat
Sent from my iPad...î…
On Jun 14, 2013, at 1:18 PM, Denver Dan <denver.dan@verizon.net > wrote:
> > Note that you can either print these lists, OR, you can make a PDF of
> them. You can make a PDF of almost anything you see on screen on a
> Macintosh. Choose File > Print. Then click the PDF button in the Print
> dialog box and pick one of the several different ways to deal with PDFs. I
> usually pick Save as PDF.
>
> Welcome to Macintosh and Good Luck!
>
> Denver Dan
Pat
Sent from my iPad...î…
On Jun 14, 2013, at 1:18 PM, Denver Dan <denver.dan@verizon.
> > Note that you can either print these lists, OR, you can make a PDF of
> them. You can make a PDF of almost anything you see on screen on a
> Macintosh. Choose File > Print. Then click the PDF button in the Print
> dialog box and pick one of the several different ways to deal with PDFs. I
> usually pick Save as PDF.
>
> Welcome to Macintosh and Good Luck!
>
> Denver Dan
GROUP FOOTER MESSAGE
