Unable to load image

TIL Intel annouced the specs for Thunderbolt 5 late last year - PCIe 4.0x4 support, 80Gbps :marseymindblown: :marseysonic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolt_(interface)#Thunderbolt_5

Follower of Christ :marseyandjesus: Tech lover, IT Admin, heckin pupper lover and occasionally troll. I hold back feelings or opinions, right or wrong because I dislike conflict.

20
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

USB was pretty sweet in the 2000s and early 2010s, it's a shame how they've butchered the standard

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

USB was always kind of meh tho.

FireWire was better.

Clearly the USB forum can't name for shit though, this Thunderbolt 5 standard support USB 4.0 V2, why not just call it USB 5.0???


Follower of Christ :marseyandjesus: Tech lover, IT Admin, heckin pupper lover and occasionally troll. I hold back feelings or opinions, right or wrong because I dislike conflict.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

can't daisy chain firewire, also it sucked butt r-slur

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

hi Soren :marseywave:

:marseyconfused: I believe a selling point of FireWire was daisy-chaining, hence Thunderbolt continued supporting that. I don't think USB even supports it now

https://i.rdrama.net/images/17112485788849318.webp


Follower of Christ :marseyandjesus: Tech lover, IT Admin, heckin pupper lover and occasionally troll. I hold back feelings or opinions, right or wrong because I dislike conflict.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I apologize, I was just trying to start shit, I don't care about cables

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:marseythumbsup#:

all good!


Follower of Christ :marseyandjesus: Tech lover, IT Admin, heckin pupper lover and occasionally troll. I hold back feelings or opinions, right or wrong because I dislike conflict.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I don't think USB even supports it now

Literally any USB device can integrate a hub to support chaining. It isn't even rare if you look at devices like keyboards and monitors.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Isn't a hub architecture different from daisy chaining?


Follower of Christ :marseyandjesus: Tech lover, IT Admin, heckin pupper lover and occasionally troll. I hold back feelings or opinions, right or wrong because I dislike conflict.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It depends on whether you mean spec-wise or functionally.

Spec-wise, it's different from a system that requires daisy-chaining (most original SCSI) or considers it an optional part of implementing the device spec. Firewire had, at most, the latter; the original iPod was Firewire but only offered one port. Can't chain with one port.

https://i.rdrama.net/images/17112925412439642.webp

Functionally, though, bundling hubs into devices is similar in capability, performance, and complexity to a spec that allows devices to optionally daisy-chain. It may also be simpler, as it decouples device versus hub concerns in the spec. It also categorically avoids problem aspects of early device chaining, like addressing and termination (more SCSI issues than Firewire).

It's a better design to have devices with optional integrated hubs than auto-terminated, optional device daisy-chain support.

Integrating USB hubs also started really early on. The original iMac has a keyboard that plugged into USB on the back of the computer and offered USB ports for the mouse. This kept an import aspect of Apple's earlier serial bus, which supported connecting the mouse via the keyboard.

USB4 (basically TB3) considers each node to be a router with zero or more devices and zero or more hubs:

https://i.rdrama.net/images/17112930116329925.webp

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.