Comments on: Apple’s Thunderbolt Port: A Closer Look

By: Stooge46545

Stooge46545 — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:05:00 +0000

Well maybe he was born on February 29th and woudl otherwise be 60 years old.

By: Zeuss

Zeuss — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 02:14:00 +0000

That certainly is a technically literate and astute response… Remind me to consult you if I ever need a vote from the lowest common denominator.

By: Hanii Puppy

Hanii Puppy — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 12:04:00 +0000

It behaves like firewire – it borrows a lot of features (such as this, the daisychaining, and potentially ad-hoc networking via IP-over-Thunderbolt (mirroring IP-over-Firewire).

By: Robtpcs

Robtpcs — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 19:26:00 +0000

This article does not identify the nature of the interface from the user’s point of view: Is it like the USB interface that might have a fast peak speed, but bulk data flow requires the processor to do virtually nothing else during the actual data flow, or does it behave like the more complex Firewire, where the processor is uninvolved once data flow has started, so gives a much faster bulk flowrate?

By: Chris Burns

Chris Burns — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 16:22:00 +0000

your signature doesn’t scream reputable, just so you know

By: Animesh Tripathi

Animesh Tripathi — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 07:03:00 +0000

Can’t be better than USB 3.0. For Sure.

–
http://animeshtripathi.com/ – I’m 15, and I design websites.

By: Pradyuman Vig

Pradyuman Vig — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 13:28:00 +0000

What des that mean? First of all, it is Intel’s technology, but any manufacturer can integrate it. Second, eventually, Intel can just have light peak in every single one of its chipsets… then LightPeak won’t have a chance to fail…

By: Neoporcupine

Neoporcupine — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 12:36:00 +0000

I am new to this lightpeak/thunderbolt thing – is this an Intel only proprietary interface? If so then I suggest that this is dead tech.

By: Neoporcupine

Neoporcupine — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 12:36:00 +0000

I am new to this lightpeak/thunderbolt thing – is this an Intel only proprietary interface? If so then I suggest that this is dead tech.

By: Bruno

Bruno — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 10:03:00 +0000

gbps is not the same thing as gb/s …. tsctsctsc… 10gbps means 10 gigaBITS per seconds, not BYTES…. that number would have to be divided by 8 to give you the amount in gigabytes… which would be 1.25gb/s….

got it?!

10gbps = 1.25gb/s

By: lmmo

lmmo — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 08:43:00 +0000

Really stupid when you guys don’t know the difference of a bit and a byte…

By: Otto

Otto — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 07:09:00 +0000

In “What this number represents is 10-gigabytes of data traveling from one device to another inside 1 single second.” it should be gigabits not gigabytes. Correct and delete the comment.