Thunderbolt on Windows?

Author
The Maillard Reaction
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 31918
  • Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
  • Status: offline
2014/09/16 18:09:10 (permalink)

Thunderbolt on Windows?

Reading about Thunderbolt on another thread caused me to wonder; what needs to happen before we get Thunderbolt for Windows?

Are we waiting on a system level driver from MS as well as device drivers from vendors? What needs to happen? In what order?

Thanks.


#1

19 Replies Related Threads

    Living Room Rocker
    Max Output Level: -77 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 675
    • Joined: 2009/09/16 22:10:24
    • Status: offline
    Re: Thunderbolt on Windows? 2014/09/17 00:55:10 (permalink)
    It's all on MS, my friend.  They have not developed or integrated (or whatever you call it) TB into Windows.  They are dropping the ball on all of us Windows/2bTB users and it sucks.  TB2 is already on the market!
     
    http://www.anandtech.com/...-is-thunderbolt-headed

    Kind regards, Living Room Rocker
    #2
    Living Room Rocker
    Max Output Level: -77 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 675
    • Joined: 2009/09/16 22:10:24
    • Status: offline
    Re: Thunderbolt on Windows? 2014/09/17 00:55:30 (permalink)
    sorry for the dup.

    Kind regards, Living Room Rocker
    #3
    fireberd
    Max Output Level: -38 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 3704
    • Joined: 2008/02/25 14:14:28
    • Location: Inverness, FL
    • Status: offline
    Re: Thunderbolt on Windows? 2014/09/17 06:29:41 (permalink)
    Is iThunderbolt needed for Windows systems?

    "GCSG Productions"
    Franklin D-10 Pedal Steel Guitar (primary instrument). Nashville Telecaster, Bass, etc. 
    ASUS ROG Maximus VIII Hero M/B, i7 6700K CPU, 16GB Ram, SSD and conventional hard drives, Win 10 Pro and Win 10 Pro Insider Pre-Release
    Sonar Platinum/CbB. MOTU 896MK3 Hybrid, Tranzport, X-Touch, JBL LSR308 Monitors,  
    Ozone 5,  Studio One 4.1
    ISRC Registered
    Member of Nashville based R.O.P.E. Assn.
    #4
    Muziekschuur at home
    Max Output Level: -62 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 1442
    • Joined: 2006/03/01 03:30:22
    • Status: offline
    Re: Thunderbolt on Windows? 2014/09/17 06:40:34 (permalink)
    What happens when you buy a Mac Mini Server and put Windows on that. Will Thunderbolt still function.

    Cakewalk Sonar Platinum Windows 7 32bit & 64bit (dualboot) Gigabyte mobo Intel dual quad 9650 & 4GB Ram RME DIGI9636 & Tascam DM24.  M-audio Rbus & SI-24 Alesis Pro active 5.1 & Radford 90 transmissionline monitors. Roland RD-150 piano Edirol UM-880 & alesis fireport.
    Remote recording Alesis HD-24 & Phonic MRS 1-20.
    P.A. D&R Dayner 29-8-2 & behringer MX8000 (& racks)
    Rackpc Sonar Platinum with win10 AMD X6 1055T, 16GB Ram
     Dell inspiron 17R 6gb ram W10 two SSD's Sonar Plat.
    #5
    The Maillard Reaction
    Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 31918
    • Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
    • Status: offline
    Re: Thunderbolt on Windows? 2014/09/17 06:42:34 (permalink)
    Thank you.

    I am more interested in learning what a process of adoption may be than learning opinions regarding the merit of adopting the use of Thunderbolt.

    Thank you.


    #6
    Jim Roseberry
    Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 9871
    • Joined: 2004/03/23 11:34:51
    • Location: Ohio
    • Status: offline
    Re: Thunderbolt on Windows? 2014/09/17 07:25:50 (permalink)
    Important to note:
    Thunderbolt provides access to the PCIe bus.
    To avoid derailing the thread, I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions.   

    Best Regards,

    Jim Roseberry
    jim@studiocat.com
    www.studiocat.com
    #7
    jcschild
    Max Output Level: -41 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 3409
    • Joined: 2003/11/08 00:20:10
    • Location: Kentucky y'all
    • Status: offline
    Re: Thunderbolt on Windows? 2014/09/17 11:55:11 (permalink)
    1) it most certainly is NOT MS fault please stop with that myth.
    it has to do with manufacturers not wanting to write drivers.
    case in point Lynx has TB for windows and not only is it real TB (unlike Motu 828x and previously working Apollo that used Firewire protocol thru TB)
    and to add to that Lynx can daisy chain (up to 6 units or 192 I/O), all other present TB on the market are end point devices. and look to be for awhile.
     
    2) TB is absolutely pointless, it offers NOTHING over what we have now
    3) it will NOT give you lower latency
    4) it will not offer more bandwidth than PCIe Cards or RME USB3
    5) if you own Apple then you don't have much a choice.. (of course this being a sonar forum that would not apply to anyone) but USB still is as good. (assuming the manufacturer knows how to write drivers EG RME)
     
    but hey feel free to believe all the marketing hype
     
     

    Scott
    ADK
    Home of the Kentucky Fried DAW!
    #8
    wst3
    Max Output Level: -55.5 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 1979
    • Joined: 2003/11/04 10:28:11
    • Location: Pottstown, PA 19464
    • Status: offline
    Re: Thunderbolt on Windows? 2014/09/17 14:02:53 (permalink)
    my two cents...
     
    TB is PCIe. So if you have a form factor that supports cards in slots TB has only one advantage, access to certain audio hardware, e.g. The UAD Apollo family. If you really want to use an Apollo you need TB, and it is not yet supported on Windows.
     
    PCIe bandwidth is overkill for audio! Note I said bandwidth and not throughput...
    the CD standard requires approximately 10MByte/sec, or roughly 1,411,200 bits per second.
    32 channels of 24 bit audio sampled at 96 kHz requires about 70 MBits/second, or about 8.8 MBytes/second
    TB v1 provides 10 Gbits/second, TB v2 provides 20 GBits/sec. So can you fit 70 MBits/second on TB???
     
    But nothing is ever quite that simple. In addition to the maximum bandwidth, one needs to worry about how I/O requests are serviced. Well, with USB2 and Firewire you need to worry about that, and in fact the big benefit of Firewire over USB was how I/O was serviced. From what I've read (I have not dug very deeply) USB2 and especially USB3 now support DMA and high efficiency interrupt handling, so there is no longer a performance difference between a well written (with respect to our requirements) USB driver and a well written Firewire driver is minimal. (This does assume you are not using plain vanilla "class compliant" drivers.)
     
    TB enjoys all the benefits of PCIe (because it is PCIe) - very efficient interrupt handlers, Direct Memory Access, and a very mature driver framework. So even though we'll never use 20 GBit/second of bandwidth - which would be over 9000 (if I did the math correctly) channels of 24 bit, 96KHz audio.
     
    But that's not the point, is it?
     
    No, the point is some folks - myself included - would dearly love to have an Apollo interface if only to gain access to the Unison Microphone technology. And today that means one of two Firewire cards that are approved, if you are running Windows. Could UA add microphone inputs and A/D converters to their PCIe cards? Probably, but how big would that market be? Oops... speculating...

    Some folks complain about using Firewire over TB, but that's nothing new. I used to network my studio computers together using TCP/IP over Firewire. One has to separate the protocol layer(s) from the physical layer. I think the criticism about FW over TB is overstated.
     
    As far as who is at fault, UA or MS, that's a business decision that is way above my pay grade. I can understand a small developer wanting to wait for official support. Developing your own has several risks, and if I were UA I might consider that path, but I'd have to think long and hard about it. That's not faulting Lynx for gambling, and frankly I hope it works out for them, I think it will.

    But I've now wandered into the realm of speculation, so I'm stopping here.

    -- Bill
    Audio Enterprise
    KB3KJF
    #9
    tlw
    Max Output Level: -49.5 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 2567
    • Joined: 2008/10/11 22:06:32
    • Location: West Midlands, UK
    • Status: offline
    Re: Thunderbolt on Windows? 2014/09/17 16:59:19 (permalink)
    Some Windows laptops already have TB. The HP ZBooks for example.

    MS are an irrelevancy here. If card manufacturers/laptop manufacturers wish to implement TB then they can and will simply write the drivers themselves (or use drivers supplied by chipset manufacturers). Hardware support is the issue.

    As I understand it the lack of PCIe TB cards comes down to Intel's policies and attitudes. In particular that TB has to handle video as well as data, which might be putting off third party manufacturers now that Intel has finally decided to license third parties.

    As for how useful TB might be, as far as audio is concerned while USB might have suitable bandwidth it is still the case that a PCI(e) connected card will give much lower latency than USB. Even FW400 often has an edge over USB2 in latency terms, but there are the chip/Windows/interface issues to deal with. Whether that issue continues with TB remains to be seen.

    As for USB3, are there any USB audio interfaces that can be guaranteed to work 100% with the USB3 implementation on any random selection of motherboards/laptop chipsets? I've three USB2 interfaces kicking about and none of them are happy connected to USB3 on my tower or the three laptops I've tried them on. USB3 is fast becoming the only USB connection on laptops and motherboards will follow pretty quickly I would expect.

    I'm actively considering a new audio interface, but since no manufacturer is willing to give a definitive "yes/no" on the USB3 issue, Macs are starting to look very appealing. At least I can be sure that Focusrite/RME/MOTU firewire interfaces will actually work.

    Sonar Platinum 64bit, Windows 8.1 Pro 64bit, I7 3770K Ivybridge, 16GB Ram, Gigabyte Z77-D3H m/board,
    ATI 7750 graphics+ 1GB RAM, 2xIntel 520 series 220GB SSDs, 1 TB Samsung F3 + 1 TB WD HDDs, Seasonic fanless 460W psu, RME Fireface UFX, Focusrite Octopre.
    Assorted real synths, guitars, mandolins, diatonic accordions, percussion, fx and other stuff.
    #10
    jcschild
    Max Output Level: -41 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 3409
    • Joined: 2003/11/08 00:20:10
    • Location: Kentucky y'all
    • Status: offline
    Re: Thunderbolt on Windows? 2014/09/17 17:25:30 (permalink)
    """As I understand it the lack of PCIe TB cards comes down to Intel's policies and attitudes""""
     
    far more than you know.. major politics with this one, they have no issue issuing license to input device manufacturers but to not companies who wish to implement an add on card. and TB 2 onboard implementation is nearly non existent without a headerport and add in card TB 1 was on a lot of mobos.
     
    """a PCI(e) connected card will give much lower latency than USB. Even FW400 often has an edge over USB2 in latency terms,""""
     
    not true exactly.  several of RMEs interfaces actually do better on USB than firewire.
    Motu FW/USB are identical
    RME USB is almost the same as RME PCIe, and RME USB will actually beat a few PCIe cards.
    its all about the drivers.
     
     
    as to USB 3, RME Motu, Steinberg are fine. others are sketchy, some flat out no go.. (focusrite)
    yet to see a desktop not have USB2, some laptops may have only 1 USB2 which could be an issue with multiple USB devices
    also depends on which USB3 chipset for the others.. RME, Motu, Steiny never an issue..

    Scott
    ADK
    Home of the Kentucky Fried DAW!
    #11
    Muziekschuur at home
    Max Output Level: -62 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 1442
    • Joined: 2006/03/01 03:30:22
    • Status: offline
    Re: Thunderbolt on Windows? 2014/09/18 06:15:41 (permalink)
    It's about the size of the computer. Since I'd like to go forward and use a touch screen I have bought 19" preamps. Wich I now want to connect to a rackmountable pc. It should be as sturdy as possible. Since there now are onboard display chips a thunderbolt connection (like usb and firewire) moves the audio hardware away from the computer. Wich leaves only the driver wich may or may not perform as discribed. 
     
    Since Thunderbolt(2) will talk directly to the CPU (in the right MOBO build) it will have nothing to do with the PCI-E. And if a computer only has thunderbolt, HDMI and USB3 it can be small, cool and much less prone to mechanical issues.... And thus survive much better in a rack.... So I thought. 
     
    So with two or three 19"rack mounted 8 ch preamps, 1 unit high computer and a touch screen you get this highly portable unit...... Wich appeals....

    Cakewalk Sonar Platinum Windows 7 32bit & 64bit (dualboot) Gigabyte mobo Intel dual quad 9650 & 4GB Ram RME DIGI9636 & Tascam DM24.  M-audio Rbus & SI-24 Alesis Pro active 5.1 & Radford 90 transmissionline monitors. Roland RD-150 piano Edirol UM-880 & alesis fireport.
    Remote recording Alesis HD-24 & Phonic MRS 1-20.
    P.A. D&R Dayner 29-8-2 & behringer MX8000 (& racks)
    Rackpc Sonar Platinum with win10 AMD X6 1055T, 16GB Ram
     Dell inspiron 17R 6gb ram W10 two SSD's Sonar Plat.
    #12
    Muziekschuur at home
    Max Output Level: -62 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 1442
    • Joined: 2006/03/01 03:30:22
    • Status: offline
    Re: Thunderbolt on Windows? 2014/09/18 06:34:49 (permalink)
    And to take this discussion to another level..... Behringer bought Klark Teknik and Midas. So they aquired the Sony Oxford built (in 2007 Klark Teknik bought Sony Oxford from Sony) AES50 and AES60. Right now the rest of the industry will move on towards AES67...... But once Mr Behringer finds out it's nothing more than a fancy version of AES60 I'm quite certain he will go to war...... Cause in his mind he bought the future of Pro audio. And left the rest of the bunch to deal with his patents..... 
     
    Then there is this thing of matrix within a ethernet connection. And the stuff of what happens when you sum 24 bit audio...... it creates artifacts etc..... (or it may do that....).... When you stay within the DAW system, daw builders can do what they do best.... And process critical audio at much higher specs like 40 bit floating or not or higher....
    So Thunderbolt seems to be the best technology (besides PCI-E (but that means putting risercards in motherboards and thus making stuff big measured by nowadays standards). And Thunderbolt was made with break out boxes in mind making additional firewire and usb ports possible. And thus.... Meaning current drivers will (I think.... so this is open for debate here) work with Thunderbolt equipped motherboards....
     
    Thunderbolt was offered exclusively to Mac for a couple of years. This has passed. And some issues with the technology arose meaning external graphic cards were put in the freezer. Now Thunderbolt 2 is there. And I think the bottle neck is about a chip between PCI-E and the CPU. Another chip needed on a motherboard wich means money towards another chip and licences to be paid towards INTEL will up the price considderably. So Intel took the time to showcase their technology towards ASUS, MSI, ASROCK and AMD. And half of those manufacturers are chinese. And these guys have not respected patents at all in the past... And because of Thunderbolt2 has arrived the old TB1 did not perform as expected. And because Thunderbolt(2) will not perform as expected as a risercard in a PCI-1 slot, the risercard is simply not a good idea....
     
    Well, some stuff I mentioned might be open for debate.... So shoot  \../ 
     

    Cakewalk Sonar Platinum Windows 7 32bit & 64bit (dualboot) Gigabyte mobo Intel dual quad 9650 & 4GB Ram RME DIGI9636 & Tascam DM24.  M-audio Rbus & SI-24 Alesis Pro active 5.1 & Radford 90 transmissionline monitors. Roland RD-150 piano Edirol UM-880 & alesis fireport.
    Remote recording Alesis HD-24 & Phonic MRS 1-20.
    P.A. D&R Dayner 29-8-2 & behringer MX8000 (& racks)
    Rackpc Sonar Platinum with win10 AMD X6 1055T, 16GB Ram
     Dell inspiron 17R 6gb ram W10 two SSD's Sonar Plat.
    #13
    wst3
    Max Output Level: -55.5 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 1979
    • Joined: 2003/11/04 10:28:11
    • Location: Pottstown, PA 19464
    • Status: offline
    Re: Thunderbolt on Windows? 2014/09/18 13:10:48 (permalink)
    Muziekschuur at home
    And to take this discussion to another level..... Behringer bought Klark Teknik and Midas. So they aquired the Sony Oxford built (in 2007 Klark Teknik bought Sony Oxford from Sony) AES50 and AES60. Right now the rest of the industry will move on towards AES67...... But once Mr Behringer finds out it's nothing more than a fancy version of AES60 I'm quite certain he will go to war...... Cause in his mind he bought the future of Pro audio. And left the rest of the bunch to deal with his patents.....



    A couple minor quibbles...
     
    AES-50 is a standard for audio transport over Ethernet, and it predates the IEEE standards that make up AVB. AES50 was extended to become SuperMAC, the Sony developed transport. It was further extended to become HyperMAC, also by Sony. Behringer owns the patents for SuperMAC and HyperMAC, but has no control over the underlying standards.
     
    AES-67 is a recent standard, sometimes billed as a standard for audio transport over IP. But is a actually a standard for interconnection between different IP based audio protocols. It references the same IEEE standards that AVB references, but it operates over a higher layer in the network stack.

    That said, I think Ethernet and/or IP stand to be the surviving transport for Audio, MIDI, DMX, Video, and Control (there is an AES standards committee hammering out an open control protocol, and there is also an independent consortium working on the same problem. This time around it appears they are talking to each other!)
     
    I have a Dante I/O box in my studio. It just works, but latency is not on a par with any of the other approaches... yet. They recently upped the channel count from 64x64 to 512x512, and they are almost certainly working on the latency problem as I type, although I have no insider information one way or the other.
     
    The real surprise right now is that Dante (proprietary) is crushing AVB,and Super/HyperMAC in the marketplace. Part of the reason may be audio folks are more comfortable working at the IP layer, Ethernet can be scary (not really) and device discovery/configuration is easier at the IP layer.

    A friend of mine and I have played around with generic, network based I/O boxes for audio and MIDI. It will happen, it may not be us. And actually, as fewer and fewer folks depend on MIDI we could be completely off the mark!

    -- Bill
    Audio Enterprise
    KB3KJF
    #14
    The Maillard Reaction
    Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 31918
    • Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
    • Status: offline
    Re: Thunderbolt on Windows? 2014/09/19 08:24:54 (permalink)
    One of the reasons I asked about Thunderbolt here is that my attempts to read about it elsewhere seems to have ended in a quagmire of confusion.
     
    I have a few questions and hope that maybe people can take a shot and one or more of them.
     
    1) With Firewire and Windows there is a basic 1394ohci.sys driver that I have always thought of as a system level driver. I have assumed that this system driver is used so that a firewire appliance can be recognized and this is how the OS is prompted to load the specific device driver that the appliance manufacturer provides with the hardware they sell. Is there a similar paired relationship with Thunderbolt? Has MS provided a system level driver or is the provision of such a driver entirely dependent on third party vendors?
     
    2) Am I to understand that Thunderbolt on a Windows CPU system has only been implemented on a motherboard? I haven't searched for a PCI-E thunderbolt add on card... if I do will I find that they do not exist? If that is the case, is it because Intel is preventing third parties from selling such cards?
     
    3) Are there two versions of Thunderbolt? Has the first version been replaced by a newer version on MAC? Do Windows users have practical access to both versions or is it the case where Windows users are just getting started with the first version after it has played out in the Mac world?
     
    I imagine that some/many/most of these questions are based on gross misunderstandings and as such may seem to reflect said misunderstanding. I'll appreciate any clarification that anyone can offer.
     
    Thank You.
     
     
    edited grammar
    post edited by mike_mccue - 2014/09/19 16:23:31


    #15
    wst3
    Max Output Level: -55.5 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 1979
    • Joined: 2003/11/04 10:28:11
    • Location: Pottstown, PA 19464
    • Status: offline
    Re: Thunderbolt on Windows? 2014/09/19 13:59:24 (permalink)
    Good questions Mike - I'll throw in what little I know... or what I think I know, the literature can be confusing as there are conflicting reports.
     
    mike_mccue
    1) With Firewire and Windows there is a basic 1394ohci.sys driver that I have always thought of as a system level driver.<snippity>

    You pretty much have it right. Windows uses an abstraction layer to separate hardware from software, but of course there has to be an interface. The simple explanation is that you three layers:
    1) hardware - the device either sends or receives data in some format under some rules
    2) the interface - generally provided by MS - this provides a uniform interface for applications, so for example writing a byte to a port is the same whether it is RS-232, USB, FW, or whatever. Where this is most beneficial is when a port is generic - for example all mice do the same basic thing, report position and motion, so a single interface will work with all mice (class compliant), but if you have dozens of buttons or other tricks you need to write your own driver.
    3) the manufacturer provided driver - MS prefers to have these live at the application level, but some specialized hardware requires the driver to live at the interface level.
     
    It appears, with respect to TB, that MS has not yet added their low level interface to the OS, and UA is hesitant to write a driver that talks to the hardware.
     
    mike_mccue2) Am I to understand that Thunderbolt on a Windows CPU system has only been implemented on a motherboard? I haven't searched for a PCI-E thunderbolt add on card... if I do will I find that they do not exist? If that is the case, is it because Intel is preventing third parties from selling such cards?

    Thunderbolt on a PCIe card would be sorta redundant - TB is PCIe, in the same way that eSATA is SATA. So you could have a PCIe card with a TB socket on the rear panel, but the card would not do a whole lot, other than signal conditioning and maybe line protection. The 4 lanes on a TB port are the same as 4 lanes on a motherboard.
     
    mike_mccue3) Are there two versions of Thunderbolt? Has the first version been replaced by a newer version on MAC? Do Windows users have practical access to both versions or is it the case where Windows users are just getting started with the first version after it played out in the Mac world?


    There are two versions, the initial version provided 10Gb/s of bandwidth, the current version doubles that. I'm pretty sure that is the only difference.
     
    Hope this helps...

    -- Bill
    Audio Enterprise
    KB3KJF
    #16
    Splat
    Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 8672
    • Joined: 2010/12/29 15:28:29
    • Location: Mars.
    • Status: offline
    Re: Thunderbolt on Windows? 2014/09/19 14:08:30 (permalink)
    Nice post... Interesting reading...

    Sell by date at 9000 posts. Do not feed.
    @48/24 & 128 buffers latency is 367 with offset of 38.

    Sonar Platinum(64 bit),Win 8.1(64 bit),Saffire Pro 40(Firewire),Mix Control = 3.4,Firewire=VIA,Dell Studio XPS 8100(Intel Core i7 CPU 2.93 Ghz/16 Gb),4 x Seagate ST31500341AS (mirrored),GeForce GTX 460,Yamaha DGX-505 keyboard,Roland A-300PRO,Roland SPD-30 V2,FD-8,Triggera Krigg,Shure SM7B,Yamaha HS5.Maschine Studio+Komplete 9 Ultimate+Kontrol Z1.Addictive Keys,Izotope Nectar elements,Overloud Bundle,Geist.Acronis True Image 2014.
    #17
    The Maillard Reaction
    Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 31918
    • Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
    • Status: offline
    Re: Thunderbolt on Windows? 2014/09/19 16:28:23 (permalink)
    Thank You Bill,
     The explanations really help put many of the comments regarding Thunderbolt that I encounter in to a context that I can make sense of.
     
     
     
     I have been thinking about Thunderbolt add in cards in terms of using one to add a Thunderbolt interface to an existing computer.
     
     I started thinking like this when MOTU canceled their PCI-E gear a few months ago and replaced it with Thunderbolt gear that has a lower noise floor than it's previous offerings and some really attractive pricing. It seems to me as if people that can make use of Thunderbolt will be seeing some very nice hi analog track count Audio I/O gear introduced at even lower prices than they may be accustomed too, while people depending on PCI-E cards are going to recognize a decreasing selection that will seem increasingly expensive.


    #18
    Living Room Rocker
    Max Output Level: -77 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 675
    • Joined: 2009/09/16 22:10:24
    • Status: offline
    Re: Thunderbolt on Windows? 2014/09/19 19:41:14 (permalink)
    jcschild
    1) it most certainly is NOT MS fault please stop with that myth.
    it has to do with manufacturers not wanting to write drivers.
    case in point Lynx has TB for windows and not only is it real TB (unlike Motu 828x and previously working Apollo that used Firewire protocol thru TB)
    and to add to that Lynx can daisy chain (up to 6 units or 192 I/O), all other present TB on the market are end point devices. and look to be for awhile.
     
    2) TB is absolutely pointless, it offers NOTHING over what we have now
    3) it will NOT give you lower latency
    4) it will not offer more bandwidth than PCIe Cards or RME USB3
    5) if you own Apple then you don't have much a choice.. (of course this being a sonar forum that would not apply to anyone) but USB still is as good. (assuming the manufacturer knows how to write drivers EG RME)
     
    but hey feel free to believe all the marketing hype
     
     


    With all due respect, Scott, how is it not on MS but on manufactures when they are already offering full/real TB for Apple machines and not Windows PCs?  And if is not MS, why did Intel go out their way to compensate as described in the article I attached from AnandTech?
     
     "Hanging Thunderbolt peripherals directly off the CPU's PCIe lanes requires extensive support from the operating system, particularly when it comes to hot plugging devices and/or waking up peripherals from sleep mode. Over the PCIe lanes off the PCH, Intel has more control via its chipset drivers. Ultimately, it looks like Microsoft dropped the ball and Intel decided to come up with a certification solution by only allowing Thunderbolt silicon to talk to the PCH for all PC boards.
     
    While Microsoft continues to twiddle its thumbs, Intel has decided to come up with less restrictive hardware suggestions to bridge the Thunderbolt experience gap between Macs and PCs."
     
    Also, what about the fact the TB can handle multiple protocols whereas USB can only handle USB.  Why overlook the versatility of TB?  Granted it's got some improvement to be desired, but it is the youngest of the bus protocols (if I characterized that correctly).
     
    I will take the answers offline.
     
    Kind regards,
     
    Living Room Rocker
     
    P.S.  Will USB3 offer enough bandwidth as TB2 for utilizing a 4K monitor?
    #19
    Muziekschuur at home
    Max Output Level: -62 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 1442
    • Joined: 2006/03/01 03:30:22
    • Status: offline
    Re: Thunderbolt on Windows? 2014/09/21 22:08:16 (permalink)

     "Hanging Thunderbolt peripherals directly off the CPU's PCIe lanes requires extensive support from the operating system, particularly when it comes to hot plugging devices and/or waking up peripherals from sleep mode. Over the PCIe lanes off the PCH, Intel has more control via its chipset drivers. Ultimately, it looks like Microsoft dropped the ball and Intel decided to come up with a certification solution by only allowing Thunderbolt silicon to talk to the PCH for all PC boards.
     
    While Microsoft continues to twiddle its thumbs, Intel has decided to come up with less restrictive hardware suggestions to bridge the Thunderbolt experience gap between Macs and PCs."
     




     
    They maybe want to integrate all this into one I/O chip wich will do the active on/off thru switching. And the buffering needed for voltage spiking.
     
    Once Windows 9 will be introduced I have a feeling things will change. To implement something so deep into the O.S. is something Microsoft would obviously do in a new O.S.
    Wich will be introduced in October.... Right?  Wich probably needs some patching a few times.... So it will take a while. But to have a couple of Mac mini(formfactor) pc cases and to interconnect them with thunderbolt to add CPU power is an interesting thought.
     
    No more cd/dvd drives, solidstate drives...., four connector types: thunderbolt (wich can do (brake out box) firewire, usb, HDMI), USB3 ethernet and HDMI.

    Cakewalk Sonar Platinum Windows 7 32bit & 64bit (dualboot) Gigabyte mobo Intel dual quad 9650 & 4GB Ram RME DIGI9636 & Tascam DM24.  M-audio Rbus & SI-24 Alesis Pro active 5.1 & Radford 90 transmissionline monitors. Roland RD-150 piano Edirol UM-880 & alesis fireport.
    Remote recording Alesis HD-24 & Phonic MRS 1-20.
    P.A. D&R Dayner 29-8-2 & behringer MX8000 (& racks)
    Rackpc Sonar Platinum with win10 AMD X6 1055T, 16GB Ram
     Dell inspiron 17R 6gb ram W10 two SSD's Sonar Plat.
    #20
    Jump to:
    © 2024 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.1