On Jun 24, 2017, at 8:10 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
Hmmm, if the very vast majority of PC users did just fine without, one
wonders how it could have been "VERY necessary."
On the contrary, DVI, followed by HDMI, were much more in line with the more
commonly used, backward compatible interfaces that I'm talking about, which
continue to be improved as needs require.
On the other hand, the article did point out how Wintel kept FireWire
from being widely deployed on the dominant PC platform.
The article I read placed much of the blame on Apple, actually. Although for
the most part, the only significant champion FireWire EVER had was Apple.
Much like Thunderbolt.
Apple first included on-board FireWire in some of its 1999 Macintosh models
(though it had been a build-to-order option on some models since 1997), and
most Apple Macintosh computers manufactured in the years 2000 through 2011
included FireWire ports. However, in February 2011 Apple introduced the first
commercially available computer with Thunderbolt. Apple released its last
computers featuring FireWire late 2012. By 2014 Thunderbolt had become a
standard feature across Apple's entire line of computers effectively becoming
the spiritual successor to FireWire in the Apple ecosystem.
The system was commonly used to connect data storage devices and DV (digital
video) cameras, but was also popular in industrial systems for machine vision
and professional audio systems. Many users preferred it over the more common
USB 2.0 for its then greater effective speed and power distribution
capabilities. Benchmarks show that the sustained data transfer rates are
higher for FireWire than for USB 2.0, but lower than USB 3.0.
While Apple pioneered the use of this standard, the PC industry is
now getting on board.
Looks to me like Thunderbolt is merging with USB, adopting the USB-C
Thunderbolt combines PCI Express (PCIe) and DisplayPort (DP) into two serial
signals , and additionally provides DC power, all in one cable. Up to six
peripherals may be supported by one connector through various topologies.
Looks like a variable set of features for USB 3.1. USB 3.0 and 3.1 were
always meant to be updates of USB that would support connecting displays,
growing up from the early days of the USB for only keyboard, mouse, and
printer interface. This recent article sounds more realistic to me. And the
one after that describes USB-C, and its compatibility with USB 3.0 and 3.1,
with passive adapters.
"Type-C connectors will be shipped in a variety of passive adapters (an
earlier version of this story erroneously asserted that such cables would not
be available, Extremetech regrets the error). The spec provides for passive
adapters with USB 3.0 / 3.1 on one end and USB Type-C on the other."RT