[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Eug 

To put it another way, CD-RW in the entry level market had much less penetration at the iMac's launch than FW does in the Pro Mac market does now at the Thunderbolt launch.

Why are you comparing one particular application of SCSI to FW800 as a whole? Either compare SCSI to FW800, or SCSI CD-RW drives to FW800 CD-RW drives. If you compare apples to apples, I think you'll find that SCSI had proportionally greater penetration in the Mac world than FW800 does today. They both existed in the same niche — the high-speed interface for pro users — but the thing is, SCSI was the only way to connect any kind of storage to a Mac for years, whereas today, USB 2.0 exists as a "good enough" alternative for most users, the only exceptions being pros who need more speed or reliability — and those pros will be perfectly capable of getting a Thunderbolt to FW800 adapter. SCSI had no such "good enough" alternative, and so that's what everyone had to use. In the mid 90s, I hardly ever saw a Mac that didn't have a few SCSI devices attached, be they CD readers (on the older Macs that didn't have them built in), hard drives for additional storage or backup, Zip drives, scanners, or, yes, CD-RW drives. I saw plenty of these set up by completely non-technical people, as friends, neighbors, acquaintances, etc. were often asking me to help fix problems with their devices which were almost invariably caused by improper termination. Today, most Mac users I talk to don't even know what the FW800 port is.

The FW800 port can be dropped without being terribly missed, I think. A second Thunderbolt port in its place would be far more useful.

[P]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Note the 8ns claim was regarding clock synchronization along a chain of devices, not latency.

In 8ns you won't even make it 3m in copper, much less the return trip.

Oh. Thanks for the heads-up, I thought it sounded too good to be true.

[Eug]

LaCie unveils Thunderbolt-compatible Little Big Disk | Storage | MacUser | Macworld

The Thunderbolt-compatible version of the Little Big Disk won’t launch until the summer, though, and pricing was not immediately available.

What does that mean anyway?

[indigoimac]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Why wouldn't Apple use the built in 6Gbps SATA ports? They're the only working ports on the chipset! You think they're going to wait for fixed chipsets and then use ports 2 and 3 so they're limited to 3Gbps?
It's irrelevant that the optical drive can't saturate 3Gbps.

For anyone else who is interested in whether or not 6gb sata is supported... the answer is... sort of:

Are the new MBPs SATA II or SATA III? - MacRumors Forums
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthre...1102430&page=2

Apparently the optical drive bay is still showing up as 3gb sata, not a huge deal if you want 1 ssd and 1 regular drive, but awkward nonetheless. AppleCare apparently states the machine, overall, does not support 6gb sata.

According to this:
Apple revamps MacBook Pro line, adds Thunderbolt port | Laptops | MacUser | Macworld

Apple is using the fixed chipsets that would allow for both a 6gbit port to be used, along with 3gbit. So yes, they did wait for fully functional chipsets and not use both 6gbit sata, it would seem.

God forbid this be straightforward Apple

[Spheric Harlot]

Agree entirely with charlesS up there. Good post.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Eug 

LaCie unveils Thunderbolt-compatible Little Big Disk | Storage | MacUser | Macworld

The Thunderbolt-compatible version of the Little Big Disk won’t launch until the summer, though, and pricing was not immediately available.

What does that mean anyway?

The version with a TB port built in.

[PhilCat]

Thunderbolt smokes USB, FireWire
Didn't realize USB3 speed over firewire, and now TB.

Iv'e been single wire firewire only for all external drives and card readers the last 6 years.
My main gripe with firewire 400/800 have been the ports to cable fit.
Not as snug fitting as USB.