If Thunderbolt and USB-C are so great, why not replace internal SATA express cables with them?
Why?
Good question. I too would like to know.
It would make sense but most company's are shit
>>51551505
Because SATA already just werks
>>51551505
because internal sata connections are usually good enough.
They could probably make a better connection anyhow, seeing as it wouldn't need to be rated for the insertions that a USB C or thunderbold cable should be rated for, and could totally be uglier, directional, and larger and no one would care because it's internal.
>>51551505
Yeah, if you love it so much, why don't you marry it?
>>51551703
SATA is currently at 16Gbps. This effectively means that if your drive is capable of faster speeds then the bus itself is the bottleneck.
Thunderbolt can handle 40Gbps, which means that a single SATA drive can't saturate it.
The main reason for keeping SATA is compatibility, you can plug any version SATA drive into any version SATA port with any version SATA cable and it will work, to some degree.
>>51551505
because it would break all the current connections, and even if they had a faster interface, they wouldn't actually be any faster in operation
you think a 7200rpm hard drive is going to max out a 16 Gbps (latest SATA revision) link?
I don't even think the fastest SSDs are maxing that link
>>51551505
Because TB isn't directly compatible with PCIe on the physical layer.
How often do you want to switch out drives?
Ideally only when they break and they shouldn't break very often.
If a drive survives 5-6 years (or gets too small at that point) we should at least double that in the longevity of the ports and cables.
If we changed cable every time there were a better option the market would be really unstable.
I am sure usb-c is great. But at some point we can do better and then that should be the standard. It will never end.
We have to establish stability if we want everything to remain cheap.
>>51551505
There is far more to signaling than peak bandwidth.
>>51551750
>thunderbolt
It's literally illegal to use on non-apple hardware.
Tho i personally love USB i don't know how feasible would that shit be
Direct hardware access on an easy to use cable, where do I sign up (to be part of someone's botnet)?
SATA is designed to be plugged in/out few times, unlike thunderbolt. That's why the cable design is different.
>>51552263
>It's literally illegal to use on non-apple hardware.
You must mistake Thunderbolt for Lightning. Of course, Apple has been a big supporter of Thunderbolt, but it's actually Intel who's in charge of licensing Thunderbolt.
>>51554509
Yup, my bad.
Iphones in my country are there but the number of actual laptop/ipad and stuff like lighting is relatively rare.
I think i saw maybe 3 apple laptops and a tablet in my life
Why not just use esata with power from usb. Just slap your drive in with one cable at native sata speed. My laptop has 2 esata with usb ports. Chances are if you're using an Intel north bridge then you've already got 6 or 8 sata ports. Adding a thunderbolt or lightning controller costs alot extra and they're definitely not going to support more than 2 drives. Also sata is hot plug even for desktops, just set it in the bios.
>>51551761
>I don't even think the fastest SSDs are maxing that link
Except for how SSDs have been maxing out SATA3 since before it even became a fucking standard and how M.2 is being pushed so, so hard simply because it allows SSDs to run where they actually belong, in the gigabyte per second ranges.
>>51551505
Because internal cables for drives will be gone in 5 years anyway outside of legacy support, we'll all be running 8tb M.2 drives.
