Intel's New Thunderbolt Share Provides File and Screen Sharing Without Hurting Network Performance (tomshardware.com) 48
Intel unveiled Thunderbolt Share on Wednesday with which it promises to streamline screen and file sharing between two PCs. Tom's Hardware: Thunderbolt Share will allow PC owners to connect their two computers with a wired connection that leverages Thunderbolt's speed (40Gbps or higher), low latency, and built-in security. It allows PC-to-PC access that shares the screen, keyboard, mouse, and storage. The software also enables folder synchronization or easy drag-and-drop file transfer between the computers. [...]
Thunderbolt Share also provides uncompressed screen sharing between two PCs in the original resolution of the source computer. It also claims low latency for a smooth, responsive experience that includes the screen, keyboard, and mouse with full HD screen mirroring at up to 60 frames per second (fps). Higher resolutions could result in fewer frames per second, but Ziller said it would still be a "great experience."
Thunderbolt Share also provides uncompressed screen sharing between two PCs in the original resolution of the source computer. It also claims low latency for a smooth, responsive experience that includes the screen, keyboard, and mouse with full HD screen mirroring at up to 60 frames per second (fps). Higher resolutions could result in fewer frames per second, but Ziller said it would still be a "great experience."
I Will Stick To TCP/IP. (Score:2)
I already have a cable connected that satisfies my needs.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, you can connect two systems with a usb-c cable and they'll just bring up a really network interface already.
Seems a bit superfluous once you have that going, then you can use normal file sharing facilities, with more well known and well tested security strategies.
I have no idea who insists on "screen sharing" over a local cable, versus just using the displayport alt mode and usb keyboard and mouse, which already exist and can run faster than what was described.
Re: I Will Stick To TCP/IP. (Score:1)
Re: I Will Stick To TCP/IP. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd go for the fork input leap, still open source.
Though that doesn't share screen, that is about sharing keyboard and mouse only.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm actually hoping I can replace my synergy setup with this. As an OG adopter, I'm disappointment in the direction symless has taken synergy 3, how they have abandoned synergy 1, never successfully added their promised features (drag and drop file transfers, multi-monitor support, etc) and now moved to a subscription model.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there is:
https://github.com/input-leap/... [github.com]
Which is a fork of barrier which was a fork of synergy from the open source days.
I'm not holding out hope for this being a synergy alternative. I'm guessing they are more thinking more like using a laptop as a 'crash cart' rather than a usb-c monitor, at least for 'desktop grade' headless systems it seems plausible, though rackmount systems tend to be still enamored of Dsub15 only for whatever reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Increasingly, I'm seeing new systems show up with mini DP though.
Re:I Will Stick To TCP/IP. (Score:4, Informative)
Also, you can connect two systems with a usb-c cable and they'll just bring up a really network interface already.
Thunderbolt, not USB-C. USB-C is a port.
USB3.2 over USB-C will not create the interface you speak of- it's a Thunderbolt virtual PCIe endpoint.
Seems a bit superfluous once you have that going, then you can use normal file sharing facilities, with more well known and well tested security strategies.
I thought the same thing. I'm unsure what the advantage of this is, over the Thunderbolt Ethernet interface.
I have no idea who insists on "screen sharing" over a local cable, versus just using the displayport alt mode and usb keyboard and mouse, which already exist and can run faster than what was described.
I have a feeling this is just a piece of software that literally runs some kind of VNC/RDP over the normal Thunderbolt Ethernet interface.
As to the use of that- of course there is one. I use it all the time. I won't be using their software, of course, but some people may find it easier.
Re: (Score:2)
versus just using the displayport alt mode and usb keyboard and mouse
Also this is obvious-
If you use DP-Alt or HDMI-Alt, you use up the data lines for Thunderbolt/USB4, meaning you're now limited to USB3.2 speeds across that port.
That sucks big ass.
Makes *far* more sense to encapsulate the video over something that can be sent over Thunderbolt (in fact, this is how Thunderbolt displays work)
That way you still have the Thunderbolt bandwidth minus the video bandwidth available.
Re: (Score:2)
This product is about a layer 5 service running over a layer 1 network. The 3 and 4 are almost certainly TCP/IP, since TB supports EoTB by default.
What's the use ? (Score:2)
Looks like a powerpoint bullet feature.
Re: (Score:3)
Transferring a very large payload at 40gbps with a $15 cable that you already own is pretty handy. Not sure why everyone is getting all riled up over this.
Re: (Score:1)
I transferred a huge payload to your mom's face
Re: What's the use ? (Score:2)
40gbps with a $15 cable that you already own
It has to be an oxygen free Monster cable.
Re: (Score:3)
Because *you already can*. Try plugging in your thunderbolt port with a cable to another system similarly equipped. In my case, a nice and fast NIC pops up.
This is cool and exciting for occasional use. However, I don't see the benefit of making more "locked into thunderbolt" schemes when you already get IP over thunderbolt today.
I do however, get worried about security risks.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying for the vast majority of Windows users, there's no value to having something automatically configure the setup, file sharing, etc.? Or are you saying this is unnecessary because the vast majority of Windows users are experts at configuring TCP/IP stacks on different machines, disabling firewall settings, enabling file sharing, sharing folders, finding those folders on the other machine, and then actually transferring the stuff you wanted to?
Why is everyone bitching that Intel is trying to
Re:What's the use ? (Score:4, Informative)
When you connect 2 thunderbolt hosts together, they'll create a Thunderbolt Ethernet interface (a virtual controller that sends data packets directly via PCIe between the 2 hosts)
I do it all the time for big transfers between laptops.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but you're also probably knowledgeable in setting up networks, file sharing services, etc.
The vast majority of Windows users are not.
Why is everyone getting upset at Intel trying to make what you are already doing in multiple steps easier? Is it because "Intel" or "Windows" ? Would we see as much consternation if this was a shiny new feature in Ubuntu?
Re: (Score:2)
I have no such upset/hate at this product. Makes perfect sense to me. About time someone made something that made it easier for random Joe to utilize the TB port in this way.
Re: (Score:2)
But while I none the less l
Re: (Score:2)
If they extend it to allow the shared screen content to not be a mirror of the source screen, but a virtual second display instead, then this this would be something I'm interested in... It'd basically be providing the important functionality of a dock - Keyboard, Mouse, Networking, Display/Audio, Storage (including USB drives), and possibly power delivery all in a single cable.
That's a use case I would use regularly for my work laptop when I need to use it at home. It wouldn't be particularly energy effici
"For Windows" (Score:5, Informative)
The full name of the launch product is "ThunderBolt Share For Windows." It's a Windows only thing: Windows software installed on both machines to make it work.
So that's useless.
Re: (Score:2)
The full name of the launch product is "ThunderBolt Share For Windows." It's a Windows only thing: Windows software installed on both machines to make it work.
So that's useless.
If somebody manages to make a Linux / Windows compatibility layer so you can hook your Linux box up to your Windows box and share one on the other? I'd be pretty stoked about that. Especially if you can do side-by-side on the monitor and clicky between them easy.
Re:"For Windows" (Score:5, Funny)
The full name of the launch product is "ThunderBolt Share For Windows." It's a Windows only thing: Windows software installed on both machines to make it work.
So that's useless.
So it's laplink reborn for the current century.
Re: (Score:2)
Linux users can still use FDDI or token ring if you're on kernel 2.6.
Re: (Score:2)
that's your choice, sucks for you
Does it work with Linux? (Score:2)
40gbs connection might be nice...
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest you take a cable and connect your Linux laptop to another laptop with USB-C and enjoy the network interface that will probably pop up already today without any additional software.
built in video only? need loopback cable for video (Score:2)
built in video only? need loop back cable for video card video?
select PCs so this needs some UEFI / bios rom code (Score:2)
select PCs so this needs some UEFI / bios rom code to run and it's up to the vendor to push out firmware updates when this get's hacked?
This is irrelevant (Score:1)
Network Performance (Score:3)
It "doesn't hurt network performance" because..... it's just setting up a second network.
I can do that many many ways, thunderbolt is just one of them.
Re: (Score:3)
let me dust off my laplink cable...
Re: (Score:2)
holy shit it still is a thing!!!!
my joke about the parallel port transfer cable seems weird now.
Re: (Score:2)
I deal with a lot of vintage systems as a hobby so my laplink serial cable still gets used a lot. Right now it's connected to my oscilloscope to grab screenshots.
Re: (Score:2)
It probably uses DMA so there is less protocol overhead.
Re: (Score:2)
PCIe has native DMA access, and so a PCIe device that isn't using DMA is wasting a port.
High performance computing (Score:3)
Disappointing that no one said anything about a Beowulf cluster of these... the joke was finally appropriate.
Anyway, since it transfers video it likely has some sort of direct memory access. Building a compute cluster with nothing more than the right drivers and some cheap thunderbolt ports would be a big win for folks who don't have zillions of dollars in backing from the government in a lab or IBM or whatever place with deep pockets.
The article was super light on details so maybe this can't be used that way but it's a step in the right direction.
As far as "it's windows only", so what? As if no one can write a driver for Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem being is that there's likely no provision for switching. So your cluster can be two nodes. And you can already do this today, you have networking. It might or might not support RDMA, I don't know as I've only used it to transfer files between laptops when migrating because it's much faster than waiting to sync up from my network backups.
Re: (Score:3)
That is not the case in Windows, though.
Linux of course, does whatever you tell it to do- you can recreate the default Mac EoTB bridge, if you like.
Re: (Score:2)
40 gbs network ports aren't cheap or commonplace and if you're talking Ethernet certainly don't have DMA.
It's not the same.
Re: (Score:2)
You can have RDMA over ethernet, and *some* amount of DMA is involved in almost any modern network card even without RDMA.
I said that you can already plug your thunderbolt ports together today and get networking, just don't know if you could RDMA over it or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah ok but I think we're talking past each other a bit here.
Yes you can get RDMA over smoke signals and pigeons if you want because it's the computer at the other end that has to interpret those memory requests and respond. The actual transport medium isn't important, per se. But a network card (I'm assuming we're talking IP based) has all sorts of shit going on to create and send data packets which wouldn't exist in a direct bus plugin system like Thunderbolt.
So if you had 40gbs Ethernet and 40gbs thund
Sounds like a tweak to 1995 FireWire. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
while yes firewire can do this, USB wasnt really intended as a mass storage thing, it was made to connect peripherals so you can calm down
PS: it wasnt just Intel that ignored it, it was most of the planet