I don't see this as a replacement for Ethernet or low bandwidth USB. I do see it as a replacement for:
Firewire
High-speed USB peripherals (HDs, scanners, etc.)
eSATA & SATA
Video ports to an extent
ExpressCards
PCI express x1 slots
You might be alone.
"The technology is based of the same concept of HDMI 1.4 -- you take one cable and you apply technology to it that allows it to carry out multiple protocols. In the case of 'Light Peak' you can have a cable that can carry a high quality video signal, transfer data at 10GBps, connect with an iPod, provide USB connectivity, and allow for the same capabilities of ethernet. http://t3chh3lp.com/blog/2009/9/26/a...-light-pe.html
"With the initial specification set to transfer data at a blistering 10Gpbs full duplex over cables as long as 100 meters (and with speeds up to 100Gbps lined up for future revisions), a single Light Peak connection could replace DVI, USB, gigabit Ethernet, FireWire, eSATA and just about anything else that would connect your computer to its environs. http://www.tuaw.com/2009/09/26/is-ap...ak-connectivi/
I don't see this as a replacement for Ethernet or low bandwidth USB. I do see it as a replacement for:
Firewire
High-speed USB peripherals (HDs, scanners, etc.)
eSATA & SATA
Video ports to an extent
ExpressCards
PCI express x1 slots
If all of those things go Light Peak, I can't see where low bandwidth USB would have any reason to carry on. Sure, it's overkill, but why keep a legacy port for, I guess, keyboards and pointing devices when virtually everything else is on the same bus?
I agree that ethernet is a pretty entrenched standard, and for consumers at least a lot (if not most) networking past the modem happens wirelessly, so there doesn't seem to be much upside there.
Here's a thought: if Apple had a hand in the spec, do you think they made sure Intel included some of the firewire fun we've come to know and love? I'm thinking specifically of boot drives and target disc mode.
"The technology is based of the same concept of HDMI 1.4 -- you take one cable and you apply technology to it that allows it to carry out multiple protocols. In the case of 'Light Peak' you can have a cable that can carry a high quality video signal, transfer data at 10GBps, connect with an iPod, provide USB connectivity, and allow for the same capabilities of ethernet. http://t3chh3lp.com/blog/2009/9/26/a...-light-pe.html
"With the initial specification set to transfer data at a blistering 10Gpbs full duplex over cables as long as 100 meters (and with speeds up to 100Gbps lined up for future revisions), a single Light Peak connection could replace DVI, USB, gigabit Ethernet, FireWire, eSATA and just about anything else that would connect your computer to its environs. http://www.tuaw.com/2009/09/26/is-ap...ak-connectivi/
But I think that "single cable" thing is a bit misleading, in that it conjures up visions of, well, a single cable.
Once past the case of your computer, that single cable still needs to physically connect with all the devices that used to use the various interconnect standards.
Now if it became a ubiquitous standard, and all of my devices had the same interconnect so that I only had to worry about keeping one kind of cable around, or perhaps one kind of cable and one kind of hub/splitter/router, then terrific. But I'm still going to have single cable to hub to many cables, or many ports to many cables, and in the case of infrastructure type connects such as ethernet, it's not even clear why that's an improvement.
High speed data transfer is nice, of course, but the more I think about it the more I thing single cable to some kind of distribution thing which stays connected to your peripherals is the payoff.
HP claims to be the leader in optical data transmission.
There is a general trend in the whole industry to move to optical interconnect, and a lot of work has been done to build light-pipes directly into silicon for the purpose of photonic-to-electronic data conversion. So I see this as merely another case where Apple drives the market initially, but hasn't really invented anything.
I was planning to buy a Mac Pro in November for video editing. Is it worth it to wait another year?
It all depends why you were planning to buy a Mac Pro in the first place.
Is it worth it to wait another year? Well, if you have done your homework and had decided that 'this' Mac is for you and were just waiting because you needed a couple of months to save up the cash, absolutely. And just about any other reason you are waiting for.
As I tell all my friends, clients and even people I meet in the Apple store that never had a Mac before or never experienced the power of the latest iteration and would mull for hours, days and weeks wether to make the plunge, "Within 15 minutes of setting it up, you will invariably feel sorry that you stalled as long you did."
HP claims to be the leader in optical data transmission.
Not with this functionality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel
There is a general trend in the whole industry to move to optical interconnect, and a lot of work has been done to build light-pipes directly into silicon for the purpose of photonic-to-electronic data conversion. So I see this as merely another case where Apple drives the market initially, but hasn't really invented anything.
It all depends why you were planning to buy a Mac Pro in the first place.
Is it worth it to wait another year? Well, if you have done your homework and had decided that 'this' Mac is for you and were just waiting because you needed a couple of months to save up the cash, absolutely. And just about any other reason you are waiting for.
As I tell all my friends, clients and even people I meet in the Apple store that never had a Mac before or never experienced the power of the latest iteration and would mull for hours, days and weeks wether to make the plunge, "Within 15 minutes of setting it up, you will invariably feel sorry that you stalled as long you did."
I am already a Mac user, and have converted most of my friends... I am just confused as to the benefits of Light Peak. I am not the most technical person. For a video editor (I edit in HD BTW), what would the benefits of Light Peak be?
But in case you were wondering, "In addition, Intel said it's working on bundling the optical fiber with copper wire so Light Peak can be used to power devices plugged into the PC?" as previously pointed out by badNameErr in post #14, and supported by his link http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-10360047-264.html
Page one of this thread it was said.
Eh, if they bundle it with copper then it's not that thin and light anymore. I am underwhelmed by this. I am not saying it's a good step forward but it's underwhelming. The bottlenecks at the moment are not as much the ports but the flash and hd speeds.
HP claims to be the leader in optical data transmission.
There is a general trend in the whole industry to move to optical interconnect, and a lot of work has been done to build light-pipes directly into silicon for the purpose of photonic-to-electronic data conversion. So I see this as merely another case where Apple drives the market initially, but hasn't really invented anything.
Nobody ever "invents" anything in the pure sense of the word. What we're seeing already exists and is emulated from an accumulation of past experiences but is combined in a way that makes it innovating. Apple does this succesfully more often than not.
Apple may be the first to bring this to personal computers. So while the idea that Apple hasn't invented anything is true (nobody ever invents anything), it's also true that they've brought innovation by bringing something that existed to the mass (companies do this often).
If all of those things go Light Peak, I can't see where low bandwidth USB would have any reason to carry on. Sure, it's overkill, but why keep a legacy port for, I guess, keyboards and pointing devices when virtually everything else is on the same bus?
I agree that ethernet is a pretty entrenched standard, and for consumers at least a lot (if not most) networking past the modem happens wirelessly, so there doesn't seem to be much upside there.
Here's a thought: if Apple had a hand in the spec, do you think they made sure Intel included some of the firewire fun we've come to know and love? I'm thinking specifically of boot drives and target disc mode.
Consider that USB is a small port and that there are many devices that people may have that get transferred from one computer to a new one replacing it. Particularly mice, tablets, phone adapters, specialty printers, keyboards, etc. If included in a IO chip already, it makes sense to continue to keep it around for certain legacy applications. I think it would be undesirable for Apple to make everyone get adapters to plug in the multitude of USB peripherals out there.
Ethernet, on the other hand, makes sense to keep it as is. The infrastructure (switches, routers, etc.) is enormous and hugely expensive to replace. The cabling is intrenched in our walls and has its applications where high speed is desired over portability (wifi).
Nobody ever "invents" anything in the pure sense of the word. What we're seeing already exists and is emulated from an accumulation of past experiences but is combined in a way that makes it innovating. Apple does this succesfully more often than not.
Apple may be the first to bring this to personal computers. So while the idea that Apple hasn't invented anything is true (nobody ever invents anything), it's also true that they've brought innovation by bringing something that existed to the mass (companies do this often).
Yep.
There's a whole spectrum of possibilities between "invented something in my basement" and "ushered in new ways of doing things at the mass market level."
There are plenty of cool inventions out there that don't really exist, insofar as affecting people's lives, because the people who invented them don't know how to make them practical, or get the cost down, or they don't really have much of a real world application, or there are high societal or economic or political barriers to adoption.
And particularly in the modern world of interconnected tech, the process of ushering a given invention from inception to being part of a system (which is what it's about, now) is at least difficult, demanding and creative as the act of "inventing" itself.
Consider that USB is a small port and that there are many devices that people may have that get transferred from one computer to a new one replacing it. Particularly mice, tablets, phone adapters, specialty printers, keyboards, etc. If included in a IO chip already, it makes sense to continue to keep it around for certain legacy applications. I think it would be undesirable for Apple to make everyone get adapters to plug in the multitude of USB peripherals out there.
Ethernet, on the other hand, makes sense to keep it as is. The infrastructure (switches, routers, etc.) is enormous and hugely expensive to replace. The cabling is intrenched in our walls and has its applications where high speed is desired over portability (wifi).
Quite possibly undesirable, but not out of the question when it comes to Apple. After all, that's pretty much what they did with USB.
Could you supple references to support your statement?
Thank you.
I used to read pc magazine and other tech rags back then. Apple's royalties were higher than intel's and the chips were more expensive. Fw was great for camcorders but overkill for mice. In the end it was too expensive for pc makers even in the days when the average pc cost $2000 and margins were a lot higher
Could you supple references to support your statement?
Thank you.
I used to read pc magazine and other tech rags back then. Apple's royalties were higher than intel's and the chips were more expensive. Fw was great for camcorders but overkill for mice. In the end it was too expensive for pc makers even in the days when the average pc cost $2000 and margins were a lot higher
by that time intel ruled the motherboard market so there was no extra cost for USB since it was already on the motherboard. FireWire needed special cards
Comments
I don't see this as a replacement for Ethernet or low bandwidth USB. I do see it as a replacement for:
You might be alone.
"The technology is based of the same concept of HDMI 1.4 -- you take one cable and you apply technology to it that allows it to carry out multiple protocols. In the case of 'Light Peak' you can have a cable that can carry a high quality video signal, transfer data at 10GBps, connect with an iPod, provide USB connectivity, and allow for the same capabilities of ethernet. http://t3chh3lp.com/blog/2009/9/26/a...-light-pe.html
"With the initial specification set to transfer data at a blistering 10Gpbs full duplex over cables as long as 100 meters (and with speeds up to 100Gbps lined up for future revisions), a single Light Peak connection could replace DVI, USB, gigabit Ethernet, FireWire, eSATA and just about anything else that would connect your computer to its environs. http://www.tuaw.com/2009/09/26/is-ap...ak-connectivi/
I don't see this as a replacement for Ethernet or low bandwidth USB. I do see it as a replacement for:
If all of those things go Light Peak, I can't see where low bandwidth USB would have any reason to carry on. Sure, it's overkill, but why keep a legacy port for, I guess, keyboards and pointing devices when virtually everything else is on the same bus?
I agree that ethernet is a pretty entrenched standard, and for consumers at least a lot (if not most) networking past the modem happens wirelessly, so there doesn't seem to be much upside there.
Here's a thought: if Apple had a hand in the spec, do you think they made sure Intel included some of the firewire fun we've come to know and love? I'm thinking specifically of boot drives and target disc mode.
You might be alone.
"The technology is based of the same concept of HDMI 1.4 -- you take one cable and you apply technology to it that allows it to carry out multiple protocols. In the case of 'Light Peak' you can have a cable that can carry a high quality video signal, transfer data at 10GBps, connect with an iPod, provide USB connectivity, and allow for the same capabilities of ethernet. http://t3chh3lp.com/blog/2009/9/26/a...-light-pe.html
"With the initial specification set to transfer data at a blistering 10Gpbs full duplex over cables as long as 100 meters (and with speeds up to 100Gbps lined up for future revisions), a single Light Peak connection could replace DVI, USB, gigabit Ethernet, FireWire, eSATA and just about anything else that would connect your computer to its environs. http://www.tuaw.com/2009/09/26/is-ap...ak-connectivi/
But I think that "single cable" thing is a bit misleading, in that it conjures up visions of, well, a single cable.
Once past the case of your computer, that single cable still needs to physically connect with all the devices that used to use the various interconnect standards.
Now if it became a ubiquitous standard, and all of my devices had the same interconnect so that I only had to worry about keeping one kind of cable around, or perhaps one kind of cable and one kind of hub/splitter/router, then terrific. But I'm still going to have single cable to hub to many cables, or many ports to many cables, and in the case of infrastructure type connects such as ethernet, it's not even clear why that's an improvement.
High speed data transfer is nice, of course, but the more I think about it the more I thing single cable to some kind of distribution thing which stays connected to your peripherals is the payoff.
He's not permanently banned. The ban expires in three days.
Shame.
There is a general trend in the whole industry to move to optical interconnect, and a lot of work has been done to build light-pipes directly into silicon for the purpose of photonic-to-electronic data conversion. So I see this as merely another case where Apple drives the market initially, but hasn't really invented anything.
I was planning to buy a Mac Pro in November for video editing. Is it worth it to wait another year?
It all depends why you were planning to buy a Mac Pro in the first place.
Is it worth it to wait another year? Well, if you have done your homework and had decided that 'this' Mac is for you and were just waiting because you needed a couple of months to save up the cash, absolutely. And just about any other reason you are waiting for.
As I tell all my friends, clients and even people I meet in the Apple store that never had a Mac before or never experienced the power of the latest iteration and would mull for hours, days and weeks wether to make the plunge, "Within 15 minutes of setting it up, you will invariably feel sorry that you stalled as long you did."
HP claims to be the leader in optical data transmission.
Not with this functionality.
There is a general trend in the whole industry to move to optical interconnect, and a lot of work has been done to build light-pipes directly into silicon for the purpose of photonic-to-electronic data conversion. So I see this as merely another case where Apple drives the market initially, but hasn't really invented anything.
Sounds like you may need your eyes checked.
Suggest you see the movie, 'Flash of Genius'.
It all depends why you were planning to buy a Mac Pro in the first place.
Is it worth it to wait another year? Well, if you have done your homework and had decided that 'this' Mac is for you and were just waiting because you needed a couple of months to save up the cash, absolutely. And just about any other reason you are waiting for.
As I tell all my friends, clients and even people I meet in the Apple store that never had a Mac before or never experienced the power of the latest iteration and would mull for hours, days and weeks wether to make the plunge, "Within 15 minutes of setting it up, you will invariably feel sorry that you stalled as long you did."
I am already a Mac user, and have converted most of my friends...
Who said that?
But in case you were wondering, "In addition, Intel said it's working on bundling the optical fiber with copper wire so Light Peak can be used to power devices plugged into the PC?" as previously pointed out by badNameErr in post #14, and supported by his link http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-10360047-264.html
Page one of this thread it was said.
Eh, if they bundle it with copper then it's not that thin and light anymore. I am underwhelmed by this. I am not saying it's a good step forward but it's underwhelming. The bottlenecks at the moment are not as much the ports but the flash and hd speeds.
HP claims to be the leader in optical data transmission.
There is a general trend in the whole industry to move to optical interconnect, and a lot of work has been done to build light-pipes directly into silicon for the purpose of photonic-to-electronic data conversion. So I see this as merely another case where Apple drives the market initially, but hasn't really invented anything.
Nobody ever "invents" anything in the pure sense of the word. What we're seeing already exists and is emulated from an accumulation of past experiences but is combined in a way that makes it innovating. Apple does this succesfully more often than not.
Apple may be the first to bring this to personal computers. So while the idea that Apple hasn't invented anything is true (nobody ever invents anything), it's also true that they've brought innovation by bringing something that existed to the mass (companies do this often).
If all of those things go Light Peak, I can't see where low bandwidth USB would have any reason to carry on. Sure, it's overkill, but why keep a legacy port for, I guess, keyboards and pointing devices when virtually everything else is on the same bus?
I agree that ethernet is a pretty entrenched standard, and for consumers at least a lot (if not most) networking past the modem happens wirelessly, so there doesn't seem to be much upside there.
Here's a thought: if Apple had a hand in the spec, do you think they made sure Intel included some of the firewire fun we've come to know and love? I'm thinking specifically of boot drives and target disc mode.
Consider that USB is a small port and that there are many devices that people may have that get transferred from one computer to a new one replacing it. Particularly mice, tablets, phone adapters, specialty printers, keyboards, etc. If included in a IO chip already, it makes sense to continue to keep it around for certain legacy applications. I think it would be undesirable for Apple to make everyone get adapters to plug in the multitude of USB peripherals out there.
Ethernet, on the other hand, makes sense to keep it as is. The infrastructure (switches, routers, etc.) is enormous and hugely expensive to replace. The cabling is intrenched in our walls and has its applications where high speed is desired over portability (wifi).
I was planning to buy a Mac Pro in November for video editing. Is it worth it to wait another year?
No. This tech won't be out for a while and you have the advantage of having PCI Express slots to upgrade later on.
Nobody ever "invents" anything in the pure sense of the word. What we're seeing already exists and is emulated from an accumulation of past experiences but is combined in a way that makes it innovating. Apple does this succesfully more often than not.
Apple may be the first to bring this to personal computers. So while the idea that Apple hasn't invented anything is true (nobody ever invents anything), it's also true that they've brought innovation by bringing something that existed to the mass (companies do this often).
Yep.
There's a whole spectrum of possibilities between "invented something in my basement" and "ushered in new ways of doing things at the mass market level."
There are plenty of cool inventions out there that don't really exist, insofar as affecting people's lives, because the people who invented them don't know how to make them practical, or get the cost down, or they don't really have much of a real world application, or there are high societal or economic or political barriers to adoption.
And particularly in the modern world of interconnected tech, the process of ushering a given invention from inception to being part of a system (which is what it's about, now) is at least difficult, demanding and creative as the act of "inventing" itself.
Consider that USB is a small port and that there are many devices that people may have that get transferred from one computer to a new one replacing it. Particularly mice, tablets, phone adapters, specialty printers, keyboards, etc. If included in a IO chip already, it makes sense to continue to keep it around for certain legacy applications. I think it would be undesirable for Apple to make everyone get adapters to plug in the multitude of USB peripherals out there.
Ethernet, on the other hand, makes sense to keep it as is. The infrastructure (switches, routers, etc.) is enormous and hugely expensive to replace. The cabling is intrenched in our walls and has its applications where high speed is desired over portability (wifi).
Quite possibly undesirable, but not out of the question when it comes to Apple. After all, that's pretty much what they did with USB.
I was planning to buy a Mac Pro in November for video editing. Is it worth it to wait another year?
There will be very few devices at first. It will take years to see if this will stay around
15" Tablet/monitor + desktop powerhouse/holder/connector.
One gets a desktop and a portable computer with one purchase.
Tablet becomes the monitor when connected to the desktop portion.
Any CPU heavy lifting you'll need to take it home to the desktop portion (3D games, rendering, photoshop filters etc)
Optional keyboard if you can't stand typing on a screen.
3G optional.
Could you supple references to support your statement?
Thank you.
I used to read pc magazine and other tech rags back then. Apple's royalties were higher than intel's and the chips were more expensive. Fw was great for camcorders but overkill for mice. In the end it was too expensive for pc makers even in the days when the average pc cost $2000 and margins were a lot higher
Could you supple references to support your statement?
Thank you.
I used to read pc magazine and other tech rags back then. Apple's royalties were higher than intel's and the chips were more expensive. Fw was great for camcorders but overkill for mice. In the end it was too expensive for pc makers even in the days when the average pc cost $2000 and margins were a lot higher
by that time intel ruled the motherboard market so there was no extra cost for USB since it was already on the motherboard. FireWire needed special cards