I'm wondering how the interconnectivity will work? One of the advantages of Firewire was that you could daisy-chain devices together. With USB, you need a separate port for each device.
Intel had some good stuff on the net awhile back, you should see if it is still around. In any event I suspect that daisy chaining will be very expensive as that means another port.
Quote:
If Lightpeak allows devices to be daisy-chained, then that would be awesome! Basically then, every peripheral device could have 2 Lightpeak ports, and MacBooks/Airs/Pros would only need ONE I/O port!
If Apple ever makes a laptop with only a Lightpeak port I will give up on the product line. A laptop would be useless without a couple of USB ports.
Quote:
Even at the minimum 10 GB/s transfer rate, theoretically you could still run printer, scanner, external monitor, external HD off of ONE Lightpeak port!
Not really, at least not from the info we have. There is likely a substantial protocol overhead for one. Then you have to take into consideration the bandwidth future displays will require. For example doubling the linear resolution means four times more pixels and a corresponding increase in data. You could blow a good portion of your bandwidth on just video. Then we have storage with solid state real close to 1Gbps now.
Again there are to many unknowns to say for sure, all we have is raw numbers. Combine this with ever more demanding pheripherials and there are reasonable questions to ask.
On the flip side it is my understanding that transmit and recieve get their own fiber. If true then you might actually have the potential for 20Gbps. That being the combination or sum of the in and out speeds. This like much of the info about Lightpeak should be seen as tentative.
A scary thought has just hit me. What if they are summing 5Gbps in and out to get to the 10Gbps figure? That would really suck so I doubt it.
Quote:
Well, I could anyway. I'm sure there are power users on here for whom 10 TB/s would not be enough!
It has nothing to do with being a power user. In my mind it has a lot to do with the wisdom of running a high bandwidth protocol over a new bus when we have a perfectly good dedicated interface in display port.
Plus such an arraingement is sloppy because of all the adapters you would need to carry. It is bad enough that one needs to carry around display port to whatever adapters, going to a single Lightpeak port means an adapter for everything. This would be terrible for portable devices. On the otherhand Lightpeak would be great for connecting a laptop to a base station at your desk.
Quote:
UPDATE:
Oh. I guess if I would bother to do a little research, I would find the answer to my question.
I took a quick look at that listing in Wikipedia and frankly wouldn't bank on it for accuracy. Go to Intels web site and see what they have.
I am all for progress but sometimes I think if this whole gradual introduction isn't motivated in part by making you change tons of peripherals...
Apple could go stupid here no doubt at all. Honestly I don't think that is the intent. Remember this one port to rule them all idea came from the community, Apple itself has said very little about its Lightpeak plans.
Beyound that a better high speed port is needed. USB 3 isn't all it is cracked up to be. Lightpeak would provide high speed across a much wider variation in use profiles. The reasoning for the faster port is sound, the problem may simply be in how Apple implements it.
The USB symbol is always on top when plugging in the connector. That is a USB standard. Manufacturers are supposed to emboss the symbol so that there is a tactile indication, but Apple just uses cheap USB connectors with the symbol printed on.
Don't blame the USB standard, blame Apple for not embossing the USB symbol.
The USB symbol is always on top when plugging in the connector. That is a USB standard. Manufacturers are supposed to emboss the symbol so that there is a tactile indication, but Apple just uses cheap USB connectors with the symbol printed on.
Don't blame the USB standard, blame Apple for not embossing the USB symbol.
It's quite easy to detect the embossed symbol on Apple cables using your fingernail or fimgertip. I plug my iPod in every night in the dark with no problems. Apple also put a notch in the bottom of the metal portion of many of their USB plugs which is also easy to detect, and the square holes on one side of a USB plug are always solid rather than open, giving three ways to identify which way the plug goes. In short, Apples USB leads and plugs are as easy to use as any other (with the possible exception of Microsoft's, whose black plastic plugs makes identifying the solid squares holes very difficult).
But hey, if whining about a cable floats your boat, go for it.
Apple brought the concept of Light Peak, an interoperable standard which could handle large amounts of data and replace the multitudinous connector types with a single universal connector, to Intel in 2007 with the intention of Intel producing and developing the technology.
Apple brought the concept of Light Peak, an interoperable standard which could handle large amounts of data and replace the multitudinous connector types with a single universal connector, to Intel in 2007 with the intention of Intel producing and developing the technology.
How do you get that wrong?
PC people woudn't use it if they find out it comes from Apple. They'll just stick with USB3.
I think this will just come first, and have a few specific uses, along side USB 2, until sometime later in the year or 2012 light peak is expanded and USB 3 is rolled in underneath. Multiple ports won't go away. They'll slowly condense and become faster/more versatile.
FireWire 1600 with USB 3.0 will be always be there for the first few years, these two formats will act as a backup if LightPeak encounters problems in the starting, once its up and running i can see FireWire and USB being axed; were talking 5+ years from know, by then the speed of LightPeak should of just started rising higher then the 10GB standard..
not forgetting Bluetooth 4.0 around the same time, 2011 looks to be a big release year, i'm also holding out on buying till Fall 2011, oh reason why they produce an big and small connector of the same format, i think it down to power and need requirements, so that wont change for LightPeak but we should see the exit of many of these useless formats..
No one here has said anything with certainty. I'm not sure what even caused you to ask that question in the way you did.
Wireless sucks. You are likely one of those people that wonder about those of us that stress the need for Ethernet ports in our laptops. The reality is wired or optical connections are faster and more versatile. That will be the case well into the future even when the 60 GHz wireless standard is in place.
In my estimation Firewire is dead, USB however is likely to be supported for a very long time. The reality is Firewire is a problematic port for Apple, the sooner they can get rid of it the better.
It was a supposition based on the article above not a statement of fact hence the rhetorical question.
I've installed both wireless and ethernet networks. Wireless works fine for home or small office users if they don't need to transfer large data files but I agree it won't replace wired networks anytime soon.
Intel had some good stuff on the net awhile back, you should see if it is still around. In any event I suspect that daisy chaining will be very expensive as that means another port.
Not sure why it would be so expensive?a lot of Firewire devices had an additional port, which allowed daisy-chaining, and they weren't prohibitively expensive. Of course things are expensive in the development stages, but as the protocol becomes standardized, the actual interface hardware shouldn't cost that much.
Quote:
If Apple ever makes a laptop with only a Lightpeak port I will give up on the product line. A laptop would be useless without a couple of USB ports.
Yes. It would be phenomenally stupid for Apple to abruptly drop every port in 2011 in favour of Lightpeak. I was thinking more like 5-10 years down the road. USB has been pretty much the standard I/O port for the last 10 years. I was just wondering out loud if Lightpeak might possibly become the new standard I/O port. If it becomes the new standard (with incremental speed improvements over time), it would be pretty cool if all our peripherals could be daisy-chained to a single port.
Quote:
Not really, at least not from the info we have. There is likely a substantial protocol overhead for one. Then you have to take into consideration the bandwidth future displays will require. For example doubling the linear resolution means four times more pixels and a corresponding increase in data. You could blow a good portion of your bandwidth on just video. Then we have storage with solid state real close to 1Gbps now.
I think we're reaching the feasible limit for pixel resolution on displays. Even allowing for the possibility of 4K displays in the next five years, presumably LightPeak will be up to 100 GB/s by then (if LightPeak will progress at a similar rate to USB)
Quote:
On the flip side it is my understanding that transmit and recieve get their own fiber. If true then you might actually have the potential for 20Gbps. That being the combination or sum of the in and out speeds. This like much of the info about Lightpeak should be seen as tentative.
A scary thought has just hit me. What if they are summing 5Gbps in and out to get to the 10Gbps figure? That would really suck so I doubt it.
Holy crap! I sincerely hope that the advertised numbers are not adding input and output. That would be shamefully dishonest! Let's say for example, the 10 Gbps (btw. I'm realizing I was wrong by saying "GB/s"?not the same as Gbps. My bad! ) was really 5 Gbps in + 5 Gbps out. Well, as a consumer, I'll be looking at the 10 Gbps, and think, oh wow, that means I could copy a 1 TB file in only 15 minutes! But, in reality it would take a half hour. That is misleading in my book. If it is some kind of additive thing, then they better include that in their literature and advertising!
Quote:
It has nothing to do with being a power user. In my mind it has a lot to do with the wisdom of running a high bandwidth protocol over a new bus when we have a perfectly good dedicated interface in display port.
I was actually just making a snarky remark about some of the comments I read from people who seem to care more about stats and numbers than they do about actual user experience. I like to refer to this as 21st century "geek machismo". Benchmarks are meaningless to "regular" guy like me. And I'm not going to notice the difference between a 2.6 GHz processor and a 2.8 GHz processor.
In terms of displayport vs LightPeak, I'm certainly not advocating that DisplayPort be dropped next year in favour of LightPeak. As in my point above about dropping ports, it would be phenomenally stupid of Apple to do something that drastic, especially as DisplayPort has not yet worn out its welcome. It's relatively new and has still got some years left. I'm talking again about 5-10 years in the future.
Quote:
Plus such an arraingement is sloppy because of all the adapters you would need to carry. It is bad enough that one needs to carry around display port to whatever adapters, going to a single Lightpeak port means an adapter for everything. This would be terrible for portable devices. On the otherhand Lightpeak would be great for connecting a laptop to a base station at your desk.
Again, it would be stupid for Apple to switch to LightPeak exclusively next year, for the very reason you say?everyone would have to carry around adapters for their legacy peripherals. But, if Apple is smart, and adopts an evolutionary strategy, then eventually, as more and more peripherals adopt LightPeak, we could see a future where everything could connect to a single LightPeak port on a MacBook.
Quote:
I took a quick look at that listing in Wikipedia and frankly wouldn't bank on it for accuracy. Go to Intels web site and see what they have.
Yeah. I agree that it's not wise to use Wikipedia as an authoritative source. My standard practice is to use it as a starting point, and then verify what's there against other sources.
Wireless sucks. You are likely one of those people that wonder about those of us that stress the need for Ethernet ports in our laptops. The reality is wired or optical connections are faster and more versatile. That will be the case well into the future even when the 60 GHz wireless standard is in place.
I wouldn't go so far as to say wireless sucks, but certainly physical connections are faster and more reliable. I use Airport all the time, because it means that I'm not "chained" to my desk. I can be anywhere in the house and have access to the internet and to my network drive. It's like magic! But I do experience the occasional, inexplicable signal loss, which can be really annoying if happens in the middle of a chat, during a download, or during large file transfers over my network.
Fuck this - release ONE version small enough for mobile devices and DO NOT BOTHER with a larger version. When are these people going to learn?
I agree! It is so obnoxious to have to keep buying adaptors to connect what are supposed to be the same port. USB is the worst offender (What are there 6 kinds of plugs now?) but they did it with HDMI too.
If round isn't possible, (More then one fiber, for example) they could at least have a symmetrical plug that goes in two ways. It is easy and cheap to have a bridge circuit to keep the power polarity the same. Give us a reason to LIKE light peak.
Comments
http://www.9to5mac.com/9658/Intels-Light-Peak-10Gb-bus-standard-is-actually-Apples
I'm wondering how the interconnectivity will work? One of the advantages of Firewire was that you could daisy-chain devices together. With USB, you need a separate port for each device.
Intel had some good stuff on the net awhile back, you should see if it is still around. In any event I suspect that daisy chaining will be very expensive as that means another port.
If Lightpeak allows devices to be daisy-chained, then that would be awesome! Basically then, every peripheral device could have 2 Lightpeak ports, and MacBooks/Airs/Pros would only need ONE I/O port!
If Apple ever makes a laptop with only a Lightpeak port I will give up on the product line. A laptop would be useless without a couple of USB ports.
Even at the minimum 10 GB/s transfer rate, theoretically you could still run printer, scanner, external monitor, external HD off of ONE Lightpeak port!
Not really, at least not from the info we have. There is likely a substantial protocol overhead for one. Then you have to take into consideration the bandwidth future displays will require. For example doubling the linear resolution means four times more pixels and a corresponding increase in data. You could blow a good portion of your bandwidth on just video. Then we have storage with solid state real close to 1Gbps now.
Again there are to many unknowns to say for sure, all we have is raw numbers. Combine this with ever more demanding pheripherials and there are reasonable questions to ask.
On the flip side it is my understanding that transmit and recieve get their own fiber. If true then you might actually have the potential for 20Gbps. That being the combination or sum of the in and out speeds. This like much of the info about Lightpeak should be seen as tentative.
A scary thought has just hit me. What if they are summing 5Gbps in and out to get to the 10Gbps figure? That would really suck so I doubt it.
Well, I could anyway. I'm sure there are power users on here for whom 10 TB/s would not be enough!
It has nothing to do with being a power user. In my mind it has a lot to do with the wisdom of running a high bandwidth protocol over a new bus when we have a perfectly good dedicated interface in display port.
Plus such an arraingement is sloppy because of all the adapters you would need to carry. It is bad enough that one needs to carry around display port to whatever adapters, going to a single Lightpeak port means an adapter for everything. This would be terrible for portable devices. On the otherhand Lightpeak would be great for connecting a laptop to a base station at your desk.
UPDATE:
Oh. I guess if I would bother to do a little research, I would find the answer to my question.
I took a quick look at that listing in Wikipedia and frankly wouldn't bank on it for accuracy. Go to Intels web site and see what they have.
I am all for progress but sometimes I think if this whole gradual introduction isn't motivated in part by making you change tons of peripherals...
Apple could go stupid here no doubt at all. Honestly I don't think that is the intent. Remember this one port to rule them all idea came from the community, Apple itself has said very little about its Lightpeak plans.
Beyound that a better high speed port is needed. USB 3 isn't all it is cracked up to be. Lightpeak would provide high speed across a much wider variation in use profiles. The reasoning for the faster port is sound, the problem may simply be in how Apple implements it.
The USB symbol is always on top when plugging in the connector. That is a USB standard. Manufacturers are supposed to emboss the symbol so that there is a tactile indication, but Apple just uses cheap USB connectors with the symbol printed on.
Don't blame the USB standard, blame Apple for not embossing the USB symbol.
On my iMac, which way is the top?
The USB symbol is always on top when plugging in the connector. That is a USB standard. Manufacturers are supposed to emboss the symbol so that there is a tactile indication, but Apple just uses cheap USB connectors with the symbol printed on.
Don't blame the USB standard, blame Apple for not embossing the USB symbol.
It's quite easy to detect the embossed symbol on Apple cables using your fingernail or fimgertip. I plug my iPod in every night in the dark with no problems. Apple also put a notch in the bottom of the metal portion of many of their USB plugs which is also easy to detect, and the square holes on one side of a USB plug are always solid rather than open, giving three ways to identify which way the plug goes. In short, Apples USB leads and plugs are as easy to use as any other (with the possible exception of Microsoft's, whose black plastic plugs makes identifying the solid squares holes very difficult).
But hey, if whining about a cable floats your boat, go for it.
How do you get that wrong?
Apple brought the concept of Light Peak, an interoperable standard which could handle large amounts of data and replace the multitudinous connector types with a single universal connector, to Intel in 2007 with the intention of Intel producing and developing the technology.
How do you get that wrong?
PC people woudn't use it if they find out it comes from Apple. They'll just stick with USB3.
No reason to panic.
So the next MBP will have USB, Firewire and Lightpeak ports?
Wish they spent more time developing better/faster wireless tech instead.
Nope. Just LightPeak??
not forgetting Bluetooth 4.0 around the same time, 2011 looks to be a big release year, i'm also holding out on buying till Fall 2011, oh reason why they produce an big and small connector of the same format, i think it down to power and need requirements, so that wont change for LightPeak but we should see the exit of many of these useless formats..
If we got Light Peak with a magsafe connector, I would get chills.
Lightpeak as a Docking connector? Oooo, makes me all warm & fuzzy inside.
No one here has said anything with certainty. I'm not sure what even caused you to ask that question in the way you did.
Wireless sucks. You are likely one of those people that wonder about those of us that stress the need for Ethernet ports in our laptops. The reality is wired or optical connections are faster and more versatile. That will be the case well into the future even when the 60 GHz wireless standard is in place.
In my estimation Firewire is dead, USB however is likely to be supported for a very long time. The reality is Firewire is a problematic port for Apple, the sooner they can get rid of it the better.
It was a supposition based on the article above not a statement of fact hence the rhetorical question.
I've installed both wireless and ethernet networks. Wireless works fine for home or small office users if they don't need to transfer large data files but I agree it won't replace wired networks anytime soon.
Intel had some good stuff on the net awhile back, you should see if it is still around. In any event I suspect that daisy chaining will be very expensive as that means another port.
Not sure why it would be so expensive?a lot of Firewire devices had an additional port, which allowed daisy-chaining, and they weren't prohibitively expensive. Of course things are expensive in the development stages, but as the protocol becomes standardized, the actual interface hardware shouldn't cost that much.
If Apple ever makes a laptop with only a Lightpeak port I will give up on the product line. A laptop would be useless without a couple of USB ports.
Yes. It would be phenomenally stupid for Apple to abruptly drop every port in 2011 in favour of Lightpeak. I was thinking more like 5-10 years down the road. USB has been pretty much the standard I/O port for the last 10 years. I was just wondering out loud if Lightpeak might possibly become the new standard I/O port. If it becomes the new standard (with incremental speed improvements over time), it would be pretty cool if all our peripherals could be daisy-chained to a single port.
Not really, at least not from the info we have. There is likely a substantial protocol overhead for one. Then you have to take into consideration the bandwidth future displays will require. For example doubling the linear resolution means four times more pixels and a corresponding increase in data. You could blow a good portion of your bandwidth on just video. Then we have storage with solid state real close to 1Gbps now.
I think we're reaching the feasible limit for pixel resolution on displays. Even allowing for the possibility of 4K displays in the next five years, presumably LightPeak will be up to 100 GB/s by then (if LightPeak will progress at a similar rate to USB)
On the flip side it is my understanding that transmit and recieve get their own fiber. If true then you might actually have the potential for 20Gbps. That being the combination or sum of the in and out speeds. This like much of the info about Lightpeak should be seen as tentative.
A scary thought has just hit me. What if they are summing 5Gbps in and out to get to the 10Gbps figure? That would really suck so I doubt it.
Holy crap! I sincerely hope that the advertised numbers are not adding input and output. That would be shamefully dishonest! Let's say for example, the 10 Gbps (btw. I'm realizing I was wrong by saying "GB/s"?not the same as Gbps. My bad!
It has nothing to do with being a power user. In my mind it has a lot to do with the wisdom of running a high bandwidth protocol over a new bus when we have a perfectly good dedicated interface in display port.
I was actually just making a snarky remark about some of the comments I read from people who seem to care more about stats and numbers than they do about actual user experience. I like to refer to this as 21st century "geek machismo". Benchmarks are meaningless to "regular" guy like me. And I'm not going to notice the difference between a 2.6 GHz processor and a 2.8 GHz processor.
In terms of displayport vs LightPeak, I'm certainly not advocating that DisplayPort be dropped next year in favour of LightPeak. As in my point above about dropping ports, it would be phenomenally stupid of Apple to do something that drastic, especially as DisplayPort has not yet worn out its welcome. It's relatively new and has still got some years left. I'm talking again about 5-10 years in the future.
Plus such an arraingement is sloppy because of all the adapters you would need to carry. It is bad enough that one needs to carry around display port to whatever adapters, going to a single Lightpeak port means an adapter for everything. This would be terrible for portable devices. On the otherhand Lightpeak would be great for connecting a laptop to a base station at your desk.
Again, it would be stupid for Apple to switch to LightPeak exclusively next year, for the very reason you say?everyone would have to carry around adapters for their legacy peripherals. But, if Apple is smart, and adopts an evolutionary strategy, then eventually, as more and more peripherals adopt LightPeak, we could see a future where everything could connect to a single LightPeak port on a MacBook.
I took a quick look at that listing in Wikipedia and frankly wouldn't bank on it for accuracy. Go to Intels web site and see what they have.
Yeah. I agree that it's not wise to use Wikipedia as an authoritative source. My standard practice is to use it as a starting point, and then verify what's there against other sources.
Wireless sucks. You are likely one of those people that wonder about those of us that stress the need for Ethernet ports in our laptops. The reality is wired or optical connections are faster and more versatile. That will be the case well into the future even when the 60 GHz wireless standard is in place.
I wouldn't go so far as to say wireless sucks, but certainly physical connections are faster and more reliable. I use Airport all the time, because it means that I'm not "chained" to my desk. I can be anywhere in the house and have access to the internet and to my network drive. It's like magic! But I do experience the occasional, inexplicable signal loss, which can be really annoying if happens in the middle of a chat, during a download, or during large file transfers over my network.
Fuck this - release ONE version small enough for mobile devices and DO NOT BOTHER with a larger version. When are these people going to learn?
I agree! It is so obnoxious to have to keep buying adaptors to connect what are supposed to be the same port. USB is the worst offender (What are there 6 kinds of plugs now?) but they did it with HDMI too.
If round isn't possible, (More then one fiber, for example) they could at least have a symmetrical plug that goes in two ways. It is easy and cheap to have a bridge circuit to keep the power polarity the same. Give us a reason to LIKE light peak.
This doesn't compete persay with USB etc
OT: If you don't know how to write "per se", use something simpler.
PC people woudn't use it if they find out it comes from Apple. They'll just stick with USB3.
How many "PC" people read AppleInsider?
Even still, that is probably the lamest excuse I've read for getting facts wrong.