256 GB hard drives are now redundant. It doesn't matter whether they're SSDs or regular HDDs. Apple has to offer minimum 500 Gb drives and preferably I TB drives as standard with 2 TB drives as options.
Why? Everyone needs at least 500GB and the prices are low enough that 500GB+ SSDs are easily had?
Sandy Bridge doesn't have quad-core i5s unfortunately, that will be Ivy Bridge so we'll have to wait until 2012 for that.
Well, it does have nice quad i7s but at the 45w dissipation slot, not at 35w where Apple's current procs sit. That said, if they kill the optical drive they could have the cooling and battery for the extra proc power, maybe as a CTO
The problem with 3.0 is that Jobs, IIRC, said Apple's not really interested in it. The availability of it in a Mac also depends on Intel's chipsets, which won't support USB 3.0 until sometime in 2011. They'll probably just stick to USB2.0/FW for the interim, and then switch to lightpeak, and provide converter cables for lightpeak to USB3.0 (if that's feasible? otherwise then they'll probably add 1 USB3.0 port).
I was under the impression that USB 3.0 would be coming from Intel at the same time as Sandy Bridge, but while the internet is filled with speculation I can't find anything definitive from Intel. Once Intel supports 3.0 it's a no brainer for Apple to update their existing USB ports to support it.
Replacing the HD in an iMac is not hard at all. Print out a step by step instruction and have a YouTube video at hand on another machine, and make sure you have the right tools and suckers to get the screen off. Go nice and slow and easy. It's a piece of cake, really.
People said the same thing about replacing the hard drive in an iBook, all aluminum Powerbooks, and first generation MacBook Pros. Do people actually prefer Apple's Rube Goldberg takeapart procedures because they think it makes them more "manly"?
Then Apple released the unibody laptop design...
Let's not kid ourselves for the sake of defending Apple. Taking apart an aluminum iMac is an absolutely atrocious procedure compared to the original iMac G5 where you simply removed the back cover to get inside the computer.
Have Apple's hardware designers ever had to work in Apple's repair department to fix actual customer's machines? Replacing a stick of memory does not count.
many of these WONT happen on a pc or just isn't high quality, thats why he came to macs (except bluray). at least let the kid dream on the machine thats closest to it.
All this talk about "physical media being dead" is based around an idea that cheap bandwidth is widely available ALL AROUND THE WORLD. Until that utopian ideal is achieved there will always be a requirement for a high volume physical delivery medium. Remember the old saying - "Never understimate the bandwidth of a taxi full of (insert physical media of your choice)".
USB 3 is not going to be necessary with Light Peak and USB 3 can't scale to 100Gbps so USB 2.0 + LP > USB 3.
Don?t forget that LightPeak will take a lot longer to be adopted than USB3.0 which has ports that are backwards compatible to USB2.0.
Why will take longer? Because a device you try to connect to a LightPeak port won?t work any USB (FireWire) or whatever devices people have.
Sure, it?s protocol independent, but that doesn?t mean that light and electricity will understand each other. We?ll need to have a physical adapter than can convert optical to copper and vice versa. Historically, HW convertors haven?t been cheap.
I wonder if Apple will be able to tackle this using their 30-pin connector. I think the FW pins are still unused. Perhaps it?s possible to equip future iDevices to read optical off those small pin areas. If possible, then they don?t have to change the plug design and it would be able to use a 30-pin-to-USB cable, too.
Now what they might do, and could already be doing, is work on new codecs that would allow for true blu-ray video and audio quality with out a major increase in file size.
the Blu-ray specification for video and audio was finalised almost a half decade ago. Apple would have to convince the other eighteen (18) board members of the Blu-ray Disc Association to adopt a change to the video spec to include something other than MPEG2, H.264/MPEG4 AVC and VC-1. for audio, Apple would be up against DTS and Dolby Labs.
the only ongoing changes to the Blu-ray specification are physical (i.e., more than two layers) and Blu-ray 3D.
No, no it?s not. No optical connector is backwards compatible with a copper wire connector. It?s not even simple as using the right connector type, you have to also convert the signal from light to electricity.
They can be combined so if they choose not to support USB 3, they can go LP + USB 2 for backwards compatibility, powered devices and high performance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacFinder
LP is backwards compatible with USB3.0
That's one way of putting it. Electrical connections will certainly be legacy technology as soon as optical arrives because they don't have the capacity, which is one reason we use optical for telecommunications.
There's no reason not to support USB 3 other than purposely make a decision to drive adoption of the superior standard. Either connection will saturate a drive read/write for a while anyway so for the near-term it doesn't matter much.
A LP/USB3 combo gives users the best choice but I could see it driving forward USB 3 instead of LP, which is not a good thing. Of course if it's not difficult for device manufacturers to add both, they might add both anyway but LP might go the way of FW800 - relegated to more expensive devices and so few manufacturers bother.
If you buy 4 x 64GB SSD cheaply and put them in RAID-0 it should be possible eventually to get over 1GB/s transfer rate, this would actually exceed USB 3 speed. The following demo is only 2GB/s. USB3 tops out at 600MB/s, whereas LP is said to scale to 12GB/s:
They can be combined so if they choose not to support USB 3, they can go LP + USB 2 for backwards compatibility, powered devices and high performance.
That’s not what that article is stating…
Quote:
At its IDF conference in Beijing, Intel demonstrated a laptop fitted with a USB 3.0 port that had been modified to accept Light Peak signals.
That’s a USB3.0 interface made to accept LightPeak’s optical, not LightPeak port interface being backwards compatible to USB3.0 port interface. So far, I haven’t seen anything that says this will be the standard LightPeak connector.
Then it clearly states…
Quote:
Non-backwards compatible Light Peak connectors could be significantly smaller than a standard USB plug though, which would be very useful on laptops, netbooks and tablet PCs where space is at a premium.
Sounds to me that this new concept and demo will not be the standard option so making an all encompassing statement that the optical LightPeak is backwards compatible to copper USB is erroneous.
As previously stated, this will have the same growing pains as any new port technology that uses a new interface, and then some, due to the medium being completely different.
Also note that this article doesn’t state which USB port interface was used. We can assume USB-A, but what if the tech has certain limitations that make it difficult or infeasible to product for the consumer market using an unideal USB port interface type. The fact that this article doesn’t even specific something so basic is in itself suspicious.
That’s a USB3.0 interface made to accept LightPeak’s optical, not LightPeak port interface being backwards compatible to USB3.0 port interface. So far, I haven’t seen anything that says this will be the standard LightPeak connector.
Then it clearly states…
Sounds to me that this new concept and demo will not be the standard option so making an all encompassing statement that the optical LightPeak is backwards compatible to copper USB is erroneous.
As previously stated, this will have the same growing pains as any new port technology that uses a new interface, and then some, due to the medium being completely different.
Also note that this article doesn’t state which USB port interface was used. We can assume USB-A, but what if the tech has certain limitations that make it difficult or infeasible to product for the consumer market using an unideal USB port interface type. The fact that this article doesn’t even specific something so basic is in itself suspicious.
I disagree-- I think if Intel bothered to implement a combo USB 3/LP port it's because they see that as the best way to drive adoption. All those millions of PC buyers will pick up the new computer with "USB 3" and have the stealth LP port waiting to go. I assuming Intel will be baking the format into their chip sets, so any manufacture of peripheral equipment that wants to use transfer speed as a selling point can implement the standard from their end and know that they're selling into a fair sized market of compatible computers.
It would be as if Firewire had been rolled into the original USB port design. At some point camcorders start coming with Firewire out, but no worries-- that computer you bought can handle it, with the right cable.
I don't see where the fact that a straight LP port is smaller changes any of this-- USB 3 will surely be just as ubiquitous as Intel wants it to be, and if they want LP smuggled in at the same time, there you go. Assuming it takes off as a standard, then you can start putting explicit ports on your mobile gear to save space, if you want. But I mean Apple can get USB ports on the 11" Air, so it's not like that port is particularly gigantic.
Comments
256 GB hard drives are now redundant. It doesn't matter whether they're SSDs or regular HDDs. Apple has to offer minimum 500 Gb drives and preferably I TB drives as standard with 2 TB drives as options.
Why? Everyone needs at least 500GB and the prices are low enough that 500GB+ SSDs are easily had?
i've been waiting for this so eagerly... i need 13" macbook pro with:
i5 2540m or i5 2520m sandy bridge
ssd 256 or 512 gb hard drive
13-15 hours battery
8GB or 16GB RAM (4gb will also be sufficient)
LightPeakhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightpeak (hope it is finally here)
either BLUE-RAY or NO OPTICAL DRIVE
1080p full HDD
HDMI OUTPUT
IPS LCD Retina display screen (i can dream, right?)
Zero of these will happen. You need to buy a PC.
Who is going to make a laptop with the specs mentioned?
Sandy Bridge doesn't have quad-core i5s unfortunately, that will be Ivy Bridge so we'll have to wait until 2012 for that.
Well, it does have nice quad i7s but at the 45w dissipation slot, not at 35w where Apple's current procs sit. That said, if they kill the optical drive they could have the cooling and battery for the extra proc power, maybe as a CTO
/doubt it though
//waiting for a quad to replace my '07 core 2
///sept/oct 2011 with ivy bridge probably
The problem with 3.0 is that Jobs, IIRC, said Apple's not really interested in it. The availability of it in a Mac also depends on Intel's chipsets, which won't support USB 3.0 until sometime in 2011. They'll probably just stick to USB2.0/FW for the interim, and then switch to lightpeak, and provide converter cables for lightpeak to USB3.0 (if that's feasible? otherwise then they'll probably add 1 USB3.0 port).
I was under the impression that USB 3.0 would be coming from Intel at the same time as Sandy Bridge, but while the internet is filled with speculation I can't find anything definitive from Intel. Once Intel supports 3.0 it's a no brainer for Apple to update their existing USB ports to support it.
Replacing the HD in an iMac is not hard at all. Print out a step by step instruction and have a YouTube video at hand on another machine, and make sure you have the right tools and suckers to get the screen off. Go nice and slow and easy. It's a piece of cake, really.
People said the same thing about replacing the hard drive in an iBook, all aluminum Powerbooks, and first generation MacBook Pros. Do people actually prefer Apple's Rube Goldberg takeapart procedures because they think it makes them more "manly"?
Then Apple released the unibody laptop design...
Let's not kid ourselves for the sake of defending Apple. Taking apart an aluminum iMac is an absolutely atrocious procedure compared to the original iMac G5 where you simply removed the back cover to get inside the computer.
Have Apple's hardware designers ever had to work in Apple's repair department to fix actual customer's machines? Replacing a stick of memory does not count.
Zero of these will happen. You need to buy a PC.
many of these WONT happen on a pc or just isn't high quality, thats why he came to macs (except bluray). at least let the kid dream on the machine thats closest to it.
cheers
Greg
i am going PC if apple wont do BD or USB 3.
You can get an external BD drive quite easily - the Sony BDX-S500U. An internal would be priced more than $200 for and wouldn't do 6x write:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...&Tpk=bdx-s500u
USB 3 is not going to be necessary with Light Peak and USB 3 can't scale to 100Gbps so USB 2.0 + LP > USB 3.
USB 3 is not going to be necessary with Light Peak and USB 3 can't scale to 100Gbps so USB 2.0 + LP > USB 3.
Don?t forget that LightPeak will take a lot longer to be adopted than USB3.0 which has ports that are backwards compatible to USB2.0.
Why will take longer? Because a device you try to connect to a LightPeak port won?t work any USB (FireWire) or whatever devices people have.
Sure, it?s protocol independent, but that doesn?t mean that light and electricity will understand each other. We?ll need to have a physical adapter than can convert optical to copper and vice versa. Historically, HW convertors haven?t been cheap.
I wonder if Apple will be able to tackle this using their 30-pin connector. I think the FW pins are still unused. Perhaps it?s possible to equip future iDevices to read optical off those small pin areas. If possible, then they don?t have to change the plug design and it would be able to use a 30-pin-to-USB cable, too.
USB 3 is not going to be necessary with Light Peak
Assuming you don't already have a need to connect to EXISTING USB3 devices!!! Some of us do. NOW!
Sure, *someday* there will be LP drives and interfaces etc., but in the meantime...
Now what they might do, and could already be doing, is work on new codecs that would allow for true blu-ray video and audio quality with out a major increase in file size.
the Blu-ray specification for video and audio was finalised almost a half decade ago. Apple would have to convince the other eighteen (18) board members of the Blu-ray Disc Association to adopt a change to the video spec to include something other than MPEG2, H.264/MPEG4 AVC and VC-1. for audio, Apple would be up against DTS and Dolby Labs.
the only ongoing changes to the Blu-ray specification are physical (i.e., more than two layers) and Blu-ray 3D.
But maybe it will be released at the middle of spring?
Assuming you don't already have a need to connect to EXISTING USB3 devices!!! Some of us do. NOW!
Sure, *someday* there will be LP drives and interfaces etc., but in the meantime...
LP is backwards compatible with USB3.0
LP is backwards compatible with USB3.0
No, no it?s not. No optical connector is backwards compatible with a copper wire connector. It?s not even simple as using the right connector type, you have to also convert the signal from light to electricity.
Don?t forget that LightPeak will take a lot longer to be adopted than USB3.0 which has ports that are backwards compatible to USB2.0.
Light Peak fits onto existing ports:
http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/stora...sb3-combo-port
They can be combined so if they choose not to support USB 3, they can go LP + USB 2 for backwards compatibility, powered devices and high performance.
LP is backwards compatible with USB3.0
There's no reason not to support USB 3 other than purposely make a decision to drive adoption of the superior standard. Either connection will saturate a drive read/write for a while anyway so for the near-term it doesn't matter much.
A LP/USB3 combo gives users the best choice but I could see it driving forward USB 3 instead of LP, which is not a good thing. Of course if it's not difficult for device manufacturers to add both, they might add both anyway but LP might go the way of FW800 - relegated to more expensive devices and so few manufacturers bother.
If you buy 4 x 64GB SSD cheaply and put them in RAID-0 it should be possible eventually to get over 1GB/s transfer rate, this would actually exceed USB 3 speed. The following demo is only 2GB/s. USB3 tops out at 600MB/s, whereas LP is said to scale to 12GB/s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96dWOEa4Djs
Light Peak fits onto existing ports:
http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/stora...sb3-combo-port
They can be combined so if they choose not to support USB 3, they can go LP + USB 2 for backwards compatibility, powered devices and high performance.
That’s not what that article is stating…
At its IDF conference in Beijing, Intel demonstrated a laptop fitted with a USB 3.0 port that had been modified to accept Light Peak signals.
That’s a USB3.0 interface made to accept LightPeak’s optical, not LightPeak port interface being backwards compatible to USB3.0 port interface. So far, I haven’t seen anything that says this will be the standard LightPeak connector.
Then it clearly states…
Non-backwards compatible Light Peak connectors could be significantly smaller than a standard USB plug though, which would be very useful on laptops, netbooks and tablet PCs where space is at a premium.
Sounds to me that this new concept and demo will not be the standard option so making an all encompassing statement that the optical LightPeak is backwards compatible to copper USB is erroneous.
As previously stated, this will have the same growing pains as any new port technology that uses a new interface, and then some, due to the medium being completely different.
Also note that this article doesn’t state which USB port interface was used. We can assume USB-A, but what if the tech has certain limitations that make it difficult or infeasible to product for the consumer market using an unideal USB port interface type. The fact that this article doesn’t even specific something so basic is in itself suspicious.
That’s not what that article is stating…
That’s a USB3.0 interface made to accept LightPeak’s optical, not LightPeak port interface being backwards compatible to USB3.0 port interface. So far, I haven’t seen anything that says this will be the standard LightPeak connector.
Then it clearly states…
Sounds to me that this new concept and demo will not be the standard option so making an all encompassing statement that the optical LightPeak is backwards compatible to copper USB is erroneous.
As previously stated, this will have the same growing pains as any new port technology that uses a new interface, and then some, due to the medium being completely different.
Also note that this article doesn’t state which USB port interface was used. We can assume USB-A, but what if the tech has certain limitations that make it difficult or infeasible to product for the consumer market using an unideal USB port interface type. The fact that this article doesn’t even specific something so basic is in itself suspicious.
I disagree-- I think if Intel bothered to implement a combo USB 3/LP port it's because they see that as the best way to drive adoption. All those millions of PC buyers will pick up the new computer with "USB 3" and have the stealth LP port waiting to go. I assuming Intel will be baking the format into their chip sets, so any manufacture of peripheral equipment that wants to use transfer speed as a selling point can implement the standard from their end and know that they're selling into a fair sized market of compatible computers.
It would be as if Firewire had been rolled into the original USB port design. At some point camcorders start coming with Firewire out, but no worries-- that computer you bought can handle it, with the right cable.
I don't see where the fact that a straight LP port is smaller changes any of this-- USB 3 will surely be just as ubiquitous as Intel wants it to be, and if they want LP smuggled in at the same time, there you go. Assuming it takes off as a standard, then you can start putting explicit ports on your mobile gear to save space, if you want. But I mean Apple can get USB ports on the 11" Air, so it's not like that port is particularly gigantic.
Zero of these will happen. You need to buy a PC.
PC??? Which PC even gives you 4 hrs of 'real' battery life?