Apple and Intel Collaborate on Next Generation 'Light Peak' Connectors? [Archive] - Page 2

sammich

Sep 28, 2009, 05:03 AM

That's exactly what I said, to justify why people where discussing the issue ...

Doh.

I think it's more of a way to aggregate lots of devices and ports into a hub and a single connector.

As a result this will reduce the amount of space taken up by the current connectors allowing the laptops to be made smaller, as it is the physical connector sizes that are preventing netbooks/laptops/Macbooks from getting much smaller at the moment.

I was thinking...you can't really get any smaller (read: thinner) than the current macbooks, then I thought it would really enable current form factors to take on many more connectors within the same limit of space. That would mean the MBA could be equipped with like 2/3 (or 4) LP connections.

toke lahti

Sep 28, 2009, 05:05 AM

Macrumors, please do something about the 'Sunday off' situation! Perhaps, you could get somebody to write a few little pieces and control the comments.:(
Yes, this is horrible!
People talking about rumored technologies or even existing ones in MacRumors Forums!
If this is why MacRumors exist, maybe they should shut down the whole site!

djellison

Sep 28, 2009, 05:13 AM

LP for Mice.

Yeah - that'll be great.
:rolleyes:

toke lahti

Sep 28, 2009, 05:16 AM

Well except in Europe where Apple signed on to standardization of micro-usb connections.
I guess all phones will have micro-usb in addition to LP. People are not happy to carry dongles, that cost almost as much as the phone, with their phones.

toke lahti

Sep 28, 2009, 05:25 AM

As a result this will reduce the amount of space taken up by the current connectors allowing the laptops to be made smaller, as it is the physical connector sizes that are preventing netbooks/laptops/Macbooks from getting much smaller at the moment.
Size of a laptop is more defined by screen and keyboard size. If there comes foldable or scrollable screens to market, then size can decrease.

So what will really happen to MB/MBP with LP?
Usb & ethernet have to stay, otherwise they loose too many customers.
MiniDP changes to LP and firewire changes to LP and you'll have to buy dongles for each.
If you need to connect any 3rd peripheral (2nd monitor, hdd, etc...) you'll need LP hub with dongles, which will cost about $500...

NintendoFan

Sep 28, 2009, 06:40 AM

Size of a laptop is more defined by screen and keyboard size. If there comes foldable or scrollable screens to market, then size can decrease.

So what will really happen to MB/MBP with LP?
Usb & ethernet have to stay, otherwise they loose too many customers.
MiniDP changes to LP and firewire changes to LP and you'll have to buy dongles for each.
If you need to connect any 3rd peripheral (2nd monitor, hdd, etc...) you'll need LP hub with dongles, which will cost about $500...

I think when he's talking about "smaller" he means "thinner".

Macinposh

Sep 28, 2009, 06:42 AM

So what will really happen to MB/MBP with LP?
Usb & ethernet have to stay, otherwise they loose too many customers.
MiniDP changes to LP and firewire changes to LP and you'll have to buy dongles for each.
If you need to connect any 3rd peripheral (2nd monitor, hdd, etc...) you'll need LP hub with dongles, which will cost about $500...

Usb and ethernet might stay in the first rev,after 2nd/3rd when the LP has gained ground,they will drop them in favour of a second/third LP.

For the hub: The most probable thing is that dispays are going to act as a "MainHub" with 4-6 LP ports. There you can connect whatever.
Intel is probably pushing for wireless electricity for the mouse/keyboard at that time,so you would get rid of the extra clutter as well.

My guesses.

Erasmus

Sep 28, 2009, 06:57 AM

No one is arguing that fiber isn't fast, all I was trying to say is at 10Gb/sec can easily be done with copper today and with copper you can still power/charge a device. In this case length isn't that big of a deal because this is a desktop standard. Well I guess if you own a house like Bill Gates you might have a problem with copper.

And I'm trying to say that it can't. If you could do it "easily", USB would have been there by now. I know Wikipedia is a dodgy source of information, but it says even the superspeed transmission in USB 3 of 4.8 Gbit/s is limited in transmission distance to a few metres. That's fine for most desktop applications, but Light Peak is about replacing display connectors, and even ethernet - So no home cinema or high-speed LAN for you. Scale it up to and past 100 Gbit/s, and suddenly the range of electrical transmission is just centimetres. And that doesn't fit well with your "desktop standard". Optically however, transmission distance remains irrelevant.

Throwing two DC copper wires into the cord to charge a device is an obvious solution to charging that has no drawbacks. Still no shielding required, as they are only there to transmit power, not data. Even if the extra lines are there just to flesh out an otherwise extremely thin and fragile cable.

Erasmus

Sep 28, 2009, 07:02 AM

Imagine this, you have 5 devices hooked up to your computer.
The devices are resting on your desk, the computer is hiding under the desk, together with all the cables.
How to find the cable of your keyboard?
Hence it would be nice to know which cable belongs to which device.

Just a simple clarification :)

Same way that it has always been done.

Ingredients:
• One roll of masking tape
• One black pen.

Instructions:
• Apply liberally.

dernhelm

Sep 28, 2009, 07:53 AM

I was talking with a this weekend friend that works at Internet2 about the 10Gbs Ethernet standard. He indicated that the interesting implementations of it were accomplished using fiber cables, and that copper was simply too restrictive (quality/length/cost) for standard use. They were a little discouraged at its slow adoption rate (they're a research organization working with dozens of universities, but it always helps when the tech you are promoting/researching takes off).

This was all before I even read this article, but he said he thought 2010 was going to be the year that 10Gbs Ethernet started hitting the upward slope of the adoption curve. He said it would be due to some announcements by hardware vendors of support and less expensive components. At the time, I thought nothing of it, everyone wants more speed, and component prices always drop. But now I wonder if he wasn't really referring to technology like this.

whooleytoo

Sep 28, 2009, 07:59 AM

I wonder if there's any risk in this. If you plug a monitor into your monitor port, you know it's going to send a video signal. If you plug a router into your Ethernet port, you know it's going to send & receive network data.

But if you plug a device into a Light Peak port, you don't know how that device is going to identify itself.

doctor-don

Sep 28, 2009, 08:14 AM

Kinda underwhelmed...

Yes, it is faster speed, but the cabling/connectors look quite pricey. For the comparisons used by Intel in the Youtube video linked here, optical cable is not cheap.

We're likely looking at fiber channel networking, maybe the odd display (though Display Port hasn't taken off, and VGA is still quite prevalent.) But, the influx of cheap printer connectors, cheap camera connectors, and cheap mouse connectors. Firewire lost out to USB in a lot of respects simply due to need, and costs involved in implementing... meaning that if we aren't committed to changing all our peripherals over to ones that utilize expensive cables, we're stuck with machines attempting to maintain backwards compatibility.

My recent TOSLink cable cost me one penny plus $2.98 shipping for a 6 foot cable. I just ordered more cables at less than a dollar for a 12 foot cable and less than $2 for a 25 foot cable. Of course, the shipping is $2.98 FOR EACH CABLE, even when ordering 2 cables. It makes no sense, but it is still cheaper than the local store. These prices are lower than those for USB cables at the same site - about $1 per foot.

pdjudd

Sep 28, 2009, 08:25 AM

But if you plug a device into a Light Peak port, you don't know how that device is going to identify itself.

Presumably the device will identify itself to the CPU like standard USB devices do.

doctor-don

Sep 28, 2009, 08:25 AM

PracticalMac

Sep 28, 2009, 09:18 AM

Well, if this comes out in 2010, it'll make SATA3.0/eSATA/USB3/FW3200 all redundant before they get mainstream.

It might get a tad confusing if every connector on the computer has the same shape.

Yeup.

And it is an Intel+Apple cooperative by the looks of it, so it will have far more support then if either one did it alone.

You forgot, it will likely supplant GigNet as well in small (home office size) LANs.

This is rather a stunner.

-hh

Sep 28, 2009, 09:26 AM

Well, if this comes out in 2010, it'll make SATA3.0/eSATA/USB3/FW3200 all redundant before they get mainstream.

It might get a tad confusing if every connector on the computer has the same shape.

Um...no...

The whole point is that all the connectors are the same. You can plug anything into any port.

This Uni-Port dimension is pretty interesting. Its pretty trivial for a device to self-report what it is and how much bandwidth it expects, which means that it doesn't really matter for what gets plugged in where - - its not unlike having N USB devices hanging off a single hub: there's nothing special about USB Hub Port #0 versus the others that dictates a particular preference.

Similarly, Firewire has had the ability for "pass through" FW ports to daisy-chain (and/or hub). It just isn't seen/used as much.

Overall, I expect that this would work quite similarly, and the interesting part is that at each point where there's copper being tapped out, it is also possible to have a hub/router-esque interface, so a near-term implimentation could very easily be LP cable to an LCD monitor to drive its video, plus a couple of USB ports that are used for the keyboard, mouse, plus even a SATA port for an internal HD built into the monitor, and an external FW port to drive an external HD, etc, etc.

At face value, it sounds more like a reincarnated ADC (Apple Display Connector) than a replacement for USB.

Only in that it is advertising bandwidth sufficient for video?

The big question is why is Intel promoting USB 3.0 if they have Light Peak coming around the corner (2010). And why did Apple (who has never been afraid to develop a new standard) have Intel develop it?

I think the better question is if this is a move by Intel (with Apple's assistance) that is going to "game change" on USB3 before it gets a viable foothold. USB3 has been struggling for a variety of reasons, not the least of which includes the technical merits of its specific implimentation...we've seen a similar situation emerge with External SATA, and while eSATA is less bad in terms of connector quality, it doesn't resolve the "birds nest" cables situation, being that many home PC users are now in the situation of having to provide more plugs for a dozen vampire power bricks, which ends up being a bigger hassle than the original desktop.

Imagine running one fiber line to every room of your house. You could keep your computer in the closet and just have a keyboard, mouse and monitor hooked up where you want to use it!

or

You could have 1 insanely fast computer with tons of storage in the basement and use this to bring your own Video on Demand service to every tv and computer in your house!

I've had that same vision for several years now. I was able to test it partially around 8 months ago with VNC, but its utility was limited due to the 100bT Ethernet on the Powerbook G4 that I was using as a smart terminal.

-hh

griz

Sep 28, 2009, 09:31 AM

ONE port to rule THEM ALL !!!

sorry could not resist this. :)

Couldn't believe it took that long for someone to say it.

doctor-don

Sep 28, 2009, 09:36 AM

a Wikipedia article on Light_Peak - partially due to its being introduced September 23.

Advantages include a run up to 100 meters. Since most external devices require their own power sources, that is where the outlet / port should be located for what were formerly USB chargers.

PaperMacWriter

Sep 28, 2009, 09:37 AM

I dont think that Apple is looking to kill USB just yet.... I'm guessing that the short term goal(meaning that it's close enough to now to have a remote chance of guessing right:p) is to kill ethernet, FW, and Mini-DisplayPort. This would accomplish several feats for them:
1) remove the bottleneck in thickness that is ethernet
2) Remove the next bottleneck that failed to become popular enough that is FW
3) Possibly(I haven't seen its size yet, so I cant be sure) replace the iPod 30-pin dock connecter, or at least the computer end of it, causing force mass adoption(FW doesn't work with new iPods, forcing all other computers to support it. So if there was no LP (meaning no iPod and iPhone syncing), it could be a tipping point to get something else).
4) Shut us up about the MBA. This would at least replace the mDP, giving them one of the things that we have whined about: Wired networking. This way we'd all shut up and (possibly) buy one (at least over the competition).
5) Internal wiring. I could see this becoming standard as SSDs begin to seep over the 6.0Gb/s line(and I would imagine before that for Apple.... even if just for bragging rights...).
6) Replace HDMI. If I understand it right, this has greater bandwidth then HDMI, and seems to be superior. AND IF(and only if) this has no licensing fees, then I think that it will take over HDMI in a short period of time.

That's my guess for what this could accomplish that apple might like that isn't too far over the horizon... plans bigger than this, there is no point in guessing.

Oh, and if I didn't understand something about it right, my apologies. These are predictions to the best of my current understanding....
and if anyone has a size comparison to another port(or it's dimensions), could you post them please? I would love to see the port itself....

So that's what I see coming... eventually it will send USB the way of floppy, but that's not too soon.....

SG :apple:

avionicsman

Sep 28, 2009, 09:50 AM

We have had fiber optics in aviation for a decade and half. Although with this technology maybe it will catch on even more in my world. Honeywell had used it in the HF communication boxes and although it was cool to see the setup and install was a bitch. Very fragile wiring and connectors. I hope these connection will be more robust.

ss957916

Sep 28, 2009, 09:52 AM

I'm concerned the demo shows a USB-type connector. They're too large and thick.

Also, am I the only person who wants a lockable connector?

lkrupp

Sep 28, 2009, 09:54 AM

I am glad Apple is thinking about cutting down on the cords. But, how exactly will my future iPhone charge with light?

There's nothing to prevent the final connector from including both optical fibers and a couple of copper wires for powering/charging the connected device. There's also the possibility of wireless charging which Apple and others are developing as we type (remember Nicola Tesla?).

lkrupp

Sep 28, 2009, 09:57 AM

I'm concerned the demo shows a USB-type connector. They're too large and thick.

Also, am I the only person who wants a lockable connector?

Yes, you would probably be the only one. A locking connector would be a disaster wating to happen. Why do you think Apple came out with the Magsafe power connector. A locking connector would mean laptops and devices crashing to the floor as well as broken (expensive) cables.

ss957916

Sep 28, 2009, 10:02 AM

Yes, you would probably be the only one. A locking connector would be a disaster wating to happen. Why do you think Apple came out with the Magsafe power connector. A locking connector would mean laptops and devices crashing to the floor as well as broken (expensive) cables.

Oh. Well, personally I hate the magsafe and FW cables popping out of the side of my MBP everytime I move it.

Perhaps they should at least consider a lockable version for servers and desktops etc.

AtHomeBoy_2000

Sep 28, 2009, 10:05 AM

Is this Star Trek?

next step: bio-neural circuitry!!

nullx86

Sep 28, 2009, 10:29 AM

next step: bio-neural circuitry!!

ha yeah really. the video looks pretty promising. maybe with this, some of the internet speeds will get a bit of an upgrade (DSL would become extint, Cable Broadband would be the equivilant of dial-up and FIOS would be the default choice, once its installed everywhere). So is this just for server operations or would this stuff be availble to the general public?

Jon the Heretic

Sep 28, 2009, 10:33 AM

Brilliant - Now Apple can sell LP-USB, LP-FW, LP-DVI, LP-VGA, LP-DLDVI adaptors at £20 -> £70 each to rip us all off a little bit more.

Nah, you buy them all at Monoprice $5 apiece (USD).

While Apple would never do something so consumer friendly, I'd love to see them do this for desktops: Make all of the legacy ports fully available, but have them ALL mapped via software (and internal adaptors) to the single LP chipset. So we'd buy new systems that still had USB, FW, and the new LP connectors, whatever, plug em in, and they just work! But in reality they are all just using LP. This would allow people to keep their legacy solutions while allowing Apple to switch to a single chipset that rules them all: LightPeak.

In a way, it is like the GeoPort idea only done right: stick an adapter on something with massive bandwidth and let the adapter handle the protocol conversion. Just need the one pipe and lots of software.

Cuyler

Sep 28, 2009, 10:43 AM

Demod on Youtube here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izNoF1SWtSg&feature=player_embedded

Thanks for the video link — it was much more informative. The Intel presentation on the MacRumors page just emphasizes that Light Peak is hot-plugable and bidirectional as if this is never-seen-before functionality.

I wonder how expensive and fragile the cables will be. It sounds like this is something you would want running throughout your house.

bigwig

Sep 28, 2009, 10:48 AM

bigwig

Sep 28, 2009, 10:52 AM

The Intel presentation on the MacRumors page just emphasizes that Light Peak is hot-plugable and bidirectional as if this is never-seen-before functionality.
A lot of people don't seem to know what FireWire is. I've been to Best Buys and similar stores looking for FW drives and seen nothing in stock but USB and eSATA drives, so I can understand why Intel speaks like that.

Maury

Sep 28, 2009, 11:35 AM

At face value, it sounds more like a reincarnated ADC (Apple Display Connector) than a replacement for USB.

Could you attach a hard drive to ADC?

Additionally, it’s going to take a hell of a lot of marketing ...
[snip]
...And why did Apple (who has never been afraid to develop a new standard) have Intel develop it?

You answered your own question.

Maury

EagerDragon

Sep 28, 2009, 11:38 AM

A lot of people don't seem to know what FireWire is. I've been to Best Buys and similar stores looking for FW drives and seen nothing in stock but USB and eSATA drives, so I can understand why Intel speaks like that.

Probably because those stores mainly sel to PC users. Firewire never took off in the PC world.

However LP has a great future in both PC and Mac camps.

Flynnstone

Sep 28, 2009, 12:14 PM

This sounds sweet. That is some serious speed. Only problem, that is one more interface to add on to the ever growing list of interfaces. FireWire 400 is dead, 800 by next year. USB 2.0 is going be dead soon, and 3.0 is nowhere to be seen. Very interesting stuff here.

Look at the connector.
Can we say USB 4.0.

DustyLBottoms

Sep 28, 2009, 01:08 PM

Remember the movie Aliens when the android Bishop remotely pilots the second drop ship from the Sulaco... his remote console plugs in to the up-link dish via optic cable connector...:cool:
Looks great :apple: !

Yeah, but then the Alien Queen tears him in half later. :(

cawesjmu

Sep 28, 2009, 01:43 PM

Pigumon

Sep 28, 2009, 01:56 PM

At face value, it sounds more like a reincarnated ADC (Apple Display Connector) than a replacement for USB.

Additionally, it’s going to take a hell of a lot of marketing and arm twisting to get the entire peripheral industry to adopt Light Peak. I just hope Apple doesn’t go radical with it (like they did with USB 1.0, which worked in their favor).

The big question is why is Intel promoting USB 3.0 if they have Light Peak coming around the corner (2010). And why did Apple (who has never been afraid to develop a new standard) have Intel develop it?

Somehow this story doesn’t add up.

Did you read a different post than the rest of us? This is amazing and will clean up all the different standards mess for at least 10 years. What part if that will need arm twisting? Getting Intel to do it just makes it appeal to the entire PC market, not just Apple's market.

bmb012

Sep 28, 2009, 02:54 PM

this thread is getting so long now I had to skip some posts, but I'm curious how this is going to accommodate real world storage. If the cable can push this awesome about of data but you have a standard HDD, you're not going to see a whole lot of actual difference.

Granted SDD are the next thing and are practically here, but even they can't handle 10Gb/s. Most people don't and won't for a while have SDD raid going on, so for your average user how is this going really be visible? This seems to be for peripherals, but is internal storage going to use this too so it's actually transferable without the current 3Gb/s (SATAII) bottleneck.

In the video they transfer a 2 gig file while usin the same cable to run a display at full resolution. I'd say that's the coolest thing about the technology, using it as a single plug for a dock type mechanism, or just a monitor with FireWire, USB ports, and card readers without needing more cables.

There ya go, perfectly useful, while still supporting legacy plugs.

bigwig

Sep 28, 2009, 02:55 PM

Look at the connector.
Can we say USB 4.0.
Light Peak is a USB-style connector? Bah! If Apple really is behind this, you'd think they'd get Intel to use FireWire-style connectors. FireWire connectors are so much more robust and easy to insert.

jaw04005

Sep 28, 2009, 02:58 PM

Could you attach a hard drive to ADC?

You could attach your Firewire hard drive to your ADC monitor that had a standard Firewire port and bypass having to connect it to your Power Mac G4.

In a way, it could be considered a precursor to Light Peak.

Did you read a different post than the rest of us? This is amazing and will clean up all the different standards mess for at least 10 years. What part if that will need arm twisting? Getting Intel to do it just makes it appeal to the entire PC market, not just Apple's market.

Actually yeah I did. This story was moved from the forums to the front page and has been updated several times as different information has leaked out. :rolleyes:

It's naive to think the multitude of device makers (hard drives, keyboards, mice, digital cameras, camcorders, displays, sound, etc) are going to jump right on "Light Peak" when they've been preparing their devices for other emerging standards (USB 3.0, DisplayPort, Firewire 3200, etc).

Light Peak essentially replaces all of these upcoming "real" standards from actual standards bodies (including the USB Forum, IEEE, VESA, etc), which have been working on their respective standards for years.

The information leaked by Engadget assumes a 2010 time frame. That has to be optimistic at best. This will be a huge undertaking. After all, no one has signed on for Light Peak except Sony. Even Apple won't publicly commit.

Intel and Apple have a big sell ahead of them if they want this to take off.

immaculate

Sep 28, 2009, 03:57 PM

Unless I've missed it, nobody's asked the really important question yet. :eek:

doctor-don

Sep 28, 2009, 04:18 PM

There's nothing to prevent the final connector from including both optical fibers and a couple of copper wires for powering/charging the connected device. There's also the possibility of wireless charging which Apple and others are developing as we type (remember Nicola Tesla?).

Except for the power loss as the cable length increases. Since LP can be 100 meters long, that would cause a loss in power for the copper wires. For normal / close / short connectors, wires alongside the optical would be suitable.

Twenty-five years before Tesla was born, Faraday discovered the phenomenon that a magnet moving in a coil (or a coil moving through a magnetic field) would produce an electric current in the wire (electromagnetic induction). Remember Michael Faraday?

doctor-don

Sep 28, 2009, 04:19 PM

Unless I've missed it, nobody's asked the really important question yet. :eek:

Same place as yesterday? Watch out for the lichen.

Pocket lint

Sep 28, 2009, 04:29 PM

Same place as yesterday? Watch out for the lichen.

Haha, that was a bit creepy. Especially for someone with a nick like yours :cool:

shawnce

Sep 28, 2009, 04:31 PM

Light Peak is a USB-style connector? Bah! If Apple really is behind this, you'd think they'd get Intel to use FireWire-style connectors. FireWire connectors are so much more robust and easy to insert. The connector used in the demo appears to be a prototype USB3 optical connector (an optional aspect of the USB3 standard). Knowing Apple they will want a smaller connector for these... hopefully something keyed or uncaring of connector rotation... etc.

Thex1138

Sep 28, 2009, 05:43 PM

Yeah, but then the Alien Queen tears him in half later. :(
Yeah Bishop's goal was to bring the specimen back, it also implanted the android with an egg just ripe for the next movie...

MattInOz

Sep 28, 2009, 05:57 PM

I'm concerned the demo shows a USB-type connector. They're too large and thick.

Also, am I the only person who wants a lockable connector?

Not the only one. But I'd like both.
A locking one for fixed uses.
and a non-locking one for portable uses.

I kind of wonder how well this will work with patch cable set ups. could it handle set ups like ethernet where we build long runs of cables into the wall that terminate at a wall plate at one end and a patch panel at the other. So every run is three cables. Or will it need to be like the old Telephone exchange panels so each run is one cable.

So much potential so little detail.

jbernie

Sep 28, 2009, 07:19 PM

Oh. Well, personally I hate the magsafe and FW cables popping out of the side of my MBP everytime I move it.

Perhaps they should at least consider a lockable version for servers and desktops etc.

I would expect they would have a KVM type setup as well, just it would be fewer cables :)

By locking I assume you are thinking the clips for ethernet cables as opposed to locking as more lock/key type, but yes some of us who still dont use laptops don't mind locking cables. :)

wizard

Sep 28, 2009, 09:20 PM

Well good for you!

We are not talking about 160 Gbit/s or 300 feet. This thread is about a unified optical desktop connection call Light Peak that has a throughput of 10Gb/sec.

Well it has been described as a desktop connection, but we don't know how Apple will make use of it. Notably this is a low cost new standard for optical communications, with an order of magnatude speed increase waiting in the wings.

Can 10GB/s be done on copper, YES but is it worth the effort? Apple apparently made the decision to abandon copper, for reasons we don't know. It is not however a bad decision in my estimation.

The reason is this; doing 10Gb/s over copper, while doable, is not however a piece of cake. Going to 100Gb/S will be very difficult and has severe distance limitations.

Further I think it is a mistake to pigeon hole this tech as a desk top connection. A well done high speed full duplex optical connection can solve all sorts of issues from use in a SAN, to clustering, to video and a host of other uses.

No one is arguing that fiber isn't fast, all I was trying to say is at 10Gb/sec can easily be done with copper today and with copper you can still power/charge a device.

This is all well and good but fiber has strengths that copper does not have. Future potential is huge but noise immunity and subsceptability are also things that distinguish fiber.
In this case length isn't that big of a deal because this is a desktop standard. Well I guess if you own a house like Bill Gates you might have a problem with copper.

Well you are making a huge assumption here as to how Apple will use this tech. That is what many of us are saying.

Dave

AidenShaw

Sep 28, 2009, 09:23 PM

Remember Michael Faraday?

Yes, he's the genius behind our secure cages.

G58

Sep 28, 2009, 10:49 PM

That would be 10 Gigabits per second, not 10 GB or Gigabytes per second.

Gigabit is a unit of digital information storage, with the symbol Gbit (or Gb).

1 gigabit = 10 [to the power of 9] = 1,000,000,000 bits (which is equal to 125 decimal megabytes or 122 binary mebibytes, as 8 bits equals one byte)

The gigabyte is an SI-multiple of the unit byte for digital information storage. The prefix giga means 10 [to the power of 9], therefore 1 gigabyte is 1000000000bytes. This definition contradicts it's historic definition as 1073741824 bytes

Info from Wikipedia of course. Only posted this reply to help out and point out how careful we need to be with the use of the uppercase GB, and the uppercase G followed by the lowercase b.

Heard it transfers at 10GB/s. At the moment that's a BluRay movie in 30 Seconds. And plans for it to increase to 100GB/s within the next 10 years. :)

Also notable is that it can be used in Exchanges to speed up internet connections and phone calls/SMS... :cool:

AidenShaw

Sep 28, 2009, 11:11 PM

This definition contradicts it's historic definition as 1073741824 bytes.

You mean the historical mis-definition.

"Giga" has always meant 10^9 to the standards bodies.

Just some wacko computer folks thought that it mean 2^30 - but inconsistently used.

A 1 GHz CPU was always 10^9 Hz. A 1 Gbps NIC was always 10^9 bits per second.

Your computer has 4 GiB of RAM and a 500 GB hard disk. Get with the times.

G58

Sep 28, 2009, 11:13 PM

Why do you think "it’s going to take a hell of a lot of marketing and arm twisting to get the entire peripheral industry to adopt Light Peak"? It's yet another improved standard that will create a Blu-ray/VHS effect. This is business. It's obvious why Apple did it this way.

Think back to the handshakes between Steve Jobs and Intel's Paul Otellini when the Intel Mac deal was first announced. There's a lot of quid pro quo goes on in these deals. Why should Intel just sell chips to Apple?

Think about it. Intel upset a lot of their biggest customers when they sold CPUs to Apple. From that moment on, Macs were fully compatible. We could all run Windows on a Mac - if we so desired. The writing was on the wall for a lot of Windows PC makers from that day forward. No, none have gone bust yet, but they have been forced into ever cheaper pricing to create what is now a massive price differential - just to compete with Apple. And who did that hurt? Surely not Apple. Just check out the margins, cash reserves and stock prices of the likes of Dell for instance.

And what better way for Apple to get their new connectivity standard into general release? It's a Brilliant move. The more I study this company, the more amazed I am at the incredibly well considered, long-term thinking involved in every move.

At face value, it sounds more like a reincarnated ADC (Apple Display Connector) than a replacement for USB.

Additionally, it’s going to take a hell of a lot of marketing and arm twisting to get the entire peripheral industry to adopt Light Peak. I just hope Apple doesn’t go radical with it (like they did with USB 1.0, which worked in their favor).

The big question is why is Intel promoting USB 3.0 if they have Light Peak coming around the corner (2010). And why did Apple (who has never been afraid to develop a new standard) have Intel develop it?

Somehow this story doesn’t add up.

G58

Sep 28, 2009, 11:31 PM

It's not just copper. Bill is rumoured to have a problem with length too, but that's another story... for another day... on another forum :-)

...Well I guess if you own a house like Bill Gates you might have a problem with copper.

toke lahti

Sep 29, 2009, 02:16 AM

For the hub: The most probable thing is that dispays are going to act as a "MainHub" with 4-6 LP ports. There you can connect whatever.
Intel is probably pushing for wireless electricity for the mouse/keyboard at that time,so you would get rid of the extra clutter as well.
My guesses.
You might be right. Acd's will be even more expensive. And "form over function" will last:
"We have these wonderful flat displays, which saves so much space...
...for empty space you have to reserve for going behind your screen to plug and unplug devices..."

toke lahti

Sep 29, 2009, 02:22 AM

3) Possibly(I haven't seen its size yet, so I cant be sure) replace the iPod 30-pin dock connecter, or at least the computer end of it, causing force mass adoption(FW doesn't work with new iPods, forcing all other computers to support it. So if there was no LP (meaning no iPod and iPhone syncing), it could be a tipping point to get something else).
6) Replace HDMI. If I understand it right, this has greater bandwidth then HDMI, and seems to be superior. AND IF(and only if) this has no licensing fees, then I think that it will take over HDMI in a short period of time.
3) They won't kill iPod sales for that.
Do you really think that average iPod buyer can & will add LP to his/her computer to use iPod? Or buy that new iPod if it needs to have LP-cradle which would be as expensive as the iPod itself?

6)DP does not have licensing fees. Why it has not taken over?

toke lahti

Sep 29, 2009, 02:24 AM

Yes, you would probably be the only one. A locking connector would be a disaster wating to happen. Why do you think Apple came out with the Magsafe power connector. A locking connector would mean laptops and devices crashing to the floor as well as broken (expensive) cables.
How about lockable connector?
User could choose if the connector should be locked or not?
Ouch, I forgot, users are stupid and Apple knows better, no option for users!

G4-power

Sep 29, 2009, 06:04 AM

Apple switched from the lockable 30-pin iPod connector to an unlockable one. At least I don't know the reason, but both work. Why not have the port designed so that you can get a lockable cable, but the majority would be plain unlockable plugs.

cawesjmu

Sep 29, 2009, 07:49 AM

In the video they transfer a 2 gig file while usin the same cable to run a display at full resolution. I'd say that's the coolest thing about the technology, using it as a single plug for a dock type mechanism, or just a monitor with FireWire, USB ports, and card readers without needing more cables.

There ya go, perfectly useful, while still supporting legacy plugs.

I didn't mean to imply this looked useless. What I was wondering was where the next bottleneck will be. I think it'll be great to have 1 size/shape port for everything, and it be super fast. Instead of having 2 USB and 1 FW, I'll just have 3 ports available for whatever. I'm just curious if joe schmoe is going to see 2 GB files copied in ~5 sec. from his internal to his backup disk. I would hope so, but I think that means he needs the fastest SSD, in raid.

I don't really know much about SSD. Can they read/write at 10Gb/s if the connection allows it? I didn't think they could realistically fill the 3Gb/s bandwidth of SATAII. That's what I meant.

Michael73

Sep 29, 2009, 09:17 AM

For nearly a week I've been working on an issue with AppleCare Tier 2 technical support. I did an erase and install of Leopard. After installation, I did a complete restore from my Time Machine drive. However, instead of picking up where it left off, Time Machine wants to do COMPLETE backups of my new installation.

Anyway, each time the tech support guy has me try something new I wind up with a MASSIVE 400GB backup file that I've invariably dragged to the trash and than deleted. All this is occurring INSIDE my MacPro as the Macintosh HD and the TM drive sit in drive bays 1 & 4 respectively. Even over SATA connections the calculation and deletion of hundreds of thousands of files takes A LONG TIME!

In my situation, Light Peak if it were to replace SATA connections would be AWESOME!

And, for those of us who do video work and push large and uncompressed video files from one (internal) drive to another, this could also be a huge help :D

cawesjmu

Sep 29, 2009, 09:36 AM

In my situation, Light Peak if it were to replace SATA connections would be AWESOME!

And, for those of us who do video work and push large and uncompressed video files from one (internal) drive to another, this could also be a huge help :D

This is exactly what I'm talking/asking about. It looks like you have HDD, so I don't think the SATA connection is your problem. I think the HDD can't spin or read or write fast enough to saturate SATAII. So with LP connected to these HDD, you wouldn't see a difference. At least that's what I think and am wondering if anybody can educate me/us as to if I'm right or not.

AidenShaw

Sep 29, 2009, 10:29 AM

In my situation, Light Peak if it were to replace SATA connections would be AWESOME!

Your problem is the disk speeds, not the cable speeds.

Your SATA links are 12 Gbps (3Gbps * 4), but your disks stream at around 1 Gbps max - and much, much slower if the heads are seeking.

Michael73

Sep 29, 2009, 04:19 PM

Your problem is the disk speeds, not the cable speeds.

Your SATA links are 12 Gbps (3Gbps * 4), but your disks stream at around 1 Gbps max - and much, much slower if the heads are seeking.

Am I then to assume the whole operation would be much quicker with a solid state drive (SSD)?

Also this brings up the bigger question which is, "What good is Light Peak if the corresponding "thing" to which it's attached cannot deliver that information to it at the same or quicker speed?" It's like a giant bottleneck...

Rocketman

Sep 29, 2009, 04:33 PM

Also this brings up the bigger question which is, "What good is Light Peak if the corresponding "thing" to which it's attached cannot deliver that information to it at the same or quicker speed?" It's like a giant bottleneck...

Answer: Because it can talk to 4-8 of them all at once. Different kinds too. HD, display, internet, satellite in, speakers, etc., etc.

The advantage to the average user is they can watch a HD movie, download the next one in the background, be on the phone on 2 lines at once, be twittering, and browsing, all at once with minimal glitches. If we could just kill streaming or increase the buffer to 2%+ of the entire feed, with reliable pause and rewind.

Rocketman

fef714

Sep 29, 2009, 07:42 PM

Well,.... looks like I might hold out just a wee bit longer to get a new mac. This looks great! I hate messy cords all over the place. :rolleyes:

This probably won't see the light of day for at least two years, I may be wrong, but I think that was just a Demo

fef714

Sep 29, 2009, 07:45 PM

Answer: Because it can talk to 4-8 of them all at once. Different kinds too. HD, display, internet, satellite in, speakers, etc., etc.

The advantage to the average user is they can watch a HD movie, download the next one in the background, be on the phone on 2 lines at once, be twittering, and browsing, all at once with minimal glitches. If we could just kill streaming or increase the buffer to 2%+ of the entire feed, with reliable pause and rewind.

Rocketman

I already signed up for the 'Super Multi-Tasking Ability' gene from my local brain surgeon.

You should really look into it, it really helps when watching a movie, twittering, browsing, and talking on two phones all simultaneously. ;)

fef714

Sep 29, 2009, 07:49 PM

ha yeah really. the video looks pretty promising. maybe with this, some of the internet speeds will get a bit of an upgrade (DSL would become extint, Cable Broadband would be the equivilant of dial-up and FIOS would be the default choice, once its installed everywhere). So is this just for server operations or would this stuff be availble to the general public?

DSL will never go away... If you met some of my extended family you would understand :eek:

MagnusVonMagnum

Sep 29, 2009, 11:08 PM

This is insane. Finaly a one standed plug for every thing is one step closer thanks to intel & apple.

The thing provides NO POWER to devices. That means it's DOA as far as some of us are concerned. How can it replace USB 3.0, for example, when that provides power and it does not? Having to plug every single device into an AC outlet or run it off batteries just plain SUCKS. That's probably why the article talks about it being for MOBILE devices (i.e. devices running off batteries that don't need any extra power). I don't see this is as a one device solution period. It's also too slow to be the replacement for USB 3.0, at only about 2x the speed. That will be outdated in less than 5 years.

NT1440

Sep 29, 2009, 11:18 PM

The thing provides NO POWER to devices. That means it's DOA as far as some of us are concerned. How can it replace USB 3.0, for example, when that provides power and it does not? Having to plug every single device into an AC outlet or run it off batteries just plain SUCKS. That's probably why the article talks about it being for MOBILE devices (i.e. devices running off batteries that don't need any extra power). I don't see this is as a one device solution period. It's also too slow to be the replacement for USB 3.0, at only about 2x the speed. That will be outdated in less than 5 years.

Uh, like many in this thread already said, how hard would it really be to run a copper line to power it and package it in the same wire.....

Erasmus

Sep 30, 2009, 12:34 AM

It's also too slow to be the replacement for USB 3.0, at only about 2x the speed. That will be outdated in less than 5 years.

Well, yes, it will be outdated. Every technology gets outdated. But it will not be outdated by an electrical connection. It will be outdated by Light Peak 2.0.

Rocketman

Sep 30, 2009, 08:09 AM

Uh, like many in this thread already said, how hard would it really be to run a copper line to power it and package it in the same wire.....

Correct. One spec for line length with power, one spec for line length to powered devices. Two different cable styles, one connector, one standard, wide variety of devices. You still need a hub, dongle, or device to connect legacy connectors and protocols to a wide range of devices.

It's getting to the point where the CPU can be line powered with USB class voltages.

Rocketman

AidenShaw

Sep 30, 2009, 06:59 PM

It's getting to the point where the CPU can be line powered with USB class voltages.

... but the CPU needs about 20,000 milliamps, and USB supplies 500 milliamps. ;)

gavin83209

Sep 30, 2009, 07:04 PM

...and most computers don't have 40 USB ports. It would be nice, though.

Rocketman

Sep 30, 2009, 07:13 PM

... but the CPU needs about 20,000 milliamps, and USB supplies 500 milliamps. ;)

Not for long. A low power device like an iPhone is USB powered. In two chip iterations it will have around the compute power of a now year old mac-Mini. SSD. :)

Rocketman

Takuta-Nui

Sep 30, 2009, 09:02 PM

I'd never heard of this technology before reading this article (although identical concepts have been explored in the sci fi I've read). If it does become a physical reality, then that would certainly change how computers work.

I'm also thinking about how thrilled Apple would be - at last they could try to find a way to hide a single access port on their laptops instead of putting up with the half-dozen or so that are pretty much required for any decent machine. =P

MagnusVonMagnum

Sep 30, 2009, 11:01 PM

Uh, like many in this thread already said, how hard would it really be to run a copper line to power it and package it in the same wire.....

It's unlikely that a purely fiber system would do that and I read NOTHING to indicate that it's in the design. What they can do and what people here seem to think they SHOULD do is irrelevant. Like I said, the system is designed for mobile use and it doesn't need a copper wire for that. I can almost guarantee there will be no copper in the system. The whole point of optical connectors is to NOT use copper so you can run long lengths of wire. You cannot run a long length with small copper wire running power through it. It would overheat after a very short distance.

gunraidan

Sep 30, 2009, 11:28 PM

USB 3.0? Firew-? Ahh screw it, it's all about Light Peak!:D

toke lahti

Oct 1, 2009, 03:36 AM

It's unlikely that a purely fiber system would do that and I read NOTHING to indicate that it's in the design. What they can do and what people here seem to think they SHOULD do is irrelevant. Like I said, the system is designed for mobile use and it doesn't need a copper wire for that. I can almost guarantee there will be no copper in the system. The whole point of optical connectors is to NOT use copper so you can run long lengths of wire. You cannot run a long length with small copper wire running power through it. It would overheat after a very short distance.
I guess that your guarantees do not have so much value.
http://blogs.intel.com/technology/2009/09/lighting_fast_-_high_speed_opt.php
The whole point of optical is to gain speed.
You can easily transport power for 100 meters and it is done everywhere with power-on-ethernet.
Essentially mobile use will need power. There's no problem to have your server or tv plugged in for power through second cable, but it very unconvenient to blug two cables with mobile phone or hdd every time you need it.

Mac Heretic

Oct 1, 2009, 06:00 AM

I'm concerned the demo shows a USB-type connector. They're too large and thick.

Also, am I the only person who wants a lockable connector?

Don't worry. When it makes it way to Mac, you'll find that it has a LightPeak Mini-connector, or even LightPeak Micro -connector (for which you may buy an adapter to connect them with the rest of the world). :)

What worries me, is that these kind of projects may give a reason to delay, or even skip USB3 alltogether. They were not part of the promoters at least.

mooblie

Oct 1, 2009, 06:06 AM

I'd never heard of this technology before reading this article (although identical concepts have been explored in the sci fi I've read). If it does become a physical reality, then that would certainly change how computers work.

Everybody seems to have developed some mass blind spot here - and forgotten about TOSlink (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOSLINK) (S/PDIF) connections - although they've probably already got some in their audio gear or on their Macs!! OK, it's a different protocol, but it's the same technology.

This idea sounds not so much new, rather overdue, if you ask me. TOSlink is ten years old+, and hence proven, cheap (plastic fibre for short runs) and mature - it's about time it was developed for a wider application. Glad to see it finally being proposed for applications that can really push it - audio (even multichannel) was just a stroll in the park for optical...

jbernie

Oct 1, 2009, 02:05 PM

What worries me, is that these kind of projects may give a reason to delay, or even skip USB3 alltogether. They were not part of the promoters at least.

Not necessarily... assuming USB 3.0 does not have any significant cost per unit over USB 2.0 then there are plenty of card readers, printers and the like that can benefit from increased speed AND still be sold at a relatively low cost to the consumer. Light Peak looks to be starting at a minimum $10 per unit so that means your $20 card reader went up 50% in price.

Light Peak will start on the high end devices where the extra speed = $$ saved to companies and work its way down to generic consumer devices over time.

AidenShaw

Oct 1, 2009, 04:40 PM

OK, it's a different protocol, but it's the same technology.

Actually, it's not. TOSlink uses an incoherent red LED, and started at about 3 Mbps. (Note that even today no home theatre system can run better than heavily compressed 5.1 over TOSlink - you need HDMI or better connections for 7.1 192KHz/24-bit true HD sound.)

Light Peak uses coherent lasers.

Rocketman

Oct 1, 2009, 04:43 PM

TOSlink (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOSLINK) (S/PDIF) connections - although they've probably already got some in their audio gear or on their Macs!! OK, it's a different protocol, but it's the same technology.

I wonder how practical it would be to use the toslink audio ports for new things. Plenty of people don't use them at all or use them in analog mode.

It might be a good breeding ground for a Light Peak "ecosystem".

Rocketman

toke lahti

Oct 1, 2009, 05:39 PM

Not necessarily... assuming USB 3.0 does not have any significant cost per unit over USB 2.0 then there are plenty of card readers, printers and the like that can benefit from increased speed AND still be sold at a relatively low cost to the consumer.
I also fear that Apple will skip usb3. Price isn't always the factor for Apple. They skipped eSata, which has almost zero additional cost and Mac users have suffered many times slower connections for years now...

Rocketman

Oct 1, 2009, 08:33 PM

I also fear that Apple will skip usb3. Price isn't always the factor for Apple. They skipped eSata, which has almost zero additional cost and Mac users have suffered many times slower connections for years now...

The difference is USB is a widely adopted consumer device interface likely to have massive inertia of its own. LP is a CPU side interface to minimize the plug count while increasing total bandwidth among that group of plugs. That means the other end of that wire has to have a way to interface with "many plugs". Rather then the one-to-one pug style of mini-display port converters Apple offers, I hope it is a one to many scheme that Apple, to date, rarely offers and should. The whole idea is to concatenate many "styles" of I/O to one port. Therefore it should accept many "styles" of input to do so.

The good news is a single dongle of diminutive size and mass can accept a wide range and number of plugs. A second tier dongle could dock to the first or have its own LP connection to receive older or less popular plugs, that still have to be supported. If the dongle system is itself an ecosystem, third parties could supply special capabilities but still compatible with the high I/O low device end plug count meme.

Ethernet and LP I/O would make the systems universal.

Rocketman

3 layers times 6 plugs each? ONE LP point. Choose only the ones you need.

MagnusVonMagnum

Oct 1, 2009, 11:35 PM

I guess that your guarantees do not have so much value.
http://blogs.intel.com/technology/2009/09/lighting_fast_-_high_speed_opt.php
The whole point of optical is to gain speed.
You can easily transport power for 100 meters and it is done everywhere with power-on-ethernet.
Essentially mobile use will need power. There's no problem to have your server or tv plugged in for power through second cable, but it very unconvenient to blug two cables with mobile phone or hdd every time you need it.

Your link site says absolutely NOTHING about it providing power. You might actually try linking to the CNet report which does briefly talk about it.

In any case, I fail to see how this is superior to 10 Gigabit Ethernet, which already exists, has the same speed, can be deployed also to 100 meters (longer with optic fiber connections, which are available) and has power as you say. Why reinvent the wheel? Oh yeah...$$$$

MorphingDragon

Oct 2, 2009, 01:08 AM

Your link site says absolutely NOTHING about it providing power. You might actually try linking to the CNet report which does briefly talk about it.

In any case, I fail to see how this is superior to 10 Gigabit Ethernet, which already exists, has the same speed, can be deployed also to 100 meters (longer with optic fiber connections, which are available) and has power as you say. Why reinvent the wheel? Oh yeah...$$$$

You want to be technical? You can send multiple signals down a single fiber optic cable by simply shooting it as a different angle, as long as it is within the critical angle of the given medium. This will give us bandwidth above any other form. So theoretically we could send 20 streams of data down the one cable. (Well not theoretically, companies already do it) Lets see copper do that, multiply its bandwidth by simply adding another laser and sensor. (Oh Wait it cant)

By your logic we shouldn't of changed from the Abacus, or be researching Quantum/Bio-Computing. It's people like you that stifle science and technology. Refuse to change because its "enough".

kbrittle

Oct 2, 2009, 02:00 AM

toke lahti

Oct 2, 2009, 02:08 AM

The difference is USB is a widely adopted consumer device interface likely to have massive inertia of its own.
I guess that if Apple want's to ignore usb3, it will happen because they want to make demand for LP. No technical reasons.
LP will get cheaper if it gets massivel adopted, but Apple isn't big enough to make this on their own. It might get similiar than FW, where massive adoption never came and Apple has slowest usb ports in the industry. "If you need speed, take firewire (and if you need more speed, buy pc with esata...)"

toke lahti

Oct 2, 2009, 02:14 AM

Your link site says absolutely NOTHING about it providing power. You might actually try linking to the CNet report which does briefly talk about it.

In any case, I fail to see how this is superior to 10 Gigabit Ethernet, which already exists, has the same speed, can be deployed also to 100 meters (longer with optic fiber connections, which are available) and has power as you say. Why reinvent the wheel? Oh yeah...$$$$
Blogger in my link is one of the developers and in the discussion he says that they are considering copper for power.
LP's advantage over ethernet in the long term have two cornerstones:
1) you can connect everything to it. I guess that you won't see displays, scanners, iphones, keyboards, mice, etc. with ethernet.
2) roadmap to 100G, which is needed for multiple high resolution displays. Ethernet (or any other tech) will have very hard time to do this in copper for 100m.

diamond.g

Oct 2, 2009, 05:50 AM

So say you have HDMI (HDCP) connected via this LP tech. How do you keep someone from snooping the data, seeing as this sounds like one huge buss that everything rides on top of? It would seem to me that the whole HDMI (HDCP)handshake could be compromised. Same question for DisplayPort (DPCP).

Erasmus

Oct 2, 2009, 07:52 AM

You want to be technical? You can send multiple signals down a single fiber optic cable by simply shooting it as a different angle, as long as it is within the critical angle of the given medium.

Although I agree with the spirit of your post, and the fact that this statement is "true", it is highly impractical. If you have signals coming from lots of different directions going through the same fibre, you have to align all the detectors up at the other end. Which is fine, until someone touches the fibre, or moves a device, and screws up the alignment.

The reasons fibre optics are better than electrical are (in increasing importance):
1) Electrical signals are attenuated much, much more quickly than infrared light traveling through an optical fibre
2) Electrical data transfer speeds are limited by inductance and capacitance in the wires. Basically, the electrical effect has to reach the end before a new one can be sent, so only one bit of data can exist in a single line at once.
3) Optical data transfer rates are only limited by the optical bandwidth of the fibre (how many different wavelengths you can stick down) and Quantum Mechanics. Or, not only can you have more than one light pulse (data bit) traveling down the fibre from a laser, but you can also have many lasers operating at different wavelengths independently transferring data.

So, basically, optical communication is superior in every way except cost. and amount of equipment required.

Pocket lint

Oct 2, 2009, 08:34 AM

Although I agree with the spirit of your post, and the fact that this statement is "true", it is highly impractical. If you have signals coming from lots of different directions going through the same fibre, you have to align all the detectors up at the other end. Which is fine, until someone touches the fibre, or moves a device, and screws up the alignment.

LOL, no. Just no.

Multi remotes don't need to be pointed at the exact same point either. It's about telling which package goes where. It's not some semi-analogue connection done with light. It's light and no light (i.e. 1s and 0s) sending information. It's not one receptor to each stream. It's one "tube/channel" which sends data. It's done digitally, therefore it will tell which goes where. Just like a wav file/aiff file where you have little endian and big endian. One having the information bits at the beginning of the file (well, at each "word", rather), the other at the end. both telling the recipient how to read the PCM ("raw" audio data).

This is no different. You don't need to have multiple receptors in the way you suggest. That's dumb.

With that said, I prefer coaxial digital (think AES/EBU and S/Pdif) rather than optical digital for shorter runs. The reason is you have at least two less parts to go wrong. With optical, in the sender end you have a widget to make electrical impulses to light pulses, and in the other end, you have the opposite, so the equipment can run it. This ups the risk of faults. I prefer to keep it simple if at all possible. Simple and rugged.

Although, I wouldn't mind having this sort of thing in my house, along with the cat-cables in the walls.b

Edit #2:
I just realised what exactly you were responding to: Namely the suggestion to shoot the shyte at different angles (man, that would mean you'd have to precisely coil your cable ...

I guess I responded to something else, but I'll let the post stand. If nothing else, then as a monument to my idiocy at times :p

alent1234

Oct 2, 2009, 11:12 AM

Blogger in my link is one of the developers and in the discussion he says that they are considering copper for power.
LP's advantage over ethernet in the long term have two cornerstones:
1) you can connect everything to it. I guess that you won't see displays, scanners, iphones, keyboards, mice, etc. with ethernet.
2) roadmap to 100G, which is needed for multiple high resolution displays. Ethernet (or any other tech) will have very hard time to do this in copper for 100m.

100Gb ethernet over copper is coming and there is already iSCSI which lets you send SCSI commands over ethernet. there are a few iSCSI SAN's out there. not as fast as fiber and brocade switches, but good enough for some uses

scanners, there are corporate scanner/copiers where it's in ethernet and will convert to pdf and email you whatever you scan in. on the consumer side there are some all in one scanner/printers that work over wifi

there is absolutely no use for ethernet mice and keyboards, just like there is no use for light peak ones.

what is the point of putting the display on a different connector than it has now?

Erasmus

Oct 2, 2009, 07:45 PM

I just realised what exactly you were responding to: Namely the suggestion to shoot the shyte at different angles (man, that would mean you'd have to precisely coil your cable ...

Indeed. If you should move the device, or should the temperature change slightly, and you're completely b-worded.

I guess I responded to something else, but I'll let the post stand. If nothing else, then as a monument to my idiocy at times :p

I'm, um, not quite sure as to what your post is on about. Without knowing what you were thinking about at the time, it makes little sense to me. You should rewrite it so you have the question in there too. Are you trying to say that you don't need different receptors for data destined for different devices (ie. display, storage, printer, etc.)?

MagnusVonMagnum

Oct 3, 2009, 12:18 AM

You want to be technical? You can send multiple signals down a single fiber optic cable by simply shooting it as a different angle, as long as it is within the critical angle of the given medium. This will give us bandwidth above any other form. So theoretically we could send 20 streams of data down the one cable. (Well not theoretically, companies already do it) Lets see copper do that, multiply its bandwidth by simply adding another laser and sensor. (Oh Wait it cant)

You're just stating gobbledygook there. Theoretical means jack. We're talking about Light Peak here, not some theoretical optical format you're making up in your head and Light Peak is 10 Gigabit just like 10 Gigabit Ethernet. 100 Gigabit Ethernet is already in the works. Both work at 100 meters, same as Light Peak. So once again, I reiterate, WTF is the point in coming up with a NEW standard when one ALREADY EXISTS. The cable in question could be made to handle more than traditional Ethernet. It's all about drivers. Light Peak will need them also. So, like I said, the ONLY reason to do it is because Apple/Intel wants THEIR format to be a standard. There's HUGE MONEY in controlling licensing fees, etc. Apple had hoped Firewire would be the standard, not USB 2.x. for just those reasons.

By your logic we shouldn't of changed from the Abacus, or be researching Quantum/Bio-Computing. It's people like you that stifle science and technology. Refuse to change because its "enough".

WTF are you talking about??? My logic uses fiber to advantage when it's useful. Light Peak gets 100 meters with fiber. Ethernet has the ability to use optic fiber connections to go 3x further than Light Peak. 10Gigabit Ethernet's range is 100 meters with copper. If optical fiber connections are used instead, it has a range of 300 meters, (3x longer than Light Peak).

So by your logic, we should use an inferior standard because its' by Apple than use what already exists and already works. I don't think Steve Jobs needs to be any richer.

Blogger in my link is one of the developers and in the discussion he says that they are considering copper for power.
LP's advantage over ethernet in the long term have two cornerstones:
1) you can connect everything to it. I guess that you won't see displays, scanners, iphones, keyboards, mice, etc. with ethernet.
2) roadmap to 100G, which is needed for multiple high resolution displays. Ethernet (or any other tech) will have very hard time to do this in copper for 100m.

1> This is a software/driver issue, not a connector/cable issue.

2> There's already a road-map to 100G Ethernet. It's well on its way, already, unlike Light Peak which isn't even available at 10G. 10G Ethernet is already available. It could be adapted to do what Light Peak proposes to do with extra jacks and new driver handling. The technology is proven and it's already deployed. The Cat6 cables used for 10G are backwards compatible as well (I'm using them in my 1Gigabit Ethernet setup; they work fine). They're cheap and readily available. I can only imagine how much Apple would charge for a Light Peak connector that's only a meter long.... Just look at the cable prices at Best Buy for basic RCA even and you can see what I mean. Since Apple/Intel could prevent mass supplying, they could charge anything they want.

Rampant.A.I.

Oct 3, 2009, 12:36 AM

how is it you think USB 2.0 is dead or dieing? It seems to be everywhere !

Cheap and available doesn't mean it's not soon to be an outmoded technology.

Remember how long 3.5" floppy drives lasted? ;)

MorphingDragon

Oct 3, 2009, 01:15 AM

You're just stating gobbledygook there. Theoretical means jack. We're talking about Light Peak here, not some theoretical optical format you're making up in your head and Light Peak is 10 Gigabit just like 10 Gigabit Ethernet. 100 Gigabit Ethernet is already in the works. Both work at 100 meters, same as Light Peak. So once again, I reiterate, WTF is the point in coming up with a NEW standard when one ALREADY EXISTS. The cable in question could be made to handle more than traditional Ethernet. It's all about drivers. Light Peak will need them also. So, like I said, the ONLY reason to do it is because Apple/Intel wants THEIR format to be a standard. There's HUGE MONEY in controlling licensing fees, etc. Apple had hoped Firewire would be the standard, not USB 2.x. for just those reasons.

WTF are you talking about??? My logic uses fiber to advantage when it's useful. Light Peak gets 100 meters with fiber. Ethernet has the ability to use optic fiber connections to go 3x further than Light Peak. 10Gigabit Ethernet's range is 100 meters with copper. If optical fiber connections are used instead, it has a range of 300 meters, (3x longer than Light Peak).

So by your logic, we should use an inferior standard because its' by Apple than use what already exists and already works. I don't think Steve Jobs needs to be any richer.

1> This is a software/driver issue, not a connector/cable issue.

2> There's already a road-map to 100G Ethernet. It's well on its way, already, unlike Light Peak which isn't even available at 10G. 10G Ethernet is already available. It could be adapted to do what Light Peak proposes to do with extra jacks and new driver handling. The technology is proven and it's already deployed. The Cat6 cables used for 10G are backwards compatible as well (I'm using them in my 1Gigabit Ethernet setup; they work fine). They're cheap and readily available. I can only imagine how much Apple would charge for a Light Peak connector that's only a meter long.... Just look at the cable prices at Best Buy for basic RCA even and you can see what I mean. Since Apple/Intel could prevent mass supplying, they could charge anything they want.

Its not theoretical if Comm companies already do it, and it doesn't have to be perfectly aligned. It's digital, generic sensors suffice.

I'm not even going to bother arguing further. I didn't say you had to use light peak, but you shouldn't be shunning it blindly either. I don't blindly shun Windows even though I prefer Unix OSs. As far as we can tell its still a draft format ATM, anything can change.

A. It gets no where

B. You obviously have objections to any thing made by Apple, made clear by your posts. It's competition. You should be welcoming it.

jbernie

Oct 3, 2009, 02:17 AM

I also fear that Apple will skip usb3. Price isn't always the factor for Apple. They skipped eSata, which has almost zero additional cost and Mac users have suffered many times slower connections for years now...

Well USB 2.0 vs eSata is a pretty easy win to USB 2.0 given how many devices run USB 2.0, eSata seems to be just an external drive connection and not much else.

USB 3.0 vs Light Peak is different, most of the device manufacturers would consider USB 3.0 a wise progression as people are already familiar with USB in general, more accepting of it vs new technology Light Peak, for the average user USB 3.0 provides them with all they need. So near term USB 3.0 is a pretty safe bet.

Long term though, say in 3-5 years, as Light Peak evolves, printers, cameras, card readers etc start taking advantage of the speeds and the like then we might see the change over occuring.

I could see Apple going to Light Peak earlier as cost on the PC side isn't breaking the bank, but most likely going with one Light Peak port, and then expansion can be based on hubs for the early adopters. Until you see the device manufacturers commit to products there is no need to do much with the technology.

Hopefully they either make the system ports USB 3.0/Light Peak compatible as opposed to needing special ports, that would make life much easier. Something like my HP laptop which has an eSata/USB 2.0 port.

toke lahti

Oct 3, 2009, 06:24 AM

There's already a road-map to 100G Ethernet. It's well on its way, already, unlike Light Peak which isn't even available at 10G.
Well,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Gigabit_Ethernet
There still isn't 100Gbase-t even in the road map, so if 10 meters is enough for you, you'll probably get 40G with decent price somewhere around 2015...

Let's see which one gets 100G first with economical prices, ethernet or LP.

toke lahti

Oct 3, 2009, 06:26 AM

Well USB 2.0 vs eSata is a pretty easy win to USB 2.0 given how many devices run USB 2.0, eSata seems to be just an external drive connection and not much else.
...and eSata is only about 6x faster...

Flynnstone

Oct 3, 2009, 09:47 AM

100 G Ethernet will not replace USB 2.
10 G Ethernet will not replace USB 2.
1 G Ethernet will not replace USB 2.
100 M Ethernet will not replace USB 2.
10 M Ethernet will not replace USB 2.

Why ? Cost.

Will USB 3 replace USB 2? Perhaps. USB 3 is really not out there.
Will USB 3 replace Ethernet? No. Too limited - range.
Will Light Peak replace USB 2? Have to wait. If Light Peak is USB 2/3 compatible then good chance. i.e. can you plug a USB mouse into Light Peak connector.
Will Light Peak replace Ethernet. Not likely, but it could. Especially if there is Ethernet/Light peak hybrid routers & switches.

On multiple entry angle fiber optics ... Bull.
The is currently multiple wave length multi channel on fiber. See OWDM.
Is the coming to your laptop soon. No, WAY to costly.

MorphingDragon

Oct 3, 2009, 03:50 PM

On multiple entry angle fiber optics ... Bull.

Telecom begs to differ.

CharBroiled20s

Oct 3, 2009, 10:41 PM

There's nothing special about AC in terms of power loss during transmission. What was special about AC was the ease of transforming between low and high voltage. That was more than 100 years ago; the technology has been around for more than 50 years to efficiently step-up and step-down DC voltage. You can now transmit DC electricity just as far with less power loss.

crackpip

I've been working with solar systems for about 5 years now and I can tell you from real world experiences that distance plays a HUGE role in voltage sustainability with regards to DC power systems.

Stepping up or down voltage is of course the basis of your statement, but surely you're not saying this connector is going to have copper leads stepped up to 100,000 just to transmit over say a 300 foot distance are you?

Get serious... How expensive do you think this tech is gonna be?

AND I'D LIKE TO SAY TO THE 1% TCP/IP OVERHEAD GUY (wherever you are)

Try 10 - 12% with jumbo frames... Your 1% is ridiculous. I'll walk you through the math if you'd like, but ain't nobody seen a throughput loss of 1% even with RAM drives on either end of a file transfer. Network collisions ignored, there are parity bits for each packet sent... Parity data alone is quite a bit more than 1%

So PSSHAW! I say! PSSHAW!!

MagnusVonMagnum

Oct 4, 2009, 02:18 AM

Its not theoretical if Comm companies already do it, and it doesn't have to be perfectly aligned. It's digital, generic sensors suffice.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Fiber or copper can both be used with 10G Ethernet. More importantly, it already exists and it's already deployed and it uses industry standards. Where did I ever say optical fiber doesn't have uses? Quite the opposite, using fiber with 10G Ethernet gives a range of 300 meters, 3x that of Light Peak. So how is Light Peak better? It will be propriety, likely cost much more and exists merely to try and get dollars away from USB 3.x and 10G Ethernet.

I'm not even going to bother arguing further. I didn't say you had to use light peak, but you shouldn't be shunning it blindly either. I don't blindly shun Windows even though I prefer Unix OSs. As far as we can tell its still a draft format ATM, anything can change.

A. It gets no where

B. You obviously have objections to any thing made by Apple, made clear by your posts. It's competition. You should be welcoming it.

LOL. If I had an objection to anything made by Apple, I wouldn't own two Apple TVs, two Airport Expresses and two Macs.... :rolleyes:

Apple is trying to come in after the fact and create a competing standard. We all know how well that worked for HD-DVD versus Blu-Ray. All it did was delay the release of various movies on Blu-Ray by opposing movie partners, confuse the consumer and make a whole lot of us avoid BOTH of them for a very long time. If Apple wants to make a "next generation" device standard, they should concentrate on something that actually IS next generation, not simply a bit faster than USB 3.x and the same speed as 10G Ethernet. I can only imagine what Apple would charge for a Light Peak CABLE of even 1 or 2 meter length, given what they charge for cables and adapters for their notebook computers (~$100 for a video cable? Come on!)

More importantly, we've ALREADY seen this kind of thing from Apple before with Firewire. Who uses/used it other than Apple? A few companies and some nice music boxes and some hard drives, but compared to USB 2.0, it's a failure, despite having superior specs. Worse yet, it delayed Apple from adding USB 2.0 to their computers so my PowerMac circa 2001 only had USB 1.x. I had to add a PCI card to get what should have came with it at the time and all because Apple wanted you to use THEIR standard (i.e. it would have made them a lot of money if Firewire had been the de-facto standard instead).

Well,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Gigabit_Ethernet
There still isn't 100Gbase-t even in the road map, so if 10 meters is enough for you, you'll probably get 40G with decent price somewhere around 2015...

Let's see which one gets 100G first with economical prices, ethernet or LP.

I guess if Wikipedia (maintained by average users) is your idea of a "road map" then I guess so. In any case, the thing about 100G is show me a device that can even HANDLE that kind of data throughput. No consumer hard drive in EXISTENCE can even max out 1G Ethernet in sustained average write speeds so it's all rather moot to the average consumer and will be for many years to come. 10G is already out and it's about 50x faster than even the fastest hard drives out there (and around 30x faster than even the fastest solid-state drives, even running Raid 0). I'm using 1G Ethernet and the hard drive write speeds are THE limiting factor every single time (read speeds are irrelevant since a file transfer requires one side or the other to be writing and that will slow the reads down).

MattInOz

Oct 4, 2009, 02:46 AM

Will Light Peak replace Ethernet. Not likely, but it could. Especially if there is Ethernet/Light peak hybrid routers & switches.

Isn't the big move in enterprise to move as much of the fixed hardware into the server room, blades and all that gear. It's great for servicing as you can just switch out hard from one place. That could help light peak get tractions one cable up to a hundred meters could carry ethernet or a monitor stream or any number of other things, any new office wiring projects in 2 years maybe LP as the chief contender.

toke lahti

Oct 4, 2009, 10:43 AM

So how is Light Peak better? It will be propriety, likely cost much more and exists merely to try and get dollars away from USB 3.x and 10G Ethernet.
Light Peak's advantage is that it is designed to connect everything to your computer, ethernet is not. Of course ethernet could be also designed to carry eg. hdmi or displayport signal, but at the moment, nobody have done that. Apple & Intel have already used years for this.
More importantly, we've ALREADY seen this kind of thing from Apple before with Firewire. Who uses/used it other than Apple? A few companies and some nice music boxes and some hard drives, but compared to USB 2.0, it's a failure, despite having superior specs.
If you haven't noticed, firewire was used in almost every digital video camera on the planet between 1995 and 2005.
And usually Apple learns from their mistakes and recently have made their proprietary things open standards.
I guess if Wikipedia (maintained by average users) is your idea of a "road map" then I guess so. In any case, the thing about 100G is show me a device that can even HANDLE that kind of data throughput. No consumer hard drive in EXISTENCE can even max out 1G Ethernet in sustained average write speeds so it's all rather moot to the average consumer and will be for many years to come. 10G is already out and it's about 50x faster than even the fastest hard drives out there (and around 30x faster than even the fastest solid-state drives, even running Raid 0). I'm using 1G Ethernet and the hard drive write speeds are THE limiting factor every single time (read speeds are irrelevant since a file transfer requires one side or the other to be writing and that will slow the reads down).
Once again, it seems that it is pretty easy to bark from the corner, without giving any evidence. If you know where's the roadmap for 40GBASE-T or 100GBASE-T, why don't you just give the link to it?
There's no official task force in EthernetAlliance or in IEEE, so if there's roadmap somewhere it's only in some researchers' heads. They have theories that 100G might be able to travel 10m and 40G 50m in cat7a and that's why they are talking about need for 25G to extend the reach to 100m.

In video editing and post production, hdd speed is usually needed and so it is very easy to find examples when 1GBASE-T is not enough.
Actually I don't know anybody that would edit video with NAS through ethernet. You only have to make 3 disk raid-0 to oversaturate it.

I think that nobody here has stated that 10G ethernet is too slow for data storage. But when you start to use network to share display data to multiple hi-res panels 10G might not be enough anymore. In the distant future it might be also nice to share RAM through LAN...
I'm already waiting when I can buy 30" Eizo that connects to my computer through 10GBASE-T...

t0mat0

Dec 3, 2009, 07:41 AM

ANd it's all gone quiet on the LP front?

Keniff

Apr 15, 2010, 09:07 PM

albusseverus

Apr 15, 2010, 09:29 PM

Seems like a very bold statement from Intel

"Intel Sees Light Peak As the Last Cable Interconnection (http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/other/display/20100414134935_Intel_Sees_Light_Peak_As_the_Last_Cable_Interconnection.html)"

Oh that that could be true. The first thing you learn about busses is that the more stuff you put on there, there's always something that doesn't like it. Even though you can theoretically chain these things, there's always something that wants better access to the machine.

OK, so the hub goes outside the machine instead of inside the machine (genius idea for Apple), but I have no good stories about hubs either. No USB hub, no matter how much I've spent (well under $100) has ever synced my iPhone, for example.

My big fear is that Apple, which has already excluded anyone who needs 2 FireWire ports from iMacs will gleefully put just ONE port on an iMac and we'll all be screwed.