Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple and Intel Collaborate on Next Generation 'Light Peak' Connectors?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not 10 MB/s
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.
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...
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.
It's all in the game
Why do you think "its 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.
Why do you think "its 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.
Length
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
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
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..."
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?
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!
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.
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.
I gotta problem...and Light Peak is the answer
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
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
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
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.
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...
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
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.
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
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.
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.....
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.
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
... 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