Sidebar Sidebar
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?

MagnusVonMagnum said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
crackpip said:
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
Click to expand...

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

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.
Click to expand...

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).

toke lahti said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
Flynnstone said:
Will Light Peak replace Ethernet. Not likely, but it could. Especially if there is Ethernet/Light peak hybrid routers & switches.
Click to expand...

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.
 
MagnusVonMagnum said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
MagnusVonMagnum said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
MagnusVonMagnum said:
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).
Click to expand...
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...
 
Keniff said:
Seems like a very bold statement from Intel

"Intel Sees Light Peak As the Last Cable Interconnection"
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back