iMac Light Peak/ USB 3

Discussion in 'iMac' started by AvalancheFan, Feb 26, 2010.

  1. AvalancheFan macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2010
    #1
    When do you think the imac will get light peak or usb 3?

    Thank you.
     
  2. slicecom macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    #2
    Not before 2012.

    You're welcome.
     
  3. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #3
    LightPeak sounds nice but I doubt it'll actually become a standard. Yeah, it would be cool because it could be used in everywhere but then again, you would need an adapter for everything. I think it'll just become a new Firewire, nothing more.

    USB3, hmm, maybe in a year or so we'll see it in Mac Pro and then 2012-? in other Macs.
     
  4. norsemen macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2007
    #4
  5. 300D macrumors 65816

    300D

    Joined:
    May 2, 2009
    Location:
    Tulsa
    #5
    The Mac Pro will get it first. Since LP is set to be out early this year, that means possibly this or next year.

    USB3 is too weak, it won't survive long once LP is released.
     
  6. 300D macrumors 65816

    300D

    Joined:
    May 2, 2009
    Location:
    Tulsa
    #6
    The MP will probably get LP on the next revision, the iMac will (hopefully) get it later this year.

    2010=this year.

    Incorrect. LP will be built into everything, the same way USB is now.

    FW failed because it required costly intelligent controllers to direct data, its even smart enough to work device to device without computer interaction. USB won because it uses cheap stupid controllers that just translate instructions and require constant control by the host computer.
     
  7. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #7
    Is there any useful devices with LP yet? It would be awesome if it becomes a standard because it could replace SATA, USB, FW, maybe even DVI and HDMI! The main thing is though, do the manufacturers adopt it and make products with it for reasonable price. BTW, is LP free or is it like HDMI so you have to pay expensive licenses?

    With the adapter thing I meant you need one to use USB stuff etc.

    It sounds very cool but I think it takes years for it to take USBs place and become a standard
     
  8. Pachang macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    #8
    probs end of 2010/ early 2011 actually.
     
  9. norsemen macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2007
    #9
    If you watch the youtube-clip you can actually hear Intels CEO on jan 18th this year stated at "You can expect Light Peak to become available a year from now"

    So Light Peak = 2011
     
  10. 300D macrumors 65816

    300D

    Joined:
    May 2, 2009
    Location:
    Tulsa
    #10
    The specifications (other than data bandwidth) haven't even been publicly released yet.

    Ah, like the adapter you need to use your ADB mouse or serial scanner? :D :rolleyes:
    Adapters are for people that don't want to give up their legacy devices. Given a short time, there will be plenty of products native to the port.
    Part of LP's design is being low-cost, firewire's biggest flaw.
     
  11. MacHamster68 macrumors 68040

    MacHamster68

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    #11
    light peak still has only the standard of a gadget
    the cables are supposed to become ultra thin ,but exact there will be the problem ,because one bend and a nick and nothing goes through , so you have to lay them around your desk very sensible to avoid any kind of damage to them , and for now it does not even exist a single device for it
    so stop dreaming

    and for usb vs firewire , i prefer firewire all day long even if they introduce usb 6.0 , as i want constant high speeds at all time and not just now and then and usb will use processing power while firewire only needs controllers inside each device

    here a wiki which does explain it very well

    The most significant technical differences between FireWire and USB include the following:

    * USB networks use a tiered-star topology, while FireWire networks use a tree topology.
    * USB 1.0, 1.1 and 2.0 use a "speak-when-spoken-to" protocol. Peripherals cannot communicate with the host unless the host specifically requests communication. USB 3.0 is planned to allow for device-initiated communications towards the host (see USB 3.0 below). A FireWire device can communicate with any other node at any time, subject to network conditions.
    * A USB network relies on a single host at the top of the tree to control the network. In a FireWire network, any capable node can control the network.
    * USB runs with a 5 V power line, while Firewire (theoretically) can supply up to 30 V.
    * Standard USB hub ports can provide from the typical 500mA[2.5 Watts] of current, only 100mA from non-hub ports. USB 3.0 & USB On-The-Go 1800mA[9.0W] (for dedicated battery charging, 1500mA[7.5W] Full bandwidth or 900mA[4.5W] High Bandwidth), while FireWire can in theory supply up to 60 watts of power, although 10 to 20 watts is more typical.


    These and other differences reflect the differing design goals of the two buses: USB was designed for simplicity and low cost, while FireWire was designed for high performance, particularly in time-sensitive applications such as audio and video. Although similar in theoretical maximum transfer rate, FireWire 400 has performance advantage over USB 2.0 Hi-Bandwidth in real-use, especially in high-bandwidth use such as external hard-drives. The newer FireWire 800 standard being twice as fast as FireWire 400 outperforms USB 2.0 Hi-Bandwidth both theoretically and practically. The chipset and drivers used to implement USB and Firewire have a crucial impact on how much of the bandwidth prescribed by the specification is achieved in the real world, along with compatibility with peripherals.
     
  12. 300D macrumors 65816

    300D

    Joined:
    May 2, 2009
    Location:
    Tulsa
    #12
    Exactly, thats what Intel's R&D engineers and a multimillion dollar budget are for. Apple also has a few billion dollars lying around that they could throw into it too.
     
  13. NoSmokingBandit macrumors 68000

    NoSmokingBandit

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2008
    #13
    Based on what?
    People know USB and dont like change. Firewire didnt take over like all the Apple supporters claimed it would.
     
  14. 300D macrumors 65816

    300D

    Joined:
    May 2, 2009
    Location:
    Tulsa
    #14
    Do you really think everyone is going to abandon their floppies and go buy new USB items? Why would anyone stop buying DVDs and download their movies? Why would Apple ever switch to Intel, PPC is twice as fast (their own ads say so).

    Thats because of one thing, cost.
     
  15. NoSmokingBandit macrumors 68000

    NoSmokingBandit

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2008
    #15
    Floppies and USB ports arent really comparable, so i'll ignore that one.
    Apple moved to Intel chips because PPC engineers couldnt produce fast chips with low power consumption, hence the lack of a powerbook g5. Not that its really relevant to what i was saying.

    People download movies because its more convenient. This is the only comparison you made that is actually applicable. Light Peak isnt any more or less convent to use. You plug stuff in and you are done. The kicker is that you can take a usb2 camera, phone, flash drive, etc and plug in into a usb3 port and it works. With Light Peak you are going to need an adapter or dongle of sorts. I'm willing to bet that most people wont care about the speed increase if they know they never have to screw around with an adapter.

    How cheap is Light Peak going to be compared to usb 3.0? I havent seen anyone publish prices or anything yet.
     
  16. MacHamster68 macrumors 68040

    MacHamster68

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    #16
    FireWire, uses a "Peer-to-Peer" architecture in which the peripherals are intelligent and can negotiate bus conflicts to determine which device can best control a data transfer


    Hi-Speed USB 2.0 uses a "Master-Slave" architecture in which the computer handles all arbitration functions and dictates data flow to, from and between the attached peripherals (adding additional system overhead and resulting in slower data flow control)



    so for me there is no alternative to firewire

    so for me usb is only useful for people who use a pc without firewire or the ability to connect a firewire card , for me usb is just good enough for a keyboard and a mouse and a printer so nothing that needs a high transfer rate
     
  17. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #17
    Plus the weren't in schedule. Remember Steve saying that 3GHz thing? Never happened and Intel is the biggest one nowadays, PPC is dead

    I agree. Most people aren't ready to buy new printer, speakers, mouse, KB etc just because of a new port in a computer. LP won't make anything else but file transfer faster and who will benefit of that? Only very few people who transfer a lot big files (= pro users mainly). Printers, web cameras, mice will all remain the same no matter is the transfer rate 10MB/s or 10GB/s.

    I think it's still unknown.

    I can see LP being a new standard in pro machines and very important for pro users soon but it'll take years to beat USB in consumer level electronics. It won't be just a big boom and then everything has LP, it takes years.

    My guess is ~2015 for consumer products, ~2012 for pro products (to become popular/useful)
     
  18. lilo777 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    #18
    So, USB 3.0 which has 5x theoretical transfer rate advantage and at least 2.5x advantage in tests on available hardware compared to FireWire 800 is not a good alternative for you?
     
  19. MacHamster68 macrumors 68040

    MacHamster68

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    #19
    no, because it will have the same problems as usb 2.0 , its using the computer to control everything so it is using processing power , in theory it will be faster
    but in real world it might just keep up with firewire 800, as there are still not many devices that can make use of these theoretical advantages
    so i wait for firewire 1600

    a mac without firewire is just like a cheeseburger without cheese or like pisa without leaning tower
     
  20. NoSmokingBandit macrumors 68000

    NoSmokingBandit

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2008
    #20
    I know how firewire works, and i've said it is much better than USB.
    Are you going to post anything relevant the what i have said or are you just going to post random stuff that doesnt counter my points?
     
  21. Buzz Bumble Guest

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #21
    Ummm, I don't think you read that properly - it says "at least 2.5x faster" than FireWire 800 in tests with available hardware.
     
  22. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #22
    There's a lot of self-flagellation over Light Peak and FireWire 1600/3200.
     
  23. MacHamster68 macrumors 68040

    MacHamster68

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    #23
    hmm yes i remember reading that , but what hardware ? available hardware can be anything from a printer to a mouse , i want to see exact figures on reading an writing from one external harddrive to another external harddrive and a comparison with firewire 800
    reading and writing the same files and not only a 250mb file , make the test with a 4 gb file as usb always had peaks ,but then start to go down in speed
    while firewire maintains a constant speed and does not use the processor to copy files from one harddrive to another ,
    lightspeed is also controlled by the system its on , so it will have the same problem high peaks but then fall down to a more relaxed pace , especially if you got some other programms running which need more processing power ,something that doesn't effect firewire
     

Share This Page