Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Intel Demonstrates Light Peak Connectivity Standard Running on Laptop

Gymnut said:
God I hope this would solve the gluttony of USB hubs and devices I have.
Click to expand...

I can't delete my duplicate post so I will talk about hubs.

I suspect the LP hub will have 2-3 display plugs (MDP, HDMI, DVI), 3-4 I/O plugs (USB2, FW400/800, Gigabit Ethernet), and dual band wifi (a,b,g, then N, then Bluetooth, and maybe even a modem plug (could double as a traditional telephone device interface)?

All that wouldn't be very big or very expensive.

Rocketman
 
A fiber optic cable ie. Light peak can only transfer light not power. For it to replace USB you would need a hybrid of copper and fiber. This type of hybrid cable is already in broadcasting for connecting HD cameras. The only thing new that light peak brings is fiber inside the computer. Everything you can think of has been connected via fiber outside of a computer in the tele-comm world. I know, I work with fiber cables everyday.

I just want to know what type of fiber they are using? Single mode, multi mode, multi mode laser optimized or did they develop a new type? Each one has a specific task it is best suited for.
 
edoates said:
It's a fast wire, to be sure, and the wire may be a fiber optic cable moving photons instead of vibrating electrons, but it's yet another spaghetti factory of wires connecting my computer with the load of stuff I need connected: display, speakers, video cam, printer, discs, etc.

Someone mentioned an array of drives in their basement with the wire running to them. Right, I'm going to rewire my house again (telephone, cat 5, cat 6, RG6, what next?)

Instead of wasting time inventing more wires, spend time inventing a truly high speed WIRELESS technology. So I can just buy a device, stick it somewhere convenient with 50 feet or so, pair with it, and then communicate at 10GB/s. Securely. Error correcting. Universal. You know, Lightpeak without the cable.

Hey, maybe I'll patent the idea then sue whoever actually invents it ;-)

Eddie O
Click to expand...

Laws of physics prevent new wireless standards being backwards compatible and faster at the same time so you've got the same problem. The faster you transmit wireless information the higher the frequency you need. The higher the frequency of the radio waves the more of a health risk. (Not sure wi-fi is anywhere even near the range where it would affect your health though).
 
Mac-Michael said:
2011 - Apple releases the completely new and revolutionary MacBook Pro, now with only two ports - one for power and one LightPeak! :rolleyes:
yeah, I'll buy it :apple:
Click to expand...

Who says it will have a power adapter? The new battery will last for two weeks and then you'll be sending it to Apple for charging (pun intented).
 
Is it wrong to get this turned on by a data link? USB3 just doesn't do it for me but, man, do I have a fiber fetish...
 
Some of you guys are way out in left field.

First you are missing one important fact, LightPeak easily handles multiple protocols. It simply doesn't matter that HDDs are slower as the information for that interface is multiplexed with other data or can be.

USB isn't going away nor is Display Port. Especially in the case of USB, being a very low end solution it will be around for awhile. It serves the low bandwidth connections just fine, is reasonably reliable and low power. LightPeak simply is targeted at different point in a systems needs.

Speaking of which this would be huge for the laptop market. Think about docking with a single cable to enable your display, the network, an optical and misc. I/O. What makes LightPeak so interesting though is that the same port could do duty in a server installation. There it could handle a storage device or allow for cheap clustering.


Dave
 
Something I just noticed in the photo: what's that big illuminated box that the cables are attached to? It looks like the laptop goes to the box, and then the box goes to the monitor. Does Light Peak need that external box to mediate between the computer and the device? If so, that would really suck....
 
jayducharme said:
Something I just noticed in the photo: what's that big illuminated box that the cables are attached to? It looks like the laptop goes to the box, and then the box goes to the monitor. Does Light Peak need that external box to mediate between the computer and the device? If so, that would really suck....
Click to expand...

It was explained in the article. Essentially all you need to do is think about it. The monitor does not support LightPeak - there needs to be a LightPeak -> HDMI (or DP, or DVI-D, or whatever) adapter. That's the purpose of the box.
 
jayducharme said:
Something I just noticed in the photo: what's that big illuminated box that the cables are attached to? It looks like the laptop goes to the box, and then the box goes to the monitor. Does Light Peak need that external box to mediate between the computer and the device? If so, that would really suck....
Click to expand...

I think its simply an adaptor from lightpeak to another connector.
 
AidenShaw said:
Yes, that's why Apple put USB 3.0 and SDXC connectors on the Ipad.

Ooops, no they didn't. They put them on the new MacBook Pros.

Ooops, no they didn't.

Perhaps Apple isn't "in the lead" for much anymore. Especially if the turtlenecked overlord doesn't like the technology in spite of overwhelming market acceptance.
Click to expand...
It's all about being "in the lead" for profits.
Macs don't have usb3, because it would cost $10 more to manufacture them.
Macs don't have blu-ray, because it would cost $10 more to get a licence to OsX.

LP would cost $20 more in any computer so that's why 99% will never have it and that's why it will cost $100 more on those 1% that will have it.

Macs will have this expensive LP, because Apple's amazing advertizing makes a big thing out of it and people will change their Macs to new ones to have "state of the art".
Apple can't put usb3 on Macs, because otherwise people wouldn't need LP for fast data transfers.
 
On the subject of adapters - there's a plethora of USB/Firewire devices out there, and if Lightpeak drops without the ability to connect these devices to Lightpeak ports via some sort of adapter, it's gonna take a *long* time for adoption to take off...

If Lightpeak is protocol agnostic then it should be possible shouldn't it? Unless there's some issue with the fact that Lightpeak is optical fibres whereas USB/Firewire is plain old copper cabling?

Has anyone heard/read anything on this topic?
 
No doubt this is the reason we haven’t seen an Apple desktop 30” display replacement in more than 3-years. Of course, Apple still hasn’t been able to harness video anywhere near the ability of a 500-dollar windows pc. No, I don’t like windows but that's just how it is for now...
 
toke lahti said:
It's all about being "in the lead" for profits.
Macs don't have usb3, because it would cost $10 more to manufacture them.
Macs don't have blu-ray, because it would cost $10 more to get a licence to OsX.

LP would cost $20 more in any computer so that's why 99% will never have it and that's why it will cost $100 more on those 1% that will have it.

Macs will have this expensive LP, because Apple's amazing advertizing makes a big thing out of it and people will change their Macs to new ones to have "state of the art".
Apple can't put usb3 on Macs, because otherwise people wouldn't need LP for fast data transfers.
Click to expand...

This is probably true and it's very sad. I wish my new MBP had USB3... it would give it a LOT longer lifespan.
 
I don't care about Lightpeak.

Where's the Wireless? We're in the 21th Century goddam !
 
Augure said:
I don't care about Lightpeak.

Where's the Wireless? We're in the 21th Century goddam !
Click to expand...

Wired is always going to be faster than wireless (for the foreseeable future). And since people always seem to be in need of ever more bandwidth, wired interfaces will continue to be useful.


Anyways, what I want to know is whether this can finally stop the bickering over HDMI vs mDP. :rolleyes:
 
Excellent!
When Light Peak was first announced, I decided not to purchase another computer that does not come with Light Peak built in. Glad to see it is on track. I think this will be one of those technologies where we look back and think of computers before Light Peak and computers after Light Peak. Sort of like mice, ethernet, etc. In very short order computers without it will just be no longer viable.
 
AidenShaw said:
Yes, that's why Apple put USB 3.0 and SDXC connectors on the Ipad.

Ooops, no they didn't. They put them on the new MacBook Pros.

Ooops, no they didn't.

Perhaps Apple isn't "in the lead" for much anymore. Especially if the turtlenecked overlord doesn't like the technology in spite of overwhelming market acceptance.
...
Click to expand...

What overwhelming acceptance of USB 3.0?! Even Intel (the inventors of USB) have made it clear they'd rather just go straight to Light Peak. If Apple wanted the best next generation interface without waiting for LP, they'd have added FW3200 a year ago.
Going to USB 3.0 is applying yesterday's technology today. It's a dead end. Why waste everyone's money upgrading to it now when it will be hopelessly obsolete by the end of the year?
USB after 1.0 has always been behind the state of the art and gained acceptance only on the strength of Intel's marketing might. I'm glad to see they are finally putting that market power behind a technology that really is the best available, not just Intel's best effort to displace better technologies that they don't control.
 
davidw said:
This is probably true and it's very sad. I wish my new MBP had USB3... it would give it a LOT longer lifespan.
Click to expand...

No it wouldn't. Your new MBP will be just as obsolete whether it has USB 3.0 or not as soon as LP is available. Which it seems will be very soon.
 
Augure said:
I don't care about Lightpeak.

Where's the Wireless? We're in the 21th Century goddam !
Click to expand...

Yes, we're in the 21st Century, where my wireless keeps getting stomped on by my neighbor's wireless and my phone's wireless crawls when too many other phones are around and it's only going to get worse.

Wireless is for when you are moving around. For all other applications, wired will always beat wireless for performance, reliability, and security.
 
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