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.
Light Peak Coming in Early 2011 With Apple at Forefront?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Agreed, it would be awesome to see an interconnect that is superior to USB 3.0 supplant it before it even takes off.
As for Blu-Ray, I wish Apple would just put a BD-ROM in it's pro line. I guess it's too much of a "Bag of hurt". Sheesh.
The problem with all these interfaces has been the lack of a large backbone to avoid bottlenecks.
The bandwidth problems existent when connecting USB 2.0 devices to a computer through a USB hub proves the inefficiency of USB 2.0.
Firewire has a way to allow software to allocate bandwidth for a connection in certain applications such as video editing. And you could connect all your FW devices in serial or hub-and-spoke formation, but still there's a bandwidth problem.
LightPeak seems to have enough bandwidth available to avoid bottlenecks and keep your desk clear of messy wires.
The implementation of LightPeak hubs for USB and FW (as another forum member commented) would get rid of any backward compatibility complaints.
Well, it's too early to see any real results, but if someone out there has the privilege of testing it, please speak up (yeah right... NDA... blah!).
I'll be happy if I could just clear my desk from all this cabling clutter.
The bandwidth problems existent when connecting USB 2.0 devices to a computer through a USB hub proves the inefficiency of USB 2.0.
Firewire has a way to allow software to allocate bandwidth for a connection in certain applications such as video editing. And you could connect all your FW devices in serial or hub-and-spoke formation, but still there's a bandwidth problem.
LightPeak seems to have enough bandwidth available to avoid bottlenecks and keep your desk clear of messy wires.
The implementation of LightPeak hubs for USB and FW (as another forum member commented) would get rid of any backward compatibility complaints.
Well, it's too early to see any real results, but if someone out there has the privilege of testing it, please speak up (yeah right... NDA... blah!).
I'll be happy if I could just clear my desk from all this cabling clutter.
My god I hope not. Rarely does mixing, matching and translating protocols work very well.
I am encouraged by the promise of Light Peak, but fear for it's adoption. Apple and Intel should know from the lessons of SCSI and Firewire just how hard it is to get a connectivity standard adopted. Firewire was a shoe-in until USB-2 came out. Suddenly USB was "good enough" and Firewire became a niche.
Light Peak promises astronomical data rates and a single connection type for all devices, but here's what it's up against: There are no devices that can or need to transfer data that fast (yet), USB & Firewire provide power to peripherals, licensing - everyone and their dog can use USB, price - if it costs more than USB-3 to implement nobody will, and finally backwards compatibility - there will need to be cheap adapters to interface with USB, Firewire, DisplayPort, DVI, Ethernet, and many other connection types.
Light Peak promises astronomical data rates and a single connection type for all devices, but here's what it's up against: There are no devices that can or need to transfer data that fast (yet), USB & Firewire provide power to peripherals, licensing - everyone and their dog can use USB, price - if it costs more than USB-3 to implement nobody will, and finally backwards compatibility - there will need to be cheap adapters to interface with USB, Firewire, DisplayPort, DVI, Ethernet, and many other connection types.
The 10 Gbps is the max only for the first generation of this technology. Plans are already underway to scale it to its theoretical maximum of 100 Gbps.
If LightPeak is really going to replace USB, then I don't see it happening that there will be USB ports next to LightPeak ports.
In my opinion, it will only work out when all ports that LightPeak is able to replace, replaces.
As an example:
Source image: another thread in MacRumors
If it's like this, (e.g. External Hard Drive) manufacturers outside Apple tend to quicker think as "I have to have my product be compatible with LightPeak, otherwise, I can't access about 10% of the market of computers."
If there are USB ports next to LP ports, manufactures tend to think like "Meh. LightPeak? I don't care. I can always put my product onto one of the USB devices on the computers." and LP will slowly die.
For consumers, there are of course the highly overpriced cables that convert LightPeak to USB, Ethernet, MiniDisplay, DVI, etc... Those cables will slowly die, since manufactures tend to slowly adapt Light Peak.
That's my opinion. Let me hear what you think of it.
In my opinion, it will only work out when all ports that LightPeak is able to replace, replaces.
As an example:
Source image: another thread in MacRumors
If it's like this, (e.g. External Hard Drive) manufacturers outside Apple tend to quicker think as "I have to have my product be compatible with LightPeak, otherwise, I can't access about 10% of the market of computers."
If there are USB ports next to LP ports, manufactures tend to think like "Meh. LightPeak? I don't care. I can always put my product onto one of the USB devices on the computers." and LP will slowly die.
For consumers, there are of course the highly overpriced cables that convert LightPeak to USB, Ethernet, MiniDisplay, DVI, etc... Those cables will slowly die, since manufactures tend to slowly adapt Light Peak.
That's my opinion. Let me hear what you think of it.
Why not... there are PCI to USB adapters, PCI to Firewire adapters, USB to Serial adapters, etc.
As long as there are good drivers for these devices, you wouldn't even notice or care how these are connected.
Just be happy that your 8 USB 2.0 480mbps devices connected to your 8 port USB 2.0 hub will no longer have to access your computer through a single USB 2.0 480mbps connection. There will be enough bandwidth to allow every single device to run at full speed.
And regarding to Power-Over-LightPeak, I don' think so. It's an Optical connection, so the answer is no.
The good news is that in theory you could have all your hard drives in a closet far away from your computer. Just don't run over the cables with your chair.
Really looking forward to this, and I hope marketing doesn't turn this into a false equivalence like they did with USB and Firewire. It looks like USB3 is finally fast enough to overcome its horrible protocol, but they're also rapidly running out of headroom. Optical is the way to go.
Power over the bus is a requirement as far as I'm concerned. That was an early advantage of Firewire and still one that USB struggles to meet reliably. I hope LightPeak gets that sorted before showtime.
Power over the bus is a requirement as far as I'm concerned. That was an early advantage of Firewire and still one that USB struggles to meet reliably. I hope LightPeak gets that sorted before showtime.
That won't happen. Just because you can connect multiple keyboards, mice, monitors, etc. doesn't mean the computer sees each as a separate user. We can already do this with DisplayPort & USB. The "many heads on one machine" is how old mainframe & mini computers worked, and the industry moved away from that to PCs.
right, and they were obviously a huge success. everyone now has thin clients, webtv, and email phones.
thin clients have failed every time they are brought out. sorry if you thought your idea was clever or something.
I think you're doing it wrong.
I wish Apple would BUST A MOVE ALREADY!!!!!!
I'm using a 5+ y/o PowerBook, and have been waiting for the i-processors (in the 13"), USB 3.0 and Bluetooth 3.0. I don't want to buy a laptop that is already outdated! (I'm a recent college grad, so I need the most bang for my buck.)
I remember when Apple used to always be ahead of the game... The only instance I remember them being behind is with CD-burners. Why are they so behind now??? Intel seems to be the bottleneck.
So if they go with Lightpeak, what happens if they decide to change processor manufacturers again? Will Intel license the technology?
Another reason this sucks... I was JUST about to purchase a couple 2TB Firewire 800 drives for routine backups... but now I may have to hold off on that, too.
Please, Apple, get the ball rolling so I can move on with my life... grrrr!
I'm using a 5+ y/o PowerBook, and have been waiting for the i-processors (in the 13"), USB 3.0 and Bluetooth 3.0. I don't want to buy a laptop that is already outdated! (I'm a recent college grad, so I need the most bang for my buck.)
I remember when Apple used to always be ahead of the game... The only instance I remember them being behind is with CD-burners. Why are they so behind now??? Intel seems to be the bottleneck.
So if they go with Lightpeak, what happens if they decide to change processor manufacturers again? Will Intel license the technology?
Another reason this sucks... I was JUST about to purchase a couple 2TB Firewire 800 drives for routine backups... but now I may have to hold off on that, too.
Please, Apple, get the ball rolling so I can move on with my life... grrrr!
If LightPeak is really going to replace USB, then I don't see it happening that there will be USB ports next to LightPeak ports.
In my opinion, it will only work out when all ports that LightPeak is able to replace, replaces.
As an example:
Source image: another thread in MacRumors
If it's like this, (e.g. External Hard Drive) manufacturers outside Apple tend to quicker think as "I have to have my product be compatible with LightPeak, otherwise, I can't access about 10% of the market of computers."
If there are USB ports next to LP ports, manufactures tend to think like "Meh. LightPeak? I don't care. I can always put my product onto one of the USB devices on the computers." and LP will slowly die.
For consumers, there are of course the highly overpriced cables that convert LightPeak to USB, Ethernet, MiniDisplay, DVI, etc... Those cables will slowly die, since manufactures tend to slowly adapt Light Peak.
That's my opinion. Let me hear what you think of it.
It more likely external Hard drive makers will say I am not going to spend the money paying licencing fees for 10% of the market. Most of which will be buying adapters any how to use all their older USB stuff.
Light Peak biggest down fall is it does not support USB with out some type of adapter. Windows desktop computer hell still have Com ports, and PS2 ports on them. Why you ask. Best the equipment that uses those ports generally last a really long time and those ports are dirt cheap to add. what is 5 cents on a 100+ part. The lost of those ports would cost you more business than saving would take out.
Com ports are a bit rarer now days but still on higher end desktop or desktop bought by eletrocics laps due to the fact that a lot of equipment still needs them.
Intel officially notified partners that it will support USB 3.0 on laptop platform starting from 2012. See the article on Digitimes. So Macs will get this support too, just three years later than PCs.
I hope it is successful and replaces all external connectors, but bus interconnects will still be PCI Express - which can transfer up to 16GB/s (Gigabytes), where Light Peak is only 10Gb/s (Gigabits).
If LightPeak is really going to replace USB, then I don't see it happening that there will be USB ports next to LightPeak ports.
In my opinion, it will only work out when all ports that LightPeak is able to replace, replaces.
As an example:
Source image: another thread in MacRumors
If it's like this, (e.g. External Hard Drive) manufacturers outside Apple tend to quicker think as "I have to have my product be compatible with LightPeak, otherwise, I can't access about 10% of the market of computers."
If there are USB ports next to LP ports, manufactures tend to think like "Meh. LightPeak? I don't care. I can always put my product onto one of the USB devices on the computers." and LP will slowly die.
For consumers, there are of course the highly overpriced cables that convert LightPeak to USB, Ethernet, MiniDisplay, DVI, etc... Those cables will slowly die, since manufactures tend to slowly adapt Light Peak.
That's my opinion. Let me hear what you think of it.
True. It will be just like FW800. It's very unlikely for a regular user with a MacBook to need it. Most users would say they can live with the speed of USB 2.0.
And being a LightPeak just light (optical connection), it's not going to be able to provide power for the devices connected to it.
Therefore, I only see it will be available for the MAC Pro, MacBook Pro, and maybe for the iMac, and high-end PCs and Servers in applications where Fibre-Channel becomes overkill or too expensive.
I remember the RS/232 guys saying the same thing
Why not? Do you call it IEEE 1394, "i.link," or "Firewire?"
That's different. As per wikipedia: "FireWire is Apple's name for the IEEE 1394 High Speed Serial Bus. It was initiated by Apple (in 1986[2]) and developed by the IEEE P1394 Working Group, largely driven by contributions from Apple, although major contributions were also made by engineers from Texas Instruments, Sony, Digital Equipment Corporation, IBM, and INMOS/SGS Thomson (now STMicroelectronics)."
This bus was developed by many companies and they used different names for it. Light Peak is being developed solely by Intel (just like USB was) and it would be ridiculous for anybody to name something they have no claims on.
Pointy haired boss ... USB 3, Not that big of a deal
I chuckled when I saw this.
Apple will support LightPeak, Intel has a different market to appeal to then Apple. Light Peak will be the new industry standard, don't feed into the USB 3 hype, cause it's not that big of a deal.
-Bruce
Let me suggest this as your next avatar :
I chuckled when I saw this.
Apple will support LightPeak, Intel has a different market to appeal to then Apple. Light Peak will be the new industry standard, don't feed into the USB 3 hype, cause it's not that big of a deal.
-Bruce
Well, it wasn't my idea, did you read the post I was responding to ?
So no, I didn't think the idea was clever, hence my short history of the thin client posted in reply to a proposition that "LightPeak brings us the possibility of thin clients!".
And you're being disingenious calling the entire concept "failed". Web applications, Citrix Metaframe, "cloud connected" devices are all out there and used daily. Thin clients coexist very well with thick clients. The problem is when people want the world to be black or white. It's either all thin clients or the concept has failed. There's plenty of room in the market for both solutions.