@nanofrog Yes, I agree the transition will be messy, with the hubs littering the desktop, but I expect that to be short lived. Although I wonder about thumb-drives. I think there will be a legacy USB port found on many systems, even if/when LP is widely adopted for thumb-drives. 1) because so many as so small that adding the bridge chip may make them too big, and 2) there are so many in use with valuable data that some people insist on a USB port until they can get around to transferring all the data to a different media. (Apple will ignore this segment, and abandon USB ports entirely the moment they can fit LP into their systems - is my prediction).
Even if peripherals get to the point the bridges are internal, there's still going to be cables (possibly via LP to LP Hubs as well) littering the desktop. Keep in mind, that the quantity of LP ports in the system will be quite limited (1, maybe 2). There's not enough PCIe lanes in chipsets yet (or will be when LP ships) to allow for more.
The initial bandwidth will also be an issue (10Gb/s), though some may not realize this. Think graphics for a moment; Dual Link DVI can generate 7.92Gb/s (Single Link 3.96Gb/s), and DisplayPort (includes MDP), can go up to 17.28Gb/s (more than LP can handle) just for a graphics signal.
So there will be a requirement for legacy ports for both compatibility with existing devices, but also to reduce the bandwidth passed over LP (at the initial release at least, as they're claiming it can go up to 100Gb/s, but will be some time before it does, and I expect it to be staggered).
My basic point, is that LP won't be some sort of "Magical Interface" that's going to clean up all the external clutter, be beyond super convenient, and be limitless in terms of what can be run (thinking simultaneously, as any bandwidth can be exceeded).
However.... LP allows Apple to rethink the way a desktop computer works, and I think Apple is looking for way to make that market exciting again. Apple has been very very good at making desktops into appliances (plug them in and they work, no fiddling with bits and bobs). But it's boring to make appliances.... there is very little cutting edge technological excitement. So, think about what LP will do (and imagine everything has transitioned, so no hubs) and keep in mind that LP cables can be used both externally and internally. Now, forgot about a "box".
They'll stick to silicon for internal devices, as it all requires PCIe lanes (USB, FW, SATA, audio, Ethernet,... all transfer their signals over PCIe), and it's cheaper.
As per Apple and their consumer systems, I suspect they're wanting to use LP as a replacement for most of the other external ports (expect graphics to remain separate for the initial LP release at least). This will be fine for the iMac, Mini, and especially the laptop systems, as these in particular have built-in monitors and keyboards, so it can get rid of FW and most of the USB ports (LP based Flash sticks would be too large, as theres more than just a chip; you'd require a LP transceiver as well).
It would be a nice addition to the MP, but not if it replaces other ports entirely. I can see tossing FW, but there is a need for at least a couple of USB ports (keyboards and Thumb drives).
But the HDs, if connected by LP, can be - anywhere. As could the graphics card. I suppose, theoretically, you could put the graphics card in the monitor, and use LP to connect the card to the CPU/RAM box. Certainly, if they stayed with a more traditional arrangement LP would eliminate the DVI, DP, Mini DP, HDMI, VGA, Mini DVI, etc confusion. One cable to needed to connect any display. Put two LP ports on a display, and you could daisy-chain displays to add more, rather than having to snake another cable back to the system.
External storage is a very strong candidate for LP for both capacity and throughput (depending on how it's implemented on the enclosure, as PM chips for example, would be the throttling point, but hardware RAID in a box could flourish).
As per graphics, users won't want the graphics card built-in the monitors, as it would mean a new monitor every time they want to upgrade the graphics chip. And there could be bandwidth issues sooner than you realize (see above). For smaller monitors, it would be fine (i.e. 24" and smaller). But for larger monitors, not so much, as it would consume nearly all of the bandwidth for Dual Link DVI, and can be insufficient for DP/MDP (quad link).
What I'd expect to occur for PCIe graphics cards, is if they go to LP, it will be a dedicated port on the back of the card, not the system. But then there's the problem of accidentally connecting a peripheral device to the card (non monitor), and the graphics card not be capable of passing the data through to the system.
Or, imagine the power of a 12 core Mac Pro in a box 1/3 the size because all the HDs are now "external" and can be located just about anywhere. (Take this a step further - imagine the flexibility of ZFS file system with a rack of HDs where you can add and remove HDs the same way you do in a Mac Pro.) The optical drive is incorporated into the monitor (like an iMac without the processors) - and in fact the monitor may act as the hub for the bits and bobs that you need on your desk. Plus the monitor would have Bluetooth for the wireless things.
This type of thinking is fine for an AIO/consumer grade system (iMac, Mini, laptop), but not a workstation or server (MP and XServe respectively).
The simplicity of a single type of cable for everything appeals to me. However, I'm uncertain about this. If you add power for devices that need bus power, then you can't have really long cable runs for things like Ethernet. If you don't have power, you can do the long cable runs but then you can't have bus powered devices. So now we're already talking about two types of LP, powered and unpowered; or adding a powered hub, which means adding a power cable with wall wart and converting from one type of cable to another.
Not to be all negative though, this is still an improvement over the several different types of ports and cables we have now. I just don't think it's some sort of single-cable, clutterless, holy grail of cabling.
Exactly. It certainly has it's merits, but it won't be the 'Magic Solution" to wires and clutter.
