USB 3.0 and Faster FireWire in Next Mac Pro, iMac?

[webraider]

VLC is not an option.

Include the makeMKV and the Perian installer in the MainBundle of the program, that way the user has to do nothing at all and probably wont notice. That second scentence was the program components you would need to use to make such a BD PLayer.app

VLC Does not work on My Mac Pro. Chokes. The ONLY thing that works is Toast's Video player, which has to process the movie before it plays it which takes about 45 minutes. I don't get all the people saying VLC because It just doesn't work.

 

[webraider]

I never was the one arguing that you should be ripping your BD to hard disk space - of course that is nonsense. But let's also be clear - your CD-ROM and Blu-ray-ROM's are not really "archives".

Wikipedia - "Archival records are normally unpublished and almost always unique, unlike books or magazines for which many identical copies exist."

If your movie collection went up in flames, you'd go to downtown Helsinki and easily replace them at 30 Euro each. Might be a little cash, but nothing that would bankrupt you. On the other hand, if your RAID-5 went up in flames, THAT is when you would need a true archive. How much is 25 GB of your RAID data worth compared to a disk of Lord of the Rings?

Which brings us back to the Mac Pro (the focus of this thread), and the debate about how important Blu-ray is to purchasing decisions. It really falls into three arguments:

1. I want Blu-ray PLAYBACK to watch the BD movies I have already purchased and are sitting next to my computer.

2. I want Blu-ray RECORDING to archive my data for future retrieval.

3. I want Blu-ray RECORDING to create master disks to send off for mass replication.

Argument 1 -playback of mass produced movies. I personally have never had the desire to watch a Blu-ray on my early-2008 MP. I have double 24" monitors (including an Eizo for color proofing) to do my woork, and I'd FAR prefer to use the Blu-ray player attached to my 46" LCD TV to watch a HD movie.

Even if a BTO option for a Blu-ray playback was available, I'm not sure I would spend much for that option. Again, I expect anyone can get a much more capable, independent Blu-ray player for under 75 Euro / $ 100. My mid-range model, complete with Wi-Fi access for Netflix, etc, was under $200.

Argument 2 - Recording optical disks. This was why I responded to your post, which I interpreted as one of a several posts in this thread about using Blu-ray-R disks for archiving critical data. I may have misunderstood, but you said "No matter how you turn it optical media is better for backups and faster and cheaper. Ask National Archive if you don't believe." So I put you in the group of people who makes this second argument, that Blu-ray recordable disks are a great backup strategy. It appears you are more sophisticated in your own approach, but my goal is merely to DISPROVE this incorrect assumption to other readers of this thread.

I personally had several CD-Rs from 2003 fail when I tried to open them in 2008. I generally use top of the line blanks and try to implement my triple backup strategy, but of course these three CD-R's were one of the few that I missed the multiple backups on. I did use numerous, expensive data recovery programs on both mac and Windows to try to recover it, but some was lost forever. I learned the hard way - listen to the professional archivists when they say optical media is not a long-term storage solution...

Argument 3 - Recording optical disks for replication masters. The Mac Pro already ships with an empty optical bay - buy an existing 3rd party Blu-ray recorder for $200 (noted earlier in the thread) to gain this capacity.

Don't forget Argument Number 4:

I want to buy a Mac, but I can't afford to buy a Mac AND a home entertainment system. I thus buy a Mac, and EyeTV and want to use my Mac AS my home entertainment center. I CAN do this with a PC so why not do it with a MAC? But wait.. I can't playback BluRay on this Mac, A PC that I'm paying a premium for. Hmmm... So why even buy the Mac? I can buy a PC, PLayback BluRay, Watch TV, and Do my computing on and not buy both a Home Entertainment center or Computer.

Some of us really do want to be able to get the most Value out of computer. I know you guys can all afford a great home entertainment center, but not all of us can. Some of us it MAKES sense to watch a BluRay on your computer. That's why if Apple or a Third Party software company doesn't do something to enable this feature, I will leave the Mac after 20 years because It will no longer give me the value that's worth the premium it demands.

 

[MorphingDragon]

VLC Does not work on My Mac Pro. Chokes. The ONLY thing that works is Toast's Video player, which has to process the movie before it plays it which takes about 45 minutes. I don't get all the people saying VLC because It just doesn't work.

Well then there's something horribly wrong with your Mac Pro. There's always Perian if you want extra formats.

 

[toke lahti]

The primary issue is how many folks need those rates. Average Joe is not doing multi stream uncompressed HD video editing. It goes back to design motivations that lead to Firewire being dropped as the iPod standard interface. The iPod needed to hook to as many computers as possible. Most of them had USB sockets so Firewire got dropped. USB was slower but fast enough and was already ubiquitous. Lightpeak has similar issues to get over.

Because every gadget has had and will have USB, it won't go away.
And because of this, need for LP is pretty niche.
Therefore price of LP will be very high.
And this will prevent LP becoming mainstream.
So, pretty same than with fw, some people really need it, so it will stay, but most average Joe's don't even know what it is.

Btw, do you people think Apple could make big order of fw1600/3200 chips in secrecy?

 

[MorphingDragon]

Because every gadget has had and will have USB, it won't go away.
And because of this, need for LP is pretty niche.
Therefore price of LP will be very high.
And this will prevent LP becoming mainstream.
So, pretty same than with fw, some people really need it, so it will stay, but most average Joe's don't even know what it is.

Btw, do you people think Apple could make big order of fw1600/3200 chips in secrecy?

Rewind a decade ago:

Because every device has had and will have LPT1/COM, it wont go away.
And because of this, the need for USB is pretty Niche.
Therefore the price of USB will be very high.
And this will prevent USB becoming mainstream.
So, pretty same than with RJ45, some people really need it, so it will stay, but most average Joe's don't even know what it is.

---

If enough companies adopt a standard, it WILL become mainstream. (eg: BD vs HD-DVD) With Intel backing it, its basically a guaranteed success, plus didn't Intel say that they would include lightpeak before they included USB3 on their chipsets?

Why? Because the general population don't know any better, they'll take whatever is forced to them. This is pretty much proved by Windows.

 

[DeepIn2U]

I'd love the new Mac Pro to have the following:

1. SATA III [HDD, SuperDrive x2, etc internal connections]
2. FW3200 & FW1600 connections standard [x4 or x2+x2 for each]
3. 4HDD slots like the current Mac Pro
4. Get RID of that cpu sled on a riser card.
5. Allow consumers to upgrade their CPU ~ heck supply the CPU+HeatSync directly from Intel to customers.
6. Case redesign for smaller size (not necessarily foot-print)
7 E-SATA connections ~ combine them with E-Sata/USB3.0 or /USB2.0 connectors.

And of course for more power efficient components and EPA ratings to flaunt. Bringing the price down would be a HUGE boost for sales.

 

[toke lahti]

Rewind a decade ago:
Because every device has had and will have LPT1/COM, it wont go away.
And because of this, the need for USB is pretty Niche.
Therefore the price of USB will be very high.
And this will prevent USB becoming mainstream.
So, pretty same than with RJ45, some people really need it, so it will stay, but most average Joe's don't even know what it is.

Nice try, but doesn't work.
A decade (or maybe 15 years) ago:
1. printers used parellal port
2. modems used serial port
3. scanners used scsi or parellal
4. external hdd's used scsi
5. cameras used film
6. cell phones had proprietary connection
7. mouse & keyboard used serial ps2 or din

Now they all use usb. Even displays. And ther's 100x more of those than 15 years ago.
You might be right that in future rj45 is like fw today, but not in one way: very few homes will have fw ports, but the amount of rj45 ports in our homes is increasing.
And yes, usb was expensive in 90's, but it was succesfull, because it was the first "universal" connection. LP can't beat that. If LP would have been in market 2 years ago, it might have a good competition. When almost every new computer will have usb3, buyers will ask where do they need "just another port standard". It will be hard to explain when 90% will never need it. Same thing than trying to show halfHD-plasma owner why they need bd.

If enough companies adopt a standard, it WILL become mainstream. (eg: BD vs HD-DVD) With Intel backing it, its basically a guaranteed success, plus didn't Intel say that they would include lightpeak before they included USB3 on their chipsets?

Everything can change before LP really ships.
And Intel has made bad decisions before, like their choise of rdram.
Apple was also "backing up" bd, before it came to market.
And for sure Intel will keep selling mobos and chipsets without LP.
So if Intel isn't starting to sell whole computers, their "backing" doesn't mean LP will be success.
Intel's delay on usb3 will not matter next year, when usb3 chips cost just couple of bucks. Even Apple has managed to add fw chip to intel chipsets, so it will be trivial to add usb3 also. Maybe there will be even compo chips (fw+usb3) in the market soon.

 

[MorphingDragon]

Nice try, but doesn't work.
A decade (or maybe 15 years) ago:
1. printers used parellal port
2. modems used serial port
3. scanners used scsi or parellal
4. external hdd's used scsi
5. cameras used film
6. cell phones had proprietary connection
7. mouse & keyboard used serial ps2 or din

All of those devices you listed used LPT1 or COM(Serial). I have an old serial HDD with some DOS games on it sitting at home. Parallel port is LPT1. LPT1 and COM are the common names.

You might be right that in future rj45 is like fw today, but not in one way: very few homes will have fw ports, but the amount of rj45 ports in our homes is increasing.

I'm not talking about now, I was talking about the attitude back then, but that might be before your time. The whole point of that exercise was to show the parallel between now and then and its very eerily similar. (nvm the decade ago, I keep on forgetting that its 2010)

BTW, USB wasn't the first "universal port". The first universal port I believe was Apple's proprietary port used on the early Macs. It was capable of driving peripherals, displays and I think HDDs too. Also, RDRAM and its successor(XDR) aren't a failure, its in millions of consoles around the world.

 

[DoFoT9]

Include the makeMKV and the Perian installer in the MainBundle of the program, that way the user has to do nothing at all and probably wont notice. That second scentence was the program components you would need to use to make such a BD PLayer.app

still 3rd party and unsupported - so it wont have much attention, id def be interested though

DVD Studio Pro does not author Blu Ray discs.

id always been confused about the difference between author and burn. i am certain that DVD SP can burn BD discs that are produced in FCP then sent to DVD SP?

 

[t0mat0]

So:
Rumor is that the next update to Mac Pro & iMac will get USB 3.0 and FW 1600/3200. But that Light Peak (LP) wasn't coming for another update or two after that in 2011?

If they get faster FW - what manufacturer will use FW 16/3200 over USB3?
Didn't Apple's moves hint they were leaving FW be and settling down with USB2 and USB3?
Will peripheral companies ramp up with FW if other PC manufacturers don't take it up - does it have a legitimate superiority over USB3 for them to bother (especially if the Macs are pushing both USB3 and FW16/3200 so the FW is redundant?)

as baryon said - "ay! Yet again a new FireWire port that is incompatible with everything!"
as pika2000 said also: "If Lightpeak is coming out that soon, wouldn't it be too weird trying to push USB3 now?"

If Apple and Intel were thinking of trumping USB3's adoption, wouldn't they want to have it ASAP (their prototypes being USB3 cables that could do LP so they'd need USB3)? Wasn't Huron River laptops said to not have USB3 support? (http://www.fudzilla.com/notebooks/notebooks/huron-river-2011-notebooks-dont-have-usb-30 http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2010/04/13/rumour-no-intel-chipset-with-usb-3-until-20/1)


Wouldn't Mac Pros be the ideal Mac to start with pushing Light Peak? Intel's already demoed that you can cram in LP ports into a laptop, and whilst the unit would be a few bucks , in a Mac Pro's overall price that isn't too bad. They're the rate limiting step, not necessarily the technology - they're going to be the ones wanting to push it.


LP seemed to offer a lot more than USB3 or FW 16/3200

LP/USB3 also fits very well with either SSD (whilst improving the real life performance of HD that might have previously been connected over USB2 as it limits data transfer rates). Getting SSD BTO could push optical further out.

Is FW Apple's back up plan if the USB-IF doesn't take up the concept of LP integrated into a USB3 cable?
Is there any limitation of 10.6 that would conceivably hinder USB3 or LP integration as hardware? Where would you look for pointers that it might be coming? (Seeing as how far 10.7 is away, the rumor points to USB3 and maybe LP happening before 10.7 release). (LightPeak initially being pushed for 2010 earlier on)

Isn't it in Apple and Intel's interests to push LP? It's their baby. Intel has demoed blue motherboard Mac Pro to showcase the technology. They can afford to push it whilst it's expensive. It helps things run smoothly when using 1080p video for example. Would mean a lot more to the kind of people who buy Mac Pros/iMacs, than laptops at this point?

Is Apple or Intel likely to announce LP early? Not with their M.O. Isn't the Huron River step maybe Intel dragging their heels till they can sort LP out to market? Wouldn't Apple want to show a Mac running off a SSD, to show the speed increase (boot up, shut down, application load up, workload capability, file/data transfer, sheer extra bandwidth). With the potential for SSD HD hybrids soon enough, it seems that you could just upgrade your HD and get some of the speed gains.

Does LP or USB3 compete with other ports for space on the laptop or desktop? Well, they're integrating LP into USB, and there are 3 USB ports on a MBP 17" for example. Mac Pro already has a few USB ports. USB3 with integrated LP could just bump USB2 ports out. Would be nice to see this bump the ACDs into life...

If anyone has any better articles on Light Peak than the two below - please chip in.
June 30th 2010 article on PC Pro - http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2010/06/30/light-peaks-dazzling-potential/

Best quote? "Intel plans for consumer PCs and laptops to be available with integrated Light Peak ports by the end of the year."

So that's saying there will be LP out before Intel has support for USB3 http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/04/nvidia-confirms-intel-chipsets-wont-support-usb-3-0-until-2011/

"Meanwhile, in the server and workstation markets, Intel also plans to promote Light Peak as an internal connector. It is, after all, faster than a QPI link or a PCI-E x16 slot, and can run for tens of metres without suffering from latency, degradation or interference. That opens the door to modular designs that are far easier to cool, maintain and expand than current systems.
Interestingly, Mario Paniccia suggested that it may even be possible to retrofit the technology onto existing systems: he showed how a QPI to Light Peak adaptor might sit between the CPU and its socket."

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

There is no hole.

Are we in The Matrix now?

If you want to ignore the iMac and say there is a "hole" between the mini and the Mac Pro. Apple didn't create that hole, you did. That only exists because you are removing the iMac out of the line up.

Apple would be cannibalizing iMac sales. The point you make at the end of that paragraph points to exactly how that will happen.

The problem with your view of things is you assume that people actually *LIKE* the iMac. The sale isn't cannibalized if I would NEVER buy an iMac no matter what, even if it meant going back to Windows. Yeah, the SUCK that much! Why call something a desktop and then put mobile GPUs in it? It gets hot? Yeah? That means they suck as desktops. If I wanted a notebook, I'd buy one. In fact, I did buy a MBP. That doesn't solve the desktop issue. The Mac Pro is priced right out of the sane consumer range so it couldn't be cannablized either. The FACT is that Apple has a massive glaring hole in their lineup and there is NO OVERLAP there. It's called a consumer desktop PC. You know, one of those mini-tower PCs with expansion, real desktop level GPUs, CPUs and hard drives in them that might compete with PC desktop market? I guess you don't know about those machines since you keep insisting they either don't exist or they'll cannibalize stupid iMac sales that real computer users don't care a whit about.

Buying an iMac is like buying one of those DVD/VHS combo players. They try to combine two different market devices and don't really function very well as either one and then really gum it up by having hybrid features of both (e.g. to use the DVD side, you have to switch to DVD mode as it won't do it by itself). In the case of the iMac, you have a pretender posing as a desktop, but it cannot handle desktop software if it needs any GPU power at all because it has a laptop chip in it. It's supposed to clean up your desktop by getting rid of all the clutter, but since Apple didn't include room for a 2nd internal hard drive, you'll need some kind of external solution and you're right back to junking up your desk or some other part of your room again! It's self-defeating only because Steve Jobs is obsessed with making things as thin as possible so there's no room to do things RIGHT. I'd take RIGHT over THIN any day of the week, personally. Worse yet, if your monitor dies, you are out of luck. You now own a big paperweight. You could attach an external monitor, but the one the computer is in would just be a waste of desktop space. There's a good reason not to combine certain things together into one case and monitors and computers are a prime example.

The switcher campaign had a element of "bring your own keyboard , mouse, and monitor" and switch. So have new, overlapping in price, switch box and customer is presented with two choices if want to move to mid range mac.

1. re-use monitor and buy mini tower.

2. buy iMac ( and prehaps go two monitor)

Your assertion is that no one will pick 1 who would have a taken option 2 if that is were only option. That is extremely weak because your last point says that there should be an extremely high selection of option 1. More people choosing option 1 means less people choose option 2.

You act like Apple would be losing sales if someone chose a supposed Mac Mini-Tower over an iMac. They didn't LOSE a sale! They gained a happy customer and you cannot put a price on that. Of course some of us believe that the iMac is an abomination and it should be the one that gets trashed, not cannabalized from the lineup. Make an elegant looking tower (I like how my old PowerMac looks, for example) or an update to the sweet looking "Cube" or whatever, just so long as it can handle REAL POWER and has a bit of room for expansion (at least a 2nd drive, the video card and one expansion card, minimum). No iMac can TOUCH that. EVER.

The hand waving argument is that magically other people will appear and somehow offset all of the subset of folks that were routed out of option 2 into option 1 with this pricing overlap.

It doesn't matter if they appear or don't appear. The point is that the iMac SUCKS and it should be removed and replaced with a mini-tower. The assumption that people like yourself keep making is that people WANT iMacs in the first place!!!! Just because people are buying them only proves that some people want a Mac and that they have no other darn choice in that price range for a so-called "desktop" because flipping Apple won't offer them one and won't allow anyone else to either (they sue any would-be clone makers). So you either buy an iMac or you buy a Macbook in that price range. There isn't much difference functionally. Either way you're getting a mobile graphics chipset that sucks for anything that needs some power behind it. Your only other "choice" is to spend over $2500 for a Mac Pro (over $3000 with a "decent" GPU that's STILL woefully out of date).

Have you ever noticed that there are "iMac" equivalents in the PC World??? There have been several over the years. They represent less than 1% of desktop sales. Why? Because people don't like them!!! They want to pick a monitor based on need, not on it being the only way to get a faster CPU!!!

I'd challenge Apple to release a Mini-Tower Mac priced right in the middle of the iMac range (~$1500-1700) with a good GPU and some expansion room and otherwise the same default memory and hard drive options, etc. (the money taken off the monitor cost to Apple would go to the quality GPU instead) and see which one sells better over a year. I'm guessing the iMac would lose 5:1 or more (probably more like 15:1). And THAT would tell Apple the iMac has been a total failure for years now. It should be their $700 cheap PC option, not the Mini, which should also go away in favor of the mid-range mini-tower.

I'd propose

1>iMac 22" $700
2>PowerMac Mini-Tower $1500 ($2000 equipped for power gaming).
3>Mac Pro
4> Macbooks should probably come down a bit in price, but otherwise they need not overlap since they are mobile market devices.

You could argue that someone might buy a Macbook instead of an iMac, so therefore the Macbook should be eliminated from the lineup. The point is this whole "cannibalization" argument is ridiculous from the start. If sales are being cannibalized then that means that item is less popular and should be considered for deletion if sales are weak enough. If both have strong sales then you simply have happy customers, not cannibalized sales. Nothing cheeses someone off quite like having to buy something they don't really want because they have no other options and that is exactly what Apple has done and it's why I'm going Hackintosh on my next desktop. If Apple won't offer what I need, I'll go somewhere else.

 

[Joe The Dragon]

So:
Rumor is that the next update to Mac Pro & iMac will get USB 3.0 and FW 1600/3200. But that Light Peak (LP) wasn't coming for another update or two after that in 2011?

If they get faster FW - what manufacturer will use FW 16/3200 over USB3?
Didn't Apple's moves hint they were leaving FW be and settling down with USB2 and USB3?
Will peripheral companies ramp up with FW if other PC manufacturers don't take it up - does it have a legitimate superiority over USB3 for them to bother (especially if the Macs are pushing both USB3 and FW16/3200 so the FW is redundant?)

as baryon said - "ay! Yet again a new FireWire port that is incompatible with everything!"
as pika2000 said also: "If Lightpeak is coming out that soon, wouldn't it be too weird trying to push USB3 now?"
[/IMG]

Firewire 1600/3200 use the same cables / plugs as Firewire 800.
Unlike usb 3.0.

and light peak will need all new cables.

 

[DoFoT9]

Firewire 1600/3200 use the same cables / plugs as Firewire 800.
Unlike usb 3.0.

and light peak will need all new cables.

dont be so sure. LP was tested using USB3.0 interfaces remember? they might wanna keep it that way depending..

 

[deconstruct60]

Rewind a decade ago:
If enough companies adopt a standard, it WILL become mainstream. (eg: BD vs HD-DVD)

It has to be companies on both sides of the cable buying into this. It also need to be several implementors buy into selling supporting products. The problem is that to some extent this has already been voted on. Initially Intel proposed that the "second" wire/cable bundle that SuperSpeed data would travel on would be optical. USB 3.0 still has separate wires for SuperSpeed and the classic USB, but they are wires. That rejection happened in part because the peripheral vendors didn't see how it was going to work cost wise for them. Their devices would need lasers and the cabling was going to get more expensive.

So no, USB 3.0 opticial did not become standard. There are a mix of folks have to get on board, it isn't just a purely numbers.

Several elements of LP are that optical path stripped of any need to be strictly backward compatible with USB. They could invent a new protocol which didn't have any baggage and was optimized for starting at 5Gbs and going up.

With Intel backing it, its basically a guaranteed success,

Intel can try to make them swallow anything. However, you can't have a standard and be jamming it down something throat at the same time. Official standards formed when multiple implementors/vendors/customers all agree it is a good thing.

plus didn't Intel say that they would include lightpeak before they included USB3 on their chipsets?

I've read tons of LP information and never seen that. I would put that in the net rumor category unless someone coughs up an Intel quote. It makes zero sense. USB 3.0 is a finalized standard. Intel is still shopping LightPeak around to get consensus. Similarly there are already several vendors shipping USB 3.0 controllers. Intel isn't going to want to let them get tooooo deeply seated in the market. I'm not sure seen anyone sign up to build LP controllers ( transceivers, lasers, etc. ... sure but controllers ? The lasers all useful with minor mods for 10G/100G Ethernet and Inifiband too so not too surprising. ). So it is seriously premature to say this is in the "done" stage as far as standardization goes. Therefore awfully odd to jam some non standard feature into the core chipset.

I still haven't seen any significant peripheral vendor step up and give a demo of one of there prototypes with LP built in. It has always been an Intel motherboard and perhaps some Intel dongle to convert back to the legacy protocol to connect to the device. LP appears at the same stage USB 3.0 was back in 2008. Folks with demos, but not ready before vast majority of 2009 products had gone into design freeze. Intel saying parts ready for sampling at end of year means yet another yet until products those samples go into show up on the market.

There is speculation that Intel is stonewalling on USB 3.0 to give LP a better window to get traction in the market. However, that doesn't translate into the controller being put into the chipset first. Typically what gets put in core chipsets is something already implemented discretely. For example, SATA 3. Have been able to get that for a while now. USB 3.0 is in a similar discrete implementations going to core chip sets. Likewise would make sense for Intel to drop a discrete version first and then consider inclusion.

So Intel has said USB 3.0 till 2012 (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/03/intel_delays_usb_3/). This isn't really new. Intel has been saying USB 3.0 is coming just around the corner for last 3 years. I don't buy the LP conspiracy theory.

More likely Intel has plenty on its plate pushing SATA 3.0 and getting the not quite finalized PCI-e v3 into the core chipset. USB 3.0 is an upgrade project can do after that. Second doing USB 3.0 involves putting a two controllers in one for legacy USB and another for the new SuperSpeed. That is going to take up space. If wait till chipset is on the smaller process will have "extra" room.

Additionally, the window here will give time for some of the other USB 3.0 partners time to settle in and form some business that will last past when Intel's implementation rolls out in larger numbers. It is hard to get folks to agree to new things when you leveraged your monopoly position to beat them up.

AMD is also only doing USB 3.0 in the upper tier chipset next year. They too won't really be full across the board with USB 3.0 until 2012 either. I don't think they are holding things back for Intel to push LP.

 

[deconstruct60]

dont be so sure. LP was tested using USB3.0 interfaces remember? they might wanna keep it that way depending..

Lightpeak uses optical fiber cables.
USB 2.0 and 3.0 use copper wires.

It has to be new cables.

Some of the Lightpeak tech is left over from Intel's USB 3.0 optical project. Would be completely not a surprise if that just reused that cabling in the short term for a demo or an initial prototype. Likewise easier to jam it into a standard laptop case if going to use USB socket.

If the medium of the cable is compatbile I don't see the point of keeping the plug 100% the same. Inevitably you are going to get users trying to plug the wrong one into the wrong socket. Lightpeak is not compatible with USB.

Almost all of the copper wire sockets are going to need new cables if want to get past the 5-6Gbps mark and pass clearances for use in household environments. Many FCC Class B devices become Class A ones if stick a 10G or higher Ethernet controller card in them. Gb speeds over long lengths of wire are just generally bad as far as noise goes. Lightpeak is just makes that break now so has more long term upside.


However, they way they described light peak there is no copper cable ( where talkng about putting it back in solely for power distribution but flushes the whole useful over very long length feature down the drain and increases the cost of the cables. Again folks keep trying to drag LP into the past by sticking power requirements from USB/Firewire on it instead of letting it go into the future.)

 

[MorphingDragon]

still 3rd party and unsupported - so it wont have much attention, id def be interested though

How is this different to any other 3rd party DVD/BD app on windows?

id always been confused about the difference between author and burn. i am certain that DVD SP can burn BD discs that are produced in FCP then sent to DVD SP?

Compressor supports BD, not DVD Sp.

 

[DoFoT9]

Lightpeak uses optical fiber cables.
USB 2.0 and 3.0 use copper wires.

It has to be new cables.

Some of the Lightpeak tech is left over from Intel's USB 3.0 optical project. Would be completely not a surprise if that just reused that cabling in the short term for a demo or an initial prototype. Likewise easier to jam it into a standard laptop case if going to use USB socket.

yeh i meant still use fibre cabling, but use the same socket. but after what youve said i guess they wont. ah well. i imagine a small circular plug (thats held on by magnets) ". safe.

 

[MorphingDragon]

yeh i meant still use fibre cabling, but use the same socket. but after what youve said i guess they wont. ah well. i imagine a small circular plug (thats held on by magnets) ". safe.

Toslink-like plug with 2 copper prongs/slots for the power come to mind.

 

[DoFoT9]

Toslink-like plug with 2 copper prongs/slots for the power come to mind.

i could do that! sounds good

any ideas on the amount of power the lines can support?

 

[MorphingDragon]

i could do that! sounds good

any ideas on the amount of power the lines can support?

The more power you push down the cable, the more insulation and protection the wires need. So its all relative to how much most devices need now. (It would be awesome if it provided enough to run a 3.5" drive of the USB.

 

[DoFoT9]

The more power you push down the cable, the more insulation and protection the wires need. So its all relative to how much most devices need now. (It would be awesome if it provided enough to run a 3.5" drive of the USB.

man that would be awsome! bad for laptop devices battery life tho lol!

 

[PeterQVenkman]

So how many people in this thread are waiting to see if the next MacPro/headless mac update is enough to keep them from switching to Windows?

 

[Eidorian]

So how many people in this thread are waiting to see if the next MacPro/headless mac update is enough to keep them from switching to Windows?

I gave up on that in 2007.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

I gave up on that in 2007.

Wow, you're brave! Didn't that put you in the middle of Vista? Windows 7 is what is making me look to the dark side. I'll have to relearn all the little tricks and ways to fix my system. Learning to troubleshoot a new OS is not something I look forward to, but I do look forward to saving $1000 or more on a high performance machine.

 

[G4er?]

So how many people in this thread are waiting to see if the next MacPro/headless mac update is enough to keep them from switching to Windows?

Headless Mac about 2/3rds the size of the Mac Pro. Real desktop components and room for two internal hard drives. PLEASE! I want to stay Mac but I feeling like I'd be wasting my money buying a computer that isn't (doesn't have) what I want.