Well so much for "Light"Peak

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by Dr McKay, Jan 9, 2011.

  1. johnnymg macrumors 65816

    johnnymg

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2008
    #2
  2. Dr McKay thread starter macrumors 68040

    Dr McKay

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Location:
    Kirkland
    #3
    I suppose this clears how any lightpeak device can be powered.
     
  3. 300D macrumors 65816

    300D

    Joined:
    May 2, 2009
    Location:
    Tulsa
    #4
    Computerworld is like MacRumors, they don't make news, they parrot what other people think will happen.
     
  4. Umbongo macrumors 601

    Umbongo

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Location:
    England
    #5
    What does that really have to do with this? News works like that online, engadget quote computerworld quoting idg.net. Do you have to be negative in a certain amount of threads per week or something?
     
  5. 300D macrumors 65816

    300D

    Joined:
    May 2, 2009
    Location:
    Tulsa
    #6
    Bingo, it helps if the source is accurate from the start.
     
  6. matteusclement macrumors 65816

    matteusclement

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    victoria
    #7
    apples and oranges

    I don't these are even the same thing. 1/5 of the speed, 1/10,000 of the length and the list goes on. I can't see apple adopting this over USB 3 and then trying to fight USB 3.

    LAME.
     
  7. toxic macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    #8
    if it's still at 5Gbs+, it might still have enough leverage to gain a big enough market, but I think they'll have to start by using USB connectors with LP wiring.

    where'd you get those numbers?
     
  8. philipma1957 macrumors 603

    philipma1957

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Location:
    Howell, New Jersey
    #9
    2GB/s vs 10GB/s is not the killer of the copper depending on what is true about distance is a problem.



    http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/why-light-peak-will-run-on-copper/1216


    If this article is correct about cable length max = 2 meters if copper the system loses a lot of value. pulled from above link



    " Distance. = Glass FC is spec’d for 10,000 meters. Twisted pair FC for 33 meters.



    Speed. = Glass FC currently supports 8 GB/sec, while copper maxes out at 2 GB/sec.



    EMI. = Electro-Magnetic Interference is a growing problem with high-speed signalling. USB 3.0 is at the ragged edge of acceptable EMI today - and standards may get stricter. Glass is cleaner and much harder to tap as well."


    He then goes on to say:

    "The Storage Bits take
    Given Light Peak’s purported 10 Gb/sec speed, copper Light Peak will be lucky to support a 2 meter cable - plenty for notebook users - the same as copper eSATA. In a docking configuration, the dock could have optical transceivers for plugging into high-performance remote storage."


    I am guessing his reduction from 33 meters down to 2 meters is his educated opinion that EMI will not allow a clean signal up to the 33 meter max length that is spec for twisted pair copper.

    If you have this setup of light peak to be able to run 50 or 100 feet with fibercable allows large hdd rooms.
    Never mind 10000 meters Lots of companies would love a light peak that travels 100 feet. I have the issue now that I have a limit to my hdds. My computer room can only house a pair of 8 bay units. I have a second room that can house 10 or 15 8 bay units but esata does not like to run 25 feet. Light peak would be a nice solution but at 2 meters oh well.
     
  9. toxic macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    #10
    ok, that means copper can support up to 16Gbs, so bandwidth (throughput?) isn't an issue unless someone's mixing up bits and bytes. the loss is in cable length.

    even in copper form, LP can at least get its foot in the door as a more specialized cable (like eSATA), and when manufacturing catches up it'll be in position to replace USB.
     

Share This Page