Apple betting the farm on Light Peak?
in [Mac Systems]
|
Prev: What does $2550 get you?
Next: Bluetooth on MacPro
From: George Kerby on 27 Jul 2010 19:57 On 7/27/10 5:44 PM, in article 270720101844518543%nospam(a)nospam.invalid, "nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <michelle-D9EB7E.15131727072010(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> wrote: > >>>>> I'd be quite suprised if it adds much. FW800 costs money to put on >>>>> them, too, and they've stepped up to that. FW800 costs *more* to put >>>>> on them. >>>> >>>> They would have to add the port, not replace the firewire port; that would >>>> require a redesign of the mother board and of the back of the computer. >>> >>> but they did redesign it, for the new processors and other changes. >> >> That would be a more major redesign; they would have to shift things around >> to make room for the port and for the added chips, traces, etc. > > which they did for the new processors, gpus and other support chips. > you don't think those were a drop in replacement, do you? > > they redesigned the entire case of the mac mini just recently, and a > few years ago added firewire 800 and a second video port. it's not that > big of a deal. they redesigned the unibody macbook pros twice, first > with a removable battery and then *again* for a non-removable battery. You guys need to face it, eSATA is not all that popular for the average user. The cable is not "user-friendly" like Firewire, 800 and USB. And it will never be popular with the general masses. OTOH, I ordered a eSATA board for my MacPro last year when I purchased it so I could connect my OWC Mercury Elite-AL Pro Dual RAIDs for Time Capsule and SuperDuper backups. Personally, I don't understand why Jobs still has the hard-on for blu-ray. It should have been an option for the new iMac, IMHO.
From: nospam on 27 Jul 2010 20:01 In article <C874DCAC.39DDE%ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com>, George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > You guys need to face it, eSATA is not all that popular for the average > user. The cable is not "user-friendly" like Firewire, 800 and USB. And it > will never be popular with the general masses. it already *is* popular with the general masses. most external drives are usb or usb/esata. it's rare to find firewire. > OTOH, I ordered a eSATA board for my MacPro last year when I purchased it so > I could connect my OWC Mercury Elite-AL Pro Dual RAIDs for Time Capsule and > SuperDuper backups. only mac pro users and macbook pro 17" have that option. everyone else is screwed. > Personally, I don't understand why Jobs still has the hard-on for blu-ray. > It should have been an option for the new iMac, IMHO. bluray hasn't sold particularly well and online movie distribution is the future, not physical discs.
From: David Empson on 27 Jul 2010 21:08 thepixelfreak <not(a)dot.com> wrote: > New iMac and upcoming MacPro. No USB 3.0, no eSATA. Why not? Can't be > that hard to add say one of each. I know, there aren't that many usb > 3.0 peripherals out there YET. eSATA? Not so much. Some of this is already discussed later in the thread, but here are my thoughts. 1. Adding connectors would require a change in the design of the body. The new iMacs have a revised motherboard (new processor generation and associated chipsets, new video controller, etc.) but the display and body of the computer appear to be identical. Revising metalwork requires additional work such as retooling factories. 2. USB 3.0 is not a mainstream product yet. It is only being used on a few devices and there is no "killer application" which justifies including it on this generation of iMac or Mac Pro. (The Mac Pro could add it via a PCI Express card anyway.) 3. USB 3.0 would require adding a separate controller chip. Intel will not be including USB 3.0 as a standard feature of their chipsets until some time in 2011. Apple would have to do extra design work and add more components to the motherboard to support USB 3.0 now, and much of that work would be wasted once they switch to using Intel's built-in support. A side issue with the separate controller chip is that Apple probably can't add it to the smaller models (Mac Mini, 13" laptops) due to lack of space, and even the 15" laptops might not have enough room. Better to leave it off everything for now if it can't be on at least all the "professional" models. 4. eSATA is too esoteric. You can't daisy chain it, cable length is limited, one connector is required for each device (or a port demultiplier), connector is too long, separate power connection is required, connectors are probably not as robust as USB or Firewire, only useful for storage devices so it can't replace either USB or Firewire ports. As for the other possibile candidates: Faster Firewire (1600 or 3200) is ready and waiting, but there is no market for it yet. I haven't heard of any peripherals which support the extra speed, but I expect there are some in special areas like video/audio. Hard drive enclosure manufacturers are not likely to add support for these standards - USB 3 will be way more popular. I expect that about mid 2011 we will start to see Macs with USB 3.0 replacing USB 2.0. Light Peak may not be ready by then. Faster Firewire might never appear as a built-in feature on the Mac, as it will be competing with Light Peak. In principle, Apple could replace FW800 with FW1600 or FW3200 just by upgrading the chipset, but component cost would have to be comparable and that isn't likely as FW1600/3200 is probably going to be a niche product. Ultimately I'd expect to see a combination of USB 3 and Light Peak, perhaps with Firewire retained on some models (or a Light Peak to Firewire adapter). The Ethernet connector is likely to hang around a bit longer. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Peak > > http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak- > creation-to-intel-could-be/ > > Still, > > seems a shame not to bump up the connection speeds. USB 3.0 and eSATA > are well understood and wouldn't take away any precious resources from > Light Peak development if that's in flight over at One Infinite Loop. -- David Empson dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz
From: Lloyd Parsons on 27 Jul 2010 23:28 In article <yob4ofkzl43.fsf(a)panix2.panix.com>, BreadWithSpam(a)fractious.net wrote: > Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> writes: > > In article <2010072713381675249-not(a)dotcom>, thepixelfreak <not(a)dot.com> > > wrote: > > > > > New iMac and upcoming MacPro. No USB 3.0, no eSATA. Why not? > > > > The MacPro has four eSATA bays. And the intended target audience > > for the iMac doesn't need eSATA. > > Just out of curiosity - why wouldn't you want eSATA? You can > get enclosures with eSata interfaces for about half the price > of drives with FW400 or FW800. What's the downside? > > (My old 17" Core Duo iMac doesn't even have FW800. Those new ones are > starting > to look *really* attractive, but as long as this thing is still > working okay, I've got little reason to spend up.) eSATA is flakey, reminds me of the joy of SCSI. Works damn well when it works, but can be a frustrating mess to get drive/enclosure that works well with all controllers. -- Lloyd
From: BreadWithSpam on 27 Jul 2010 23:48
Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons(a)mac.com> writes: > BreadWithSpam(a)fractious.net wrote: > > Just out of curiosity - why wouldn't you want eSATA? You can > eSATA is flakey, reminds me of the joy of SCSI. Works damn well when it > works, but can be a frustrating mess to get drive/enclosure that works > well with all controllers. Fair enough. I'd hate to go down the SCSI path again. My only experience with eSata was with an external to hang off my TiVo and you're right - it worked with some drives but not with others. I bought one which ended up not working and it became my desktop back up and I had to buy another which would work with the TiVo. (On the desktop, I used FW or USB - I forget which. It's been a couple of years.) -- Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed. |