Sign up for a new account or log in here:
also @ TechSpot: Onion Pi transforms Raspberry Pi into anonymous Wi-Fi hotspot
The Light Peak interconnect was initially supposed to use optical technology but has since moved back to copper cabling due to "practical realities" -- basically price concerns. It would still be able to hit its target of 10Gbps speeds, though, which is double the theoretical maximum of USB 3.0 and more than adequate for the majority of user needs today.
Apple has been long rumored to be one of the main backers of Light Peak -- alongside Sony -- so its adoption is believed to be more a question of when rather than if. In any case, there's still no solid indication that we'll see the new connector on the rumored MacBook refresh, but when it happens Apple will supposedly use a different name for it.
Intel has been touting Light Peak as the next big thing in connector technology and a way to reduce the proliferation of ports on modern computers, by using a single interface to handle everything from network connectivity to data transfers and transmitting high definition video to external displays.
User Comments: 11
Got something to say? Post a comment-
Hopefully this will get more use than Firewire...
-
considering it would be an intel-apple implementation and not an apple proprietary connection, it's bound to get more use. Afterall, Apple loves minimizing the number of wires coming out of the back of iMacs, so said technology could be used in a similar fashion.
-
princeton said:
Hopefully this will get more use than Firewire...Firewire was just apple doing what they do best. Making their own specification just for the sake of being different.
This is the company that pioneered mini-displayport after all.
-
Random thoughts on what Apple will call it on their MacBooks:
- Apple Peak
- Fire Peak
- FireWire 4.0
- The Apple Universal Connector (I can see the commercials already...)
-
I would think they would add USB 3.0 to their computers before Light Peak. Could that possibly be the "high-speed connection technology" they are talking about?
-
princeton said:Hopefully this will get more use than Firewire...
Firewire was just apple doing what they do best. Making their own specification just for the sake of being different.
This is the company that pioneered mini-displayport after all.
Um, it definitely is not as cut and dry as that, but I'll agree with the "For the sake of being different" comment. =)
-
matrix86 said:
Great way of drawing in readers with the title. No solid proof they're adding lightpeek yet the name of the article says they are.
It'll be interesting to see how well LP adapts. Just as manufacturers are pushing out USB 3, LP comes out. I was getting ready to build a system, but I think I may hold off for a while...see where these 2 things go.
-
why does apple have to always be different? USB works fine
its not the 1st time they tried to reinvent the wheel and died... look at apple talk
-
matrix86 said:matrix86 said:
yet the name of the article says they are.
Sorry, meant "rumors" they are.
-
Cota said:
krayzie said:why does apple have to always be different? USB works fine
its not the 1st time they tried to reinvent the wheel and died... look at apple talk
Thi isnt from Apple, this is a port that Intel has been development for a time now, however.....
1- it will use Copper (still..... Fiber Opc. were delayed)
2-a huge interface to be capped by our drives (including SSD, only way is to use Raid or get the hi end SSD from intel)
3-its only fancy talk
4-im an orange
Still, its a trap from Apple to catch more noobs.
-
why does apple have to always be different? USB works fine
its not the 1st time they tried to reinvent the wheel and died... look at apple talk
I know you were already quoted above, but picking AppleTalk to pick on? Really? Apple Talk came about or at least was used to network Mac computers in the early 90s (perhaps earlier, but I didn't have any experience with Macs until about '92). At that time a lot of universities had a lot of research going on in labs that used Macs. Using a Mac then was your only real shot at a good GUI and they needed something to talk between the computers.. Apple took a chance at establishing their own there and ultimately lost out, but it wasn't a complete failure, and I'd hardly use a 20+ year old Apple endeavor in a modern argument about Apple's failures.
Most Popular
| Trending | Featured |
-
Microsoft backtracks: Drops daily check-ins, used games restrictions on Xbox One
-
Cookie-blocking browser plugin Ghostery feeds data to the ad industry
-
Steam: Something Next-Gen Consoles Could Learn From The PC
-
China reclaims world's fastest supercomputer title
-
Games get traded in because they are too short, Avalanche boss says
Subscribe to TechSpot
Get free exclusive content, learn about new features and breaking tech news.