Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Intel Shows Off First Light Peak Laptop

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the more-bits-please dept.

271

Barence writes "Intel has provided the first hands-on demonstration of a laptop running its Light Peak technology — an optical interconnect that can transfer data at 10Gbit/sec in both directions — at the company's inaugural European research showcase here in Brussels. Intel has fitted Light Peak into a regular USB cable, with optical fibres running alongside the electrical cabling. Intel provided a visual demonstration of how data is passed through the cable by shining a torch into one end of the cable, with two little dots of light visible to the naked eye at the other end. The demonstration laptop was sending two separate HD video streams to a nearby television screen without any visible lag. The laptop includes a 12mm square chip that converts the optical light into electrical data that the computer understands."

cancel ×

271 comments

me first (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32087108)

Isn't that called 10Gbit SX ethernet?

Server technology? (4, Insightful)

Happy Nuclear Death (911893) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087112)

It's nice they've developed a way to transfer data at ridiculous speeds, but it does the average user no good as long as we're using mechanical hard drives. Even a "mere" 1 gigabit network connection outstrips the ability of spinning platters to absorb it. I guess this Light Peak thing is aimed at the server market then?

Re:Server technology? (5, Interesting)

Microlith (54737) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087192)

It's aimed at reducing the number of different cables on your desktop, I believe.

The initial demo showed an LCD panel, HDD, and at least one other thing running off a single Light Peak chain. Effectively, they want it to replace USB (for data connections), Firewire, eSATA, SATA, SCSI, SAS, DVI, DisplayPort, probably every audio connection you have, Ethernet, and likely more.

Re:Server technology? (3, Insightful)

doogledog (1758670) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087242)

Ooh and with that unification think of the DRM possibilities!

Re:Server technology? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32087408)

Ooh and with that unification think of the DRM possibilities!

So particular light signals can now be copyrighted? I guess that makes an aldis lamp an infringement device.

Re:Server technology? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32087804)

If numbers can be copyrighted, I'm sure light can too.

Re:Server technology? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32087924)

http://xkcd.com/722/ [xkcd.com]

Think about it, we already copyright patterns of light: movies, programs, games, etc. Patterns = signals.

Re:Server technology? (2, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087796)

Also called "putting all the eggs in one basket"...

Re:Server technology? (3, Informative)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087808)

I think you are misunderstanding how DRM works... All those connections were for digital information you can DRM digital information. You are thinking about DRM over HDMI that is because the previous methods sent analog information to the device.

It is difficult to DRM Analog information (heck lets even call it ARM (Analog Rights Management)). As the main information is easily decoded. Digital Information can be encrypted.

However you must also realize that Analog has a fundamental weakness is that it isn't accurate and cannot be copied exactly. Hence why all the fuss about DRM. Digital Stuff can be copied over and over millions of time and it is still as good as the original. Analog copies after 1 or 2 copies of copies you can tell the difference.

It isn't about the wire or unification of the wire, or the interface it is the software the handles the information the determines DRM

Re:Server technology? (1, Interesting)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087318)

So only one device gets to talk at a time? Sounds great.

Re:Server technology? (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087376)

Nice assumption there, I seriously doubt that would ever be the case.

Re:Server technology? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087616)

Ok so you have 1 "wire" with two optical fibers, both your external cd and your esata drive want to talk to the PC. How do they do that at the same time?

In this case the interlacing is not a huge deal, but there do exist situations where this can be a big deal.

Re:Server technology? (1)

Blazewardog (1339197) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087786)

You would obviously not put both of those devices in the same chain then.

Re:Server technology? (1)

pedrop357 (681672) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087932)

Perhaps multiple wavelengths a la DWDM or something like these [cisco.com] 1000BASE-BX10-D and 1000BASE-BX10-U modules from Cisco

Re:Server technology? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32088050)

It will time share that channel just like every other bus in a modern computer system (not really that surprising). It will support expressing timing requirements for each data stream. Note it has full bandwidth connections going in both directions.

It is also possible that they will support multiple concurrent data channels using various optical techniques (multiple wavelengths).

Re:Server technology? (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087438)

Yes and no.
It will probably use Time Division multiplexing.

Re:Server technology? (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087500)

Ethernet suffers from exactly the same problem.

Oh wait, it doesn’t.

Re:Server technology? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087638)

Actually it does. and it indeed causes all kinds of problems if you ever want to use it for very low latency communication. You end up stringing one link for each pair of machines.

Re:Server technology? (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087676)

Not seriously in most typically applications, though.

Re:Server technology? (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087696)

*typical

Point being, it’s not like this limitation is bound to render it unusable.

Re:Server technology? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087950)

I will grant you that, but these high speed interconnects would be way more awesome if they did not have these limitations. Would it really cost a lot more to run 8 fibers per cable so that 4 devices can talk at a time?

Re:Server technology? (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#32088058)

What if you wanted to have 8 devices talking at a time, though? Or 10? Or 16?

A serial bus is scalable right up to the point where the packet collisions make it impractical.

Re:Server technology? (2, Insightful)

Atmchicago (555403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087196)

Don't you suppose Intel is aware of it, and would like to sell you their SSDs? In a few years nearly all new PCs will sport an SSD.

Re:Server technology? (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087854)

I just put an SSD into my new laptop and I can say with confidence that I will never buy a computer without at least an SSD boot drive. Less than 30 seconds from cold boot to having programs opened on the desktop, many programs open in less than a second. It is a massive performance boost.

Re:Server technology? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087214)

I don't think they would demonstrate it using a laptop and sending video to an external screen in case it would be aimed at server market...

But there you have a usage for it - sending video signal; "one connector to rule them all"?

Re:Server technology? (2, Insightful)

ryanleary (805532) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087238)

It's nice they've developed a way to transfer data at ridiculous speeds, but it does the average user no good as long as we're using mechanical hard drives. Even a "mere" 1 gigabit network connection outstrips the ability of spinning platters to absorb it. I guess this Light Peak thing is aimed at the server market then?

That's not really a fair analysis. HD video is often stored compressed, but needs to be transferred at full resolution uncompressed to the display medium. The DVI spec supports 3.96Gbit/s. HDMI even goes up to 10.2Gbit/s. There are plenty of other examples where a high-bandwidth transport will be useful.

Re:Server technology? (1)

Mabbo (1337229) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087240)

The possibilities go beyond just downloading things from the Internet. Intel are hoping to make this the connector for *everything*- your devices, your video, your printer. Frankly, I don't care how or why the do it, but a single cable type for everything, in my eyes, is a dream come true- no more having that box of every different type of wire and connector.

Re:Server technology? (1)

Coren22 (1625475) | more than 4 years ago | (#32088072)

At least until a competing standard pops up due to the cost of the patent fees.

Re:Server technology? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32087248)

a "mere" 1 gigabit network connection outstrips the ability of spinning platters to absorb it

Yes. Intel is teh stoopid. They don't know the limits of disks. If they did they would not be so stupid and make stupid things like this.

We have the smart people like you to keep us safe from the stupids at intel.

Re:Server technology? (5, Funny)

travisb828 (1002754) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087260)

Someone will develop something that will take advantage of that ridiculous speed, and then someone will develop something that can take advantage of data being transfered at ludicrous speed. Then one day, in the future, computers will go to plaid.

Re:Server technology? (2, Informative)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087398)

That's just ridiculous. SSD drives demanded an upgrade to SATA 6.0 Gb/s because they were saturating the SATA 3.0 Gb/s link. Last I checked 3 is bigger than 1.

Re:Server technology? (2, Informative)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087490)

Ah, er, what's that? SATA2 runs at 3Gb/s because the paltry 1.5Gb/s of SATA1 was outpaced by fast hard drives. This isn't even counting RAID0 controllers that can effectively double that. Now, on to Gigabit ethernet. Even with optimization most find .7Gb/s is the practical limit for things like NFS or SMB. You may do better with dedicated storage systems but you're getting away from consumer-grade technology.

Summary: Is 10Gb/s too much for a modern consumer desktop? No; if you have a lot to transfer you WILL see the difference.

Re:Server technology? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32088028)

To convert Mb/sec to MB/sec you divide by 8, correct?

Most SSD drives only burst at about ~250mb/sec, that's burst, not normal speed, sustained transfer rates of an average SSD that claims 250MB/sec seem to be about 120-150MB/sec. Multiply that by 8 and you get 1200Mb/sec, or 1.2Gb/sec. SATA1 is fast enough for this. And when you put drives in RAID, that speed is 1.5Gb per channel, meaning per Hard Drive, so the speed effectively doubles when two hard drives are installed, so even SATA1 can keep up with most SSD drives.

Perhaps in certain situations SATA2 could be required, such as lucky bursts where all the data you need happens to be in the HD's cache, but this is rare, and realistically SATA1 is enough for SSD's.

Re:Server technology? (4, Insightful)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087556)

"It's nice they've developed a way to transfer data at ridiculous speeds, but it does the average user no good as long as we're using mechanical hard drives."
What's the problem with most humans? They always seem to want to only advance to the bare miminum required.

How about:
"Yo guys, I got an idea!"
-"Shoot"
"How about making a cable that is so fast that we'll never have to think about the transfer speed anymore?"
-"That'll be awesome!"
???

Re:Server technology? (1)

alen (225700) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087564)

what is the return on investment? these days we have IP KVM's and integrated light out from HP that give you access to a server from a cell phone if need be. how much is this gizmo going to cost compared to existing solutions and how is it going to save our employers money?

Re:Server technology? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32087700)

I have copied large files to one of my hard drives at over 100 MB/s. That's pretty close to a full gigabit (which would be 128 MB/s). I guess you're right that a 7200 rpm drive can't keep up with gigabit, but it's pretty close. I was quite amazed that the copy went that fast. Sure, buffering and such would've been involved, but the result was still that I copied to the drive at those speeds. This is a 1TB WD Black Caviar SATA2 drive connected via eSATA.

It only stands to reason that SSDs will go up from here and far beyond. Might as well have interconnects that will be able to supply data at the speeds emerging devices will be able to handle, no?

Short sightedness (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087842)

It's nice they've developed a way to data on plastic discs, but it does the average user no good as long as we're using magnetic drums and punch cards. I guess these so called 'floppy' disks are aimed at the high end workstation market, then?

(end sarcasm)

Computers are Hard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32087170)

...into electrical data that the computer understands.

Wow, this summary of the article is really technical. Can someone help me understand?

Torch into one end with two little dots of light (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32087198)

Intel provided a visual demonstration of how data is passed through the cable, by shining a torch into one end of the cable, with two little dots of light visible to the naked eye at the other end.

The second little dot was a floating-point error.

Re:Torch into one end with two little dots of ligh (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087826)

I'd be curious to see how many people are old enough to actually get this one [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Torch into one end with two little dots of ligh (1)

dskzero (960168) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087934)

It isn't really all that old, to be fair.

Re:Torch into one end with two little dots of ligh (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087960)

we are on /. i'd hope most people here got it old or young..

Really (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32087200)

But if it can't distinguish the good porn from the bad, what's the point?

Finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32087220)

maybe now I wont have any bottlenecks to my 768k DSL line

or my 12x dvd drive, oh something that can keep up with my sataII hard disk??

the future looks awesome

Optical light? (2, Funny)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087222)

As opposed to... mechanical light?

There's my new patented method for data transfer. Measuring the impact of photons on a force transducer.

Re:Optical light? (2, Insightful)

Jamu (852752) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087278)

I guess it just means it uses visible light, as opposed to, infrared or ultraviolet for example.

Re:Optical light? (0)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087484)

A better question is... they used a TORCH to show off the optical cable?

Re:Optical light? (3, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087658)

Yes, using a flashlight is a pretty normal way to do that.

I suggest you learn English.

Re:Optical light? (-1, Troll)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087978)

Maybe you should learn English: modern English. In English up until the mid-1900s, a "torch" was a stick that you set on fire for light.

Sometime in the 20th century, someone invented a handheld device that had a lightbulb and batteries, and could project light. In America, since the word "torch" was already well-known to mean a burning stick, they simply invented a new word for the device: "flashlight".

But for some stupid reason, the Brits decided to repurpose the word "torch" to include this new device, instead of just using the simple new word that was coined.

When the computer was invented, a new word was coined for that too. Why aren't the Brits trying to call it an "abacus" instead?
When the telephone was invented, a new word was coined for that too. Why aren't the Brits trying to call it a "smoke signal" or "megaphone" instead?
When the cellphone was invented, a new word was coined for that too. Why aren't the Brits trying to call it a "telephone" or "smoke signal" or "megaphone" instead?
When the automobile was invented, a new word was coined for that too. Why aren't the Brits trying to call it a "horse" instead?
When the submarine was invented, a new word was coined for that too. Why aren't the Brits trying to call it a "fish" or a "turtle" instead?

In America, we apparently don't have any problems learning new words for new technologies and devices, and still remembering the old ones, unlike the British. Ask just about any American what a torch is, and he'll tell you it's a burning stick that primitive people used, or that people might fashion if they're stuck in the wild at night without a flashlight handy. But if you're with a Brit and you're stuck in the wild at night with no light source handy, if you ask him to make a torch, he'll just be confused, and wonder where he's going to find a lightbulb and batteries out in the woods.

And people say Americans aren't well educated...

Re:Optical light? (1)

Coren22 (1625475) | more than 4 years ago | (#32088122)

Yes, using a flashlight is a pretty normal way to do that.

I suggest you learn British.

FTFY :)

Re:Optical light? (1)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087702)

those silly Brits. They call a flashlight a torch.

Re:Optical light? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32088100)

Those silly Yanks, they call a torch a flashlight.

plug (2, Insightful)

theheadlessrabbit (1022587) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087348)

Seems like this could be an effective plug for the analogue hole.

Cautious optimism should be shown. Sounds like something that could come back to haunt users.

Re:plug (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087540)

So how exactly is this different than DVI, HDMI and DP which are also digital? I think this has great potential...

Re:plug (1)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087542)

It only makes it slightly harder to pirate something. If I can see or hear it, there's a way to record it. Killing off analogue is probably more about making you buy new versions of the same stuff more so than stopping piracy. I imagine some crafty bastard will develop a physical device that reopens the analogue hole for anyone who doesn't want to upgrade. The main issue is that the content companies will try to get such a device declared illegal, probably over piracy claims, but it's really about making everyone buy new hardware. Since the technical reasons for upgrading aren't overly compelling, it's necessary for them to do something to keep revenue up.

Re:plug (1)

Uksi (68751) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087780)

Are you serious? How is this different from any other digital transfer method? And how could this possibly plug the analog hole? As long as you gots a speaker and a microphone or an analog transfer of audio (e.g. to your headphones), you have the whole. Tell me, is this going to do away with headphones?

Some concerns (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32087364)

First, how much would it cost to produce a cable. And, second, how fragile would these cables be? Can you fold them up for storage or transport?

Are they practical?

Re:Some concerns (1)

frith01 (1118539) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087674)

Fiber Optic cables have the standard issues of NO FOLDING/ CREASING, and minimal bend radius.

http://www.specialtyphotonics.com/knowledge_base/newsletter/0606/bend_insensitive.html [specialtyphotonics.com]

Re:Some concerns (1)

TheCycoONE (913189) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087964)

Light Peak uses ClearCurve to circumvent the restrictions mentioned in the above article:

"In July 2007, Corning announced a new optical fiber known as ClearCurve that uses nanostructure reflectors to keep light trapped within the fiber even when bent around small-radius curves." - Wikipedia

(Notice your article is from 2006)

Re:Some concerns (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32087968)

Last i checked, folding fibre is a fantastic pathway to buying a new cable.

Light Peak is going to fail horribly.
Your average computer tard folds cables in all sorts of stupid ways that destroy even copper wires...

Impact resistant? (1)

senorbum (1795816) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087404)

I wonder how resilient the cables are to, say, me stepping on one. Or even better, accidentally sliding the back of my couch into my desk and pancaking it.

Re:Impact resistant? (1)

saurongt (1639029) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087530)

Fiber is quite resilient to all sorts of stress except for tight bending. The cable can probably be reinforced to prevent that. I'm more curious why they use visible wavelength, when IR spectrum light experiences lower loss in fiber. Is it because the cable is not expected to be of great length, ala current USB cables?

Re:Impact resistant? (1)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087728)

Wouldn't fiber be able to transfer both? I imagine they used visible light in the demonstration so people could see it transferring light. Last I checked, humans cannot see in IR or UV.

Re:Impact resistant? (0)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087768)

Is it because the cable is not expected to be of great length, ala current USB cables?

Duh?

Potential buyers? (1)

solevita (967690) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087428)

The white USB plug in the demonstration laptop looks rather Apple-ish. Any rumours here?

Re:Potential buyers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32087570)

Apple developed it that is why :)

http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/

what is the killer app for it? (1)

alen (225700) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087432)

i remember when Firewire got spanked by USB. Sure it was faster but no one cared if their ipod took an extra 10 minutes to sync the first time. not enough to pay the premium at least.

same here. printers are wifi these days. i haven't had a printer for years but will probably buy a wifi one soon just to print coupons from my iphone coupons.com app.
keyboards and mice can be had in bluetooth
since wifi is faster than the internet there is no reason to use this as a network cable
and how is it better than today's hdmi cables?

Re:what is the killer app for it? (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087618)

Your printer can't print fast enough to keep up with WiFi, let alone Ethernet. The only application this cable makes sense for is the one they demoed on it -- HD video streaming. Think camera-to-computer or computer-to-project links. Now, if we just had a memory system fast enough to store and retrieve data at 10Gbits, we'd be all set!

Re:what is the killer app for it? (1)

tonywong (96839) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087794)

Not every printer is a consumer printer. Large format printers can get files gigabytes in size being thrown at them. There's lots of higher end applications that need lots of data, fast.

Re:what is the killer app for it? (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087916)

If you've got a printer that can continuously print a gigabyte of data per second for extended periods of time, I'd love to see the paper handling system that it uses! How many full time employees are required to just feed paper into and carry paper out of the machine?

Actually, medical imaging is another application that does demand ridiculous bandwidth, but I wouldn't exactly call that "printing".

Re:what is the killer app for it? (1)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087748)

wifi also suffers from greater range limitation than wired. Also, wifi experiences greater packet loss then wired.

Re:what is the killer app for it? (1)

Real1tyCzech (997498) | more than 4 years ago | (#32088118)

"wifi also suffers from greater range limitation than wired"

My wires must be bad, then. I can get a good 100ft from my router and still be connected, but if I go so much as a mm from my wire, I lose connection. That's around 100% packet loss!

Range from Wifi = 100ft.
Range from Wire = Zero.

Re:what is the killer app for it? (2, Informative)

Tekfactory (937086) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087834)

Backup, Data processing

I used to hang my tape backup off of my file server because it had the most data to backup and so the fastest interface to the tape drive was installed on the file server.

All of the other machines (and file server)were given Gigabit Ethernet cards, and attached to a Switch that could handle 2GB simultaneous per port. The file server and mail server then were bottlenecked by the speed of the hard drives and the tapes themselves.

We also had users on the high speed network that needed to process large segments of the company's data from the fileserver which usually involved reading it into memory processing it and writing back the changes. All of these little exercises would have benefitted from a faster bus speed on the motherboard.

We could have done some stuff with striping the RAID arrays and buying more memory for the SCSI controllers, today we could be caching most of the jobs to RAM on the desktops.

My biggest bottlenecks were the hard drives all round and users competing for the 1GB pipe to the Fileserver. Having some sort of 10Gbit interface on the File Server would bring it back to drives, but as cheap as Ram is today I clearly would have bought 32GB or RAM and cached the contested data on a Ramdrive.

Create a capacity and someone will find a way to use it.

Now all we did was market research data processing, I'm sure the 3D CGI movie folks could find a use for this on their renderfarms, and I wonder if there are uses in MMOs to increase the number of folks on a battleground or zone simultanouesly.

Patent and licensing situation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32087446)

Does anyone know the licensing situation for this?

It would be awfully convenient if you could e.g. make a chip based on your own patents, which you license out, that provide a "standard" set of functionality, but when you pair it with your own hardware which is protected by patents you don't license out, it opens up an "experimental" set which soon morphs in regular language into a "full" set.

Horrible USB Connector (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32087466)

Why did they have to stick it in the horribly designed USB connector?

The engineers responsible for that connector must have never made it past sophomore design class. You either make a part that is obviously asymmetric (d-sub, ieee1394, 8p8c) or one that is truly symmetric (RCA, TRS connectors). Instead, we're stuck with this symmetric-appearing but actually asymmetric USB connector that I try to plug in backwards half the time.

Re:Horrible USB Connector (3, Funny)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087534)

Instead, we're stuck with this symmetric-appearing but actually asymmetric USB connector that I try to plug in backwards half the time.

Who actually manages to plug it in correctly on the 2nd try? It usually takes me at least 3.

Re:Horrible USB Connector (1)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087772)

I almost always get it on the first try, most of the time without looking.

Re:Horrible USB Connector (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087830)

I don't think it's that much worse from the "obviously asymmetric" - in case of those you have to usually look at the plug and the socket (and what if the latter is not clearly visible?) anyway. Plus USB connector typically should have convex logo on it meaning "up", and sockets should be in an orientation that makes sense for "up" (on laptops and hubs that's easy, even motherboards seem to comply...as long as you remember that "up" means "the side where all the cpu, memory and PCI slots are")

It has is strenghts too; grounding and mechanical properties being rather nice.

Re:Horrible USB Connector (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32087952)

The right side up is always the side with the USB logo, or else the cable isn't compliant with the USB specification. You can tell even by feeling it.

Great (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087504)

Great news for Lightfleet Corporation [lightfleet.com] . They are now officially completely obsolete.

Re:Great (1)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087800)

not really. Seems that Lightfleet Corporation could partner with Intel on the way to fully optical computers.

Master-Slave or Peer-to-Peer? (1)

lacoronus (1418813) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087574)

In regards to Light Peak replacing both USB and FireWire: Anyone knows if LP uses a hub-controlled topology like USB or P2P-ish like firewire? Even 100GB/s throughput won't do much good if we have a huge bottleneck in the hub. I've tried to find out but couldn't find anything in regards to this.

uh... (1)

grumpyman (849537) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087608)

Integrating a HBA/HCA onto a laptop? What's new?

What do the British call real torches? (0, Offtopic)

maillemaker (924053) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087612)

I'm curious: If the British call "flashlights" "torches", what do they call the a big stick with fire burning at one end?

Re:What do the British call real torches? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32087664)

Torches too. E.g. the Olympic Torch. If you think that's confusing, look up the number of different usages for the word "set".

Re:What do the British call real torches? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32087756)

Painful.

Re:What do the British call real torches? (1)

iammani (1392285) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087778)

The British refer to 'the a big stick with fire burning at one end' as a 'burning torch' or sometimes simply as torch..

You are welcome.

Re:What do the British call real torches? (1)

micilin (725159) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087856)

And while we're at it: if the Americans call the "bonnet" of a car the "hood", what do they call a flap of fabric that goes over your head? (I kid, I kid)

Re:What do the British call real torches? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32087886)

Syphilis.

Re:What do the British call real torches? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087910)

Well...are you certain they didn't use a "big stick with fire burning at one end"?

WOOHOO! I can watch tele vision (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087720)

That is seeing things transmitted from far away!

Amazing!

One cable to rule them all... (1)

rthille (8526) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087740)

For a desktop, I don't care about this. For my laptop. Especially for my Mac laptop, I want this because it's the closest Steve will get to doing a 'dock' for a Mac Laptop again. (I owned a Powerbook Duo 210/2100, so don't feel the need to remind me about them).

For now when I put my Mac laptop on the stand on my desk, I plug in 6 cables: power, network, display, Firewire, and two USB (one is for the KVM, so that can't go into a hub, and the KVM is only 12Mbit, so the other cable can't go into it for reasonable speed).

With Light Peak, I could do two cables: Power and Light Peak.

Power? FireWire ,enet, USB give power does this? (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087750)

Power? FireWire and USB give power also E-net can give power does this?

Re:Power? FireWire ,enet, USB give power does this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32087896)

The data channel is optical but they are planning to include copper lines and pins for power however no specifications for how much voltage/amperage have been release (at least to me knowledge).

Re:Power? FireWire ,enet, USB give power does this (3, Informative)

TheCycoONE (913189) | more than 4 years ago | (#32088056)

The plan is to include a copper wire along with the optical wire for powering devices.

It is sorta mentioned here: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-346181.html [zdnet.com]

Yawn... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32087866)

Yawn...

I used to be the sysadmin for a high school that had a multimode fiber-to-the-desk LAN installed in 1994. It's still running at 10 mbps, but that exact same wiring carried 1 gbps to outbuildings, and could carry 10 gbps if so desired.

Does not replace, it bundles! (2, Interesting)

chaim79 (898507) | more than 4 years ago | (#32087970)

Something to remember as you look at this, the LightPeak connection isn't just a connector onto itself, it's also designed to handle all other connector types (eSATA, USB, Firewire, DVI, etc). It's designed to be the one port you plug into your laptop while at the other end a dozen different devices are connected to it, all using different protocols.

Contradictions... (0)

courteaudotbiz (1191083) | more than 4 years ago | (#32088006)

There's almost no limit to the bandwidth - fibres can carry trillions of bits per second

In the same sentence, they say there's no limit, and that the limit is trillions of bits per second. This means, using short scale number naming, 116 Gigabytes per second for 1 trillion bits per second.

Pretty high, but contradictory in itself.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...