Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Notebooks > When will eSATA come to the MacBook Pro?

When will eSATA come to the MacBook Pro?
Thread Tools
Veltliner
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2009, 01:04 AM
 
I heard you can use an adapter to transfer data at eSATA speed from a 17" MBP (not sure if I got the right info).

But I'm not sure if you can do this with the 15" MBP, and it's probably not an option on a 13" MBP.

Have you heard anything when Apple will upgrade from FireWire 800 to a faster eSATA connection?
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2009, 03:21 AM
 
That adapter is an EC/34 eSATA card. Since in the current line-up only the 17" MBP has an EC/34 slot that's the only current-generation MBP that can do eSATA. Previous generation 15" MBP had EC/34 slots though.

Right now there are zero rumors pointing in the direction of eSATA replacing FW. For external storage eSATA or better yet bus-powered eSATA would be an excellent choice. However, FW is used for a lot more than just storage. Especially in Apple land with all the audio and video pros. And so far Apple hasn't seemed interested in eSATA at all. I wouldn't count on Apple dropping any port to make room for eSATA. But in principle they could use one of these eSATA/USB combo ports.

In the end, I simply don't think Apple feels the urge. They probably see USB3 on the horizon and hope that will eventually be able to do it all. In terms of raw bandwidth USB3 would be fine for external storage. The problem lies with the added cost and complexity of bridging from a drive's native interface to USB. But the way I know Apple they will say simplicity trumps a bit of extra cost.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2009, 09:13 AM
 
The extra powersupply costs way more than a bridge chip. eSATA would make sense if they made a bus-powered version of it with enough power to run a 3.5" drive off it. As it is, it's mostly pointless. USB 3.0 increases power to 4.5W, which you might conceivably design a 3.5" drive to run on (current "green" drives need about 6W, but that's mostly for the spinup) but there's a niche there for a low-latency interface for fast (non-green) external drives.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
amazing
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2009, 09:44 AM
 
Here's the user reports on expresscard reliability and compatibility:

MacBook Pro owner reports on Express34 Cards

I've got 2 eSATA expresscards, the JMicron natively-supported one, and a Sil3132 where you have to install the age-old drivers (haven't been updated in quite some time.) Both used to provoke kernel panics quite reliably, such that I haven't used them for quite some time, preferring either FW or USB.

One issue seems to be how loosely the card fits in the slot, wiggling back and forth with any movement of the very stiff cable, eventually provoking a kernel panic. If you use your laptop sitting unmoving on a desk, without using the laptop keyboard (using external keyboard) this may not be an issue--but that's not generally how I use my laptop. The one time I left it on a desktop to clone to an external drive, it worked fine. The other times when I used it on my lap, it provoked kernel panics quite reliably.
     
Veltliner  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2009, 01:53 PM
 
Interesting that power seems to be a key issue here. So, even if you had such a port, you'd have to use a hard drive that has its own power brick.

Maybe we are not even using FW 800's speed potential fully anyway?

E.g.: FireWire 800 is described as 800 mb/s. 800 Megabit per second should transfer 100 Megabyte per second - and the 80 Gb I yesterday transferred to an external hard drive should have only taken 13.4 minutes - not the 30 minutes it actually took.

So, other than the port and the transfer technology: what else is slowing transfers down? I mean, my actual transfer speed on FW 800 is way below even of maximum FW 400 maximum speed. (transferred from a 24" white iMac to a G-Tech 500 Gb external hard drive, 2 years old, with Oxford chipset).

So, will we rather see enhancement in the logic board or the bus so we can actually use the maximum data rate in FW 800?
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2009, 02:08 PM
 
Those are maximum throughput numbers. There's the Mac's chipset and the FW bridge chip between you and the disk. Even if the disk you used could deliver 100MB/s sustained (which many cheap HDDs can't), you would never be able to transfer that much across FW800. The best you'll see on FW800 is going be around 65MB/s. The fact that no such bridging is necessary when you hook up disks through native SATA/eSATA is a major advantage.

The improvement you talk about is already here. It's called S1600/S3200. But Apple is probably about as likely to switch to that as to eSATA. It's not happening anytime soon. Definitely not before USB3 hits the market.
     
Veltliner  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2009, 05:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Simon View Post
Those are maximum throughput numbers. There's the Mac's chipset and the FW bridge chip between you and the disk. Even if the disk you used could deliver 100MB/s sustained (which many cheap HDDs can't), you would never be able to transfer that much across FW800. The best you'll see on FW800 is going be around 65MB/s. The fact that no such bridging is necessary when you hook up disks through native SATA/eSATA is a major advantage.

The improvement you talk about is already here. It's called S1600/S3200. But Apple is probably about as likely to switch to that as to eSATA. It's not happening anytime soon. Definitely not before USB3 hits the market.
I certainly don't have cheap HDDs. One is the original HDD in my iMac, and the other a Hitachi in my G-tech. I still get only 45 Megabytes per second. So it has to do with the bridge and, maybe, the the logic board.

When is USB 3.0 supposed to hit the market? I know it's faster than eSATA, but is its technology better, too, that is the reason why Apple will not pick eSATA, but go to USB 3.0 right away?
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2009, 03:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by Veltliner View Post
When is USB 3.0 supposed to hit the market? I know it's faster than eSATA, but is its technology better, too, that is the reason why Apple will not pick eSATA, but go to USB 3.0 right away?
USB3 will not be faster than present-day eSATA. Theoretically it can achieve a maximum actual throughput on the order of 3GBps after protocol overhead. Add to that bridging and controller and you'll end up below eSATA. It's still a nice improvement though because it should be fast enough to not bottleneck most consumer HDDs like FW and USB2 are doing now.

The very fastest SSDs might run into a problem with USB3, but present-day SATA faces the same trouble. Fortunately the SATA 3.0 standard (6 Gbps) was ratified this year so SATA should have that covered.

The first USB3 controllers are expected in 1Q10. Apple's adoption probably depends a lot on Nvidia or Intel (depending on who they chose for their next chipset). In all likelihood it will arrive as part of the mobile chipset and not as add-on with a dedicated controller (like Apple does for FW800 presently).
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2009, 04:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by Veltliner View Post
E.g.: FireWire 800 is described as 800 mb/s. 800 Megabit per second should transfer 100 Megabyte per second
IIRC, FW800, in contrast to FW400, actually uses a 10-bit word protocol. So theoretical maximum throughput is 80 MiB/sec.

Originally Posted by Veltliner View Post
So, other than the port and the transfer technology: what else is slowing transfers down? I mean, my actual transfer speed on FW 800 is way below even of maximum FW 400 maximum speed. (transferred from a 24" white iMac to a G-Tech 500 Gb external hard drive, 2 years old, with Oxford chipset).
I also seem to recall at least one version of the Oxford FW800 chipset making trouble (though back when FW400 came around, they were the only game in town that could be counted on to work).

Is this Hitachi a 2.5" drive or a 3.5" drive? 5400rpm?

Because with a decent chipset and a drive that can supply it, you should be seeing in excess of 70MiB/sec transfer rates over FW800.
     
Veltliner  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2009, 09:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Is this Hitachi a 2.5" drive or a 3.5" drive? 5400rpm?

Because with a decent chipset and a drive that can supply it, you should be seeing in excess of 70MiB/sec transfer rates over FW800.
It's a 3.5" drive, 7200 RPM. It's not one of those laptop external drives. I know it has an Oxford chipset in it, but I don't know which one (I bought it 25 months ago).

Could the transfer speed depend on what kind of file it is? Music files (AIFF) for example, could they transfer slower? The transfer was a backing up of my iTunes library.
     
Veltliner  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2009, 09:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Simon View Post
USB3 will not be faster than present-day eSATA. Theoretically it can achieve a maximum actual throughput on the order of 3GBps after protocol overhead. Add to that bridging and controller and you'll end up below eSATA. It's still a nice improvement though because it should be fast enough to not bottleneck most consumer HDDs like FW and USB2 are doing now.

The very fastest SSDs might run into a problem with USB3, but present-day SATA faces the same trouble. Fortunately the SATA 3.0 standard (6 Gbps) was ratified this year so SATA should have that covered.

The first USB3 controllers are expected in 1Q10. Apple's adoption probably depends a lot on Nvidia or Intel (depending on who they chose for their next chipset). In all likelihood it will arrive as part of the mobile chipset and not as add-on with a dedicated controller (like Apple does for FW800 presently).
This article

USB 3.0 in the flesh

defines a maximum transfer speed of 4.8 Gbit (600mb/sec) for usb 3.0.

I'm curious when we'll see usb 3.0 on MBPs, for example.

I guess usb 2.0 ports will stick around for keyboards, mice, and tablets.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 12, 2009, 03:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by Veltliner View Post
This article

USB 3.0 in the flesh

defines a maximum transfer speed of 4.8 Gbit (600mb/sec) for usb 3.0.
That's the theoretical maximum bandwidth using the fourth transfer mode. Just like the the 480Mbps rating on USB2 it's impossible to achieve it over sustained periods of time in real hardware.

The USB3 specs then go on to say hat of those theoretical 4.8Gbps you actually get 4Gbps raw throughput. If you remove protocol overhead you are down to 3.2Gbps. And then you subtract some for the bridge, chipset, drivers, etc...

I'm curious when we'll see usb 3.0 on MBPs, for example.
I guess usb 2.0 ports will stick around for keyboards, mice, and tablets.
Not before 2H10 probably since the very first desktop controllers aren't expected until the end of 1Q10. It really depends how quickly mobile chipsets include it.

There won't be USB3 and USB2 ports, but rather just one set of USB ports like today. The controller will set the speed of the port a device is connected to depending on the device's ratings. Most KBs and mice will actually be fine with the oldest 12Mbps mode.
( Last edited by Simon; Sep 12, 2009 at 03:35 AM. )
     
drnkn_stylz
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Canada.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2009, 04:27 PM
 
USB 3.0 will come first I think. It's simple and would be fast enough for most people. However, with that comes the question: keep FW or go with something like eSATA? The thing that keeps me on the FW side is the fact that s1600/s3200 is backwards compatible with 400/800. Apple would be crazy to just drop that support. If eSATA was bus powered it would have more of a fighting chance I think.
..13" MacBook Pro | 2.53gHz | 4gb RAM | 320gb Seagate Momentus XT | OSX.6.6.. // iPhone 4 32gb
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2009, 04:49 PM
 
Firewire's importance is not in providing storage. It's in media interfacing.

USB 3 may be less useless than 2.0; I have no idea whether it can supplant Firewire eventually. eSATA cannot
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2009, 06:12 PM
 
Given that FW3200 is a painless evolution of the FW800 - same port - I think we'll see FW3200 eventually. FW and USB have the same disadvantage compared to eSATA - the bridge chip adds latency - but with Intel proposing a new low-latency interface for flash on the motherboard, the entire storage hierarchy is due for a shake-up. With flash handling the latency-critical applications, HDs can be slower and more power-efficient. eSATA's advantage will become less important while USB 3.0 is strengthened by being able to run a big HD bus-powered. I still wish they could have added a few more milliamps to USB 3.0, but we can't have everything.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2009, 06:32 PM
 
Since Apple just completely phased out the old 6-pin FireWire ports from all their machines, my guess is that they're planning to move FireWire to 3200 when it comes out. I doubt it would cost them much more than FW800 does.

As for USB 3.0, it's going to be fairly useless, because Apple will continue to provide you only two USB ports. Your keyboards, mice, etc., will still be using the old 12 Mbit USB, so you'll want those all on a hub on the first port, and chances are you're gonna have at least one USB 2.0 device on the other port. The end result is that both ports are gonna be slowed down to an older version of the USB standard, and Apple sure isn't going to give you a third one, so for all practical intents and purposes it'll be functionally equivalent to just having USB 2.0 on the motherboard instead of 3.0.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2009, 09:53 AM
 
The iMac has four USB ports plus the hub built into the keyboard, which is full USB 2.0.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2009, 02:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
The iMac has four USB ports plus the hub built into the keyboard, which is full USB 2.0.
Since this thread is about the MBP I guess that's what Charles was referring too. And at least for the 13" and 15" MBP he's got a valid point. Only the 17" comes with three ports which you'll need if you want to use all different USB speed devices at the same time w/o one bogging down the others.
( Last edited by Simon; Sep 23, 2009 at 03:01 PM. )
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2009, 03:24 PM
 
apologies.
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington + Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2009, 04:59 PM
 
I think it'd be a swell idea for the 17" to replace the ExpressCard slot with eSATA. But I doubt the masses would agree.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2009, 05:45 PM
 
It would be kind of silly not to have a single machine of the supposedly "pro" line with a pro expansion slot...
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2009, 05:54 PM
 
Indeed. EC/34 on the 15"...cough...
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2009, 06:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
I think it'd be a swell idea for the 17" to replace the ExpressCard slot with eSATA. But I doubt the masses would agree.
For god's sake, why? You can already get an eSATA port from the ExpressCard slot. You can't get an ExpressCard slot from an eSATA port.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Veltliner  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2009, 09:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
Since Apple just completely phased out the old 6-pin FireWire ports from all their machines, my guess is that they're planning to move FireWire to 3200 when it comes out. I doubt it would cost them much more than FW800 does.

As for USB 3.0, it's going to be fairly useless, because Apple will continue to provide you only two USB ports. Your keyboards, mice, etc., will still be using the old 12 Mbit USB, so you'll want those all on a hub on the first port, and chances are you're gonna have at least one USB 2.0 device on the other port. The end result is that both ports are gonna be slowed down to an older version of the USB standard, and Apple sure isn't going to give you a third one, so for all practical intents and purposes it'll be functionally equivalent to just having USB 2.0 on the motherboard instead of 3.0.
I really like FireWire. So you think FireWire will stay with us, even after USB 3.0 has arrived? What's the time frame of FireWire 3200?

Is it comparable in speed?

Will eSATA be at all necessary after USB 3.0 and FireWire 3200 have arrived? Or will it be a third format that will have advantages over USB 3.0 and FireWire 3200 for certain users?
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2009, 01:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by Veltliner View Post
I really like FireWire. So you think FireWire will stay with us, even after USB 3.0 has arrived? What's the time frame of FireWire 3200?

Is it comparable in speed?
S3200 (IEEE Std. 1394-2008) was ratified last year. Despite similar ratings it should give better throughput than USB3 (similar to FW400 vs. USB2).

Will eSATA be at all necessary after USB 3.0 and FireWire 3200 have arrived?
eSATA is basically the native way to attach a disk externally. It will always offer best performance at minimum cost and complexity. OTOH specific applications (think audio/video hardware) make use of certain bus features (like for example bus power or timing) and cannot be moved to eSATA just like that even though bandwidth-wise eSATA would be sufficient. In principle USB3 could kill off FW (this probably depends a lot on how Apple deals with S3200), but eSATA will not replace either.

eSATA will be around as long as SATA exists. The real question is if/when Apple will switch all FW ports to S3200 and when the industry will move to USB3. The latter should have started by mid 2010.
     
Veltliner  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2009, 05:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by Simon View Post
S3200 (IEEE Std. 1394-2008) was ratified last year. Despite similar ratings it should give better throughput than USB3 (similar to FW400 vs. USB2).
Then let's hope that Apple will choose FireWire 3200. I never liked USB 2.0 for data transfer.

Originally Posted by Simon View Post
eSATA is basically the native way to attach a disk externally. It will always offer best performance at minimum cost and complexity. OTOH specific applications (think audio/video hardware) make use of certain bus features (like for example bus power or timing) and cannot be moved to eSATA just like that even though bandwidth-wise eSATA would be sufficient. In principle USB3 could kill off FW (this probably depends a lot on how Apple deals with S3200), but eSATA will not replace either.

eSATA will be around as long as SATA exists. The real question is if/when Apple will switch all FW ports to S3200 and when the industry will move to USB3. The latter should have started by mid 2010.
So we might see eSATA and FireWire 3200 on Apple computers. And maybe they'll even throw in USB 3.0

Maybe FireWire will specialize in certain connections like video camera to computer connections...
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2009, 10:08 AM
 
FireWire is already specialized for audio/video connections.

In fact, it's indispensible for any serious work in those fields.
     
amazing
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2009, 11:43 AM
 
Just bought a new camcorder at work: it uses firewire. Admittedly, another camcorder we were trying out uses USB, but we're going to RMA that one.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2009, 12:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Veltliner View Post
I really like FireWire. So you think FireWire will stay with us, even after USB 3.0 has arrived? What's the time frame of FireWire 3200?
I should think so. One of the most important factors with FireWire is its relatively high sustained transfer rate. USB is dependent on the the computer's CPU while FireWire has its own dedicated CPU on every host controller (that's why it's more expensive to implement and takes a lot more room.) FireWire leaves your computer free to do whatever you want it to do (like signal processing, realtime video manipulation, etc.) without compromising data transfer speed. FireWire also doesn't need a computer to operate, devices can communicate with each other directly. These features make FireWire almost indispensable when it comes to audio and video hardware.

Originally Posted by Veltliner View Post
Is it comparable in speed?
USB 3.0 has a theoretical maximum for 4.8 Gbps. Optimal conditions result in real-world speeds around 3.2 Gbps. I'm assuming that's if the computer is doing absolutely nothing except transferring a single file. If you're encoding a video file pegging your CPU while simultaneously trying to copy a file, it'll probably be a lot slower. Under heavy loads, FireWire 400 has shown to be faster than USB 2.0 in real-world applications.

FireWire S3200 is, as the name implies, 3.2 Gbps. I have no idea what real-world results are for it. If previous incarnations are any indication, it should be pretty fast. The new FireWire spec also allows you to use FireWire over Cat-6 ethernet.

Originally Posted by Veltliner View Post
Will eSATA be at all necessary after USB 3.0 and FireWire 3200 have arrived? Or will it be a third format that will have advantages over USB 3.0 and FireWire 3200 for certain users?
eSATA has the advantage of being a direct serial connection between the drive and the motherboard. It'll probably always be the fastest. However, without being BUS powered, its application is limited to the desktop. USB 3.0 and FireWire are more suitable for portable HDDs, CD/DVDs, etc.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
amazing
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2009, 12:07 PM
 
Plus, the EC slot is problematic, a mixed bag of kernel panics and success, both in Leopard and Snow Leopard. Some of it is driver related, some is the "loose" fit of the EC slot.

Kudos to xlr8yourmac.com for maintaining this EC feedback page:

MacBook Pro owner reports on Express34 Cards
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2009, 12:12 PM
 
Also, I forgot to mention that FireWire is used pretty extensively in aircraft.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington + Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2009, 12:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
For god's sake, why? You can already get an eSATA port from the ExpressCard slot. You can't get an ExpressCard slot from an eSATA port.
It's more useful than a SD slot, for me at least. I meant 13 or 15", not 17" LOL.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2009, 01:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Veltliner View Post
So we might see eSATA and FireWire 3200 on Apple computers. And maybe they'll even throw in USB 3.0
I'd say in Apple world we'll definitely see USB3. Hopefully S3200 (because otherwise FW will probably die out). Maybe eSATA.
     
Veltliner  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2009, 01:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by Simon View Post
I'd say in Apple world we'll definitely see USB3. Hopefully S3200 (because otherwise FW will probably die out). Maybe eSATA.
So how many connectors will we get?

Is this the advent of the 19" MBP (to have room for all the ports)?
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2009, 10:01 AM
 
USB3 is the same physical connector as USB2. S3200 could replace FW800 just like 800 replaced 400. In principle only eSATA would require an additional connector. And as a matter of fact not even that. There are these USB/eSATA combo ports...
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2009, 01:07 PM
 
Or they could replace the USB, FireWire, etc. ports with just a bunch of these.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2009, 01:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
Or they could replace the USB, FireWire, etc. ports with just a bunch of these.
Seems good to me.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2009, 01:22 PM
 
Yep, especially since it claims to allow you to send multiple protocols over the wire. So if you need a FireWire, USB, eSATA, whatever, you got it.

I wonder if it might even be possible to add support for new protocols via a firmware update or something.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Cold Warrior
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Polwaristan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2009, 01:29 PM
 
I don't see how eSATA could come to the MBP. Apple has had plenty of opportunity to add it, but it has opted for USB, FW and even an SD slot. With the potential for LP, I'd hope for some kind of combo port like USB 3 & LP given Intel's influence over both. This could also solve some of the bus-power concerns with LP.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2009, 09:37 AM
 
LP sounds fine to me. But I'd say it's too early to see it in the next MBP. Maybe in a year or two. USB3 OTOH will be ready earlier. Also, LP still has to prove it can handle bus power properly. If it doesn't I want to see Apple adopt proper USB3 ASAP and build in as many ports as physically possible.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2009, 10:31 AM
 
Since we will need USB 2.0 ports for the foreseeable future, and the next Intel PCH will likely include USB 3.0, we'll get USB 3.0 for free sooner rather than later. Probably not before then, though.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2009, 07:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Simon View Post
LP sounds fine to me. But I'd say it's too early to see it in the next MBP. Maybe in a year or two. USB3 OTOH will be ready earlier. Also, LP still has to prove it can handle bus power properly. If it doesn't I want to see Apple adopt proper USB3 ASAP and build in as many ports as physically possible.
Since Apple is reportedly a main driving force between Light Peak, I'd expect it to get as much bus power as Apple requires.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2009, 08:55 PM
 
Light Peak seems better. You can run all those protocols over it. It'll be the iPod of connectors. There's an adapter for that!
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
aaanorton
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2010, 03:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
For god's sake, why? You can already get an eSATA port from the ExpressCard slot. You can't get an ExpressCard slot from an eSATA port.
Well, technically you can with a Qio, but it ain't cheap!
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2010, 03:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by aaanorton View Post
Well, technically you can with a Qio, but it ain't cheap!
That's the exact opposite of what he said wasn't possible.

If you're simply looking for an eSATA port, there's not much the Qio offers over a $40 ExpressCard.

It's getting an ExpressCard slot out of an eSATA port that's impossible.
     
aaanorton
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2010, 03:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
That's the exact opposite of what he said wasn't possible.

If you're simply looking for an eSATA port, there's not much the Qio offers over a $40 ExpressCard.

It's getting an ExpressCard slot out of an eSATA port that's impossible.
Check the Qio specs again:
Qio’s SxS slots double as ExpressCard/34 slots, and the P2 slots are compatible with CardBus cards. If you’re a notebook user, this effectively sextuples the number of expansion card slots available to you.
I'm not saying this is economical, just not impossible (anymore). And remember that the $40 eSATA adapters for EC will not give you SATA 2 speeds. You need the more expensive ones for that.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2010, 03:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by aaanorton View Post
And remember that the $40 eSATA adapters for EC will not give you SATA 2 speeds. You need the more expensive ones for that.
What it's "SATA 2"? The standards body that defines SATA does not recognize it.

Even a $20 ExpressCard supports 3.0Gbps eSATA.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2010, 03:37 PM
 
And how does the Qio hook up to a laptop that doesn't have an ExpressCard slot?
     
aaanorton
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2010, 04:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
And how does the Qio hook up to a laptop that doesn't have an ExpressCard slot?
My original post was in reply to this:
You can't get an ExpressCard slot from an eSATA port.
So assuming you have eSATA, you can attach a Qio. The Qio ships with an eSATA adapter, either PCI or EC.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2010, 04:15 PM
 
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

The Qio WILL NOT connect to an eSATA port on a computer. It REQUIRES that the computer have a PCIe or ExpressCard slot.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:07 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,