[mduell]

We're off topic at this point, but I think internal LP will go the way of internal USB/FW. There's just no reason to use it when you already have something faster readily available and already in use.

[P]

Hey, the OP's question has been answered, and we're still inside the realm of the forum...I've seen worse tangents.

Normally I would agree with you, but SSDs present such a perfect storm that I think that they at least will move to LightPeak. Consider:

* Intel is the one pushing LightPeak and talking up the internal connections
* SATA is a bad fit for SSDs, causing manufacturers to spend a lot of time making controllers to compensate.
* Intel makes SSDs
* The latest threadshrunk SSDs from Intel have no improvement in the controller

All of this hints to me that Intel wants to start making SSDs with LightPeak connectors at the same time as the Ivy Bridge chipset brings LightPeak to every Intel computer. That should be enough to guarantee that internal LightPeak doesn't completely fizzle out.

[mduell]

I don't know how significant #2 is - my impression was the hard part of the controllers is dealing with the flash in a high performance (bw and IO) way, with efficient and effective garbage collection/TRIM rather than the SATA interface.

But it still doesn't explain why use the lower bandwidth LP interface instead of the existing PCIe.

[P]

Cable length, mainly. Moving the HD to a slot is a semi-large config change, and desktop internal configurations have changed marginally since 1984. I just don't see it happening. There is also very little risk to anyone - motherboard makers will probably put the LP headers on the motherboard anyway, for front ports. Intel can put an LP port on their SSDs next to the SATA ports (or on the opposite side, really) and advertise the ability to use it externally if they like.

[Big Mac]

I don't see why changing the connection type from SATA to LP would do anything to improve performance of SSDs. But as for LP having or not having internal connectors on future motherboards, given that it's positioned as a USB replacement and USB has internal risers, you can count on internal LP risers as well.

[P]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I don't see why changing the connection type from SATA to LP would do anything to improve performance of SSDs. But as for LP having or not having internal connectors on future motherboards, given that it's positioned as a USB replacement and USB has internal risers, you can count on internal LP risers as well.

For one thing, it has a higher base bandwidth than the current top SATA bandwidth, but the main thing I was thinking of would be to expose the actual flash, as it actually works, to the OS (a driver running in the kernel). The reason that things like TRIM is needed is that the OS still acts like it has a physical drive where it has to manually move the individual heads, because that's how SATA works. SATA commands are CHS commands - move head x to cylinder y and read sector z. The SATA controller then has to translate this back into a sector on the actual flash. If the OS could see the raw flash, developers could optimize for the implementation details of flash drives. Remember the automatic defragging in OS X? That also places those important files in the fastest possible area of the disk - an optimization based on an implementation detail of physical disks. I want to release OS developers to do the same thing for flash. No TRIM, no intelligent controllers, no translation tables between logical and actual blocks. Just expose the entire drive in all its gory detail to the OS and let the OS developer work on performance. I guarantee you that it will be faster in the long run.

[Spheric Harlot]

That sounds totally awesome.

[P]

Persistent rumors claim that the corrected chipsets began shipping in volume from Intel yesterday.

[mduell]

Also Intel stuffed all the defective ones back into channel as long as the OEMs promise not to use SATA ports 2-5 (0 and 1 only).

[indigoimac]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Apple knowingly shipping defective hardware isn't "screw it, let's start a maintenance program" -

for one, it's "class-action lawsuit" which is inevitably more expensive than waiting four weeks.

For another, it actually constitutes fraud in most civilized countries, and as such is subject to criminal law.

Third, where will they get the parts now that INTEL has stopped shipping them and is destroying all inventory?

And finally:

Even when I posted this it was widely speculated that ports 0 and 1 were fine -- they are the 6gbit rated ports. Given that they now have clearance from intel, this is walking straight into a service program scenario, like the nvidia fiasco that was addressed by simply speeding up the fans, not actually addressing the defect.

Originally Posted by P 

There is no such thing as SATA 2 or SATA 3, there are only SATA 3.0 Gbps and SATA 6.0 Gbps with various extra features. I'm sure that Apple will be using the fastest SATA ports the chip offers, and maybe they can live with only having 2 ports available in some models (they can disable the other ports completely by just not linking those pins to anything, like they usually do), but that would be at the low end where the CPUs aren't even available yet.

Besides, what would you rather have - an SSD or the optical on SATA 6.0 Gbps? If anything, this will accelerate any plans to eliminate the optical, but my guess is that it will do absolutely nothing.

You are being pedantic -- there are 3 revisions of sata, 1.5gbit, 3, and 6. I am aware that officially they cannot be called 1, 2, and 3... but so far... they are, calling them 1.5, 3. and 6 is illogical... should we change the naming scheme of USB as well? (not a rant toward you, btw) I would not be surprised AT ALL if apple does not use 6gbit SATA, there's no use for opticals or conventional 2.5" drives, which are still likely to be the bread and butter on these machines. And the SSDs that can swamp 3gbit sata are not cheap either.

I would also not be surprised at all either if they are using the initial "defective" chips, intel, as stated later in this thread is shipping them as long as one does not use ports 2-5, which is probably fine for lappys and iMacs. And hey, maybe they got them at a discount to pad the profits.

All that said, I'm probably getting one, lol.

[Waragainstsleep]

Hard drive busses have long been afflicted with confusion. Look at ATA. Sometimes its ATA1, ATA2 etc, sometimes its ATA33, ATA66, and you can throw in (E)IDE and ATAPI too. Essentially those are all very similar.

Then you have all the variants of SCSI, though the issues with that are more centred around the preposterously unnecessary number of different types of connector available.

So those SSDs in the new Airs, anyone know what controller they use? Can they saturate 3Gbps?

[indigoimac]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

So those SSDs in the new Airs, anyone know what controller they use? Can they saturate 3Gbps?

Assuming the after market ones with sandforce are faster than what apple is shipping, which they almost certainly are:

no

OWC Mercury Aura Pro Express SSD, SandForce Equipped, SATA, 7% Over Provisioning

However, the next line of sandforce (see ocz vertex 3 pro) are swamping it and need SATA 6gbit -- they are also quite close to swamping that as well, which is pretty scary.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by indigoimac 

You are being pedantic -- there are 3 revisions of sata, 1.5gbit, 3, and 6. I am aware that officially they cannot be called 1, 2, and 3... but so far... they are, calling them 1.5, 3. and 6 is illogical... should we change the naming scheme of USB as well?

The organization that owns the standard explains it pretty well.
Otherwise you have confusion for terms like "SATA 3": third generation or 3Gbps?

Originally Posted by indigoimac 

I would not be surprised AT ALL if apple does not use 6gbit SATA, there's no use for opticals or conventional 2.5" drives, which are still likely to be the bread and butter on these machines. And the SSDs that can swamp 3gbit sata are not cheap either.

Why wouldn't Apple use the built in 6Gbps SATA ports? They're the only working ports on the chipset! You think they're going to wait for fixed chipsets and then use ports 2 and 3 so they're limited to 3Gbps?
It's irrelevant that the optical drive can't saturate 3Gbps.

[indigoimac]

Originally Posted by mduell 

The organization that owns the standard explains it pretty well.
Otherwise you have confusion for terms like "SATA 3": third generation or 3Gbps?

I understand the rationale, and have read that page, but it's generally obvious which one someone is talking about, and to correct someone in a context where it was perfectly clear was superfluous.

Originally Posted by mduell 

Why wouldn't Apple use the built in 6Gbps SATA ports? They're the only working ports on the chipset! You think they're going to wait for fixed chipsets and then use ports 2 and 3 so they're limited to 3Gbps?
It's irrelevant that the optical drive can't saturate 3Gbps.

I'm writing this on a macbook pro with sata for the hard disk and atapi for the optical, it's about equivalent logic, the benefits of using the same chipset for multiple devices and the use of smaller cabling was evident, but atapi drives were probably cheaper / they already had them. Keep in mind this chipset has 3 sata ports of which they are using 1, they are also not using its integrated gigabit ethernet, but added a marvell controller.

They'll do whatever they want, I didn't say it would be logical, just that I would not be surprised. Further, maybe they got custom chips from intel with 6gbit sata omitted, that use .001 watts less? That would be surprising, but certainly not outside the realm of possibility, we all know apple does not like to live on the leading edge of interfaces a majority of the time, otherwise we would have usb3, esata, and fw3200, dangling off the macbook air. (I'm not saying it's a bad thing, most often it's a good call, it's just an observation)

[Salty]

So what do you guys think about the rumours of a SSD boot drive built in?

[Cold Warrior]

Sounds interesting. The current rumor is 16 GB -- plenty for the OS to not just boot quickly but fully reside in to operate very fast as well.

[Salty]

For the record the rumours are pointing to i3 processors. What's with this? Do we honestly think Apple's gonna cheap out and put an i3 in the Pros? doesn't that kind of make a mockery of the Pro name?

[indigoimac]

Originally Posted by Salty 

For the record the rumours are pointing to i3 processors. What's with this? Do we honestly think Apple's gonna cheap out and put an i3 in the Pros? doesn't that kind of make a mockery of the Pro name?

Battery life. And no, the regular one and the air are still c2d.

Also, it makes sense, the 13" is the cheaper, lower end model -- the 15 and 17s wil have their i5s and i7s along with dedicated gfx and real 2.5" ssds, while the 13s will be a step up from the air.

[P]

i3 means no Turbo, which would be very uncharacteristic of an Apple laptop. The cheapest i5 mobile (2.5GHz) is $225. The first 13" MBP had a P8400, list price of $209 at the time. Given that the Northbridge is now included in the CPU price, that's about the same price as the low-end i5 now and they can use the savings from cheaper graphics to upgrade the display.

[Spheric Harlot]

i5 it is in the low-end 13" MacBook Pro!



Note the low-resolution 13" display. Since the higher-end 13" almost certainly has the MacBook Air's resolution, this must be the lower end.

Behold also: THUNDERBOLT (supports High-Speed-E/A- and mini DisplayPort devices).



Hello Light Peak.

[CharlesS]

From the other thread:



I'm kind of surprised the FW800 port is still on there. It seems that Light Peak would make it somewhat redundant, and since LP is adaptable to FW800 anyway, there wouldn't be any loss of functionality in taking it out. Seems somewhat contrary to Apple's usual MO. Not that I'm complaining or anything, as I have a lot of FW800 devices and appreciate the convenience of having the port; just a little surprised is all.

[P]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

i5 it is in the low-end 13" MacBook Pro!

Indeed, but a special OEM-only version that ark doesn't know about. Wikipedia has it as a regular model with slightly nerfed Turbo, but otherwise fully featured.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by P 

Indeed, but a special OEM-only version that ark doesn't know about. Wikipedia has it as a regular model with slightly nerfed Turbo, but otherwise fully featured.

Googling for the 2410m shows a bunch of hits, and Intel's own site lists it among the regular processors:

Intel� Core� i5 Prozessor – Details

First one - the 2410m.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

From the other thread:



I'm kind of surprised the FW800 port is still on there. It seems that Light Peak would make it somewhat redundant, and since LP is adaptable to FW800 anyway, there wouldn't be any loss of functionality in taking it out. Seems somewhat contrary to Apple's usual MO. Not that I'm complaining or anything, as I have a lot of FW800 devices and appreciate the convenience of having the port; just a little surprised is all.

That's like saying USB is redundant.

Anyways, who can read German? Does that mean we still need an adapter for the Mini-DisplayPort jack for everything? I hate those adapters.

[P]

I know, but it's not on the price list (meaning it's OEM only) and it's for some reason not in ark.intel.com (implying that it's brand new). The info I have says that the only nerf is the turbo, but I'd like to check ark to make sure they didn't disable VT-d or the AES instructions or something like that.

[P]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Anyways, who can read German? Does that mean we still need an adapter for the Mini-DisplayPort jack for everything? I hate those adapters.

I do. It doesn't say one way or the other, but the current guess is that ThunderBolt is simply the old mini-DP port but using LightPeak signalling. miniDP has max 4 channels of 5.4 Gbps. Run two of them in the opposite direction and you have just over 10 Gbps full duplex - exactly what Intel has been promising for the first generation.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Eug 

That's like saying USB is redundant.

It is redundant. A machine with all the USB ports replaced with Light Peak ports would lose nothing whatsoever in terms of functionality, and anything that USB can do, Light Peak can do at least as well, and probably a lot better.

The difference, of course, is that there are far more existing USB peripherals that people expect to work than is the case with FW800 (not that that's ever stopped Apple from removing ports in the past).

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Anyways, who can read German? Does that mean we still need an adapter for the Mini-DisplayPort jack for everything? I hate those adapters.

[Salty]

Sweet! I was sooo worried they were gonna hobble the 13 inch! This has me super excited, can't wait to drop a grand and a half on one of these! Btw are there any Minidisplay port to HDMI cables that do audio as well? I'm thinking it might be nice to get a monitor that does HDMI, with sound out... thus being able to plug in monitor and speakers all in one cable!

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Salty 

Sweet! I was sooo worried they were gonna hobble the 13 inch! This has me super excited, can't wait to drop a grand and a half on one of these! Btw are there any Minidisplay port to HDMI cables that do audio as well? I'm thinking it might be nice to get a monitor that does HDMI, with sound out... thus being able to plug in monitor and speakers all in one cable!

Moshi makes one, and if you're in Germany (I know you're not, but if somebody else is reading this), Networx also makes a mini DisplayPort to HDMI adapter that supports audio.

[Waragainstsleep]

While one of the main (missed) points of the unibody enclosure was that Apple could retool their lines quickly and cheaply, leaving the FW800 on means they can use the same cases as the last generation.

[Spheric Harlot]

Leaving it in also means that anybody who needs FireWire can just buy a machine and know it'll work with everything he owns, without having to worry about protocol drivers, adapters or hubs causing conflicts.

Light peak at this point is pro forma, as with Logic going 64-bit in 9.1. The important thing was that it was out there.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

It is redundant. A machine with all the USB ports replaced with Light Peak ports would lose nothing whatsoever in terms of functionality, and anything that USB can do, Light Peak can do at least as well, and probably a lot better.

Except, a machine with no USB ports will have no USB ports, and a machine with no Firewire 800 ports will have no Firewire 800 ports. In fact you could use the same argument to suggest Ethernet is redundant too.

Given that no Lightpeak products actually exist, it would strange to remove FW800 right off the bat. If Apple removed FW from the unibody, I'd just buy the plastic MacBook when I decide to update, cuz the more expensive MacBook Pro would offer no additional benefit. And no, Lightpeak won't count for quite some time yet. Yeah, Apple has done stuff like that before, but actually backtracked on that decision and reintroduced FW800 in the unibody 13" line.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Leaving it in also means that anybody who needs FireWire can just buy a machine and know it'll work with everything he owns, without having to worry about protocol drivers, adapters or hubs causing conflicts.

Yup. I'm not too happy with Apple's current MiniDisplayPort / graphics fiasco. My external monitor hasn't worked for the last two 10.6.X point updates, because Apple totally borked the drivers. It continues to work fine in the older versions of 10.6.

Mind you, Apple borked FW drivers a while back too with Snow Leopard. I actually had to run an old version of a kext to get my FW drives to work.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Except, a machine with no USB ports will have no USB ports, and a machine with no Firewire 800 ports will have no Firewire 800 ports. In fact you could use the same argument to suggest Ethernet is redundant too.

It, in fact, is.

Given that no Lightpeak products actually exist, it would strange to remove FW800 right off the bat. If Apple removed FW from the unibody, I'd just buy the plastic MacBook when I decide to update, cuz the more expensive MacBook Pro would offer no additional benefit.

Given that no USB 1.1 products actually exist, it would be strange to remove SCSI, RS422 DIN-8, and ADB right off the bat. If Apple removed those ports from the iMac and Power Macintosh G3, I'd just buy the older beige machine... okay, I'll stop. Seriously, though, given that Light Peak can carry arbitrary protocols — USB, FireWire, Ethernet, DisplayPort, you name it — there's nothing keeping you from hooking up all your old stuff via a cheap adapter. This would actually be much handier than the current setup, since it's only a matter of time before someone makes a LightPeak "dock" combining all those ports in one, allowing you to make a "laptop dock" far less cumbersome than current solutions, and connect your entire setup with one cable. I'd use it.

And no, Lightpeak won't count for quite some time yet. Yeah, Apple has done stuff like that before, but actually backtracked on that decision and reintroduced FW800 in the unibody 13" line.

The difference being that Apple didn't have a 100% capable replacement for FW800 in the unibody 13" line, as USB didn't have either the speed or the reliability to fully replace FireWire. Light Peak can leave FireWire in the dust.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Given that no USB 1.1 products actually exist, it would be strange to remove SCSI, RS422 DIN-8, and ADB right off the bat. If Apple removed those ports from the iMac and Power Macintosh G3, I'd just buy the older beige machine... okay, I'll stop.

Heh. I thought someone would mention that.

It's a viable argument, but then again, the original iMac was a completely different class of machine from its predecessors. Plus, the only think in that list that was of any importance to the average person in the target market was maybe a serial port or whatever.

The 13" unibody with Lightpeak is just that. Same machine with Lightpeak.

[olePigeon]

Too bad it wasn't FireWire S3200.

[mduell]

Calling it Thunderbolt and using the MDP connector is curious:

1) Intel's demo connectors have been either some new thing approximately the size/shape of USB, or actual USB with the optical paths added.

2) Thunderbolt makes no reference to fiber or light or optical or anything related, so it may be Light Peak over Copper.

3) DisplayPort supports 1, 2, or 4 channels at up to 5.4Gbps each but Apple's only MDP display only needs 5.8-7.5Gbps (unsure which blanking method they use), so they can squeeze it in 2 5.4Gbps channels.

That leaves two pairs of wire free to run a 10Gbps LPoC bidirectional link.

The big downside of LPoC instead of fiber is you'll be limited to about 2m cables.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by mduell 

2) Thunderbolt makes no reference to fiber or light or optical or anything related

Really?

[Salty]

Actually that's a lightning bolt. A thunderbolt is... well those don't really exist.

Btw does this mean that the rumour of a 16 gig SSD boot drive is bunk? I was sure that one was going to turn out to be true Oh well back to my plan of replacing the optical drive.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Heh. I thought someone would mention that.

It's a viable argument, but then again, the original iMac was a completely different class of machine from its predecessors.

Not really. The iMac was basically a Performa with pretty colors, and the G3 tower was... a G3 tower. The only thing that separated them from their predecessors was their elimination of legacy ports.

Plus, the only think in that list that was of any importance to the average person in the target market was maybe a serial port or whatever.

Backup drives? CD-RW? Modems? Those things all used the legacy ports, and were all relevant to users.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by mduell 

1) Intel's demo connectors have been either some new thing approximately the size/shape of USB, or actual USB with the optical paths added.

Wall Street Journal says USB Implementers Forum (USB-IF) wasn't happy about Intel using a USB derivative for LP, which could explain why they're using MDP:
The USB Implementers Forum–which oversees the evolution of that ubiquitous variety of connectors–put out a statement last summer that did not sound particularly friendly to Light Peak. “USB connectors are not general purpose connectors and are not designed to be used in support of other technology applications or standards or as combo connectors,” the group said.

Jeff Ravencraft, the forum’s president, declines to discuss Light Peak directly. But he notes that many companies contributed patents and intellectual property for the creation of USB, setting terms that limit those inventions for use in specific ways. Anyone who uses the technologies in other ways “can’t claim an IP license,” he says.

[Phoible]

The only thing I'm hoping is that it will be possible to run an external monitor (or two) and use the LP port at the same time.

[CharlesS]

Since they're on separate channels, I doubt it will be long before someone comes out with a cheap adapter that splits the port into separate MDP and LightPeak ports. What I do find curious about the whole thing is that they're combining it with a port that you typically expect to have only one of — one would presume that we'd eventually want to have many LightPeak ports on the machine, one for each of the ports currently there. Since I doubt that future Macs are going to have five Mini-DisplayPorts on the side (and isn't DisplayPort itself something that's supposed to be eventually replaced by LightPeak?), I'm guessing that the MBPs coming out tomorrow will probably get stuck in adapter-land eventually once the "real" connector for LightPeak comes out.

[CharlesS]

You know, though,

Originally Posted by mduell 

Wall Street Journal says USB Implementers Forum (USB-IF) wasn't happy about Intel using a USB derivative for LP, which could explain why they're using MDP:
The USB Implementers Forum–which oversees the evolution of that ubiquitous variety of connectors–put out a statement last summer that did not sound particularly friendly to Light Peak. “USB connectors are not general purpose connectors and are not designed to be used in support of other technology applications or standards or as combo connectors,” the group said.

Jeff Ravencraft, the forum’s president, declines to discuss Light Peak directly. But he notes that many companies contributed patents and intellectual property for the creation of USB, setting terms that limit those inventions for use in specific ways. Anyone who uses the technologies in other ways “can’t claim an IP license,” he says.

Then how do you explain all those combo eSATA/USB ports currently in use all over the place in PC laptops these days?

[ajprice]

Some macs already have MDP, could these be changed through a system or firmware update to become Thunderbolt ports? That would immediately increase the userbase to more than just new model MacBook Pros.

[CharlesS]

Doubtful. Thunderbolt will likely require new controller hardware on the motherboard, and after all we didn't even get a firmware update to enable audio over DP in the 2008 unibody Macs.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

You know, though,


Then how do you explain all those combo eSATA/USB ports currently in use all over the place in PC laptops these days?

That's an unmodified physical connector, though, isn't it?

The proposed Light Peak/USB hybrid connector adds optical "pins" in the plastic part of the connector.

[Spheric Harlot]

i7 in the 13"? HOT TAMALES!

This one's mine.

[P]

So close - a higher res display would have been perfect, but this is pretty great update anyway.

The difference between the two 13"ers is 400 MHz CPU clockspeed, 200 MHz GPU clockspeed, 1/2 turbo bins and 1 MB L2 cache. Intel's naming is absolutely awesome.

[Salty]

1/3 turbo bins? What sort of real world difference is that going to make when the processor goes turbo?