Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by CardJoe, 16 Apr 2010.
well I can't see this powering any devices so its not going to replace the USB standard. I can't see it being much of a contender really
+1 to the power issues, But also, unless these fiberoptic cables can be bent double and otherwise manhandled as a usb cable can, i can see the need for lots of replacements being needed.
No reason why you couldn't have a couple of power lines running down the side of an optical cable.
On durability, have you guys played with an optical audio cable? The glass strand in the middle is incredibly flexible because it's so thin, the cladding is usually designed so you can't bend it enough to break the glass inside. If anything it could be more durable than a USB cable.
oh dear, a new standard by Intel. USB is dooooooooooooomed!
yeah but then its becoming overcomplicated and the price of the cables will start to mount up
Price may be an issue, but ultimately, a great move forward.
I don't get the negativity. We all understand how fibreoptic broadband is so much better than copper lines, but we don't want the same technology in our peripherals?
Bring it on.
Intel supporting USB 3.0 would mean a quick implementation of everything USB 3.0.
Intel supporting its own tech (not available yet) and puting USB 3.0 in a back seat means USB 2.0 will still be the dominant connection tech in the short term.
On the promise of faster tech (Light Peak) we will be using an old tech (USB 2.0) instead of a "easy to switch to" tech (USB 3.0).
Fibre-optic cable is already cheap to produce so an optical cable probably would only cost around a tenner, I can see this being used as a way to increase network speeds on a wired network as well as just for items like USB sticks etc, If you could have a powered LightPeak cable wouldn't it be even faster than E-Sata???
Allow me to be the first to say KAAAAAAAAAHHHHHNNN!!!!!
At least mobo makers can use 3rd party USB chips, I just wish Intel would offer more PCI-E lanes and generally a bit more bandwidth for them to play with.
"the last cable ull ever need"
Wasnt USB intended for that purpose too?
I smell a big shift to AMD until intel gets around to USB3
Why would it be any more limiting than USB? For long-length runs you could just disable the charging lines. It wouldn't be difficult to detect how long the cable length is, so you can just disable it over x metres.
Tbh I think the differences are pretty moot - both provide bandwidth well in excess of any practical device that normal folks will use. Once you can run an SSD down it without worry there's no need for extra bandwidth for the foreseeable future.
And I would wholeheartedly agree, if there were things out there that utilise the extra bandwidth. As far as I can see, USB3.0 is fast, but of no benefit over USB2.0 while external devices are limited by other; mechanical; facctors.
External storage devices.
Glass fiber does have a specific bend radius, listed on the packaging. The higher quality multi-strand cables like what I purchased has a bend radius of 1ft per 360degrees. There isn't a single cable right now behind my computer desk that would fit into that category, as they are all bent at much tighter angles than that.
However, they could use a non-glass cable that would allow more flexibility than glass.
As to using multiple strands per connector, by enabling more optical sensors of different wavelengths, they could upgrade the bandwidth in the future over the same cable, yay multi-plexing.
Fibre optic cabling, certainly something slightly sci-fi about it all, I hope this takes off providing it gets the support it deserves.
Very cool but they should still be backing USB 3.0
Is there really a need for multiple strands, why not just use a couple of different lasers? SS lasers aren't exactly expensive.
One question is, will LightPeak allow us to network stuff together? That'd be its best use imo.
Separate names with a comma.