Apple betting the farm on Light Peak?
in [Mac Systems]
|
Prev: What does $2550 get you?
Next: Bluetooth on MacPro
From: nospam on 27 Jul 2010 17:58 In article <michelle-72AB0B.14555027072010(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> wrote: > > I'd be quite suprised if it adds much. FW800 costs money to put on > > them, too, and they've stepped up to that. FW800 costs *more* to put on > > them. > > They would have to add the port, not replace the firewire port; that would > require a redesign of the mother board and of the back of the computer. but they did redesign it, for the new processors and other changes.
From: nospam on 27 Jul 2010 18:44 In article <michelle-D9EB7E.15131727072010(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> wrote: > > > > I'd be quite suprised if it adds much. FW800 costs money to put on > > > > them, too, and they've stepped up to that. FW800 costs *more* to put > > > > on them. > > > > > > They would have to add the port, not replace the firewire port; that would > > > require a redesign of the mother board and of the back of the computer. > > > > but they did redesign it, for the new processors and other changes. > > That would be a more major redesign; they would have to shift things around > to make room for the port and for the added chips, traces, etc. which they did for the new processors, gpus and other support chips. you don't think those were a drop in replacement, do you? they redesigned the entire case of the mac mini just recently, and a few years ago added firewire 800 and a second video port. it's not that big of a deal. they redesigned the unibody macbook pros twice, first with a removable battery and then *again* for a non-removable battery.
From: Jim Gibson on 27 Jul 2010 19:10 In article <yob4ofkzl43.fsf(a)panix2.panix.com>, <BreadWithSpam(a)fractious.net> wrote: > Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> writes: > > In article <2010072713381675249-not(a)dotcom>, thepixelfreak <not(a)dot.com> > > wrote: > > > > > New iMac and upcoming MacPro. No USB 3.0, no eSATA. Why not? > > > > The MacPro has four eSATA bays. And the intended target audience > > for the iMac doesn't need eSATA. > > Just out of curiosity - why wouldn't you want eSATA? You can > get enclosures with eSata interfaces for about half the price > of drives with FW400 or FW800. What's the downside? One reason is that you cannot daisy-chain eSATA devices as you can Firewire. Each eSATA device needs its own connection. -- Jim Gibson
From: thepixelfreak on 27 Jul 2010 19:14 On 2010-07-27 14:00:07 -0700, Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> said: > In article <2010072713381675249-not(a)dotcom>, thepixelfreak <not(a)dot.com> > wrote: > >> New iMac and upcoming MacPro. No USB 3.0, no eSATA. Why not? > > The MacPro has four eSATA bays. And the intended target audience for the > iMac doesn't need eSATA. Bullshit, faster I/O benefits everyone. Further, the 'intended' audience doesn't NEED a Quad core computer, yet they get one anyway. If Apple weren't interested in faster I/O they wouldn't have added a SSD option to the iMac now would they. If Apple ever do release a machine with LightPeak I suspect it will make it into much of the product line. It's too compelling not to add to all the models. -- thepixelfreak
From: Jim Gibson on 27 Jul 2010 19:19
In article <michelle-D9EB7E.15131727072010(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> wrote: > In article <270720101758160857%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, > nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > > > > > I'd be quite suprised if it adds much. FW800 costs money to put on > > > > them, too, and they've stepped up to that. FW800 costs *more* to put > > > > on > > > > them. > > > > > > They would have to add the port, not replace the firewire port; that > > > would > > > require a redesign of the mother board and of the back of the computer. > > > > but they did redesign it, for the new processors and other changes. > > That would be a more major redesign; they would have to shift things around > to make room for the port and for the added chips, traces, etc. Might not need any more chips. Apparently, the internal SATA controller can support 6 devices. So there are in fact two unused SATA connections that can be routed to an external device with cables and jacks, such as with this $20 device: <http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Newer%20Technology/MPQXES2/> I purchased one of these to add two 1TB drives to my Mac Pro, since I had an eSATA enclosure sitting around unused. But after reading the installation instructions I decided not to use it. Routing the cables involves too much disassembly and reassembly of the computer internals for me, and the steps depend upon your exact model, as the innards of the Mac Pro have been redesigned at least once. I decided not to take the risk and ended up removing one of the three internal drives I had and installing the 2 1TB drives internally. Another, easier way to get eSATA on a Mac Pro is to install a $50 eSATA controller card (there may be others available): <http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Newer%20Technology/MXPCIE6GS2/> -- Jim Gibson |