The engadget example used a cable that split displayport from lightpeak, as the connector has electrical pins for both.
But if you hook straight dsplayport to it, that's it. So you need that $49 adapter cable that splits the two, I tried to say that specifically. :) Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: James Boswell <[email protected]> Sender: [email protected] Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:13:36 To: <[email protected]> Reply-To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [H] Intel Thunderbolt (aka Light Peak) I think that you're wrong about displayport and lightpeak being mutually exclusive, one of the first real world demonstrations I saw of it was Engadget running one cable from a MBP to a.. Lacie or Promise? RAID array... which then had a daisy chained cable running from it to an ACD, the MBP was able to read HD video from the RAID and display it on the ACD without issues. if It were lightpeak OR displayport.. that would have broken down completely? On 21 Mar 2011, at 17:57, [email protected] wrote: > Yes. If you hook up displayport lightpeak is effectively 'off' as the port > is converted to display port. There was some talk about the two running > asynchronous (think a splitter cable out of the port) with pins providing one > or the other. > > I think lightpeak is phenomenal technology. And the concept of ultra fast > data transfer is nice, but its transfer rate is higher then disc write for > anything but the fastest ssds. Which is nice, but nas aren't made of ssd. > *shrug* > > I think its brilliant, but putting apple as the only adopter and only it a > laptop line makes it harder to believe widespread adoption happens. > > I think to many engadget fanbois drool and spew that this will wipe out usb3. > I don't think the two are even competing standards. But usb3, due to > backwards compatibility and widespread implimentation will be far more > ubiquitous in the next few years then lightpeak. But I think lightpeak will > become the standard. Unless something else comes along and gets widespread > board adoption first. If that happens, lightpeak becomes firewire1, or > maybe a better comparison is VLBus which lost to PCI. > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T > > -----Original Message----- > From: James Boswell <[email protected]> > Sender: [email protected] > Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:48:29 > To: <[email protected]> > Reply-To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [H] Intel Thunderbolt (aka Light Peak) > > > On 21 Mar 2011, at 14:00, [email protected] wrote: > >> The problem in that regard though is that lightpeak is fast... Just not fast >> enough for one of the core concepts. It doesn't have enough bandwidth for >> full flow displayport, and would be wiped out by uncompressed hdmi. >> >> So, since its a hub and spoje methhod, you'd wipe it out in one device. >> Its support for data and relaying other standards over it is fantastic. >> But I think the adoption rate is going to be low. The problem is, some >> look at it as 'the standard to rule all standards' but native devices will >> be few and far between. Its hard to be a lightpeak native device when your >> market consists of 3 total macbooks for the next nine months. That's why >> even devices like iPad2 don't have a lightpeak data connector. > > I'm going to have to interject there, the iPad2 doesn't have a lightpeak data > connector because the I/O Logic chip for lightpeak is absolutely HUGE... at > least by mobile device standards. > http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/02/new-macbooks-torn-open-thunderbolt-chip-revealed/ > > Also, I_believe_ that the displayport channels sideband the 10Gb/s data > channels rather than over them? > > -JB
