or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Supply of Apple's Thunderbolt Display reportedly drying up for second time in 2013
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Supply of Apple's Thunderbolt Display reportedly drying up for second time in 2013 - Page 2

post #41 of 55

MATTE PLEASE

post #42 of 55

I just want a thunderbolt display for my 2012 rMBP. Give me thunderbolt 1.0 compatibility, the new magsafe 2 and USB 3. If they throw retina in for the same price (I doubt it), then great! Otherwise just give me an updated display. An annodized black aluminum display would be very sexy to match the Mac Pro.

The 2012 rMBP 650M graphics chip can drive the retina display + two thunderbolt displays. Do you think it could drive the retina display + one 4K display over thunderbolt 1.0?

Help! I'm trapped in a white dungeon of amazing precision and impeccable tolerances!

Reply

Help! I'm trapped in a white dungeon of amazing precision and impeccable tolerances!

Reply
post #43 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34 View Post

Only problem is that there isn't a display protocol that can handle 5120x2880, nor are any GPUs certified for that resolution either.

That might stop an off-the-shelf PC maker, but we are talking about Apple, Inc.

 

The same Apple, Inc. that just announced their new MacPro will support 3 4K displays? They don't need to double the resolution like iPhone and iPad as the apps are used to running on everything from 11" MBA up to 4K displays already. The sweet spot for panel resolutions will be 4K. The interesting part is going to be to see what size they go with. I would love them to go back to 30" or even to 32". 

 

The iMac design used as a larger display would allow them to go beyond 27" without feeling gargantuan. Not that I mind my 30" Cinema display, but it is pretty thick and gets pretty warm. 

post #44 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


Guess that's called asking a question now...
No, that's called being an obstinate guy.  Funny how a guy will drop their offspring off with a woman and completely forget about the baby because they're so confident in the decision making process of the opposite sex.

Oh, absolutely! But in disk storage right now, is it still meeting the requirements? Like I said, unless those new NAND techniques break out of the lab, we're relying on spinning drives to hit 5, 6, 7 terabytes pretty soon, but where's any indication of that? 1frown.gif
You originally quoted Moore's law and applied it to drives.  I think the new PCIE expansion may have bridged that gap for you.  If not, then I would ask you to plug in a USB 1 drive and enjoy the transfer speeds.

This'll get real recursive real fast.
You mean to the effect that I love you and hate you?  Yea, you're a real jerk.  ...But I did actually ask to have you get un-banned.
 
If you really want to help, show me how to do the multi quote thingy.

Edit:  Oh, this still works.

 

There's trolls out there just passing you by...

 

...no, not really.  Not tonight, or this morning. 


Edited by Vadania - 6/26/13 at 12:35am
post #45 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

MATTE PLEASE

I don't care if you're from 2005... really?  Have you seen one since you joined?

 

Are you one of those Matte Petition people?  Honestly, has that gone far?  I hope it doesn't.

post #46 of 55

This display requires 15 Gbit/s, assuming 24 bit color and a 60Hz refresh rate.

 

Thunderbolt 1: 10 Gbit/s

 

Thunderbolt 2: 20 Gbit/s

 

 

I can see the logic behind it...

post #47 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadania View Post

You can rest easy.  TB 2 is backwards compatible.

Yes, I know that -- but it won't be backwards compatible if the resolution has been doubled.  No matter how hard I try, my machine is not going to put out 5120x2880 over a TB 1 connection :)

post #48 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by animatedude View Post

Kill the flat "regular" display.
Keep the Thunderbolt display $999

New Retina 27'' with the new slim design for $1499
4K with black aluminum design to match the new Mac Pro $2499

 

Why would the 4K cost more than a Retina version when it's lower resolution? Aren't we assuming the "Retina" spec for the 27" is 5120 x 2880? 4K is only 3840 x 2160.

post #49 of 55
Just got back from the Fashion Valley Apple Store where I inquired about the thunderbolt display. I was told that the quantities were very low and most likely out of stock (for both displays). I am glad I held off from buying this week. 1smile.gif
post #50 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadania View Post

My own insignificant opinion would be that this is for the Mac Pro .  The wall paper anyway.  It was even eluded to in the keynote.

The next logical thought would be that the iMac would support that resolution, but it would be hard pressed to do anything else at this point.  Unless the decreased heat from the Haswell chip allowed them to put a non-mobile graphics card or chip in the new iMac enclosure.  I'm only guessing.

My third thought, and going way 'out on a limb' so to speak, would be that the new display would be capable of supporting many different resolutions.  Halving the pixel count for a current computer on a display capable of displaying twice the resolution... it literally would look the same.  No one would notice, but the upgrade potential would be there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmileyDude View Post

Yes, I know that -- but it won't be backwards compatible if the resolution has been doubled.  No matter how hard I try, my machine is not going to put out 5120x2880 over a TB 1 connection 1smile.gif
Many machines in the past (and most now) have been display set rate changing, this will likely be still true.

I am just asking this question about how many of these displays do you think the latest retina MacBook Pro could input, (its obvious 1) and probably be around 3 (this is still low enough) but statically what would it be?
post #51 of 55
The future of Thunderbolt is looking a little less bright. For most intents Apple is the only one using it even tho it was rolled out quite some time back. In fact one of the computer manufacturers who had included it announced they won't be offering it any longer going forward. Now the latest USB standard has been released negating any speed advantage the original Thunderbolt had coming in at 10GB a second. IMO Thunderbolt will end up going the way of Firewire. Perhaps technically superior but just not worth the added expense for most.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #52 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

The future of Thunderbolt is looking a little less bright. For most intents Apple is the only one using it even tho it was rolled out quite some time back. In fact one of the computer manufacturers who had included it announced they won't be offering it any longer going forward. Now the latest USB standard has been released negating any speed advantage the original Thunderbolt had coming in at 10GB a second. IMO Thunderbolt will end up going the way of Firewire. Perhaps technically superior but just not worth the added expense for most.

 

I don't see how USB 3 @ 5Gbit/s negates the advantage of Thunderbolt @ 10Gbit/s or Thunderbolt 2 @ 20Gbit/s.  Unless you're saying that you just don't care about 4x the speed?

 

And there are plenty of usage cases where Thunderbolt will beat USB 3 at pretty much any speed.  GPUs, for example, are much better suited for running over Thunderbolt than USB 3.  And as a single docking connection to a laptop, Thunderbolt can't be beat IMO.  

 

USB 3 is a great upgrade over USB 2 -- I've been very pleased with the USB 3 drive that I have on my 2012 Mac mini.  But the real potential for future upgrades on that machine is via Thunderbolt, not USB 3.  

post #53 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmileyDude View Post

I don't see how USB 3 @ 5Gbit/s negates the advantage of Thunderbolt @ 10Gbit/s or Thunderbolt 2 @ 20Gbit/s.  Unless you're saying that you just don't care about 4x the speed?

And there are plenty of usage cases where Thunderbolt will beat USB 3 at pretty much any speed.  GPUs, for example, are much better suited for running over Thunderbolt than USB 3.  And as a single docking connection to a laptop, Thunderbolt can't be beat IMO.  

USB 3 is a great upgrade over USB 2 -- I've been very pleased with the USB 3 drive that I have on my 2012 Mac mini.  But the real potential for future upgrades on that machine is via Thunderbolt, not USB 3.  

It's not USB3.

Do a search for USB3.1 or more commonly being called Superspeed USB.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #54 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


It's not USB3.

Do a search for USB3.1 or more commonly being called Superspeed USB.

 

It's also not here yet -- by the time machines and devices that support 3.1 hit the market, Thunderbolt 2 will already be on the market as well.  The 3.1 standard just got finished yesterday.  It will take a little time for support to roll out.  Apple and Intel announced Thunderbolt 2 about a month or so ago.

 

And again, I'll take TB 2's 20Gbit/s over USB 3.1's 10Gbit/s -- even TB 1 @ 10Gbit/s should still give better performance than USB 3.1.  All things are not equal between the way Thunderbolt and USB work -- just because they have similar advertised speeds doesn't mean they get the same throughput.

post #55 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmileyDude View Post

It's also not here yet -- by the time machines and devices that support 3.1 hit the market, Thunderbolt 2 will already be on the market as well.  The 3.1 standard just got finished yesterday.  It will take a little time for support to roll out.  Apple and Intel announced Thunderbolt 2 about a month or so ago.

And again, I'll take TB 2's 20Gbit/s over USB 3.1's 10Gbit/s -- even TB 1 @ 10Gbit/s should still give better performance than USB 3.1.  All things are not equal between the way Thunderbolt and USB work -- just because they have similar advertised speeds doesn't mean they get the same throughput.

Oh I agree with you that Thunderbolt is the technically better option and said so in the post you responded to. it's also the more expensive and specialized option. With the latest USB 3.1 there won't be enough reason to include the thunderbolt port for non-Apple users IMO.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Supply of Apple's Thunderbolt Display reportedly drying up for second time in 2013