You really don't know what you are talking about in terms of keeping up with reality.
The reason why they removed the DVD is people weren't using them, and it's far cheaper in the long run to do it externally and to charge people for it, if they need it.
Secondly, Apple provides Thunderbolt port(s) standard, most PCs don't have Thunderbolt.
Apple has been providing more and faster SSD storage options which are faster and more reliable than HDD and HDD's are on their way out. I predict that HDDs will be a thing of the past completely in about 2 years in 99% of Apple's computers.
Apple is moving (obviously) away from giving a keyboard/ms on headless units. I think it's because they are seeing more and more people keeping their existing keyboard and mouse, or buying whatever they want.
Apple does their own research in terms of what people want and various price points they feel the market will bear.
Actually in the past they have indicated the opposite.
And Apple is NOT going to be the low cost leader since there is NO money in that.
I'm not sure why the discussion keep turning into whining about low cost, the machines we are talking about wouldn't be low cost by any measure. With the extremely high entry point of the new Mac Pro Apple has plenty of pricing room.
Seriously, you need to compare a like system as close as you can get and see what you get and don't get with each and figure out why one costs what it costs.
Otherwise, i think your posts are becoming a waste of MY time and others.
What is a waste of time is taking an honest look at Apples desktop lineup and calling it rational or suitable for today's user needs. Let's face it low end needs have gone to the iPad or iPhone. This place a greater interest in good performance and features for the remaining Mac buying public.
In a nut shell the Mac market is dramatically different than it was even two years ago.
Actually in the past they have indicated the opposite.
I'm not sure why the discussion keep turning into whining about low cost, the machines we are talking about wouldn't be low cost by any measure. With the extremely high entry point of the new Mac Pro Apple has plenty of pricing room.
What is a waste of time is taking an honest look at Apples desktop lineup and calling it rational or suitable for today's user needs. Let's face it low end needs have gone to the iPad or iPhone. This place a greater interest in good performance and features for the remaining Mac buying public.
In a nut shell the Mac market is dramatically different than it was even two years ago.
Apple has been looking at the buying habits of Mac users. That's partially how they decide to continue or discontinue a product and it's also what's feasible from a technical standpoint. The reason why I raised the low cost was because I was responding to Lemon, he for some reason has a difficult time with that and he needs to have it pounded in his brain that Apple isn't going to go after the low end computer market, what they have is about as low as they are going to go. Once a computer goes below $500 for a desktop/laptop, there's no money in it. Hence the iPads, which start at around $300 and go up from there. I think once they revamp the MacMini, they might do well with a medium level headless model to fit in between the MacMini and MacPro for the Prosumer market or those that just don't need a XEON but need something more than a Mac mini.
Secondly, Apple provides Thunderbolt port(s) standard, most PCs don't have Thunderbolt.
I just realized something, the Mac Pro only has one HDMI port, what if I want to use three NEC 10BIT monitors. How much are Thunderport to HDMI or DisplayPort adapters? I see that have you count Thunderport as big feature for the Mac Pro. Do you have any use for ThundPort? I have yet to meet anyone who needs it, it's just to expensive. USB 3.0 is more then adequate for my needs.
I have a 3GB external HD connected to a SATA input, throughput has never been saturated, why do I need a faster connection when the HD drive won't transfer data any faster. A Thunderport to PCIe breakout box cost's 800 to 1,000 dollars, what else is out there for Thunderport except Apple monitors, a couple of external sound cards and video capture box's. Am I missing something else? I'm doing a search right for every Thunderport accessory, I think I found two that look interesting but don't need. Do you have any Thunderport gadgets Tallest?
I just realized something, the Mac Pro only has one HDMI port, what if I want to use three NEC 10BIT monitors. How much are Thunderport to HDMI or DisplayPort adapters? I see that have you count Thunderport as big feature for the Mac Pro. Do you have any use for ThundPort? I have yet to meet anyone who needs it, it's just to expensive. USB 3.0 is more then adequate for my needs.
I am already using a Thunderbolt port. I can use it to hook up to old Firewire drives, a Belkin Express port because I can't have any HDDs hooked up to the same USB bus as my USB DAC. I have to put HDDs on another USB Bus.
For professionals in audio and video production, there are lots of Thunderbolt devices, PCI chassis, RAID, etc.
USB 3.0 is great for some things, but for others, it's not fast enough, not bi-directional, and isn't really designed for the same thing as Thunderbolt, so anyone comparing the two OBVIOUSLY doesn't know much about USB and Thunderbolt.
If i was going to buy a MacPro system, there are a couple of things I might but and one might be a 16 or 24 hot swappable RAID drive array that also has 2 PCI slots. Then there are monitors. If I'm not doing 4K, they are display port adapter which is what Thunderbolt can do. I'm sure Apple will be releasing their 4K display soon as well as display port monitors, they'll connect to the Thunderbolt ports AND still can put other devices on the same chain if need be.
It all depends on what the needs are, but there are AD/DA converters for audio production that can be Thunderbolt attached which have lower latency than USB or Firewire AD/DA converters. There are video conversion products that work better with Thunderbolt.
USB has it's limitations, and to me they are only for certain devices, as there are more devices on the high end that are Thunderbolt ready, which is where these MacPros are aimed. You can use BOTH depending on the device and configuration desired. I would rather have them than NOT have them. That's for sure.
PS. Go to another site because you aren't using Apple products and all you seem to do is WASTE MY TIME and everyone else's.
I am already using a Thunderbolt port. I can use it to hook up to old Firewire drives, a Belkin Express port because I can't have any HDDs hooked up to the same USB bus as my USB DAC. I have to put HDDs on another USB Bus.
For professionals in audio and video production, there are lots of Thunderbolt devices, PCI chassis, RAID, etc.
USB 3.0 is great for some things, but for others, it's not fast enough, not bi-directional, and isn't really designed for the same thing as Thunderbolt, so anyone comparing the two OBVIOUSLY doesn't know much about USB and Thunderbolt.
If i was going to buy a MacPro system, there are a couple of things I might but and one might be a 16 or 24 hot swappable RAID drive array that also has 2 PCI slots. Then there are monitors. If I'm not doing 4K, they are display port adapter which is what Thunderbolt can do. I'm sure Apple will be releasing their 4K display soon as well as display port monitors, they'll connect to the Thunderbolt ports AND still can put other devices on the same chain if need be.
It all depends on what the needs are, but there are AD/DA converters for audio production that can be Thunderbolt attached which have lower latency than USB or Firewire AD/DA converters. There are video conversion products that work better with Thunderbolt.
USB has it's limitations, and to me they are only for certain devices, as there are more devices on the high end that are Thunderbolt ready, which is where these MacPros are aimed. You can use BOTH depending on the device and configuration desired. I would rather have them than NOT have them. That's for sure.
PS. Go to another site because you aren't using Apple products and all you seem to do is WASTE MY TIME and everyone else's.
Oh I have plenty of Apple products, probably more then the average person on here, still have older ones as well like a Lambard Powerbook with a G4 upgrade card, Powermac G4, Apple IIFX, Apple Classic Color, Apple TV (the black one.) New ones include iMac 27" 2012 i7 , 512GB, 32GB, iPad 4 64GB , iPad Mini 32 GB, 3G, iPad Air 128GB, 4G, Macbook Air 2012 and Mac Mini i7, 256GB 16GB. I'm just trying to understand the need for Thunderport, the PCIe breakout boxes are just so expensive to make it worth using a Mac, I mean you really have to like OSX to buy one of those instead of just using a a PC. The same goes for a lot of these audio cards, isn't a in board PCIe card better then a external box that costs almost double. I'm really asking here, don't get upset.
We do know that because they still sell millions of iMacs. Of course there is some threshold where Apple will readjust if iMac sales decline too much but working harder for the same amount of money isn't in Apple's DNA.
Frankly Windows 7 is a good enough OS that Apple sales will always be limited because of the Apple Tax. It's Honda vs BMW.
What you are seeing is the difference between consumer confidence and enterprise confidence. Enterprise sales had an uptick. That doesn't help Apple all that much.
The 21" monitor is rather meh. The 27" monitor is good enough that you'd have to pay more than $500 to beat it unless you want to do the dead pixel dance with cut rate 27" monitors.
The reason there's no 24" iMac is because that's a "good enough" size for most pro users. 21" is just too tiny. So instant upsell.
That's key right? And I don't disagree. What an xMac proponent has to do is show that reducing ASPs by X will increase sales by more than a factor of X or it's a loss. But that's hard to prove.
Instead its a whole lot of handwaving about how they know how to build a more effective product lineup than Apple and of course sales will increase by more than a factor of X and Apple is just being stupid.
Everyone's cost benefit analysis differs and there's no right or wrong answer. Apple generally remains a half-decent value if you buy at launch and they do last a long time. I still have a Core Duo 2006 Mini and a 2009 Core 2 Duo Mini in active duty with the kids.
Windows 7 is pretty decent on a modern machine but man, I'd hate to be running it on that older Core 2 Duo machine much less the Core Duo.
The Core 2 Duo Geekbench is 2768. The iPad Air is 2643.
Mavericks isn't teh snappy but it's not half-bad either.
I look at the 21 inch model for people that are more consumers and the 27 inch are those that want a bigger monitor or are prosumer based users. For the average office worker, 21 inch is plenty big enough. Apple did have a 24 inch, but I guess they decided to have the 21 and 27 inch instead. Just their decision. Apple doesn't like having too many SKUs as it's more difficult to manage and ends up being costly in the long run.
I actually wouldn't put that much stock in Geekbench tests, they are one test, but unfortunately, they don't test everything like they should.
Oh I have plenty of Apple products, probably more then the average person on here, still have older ones as well like a Lambard Powerbook with a G4 upgrade card, Powermac G4, Apple IIFX, Apple Classic Color, Apple TV (the black one.) New ones include iMac 27" 2012 i7 , 512GB, 32GB, iPad 4 64GB , iPad Mini 32 GB, 3G, iPad Air 128GB, 4G, Macbook Air 2012 and Mac Mini i7, 256GB 16GB. I'm just trying to understand the need for Thunderport, the PCIe breakout boxes are just so expensive to make it worth using a Mac, I mean you really have to like OSX to buy one of those instead of just using a a PC. The same goes for a lot of these audio cards, isn't a in board PCIe card better then a external box that costs almost double. I'm really asking here, don't get upset.
Here's a web site that tracks Thunderbolt products, they update it constantly, but there are probably some Thunderbolt products that have been announced that are not listed, yet.
So far I’ve bought my computers at just the wrong time. My models predate Thunderbolt, unfortunately.
I'm really not trying to be an Ahole here, just looking at what is available Thunderport wise and I just don't see anything that looks super cool that I must have. I do like the break out video capture boxes but I have no need for analog, that audio cards are probably the only thing that I would want but the PC world has just so many more options in the realm for me to change platforms back to Apple for audio work, Ableton Live looks and does the same thing on Windows. That and I have the best sound card in my workstation, if the break out PCIe boards came down in price to say about 300 bucks then I would consider it but 1,000 is nuts.
Here's a web site that tracks Thunderbolt products, they update it constantly, but there are probably some Thunderbolt products that have been announced that are not listed, yet.
Here's a web site that tracks Thunderbolt products, they update it constantly, but there are probably some Thunderbolt products that have been announced that are not listed, yet.
Yeah I like the Black Magic stuff, ooh did you see their little camera, how cool is that.
Yeah, 4K on a budget. I'm sure Thunderbolt is going to be the standard for 4K video in the future. It's a chicken before the egg syndrome. First they have to release the computers with the capability, then the external devices start to flow on the market. TB 2 is a giant leap forward. USB just has too many limitations when working with lots of large files, transferring back and forth with different devices. USB is more consumer level. It's still useful, but TB/TB 2 is higher bandwidth, PCI, DisplayPort, and bi directional and it will eventually hit the limit of 100GB and bi directional.
Yeah, 4K on a budget. I'm sure Thunderbolt is going to be the standard for 4K video in the future. It's a chicken before the egg syndrome. First they have to release the computers with the capability, then the external devices start to flow on the market. TB 2 is a giant leap forward. USB just has too many limitations when working with lots of large files, transferring back and forth with different devices. USB is more consumer level. It's still useful, but TB/TB 2 is higher bandwidth, PCI, DisplayPort, and bi directional and it will eventually hit the limit of 100GB and bi directional.
TB 2 wasn't the thing that allowed for 4K. The displayport 1.2 standard covered 4K. The first version of TB only supported displayport 1.1. Note that the raw bandwidth is higher than 17.28. It's just that it has some overhead. Displayport 1.2 also has some overlapping features in terms of ability to run non-display data downstream. For displays that use some kind of DDC, most still use a usb cable from display to computer to set hardware LUTs. That may may remain the same regardless of thunderbolt adoption. You don't see it on Apple displays because there's no way to set up near metal communication with the display hardware other than the assignment of instruction sets within an ICC profile, which is a complete mess. I know Apple likes to keep things simple. In my opinion the biggest improvements they could make to their own displays would be something similar to what NEC calls colorcomp (Eizo's version is DUE and I forget what Quato and Barco call theirs) to improve uniformity by using a slightly lower contrast ratio. The other thing would be to build in some amount of normalized compensation for hardware drift, because it is inevitable.
DisplayPort version 1.2 was approved on December 22, 2009. The most significant improvement of the new version is the doubling of the effective bandwidth to 17.28 Gbit/s in High Bit Rate 2 (HBR2) mode, which allows increased resolutions, higher refresh rates, and greater color depth. Other improvements include multiple independent video streams (daisy-chain connection with multiple monitors) called Multi-Stream Transport, facilities for stereoscopic 3D, increased AUX channel bandwidth (from 1 Mbit/s to 720 Mbit/s), more color spaces including xvYCC, scRGB and Adobe RGB 1998, and Global Time Code (GTC) for sub 1 µs audio/video synchronisation. Also Apple Inc.'s Mini DisplayPort connector, which is much smaller and designed for laptop computers and other small devices, is compatible with the new standard.[12][13][14][2][15]
That terminates its use as a thunderbolt port, as it relies on mini displayport backward compatibility. In most of those you can't use the adapters as part of a chain, even if they're on the end. I just wanted to point out that they're still limiting. In the case of TB 1, the highest it supports is displayport 1.1, which doesn't include a 60hz 4k spec.
Some people make tons of mistakes on this stuff. Note that many try to use the $50 thunderbolt cable to an adapter to their display rather than a mini displayport to "whatever" one cable solution. Beside that I was trying to indicate that thunderbolt doesn't add functionality when you're just using it to something backwards compatible. In cases where the machine is tight on ports, I guess it would add some flexibility, given the number of available adapter types.
TB 2 wasn't the thing that allowed for 4K. The displayport 1.2 standard covered 4K. The first version of TB only supported displayport 1.1. Note that the raw bandwidth is higher than 17.28. It's just that it has some overhead. Displayport 1.2 also has some overlapping features in terms of ability to run non-display data downstream. For displays that use some kind of DDC, most still use a usb cable from display to computer to set hardware LUTs. That may may remain the same regardless of thunderbolt adoption. You don't see it on Apple displays because there's no way to set up near metal communication with the display hardware other than the assignment of instruction sets within an ICC profile, which is a complete mess. I know Apple likes to keep things simple. In my opinion the biggest improvements they could make to their own displays would be something similar to what NEC calls colorcomp (Eizo's version is DUE and I forget what Quato and Barco call theirs) to improve uniformity by using a slightly lower contrast ratio. The other thing would be to build in some amount of normalized compensation for hardware drift, because it is inevitable.
That terminates its use as a thunderbolt port, as it relies on mini displayport backward compatibility. In most of those you can't use the adapters as part of a chain, even if they're on the end. I just wanted to point out that they're still limiting. In the case of TB 1, the highest it supports is displayport 1.1, which doesn't include a 60hz 4k spec.
I never said it was. What Intel is doing is kicking up the speed because you can daisy chain various devices in addition to a display port monitor. They just want more bandwidth to connect PCI chassis/RAID arrays and display port monitors on the same data chain. So you can watch 4K and do other data transfers on the same chain.
I never said it was. What Intel is doing is kicking up the speed because you can daisy chain various devices in addition to a display port monitor. They just want more bandwidth to connect PCI chassis/RAID arrays and display port monitors on the same data chain. So you can watch 4K and do other data transfers on the same chain.
It doesn't really add more bandwidth. If it does, it's a very small amount. Both have overhead and take the same number of PCI lanes as input streams. The displayport 1.2 spec, which preceded thunderbolt, is actually what set this up. Intel merely adopted it for their own technology, as was necessary. They implemented things that were already finalized. There's no trailblazing here. Daisy chaining is technically possible if the displays themselves support it, much like with thunderbolt. You can't daisy chain displayport displays using thunderbolt protocols. In the case of Apple, they implemented thunderbolt, so they had the power to implement this. Here is a less elegant solution, but it is less restrictive on what hardware is supported. Bleh that photo doesn't show it well. It's a splitter, which requires one displayport connection and splits that. The other thing is that no one has officially confirmed that 4K will be daisy chainable. I haven't worked out the bandwidth requirements, so I'm not sure whether it's feasible. In OSX, Apple has stated they don't intend to support 10 bit connections, so that's one bandwidth concern down. I'm still not sure whether it provides enough for multiple streams at 60hz. If it does it's likely done through channel bonding, in which case the connection becomes half duplex.
Comments
In a nut shell the Mac market is dramatically different than it was even two years ago.
Actually in the past they have indicated the opposite.
I'm not sure why the discussion keep turning into whining about low cost, the machines we are talking about wouldn't be low cost by any measure. With the extremely high entry point of the new Mac Pro Apple has plenty of pricing room.
What is a waste of time is taking an honest look at Apples desktop lineup and calling it rational or suitable for today's user needs. Let's face it low end needs have gone to the iPad or iPhone. This place a greater interest in good performance and features for the remaining Mac buying public.
In a nut shell the Mac market is dramatically different than it was even two years ago.
Apple has been looking at the buying habits of Mac users. That's partially how they decide to continue or discontinue a product and it's also what's feasible from a technical standpoint. The reason why I raised the low cost was because I was responding to Lemon, he for some reason has a difficult time with that and he needs to have it pounded in his brain that Apple isn't going to go after the low end computer market, what they have is about as low as they are going to go. Once a computer goes below $500 for a desktop/laptop, there's no money in it. Hence the iPads, which start at around $300 and go up from there. I think once they revamp the MacMini, they might do well with a medium level headless model to fit in between the MacMini and MacPro for the Prosumer market or those that just don't need a XEON but need something more than a Mac mini.
Secondly, Apple provides Thunderbolt port(s) standard, most PCs don't have Thunderbolt.
I just realized something, the Mac Pro only has one HDMI port, what if I want to use three NEC 10BIT monitors. How much are Thunderport to HDMI or DisplayPort adapters? I see that have you count Thunderport as big feature for the Mac Pro. Do you have any use for ThundPort? I have yet to meet anyone who needs it, it's just to expensive. USB 3.0 is more then adequate for my needs.
Therefore it’s worthless?
Ignorance is bliss.
$6.65.
Therefore it’s worthless?
Ignorance is bliss.
$6.65.
I have a 3GB external HD connected to a SATA input, throughput has never been saturated, why do I need a faster connection when the HD drive won't transfer data any faster. A Thunderport to PCIe breakout box cost's 800 to 1,000 dollars, what else is out there for Thunderport except Apple monitors, a couple of external sound cards and video capture box's. Am I missing something else? I'm doing a search right for every Thunderport accessory, I think I found two that look interesting but don't need. Do you have any Thunderport gadgets Tallest?
I just realized something, the Mac Pro only has one HDMI port, what if I want to use three NEC 10BIT monitors. How much are Thunderport to HDMI or DisplayPort adapters? I see that have you count Thunderport as big feature for the Mac Pro. Do you have any use for ThundPort? I have yet to meet anyone who needs it, it's just to expensive. USB 3.0 is more then adequate for my needs.
I am already using a Thunderbolt port. I can use it to hook up to old Firewire drives, a Belkin Express port because I can't have any HDDs hooked up to the same USB bus as my USB DAC. I have to put HDDs on another USB Bus.
For professionals in audio and video production, there are lots of Thunderbolt devices, PCI chassis, RAID, etc.
USB 3.0 is great for some things, but for others, it's not fast enough, not bi-directional, and isn't really designed for the same thing as Thunderbolt, so anyone comparing the two OBVIOUSLY doesn't know much about USB and Thunderbolt.
If i was going to buy a MacPro system, there are a couple of things I might but and one might be a 16 or 24 hot swappable RAID drive array that also has 2 PCI slots. Then there are monitors. If I'm not doing 4K, they are display port adapter which is what Thunderbolt can do. I'm sure Apple will be releasing their 4K display soon as well as display port monitors, they'll connect to the Thunderbolt ports AND still can put other devices on the same chain if need be.
It all depends on what the needs are, but there are AD/DA converters for audio production that can be Thunderbolt attached which have lower latency than USB or Firewire AD/DA converters. There are video conversion products that work better with Thunderbolt.
USB has it's limitations, and to me they are only for certain devices, as there are more devices on the high end that are Thunderbolt ready, which is where these MacPros are aimed. You can use BOTH depending on the device and configuration desired. I would rather have them than NOT have them. That's for sure.
PS. Go to another site because you aren't using Apple products and all you seem to do is WASTE MY TIME and everyone else's.
I am already using a Thunderbolt port. I can use it to hook up to old Firewire drives, a Belkin Express port because I can't have any HDDs hooked up to the same USB bus as my USB DAC. I have to put HDDs on another USB Bus.
For professionals in audio and video production, there are lots of Thunderbolt devices, PCI chassis, RAID, etc.
USB 3.0 is great for some things, but for others, it's not fast enough, not bi-directional, and isn't really designed for the same thing as Thunderbolt, so anyone comparing the two OBVIOUSLY doesn't know much about USB and Thunderbolt.
If i was going to buy a MacPro system, there are a couple of things I might but and one might be a 16 or 24 hot swappable RAID drive array that also has 2 PCI slots. Then there are monitors. If I'm not doing 4K, they are display port adapter which is what Thunderbolt can do. I'm sure Apple will be releasing their 4K display soon as well as display port monitors, they'll connect to the Thunderbolt ports AND still can put other devices on the same chain if need be.
It all depends on what the needs are, but there are AD/DA converters for audio production that can be Thunderbolt attached which have lower latency than USB or Firewire AD/DA converters. There are video conversion products that work better with Thunderbolt.
USB has it's limitations, and to me they are only for certain devices, as there are more devices on the high end that are Thunderbolt ready, which is where these MacPros are aimed. You can use BOTH depending on the device and configuration desired. I would rather have them than NOT have them. That's for sure.
PS. Go to another site because you aren't using Apple products and all you seem to do is WASTE MY TIME and everyone else's.
Oh I have plenty of Apple products, probably more then the average person on here, still have older ones as well like a Lambard Powerbook with a G4 upgrade card, Powermac G4, Apple IIFX, Apple Classic Color, Apple TV (the black one.) New ones include iMac 27" 2012 i7 , 512GB, 32GB, iPad 4 64GB , iPad Mini 32 GB, 3G, iPad Air 128GB, 4G, Macbook Air 2012 and Mac Mini i7, 256GB 16GB. I'm just trying to understand the need for Thunderport, the PCIe breakout boxes are just so expensive to make it worth using a Mac, I mean you really have to like OSX to buy one of those instead of just using a a PC. The same goes for a lot of these audio cards, isn't a in board PCIe card better then a external box that costs almost double. I'm really asking here, don't get upset.
Do you have any Thunderport gadgets Tallest?
So far I’ve bought my computers at just the wrong time. My models predate Thunderbolt, unfortunately.
We do know that because they still sell millions of iMacs. Of course there is some threshold where Apple will readjust if iMac sales decline too much but working harder for the same amount of money isn't in Apple's DNA.
Frankly Windows 7 is a good enough OS that Apple sales will always be limited because of the Apple Tax. It's Honda vs BMW.
What you are seeing is the difference between consumer confidence and enterprise confidence. Enterprise sales had an uptick. That doesn't help Apple all that much.
The 21" monitor is rather meh. The 27" monitor is good enough that you'd have to pay more than $500 to beat it unless you want to do the dead pixel dance with cut rate 27" monitors.
The reason there's no 24" iMac is because that's a "good enough" size for most pro users. 21" is just too tiny. So instant upsell.
That's key right? And I don't disagree. What an xMac proponent has to do is show that reducing ASPs by X will increase sales by more than a factor of X or it's a loss. But that's hard to prove.
Instead its a whole lot of handwaving about how they know how to build a more effective product lineup than Apple and of course sales will increase by more than a factor of X and Apple is just being stupid.
Everyone's cost benefit analysis differs and there's no right or wrong answer. Apple generally remains a half-decent value if you buy at launch and they do last a long time. I still have a Core Duo 2006 Mini and a 2009 Core 2 Duo Mini in active duty with the kids.
Windows 7 is pretty decent on a modern machine but man, I'd hate to be running it on that older Core 2 Duo machine much less the Core Duo.
The Core 2 Duo Geekbench is 2768. The iPad Air is 2643.
Mavericks isn't teh snappy but it's not half-bad either.
I look at the 21 inch model for people that are more consumers and the 27 inch are those that want a bigger monitor or are prosumer based users. For the average office worker, 21 inch is plenty big enough. Apple did have a 24 inch, but I guess they decided to have the 21 and 27 inch instead. Just their decision. Apple doesn't like having too many SKUs as it's more difficult to manage and ends up being costly in the long run.
I actually wouldn't put that much stock in Geekbench tests, they are one test, but unfortunately, they don't test everything like they should.
Oh I have plenty of Apple products, probably more then the average person on here, still have older ones as well like a Lambard Powerbook with a G4 upgrade card, Powermac G4, Apple IIFX, Apple Classic Color, Apple TV (the black one.) New ones include iMac 27" 2012 i7 , 512GB, 32GB, iPad 4 64GB , iPad Mini 32 GB, 3G, iPad Air 128GB, 4G, Macbook Air 2012 and Mac Mini i7, 256GB 16GB. I'm just trying to understand the need for Thunderport, the PCIe breakout boxes are just so expensive to make it worth using a Mac, I mean you really have to like OSX to buy one of those instead of just using a a PC. The same goes for a lot of these audio cards, isn't a in board PCIe card better then a external box that costs almost double. I'm really asking here, don't get upset.
Here's a web site that tracks Thunderbolt products, they update it constantly, but there are probably some Thunderbolt products that have been announced that are not listed, yet.
https://thunderbolttechnology.net/products
Lynx, which makes AD/DA converters is getting ready to release a bunch of Thunderbolt products for the Audio recording industry.
I'm sure at NAMM and upcoming NAB, we'll see more Thunderbolt and Thunderbolt 2 devices.
So far I’ve bought my computers at just the wrong time. My models predate Thunderbolt, unfortunately.
I'm really not trying to be an Ahole here, just looking at what is available Thunderport wise and I just don't see anything that looks super cool that I must have. I do like the break out video capture boxes but I have no need for analog, that audio cards are probably the only thing that I would want but the PC world has just so many more options in the realm for me to change platforms back to Apple for audio work, Ableton Live looks and does the same thing on Windows. That and I have the best sound card in my workstation, if the break out PCIe boards came down in price to say about 300 bucks then I would consider it but 1,000 is nuts.
Here's a web site that tracks Thunderbolt products, they update it constantly, but there are probably some Thunderbolt products that have been announced that are not listed, yet.
https://thunderbolttechnology.net/products
Yeah I like the Black Magic stuff, ooh did you see their little camera, how cool is that.
Here's a web site that tracks Thunderbolt products, they update it constantly, but there are probably some Thunderbolt products that have been announced that are not listed, yet.
https://thunderbolttechnology.net/products
Yeah okay, I could see a raid being useful for video work. I'm kind of done with none networked storage though.
Yeah I like the Black Magic stuff, ooh did you see their little camera, how cool is that.
Yeah, 4K on a budget. I'm sure Thunderbolt is going to be the standard for 4K video in the future. It's a chicken before the egg syndrome. First they have to release the computers with the capability, then the external devices start to flow on the market. TB 2 is a giant leap forward. USB just has too many limitations when working with lots of large files, transferring back and forth with different devices. USB is more consumer level. It's still useful, but TB/TB 2 is higher bandwidth, PCI, DisplayPort, and bi directional and it will eventually hit the limit of 100GB and bi directional.
Okay this is a little better in terms of price for a PCIe breakout box
600.00 bucks is still a lot but getting more in line to what I like to see. The Sonett at 1,000 is just nuts though.
This is also pretty cool, yea okay I want the this;
Yeah, 4K on a budget. I'm sure Thunderbolt is going to be the standard for 4K video in the future. It's a chicken before the egg syndrome. First they have to release the computers with the capability, then the external devices start to flow on the market. TB 2 is a giant leap forward. USB just has too many limitations when working with lots of large files, transferring back and forth with different devices. USB is more consumer level. It's still useful, but TB/TB 2 is higher bandwidth, PCI, DisplayPort, and bi directional and it will eventually hit the limit of 100GB and bi directional.
TB 2 wasn't the thing that allowed for 4K. The displayport 1.2 standard covered 4K. The first version of TB only supported displayport 1.1. Note that the raw bandwidth is higher than 17.28. It's just that it has some overhead. Displayport 1.2 also has some overlapping features in terms of ability to run non-display data downstream. For displays that use some kind of DDC, most still use a usb cable from display to computer to set hardware LUTs. That may may remain the same regardless of thunderbolt adoption. You don't see it on Apple displays because there's no way to set up near metal communication with the display hardware other than the assignment of instruction sets within an ICC profile, which is a complete mess. I know Apple likes to keep things simple. In my opinion the biggest improvements they could make to their own displays would be something similar to what NEC calls colorcomp (Eizo's version is DUE and I forget what Quato and Barco call theirs) to improve uniformity by using a slightly lower contrast ratio. The other thing would be to build in some amount of normalized compensation for hardware drift, because it is inevitable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort
1.2
DisplayPort version 1.2 was approved on December 22, 2009. The most significant improvement of the new version is the doubling of the effective bandwidth to 17.28 Gbit/s in High Bit Rate 2 (HBR2) mode, which allows increased resolutions, higher refresh rates, and greater color depth. Other improvements include multiple independent video streams (daisy-chain connection with multiple monitors) called Multi-Stream Transport, facilities for stereoscopic 3D, increased AUX channel bandwidth (from 1 Mbit/s to 720 Mbit/s), more color spaces including xvYCC, scRGB and Adobe RGB 1998, and Global Time Code (GTC) for sub 1 µs audio/video synchronisation. Also Apple Inc.'s Mini DisplayPort connector, which is much smaller and designed for laptop computers and other small devices, is compatible with the new standard.[12][13][14][2][15]
Therefore it’s worthless?
Ignorance is bliss.
$6.65.
That terminates its use as a thunderbolt port, as it relies on mini displayport backward compatibility. In most of those you can't use the adapters as part of a chain, even if they're on the end. I just wanted to point out that they're still limiting. In the case of TB 1, the highest it supports is displayport 1.1, which doesn't include a 60hz 4k spec.
Of course it does. It’s going to HDMI, for heaven’s sake. Does what she wants, though.
What, really?
What, really?
Some people make tons of mistakes on this stuff. Note that many try to use the $50 thunderbolt cable to an adapter to their display rather than a mini displayport to "whatever" one cable solution. Beside that I was trying to indicate that thunderbolt doesn't add functionality when you're just using it to something backwards compatible. In cases where the machine is tight on ports, I guess it would add some flexibility, given the number of available adapter types.
TB 2 wasn't the thing that allowed for 4K. The displayport 1.2 standard covered 4K. The first version of TB only supported displayport 1.1. Note that the raw bandwidth is higher than 17.28. It's just that it has some overhead. Displayport 1.2 also has some overlapping features in terms of ability to run non-display data downstream. For displays that use some kind of DDC, most still use a usb cable from display to computer to set hardware LUTs. That may may remain the same regardless of thunderbolt adoption. You don't see it on Apple displays because there's no way to set up near metal communication with the display hardware other than the assignment of instruction sets within an ICC profile, which is a complete mess. I know Apple likes to keep things simple. In my opinion the biggest improvements they could make to their own displays would be something similar to what NEC calls colorcomp (Eizo's version is DUE and I forget what Quato and Barco call theirs) to improve uniformity by using a slightly lower contrast ratio. The other thing would be to build in some amount of normalized compensation for hardware drift, because it is inevitable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort
That terminates its use as a thunderbolt port, as it relies on mini displayport backward compatibility. In most of those you can't use the adapters as part of a chain, even if they're on the end. I just wanted to point out that they're still limiting. In the case of TB 1, the highest it supports is displayport 1.1, which doesn't include a 60hz 4k spec.
I never said it was. What Intel is doing is kicking up the speed because you can daisy chain various devices in addition to a display port monitor. They just want more bandwidth to connect PCI chassis/RAID arrays and display port monitors on the same data chain. So you can watch 4K and do other data transfers on the same chain.
I never said it was. What Intel is doing is kicking up the speed because you can daisy chain various devices in addition to a display port monitor. They just want more bandwidth to connect PCI chassis/RAID arrays and display port monitors on the same data chain. So you can watch 4K and do other data transfers on the same chain.
It doesn't really add more bandwidth. If it does, it's a very small amount. Both have overhead and take the same number of PCI lanes as input streams. The displayport 1.2 spec, which preceded thunderbolt, is actually what set this up. Intel merely adopted it for their own technology, as was necessary. They implemented things that were already finalized. There's no trailblazing here. Daisy chaining is technically possible if the displays themselves support it, much like with thunderbolt. You can't daisy chain displayport displays using thunderbolt protocols. In the case of Apple, they implemented thunderbolt, so they had the power to implement this. Here is a less elegant solution, but it is less restrictive on what hardware is supported. Bleh that photo doesn't show it well. It's a splitter, which requires one displayport connection and splits that. The other thing is that no one has officially confirmed that 4K will be daisy chainable. I haven't worked out the bandwidth requirements, so I'm not sure whether it's feasible. In OSX, Apple has stated they don't intend to support 10 bit connections, so that's one bandwidth concern down. I'm still not sure whether it provides enough for multiple streams at 60hz. If it does it's likely done through channel bonding, in which case the connection becomes half duplex.