Now the question is: When will I be able to buy a ThunderBolt PCIe card for my Mac Pro? Not buying a new computer just for an amazing port.
Turns out they can firmware fix all the current MiniDisplayPort Macs? /wishful thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkettpolitur
This has to be the replacement for the white Macbook. The specs don't make sense for an MBP, especially the screen.
These are the current 13.3" MBP specs except for the Thunderbolt port, processor and bus speeds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing
The Zine had this feature years ago and it works perfectly. Is Apple refusing to add it because they are afraid of being seen as copying Apple? This makes no sense at all.
No, your sentences make no sense. I only missed wireless-syncing pre-MobileMe. Now i'm just not bothered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcarling
If these specs are real, I'll be disappointed with 1280x800 and by the inclusion of an internal optical drive.
So buy a MacBook Air 13" then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody
Isn't anyone else concerned about them putting this into the mini-display port?
... I'd rather see it in the magsafe.
I'll be disappointed if Apple miss a chance to spread the magsafe love a little further. All future ports should be "magsafe" and if every port out there earns Apple $0.01 so much the better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-range
Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I find it more plausible that someone (maybe even Apple themselves) deliberately had boxes with these specs made and photographed to already get everyone worked up on a possible lackluster upgrade, only to surprise the whole world with a brand new case design and better specs than on this box. Apple has been known for deliberate and sometimes false or incomplete leaks.
+1. I'm generally very skeptical, but this I could see. Do you remember TubePort - which actually was AppleTV. A clear false rumour leaked...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer
Methinks lies, all lies. How incredibly convenient that the leaked photo is completely identical to a current 13" MacBook Pro, but with the Mini DisplayPort icon changed to a thunderbolt. Seems extremely unlikely. That, and Apple putting an i5 in the entry-level MacBook Pro is equally unlikely; we'll be lucky if they finally stop using Core 2 Duos.
Come on the C2D are overdue replacement on this "Pro" lineup. Actually I regret that the fact that its the same port adds more weight to it being real than fake. A faker would have mocked a brand new port up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar
The latest DisplayPort standard already supports monitor daisy chaining.
I have always been a fan of windows, but recently I have decided to go to "the other side " and buy a MacBook Pro. However, I will be buying it with all my savings, and as that is a big financial effort, I really want high value-for-money.
I will be buying the 15".
If there isn't a redesign (or at least liquidmetal), if the thunderbolt port isn't compatible with other types of ports (usb 3.0 and its precedents), if the discrete graphics card isn't upgraded, and if there is no OSX-dedicated SSD, I believe that the upgrade isn't worth it.
Really disappointed, hope this is fake and Apple surprises us with real goodies
Otherwise... I will have to remain windows-attached for the next 4/5 years..
You said you recently decided to go with Apple but then you add four IF statements. The 4 if qualifiers mean you are kidding or lying to yourself and never really decided on squat or you would have already bought.
It is very irresponsible and flat out stupid of Apple to not use the USB/Lightpeak connector.
Is that a real connector or just something you saw demoed? Often technology advances in a way that it would be irresponsible and flat out stupid to support tech simply because it?s common. Was it irresponsible for Apple to support USB when Serial and Parallel we so common? Of course not.
Any see the notch in the middle of the USB port that is next to the supposed Thunderbolt port? Is that usual?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple
Looks like to me, a transparent plastic wrap to keep the two sides (monitor & keyboard) clamped down.
You can follow it's outline to the next I/O port as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtm135
Why not just call it LightPeak? The second makes me think of fiber optics more than the first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logisticaldron
SInce it?s using copper, that might be why Apple feels a name change is needed.
Plus, will Intel be using the same Apple designed and VESA standardize mini-DisplayPort port for LightPeak. If not, then that doubly makes a name change important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by palegolas
Perhaps ThunderBolt is the name of the not so light "Copper LightPeak". Thunder can be guided with copper while Light needs optical cables.
LightPeak has never been about replacing other standards (at least not in the first round). It's been about running all standards over the same cable. So theoretically those USB ports we see there, wouldn't need to be there if they all branched out in a ThunderBolt HUB with multiple inputs.
Anyways, let's hope it'll stick around.
I think that the image might be genuine for the reason that the computer is wrapped in plastic from half way through the magsafe connector forward and so I think it would be too difficult to photoshop the image of a port and then add a plastic wrap effect seamlessly. (This might explain the shadow on the left-hand USB port.) If this is a valid image, I think that:
The new port has an all copper architecture. Would it be possible to have a fibre connector in a mini display port arrangement? I would have thought not.
The name 'Lightpeak' would therefore be inappropriate.
(Sorry if I have missed other relevant contributions )
1/4 of 320M's pipelines, no DirectX 11 support, no OpenCL support....
DO NOT WANT.
Sandy Bridge IGP is just shit. There is no other word to be used for it. Intel got away with their rubbish GPU BundleGate. Paid off Nvidia and what nots in settlements but that's chump change compared to what they're cleaning up laughing all the way to the bank.
Thunderbolt = 10gb/s using copper. Apple will use Mini-DisplayPort as the interface to differentiate it from...
Lightpeak = 100gb/s (theoretical) using optical. USB-looking interface. Apple will roll this out when it's available and you'll be able to buy adapters for thunderbolt. <-- This is the one port to rule them all; Thunderbolt is still too slow (when combined with power, ethernet, dual monitor, etc) to be a one-port solution.
1/4 of 320M's pipelines, no DirectX 11 support, no OpenCL support....
DO NOT WANT.
After a bit of honest test it is pretty clear the GPU in Sandy Bridge is crap - again. It is one reason to hope for AMD products in future Macs like the Mini. Oh - yes I know about the relatively poorer performance of AMD's CPU's but frankly that isn't what is important for many uses.
On the flip side it looks like Intel will have a variety of GPU free Sandy Bridge processors so maybe Apple can squeeze a real GPU into some of these machines. It is't like the SB GPU doesn't have a place, but really how many secretaries does Apple sell computers to?
After a bit of honest test it is pretty clear the GPU in Sandy Bridge is crap - again. It is one reason to hope for AMD products in future Macs like the Mini. Oh - yes I know about the relatively poorer performance of AMD's CPU's but frankly that isn't what is important for many uses.
On the flip side it looks like Intel will have a variety of GPU free Sandy Bridge processors so maybe Apple can squeeze a real GPU into some of these machines. It is't like the SB GPU doesn't have a place, but really how many secretaries does Apple sell computers to?
Comments
Now the question is: When will I be able to buy a ThunderBolt PCIe card for my Mac Pro? Not buying a new computer just for an amazing port.
Turns out they can firmware fix all the current MiniDisplayPort Macs? /wishful thinking.
This has to be the replacement for the white Macbook. The specs don't make sense for an MBP, especially the screen.
These are the current 13.3" MBP specs except for the Thunderbolt port, processor and bus speeds.
The Zine had this feature years ago and it works perfectly. Is Apple refusing to add it because they are afraid of being seen as copying Apple? This makes no sense at all.
No, your sentences make no sense. I only missed wireless-syncing pre-MobileMe. Now i'm just not bothered.
If these specs are real, I'll be disappointed with 1280x800 and by the inclusion of an internal optical drive.
So buy a MacBook Air 13" then.
Isn't anyone else concerned about them putting this into the mini-display port?
... I'd rather see it in the magsafe.
I'll be disappointed if Apple miss a chance to spread the magsafe love a little further. All future ports should be "magsafe" and if every port out there earns Apple $0.01 so much the better.
Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I find it more plausible that someone (maybe even Apple themselves) deliberately had boxes with these specs made and photographed to already get everyone worked up on a possible lackluster upgrade, only to surprise the whole world with a brand new case design and better specs than on this box. Apple has been known for deliberate and sometimes false or incomplete leaks.
+1. I'm generally very skeptical, but this I could see. Do you remember TubePort - which actually was AppleTV. A clear false rumour leaked...
Methinks lies, all lies. How incredibly convenient that the leaked photo is completely identical to a current 13" MacBook Pro, but with the Mini DisplayPort icon changed to a thunderbolt. Seems extremely unlikely. That, and Apple putting an i5 in the entry-level MacBook Pro is equally unlikely; we'll be lucky if they finally stop using Core 2 Duos.
Come on the C2D are overdue replacement on this "Pro" lineup. Actually I regret that the fact that its the same port adds more weight to it being real than fake. A faker would have mocked a brand new port up.
The latest DisplayPort standard already supports monitor daisy chaining.
Do any displays actually implement this though?
I have always been a fan of windows, but recently I have decided to go to "the other side " and buy a MacBook Pro. However, I will be buying it with all my savings, and as that is a big financial effort, I really want high value-for-money.
I will be buying the 15".
If there isn't a redesign (or at least liquidmetal), if the thunderbolt port isn't compatible with other types of ports (usb 3.0 and its precedents), if the discrete graphics card isn't upgraded, and if there is no OSX-dedicated SSD, I believe that the upgrade isn't worth it.
Really disappointed, hope this is fake and Apple surprises us with real goodies
Otherwise... I will have to remain windows-attached for the next 4/5 years..
You said you recently decided to go with Apple but then you add four IF statements. The 4 if qualifiers mean you are kidding or lying to yourself and never really decided on squat or you would have already bought.
1/4 of 320M's pipelines, no DirectX 11 support, no OpenCL support....
DO NOT WANT.
It is very irresponsible and flat out stupid of Apple to not use the USB/Lightpeak connector.
Is that a real connector or just something you saw demoed? Often technology advances in a way that it would be irresponsible and flat out stupid to support tech simply because it?s common. Was it irresponsible for Apple to support USB when Serial and Parallel we so common? Of course not.
Any see the notch in the middle of the USB port that is next to the supposed Thunderbolt port? Is that usual?
Looks like to me, a transparent plastic wrap to keep the two sides (monitor & keyboard) clamped down.
You can follow it's outline to the next I/O port as well.
Why not just call it LightPeak? The second makes me think of fiber optics more than the first.
SInce it?s using copper, that might be why Apple feels a name change is needed.
Plus, will Intel be using the same Apple designed and VESA standardize mini-DisplayPort port for LightPeak. If not, then that doubly makes a name change important.
Perhaps ThunderBolt is the name of the not so light "Copper LightPeak". Thunder can be guided with copper while Light needs optical cables.
LightPeak has never been about replacing other standards (at least not in the first round). It's been about running all standards over the same cable. So theoretically those USB ports we see there, wouldn't need to be there if they all branched out in a ThunderBolt HUB with multiple inputs.
Anyways, let's hope it'll stick around.
I think that the image might be genuine for the reason that the computer is wrapped in plastic from half way through the magsafe connector forward and so I think it would be too difficult to photoshop the image of a port and then add a plastic wrap effect seamlessly. (This might explain the shadow on the left-hand USB port.) If this is a valid image, I think that:
The new port has an all copper architecture. Would it be possible to have a fibre connector in a mini display port arrangement? I would have thought not.
The name 'Lightpeak' would therefore be inappropriate.
(Sorry if I have missed other relevant contributions
I kept reading about Sandy Bridge IGP...
1/4 of 320M's pipelines, no DirectX 11 support, no OpenCL support....
DO NOT WANT.
Sandy Bridge IGP is just shit. There is no other word to be used for it. Intel got away with their rubbish GPU BundleGate. Paid off Nvidia and what nots in settlements but that's chump change compared to what they're cleaning up laughing all the way to the bank.
Thunderbolt = 10gb/s using copper. Apple will use Mini-DisplayPort as the interface to differentiate it from...
Lightpeak = 100gb/s (theoretical) using optical. USB-looking interface. Apple will roll this out when it's available and you'll be able to buy adapters for thunderbolt. <-- This is the one port to rule them all; Thunderbolt is still too slow (when combined with power, ethernet, dual monitor, etc) to be a one-port solution.
Thunder moves slower than Light[ning].
well played, sir.
Not sure a month-old thread needed bumping for this.
I kept reading about Sandy Bridge IGP...
1/4 of 320M's pipelines, no DirectX 11 support, no OpenCL support....
DO NOT WANT.
After a bit of honest test it is pretty clear the GPU in Sandy Bridge is crap - again. It is one reason to hope for AMD products in future Macs like the Mini. Oh - yes I know about the relatively poorer performance of AMD's CPU's but frankly that isn't what is important for many uses.
On the flip side it looks like Intel will have a variety of GPU free Sandy Bridge processors so maybe Apple can squeeze a real GPU into some of these machines. It is't like the SB GPU doesn't have a place, but really how many secretaries does Apple sell computers to?
After a bit of honest test it is pretty clear the GPU in Sandy Bridge is crap - again. It is one reason to hope for AMD products in future Macs like the Mini. Oh - yes I know about the relatively poorer performance of AMD's CPU's but frankly that isn't what is important for many uses.
On the flip side it looks like Intel will have a variety of GPU free Sandy Bridge processors so maybe Apple can squeeze a real GPU into some of these machines. It is't like the SB GPU doesn't have a place, but really how many secretaries does Apple sell computers to?
sandy bridge is 1-7 core 3.2ghz??? really
damn sam