Even if Retina isn't here yet, it needs to be updated with the better display from the new iMac, USB 3, and Thunderbolt 2.0.
That's more than enough of an update.
Throw in a 2TB HDD while keeping the already high price tag and I would complain either..
Other than the HDD, this is pretty much exactly what I am looking for -- assuming backwards compatibility to TB 1.0 as well. If the resolution isn't 4k or Retina, there should be no downside to supporting TB 1.0. But if they take this as an opportunity to jump the resolution as well, then they will probably have to jump to TB 2.
What if they added a plastic section at the top and put an AirPort in there, and a HDD, and a WAN/LAN ports.
One killer desktop accessory that would be Display, Hub, Time Capsule, & Router...all connected to your Mac by a Thunderbolt cable.
Honestly I say go further. Add Thunderbolt 2.0, include an AMD Firecore, and allow MacBooks to seamlessly combine their built in GPU with the extra GPU in the Display for super charged desktop power.
That will be the Thunderbolt 2 model. No sense in having an equivalent of older tech.
I'm not expecting Apple to make an updated display that doesn't do TB 2, I'm just hoping for backwards compatibility with their entire Mac lineup as it is today. That doesn't seem too unreasonable. A TB 2 only display would mean that they would have to continue selling the current TB display, just as they also continue to sell the previous 27" Cinema Display as well. I know that they could certainly do that -- and perhaps they might very well do that -- but they might be able to get a few more sales out of a TB 2 display that can also do TB 1 than they would by continuing to offer the previous model instead.
Honestly I say go further. Add Thunderbolt 2.0, include an AMD Firecore, and allow MacBooks to seamlessly combine their built in GPU with the extra GPU in the Display for super charged desktop power.
I know Thunderbolt 2 is an improvement over 1, but it really isn't enough of an improvement to move the GPU out over the bus. TB 2 has 20Gbits of shared bandwidth, a PCIe v2.0 16x slot has a dedicated 64Gbits of bandwidth. And that's the old 2.0 standard -- 3.0 just comes short of doubling that at 126Gbits.
That might work for some people, but really, it's better just to have the internal GPU handle everything and send it out on the DisplayPort channel of Thunderbolt. Thunderbolt is going to have to make quite a few more strides to replace PCIe on the GPU side of things.
Apple has a 326 DPI iPhone 4 to 5 screen technology available to design newer resolution thunderbolt displays for the new mac pro's that will be released in the fall...
If they were to follow that model, a 326 DPI screen measuring 20 inches would have a resolution of 4800 x 3200. Of course this is not a perfect 21.5 inch display like those found in the iMac but it is considered a "retina" display because it is 2x the pixel density of the current displays found in today's monitors.
An iPhone 4S display costs 23 to make so the way they double their prices, and multiply this by 5 to make a 20 inch monitor with an aluminum casing that is of retina quality should cost 400 dollars to produce and would sell at 500 to 600.
If they were to follow that model, a 326 DPI screen measuring 20 inches would have a resolution of <span style="line-height:1.231;">4800 x 3200.
5120x2880 at 27" is 217.57. As said screen is designed to be viewed at roughly twice the distance of the iPhone's, I imagine 2x is sufficient for retina status.
Never mind that 20" is absolutely not 5x the area of a 4" display. For the 4", 16:9 iPhone, It's a 6.84" square. But it's a 179.78" square on a 16:10 20" display. That's 26.28x the area. A 27" Thunderbolt Display at 16:19 display is 327.64" square, which is 47.90x the area.
Never mind that the cost grows near exponentially when compare a small display like this to a large one. It's not a linear "5x more".
Higher resolution is nice, but I'd much rather see Apple put more effort into making their monitors colour accurate. The Thunderbolt display (and the iMac for that matter) is woefully inadequate if calibrated colour is important for your work. If they really want to make a "pro" display, it would be nice of they could give me a reason not to buy NEC or Eizo.
I wonder if Apple is going to release a thinner (a la iMac) Thunderbolt display for all of their products and a 4K Thunderbolt display for the Mac Pro.
I'm still wondering what kinds of Thunderbolt 2 devices will be released.
I'm not expecting Apple to make an updated display that doesn't do TB 2, I'm just hoping for backwards compatibility with their entire Mac lineup as it is today.
Throw in a 2TB HDD while keeping the already high price tag and I would complain either..
At the risk of sounding like Apple's own shill who frequently over posts on this site, (short quick posts) what would be the point of putting a drive in it? The display could possibly last for 10 years. However 10 years from now that drive will be useless even if it still works.
The image in question is the blue-and-green wave background seen in Apple's OS X Mavericks promotional materials. At 5,120-by-2,880 pixels, the wallpaper has dimensions exactly twice that of the current Thunderbolt Display and 27-inch iMac.
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.
However 10 years from now that drive will be useless even if it still works.
What makes you believe a hard drive will fail after ten years? What makes you think 2TB would be useless? Six years ago we hit 1TB. We're only at 4 now. Moore's Law doesn't apply.
I agree there's no point putting one in a display, but still.
What makes you believe a hard drive will fail after ten years? What makes you think 2TB would be useless? Six years ago we hit 1TB. We're only at 4 now. Moore's Law doesn't apply.
I agree there's no point putting one in a display, but still.
If you agree then why ask? Do you not like me?
Ten years ago the most popular USB drive was 250Meg, and the most popular drive was 80Gig. Don't get me wrong, you can still do basic file sharing with something that small. But how useful would they be today?
Don't you have a troll to fry?...
Edit: I looked up most popular sales during that timeframe. It may be skewed. Also, from what I've witnessed about electronics. They could last 10 seconds or could last 10 centuries. I can't back up the later claim.
2nd Edit: I'm agreeing with you. Just let it be. There shouldn't be a drive in a display. The only proper way to do it would be solid state and in a few years, no matter what they put in there, it will seem antiquated.
I'm probably shooting my self here, but what's the "but still" part? Please elaborate.
[quote name="Vadania" url="/t/158239/supply-of-apples-thunderbolt-display-reportedly-drying-up-for-second-time-in-2013#post_2352631"]If you agree then why ask?[/QUOTE]
Because they're entirely different questions.
[QUOTE]Ten years ago the most popular USB drive was 250Meg, and the most popular drive was 80Gig. Don't get me wrong, you can still do basic file sharing with something that small. But how useful would they be today?[/QUOTE]
Hmm. If we extrapolate forward, I can see "small" hard drives having quite a bit of use, since Internet speeds aren't going to keep up with demand. Heck, the sneakernet is [I]still[/I] the best way of getting files around in all but the most server-y of cases. Unless NAND prices plummet soon, I see a slower climb in the '10s than the '00s.
Hope I'm wrong, but it pays not to be optimistic about shipping products.
Hmm. If we extrapolate forward, I can see "small" hard drives having quite a bit of use, since Internet speeds aren't going to keep up with demand. Heck, the sneakernet is still the best way of getting files around in all but the most server-y of cases. Unless NAND prices plummet soon, I see a slower climb in the '10s than the '00s.
Hope I'm wrong, but it pays not to be optimistic about shipping products.
No, you did your typical "attack my statement because I didn't offer proof" mantra.
I was one of the people who asked for you to come back. Only because you keep the real troll levels down. Don't attack normal people please.
Moore's law is still at work in hard drives, SSD's, circuit boards, and processors. Just because Haswell didn't improve in speed doesn't mean it didn't improve. In this day the power reduction could really be seen as conforming to Moore's law. ARM is also jumping towards that standard and is literally the most interesting thing in tech at the moment.
However, I agree with you agreeing with me. There's no need to put a HD in the new Thunderbolt Display. That, however, does not mean that Apple will not do it.
[quote name="Vadania" url="/t/158239/supply-of-apples-thunderbolt-display-reportedly-drying-up-for-second-time-in-2013#post_2352640"]No, you did your typical "attack my statement because I didn't offer proof" mantra.[/QUOTE]
Guess that's called asking a question now...
[QUOTE]Moore's law is still at work in hard drives, SSD's, circuit boards, and processors.[/QUOTE]
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?
[QUOTE]However, I agree with you agreeing with me.[/QUOTE]
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz
Even if Retina isn't here yet, it needs to be updated with the better display from the new iMac, USB 3, and Thunderbolt 2.0.
That's more than enough of an update.
Throw in a 2TB HDD while keeping the already high price tag and I would complain either..
Other than the HDD, this is pretty much exactly what I am looking for -- assuming backwards compatibility to TB 1.0 as well. If the resolution isn't 4k or Retina, there should be no downside to supporting TB 1.0. But if they take this as an opportunity to jump the resolution as well, then they will probably have to jump to TB 2.
One killer desktop accessory that would be Display, Hub, Time Capsule, & Router...all connected to your Mac by a Thunderbolt cable.
Honestly I say go further. Add Thunderbolt 2.0, include an AMD Firecore, and allow MacBooks to seamlessly combine their built in GPU with the extra GPU in the Display for super charged desktop power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
That will be the Thunderbolt 2 model. No sense in having an equivalent of older tech.
I'm not expecting Apple to make an updated display that doesn't do TB 2, I'm just hoping for backwards compatibility with their entire Mac lineup as it is today. That doesn't seem too unreasonable. A TB 2 only display would mean that they would have to continue selling the current TB display, just as they also continue to sell the previous 27" Cinema Display as well. I know that they could certainly do that -- and perhaps they might very well do that -- but they might be able to get a few more sales out of a TB 2 display that can also do TB 1 than they would by continuing to offer the previous model instead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz
Honestly I say go further. Add Thunderbolt 2.0, include an AMD Firecore, and allow MacBooks to seamlessly combine their built in GPU with the extra GPU in the Display for super charged desktop power.
I know Thunderbolt 2 is an improvement over 1, but it really isn't enough of an improvement to move the GPU out over the bus. TB 2 has 20Gbits of shared bandwidth, a PCIe v2.0 16x slot has a dedicated 64Gbits of bandwidth. And that's the old 2.0 standard -- 3.0 just comes short of doubling that at 126Gbits.
That might work for some people, but really, it's better just to have the internal GPU handle everything and send it out on the DisplayPort channel of Thunderbolt. Thunderbolt is going to have to make quite a few more strides to replace PCIe on the GPU side of things.
Apple has a 326 DPI iPhone 4 to 5 screen technology available to design newer resolution thunderbolt displays for the new mac pro's that will be released in the fall...
If they were to follow that model, a 326 DPI screen measuring 20 inches would have a resolution of 4800 x 3200. Of course this is not a perfect 21.5 inch display like those found in the iMac but it is considered a "retina" display because it is 2x the pixel density of the current displays found in today's monitors.
An iPhone 4S display costs 23 to make so the way they double their prices, and multiply this by 5 to make a 20 inch monitor with an aluminum casing that is of retina quality should cost 400 dollars to produce and would sell at 500 to 600.
5120x2880 at 27" is 217.57. As said screen is designed to be viewed at roughly twice the distance of the iPhone's, I imagine 2x is sufficient for retina status.
Never mind that 20" is absolutely not 5x the area of a 4" display. For the 4", 16:9 iPhone, It's a 6.84" square. But it's a 179.78" square on a 16:10 20" display. That's 26.28x the area. A 27" Thunderbolt Display at 16:19 display is 327.64" square, which is 47.90x the area.
Never mind that the cost grows near exponentially when compare a small display like this to a large one. It's not a linear "5x more".
I just replaced my 2008 MacBook with a 15" retina pro, I wonder if the Nvidea 650M and 2.8GHz quad core i7 will handle it?
I'm still coming to terms with the jaw dropping display.
I'm still wondering what kinds of Thunderbolt 2 devices will be released.
Features USB 3.0
Thunderbolt 2
Retina 27 inch
1080 p. FaceTime cam
1 TB HDD
Price $1000
Is this a ok spec list for $1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34
Only problem is that there isn't a display protocol that can handle 5120x2880, nor are any GPUs certified for that resolution either.
That's not true. There are quite a few experimental drivers which support resolutions even higher than this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmileyDude
I'm not expecting Apple to make an updated display that doesn't do TB 2, I'm just hoping for backwards compatibility with their entire Mac lineup as it is today.
You can rest easy. TB 2 is backwards compatible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz
Throw in a 2TB HDD while keeping the already high price tag and I would complain either..
At the risk of sounding like Apple's own shill who frequently over posts on this site, (short quick posts) what would be the point of putting a drive in it? The display could possibly last for 10 years. However 10 years from now that drive will be useless even if it still works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
The image in question is the blue-and-green wave background seen in Apple's OS X Mavericks promotional materials. At 5,120-by-2,880 pixels, the wallpaper has dimensions exactly twice that of the current Thunderbolt Display and 27-inch iMac.
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.
What makes you believe a hard drive will fail after ten years? What makes you think 2TB would be useless? Six years ago we hit 1TB. We're only at 4 now. Moore's Law doesn't apply.
I agree there's no point putting one in a display, but still.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
What makes you believe a hard drive will fail after ten years? What makes you think 2TB would be useless? Six years ago we hit 1TB. We're only at 4 now. Moore's Law doesn't apply.
I agree there's no point putting one in a display, but still.
If you agree then why ask? Do you not like me?
Ten years ago the most popular USB drive was 250Meg, and the most popular drive was 80Gig. Don't get me wrong, you can still do basic file sharing with something that small. But how useful would they be today?
Don't you have a troll to fry?...
Edit: I looked up most popular sales during that timeframe. It may be skewed. Also, from what I've witnessed about electronics. They could last 10 seconds or could last 10 centuries. I can't back up the later claim.
2nd Edit: I'm agreeing with you. Just let it be. There shouldn't be a drive in a display. The only proper way to do it would be solid state and in a few years, no matter what they put in there, it will seem antiquated.
I'm probably shooting my self here, but what's the "but still" part? Please elaborate.
Because they're entirely different questions.
[QUOTE]Ten years ago the most popular USB drive was 250Meg, and the most popular drive was 80Gig. Don't get me wrong, you can still do basic file sharing with something that small. But how useful would they be today?[/QUOTE]
Hmm. If we extrapolate forward, I can see "small" hard drives having quite a bit of use, since Internet speeds aren't going to keep up with demand. Heck, the sneakernet is [I]still[/I] the best way of getting files around in all but the most server-y of cases. Unless NAND prices plummet soon, I see a slower climb in the '10s than the '00s.
Hope I'm wrong, but it pays not to be optimistic about shipping products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Because they're entirely different questions.
Hmm. If we extrapolate forward, I can see "small" hard drives having quite a bit of use, since Internet speeds aren't going to keep up with demand. Heck, the sneakernet is still the best way of getting files around in all but the most server-y of cases. Unless NAND prices plummet soon, I see a slower climb in the '10s than the '00s.
Hope I'm wrong, but it pays not to be optimistic about shipping products.
No, you did your typical "attack my statement because I didn't offer proof" mantra.
I was one of the people who asked for you to come back. Only because you keep the real troll levels down. Don't attack normal people please.
Moore's law is still at work in hard drives, SSD's, circuit boards, and processors. Just because Haswell didn't improve in speed doesn't mean it didn't improve. In this day the power reduction could really be seen as conforming to Moore's law. ARM is also jumping towards that standard and is literally the most interesting thing in tech at the moment.
However, I agree with you agreeing with me. There's no need to put a HD in the new Thunderbolt Display. That, however, does not mean that Apple will not do it.
Guess that's called asking a question now...
[QUOTE]Moore's law is still at work in hard drives, SSD's, circuit boards, and processors.[/QUOTE]
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?
[QUOTE]However, I agree with you agreeing with me.[/QUOTE]
This'll get real recursive real fast.
MATTE PLEASE