Which is a hack. And basically requires OS X (I assume I was talking about the feasibility of using this with other companies' computers, though this was five months ago...)
So installing something manually is a hack. Right. That means when you download and unzip a disk image from the 'net, and drag and drop to your applications folder to install, you're hacking? It doesn't require OS X. Infact, you can't even extract .msi files on OS X, so it actually requires Windows.
No, that is not "by my argument". You can't tell the difference between one and the other?
There really isn't any significant difference between the two. You're either using the install program to decompress files and move them to the correct places, or you're using an extractor program, then moving the files yourself. Both methods achieve the same goal. You aren't changing any code, nor breaking into something, thus you aren't hacking. Many installers have options for what you would like to install, just Apple's doesn't.
So recommending against downloading random files from a random site makes one "paranoid"? And there's no daylight in between being off the internet completely, and grabbing random files from random sites? Nothing in between there, eh? Just have to get off the net because of "paranoia"? Seriously?
It'd only be random if it wasn't verified working, and linked to by many people who are using the exact file successfully on their non-Apple computers. You're paranoid that the file others have used without problem on their computers might somehow have a virus attached, but others have somehow managed to avoid it.
Most don't. Did I say otherwise?
Then don't choose an Apple display. That's like buying a Ford, and complaining that it doesn't have the capability to use a Hyundai driveshaft. Maybe keyboards should have Firewire, USB and PS/2 so everyone's happy?
And how many computers are notebooks? Or all in ones? Or small form factor systems? Or is the person just not comfortable changing the video card?
Yes many computers are notebooks, but if you're spending $900 on a display, I'm sure you'd look into whether it was compatible with your computer. If it wasn't, you'd move onto something else. Complaining about it won't make one stroke of difference. Also, someone who's spending that much on auxiliary computer equipment, getting the Apple display because it's LED IPS, would almost certainly be able to install a graphics card.
Single-link DVI can't provide enough bandwidth for a high-res display like Apple's one, so they'd have to use fat dual link cables. Seeing how most people would be buying the display for DisplayPort Mac, the DVI cable would be a complete waste and just add more clutter. Apple sells displays to help make money from their Macs. The vast majority of people won't be buying the display for a PC, so why should Apple waste resources on them?
Depends on their setup. I personally know dozens of people with more than one thing connected to their monitor, and often 2 or more monitors for that matter.
Good for you, for the majority, it's rare.
The point being, why? This is a nice display from what I've read in terms of panel quality, but unless you're only going to use Macs, and only a single Mac at a time, I don't think it makes sense. Not when other brands give you more ports, and more flexibility.
Then wait for someone else to produce a 27" LED IPS display, so you can have a vast array of cables strewn across your desk. I'm quite happy with the single DisplayPort connection on mine, and I have many a Mac. VNC's pretty good nowadays.
