Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Please note!
THUNDERBOLT DISPLAY SUPPORTS MINI-DISPLAY-PORT MACS

Perhaps Apple marketing isn't very good at telling people this, but the TB port is the same connector as a mini-displayport for a GOOD REASON: within the interface there IS the parallel wiring for mini-displayport. IT just means you aren't able to make use of those additional features that TB carries over. That's why the ACD is still available for those people who want the peripheral ports on their non-TB macs.

The only limitation for non TB macs is that you are not able to DAISY-CHAIN to 2xThunderbolt-displays. IF you have a TB mac, you CAN daisy-chain 1x TB-display with 1x Standard mini-displayport Display; with the mini-displayport Display as the LAST LINK in the chain. (because mDP data does not carry 2 video sources and those monitors can't pass thru to the next, anyway).

Apple would seem to be very clear about this:

System Requirements

Thunderbolt-enabled Mac computer, including MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, Mac mini, and iMac

While Thunderbolt ports use the same connectors as MiniDP, the TB protocol has completely repurposed the pins and conductors of the physical layer. If you plug a MiniDP cable into a TB port, it reads the EDID data off the attached device and switches into a legacy signaling mode compatible with DisplayPort devices. However, I don't believe a Thunderbolt host controller can negotiate an inbound main link coming from a DisplayPort source. That is why Target Display Mode on the new iMacs only works with other Thunderbolt enabled machines.

I'm pretty sure the ACD is still for sale because the ATD isn't shipping yet, and Apple still has an inventory of Mac Pros sans Thunderbolt ports.

And actually, DisplayPort 1.2 does allow MiniDP to carry more than one video stream on a single main link, but that's a technicality and not really relevant to the case at hand.
 
Please note!
THUNDERBOLT DISPLAY SUPPORTS MINI-DISPLAY-PORT MACS

Perhaps Apple marketing isn't very good at telling people this, but the TB port is the same connector as a mini-displayport for a GOOD REASON: within the interface there IS the parallel wiring for mini-displayport. IT just means you aren't able to make use of those additional features that TB carries over. That's why the ACD is still available for those people who want the peripheral ports on their non-TB macs.

The only limitation for non TB macs is that you are not able to DAISY-CHAIN to 2xThunderbolt-displays. IF you have a TB mac, you CAN daisy-chain 1x TB-display with 1x Standard mini-displayport Display; with the mini-displayport Display as the LAST LINK in the chain. (because mDP data does not carry 2 video sources and those monitors can't pass thru to the next, anyway).

Are you sure about this? I asked a similar question about the Thunderbolt Display and PCs (as well as Mini displayport Macs), and I was told that the Thunderbolt Display will only work with a computer with a true Thunderbolt port. See:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1217077/
 
That thing really does not deserve 999 dollars.

I will wait for price drop or might as well as go for 27 inch imac.
Fun fact: t-bolt display + Mac Mini = a less capable computer than the comparably priced 27" iMac.

----------

I don't understand why apple does not have a anti glare option?
Many continuously request it. Does anyone have a plausible reason why apple refuses?
Probably because Apple has this thing about making their computers all look super glossy and high-tech and stuff.

And maybe because a glass screen is easier to clean than a bare matte screen?
 
I like all the features, but too glossy.
Ways too expensive for a mirror - so I'll have to wait, it took a while for the MBP to get the matte option, maybe one day I'll get a 27" display without included mirror.
 
Why? You can do better for this amount of money.




Nope. $854.69 on Amazon right now.

If you go for the Dell Ultrasharp I believe you still need to buy speakers, webcam and it comes without the neat integrated thunderbolt dock. So that pretty even things out.


The Dell have better IPS screen with non of the yellowing issues found on the imac. It also have lots of more ports including VGA, HDMI, DisplayPort, component, composite, DVI, USB and memory card reader.

At around the same price, I'd go for the Dell over the Apple display.

Anti-glare on the Dell is also a bonus.

I bought a 30 Ultrasharp too. I love it over the Apple display but I also had to replace my first unit because of yellowing issues so I guess that problem also exist in Dell monitors. According to the tech I spoke too, yellowing is a common problem among many IPS screens.
 
Last edited:
So with two ports, if you buy an extra cable, could you then connect up a second Mac to the display and switch between them? Or is there only one input as such?

We have a desk here with a Mac Mini on it which needs a monitor. But also there's a couple of guys with MacBooks who'd like to use it occasionally, so if we could just buy a TB cable and then switch between the Mini and Macbook that would save us buying another monitor and having to unplug the Mini when we wanted to do so.
 
Yeah -- the plug is the same as Mini Display Port for compatibility reasons, and Thunderbolt's display protocol is the same as is used in Mini Display Port. So you should be able to drive the display with a Mini Display Port, but those other ports on the back of the display would basically become worthless decoration from what I understand.

I don't think this is the case. You can't use Target Display Mode on the 2011 iMac with a Mini Display Port device as the source. This is because Mini Display cannot convert up to Thunderbolt. I imagine that these monitors would be no different.
 
So what I am wondering is... if I plug my Thunderbolt Display into my Thunderbolt Enabled Macbook Pro, could I theoretically daisy chain my old Cinema Display into the new Thunderbolt display via the MiniDisplay Port and have 2 Monitors running off my MBP?
 
So what I am wondering is... if I plug my Thunderbolt Display into my Thunderbolt Enabled Macbook Pro, could I theoretically daisy chain my old Cinema Display into the new Thunderbolt display via the MiniDisplay Port and have 2 Monitors running off my MBP?

I'm curious about this too. I bought the 27" Cinema Display last year when it came out. Now I want a dual 27" setup (I have the latest MBP). Do I need to buy two of the new monitors, or just one?
 
The questions is how many these 'many' are? 1%, 10% of potential iMac/27"Apple display buyers?

Did you just pull those numbers out of thin air? Yes, I think you did. Why not 25% or even 40%? Personally, I'd like to see some statistics for when they did offer matte screens at the same price as glossy. Apple never provided ANY explanation for removing the matte option. All we have is Steve Jobs telling us he likes to see his own reflection in the screen.

Some people might prefer black computers (or white computers), any plausible reason why Apple refuses?

I think they do now offer white iPhones, etc. and used to offer both black and white options for Macbooks until Steve decided everyone prefers metal (in the OS too).

Do you seriously believe for one second those decisions were made by what the public WANTS? Hell no. It's all about what Steve wants and he has said as much. He doesn't care what people want. He thinks he knows better than the public and because Apple has done well that belief has been reinforced over and over again. It's why he thinks there should be no gaming or mid-range tower Mac. He doesn't like them. He calls them trucks. He likes THIN THIN THIN. People buy them, yes, but people have NO OTHER CHOICE except to abandon the Mac platform itself entirely and most people I know like the Mac because of the operating system, not the freaking 'thinness' of the computer.

People who dislike glossy naturally like to portray it as only an issue of (3) because it puts Apple under moral pressure (which they hope will make them change their stance). But in reality, reasons (1) and (2) are very likely also to play a non-negligible part and denying this is somewhat dishonest (and self-serving).

And people who continually defend everything Apple does portray their own inability to think for themselves, make decisions for themselves and do anything but follow the leader even if he jumps off the proverbial bridge. It's why the word fan is based on the word FANATIC.

All my drive enclosures have FireWire 800 interfaces, so I already enjoy transfer speeds that are routinely 2-3x faster than USB 2.0. Under the right

Congratulations. You paid too much for performance that could be readily beaten by USB3.0 for 1/3 less money. FW800 devices have never been cheap and I don't see Thunderbolt drives being any different, perhaps more yet relatively speaking. And while you appear to think USB3.0 over TB is a bad idea, you congratulate Apple for offering FW800, which when used with a modern drive simply chokes the speed on the interface end rather than a potential bus speed limit. At least USB 3.0 over TB could potentially give you the full speed of the drive part of the time while Firewire limits the drive ALL of the time.

conditions, a USB 3.0 enclosure with a single HDD can achieve double the transfer rates of FW 800, but most of the time the performance advantage is much less, and if you have multiple devices connected to a single USB 3.0 host controller, the advantage can swing back in favor of FW 800.

Here it sounds like you're trying to convince yourself it's OK that your FW800 drives are taking twice as much time to transfer large files as USB3.0. The point is if the bandwidth is available and the drives are cheaper, USB3.0 kicks FW800's butt from here to the Alamo.

Can you even imagine the reaction if the first Apple product to ship with USB 3.0 was a display and not a Mac? Seriously, did anyone think that was in the

I imagine that I, for one, would be applauding that they finally embraced it period. Instead, my reaction is that I'd be a moron to buy a monitor today that cannot run Apple's USB 3.0 interface all their computers will have starting next year (since it will be included in Intel's chipset by default). Buying this product today is buying obsolescence right from the start.

Besides, the silicon and drivers for USB 3.0 are just barely maturing to the point where you would choose to include them as anything more than a checklist feature.

A checklist feature? :confused:

I've had my 3TB USB 3.0 drives for over a year. They can do around 30MB/sec under USB 2.0. A similar drive in a FW800 enclosure can do up to 100MB/sec. With USB 3.0, it can do around 140MB/sec. Faster drives or combinations of drives could easily do twice that. Personally, I move a lot of large files seeing I keep all my movies on a server hard drive. Going 40% slower in the name of pride doesn't do anything for me.

It's Apple's fault for creating and shipping the most capable I/O interface in the history of consumer electronics, and a truly one-of-a-kind
display/docking station solution based on it... Have you or anyone else developed an I/O interface with more potential than Thunderbolt? Can you produce a more elegant display solution than the ATD? Why haven't you or anyone else brought this to market yet? Apple produces a landmark product, and people bitch about what features Apple didn't give them this time around. It's not Apple's fault that you can't produce what you want yourself and depend on them to design your toys.

This post gets my nomination for the biggest suck up to Apple of the year. :rolleyes:

And asking people why the personally haven't designed something is just downright ridiculous. I haven't designed it because that is not my job (or most others on here). WTF does that have to do with people making stupid decisions at Apple? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. :rolleyes:

Yeah, I'm beginning to think that high quality matte displays only exist sans glass, and that the design aesthetic and added durability of the seamless glass front is what is dictating glossy for Apple. Not just the fact that it annoys a lot of people.

Believe it or not, it is possible to make a non-reflective screen with glass (or other type materials like high index plastic). My glasses have it and I get no reflections in them. Apple is obsessed with glass because Steve is obsessed with glass. Whether any of that changes under the new CEO remains to be seen. I think as long as Steve is pulling the strings at Apple in any fashion what-so-ever, we'll continue to get underpowered ultra-thin products with batteries that cannot easily be replaced by the user.
 
A couple of questions...

1. Can I have my MacBook Air CLOSED while it's connected to the display?

Typically the MacBook Pro's let you do this as long as it detects that there is an external mouse and keyboard connected.

I would think the MBAir would function in the same way but I am not 100% sure.
 
I don't think this is the case. You can't use Target Display Mode on the 2011 iMac with a Mini Display Port device as the source. This is because Mini Display cannot convert up to Thunderbolt. I imagine that these monitors would be no different.

You may be right about that. The Apple Store is still selling the LED Cinema Display and they do not picture a Mac Pro with the new Thunderbolt Display.
 
Well, I am pretty confident and I've asked the same question to a number of online sources. The Apple marketing, as I've mentioned, maybe not entirely clear. Perhaps they are saying that for "FULL compatibility, the list of macs are as follows...." They wouldn't list ALL macs, because people would be sorely disappointed with not being able to use the TB display features, so they still sell the ACD. I'm also convinced that they will still sell the ACD and TBD alongside each other. One for TB macs, and the other for the non TB macs.

There is on wikipedia on the topic of Thunderbolt / LightPeak where there is a miniDP version compatibility requirement, but I cannot remember off the top of my head.

I agree with you on the Target Display Mode, I'm just trying to state that the TB Display is still capable of accepting miniDP from an older mac without TB.

So bottom line, I'm convinced that it is compatible, but limited in functionality.

Apple would seem to be very clear about this:



While Thunderbolt ports use the same connectors as MiniDP, the TB protocol has completely repurposed the pins and conductors of the physical layer. If you plug a MiniDP cable into a TB port, it reads the EDID data off the attached device and switches into a legacy signaling mode compatible with DisplayPort devices. However, I don't believe a Thunderbolt host controller can negotiate an inbound main link coming from a DisplayPort source. That is why Target Display Mode on the new iMacs only works with other Thunderbolt enabled machines.

I'm pretty sure the ACD is still for sale because the ATD isn't shipping yet, and Apple still has an inventory of Mac Pros sans Thunderbolt ports.

And actually, DisplayPort 1.2 does allow MiniDP to carry more than one video stream on a single main link, but that's a technicality and not really relevant to the case at hand.
 
Last edited:
As confirmed by Macfixit (CNet).

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13727_7-20043524-263.html

A short life span for mini-displayport.


I've just read that article.

I always try to be correct when I say anything on the 'web', so I read it carefully to see what it meant. While the article appears correct, it is correct at the time of writing and does not apply to the Thunderbolt Display which no one has had their hands on one yet.

The article describes the issue of Target Display Mode on an TB-iMac, but here we are trying to see if the Thunderbolt Display will accept a miniDP input (from a non TB mac) as an external monitor. That is the question here, right?
 
Little surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet here or anywhere else. Thunderbolt Display is now available for purchase on the Apple online store.
 
Little surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet here or anywhere else. Thunderbolt Display is now available for purchase on the Apple online store.

They have been for around 6 weeks.

----------

None in Tulsa. I cancelled my pre-order when I read they were shipping to the stores, then retailers and not shipping the pre-orders. Its usually the case that before my pre-orders ship I can pick one up at the local Apple Store anyway. Not sure why I bothered other than you get a shipping box which comes in handy when a new model comes out.
 
I didn't notice the one week lead time. I cancelled my pre-order and am now calling the Apple Store everyday on the way home from work. When I ordered the previous 27 my order was locked, I went by the store and they had them in stock and it didn't ship for a few more days (from China) and it didn't arrive until after the following weekend.

Hopefully I'll get luck and they'll be in stock tomorrow. Mine was sold last week and I've got a empty spot on my desk right now.
 
Did you just pull those numbers out of thin air? Yes, I think you did. Why not 25% or even 40%? Personally, I'd like to see some statistics for when they did offer matte screens at the same price as glossy. Apple never provided ANY explanation for removing the matte option. All we have is Steve Jobs telling us he likes to see his own reflection in the screen.

manu chao posed a rhetorical question and provided suggested answers. Apple is a business that designs and markets products and sells them for a profit. They make what they believe will be best received by their target market while still maintaining healthy profit margins. Judging by their balance sheet as of late, they do this well. In case you missed the memo, most Apple products look gorgeous compared to other consumer electronics, and although they may cost more than the competition, people want them as soon as they see them. That's why the front of iMacs and Apple displays are made of sculpted aluminum and highly polished glass held on by magnets so that there are no visible fasteners. Although I'm sure Steve Jobs has plenty of influence on which designs are ultimately executed, it's Jony Ive who's been dictating the direction of the industrial design language at Apple for some time now. There has never, as far as I'm aware, been a matte or anti-glare option for any Apple LCD panel that has glass in front of it. They still allow the old-school naked panels surrounded by bezels as a BTO option on the MacBook Pros, so buy one of those, or, god forbid, buy a display made by someone else.

Congratulations. You paid too much for performance that could be readily beaten by USB3.0 for 1/3 less money. FW800 devices have never been cheap and I don't see Thunderbolt drives being any different, perhaps more yet relatively speaking. And while you appear to think USB3.0 over TB is a bad idea, you congratulate Apple for offering FW800, which when used with a modern drive simply chokes the speed on the interface end rather than a potential bus speed limit. At least USB 3.0 over TB could potentially give you the full speed of the drive part of the time while Firewire limits the drive ALL of the time.

Strangely, USB 3.0 interfaces were hard to come by 7 years ago when I picked up my first FW 800 enclosure... Yes USB 3.0 is cheaper and faster, but it's only been shipping for 20 months now. Apple knows that a lot of Mac owners already have FW gear, and a lot of it cannot be replaced by USB 3.0 at this time, so they continue to support it. I applaud this.

I do not think that USB 3.0 over TB is a bad idea at all. I think it's potentially a bad idea to put a host controller that can pump 5 Gbps on the same 10 Gbps channel as another device that requires 5.8 Gbps of dedicated bandwidth for an isochronous application.

Actually, if we're talking 7200 rpm or less hard disks, FireWire 800 almost never limits performance under normal usage. The only time it can is when streaming reads or writes exceed 78 MB/s. Smaller or random reads and writes never come close to that.

Here it sounds like you're trying to convince yourself it's OK that your FW800 drives are taking twice as much time to transfer large files as USB3.0. The point is if the bandwidth is available and the drives are cheaper, USB3.0 kicks FW800's butt from here to the Alamo.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of maximizing throughput, which is why most of my FW enclosures also support eSATA, and USB 2.0 as well, so I can always use the fastest interface at my disposal. I do a lot of backup, data recovery, and drive cloning for various small businesses, and don't mind dropping $200 on a dock or enclosure, because if it gets the job done significantly faster, it can pay for itself in less than a week's time. I would say that more than 90% of the machines I encounter in the field have USB 2.0 (I do still see some real old stuff that's USB 1.1 only), at least half support 1394a (you'd be surprised how many PCs actually do), and maybe 20% have eSATA or FireWire 800. (There's also situations where Gigabit Ethernet between two machines is quicker than using any external storage solution.) I have yet to work on a single PC with USB 3.0 at any of my clients' workplaces. Like most people I also don't own a USB 3.0 enabled machine myself, since I haven't bought a new rig in the past 20 months. For me and my workflow, a USB 3.0 enabled drive, regardless of price, would still be slower in most cases than what I already have.

I imagine that I, for one, would be applauding that they finally embraced it period. Instead, my reaction is that I'd be a moron to buy a monitor today that cannot run Apple's USB 3.0 interface all their computers will have starting next year (since it will be included in Intel's chipset by default). Buying this product today is buying obsolescence right from the start.

Buying any computer technology is pretty much buying obsolescence right from the start. And since there isn't a single display on the market with a USB 3.0 host controller in it, I guess you'd be a moron to buy any display until there is one. And I'm guessing you might be a moron for quite a while yet. What if you actually did need a monitor before then though?

A checklist feature? :confused:

I've had my 3TB USB 3.0 drives for over a year. They can do around 30MB/sec under USB 2.0. A similar drive in a FW800 enclosure can do up to 100MB/sec. With USB 3.0, it can do around 140MB/sec. Faster drives or combinations of drives could easily do twice that. Personally, I move a lot of large files seeing I keep all my movies on a server hard drive. Going 40% slower in the name of pride doesn't do anything for me.

As I already said, since I don't have a USB 3.0 host controller at my disposal, FW 800 drives are faster than USB 3.0 for me. And I think I would seek out a PC with USB 3.0 before looking for it as a feature on a display. But since you already have a machine with a USB 3.0 host controller, why do you need another one in your display? And since that machine isn't a Mac, why do want a display that will only work with one? And if you do also have a TB enabled Mac, and are actually part of the target market for the ATD, why did you buy one of those when even a moron would know that they'll be shipping with USB 3.0 enabled Ivy Bridge processors in less than a year?

This post gets my nomination for the biggest suck up to Apple of the year. :rolleyes:

I'll just note that you said I was sucking up but couldn't say that I was wrong.

And asking people why the personally haven't designed something is just downright ridiculous. I haven't designed it because that is not my job (or most others on here). WTF does that have to do with people making stupid decisions at Apple? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. :rolleyes:

Is it clearly someone else's job to make everything you want in life for you? And your job is what? To bitch about what a bad job everyone else is doing? These "people" at Apple that make these stupid decisions are called engineers. (Or were you referring to the marketers, because they do make some stupid decisions...) I went to school for computer engineering, and it drives me crazy when people with no idea what the design parameters for a product are bitch about how they've been wronged because it doesn't do something they wanted it to. Often times these objections are combined with a total disregard for the applicable laws of physics or economics.

I was serious about the DIY thing. You should try it sometime, it's very rewarding, you might surprise yourself. You can order sample USB 3.0 host controllers from Renesas for $3.50 apiece. With not all that much time and effort you could actually mod an ATD to add USB 3.0 support and be the first one on your block to have one. And before anyone faints at the notion of modding a brand new $1000 gadget, let me direct your attention to the things people do to far more expensive cars and boats all the time.

Believe it or not, it is possible to make a non-reflective screen with glass (or other type materials like high index plastic). My glasses have it and I get no reflections in them. Apple is obsessed with glass because Steve is obsessed with glass. Whether any of that changes under the new CEO remains to be seen. I think as long as Steve is pulling the strings at Apple in any fashion what-so-ever, we'll continue to get underpowered ultra-thin products with batteries that cannot easily be replaced by the user.

You get no reflections in your glasses because your face doesn't emit light or reflect enough onto them to cause problems. Apple's displays, even the glass clad ones, don't show reflections unless there is a source of light striking them that is brighter than the light being emitted by the display. Once again, I think it's Jony's obsession, perhaps one that is shared by Steve, but none the less. And yes, hopefully we continue to get great products from Apple that are better designed than what most of the rest of the industry can seem to come up with.
 
You get no reflections in your glasses because your face doesn't emit light or reflect enough onto them to cause problems. Apple's displays, even the glass clad ones, don't show reflections unless there is a source of light striking them that is brighter than the light being emitted by the display. Once again, I think it's Jony's obsession, perhaps one that is shared by Steve, but none the less. And yes, hopefully we continue to get great products from Apple that are better designed than what most of the rest of the industry can seem to come up with.

I am by no means an expert in anti-reflective coatings, but if it reduces reflections for glasses, then why wouldn't this work for monitors?

Anyway, unlike black, or white, or purple machines with green dots: having a matte display is not about fashion. It is about usability. Jon and Steve may like glossy, but Jon is NOT a painter who creates a work of art as such. He is an industrial designer who is designing a TOOL. And this means that he has to take into account usability. If he cannot design a nice anti-glare monitor I think there is at least one area where there is room for improvement.

Now, you can tell me to buy a monitor for my MPB from some other supplier, and I did. It is however not so easy to replace my old iMac. I think my old white iMac looks very nice too, with its anti-glare screen... Jon probably has designed that too, so I am a bit confused at this point.

I see people here saying that "they do not suffer from reflections". Well, okay that's fine, but I do not see how that has anything to with my wish to have a matte display. I respect peoples wish to have a glossy display. So please also respect mine to have a anti-glare screen.
 
Last edited:
most Apple products look gorgeous compared to other consumer electronics

Gorgeous? Obviously, you must be more into interior design than computers. I and many others couldn't give a flying crap about what they look like. I care what the OS looks like and how it behaves, not the flipping box or case it comes in. I just can't imagine picking out a computer based on the exterior of the box. That would be like picking out a refrigerator based on its color rather than its size, rating, features, etc.

buy one of those, or, god forbid, buy a display made by someone else.

I guess god must have forbidden since all my monitors are by someone else. :rolleyes:

Strangely, USB 3.0 interfaces were hard to come by 7 years ago when I picked up my first FW 800 enclosure... Yes USB 3.0 is cheaper and faster,

I thought we were talking about today's products. I have a FW800 drive on my MBP. That doesn't mean I want to use a slower interface on my next computer or drive setup. I already have the USB 3.0 drives for my media setup. I just want USB 3.0 support from Apple, I don't care if it's a TB conversion, hub or just new Macs with USB 3.0 built in. The point is that I need a new server for my whole house audio/video system (due in no small part to the fact that software is drying up for it thanks to Apple leaving PPC out of XCode) and I'd like to have faster than FW800 speeds for external drives.

Actually, if we're talking 7200 rpm or less hard disks, FireWire 800 almost never limits performance under normal usage. The only time it can is when streaming reads or writes exceed 78 MB/s. Smaller or random reads and writes never come close to that.

You must be talking about that 7 year old hard drive. 78MB/sec was great around 5-7 years ago. Today's 5200 RPM 3TB drives do over 140MB/sec. The 7200 RPM ones can do close to 200 MB/sec and SSDs can go faster yet. IF you cannot tell the difference with FW800 versus eSata or USB3.0, then your drives must be pretty old.

Buying any computer technology is pretty much buying obsolescence right from the start.

There's a big difference between knowing USB 3.0 will be replaced with USB 4.0 or whatever in 5 years time in the future and knowing that the hub you just bought doesn't work with technology from 3 years in the past.

But then that's kind of like Apple still not supporting Blu-Ray which has been out for over a half decade already. It's pathetic. Apple should be ahead of the curve, not a half decade behind it.

As I already said, since I don't have a USB 3.0 host controller at my disposal, FW 800 drives are faster than USB 3.0 for me. And I think I would seek out a PC with USB 3.0 before looking for it as a feature on a display.

You just don't get it. The display IS the controller with Apple's new monitor! It's basically a PCI bus expansion card that has USB, Firewire and Ethernet ports on it. If it had USB3.0, it would be like inserting a USB3.0 card into a Mac Pro or the like. I'm simply looking for a fast drive solution for my next server. I don't care if it's a hub that adds USB 3.0 support to TB at this point for the existing Mac Mini or a new Mac Mini that includes USB 3.0. Either way, I'd like to use my two existing 3TB drives at >30MB/sec speeds.

But since you already have a machine with a USB 3.0 host controller, why do you need another one in your display? And since that machine isn't a Mac, why do want a display that will only work with one? And if you do also have

Who said I have a USB 3.0 controller? I said I have USB 3.0 drives. I'm stuck using them at USB 2.0 speeds right now (they're media drives for my whole house audio/video system) and are running off my old PowerMac for that matter. 30MB/sec is more than sufficient to run the system, but it's dog slow for backing it up onto another drive, etc.

why did you buy one of those when even a moron would know that they'll be shipping with USB 3.0 enabled Ivy Bridge processors in less than a year?

I DIDN'T buy one dude.... My existing computer lineup is in my signature on every post so no excuses. Sheesh. :rolleyes:

I'll just note that you said I was sucking up but couldn't say that I was wrong.

Why would I call your OPINION wrong? :confused:

Is it clearly someone else's job to make everything you want in life for you?

So you design your own high speed network chips and boards in your garage in your spare time? I mean really dude, this is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read and frankly if I had said something like that, I would have dropped it and hoped everyone forgot I ever wrote it.

And your job is what? To bitch about what a bad job everyone else is doing?

Yes, that's my job. :rolleyes:

These "people" at Apple that make these stupid decisions are called engineers.

OMG! Really? Gee, I just happen to be an Electronic Engineer. Golly gee. That doesn't mean I design networking cards or OSX drivers.... :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

(Or were you referring to the marketers, because they do make some stupid decisions...) I went to school for computer engineering, and it drives me crazy when people with no idea what the design parameters for a product are bitch about how they've been wronged because it doesn't do something they wanted it to. Often times these objections are combined with a total disregard for the applicable laws of physics or economics.

What drives me crazy are flipping fanboys who think everything Apple does is great and fly off the flipping handle when someone gives their opinion that they might have done something that isn't 3 years out of date.

BTW, that's NOT an engineering decision. It's a MANAGEMENT decision NOT to include USB 3.0 in any of their products! USB 3.0 technology already existed. Management decided to not include it and by management, I mean Steve Jobs. The same holds true for Blu-Ray.

You get no reflections in your glasses because your face doesn't emit light or reflect enough onto them to cause problems. Apple's displays, even the glass

(SIGH)

Guess what? I got TONS of reflections with my older glasses that had no anti-reflective coating. My face didn't "light up" back then either! :rolleyes:

I could see every overhead light behind me in my glasses reflecting back at me. It doesn't matter where the light source is so long as it's within the angle of incidence of the light relative to my glasses!

The REASON I don't get reflections in my newer glasses is I paid a lot of money for a coating that all but eliminates ALL REFLECTIONS PERIOD from the lenses. I can only assume you've never worn a pair of glasses in your life or you'd know about reflection issues in glasses.

Apple could easily put such a coating on the GLASS used in front of their displays. I'm not saying it would be 'cheap' (that coating was like an extra $100 on my glasses), but it could be made to order and it would be a 'glossy' display that has almost no reflections (i.e. the best of both worlds).
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.