Thank you so much for your post! Because of you, I canceled my studio display order. I would have wasted money on the height adjustable stand that would have been useless for me because it doesn't make the display any lower. ?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Unveils $1,599 27-Inch 5K 'Studio Display' External Monitor
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, no, typically once the network has been wired a cable will only need to be disconnected if a component needs to be moved or replaced, which does not happen very often.
Still, my experience is that with just a little bit of care and attentiveness issues are very uncommon. The Ethernet port on my 2010 MacBook Pro still works fine despite being disconnected and reconnected when being moved between home and the office more or less daily for years and years.
I don't see that happening any time soon, but if it ever does I will solve it. Currently I see no need to use inferior technology when a superior one is readily available.
Also, note that the 24" iMac higher-end model, arguably still very much a consumer device, comes with Gigabit Ethernet.
The Mac Studio comes with 10 Gigabit Ethernet.
Even the lowly M1 Mac mini comes with Ethernet, so obviously it is still very far from obsolete.
Last edited:
Quoting myself here, but Best Buy now has the Studio Display available to pre-order. Along with the base configs of Studio Max/Ultra.
Maybe I’m misremembering but doesn’t FaceId leverage projection of an IR grid or some such, and this needs hardware beyond just a webcam? Doesn’t seem to be just a software update. Maybe I’m misunderstanding your comment.
Correct, Face ID needs a dot projector, a flood illuminator and an infrared camera to work.
As soon as these displays start shipping iFixit will find them if they're there.
Not sure what you’ve been doing wrong, but speaking as someone who has used Ethernet and supported folks using Ethernet since before the dawn of 10base-T, I’ve never encountered a damaged port (receptacle). Yes sometimes cable clips break, but it’s trivial to put a new connector on or replace the patch cable. (remember Thin Ethernet and the slide connector drop cables that preceded it?)
Hardwired Ethernet soundly beats WiFi in latency and throughput when working with a NAS in my experience. That you’ve managed to break stuff a lot more than others doesn’t negate those facts.
Wow...usually people say that WiFi is the unreliable networking option and ethernet is the more reliable option because the connection runs through wires and isn't prone to radio interference, distance, etc.
Usually people say that because it is in fact generally true.
While SlioSlidinAwa’s experience may be genuine, it is also an outlier as compared to that of corporate IT departments. There’s a reason they continue to deploy hardwired networking throughout offices with Wifj as the secondary mechanism.
WiFi is superior and anyway very soon you won't have a choice especially when the wireless iPhone's is just a matter of time, and solves the USB =-C charger problem. Who needs 10 Gigabit for a laptop or desktop anyway. It was designed for servers.
I have a business with 6 staff at 2 locations with central servers and branch servers. We just move office at one location and expected some problems. Turns out our WiFi is rock solid and was up and running in 15 minutes. We demand a lot of band width with large Monte Carlo Simulations and other demanding applications moving big files around.
The Studio Display has the same camera as the recent iPads that support Center Stage.
Hard to believe people are having so many problems with their WiFi. It has become very reliable in the past 5 years. What is every one doing wrong. The only Hardwire we have is 2 x full duplex fibre optic between two buildings which we did for electrical isolation as we have two earths and suspected we would get hum loops with and electrical connection.
Our office went 100 wireless a few years ago. It makes sense since the vast majority of us use notebooks. As more of us work from home the majority of the time I think many offices which haven’t yet transitioned to all wireless will do so. Ethernet cables in particular are prone to break.
Not in the foreseeable future. "According to Qualcomm, the maximum theoretical speed of the WiFi 6E mobile phone chip is 3.6Gbps,". I get ~1065 MBs read rates (write rates are slower) via a 10 GbE connection to my NAS. That is over 2 times faster than the theoretical 6e limit.
Not at all. Use all the time with my local NAS units for transferring large video files. Actual transfer write rates to my NAS units can hit ~500 MBs. My wifi 6ac varies from 300 to 700 Mbps, depending upon location. Wifi under the best conditions is almost 6 times slower. I am constantly doing very large data transfers. 2 digit Gigabyte to 2 digit terabyte in size and WiFi isn't a viable option.
Yes it is much better, but it is, and always will, be unpredictable due to interference. At a given point of time you may have higher or lower speeds depending on what is happening around you. In my case I am contending with 38 other WiFi networks. The farther away I am from the router the more the problems with contention. Performance can drop well over 1/2 my maximum value depending upon those other networks.
This is just an incredibly bad take. You are literally the first person I have seen argue that WiFi is a better, more reliable connection than ethernet. I mean, yeah, WiFi has gotten much more reliable and is always improving, but radio transmission just cannot compete with wired.
It’s not more reliable, but it is much more convenient. No need to plug in a cable with a notoriously fragile physical connection.
Really not having any problem with WiFi at our old office and since the move to the new office. Have had 3 engineers working flat out on WiFi so surprised we a ”literally“ the first to have this experience. But then people always say that.
Thanks for that. Pleased someone agrees that Ethernet cables and connectors are not reliable. The connector design in particular is not meant to be used more than a few times but may be called upon to do 100’s of connections.
Why did you disagree with my comment? I’ve seen a LOT of Ethernet cables with broken clips. It’s a bad design. It should use a proper plug.
Ok.
We will do this one step at a time.
You can start by addressing the issue of latency detailed in my previous post.
This is ping from my MacBook to my NAS. I disconnected Ethernet after the sixth ping.
Code:
am@mbp14 ~ % ping 10.0.0.100
PING 10.0.0.100 (10.0.0.100): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 10.0.0.100: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.933 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.100: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=1.252 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.100: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=1.111 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.100: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=1.022 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.100: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.981 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.100: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.911 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.100: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=37.909 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.100: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=72.931 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.100: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=103.579 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.100: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=79.437 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.100: icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=3.281 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.100: icmp_seq=11 ttl=64 time=20.228 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.100: icmp_seq=12 ttl=64 time=4.552 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.100: icmp_seq=13 ttl=64 time=3.549 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.100: icmp_seq=14 ttl=64 time=2.894 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.100: icmp_seq=15 ttl=64 time=3.843 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.100: icmp_seq=16 ttl=64 time=7.914 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.100: icmp_seq=17 ttl=64 time=3.946 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.100: icmp_seq=18 ttl=64 time=7.306 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.100: icmp_seq=19 ttl=64 time=4.182 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.100: icmp_seq=20 ttl=64 time=6.915 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.100: icmp_seq=21 ttl=64 time=5.940 msOn average (excluding the extra delays after the interface change) it goes up from about 1 ms to over 4 ms.
Similar for the router.
On Ethernet:
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.508/1.018/1.803/0.330 ms
On wifi:
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 3.020/4.795/9.519/1.718 ms
Please explain why I would accept a 400+% increase when there is no real downside to avoiding it.
After that we can move on to the next issue.
For the sake of clarity I guess I should point out that I do not typically have my phone connected to Ethernet.
I am not proposing that phones, iPads or even laptops should have an Ethernet port, just that it is not unreasonable for a stationary port multiplication device with lots of surface space and volume to spare to have one.
Also, my wifi fulfills its duties just fine, it is just constrained by limitations imposed by physics.
Odd that Mac Studio has 10 Gigabit Ethernet as standard, not even as a BTO option. No?
The Mac Pro goes one step further and includes two 10 Gigabit Ethernet ports.
Even the $699 Mac mini has a 10 Gigabit Ethernet upgrade option.
Last edited:
Who is "having so many problems" with their WiFi?
I stated that hardwired ethernet has lower latency and higher throughput than Wifi, which can be a factor when dealing with a NAS or other chatty sorts of workloads. That's just the nature of the technology, and is why Wifi does not replace hardwired ethernet in all scenarios. Sure, Wifi is "good enough" for many situations, yet it is not the universally superior replacement you depict it to be.
As an aside, how are your deployed accesspoints connected back to the switches in your MDF?
Last edited:
Yeah they're basically redundant to me for audio production while I'm flanked by a pair of Yamaha HS-8's but I can imagine they're welcome to people buying it for software development, video editing etc.