Professionals use other computers besides the Mac Pro don't you know?
You're right. They use Windows computers.
CNET?!? Other websites exists too. Just on Yahoo's shopping website listed 55 Displayport monitors. You don't have to buy Apples adapter, third party ones exist too.
Oh boy. How many have it at Best Buy?
Displayport is not an Apple standard as well as Thunderport. Mini Display ports are used because it certainly fits much better then using a big, full sized connectors with a thick, heavy cable to things such as laptops.
Mini IS by Apple and it purposely screwed with an existing standard (DP). As if things weren't confused enough with a new standard trying to take hold, along comes Apple and jumbles it up with more adapters.... oh boy.
We are not seeing many PC's use it primarily most consumers are not willing to pay for top of the line peripherals it was designed to use. Thats why we are more likely to see it on workstations Such as HP.
If that's your logic, fine. WTF do all Macs have it, then? *MOST* Mac users are
NOT professionals, just consumers also. Oh wait. You're saying most Mac users are computer illiterate drones that are willing to pay a small fortune for overpriced hardware? I get it now. Hey, just
maybe you are right, after all.
Acer dropped Thunderbolt because they are primarily a budget computer.
And WTF is a Mac Mini? A Pro workstation?
And just because all Macs now have Thunderbolt that doesn't mean people are using it. Sadly, it's quite the opposite. It's something that increases the price of a Mac, yet has no use for most people. Even if it's on-chip, that space would be better served with either dual-function ports (the whole reason Sony wanted a USB connector) or more on-board USB 3.0 ports that actually have real-world use by most people.
USB 3 was out for years prior to Thunderbolt.
All the more reason to get Thunderbolt adoption going as fast as possible. You just keep making my points for me. Keep trying to polish a turd and you still end up with a turd, oddly enough.
If you learned anything from Firewire...even though it was slower then USB 2.0...it was still faster in real world applications. USB 2.0 was dependent to the CPU where Firewire was not.
So now you're comparing USB 3.0 to USB 2.0? The whole point of USB 3.0 is get rid of USB 2.0's limitations and increase the speed. The whole point of Thunderbolt is to try and bleed money from the USB
STANDARD, just like HD-DVD Vs. Blu-Ray instead of cooperating for the benefit of all. Yeah, that REALLY benefits the public with competing standards. No, it benefits Intel to try and corner as much market as possible.
Thats why professionals used Firewire rather then USB 2.0.
I could play your game and point out that professionals used USB also (I mean they used Firewire
for what, just to start with, your argument includes none of that information), but what would be the point? USB 3.0 is more than adequate for most professional uses and more to the point, WHAT professionals on the Mac platform? How many are left after Apple's blunders? There was the whole Final Cut X thing that sent many a Pro walking and scratching their heads on how Apple could possibly be so unbelievably STUPID to release such a POS that took so many steps backwards it was unreal. They dumped their server market (you know the real one with rack mount servers that actually are used by professionals, not giant towers or small pizza boxes that aren't). They delayed Logic updates for YEARS because Pros aren't a priority for them. And of course, the Mac Pro has been just rotting on the shelf now with outdated crap in in it and is finally going to be replaced by an overpriced trash can with no internal expansion and slower external expansion than the former Mac Pro had half a decade ago. Yeah, Apple is REALLY trying hard to help Pros.
Oh wait. Your definition of a "Pro" is Mike Smith down the street doing wedding videos with iMovie or Jack Black doing beat arrangements with Garage Band. Whoa, I was totally off-based there. Yeah, the Mac ROCKS for "Professionals". Whoo-hoo!
Ahem...Thunderbolt is a Intel format, not an Apple one. It was Intels decision to keep it a wired connection rather then optical. At least for the time being. Seems you to failed to read the article you posted accurately ...even the title.
Yeah, keep talking down while ignoring actual history rather than your imaginary one. Light Peak was a JOINT venture between Apple and Intel. It was Apple that dictated the format to Intel (Apple is responsible for on-chip graphics improving so much with Intel as well, BTW since they have been asking for it). What Intel came up with was too expensive for a
consumer computer like a Macintosh and so they went back to Copper so Steve could put it in the entire Mac line. Steve simultaneously wanted exclusive access (to feed his ego) and yet wanted it to be a world standard and even though those two things were at odds with each other, he figured a one year jump start over PCs would be good enough. Unfortunately, that one year exclusive ensured that Thunderbolt would never be anything more than a tiny niche format. In early 2011, USB 3.0 was not well entrenched yet and a far superior TB might have had a shot, but it was not superior enough to justify the costs and the lack of distribution ensured it would go nowhere until at least 2012 and by then most PC makers decided it was pointless, especially with USB 3.0 on-chip (free) by 2012. TB is a dead format except for a tiny niche of Pros that need the most extreme disk transfers possible. Ironically, those are the same people that would have been willing to pay through the nose for a far superior version of TB with optical only. It is precisely because Apple chose to push TB as a consumer format that it is an undeniable failure. It is something that should have only appeared on the Mac Pro and perhaps the top-end Macbook Pro and it should have been 40GBps minimum to start PER CHANNEL. At that speed, one could make an argument for an internal expansion-less Mac Pro and there would be no doubt that the format meant PRO.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/
The average mom & pop who buy this machine don't care much about specs or even know what they mean. Just that they want it faster then last years model.
The
average mom & pop buy Windows machines, not Macs.
I absolutely disagree with you. Many people love the all in one solution that the iMac brings. Plug in one device with wireless mouse and keyboard and away you go.
Define "many". Don't forget how tiny the Mac market is to begin with and how UNPOPULAR
all-in-ones are in the Windows world.
Away you go with what? No backup hard drive? Oh wait. You need another external box. More storage? Yet more boxes. A way to connect your audio gear? More external boxes. At some point, one has to wonder how a computer designed to defeat desktop clutter manages to create 5x the clutter of conventional tower that sits under the desk and holds everything needed inside of it.
They Ditched Express port was ditched as it was woefully slow. Oversized and and now Dead in the water.
Well, compared to the SD card reader that replaced it, I can't agree with your
logic there (i.e. it's fast enough that my USB 3 card in my 2008 MBP can do sustained reads at over 110MB/sec, which is the limit of the drive I have (a far cry better than either the FW800 port or even Gigabit Ethernet in real-world speeds and those are the computer's only two other options. No 2010 MBP other than 17" can match it under any circumstance so I'd hardly call it "dead in the water". Apple had the option of updating it to the latest expansion standards or even just including eSata ports. There are Pros to this day that can't believe the new Mac Pro doesn't have any eStata ports on it. And that's the problem. Apple expects people to adapt to their hardware rather than their hardware serving existing professionals. And that just means even more money and more reasons NOT to go with Apple for their new machine.
