Macs are already obsolete because of Thunderbolt

cube

macrumors P6
Original poster
May 10, 2004
16,976
4,926
4K TVs are being released.

If instead of crippling Macs with Thunderbolt, Apple would just have used DisplayPort 1.2 which the discrete chips already support since quite a while, the computers would be able to drive the new display generation at full resolution.
 

bkar89

macrumors regular
Jul 27, 2012
130
0
Norway
I don't follow...

The thunderbolt ports carry display port. Macs with thunderbolt can use the Cinema LED display, by using it. But Macs without Thunderbolt cannot use the Thunderbolt display, because it's port only carry display port.

And what does 4K TVs have to with macs being obsolete?

Even older pc or macs would be able to hook up to these TVs, might not be able to run at full 4K res tough
 

cube

macrumors P6
Original poster
May 10, 2004
16,976
4,926
I don't follow...

The thunderbolt ports carry display port. Macs with thunderbolt can use the Cinema LED display, by using it. But Macs without Thunderbolt cannot use the Thunderbolt display, because it's port only carry display port.

And what does 4K TVs have to with macs being obsolete?

Even older pc or macs would be able to hook up to these TVs, might not be able to run at full 4K res tough
Thunderbolt has only DisplayPort 1.1

The whole point of 4K displays is to run them at that resolution.

This is not about casually using a 4KTV with a computer.
 

nuckinfutz

macrumors 603
Jul 3, 2002
5,504
314
Middle Earth
It's going to be a while before 4k displays are affordable.

PCI Express 4.0 is due roughly around 2014-2015 and will provide more bandwidth for Thunderbolt.

I'm guessing that we'll see the next revision of Thunderbolt around this time with support for DP 1.2 or whatever they come up with for 2.0.

In the meantime there may be the possibility of using both TB ports to power a larger monitor. I've seen some prototype displays use 4 HDMI or DP inputs to push the massive amount of pixels.
 

cube

macrumors P6
Original poster
May 10, 2004
16,976
4,926
Even in that case, there are already many MBPs which have only 1 TB port when they could have had DP 1.2

TB was not necessary. They could have got USB 3.0, FW3200, and ExpressCard.
 

nuckinfutz

macrumors 603
Jul 3, 2002
5,504
314
Middle Earth
Even in that case, there are already many MBPs which have only 1 TB port when they could have had DP 1.2

TB was not necessary. They could have got USB 3.0, FW3200, and ExpressCard.
Neither of those technologies support bi-directional 10Gbps. By the time 4k is an issue for the average enthusiast or Pro-sumer we'll be looking at the second generation of TB technology.

DisplayPort 1.1 supports 8.64 Gbps which is within the initial TB 10Gbps spec.
DisplayPort 1.2 doubles bandwidth to 17.28 clearly outside of the TB spec.

All we need to do is wait for a faster TB specification
 

cube

macrumors P6
Original poster
May 10, 2004
16,976
4,926
Neither of those technologies support bi-directional 10Gbps. By the time 4k is an issue for the average enthusiast or Pro-sumer we'll be looking at the second generation of TB technology.

DisplayPort 1.1 supports 8.64 Gbps which is within the initial TB 10Gbps spec.
DisplayPort 1.2 doubles bandwidth to 17.28 clearly outside of the TB spec.

All we need to do is wait for a faster TB specification
So what, if they don't support bidirectional 10 Gbps?

If the idea is to get 10GbE, just upgrade the Ethernet port already!

Most probably, they will replace the FW800 port with an HDMI 1.4 port :mad:
 

nuckinfutz

macrumors 603
Jul 3, 2002
5,504
314
Middle Earth
So what, if they don't support bidirectional 10 Gbps?

If the idea is to get 10GbE, just upgrade the Ethernet port already!

Most probably, they will replace the FW800 port with an HDMI 1.4 port :mad:
10Gbe Ethernet?

Thunderbolt is dirt cheap compared to a 10G NIC. $700 OUCH.

Thunderbolt is the best connection you can buy on a price/Gbps basis. Nothing else compares.
 

cube

macrumors P6
Original poster
May 10, 2004
16,976
4,926
10Gbe Ethernet?

Thunderbolt is dirt cheap compared to a 10G NIC. $700 OUCH.

Thunderbolt is the best connection you can buy on a price/Gbps basis. Nothing else compares.
If Apple cared as much about Macs as they care about making iPhones, they would have seen to bring 10GbE chips to the consumer level.
 

nuckinfutz

macrumors 603
Jul 3, 2002
5,504
314
Middle Earth
If Apple cared as much about Macs as they care about making iPhones, they would have seen to bring 10GbE chips to the consumer level.
10G Ethernet is a one trick pony. Consumers don't need it they are largely using Wifi for network connectivity

Apple probably likes TB because of its flexibility along with the speed. Win/Win.
 

thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
6,721
1,820
It's going to be a while before 4k displays are affordable.

PCI Express 4.0 is due roughly around 2014-2015 and will provide more bandwidth for Thunderbolt.

I'm guessing that we'll see the next revision of Thunderbolt around this time with support for DP 1.2 or whatever they come up with for 2.0.

In the meantime there may be the possibility of using both TB ports to power a larger monitor. I've seen some prototype displays use 4 HDMI or DP inputs to push the massive amount of pixels.
DP 1.2 also includes specs for 10 bit output and the inclusion of audio. It's actually around 20Gb/s in terms of raw electrical bandwidth, but it takes a hit somewhere in there. Thunderbolt is expected to move to its PCIe 3.0 spec in 2014. It doesn't necessarily track absolute gains in lane bandwidth.

Neither of those technologies support bi-directional 10Gbps. By the time 4k is an issue for the average enthusiast or Pro-sumer we'll be looking at the second generation of TB technology.

DisplayPort 1.1 supports 8.64 Gbps which is within the initial TB 10Gbps spec.
DisplayPort 1.2 doubles bandwidth to 17.28 clearly outside of the TB spec.

All we need to do is wait for a faster TB specification
The displayport bandwidth takes a slight hit in processing which brings it to that. Displayport 1.2 hitting that is via saturating 4 channels. In the case of thunderbolt, its display bandwidth channels are separate from data only channels. It's not that efficient.

If Apple cared as much about Macs as they care about making iPhones, they would have seen to bring 10GbE chips to the consumer level.
That is just plain silly. Ethernet isn't an area where I'd expect to see them do a lot of research. There are better options in performance ports for things such as storage. Unfortunately we're a little limited on options on the Mac.
 

cube

macrumors P6
Original poster
May 10, 2004
16,976
4,926
10G Ethernet is a one trick pony. Consumers don't need it they are largely using Wifi for network connectivity

Apple probably likes TB because of its flexibility along with the speed. Win/Win.
It's not a Win/Win. I only see TB as a way to upgrade to 10GbE in the future for me.

I lose, because the MBP I just bought won't be able to drive a 30" 3D monitor, or a 4K monitor, which is what interests me.

I don't see myself using an external SSD anytime, and for that I have eSATA.
If I didn't want Snow Leopard, I would also have USB 3.0 for that.

Without Rosetta, there's not much visibility about getting another Mac in the future.

I want iTunes for Linux.

----------

That is just plain silly. Ethernet isn't an area where I'd expect to see them do a lot of research.
What research? They have the money needed to make it happen, they don't need to develop it organically.
 

murphychris

macrumors 6502a
Mar 19, 2012
661
1
If instead of crippling Macs with Thunderbolt, Apple would just have used DisplayPort 1.2 which the discrete chips already support since quite a while, the computers would be able to drive the new display generation at full resolution.
It's not in Apple's interest to support 4K displays now. It is in their interest to stop including ports a lot of people don't use, in order to shrink form factor even more. People aren't buying Pros pretty much at all. The Macbook Pros now no longer have GigE or FW. To get them, DisplayPort alone wouldn't work. They needed a small connector, cheap, PCIe bus.
 

cube

macrumors P6
Original poster
May 10, 2004
16,976
4,926
It's not in Apple's interest to support 4K displays now. It is in their interest to stop including ports a lot of people don't use, in order to shrink form factor even more. People aren't buying Pros pretty much at all. The Macbook Pros now no longer have GigE or FW. To get them, DisplayPort alone wouldn't work. They needed a small connector, cheap, PCIe bus.
It is in their interest that the customers who made Mac OS X popular do not move to Linux, turning it into the next trend.
 

murphychris

macrumors 6502a
Mar 19, 2012
661
1
Ethernet isn't an area where I'd expect to see them do a lot of research. There are better options in performance ports for things such as storage. Unfortunately we're a little limited on options on the Mac.
10GigE is exactly the performance option to provide storage to clients. Between servers, InfiniBand is cheaper and faster. But in terms of performance to network storage, things are kinda slow on Mac OS X. Direct attached storage with Thunderbolt (effectively it's aggregated eSATA to an array) is very much so less than ideal for many reasons, even though it is fast. One positive vs many negatives.

----------

It is in their interest that the customers who made Mac OS X popular do not move to Linux, turning it into the next trend.
And what hardware that linux runs on has DisplayPort 1.2?
 

thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
6,721
1,820
What research? They have the money needed to make it happen, they don't need to develop it organically.
They propose modified standards frequently. Obviously that isn't likely to work with ethernet, but offering to buy many doesn't necessarily reduce the costs to current gigabit levels over a short period of time. Beyond that they've killed its implementation in a number of their products. I don't like that, but it should be obvious that Apple pushing such a thing is unlikely. The advantages to ethernet are largely tied to hardware security and stability. It has some very strong points, yet it's going to displace something like mini sas if you need real bandwidth. By the time 4k computer displays gain popularity macs made today will most likely already be de-supported.
 

murphychris

macrumors 6502a
Mar 19, 2012
661
1
Moving to Linux is not about DP, but about disposable über-consumer hardware.
Moving to Linux is entirely moot and a complete troll manueuver and you know it. The total number of people you know who have moved or are considering moving from Mac OS to Linux you could count on one hand. The desktop Linux market is so far less than 1% you need to use negative exponents to describe that market as an integer. So let's stop overstating Linux on the desktop.

You made the Linux DP correlation by proposing Mac users would move to Linux ostensibly because Apple hardware doesn't support DisplayPort 1.2. Well who else does? For your argument to work there must be an actual alternative and there isn't apparently.
 

cube

macrumors P6
Original poster
May 10, 2004
16,976
4,926
Moving to Linux is entirely moot and a complete troll manueuver and you know it. The total number of people you know who have moved or are considering moving from Mac OS to Linux you could count on one hand. The desktop Linux market is so far less than 1% you need to use negative exponents to describe that market as an integer. So let's stop overstating Linux on the desktop.

You made the Linux DP correlation by proposing Mac users would move to Linux ostensibly because Apple hardware doesn't support DisplayPort 1.2. Well who else does? For your argument to work there must be an actual alternative and there isn't apparently.
I didn't say people would move to Linux because of DP.

I would have moved years ago to Solaris if it were not for the consumer applications and drivers.

Now I've reduced that to the closed Apple-made stuff.

At least I don't have an iPhone and don't use iCloud.

Next will be abandoning iPad for a retina Android.
 

murphychris

macrumors 6502a
Mar 19, 2012
661
1
I didn't say people would move to Linux because of DP.
You either implied a correlation, or you brought up linux for absolutely zero reason. Take your pick.

I would have moved years ago to Solaris if it were not for the consumer applications and drivers.
Who f'n cares? What's your point?

Now I've reduced that to the closed Apple-made stuff.
At least I don't have an iPhone and don't use iCloud.
Next will be abandoning iPad for a retina Android.
Troll.
 

scarred

macrumors 6502a
Jul 24, 2011
516
1
4K TVs are being released.

If instead of crippling Macs with Thunderbolt, Apple would just have used DisplayPort 1.2 which the discrete chips already support since quite a while, the computers would be able to drive the new display generation at full resolution.
Apple is doomed. Technology keeps moving forward.

uh, whut?

You do realize, that to push a 4k monitor you'll need a pretty heft graphics card. I'm guessing the top of the line SLI could do it today, but not much else. Certainly no gpu in a Mac could do it. So who cares? You'll need a new computer to push that amount of bits anyways.
 

JoeG4

macrumors 68030
Jan 11, 2002
2,687
192
Bay Area, Ca.
A lot of laptops only have HDMI 1.2 which only supports 1920x1200 lol. I think GPUs need some time to catch up, and wouldn't you know it, we're back to the bleeding edge of tech going crazy. Woot! :D I love that feeling, it beats the "Ah a core 2 is fast enough for anything and things aren't gonna change much" feeling.
 

cube

macrumors P6
Original poster
May 10, 2004
16,976
4,926
You either implied a correlation, or you brought up linux for absolutely zero reason. Take your pick.
You said it was in Apple's best interest to reduce form factor. I implied nothing.

----------

You do realize, that to push a 4k monitor you'll need a pretty heft graphics card. I'm guessing the top of the line SLI could do it today, but not much else. Certainly no gpu in a Mac could do it. So who cares? You'll need a new computer to push that amount of bits anyways.
No games or 4K video. Just the usual static 2D stuff one does most of the time.
 

murphychris

macrumors 6502a
Mar 19, 2012
661
1
You said it was in Apple's best interest to reduce form factor. I implied nothing.


You were the one who brought up multiple irrelevancies, including linux and solaris, while also totally discounting the fact DisplayPort supports only display devices. You consider Apple hardware crippled as a result, yet you provide no examples of hardware that are not crippled in this way.

You are either a troll or you lack the imagination a house plant has, because any common house plant would flip out at Truly Crippled Hardware having only DisplayPort 1.2 but no GigE, no FW, and no fast way to connect external drives.

Your arguments are ridiculous.
 

chrono1081

macrumors 604
Jan 26, 2008
7,585
1,568
Isla Nublar
You were the one who brought up multiple irrelevancies, including linux and solaris, while also totally discounting the fact DisplayPort supports only display devices. You consider Apple hardware crippled as a result, yet you provide no examples of hardware that are not crippled in this way.

You are either a troll or you lack the imagination a house plant has, because any common house plant would flip out at Truly Crippled Hardware having only DisplayPort 1.2 but no GigE, no FW, and no fast way to connect external drives.

Your arguments are ridiculous.
Its obvious reading this thread the OP has no clue what he is talking about and is simply performing an action I can't say due to forum rules.