Looking at your post history.....Aren't there better things you can be doing with your life than trolling Macrumors? Your nonconstructive Apple bashing comments are wasting everyones time, your's included.
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.
Thunderbolt Display Stock Limited at Apple Stores Ahead of WWDC
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Looking at your post history.....Aren't there better things you can be doing with your life than trolling Macrumors? Your nonconstructive Apple bashing comments are wasting everyones time, your's included.
Any chance they could add Bluetooth to a monitor?
It would be amazing to pair a keyboard & mouse/trackpad directly to the display for a desk that has multiple macbooks plug in for higher productivity.
Do any monitors exist on the market with that feature?
It would be amazing to pair a keyboard & mouse/trackpad directly to the display for a desk that has multiple macbooks plug in for higher productivity.
Do any monitors exist on the market with that feature?
Yes, I had the same experience... before switching (back) to Mac, I was sprouting three external displays on my Windows laptop! I had expected to do the same thing with my MacBook, but after getting a Thunderbolt display, I never wanted multiple monitors again. I too find OS X's implementation of Spaces (especially with the trackpad switch gesture), excellent.
Just as a heads up in case this hasn't come up:
Thunderbolt 3/Skylake is 100% capable of driving a 5K display. With the release of the Dell 5K display, Apple added tiled display capability to OS X, allowing the system to treat the monitor as a single 5K image via two spit connections.
2 cables, you say? Nope, 1 is fine.
With Thunderbolt 3, Intel added two DisplayPort 1.2 pathways to the specifications. So built into the 1 USB-C (or optical TB3) cable is enough bandwidth for two independent 4K Displayport 1.2 connections, or enough for 1 tiled 5K Displayport connection. If the USB-C port on a 5K Thunderbolt display was simply that, USB-C, it would not be enough to drive a 5K display. However, given that it's a **Thunderbolt** display, it will probably have Thunderbolt 3 built into the USB-C port, allowing for both Thunderbolt-style daisy chaining and the full pair of DisplayPort 1.2 connections.
In other words, Apple's more than capable of making a 5K Thunderbolt display that can be driven by a single TB3 connection.
Thunderbolt 3/Skylake is 100% capable of driving a 5K display. With the release of the Dell 5K display, Apple added tiled display capability to OS X, allowing the system to treat the monitor as a single 5K image via two spit connections.
2 cables, you say? Nope, 1 is fine.
With Thunderbolt 3, Intel added two DisplayPort 1.2 pathways to the specifications. So built into the 1 USB-C (or optical TB3) cable is enough bandwidth for two independent 4K Displayport 1.2 connections, or enough for 1 tiled 5K Displayport connection. If the USB-C port on a 5K Thunderbolt display was simply that, USB-C, it would not be enough to drive a 5K display. However, given that it's a **Thunderbolt** display, it will probably have Thunderbolt 3 built into the USB-C port, allowing for both Thunderbolt-style daisy chaining and the full pair of DisplayPort 1.2 connections.
In other words, Apple's more than capable of making a 5K Thunderbolt display that can be driven by a single TB3 connection.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but, I think TB3 can potentially do 5k @ 60Hz by having a single TB3 cable carry two "Virtual" DisplayPort 1.2 cables, each supporting half the display... just like the current Dell 5k monitor uses two physical DisplayPort 1.2 cable. However, because Thunderbolt munges the DisplayPort signals with PCIe signals into a "thunderbolt" signal, this will only work if the display has a Thunderbolt controller.
DisplayPort 1.3 can do 5k @ 60Hz with a single cable, but (a) the TB 3 controller doesn't support DisplayPort 1.3 - probably because (b) Intel's integrated GPUs don't, either.
The wrinkle is that USB-C can support DisplayPort 1.3 in "DisplayPort Alternate Mode" and, since this works by physically allocating some or all of the USB-C wires to DisplayPort signals, the display doesn't need a special controller to de-mux them. This is more like the old TB1/2 "legacy" DisplayPort mode that lets you just plug a MiniDisplayPort device into a TB1/2 socket. However, if a future Mac has TB3 *and* a discrete GPU that can do DP1.3, I'm guessing that the Intel TB3 controller driving the USB-C socket will still limit it to DP 1.2
...so, the pain is that there are going to be two ways of driving displays: DisplayPort 1.2 over Thunderbolt (needs a Thunderbolt display & uses two virtual connections for 5k) and DisplayPort 1.3 over USB-C (simple USB-C to DisplayPort adapter - or USB-C might become the de-facto DP 1.3 connector).
They're too busy making cars and $15,000 watches.
[doublepost=1464731960][/doublepost]
Remember when we didn't have to complain? The magic is gone.
[doublepost=1464731960][/doublepost]
Remember when we didn't have to complain? The magic is gone.
You are not counting Apple's 30" Cinema Display in your pricing. That monitor never went for below $1000 and was priced at $3000 (2999) when it was announced.
The Thunderbolt display should have gotten a thinner non-Retina design and laminated front glass when the iMacs did a few years back, but now that Retina is mainstream on the Mac, I have to sympathize with Apple's lack of good options here. Release a new 5k display that needs two cables, defeating the single-cable-docking dream? Do a stopgap 4k display that makes Mac Pro displays smaller than the iMac? Or give up waiting on Intel to figure this out and introduce a proprietary way of stuffing DisplayPort 1.3 down a single cable with a USB-C connector?
4k seems extremely late to the party, unless it includes a bunch of proprietary tech that we can't currently buy. My guess is 5k, but it seems to me that even then, there will have to be something special about it. I honestly assumed apple was done with stand-alone displays.
To be fair, there's still no standard for driving a 5K display.
The version of DisplayPort on the market today doesn't have the bandwidth to do more than 4K @ 60 Hz. That's the concern the article outlines; how would a Mac even drive a hypothetical 5K display? A DisplayPort spec to drive it isn't for the most part publicly available yet, let alone in current Macs.
That said, there's not a good excuse for Apple not having released a 4K display. That should've been done a long time ago.
The last couple years have had a lot of important advances in display technology. In gaming circles, new technologies like high framerate monitors, low latency monitors, and most importantly, adaptive sync (FreeSync and GSync), have been quite interesting lately. Apple, meanwhile, even in the 5K iMac, has high pixel density and good color quality- but that's it. The 5K iMac really should have Freesync at the very least in the high end models with AMD graphics cards that support it, but the monitor doesn't.
I'd really like to see Apple release a 4K or 5K monitor that also has adaptive sync of some sort, whether that's Freesync or some Apple proprietary solution like the iPad has.
The question remains, if time has passed long enough since apple touted how much better tb is compared to anything. Will they be humble enough to let dp1.3 out of usb-c socket without gen behind tb.
"Use the blazing fast tb to connect everything (expensive as hell) or if you still want more speed, connect without tb!"
You're right, but that's how Thunderbolt displays work. They're not just DisplayPort displays, and they outright don't work with DisplayPort connections. They're ThunderBolt displays, and listed that way for a reason. If Apple does a 5K TB Display, this is exactly how it will work.
The new Thunderbolt Display is going to be the same resolution and everything...just with USB 3. Mark my words.
Most accurate assessment here. Sadly.