4 ms·

Can you buy the monitor separately? It looks like a dream display to me, assuming that it's glossy which is usual for Apple. It's very difficult to find glossy

by nawitus 12y ago

Can you buy the monitor separately? It looks like a dream display to me, assuming that it's glossy which is usual for Apple. It's very difficult to find glossy monitors these days. I just can't go back to matter after getting spoiled with glossy.

gmays 12y ago
Not yet it seems. They haven't released an update to their Thunderbolt Display in years (since 2011), but it should be right around the corner with the release of this 5K iMac.
- jagger27 12y ago
  They would have announced it today if that was the case. Currently there isn't a display transport capable of pushing that many pixels. DispayPort 1.2 can't do it on a single port and that's what Apple has MacBooks and Mac Pro.
  - arrrg 12y ago
    Don’t both MacBook Pro and Mac Pro have multiple Thunderbolt ports? Don’t those work as separate DisplayPorts? At least on the Mac Pro?
    - potatolicious 12y ago
      Yes, and that's already being used by the first batch of 4K monitors and is called MST. This models the monitor as 2 lower-resolution displays and drives them with two separate signals. It has a lot of compatibility problems, and is hacky as hell. I doubt Apple would adopt this as an official/first-class solution to anything.
      - jagger27 12y ago
        Exactly. They can get away with it in the iMac 5K because it's all baked into one tight enclosure.
      - kalleboo 12y ago
        > It has a lot of compatibility problems Solving "compatibility problems" is what Apple do best by requiring you have an Apple Mac Pro and an Apple Cinema Display and not supporting any other configuration
  - jtth 12y ago
    they only have 1 bus
    - ehamberg 12y ago
      The Mac Pro has two buses, but the Macbook Pro has only one – so the fact that there are two Thunderbolt ports doesn't really help you in this case.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
Rovanion 12y ago
Honest question: Why do you prefer a reflective surface over a matte on a screen? In my experience it only reflects the room and makes the content harder to see.
- badusername 12y ago
  I agree that it is harder to see, especially if you have a backlight. If you have a well-lit room, with light coming from the top in a non-reflective angle, the display is vastly better than the matte one. (Source: I have both Apple Thunderbolt Display and old-school Apple Cinema Display with matte finish)
- skwirl 12y ago
  In my experience, colors just look better on glossy displays. Since glossy screens are ubiquitous on phones and tablets, I would figure most people are used to the reflection issue by now. Personally, I don't notice reflections unless the screen is off, but it is obviously going to depend on your room.
- wil421 12y ago
  I've used a Mac with a glass screen since 2011 and it really hasnt given me any issues. Sometimes at the office I may have a issues with glare or if I sit with a window behind me. If I adjust the angle of my monitor the issue is immediately resolved. I was really against buying the glossy screen but the matte looks washed out compared to the glossy. If your display is around 60% or above brightness then you really dont have a glare issue.
- rayiner 12y ago
  Glossy requires you to exercise better control of room lighting, but the matte coating causes white backgrounds to sparkle and text to be hazy. Especially on a retina-level display where the text is otherwise so sharp. I used a 2414Q in a Microsoft store, and text looks nowhere near as sharp as it does on my Macbook Pro Retina, despite similar pixel density.
  - 4ad 12y ago
progman 12y ago
It depends on the application. For games, fotos, and videos glossy may be fine. But if you work a lot with text (as developer etc.) then matte displays are far better for the eyes. When I made an exception and bought a notebook with glossy display I regretted that a short time later. Glossy display? Never again!

by nawitus 12y ago

gmays 12y ago

Not yet it seems. They haven't released an update to their Thunderbolt Display in years (since 2011), but it should be right around the corner with the release of this 5K iMac.

jagger27 12y ago
They would have announced it today if that was the case. Currently there isn't a display transport capable of pushing that many pixels. DispayPort 1.2 can't do it on a single port and that's what Apple has MacBooks and Mac Pro.
- arrrg 12y ago
  Don’t both MacBook Pro and Mac Pro have multiple Thunderbolt ports? Don’t those work as separate DisplayPorts? At least on the Mac Pro?
  - potatolicious 12y ago
    Yes, and that's already being used by the first batch of 4K monitors and is called MST. This models the monitor as 2 lower-resolution displays and drives them with two separate signals. It has a lot of compatibility problems, and is hacky as hell. I doubt Apple would adopt this as an official/first-class solution to anything.
    - jagger27 12y ago
      Exactly. They can get away with it in the iMac 5K because it's all baked into one tight enclosure.
    - kalleboo 12y ago
      > It has a lot of compatibility problems Solving "compatibility problems" is what Apple do best by requiring you have an Apple Mac Pro and an Apple Cinema Display and not supporting any other configuration
- jtth 12y ago
  they only have 1 bus
  - ehamberg 12y ago
    The Mac Pro has two buses, but the Macbook Pro has only one – so the fact that there are two Thunderbolt ports doesn't really help you in this case.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

Rovanion 12y ago

Honest question: Why do you prefer a reflective surface over a matte on a screen? In my experience it only reflects the room and makes the content harder to see.

badusername 12y ago
I agree that it is harder to see, especially if you have a backlight. If you have a well-lit room, with light coming from the top in a non-reflective angle, the display is vastly better than the matte one. (Source: I have both Apple Thunderbolt Display and old-school Apple Cinema Display with matte finish)
skwirl 12y ago
In my experience, colors just look better on glossy displays. Since glossy screens are ubiquitous on phones and tablets, I would figure most people are used to the reflection issue by now. Personally, I don't notice reflections unless the screen is off, but it is obviously going to depend on your room.
wil421 12y ago
I've used a Mac with a glass screen since 2011 and it really hasnt given me any issues. Sometimes at the office I may have a issues with glare or if I sit with a window behind me. If I adjust the angle of my monitor the issue is immediately resolved. I was really against buying the glossy screen but the matte looks washed out compared to the glossy. If your display is around 60% or above brightness then you really dont have a glare issue.
rayiner 12y ago
Glossy requires you to exercise better control of room lighting, but the matte coating causes white backgrounds to sparkle and text to be hazy. Especially on a retina-level display where the text is otherwise so sharp. I used a 2414Q in a Microsoft store, and text looks nowhere near as sharp as it does on my Macbook Pro Retina, despite similar pixel density.
- 4ad 12y ago

progman 12y ago

It depends on the application. For games, fotos, and videos glossy may be fine. But if you work a lot with text (as developer etc.) then matte displays are far better for the eyes. When I made an exception and bought a notebook with glossy display I regretted that a short time later. Glossy display? Never again!