6 ms·
The thunderbolt monitor isn't 5 times more expensive, it is 3 times more expensive. It also has many features your displayport monitor does not have. It has a t
by chisleu 11y ago
The thunderbolt monitor isn't 5 times more expensive, it is 3 times more expensive. It also has many features your displayport monitor does not have. It has a thunderbolt hub w/ a thunderbolt port. Apple is daisy chaining their displays over thunderbolt. It also contains a gigabit ethernet adaptor, usbs, and a video camera.
My primary point is that they don't support displayport daisy chaining with their displays. They support thunderbolt daisy chaining.
- Artemis2 11y agoIt's also a 2560x1440 screen sold for $999. An upgrade with their latest 5K display is overdue.
- bshimmin 11y agoI just recently bought a couple of Dell U2515H monitors (and will probably buy another), and, given you can buy three of them for the cost of one of Apple's Thunderbolt displays, they really are a great deal - same resolution, higher PPI, more adjustable and rotatable, and they're matte. My Apple Thunderbolt display has from day one had some light leakage in the lower right corner, and the ethernet port stopped working six months ago, but I'd always convinced myself it was worth the extra money over a Dell or equivalent. I'm now pretty sure it never really was apart from a brief period when they were about the only 2560x1440 displays you could get.
- DiabloD3 11y agoI hate to say this, but the U2414H is a better monitor. Zero processing latency (not 1 frame, not half of a frame, but real world measured latency of less than 1 ms; virtually all of the gamer monitors out there are at least 1 frame and the only ones that get <half a frame are those Korean single input scaler-less IPSes), often sold for below $250 each, excellent color and contrast. I have three on my desk.
- petepete 11y agoI got an U2515H at work last week (for use with my MBP) and am amazed at the effect it's had on my working patterns in such a short space of time. Simply being able to have documentation, browser and editor open at once and not feel 'cramped' is amazing.
- btdollar 11y agoI don't see why this user shouldn't be frustrated, though. It is still an OS-specific limitation, since it appears that Windows will run them in a manner acceptable to the user.
- the_mitsuhiko 11y agoOS X generally has terrible 3D support and the same hardware on Windows will perform much better. That's unfortunate but no reason to go to court for. Apple writes their own device drivers and they write them to the extend their software and hardware needs it and no step further.
- chris_wot 11y agoIt seems to be intentional though. I seem to recall Microsoft and IBM got into big trouble for anti-competitive conduct. This is the sort of thing that brings about anti-trust suits.
- threeseed 11y ago1) It's not intentional though. 2) Apple doesn't prevent you using dual monitors via other means e.g. USB / HDMI. 3) Microsoft/IBM had ridiculously high market shares (>90%). OSX is around 10%.
- x0x0 11y agoAnti-trust on their whopping < 8% marketshare? You'd get laughed out of court. All this because osx doesn't do a thing that apple never claimed osx did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_system...
- kjhsadklj1 11y agoIt seems intentional in a "it would cost resources to extend this past what we benefit" way. In other words, a business made a cost-benefit analysis. I fail to see where your frustration is coming from, or why it's targeted at Apple. It's most likely just a calculated cost savings measure.