3 ms·

This is pretty simple. Apple does not, and never did, support DisplayPort daisy chaining. The confusion lies in the fact that Apple does support Thunderbolt mo

This is pretty simple. Apple does not, and never did, support DisplayPort daisy chaining. The confusion lies in the fact that Apple does support Thunderbolt monitor daisy chaining, and Thunderbolt uses the same port as mini-DisplayPort. That the hardware can support it is irrelevant. Apple hardware can do lots of things that Apple doesn't support or claim their hardware can do. Call it malevance on Apple's part if you want, but it's really just them choosing to only support some things, not all the things.

hrrsn 11y ago
This is the correct answer. You can't blame Apple for not supporting a feature they never claimed to support. I don't think there's malicious intent here, rather a lack of demand or awareness.
- threeseed 11y ago
  It's purely lack of demand. You can use dual monitors by either (a) using both MiniDP ports, (b) using one HDMI/MiniDP, (c) using USB/MiniDP. But the OP wants none of those.
- izacus 11y ago
  I can easilty blame Apple for locking out functionality that underlying hardware supports though. Especially when it's essentially functionality handled by the hardware layer and drivers not written by Apple at all.
  - ecopoesis 11y ago
    There's a big difference between "locking out support" and "not doing extra work to support a feature we don't need." Should I blame Microsoft for not supplying all software ever written with Windows? After all, my PC is just a Turing machine, so by not providing me with all the software ever written, they're locking out functionality the underlying hardware supports.
    - noblethrasher 11y ago
      The actual big thing about Turing Machines is that they can simulate “nicer” Turing Machines. So, a better analogy would be a company that doesn't support (or even expressly forbids) running certain kinds of Turing Machines on the Turing Machine that they sold you. Consider that an Operating System is just a simulation of a nicer Turing Machine than the hard-wired Turing Machine on which it runs. Similarly, an “interpreter” is just a nicer Turing Machine that is being simulated on top of an OS. So, for a complete analogy, we’d need a company that either restricts what kind of OS that you can run on the hardware that they sold you, or that restricts what kind of interpreters you can run on the OS that they licensed you.
codemac 11y ago
I'm confused though. If they support MST[0], how did they rip out daisychaining specifically? I don't understand MST well enough to see how a computer connected to one large monitor with two MST regions would be different than two monitors daisy chained using MST. It really does look like Apple specifically has disabled it because there isn't an apple product that supports it, but that may be due to my own ignorance of MST. [0]: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202856 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202856

hrrsn 11y ago

This is the correct answer. You can't blame Apple for not supporting a feature they never claimed to support. I don't think there's malicious intent here, rather a lack of demand or awareness.

threeseed 11y ago
It's purely lack of demand. You can use dual monitors by either (a) using both MiniDP ports, (b) using one HDMI/MiniDP, (c) using USB/MiniDP. But the OP wants none of those.
izacus 11y ago
I can easilty blame Apple for locking out functionality that underlying hardware supports though. Especially when it's essentially functionality handled by the hardware layer and drivers not written by Apple at all.
- ecopoesis 11y ago
  There's a big difference between "locking out support" and "not doing extra work to support a feature we don't need." Should I blame Microsoft for not supplying all software ever written with Windows? After all, my PC is just a Turing machine, so by not providing me with all the software ever written, they're locking out functionality the underlying hardware supports.
  - noblethrasher 11y ago
    The actual big thing about Turing Machines is that they can simulate “nicer” Turing Machines. So, a better analogy would be a company that doesn't support (or even expressly forbids) running certain kinds of Turing Machines on the Turing Machine that they sold you. Consider that an Operating System is just a simulation of a nicer Turing Machine than the hard-wired Turing Machine on which it runs. Similarly, an “interpreter” is just a nicer Turing Machine that is being simulated on top of an OS. So, for a complete analogy, we’d need a company that either restricts what kind of OS that you can run on the hardware that they sold you, or that restricts what kind of interpreters you can run on the OS that they licensed you.

codemac 11y ago

I'm confused though. If they support MST[0], how did they rip out daisychaining specifically? I don't understand MST well enough to see how a computer connected to one large monitor with two MST regions would be different than two monitors daisy chained using MST. It really does look like Apple specifically has disabled it because there isn't an apple product that supports it, but that may be due to my own ignorance of MST. [0]: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202856 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202856