4 ms·

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, rathe

by 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.

4 ms·

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, rathe

by 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.