Comments Locked

82 Comments

Back to Article

  • AmdInside - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    I still feel Thunderbolt is one of the least necessary technologies to come out recently. No backwards compatibility. Expensive cables. Dedicated chip. I'd prefer if Apple could support USB 3.0 now instead of later with Ivy Bridge. Oh and blu-ray.
  • djgandy - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    > Expensive cables
    Most technologies are expensive in their infancy. Should we stop progressing because demand for new technology on release is not equal to the demand of older technology?
    Once the demand for 1 Billion cables per year is there the cables will be 99c.

    USB used to have dedicated chips too. You can't expect manufacturers to put your new, unproven product onto all their chip designs before they have even seen what it is capable of.
  • AmdInside - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    Name me one connectivity technology that's been as expensive as Thunderbolt and offered so little benefit to average user?
  • dagamer34 - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    People seem to think that USB wasn't in the same position 14 years ago. It was. Expensive cables. No devices, No support. Any new technology emerges this way and it takes time to get to an "affordable" price point.
  • AmdInside - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    I worked in retail when USB came out. There were much more devices and pricing wasn't expensive.
  • diamondsw2 - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    Based on your forward-thinking nature, I'm betting you still do.

    The whole $50 cable thing will be a distant memory in a year. Or perhaps, working in retail, you don't recall what pre-1998 USB looked like. Ports on every motherboard - and almost no peripherals and no demand for *years*. And then the iMac hit.

    Look real close at the Air - one of Apple's most popular laptops (enough so that they just dropped the white MacBook). Your connectivity options are single USB 2.0... and Thunderbolt. You're going to see an explosion of peripherals, if only catering to MacBook Air owners.

    The MacBook Air market *alone* is far, far larger than the iMac market was in 1998. If the iMac could jumpstart USB, the Air can jumpstart Thunderbolt.
  • AmdInside - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    Nope. Only worked in retail while in college. Hated it.

    Arguing now is like arguing about an NFL draft or NBA draft on draft day. I still believe Thunderbolt or derivative will not be big a year from now nor will prices come down that much. My personal gripe is just that there are other technologies that Macs are missing and would be more useful to me than Thunderbolt and wish Apple added or at least made BTO.
  • bigboxes - Thursday, July 21, 2011 - link

    He's right though. USB3.0 should be green-lighted. I remember a proprietary bus that was expensive. I just had to have it. So, I went out and bought an expensive firewire pci card. Never used the thing. Every device I bought used the USB2.0 standard. Of course that has happened to me many times. Buying things that I didn't pan out. I had an iOmega zip drive (CD-R killed them). I had a SCSI CD burner (IDE drives improved enough to kill them). USB3.0 is better because it is backwards compatible.

    Now, I know that Thunderbolt is more capable, but do we really need it yet? I'm thinking that a future USB4.0 standard can address those demands when the need arises.
  • fingerbob69 - Thursday, July 21, 2011 - link

    The reason this has only USB2.0 for the sake of current users. Future users will only get Thunderbolt because Apple will not adopt USB3.0.

    Thunderbolt is an Intel/Apple IP. Apple do not want any and all peripherals able to link to Apple gear only v.expensive Apple made or only slightly less? expensive Apple licensed equipment.

    Thunderbolt is Apple's gatekeeper in this endeavour. iPad3 will have Thunderbolt only (if it has any connectivity at all).
  • knutjb - Thursday, July 21, 2011 - link

    Quote "...as the new Thunderbolt Display will not work with machines that don't support Thunderbolt."

    Apple and Intel are doing more than just skipping USB 3, they are doing what PCs would be lambasted for, they are making their old systems incompatible with their new model lines.

    As always with Apple keeping up with the Jones' is required to integrate. They don't want to be backwards compatible, not enough profit in it. So long as they keep their following they will continue to do so.

    The tech is interesting but the marketing sucks.
  • repoman27 - Thursday, July 21, 2011 - link

    All your old stuff will work just fine with a new Mac. If you choose to purchase one of the two Thunderbolt accessories that has made it to market thus far, you will need a Mac with Thunderbolt in order to use it. How is this in any way a problem?

    This would be like arguing that even though Blu-ray players can play DVDs, they aren't backwards compatible because you can't play the Blu-ray discs in your DVD drive. Sometimes new capabilities can only be supported by new technology.

    And I think you may be the first to make the statement that Apple's marketing sucks. I'm pretty sure that's one field where they really do employ geniuses.
  • knutjb - Thursday, July 21, 2011 - link

    My point was if you buy a Thunderbolt DISPLAY you must use a new Thunderbolt equipped machine, hence you must buy a new MAC to do so. Another clear cut case of planned obsolescence. Is that so hard to grasp?

    The Blu-ray argument doesn't even apply. False analogy. You can play BD or DVD player on most any set. That does not apply to ATD.

    My implication is that Apple's marketing sucks for the end consumer. If they can get away with it good for them, still sucks for the end consumer.
  • repoman27 - Thursday, July 21, 2011 - link

    Their marketing is really good if they can convince someone to buy a Thunderbolt display BEFORE they already own a Thunderbolt equipped Mac.

    My analogy was perfectly legitimate, and I'll use it again. If you buy Blu-ray discs before you own a Blu-ray player, you can't do much with them.

    Should Mercedes not offer AMG wheel kits for SL's because they won't fit on a C class? Heaven forbid I might buy a set and then be forced to get a new SL when they don't fit on my current car.

    Apple may not offer a non-TB display anymore, but they're not stopping you from buying any of the myriad other displays on the market.
  • CharonPDX - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    Less than a year after introduction?

    USB, FireWire, SAS, hell, even Centronics Parallel, if you want to go *WAY* back! Even twisted-pair Ethernet in each of its incarnations has cost a lot when each first came out. (Do you recall paying top dollar for Gigabit-capable Cat-5E cables? I do.)

    All became major standards before their time was up (or are still going, as in USB, SAS, and Ethernet. Although SAS still isn't an "average user" thing.)

    I'm not saying that I know for sure that Thunderbolt will join USB and Ethernet in the ranks of "definite winners", it could still very well go the way of FireWire (big in its niche, small outside it,) but I can't forsee it doing any WORSE than FireWire.

    People forget that USB was 'trivial' until Apple slapped it as the only expansion interface on the iMac. There were 1 or 2 USB keyboards, 1 or 2 USB scanners, and 1 or 2 USB printers until then. Yet the standard had been out for three years, and had already been on every new PC for at least two years.
  • jaydee - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    re: Name me one connectivity technology that's been as expensive as Thunderbolt and offered so little benefit to average user?

    Monster cables
  • name99 - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    Uhh --- 10G ethernet TODAY?

    The cards cost about $400 at the low-end --- and of course the hubs start in the thousands of dollars.

    So by your lights, that's a non-existent technology. Never going to come down in price. We should all just stick with 1G for the rest of time?
  • michael2k - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    Relatively speaking?
    Firewire
    SCSI
    HDMI
    DisplayPort
    MiniDisplayPort

    At the time each had relatively little merit compared to the competition. HDMI was DRM locked but identical to DVI+Audio. DisplayPort is compatible with HDMI, but was royalty free. MiniDisplayPort is compatible with DisplayPort, but was smaller.

    FireWire was faster than USB2, but also more expensive (sound familliar)?
    SCSI was just plain expensive
  • hmurchison - Tuesday, July 26, 2011 - link

    average consumers really don't even need USB 3.0. They certainly don't need Blu-ray unless computer monitors have suddenly jumped to 42" and beyond.
  • TEAMSWITCHER - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    As fast as USB 3.0 is, it is simply not useful as docking technology. Thunderbolt is exactly what I have been hoping for all these long years. This is only gonna get better as future cabling solutions will likely be optical. Kudos to Apple for being so aggressive.

    Dell, HP, really needs to get on the thunderbolt bandwagon. I doubt they will, they will likely just keep making cheaper solutions.
  • peterfares - Thursday, July 21, 2011 - link

    A docking port is the best docking technology. One big port on the bottom of the computer that also supplies power. All you do is line up the computer with the docking station and push it down. Bandwidth doesn't have to be shared between all connected peripherals and it has other nice features.
  • TEAMSWITCHER - Thursday, July 21, 2011 - link

    Proprietary docking ports have always been mechanically complex and made laptop computers thicker than they need to be. Thunderbolt is a universal high speed interface optimized for performance oriented portable devices. With Thunderbolt, Dell would no longer need to be in the docking station business. I'm sure they don't make enough money selling docking stations to justify the development costs. Thunderbolt is a great idea, Dell would be stupid not to include it on their high end laptops. And my point is that Dell will be stupid.
  • bigboxes - Thursday, July 21, 2011 - link

    Thunderbolt is only universal if everyone adopts it. Until then it's just an overpriced proprietary standard.
  • designerfx - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    every part of that is called "Apple by definition"

    including the "not compatible and basically useless".
  • diamondsw2 - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    USB wasn't compatible with serial, PS/2, etc. SATA wasn't compatible with IDE. PCI wasn't compatible with ISA.

    Meanwhile, USB 3.0, eSATA, and others are far more limited, and not just in bandwidth. Sure, they're okay for hooking up a hard drive - but you just can't do things like this.
  • steven75 - Friday, July 22, 2011 - link

    Apple was the first to widely deploy USB. Your argument is invalid.
  • repoman27 - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    It is backwards compatible, with DisplayPort. Every computer made to date that includes Thunderbolt also has USB 2.0, so they are all just as backwards compatible as any machine with USB 3.0. Thunderbolt is an external interface for carrying DisplayPort and PCIe packets, which makes it very flexible, and does not require the creation of new custom drivers for existing technologies based on those very common standards.

    USB 3.0 currently requires a custom chip. It is incapable of ever carrying a digital display signal. It is a shared bus based on a tiered star topology, so the protocol overhead is horrendous. The physical layer is a complete kludge. In a best case scenario, it offers about 15% of the usable bandwidth of a Thunderbolt link.

    And I'm sure the list of USB 3.0 devices you currently own is a mile long.
  • xrodney - Thursday, July 21, 2011 - link

    Carrying full HD uncompressed video signal over USB 3.0 was demonstrated over year ago even before Intel even mentioned his Thunderbolt.

    USB 3.0 offers 5 Gbit/s when Thunderbolt can use 20 which doesn't make it 15% as you suggest but 25% still offer offer enough bandwidth for full HD video stream at small fraction of cost.
  • repoman27 - Thursday, July 21, 2011 - link

    Full HD... as in 1920x1080... High end displays such as the ATD are 2560x1440. Even at 24 bpp, 60 Hz, using CVT-R, driving one of these displays requires at least 5,800,780,800 bps of actual throughput. Now try to connect two of them, along with additional channels for audio and USB.

    USB has been marketed by a consortium that has put a lot of effort into misleading the public with big numbers, much like WiFi (n 450 anyone?). The overhead associated with the USB protocol causes the actual bandwidth to be far less than the nominal signaling rate of 5 Gbps. 8b / 10b encoding brings it down to 4 Gbps right off the bat. Link flow control, packet framing and other protocol overhead will knock it down further until you're under 3.2 Gbps. So now we're at 16% or less of what Thunderbolt offers, which is exactly what I said in the first place.
  • peterfares - Thursday, July 21, 2011 - link

    What is the point of combining DisplayPort and PCIe over one cable and requiring the special Intel chip on both ends? It just seems like a waste of money for the chips.
  • repoman27 - Thursday, July 21, 2011 - link

    The point is to allow portable and small form factor PCs to have some of the expansion capabilities of desktops while utilizing a connector and architecture that requires a minimal amount of volume on the host. Up to two 2560x1440 displays and up to 6 devices sharing a PCIe 2.0 x4 connection is more expansion capability than any other solution to date has provided through one tiny little connector. Nobody really wants to see a notebook with 6 ExpressCard slots, an HDMI and a dual-link DVI port, but they probably wouldn't mind having the flexibility afforded.

    Besides, you'll notice that Apple didn't raise the price of their offerings when they included Thunderbolt. You only "waste money for the chips" when you actually need the capabilities that the technology provides and purchase a Thunderbolt device and cable. I doubt you'll see device manufacturers producing Thunderbolt products in cases where USB would work just as well.

    USB requires a host controller at one end of the cable and a device controller or bridge chip at the other (i.e.a chip on both ends). In the case of USB 2.0, the host controller is built into pretty much every chipset because it is a very mature technology, and the device controllers are very inexpensive because they're produced by the billions at this point and they're dumb (i.e. the host controller does pretty much all the work). This is not yet the case for USB 3.0, which still requires a separate host controller and far less common device controllers.
  • AnnonymousCoward - Sunday, July 24, 2011 - link

    AMD has an integrated host.

    "Nobody really wants to see a notebook with 6 ExpressCard slots, an HDMI and a dual-link DVI port..."
    Daisy-chaining is already a feature of DisplayPort. So you're looking at 1 USB3 port plus 1 DisplayPort, versus 1 Thunderbolt port.

    I agree with peterfares. It's expensive and wasteful, and Intel gets to sell boatloads of its proprietary chips on each end. This isn't like USB, where tons of companies make their own chips.
  • repoman27 - Tuesday, July 26, 2011 - link

    1 USB 3.0 port provides less than 20% of the usable bandwidth of 1 Thunderbolt port and is unsuitable for isochronous applications when more than 1 device is present on the bus. They are not even remotely comparable, end of story. The only reason one would prefer USB 3.0 in lieu of Thunderbolt is if one could not conceive of an actual use for high speed I/O devices and just wanted to prevent Intel from pocketing another $10.
  • AnnonymousCoward - Wednesday, July 27, 2011 - link

    There's another huge reason to prefer USB3 over TB: install base. USB is everywhere. TB is _yet another interface standard_, and it's scarce.

    "less than 20%" - outside of raw video, what connectable device can utilize USB3's 3.2Gbps? Nothing. External HDDs top out at 0.7Gbps. No connectable device can even utilize USB3, outside of raw video, and DisplayPort already has that covered.
  • repoman27 - Wednesday, July 27, 2011 - link

    It amuses me how some, such as yourself, crusade so hard to try to prevent anyone from having anything other than the lowest common denominator. Thankfully, there are companies that continue to produce superior technology for those who require or would rather have something better. You don't have to buy it, although I know it breaks your heart to see people with the means buy something that's better than what you have.

    USB is at revision 3.0 and is already having serious problems trying to advance while still maintaining backwards compatibility. The first release of Thunderbolt runs at 20 Gbps, and it has a clear path forward. With broader availability of DP 1.2 and PCIe 3.0 on the horizon, Thunderbolt will most likely double its bandwidth in a year's time.

    "No connectable device can even utilize USB3" - So you'd be happy if they replaced all of the PCIe slots in desktops with USB 3? Any single SandForce SF-2281 SSD can saturate USB 3 (although you'll probably have to plug it in to an external power source since the bus power on USB is woefully inadequate as well). Not to mention 10 Gb Ethernet, digital video sources (DP doesn't go the other way), Fibre Channel, scientific data acquisition devices, etc. And then there's the timing issues on a shared bus. Would you like to see USB 3 used for avionics, drive by wire, or other machine control systems where timing is crucial? Not everyone uses computers solely for checking Facebook and gaming.
  • FrozenDarkness - Thursday, July 21, 2011 - link

    I agree and what people don't realize is that you can't compare the Thunderbotl to the USB 3.0 because USB is already a WELL established platform. When USB 2.0 or 1.1 came out, what was the alternative? there wasn't any.
  • ChristophWeber - Thursday, July 21, 2011 - link

    USB 3: Processor interrupts, no RDMA (remote direct memory access), dozens of microseconds latency, i.e huge overhead. In my hands a Sandforce 1200-based SSD tops out at ~145 MB/s over USB 3, while it gives me 265 MB/s directly over SATA.

    Thunderbolt: None of the above overhead, it's just PCIe in disguise. I.e. put half a dozen SATA ports behind a Thunderbolt connection and they will not be constrained by TB. Demonstrated and proven with the shipping Pegasus RAID units.

    You may not think you need TB bandwidth and latency today for your computer, but in a few years we will all look back and wonder how we survived with PCIe being constrained to computer-internals only and made do with multiple, comparatively kludgy ports
    (eSATA, anyone - no hot plug in 2011?).
  • JasonInofuentes - Friday, July 22, 2011 - link

    Oddly, the Sony Power Media Dock is an example of the potential for this standard, that USB and Firewire have always lacked. USB offers a limited amount of bandwidth that makes it great for data storage, but not so much for adding features, that's why USB monitors never really took off. Thunderbolt provides a high-speed, high-bandwidth two way interface (the same one powering your internal peripherals) and makes it ideal for things like external video cards. This solves the problem of limited upgradeability of devices like the MBP or MBA. What does the standard need to be a success? Peripherals that look beyond the paradigm set-forth by USB.

    Will it work? I don't know, but I know I'm interested. Thanks for the comments, keep'em coming.
  • zxnczxcn - Sunday, July 24, 2011 - link

    Quote "...as the new Thunderbolt Display will not work with machines that don't support Thunderbolt."

    Please input this URL:
    http://www---- bestniceshoes ----com
    http://www---- bestniceshoes ----com

    Best quality, Best reputation , Best services !!!
  • smokedturkey - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    I think HTC should sue apple over the Thunderbolt name!!!!
  • Souka - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    Other way around...Apple will sue HTC and win.

    case in point:
    Ever hear of the iPhone?
    Cisco invented and built it first....didn't matter, lawsuits happened, apple won.
  • Samic - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    Actually, Cisco didn't file Declaration of Use and owns it so Apple just took it.

    Not so with ios/iOS, where Cisco does own the trademark and Apple had to pay Cisco for it..
  • diamondsw2 - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    Apparently you don't understand trademark law. The two products are not in the same product segment and there is no potential confusion between a phone and a cabling standard.

    And finally, Intel owns the trademark, not Apple. Just... so much trolling fail.
  • ViperV990 - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    How many of these displays can be daisy-chained together while still functioning as a display?
  • dagamer34 - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    Two at max, assuming you have a powerful enough video card (13" MBPs need not apply).
  • ViperV990 - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    Thanks!
  • Casper42 - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    Can you daisy chain an old 27" ACD off the new 27" ATD though?

    Would at least give people with an older DP based Cinema Display a good way to keep using it when dropping a grand on the new monitor.

    My understanding from the MBP Reviews and others is that the TB port on the Machine will support either TB or straight DP, so the question is really, can you support both on a 2nd hop Daisy Chain also?
  • Kristian Vättö - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    At least Pegasus+ACD works so can't see why ATD+ACD wouldn't work.
  • repoman27 - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    You should be able to daisy-chain a second DisplayPort 1.1a display off of the the ATD, but the machine with the Thunderbolt host controller that they are all connected to needs to have a DisplayPort 1.2 MST capable GPU.
  • repoman27 - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    It's not so much the GPU being "powerful" enough, it's to do with whether or not it supports the DisplayPort 1.2 multi-stream transport specification.

    Thus daisy chaining multiple displays would only seem to be possible at the moment with Thunderbolt equipped 15 and 17-inch MacBook Pros and iMacs. Even the Mac mini with discrete graphics is out, as the AMD 6630 only supports the DP 1.1 spec.
  • cyrusfox - Thursday, July 21, 2011 - link

    Your wrong there, the Radeon HD 6630m is the mobile turks. Meaning it has UVD 3.0 AND supports DisplayPort 1.2 as all true Radeon 6000 Processors do. The only 6000 processors which don't support DP 1.2 are:
    Desktop-6750/6770,
    Mobile- 6330,6350,6370,6530,6550,6570,6830,6850,6870

    As you can tell, these are all just rehashed 5xxx series, hence they did not receive neither UVD3.0 or DP1.2 but have the same specs as the 5xxx series, namely UVD2.2 and DP1.2
  • repoman27 - Thursday, July 21, 2011 - link

    Right you are... I was looking at the specs for the 6570 for some reason. I wonder why Apple doesn't specifically list the new mini as being able to drive two ATDs?
  • chaos215bar2 - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    Now, all wee need is a similar Thunderbolt docking station that isn't tied to a specific monitor. Just include USB 3, Ethernet, HDMI, dual link DVI, maybe Firewire, and a Thunderbolt passthrough. I'd love to run everything through one cable, but I just don't see myself getting a 27" Apple monitor as long as competing 30" options are still around, and besides, this monitor definitely won't be working with a KVM any time soon.
  • tyger11 - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    Glossy display = intentional fail
    No USB 3 on the display = intentional fail

    I like that it's basically a docking station now, since they refuse to make an actual docking station for their laptops (what is UP with that?), though.
  • diamondsw2 - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    Since USB 3.0 isn't actually in the Intel chipsets yet, that would be rather hard to pull off. And seriously, let's get off the glossy vs matte thing already. >90% of displays are glossy.
  • extide - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    Not really, just slap a 3rd party usb 3.0 chip in there like all the PC manufacturers do...
  • name99 - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    Uhh "intentional fail"? As in they WANT this product not to sell?

    Please explain to me what "intentional fail" means and how it differs from "stuff I want, not that my opinion matters because I'd never buy an Apple product anyway"?
  • mpschan - Thursday, July 21, 2011 - link

    Many people believe that Apple purposefully holds back on hardware features or break backwards compatibility so that they will be forced to upgrade their device in the future.

    E.g. Can't upgrade storage on their phones/tablets after purchase. Releasing the iPad without a camera or the iPhone without a front facing camera.

    So I believe that he really means is "designed obsolescence". Not immediately, but in a short time frame. Lack of USB 3.0 would fall under that category.
  • cyrusfox - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    Correct me if I am wrong but I know DP can already handle USB transmissions(so no need for the thunderport) and I know ethernet can be used on the latest HDMI. I really have a hard time seeing the necessity of thunderbolt configuration. It seems to be just a branded Display port standard, only difference is this is a closed standard that potentially can ask for royalties.

    I am all for display port. Thunderbolt seems to retard its development though, not feeling warm fuzzies for the eerily similar but lacking any distinguishing innovation thunderbolt.
  • cyrusfox - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    Yep, I was right!(DP 1.2 can support both USB and ethernet)
    http://www.slashgear.com/displayport-v1-2-finalize...

    So, Thunderbolt is a knockoff of a free open standard called Display port, why did apple and intel feel the need to take it private.
  • DigitalFreak - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    Well bully for you!
  • repoman27 - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    No, you're hopelessly confused. DP 1.2 provides one 720 Mbps AUX channel that can be utilized for such things as USB 2.0 or 100 Mbps Ethernet.

    The ATD provides Gigabit Ethernet, 3 powered USB 2.0 ports, 1 powered FireWire 800 port (all with their own controllers), and a Thunderbolt port so you can daisy chain more devices. 2 x 10 Gbps, full-duplex is WAY more bandwidth than any other external interface, on any consumer device ever produced, period. If you don't have any idea how that would be useful, that's your problem.
  • diamondsw2 - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    Whole lot of misinformation there. DisplayPort and Thunderbolt are both open standards - no more proprietary than USB 3.0 or SATA. There are no royalties or licensing to speak of. The only reason you're not seeing it in other products yet is Intel isn't selling the controller chip broadly, and it won't be built into the chipset until next spring.

    HDMI carries Ethernet (100Mbps only), and DP handles USB - but neither one can handle multiple gigabits of protocols the way Thunderbolt can. It really could end up one cable to rule them all on computers.
  • cyrusfox - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    You are right, thunderbolt is royalty free, But thunderbolt is not an open standard yet. Only two parties set the specs and only a handful with developer kits are able to implement them in devices. Thunderbolt may come out on top with its ability to take on such a high level of cross talk(10g's thanks to the Gennum GN2033 chips), DP1.2 has the same amount of display bandwidth but lacks the ability to deal with the same breadth of crosstalk(incoming data stream) as thunderbolt.

    The big difference between these two tech are Thunderbolt can handle huge amounts of incoming and out going data while DP is geared for high output with minimal input stream. DP has a huge consortium of adopters/supporters already(but it has been out for nearly 5 years as well). You are very right, Thunderbolt could take over, we'll see what happens.

    Nice docking connection though, hope it spreads to other manufacturers and becomes a standard.
  • ChristophWeber - Thursday, July 21, 2011 - link

    You're missing the PCIe part in the TB protocol. Externalizing the computer guts in their entirety (well, up to 4 lanes of PCIe, anyway) is huge. Beyond superhubs (of which Apple's new display is the first inkling), think clustering up computers, peripherals, and more. All with a royalty-free tech, open standards and low cost parts. Comparable connectivity costs several hundred bucks today - 10GE, Infiniband, etc.
  • fnord123 - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    As far as I can tell (via a search at NewEgg), this is the only monitor out there that satisfies the following criteria:
    * Greater than 1080p resolution
    * LED backlighting

    As such, when it becomes available, I am buying it. I've been waiting *years* for a decent monitor to come out that is over 1080p and has LED. I know the previous cinema display had it, but I figured I would wait for the new version, or for a competitor to ship one.

    I am totally sick of 1080p monitors. My Dell 20" from 2003 had 1200 pixels of vertical resolution. LED backlighting should not be too much to ask in addition.

    Kudos to Apple for meeting my purchase requirements. As soon as I verify this will work with my PC, I'm buying it. And a big fat "no sale" to the rest of the monitor manufacturers who keep selling 1080p drivel.
  • jasonliv - Thursday, July 21, 2011 - link

    This new Cinema Display only supports Thunderbolt. It isn't backwards compatible with (mini) DisplayPort, DVI, etc. So unless your PC is a 2011 Macbook Pro/Air, iMac, or Mac Mini, I don't think it's going to work.
  • silvalli - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    apparently
  • StormyParis - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    Using TB as (at last !) a standard dock connector is the way to go. If TB ever becomes mainstream, we'll at last be able to properly dock our gizmos, with just one cable, and dock all of them to the same dock: different models, brands, over time...

    My fear is that Apple might have injected a dose of "proprietary" if the spec, making it too expensive for third parties, or even closed.
  • AnnonymousCoward - Sunday, July 24, 2011 - link

    Don't forget about the power cable. TB enables a laptop to dock with 2 cables instead of 3 (yay). And it disables the capability of USB3.
  • SmCaudata - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    I'm going to stick with Dell Ultrasharps personally. Why just the one connection? My Dell has HDMI, 2x DVI, DP, VGA, and Component. It would be nice to have a single cable option, but I'm not going to buy a new computer for a new monitor and with lack of Thunderbolt on PCs at present this is a really only an attractive option for Mac owners. I don't think that Apple needed to put that many connections on, but at least a DP and USB connections would have been nice.

    Well, actually, even with extra connections I'd still go with the Ultrasharp for the warranty, matte display, and better color of the florescent backlighting. WLED isn't quite there yet IMO.
  • AmdInside - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    Exactly. I can easily use my Dell 24" monitor with my Macbook Pro, my PC and if I wanted, my PS3.
  • robco - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    The Apple displays are pretty good. Dell also offers a similar display, but at the same price point. Having all the connections running through a single cable is nice.

    One thing I do wish they would have done for 13" MBP and MBA owners is add an MXM slot so users could configure the display with dedicated graphics. I understand there are other subnotebooks being announced with docks that have dedicated GPUs, it would have been neat if Apple could have done this with their display. It's not as if they don't already do this with the iMac. That would allow more people to be able to use a MBA as their primary machine.
  • badjohny - Thursday, July 21, 2011 - link

    The one thing I wish they would do is build a mid range video card into the monitor. Sony has shown that having an external video card through thunderbolt is possible.

    Most laptops now have junk for video cards and when your on the go, thats probably fine. But what if after you do a day of work, you come home and plug your macbook with its intel 3000 video into this monitor, and the monitor has a radeon 67xx in it? even a 65xx would be nice.
  • lolatapple - Thursday, July 21, 2011 - link

    I hope Thunderbolt succeeds. Why are we being complacent and accepting only 5 GBPS USB and other ports like displayport?

    UNIFY THE PORTS! 1 PORT for every device, with enough bandwidth to do everything and transfer at lightning fast speeds. I'm ALL FOR IT!
  • assassin37 - Thursday, July 21, 2011 - link

    I think this is a step in the right direction, as my interests lie in the ability to have a 30+ inch monitor
    at 2560 x 1600 running 120hz, thunderbolt and DP 1.2 each can make this happen, I could then sell my 27"
    3d acer 120hz, and my hp zr30w ips display and get one monitor with the best of both worlds, accurate colors and smooth 120hz
  • AnnonymousCoward - Sunday, July 24, 2011 - link

    I'd like a 2560x1600@120Hz monitor too, but this is in no way a step towards that.
  • Guspaz - Thursday, July 21, 2011 - link

    An odd choice to exclude everything but thunderbolt supporting displays. Apple's Cinema Displays have seen some success among PC users because they're good displays, and they're actually cheaper than Dell's equivalent displays (MSRP anyhow). Example: Apple's 27" tbolt display (or cinema) is $999 CAD, while Dell's U2711 is $1099 CAD MSRP.
  • Penti - Sunday, July 24, 2011 - link

    Here in Sweden the Dell U2711 is actually about $375 CAD less. That's only when not counting with Apple's own resell price. Add another $150 CAD when comparing with the Swedish Apple Store price.
  • Griswold - Thursday, July 21, 2011 - link

    More screens I can never buy because I do not live in a basement.

    And before somebody asks, yes I tried and they failed. Sticking to Eizo, they may not look as nice when turned off, but sure do a better job for me when turned on.
  • AnnonymousCoward - Sunday, July 24, 2011 - link

    but 16:9 glossy = fail. Ya know, we've had better since 5 years ago.
  • weiliaoen - Monday, August 1, 2011 - link

    if you like brand apparel you can try to http:// www. upsfashion.com/ they will give you a lowest price and excellent quality. i trust them. you can go to visit
  • wenrenli - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link

    Thunderbolt display maybe be nice, but Apple didn't get it SWOP certified which is very import for all color professionals. Apple went through trouble to get its previous models 24" 30" Cinema Displays certified. It is sorry to see them all gone.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now