I wish it had a 1/8" stereo output, an SD card reader and USB 3.0 support. Give me those things and I'd be ecstatic. There's always next year's model.
Uh huh.I should buy this display and get an adjustable desk.Thats the OBVIOUS solution.
Not only a facepalm by apple's designers...(i mean how hard would it be to make it adjustable a few inches?)
Your own words:"a must have item for macbook owners"PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTT.
ill save people the 15 minute advertisement;pros:single cable to connect and chargenice material and design
-no usb 3-incompatible with anything but 2011 macbooks
-1000 dollars (i could buy 5 1920x1080 displays for same price)
-you need to buy an adjustable desk and chair
Amazing what you can sell people if it comes in a nice shiny package...even a seasoned, unpaid, objective and intelligent reviewer fell for it hook line and sinker.
Furthermore, a single USB 3.0 host controller can generate 5.0 Gbps of PCIe traffic, which would not fit on a 10 Gbps Thunderbolt channel along with a 5.8 Gbps video stream.
To create a matte finish option would require applying an antiglare film, or removing the glass,
A Thunderbolt device can only use one channel at a time, the other channel is to provide a switching path to ensure bandwidth to other devices in the chain.
As long as Apple's design language is all about glass in front of their displays, there can be no matte option. I think a lot of people feel that Apple could just offer the same display but in an antiglare version, but in order to do so, they would have to come up with a totally different design for the front of the device.
It's a switched fabric architecture with full-duplex links.
You're comparing USB to a GPU? ok...
I have no perceivable latency on my USB mouse, and I'm sensitive to it.
"USB is a...not too fast peripheral interface." - 5Gbps isn't fast? No external connection aside from raw video can utilize that![/b]USB has so far wasted about than half of its nominal bandwidth idling in its extremely inefficient and wasteful protocol. When have you ever had true 480Mb/s (60MB/s) transfer rates on USB2? Right: Never.USB3 may again improve over the older variants, but it's to be seen how much of these problems will actually get solved in practice.With Thunderbolt the 10Gb/s are effective throughput, right out of the gate. And that's even just half the total throughput, with the other half tunneling Display Port.Thunderbolt plays in a completely different league from USB, even USB3.Face it, you don't know what you're talking about.Maybe. Maybe not... ;-)
Face it, you don't know what you're talking about.