101–110 of 333 posts
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> as seen with the limit on external screens on some M1 models (…) I hope Apple fixes these issues soon It’s only the base M1 used in the low-end devices that has limited support for external screens. A MBPro with M1 Max can drive 3x6k (DP1.4) plus 1x4k(HDMI2.0). That seems like more than enough for a laptop. Sounds to me like these issues have already been fixed.
How can you call a 2000$ mb pro or a 1700 imac low end devices?
The $2k MBPro with M1 Pro can drive 2 external 6k monitors, which seems reasonable. If you're the kind of user who needs 4 external displays, you're probably going to want the M1 Max anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> USB 3.1 Gen 1 is the straight rebranding of USB 3.0 Why? To solve what exactly? In a sane world, it'd be major.minor, with nothing appended at the end. Allowing marketers to take over everything was such a terrible mistake. At this point I myself just don't differentiate USB versions beyond 3.0. 2.0 is the slow one, 3.0 is the fast one, anything newer is "so fast I won't ever saturate this much bandwidth anyway". T…
> Allowing marketers to take over everything was such a terrible mistake. I think the USB naming is the result of not using marketers.
This seems closer to the truth to me.
Being better at naming things is part of the reason that Apple became so successful.
"What do you want for your birthday, little Timmy? Do you want Apple AirPods, or Sony WF1000XM4s?"
The inability of the USB standards body to stick to a versioning scheme beggars belief: what in the world could "USB 3.1 Gen 2" possibly mean? Versions are free, why not simply name it "USB 3.2" and make the next one 3.3? "Gen 2" strikes me as the "Essay FINAL (final version 2).docx" of standards revisions.
I think the should really just use sha hashes of the standard document, to avoid all this version name issues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> what in the world could "USB 3.1 Gen 2" possibly mean? Versions are free, why not simply name it "USB 3.2" and make the next one 3.3? USB 3.1 Gen 1 is the straight rebranding of USB 3.0, USB 3.1 Gen 2 is the "original" 3.1, which is 3.0 updated to a 10Gbps signalling rate (from 5), and a more efficient encoding (128/132, versus 8/10). But wait, there's worse! USB 3.2 Gen 1 is the same thing as USB 3.1 Gen 1 USB 3.2…
I hope USB4 fixes things.
The inability of the USB standards body to stick to a versioning scheme beggars belief: what in the world could "USB 3.1 Gen 2" possibly mean? Versions are free, why not simply name it "USB 3.2" and make the next one 3.3? "Gen 2" strikes me as the "Essay FINAL (final version 2).docx" of standards revisions.
The USB people decided to have new sub versions replace the older standard rather than extend it. USB 3.0 was replaced by USB 3.1, and then again replaced by USB 3.2. If you think of it in a bureaucratic sense, it starts to make sense (something receiving classification A under the Widget Law of 2012, classification B under the Widgets Etc. Law of 2014, and classification Å under the Widgets Standardisation Law of 20…
The inability of the USB standards body to stick to a versioning scheme beggars belief: what in the world could "USB 3.1 Gen 2" possibly mean? Versions are free, why not simply name it "USB 3.2" and make the next one 3.3? "Gen 2" strikes me as the "Essay FINAL (final version 2).docx" of standards revisions.
The USB people decided to have new sub versions replace the older standard rather than extend it. USB 3.0 was replaced by USB 3.1, and then again replaced by USB 3.2. If you think of it in a bureaucratic sense, it starts to make sense (something receiving classification A under the Widget Law of 2012, classification B under the Widgets Etc. Law of 2014, and classification Å under the Widgets Standardisation Law of 20…
The USB4 xx Gbps is good. The thing people care about is "which one goes faster". Numbers make that easy, vague adjectives for ever faster speeds make that hard. And it looks to improve the "not all cables work for all applications" situation that USB 3 ended up with.
The fact that I can't connect more than one monitor to my M1-based iMac is a fucking travesty.
Apple seems to lack the connectivity options competing chips offer, as seen with the limit on external screens on some M1 models and these USB options. It's easy to underestimate the amount of work that external connectors need the chip to do in order to work optimally. It makes sense, of course, as the M1 evolved from a mobile chip with at most one port (USB C if you're lucky) and not a lot of host traffic. I hope A…
The fact that I can't connect more than one monitor to my M1-based iMac is a fucking travesty.