Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple limits daisychaining of non-Apple displays in OS X

apple.stackexchange.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 59 posts

Re: Apple limits daisychaining of non-Apple displays in OS X

#11

Post by the_mitsuhiko »

btdollar wrote: post #9
chisleu wrote: post #3

The thunderbolt monitor isn't 5 times more expensive, it is 3 times more expensive. It also has many features your displayport monitor does not have. It has a thunderbolt hub w/ a thunderbolt port. Apple is daisy chaining their displays over thunderbolt. It also contains a gigabit ethernet adaptor, usbs, and a video camera. My primary point is that they don't support displayport daisy chaining with their displays. Th…

I don't see why this user shouldn't be frustrated, though. It is still an OS-specific limitation, since it appears that Windows will run them in a manner acceptable to the user.

OS X generally has terrible 3D support and the same hardware on Windows will perform much better. That's unfortunate but no reason to go to court for.

Apple writes their own device drivers and they write them to the extend their software and hardware needs it and no step further.

Re: Apple limits daisychaining of non-Apple displays in OS X

#12

Post by ecopoesis »

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.

Re: Apple limits daisychaining of non-Apple displays in OS X

#13

Post by makeitsuckless »

Limits? AFAIK Apple doesn't support daisychaining via Displayport at all. Just Thunderbolt.

There are no Apple displays that support daisychaining via Displayport either, so this whole notion that Apple actively sabotages 3rd party DP displays is nonsense.

Now, one might argue that you would want them support this because it's technically feasible with the current hardware (I have no idea), but there might be a ton of reasons why Apple doesn't.

AFAIK, such displays weren't even available when this generation of Macbooks were built, so the most likely explanation is the Apple simply didn't bother initially and until very recently had no reason to revisit that decision.

Re: Apple limits daisychaining of non-Apple displays in OS X

#14

Post by matthewmacleod »

This isn't quite accurate. As far as I'm aware, Apple has never supported display port chaining (MST I think?).

I'm pretty sure the reason Apple's display works is that it's a Thunderbolt Display and not a DisplayPort display.

It would be good to have this support available, but describing it as an intentional software limit is disingenuous.

Re: Apple limits daisychaining of non-Apple displays in OS X

#15

Post by chris_wot »

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #11
btdollar wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see why this user shouldn't be frustrated, though. It is still an OS-specific limitation, since it appears that Windows will run them in a manner acceptable to the user.

OS X generally has terrible 3D support and the same hardware on Windows will perform much better. That's unfortunate but no reason to go to court for. Apple writes their own device drivers and they write them to the extend their software and hardware needs it and no step further.

It seems to be intentional though. I seem to recall Microsoft and IBM got into big trouble for anti-competitive conduct. This is the sort of thing that brings about anti-trust suits.

Re: Apple limits daisychaining of non-Apple displays in OS X

#16

Post by chx »

Apple is not "intentionally limiting" anything. They simply didn't add MST support to OS X because their hardware doesn't need it. The physical Mini DisplayPort connector on your Mac can operate in two modes, one is DisplayPort itself. In this mode, you can connect a single 4K 60 Hz monitor to your Mac. Or, you can use it in Thunderbolt mode where the displays use the Thunderbolt bus which has two DisplayPort signals multiplexed into the stream and each monitor gets one signal out -- but it's DP 1.1a so 4K 30 Hz or Full HD 60 Hz.

Re: Apple limits daisychaining of non-Apple displays in OS X

#17

Post by threeseed »

chris_wot wrote: post #15
the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OS X generally has terrible 3D support and the same hardware on Windows will perform much better. That's unfortunate but no reason to go to court for. Apple writes their own device drivers and they write them to the extend their software and hardware needs it and no step further.

It seems to be intentional though. I seem to recall Microsoft and IBM got into big trouble for anti-competitive conduct. This is the sort of thing that brings about anti-trust suits.

1) It's not intentional though.

2) Apple doesn't prevent you using dual monitors via other means e.g. USB / HDMI.

3) Microsoft/IBM had ridiculously high market shares (>90%). OSX is around 10%.

Re: Apple limits daisychaining of non-Apple displays in OS X

#18

Post by bshimmin »

Artemis2 wrote: post #8
chisleu wrote: post #3

The thunderbolt monitor isn't 5 times more expensive, it is 3 times more expensive. It also has many features your displayport monitor does not have. It has a thunderbolt hub w/ a thunderbolt port. Apple is daisy chaining their displays over thunderbolt. It also contains a gigabit ethernet adaptor, usbs, and a video camera. My primary point is that they don't support displayport daisy chaining with their displays. Th…

It's also a 2560x1440 screen sold for $999. An upgrade with their latest 5K display is overdue.

I just recently bought a couple of Dell U2515H monitors (and will probably buy another), and, given you can buy three of them for the cost of one of Apple's Thunderbolt displays, they really are a great deal - same resolution, higher PPI, more adjustable and rotatable, and they're matte.

My Apple Thunderbolt display has from day one had some light leakage in the lower right corner, and the ethernet port stopped working six months ago, but I'd always convinced myself it was worth the extra money over a Dell or equivalent. I'm now pretty sure it never really was apart from a brief period when they were about the only 2560x1440 displays you could get.

Re: Apple limits daisychaining of non-Apple displays in OS X

#19

Post by hrrsn »

ecopoesis wrote: post #12

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 yo…

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.

Re: Apple limits daisychaining of non-Apple displays in OS X

#20

Post by morganvachon »

makeitsuckless wrote: post #13

Limits? AFAIK Apple doesn't support daisychaining via Displayport at all . Just Thunderbolt. There are no Apple displays that support daisychaining via Displayport either, so this whole notion that Apple actively sabotages 3rd party DP displays is nonsense. Now, one might argue that you would want them support this because it's technically feasible with the current hardware (I have no idea), but there might be a ton…

I'm not a huge fan of Apple, but I have to agree with you. Windows doesn't (yet[1]) have a built-in SSH client or server, even though OS X and Linux do. Should I sue Microsoft because it doesn't do one specific thing in software, even though the hardware allows it if I install another OS?

[1] http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/06/micros...

Post reply on HN