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

41–50 of 59 posts

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

#41

Post by Nexxxeh »

morganvachon wrote: post #20
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...

When any end user can easily add the functionality you are referring to, for free, to an operating system you can buy, pre-installed on a 7" tablet with an SSD, Quadcore x86 CPU and HDMI out, for less than £70... I think you might be making a flawed comparison.

How exactly does one freely and easily add (reasonably expected) functionality to OS X? Due to how much escalation was required, even Apple themselves thought it should work.

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

#42

Post by myth_buster »

kstenerud wrote: post #34

"This question has been asked before and already has an answer." This is the single MOST ANNOYING thing about stack exchange. WHERE was this question asked before? How about a link to the original question? Hello?

It irritates me when they flag the question as duplicate and not provide a link to the possible original and it's incredibly hard to find a similar question. It wud be just easier to link the original instead of all the traffic coming from google finding a dead end.

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

#43

Post by baddox »

DanBC wrote: post #36
kstenerud wrote: post #34

"This question has been asked before and already has an answer." This is the single MOST ANNOYING thing about stack exchange. WHERE was this question asked before? How about a link to the original question? Hello?

The yellow box above the question does give a link to the previous answer. Is that what you're talking about? EDIT: also, more annoying is- "I want to do this. How do it do it?" "No, don't do that. Do this other thing instead."

Why is that more annoying? Do you really expect people to give out what they themselves believe to be bad advice, and is so, is that really desirable?

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

#44

Post by DanBC »

baddox wrote: post #43
DanBC wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The yellow box above the question does give a link to the previous answer. Is that what you're talking about? EDIT: also, more annoying is- "I want to do this. How do it do it?" "No, don't do that. Do this other thing instead."

Why is that more annoying? Do you really expect people to give out what they themselves believe to be bad advice, and is so, is that really desirable?

It's preferable to just ignore the question; or to ask in comments if alternative solutions are wanted.

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

#45

Post by makomk »

chx wrote: post #16

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…

When you plug in one of those 4K 60 Hz monitors, you're probably using MST - most of them are designed to appear to the host PC as two separate monitors daisychained over DisplayPort MST, with some extra metadata to tell the OS they're actually two halves of the same monitor, and OS X supports this on newer hardware. Which means Mac OS X has code somewhere to detect if you're trying to actually daisychain non-Apple monitors and disable MST.

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

#46

Post by chisleu »

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.

I agree with some frustration, but getting upset that apples aren't oranges isn't valid.

Someone would need to write the driver for this functionality. I expect Intel is happy letting apple do the work, but so long as that is the case, Apple has no need to support every hardware and protocol under the sun. They merely have to support their stuff fully, and beyond that it is someone else's problem.

Intel wrote the driver for windows, and it works on Windows. That's also apples and oranges IMO.

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

#47

Post by morganvachon »

Nexxxeh wrote: post #41
morganvachon wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

When any end user can easily add the functionality you are referring to, for free, to an operating system you can buy, pre-installed on a 7" tablet with an SSD, Quadcore x86 CPU and HDMI out, for less than £70... I think you might be making a flawed comparison. How exactly does one freely and easily add (reasonably expected) functionality to OS X? Due to how much escalation was required, even Apple themselves thought…

As the article stated, you can make the hardware do what you want to by changing the software (OS X to Windows or Linux); in other words, the hardware isn't the limitation, only the software. In my example, your computer's hardware is fully capable of being used for SSH, you just have to use the right software.

My point being, unless Apple sabotaged the hardware to make it only usable with their brand of displays, there's really no harm done here. You don't buy a 4K TV, hook it up to a 2005 era DVD player, and expect to see 4K resolution on the screen just because your TV had a plug that accepted the DVD player's cable. Just because the plug fits doesn't mean the capability is there. If you want MST over DP, use the software that allows for it, and if that means installing another OS, then so be it. Petition Apple to allow MST over DP as well as Thunderbolt and explain to them that they lost a Mac user to Windows or Linux because of this.

I hope that makes it easier to understand.

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

#48

Post by DanBC »

eli wrote: post #35
kstenerud wrote: post #34

"This question has been asked before and already has an answer." This is the single MOST ANNOYING thing about stack exchange. WHERE was this question asked before? How about a link to the original question? Hello?

To be fair to Stack Exchange, that's a behavior that's been around forever; at least since USENET. It is very annoying, though.

"How do I do this?"

"USE THE SEARCH, NOOB"

(Search results contain dozens of people asking the same question; not a single answer; and then someone saying "never mind, fixed it" with nothing about what they did to fix it)

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

#49

Post by x0x0 »

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.

Anti-trust on their whopping All this because osx doesn't do a thing that apple never claimed osx did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_system...

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

#50

Post by noblethrasher »

ecopoesis wrote: post #38
izacus wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Post reply on HN