<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Apple claims dibs on Thunderbolt</title>
		<description>Discuss Apple claims dibs on Thunderbolt</description>
		<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21948-apple-claims-dibs-on-thunderbolt</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 11:28:03 +0100</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.fudzilla.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_k2/21948/10" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>123s says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21948-apple-claims-dibs-on-thunderbolt#comment-17156</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Crap ? They are fine and from the look of it a lot people are fine with them too. IPS is even better ofc but its just not worth it for most. As long you arent a graphic artist, you just dont profit from the better visuals so much.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>123s</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:17:56 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21948-apple-claims-dibs-on-thunderbolt#comment-17156</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Naterm says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21948-apple-claims-dibs-on-thunderbolt#comment-17152</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Never seen people picky about image quality? Damn, just damn. Humans are generally visual animals, image trumps sound in general. No one that does anything with video, still images, animation, design, whatever will touch a TN panel. Stability? Huh? Really, I have nothing to say there. Even if you're only looking a text, a VA or IPS panel is going to be dramatically superior to a TN panel. You can actually move your head up and down without the image changing on you. TN's vertical axis is dreadful. They're crap monitors, their only upside is they're dirt cheap.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Naterm</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:08:03 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21948-apple-claims-dibs-on-thunderbolt#comment-17152</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Exodite says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21948-apple-claims-dibs-on-thunderbolt#comment-17128</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Yet adoption is still pretty much non-existent, I'm sure there's a reason for that. It's not like DP is a new standard. In comparison USB 3.0 is much newer yet readily available on motherboards from all manufacturers, as well as peripheral devices. As for display quality... *shrug* People buy what makes the most sense in their budget. Frankly I'm only used to seeing that kind of superiority complex in audiophiles, applied to video it's a new one. Personally I'd love a cheap 27" 2560x1600, or 2560x1440 if need be, TN panel display without useless USB hubs and other crap. I work mainly with text so vertical size and stability means a lot more than color reproduction.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Exodite</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 26 Feb 2011 12:58:51 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21948-apple-claims-dibs-on-thunderbolt#comment-17128</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Naterm says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21948-apple-claims-dibs-on-thunderbolt#comment-17127</link>
			<description><![CDATA[DisplayPort doesn't require a license. While I doubt it's much money on a per device basis, it adds up when you're producing millions of monitors, video cards, and other devices. DisplayPort also functions as an internal connection for laptops. HDMI is for consumer electronics, it's not well suited for computers. It also seems a few people in here love their 16x9 TN monitors. Those things are a joke, people. Next time look at more than a display's size and response time, look at the image quality.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Naterm</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 26 Feb 2011 12:20:42 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21948-apple-claims-dibs-on-thunderbolt#comment-17127</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Exodite says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21948-apple-claims-dibs-on-thunderbolt#comment-17123</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Which pretty much proves my point. Believe me, I'd love to see DP migrating to a common implementation - why not after all - but I can't see it happening. Unlike DVI, which was the first true digital interface for consumer displays, DP doesn't bring anything significant to the table. Comparing the technical merits of DP 1.2 to HDMI 1.4a is not as clear-cut and one-sided as doing the same with Firewire 800 and USB 2.0. Anyway, Apple did make a good call in so far that they didn't introduce a new pointless port but rather diversified an existing one.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Exodite</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 26 Feb 2011 11:26:51 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21948-apple-claims-dibs-on-thunderbolt#comment-17123</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Naterm says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21948-apple-claims-dibs-on-thunderbolt#comment-17117</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I wouldn't say 'no displays' are using DP. My HP 2475w monitors have DisplayPort. They're by no means high-end professional displays, they're mid-ranged IPS monitors. Yeah, they're not super cheap, 16x9, TN shit piles. They're still not high-end displays by any means. I remember DVI being a rarity for quite some time after it debuted. DisplayPort's bandwidth depends on the number of lanes and how fast they are. With a typical four lane link, bandwidth is 5.18, 8.64, or 17.28Gb/s plus an auxiliary channel.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Naterm</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 26 Feb 2011 01:48:20 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21948-apple-claims-dibs-on-thunderbolt#comment-17117</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>The blue fox says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21948-apple-claims-dibs-on-thunderbolt#comment-17114</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I can almost here Steve Jobs talking about Thunderbolt and this next speech. And how exclusive to apple and that it's faster then usb 3.0. In a way i am glad apple gets Thunderbolt first. So when Thunderbolt comes to the other 80% of computer's out there we will have some peripherals to use and any bugs will be worked out.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>The blue fox</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 26 Feb 2011 00:43:17 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21948-apple-claims-dibs-on-thunderbolt#comment-17114</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>yasin says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21948-apple-claims-dibs-on-thunderbolt#comment-17107</link>
			<description><![CDATA[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12570323 Turns out it has potential 100Gbps throughput if you use fibre optics, but Intel has opted instead for copper wires, which limits throughput to 10Gbps.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>yasin</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 25 Feb 2011 21:43:27 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21948-apple-claims-dibs-on-thunderbolt#comment-17107</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Exodite says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21948-apple-claims-dibs-on-thunderbolt#comment-17088</link>
			<description><![CDATA[That's my point, yes. Mini-DP, or more commonly full DP, is actually decently common on business laptops at well but I'd still say it's a pointless interface. Why? Because no _displays_ are using it. Aside from the Apple Cinema Display and a handful of upper-high-end professional displays. There's simply nothing to attach to it. Of course on Macs the problem is exacerbated by the the distinct lack of any other display connectivity.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Exodite</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 25 Feb 2011 17:51:11 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21948-apple-claims-dibs-on-thunderbolt#comment-17088</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Naterm says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21948-apple-claims-dibs-on-thunderbolt#comment-17075</link>
			<description><![CDATA[That's like saying 10GBASE-T isn't 10GbE, because it runs on copper. I remember hearing about intel running Light Peak on copper cables close to a year ago. It's the same underlying technology, only the physical layer is different. Thunderbolt is Light Peak, albeit less capable than a fiber version of Light Peak.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Naterm</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 25 Feb 2011 16:11:47 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21948-apple-claims-dibs-on-thunderbolt#comment-17075</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
