this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2024
1517 points (92.4% liked)
Technology
60101 readers
2065 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
At work both my monitors and networking go through the same port. The monitor also acts as a usb hub.
You can buy an adapter and plug everything in one port.
I love it personally.
I only have one Usb-c port on my Surface Go 1, but it’s linked to my screen with 4 usb-A ports and one more Usb-c port.
Same as you, I feel I have enough, at least when it’s hooked up to the screen.
You can only do that because your monitors are not high resolution and high refresh rate. The data cap for usb-c is not that high.
USB-C is just a connector, but Thunderbolt 5 uses it and for asymmetric uses (e.g. a monitor) it can hit 120Gbps.
Isn’t that going to support most monitors?
Please, list the devices that you know have tb5.
Also, that's the total bandwidth in a best case scenario. You're not factoring in that you'll need to share that with all of the devices in a hub. That's without mentioning that you need the hub (which also has a cost).
The USB4 protocol can handle 160Gb/s split asymettrically (so, say, 120Gb/s out, 40Gb/s in), wheras the upper limit for DisplayPort's highest bandwidth mode, Quad UHBR 20, is 80Gb/s in one direction. So you can saturate your DisplayPort 2.0 quad-channel with more than enough bandwidth to power three 10K 60Hz 30-bit (i.e. very high-end) monitors in DSC mode, and still only be using half the bandwidth of USB4, all using a single cable which I can also use to charge my earphones.
Most devices only have 40gbps USB4. Which is still enough for almost all sane use cases. Frankly, if you need multiple 4K monitors get a desktop.
Uhm no? There are more than a few use cases that require a mobile set up for demos for example but that you'd also want to use in a desk setting. For example, architects or sw dev.
Like 2 4k60 monitors and literally nothing else? You have a very conservative opinion of what a "sane" use case is. Not to mention that lots of USB-C cable certification is a mess so not even getting the cable is simple (or cheap).
Show me one architect that is actually dragging along two external 4k displays with their laptop.
If you are a professional with specific needs buy a specific laptop. Frankly there are more than enough laptops that have more ports if that's what you need. Except even in your example you don't even need more ports because you can just use the second USB4 port.
You misunderstood. They use those monitors when actually working in a stationary place with their desktop setup. However, it's very common to then have to go to your client's office to show them said work or discuss future steps. At which point having multiple port options comes in handy if you have to plug in to a tv, monitor or projector.
You can't seriously consider asking for hdmi and displayport on a laptop a "specific need".
Almost every laptop does have a dedicated HDMI port
Yeah, **one **HDMI port and no DisplayPort.
If youre in an office you can be expected to use a dock
Why move the goalpost though? I'm not narrowing it down to a specific user in a specific setting. I'm just saying that more flexibility == more better.
Why would you make up a specific scenario to justify getting a inferior product (from a usability standpoint) than we used to?
That's my whole point; No, more ports isn't more better. If you don't need them they're just more cost, more holes where water/debris can get into the machine, and more wrong holes to plug the charger into. If you do need them, then buy a machine that has them - there are plenty.
Yeah, tell me another joke. the cost is negligible. Literally from cents to a few dollars for the manufacturer.
This literally never happened to me or anyone I know.
If you plug in your usb-c/barrel jack charger into an ethernet/hdmi/displayport input, you deserve to have a broken laptop xD
Not really true, but ok. Keep on preaching for companies that screw over consumers :)
K then buddy. Keep buying dongles for your dongles.
My point is that including the ports is extremely simple. I'm not telling you that it's wrong to choose to use a dock because you find it more convenient. I'm just saying that you could have the option instead of that being the only option you have. There's no technical reason to not include the actual physical separate ports.
Also, monitors and your earbuds? That's a very low bar. Lots of different tasks would require far more than that. Devices should be flexible.
Agreed. It's a pity, then, that no-one has invented a single port that can replace USB-A, DisplayPort, HDMI, propriatary power connectors, Thunderb.... oh... wait...
Yeah, show me a laptop that has 10 of those. Plus, your conveniently ignoring the plethora of adapters you'd have to use if all you had were USB-C ports.
Every enterprise laptop I've seen in the last 5 years?
Sorry but you're full of crap. The first TB5 laptop was released this year and I'm not sure there are more than a handful of models.
You're welcome to prove me wrong though.
All high quality peripheral docks support Thunderbolt. Thunderbolt 5 docks began to release last month. You can connect the devices to the dock using USB-C, then just use one Thunderbolt cable to connect the dock to your Mac to prevent a bottleneck.
So, barely a handful? Great. How much do they cost? And how much does it cost to just use the cable your devices come with?
The countless remaining docks support Thunderbolt 4, which at 40 Gb/s is still twice as fast as USB-C 3.2 Gen 2x2.
They range from $49-$299, depending on the features and number of ports needed. If you’re using the native HDMI port on your MacBook Pro, it’ll be on the low end of the price range.
The only cable that comes with a MacBook Pro is a USB-C charging cable.
Awesome. But what I think is ideal is having multiple ports which, in addition, would give you more bandwith, more reliability and more flexibility than a single high bandwidth hub.
You misread. I was referring to the cables the devices you use with your laptop come with.
MacBook Pro comes with three Thunderbolt 5/USB-C ports (120 Gb/s), HDMI 2.1b, MagSafe 3, and a 3.5 mm headphone jack. Trading a USB-C port for USB-A means potentially downgrading a USB-C capable device to USB-A with an adapter. The opposite results in better performance, and the adapters will continue to be useful as long as you own USB-A devices. When computers only have USB-C ports, your other adapters will be useless.
As for cables, I replace them rather than using adapters. Monoprice.com sells quality cables relatively inexpensively.
Again, missing the point. There's nothing you need to "trade". They could simply add more ports.
Monoprice is not a worlwide brand and buying more stuff is not a sensible solution to a manufactured problem.
There’s nothing simple about adding more ports on a portable computer. It means additional buses, I/O boards, and a larger device size.
Most manufacturers that offer USB-A ports don’t have three Thunderbolt 5 ports. It would either be modular or a trade if you’re making a true comparison.
If they could do it in 2010, they can do it in 2024. And no, it wouldn't significantly increase the footprint.
About TB5 you're right. Most laptops don't have it but you're also conveniently ignoring that the first laptops with those ports were released literally a few months ago.
Tell me where there’s room to add another bus and ports without expanding the footprint.
https://www.macrumors.com/2024/11/22/ifixit-shares-m4-macbook-pro-teardown/
Thunderbolt 4 still has twice the bandwidth of the fastest USB-C standard currently available at 40 Gb/s. Thunderbolt 5 tops out at 120 Gb/s. That means you could have six USB-C devices, running max throughput of 20 Gb/s through a dock, connected to the Mac using Thunderbolt 5, without limiting the bandwidth. It also daisy chains more 4K displays at a higher refresh rate than USB-C. It’s a far superior connection.
There is a lot of empty PCB in that design. They could at the very least add 1 more port on each side if they wanted to. The audio solution is also taking up quite a bit of space.
Agai with the TB5. Those hubs cost $200+ and some even require external power. It's a good option to have. It's bad if it's your only option.
Empty PCB? You can’t see the other side of the logic board in this video. All reputable computer manufacturers use circus design on PCBs.
The cost of the dock is high because the tech is new. I don’t believe I need to explain the cost curve of advancing technology to you.
You don't need to explain why it's expensive but you do need to explain why it's suddenly necessary instead lf an option.
Can you break this down?
The 2017 model pictured in this post supported Thunderbolt 3, which was a 40 gbps connection. Supported display modes included up to 4k@120, 2x4k@60, or 5k@60, which was better than the then-standard HDMI 2.0.
What combination of resolution, frame rate, and color depth are you envisioning that having a dock handle a gigabit Ethernet connection, analog audio would require scaling down the display resolution through the same port?
By 2021, the MacBook Pros were supporting TB4, and the spec sheets on third party docking stations were supporting 8k resolutions, even if Macs themselves only supported 6k, or up to 4x4k.
Even if we talk about DisplayPort Alt Mode, a VESA standard developed in 2014, and supported in the 2017 models pictured in this post, that's just a standard DP connection, which in 2017 supported HDR 5k@60. But didn't support a whole separate dock with networking and USB ports.
Right, for a single device.
Dual 4k120 would already saturate the bandwith. Regarding networking, gigabit is pretty slow for LAN depending on your workload. If you were to require 10gbit, you'd be SOL.
Did you read the specs in your link? Even with that TB4 dock you wouldn't be able to do dual 4k120.
I really don't get trying to justify manufacturers forcing you to buy an additional device to get the same ports they could provide natively without using a hub/dock. It's a pretty submissive attitude.
What would you use to drive dual 4k/120 displays over a single cable, if not Thunderbolt over USB-C? And what 2017 laptops were capable of doing that?
Even if we're talking about two different cables over two different ports, that's still a pretty unusual use case that not a lot of laptops would've been capable of in 2017.
4k120 panels weren't even available in 2017 afaik. But you could do dual 4k120 with one hdmi 2.1 and 1 displayport 1.4 so just need 2 video outputs from your laptop (which used to be pretty common).
Please note that we're having this discussion in 2024 and I'm talkimg about use cases in 2024. I don't really see the point in talking about what you would theoretically do 6 years ago with panels that weren't even available.