I don't think I have anything that could even transfer data at 10 Gbps, even if I connected a 10G interface to it.

Of course, I remember the early 90s when 10 Mbps ethernet was faster than most hardware could keep up with...

If I had 10Gbps at home, I'd just push data back and forth all day...because I can. :)

Yeah - I still run Win 7 and I have the Task Manager open all the time. I like to watch the internet traffic - both the graph and the bytes/sec in and out. I recall directly connecting a laptop to my RAID machine (at the time, I think I had a 100 mbs port connected to the 1 GB port on the RAID, and it was hitting 12.5 MBytes for a while. For no particular reason, I got a tickle out of that.

In normal usage (GB port to GB port, GB switch, no router involved) I have seen as high as 70-80 MBytes/sec going across, but there's a lot of moving parts (IDE or SATA drives, PCI or PCI-E slot, file fragmentation, number of different files, buffer memory in either machine, etc.) but that's fast enough for me. I was talking to one of the geeks at Best Buy, and said he went through a lot of trouble to optimize everything, but he agreed it was a ton of work (labor of love type stuff) to squeeze those extra MB/s out of everything, but he was happy.

I'm finally able to finish ripping all my cd collection.

Wow, I think two of these would burn my face off! Are you happy with the monitor overall? I've been thinking about replacing my two 24" monitors with one of these (reduce complexity, one cable, etc)

And I agree about working on a smaller screen. I really am perplexed by all these folks claiming they can accomplish productive work on 12" or 13" notebook screens at a coffee shop, that is neither effective or productive for the type of work I do. In fact, my wife and I often day dream about working remote or being digital nomads (e.g. from the beach in Mexico for a month), but honestly neither one of us can fathom how we'd be productive on a small notebook screen for a month... :(

Regards

There are various mobile screens you can take with, and if you have a big enough tablet you can even use that as an additional screen.
I agree it's generally less productive, I use virtual desktops and at the bottom line for the most part it just requires a swipe or 2 keys to move between them so it's not that bad, I do use ultra-wide monitors at my home office though so ultimately my laptop screen just can't show as much info but that's also not too big of a deal.

It really depends on what you do. If you're doing day trading or coding (or even drawing), a small monitor is definitely not a good idea. But if you're primarily writing articles (eg, reporter) it is certainly possible. You can use multiple monitors or as another poster pointed out, several desktop layouts. It all really depends on the kind of work you do. As an example, a large part of my job now is cloud-based. I could use two monitors, however if I can't, it just means I have to be a little slower (eg, when comparing code). But, as always, YMMV

I have a 13" MacBook Pro and as a developer, it works okay for me. I do use whatever macOS calls their virtual desktop implementation quite a lot, though, and bumped up the display resolution as high as the default OS will let me go (I haven't tried any of the hacks that would let me go higher).

That all said, I'm considering going 16" next time around for the separate GPU, but it also depends on whether I hold out long enough for an ARM version of the 13" to become available (and how well its GPU performs).

For me, starting at a 13" screen all day would definitely hurt my eyes. If I "zoomed" in, then I'd have less real estate to use and that's precious as it is on a single screen. Wouldn't matter what OS I'm using. That said, mobility-wise, a 13" laptop is probably a good one if you want to change locations regularly. I don't think Starbucks or McD would be too pleased to set me set up a 17" laptop (or 15") with a 15.6" secondary monitor on one of their tables.

As for the ARM version or not, depends on your lifetime with a given laptop. They said it will take 1-2 year transition everything to Apple silicon, but I would assume a 7-8 year support lifetime for the laptop (at least OS-wise). At least that's what they have done in the past. App vendors would likely give it at 5-7 years to support both Intel and ARM versions (that or risk pissing people off who invested huge amounts of cash into their macs)... since you have a MacBook, I don't think you're likely to be in a rush to buy a new one (depend on age of course). If I were to advise my friends, I'd say wait to see if they have a 13/14" MBP come closer to the end of the year. If they do, then decide between the recently refreshed MBP (which should have come down in price) or get the new MBP...

At least that's how I would do this.

From this article, it sounds like Apple killed PowerPC support in the OS three years after the first Intel machines came out. Assuming they use a similar trajectory, Intel support will likely end 3-4 years after the last Intel Mac in their lineup is replaced with an ARM version. However, they may also keep Intel support around a lot longer this time for environmental reasons, people going a lot longer between hardware upgrades, etc.

Personally, I've replaced machines every three years in the past and the current one is going to be at the end of year 3 in October. (I tried to go past 3 with my last one, but an inopportune LCD failure before an international trip forced a replacement during year 4 since I couldn't source a new/refurbished LCD in time.) Since then, of course, Apple laptops have become more of a challenge to fix for the average person. Considering that and the questionable long-term reliability/support for the butterfly keyboard, I'm thinking I'm going to replace not long after the 3 years are up this time. The question then ends up being, how long do I want to be able to run x86 stuff, either in macOS or booting to Windows or Linux--or whether being able to run x86 stuff even matters.

On the other hand, I also try not to buy first-gen anything from Apple due to the inevitable issues that come up. And there probably will be issues given such a major change. Then again, the tighter integration might help (plus the fact that they're giving out developer Mac Minis to get enough ARM ported apps out there at launch, so it's an opportunity to find major bugs before consumers get hardware).

In the meantime, I'm kinda tempted to replace my laptop now since having to use a Surface 3 as my primary machine (while my MBP has been at some Apple repair depot for over a week and counting) is starting to get a bit annoying--especially if it goes for more than another week or so. In that event, if I end up replacing with another x86 MBP, I figure I can buy an ARM Mac Mini for ARM development too whenever it comes out.

Getting back to the thread topic, over the weekend I attempted to set up a Wireguard server and connect my phone to it. I couldn't get it to work, though. I have an existing OpenVPN setup that works fine, so there's no real need for Wireguard...just wanted to try it out. It's pretty slick and once Ubiquiti includes it in their router firmware by default I'll probably switch over.

I hope Ubiquiti includes a GUI to set it up as well. They never included one for OpenVPN as far as I know.

Nope, there's no GUI for OpenVPN. The command line is pretty easy, though, and there are lots of walkthroughs on setting up OpenVPN in EdgeRouters. I had had one set up since back in the days of using Tomato for routers so it helped that I was already familiar with how it worked. Wireguard is much simpler...I'm sure I was just doing something dumb.

I was bored, so after reading this, I replaced my OpenVPN with Wireguard via PiVPN. All went well apart from Wireguard requiring SecureBoot to be enabled. This meant I had to enter a password on the first boot - which was hard as it's a headless server :)

So, I had to dig out an old monitor, an HDMI->VGA adaptor, and pull the server from behind the couch. All to enter a pesky password.

Anyway, it's all working now and integrated well with PiHole.

Yes, very happy. They have 4 inputs - if your computer supports 4 monitor outputs you can hook it up like that and treat each quadrant as its own screen. The disadvantage to this is you lose 4K, and things that would span two of the "screens" don't always line up perfectly.
I run them in 4K mode. With Win10, you can "snap" a window to each corner and it automatically sizes it to that quadrant. You still keep 4K this way, less cables, and more flexibility. It's a much better solution. DisplayPort is preferred for 4k 60hz mode.

My laptop driving 1 of them is a 13" screen. It's great for being light when on the road and basic email, etc. - but any time I am in an office I usually try to snag an extra monitor for the week. In hotel rooms, keep in mind you can HDMI out of most laptops into most TVs - boom - 2nd/larger screen.

I've also been looking at going to spend a month or two in Mexico and working remote through this. It's certainly doable on the price side - just need to get a few of my friends to also go and I'd be set. Again, the TV in a place would be the life saver as my 2nd screen.