I just read a CNET review of the new iMac. It DOES NOT accept HDMI/DVI or VGA signals. Only DisplayPort. Apparently some vendors are planning on releasing adapters for this soon.
Unless it's a different review from this one, that's not exactly what it says--
It says
Quote:
Unfortunately, the dual Mini DisplayPort cable from Belkin won't let you input video from other devices. For that you'll have to wait until January. Details on what Belkin's cooking up are scant, so we can't offer much information about the forthcoming adapter other than that it's on the way and it does more than connect two Macs. But given that you can output the iMac over HDMI, DVI, and other formats with the Mini DisplayPort adapter cable, we'd expect that any updated input adapter would include those formats as well. Our hope is that, similar to all-in-ones from a variety of PC vendors, the new cable from Belkin will allow you to input video to the iMac from game consoles, cable boxes, Blu-ray players, HD camcorders, and other such devices currently bound to your television. The appeal of such capability should be obvious, but we'll unfortunately have to wait until the adapter hits before we can test it out.
So they had a mdp to mdp cable, which doesn't let you hook up much but another Mac, and they think Belkin is coming out with an adapter that will enable other formats.
But's that a little different from just flatly declaring that the mdp on the iMac doesn't accept HDMI/DVI. For that, they would have needed to test that particular configuration, which they apparently didn't. Or, if they did, they don't mention it.
I can agree because of smartphones people don't have to carry notebooks as much. But smartphons will not reverse the desktop/notebook sales trend. Desktops had their day and its over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
I think over the next few years, once the current wave of laptop buyers has lived with their laptops for 3-4 years and has also had some time to live with smartphones, esp. iPhones, and maybe tablets, the trend of switching to laptops from desktops may very well reverse. Most of these people just aren't using these laptops for anything while mobile that they couldn't very easily do on an iPhone just as well, and the iPhone is entirely trivial to carry around, so the laptop will spend more time sitting home alone.
Apple just reported 3 million computers sold this past quarter, the most its ever sold in its history. Of those 3 million only 700,000 were desktops. Apple does not sell that many iMacs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alandail
And part of the difference in price between the 27" iMac and the 30 inch cinema display is the difference between having a product that will sell in the millions vs a product that will sell in the 10 thousands.
Unless it's a different review from this one, that's not exactly what it says--
It says
So they had a mdp to mdp cable, which doesn't let you hook up much but another Mac, and they think Belkin is coming out with an adapter that will enable other formats.
But's that a little different from just flatly declaring that the mdp on the iMac doesn't accept HDMI/DVI. For that, they would have needed to test that particular configuration, which they apparently didn't. Or, if they did, they don't mention it.
Yeah, but it's fairly obvious if you actually understand how the hardware works. One of the cost factors in building high def displays is the hardware used to convert different signals into a format that can be displayed on the screen. The iMac always had the advantage
of skipping this step because it's display is built in. Yes, it can output different formats but that's different. When going to the primary display, the proccess is simplified. This means less hardware. Thats why there was no way to hack a video input in the past. The hardware to convert the signals isn't there.
Yeah, but it's fairly obvious if you actually understand how the hardware works. One of the cost factors in building high def displays is the hardware used to convert different signals into a format that can be displayed on the screen. The iMac always had the advantage
of skipping this step because it's display is built in. Yes, it can output different formats but that's different. When going to the primary display, the proccess is simplified. This means less hardware. Thats why there was no way to hack a video input in the past. The hardware to convert the signals isn't there.
Except you have no idea what hardware, or software for that matter, the new iMacs may involve. Until now the hardware to input any kind of video signal at all wasn't there either.
You're making an assumption about what the review means based on what you know about previous generation hardware and software. I'm saying we don't know what Apple has in mind.
Yeah, but it's fairly obvious if you actually understand how the hardware works. One of the cost factors in building high def displays is the hardware used to convert different signals into a format that can be displayed on the screen. The iMac always had the advantage
of skipping this step because it's display is built in. Yes, it can output different formats but that's different. When going to the primary display, the proccess is simplified. This means less hardware. Thats why there was no way to hack a video input in the past. The hardware to convert the signals isn't there.
iMacs were never a way to get a cheap TV, I think most of the desire was about finding additional uses so you don't need to get additional screens for other things, especially for smaller spaces. The extra chip and input jacks would cost more but I really doubt it was prohibitive. A 24" 1920x1200 computer monitor I bought last year was offered in two versions, in a pure monitor form (I think only DVI/VGA or also with additional component and HDMI inputs, optical & analog audio in, HD tuner and a TV remote for only $60 more. It's actually a pretty nifty setup and well worth the extra money.
iMacs were never a way to get a cheap TV, I think most of the desire was about finding additional uses so you don't need to get additional screens for other things, especially for smaller spaces. The extra chip and input jacks would cost more but I really doubt it was prohibitive. A 24" 1920x1200 computer monitor I bought last year was offered in two versions, in a pure monitor form (I think only DVI/VGA or also with additional component and HDMI inputs, optical & analog audio in, HD tuner and a TV remote for only $60 more. It's actually a pretty nifty setup and well worth the extra money.
Yeah, so that's an extra $60 dollars for that hardware, plus the additional costs accociated with adding hdcp support, and displayport (which apple already had to do). The dvi interface would have to be dual link. Also, the quality of scaling can differ greatly between different displays, depending on the quality of hardware they use.
It gets so complicated that some TV sets are starting to use things like cell processors to handle all the different signals and stuff.
Perhaps this day will come in the distant future. Desktops still remain the most comfortable way for someone to work on text documents, spreadsheets, app development, graphics design, certain games, and if the computer is set up in a room fit for watching a movie...then watching a movie.
Doing some of this stuff on a tiny notebook screen or an iPhone/iPod touch simply doesn't make sense.
There is no trend per se...just that the people that don't particularly care for writing, programming, designing, certain types of gaming or watching movies on a computer have been coming out in droves to buy MacBooks and the iPhone/iPod touch. They're usually students that don't use their computer for school but rather music and web surfing.
Perhaps this day will come in the distant future. Desktops still remain the most comfortable way for someone to work on text documents, spreadsheets, app development, graphics design, certain games, and if the computer is set up in a room fit for watching a movie...then watching a movie.
Doing some of this stuff on a tiny notebook screen or an iPhone/iPod touch simply doesn't make sense.
There is no trend per se...just that the people that don't particularly care for writing, programming, designing, certain types of gaming or watching movies on a computer have been coming out in droves to buy MacBooks and the iPhone/iPod touch. They're usually students that don't use their computer for school but rather music and web surfing.
Uh...you DO realize that his point is that you CAN connect a MB/MBP to a 30" ACD, kb and mouse?
Or a 34" 1080p LG HDTV which is what I sometimes do (mostly it's hooked up to my mini as its primary monitor).
The difference is cost. You can get a lot more iMac than you can with a MB/MBP. The top end MBP costs the same as a bottom end Mac Pro.
I can agree because of smartphones people don't have to carry notebooks as much. But smartphons will not reverse the desktop/notebook sales trend. Desktops had their day and its over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Uh...you DO realize that his point is that you CAN connect a MB/MBP to a 30" ACD, kb and mouse?
Or a 34" 1080p LG HDTV which is what I sometimes do (mostly it's hooked up to my mini as its primary monitor).
The difference is cost. You can get a lot more iMac than you can with a MB/MBP. The top end MBP costs the same as a bottom end Mac Pro.
I use desktops because I don't really need much in terms of portability. I have a netbook that I tether to my iPhone and thats all I need. My desktop is used for video editing, photos and graphics, and as a file server. It's always left running so I need something really quiet. The iMac is really the only thing on the market that works well for me.
Yeah, so that's an extra $60 dollars for that hardware, plus the additional costs accociated with adding hdcp support, and displayport (which apple already had to do). The dvi interface would have to be dual link. Also, the quality of scaling can differ greatly between different displays, depending on the quality of hardware they use.
It gets so complicated that some TV sets are starting to use things like cell processors to handle all the different signals and stuff.
The HDCP support is already covered in that $60 on my monitor. The scaling of that board works pretty well in the set that I have. A heavy duty processor likely isn't for the display conversion, the TV you're talking about is probably the one that is an 8 channel DVR built-in, it can record 8 programs at a time.
Dual link DVI is a good point, but I'm pretty sure monitors less expensive cheaper than Apple's include DP and DL-DVI.
Films cannot be applied without embedding dust particles and bubbles. Think cheap, peeling, bubbly tint job on your car windows except you HAVE to stare at it all the time because that's the point of a computer display.
Re: glass CRT's
... and people stopped using them in part for this. Now flat panels are being reverted to mimic the deficiency for no coherent reason at all ... other than it reminds micro-brained, minimal users of their iPhone.
An iMac is not an iPhone. Forcing uniform design across disparate products for no other reason than some detached concept of making a product styling "statement" is a sign of degenerate design.
I think there is more to it than that. In order to properly change from glossy to matte, the LCD panel itself would have to be changed. This would probably increase costs having to carry both product lines. The reason they use the glossy display is because they have a little more depth to them. Deeper blacks look a little nicer. Consumers really seem to like them. It's a minority of people who really don't want it.
The only point I was trying to make, is that its kinda stupid to go around telling other people not to buy iMacs because you personally don't like them, and have some kind of twisted idea in your head that scaring away potential customers will somehow fix your problems. It wont. This is what people on the internet like to call FUD. Maybe you heard of this?
If you really want your matte display iMac, why not put your time to better use?
you could...
Write a letter to apple?
Get other people to write apple?
Start a blog or forum?
Start a petition?
You know, enough people ask nicely and maybe Apple could find a way to accommodate you. I don't think they would have a problem adding matte displays if sales are good and there is a large minority of sane customers who really want it.
The HDCP support is already covered in that $60 on my monitor. The scaling of that board works pretty well in the set that I have. A heavy duty processor likely isn't for the display conversion, the TV you're talking about is probably the one that is an 8 channel DVR built-in, it can record 8 programs at a time.
Dual link DVI is a good point, but I'm pretty sure monitors less expensive cheaper than Apple's include DP and DL-DVI.
Of course, the hardware to do the same thing for the iMac would have to be more powerful and probably more expensive because it's driving a lot more pixels.
HDCP would have been there, before the $60 option. All DVI displays should have that. There has to be some kind of decoder/scaler in there, even with just DVI. The $60 is probably just for a fancier one (plus a few connectors). Older iMac's do not need HDCP for the built-in display because there is no DVI signal internally. Otherwise you would be able to just solder a cable to the motherboard and use it as a display or extract the signal.
There are definitely some cheap displays out there that can do all this stuff. The hardware isn't necessarily expensive, however the quality can range from really good (and expensive) to really crappy. I think most displays upscale by simply adding in extra rows and columns of pixels. A lot of TV's do that. You can't tell from a distance but up close it can suck. This would be very noticeable on an IPS display.
I can see why Apple would want to force there displays to run native. Can't count the number of times I have noticed someone was running their LCD at the wrong resolution.
...they do use the cell for exactly that. I'm not sure how much of it is done by the cell. Probably other chips in there too. DVR functions would probably require a lot of compression/conversion, which the cell is perfect for. The demo I saw had 8 separate HD streams downscaled and displayed at once, which is just really cool.
DisplayPort as a standard is compatible with DVI/HDMI...The DP spec was designed to understand HDMI...
Wrong and completely wrong. DisplayPort allows for the pass through of other video signals but that doesn't mean that it "was designed to understand HDMI."
You are correct, however, in stating that no one at this time really knows what provisions Apple has included (or has not included) for support of HDMI/DVI inputs. But it isn't going to simply work unless Apple has taken an active hand in making it do so. Well, that's not completely true, since it would be possible for a third-party to independently produce an HDMI/DVI video converter and video scaler that would work with the iMac's Mini DisplayPort input. But any such device would likely cost several hundred dollars.
I think its new, couldn't seem to find it anywhere else except Belkin's website.
This part of the product description doesn't specify the new iMac specifically, however under the features tab it mentions:
Which is at least recognizing that the 27" imac exists. It would be good to see what price this ends up on the shelves at (I'd say over $100 if its an active converter), and hopefully someone can pick one up and try it out.
Dying to see some youtube videos of people getting their xbox/ps3s going on their imac display! Its the deciding factor on me purchasing one! get to it people!
That's an interesting link and it does seem to indicate that Belkin is going to offer a converter that will allow HDMI input into the new 27" iMac. The statements about the new MacBook Pro and MacBook Air, however, don't make much sense -- are they suggesting that a new MacBook will also offer video input?
Dying to see some youtube videos of people getting their xbox/ps3s going on their imac display! Its the deciding factor on me purchasing one! get to it people!
I sent an e-mail to iFixit to see if they could test it which they have. They found out that just a simple HDMI-mDP cable doesn't do the trick to display PS3 (slim) video on the iMac. Too bad!
What is the way to find out if Apple is planning some kind of adapter for this? And to find out what type of (conversion) hardware they already included in the iMac? Clearly a lot of people will be wanting this!
What is the way to find out if Apple is planning some kind of adapter for this? And to find out what type of (conversion) hardware they already included in the iMac? Clearly a lot of people will be wanting this!
They must be. There Tech Specs do state “adapter sold seperatel”, but it also ddly states that it has mDP for OUTPUT to another monitor and DP for INPUT from another source. For this reason I had thought the 27” imac would have separate input and output ports. This is not the case. Why change up the wording unless they are planning on having a special dongle adapter?
Mini DisplayPort output port with support for DVI, VGA, and dual-link DVI (adapters sold separately). 27-inch models also [Bs]upport input from external DisplayPort sources[/B] (adapters sold separately).
Comments
I just read a CNET review of the new iMac. It DOES NOT accept HDMI/DVI or VGA signals. Only DisplayPort. Apparently some vendors are planning on releasing adapters for this soon.
Unless it's a different review from this one, that's not exactly what it says--
It says
Unfortunately, the dual Mini DisplayPort cable from Belkin won't let you input video from other devices. For that you'll have to wait until January. Details on what Belkin's cooking up are scant, so we can't offer much information about the forthcoming adapter other than that it's on the way and it does more than connect two Macs. But given that you can output the iMac over HDMI, DVI, and other formats with the Mini DisplayPort adapter cable, we'd expect that any updated input adapter would include those formats as well. Our hope is that, similar to all-in-ones from a variety of PC vendors, the new cable from Belkin will allow you to input video to the iMac from game consoles, cable boxes, Blu-ray players, HD camcorders, and other such devices currently bound to your television. The appeal of such capability should be obvious, but we'll unfortunately have to wait until the adapter hits before we can test it out.
So they had a mdp to mdp cable, which doesn't let you hook up much but another Mac, and they think Belkin is coming out with an adapter that will enable other formats.
But's that a little different from just flatly declaring that the mdp on the iMac doesn't accept HDMI/DVI. For that, they would have needed to test that particular configuration, which they apparently didn't. Or, if they did, they don't mention it.
So, for all intents and purposes, all this does is allow you to use the iMac as a display for you Macbook assuming a double sided cable ever shows.
Far to little information available to come to that conclusion.
I think over the next few years, once the current wave of laptop buyers has lived with their laptops for 3-4 years and has also had some time to live with smartphones, esp. iPhones, and maybe tablets, the trend of switching to laptops from desktops may very well reverse. Most of these people just aren't using these laptops for anything while mobile that they couldn't very easily do on an iPhone just as well, and the iPhone is entirely trivial to carry around, so the laptop will spend more time sitting home alone.
And part of the difference in price between the 27" iMac and the 30 inch cinema display is the difference between having a product that will sell in the millions vs a product that will sell in the 10 thousands.
Unless it's a different review from this one, that's not exactly what it says--
It says
So they had a mdp to mdp cable, which doesn't let you hook up much but another Mac, and they think Belkin is coming out with an adapter that will enable other formats.
But's that a little different from just flatly declaring that the mdp on the iMac doesn't accept HDMI/DVI. For that, they would have needed to test that particular configuration, which they apparently didn't. Or, if they did, they don't mention it.
Yeah, but it's fairly obvious if you actually understand how the hardware works. One of the cost factors in building high def displays is the hardware used to convert different signals into a format that can be displayed on the screen. The iMac always had the advantage
of skipping this step because it's display is built in. Yes, it can output different formats but that's different. When going to the primary display, the proccess is simplified. This means less hardware. Thats why there was no way to hack a video input in the past. The hardware to convert the signals isn't there.
Yeah, but it's fairly obvious if you actually understand how the hardware works. One of the cost factors in building high def displays is the hardware used to convert different signals into a format that can be displayed on the screen. The iMac always had the advantage
of skipping this step because it's display is built in. Yes, it can output different formats but that's different. When going to the primary display, the proccess is simplified. This means less hardware. Thats why there was no way to hack a video input in the past. The hardware to convert the signals isn't there.
Except you have no idea what hardware, or software for that matter, the new iMacs may involve. Until now the hardware to input any kind of video signal at all wasn't there either.
You're making an assumption about what the review means based on what you know about previous generation hardware and software. I'm saying we don't know what Apple has in mind.
Yeah, but it's fairly obvious if you actually understand how the hardware works. One of the cost factors in building high def displays is the hardware used to convert different signals into a format that can be displayed on the screen. The iMac always had the advantage
of skipping this step because it's display is built in. Yes, it can output different formats but that's different. When going to the primary display, the proccess is simplified. This means less hardware. Thats why there was no way to hack a video input in the past. The hardware to convert the signals isn't there.
iMacs were never a way to get a cheap TV, I think most of the desire was about finding additional uses so you don't need to get additional screens for other things, especially for smaller spaces. The extra chip and input jacks would cost more but I really doubt it was prohibitive. A 24" 1920x1200 computer monitor I bought last year was offered in two versions, in a pure monitor form (I think only DVI/VGA or also with additional component and HDMI inputs, optical & analog audio in, HD tuner and a TV remote for only $60 more. It's actually a pretty nifty setup and well worth the extra money.
iMacs were never a way to get a cheap TV, I think most of the desire was about finding additional uses so you don't need to get additional screens for other things, especially for smaller spaces. The extra chip and input jacks would cost more but I really doubt it was prohibitive. A 24" 1920x1200 computer monitor I bought last year was offered in two versions, in a pure monitor form (I think only DVI/VGA or also with additional component and HDMI inputs, optical & analog audio in, HD tuner and a TV remote for only $60 more. It's actually a pretty nifty setup and well worth the extra money.
Yeah, so that's an extra $60 dollars for that hardware, plus the additional costs accociated with adding hdcp support, and displayport (which apple already had to do). The dvi interface would have to be dual link. Also, the quality of scaling can differ greatly between different displays, depending on the quality of hardware they use.
It gets so complicated that some TV sets are starting to use things like cell processors to handle all the different signals and stuff.
Desktops had their day and its over.
Perhaps this day will come in the distant future. Desktops still remain the most comfortable way for someone to work on text documents, spreadsheets, app development, graphics design, certain games, and if the computer is set up in a room fit for watching a movie...then watching a movie.
Doing some of this stuff on a tiny notebook screen or an iPhone/iPod touch simply doesn't make sense.
There is no trend per se...just that the people that don't particularly care for writing, programming, designing, certain types of gaming or watching movies on a computer have been coming out in droves to buy MacBooks and the iPhone/iPod touch. They're usually students that don't use their computer for school but rather music and web surfing.
Perhaps this day will come in the distant future. Desktops still remain the most comfortable way for someone to work on text documents, spreadsheets, app development, graphics design, certain games, and if the computer is set up in a room fit for watching a movie...then watching a movie.
Doing some of this stuff on a tiny notebook screen or an iPhone/iPod touch simply doesn't make sense.
There is no trend per se...just that the people that don't particularly care for writing, programming, designing, certain types of gaming or watching movies on a computer have been coming out in droves to buy MacBooks and the iPhone/iPod touch. They're usually students that don't use their computer for school but rather music and web surfing.
Uh...you DO realize that his point is that you CAN connect a MB/MBP to a 30" ACD, kb and mouse?
Or a 34" 1080p LG HDTV which is what I sometimes do (mostly it's hooked up to my mini as its primary monitor).
The difference is cost. You can get a lot more iMac than you can with a MB/MBP. The top end MBP costs the same as a bottom end Mac Pro.
I can agree because of smartphones people don't have to carry notebooks as much. But smartphons will not reverse the desktop/notebook sales trend. Desktops had their day and its over.
Uh...you DO realize that his point is that you CAN connect a MB/MBP to a 30" ACD, kb and mouse?
Or a 34" 1080p LG HDTV which is what I sometimes do (mostly it's hooked up to my mini as its primary monitor).
The difference is cost. You can get a lot more iMac than you can with a MB/MBP. The top end MBP costs the same as a bottom end Mac Pro.
I use desktops because I don't really need much in terms of portability. I have a netbook that I tether to my iPhone and thats all I need. My desktop is used for video editing, photos and graphics, and as a file server. It's always left running so I need something really quiet. The iMac is really the only thing on the market that works well for me.
Yeah, so that's an extra $60 dollars for that hardware, plus the additional costs accociated with adding hdcp support, and displayport (which apple already had to do). The dvi interface would have to be dual link. Also, the quality of scaling can differ greatly between different displays, depending on the quality of hardware they use.
It gets so complicated that some TV sets are starting to use things like cell processors to handle all the different signals and stuff.
The HDCP support is already covered in that $60 on my monitor. The scaling of that board works pretty well in the set that I have. A heavy duty processor likely isn't for the display conversion, the TV you're talking about is probably the one that is an 8 channel DVR built-in, it can record 8 programs at a time.
Dual link DVI is a good point, but I'm pretty sure monitors less expensive cheaper than Apple's include DP and DL-DVI.
Films cannot be applied without embedding dust particles and bubbles. Think cheap, peeling, bubbly tint job on your car windows except you HAVE to stare at it all the time because that's the point of a computer display.
Re: glass CRT's
... and people stopped using them in part for this. Now flat panels are being reverted to mimic the deficiency for no coherent reason at all ... other than it reminds micro-brained, minimal users of their iPhone.
An iMac is not an iPhone. Forcing uniform design across disparate products for no other reason than some detached concept of making a product styling "statement" is a sign of degenerate design.
I think there is more to it than that. In order to properly change from glossy to matte, the LCD panel itself would have to be changed. This would probably increase costs having to carry both product lines. The reason they use the glossy display is because they have a little more depth to them. Deeper blacks look a little nicer. Consumers really seem to like them. It's a minority of people who really don't want it.
The only point I was trying to make, is that its kinda stupid to go around telling other people not to buy iMacs because you personally don't like them, and have some kind of twisted idea in your head that scaring away potential customers will somehow fix your problems. It wont. This is what people on the internet like to call FUD. Maybe you heard of this?
If you really want your matte display iMac, why not put your time to better use?
you could...
Write a letter to apple?
Get other people to write apple?
Start a blog or forum?
Start a petition?
You know, enough people ask nicely and maybe Apple could find a way to accommodate you. I don't think they would have a problem adding matte displays if sales are good and there is a large minority of sane customers who really want it.
The HDCP support is already covered in that $60 on my monitor. The scaling of that board works pretty well in the set that I have. A heavy duty processor likely isn't for the display conversion, the TV you're talking about is probably the one that is an 8 channel DVR built-in, it can record 8 programs at a time.
Dual link DVI is a good point, but I'm pretty sure monitors less expensive cheaper than Apple's include DP and DL-DVI.
Of course, the hardware to do the same thing for the iMac would have to be more powerful and probably more expensive because it's driving a lot more pixels.
HDCP would have been there, before the $60 option. All DVI displays should have that. There has to be some kind of decoder/scaler in there, even with just DVI. The $60 is probably just for a fancier one (plus a few connectors). Older iMac's do not need HDCP for the built-in display because there is no DVI signal internally. Otherwise you would be able to just solder a cable to the motherboard and use it as a display or extract the signal.
There are definitely some cheap displays out there that can do all this stuff. The hardware isn't necessarily expensive, however the quality can range from really good (and expensive) to really crappy. I think most displays upscale by simply adding in extra rows and columns of pixels. A lot of TV's do that. You can't tell from a distance but up close it can suck. This would be very noticeable on an IPS display.
I can see why Apple would want to force there displays to run native. Can't count the number of times I have noticed someone was running their LCD at the wrong resolution.
...they do use the cell for exactly that. I'm not sure how much of it is done by the cell. Probably other chips in there too. DVR functions would probably require a lot of compression/conversion, which the cell is perfect for. The demo I saw had 8 separate HD streams downscaled and displayed at once, which is just really cool.
DisplayPort as a standard is compatible with DVI/HDMI...The DP spec was designed to understand HDMI...
Wrong and completely wrong. DisplayPort allows for the pass through of other video signals but that doesn't mean that it "was designed to understand HDMI."
You are correct, however, in stating that no one at this time really knows what provisions Apple has included (or has not included) for support of HDMI/DVI inputs. But it isn't going to simply work unless Apple has taken an active hand in making it do so. Well, that's not completely true, since it would be possible for a third-party to independently produce an HDMI/DVI video converter and video scaler that would work with the iMac's Mini DisplayPort input. But any such device would likely cost several hundred dollars.
just had a look on the belkin website and found this:
Belkin HDMI to Mini Display Port Adaptor
http://catalog.belkin.com/IWCatProdu...duct_Id=508267
I think its new, couldn't seem to find it anywhere else except Belkin's website.
This part of the product description doesn't specify the new iMac specifically, however under the features tab it mentions:
Which is at least recognizing that the 27" imac exists. It would be good to see what price this ends up on the shelves at (I'd say over $100 if its an active converter), and hopefully someone can pick one up and try it out.
Dying to see some youtube videos of people getting their xbox/ps3s going on their imac display! Its the deciding factor on me purchasing one! get to it people!
That's an interesting link and it does seem to indicate that Belkin is going to offer a converter that will allow HDMI input into the new 27" iMac. The statements about the new MacBook Pro and MacBook Air, however, don't make much sense -- are they suggesting that a new MacBook will also offer video input?
But I have a computer that's more powerful than my previous Power Mac and I can carry it around everywhere I go.
The difference is cost. You can get a lot more iMac than you can with a MB/MBP. The top end MBP costs the same as a bottom end Mac Pro.
Dying to see some youtube videos of people getting their xbox/ps3s going on their imac display! Its the deciding factor on me purchasing one! get to it people!
I sent an e-mail to iFixit to see if they could test it which they have. They found out that just a simple HDMI-mDP cable doesn't do the trick to display PS3 (slim) video on the iMac. Too bad!
What is the way to find out if Apple is planning some kind of adapter for this? And to find out what type of (conversion) hardware they already included in the iMac? Clearly a lot of people will be wanting this!
i'll wait until the PS3 can book hooked on it... or it's gonna be a 21.5" with an HD TV..
What is the way to find out if Apple is planning some kind of adapter for this? And to find out what type of (conversion) hardware they already included in the iMac? Clearly a lot of people will be wanting this!
They must be. There Tech Specs do state “adapter sold seperatel”, but it also ddly states that it has mDP for OUTPUT to another monitor and DP for INPUT from another source. For this reason I had thought the 27” imac would have separate input and output ports. This is not the case. Why change up the wording unless they are planning on having a special dongle adapter?
From Apple’s website...
Mini DisplayPort output port with support for DVI, VGA, and dual-link DVI (adapters sold separately). 27-inch models also [Bs]upport input from external DisplayPort sources[/B] (adapters sold separately).