My contention wasn't that there wasn't a cost savings. I'm sure there is some. My contention is your claimed figure.
That link still doesn't tell me where you get your costs, no figures are given. Your $100 figure seems pretty darn steep given that it's a mature standard and that article shows a single IC can handle multiple standards. They don't offer a part number that I have noticed to try and find the chip price.
Given that D-SUB VGA is still being offered, it would probably take several years to get rid of DVI. I think Apple's LED Cinema Display is the only one that gets rid of DVI and older.
My contention wasn't that there wasn't a cost savings. I'm sure there is some. My contention is your claimed figure.
That link still doesn't tell me where you get your costs, no figures are given. Your $100 figure seems pretty darn steep given that it's a mature standard and that article shows a single IC can handle multiple standards. They don't offer a part number that I have noticed to try and find the chip price.
Given that D-SUB VGA is still being offered, it would probably take several years to get rid of DVI. I think Apple's LED Cinema Display is the only one that gets rid of DVI and older.
It's the number I've seen for monitors in the $500 price range (list). More expensive monitors with more complex circuits will lose more, and cheaper ones will lose less.
24" monitors that cost a bit over $400 aren't exactly professional.
Why don't you check these things out first?
Displayport has one big advantage over other ports. Monitors will cost much less, as most of the electronics in the display isn't needed.
I think that $15 for an adapter vs saving over $100 on the monitor is a pretty good tradeoff.
I had simply looked at one brand of monitor and found it was only their larger monitors that had display port. Not sure I had all day to check out every monitor made by every manufacture.
However what I can tell you is with the backing of Sony and Intel there is a very good chance Light Peak will replace everything.
Also 400.00 is fairly expensive compared to most 24" monitors these days which are sold in the mid 200 dollar range. A 400.00 24" monitor was about 2 years ago. Three out of four 24" montiors Dell sells are in the mid 200 range. Ther other being in the mid 500 range which provides most major connections.
While we are at is its also well known that VESA adopts either obsolete or failed standards/connectors.
Apple is really the only one using display port and it will soon be a obsolete connection.
I had simply looked at one brand of monitor and found it was only their larger monitors that had display port. Not sure I had all day to check out every monitor made by every manufacture.
However what I can tell you is with the backing of Sony and Intel there is a very good chance Light Peak will replace everything.
Also 400.00 is fairly expensive compared to most 24" monitors these days which are sold in the mid 200 dollar range. A 400.00 24" monitor was about 2 years ago. Three out of four 24" montiors Dell sells are in the mid 200 range. Ther other being in the mid 500 range which provides most major connections.
While we are at is its also well known that VESA adopts either obsolete or failed standards/connectors.
Apple is really the only one using display port and it will soon be a obsolete connection.
You are really fishing now. $400 for a good quality 24" monitor isn't expensive, and you know it. These aren't by any means expensive. Can you find cheaper ones?Sure. So what? This is still new. In 6 months, even cheaper monitors will have it. You know that.
What about the $3,000 24" monitors? Why don't you compare these to them?
You are really fishing now. $400 for a good quality 24" monitor isn't expensive, and you know it. These aren't by any means expensive. Can you find cheaper ones?Sure. So what? This is still new. In 6 months, even cheaper monitors will have it. You know that.
What about the $3,000 24" monitors? Why don't you compare these to them?
Don't start saying silly things about VESA.
I didn't say its expensive for a good quality monitor only that most monitors these day aer offered in the mid 200 price range. Seeing that most 24" monitors were in the mid 400 range two years ago very few people are going to spend up when they can get full HD for under 300.00.
This isn't a case of trying hard to find cheap monitors its actually the reverse the expensive ones are in the minority.
Most users could care less how their monitor is connected and the ones that do care want HDMI so the can connect their Xbox or PS3.
We are in an HDMI world right now and Displayport is not the next big thing, its Light Peak.
No one on any large scale other then Apple is using Displayport.
That doesn't mean its bad technology only means its most likely not one to last.
I didn't say its expensive for a good quality monitor only that most monitors these day aer offered in the mid 200 price range. Seeing that most 24" monitors were in the mid 400 range two years ago very few people are going to spend up when they can get full HD for under 300.00.
This isn't a case of trying hard to find cheap monitors its actually the reverse the expensive ones are in the minority.
Most users could care less how their monitor is connected and the ones that do care want HDMI so the can connect their Xbox or PS3.
We are in an HDMI world right now and Displayport is not the next big thing, its Light Peak.
No one on any large scale other then Apple is using Displayport.
That doesn't mean its bad technology only means its most likely not one to last.
Two years ago, most 24" monitors were in the $600 price range. Today, the average is around $400, though the numbers constantly drop.
Most people with XBox's or PS3's are connecting them to their Tv's, which is where they are expected to be connected.
HDMI is another older standard which will likely go away after a while.
Two years ago, most 24" monitors were in the $600 price range. Today, the average is around $400, though the numbers constantly drop.
Most people with XBox's or PS3's are connecting them to their Tv's, which is where they are expected to be connected.
HDMI is another older standard which will likely go away after a while.
You are right most people do connect their xbox or ps3 to a TV. However alot of gamers also connect them to their computer this is why the high end montiors come with so many connections.
I don't see HDMI going away anytime soon. Every major tv comes with HDMI and to the best of my knowledge there aren't any cable or sat boxes that support displayport. Hell for some HDMI is now just getting support.
You are right most people do connect their xbox or ps3 to a TV. However alot of gamers also connect them to their computer this is why the high end montiors come with so many connections.
I know a lot of gamers, and I don't know any, except for those who have NO Tv, who connect them to their monitor.
Quote:
I don't see HDMI going away anytime soon. Every major tv comes with HDMI and to the best of my knowledge there aren't any cable or sat boxes that support displayport. Hell for some HDMI is now just getting support.
As we keep saying, DP is still pretty new. It's also not aimed towards the Tv market. That doesn't mean that its advantages won't be used at some point. I'll bet that this time next year, we'll see both Tv's and sources with DP. This will particularly be true as more people migrate to computers as their audio/video centers
I don't think he was doubting that elimination of circuitry lowers cost. At least that's not what I was doubting.
It's the "[$100 cheaper]" assertion that was doubted. The premise you're getting at is quite sound. But perhaps just overstated. DP will eventually be cheaper, just not $100 cheaper per display.
You are right most people do connect their xbox or ps3 to a TV. However alot of gamers also connect them to their computer this is why the high end montiors come with so many connections.
This seems especially true of younger people. College students or children living at home frequently have a computer in their bedroom or dorm room. Now that computer displays are no longer tiny, many people are opting to use a single display for both TV and computing. (Man have things have changed since I was in school )
That and similar scenarios certainly exist. The only question is, how typical is such a desire among paying customers?
As computing displays get bigger each year, the sharing of a display between computing and TV becomes increasingly pertinent. Not that I'm arguing against display port. But rather just pointing out that somehow it will have to be straightened out. No matter which way you slice it right now, someone's needs aren't met. By no means a crisis. But something still worthy of critique and continued effort by all the manufacturers involved.
I don't think he was doubting that elimination of circuitry lowers cost. At least that's not what I was doubting.
It's the "[$100 cheaper]" assertion that was doubted. The premise you're getting at is quite sound. But perhaps just overstated. DP will eventually be cheaper, just not $100 cheaper per display.
That's what I was reading. A majority of the electronics will be eliminated on DP only monitors. The power supply will be smaller. The other connectors and their associated circuitry will also be gone. The case will be simpler etc.
As much as 25% of the cost of the display may be gone in a medium priced model.
Right now, that comes out to about $100.
Of course, we can't go by Apple's display, because it's going to cost more, but otherwise, yes, a big difference is expected.
But we won't see that with current models that have everything that non DP displays have in addition to the DP. No savings there.
AMD is releasing high-end GPUs with mini-DisplayPort. What we see below in the pics is the 5970 (top) with 2xDVI+mDP replacing the 5870 (bottom) with 2xDVI+HDMI+DP.
I don't know if this is the correct place to ask this question (on a stale thread no less), but I was informed by Apple tech support today that with a minidisplayport to Dual-DVI connector, I could simultaneously run TWO external monitors (1920 x 1080) off of a mac book pro.
For the sake of avoiding headaches caused by extremely knowledgeable staff as happened below in the quoted section, can anyone here verify that it does indeed work?
Thanks, sad Mac Fanboy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Messiah
I've just had a shouting match with a 'Specialist' at my local AppleStore, informing him that he and his team of 'Geniuses' were wrong - the Mini DisplayPort IS capable of driving 30" Cinema Displays.
According to him, and his Genius mates, Apple doesn't officially support the 30" Cinema Display via Mini Display Port on the original aluminum MacBooks or mDP enabled Mac minis. According to him, the only machine capable of supporting a 30" Cinema Display via Mini DisplayPort is the aluminium MacBook Pro, and the new plastic unibody MacBooks and the latest version of the Mac mini. He didn't have an answer as to why I was experiencing problems with my MacBook Pro as well.
When I showed him the specs on Apple's website, he informed me that the Apple website had nothing to do with the Apple Retail Store I was standing in, and that he couldn't comment on the content of the website. Convenient.
It's interesting that the ProCare mambership that I purchased has also been fuckall use to me - it took the store 72 hours (so much for 'First on bench') to get back to me explaining that they couldn't find a fault with my 30" Cinema Display, even when I provided them with two video clips of the problem occuring.
So the moral of the story is that even if Apple will say that something will work, chances are it won't, and when you tackle them, they'll deny they even said it in the first place even when you present them with evidence to the contrary. So much for Apple coming first in Customer Support.
I don't know if this is the correct place to ask this question (on a stale thread no less), but I was informed by Apple tech support today that with a minidisplayport to Dual-DVI connector, I could simultaneously run TWO external monitors (1920 x 1080) off of a mac book pro.
For the sake of avoiding headaches caused by extremely knowledgeable staff as happened below in the quoted section, can anyone here verify that it does indeed work?
Thanks, sad Mac Fanboy
That is NOT correct. Dual-link DVI is for driving very large monitors (30") not two monitors. If Apple told you that, shame on them. With a Mac mini, you could run two displays but it requires both the mini-displayport and mini-DVI connectors, which it has. With the MacBook Pro, you'll only be able to run one external display and the built-in display.
I don't know if this is the correct place to ask this question (on a stale thread no less), but I was informed by Apple tech support today that with a minidisplayport to Dual-DVI connector, I could simultaneously run TWO external monitors (1920 x 1080) off of a mac book pro.
As Undo Redo says, that's not quite true. Dual link is not the same as dual port.
Display Port can operate multiple monitors from one port, I haven't seen anyone support that feature yet. I know it can't be done with Apple's current LED Cinema Display without a special adapter, there is no output port to chain the next display. Given that Apple doesn't support audio over DP, they might not really support multiple monitors off DP either.
It is scary that Apple steered me wrong. I was already planning my upgrade path and told several people about the great new capabilities of the mac book pro (two external monitors).
Thanks Undo Redo and JeffDM. I will keep my money in my pocket until I see it work. (and maybe tell some people not to rush out and get mac book pro). I am glad I decided to check here.
-now CONFUSED Mac Fanboy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undo Redo
That is NOT correct. Dual-link DVI is for driving very large monitors (30") not two monitors. If Apple told you that, shame on them. With a Mac mini, you could run two displays but it requires both the mini-displayport and mini-DVI connectors, which it has. With the MacBook Pro, you'll only be able to run one external display and the built-in display.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
As Undo Redo says, that's not quite true. Dual link is not the same as dual port.
Display Port can operate multiple monitors from one port, I haven't seen anyone support that feature yet. I know it can't be done with Apple's current LED Cinema Display without a special adapter, there is no output port to chain the next display. Given that Apple doesn't support audio over DP, they might not really support multiple monitors off DP either.
Comments
Doubt it all you like Jeff. That's the fact.
There will always be cheap, older models repackaged to sell for very little.
http://www2.electronicproducts.com/D...2008-html.aspx
My contention wasn't that there wasn't a cost savings. I'm sure there is some. My contention is your claimed figure.
That link still doesn't tell me where you get your costs, no figures are given. Your $100 figure seems pretty darn steep given that it's a mature standard and that article shows a single IC can handle multiple standards. They don't offer a part number that I have noticed to try and find the chip price.
Given that D-SUB VGA is still being offered, it would probably take several years to get rid of DVI. I think Apple's LED Cinema Display is the only one that gets rid of DVI and older.
There's still much more media without DTS than with it, because it got established later, as few devices had it due to licensing issues.
But when those issues were resolved, it became cheaper to include, and so came on many more devices.
It still follows what I said.
No, it says exactly the opposite. Even though DTS is optional, you will rarely ever find a player without it.
Market tends to fix this sort of thing on it's own. Requiring audio when it's not needed just adds unnecessary costs.
My contention wasn't that there wasn't a cost savings. I'm sure there is some. My contention is your claimed figure.
That link still doesn't tell me where you get your costs, no figures are given. Your $100 figure seems pretty darn steep given that it's a mature standard and that article shows a single IC can handle multiple standards. They don't offer a part number that I have noticed to try and find the chip price.
Given that D-SUB VGA is still being offered, it would probably take several years to get rid of DVI. I think Apple's LED Cinema Display is the only one that gets rid of DVI and older.
It's the number I've seen for monitors in the $500 price range (list). More expensive monitors with more complex circuits will lose more, and cheaper ones will lose less.
No, it says exactly the opposite. Even though DTS is optional, you will rarely ever find a player without it.
Market tends to fix this sort of thing on it's own. Requiring audio when it's not needed just adds unnecessary costs.
It isn't optional any more than Dolby is.
Optional means that the user can install it themselves, and that the manufacturer doesn't include it.
We've already had people show that it isn't true.
http://www.google.com/search?client=...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
24" monitors that cost a bit over $400 aren't exactly professional.
Why don't you check these things out first?
Displayport has one big advantage over other ports. Monitors will cost much less, as most of the electronics in the display isn't needed.
I think that $15 for an adapter vs saving over $100 on the monitor is a pretty good tradeoff.
I had simply looked at one brand of monitor and found it was only their larger monitors that had display port. Not sure I had all day to check out every monitor made by every manufacture.
However what I can tell you is with the backing of Sony and Intel there is a very good chance Light Peak will replace everything.
Also 400.00 is fairly expensive compared to most 24" monitors these days which are sold in the mid 200 dollar range. A 400.00 24" monitor was about 2 years ago. Three out of four 24" montiors Dell sells are in the mid 200 range. Ther other being in the mid 500 range which provides most major connections.
While we are at is its also well known that VESA adopts either obsolete or failed standards/connectors.
Apple is really the only one using display port and it will soon be a obsolete connection.
It isn't optional any more than Dolby is.
Optional means that the user can install it themselves, and that the manufacturer doesn't include it.
Are you trying to say that DTS audio decoding is required on a DVD player?
I had simply looked at one brand of monitor and found it was only their larger monitors that had display port. Not sure I had all day to check out every monitor made by every manufacture.
However what I can tell you is with the backing of Sony and Intel there is a very good chance Light Peak will replace everything.
Also 400.00 is fairly expensive compared to most 24" monitors these days which are sold in the mid 200 dollar range. A 400.00 24" monitor was about 2 years ago. Three out of four 24" montiors Dell sells are in the mid 200 range. Ther other being in the mid 500 range which provides most major connections.
While we are at is its also well known that VESA adopts either obsolete or failed standards/connectors.
Apple is really the only one using display port and it will soon be a obsolete connection.
You are really fishing now. $400 for a good quality 24" monitor isn't expensive, and you know it. These aren't by any means expensive. Can you find cheaper ones?Sure. So what? This is still new. In 6 months, even cheaper monitors will have it. You know that.
What about the $3,000 24" monitors? Why don't you compare these to them?
Don't start saying silly things about VESA.
Are you trying to say that DTS audio decoding is required on a DVD player?
Did you understand what I said?
You are really fishing now. $400 for a good quality 24" monitor isn't expensive, and you know it. These aren't by any means expensive. Can you find cheaper ones?Sure. So what? This is still new. In 6 months, even cheaper monitors will have it. You know that.
What about the $3,000 24" monitors? Why don't you compare these to them?
Don't start saying silly things about VESA.
I didn't say its expensive for a good quality monitor only that most monitors these day aer offered in the mid 200 price range. Seeing that most 24" monitors were in the mid 400 range two years ago very few people are going to spend up when they can get full HD for under 300.00.
This isn't a case of trying hard to find cheap monitors its actually the reverse the expensive ones are in the minority.
Most users could care less how their monitor is connected and the ones that do care want HDMI so the can connect their Xbox or PS3.
We are in an HDMI world right now and Displayport is not the next big thing, its Light Peak.
No one on any large scale other then Apple is using Displayport.
That doesn't mean its bad technology only means its most likely not one to last.
I didn't say its expensive for a good quality monitor only that most monitors these day aer offered in the mid 200 price range. Seeing that most 24" monitors were in the mid 400 range two years ago very few people are going to spend up when they can get full HD for under 300.00.
This isn't a case of trying hard to find cheap monitors its actually the reverse the expensive ones are in the minority.
Most users could care less how their monitor is connected and the ones that do care want HDMI so the can connect their Xbox or PS3.
We are in an HDMI world right now and Displayport is not the next big thing, its Light Peak.
No one on any large scale other then Apple is using Displayport.
That doesn't mean its bad technology only means its most likely not one to last.
Two years ago, most 24" monitors were in the $600 price range. Today, the average is around $400, though the numbers constantly drop.
Most people with XBox's or PS3's are connecting them to their Tv's, which is where they are expected to be connected.
HDMI is another older standard which will likely go away after a while.
Two years ago, most 24" monitors were in the $600 price range. Today, the average is around $400, though the numbers constantly drop.
Most people with XBox's or PS3's are connecting them to their Tv's, which is where they are expected to be connected.
HDMI is another older standard which will likely go away after a while.
You are right most people do connect their xbox or ps3 to a TV. However alot of gamers also connect them to their computer this is why the high end montiors come with so many connections.
I don't see HDMI going away anytime soon. Every major tv comes with HDMI and to the best of my knowledge there aren't any cable or sat boxes that support displayport. Hell for some HDMI is now just getting support.
You are right most people do connect their xbox or ps3 to a TV. However alot of gamers also connect them to their computer this is why the high end montiors come with so many connections.
I know a lot of gamers, and I don't know any, except for those who have NO Tv, who connect them to their monitor.
I don't see HDMI going away anytime soon. Every major tv comes with HDMI and to the best of my knowledge there aren't any cable or sat boxes that support displayport. Hell for some HDMI is now just getting support.
As we keep saying, DP is still pretty new. It's also not aimed towards the Tv market. That doesn't mean that its advantages won't be used at some point. I'll bet that this time next year, we'll see both Tv's and sources with DP. This will particularly be true as more people migrate to computers as their audio/video centers
Doubt it all you like Jeff. That's the fact.
There will always be cheap, older models repackaged to sell for very little.
http://www2.electronicproducts.com/D...2008-html.aspx
I don't think he was doubting that elimination of circuitry lowers cost. At least that's not what I was doubting.
It's the "[$100 cheaper]" assertion that was doubted. The premise you're getting at is quite sound. But perhaps just overstated. DP will eventually be cheaper, just not $100 cheaper per display.
You are right most people do connect their xbox or ps3 to a TV. However alot of gamers also connect them to their computer this is why the high end montiors come with so many connections.
This seems especially true of younger people. College students or children living at home frequently have a computer in their bedroom or dorm room. Now that computer displays are no longer tiny, many people are opting to use a single display for both TV and computing. (Man have things have changed since I was in school
That and similar scenarios certainly exist. The only question is, how typical is such a desire among paying customers?
As computing displays get bigger each year, the sharing of a display between computing and TV becomes increasingly pertinent. Not that I'm arguing against display port. But rather just pointing out that somehow it will have to be straightened out. No matter which way you slice it right now, someone's needs aren't met. By no means a crisis. But something still worthy of critique and continued effort by all the manufacturers involved.
I don't think he was doubting that elimination of circuitry lowers cost. At least that's not what I was doubting.
It's the "[$100 cheaper]" assertion that was doubted. The premise you're getting at is quite sound. But perhaps just overstated. DP will eventually be cheaper, just not $100 cheaper per display.
That's what I was reading. A majority of the electronics will be eliminated on DP only monitors. The power supply will be smaller. The other connectors and their associated circuitry will also be gone. The case will be simpler etc.
As much as 25% of the cost of the display may be gone in a medium priced model.
Right now, that comes out to about $100.
Of course, we can't go by Apple's display, because it's going to cost more, but otherwise, yes, a big difference is expected.
But we won't see that with current models that have everything that non DP displays have in addition to the DP. No savings there.
AMD is releasing high-end GPUs with mini-DisplayPort. What we see below in the pics is the 5970 (top) with 2xDVI+mDP replacing the 5870 (bottom) with 2xDVI+HDMI+DP.
For the sake of avoiding headaches caused by extremely knowledgeable staff as happened below in the quoted section, can anyone here verify that it does indeed work?
Thanks, sad Mac Fanboy
I've just had a shouting match with a 'Specialist' at my local AppleStore, informing him that he and his team of 'Geniuses' were wrong - the Mini DisplayPort IS capable of driving 30" Cinema Displays.
According to him, and his Genius mates, Apple doesn't officially support the 30" Cinema Display via Mini Display Port on the original aluminum MacBooks or mDP enabled Mac minis. According to him, the only machine capable of supporting a 30" Cinema Display via Mini DisplayPort is the aluminium MacBook Pro, and the new plastic unibody MacBooks and the latest version of the Mac mini. He didn't have an answer as to why I was experiencing problems with my MacBook Pro as well.
When I showed him the specs on Apple's website, he informed me that the Apple website had nothing to do with the Apple Retail Store I was standing in, and that he couldn't comment on the content of the website. Convenient.
It's interesting that the ProCare mambership that I purchased has also been fuckall use to me - it took the store 72 hours (so much for 'First on bench') to get back to me explaining that they couldn't find a fault with my 30" Cinema Display, even when I provided them with two video clips of the problem occuring.
So the moral of the story is that even if Apple will say that something will work, chances are it won't, and when you tackle them, they'll deny they even said it in the first place even when you present them with evidence to the contrary. So much for Apple coming first in Customer Support.
Oh, and ProCare is a REAL waste of money!
I don't know if this is the correct place to ask this question (on a stale thread no less), but I was informed by Apple tech support today that with a minidisplayport to Dual-DVI connector, I could simultaneously run TWO external monitors (1920 x 1080) off of a mac book pro.
For the sake of avoiding headaches caused by extremely knowledgeable staff as happened below in the quoted section, can anyone here verify that it does indeed work?
Thanks, sad Mac Fanboy
That is NOT correct. Dual-link DVI is for driving very large monitors (30") not two monitors. If Apple told you that, shame on them. With a Mac mini, you could run two displays but it requires both the mini-displayport and mini-DVI connectors, which it has. With the MacBook Pro, you'll only be able to run one external display and the built-in display.
I don't know if this is the correct place to ask this question (on a stale thread no less), but I was informed by Apple tech support today that with a minidisplayport to Dual-DVI connector, I could simultaneously run TWO external monitors (1920 x 1080) off of a mac book pro.
As Undo Redo says, that's not quite true. Dual link is not the same as dual port.
Display Port can operate multiple monitors from one port, I haven't seen anyone support that feature yet. I know it can't be done with Apple's current LED Cinema Display without a special adapter, there is no output port to chain the next display. Given that Apple doesn't support audio over DP, they might not really support multiple monitors off DP either.
Thanks Undo Redo and JeffDM. I will keep my money in my pocket until I see it work. (and maybe tell some people not to rush out and get mac book pro). I am glad I decided to check here.
-now CONFUSED Mac Fanboy
That is NOT correct. Dual-link DVI is for driving very large monitors (30") not two monitors. If Apple told you that, shame on them. With a Mac mini, you could run two displays but it requires both the mini-displayport and mini-DVI connectors, which it has. With the MacBook Pro, you'll only be able to run one external display and the built-in display.
As Undo Redo says, that's not quite true. Dual link is not the same as dual port.
Display Port can operate multiple monitors from one port, I haven't seen anyone support that feature yet. I know it can't be done with Apple's current LED Cinema Display without a special adapter, there is no output port to chain the next display. Given that Apple doesn't support audio over DP, they might not really support multiple monitors off DP either.