No, just the standard in the devices that more commonly use it. I can guarantee you 110% that I can run higher than 1920x1080 coming from my video card using an hdmi cable. Absolutely has nothing to do with the cable (it's just pulses of 1's and 0's afterall.)
Sorry, am I reading this wrong? It most certainly has everything to do with the cable. The cable design spec of HDMI has bandwidth limitations before you get signal loss. There are only so many pulses you can send before you get signal loss.
DisplayPort design allows for more bandwidth - i.e. more pusles. It's that simple.
A lot of us agree, melgross! Please have AI do something about it - like, take him out to the woodshed, or put him to pasture, or something...... anything....
But it's been around for quite a while, and as I said earlier, it took five years before more than a few had it.
You're rarely fair in your assessments. Try to be, and give DP, which is really just starting out, a couple of years before you make your definitive statements about failure.
Considering that 1.3 has been out for years, and not every device has it yet, and not all HDMI cables are capable of handling the highest specs of 1.3, are you going to call 1.4 a failure, if when a year from now, only a very few, high end components use it?
But it's been around for quite a while, and as I said earlier, it took five years before more than a few had it.
You're rarely fair in your assessments. Try to be, and give DP, which is really just starting out, a couple of years before you make your definitive statements about failure.
Not to the naked eye at six feet away which is where the majority of large screen displays will be viewed. Even still, the difference is splitting hairs.
What does the "naked eye" have to do with anything when you need the display's full resolution for desktop screen space? So you think it is better to have only 19200x1080 pixels instead of 2560x1600 pixels on a computer display? I always thought more pixels meant more screen space. What's the point of having them if the display connecter can't support the resolution?
Do you even know what you're arguing?
The point of the mini-DisplayPort was to be able to connect smaller devices to larger displays. mini-HDMI and mini-DVI couldn't handle the bandwidth required. Even on desktop systems it required dual channels to support larger resolution displays. Obviously a new standard was needed to support them.
Funny you lambast Apple for not supporting Blu-Ray. Well that's a counter argument to what you're debating here. If you sit 10+ feet away from your TV set, then why in the hell would you need Blu-Ray over regular DVD? You couldn't possibly notice the difference from your couch!
Display Port will eventually be kicked to the curb just like firewire, another Apple baby, was- even by it's own parent.
I'm sure it will be, just like they've kicked several technologies to the curb when they outlived their usefulness, even universal technologies like floppy disks.
What does the "naked eye" have to do with anything when you need the display's full resolution for desktop screen space? So you think it is better to have only 19200x1080 pixels instead of 2560x1600 pixels on a computer display? I always thought more pixels meant more screen space. What's the point of having them if the display connecter can't support the resolution?
Do you even know what you're arguing?
The point of the mini-DisplayPort was to be able to connect smaller devices to larger displays. mini-HDMI and mini-DVI couldn't handle the bandwidth required. Even on desktop systems it required dual channels to support larger resolution displays. Obviously a new standard was needed to support them.
Funny you lambast Apple for not supporting Blu-Ray. Well that's a counter argument to what you're debating here. If you sit 10+ feet away from your TV set, then why in the hell would you need Blu-Ray over regular DVD? You couldn't possibly notice the difference from your couch!
I stated DP is a professional tool not for the consumers which is why the iMac deserves HDMI.
You've obviously never seen a blu-ray as you can, my friend, oh yes you can.
The ones that's universally used the most and I'll make the most money off of- in this case HDMI.
HDMI isn't universally used on a PC. I thought we already covered this earlier on this very page? I doubt that even double digits of folks use HDMI on a PC. I'm betting the video buffs, and those that occasionally hook it up to their TV. Possibly if they buy a monitor that supports it and supplies the cable. Most PC's ship with a DVI connector and cable.
I find it unlikely that folks would just go out and replace a serviceable DVI cable that came with their display or PC, just to try an HDMI connector.
I'm sure it will be, just like they've kicked several technologies to the curb when they outlived their usefulness, even universal technologies like floppy disks.
And why SD slots just now in 2009? I've been waiting over an hour for your answer???
HDMI isn't universally used on a PC. I thought we already covered this earlier on this very page? I doubt that even double digits of folks use HDMI on a PC. I'm betting the video buffs, and those that occasionally hook it up to their TV. Possibly if they buy a monitor that supports it and supplies the cable. Most PC's ship with a DVI connector and cable.
I find it unlikely that folks would just go out and replace a serviceable DVI cable that came with their display or PC, just to try an HDMI connector.
PC laptops a plenty have HDMI to connect easily to the millions of HDTVs and monitors out there which have them and swappable cables allready attached to them.
Do any of you ever leave the Apple store? I mean -really!
That's not correct. Why don't you go and read up on this stuff before you post? You, and a few others just post what you THINK is correct much of the time. If you had actual information, much of the arguments would never happen.
You know, if you would just try to be more accurate in your posts ... you might not have to change things. Remember .... it's quicker to get it right the first time, rather than do it over again. But then again .... being right was never your strong point, was it?
Comments
No, just the standard in the devices that more commonly use it. I can guarantee you 110% that I can run higher than 1920x1080 coming from my video card using an hdmi cable. Absolutely has nothing to do with the cable (it's just pulses of 1's and 0's afterall.)
Sorry, am I reading this wrong? It most certainly has everything to do with the cable. The cable design spec of HDMI has bandwidth limitations before you get signal loss. There are only so many pulses you can send before you get signal loss.
DisplayPort design allows for more bandwidth - i.e. more pusles. It's that simple.
blah blah blather blather
You are a problem.
A lot of us agree, melgross! Please have AI do something about it - like, take him out to the woodshed, or put him to pasture, or something...... anything....
Corrected- MOST.
Walk into J and R and see for yourself.
Yes. Estimates are about 70%.
But it's been around for quite a while, and as I said earlier, it took five years before more than a few had it.
You're rarely fair in your assessments. Try to be, and give DP, which is really just starting out, a couple of years before you make your definitive statements about failure.
Which is basically a serial version of DVI, a computer connection standard.
4096×2160 in 1.4
4 cents per device and $10,000 annually per company.
In the end the truth is that its copout. Both DP and HDMI are designed and perfectly capable of doing both.
If you owned a company, which would you choose? The royalty free option, or the one that takes away from your bottom line?
4096×2160 in 1.4
Considering that 1.3 has been out for years, and not every device has it yet, and not all HDMI cables are capable of handling the highest specs of 1.3, are you going to call 1.4 a failure, if when a year from now, only a very few, high end components use it?
If you owned a company, which would you choose? The royalty free option, or the one that takes away from your bottom line?
The ones that's universally used the most and I'll make the most money off of- in this case HDMI.
Display Port will eventually be kicked to the curb just like firewire, another Apple baby, was- even by it's own parent.
Your ignorance grows daily.
You don't even know that DP was never an Apple technology.
Yes. Estimates are about 70%.
But it's been around for quite a while, and as I said earlier, it took five years before more than a few had it.
You're rarely fair in your assessments. Try to be, and give DP, which is really just starting out, a couple of years before you make your definitive statements about failure.
It has no sound for crying out loud!
Not to the naked eye at six feet away which is where the majority of large screen displays will be viewed. Even still, the difference is splitting hairs.
What does the "naked eye" have to do with anything when you need the display's full resolution for desktop screen space? So you think it is better to have only 19200x1080 pixels instead of 2560x1600 pixels on a computer display? I always thought more pixels meant more screen space. What's the point of having them if the display connecter can't support the resolution?
Do you even know what you're arguing?
The point of the mini-DisplayPort was to be able to connect smaller devices to larger displays. mini-HDMI and mini-DVI couldn't handle the bandwidth required. Even on desktop systems it required dual channels to support larger resolution displays. Obviously a new standard was needed to support them.
Funny you lambast Apple for not supporting Blu-Ray. Well that's a counter argument to what you're debating here. If you sit 10+ feet away from your TV set, then why in the hell would you need Blu-Ray over regular DVD? You couldn't possibly notice the difference from your couch!
Your ignorance grows daily.
You don't even know that DP was never an Apple technology.
I mistyped that and corrected it to miniDP- where have you been?
Display Port will eventually be kicked to the curb just like firewire, another Apple baby, was- even by it's own parent.
I'm sure it will be, just like they've kicked several technologies to the curb when they outlived their usefulness, even universal technologies like floppy disks.
What does the "naked eye" have to do with anything when you need the display's full resolution for desktop screen space? So you think it is better to have only 19200x1080 pixels instead of 2560x1600 pixels on a computer display? I always thought more pixels meant more screen space. What's the point of having them if the display connecter can't support the resolution?
Do you even know what you're arguing?
The point of the mini-DisplayPort was to be able to connect smaller devices to larger displays. mini-HDMI and mini-DVI couldn't handle the bandwidth required. Even on desktop systems it required dual channels to support larger resolution displays. Obviously a new standard was needed to support them.
Funny you lambast Apple for not supporting Blu-Ray. Well that's a counter argument to what you're debating here. If you sit 10+ feet away from your TV set, then why in the hell would you need Blu-Ray over regular DVD? You couldn't possibly notice the difference from your couch!
I stated DP is a professional tool not for the consumers which is why the iMac deserves HDMI.
You've obviously never seen a blu-ray as you can, my friend, oh yes you can.
It has no sound for crying out loud!
Actually it does:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort
The ones that's universally used the most and I'll make the most money off of- in this case HDMI.
HDMI isn't universally used on a PC. I thought we already covered this earlier on this very page? I doubt that even double digits of folks use HDMI on a PC. I'm betting the video buffs, and those that occasionally hook it up to their TV. Possibly if they buy a monitor that supports it and supplies the cable. Most PC's ship with a DVI connector and cable.
I find it unlikely that folks would just go out and replace a serviceable DVI cable that came with their display or PC, just to try an HDMI connector.
I'm sure it will be, just like they've kicked several technologies to the curb when they outlived their usefulness, even universal technologies like floppy disks.
And why SD slots just now in 2009? I've been waiting over an hour for your answer???
And why SD slots just now in 2009? I've been waiting over an hour for your answer???
Well, it was either that or a Blu-ray drive...
HDMI isn't universally used on a PC. I thought we already covered this earlier on this very page? I doubt that even double digits of folks use HDMI on a PC. I'm betting the video buffs, and those that occasionally hook it up to their TV. Possibly if they buy a monitor that supports it and supplies the cable. Most PC's ship with a DVI connector and cable.
I find it unlikely that folks would just go out and replace a serviceable DVI cable that came with their display or PC, just to try an HDMI connector.
PC laptops a plenty have HDMI to connect easily to the millions of HDTVs and monitors out there which have them and swappable cables allready attached to them.
Do any of you ever leave the Apple store? I mean -really!
It has no sound for crying out loud!
That's not correct. Why don't you go and read up on this stuff before you post? You, and a few others just post what you THINK is correct much of the time. If you had actual information, much of the arguments would never happen.
MOST. I am changing it for crying out loud.
You know, if you would just try to be more accurate in your posts ... you might not have to change things. Remember .... it's quicker to get it right the first time, rather than do it over again. But then again .... being right was never your strong point, was it?