Why not two ADC ports?
I think Apple should do the following:
[1] Provide two ADC ports on each graphics card.
[2] Sell or provide a simple ADC->dvi converter that drops power and usb. Since (as far as I know) ADC carries regular old dvi along with power and usb, the converter would be a cheap little wire redirection widget, no conversion required.
People with two Apple displays would have a nice clean setup, and anyone who has dvi or vga displays can use a converter to step down.
Maybe Apple's theory is that very few people use two displays anyway, so it's best to provide the simplest solution (no adapter needed) for the majority of the market.
[1] Provide two ADC ports on each graphics card.
[2] Sell or provide a simple ADC->dvi converter that drops power and usb. Since (as far as I know) ADC carries regular old dvi along with power and usb, the converter would be a cheap little wire redirection widget, no conversion required.
People with two Apple displays would have a nice clean setup, and anyone who has dvi or vga displays can use a converter to step down.
Maybe Apple's theory is that very few people use two displays anyway, so it's best to provide the simplest solution (no adapter needed) for the majority of the market.
Comments
Originally posted by Placebo
How about the thousands of people that still use DVI monitors? ADC is a very proprietary standard, and it is nice to be able to use non-apple monitors. For example...professional users that need to use monitors that Apple doesn't have. And, of course, pro users that still use CRTs for color correction.
i know, but, am i correct in thinking that adc->dvi is a cheap and lossless conversion?
ADC is a very proprietary standard
No it isn't. that's another urban myth. Anyone can use ADC. they just don't/
choices: a $100 adapter or diff monitor
p.s. to answer your question i think its a matter of power draw...
Originally posted by Placebo
How about the thousands of people that still use DVI monitors?
I believe this was covered in point #2 of the original post.
Originally posted by Aquatic
ADC is the ****ing dumbest thing ever. Didn't Apple ****ing learn after ADB and "Apple" Ethernet (AAUI) and all their other super-proprietary crap from the 90s?! This particular little snag goes way against the grain of the current trend at Apple of standards. I am waiting for ADC to go away. It's just a pain in the ass. **** whoever thought it up at Apple. Probably steve jobs.
well, at least it has actual advantages over the standard that it is replacing (dvi). adb, aaui, and the other proprietary apple display connector from the early and mid 90s all were different but had the same functionality. ADC, on the other hand, does remove two wires from a setup, making things easier, faster, and neater to install, which is of varying value depending on what you are doing. also it's nice to have two usb ports built into the display, without taking up any ports on the machine. so i guess what i'm saying is, if you do want to get an apple display, then all the advantages together do make for a slicker and nicer setup, but if you don't then it's just cumbersome, and can definitely be alienating for consumers.
That said, no one uses it other than Apple. By all rights, it's better and digital displays SHOULD use ADC instead of DVI. But Apple's the only one. So they should drop it.
ADB was better than PS/2. It was hot-swappable, provided more power, had the ability to be daisy chained, and wasn't touchy about which port the mouse was plugged into and which port the keyboard was plugged into. But it wasn't a great decision to use ADB all those years because it was incompatible with 95% of all keyboards and mice out there. You had to buy an ADB input device, which cost more than a generic PS/2 one.
AAUI ethernet was faster than normal ethernet. I think it was something like 15 Mbps. Even so, everyone else used regular ethernet, and if you wanted to use ethernet on a Mac that had an AAUI port you had to buy a transceiver that reduced the speed to 10 Mbps anyway (probably lower actually). So that was another dumb move.
Both AAUI and ADB are dead. Why not ADC? It's stupid. Imagine if all of Apple's displays used DVI instead... they'd get lots of people buying them who use PCs. Sure, they're not using Macs, but Apple's getting just as much money from selling a 23" Cinema display (which is an excellent deal, as is the 20") to a PC user as they are selling it to a Mac user. Apple opened the iPod up to non-Mac markets because it was so popular. I think they should do the same with some of their other stuff, like the displays. They look cooler than most LCDs too.
It makes BOTH my apple 20" LCDs nicer looking and my desktop cleaner.
BTW, I don't want more cables if it means 1 out of 2250 bargain hunting PC "cheap = good enough" people choose to buy it instead of a cheap ass Fry's off market POS...
Wooh hoo! ADC or whoever invented it for governor!!
Second displays are uncommon enough (and they're non-Apple displays often enough - e.g., CRTs for color-correction work) that DVI is appropriate.
The conversion from ADC -> DVI is trivial, because ADC carries a DVI signal. Likewise, the conversion from DVI -> VGA is trivial, because DVI carries a VGA signal as well as the digital one. It's going the other way that complicates things.
1. What about PB's? Some guy said that going DVI-ADC complicates things, ADC-DVI doesn't. If that's the case, perhaps Apple should provide an ADC port on PB's and include an adapter or two (or make them availiable as $10 options.) True, DVI is more common, but a DVI-ADC adapter from Apple costs $100, a ADC-DVI adapter coud probablyh cost $12.
2. What placebo & friends seem to be forgetting is that ADC is open, not closed. It's everyone else's fault ADC isn't used often.
3. While were talking Apple closed stuff, what about their special DB-15 display connector? Perhaps they used it for PnP (PC PnP wasn't around in '87.) If anyone has info, post or e-mail me at [email protected].
4. What about their other speccial display connector, on first-gen PowerMacs?
5. Back on subject, perhaps it's because of the fact that they use stock vid-cards AFAIK. Apple probaby doesn't have much influence over NVIDIA or ATI.
Btw. I have my iBook hooked up to a 17" LCD via VGA.
Originally posted by ryaxnb
A few pointers:
1. What about PB's? ... perhaps Apple should provide an ADC port on PB's and include an adapter or two...
PowerBooks don't have enough power for ADC.
BTW, there are ADC-to-DVI cables out there for $35.
Originally posted by Amorph
Likewise, the conversion from DVI -> VGA is trivial, because DVI carries a VGA signal as well as the digital one.
DVI carries an analog signal? Every video card that sends out DVI is required to also render a analog signal? I guess that would explain why DVI->VGA adapters are so cheap and don't need extra power for the D/A conversion hardware (because there isn't any).
"5. Back on subject, perhaps it's because of the fact that they use stock vid-cards AFAIK. Apple probaby doesn't have much influence over NVIDIA or ATI.
"
All Apple Display Cards that have an ADC port are OEM cards especially manufactured for Apple.
No other PC manufacturer uses ADC ports.
For ADC you need an extra power supply to the cards (23 V afaik) which is provided by a small additional edge connector on the cards near their back end.
This configuration is not stock at all.
One problem could be the lack of ADC->Analog-VGA adaptors.
Originally posted by johnjosephbachir
DVI carries an analog signal? Every video card that sends out DVI is required to also render a analog signal? I guess that would explain why DVI->VGA adapters are so cheap and don't need extra power for the D/A conversion hardware (because there isn't any).
DVI-I also carries analog VGA, DVI-D is only digital.
So there might also be cards that are fully digital.
But I highly doubt that, just because digital displays are not widespread enough yet.
It's just a quite simple and common DAC chip on the cards to make the digital data analog.
Originally posted by johnjosephbachir
adb... and the other proprietary apple display connector from the early and mid 90s all were different but had the same functionality.
This is NOT true of ADB. At the time ADB was introduced (with the SE and Mac II introduction of 1987) there were two "standards" for connecting keyboard and mouse to PCs: serial connections and the PS/2 KB and mouse connector, which while it's become somewhat standard today was a weirdo IBM thing that itself had been introduced that year.
Neither of those two solutions could be daisy-chained, which was a huge advantage for ADB, in that it could provide for, say, a tablet and a mouse on the same machine.
USB encompasses just about all the same functionality as ADB, but Apple adopted that first and completely replaced ADB with it before it really caught on on the PC side.
-- Mark
Originally posted by alfrank
DVI-I also carries analog VGA, DVI-D is only digital.
So there might also be cards that are fully digital.
But I highly doubt that, just because digital displays are not widespread enough yet.
It's just a quite simple and common DAC chip on the cards to make the digital data analog.
I remember seeing some REALLY cheap Radeon 9000s on NewEgg once and a few of them said "Does not work with DVI-VGA adapters" so that must mean they use DVI-D for the DVI port. I didn't know there were two types, I assumed that they were just poorly made cards
Originally posted by wmf
PowerBooks don't have enough power for ADC.
BTW, there are ADC-to-DVI cables out there for $35.
Oh. So much for that idea.