Apple's obsession with skinny laptops are the reason we've got a clusterf*** of minPorts.
Basically yeah. From looking at the motherboard, the way things had to be arranged to get them as thin as they are didn't leave enough room for a full size display port or the firewire.
Also one slight mistake in the article, HDMI has support beyond 1080i and can be used for large dual-Link displays.
I don't think we'll have to worry about Display Ports' future: All major companies already feature the port with their new displays.
Still one thing annoys me: If there's a new standard, why do they always have to come up with several different sizes? Think of USB: my printer has a bulky full size USB port, my Olympus cam a medium-sized one, and all other equipment from iPod to harddrive have (much more convienient) mini USB plugs.
WHY not make the smallest possible solution the standard for all devices??? Must big devices necessarily have big ports and v.v.??? Always a pain...
Samsung have a 30" display using DisplayPort. But the Macbooks cannot connect to it because Apple have used the non-standard mini connector.
Also, there exists a DisplayPort-to-HDMI adapter. But Macbooks cannot use this to connect to HDMI displays, because Apple have used the non-standard mini connector.
Lenovo's ThinkPads now come with DisplayPort output, but you cannot connect it to an Apple display, because Apple have used the non-standard mini connector.
You misread what they said: the compatibility is not both ways. DisplayPort can drive a DVI/VGA monitor, but a DVI/VGA port cannot without a very expensive converter (i.e. a lot more than the $29 adapters Apple sells) drive a DisplayPort only monitor like Apple's new Cinema display. This is why it is only compatible with the new laptops.
You can compare that to Apple's DVI-to-ADC adapter. In Apple's fashion, that also includes power and USB and costs $100 listed, $70 street. Third party DVI-to-ADC costs about $40 and does not include USB.
So, I will predict Apple's DVI-to-Displayport adapter (also includes USB and sound) will list for $70 to $100. However, third party adapter (display signal only, without USB and audio) will cost $40.
Analog-to-digital adapter will be expensive. VGA is analog, so the adapter is essentially a video capture device, and since display requires low latency, it has to be a pretty high quality video capture device.
That's why you only see VGA-to-DVI-I adapter. DVI-I supports both analog and digital signals, so the adapter essentially use the analog part of DVI-I.
I don't think any VGA-to-DVI-D adapter exists, and I don't think any VGA-to-Displayport adapter will exist.
Some cheapo PC still ship with VGA port only, so they won't be able to use Displayport displays.
Can somebody explain me what's the benefit of offering the new 24" display with Display Port only? It would have cost peanuts to add an HDMI and DVI to make it fully compatibel with all equipment.
I could have plugged in my playstation or a future Blu-Ray player, or - current MBP. Do I expect too much?
Even for an owner of the new Macbooks it's of pretty limited use.
Latest marketing decisions of Apple go too far, for my liking
DisplayPort is the open standard, not Mini DisplayPort, and we don't know if the mini version will ever be part of the standard. Besides, Apple have a slightly-skewed view regarding the use of open standards within proprietary products. Think AAC or Safari. (And yes, I do know that there is nothing actually wrong in the way they interpret and implement those standards, but they do tend to operate to "the letter of the law, rather than its spirit".)
The mini and the full are both display port. The difference is in the connector size.
AAC is an open standard, Apple has done nothing to change that. Its implementation of Fairplay DRM is proprietary, but then their is no such thing as open source DRM.
I'm not sure what you are saying about Safari. No its not an open source browser but its rendering engine Webkit is open source and is used by Adobe, Google, Nokia and several others.
Quote:
Admittedly, I've only skimmed the (238 page) specs and compliance doc, but I can find no mention of a "Mini DisplayPort" at all.
We already know its not there. What's the point of looking for it?
Quote:
Your point about Apple's use of mini DVI (and mini VGA before it) and the total lack of third-party adapters is exactly what I'm worried about. Why will any 3rd party want to manufacture niche products when the rest of the industry is using the full standard?
So far that has been the case. As well as Apple notebooks have been selling for the past couple of years. I'm sure other manufacturers are paying attention to how people like the design and may use mini display connectors. Apple may be ahead of the curve.
Reserve mini/micro/nano/whatever Display Port for these future product, then, and use damn full size when you have room.
Can't see why they've this urge to annoy current products users.
Do you expect that the whole market will go mini just because Apple put it on a couple of laptops?.
Apple has been using mini display ports for years. This allows them to design thinner notebooks. As well as Apple's notebooks have been selling and the praise they gain from their design. Other manufacturers are likely to adopt the use of mini display ports.
The way it is right now most notebooks are thin in one edge but have to becomes fatter to accommodate full size ports. Why do that if a mini version is available with the exact same functionality.
Samsung have a 30" display using DisplayPort. But the Macbooks cannot connect to it because Apple have used the non-standard mini connector.
Also, there exists a DisplayPort-to-HDMI adapter. But Macbooks cannot use this to connect to HDMI displays, because Apple have used the non-standard mini connector.
Lenovo's ThinkPads now come with DisplayPort output, but you cannot connect it to an Apple display, because Apple have used the non-standard mini connector.
Apple has been using mini ports since 2002 and somehow we've managed to survive.
Can somebody explain me what's the benefit of offering the new 24" display with Display Port only? It would have cost peanuts to add an HDMI and DVI to make it fully compatibel with all equipment.
I could have plugged in my playstation or a future Blu-Ray player, or - current MBP. Do I expect too much?
Even for an owner of the new Macbooks it's of pretty limited use.
Latest marketing decisions of Apple go too far, for my liking
It looks as though this monitor was made specifically for Apple notebooks and not so much to be used by desktop computers. Apple will probably introduce new cinema displays for desktops at MacWorld '09 in January.
When Apple moves on to a new port technology it does not include a port to the older technology. Display port is compatible with DVI.
Their is little reason for Apple to include HDMI ports. HDMI is a television standard not a computer standard. Display port is compatible with HDMI.
no audio cable needed...oh wait...it very well could be using USB for audio. Crud, so we STILL don't know for sure.
Actually the USB is so that if you have any peripherals that are connected to your laptop i.e. camera, printer, etc the Display will pick it up as well basically turning the macbook/mbp into an 24" iMac.
The mini and the full are both display port. The difference is in the connector size.
*snip*
Even if it's electronically compliant, the mini connector is not currently part of the DisplayPort spec. That's not an example of Apple leading the industry. It's yet another example of Apple deliberately isolating itself (and us, it's users) from the rest of the industry.
What part of this fairly simple chain of logic eludes you?
Apple has been using mini ports since 2002 and somehow we've managed to survive.
Agree 100%!!
It appears that there are more and more (probably PC) users on these forums that try to convince us of the all the wrongs ways of Apple and that all other PC makers got it right; that they are the de-facto standard and that Apple should oblige to follow their rules.
I guess this is why Apple sales are growing like crazy.
It is clear that not everyone will agree with every design decision Apple makes (including me) but also that Apple has never tried to be everything to everybody. And that is not a bad thing.
So if you like it, buy it. If you don't, don't This can't be that hard. Just don't whine around; buy something else.
Even if it's electronically compliant, the mini connector is not currently part of the DisplayPort spec. That's not an example of Apple leading the industry. It's yet another example of Apple deliberately isolating itself (and us, it's users) from the rest of the industry.
What part of this fairly simple chain of logic eludes you?
The rest of the industry? So Apple must include all ancient ports like VGA, Serial & PS2 to match "the industry"
The silliness of your argument is beyond belief!
It is very simple. Display Port is the emerging computing display standard and given that there are countless devices with VGA, DVI, HDMI and a few with DP out there, you can only have 2 choices for connectivity:
1. Create a big, ugly laptop with a plethora of ports to satisfy you.
2. Create a single port able to support all current device standards and use the appropriate adapter. Laptop or not, regular display port or mini, most will have to deal with that.
This includes the acceptance of the fact that VGA displays will go the way of the CRT and the floppy drive.
Wolfman, are you being deliberately obtuse or do you genuinely not understand the concepts involved here?
Here's how it is:
There are a consortium of IT industry leaders, including Apple, Intel, AMD, ATI, NVidia, Dell, H-P and Lenovo who have thrahed out a very good, open standard for the next generation of computer video graphics.
This standard includes the use of a small connector plug, about the same size as a USB plug.
Apple have decided to use their own proprietary plug connector instead of the one in the DisplayPort spec.
The "single port able to support all current device standards" is DisplayPort. Apple are part of the DisplayPort consortium and they're ignoring their own standards in order to implement their own proprietary connector. It's ADC all over again.
Even if it's electronically compliant, the mini connector is not currently part of the DisplayPort spec. That's not an example of Apple leading the industry. It's yet another example of Apple deliberately isolating itself (and us, it's users) from the rest of the industry.
What part of this fairly simple chain of logic eludes you?
Because you are not accurate in your chain of logic.
Their is nothing preventing VESA from adopting the mini port. Their is nothing that prevents other manufacturers from using it.
Apple has been using mini ports since 2002 and somehow we've managed to survive.
They've also included adapters in the past. My iBook could hook up to a VGA display out of the box. This time around, They make you pay extra for the adapter and there isn't one for either regular display port or HDMI. In addition, standard display port is not that much bigger than a USB port. Mini-DP is nothing more than Jobs trying to nickel and dime Apple's customers and attempt to get them to buy the $900 halo display.
The "single port able to support all current device standards" is DisplayPort. Apple are part of the DisplayPort consortium and they're ignoring their own standards in order to implement their own proprietary connector. It's ADC all over again.
You need to read up on exactly what Display Port is. The connector is only one part of it, the signal that travels through is exactly the same.
Proprietray means you need Apple's permission to use it and generally pay a licensing fee. Since DP is meant to be an open standard and has no licensing fees, it is not proprietary.
Dispaly Port is still new. We have to wait to see how it all goes before people can start with all of this negative speculation.
They've also included adapters in the past. My iBook could hook up to a VGA display out of the box. This time around, They make you pay extra for the adapter and there isn't one for either regular display port or HDMI. In addition, standard display port is not that much bigger than a USB port. Mini-DP is nothing more than Jobs trying to nickel and dime Apple's customers and attempt to get them to buy the $900 halo display.
Of course we know these adaptors are coming.
If more companies adopt the mini port more third party co's will make straight mini to full cables.
Comments
Apple's obsession with skinny laptops are the reason we've got a clusterf*** of minPorts.
Basically yeah. From looking at the motherboard, the way things had to be arranged to get them as thin as they are didn't leave enough room for a full size display port or the firewire.
Also one slight mistake in the article, HDMI has support beyond 1080i and can be used for large dual-Link displays.
Still one thing annoys me: If there's a new standard, why do they always have to come up with several different sizes? Think of USB: my printer has a bulky full size USB port, my Olympus cam a medium-sized one, and all other equipment from iPod to harddrive have (much more convienient) mini USB plugs.
WHY not make the smallest possible solution the standard for all devices??? Must big devices necessarily have big ports and v.v.??? Always a pain...
Also, there exists a DisplayPort-to-HDMI adapter. But Macbooks cannot use this to connect to HDMI displays, because Apple have used the non-standard mini connector.
Lenovo's ThinkPads now come with DisplayPort output, but you cannot connect it to an Apple display, because Apple have used the non-standard mini connector.
You misread what they said: the compatibility is not both ways. DisplayPort can drive a DVI/VGA monitor, but a DVI/VGA port cannot without a very expensive converter (i.e. a lot more than the $29 adapters Apple sells) drive a DisplayPort only monitor like Apple's new Cinema display. This is why it is only compatible with the new laptops.
You can compare that to Apple's DVI-to-ADC adapter. In Apple's fashion, that also includes power and USB and costs $100 listed, $70 street. Third party DVI-to-ADC costs about $40 and does not include USB.
So, I will predict Apple's DVI-to-Displayport adapter (also includes USB and sound) will list for $70 to $100. However, third party adapter (display signal only, without USB and audio) will cost $40.
Analog-to-digital adapter will be expensive. VGA is analog, so the adapter is essentially a video capture device, and since display requires low latency, it has to be a pretty high quality video capture device.
That's why you only see VGA-to-DVI-I adapter. DVI-I supports both analog and digital signals, so the adapter essentially use the analog part of DVI-I.
I don't think any VGA-to-DVI-D adapter exists, and I don't think any VGA-to-Displayport adapter will exist.
Some cheapo PC still ship with VGA port only, so they won't be able to use Displayport displays.
I could have plugged in my playstation or a future Blu-Ray player, or - current MBP. Do I expect too much?
Even for an owner of the new Macbooks it's of pretty limited use.
Latest marketing decisions of Apple go too far, for my liking
DisplayPort is the open standard, not Mini DisplayPort, and we don't know if the mini version will ever be part of the standard. Besides, Apple have a slightly-skewed view regarding the use of open standards within proprietary products. Think AAC or Safari. (And yes, I do know that there is nothing actually wrong in the way they interpret and implement those standards, but they do tend to operate to "the letter of the law, rather than its spirit".)
The mini and the full are both display port. The difference is in the connector size.
AAC is an open standard, Apple has done nothing to change that. Its implementation of Fairplay DRM is proprietary, but then their is no such thing as open source DRM.
I'm not sure what you are saying about Safari. No its not an open source browser but its rendering engine Webkit is open source and is used by Adobe, Google, Nokia and several others.
Admittedly, I've only skimmed the (238 page) specs and compliance doc, but I can find no mention of a "Mini DisplayPort" at all.
We already know its not there. What's the point of looking for it?
Your point about Apple's use of mini DVI (and mini VGA before it) and the total lack of third-party adapters is exactly what I'm worried about. Why will any 3rd party want to manufacture niche products when the rest of the industry is using the full standard?
So far that has been the case. As well as Apple notebooks have been selling for the past couple of years. I'm sure other manufacturers are paying attention to how people like the design and may use mini display connectors. Apple may be ahead of the curve.
Reserve mini/micro/nano/whatever Display Port for these future product, then, and use damn full size when you have room.
Can't see why they've this urge to annoy current products users.
Do you expect that the whole market will go mini just because Apple put it on a couple of laptops?.
Apple has been using mini display ports for years. This allows them to design thinner notebooks. As well as Apple's notebooks have been selling and the praise they gain from their design. Other manufacturers are likely to adopt the use of mini display ports.
The way it is right now most notebooks are thin in one edge but have to becomes fatter to accommodate full size ports. Why do that if a mini version is available with the exact same functionality.
Samsung have a 30" display using DisplayPort. But the Macbooks cannot connect to it because Apple have used the non-standard mini connector.
Also, there exists a DisplayPort-to-HDMI adapter. But Macbooks cannot use this to connect to HDMI displays, because Apple have used the non-standard mini connector.
Lenovo's ThinkPads now come with DisplayPort output, but you cannot connect it to an Apple display, because Apple have used the non-standard mini connector.
Apple has been using mini ports since 2002 and somehow we've managed to survive.
Can somebody explain me what's the benefit of offering the new 24" display with Display Port only? It would have cost peanuts to add an HDMI and DVI to make it fully compatibel with all equipment.
I could have plugged in my playstation or a future Blu-Ray player, or - current MBP. Do I expect too much?
Even for an owner of the new Macbooks it's of pretty limited use.
Latest marketing decisions of Apple go too far, for my liking
It looks as though this monitor was made specifically for Apple notebooks and not so much to be used by desktop computers. Apple will probably introduce new cinema displays for desktops at MacWorld '09 in January.
When Apple moves on to a new port technology it does not include a port to the older technology. Display port is compatible with DVI.
Their is little reason for Apple to include HDMI ports. HDMI is a television standard not a computer standard. Display port is compatible with HDMI.
I suspect it DOES carry audio, because the new 24" screen has speakers, and no audio cable to connect it to.
here:
http://www.apple.com/displays/features.html
no audio cable needed...oh wait...it very well could be using USB for audio. Crud, so we STILL don't know for sure.
Actually the USB is so that if you have any peripherals that are connected to your laptop i.e. camera, printer, etc the Display will pick it up as well basically turning the macbook/mbp into an 24" iMac.
The mini and the full are both display port. The difference is in the connector size.
*snip*
Even if it's electronically compliant, the mini connector is not currently part of the DisplayPort spec. That's not an example of Apple leading the industry. It's yet another example of Apple deliberately isolating itself (and us, it's users) from the rest of the industry.
What part of this fairly simple chain of logic eludes you?
Apple has been using mini ports since 2002 and somehow we've managed to survive.
Agree 100%!!
It appears that there are more and more (probably PC) users on these forums that try to convince us of the all the wrongs ways of Apple and that all other PC makers got it right; that they are the de-facto standard and that Apple should oblige to follow their rules.
I guess this is why Apple sales are growing like crazy.
It is clear that not everyone will agree with every design decision Apple makes (including me) but also that Apple has never tried to be everything to everybody. And that is not a bad thing.
So if you like it, buy it. If you don't, don't This can't be that hard. Just don't whine around; buy something else.
Even if it's electronically compliant, the mini connector is not currently part of the DisplayPort spec. That's not an example of Apple leading the industry. It's yet another example of Apple deliberately isolating itself (and us, it's users) from the rest of the industry.
What part of this fairly simple chain of logic eludes you?
The rest of the industry? So Apple must include all ancient ports like VGA, Serial & PS2 to match "the industry"
The silliness of your argument is beyond belief!
It is very simple. Display Port is the emerging computing display standard and given that there are countless devices with VGA, DVI, HDMI and a few with DP out there, you can only have 2 choices for connectivity:
1. Create a big, ugly laptop with a plethora of ports to satisfy you.
2. Create a single port able to support all current device standards and use the appropriate adapter. Laptop or not, regular display port or mini, most will have to deal with that.
This includes the acceptance of the fact that VGA displays will go the way of the CRT and the floppy drive.
Here's how it is:
- There are a consortium of IT industry leaders, including Apple, Intel, AMD, ATI, NVidia, Dell, H-P and Lenovo who have thrahed out a very good, open standard for the next generation of computer video graphics.
- This standard includes the use of a small connector plug, about the same size as a USB plug.
- Apple have decided to use their own proprietary plug connector instead of the one in the DisplayPort spec.
The "single port able to support all current device standards" is DisplayPort. Apple are part of the DisplayPort consortium and they're ignoring their own standards in order to implement their own proprietary connector. It's ADC all over again.Even if it's electronically compliant, the mini connector is not currently part of the DisplayPort spec. That's not an example of Apple leading the industry. It's yet another example of Apple deliberately isolating itself (and us, it's users) from the rest of the industry.
What part of this fairly simple chain of logic eludes you?
Because you are not accurate in your chain of logic.
Their is nothing preventing VESA from adopting the mini port. Their is nothing that prevents other manufacturers from using it.
It's the perfect port for the netbook market.
Apple has been using mini ports since 2002 and somehow we've managed to survive.
They've also included adapters in the past. My iBook could hook up to a VGA display out of the box. This time around, They make you pay extra for the adapter and there isn't one for either regular display port or HDMI. In addition, standard display port is not that much bigger than a USB port. Mini-DP is nothing more than Jobs trying to nickel and dime Apple's customers and attempt to get them to buy the $900 halo display.
How many pins is the mini display port? Does it match the full-size unit electrically?
Yes, they're both 20 pins. If an adapter cable ever arrived, they'd be compatible.
The "single port able to support all current device standards" is DisplayPort. Apple are part of the DisplayPort consortium and they're ignoring their own standards in order to implement their own proprietary connector. It's ADC all over again.
You need to read up on exactly what Display Port is. The connector is only one part of it, the signal that travels through is exactly the same.
Proprietray means you need Apple's permission to use it and generally pay a licensing fee. Since DP is meant to be an open standard and has no licensing fees, it is not proprietary.
Dispaly Port is still new. We have to wait to see how it all goes before people can start with all of this negative speculation.
They've also included adapters in the past. My iBook could hook up to a VGA display out of the box. This time around, They make you pay extra for the adapter and there isn't one for either regular display port or HDMI. In addition, standard display port is not that much bigger than a USB port. Mini-DP is nothing more than Jobs trying to nickel and dime Apple's customers and attempt to get them to buy the $900 halo display.
Of course we know these adaptors are coming.
If more companies adopt the mini port more third party co's will make straight mini to full cables.