Since hardly anyone is using Display Port yet their is no standard size of Display port. Their really is no big deal to use the full size and mini port intermixed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
No way man. We (the computer industry) finally had a chance to have a single, ubiquitious display connector, that we haven't had since the days of VGA, and Apple has shit in everyone's custard.
But there's no physical reason the standard DisplayPort couldn't fit. So no obvious technical reason to invent a new port, except for lack of engineering skill or underhanded commercial reasons. I didn't want to mention the 2nd without evidence so I said "bad engineering."
Their might be a physical reason for it on the other Mac notebooks, not just the MBA. I have found that my Sierra Wireless USB 3G adapter will not allow me to have it plugged in and my iPhone cable at the same time to my new MB. This was not an issue with my previous, polycarb MB. It was a snug fit, but it still worked. This indicates that the USB ports are slightly closer together. While far from conclusive, this—plus the other port side changes—should make us stop and think about the physical changes that have occurred with the new Mac notebooks.
Regardless, the good news is that it's free, it's new, small, it's fast, it's robust, it's versatile, and it'll be the standard for all modern PCs in the near future (DP, that is, so at most you'll have to get a $5 adapter from Monoprice to run your old display).
But there's no physical reason the standard DisplayPort couldn't fit. So no obvious technical reason to invent a new port, except for lack of engineering skill or underhanded commercial reasons. I didn't want to mention the 2nd without evidence so I said "bad engineering."
I won't argue whether it's required or not. That's a call none of us can make.
But as for the port itself, I don't see a problem.
If Apple came out with this well after DisplayPort became standard on many machines, I would agree that it wasn't a good idea. But at this point in time, Apple will very likely be selling many more computers with their mini DisplayPort connector than all other manufacturers selling machines with the standard DisplayPort connector put together.
That will be a good reason to sell monitors that use it. Once enough monitors are out, computers will have the port as well.
Having a mini connector on one end of a cable, and the standard size connector on the other is such a non issue, I can't understand why anyone is even bringing it up at all. How many USB and Firewire cables have that?
While the mini port may not seem to be needed on the current models, and certainly not on the iMacs and Mac Pros to come, Apple may really have something else in mind.
This use on their computers could simply be a way to get people to use it and manufacturers to make them.
It's possible that Apple has a small device coming out at some time in 2009 that will need a port the size of the mini.
By the time that device comes out, there will be products to go with it from the get go.
It's just a theory, but who knows? It does fit into the small tablet device we hear of all the time. Don't forget that DisplayPort also needs less circuitry both in the computer, and in the display. It also uses less power than does DVI or HDMI. Both good reasons to use it on a power challenged, handheld sized device.
Don't gloat just yet. By your own admission, the Mini DisplayPort connector is not part of the official DisplayPort spec. And we don't know if it ever will be. If Apple really is interested in having Mini DisplayPort become an industry standard, then they should have gotten the spec approved first, before putting the connector in their products. That way, they could tell customers "Apple follows industry standards. The Mini DisplayPort connector is an official part of the DisplayPort spec". But right now, all Apple can say is "We released our new products with a proprietary Mini DisplayPort connector, but we hope it gets adopted by VESA".
As Apple is offring it, and is already using it, it's more likely thar VESA will accept it.
What many people don't realize, is that most "standards" started out as proprietary. Once they were offered, they became standard. Often, the manufacturers themselves organize their own committees and groups to formalize that standard.
That's the way almost everything we use has standards. It's worked that way going all the way back.
Many devices become de facto standards first, and then only later become "approved".
No way man. We (the computer industry) finally had a chance to have a single, ubiquitious display connector, that we haven't had since the days of VGA, and Apple has shit in everyone's custard.
Nonsense!
You're getting emotional about this. It's no big deal. It would only be a big deal if the electrical specs were different, which they aren't.
You're getting emotional about this. It's no big deal. It would only be a big deal if the electrical specs were different, which they aren't.
How can you deny that introducing a second port ruins the dream of a single, ubiquitous port? It self evidently does.
The fact that it's wired the same inside won't help poor old Joe Consumer when he buys his monitor from shop A and his computer from shop B and goes home and bless it, the connector just won't go in. Yes, it will make for a cheaper adaptor, but he wouldn't need an adaptor at all if Apple could stick to standards.
How can you deny that introducing a second port ruins the dream of a single, ubiquitous port? It self evidently does.
The fact that it's wired the same inside won't help poor old Joe Consumer when he buys his monitor from shop A and his computer from shop B and goes home and bless it, the connector just won't go in. Yes, it will make for a cheaper adaptor, but he wouldn't need an adaptor at all if Apple could stick to standards.
You don't need an adapter. Haven't you been reading what I'm saying?
Cables will come with a standard size connector on one end, and a mini on the other, just as most USB and Firewire cables do now.
Ever connect a camera to a computer? Or a camcorder? How many of them have "A" connectors? Pretty much none! They ALL need a dual plug type cable.
That's just the way it is.
Even in the days of SCSI, most cables had different connectors on each side.
It would be better if everyone adopted the mini connector than the other way around.
And of course, you don't even bother to mention the other reasons I give. They could be very important.
You don't need an adapter. Haven't you been reading what I'm saying?
Cables will come with a standard size connector on one end, and a mini on the other, just as most USB and Firewire cables do now.
So he will have to go out and guy a new cable? That's likely more expensive than an adaptor. Or do you envisage every monitor coming with two cables in the box, one for mini DP computers and one for standard DP? In that case that is a rather large waste of resources. Apple causing added expense to every monitor sold, and added environmental damage.
So he will have to go out and guy a new cable? That's likely more expensive than an adaptor. Or do you envisage every monitor coming with two cables in the box, one for mini DP computers and one for standard DP? In that case that is a rather large waste of resources. Apple causing added expense to every monitor sold, and added environmental damage.
Lots of monitors come with a cable now. These DisplayPort cables will be as cheap as USB cables, Firewire cables, HDMI cables, or SATA cables, which is to say, pretty cheap.
Resources? Are you kidding? Don't you have at least one box of cables lying around like everyone else does? Or are you being facetious?
Most monitors will have several ports for some time to come. Perhaps only Apple's will not. How does one deal with that now?
NEC used to have an interesting solution. They had two ports on their monitors. One was standard VGA, and the other was Apple VGA.
The cable they offered with the monitor had one of each. When connected to a PC, you used the Apple port on the monitor, with the Apple connector, and the PC VGA to the computer.
When you hooked to a Mac, you used the PC port on the monitor with the same connector from the cable, and the Apple end into the Mac.
Pretty good, and really didn't cost that much, according to what NEC told me at the time.
The DisplayPorts, either one, will cost much less.
I know there's loads of different cables now, so from that perspective having 2 new ones is no big deal. It just seems like a missed opportunity to me - to get everyone on the same boat: same port, same cable, same everything. Then maybe there wouldn't need to be millions of miles of cable manufactured every year that just sits around in it's unopened plastic wrap. *sigh*
Frankly, that site (and DED in general) is hard to take seriously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
No way man. We (the computer industry) finally had a chance to have a single, ubiquitious display connector, that we haven't had since the days of VGA, and Apple has shit in everyone's custard.
That's a little melodramatic, though it is annoying that Apple has generally tended to make its own connectors for video. You mentioned VGA, Apple had it's own connector for analog RGB back then too, that one seemed unnecessary too.
I know there's loads of different cables now, so from that perspective having 2 new ones is no big deal. It just seems like a missed opportunity to me - to get everyone on the same boat: same port, same cable, same everything. Then maybe there wouldn't need to be millions of miles of cable manufactured every year that just sits around in it's unopened plastic wrap. *sigh*
Perhaps the fault was with VESA in the first place for not thinking that a smaller port would be useful in smaller devices, and Apple is making up for that lack of foresight.
Don't forget, guys, that this won't be the last video port ever designed. There will be another one after this, and another one after that, and so on.
Same thing for other interfaces. They are constantly changing with the technology.
Sometimes, when a port is first designed, no thought is given for other uses, and another one must be designed for that. Sometimes several different physical layers are designed at once. Depends on the need.
To say that one is enough is correct only sometimes.
Even the lowly IEC plug and socket which almost every component today uses (except, curiously, TVs), is inadequate for heavy current, though sometimes it's used out of spec. But, right now, there's no good "standard" substitute for electronics. Big power amps often need attached power cords.
Perhaps the fault was with VESA in the first place for not thinking that a smaller port would be useful in smaller devices, and Apple is making up for that lack of foresight.
First, DisplayPort was designed with reduced size in mind. After all, the standard DisplayPort connector is a lot smaller than VGA and DVI connectors. Second, Apple showed its own "lack of foresight" by making not one, but two proprietary DVI connectors: Mini DVI followed by Micro DVI. Has Apple learned from this, or should we look forward to Apple introducing Micro DisplayPort and Nano DisplayPort?
The Mini DisplayPort is a small form factor connector invented by Apple to fully support the VESA DisplayPort protocol. Unlike the Mini-DVI and Micro-DVI connectors common on previous generation Apple products, the port is capable of driving resolutions up to 2560x1600, which is commonly used on 30-inch displays.
Based on what I have read, it behooves me that anybody would argue against its implementation, particularly that it was a means for Apple to control the medium, gouge the consumer or address its needs to fit in a smaller form factor.
Unless somebody can confirm differently, I would suggest that the new protocol is well worth consideration and implementation. For example:
Advantages over DVI
Based on micro-packet protocol.
Allows easy expansion of the standard
Allows multiple video streams over single physical connection (in a future version)
Designed to support internal chip-to-chip communication
Can drive display panels directly, eliminating control circuits and allowing for cheaper and slimmer displays
Aimed to replace internal LVDS links in notebook panels with a unified link interface
Supports both RGB and YCbCr encoding formats
Auxiliary channel can be used for touch-panel data, USB links, camera, microphone, etc.
Fewer lanes with embedded clock reduce RFI.
Slimmer cables and a much smaller connector that doesn't require thumbscrews. Connector pins don't run the risk of bending if improperly handled.
The DisplayPort connector is easier to connect when guided only by touch.
Advantages compared to HDMI
DisplayPort does not require licensing or royalty payments as HDMI does
Allows daisy-chaining of multiple displays
Disadvantages compared to HDMI
No xvYCC color space support
No Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio bitstream support
No support for Consumer Electronics control signals
In addition, I understand that nearly 200 electronic companies form VESA and that a number of them have announced their intention to implement or support the protocol, i.e., AMD/ATI, Analogix, Apple, ASRock, ASUSTeK, Circuit Assembly, Dell, Genesis Microchip, Hewlett-Packard, Hosiden Corporation, Intel, Integrated Device Technology, Japan Aviation Electronics, Lenovo, Luxtera, Molex, NVIDIA, NXP Semiconductors, Palit Microsystems Palit, Parade Technologies, Philips, Quantum Data, Samsung, Sparkle Computer, Texas Instruments, and Tyco Electronics.
Again, I notice that the major dissenters in this forum are the same guys that continually dis Apple at every turn; protected in part by ignorance 'without prejudice'.
I would hope that one would expand the points of advantages and disadvantages as well, without emotions rhetoric, but with facts and a willingness to confirm any challenges.
This is very reminiscent of firewire. Sony was the first to use the IEEE1394 spec, but it was in the form of i-link, which was incredibly stupid because i-link couldn't supply power. Then Apple created in the 6-pin firewire connector, and later the 9-pin firewire 800. But by then it was too late. the IEEE1394 spec had been split between firewire and i-link. Look at any PC. If it has IEEE1394 at all it will be a 4 pin connector. You can argue this all you want, but firewire was doomed at birth because of this. A standard divided cannot stand.
Now we have displayport. Awesome technology, but as usual PC manufacturers are painfully conservative. So Apple is the first to market. But for some reason they are using a custom connector type, despite the fact that the standard one is pretty small. Apple could probably have accommodated for it if they really wanted to, but they didn't.
Now 99 time out of 100 I would say this is a stupid move, and would divide the standard and put it on the fast road to demise, just like what happened to firewire. But the fact is that no one, and I mean no one, uses normal displayport yet. They aren't actually splitting the standard, because the normal connector doesn't exist on any products yet. And while I guarantee you that each and every PC and monitor manufacturer is testing prototypes with displayport, the only real testing is for the interface itself. Mini displayport only changes the shape, not the actual pins. They don't have to test for that. All they have to do is replace the female connector, and since mini displayport is strictly smaller in every dimension, they could knock that off in a weekend.
Why do I bring this up? Because now that Apple is freely licensing their connector shape, there is really no reason NOT to license it and and use it in place of the normal port. The technology is the same. The cost is the same. The R&D is (basically) the same. The only substantial differences are in size and market penetration, where (thanks to Apple) mini displayport has a strict advantage in both.
So in conclusion, in all probability it will be mini displayport and not normal which will become the industry standard. What Apple did was extremely brash and arrogant, but it will probably work.
Based on what I have read, it behooves me that anybody would argue against its implementation, particularly that it was a means for Apple to control the medium, gouge the consumer or address its needs to fit in a smaller form factor.
Unless somebody can confirm differently, I would suggest that the new protocol is well worth consideration and implementation. For example:
Advantages over DVI
Based on micro-packet protocol.
Allows easy expansion of the standard
Allows multiple video streams over single physical connection (in a future version)
Designed to support internal chip-to-chip communication
Can drive display panels directly, eliminating control circuits and allowing for cheaper and slimmer displays
Aimed to replace internal LVDS links in notebook panels with a unified link interface
Supports both RGB and YCbCr encoding formats Auxiliary channel can be used for touch-panel data, USB links, camera, microphone, etc. Fewer lanes with embedded clock reduce RFI. Slimmer cables and a much smaller connector that doesn't require thumbscrews. Connector pins don't run the risk of bending if improperly handled. The DisplayPort connector is easier to connect when guided only by touch. Advantages compared to HDMI
DisplayPort does not require licensing or royalty payments as HDMI does
Allows daisy-chaining of multiple displays
Disadvantages compared to HDMI
No xvYCC color space support
No Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio bitstream support
No support for Consumer Electronics control signals
In addition, I understand that nearly 200 electronic companies form VESA and that a number of them have announced their intention to implement or support the protocol, i.e., AMD/ATI, Analogix, Apple, ASRock, ASUSTeK, Circuit Assembly, Dell, Genesis Microchip, Hewlett-Packard, Hosiden Corporation, Intel, Integrated Device Technology, Japan Aviation Electronics, Lenovo, Luxtera, Molex, NVIDIA, NXP Semiconductors, Palit Microsystems Palit, Parade Technologies, Philips, Quantum Data, Samsung, Sparkle Computer, Texas Instruments, and Tyco Electronics.
Again, I notice that the major dissenters in this forum are the same guys that continually dis Apple at every turn; protected in part by ignorance 'without prejudice'.
I would hope that one would expand the points of advantages and disadvantages as well, without emotions rhetoric, but with facts and a willingness to confirm any challenges.
I do not see anyone against the standard or Apple implementing it. Dell does have monitors already to market with the VESA DisplayPort connector, and someone else mentioned HP and Lenovo as also having the connectors in shipping devices. All people are saying here is that it was ultimately needless to implement another connector to a standard that already had a very small connector.
You are just making a worse case prediction. Their is no reason for no one else to use mini Display port.
They don't have any reason to use it over a full sized display port connector either. Standard DP is very close in size to the mini-VGA and Mini-DVI ports.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
I'm basing on the fact that Apple used mini port instead of the standard port. Its a tight space and 1mm probably made a difference.
Apple doing something automatically makes it the case? If they can't fit something as small as a standard display port on a notebook, then they need to fire some people on the design or engineering staff.
Perhaps the fault was with VESA in the first place for not thinking that a smaller port would be useful in smaller devices, and Apple is making up for that lack of foresight.
Because no reasonable company would design such a device. Nobody else makes their engineers design around the eccentricities of their design team.
Comments
No way man. We (the computer industry) finally had a chance to have a single, ubiquitious display connector, that we haven't had since the days of VGA, and Apple has shit in everyone's custard.
But there's no physical reason the standard DisplayPort couldn't fit. So no obvious technical reason to invent a new port, except for lack of engineering skill or underhanded commercial reasons. I didn't want to mention the 2nd without evidence so I said "bad engineering."
Their might be a physical reason for it on the other Mac notebooks, not just the MBA. I have found that my Sierra Wireless USB 3G adapter will not allow me to have it plugged in and my iPhone cable at the same time to my new MB. This was not an issue with my previous, polycarb MB. It was a snug fit, but it still worked. This indicates that the USB ports are slightly closer together. While far from conclusive, this—plus the other port side changes—should make us stop and think about the physical changes that have occurred with the new Mac notebooks.
Regardless, the good news is that it's free, it's new, small, it's fast, it's robust, it's versatile, and it'll be the standard for all modern PCs in the near future (DP, that is, so at most you'll have to get a $5 adapter from Monoprice to run your old display).
But there's no physical reason the standard DisplayPort couldn't fit. So no obvious technical reason to invent a new port, except for lack of engineering skill or underhanded commercial reasons. I didn't want to mention the 2nd without evidence so I said "bad engineering."
I won't argue whether it's required or not. That's a call none of us can make.
But as for the port itself, I don't see a problem.
If Apple came out with this well after DisplayPort became standard on many machines, I would agree that it wasn't a good idea. But at this point in time, Apple will very likely be selling many more computers with their mini DisplayPort connector than all other manufacturers selling machines with the standard DisplayPort connector put together.
That will be a good reason to sell monitors that use it. Once enough monitors are out, computers will have the port as well.
Having a mini connector on one end of a cable, and the standard size connector on the other is such a non issue, I can't understand why anyone is even bringing it up at all. How many USB and Firewire cables have that?
While the mini port may not seem to be needed on the current models, and certainly not on the iMacs and Mac Pros to come, Apple may really have something else in mind.
This use on their computers could simply be a way to get people to use it and manufacturers to make them.
It's possible that Apple has a small device coming out at some time in 2009 that will need a port the size of the mini.
By the time that device comes out, there will be products to go with it from the get go.
It's just a theory, but who knows? It does fit into the small tablet device we hear of all the time. Don't forget that DisplayPort also needs less circuitry both in the computer, and in the display. It also uses less power than does DVI or HDMI. Both good reasons to use it on a power challenged, handheld sized device.
Don't gloat just yet. By your own admission, the Mini DisplayPort connector is not part of the official DisplayPort spec. And we don't know if it ever will be. If Apple really is interested in having Mini DisplayPort become an industry standard, then they should have gotten the spec approved first, before putting the connector in their products. That way, they could tell customers "Apple follows industry standards. The Mini DisplayPort connector is an official part of the DisplayPort spec". But right now, all Apple can say is "We released our new products with a proprietary Mini DisplayPort connector, but we hope it gets adopted by VESA".
As Apple is offring it, and is already using it, it's more likely thar VESA will accept it.
What many people don't realize, is that most "standards" started out as proprietary. Once they were offered, they became standard. Often, the manufacturers themselves organize their own committees and groups to formalize that standard.
That's the way almost everything we use has standards. It's worked that way going all the way back.
Many devices become de facto standards first, and then only later become "approved".
No way man. We (the computer industry) finally had a chance to have a single, ubiquitious display connector, that we haven't had since the days of VGA, and Apple has shit in everyone's custard.
Nonsense!
You're getting emotional about this. It's no big deal. It would only be a big deal if the electrical specs were different, which they aren't.
Nonsense!
You're getting emotional about this. It's no big deal. It would only be a big deal if the electrical specs were different, which they aren't.
How can you deny that introducing a second port ruins the dream of a single, ubiquitous port? It self evidently does.
The fact that it's wired the same inside won't help poor old Joe Consumer when he buys his monitor from shop A and his computer from shop B and goes home and bless it, the connector just won't go in. Yes, it will make for a cheaper adaptor, but he wouldn't need an adaptor at all if Apple could stick to standards.
How can you deny that introducing a second port ruins the dream of a single, ubiquitous port? It self evidently does.
The fact that it's wired the same inside won't help poor old Joe Consumer when he buys his monitor from shop A and his computer from shop B and goes home and bless it, the connector just won't go in. Yes, it will make for a cheaper adaptor, but he wouldn't need an adaptor at all if Apple could stick to standards.
You don't need an adapter. Haven't you been reading what I'm saying?
Cables will come with a standard size connector on one end, and a mini on the other, just as most USB and Firewire cables do now.
Ever connect a camera to a computer? Or a camcorder? How many of them have "A" connectors? Pretty much none! They ALL need a dual plug type cable.
That's just the way it is.
Even in the days of SCSI, most cables had different connectors on each side.
It would be better if everyone adopted the mini connector than the other way around.
And of course, you don't even bother to mention the other reasons I give. They could be very important.
You don't need an adapter. Haven't you been reading what I'm saying?
Cables will come with a standard size connector on one end, and a mini on the other, just as most USB and Firewire cables do now.
So he will have to go out and guy a new cable? That's likely more expensive than an adaptor. Or do you envisage every monitor coming with two cables in the box, one for mini DP computers and one for standard DP? In that case that is a rather large waste of resources. Apple causing added expense to every monitor sold, and added environmental damage.
So he will have to go out and guy a new cable? That's likely more expensive than an adaptor. Or do you envisage every monitor coming with two cables in the box, one for mini DP computers and one for standard DP? In that case that is a rather large waste of resources. Apple causing added expense to every monitor sold, and added environmental damage.
Lots of monitors come with a cable now. These DisplayPort cables will be as cheap as USB cables, Firewire cables, HDMI cables, or SATA cables, which is to say, pretty cheap.
Resources? Are you kidding? Don't you have at least one box of cables lying around like everyone else does? Or are you being facetious?
Most monitors will have several ports for some time to come. Perhaps only Apple's will not. How does one deal with that now?
NEC used to have an interesting solution. They had two ports on their monitors. One was standard VGA, and the other was Apple VGA.
The cable they offered with the monitor had one of each. When connected to a PC, you used the Apple port on the monitor, with the Apple connector, and the PC VGA to the computer.
When you hooked to a Mac, you used the PC port on the monitor with the same connector from the cable, and the Apple end into the Mac.
Pretty good, and really didn't cost that much, according to what NEC told me at the time.
The DisplayPorts, either one, will cost much less.
Did you read this article I linked to in response to your comments?
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/1...i-displayport/
Frankly, that site (and DED in general) is hard to take seriously.
No way man. We (the computer industry) finally had a chance to have a single, ubiquitious display connector, that we haven't had since the days of VGA, and Apple has shit in everyone's custard.
That's a little melodramatic, though it is annoying that Apple has generally tended to make its own connectors for video. You mentioned VGA, Apple had it's own connector for analog RGB back then too, that one seemed unnecessary too.
I know there's loads of different cables now, so from that perspective having 2 new ones is no big deal. It just seems like a missed opportunity to me - to get everyone on the same boat: same port, same cable, same everything. Then maybe there wouldn't need to be millions of miles of cable manufactured every year that just sits around in it's unopened plastic wrap. *sigh*
Perhaps the fault was with VESA in the first place for not thinking that a smaller port would be useful in smaller devices, and Apple is making up for that lack of foresight.
Same thing for other interfaces. They are constantly changing with the technology.
Sometimes, when a port is first designed, no thought is given for other uses, and another one must be designed for that. Sometimes several different physical layers are designed at once. Depends on the need.
To say that one is enough is correct only sometimes.
Even the lowly IEC plug and socket which almost every component today uses (except, curiously, TVs), is inadequate for heavy current, though sometimes it's used out of spec. But, right now, there's no good "standard" substitute for electronics. Big power amps often need attached power cords.
So, nothing's perfect.
Perhaps the fault was with VESA in the first place for not thinking that a smaller port would be useful in smaller devices, and Apple is making up for that lack of foresight.
First, DisplayPort was designed with reduced size in mind. After all, the standard DisplayPort connector is a lot smaller than VGA and DVI connectors. Second, Apple showed its own "lack of foresight" by making not one, but two proprietary DVI connectors: Mini DVI followed by Micro DVI. Has Apple learned from this, or should we look forward to Apple introducing Micro DisplayPort and Nano DisplayPort?
The Mini DisplayPort is a small form factor connector invented by Apple to fully support the VESA DisplayPort protocol. Unlike the Mini-DVI and Micro-DVI connectors common on previous generation Apple products, the port is capable of driving resolutions up to 2560x1600, which is commonly used on 30-inch displays.
Based on what I have read, it behooves me that anybody would argue against its implementation, particularly that it was a means for Apple to control the medium, gouge the consumer or address its needs to fit in a smaller form factor.
Unless somebody can confirm differently, I would suggest that the new protocol is well worth consideration and implementation. For example:
Advantages over DVI
- Based on micro-packet protocol.
- Allows easy expansion of the standard
- Allows multiple video streams over single physical connection (in a future version)
- Designed to support internal chip-to-chip communication
- Can drive display panels directly, eliminating control circuits and allowing for cheaper and slimmer displays
- Aimed to replace internal LVDS links in notebook panels with a unified link interface
- Supports both RGB and YCbCr encoding formats
- Auxiliary channel can be used for touch-panel data, USB links, camera, microphone, etc.
- Fewer lanes with embedded clock reduce RFI.
- Slimmer cables and a much smaller connector that doesn't require thumbscrews. Connector pins don't run the risk of bending if improperly handled.
- The DisplayPort connector is easier to connect when guided only by touch.
Advantages compared to HDMI- DisplayPort does not require licensing or royalty payments as HDMI does
- Allows daisy-chaining of multiple displays
Disadvantages compared to HDMI- No xvYCC color space support
- No Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio bitstream support
- No support for Consumer Electronics control signals
In addition, I understand that nearly 200 electronic companies form VESA and that a number of them have announced their intention to implement or support the protocol, i.e., AMD/ATI, Analogix, Apple, ASRock, ASUSTeK, Circuit Assembly, Dell, Genesis Microchip, Hewlett-Packard, Hosiden Corporation, Intel, Integrated Device Technology, Japan Aviation Electronics, Lenovo, Luxtera, Molex, NVIDIA, NXP Semiconductors, Palit Microsystems Palit, Parade Technologies, Philips, Quantum Data, Samsung, Sparkle Computer, Texas Instruments, and Tyco Electronics.Again, I notice that the major dissenters in this forum are the same guys that continually dis Apple at every turn; protected in part by ignorance 'without prejudice'.
I would hope that one would expand the points of advantages and disadvantages as well, without emotions rhetoric, but with facts and a willingness to confirm any challenges.
Now we have displayport. Awesome technology, but as usual PC manufacturers are painfully conservative. So Apple is the first to market. But for some reason they are using a custom connector type, despite the fact that the standard one is pretty small. Apple could probably have accommodated for it if they really wanted to, but they didn't.
Now 99 time out of 100 I would say this is a stupid move, and would divide the standard and put it on the fast road to demise, just like what happened to firewire. But the fact is that no one, and I mean no one, uses normal displayport yet. They aren't actually splitting the standard, because the normal connector doesn't exist on any products yet. And while I guarantee you that each and every PC and monitor manufacturer is testing prototypes with displayport, the only real testing is for the interface itself. Mini displayport only changes the shape, not the actual pins. They don't have to test for that. All they have to do is replace the female connector, and since mini displayport is strictly smaller in every dimension, they could knock that off in a weekend.
Why do I bring this up? Because now that Apple is freely licensing their connector shape, there is really no reason NOT to license it and and use it in place of the normal port. The technology is the same. The cost is the same. The R&D is (basically) the same. The only substantial differences are in size and market penetration, where (thanks to Apple) mini displayport has a strict advantage in both.
So in conclusion, in all probability it will be mini displayport and not normal which will become the industry standard. What Apple did was extremely brash and arrogant, but it will probably work.
Based on what I have read, it behooves me that anybody would argue against its implementation, particularly that it was a means for Apple to control the medium, gouge the consumer or address its needs to fit in a smaller form factor.
Unless somebody can confirm differently, I would suggest that the new protocol is well worth consideration and implementation. For example:
Advantages over DVI
Auxiliary channel can be used for touch-panel data, USB links, camera, microphone, etc.
Fewer lanes with embedded clock reduce RFI.
Slimmer cables and a much smaller connector that doesn't require thumbscrews. Connector pins don't run the risk of bending if improperly handled.
The DisplayPort connector is easier to connect when guided only by touch.
Advantages compared to HDMI
- DisplayPort does not require licensing or royalty payments as HDMI does
- Allows daisy-chaining of multiple displays
Disadvantages compared to HDMI- No xvYCC color space support
- No Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio bitstream support
- No support for Consumer Electronics control signals
In addition, I understand that nearly 200 electronic companies form VESA and that a number of them have announced their intention to implement or support the protocol, i.e., AMD/ATI, Analogix, Apple, ASRock, ASUSTeK, Circuit Assembly, Dell, Genesis Microchip, Hewlett-Packard, Hosiden Corporation, Intel, Integrated Device Technology, Japan Aviation Electronics, Lenovo, Luxtera, Molex, NVIDIA, NXP Semiconductors, Palit Microsystems Palit, Parade Technologies, Philips, Quantum Data, Samsung, Sparkle Computer, Texas Instruments, and Tyco Electronics.Again, I notice that the major dissenters in this forum are the same guys that continually dis Apple at every turn; protected in part by ignorance 'without prejudice'.
I would hope that one would expand the points of advantages and disadvantages as well, without emotions rhetoric, but with facts and a willingness to confirm any challenges.
I do not see anyone against the standard or Apple implementing it. Dell does have monitors already to market with the VESA DisplayPort connector, and someone else mentioned HP and Lenovo as also having the connectors in shipping devices. All people are saying here is that it was ultimately needless to implement another connector to a standard that already had a very small connector.
You are just making a worse case prediction. Their is no reason for no one else to use mini Display port.
They don't have any reason to use it over a full sized display port connector either. Standard DP is very close in size to the mini-VGA and Mini-DVI ports.
I'm basing on the fact that Apple used mini port instead of the standard port. Its a tight space and 1mm probably made a difference.
Apple doing something automatically makes it the case? If they can't fit something as small as a standard display port on a notebook, then they need to fire some people on the design or engineering staff.
Perhaps the fault was with VESA in the first place for not thinking that a smaller port would be useful in smaller devices, and Apple is making up for that lack of foresight.
Because no reasonable company would design such a device. Nobody else makes their engineers design around the eccentricities of their design team.