No need to limit it, which is why it's optional in the spec. I think it would be wise for Apple to start using the audio spec, while leaving it up to the Display manufacturer's as to whether or not to use the audio signal.
I agree with most of this statement. However, I agree more with Melgross that optional in a spec means it won't be used.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy
Blindly saying everyone should require it, even if they don't need it is just wasteful and not necessarily a good thing for the consumer. The fact that the audio piece is in the spec is a good thing.
I'll have to disagree here. Blindly... is not the same as myopic. Apple has always added future or advanced technology, not currently needed, as a forward looking policy. Gigibit ethernet, bluetooth, and n-draft WiFI comes to mind. As I stated, the cost is minimal in volume, so IMO it is more beneficial to the consumer, in the long run, to have the display audio option onboard.
What is wasteful, on Apple's part, is having an mDP connection in a 27" iMac and not implementing the I/O audio portion of the DP spec in its hardware at market release.
I agree with most of this statement. However, I agree more with Melgross that optional in a spec means it won't be used.
I'll have to disagree here. Blindly... is not the same as myopic. Apple has always added future or advanced technology, not currently needed, as a forward looking policy. Gigibit ethernet, bluetooth, and n-draft WiFI comes to mind. As I stated, the cost is minimal in volume, so IMO it is more beneficial to the consumer, in the long run, to have the display audio option onboard.
What is wasteful, on Apple's part, is having an mDP connection in a 27" iMac and not implementing the I/O audio portion of the DP spec in its hardware at market release.
How do you know what the cost is? I haven't seen any data as to the difference between a bare connector and one that handles audio. Even if it is cheap, especially when you manufacture in volume, minimal costs tend to add up. Requiring a display maker to use a more complex adapter for audio that it doesn't even support is just silly.
If it was really that simple and cheap, why wouldn't they be using it already?
The market will decide things like this. If there is a demand for it, manufacturers will offer it.
Full-sized DVI, mini-DVI, micro-DVI and now mini display port... I'm getting sick of buying all those adapters, Apple!
But I think Apple is wasting its time with mini display port. Next year Light Peak will be out and as long as Intel doesn't stuff it up, it will replace a multitude of connectors, including display port and HDMI.
Full-sized DVI, mini-DVI, micro-DVI and now mini display port... I'm getting sick of buying all those adapters, Apple!
But I think Apple is wasting its time with mini display port. Next year Light Peak will be out and as long as Intel doesn't stuff it up, it will replace a multitude of connectors, including display port and HDMI.
Expected to be available at the end of 2010. I wouldn't expect it to have any significant traction until two or three years later. Adoption doesn't happen overnight.
Chances are, Intel won't be releasing it as a royalty free connector either, meaning takeup will most likely be even slower until technology advances to the point where adoption of a faster technology is no longer an option.
Nonsense! Are you paying attention to anything here? You seem to be living in a bubble. When ALL ATI 58xx cards have DP outputs, including the cheap ones, how can you say that it's just a professional tool? How about all those $700 Dell computers? There are others as well.
ATI and Nvidia both go DUAL DVI and HDMI but ATI also adds a display port. Looks like the larger Dell monitors 27-30" provide a display port while below is HDMI and DVI only.
But I think Apple is wasting its time with mini display port. Next year Light Peak will be out and as long as Intel doesn't stuff it up, it will replace a multitude of connectors, including display port and HDMI.
I agree. Light Peak has the potential to do away with every peripheral port now in use. In a couple of years, say goodbye to USB, Firewire, DVI, VGA and all the rest. I can't wait to see all of the adapters for Light Peak.
Display Port and now Mini Display port are now standards. PC's will start using them over HDMI so in a few years, you'll be saying the same thing about Display Port.
How do you know what the cost is? I haven't seen any data as to the difference between a bare connector and one that handles audio. Even if it is cheap, especially when you manufacture in volume, minimal costs tend to add up. Requiring a display maker to use a more complex adapter for audio that it doesn't even support is just silly.
Sure I don't have the cost figures, but if you can give away an FM radio free as a marketing ploy, I'd venture to guess what we're talking about is dirt cheap. It's surely doable within Apple's premium margins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy
If it was really that simple and cheap, why wouldn't they be using it already?
Profit & Greed pure and simple. Companies that are selling cheap goods to get the most profit from their consumers will not give you anything extra. That's why I think the PD spec shouldn't be optional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy
The market will decide things like this. If there is a demand for it, manufacturers will offer it.
Your right about this. Apple is the prime example. It gives more for the money, even when you don't need it just yet, and its customers are brand loyal willing to pay more.
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'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!
Did you ask him to show you this official statement from Apple? The guy sounds like a douche. Unless he can show you something documented from Apple showing this limitation, then I would pursue this with corporate.
Umm, HDMI can most certainly achieve higher resolutions than 1920x1080.
That said, HDMI really isn't meant for a computer --> monitor configuration, IMO. The only real benefit of HDMI with computers is if you're looking to hook up your machine to an HDTV, as HDMI beats VGA hands down any day.
The biggest suckiness of both HDMI and mDP is that there isn't a latching or other method of securing the cable other than friction. I've had HDMI pull out from a long heavy cable up to the projector.
I've managed to make it work without problems, but I support the cable in a way that there isn't much of a net force.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy
Did you ask him to show you this official statement from Apple? The guy sounds like a douche. Unless he can show you something documented from Apple showing this limitation, then I would pursue this with corporate.
Apple doesn't seem to acknowledge problems with the mDP adapter to 30" displays. I haven't seen anyone say that it works fine for them. Both products are of their own brand, I don't understand why it's a problem.
One of the goals of standards is that they make things "just work" together.
If you need adapters, as you do with all of Apple's connectors, then, in the real world, it's not a standard, regardless of whatever bits of paper VESA sign.
HDMI may be technically inferior, but I'd like to see the stats on how many useful HDMI devices Mac owners have in their houses compared to mini-DisplayPort. I bet it's a million to one, minimum.
How do you know what the cost is? I haven't seen any data as to the difference between a bare connector and one that handles audio. Even if it is cheap, especially when you manufacture in volume, minimal costs tend to add up. Requiring a display maker to use a more complex adapter for audio that it doesn't even support is just silly.
If it was really that simple and cheap, why wouldn't they be using it already?
The market will decide things like this. If there is a demand for it, manufacturers will offer it.
History has shown that if something isn't built-in, if won't become popular.
Most people won't even know what it is. It's go to be standardized. It's got to be available to everyone. It's got to be in all machines. Everything must work "out of the box".
Anytime you don't follow the rules, you are taking a big chance.
ATI and Nvidia both go DUAL DVI and HDMI but ATI also adds a display port. Looks like the larger Dell monitors 27-30" provide a display port while below is HDMI and DVI only.
History has shown that if something isn't built-in, if won't become popular.
Most people won't even know what it is. It's go to be standardized. It's got to be available to everyone. It's got to be in all machines. Everything must work "out of the box".
Anytime you don't follow the rules, you are taking a big chance.
You mean like DTS in a DVD player? It wasn't required, yet it's pretty much standard now in any tuner or dvd player that you buy. I see no reason to require audio be implemented when it's optional in the standard.
You mean like DTS in a DVD player? It wasn't required, yet it's pretty much standard now in any tuner or dvd player that you buy. I see no reason to require audio be implemented when it's optional in the standard.
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.
Comments
No need to limit it, which is why it's optional in the spec. I think it would be wise for Apple to start using the audio spec, while leaving it up to the Display manufacturer's as to whether or not to use the audio signal.
I agree with most of this statement. However, I agree more with Melgross that optional in a spec means it won't be used.
Blindly saying everyone should require it, even if they don't need it is just wasteful and not necessarily a good thing for the consumer. The fact that the audio piece is in the spec is a good thing.
I'll have to disagree here. Blindly... is not the same as myopic. Apple has always added future or advanced technology, not currently needed, as a forward looking policy. Gigibit ethernet, bluetooth, and n-draft WiFI comes to mind. As I stated, the cost is minimal in volume, so IMO it is more beneficial to the consumer, in the long run, to have the display audio option onboard.
What is wasteful, on Apple's part, is having an mDP connection in a 27" iMac and not implementing the I/O audio portion of the DP spec in its hardware at market release.
I agree with most of this statement. However, I agree more with Melgross that optional in a spec means it won't be used.
I'll have to disagree here. Blindly... is not the same as myopic. Apple has always added future or advanced technology, not currently needed, as a forward looking policy. Gigibit ethernet, bluetooth, and n-draft WiFI comes to mind. As I stated, the cost is minimal in volume, so IMO it is more beneficial to the consumer, in the long run, to have the display audio option onboard.
What is wasteful, on Apple's part, is having an mDP connection in a 27" iMac and not implementing the I/O audio portion of the DP spec in its hardware at market release.
How do you know what the cost is? I haven't seen any data as to the difference between a bare connector and one that handles audio. Even if it is cheap, especially when you manufacture in volume, minimal costs tend to add up. Requiring a display maker to use a more complex adapter for audio that it doesn't even support is just silly.
If it was really that simple and cheap, why wouldn't they be using it already?
The market will decide things like this. If there is a demand for it, manufacturers will offer it.
But I think Apple is wasting its time with mini display port. Next year Light Peak will be out and as long as Intel doesn't stuff it up, it will replace a multitude of connectors, including display port and HDMI.
Full-sized DVI, mini-DVI, micro-DVI and now mini display port... I'm getting sick of buying all those adapters, Apple!
But I think Apple is wasting its time with mini display port. Next year Light Peak will be out and as long as Intel doesn't stuff it up, it will replace a multitude of connectors, including display port and HDMI.
Expected to be available at the end of 2010. I wouldn't expect it to have any significant traction until two or three years later. Adoption doesn't happen overnight.
Chances are, Intel won't be releasing it as a royalty free connector either, meaning takeup will most likely be even slower until technology advances to the point where adoption of a faster technology is no longer an option.
Nonsense! Are you paying attention to anything here? You seem to be living in a bubble. When ALL ATI 58xx cards have DP outputs, including the cheap ones, how can you say that it's just a professional tool? How about all those $700 Dell computers? There are others as well.
ATI and Nvidia both go DUAL DVI and HDMI but ATI also adds a display port. Looks like the larger Dell monitors 27-30" provide a display port while below is HDMI and DVI only.
But I think Apple is wasting its time with mini display port. Next year Light Peak will be out and as long as Intel doesn't stuff it up, it will replace a multitude of connectors, including display port and HDMI.
I agree. Light Peak has the potential to do away with every peripheral port now in use. In a couple of years, say goodbye to USB, Firewire, DVI, VGA and all the rest. I can't wait to see all of the adapters for Light Peak.
HDMI is better- more universal.
Display Port and now Mini Display port are now standards. PC's will start using them over HDMI so in a few years, you'll be saying the same thing about Display Port.
How do you know what the cost is? I haven't seen any data as to the difference between a bare connector and one that handles audio. Even if it is cheap, especially when you manufacture in volume, minimal costs tend to add up. Requiring a display maker to use a more complex adapter for audio that it doesn't even support is just silly.
Sure I don't have the cost figures, but if you can give away an FM radio free as a marketing ploy, I'd venture to guess what we're talking about is dirt cheap. It's surely doable within Apple's premium margins.
If it was really that simple and cheap, why wouldn't they be using it already?
Profit & Greed pure and simple. Companies that are selling cheap goods to get the most profit from their consumers will not give you anything extra. That's why I think the PD spec shouldn't be optional.
The market will decide things like this. If there is a demand for it, manufacturers will offer it.
Your right about this. Apple is the prime example. It gives more for the money, even when you don't need it just yet, and its customers are brand loyal willing to pay more.
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'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!
Did you ask him to show you this official statement from Apple? The guy sounds like a douche. Unless he can show you something documented from Apple showing this limitation, then I would pursue this with corporate.
its also lower resolution
Umm, HDMI can most certainly achieve higher resolutions than 1920x1080.
That said, HDMI really isn't meant for a computer --> monitor configuration, IMO. The only real benefit of HDMI with computers is if you're looking to hook up your machine to an HDTV, as HDMI beats VGA hands down any day.
The biggest suckiness of both HDMI and mDP is that there isn't a latching or other method of securing the cable other than friction. I've had HDMI pull out from a long heavy cable up to the projector.
I've managed to make it work without problems, but I support the cable in a way that there isn't much of a net force.
Did you ask him to show you this official statement from Apple? The guy sounds like a douche. Unless he can show you something documented from Apple showing this limitation, then I would pursue this with corporate.
Apple doesn't seem to acknowledge problems with the mDP adapter to 30" displays. I haven't seen anyone say that it works fine for them. Both products are of their own brand, I don't understand why it's a problem.
If you need adapters, as you do with all of Apple's connectors, then, in the real world, it's not a standard, regardless of whatever bits of paper VESA sign.
HDMI may be technically inferior, but I'd like to see the stats on how many useful HDMI devices Mac owners have in their houses compared to mini-DisplayPort. I bet it's a million to one, minimum.
How do you know what the cost is? I haven't seen any data as to the difference between a bare connector and one that handles audio. Even if it is cheap, especially when you manufacture in volume, minimal costs tend to add up. Requiring a display maker to use a more complex adapter for audio that it doesn't even support is just silly.
If it was really that simple and cheap, why wouldn't they be using it already?
The market will decide things like this. If there is a demand for it, manufacturers will offer it.
History has shown that if something isn't built-in, if won't become popular.
Most people won't even know what it is. It's go to be standardized. It's got to be available to everyone. It's got to be in all machines. Everything must work "out of the box".
Anytime you don't follow the rules, you are taking a big chance.
ATI and Nvidia both go DUAL DVI and HDMI but ATI also adds a display port. Looks like the larger Dell monitors 27-30" provide a display port while below is HDMI and DVI only.
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.
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.
Saving a $100 compared to what? Lots of sub $100 devices have ports other than DP. Am I missing something? (honest question)
History has shown that if something isn't built-in, if won't become popular.
Most people won't even know what it is. It's go to be standardized. It's got to be available to everyone. It's got to be in all machines. Everything must work "out of the box".
Anytime you don't follow the rules, you are taking a big chance.
You mean like DTS in a DVD player? It wasn't required, yet it's pretty much standard now in any tuner or dvd player that you buy. I see no reason to require audio be implemented when it's optional in the standard.
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 really doubt that. There are monitors with DVI close to $120 right now. A display-port only version of that isn't going to cost $20.
I really doubt that. There are monitors with DVI close to $120 right now. A display-port only version of that isn't going to cost $20.
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
You mean like DTS in a DVD player? It wasn't required, yet it's pretty much standard now in any tuner or dvd player that you buy. I see no reason to require audio be implemented when it's optional in the standard.
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.