The only thing I can contemplate requiring a connection to a projector would be a business presentation. And the only evidence of any app which would do this so far is keynote. If that is not a specific use case.... And a very narrow one at that.
We are talking about the maintenance of a legacy connector so this point is entirely relevant given th justification for it's upkeep.
The VGA output makes sense as an interim measure, prior to giving some future iPad more versatile digital output via LightPeak.
If projectors are still using VGA connectors then I don't think LightPeak is the next step for them or the iPad. We don't even have FW1600 or USB3.0 in any Macs so I wouldn't expect LightPeak for a long time. Macs first, accessory devices later. Plus, Intel says it will be ready in 2010 with no actual date set, but then there is the time it takes for adoption.
If projectors are still using VGA connectors then I don't think LightPeak is the next step for them or the iPad. We don't even have FW1600 or USB3.0 in any Macs so I wouldn't expect LightPeak for a long time. Macs first, accessory devices later. Plus, Intel says it will be ready in 2010 with no actual date set, but then there is the time it takes for adoption.
I would expect that a LightPeak would make FW1600 and up unnecessary. That might be true of much of the need for USB3 as well.
I would expect that a LightPeak would make FW1600 and up unnecessary. That might be true of much of the need for USB3 as well.
If a faster tech that is developed years later automatically obsolesces other tech then we wouldn't be talking about VGA on the iPad.
I'd expect LightPeak to be a port on Macs at first, along with FW and USB. I have doubts about FW being updated since none of their iDevices can even sync or charge through them anymore, but I would expect USB3.0 to come. Hopefully with the next professional Mac releases.
Does anyone know yet if it offers an extended desktop?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42
That's a great point, and we probably won't know until it ships.
It will for sure. I think that was confirmed by some Apple guy during the iPad event, and anyway the SDK sports clear support for the feature - developers can easily paint a second "window" with different content on the external display.
The only reason the iPad will work with modern HDTVs is that they feature a "legacy VGA connector". iPad doesn't do HDMI, and who wants to view 480i (or 480p) on their shiny HDTV that can do 1080p?
I thought most of the point of this article was about making presentations using a projector. I really don't think an iPad is a good way to play entertainment media on a TV, it's just the wrong form factor. Ideally, it could do a decent job of at least sending TV video if it had a digital video connector, but then, iPad doesn't have a remote port, so it's either a matter of having it on your lap so you can control it, with a long video cord, or getting up and walking to the TV every time you need to do anything.
I thought most of the point of this article was about making presentations using a projector. I really don't think an iPad is a good way to play entertainment media on a TV, it's just the wrong form factor. Ideally, it could do a decent job of at least sending TV video if it had a digital video connector, but then, iPad doesn't have a remote port, so it's either a matter of having it on your lap so you can control it, with a long video cord, or getting up and walking to the TV every time you need to do anything.
The iPhone should be the remote obviously
Hopefully that becomes a possibility at some point. It would help for presenting too.
for the really slow readers of this thread, I will try again:
HDTV style resolutions like 720p have no relation to HDMI. HDMI can also output VGA resolutions, so this argument is irrelevant.
They chose VGA for other reasons, probably price.
Not only that but HDMI is really just DVI with audio and DVI can handle far greater resolutions than the 1330 resolution that is 1080P.
That being said for the market the iPad is aiming for VGA makes more sense. I would have liked to see Display Port then you could hook up to anything but Apple wants to keep the amount of ports simple and considering the Dock Connector can't handle the DVI output there you go.
Not for nothing, but I doubt they could have included a VGA connector on the iPad and still maintained it's streamlined shape. Sure, it's a way to get us to buy accessories, but then what company doesn't do that.
what ever connector we are forced >> we will find a way to port ipad content out to the world
i only wanted 1080p level or higher
and i will buy any product that has an apple on it
VGA is usually used as the informal term for the connector. XGA is a term for a specific screen resolution.
No, XGA is the name for a specific IBM adapter. Nobody else used the term, because it was IBM's. When there was a need for a higher resolution, the rest of the industry just increased their clock frequency (thereby matching IBMs, because the math is all the same) and they were done. No fancy 'XGA' name needed.
This is where the 'multi-sync' monitor came from. Instead of creating a monitor that only worked at certain frequencies, it would just look for a signal along a continuum of plausible frequencies, and lock on to it when found.
IBM was busy trying to re-invent new names for the same standards. That's why 'PS/2' mouse and keyboard connectors are compatible with the original big DIN keyboard connectors and serial mice with nothing more than a direct adapter.
No, XGA is the name for a specific IBM adapter. Nobody else used the term, because it was IBM's. When there was a need for a higher resolution, the rest of the industry just increased their clock frequency (thereby matching IBMs, because the math is all the same) and they were done. No fancy 'XGA' name needed.
Thanks for the material. Inside, you'll see a line that basically spells it out. XGA is an IBM product, not the name for the standard in use by PCs then, or now:
"XGA hardware was not cloned as extensively as VGA hardware. Nevertheless, at least one graphics company made several XGA-compatible chips, the IIT AGX."
Quote:
Like its predecessor (the IBM 8514), XGA offered fixed function hardware acceleration to offload processing of 2D drawing tasks. XGA and 8514 could offload line-draw, bitmap-copy (bitblt), and color-fill operations from the host CPU. XGA's acceleration was faster than 8514's, and more comprehensive in that it supported more drawing primitives and XGA's 16 bits per pixel (65,536 color) display-mode.
A resolution standard would not include 'fixed function hardware acceleration to offload processing of 2D drawing tasks.'
You can also read the IBM press release announcement of the XGA adapter card here:
It was a proprietary card that was almost compatible with VGA (not register compatible). In terms of resolutions, it is exactly the same as VGA at the frequency VGA uses for the same resolutions.
You Apple guys are falling for 20 year old IBM propaganda. How interesting!
Thanks for the material. Inside, you'll see a line that basically spells it out. XGA is an IBM product, not the name for the standard in use by PCs then, or now:
"XGA hardware was not cloned as extensively as VGA hardware. Nevertheless, at least one graphics company made several XGA-compatible chips, the IIT AGX."
You can also read the IBM press release announcement of the XGA adapter card here:
It was a proprietary card that was almost compatible with VGA (not register compatible). In terms of resolutions, it is exactly the same as VGA at the frequency VGA uses for the same resolutions.
You Apple guys are falling for 20 year old IBM propaganda. How interesting!
I'm not sure what you are gettting at or why you keep comparing the display standard to hardware. IBM created the XGA display standard, just like VESA, Intel, Apple etc. all create standards.
It's not a big deal that IBM invented it. You do realize that IBM had to make new HW to run the super high resolution of XGA, right?
I'm not sure what you are gettting at or why you keep comparing the display standard to hardware. IBM created the XGA display standard, just like VESA, Intel, Apple etc. all create standards.
It's not a big deal that IBM invented it. You do realize that IBM had to make new HW to run the super high resolution of XGA, right?
IBM invented VGA. And I will give them credit for that all day long. And if you want to call 1024x768 as VGA or Super VGA, I'm fine with that.
But XGA is not a new display standard, except in the delusional eyes of 1990 IBM, and within the framework of their failed attempt to recapture control of the PC market they had lost with the entire 'PS/2', Micro-Channel, and 'OS/2' product line. XGA is VGA with a new name; an IBM name. Nothing more.
Proof: According to the IBM press release I linked to, the XGA adapter could do 1024x768 resolution with the 8507, 8514, 8515, and 8604 monitors. The 8514 was introduced in 1987, the same time VGA was introduced, and three years before IBM marketing came up with the XGA card. If 1024x768 is a new resolution standard, how can a three year old VGA product support it?
More proof: XGA was introduced in the press release in October 1990. This July 16, 1990 Infoworld review looks at a pile of VGA cards that do 1024x768. Hmm... I guess they aren't XGA, are they? Google Books link to Info World article. And just to save you the trouble of reading it, XGA isn't mentioned once in the entire article... because IBM marketing hasn't "invented" it yet.
The article also mentions that NEC Multisync 5D monitors support 1280x1024 resolution. And all of this before IBM saved us all by 'inventing' the 1024x768 standard?
The problem with just taking the page length out of the equation is, if you're referring to a specific paragraph, how will you communicate to someone where it is?
eBooks have page markers. You could easily have a menu option to display the current page\\paragraph.
Comments
The VGA output makes sense as an interim measure, prior to giving some future iPad more versatile digital output via LightPeak.
We are talking about the maintenance of a legacy connector so this point is entirely relevant given th justification for it's upkeep.
The VGA output makes sense as an interim measure, prior to giving some future iPad more versatile digital output via LightPeak.
If projectors are still using VGA connectors then I don't think LightPeak is the next step for them or the iPad. We don't even have FW1600 or USB3.0 in any Macs so I wouldn't expect LightPeak for a long time. Macs first, accessory devices later. Plus, Intel says it will be ready in 2010 with no actual date set, but then there is the time it takes for adoption.
If projectors are still using VGA connectors then I don't think LightPeak is the next step for them or the iPad. We don't even have FW1600 or USB3.0 in any Macs so I wouldn't expect LightPeak for a long time. Macs first, accessory devices later. Plus, Intel says it will be ready in 2010 with no actual date set, but then there is the time it takes for adoption.
I would expect that a LightPeak would make FW1600 and up unnecessary. That might be true of much of the need for USB3 as well.
I would expect that a LightPeak would make FW1600 and up unnecessary. That might be true of much of the need for USB3 as well.
If a faster tech that is developed years later automatically obsolesces other tech then we wouldn't be talking about VGA on the iPad.
I'd expect LightPeak to be a port on Macs at first, along with FW and USB. I have doubts about FW being updated since none of their iDevices can even sync or charge through them anymore, but I would expect USB3.0 to come. Hopefully with the next professional Mac releases.
Does anyone know yet if it offers an extended desktop?
That's a great point, and we probably won't know until it ships.
It will for sure. I think that was confirmed by some Apple guy during the iPad event, and anyway the SDK sports clear support for the feature - developers can easily paint a second "window" with different content on the external display.
The only reason the iPad will work with modern HDTVs is that they feature a "legacy VGA connector". iPad doesn't do HDMI, and who wants to view 480i (or 480p) on their shiny HDTV that can do 1080p?
I thought most of the point of this article was about making presentations using a projector. I really don't think an iPad is a good way to play entertainment media on a TV, it's just the wrong form factor. Ideally, it could do a decent job of at least sending TV video if it had a digital video connector, but then, iPad doesn't have a remote port, so it's either a matter of having it on your lap so you can control it, with a long video cord, or getting up and walking to the TV every time you need to do anything.
I thought most of the point of this article was about making presentations using a projector. I really don't think an iPad is a good way to play entertainment media on a TV, it's just the wrong form factor. Ideally, it could do a decent job of at least sending TV video if it had a digital video connector, but then, iPad doesn't have a remote port, so it's either a matter of having it on your lap so you can control it, with a long video cord, or getting up and walking to the TV every time you need to do anything.
The iPhone should be the remote obviously
Hopefully that becomes a possibility at some point. It would help for presenting too.
for the really slow readers of this thread, I will try again:
HDTV style resolutions like 720p have no relation to HDMI. HDMI can also output VGA resolutions, so this argument is irrelevant.
They chose VGA for other reasons, probably price.
Not only that but HDMI is really just DVI with audio and DVI can handle far greater resolutions than the 1330 resolution that is 1080P.
That being said for the market the iPad is aiming for VGA makes more sense. I would have liked to see Display Port then you could hook up to anything but Apple wants to keep the amount of ports simple and considering the Dock Connector can't handle the DVI output there you go.
forgive me
Here's a tip; maybe this will help you;
There is no such thing as a product without omitted features. None.
book
clock
wall
floor
sea floor
loose change
number 9
Not for nothing, but I doubt they could have included a VGA connector on the iPad and still maintained it's streamlined shape. Sure, it's a way to get us to buy accessories, but then what company doesn't do that.
what ever connector we are forced >> we will find a way to port ipad content out to the world
i only wanted 1080p level or higher
and i will buy any product that has an apple on it
ANY
i will crush any product that contains msft
law of nature
peace 9
Apple's official tech specs say "with Dock Connector to VGA Adapter", which explains pretty much everything meaningful.
Yep. And it's for projectors. That's how Apple will pitch the iPad to businesses- as a presentation machine.
Yep. And it's for projectors. That's how Apple will pitch the iPad to businesses- as a presentation machine.
Of all the projectors I looked at all had VGA ports. That includes all the high-end HD projectors, even a Dell with DisplayPort.
VGA is usually used as the informal term for the connector. XGA is a term for a specific screen resolution.
No, XGA is the name for a specific IBM adapter. Nobody else used the term, because it was IBM's. When there was a need for a higher resolution, the rest of the industry just increased their clock frequency (thereby matching IBMs, because the math is all the same) and they were done. No fancy 'XGA' name needed.
This is where the 'multi-sync' monitor came from. Instead of creating a monitor that only worked at certain frequencies, it would just look for a signal along a continuum of plausible frequencies, and lock on to it when found.
IBM was busy trying to re-invent new names for the same standards. That's why 'PS/2' mouse and keyboard connectors are compatible with the original big DIN keyboard connectors and serial mice with nothing more than a direct adapter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MCA_IBM_XGA-2.jpg
No, XGA is the name for a specific IBM adapter. Nobody else used the term, because it was IBM's. When there was a need for a higher resolution, the rest of the industry just increased their clock frequency (thereby matching IBMs, because the math is all the same) and they were done. No fancy 'XGA' name needed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MCA_IBM_XGA-2.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XGA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XGA
Thanks for the material. Inside, you'll see a line that basically spells it out. XGA is an IBM product, not the name for the standard in use by PCs then, or now:
"XGA hardware was not cloned as extensively as VGA hardware. Nevertheless, at least one graphics company made several XGA-compatible chips, the IIT AGX."
Like its predecessor (the IBM 8514), XGA offered fixed function hardware acceleration to offload processing of 2D drawing tasks. XGA and 8514 could offload line-draw, bitmap-copy (bitblt), and color-fill operations from the host CPU. XGA's acceleration was faster than 8514's, and more comprehensive in that it supported more drawing primitives and XGA's 16 bits per pixel (65,536 color) display-mode.
A resolution standard would not include 'fixed function hardware acceleration to offload processing of 2D drawing tasks.'
You can also read the IBM press release announcement of the XGA adapter card here:
http://ibmmuseum.com/ohlandl/video/190-182.txt
It was a proprietary card that was almost compatible with VGA (not register compatible). In terms of resolutions, it is exactly the same as VGA at the frequency VGA uses for the same resolutions.
You Apple guys are falling for 20 year old IBM propaganda. How interesting!
Thanks for the material. Inside, you'll see a line that basically spells it out. XGA is an IBM product, not the name for the standard in use by PCs then, or now:
"XGA hardware was not cloned as extensively as VGA hardware. Nevertheless, at least one graphics company made several XGA-compatible chips, the IIT AGX."
You can also read the IBM press release announcement of the XGA adapter card here:
http://ibmmuseum.com/ohlandl/video/190-182.txt
It was a proprietary card that was almost compatible with VGA (not register compatible). In terms of resolutions, it is exactly the same as VGA at the frequency VGA uses for the same resolutions.
You Apple guys are falling for 20 year old IBM propaganda. How interesting!
I'm not sure what you are gettting at or why you keep comparing the display standard to hardware. IBM created the XGA display standard, just like VESA, Intel, Apple etc. all create standards.
It's not a big deal that IBM invented it. You do realize that IBM had to make new HW to run the super high resolution of XGA, right?
I'm not sure what you are gettting at or why you keep comparing the display standard to hardware. IBM created the XGA display standard, just like VESA, Intel, Apple etc. all create standards.
It's not a big deal that IBM invented it. You do realize that IBM had to make new HW to run the super high resolution of XGA, right?
IBM invented VGA. And I will give them credit for that all day long. And if you want to call 1024x768 as VGA or Super VGA, I'm fine with that.
But XGA is not a new display standard, except in the delusional eyes of 1990 IBM, and within the framework of their failed attempt to recapture control of the PC market they had lost with the entire 'PS/2', Micro-Channel, and 'OS/2' product line. XGA is VGA with a new name; an IBM name. Nothing more.
Proof: According to the IBM press release I linked to, the XGA adapter could do 1024x768 resolution with the 8507, 8514, 8515, and 8604 monitors. The 8514 was introduced in 1987, the same time VGA was introduced, and three years before IBM marketing came up with the XGA card. If 1024x768 is a new resolution standard, how can a three year old VGA product support it?
More proof: XGA was introduced in the press release in October 1990. This July 16, 1990 Infoworld review looks at a pile of VGA cards that do 1024x768. Hmm... I guess they aren't XGA, are they? Google Books link to Info World article. And just to save you the trouble of reading it, XGA isn't mentioned once in the entire article... because IBM marketing hasn't "invented" it yet.
The article also mentions that NEC Multisync 5D monitors support 1280x1024 resolution. And all of this before IBM saved us all by 'inventing' the 1024x768 standard?
The problem with just taking the page length out of the equation is, if you're referring to a specific paragraph, how will you communicate to someone where it is?
eBooks have page markers. You could easily have a menu option to display the current page\\paragraph.