Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple's Mini DisplayPort Officially Adopted By VESA

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the good-for-tiny-pictures dept.

Displays 160

DJRumpy writes "The Video Electronics Standard Association officially issued its Mini DisplayPort standard Tuesday, based on the technology licensed from Apple. VESA said that all devices using the Mini DisplayPort connector must meet the specifications required by the DisplayPort 1.1a standard, and cables that support the standard must also meet specific electrical specifications. It's a formal confirmation of the news from earlier this year, when VESA announced the Mini DisplayPort connector would be included in the forthcoming DisplayPort 1.2 specification."

cancel ×

160 comments

I hope it catches on (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30047810)

DVI connectors are clunky and have that 18th century finger destroying screw-on mechanism. Anything with screws on computers should be abolished for good.

Re:I hope it catches on (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30047964)

Agree fully. I still drop my jaw everytime I see a laptop from the past 3-4 years still sporting a friggin' VGA connector, or even worse, from some "PC" manufacturers, a parallel port.

Sadly, there will always be that crowd of conservative oddballs and anal retentives, barking like old dogs refusing to learn how to sit, for keeping old standards, trying to justify it by reasons of pointless, smelly compatibility that is long past its expiry date.....and everyone knows they are the ones who contribute to nothing but stagnation, not the ones who help driving the world forward.

Re:I hope it catches on (4, Insightful)

jfim (1167051) | more than 4 years ago | (#30048088)

Agree fully. I still drop my jaw everytime I see a laptop from the past 3-4 years still sporting a friggin' VGA connector, or even worse, from some "PC" manufacturers, a parallel port.

Sadly, there will always be that crowd of conservative oddballs and anal retentives, barking like old dogs refusing to learn how to sit, for keeping old standards, trying to justify it by reasons of pointless, smelly compatibility that is long past its expiry date.....and everyone knows they are the ones who contribute to nothing but stagnation, not the ones who help driving the world forward.

Yeah, just like people using serial ports to program Cisco gear or people in EE using serial ports to program microcontrollers by plugging the RX and TX pins directly to a serial port. And what about those people presenting their research at conferences around the world wanting to use a display connector that's supported on every single projector around the world in all convention centres instead of carrying a suitcase of adapters. We all know those aren't the people who help drive the world forwards, right?

Re:I hope it catches on (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30048554)

it saddens me when i see people who not only fail to see farther than their own noses (the hardware they personally deal in), but also forget to look back in history (the hardware we used, grew out of, and abandoned in favor of something better - our own progress).

by your arguments, we would never have arrived to where we were 10 years ago with Fast Ethernet, VGA, serial and parallel connectors, USB1.0, parallel ATA etc., and we wouldn't be where we are today, with DisplayPort, DVI, serial ATA, optical/gigabit Ethernet and 802.11 wireless, USB2/3 etc. - all of the latter being technologies that i'm certain you enjoy thoroughly, in loving favor of the alternatives you had 10 years ago.

and i'm sure even you can figure out that if we stick with your rationale, we won't arrive at tomorrow's technology either.

Re:I hope it catches on (1, Insightful)

jfim (1167051) | more than 4 years ago | (#30049434)

it saddens me when i see people who not only fail to see farther than their own noses (the hardware they personally deal in), but also forget to look back in history (the hardware we used, grew out of, and abandoned in favor of something better - our own progress).

by your arguments, we would never have arrived to where we were 10 years ago with Fast Ethernet, VGA, serial and parallel connectors, USB1.0, parallel ATA etc., and we wouldn't be where we are today, with DisplayPort, DVI, serial ATA, optical/gigabit Ethernet and 802.11 wireless, USB2/3 etc. - all of the latter being technologies that i'm certain you enjoy thoroughly, in loving favor of the alternatives you had 10 years ago.

and i'm sure even you can figure out that if we stick with your rationale, we won't arrive at tomorrow's technology either.

I didn't argue against new standards, as much as you seem to want to put words in my mouth, but rather at you saying that because we use some older standards because we need things to work instead of using the new whizbang technology we're just a "crowd of conservative oddballs and anal retentives, barking like old dogs refusing to learn how to sit, for keeping old standards, trying to justify it by reasons of pointless, smelly compatibility that is long past its expiry date."

There are other things than just the consumer market and some of us have specialized equipment for which older interfaces are needed because replacing the equipment for no reason other than "it uses the new connector/interface" is simply ridiculous.

Re:I hope it catches on (4, Insightful)

wfolta (603698) | more than 4 years ago | (#30050170)

The idea is that the new standard goes on the laptop, and from that nicely small connector, you can adapt to any standard, including new ones with much higher capacity.

Want a VGA adapter? Done. Want ah DVI adapter? Done. Each $30 at the Apple Store, and soon probably cheaper elsewhere. Other adapters possible. More capacity in the standard, for other folks who want to hook up to something else. Small connection to help keep your laptop small.

The only reason you actually need an ungainly VGA connector on your laptop is if you either refuse to pay $30 for an adapter, or you expect that you might lose the adapter yet still have your laptop for that super-important presentation.

Re:I hope it catches on (1)

QMO (836285) | more than 4 years ago | (#30050386)

The only reason you actually need an ungainly VGA connector on your laptop is if you either refuse to pay $30 for an adapter, or you expect that you might lose the adapter yet still have your laptop for that super-important presentation.

(bold added)
Don't you ever do anything for convenience?

Re:I hope it catches on (4, Insightful)

wfolta (603698) | more than 4 years ago | (#30050646)

Sure. The 95% of the time that I carry my laptop for my own use only, I have a slimmer machine that I throw in my backpack. That's convenient.

When I might make a presentation, I can throw in a small cable and I have full-sized VGA. Another small cable gives me full-sized DVI. Other cables will come that provide other standards/sizes.

When I'm going to a conference where I will make a presentation, I'll have my big laptop bag with all of those connectors, and I'll have a USB stick with my presentations on it, and a DVD, too, burned in PDF as a lowest-common-denominator.

Lugging around a laptop with a VGA (which size) port and also a DVI (which size) port on it all the time is inconvenient.

Re:I hope it catches on (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30051008)

See http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10428 for inexpensive adapters.

Re:I hope it catches on (1)

glennpratt (1230636) | more than 4 years ago | (#30050820)

Notebooks that have other legacy ports are only annoying because I know they wasted real estate where I'd rather have more USB ports or just a smaller/cheaper computer. VGA on the other hand is actually a deficit. You generally only get one monitor output, and if your only output is VGA your stuck in the analog world. Many high quality displays show a marked degradation in text rendering and color, many cheap LCDs suck at syncing with VGA sources and many newer televisions don't have VGA (or compatible RGBHV) input at all.

If you get DVI or DisplayPort, you can convert to just about anything else you need, while having a lossless option for most displays.

No one is asking you to replace old equipment, but you might need to buy an adapter.

Re:I hope it catches on (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30050266)

You sound like a little kid who doesn't have much computer experience.

Re:I hope it catches on (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30048792)

Yeah, just like people using serial ports to program Cisco gear or people in EE using serial ports to program microcontrollers by plugging the RX and TX pins directly to a serial port.

Specialists will always need specialist equipment. The vast majority of us don't.

And what about those people presenting their research at conferences around the world wanting to use a display connector that's supported on every single projector around the world in all convention centres instead of carrying a suitcase of adapters.

As one of those people, I can confirm that we normally carry our presentations (ppt or pdf) on a USB stick instead. Much easire than fiddling around with display connections between each talk. Most conferences don't allow you to use your own computer.

Re:I hope it catches on (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 4 years ago | (#30048832)

The parallel port, though, is easier to program for if you just need relatively low-frequency IO. As in some data logging applications and of course, prototyping. There are C headers that will let you interface *directly* with the parallel port, and all you need on the hardware end are a couple opto-isolators for safety. No need for any kind of special UART or host controller.

Re:I hope it catches on (1)

Abreu (173023) | more than 4 years ago | (#30049824)

The parallel port, though, is easier to program for if you just need relatively low-frequency IO. As in some data logging applications and of course, prototyping. There are C headers that will let you interface *directly* with the parallel port, and all you need on the hardware end are a couple opto-isolators for safety. No need for any kind of special UART or host controller.

Is it too hard to program for USB, instead? I am sure there must be a lot of ready-made libraries in most major languages...

Just wondering... I don't code myself, but it seems that in this day and age, it would be wiser to use a port that is available in almost every single computer in the world

Re:I hope it catches on (1)

Criton (605617) | more than 4 years ago | (#30048970)

Agreed also what about people who make their own custom interfaces. Plus it is environmentally irresponsible to force someone to buy a new projector or monitor just because it doesn't include Satan's HDCP or other DRM.

Re:I hope it catches on (1)

Random5 (826815) | more than 4 years ago | (#30049784)

He said PARALLEL port, not serial port. Used a parallel port lately? They're about twice the width and nowhere near as useful. I'm disappointed at the number of D-Sub ports still on laptops but glad DVI stayed around long enough that we can mostly skip HDMI for Display Port.

Re:I hope it catches on (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30050858)

These are a small percentage of people, however. And for a few dollars extra they can easily use USB to serial port adapters, or DVI/HDMI/mDP to VGA adapters. But they are driving costs up for *everybody* else.

Re:I hope it catches on (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30048288)

What's wrong with having a VGA output? Many older projectors and monitors, which are still perfectly functional and don't need to be replaced, use VGA. Why force people to buy a new monitor and a new projector just because they got a new laptop/PC?

Old technology takes a long time to become obsolete because most people don't want to replace their computer, monitor, projector, cd player, dvd player, vcr, or what have you, every two years. And most people don't have that kind of money, either.

Re:I hope it catches on (4, Informative)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 4 years ago | (#30048484)

What's wrong with having a VGA output? Many older projectors and monitors, which are still perfectly functional and don't need to be replaced, use VGA. Why force people to buy a new monitor and a new projector just because they got a new laptop/PC?

Let me introduce you to a new concept - an adapter cable [amazon.com] . They cost 20 or 30 bucks at most, and are available for older display technologies and with either male or female style vga/dvi/whatever connectors.

Re:I hope it catches on (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30050100)

Says the "93 Escort Wagon." ;)

Joking aside, I know you can get adapter cables. but they are a little annoying to use and annoying to carry around. My monitor takes VGA and DVI. I'm glad it takes both, because my two year old Dell laptop doesn't have DVI out, it only has VGA. My desktop video card, which is newer, only has DVI.

It's not really that big of a deal... but VGA has been working for a while and there are a lot of older VGA monitors still in use that are perfectly fine. Phasing out VGA already seems a little extreme.

Also, it's not just the VGA people that will have to carry around adapters; there are plenty of old projectors in use that don't have DVI. So if you buy a laptop with DVI only and end up needing to use a projector that doesn't have DVI... you're the one that needs the adapter then. :)

Adapter (2, Informative)

200_success (623160) | more than 4 years ago | (#30050724)

If only it were as simple as getting one adapter cable. John Graham-Cumming explains the situation -- with the recent proliferation of standards, you need a bundle [jgc.org] of adapters to handle all the combinations.

Re:I hope it catches on (2, Insightful)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | more than 4 years ago | (#30050924)

Let me give you a history lesson. For a while there, Apple used to provide industry-standard display ports on their computers. They even included DVI to VGA adapters for people with "older" technologies. Then they started slapping this new port on their laptops. So now I can no longer plug a monitor directly into the computer. I have to attach an adapter to it. An adapter I have to carry around and keep track of. And I have to buy separate VGA and DVI adapters because apple's DVI adapter is digital-only. No fair using your existing DVI to VGA adapter. So now customers have to pay an extra $60 (if you buy apple-branded adapters) to get the same functionality that used to be included in the base price of the machine.

How the hell is THAT progress?

I don't give a damn if they've paid enough money to get their new port adopted by VESA. It's not a standard used by display manufacturers. It's just another cable to buy and another adapter to throw in the kit.

Re:I hope it catches on (4, Insightful)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#30048504)

Why force people to buy a new monitor and a new projector just because they got a new laptop/PC?

What? There's no need to buy a new monitor or projector. DVI/DisplayPort will drive a VGA device without any problems at all. But the reverse is not true. It really is bizarre that they still make laptops with just VGA output, when the digital alternatives offer VGA and more, with smaller connectors.

Re:I hope it catches on (3, Informative)

Windowser (191974) | more than 4 years ago | (#30048688)

What? There's no need to buy a new monitor or projector. DVI/DisplayPort will drive a VGA device without any problems at all. But the reverse is not true. It really is bizarre that they still make laptops with just VGA output, when the digital alternatives offer VGA and more, with smaller connectors.

This is only true for DVI-I (Integrated) ports. DVI-D (Digital) doesn't have the VGA (analog) output. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Visual_Interface [wikipedia.org] for details

Re:I hope it catches on (2, Insightful)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#30048928)

And how many laptops actually ship with DVI-D only connections? Close to none, I would think.

Re:I hope it catches on (1)

caution live frogs (1196367) | more than 4 years ago | (#30048958)

What's wrong with having an Appletalk input? Many older printers, which are still perfectly functional and don't need to be replaced, use Appletalk. Why force people to buy a new printer just because they got a new operating system?

Edit to reflect your personal favorite dead technology. And get off my lawn.

Re:I hope it catches on (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 4 years ago | (#30049580)

And when will I have the freedom to choose whatever I'd want to use the TAC-2 or the NES controller on these so called modern game consoles!?

Re:I hope it catches on (1)

IntlHarvester (11985) | more than 4 years ago | (#30050080)

VGA is nowhere near "dead technology" for business projectors.

Checking Amazon, only some units have HDMI, and that only might accessible in a random conference room (and would require a mini-DP dongle anyway).

Re:I hope it catches on (1)

hayesk (561264) | more than 4 years ago | (#30049684)

A couple of reasons:
- as we push for higher resolutions (especially over longer cable runs), VGA either can't handle the bandwidth or becomes more prone to interference.
- it seems kind of wasteful to convert digital display data to analog, run it through a cable, and convert it back to digital for display on LCDs. VGA was designed for analog CRTs that operate at multiple resolutions. It doesn't make sense when most displays are a fixed array of LCD pixels.
- adapters are available for legacy VGA equipment

Re:I hope it catches on (1)

Archibald Buttle (536586) | more than 4 years ago | (#30050468)

What's wrong with having a VGA output?

Simple. It's crap.

Try comparing a VGA signal to a DVI/DisplayPort one some time. The VGA version will be fuzzy and the colours will look a bit wonky compared to the DVI version.

As has been pointed out, if you've got an old monitor that doesn't do digital inputs then just use an adapter.

Re:I hope it catches on (2, Insightful)

gwdoiron (1590237) | more than 4 years ago | (#30048672)

There are a lot of oddball reasons to have those legacy ports for special circumstances; developer kits that require parallel cable hookups, serial I/O hookups (although the latter you can generally get away with a USB converter as long as its standard serial I/O and not manual bit toggling), using older monitors, etc. Heck, it's much simpler to conjure up a computer controlled hardware hack (I/O) on a parallel port than with USB. Many TV's still come with "PC" (i.e. VGA) inputs, although this is moving over to HDMI. Odds are though, that for the average consumer, none of the legacy I/O ports are needed any more. You can walk down to Staples or Best Buy and get replacement USB mice/keyboards. CRT's are pretty much a thing of the past, and most, if not all flat panels have DVI and/or HDMI inputs.

Re:I hope it catches on (1)

amorsen (7485) | more than 4 years ago | (#30049428)

USB to serial is just too painful in the long run. I had to deal with it for 3 years, but this laptop has a built-in serial port. Never again a laptop without it.

Re:I hope it catches on (1)

cez (539085) | more than 4 years ago | (#30050392)

Can you elaborate? I'll be getting a new work laptop soon as my old one's integrated NIC does not negotiate to Gig anymore for some reason. The new models they ordered do not have a serial port... I was asked if a usb-serial module would be adequate or if I would like a different model seeing how I use the serial port daily and it is vital to my job as a WAN Specialist for configuring equipment. What have you found painful? What model adapter have you used... do you think it is a shortcoming in the firmware or hardware... have you tried different usb adapters? I would think a usb-serial interface would be trivial to implement well... maybe it depends on the terminal / console software being used?

Unfortunately the model without the serial port is a much beefier machine that I would prefer rather then the different one they would offer with the serial port =(

Thanks for any input you can offer!

Re:I hope it catches on (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#30049400)

I still drop my jaw everytime I see a laptop from the past 3-4 years still sporting a friggin' VGA connector, or even worse, from some "PC" manufacturers, a parallel port.

Sure, VGA is supplanted by DVI-I. Just use an adaptor if you need VGA. What has replaced the parallel port? If you want to easily connect a console controller to your computer, or build an eeprom programmer, or do any number of other electronics projects you're going to want a parallel port.

Re:I hope it catches on (1)

Aqualung812 (959532) | more than 4 years ago | (#30049966)

If I am running one of those rare examples you list, I'm sure I can install a PCI parallel port card. They took the serial cable off my laptop (that I used all the time to configure Cisco gear), but left the silly parallel port on the back that I have not used in 10 years.

Re:I hope it catches on (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30050374)

If I am running one of those rare examples you list, I'm sure I can install a PCI parallel port card.

Can you recommend a manufacturer of parallel port and serial port cards in PCIe and ExpressCard formats?

Re:I hope it catches on (2, Funny)

Aqualung812 (959532) | more than 4 years ago | (#30050462)

Since I have not needed one, I have not shopped.

However, 30 seconds of Google and I found 2 serial and 1 parallel in a single PCIe card: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001TH78QC [amazon.com]

Amazon also has them in ExpressCard formats. Need me to do any other shopping for you? :)

Re:I hope it catches on (2, Informative)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 4 years ago | (#30050918)

Actually I'd use a USB attached one, personally. I have a few and they're quite handy.

Re:I hope it catches on (0, Flamebait)

riegel (980896) | more than 4 years ago | (#30050466)

I would be happy to forgo VGA if DVI wasn't so encumbered with DRM.

Re:I hope it catches on (1)

segedunum (883035) | more than 4 years ago | (#30047988)

It's even worse than that. DVI connectors have a ridiculous pin arrangement. What the fuck is with that horizontal pin that makes it a pain to fit and easier to damage? What possible use can that serve? It's worse than an old VGA connector ever was. What's even worse is knowing that DVI is HDMI compatible and having a simply HDMI cable and connector was forfeited for that crap design for some unfathomable reason.

Re:I hope it catches on (5, Funny)

Captain Spam (66120) | more than 4 years ago | (#30048428)

DVI connectors are clunky and have that 18th century finger destroying screw-on mechanism. Anything with screws on computers should be abolished for good.

Typical response from you so-called "computer user" kids these days. Back in my day, everything had screws! From the case to the cards to the plugs and sometimes the boxes everything came in! And our fingers were perfectly good enough for the job! Even the ones that weren't thumbscrews! Any one of the old-timers could grind your mabmly-pambly little soft, precious, pampered thumbs to dust, bones and all, with nothing but our bare fingers, and we wouldn't even flinch!

Now get off my lawn! Durn whippersnappers...

Re:I hope it catches on (1)

dhall (1252) | more than 4 years ago | (#30048984)

I'd like to see you try to get a Microchannel card out of a system without a screwdriver. :)

Re:I hope it catches on (2, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 4 years ago | (#30049604)

I know of a support call where the customer tried to install a Microchannel card without a screwdriver or even removing the PS/2 cover. They tried to shove it in through the back where the bracket blank was. I guess they somehow thought it was like a Cardbus device. That took a while to resolve because initially the customer simply said "your card does not fit".

Re:I hope it catches on (2, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#30049838)

Possibly an Acorn user. Acorn computers supported expansion boards on 'podules [gifford.co.uk] ' which had the slot in line with the hole on the case, so you fitted them just by pushing them into the slot. As I recall, they used a very similar physical connector to Microchannel, just with a different orientation.

Cue the linux trolls. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30047820)

We know this has nothing at all to do with Linux or OS X, but this has never stopped this jolly crowd from doing "granny attacks", lunging from under their stones, when the topic is related to Apple. Set forth, gentleboys!

Re:Cue the linux trolls. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30047948)

Hurr durr, I am linux troll. I was written by Linus Trollwards.

Re:Cue the linux trolls. (3, Funny)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 4 years ago | (#30048508)

Hurr durr, I am linux troll. I was written by Linus Trollwards.

I'm sorry, but before you go any further - are you a GPLv2 troll, or a GPLv3 troll?

Re:Cue the linux trolls. (1)

nangus (1026732) | more than 4 years ago | (#30050060)

Hurr durr, I am linux troll. I was written by Linus Trollwards.

I'm sorry, but before you go any further - are you a GPLv2 troll, or a GPLv3 troll?

I assume that he is a GPLv2 troll, since Linus does not like GPLv3.

Re:Cue the linux trolls. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30048192)

i'm just waiting for some clever egg from that camp to speak out about "proprietary, non-standard lock-in" now.

[VESA] .oO( *sigh* RMS-puppets... )

HDMI? (4, Interesting)

ramk13 (570633) | more than 4 years ago | (#30047960)

What happened to HDMI? Lots of monitors and computers already have it, it supports audio over the connection (Mini-DP doesn't), and it can support the resolutions the article mentions. There's even already a mini version of it in use. It's a standard in home video and had plenty of adoption with computers. Is there something that Mini-DP does that HDMI doesn't?

Re:HDMI? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30047998)

Apple recieving royalties?

Re:HDMI? (2, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 4 years ago | (#30048266)

Licensing on this is 'free', but can be voided if you initiate any sort of patent lawsuit against Apple ... so free, under threat.

Re:HDMI? (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30048374)

You are also required to e-mail any "error correction" stuff that you develop, apparently, to Apple and give them the rights to use it.

Re:HDMI? (1)

Stewie241 (1035724) | more than 4 years ago | (#30048434)

So the if you want to use this connector in your devices then you give Apple the right to infringe any patent that you might have? So by contributing this Apple is basically buying the right to any implementor's patents, correct?

Re:HDMI? (2, Interesting)

Telvin_3d (855514) | more than 4 years ago | (#30048778)

Well, it 'can' be voided, but it is not necessarily voided.

Realistically, this won't stop any company with a serious case against Apple. Yes, Apple could use it as an excuse to pull the Display Port licence, but I can guarantee that the company would keep using it and that it would just get added to the lawsuit. And then if Apple loses they have to pay for the original infraction as well as a bunch of extra damages for trying to be dicks about the Display Port licence plus potentially losing control of the licence terms.

On the other hand, I suspect it has some very real applications against true patent trolls.

Re:HDMI? (1)

Carthag (643047) | more than 4 years ago | (#30049352)

True patent trolls don't manufature anything anyway so why would they care if they lose the license to potentially make Mini DisplayPort-compliant stuff?

Re:HDMI? (2, Insightful)

alen (225700) | more than 4 years ago | (#30049180)

it's like open source, if you want a lot of code that has been tested to work then you have to give something back as well

Re:HDMI? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30049614)

What you describe is not open source.

Re:HDMI? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30048270)

On November 27, 2008, Apple announced that it would license the Mini DisplayPort connector with no fee.

Source [apple.com]

Re:HDMI? (1)

pele (151312) | more than 4 years ago | (#30048038)

my sentiments exaclty!

Re:HDMI? (5, Insightful)

Microlith (54737) | more than 4 years ago | (#30048080)

IIRC, HDMI's signaling is basically a single DVI link, and isn't rated to push anything past 1920x1200. Pretty much anything higher requires a dual-link DVI connection, which involves more complex cabling and signal routing on the board.

DisplayPort is a much smaller connector and has an overall smaller PCB footprint, as well as using a thinner cable. I suspect that if Intel doesn't manage to run it by the wayside in a year's time with Lights Peak, you -might- see video cards with combination Mini DisplayPort + HDMI outputs.

Re:HDMI? (3, Informative)

ramk13 (570633) | more than 4 years ago | (#30048242)

Don't the newer specs of HDMI exceed 1920x1200?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hdmi#Version_Comparison [wikipedia.org]

And according to the same article (maybe I should read more before posting) DP is actually royalty free whereas HDMI isn't...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hdmi#Relationship_with_DisplayPort [wikipedia.org]

Re:HDMI? (2, Informative)

washu_k (1628007) | more than 4 years ago | (#30048328)

HDMI 1.3 does support up to double the bandwidth of single link DVI, so it's basically equivalent to dual-link DVI. I don't know if anything supports it.

There is also a dual-link version of HDMI with a different connector. With the double bandwith it is basically equivalent to quad-DVI. Again, nothing really uses it.

Re:HDMI? (4, Informative)

jfengel (409917) | more than 4 years ago | (#30048372)

HDMI's signaling is basically a single DVI link, and isn't rated to push anything past 1920x1200

And just to complete the thought: the Mini DiplayPort goes to 2560x1600 and goes up to 8.64 Gbits/second. That's about twice as fast as the HDMI 1.2.

HDMI 1.3 is actually comparable to Mini DisplayPort, with very similar specifications in terms of bandwidth.

Re:HDMI? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30048228)

Other than being yet-another-cable to buy (and self satisfaction of being better-'cause-it's-apple), no. There's probably some licensing that apple didn't wanna be part of.

And to quote Jobs: `wires are stupid'.

And this plug *is* stupid. Many folks who want a video plug on their *laptop* want to connect it to projectors, to give presentations, etc.; a regular VGA (dual with DVI?) would've been a lot more useful in that regard. By making it anything else, they're forcing apple folks to carry an adapter---and to look stupid in front of an audience when they fumble with their macbook and projector for 10 minutes.

Re:HDMI? (1)

devinteske (1258302) | more than 4 years ago | (#30048924)

And this plug *is* stupid. Many folks who want a video plug on their *laptop* want to connect it to projectors, to give presentations, etc.; a regular VGA (dual with DVI?) would've been a lot more useful in that regard. By making it anything else, they're forcing apple folks to carry an adapter---and to look stupid in front of an audience when they fumble with their macbook and projector for 10 minutes.

As anybody who spends 10 full minutes fiddling with adapters to get their macbook connected to a projector *should* look stupid. As should anybody, not just mac users. Your argument that mac users look retarded for having an adapter is just ridiculous. I've always been taught to view those with adapters as "especially prepared". Now, show me someone that doesn't have an adapter, and I'll show you someone that looks stupid when they fail to get the job done.

Re:HDMI? (2, Insightful)

billcopc (196330) | more than 4 years ago | (#30048244)

The problem with any modern connector is licensing. Every time you buy a cable, or a device with {XYZ connector}, some smug bastard gets paid for "inventing" that connector. It's rarely about "what is technically superior", usually it's "what's the cheapest standard we can shove down people's throats".

Licensing is why today's computers have umpteen slow inefficient USB ports, and zero or one Firewire ports. Apple fucked that one up by charging $20 or so per Firewire device for the longest time, they only lowered the licensing fee long after the war was lost.

The thing about VESA though, none of the major manufacturers really give a crap what VESA thinks. VESA dreams up these "standards", charges a lot of money for the specs, which results in them being largely ignored. The freebies they offer are mostly crap, either obsolete or just plain old stupid. They're like the IEEE's retarded step-cousin, on crack.

Re:HDMI? (2, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#30048424)

Apple fucked that one up by charging $20 or so per Firewire device for the longest time

Actually, it was $1 per controller. With USB being pushed for replacing keyboards and mice, you couldn't build a computer without USB and expect it to sell, but you could build one without FireWire. If you'd wanted to build FireWire keyboards and mice, you'd have needed a controller (including the $1 license fee, plus the cost of the controller silicon) in each one, which would have made them much more expensive ($1 is a lot on a device that costs $1-2 to make).

Re:HDMI? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30049300)

Apple fucked that one up by charging $20 or so per Firewire device for the longest time

Actually, it was $1 per controller. With USB being pushed for replacing keyboards and mice, you couldn't build a computer without USB and expect it to sell, but you could build one without FireWire.

And oddly enough, firewire has been dropped from many macs, yet every Dell laptop I've owned has a firewire connector...

Re:HDMI? (1)

MBCook (132727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30050192)

Don't forget Intel. Intel (who pushed USB) put it in their chipsets. So you couldn't build a PC motherboard with a genuine Intel chipset without getting USB. You'd have to go with someone else, who put USB in their chipsets to compete with Intel (and I think Intel may have given away the design for a reference controllers).

USB was free (except for connector and a few discrete parts). FireWire had the same costs, plus a little licensing, plus the controller.

Re:HDMI? (2, Interesting)

profplump (309017) | more than 4 years ago | (#30048252)

I know Apple's laptops don't currently send audio over Mini-DP, but I thought the protocol/cable supported audio, even if Apple isn't using it.

Am I just wrong?

Re:HDMI? (4, Informative)

hattig (47930) | more than 4 years ago | (#30048360)

Audio is an optional component in mini-DisplayPort.

I presume that supporting audio would be done in the display output controller, so within the graphical portion of the computer (integrated within the 9400M, or discrete GPU). Maybe NVIDIA products don't support audio over DP themselves, or more likely Apple hasn't done the drivers to copy audio to the GPU from the audio controller for output via DP?

Re:HDMI? (5, Informative)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#30048264)

Multi-channel support. With DisplayPort, you can daisy-chain multiple displays on the one bus. It can also be used to transmit data signals of various types (which HDMI can do, but in a much more limited fashion). And the DisplayPort connectors are much better than the HDMI ones. It's just a thoroughly more modern standard.

Re:HDMI? (4, Informative)

u0berdev (1038434) | more than 4 years ago | (#30048276)

...it supports audio over the connection (Mini-DP doesn't)...

Actually the DisplayPort (and now Mini DisplayPort) standard DOES support audio, it's simply that Apple's DisplayPort offerings are not taking advantage of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort [wikipedia.org]

Re:HDMI? (1)

JonJ (907502) | more than 4 years ago | (#30048282)

it supports audio over the connection (Mini-DP doesn't)

Huh? I have an iMac connected to a 24" Cinema over Mini-DP and it does sound, is it some black magic from Apple that makes it work?

Re:HDMI? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30048612)

No magic, they just send audio over USB. Try it, unplug you USB port and pooof, there goes the sound.

Re:HDMI? (3, Informative)

A Friendly Troll (1017492) | more than 4 years ago | (#30048292)

What happened to HDMI?

It was made long before DisplayPort as a DVI replacement. HDMI requires royalties and licensing (DP does not). It is also using a CRT-like raster scan and needs a heartbeat, with sound being transmitted during "blanking" (DP transmits data packets and has an embedded clock). Finally, the hardware is more expensive to produce and more complex.

I'm sure someone knows more - this is what I remember reading some time ago...

Re:HDMI? (2, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#30048494)

Finally, the hardware is more expensive to produce and more complex.

Except that if you want backwards compatibility with DVI then you already have all of that hardware. If you want to be able to plug in a DP to DVI adaptor then you need all of that hardware plus all of the DisplayPort electronics.

It's a more modern standard, but historically more modern standards that aren't designed with legacy compatibility in mind have not done well. Maybe DisplayPort will get enough backing to buck that trend, but in the meantime expect a horrible mess of analogue VGA, HDMI/DVI, and DisplayPort for consumers.

Re:HDMI? (1)

A Friendly Troll (1017492) | more than 4 years ago | (#30050890)

Is it even possible to buy a graphics card with VGA output these days? From what I can tell, it's pretty much double DVI, with the occasional HDMI/DP added. HDMI isn't very widespread on computers, so DP should have no problems replacing DVI, but when it comes to video equipment it's a different thing...

I'd say it's comparable to SATA. We still get motherboards with a PATA controller, but pretty much all HDDs and optical drives are SATA these days, including the power connectors. In 4-5 years, we shouldn't be seeing DVI anymore.

Re:HDMI? (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 4 years ago | (#30049682)

One other problem with HDMI is that although they have a nominal max cable length of 15 feet, you're lucky to get it to work if the cable is over five feet.

-jcr

Re:HDMI? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30048356)

Um, how about support dual-link DVI data rates and above on the same connector? There's a "Type B" HDMI connector in the standard that can support higher resolutions, but it's not on any devices at the moment. Not to mention the ability to do things like chain displays together on a single connection, which allows things like the new Radeon card driving 12(!) displays from 6 ports.

Because that might work with projectors (-1, Flamebait)

Rix (54095) | more than 4 years ago | (#30048464)

Mac users want that distinctive green, blue or pink tint that only an Apple dongle can give you when they hook up to a standard projector. If Mac laptops had standardized display connectors, their presentations would just be untinted, and no one would know they'd paid extra for their computer.

Re:Because that might work with projectors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30049216)

Flamebait? The truth is that Mac users love dongles because they remind them of young boy penises.

There has been tons of reports of 'issues' with mini-DP apapters. The whole thing is extremely kludgy and very un-Apple-like. But I guess selling a couple extra monitors to brand-fanatics is better than something that works for business laptop users.

Re:Because that might work with projectors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30049586)

When you post your fantasies here, does it help you cope with the shame of living deep in that closet, father O'Malley?

Re:Because that might work with projectors (2, Informative)

jcr (53032) | more than 4 years ago | (#30049612)

Mac users want that distinctive green, blue or pink tint that only an Apple dongle can give you when they hook up to a standard projector.

Sounds like you don't know how to properly attach a connector.

-jcr

Re:HDMI? (3, Informative)

vux984 (928602) | more than 4 years ago | (#30048524)

it supports audio over the connection (Mini-DP doesn't),

Display port does support audio. I don't know if its actually implemented anywhere though. Are you sure mini-DP doesn't?

Is there something that Mini-DP does that HDMI doesn't?

At the electrical level they work quite differently and displayport is much more better suited for certain tasks like embedded applications, laptop screens, etc. Its like SATA vs PATA in some respects with displayport being SATA. It can use fewer wires.

Displayport is also license free, while HDMI requires a license. That, of course, makes displayport a bit cheaper.

Overall displayport is the superior technology in nearly every respect. But HDMI was out first and is the more established one. If displayport had been out of the gate first, hdmi wouldn't exist.

Re:HDMI? (5, Informative)

LoRdTAW (99712) | more than 4 years ago | (#30048652)

HDMI is basically a single link DVI signal along with a digital audio stream. Both the audio and video gets their own pins and wires. But display port is a packet based system so audo, video and other signals can be multiplexed across the same set of wires. Display port 1.1 allows for eight 24 bit 192kHz digital audio channels. There can be 1, 2 or 4 digital lanes, similar to how PCI express works, more lanes = more bandwidth. The maximum bandwidth is over 8Gbps (3 meter cable limit)and there is also a 1mbps aux channel. A single display port cable can deliver a 2560x1600 60 Hz 30 bpp video signal. Dual link DVI port can do the same but it cant scale as well as display port will.

The HDMI connector is mechanically flimsy and can be easily damaged by the heavy shielded cables that hang from them of if yanked on. Display port is designed for those heavy cables and resists tugging and pulling that would otherwise damage an HDMI connector. Its also screw-less connector so no more fiddling with thumb screws.

Re:HDMI? (1)

IgnitusBoyone (840214) | more than 4 years ago | (#30049206)

I can't say thumb screws are all that bad. Before it was replaced by a HDMI to DVI cable. A plasma tv at work used a HDMI to DVI adapter which for some reason they mounted on the back of the tv panel instead of on the PC end of the cable. That caused the HDMI port to bend over time and having a set of screws to rigidly mount the adapter in to might of saved that.

We also use a lot of pretty serious industrial cables for other standards like firewire at work that come with thumb screws when normal cables do not. It can often come in handy. However, that being said apples magnetic power adapters have saved my laptop on multiple occasions so I am not arguing against quick disconnects either.

Re:HDMI? (3, Informative)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 4 years ago | (#30049370)

HDMI is basically a single link DVI signal along with a digital audio stream. Both the audio and video gets their own pins and wires. But display port is a packet based system so audo, video and other signals can be multiplexed across the same set of wires.

DVI, HDMI, and DP are all packet based systems. DVI and HDMI have three lanes (DVI-DL has six) and DP has four lanes. All of them send all data over all lanes. There is no specialization of the data channels.

Re:HDMI? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30049458)

The maximum bandwidth is over 8Gbps

That's less than the common HDMI 1.3 spec of 10.2 Gbit/s.

display port cable can deliver a 2560x1600 60 Hz 30 bpp video signal

That's woeful compared to HDMI 1.4 released earlier this year that will do 3840 × 2160 at 24/25/30Hz and 4096 × 2160 at 24Hz, you know, full cinema spec.

So take off your apple fanboy hat and admit this display port is nothing more than apple trying to create a new standard cable connection for which they want license fees.

Thank fsck they'll both die with wireless solutions on decent gear within 3 years.

Re:HDMI? (1)

vijayiyer (728590) | more than 4 years ago | (#30048838)

Mini-DP is royalty free. HDMI is not.
Mini-DP is packetized and can be switched and, in principle, carry multiple streams over a single connection.

Re:HDMI? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30049042)

DisplayPort has stronger signal encryption than HDMI's HDCP. That's mainly the reason.

Re:HDMI? (1)

caution live frogs (1196367) | more than 4 years ago | (#30049064)

Well, there is a lot of DRM baggage associated with HDMI - so this could be Apple's attempt to do an end-run around the MPAA. In my mind this is a GOOD thing. We still get digital output, but we can use it as we see fit. Unless the Mini-DP also includes built-in DRM, in which case we're all screwed.

Re:HDMI? (2, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#30049530)

Nope. DisplayPort supports both HDCP and the stronger AES based DPCP.

That settles that! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30048642)

Apple is the greatest company of all time!

Too bad (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30049078)

Too bad they still haven't fixed the out of sync issues with the mini display port to dual link dvi adapters. You STILL can't have a reliable connection with your macbook and a 30" monitor.

this is Microsoft's playbook, but in bizarro world (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30049652)

1. make a proprietary, slightly modified version of the earlier standard
2. get adopted.
3. standard takes YOU

wait what?

"10 percent the size"???? (1)

SocPres (743965) | more than 4 years ago | (#30049720)

The caption under the pic in the article says:

"The Mini DisplayPort is 10 percent the size of a full DVI connector."

Perhaps the ports pictured are not to scale, but the picture of the Mini port is ~43x29 pixels, while the DVI is ~134x52. That puts it closer to 17.5% of the size, doesn't it?

Not only that ... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30050036)

but Apple will sue anybody that actually implements the standard ;-)

Meh (2, Funny)

200_success (623160) | more than 4 years ago | (#30050788)

I'm holding out for the Micro DisplayPort standard. I'll bet that Apple will announce such a thing within a year.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...