Apple Offering Free Licensing of Mini DisplayPort Spec

[ATimson]

Wait and pray. Apple does not offer mini-DP adapters for video out (like they do for DVI, Mini-DVI, Micro DVI, or Mini-VGA) or HDMI.

However, there exist DVI-D -> HDMI adapters (as the two are electrically compatible) which should serve quite nicely on the other end of a mini-DP -> DVI-D adapter.

 

[matticus008]

And by consequences you mean the machines remaining over an inch thick instead of 0.95.

Thickness isn't the issue.

Mini-DP is the first of Apple Mini/Micro ports to offer neither adapters to the full standard nor video out.

DP marks the end of combined video out, and the presence of an adapter is undoubtedly an issue that will be resolved. Since no one is clamoring for DP monitors yet, it doesn't really matter.

moving to the Micro DVI-sized mini-DP steams from a flaw in the design philosophy

Put the horse before the cart a little more. The only "problem" is that they used DisplayPort at all.

Just because its a free license doesn't mean other companies will use Mini-DP or find it profitable to create adapters for.

Lock-in still requires a closed gate...you know, a lock. If the option is out there, it's not locked in to anything.

But there is a physical one, no such adapter exists. If Apple really wanted for Mini-DP to be part of the Displayport, why did they not release an adapter out of the gate?

Because they don't care, since there's no rush? People aren't rushing out to buy DP monitors, and nobody that has one has a DP-only monitor or a specific need for DP compatibility. What difference does it make which order it comes out, unless you're weaving a conspiracy theory?

Maybe they're taking these steps because they know that there is nobody else who is going to use Mini-DP and they have people like yourself who don't bother to check past the company press releases to back them up no matter what you do.

What?

As long as there can be a connection in theory, you're not really locked in.

No, as long as there is no roadblock to getting a connection, you're not locked in.

 

[drsmithy]

Which simply falls apart when you realize that I have explicitly stated no fewer than three times now that this is not the case.

Which simply falls apart as soon as you realise that all your arguments are circular reasoning, insisting it couldn't have been done any other way, because that's the way Apple did it.

They certainly could have done it other ways, but with other consequences.

None of which you have managed to elaborate on, other than assertions it would be impossible to design any other way.

The same could be said about DisplayPort in general, apart from its VESA approval, which remains an open question as to the mini connector.

And apart from announced support from dozens of vendors.
And apart from several monitors in the market already using DP.
And apart from several laptops in the market already using DP.
And apart from several video cards in the market already using DP.
And apart from the fact you can already buy adapters to convert between DP and just about anything else.

In fact, about the only ways Mini-DP and regular DP could be said to be similar, is the fact they both have 'Displayport' in ther name.

There is not room on the MacBook mainboard. The entire thing would have to be reconfigured.

No, the "entire thing" (more likely, a small portion) would have to have been configured in the first place. These machines are the first ones to have Mini-DP. There is no 're-'.

You're just completely walking past it over and over again. The size, shape, and configuration, along with all other details of the design, are facilitated by the use of the mini connector.

Talk about hyperbole. Are you seriously suggesting the MB, MBP and MBA are designed around the Mini-DP port and without it they couldn't exist ?

Anything else would require a complete redesign and a chain reaction of consequences which you just continue to ignore in post after post.

No, I do not. And, again, there is no redesign here. There is only design.

See, this is where we get back to the circular reasoning. You are insisting it could not have been designed any other way, because that is the way it has been designed.

No. This ends here. A USB connector is 13.2x6mm. Unless you find me a phone smaller than that, it will fit using your "there's enough space" rule. What's good for the goose...

I just wanted to requote this so the unbridled idiocy of that statement could be reinforced.

Again, a Canon SD1000, a fairly typical, small format camera, is 3.5x2.5 inches, give or take.

So, 3.5 inches wide by 2.5 inches high ?

Perhaps you could point out the "3 inches of bare plastic" that might be used to place a USB B port ? Try not to pick a spot that is already filled by the battery, memory card, or lens.

An irrelevant consideration. Both products contain PCBs designed at the same densities and overall constraints. Either both can fit larger connectors and the whole thing is a scam, or both should be free to be their own judges of how to make use of space in their products.

Another one that needs to be quoted again.

I suggest you read up. DP is supposed to replace both DVI and HDMI, and most people are wondering why HDMI doesn't just replace DVI and get it over with, because ten years from now, DP will be obsolete as well.

Apparently your concept of "most people" is about as realistic as your ability to judge scale.

By the way, displayport.org says:

"DisplayPort is the next generationdigital display interface standard design to replace DVI, LVDS, and eventually VGA."

Consumer=retail market for personal, home, and small business use. Breakthrough=signficant advance, achievement, or increase.
Consumer breakthrough is exactly what it says: a successful introduction into a consumer space. You could also refer to the blatantly clear example already provided.

You mean the example you only just provided ?




Of course, you still don't have a point. SCSI and Firewire (along with DVD writers and wireless) appeared on other machines before, or at the same time as, Apple's. Abondoning legacy ports is a consumer insult, not a consumer breakthrough

Attributing the success of standards to a single vendor who is at the low end of single-digit marketshare just because they happened to use it, seems a little bit.... idealistic.

No. NIH syndrome requires animus toward the work of others and the replication of effort for the sake of being different. Quite clearly, "NIH syndrome" would be a refusal to adopt DisplayPort (there's no rush, after all), or the design of a connector providing no benefit. You can poo-poo the obvious all you want, but the fact is that a smaller connector does have clear and practical benefits now and in the future, especially when the major goal of DisplayPort is to unify all consumer electronics connections, and its connector leaves out devices smaller than a notebook PC.

I'm still waiting to hear about one of these devices where DP won't fit, but Mini-DP will.

Missing the boat, once again. Your evidence is circular--proclamations by you do not constitute evidence.

Please detail how any of the following are circular:

• DP is not significant thicker than Mini-DP.
• It is wider, but width is not a significant constraint in laptop designs.
• Mini-DP is not a standard, has not been implemented by anyone except Apple and is unlikely to be implemented [on hardware devices] by anyone except Apple
• Regular DP has already been implemented in several products on the market - laptops, converters, screens - and is supported by a range of manufacturers.

Patently untrue, and begs the question by restricting the scope to full-size notebooks.

If it were "patently untrue" then the greater port counts and varieties on non-Apple laptops would be engineering marvels, rather than expected features. Further, no question is "begged" because the "scope" is not restricted to full-size laptops. As I've noted several times, laptops smaller than anything Apple makes have higher port counts, of physically larger ports.

Entirely speculative.

No, an educated and reasonable conclusion based on the current state of Mini-DP and DP in the industry, and its historical movements.

Overbroad. Three manufacturers have put out displays, and adoption is so low that anything can happen. Remember that HDMI was originally released with a DVI connector.

Given HDMI inherently includes audio, which DVI cannot, that's somewhat impossible.

Anything can happen ? Well, I suppose that's true in an academic sense, but when the three largest computer manufacturers in the world are all on the DP bandwagon, it's a reasonably safe bet as to what is likely to happen.

Your standard, which is based on nothing more than visual distance and the assumption that a bigger case makes more room on the PCB, does not make sense.

That's not my "standard", no matter how many times you try to assert that it is.

Did you completely lose sight of the free licenses to do so? Lock-in requires a closed gate.

Lock-in requires a lack of options.

Untrue. Any DisplayPort monitor is compatible. There is no technical barrier to operation.

I'd call a lack of any connecting device to be something of a "technical barrier".

What you're doing is complaining that the game library for a brand new console sucks because a console that's been out for a year has more. It's asinine. The entire ecosystem is so new that any of your summary decrees are baseless.

A more accurate analogy is that I'm complaining that the game library for a brand new console sucks because the consoles that make up the other 99% of the market can all run each others games, but the new one requires a special hardware dongle to do so.

You must be new to video interfaces. That's exactly what happens, for five decades and with hundreds of companies, both individually and grouped together under some working group.

An expected attempt to move the goalposts again, but let's try and keep this somewhat relevant. Which non-standard computer to display interfaces over, say, the last two decades have been introduced - in the face of an already agreed and established standard - by a single vendor constituting a tiny minority of marketshare, and gone on the be successful ?

 

[drsmithy]

With VGA and DVI, I can see the need for such ports. The full size ports are large and bulky.

While this is true in some sense, there was plenty of room on the laptops they appeared on to just use standard ports (I give the MBA a half-pass because standard-sized ports could not have been fitted in).

And by consequences you mean the machines remaining over an inch thick instead of 0.95.

He cannot even argue that, as he has already noted that DP and USB are basically the same height (and Mini-DP is slightly taller, from memory).

 

[matticus008]

Which simply falls apart as soon as you realise that all your arguments are circular reasoning, insisting it couldn't have been done any other way, because that's the way Apple did it.

No. For at least the fifth time now, it could have been done any number of other ways. Because you can't even grasp that basic fact without lies and outright distortion, there's little point continuing with your fabrications.

None of which you have managed to elaborate on, other than assertions it would be impossible to design any other way.

Clearly you were asleep when you learned the rules of debate. The burden of proof lies with the affirmative. You have to show complete feasibility. First, you point to empty adjacent space, except that it isn't empty. It's a chassis mount point, which your extensive expertise managed to miss. Then, even if that were relocated, you ignored the frame crossbar that prohibits a port of any height to continue there. You posit, without any knowledge, evidence, or logic, that some other design would have preserved everything without consequence, when in fact, each suggestion snowballs into a series of design changes you haven't explored.

In fact, about the only ways Mini-DP and regular DP could be said to be similar, is the fact they both have 'Displayport' in ther name.

More distortions and histrionics. There is no difference in the signal or the wiring, which is exactly identical, right down to the pinout. The only difference is that the $1 plastic and metal connector at the end is different. There's no signal adapter, no nefarious plot, and no complex conversion necessary.

I just wanted to requote this so the unbridled idiocy of that statement could be reinforced.

I'm glad you agree. It is, however, your argument.

Try not to pick a spot that is already filled by the battery, memory card, or lens.

Right after you pick a spot in the MacBook that isn't filled by something else. If one can be redesigned, the other can. If a mini DP connector is useless, so then is mini USB, the HDMI C connector, and so many others over the years. After all, if any device can use the regular connector, which is bigger than USB A, any device can use USB A. And yet we don't see that.

By the way, displayport.org says:

Again, arbitrary selection and disingenuity. Shocking. It also says, "It is anticipated that PC manufacturers will adopt DisplayPort as a solution for connecting all types of displays–including monitors, projectors and HDTVs–with a single connector. DisplayPort will also be adopted in LCD panels as an LVDS replacement." (emphasis added)

I'm still waiting to hear about one of these devices where DP won't fit, but Mini-DP will.

Repeating answered questions accomplishes nothing. Music players, cell phones, digital cameras, video cameras, tablets, netbooks, and other portable video devices are a whole class of devices the DisplayPort standard is meant to serve and which it cannot without a suitable miniaturized connector.

Given HDMI inherently includes audio, which DVI cannot, that's somewhat impossible.

Another nugget of brilliance. HDMI connections optionally include audio, just like DisplayPort. Moreover it is not impossible. It is fact that HDMI was first implemented over DVI connectors in its early development. It is also the case that HDMI includes a miniature connector as well for portable devices, very much like mini DP, and was also added to the standard after the fact at the behest of a small number of companies.

 

[mjteix]

In fact, about the only ways Mini-DP and regular DP could be said to be similar, is the fact they both have 'Displayport' in ther name.

No.

The miniDP connector has the exact same pins, number and function, of the "regular" DP connector. A simple passive adaptor will do the trick to allow the use of "regular" DP devices with miniDP Apple computers. Apple probably choosed to use a custom-sized connector 1) just to be different 2) to be able to put it on the MBA (or other future small devices...). Like SJ said during the notebook event, this connector will be used in most (if not all) Apple computers in the future. The only exception will probably be the Mac Pro (depending on the video cards offered) and the XServe.

The free licensing of the miniDP specs are for accessories manufacturers to offer all the cables/adapters possibles to connect an Apple computer to anything they can think about. Apple probably thinks that it's too much wasted time trying to make all those adapters themselves (given the delays we know about for some of them and other less significant products).

Don't forget that DP is integrated in most new chipsets/GPUs and that it is also the new video interface for integrated displays (notebooks + AIOs) replacing the more complex LVDS interface. Having to deal with only one kind of interface is very "Apple", and given that more than 90% of the Macs sold are notebooks or AIOs, it makes a lot of sense.

It will make even more sense when all the Apple computers/displays are updated to miniDP/DP, first half of 2009.

 

[butterfly0fdoom]

I'm aware of the current overall design of Apple's laptops. My point (which is apparently too subtle) is that's not the only way to build a laptop, nor do the typical somewhat-engineering-related arguments as to why (eg: "cable management") carry a great deal of weight.

Indeed, it's not the ONLY way to build a laptop, but Apple chooses to design their laptops that way. Here's a great idea for you: if you want to change it so much, then go work there and change it. Bickering here yields no results.

I don't think "sturdiness" is a decent reason. The plastic MB and the MBP creak and flex noticably. Heck, there's enough play in my wife's MBP that too much pressure over the DVD drive (or picking it up the wrong way, making the whole case flex) will result in nasty sounds if there's a DVD being used.

The new "unibody" machines are better, but non-standard ports on Apple's laptops go back a lot further than that. Further, the Latitude E4300 on my desk (along with the D400, D410 and D430 next to it) is extremely "sturdy", with basically zero flex at all. It's been a while since I held a Thinkpad, but I remember them being similarly strong.

Older ThinkPads were study because of the interior structure that IBM designed. As for the Latutides, I'd hardly consider them sturdy. Granted, they're studier than Vaios, but I wouldn't consider them extremely sturdy, especially in contrast with the unibody MacBooks.

Just have to love the inherent bias in your words.

There are actually some concrete reasons (at least on some models) why Apple's vent location is poor - you can't run the machine with the lid closed.

Well, now, of course I'm biased, but at the same time, previous Apple computers have had designs with randomly placed vents and panels. My main point is, part of what makes the MacBook sturdier (and someone else demonstrated this to me after I actually commented that the Latitudes seem reasonably sturdy) is the fact that instead of multiple flimsy plastic panels conjoined together, the MacBooks just have a single aluminum body with an aluminum battery cover and an aluminum bottom panel.

The aesthetics argument is weak. They already "look like any other computer" (with the exception of the MBA). It would not be hard for Apple to keep the overall MB and MBP "look" while putting ports on both sides (or possibly even the front ). I also see that someone else has brought up the 'form over function' point.

And your argument is even weaker; you fail to demonstrate HOW it's possible. Until you can prove your point, there's no meaning to your words. Teardowns of the computer establish that without a significant rearranging of the internals, there is no way to increase the amount of space for ports. And then comes the question, HOW would you rearrange the internals to maximize efficient usage of space? Stop being in the armchair and SHOW us how YOU would do it. Otherwise, you're just another whiner.

 

[drsmithy]

No.

The miniDP connector has the exact same pins, number and function, of the "regular" DP connector. A simple passive adaptor will do the trick to allow the use of "regular" DP devices with miniDP Apple computers.

I did say 'about', and I did say it for a reason.

The only exception will probably be the Mac Pro (depending on the video cards offered) and the XServe.

They used those stupid Mini-DVI adapters on the Xserve (to the great annoyance of a lot of sysadmins, I imagine), so I think it's a fairly safe bet that they'll use them on the new Xserves (even more frustration - and people wonder why businesses shy away from Apple).

 

[drsmithy]

No. For at least the fifth time now, it could have been done any number of other ways.

So you agree that Apple could have used DP instead of Mini-DP if they wanted to ?

Clearly you were asleep when you learned the rules of debate. The burden of proof lies with the affirmative.

Which I have provided. Similarly-sized, and smaller, laptops use DP (or equivalents). Clearly the overall size of the machine, and its included functionality, do not inherently preclude the use of DP. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you, as the person asserting Apple could not have designed their machines without using Mini-DP, to provide evidence supporting that assertion.

You posit, without any knowledge, evidence, or logic, that some other design would have preserved everything without consequence, when in fact, each suggestion snowballs into a series of design changes you haven't explored.

Actually, I posit with both documented evidence and logic: other machines of similar or lesser dimensions and features provide equivalent, and greater, functionality. It is clear, therefore, that creating a laptop with the dimensions of the MB, MBP and MBA that uses regular DP is quite feasible.

More distortions and histrionics. There is no difference in the signal or the wiring, which is exactly identical, right down to the pinout. The only difference is that the $1 plastic and metal connector at the end is different. There's no signal adapter, no nefarious plot, and no complex conversion necessary.

You forgot the other differences. You know, the ones which are actually important:

• Announced support from dozens of vendors for DP.
• Several monitors in the market already using DP.
• Several laptops in the market already using DP.
• Several video cards in the market already using DP.

I'm glad you agree. It is, however, your argument.

I have made no such argument.

Right after you pick a spot in the MacBook that isn't filled by something else.

The MB has plenty of room for rearrangement. Phones and cameras do not.

If one can be redesigned, the other can. If a mini DP connector is useless, so then is mini USB, the HDMI C connector, and so many others over the years. After all, if any device can use the regular connector, which is bigger than USB A, any device can use USB A. And yet we don't see that.

These are called non-sequiturs.

Again, arbitrary selection and disingenuity. Shocking. It also says, "It is anticipated that PC manufacturers will adopt DisplayPort as a solution for connecting all types of displays–including monitors, projectors and HDTVs–with a single connector. DisplayPort will also be adopted in LCD panels as an LVDS replacement." (emphasis added)

How many PC manufacturers do you know of with a significant presence in the home theatre market ?

Repeating answered questions accomplishes nothing. Music players, cell phones, digital cameras, video cameras, tablets, netbooks, and other portable video devices are a whole class of devices the DisplayPort standard is meant to serve and which it cannot without a suitable miniaturized connector.

Repeatedly given the same refuted answers accomplishes even less.

Music players, cell phones and digital cameras don't have the space. Mini-DP isn't smaller enough to matter for them. In particular, it is no thinner (actually slightly thicker) than regular DP.
HDMI is a better solution for video cameras (smaller, more appropriate compatibility).
Tablets and netbooks have sufficient physical space to use DP (as evidenced by their use of similar, larger ports).

Another nugget of brilliance. HDMI connections optionally include audio, just like DisplayPort. Moreover it is not impossible. It is fact that HDMI was first implemented over DVI connectors in its early development.

HDMI is a connector standard. What you are saying is the equivalent of "DVI was first implemented over VGA connectors in its early development".

Presumably I will also need to point out you have made yet another apples-to-oranges comparison and ignored the sigificant difference between "product released in the marketplace" and "product in its early development" as well

It is also the case that HDMI includes a miniature connector as well for portable devices, very much like mini DP, and was also added to the standard after the fact at the behest of a small number of companies.

So not like Mini-DP at all, then, which was created by a single manufacturer and released by them into the marketplace without being even proposed for, let alone integrated, into the standard ?

 

[drsmithy]

Indeed, it's not the ONLY way to build a laptop, but Apple chooses to design their laptops that way. Here's a great idea for you: if you want to change it so much, then go work there and change it. Bickering here yields no results.

So the point of this discussion forum is... what ? To gush about how everything Apple does is perfect ?

Older ThinkPads were study because of the interior structure that IBM designed. As for the Latutides, I'd hardly consider them sturdy. Granted, they're studier than Vaios, but I wouldn't consider them extremely sturdy, especially in contrast with the unibody MacBooks.

I can only compare the machines I have either used personally, or have on hand. I don't know which machines you have used, but the Latitudes, Thinkpads, iBooks, MacBooks, PowerBooks and MacBook Pros I have owned or used would all rank roughly equivalent on the 'sturdiness' scale.

Well, now, of course I'm biased, but at the same time, previous Apple computers have had designs with randomly placed vents and panels. My main point is, part of what makes the MacBook sturdier (and someone else demonstrated this to me after I actually commented that the Latitudes seem reasonably sturdy) is the fact that instead of multiple flimsy plastic panels conjoined together, the MacBooks just have a single aluminum body with an aluminum battery cover and an aluminum bottom panel.

That's the new unibody machines. The non-standard port thing goes back a lot longer than that.

And your argument is even weaker; you fail to demonstrate HOW it's possible. Until you can prove your point, there's no meaning to your words.

Untrue. I have pointed out numerous times that there are equivalently (or smaller) sized laptops which have equal, of not greater, port counts and varieties. Clearly, it's possible to build a laptop like the MB without having to resort to non-standard ports.

Teardowns of the computer establish that without a significant rearranging of the internals, there is no way to increase the amount of space for ports. And then comes the question, HOW would you rearrange the internals to maximize efficient usage of space? Stop being in the armchair and SHOW us how YOU would do it. Otherwise, you're just another whiner.

You've never criticised something without having a fully-functionally-equivalent alternative on hand to offer in exchange ?

 

[diamond.g]

How many PC manufacturers do you know of with a significant presence in the home theatre market ?

Sony? Samsung? (I am sure there are others, but those stuck out to me)

 

[danny_w]

They used those stupid Mini-DVI adapters on the Xserve (to the great annoyance of a lot of sysadmins, I imagine), so I think it's a fairly safe bet that they'll use them on the new Xserves (even more frustration - and people wonder why businesses shy away from Apple).

Apple will be even stupider than I thought if they do that. One of the reasons that businesses have been accepting of the full-size DP connector is because of the built-in positive latch (absent from the mini-DP connector), which is needed all the more in a cramped server room. Nobody wants a cable pulling out of the back of a rack of equipment that is a rat's nest of wires to begin with. Mini-DP (if they use it) will be just one more strike against Apple in a market where they really cannot afford that kind of misstep.

 

[matticus008]

So you agree that Apple could have used DP instead of Mini-DP if they wanted to ?

I agree that if Apple did not care about a single full-line and future-ready connector, and if they had not purposefully moved the ports to one side, and if they had made other internal design tradeoffs, that they certainly could have put a full-size DP port on the MacBook.

I do not agree that the disadvantage, if any, of using a mini DP connector outweighs the benefit of the expanded scope of devices it can access. DisplayPort is meant to be universal--all displays, all devices. It can better achieve this stated goal with a connector as small as possible. The HDMI standard added a connector to embrace this concept (larger than mini DP), and DP is not an established standard to the point that connector changes will not happen. Whether Apple's mini DP or some other, DisplayPort should have a smaller connector, but ideally shouldn't exist at all, given the current adequacy of HDMI and the future advantages of USB3 and other innovations that will occur between now and the end of HDMI's useful life.

Similarly-sized, and smaller, laptops use DP (or equivalents).

The overall size has no bearing on what can be accommodated by the design constraints of the internals. A device twice the size of a MacBook Pro might not have room for a full-size USB port, and a device the size of a thumb drive might have more than enough room for one.

Therefore, the burden of proof is on you, as the person asserting Apple could not have designed their machines without using Mini-DP

No. You remain the affirmative, and NO SUCH ASSERTION WAS MADE. You've repeated this absurdity 11 times now, completely fabricating it out of thin air.

You forgot the other differences. You know, the ones which are actually important

Those aren't differences. Mini DP is DP, exactly, with the sole exception of a smaller connector. There is nothing required of any other manufacturer of DP computers, displays, or media devices to support Apple products so designed. The only thing missing is an appropriate cable, which anyone can make and sell.

I have made no such argument.

"The MB has plenty of room for rearrangement. Phones and cameras do not." This is conclusory and vacuous. That the device is larger does not mean it has more room. Intel repackaged a processor to shave a few millimeters of space--which was then adopted in other machines.

How many PC manufacturers do you know of with a significant presence in the home theatre market ?

How can you so utterly fail at reading comprehension with such frequency? The question has nothing to do with anything. How many PC manufacturers do you know in the projector market? The answer is about the same. DisplayPort is intended to connect all display types, to be used for computers and home theater components alike.

Music players, cell phones and digital cameras don't have the space.

Those devices are suddenly smaller than 7x6mm? Mini DP is smaller in volume than an iPod Dock connector or the proprietary cable connectors on most cell phones. Mini DP is also slightly smaller than the HDMI C connector--one accepted by a standards body for implementation on these small devices--but I guess they failed, because drsmithy decrees that there's no room. Because small devices can't be redesigned, but bigger ones can.

HDMI is a better solution for video cameras (smaller, more appropriate compatibility).

HDMI is a better solution for DisplayPort, too.

HDMI is a connector standard. What you are saying is the equivalent of "DVI was first implemented over VGA connectors in its early development".

No. This level of ignorance is just inexcusable. HDMI is a complete interface. DVI was never implemented over a D-sub connector; available bandwidth and signal properties were unsuitable. What I am saying is that the first HDMI communications were on DVI cables, and the original plan was to use the DVI cable and connector forever, until the standard went in a different direction.

So not like Mini-DP at all, then, which was created by a single manufacturer and released by them into the marketplace without being even proposed for, let alone integrated, into the standard ?

Who cares about the sequence? IDE wasn't fully standardized for almost a decade after its release into the marketplace. Doesn't seem to have rattled the earth apart. Even if mini DP doesn't take off, it has full capabilities, full electrical compatibility, full hardware support, and no barrier to making a suitable cable.

Much ado about nothing at all.

 

[funman895]

It is going to take a while for mini-display port screens come out. Now people will have to buy from apple if they don't want to bother with adapters. I think the mini-display port is going to make people angry though.

 

[AidenShaw]

there won't be any more Xserves from Apple Inc -they dropped the "computer", you know

They used those stupid Mini-DVI adapters on the Xserve (to the great annoyance of a lot of sysadmins, I imagine), so I think it's a fairly safe bet that they'll use them on the new Xserves (even more frustration - and people wonder why businesses shy away from Apple).

I doubt that there will be another Xserve model - no point in making a half-assed 1U Nehalem server when Igadgets are the big sellers.

Xserve RAID gone, instead Apple is pointing people at a product that is far better than their storage array ever was.

Maybe Apple will do a deal with HP to sell OSX Server on a small set of ProLiant models. That might get IT thinking about OSX Server again. Imagine some 24-core DL580 256 GiB render farm engines....

(Of course, Apple would require that the front panel VGA connector be replaced with a mini-DisplayPort, and you'd have to buy $900 Apple displays to use the system.)

 

[tuc]

DisplayPort ... ideally shouldn't exist at all, given the current adequacy of HDMI and the future advantages of USB3 and other innovations that will occur between now and the end of HDMI's useful life.

The adequacy of HDMI and USB3 (as a display standard?) can be argued either way, but DisplayPort should indeed exist, if only in the internal (laptop/iMac) space. As I understand it, DisplayPort is simpler, cheaper, smaller, and less power-hungry than LVDS and is already taking over.

Perhaps it will not catch on as an external interface. I dunno. It's proponents claim it will make external displays simpler, cheaper, thinner, and less power-hungry too.

 

[tuc]

All I know is ... my neighbor has the new macbook and wants to hook it to the tv. She has HDMI S-video and composite video. How does she do it?

Plug Apple's $29 miniDP-to-DVI cable into the macbook, plug
a cheap third-party DVI-to-HDMI adapter into that, then use
a standard HDMI cable to connect to the TV.

Alternatively, plug Apple's $29 miniDP-to-DVI cable into the
macbook, plug a cheap third-party HDMI-to-DVI adapter into
the TV, and string a DVI-D cable in between.

Dell 2408WFP $689

I'm not sure what your point is. That is one of a handful of
monitors out there that support DisplayPort connections, in
addition to DVI/HDMI and VGA. Currently there is no way to
connect a Mac to it via DisplayPort because miniDP-to-DP
adapters don't quite exist yet. (It can still be connected via
DVI using Apple's $29 miniDP-to-DVI adapter but where's
the fun in that? )

 

[AidenShaw]

Hdcp?

Originally Posted by AidenShaw

Dell 2408WFP $689I'm not sure what your point is.

That is one of a handful of monitors out there that support DisplayPort connections, in addition to DVI/HDMI and VGA. Currently there is no way to connect a Mac to it via DisplayPort because miniDP-to-DP adapters don't quite exist yet. (It can still be connected via DVI using Apple's $29 miniDP-to-DVI adapter but where's the fun in that? )

Not fun at all, unless the Apple dongle supports HDCP.

 

[matticus008]

USB3 (as a display standard?)

Oh yes. There are already more DisplayLink monitors than DisplayPort monitors. DisplayLink is a preview of some of what's being developed for USB 3.0, which has already been demonstrated to be capable of uncompressed 1080p transmission (or compressed transmission at 2160p and beyond) and, like DisplayPort, is packet-based. With USB 3.0, you could string together three 30" LCD monitors with nothing but a USB cable. DP has no native support for daisy chaining like this, and is planning to support DisplayLink in the future--so one has to ask, why not just use DisplayLink for everything (except internal connections)?

DisplayPort should indeed exist, if only in the internal (laptop/iMac) space.

Direct drive internals are indeed a good idea, but DisplayPort is not necessarily the ideal expression. It's unquestionably an improvement over LDI and FPDLink, and it does return us to a lingering point: while DisplayPort is a uniform signal standard internally, it is not a uniform connector standard. The presence of electrically compatible connectors is a non-issue--nobody is claiming those internals aren't "real" DisplayPort.

The problem with DisplayPort, and particularly for those who seem to be completely sold on the current connector, is that it's being rushed out before it can deliver on its promises. A major revision of DP is planned for 2009 with significantly higher bandwidth, and the vague "goal" of finding some clever hack to enable the use of these first-generation connectors and cables (which is not physically possible using existing technology). In other words, the current implementation won't even outlive DVI, let alone HDMI. DP's current performance, apart from the prospect of Direct Drive, offers nothing not available from HDMI or DisplayLink (and far less audio bandwidth, no xvYCC, and no device control compared to HDMI) for connecting external displays, because bandwidth promises are a bill of goods (and for the rah-rah standards people, requires proprietary extensions to hack together working OpenGL surface sharing--DP can't even fully implement what's already out there).

The future revisions to DisplayPort should be the first versions of DP, and people should not get too attached to a standard connector that may very well have no future once the actual benefits of DP are introduced in future revisions.

By the logic advanced by some people here, they easily could have engineered the standard to use HDMI connectors (thus giving Apple and others the option of a standard mini connector and avoiding this absurd non-issue altogether) and to require that DP produce HDMI signaling except in direct drive displays. But nobody seems to be calling the working group out on "NIH syndrome" or complaining about the uneven implementation of the far more important signal side of the standard by various companies. That would be far too rational.

Not fun at all, unless the Apple dongle supports HDCP.

Dongles don't support HDCP or not; DVI over DisplayPort is a direct passthrough of whatever's implemented in the graphics chipset, not the adapter. All currently shipping DP-enabled video cards support HDCP. The signal converter, required for those who have not fully implemented DisplayPort's DVI output is a simple electrical reconfiguration, not a complex processor, and wouldn't be necessary if video card manufacturers properly implemented the standard. I see no one is complaining about that, though.

(Of course, Apple would require that the front panel VGA connector be replaced with a mini-DisplayPort, and you'd have to buy $900 Apple displays to use the system.)

Or, so nefariously, a $100 bargain bin DVI monitor.

 

[AidenShaw]

Quote: (Of course, Apple would require that the front panel VGA connector be replaced with a mini-DisplayPort, and you'd have to buy $900 Apple displays to use the system.)

Or, so nefariously, a $100 bargain bin DVI monitor.

Matty, you should turn up the gain a little on your sarcasm detector

 

[matticus008]

Matty, you should turn up the gain a little on your sarcasm detector

Hah. Fair enough.

 

[BenRoethig]

Maybe Apple will do a deal with HP to sell OSX Server on a small set of ProLiant models. That might get IT thinking about OSX Server again. Imagine some 24-core DL580 256 GiB render farm engines....

(Of course, Apple would require that the front panel VGA connector be replaced with a mini-DisplayPort, and you'd have to buy $900 Apple displays to use the system.)

That is the one thing that has always held OSX server back. Apple has tried to Apply its one size fits all approach to the Server marker which doesn't work at all in the Enterprise market. If offered, I think OSX Server would be fairly popular.

 

[drsmithy]

I agree that if Apple did not care about a single full-line and future-ready connector,

If they cared about it, they could have used DP.

[...] and if they had not purposefully moved the ports to one side, and if they had made other internal design tradeoffs, that they certainly could have put a full-size DP port on the MacBook.

I'm still waiting for you to elaborate on these ominous "tradeoffs" you keep talking about.

I do not agree that the disadvantage, if any, of using a mini DP connector outweighs the benefit of the expanded scope of devices it can access.

What expanded scope ?

DisplayPort is meant to be universal--all displays, all devices. It can better achieve this stated goal with a connector as small as possible. The HDMI standard added a connector to embrace this concept (larger than mini DP), and DP is not an established standard to the point that connector changes will not happen.

Mini-DP: 7.4x4.5mm (33.3mm^2)
HDMI C: 10.42x2.42 (25.2mm^2)

So HDMI type C is smaller in overall area, and also smaller in the more important vertical dimension.

Whether Apple's mini DP or some other, DisplayPort should have a smaller connector, but ideally shouldn't exist at all, given the current adequacy of HDMI and the future advantages of USB3 and other innovations that will occur between now and the end of HDMI's useful life.

HDMI has licensing costs.

The advantages of DP over DVI and HDMI (and the reasons for its implementation) are described on displayport.org.

USB3 isn't implemented anywhere yet.

The overall size has no bearing on what can be accommodated by the design constraints of the internals.

Yes, yes it does.

A device twice the size of a MacBook Pro might not have room for a full-size USB port, and a device the size of a thumb drive might have more than enough room for one.

And the relevance of your mystery devices to a discussion about laptop computers would be ?

Those aren't differences. Mini DP is DP, exactly, with the sole exception of a smaller connector. There is nothing required of any other manufacturer of DP computers, displays, or media devices to support Apple products so designed. The only thing missing is an appropriate cable, which anyone can make and sell.

They are the differences that will dictate whether Mini-DP shows up anywhere else except for Apple hardware.

"The MB has plenty of room for rearrangement. Phones and cameras do not." This is conclusory and vacuous. That the device is larger does not mean it has more room. Intel repackaged a processor to shave a few millimeters of space--which was then adopted in other machines.

In no way, shape, or form, does my statement equate with:

No. This ends here. A USB connector is 13.2x6mm. Unless you find me a phone smaller than that, it will fit using your "there's enough space" rule. What's good for the goose...

How can you so utterly fail at reading comprehension with such frequency? The question has nothing to do with anything.

I suggest you reread your quote, identify who is expected to use DisplayPort, and then reconcile that with your assertion that DisplayPort is expected to be a universal connector.

How many PC manufacturers do you know in the projector market? The answer is about the same. DisplayPort is intended to connect all display types, to be used for computers and home theater components alike.

Not according to the people spruiking it.

Those devices are suddenly smaller than 7x6mm? Mini DP is smaller in volume than an iPod Dock connector or the proprietary cable connectors on most cell phones.

I love the way you keep changing the standard by which you are measuring the size of the ports. It's just so blatantly disingenuous.

Mini DP is also slightly smaller than the HDMI C connector--one accepted by a standards body for implementation on these small devices--but I guess they failed, because drsmithy decrees that there's no room. Because small devices can't be redesigned, but bigger ones can.

The way you keep putting words in my mouth is pretty bold, as well.

HDMI is a better solution for DisplayPort, too.

Apparently not, as outlined on displayport.org.

What I am saying is that the first HDMI communications were on DVI cables, and the original plan was to use the DVI cable and connector forever, until the standard went in a different direction.

Perhaps you have a link that supports this ?

 

[matticus008]

I'm still waiting for you to elaborate on these ominous "tradeoffs" you keep talking about.

No, you're not. You're just saying it to drag it on interminably.

So HDMI type C is smaller in overall area, and also smaller in the more important vertical dimension.

The vertical dimension is not more important, unless we're talking about devices thinner than 6mm. The important dimension is PCB surface area, and mini DP is indeed smaller.

HDMI has licensing costs.

Which funds ongoing development. DP relies primarily on Dell for funding, which is why it's only partly implemented the promises it makes on its website.

USB3 isn't implemented anywhere yet.

So? There is no current need for DisplayPort.

And the relevance of your mystery devices to a discussion about laptop computers would be ?

The use of a single connector across all of your products, as opposed to the HDMI and DVI (and USB and Firewire and so many others) experiences of multiple connectors and having to have multiple cables to connect devices all made by the same company. You talk about standardization as being important for consistency, when a standard with three connectors provides little. A single connector, used all all devices, from iPods to Mac Pros, means that a single cable will connect all Apple products--and a single dumb adapter will expand that scope to all DisplayPort products, because the Apple connector is completely identical in every way electrically, signal-wise, and in pinout. The adapter will cost pennies to make and can be sold by anyone for free. The comparative benefit is pretty clear for a company like Apple.

You talk about a conspiracy, so riddle me this. Why would Apple implement DisplayPort at all, when it provides absolutely no advantage to its products over DVI? Why would it bother making its connector available royalty-free if it didn't want others to be able to use it? Both moves show an intent to bolster adoption of DisplayPort. How do you spin that as trying to wall itself out?

They are the differences that will dictate whether Mini-DP shows up anywhere else except for Apple hardware.

Based on...? The existing use of one connector has never stopped a second connector before. If it did, DisplayPort wouldn't exist at all.

I suggest you reread your quote, identify who is expected to use DisplayPort, and then reconcile that with your assertion that DisplayPort is expected to be a universal connector.

Companies needed to support DisplayPort in order to achieve the stated goal of connecting computers, portable devices, media players, HDTVs, projectors, and external displays: manufacturers of computers, portable devices, media players, HDTVs, projectors, and external displays.

I love the way you keep changing the standard by which you are measuring the size of the ports. It's just so blatantly disingenuous.

What exactly is changing?

The way you keep putting words in my mouth is pretty bold, as well.

Not really. You're the one claiming I said the implemented design is the only possible design. On the other hand, you did claim that cell phones and iPods can't be redesigned for other connectors, but laptops can be, despite the fact that PCB free positive/negative space is almost identical.

Overall size of a product has no bearing on space on the PCB, despite your repeated ignorant assertions. Notebooks are larger than cell phones--and also contain more traces, circuits, and chips.

Apparently not, as outlined on displayport.org.

Yeah, because DisplayPort would do an unbiased review and declare itself unnecessary. Come on now. All of the major technology sites have looked into DP and all of them have articles panning the standard as premature, under-delivering, and generally needless. The whole notion of direct drive monitors is being used to show a concrete advantage, but packet-based HDMI extensions would have enabled the same thing while preserving backwards compatibility AND connector compatibility.

Perhaps you have a link that supports this ?

Simplified overview: http://www.hdmi.org/pdf/HDMI_CPTWG_4-17-02.PDF
For a complete look into the early efforts, including the attempt to reconfigure and extend DVI-HDCP to meet the later development goals, you'd have to have access to the whitepapers and mailing lists, and I am not permitted to share my copies.

This, curiously enough, is exactly the same effort currently underway for the DisplayPort connector--and will probably turn out the exact same way: a new connector once the full featureset is developed.

 

[drsmithy]

No, you're not. You're just saying it to drag it on interminably.

You still haven't offered a single convincing argument that Apple couldn't have made a MacBook just as well using proper DP.

The vertical dimension is not more important, unless we're talking about devices thinner than 6mm.

It is to Apple, because they equate 'small' with 'thin'.

Oh yeah, you need more than just enough vertical space to fit the opening of the port itself, as well.

The important dimension is PCB surface area, and mini DP is indeed smaller.

PCB area is largely dictated by horizontal dimensions and, relatively speaking, the MacBook has those in abundance.

Which funds ongoing development. DP relies primarily on Dell for funding, which is why it's only partly implemented the promises it makes on its website.

I think you've already highlighted that not all standards are "fully implemented" on first release.

So? There is no current need for DisplayPort.

Pretty short sighted to only think of what you need right now.

The use of a single connector across all of your products, as opposed to the HDMI and DVI (and USB and Firewire and so many others) experiences of multiple connectors and having to have multiple cables to connect devices all made by the same company.

Except there won't be a single connector across all of their products, because it won't fit on all of their products.

Added to which, on some of their products (eg: the Xserve), it will be a disadvantage (and offer zero advantage)

You talk about a conspiracy, so riddle me this. [...]

At no point have I said anything, whatsoever, about a "conspiracy". In fact, I expressed my views on the subject (which haven't changed) early on:

"The vast bulk of hardware will ship with regular Displayport. Mini-DP will be another ADC, that will rarely, if ever, be seen outside of Apple hardware or adapters to interface Apple hardware to standard hardware. "

"[...] because Apple is the poster-child of NIH-syndrome."

Based on...? The existing use of one connector has never stopped a second connector before. If it did, DisplayPort wouldn't exist at all.

The previous 4 times Apple have used their own port instead of a standard one.

Companies needed to support DisplayPort in order to achieve the stated goal of connecting computers, portable devices, media players, HDTVs, projectors, and external displays: manufacturers of computers, portable devices, media players, HDTVs, projectors, and external displays.

Has it occurred to you that DP is only about connecting computers to displays ? Hence the reason the people developing it are only talking about computers and the devices they get plugged into ?

Not really. You're the one claiming I said the implemented design is the only possible design.

Yes, that's because you keep implying that Apple wouldn't have been able to make the MacBook the way it is without Mini-DP.

On the other hand, you did claim that cell phones and iPods can't be redesigned for other connectors, but laptops can be, despite the fact that PCB free positive/negative space is almost identical.

No, I did not. I said redesigning a smaller device for a larger port would be substantially harder because of the relative sizes of the ports to the device, and probably not feasible because of that.

The PCB size is not a fixed variable. Because the horizontal dimensions are not a significant constraint, it can be resized and redesigned relatively easily.

Overall size of a product has no bearing on space on the PCB, despite your repeated ignorant assertions.

The overall size of a device most certainly has a bearing on what can be fitted inside it, despite your repeated, absurd claims to the contrary.

(Unless, of course, the device in question is a TARDIS.)

Notebooks are larger than cell phones--and also contain more traces, circuits, and chips.

Laptops have substantially more area (and volume) to put them in.

Yeah, because DisplayPort would do an unbiased review and declare itself unnecessary.

Regardless of what bias you might perceive, that doesn't change the advantages outlined.

Come on now. All of the major technology sites have looked into DP and all of them have articles panning the standard as premature, under-delivering, and generally needless. The whole notion of direct drive monitors is being used to show a concrete advantage, but packet-based HDMI extensions would have enabled the same thing while preserving backwards compatibility AND connector compatibility.

I really don't care if DP succeeds or fails. I'm not trying to sell it. From an overall perspective, HDMI is probably the best way to go.

Simplified overview:

That doesn't appear to say what you says it does.

If you could point to some devices that were sold with "HDMI using DVI plugs", that would be more convincing.

Unless you're trying to say that HDMI and DVI are electrically the same thing (at least for the video signal) ?