Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by Spacedust, Aug 20, 2009.
Should fit in a Mac Pro without having to change cooling
It looks more like a 56xx/57xx given the PCB. Juinper is the codename for the performance midrange though.
From the picture it looks like 2 DVI, 1 HDMI and 1 Display Port? Are any displays even using display port yet?
Dell's 3008FPW does and this HP.
Let's just hope it's not as loud as a leaf blower!
Let's also hope there'll be a mac version, or EFI ROM, or that an EFI ROM can be made for it.
DisplayPort is used on the HP DreamColor. Single Link DVI is limited to 8-bit video. DisplayPort can also do RGB. DisplayPort is here to stay.
The Captain has spoken.
Let's hope the Mac version won't cost twice as much!
Pictures under the cooler here.
I'm sure it will.
Not sure if there will be one.
You are off by 100. That is a the 57xx The 58xx should be longer.
If a version for OSX (from Apple) is released, I am certain that it will be the "dual mini-displayport" soultion some people have (for some strange reason) been looking for.
Not to mention it will use a massive ROM to prevent third-party solutions.
I don't think so, on either count. MDP is not yet entrenched enough and too many Mac Pro owners don't use solely displays, so I disagree there. Unless, that is, it has one or two more ports in addition to MDP. The ROM thing was just a side effect of needing to tack EFI onto the BIOS - and in fact, some PC cards still have enough space anyway, it varies by manufacturer. I don't think they do anything extra to restrict it; they just don't feel a need to make it possible either.
Or just hope that netkas' updates his injector.
I was just being facetious.
I know MDP isn't entrenched enough (thankfully) for the creation of a dual MDP card - while I think the DisplayPort standard is great, Apple didn't really need to make a proprietary connector out of it, IMO.
My previous post was just a slight vent on the usual sillyness of Apple cards, where either one has to use an injector or soldier on a new ROM-storage-chip (real name evading me ATM) in most cicumstances.
An SOIC 8 Serial EEPROM
And BTW, while nobody will acknowledge it, sometimes the inability to flash a card IS a result of a conscious effort. The Radeon 9800 was most defineitely "locked" via not just the usual 64K/128K thing, but also had some resistors that restricted flashing beyond 64K. In fact, a 128K EEPROM would get id'd by flashrom program as a 64K part number because of these resistors.
I could site several other examples.
Not an accident, a deterrent. They don't make it impossible, just toss a few roadblocks up to keep the flashes from becoming too easy (Radeon 8500)
I wonder if people will ever stop using the word "proprietary" improperly. It is part of the Displayport specification, which means it is not proprietary. AAC was not proprietary either. It is uncommon, used by very few companies at this time, but non- companies make cables that use it and they didn't have to pay a licensing fee for it either.
Not proprietary. Please stop spreading that around. Now, if you were to say that unnecessarily introduced another kind of connector, I would agree with you.
On the subject of flashing, more recent cards have not been so blocked. That I'm aware of, anyway.
Well, is there any other reason Apple would stick with EFI (besides Apple is butt-buddies with Intel)?
Also, I had a little bit of confusion on this;
Are we talking figurative resistors or physical ones Sorry, its a by-product of physics class.
Unfortunatly, while I wish I was being black-and-white, my dependant clause may have obfuscated the independant clause, so I can see the confusion; however, removing the dependant clause, one has the sentance,
EDIT: We agree then, yes?
Call me extremist (and off-topic), but I'm not going to implement a cable or adapter using MiniDisplayPort*; true, Apple is pushing DisplayPort spec, which is good, but instead of using the connector non-apple monitors and regular PC cards use, Apple uses their own connector. Thusly, instead of a(n IMO) superior display specification being promoted in the marketplace, the spec becomes a way for Apple to garner even more money with adapters in addition to locking their monitor with their hardware. If Apple used DisplayPort instead of MiniDisplayPort, the spec probably would gain more momentum then it is currently getting.
*MiniDisplayPort for the laptop, I can see where that would have some use (miniturization, etc). MiniDisplayPort forever, no.
At least you can buy someone else's cables and adapters - (which I definitely would if I wanted to make a point of it) more cheaply, no less. As an aside, I have to wonder if the miniaturization gained over Displayport even helped.
Sorry about the earlier fiery post, work and I haven't been agreeing too well lately. Kinda-sorta took it out here My bad.
And now that you bring it up, I just checked out the back of my M4400, and DisplayPort is smaller then I originally thought... I guess it is time to tack on yet another tag to the mantra of buying Apple parts; Buy third party RAM, video card, HDDs, and video connectors.
Mini DisplayPort is justifiable on the MacBook Air and MacBook Air only as far as I'm concerned. People who buy those know they're buying a retarded cut-down CrippleBook anyway, so they should expect to use adapters. Mini DisplayPort isn't all that much smaller than real DisplayPort, so it was just typical Apple crap to force it down everyone's throat on machines that had plenty of room for non-retarded connectors.
That's why I don't get how it was even worth the bother of designing a new connector. But it's not like they'll ever tell us the full story.