DisplayPort is capable of carrying sound.
Just saying that there are non-frankenstein ways of connecting computers to TVs now. With sound too! :]
DisplayPort is capable of carrying sound.
DisplayPort is capable of carrying sound.
There still isn't a way to connect an Apple LED Cinema Display to anything other than an Apple computer.
There are a few active adapters from DVI to Mini-DP. They'll run you US$150-180 though.Theres no DDVI -> to MDP as far as I'm aware.
Yay. Another absolutely pointless type of connector. Why does Apple insist on doing this? It's going to be a huge failure just like Firewire.
Isn't this going to be a somewhat short-lived usage by Apple? Once Light Peak gets going isn't Apple going to switch over to that?
Lightpeak is for peripherals and to compete against USB3.
I would like to believe that soon enough we will have ONE kind of port that would work for everything, a sort of USB, but that would replace Ethernet, FireWire, Display outputs, and everything else you can think of... That would be great.
Yay. Another absolutely pointless type of connector. Why does Apple insist on doing this? It's going to be a huge failure just like Firewire.
DisplayPort is capable of carrying sound.
I've been considering moving back to a PC lately, so if I do, maybe I'll use this option...My ATI card offers audio and video through HDMI to a TV ;]
![]()
Google Firewire 3200
![]()
So I'm lefting asking the same question I started asking 12 months ago.
When do we get to see MDP -> DL-DVI adaptors that
a) Work (unlike the Apple one)
and
b) Cost less than £60 (unlike the Apple one)
I would like to believe that soon enough we will have ONE kind of port that would work for everything, a sort of USB, but that would replace Ethernet, FireWire, Display outputs, and everything else you can think of... That would be great.
That would take some serious effort on the part of the world as a whole.
And then you have the technical hurdles. If Ethernet can be replaced by a single port your peripherals all connect to as well? That's a huge security hole, and opens up a whole new class of attacks against systems. Our current understanding of securing computer systems lacks the ability to defend against these sort of attacks (not without adding another layer of security when connecting a device, a la the bluetooth PIN, which would annoy users).
How do we address the vastly different needs of data being passed along ports? Video/Audio need to be realtime, networking needs to be routed differently than peripherals, input devices need to be as close to real-time as feasible, and then you have dumb storage like HDDs which have no real needs other than the data needs to get there intact.
Firewire addressed a couple of these, but in the end, was only really useful for ad hoc networking before WiFi ad hoc came along, and any realtime data had a tendency to heavily impact the rest of the data.
Considering how hard it is to get one industry to sit down and agree on a connection standard, I couldn't imagine the horror that would be negotiations and spec writing on how such a 'uni-port' should work.
Oops, you must have meant to post that in your alternate-universe account.
In THIS world, firewire was very succesful and was, besides its computer uses, a very important video standard on all kinds of broadcast decks and cameras.
Fail. Completely and utterly wrong. Firewire has failed.
Kids, stay in school or you might end up like this guy. Delusional and without a clue.