Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
WWDC: New LCD Displays
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Another way to look at it
No. There are only two connectors on the new card. One for each monitor. It is not designed to do more than two monitors. The same is true of the older cards. They have two connectors on them. They support two monitors (with the right adapters). If you want three monitors out of a Mac you need to use at least two video cards -- even with this new card. One card can be AGP (or PCI) the other must be PCI.
With enough video cards (one AGP, two PCI) you should be able to get back to the old Macintosh II which had the ability to support six (yes 6!) monitors through six different NuBus cards 16 years ago.
The two separate duals in the "Dual Dual Link" mean two different things. The second dual means the interface as in a "dual DVI versus a DVI". It is not completely unlike FireWire 400 versus FireWire 800 or USB 1.1 versus USB 2.0. No, it is not exactly the same concept, but the general idea is the same. The 6800 Ultra chipset has the ability to do a dual and the card has the dual interface on it. Thus the card has a "Dual DVI" interface. The only other chipset I know of which can do this is the FireGL chipset (and some custom ones for the military of course -- a system existed on the open market back in the late 80s that had 17.3 megapixels on a single monitor with a 60 Hz refresh but it required an optical interface). When I heard the rumors that this new monitor was going to be available I actually expected the card to be based upon the FireGL series rather than the 6800 series.
The first dual means there are two such connectors/interfaces on the card. The card has a dual set of "Dual DVI" connectors/interfaces. Thus the card (with associated internal circuitry and firmware) can support two separate monitors.
The duals (both of them) have virtually nothing to do with the amount of RAM on the card. As long as there is enough RAM to cover the resolution (64 MB would easily cover the minimum requirements) then the rest is for speed and fancier calculations/video effects.
I doubt the performace on two 30" displays run from the same card will be as good as just one 30" since the same 6800 Ultra chipset drives both. However, it would be an impressibe sight. You can never have too much screen real estate.
jsw said:
No. There are only two connectors on the new card. One for each monitor. It is not designed to do more than two monitors. The same is true of the older cards. They have two connectors on them. They support two monitors (with the right adapters). If you want three monitors out of a Mac you need to use at least two video cards -- even with this new card. One card can be AGP (or PCI) the other must be PCI.
With enough video cards (one AGP, two PCI) you should be able to get back to the old Macintosh II which had the ability to support six (yes 6!) monitors through six different NuBus cards 16 years ago.
cr2sh said:
The two separate duals in the "Dual Dual Link" mean two different things. The second dual means the interface as in a "dual DVI versus a DVI". It is not completely unlike FireWire 400 versus FireWire 800 or USB 1.1 versus USB 2.0. No, it is not exactly the same concept, but the general idea is the same. The 6800 Ultra chipset has the ability to do a dual and the card has the dual interface on it. Thus the card has a "Dual DVI" interface. The only other chipset I know of which can do this is the FireGL chipset (and some custom ones for the military of course -- a system existed on the open market back in the late 80s that had 17.3 megapixels on a single monitor with a 60 Hz refresh but it required an optical interface). When I heard the rumors that this new monitor was going to be available I actually expected the card to be based upon the FireGL series rather than the 6800 series.
The first dual means there are two such connectors/interfaces on the card. The card has a dual set of "Dual DVI" connectors/interfaces. Thus the card (with associated internal circuitry and firmware) can support two separate monitors.
The duals (both of them) have virtually nothing to do with the amount of RAM on the card. As long as there is enough RAM to cover the resolution (64 MB would easily cover the minimum requirements) then the rest is for speed and fancier calculations/video effects.
I doubt the performace on two 30" displays run from the same card will be as good as just one 30" since the same 6800 Ultra chipset drives both. However, it would be an impressibe sight. You can never have too much screen real estate.
bertagert said:
Not going to happen with either this or even the next generation of Powerbook. The video cards will not support it no matter what adapter you throw on it. There won't be a dual link DVI output from a Powerbook for at least a couple more generations.
maybe, just maybe
Who knows... maybe this is just a pro line of monitors. If the new iMac's are headless à la VESA mounting brackets than we can have a whole new set of white LCD's for single G5 use (15 and 17 wide?)...hook a brother up.
I guess I dream of this because I am one of those stuck in between: want G5 for next mac so it will last a long time, but PowerMac and Display are outside my lowly student (and Canadian) budget. Booo exchange rates.
seyo said:
Who knows... maybe this is just a pro line of monitors. If the new iMac's are headless à la VESA mounting brackets than we can have a whole new set of white LCD's for single G5 use (15 and 17 wide?)...hook a brother up.
I guess I dream of this because I am one of those stuck in between: want G5 for next mac so it will last a long time, but PowerMac and Display are outside my lowly student (and Canadian) budget. Booo exchange rates.
DMann said:
Because Sony isn't Apple's only competitor.
Sorry, but there is no defense for Apple. These monitors are overpriced.
scem0
bertagert said:
And any PC user who is seriously looking at a large LCD display is going to look at Apple for two seconds and realize they can get a comparable LCD for at least $300-$500 cheaper. This FUD Jobs spread about skipping over monitors that the completion snatches up is BS. I cant wait to watch the stream tomorrow. I know Im going to be laughing my *** off at the FUD. At this point I dont think there is a single company Im interested in that isnt exasperating the heck out of me. Apple, IBM, Dell, MS, Toshiba, etc, etc. At least though most of those other vendors arent slapping people in the face with blatant crap which Im thinking from MRs feed today it sounds like he did. Again, we have a new set of monitors for the year so far and one new PowerMac speedbump that requires Liquid cooling to run. Well color me excited!
For an anniversary year the first half of 2004 sure as heck suckes.
SiliconAddict said:And any PC user who is seriously looking at a large LCD display is going to look at Apple for two seconds and realize they can get a comparable LCD for at least $300-$500 cheaper. This FUD Jobs spread about skipping over monitors that the completion snatches up is BS. I cant wait to watch the stream tomorrow. I know Im going to be laughing my *** off at the FUD. At this point I dont think there is a single company Im interested in that isnt exasperating the heck out of me. Apple, IBM, Dell, MS, Toshiba, etc, etc. At least though most of those other vendors arent slapping people in the face with blatant crap which Im thinking from MRs feed today it sounds like he did. Again, we have a new set of monitors for the year so far and one new PowerMac speedbump that requires Liquid cooling to run. Well color me excited!
For an anniversary year the first half of 2004 sure as heck suckes.
Whilst I agree the screens would be far more attractive if they were cheaper, I am pretty impressed with the firewire ports and finish.
As for a dud year I dont agree. Sure G5s have been a whimper so far. Wish my PB was a G5 but I had already waited too long to switch and I am very happy with the PB17 even with the 167mhz front bus.
Also Airport Express is a very nice addition to the Apple line. I was about to buy a third party product and then they appeared and I knew it was what I wanted.
Now if only they would get the iMacs out, plus new iPods, a few other smart and cheper hardware gizmos like a metallic finish BT pro keyboard and multibutton pro mouse etc I think this 20th anniversary year of the mac will have been a good one.
blorp said:You've got a point. The PowerMac G5 IS a pro machine. It is supposed to cost a lot. You get what you pay for, right? Right. I understand why the dual 2.5 costs $4100.
Let us get back on track, though: the displays. They are great. They look good, have a good resolution - I want one. But I cannot see why the 30" would cost $500 MORE than the top-of-the-line G5? I really want the 20" display. I do. But for the $1799 that it costs, I could get 2 Samsung 173Ts (GREAT displays, by the way), have 34" of display, and save $440. For every 3" on the Apple store, you add $1000. The 17" is $999. The 20" is $1799. The 23" is $2799.
I'm just saying that, while the displays are great, they are overpriced...buddy
Sorry to dissapoint you but 2X17" screens doesn't = 34" you would need 4 of them to equal 34".
I wonder if the Nvdia card can drive the IBM T221 3800X2400 22" LCD .12 dot pitch, Monitor, Amazing!!, which can be had refurb for under $4000, with 9 million pixals, thats more than 2 30" displays. The print would probably be too small to see though.
http://www.pc.ibm.com/us/intellistation/t221/
http://www.pc.ibm.com/us/intellistation/t221/
joelypolly said:
Not necessarily dissagreeing, but you lost me... How does 2x17 not = 34? 4x17=68. two 17" monitors should be 34" I guess? But you said it takes 4 17" monitors to equal 34", just curious how?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cr2sh
After watching the keynote... I'm a bit more agitated.
I can understand that no video card is capable of pushing a 30" display. Okay, yeh... I could buy that. Then I hear Steve say "dual dual link" and I'm like "WTF?" You're telling me that this 256mb card (6800 Ultra) can push 8.2million pixels... but the old 256mb (9800 XT) can't push 4.1million? That doesn't jive with me... it sounds like a ploy.
I'm no video card expert.. but come on... anyone buying this?
DaveG5
If I understand it correctly, Steve is talking about the interface. DVI can only output 1920x1200 max, a dual DVI card can do that times 2, but only on 2 separate monitors.
The dvi dual link links the power of 2 dvi together to give you the bandwidth needed to run the 30". the Ultra 6800 has 2 dual link interfaces and can therefore run 2 30" displays. It has nothing to do with the external DVI ports or the memory in the card.
In all likelihood, the ATI 9800XT can push just as many Pixels as the ultra 6800, although slower, but it does not have the 2-dual link interface. so the bandwidth it can output is limited to 1920x1200 per external port.
Just like firewire400 and firewire800, you can put a hard drive capable of 60MB per second in both enclosures, but the firewire 400 drive will never past 50MB per second cause its interface is bandwidth limited, even though the same hard drive is in both, the firewire 800 will gladly go as fast as the hard drive can go.
Originally Posted by cr2sh
After watching the keynote... I'm a bit more agitated.
I can understand that no video card is capable of pushing a 30" display. Okay, yeh... I could buy that. Then I hear Steve say "dual dual link" and I'm like "WTF?" You're telling me that this 256mb card (6800 Ultra) can push 8.2million pixels... but the old 256mb (9800 XT) can't push 4.1million? That doesn't jive with me... it sounds like a ploy.
I'm no video card expert.. but come on... anyone buying this?
DaveG5
If I understand it correctly, Steve is talking about the interface. DVI can only output 1920x1200 max, a dual DVI card can do that times 2, but only on 2 separate monitors.
The dvi dual link links the power of 2 dvi together to give you the bandwidth needed to run the 30". the Ultra 6800 has 2 dual link interfaces and can therefore run 2 30" displays. It has nothing to do with the external DVI ports or the memory in the card.
In all likelihood, the ATI 9800XT can push just as many Pixels as the ultra 6800, although slower, but it does not have the 2-dual link interface. so the bandwidth it can output is limited to 1920x1200 per external port.
Just like firewire400 and firewire800, you can put a hard drive capable of 60MB per second in both enclosures, but the firewire 400 drive will never past 50MB per second cause its interface is bandwidth limited, even though the same hard drive is in both, the firewire 800 will gladly go as fast as the hard drive can go.
g4cubed said:If you think these are good points, you need to stop eating the lead paint chips in your room.
1.) Who cares what arm holds the screen. Maybe wall mounting would be okay for some, but not me.
2.) Who cares that you can connect it to a pc, if you own a mac.
3.) And if an adaptor were made, at what cost $$$
And confusing is not the word for the usb/firewire connection on the back. It's asinine.
1. Who said it has to be attached to a wall? I'm talking about a mount that attaches to the desk so the screen acts just like a imac screen does. Are you seeing the light now?
2. Ummm, being able to connect to a pc would be really nice if you use a pc instead of a mac.
3. Meaning, if you really wanted to use a 30" screen with your powerbook, you might be able to. I know, I know...this would be kind of stupid as the powerbook really isn't the machine to do work on that a 30" screen would allow compared to a powermac. However, some might want the option. As for price. Well, a little more than the $599 it cost for the graphics card in the powermac I suppose.
4. This is a new one. By going dvi, you won't have to purchase a acd adapter for your powerbook.
Once again silicon, you are wrong. There are many PC people that will buy the monitors. You need to get out more. People that I have talked to, or taken to the Apple store, and have seen the 23" want to buy it right there and then. Then they realized the whole acd thing and say screw it. People really do like the look of Apple's products. For proof, go to a Apple to store or CompUSA. Wait till a girl walks by the ibooks. I'll bet you $100 that she says, "this one is pretty". Then the guys walk by the screens and say, "damn, thats sweet". Just give twenty minutes of your life to find out. You'll see.SiliconAddict said:
PC users buy Apple products. Think ipods. There are a ton of people that would much rather have the best looking product than to say, "hey, mine only cost $400". These people tend to own larger homes, better cars, etc. Let the monitors roll out for a few months and then check back.
What about the entry level?
Hi!
I really do not care much about the new displays itself (I have a PowerBook and no need for an external display) but what really is scary to see is that it is getting more and more expensive to own a Mac.
When the "new" PowerMacs were announced the low-end got faster but also more expensive, thus raising the bar for potential byuers. Now, with the new displays it is obvious that Apple expects people who get a G5 to buy a 20" TFT to go along with it. The iMac is much more expensive than a PC with comparable power and has none of the expansion capability, also mostly because of the integrated display. It is a bit much to expect switcher to simply dump their old displays!
The eMac with an integrated CRT (and also no expandability) is no real alternative for most people (although most users will never even open their PC, but that is a different matter) which leaves nothing at all for non-professional users. Great.
Of course, Apple might surprise us with a new consumer line of desktops and a matching 17" widescreen display in Paris but I would not really count on that. In short: Right at the beginning of the WWDC Apple made clear that they do not intend to increase their market share. That is great marketing...
fraggle
BTW: The shipping date for Tiger sounds very much like it will be available for the next WWDC which means another year!
Hi!
I really do not care much about the new displays itself (I have a PowerBook and no need for an external display) but what really is scary to see is that it is getting more and more expensive to own a Mac.
When the "new" PowerMacs were announced the low-end got faster but also more expensive, thus raising the bar for potential byuers. Now, with the new displays it is obvious that Apple expects people who get a G5 to buy a 20" TFT to go along with it. The iMac is much more expensive than a PC with comparable power and has none of the expansion capability, also mostly because of the integrated display. It is a bit much to expect switcher to simply dump their old displays!
The eMac with an integrated CRT (and also no expandability) is no real alternative for most people (although most users will never even open their PC, but that is a different matter) which leaves nothing at all for non-professional users. Great.
Of course, Apple might surprise us with a new consumer line of desktops and a matching 17" widescreen display in Paris but I would not really count on that. In short: Right at the beginning of the WWDC Apple made clear that they do not intend to increase their market share. That is great marketing...
fraggle
BTW: The shipping date for Tiger sounds very much like it will be available for the next WWDC which means another year!
bertagert said:
An interesting point of view, as hard as it is for some to admit, popularity and looks go hand in hand. And looks do sell... I've always been big on seeing how kool something looks will sell the best. And that's a good scinario (never done it before, but I know that looks draw people's attention to Macs). But I am not sure for that price, I don't really know yet. Like you said we'll have to wait a few months and see how the sales are doing. There's a lot of people who like the look of Sony widescreen displays too though, and there's more to weigh in. How many guys who love to shop at Best Buy would trust Sony over Apple... The same football game die hards that have awesome HDTV's and what not, the same ones from richer families you speak of... There are a lot of people who trust the brand names of PC monitors too, and actually like the looks as well. Not necessarily cause Sony is better, or the other way around for Apple for that matter. But we're thinking in the consumer's mind... A lot of people are apt to buying products they're familiar with, like Sony for an over repeating example lol. I dunno for sure, but the looks of Apple draw me in, if that counts for anything?
AfterThought - PC users do buy Apple products, but considering the impact of Apple sales to PC sales, they probly aren't buying a whole lot of Apple products. Most of Apple's bulk sales are from repeat buyers, professinals (a small minority personal computer speaking), and of course your Apple die hard like so many on this forum. PC users might buy 'some' Apple products like iPods, but it's not enough to make a major effect on the shares yet. We'll have to see how the monitors do in the upcomming months, people said the same about G5's and there's only roughly 8 million sold worldwide. And I also think there's a LOT of people who would buy a PC cause it's only 400$, are you kidding? I didn't buy mine cause I think M$ is better than Apple or something... Price dude.
(quote me if I'm wrong on the 8 million sold, not 100% about the source)
Well I've been saving my beans for an LCD, but it looks like my money will go further elsewhere. Nice LCD, but Apple blew getting my business by emphasizing form over function to the point where the extra money for their 20" is a frivolous expense.
DVI. Great, but I can't imagine many PC people spending the extra for this display.
I would have liked to see dual inputs for use by more than one computer.
DVI. Great, but I can't imagine many PC people spending the extra for this display.
I would have liked to see dual inputs for use by more than one computer.
This isn't a harp on your post, just curiosity. Was the 20" too much before the new ones came out? I didn't hear any complaining when the 20" was $1299. But now that the new 20" is $1299, that's all I seem to be hearing. Or, is all the complaining because there isn't a new 17" for $699?yadmonkey said:
I'm betting that Apple is going like this:
20", 23" & 30" aluminum displays for pro. New displays coming for the imac line in the 17" & 20". I'm not sure if they're going to cut the monitor loose from the imac but something tells me its going that direction. Lets see what happens in a few more months.
Also, I wonder what the real sales figures are for 15" Flat screen LCD's (from all vendors in the world). Are people (pros not included) buying 15 inchers or going with the 17" and above? The answer to this will tell us Apple's plans.
denm316 said:
that's how it's always been. before the displays had the adc connector and you needed an adapter for the second display because the graphics card had one adc and one dvi connector - and now you need the adapter for the first display which now uses a dvi connector; however, i think you can hook the primary display to either one of the two ports on the graphics card, so if that stands, you can put in either adc or dvi display and would still need the adapter for the second display.
or what do you mean?
slipper said:
me too. i would have bought a widescreen 17" dvi display to be used with my powerbook, but i find the 20" together with european taxes too expensive for now.
maybe apple wants to try to give the 20" model some additional promotion while it clears the old square 17" monitor inventory - and after the old inventory gone, it would be a good time to introduce the long awaited 17" widescreen model.
one can hope.
blackcrayon said:
component video and svideo are ANALOG formats and apple displays are ALL-DIGITAL, which is actually one of apple's marketing points.
did you know that many of the competing brands' lcd displays - despite the dvi connection - are in fact analog inside? that is possible because the dvi connector is a hybrid plug which carries both analog and digital signals, and some manufacturers have chosen the cheaper way (analog, that is) which as we know has some drawbacks.
point being: don't even try to compare apple displays to the cheapo analog lcd models. compare apple displays to other all-digital lcd models, and find out that apple isn't so expensive after all.
(those who want a lcd display, will buy the cheapest. those who want crisp and accurate picture, will buy the best. those are two different markets, though both markets sell a product that has a lcd display panel. get it?)
sorry for being a dumbass but why does the cabble split into usb and fire wire??? do hey just plug into the mac??
think different - one step back / one step forward
i think i see some of the dilemas apple had on the design, product positioning and user base front.
apple is about thinking (being) different, but how do you differentiate a lcd?
the new monitors have better (not top) specs, but...
-dvi instead of adc connector means an ADDITIONAL external power connection is needed (sad).
-dvi means head-on competition from every other display maker.
-dvi means the adc is now obsolete and will disappear from future apple hardware, so the current apple diplays will eventually have to be discarded.
-change to dvi, yet it still won't connect to all of apple's own computers, ie ibook.
-the look is very similar to the competitors (as is the function).
-a clear path to tv viewing on an lcd seems desireable, where is the connection for that? apple IS a lifestyle company.
-isight is to have a new magnetic connector to facilitate connection to the new monitors, but i am curious to know how you get a magnet to stick to aluminium?!?
the new monitors are an upgrade, but are un-inspiring in terms of new possiblilities for apple, or so it would appear. apple has based its' very existence on the concept of thinking different and perhaps these displays do not fit with this vision.
in terms of thinking different, is this a question of one step back / one step forward?
or am i/we just expecting too much from this one product?
i think i see some of the dilemas apple had on the design, product positioning and user base front.
apple is about thinking (being) different, but how do you differentiate a lcd?
the new monitors have better (not top) specs, but...
-dvi instead of adc connector means an ADDITIONAL external power connection is needed (sad).
-dvi means head-on competition from every other display maker.
-dvi means the adc is now obsolete and will disappear from future apple hardware, so the current apple diplays will eventually have to be discarded.
-change to dvi, yet it still won't connect to all of apple's own computers, ie ibook.
-the look is very similar to the competitors (as is the function).
-a clear path to tv viewing on an lcd seems desireable, where is the connection for that? apple IS a lifestyle company.
-isight is to have a new magnetic connector to facilitate connection to the new monitors, but i am curious to know how you get a magnet to stick to aluminium?!?
the new monitors are an upgrade, but are un-inspiring in terms of new possiblilities for apple, or so it would appear. apple has based its' very existence on the concept of thinking different and perhaps these displays do not fit with this vision.
in terms of thinking different, is this a question of one step back / one step forward?
or am i/we just expecting too much from this one product?