Get ready for hot, hot convergence kids 'cause the
DisplayPort 1.1 specification was just approved. The new VESA-approved digital interface standard is meant to replace DVI and VGA ports while co-existing with HDMI for HDTV connectivity. As you can see in the picture above, it's about the size of a USB connector yet offers 2x the performance of DVI in a much smaller package. They also bake in a nasty dollop of HDCP 1.3 content protection to keep the Blu-ray and HD DVD kiddies happy. The wee size allows the interface to be included in smaller handheld electronics while enabling direct-drive LCD panels thereby eliminating the need for non-panel LVDS electronics in the monitor designs. Of course it also supports pass-through of DVI and HDMI signals via simple adapters similar to DVI-to-HDMI variety on the market today. So which of our esteemed manufactures will bite first? We're not sure, but VESA isn't shy about using
Dell's high-end XPS systems in their marketing collateral. Of course, the question they don't answer is, why not just move everything to HDMI? For that, you just have to look at who backs royalty-free DisplayPort (the PC industry) and who backs HDMI (the consumer electronics industry). Yeah, we know.
posted Apr 4th 2007 3:21AM
Why couldnt we just use HDMI? Whats the point of making us buy all this extra crap? I was hoping we would finally unite PC monitors and HDTV's together with one single connector.
Analog support?
Well, it is supposed to pass through HDMI with an adapter. So I guess it's OK. But I'm a little concerned about the connector it self. One of the complaints that I've heard about HDMI is that it just sticks in the slot and that's it. There's no way of locking it into place. It looks like this connector is doing the same.
I've seen plenty of times when where a monitor cable was hanging on for dear life and the only thing keeping it from being pulled out of the video card was the fact that you could screw the connector down. I hope that when they release monitors using this interface they can be disconnected at the monitor also because I'm sure there will be more then a few broken ends on these cables.
omg no way, does this mean i shouldnt get the X2900 XTX now? God damn it, n i thought DVI was as good as HDMI.
when do u guys think we might see these kinds of plugs on future video card products? Late 2007? 2008?
hmm would i notice a difference in picture when playing games using DisplayPort 1.1 for gaming? Just curious.
The point of this is that there is more bandwidth, so higher resolutions can be used. It doesn't make smaller ones faster...
Does that mean LCD monitors will be even cheaper because they don't need those extra electronics? Good news, I guess.
Hopefully this will allow for extra long lengths of cable for those of us with projectors and HTPCs
I really don't understand the point of this.
Surely HDMI = DVI + HDCP + sound
and DisplayPort = DVI + HDCP
So really they are annoucing a connection that does less than is alreay available just because it comes in a smaller package? Have I missed something?
DVI has HDCP...
DVI supports HDCP but is not included in the standard. HDMI includes HDCP. You can have DVI without HDCP but you cannot have HDMI without HDCP.
... and the reason this is introduced is cuz it's FREE unlike HDMI which requires a royalty payment. More dueling standards.
Bugger, I was just about to lay out for a new monitor. I guess i'll hold off for another year then?
I gonna guess that DisplayPort has more bandwidth than HDMI enabling extremely high monitor resolutions that future high density monitors will offer.
I don't know HDMI's limits but I can't see why it would need to go beyond 1080P.
First computers to use it... I'd put money on Apple being one of the first - especially since resolution independence has been one of the key aims of Leopard and there are new Cinema Displays overdue.
If i remember corrctly (from the last time DisplayPort made the news), the main reason for DisplayPort is money.
It's a open VESA standard = no royalties.
Manufacturers have to pay license fees on each item sold with an HDMI connection.
"First computers to use it... I'd put money on Apple being one of the first - especially since resolution independence has been one of the key aims of Leopard and there are new Cinema Displays overdue."
Apple is certainly willing to use proprietary connectors provided they are cheap and users have to buy cables from Apple. Of course, Apple doesn't do their own video cards or motherboards anymore so it's moot. It's whatever Intel, ATI and nVidia give them.
Apple has been dead last in the industry as far as resolution independence and high resolution are concerned. To this day, Apple preaches 100 dpi when the industry has been past that for a decade. Apple can talk resolution independence but until they deliver it's all just noise. Let's see a 17" Macbook Pro with a real, WUXGA screen. How about a 30" 3840x2400 Cinema display (as god intended)? Apple right now is king of low resolution and rhetoric, that's all.
craig;
Apple DOES have a 17" with a WUXGA screen option, it was released a couple months ago. I guess I haven't noticed any "3840 x 2160" monitors at 30", definitely not at an affordable price. Using that resolution with dual link DVI would mean dropping the frame rate below 60Hz though.
More made up crap by Hollywood.
I could see this being used on UMPCs and smartphones
gr8
It shocks me to see how many computers today sell with VGA connections. Looks like VGA should have gone away buy now. I think it will be a while before we see this.
Surely HDMI = DVI + HDCP + sound
and DisplayPort = DVI + HDCP . . . . . Bla bla bla . . . Why not try SH 1t or K.my.a. I saw plans
for a similar developement 10 years ago ( it's a money thing )
fan-f**king-tastic. ANOTHER bloody proprietary connector, with built-in encryption/content protection. Awesome. Now everything will be 2x the cost because of the 'protection' and won't work because the device manufacturer's won't talk to one another and we'll be right-the-f**k back where we are now with the HDMI 1080p/720p bulls**t.
Analog was good enough. Digital was more than enough. Why do we need content protection going from my computer to my monitor? Were there really devices that could capture the digital monitor signal and convert them back into raw digital video?
Of course there was! So, even before all the blu-ray/HDDVD being cracked people could still copy it. And even now, with all this content protection, you can still do it.
If I have to listen to it with my ears or see it with my eyes, it can be copied.
So just leave out the 'protection' because if people are going to pirate something, then by-god they will do it. All you are doing is making it more expensive, more bloody complicated. Stop spending money on anti-piracy technologies, because here's a little secret:
The people who are pirating your s**t? Yea, they were NEVER going to buy it in the first place. So you haven't stopped anybody from pirating. All you've done is prevent legitimate customers from buying your items because they know it won't work with the setup they have now.
So. Just. Stop.
BAH!!!
Amen, Alexander - Same is true of software "activation". The sw companies (I'm looking at you, MS and Adobe) who keep tacking on convoluted "Validations" are forgetting that:
The teenage scene guy would NEVER spend $600-800 on Photoshop or Office 2007 Super-Ultimate Pack with Visio. That money isn't "lost to piracy", because they would have never made it in the first place! Barnes and Noble might as well accuse everyone at their store of theft when they go in the store, read some of a book, and then don't buy it. I might be interested in checking out LOTS of books for free, but the number of books I end up buying is obviously lower.
These guys are the ones who "pirate" their software, and then later go on to demand it in their everyday jobs (where it is then legitimately bought), thusly establishing defacto standards.
The money spent on activation technology is completely wasted money. COMPLETELY. It is always cracked, because no IT team or programming group can withstand the worldwide assault of determined whizkids with little to do but cracking their products. What, Bluray took maybe 6 months or less to crack, right? Dumb.
For folks like me who use SW legitimately at work, for work, "activation" is simply another useless step that makes working with the SW harder :(.
The next time I see some industry guy saying that they "lose 1 billion annually" due to SW piracy, I think I'll just find that person and punch them in the balls.
Exactly. I can understand the desire to keep large corporations 'legit'. However, with all the money being spent on anti-piracy measures (keys, activation servers, phone support, etc.) I would think that it would be a LOT cheaper to just hire a bunch of people to go out and check the companies that you sold your product to.
If Penton Media uses Macs for all of their... whatever-it-is they do... Then it would be easy to have a Apple representative go down and see if they are using the current version of software. Not only that, it's a PRIME chance for them to come in and scope out what they are using and see if an upgrade would be worthwile for them.
Cheaper, and it gets you more sales. Why aren't they doing this?
I use Ubuntu. I have to use DeCSS in order to watch the DVD's that I paid my money for on my computer. This is illigal under the current laws in my country (The USA) and as such, I could be jailed for it. Such a waste of time and resources for everybody involved.
Now I can watch the blu-ray discs that I have bought on my Ubuntu computer. I don't even own a blu-ray drive--I had to download the movie off of a questionably-legal site to watch. Is that illigal? I haven't broken any encryption. I simply downloaded a movie--that I own--to watch on my computer. What's wrong with that?
Alexander:
That sir, was an excellent rant!
I couldn't agree more.
The amusing thing is... the pirates are the only ones in the whole piracy thing that actually pay for the content in order to pirate it in the first place. And this whole mess is just a waste of everyone's time and money, but how else would big corporations justify their enormous price tags? Have a care for the poor starving multinational software companies...
Couldn't agree more. This is what I've been saying all along.
Holy-gravedigging a thread, batman!
I'm worried about that way things are heading. New technology is great and all, but now my 1 year old HDTV has an old version of HDMI. With DisplayPort 1.1, I see the saem things happening. People are going to drop a bunch of money on new hardware, and a year down the road the spec will change to 1.2 and now we need to buy new video cards and monitors.
@Lloyd
Those two things have nothing in common.
As seen with Leopard, it is possible NOW. All you would have to do is to supply the rendering part of the system information about the real screen size and adjust dpi accordingly. No fancy new display specs are needed for it, sizes could be part of monitor drivers or even specified by the user directly...
From the description, it sounds like DisplayPort=Dual Link DVI.
If so, then it's not totally useless. Single link DVI, as 99% of us have, can only support resolutions up to 1920x1200. That's fine for now, but isn't going to cut it in the future.
If nothing else, DisplayPort will cut down on confusion between dual and single link DVI. One standard instead of two.
Jeff is correct. With the new connector, a 30-inch, 2560x1600 display can be driven by a single connector. Two such connectors could drive an even larger display at 3840 x 2160, a resolution attained by Westinghouse's recently announced 56-inch displays.
Let's just hope the connectors sit a bit more snug than HDMI, and don't come loose/break so often!
Except if you drive the T221 with one DVI, you get 12hz, 2 gets you 21hz, and even 4 only gets you 41hz. I bet displaylink supports 60hz or better.
"With the new connector, a 30-inch, 2560x1600 display can be driven by a single connector."
Just like it can today.
"Two such connectors could drive an even larger display at 3840 x 2160, a resolution attained by Westinghouse's recently announced 56-inch displays."
Two of these ports can do more than that and 3840x2160 doesn't even match the IBM T221 which has existed for many years and is now out of production. The IBM T221 can be driven with single, dual, or quad single-link DVI ports by the way. There are also dual-link versions. Nothing new here.
good news...i hope hdmi dies; like all sony backed up technology, hdmi is physcially weak & expensive & limited.
for pc monitors this displayport sounds great as it will even make higher resolution monitors cheaper than ever
HDMI is not expensive as long as you don't buy retail. that monster cable that cost 100 bucks costs maybe 5 bucks. Go to monoprice.com and buy them for $5.00 on up (ones as thick as monster are probably $15.00).
HDMI cables are like needles for turntables....marked up 1000% or more.
do a google search, you can find great prices on hdmi cables... i got a 65 foot hdmi cable to go from my ps3 to the projector in the back of the room (wrapping around the ceiling in a cable duct) for around the same price as they sell 12 foot monster HDMI cables at best buy... good quality cable and HDCP compliant, and you dont need a repeater for lengths under 20 meters (65 feet is 19.5m)
If only they would use the "poke-a-yoke" principal and add in an orientation notch to one of the corners (ala Firewire).
I can't tell you how sick of having to try twice to insert my USB plugs into their ports because the connector is symmetrical. These industrial designers should be hung by their poorly designed cables.
"two-way display connectivity, optional audio support, higher performance than dual link DVI at 10.8 Gigabits per second, and a unique micro-packet architecture that enables new display features."
Apparently this can carry audio too (optional)
"As presented at CES 2007, a DisplayPort Interoperability Guideline that recommends best practices for providing DVI and HDMI connectivity via the DisplayPort connector and simple cable adapters is nearing completion. "
And you can convert the signal to HDMI with a "simple cable adapter".
Craig,
Which adapters can drive a 30-inch Cinema Display with a single connector? Or is it that Apple requires two connectors, but other brands can get by with one?
I thought that IBM's 9.1-megapixel display Matrox's 3840 x 2400 card could be driven only by a Matrox HR256. That card requires two connectors: http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/cadgis/products/parhelia/hr256.php
The 30" displays require one dual-link DVI connector, so any card that provides one should work. It's a standard video mode. AFAIK, there is no way to drive a 30" display with two connectors.
The T221 has never required a Matrox card. In the early days, there were Matrox bundles that worked and support from other manufacturers was spotty. Now, many ATI and nVidia cards will drive the monitor properly. Even macs attempt to but most macs get it wrong. A mac mini will even drive a T221 to full resolution (poorly).
There is a newsgroup devoted to the T221: IBM_T2X_LCD@yahoogroups.com
Lots of information there. I have two T221s and lousy mac support for these monitors is what keeps me using Windows. There is no better monitor for image editing. The 30" monitor needs to be bumped to this resolution.
I don't think that you understand what resolution independance is. Making a 15" screen 1920 x 1200 instead of 1280 x 768 does not make it resolution independant - it makes everything smaller - same quality just smaller. Resolution independence involves a vector based GUI that will (as far as the user's concerned) remain the same size accross all monitors regardless of their pixel density (so identical 10cm wide windows on either versions of the 15" example mentioned above will still measure 15". Microsoft has made minimal attempts to incorporate a resolution independant UI - Apple has announced it for Leopard (and using dev tools it can be semi-enabled in Tiger). This means that the visual quality of onscreen elements will actually improve rather than just making everything smaller.
Apple will also be able to specify what they want from manufacturers - they won't "get what Intel, ATI and nVidia give them". Double dual-link DVI cards in the Mac Pro as an example - or the Macbook display connector...
I just hope the connector has some kind of locking mechanism so it doesn't fall out.
I'm sick of HDMI cables constantly working themselves loose.
Yet more DRM capabilities behind this. You can bet Sony has something to do with it. F*ckers.
WTF ?
Apple did this years ago with their ADC connector and no one bought into it - now they want to swap out the connection because Dell and the other PC idiot manufacturers finally get some wind blown up their skirts_
Besides - it looks flimsy as hell_
ADC was nothing of the sort. ADC was an Apple proprietary connector that combined multiple functions into one cable. No one bought it because it was not for sale...except to Apple customers. Apple abandoned it because it was a pain in the ass for interoperability and wasn't worth the cost.
BTW, according to U.S. law, yes it is illegal to download a blu-ray movie/iso, even if you own a hard copy. That's the way the laws are setup atm.
- Tony R.
@Tony R.
Yes, I realize this. As I pointed out earlier, its illegal to do this with DVD's... The law doesn't specify DVD, or any media. They just say that any attempt to break, crack, reverse-engineer, etc. copy-protection system is illegal.
It was a rhetorical question. But thank you for being vigilant and helpful with your comment.
"Is that illigal?" Yes
"I haven't broken any encryption." No
"I simply downloaded a movie--that I own--to watch on my computer."
No, you don't own the movie. The copyright owner owns the movie. You own the media that a copy of the movie is stored on. You have limited rights to view that copy but you do not have any right to unauthorized duplication of the copyrighted content.
"What's wrong with that?" Well, it's illegal. Whether you consider that wrong is another question.
Not a bad idea, personally speaking, Im not a big HD nut, hell SD is good for me, but, the fact that this plug is not all big and bulky makes a big difference to me, I mean VGA was huge, and DVI was even bigger. Whats with all this sudden big to small formfactor tech coming out, first USB replacing PS/2 and parallel, and SATA slowly replacing IDE, then PCI-E replacing AGP (this one sux since my comp still runs on AGP), and that express card slot replacin PCMCIA also slowly. And then theres that overpriced IMO HDMI, 80 $ for a bloody cable?!!
If you payin $80, I feel bad for you son,
I got 99 problems, but cable rape ain't one
www.monoprice.com
well, i dint pay at all, im an SD person, dont care too much for all the HD stuff, no $$ :P, but, just the concept of it. Im not ragging on the cables or anything, its kinda nice that all this tech is coming together and such.
For the 1st several years monitors will still have to offer DVI to ensure backwards compatiblity just many today still have VGA.
DVI doesn't carry audio signals...
Yes, the DisplayPort plug does have a lock to prevent it from falling out. Look closely. See the clip on the top with the two little rivets? You press down on that in order to pull the cable out. If you look at the front of the plug, you can see two little slits on either side where the lock probably is.
I'm glad the days of screwing in the cable are over.
-Haxxy
Screwing in the old cables was annoying... but a push button lock won't make it much less annoying.
As things get smaller and smaller form factors I have noticed I am having issues getting my fingers to the connectors....
now on home builts with a DisplayPort compatable add on card it won't be much of an issue...
But on a pre-built from say Dell, HP, or whomever... if you have a DisplayPort it might be sandwiched in behind a USB port... so the only way to disconnect the cable would be to remove the USB cables etc to press the button. I have seen this type of issue before with network cables... they have a latch mechanism too... maybe it's not a high-tech fancy push button thing... but really just a flap of plastic on the end... but it's the same concept and will suffer from similar flaws (except for the plastic flap breaking off or getting caught on other cables ;-p )
I think I do know what resolution independence is, Lloyd. It's a technology that Apple doesn't have, that they are planning to have, that would enable them to shift away from shipping displays that provide 100dpi only. It doesn't matter how it's implemented, it only matters that it works and works well.
Unlike Apple, other OSes have, for some time, provided mechanisms that allow users to increase or decrease the size of fonts and graphical elements. None of these systems are perfect, far from it, but they are all better than what Apple provides today. Apple is in last place.
BTW, resolution independence doesn't have to be used to keep display elements the same size regardless of screen resolution. Apple may implement it that way but if they do they are idiots. Element size is just as much a function of viewing distance as it is screen resolution and we don't all view from the same distance. I don't want the same size icons on my notebook, handheld, desktop, and television. I want to control the size in which things are displayed. Sadly, Apple has shown no inclination to allow that.
Well of course you (mostly) get it now - I just explained it to you dip$hit. To further illeviate your previous ignorance, 72dpi was the long adopted industry standard - not 100dpi. You still don't appreciate that resolution independence is more than the ability to change font sizes. If you think that you can't change font sizes in OS X then there's something else you don't know. Certainly Windows does not support a resizeable interface, I can't comment for "other OSes" but since you didn't mention any particular ones I'm guessing that neither can you...
On the other hand Apple have been actively working towards res-independence harder than anyone else. Tiger DOES support some resolution independant GUI elements and Apple has stated many times that Leopard will be fully resolution independant - how exactly then is " Apple is in last place" - did you mean pole position, because that's closer to the case?
I never said that resolution independence's only application was to keep things the same size, that's why it's called an 'example'. Apple has shown no inclination to allow a resizable UI? How about the slider in Tiger: http://www.interact-sw.co.uk/images/NormalWindow.png ?
oh, meaningless and unnecessary name-calling on the internet. Where would we be without you?
On topic (not directed at Lloyd, but the conversation in general), I honestly don't understand why everyone is shitting bricks cuz of a new standard. So what, it's a new standard that's more technically capable. Oh no, the bogeyman's trying to shove DisplayPort down our throats!!
The piracy rants by Andrew and the other guy were right on point, but unfortunately, major SW and HW and consumer electronics companies are most likely never going to think that way. Hell, if you or I made millions of dollars a year on this stuff, we'd probably not think that way either.
Also, someone complained about tech being changed and incompatible and having to buy new stuff and blah blah blah. Well, I don't know what rock that person has been living under, but it's ALWAYS been like that in the world of technology. Seriously. Always. Companies (and governments, when involved) usually take reasonable steps to ease transition such as backwards compatibility, selling both old and new standards at the same time, etc etc, (mostly because they have to, actually).
So again, what's the big deal?
Keep talking, Lloyd. It further cements your image as a fool.
"72dpi was the long adopted industry standard"
sure, in the 70s. I realize that Apple is behind the times but they made the jump to 100dpi a while ago.
"You still don't appreciate that resolution independence is more than the ability to change font sizes."
I don't? Where did I ever equate the two? I'm not the dumb one here.
"If you think that you can't change font sizes in OS X then there's something else you don't know."
Please show me where I can set system-wide font sizes in OS X then. Not that font size is all that matters, but OS X offers no screen scaling capability whatsoever.
"Certainly Windows does not support a resizeable interface..."
You clearly know nothing about Windows. Windows allows users to set screen dpi and allows control over a large number of graphical element and text sizes. It offers a number of presets that include 3 different size standards. You are way off here.
"I can't comment for "other OSes" but since you didn't mention any particular ones I'm guessing that neither can you..."
For someone who knows nothing you sure think you know a lot about me. Any OS that runs X would be an example. Those would include a number of BSDs, Linux, Solaris, etc. All these systems have screen scaling flexibility. If you are intentionally ignorant maybe you should keep your mouth shut.
"On the other hand Apple have been actively working towards res-independence harder than anyone else."
How do you know this, Lloyd? Are you privy to the development efforts of all OS suppliers including all those you admit you don't know?
"Tiger DOES support some resolution independant GUI elements..."
Show me how I can control them then. I'm typing this message using Tiger. Tell me exactly where to go to access this scaling capability.
"how exactly then is " Apple is in last place""
Leopard isn't shipping and Apple is not providing any of these promised capabilities to anyone yet. If and when they do, they may be in "pole position". Right now they are in last place. Apple provides its users ABSOLUTELY NO screen scaling capability today. Everyone else does better than that.
"I never said that resolution independence's only application..."
Yes you did. You said "Resolution independence involves a vector based GUI that will (as far as the user's concerned) remain the same size accross all monitors regardless of their pixel density...". Sorry, but you are wrong.
..."that's why it's called an 'example'."
Go ahead and quote the word 'example' even though you didn't say it was an example. What you said was perfectly clear.
"Apple has shown no inclination to allow a resizable UI? How about the slider in Tiger..."
That's not a control in Tiger, it's a control in a 3rd party app that I'm not familiar with and there is no evidence from that image that affects Aqua at all. Curiously, it's served from a site that offers Windows consultation. Show me exactly where in Tiger that I can access a control like this or we can all file this ignorant comment as another ranting from a hopeless fanboy.
Who knows what will come of this.
Leopard is bringing full resolution independence.
"How do you know this, Lloyd?"
Well there's: http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2168 - oh and even last year Apple were giving seminars educating developers how to make their apps Res-independent and Leopard ready... Why you incorrectly said this was not the case is the real question...
"Leopard isn't shipping and Apple is not providing any of these promised capabilities to anyone yet. If and when they do, they may be in "pole position". Right now they are in last place. Apple provides its users ABSOLUTELY NO screen scaling capability today. Everyone else does better than that."
Ever heard of zoom? For screen scaling (which Windows DOES NOT offer) read on...
"Show me how I can control them then. I'm typing this message using Tiger. Tell me exactly where to go to access this scaling capability."
Actually the ability ships with Tiger. That you're not aware of it means next to nothing. Open 'Quartz Debug'. Tools -> Show User Interface Resolution. Drag the slider. That's more than Windows offers... still think last place?
"Any OS that runs X would be an example. Those would include a number of BSDs, Linux, Solaris, etc. All these systems have screen scaling flexibility."
Since when did being based on Unix have anything to do with resolution independence? No, we're not talking about zooming (after all, that has no effect on the bandwidth required for the monitor cable).
"Leopard is bringing full resolution independence."
Then when Leopard becomes a product perhaps Apple will be offering that capability. They don't today.
"Why you incorrectly said this was not the case is the real question..."
I don't dispute that Apple claims they will offer this feature. You said that Apple was working harder on it than anyone else. I quote: "On the other hand Apple have been actively working towards res-independence harder than anyone else." Your link in no way supports this claim. You have no idea what others are doing in this area, you're just a bragging fanboy.
"Ever heard of zoom? For screen scaling (which Windows DOES NOT offer) read on..."
Zoom is in no way a form of resolution independence. It is under "Universal Access" and is for people with vision difficulties. Your arguments are becoming pathetic.
"Open 'Quartz Debug'. Tools -> Show User Interface Resolution. Drag the slider. "
"Quartz debug" is not a part of Tiger.
"That's more than Windows offers... still think last place?"
No it's not since it's not part of OS X. So far, yes, still last place.
"Since when did being based on Unix have anything to do with resolution independence?"
Never said it did, but since you challenged me to name another OS that's what I did. It is the X Window System that's involved and that runs on unix-like systems.
"No, we're not talking about zooming (after all, that has no effect on the bandwidth required for the monitor cable)."
What? Are you really this stupid or are you just pretending?
"that has no effect on the bandwidth required for the monitor cable"
It seems like a distant memory but I think we were supposed to be talking about DisplayPort...
"On the other hand Apple have been actively working towards res-independence harder than anyone else."
Still stand by this. As I said, Apple have been trying to make their OS resolution independent for a number of years now, they've been giving seminars to developers on how to get their apps ready and they've declared that their 2007 OS will fuly support it as a key feature. MS has shown their minimal efforts and they are extremely rudimentary in comparisson.
"Ever heard of zoom? For screen scaling (which Windows DOES NOT offer) read on..."
I said that Zoom was not resolution independece - hence 'For screen scaling... read on' is a new sentence. You are right, Zoom is for people with impaired eyesight, just like the enhanced themes in XP.
"Quartz debug" is not a part of Tiger."
It ships with every copy of Tiger as do the underlying technologies to use it. It's a semi-baked version of what Leopard will offer. I said from the start that Tiger had SOME res-independence.
Apple will not be the 1st adopter, it will be Dell for sure. DP (Display Port) supports audio, yes. HDMI over DP will exist, so will the adapters. It has a positive lock, with a simple release. It will support up to 25x16 resolutions easily, even more. It competes heavily with HDMI 1.3 on features, including the expanded color depths and enhanced audio 7.1. With DP you don't have to pay Silicon Image royalties anymore, but you will have a license issue with Molex to worry about. All OEMS including Apple, HP and Dell will adopt the standard. Nvidia and AMD/ATI will be providing solutions, starting later this year and mostly into 08. It being a packet based protocol interface similar to pci-express its way more tollerent of signal loss and cable degradation than HDMI/DVI is. DP uses HDCP 1.3 (not to be confused with HDMI 1.3), and will honor those statues for copy protection. It has the ability to get acceptance in the consumer electronic market, they will be slow adopters. VESA camp knows, the only way to succeed in the standard war is to provide interoperability to HDMI, they know this, it's written into the spec.
This interface standard has all the makings to success, lets see what the market does. Watch as the mobile camp jump over this with verocity unseen before, with the connector size much smaller than DVI, they love it. Not having to pay silicon image any $$ is huge, so long as molex guys to screw it up.
YES, for sure there will me lots of consumer market confusion around this, with HDMI 1.3 making traction it's going to be a display battle. Again, there only winning strategy is the interoperability with there competing standard.
DisplayPort offers more and better features than HDMI and is backward compatible to HDMI. Read Dave123 comments as he is stating the facts. It appears to be a no-brainer... DisplayPort should be adopted. The quicker the better.
So they didn't use HDMI because they would have to pay royalties on it... Well I hope someone is making a DP->HDMI convertor cuz I've had enough of this cable madness. DP1.1 cables better not cost more than $1 since they are saving so much money by skimming off the backside.